|
Post by felixs on Sept 8, 2017 9:45:38 GMT
Is there any way we can find out if there is an army which not one person is interested in fielding? If there is such an army, then I am interested in fielding that army. Does that solve the problem? But there clearly exists an obvious pattern of what armies are popular. I would think: 1) Rome and the usual suspects. (The not-so-ususal suspects do not get much coverage). I would lump the Hellenistic world in here - but that could also be a separate entry. 2) Late Medieval, mostly centering around the 100YW and the Wars of the Roses. (Also the crusades and the Teutonic order - even though no one does the Prussians) 3) Vikings - and little else for Dark Ages. 4) Mongols 5) Spartans 6) Japan, for some reason. 7) Egyptians 8) Armies that featured in a movie or that have got a shiny new line of miniatures. 9) Armies that did/do well in competition due to their balanced composition (The Sassanid Persians etc.) In short, everything that one gets exposed to in school and TV. Very unpopular seem to be: 1) The Americas 2) Non-Mongol Central Asia 3) Oceania (except, maybe, for Hawaii) 4) Northern and Eastern Europe 5) Non-Japanese East Asian armies (except for Qin)
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 8, 2017 9:26:28 GMT
Very good battle report. Thank you!
Looks like the armies were balanced and fun to play against each other. Great!
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 7, 2017 9:10:27 GMT
Surely it is not a case of DBA being inherently flawed but an issue with the level of abstraction it works at. While that is true to a degree, that is the one trade-off that fast-play rules must make. One of the reasons that DBA flows so well and so fast is that we all know the stats of the troops by heart and do not have to look things up. While I like, for example, Basic Impetus, and while that set of rules too is reasonably fast, the ammount of having-to-look-up-stats is quite high.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 7, 2017 7:26:53 GMT
I am not sure I agree with the statement that DBA is inherently flawed as a system for historical battles.
If you want to replicate a given historical battle, of course you do away with the 12 element army. The rules even suggest doing so on p. 14.
Then you can use house rules to add the kind of flavour that you want. We have discussed quite a few ideas (good ideas, IMHO) as to how that can be done in the concrete case at hand.
I see no problem. At least, no problem that is not also there with (most) other sets of rules.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 20:48:24 GMT
I have now played a few more games with Feudal Spanish vs. Feudal Spanish (mostly the a list). It is a very strange setup and the Sp are pretty useless, except for guarding the camp and providing overlaps - which, of course, is something. The Ps turn out to be monsters often, even harrassing Kn. But that is dangerous, even though it works well sometimes.
Can anyone tell me something about how Andalusians vs. Feudal Spanish is? From looking at the army lists, the Andalusians seem to be seriously out-knighted. Is it an interesting match-up? Am I right in assuming that the balance is very much in favour of the Feudal Spanish?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 15:07:19 GMT
I might try out a few of the ideas as an exercice with say a 10 element phalanx on each side with three elements of Spartiates on the right flank and see how they turn out. I'll keep the group informed of the outcome. That would be highly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 14:04:39 GMT
Yes. Celts and Germans look similar enough anyway, so I would probably do that. The army makeup is also very similar, so a Celt army set should allow you to field most German armies too. I will, however, not, because I have a separate Early German army that awaits painting. I will paint them more drab and less flamboyant than the Celts. Historical or not, it should work visually. It looks as if we might end up fairly generic "Barbarians". Why not...
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 13:35:34 GMT
Thank you very much!
I did not read the whole thread. Probably should have... Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 11:31:24 GMT
I really like the battle reports you have done! Thank you very much!
Are these setup sheets that you use in the games in the reports to be found somewhere online? I would love to try them out.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 11:29:24 GMT
I think the early italian armies in the north were celtic in origin, so along with the Northern barbarians you have half a dozen others although they might look a little more exotic. Excellent idea, thank you. Could you point me to what armies you are thinking of? Oscans, Bruttians etc?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 11:28:31 GMT
Just trying to find some research as to how widespread woad tattooing was amongst the various Celtic tribe/nations. If accuracy is important to you, I would leave woad out entirely. But some woad looks good, so it is in for my armies.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 6, 2017 9:29:46 GMT
I'd be interested in how people would house rule Spartiates. Taking the situation of a line of spears facing off with side support, would you: a) Give the Spartiates a +1 (Destroy other Greeks on 6-1 and this amplifies with overlaps) b) Give the other Greeks a -1 (Destroyed by Spartiates on 1-5 and 1-6 again amplified by overlaps) c) Have the other Greeks destroyed if simply beaten by Spartiates d) Any other ideas? Jim If you must give Spartans something (it is, in the end, a question of personal taste that is hard to argue for or against), what about making them "super solid". I. e., everyone is recoiled by them on an even combat result. Subtle, not too much, and will give the Spartans an edge in phalanx vs. phalanx fighting. EDIT: Martin already proposed just that.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 5, 2017 18:40:34 GMT
Interestingly, the Peloponnesian Wars saw very few hoplite engagements at all, and the gradual decline of hoplites in favour of more flexible and lighter, faster troop types. So ultimately the Greeks themselves came to realise that the traditional hoplite had to adapt to a faster moving and less traditional way of war. Iphicrates I believe was widely credited for having the courage to decouple the Greek nobility from the stultifying hoplite battle, and taking a fresh look at the "western way of war".. Yes, that is an important point too. As for the Peloponnesian Wars, Persian influence is also quite obvious.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 5, 2017 18:36:00 GMT
In the end we decided this was best left to special period house rules. Totally agree with that decision. In the scope of "normal" DBA (the meta perspective game, covering more than 4,000 years of warfare), hoplites should be Sp. They are, in fact, what Sp is based upon more or less. But, of course, in a macro perspective, diversity becomes much more important. I think that the 3.0 rules already did very well at introducing a lot of interesting quirks to the Greek lists. But if one wants to go into detail even more, introducing rules for pursuing Sp, or re-classing some hoplites as Bd, or even Wb seems a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 5, 2017 12:19:45 GMT
By the way, we note that Greece is very mountainous. Strange that the hoplite was the weapon of choice.... Not if you also take into account, that everything that was worth fighting for and could be threatened in war was in open terrain (cities, villages, fields). Hanson's point, that intensively agricultural cultures tend to produce heavy infantry and a tendency to seek decisive battles has a lot for it. But it is stupid to somehow limit this to "the West".
|
|