|
Post by jim1973 on May 11, 2024 11:50:49 GMT
Take a look at the teeny tiny terrain from Baccus! Because I needed another reason to go for small scale DBA! Baccus terrainwebsiteCheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 4, 2024 8:24:58 GMT
It's a big challenge to make Pike, Spear and Blade feel different and still remain relatively well matched. Swiss Pike could be dealt with a deeper formation like 8Bw, 6Kn, etc. I agree that pike phalanxes pinned enemy and could grind out a victory rather than punch through. I tried experimenting Pk at +4 that couldn't be recoiled, only destroyed when doubled, so they weren't overlapped often. But side support spears still crushed them, let alone blades. Still haven't found a good mix. Jim Have you considered using the rule of having no overlap in combat for Pike in combat similar to Ps..or would that have a significant side effect?It's a question of would loosing the negative factor for Pike being overlapped be significant change to the combat outcome? For me it would make it just a little more difficult to flank the Pk but not interfere too much with the combat factors and in a way simulate the way units had to contact the flanks of pike units to defeat them.It could also simulate the Pike unit forming a hedgehog formation or Swiss producing Halberdiers from their rear ranks to contest flanking of the main keil?đ€ If the negative flank factor doesn't work how about having a TZ for supported Pk similar to that of war wagons?This again could make it more difficult to contact the flank of supported Pk elements but not effect combat factors,as well as emulate Pk formations as above plus Pike squares? This would all need play-testing if not already tried? I've mentioned on other posts that I don't like rear supported pikes because the battle line is too short and easily overlapped/flanked (also 3x2 elements is not a phalanx to my eyes!). So I've been looking at ways to use pike as single elements. But your ideas may help them in the current model of supported pikes so worth investigating. Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 4, 2024 3:00:10 GMT
I suppose the question is "effective at what". Di the Greek phalanx really expect to plough through their opponents in the way CF 3 plus 3 for second rank suggests? Macedonian and successor pike were good at fixing the enemy line - but how often were they decisive? Alexandrian battles were won by the cavalry. Seleucids perhaps relied more on their pike to grind out a victory. Is it a coincidence that scythed chariots are used at this time as a weapon designed to disrupt compact bodies of infantry. Swiss pike seem to have whizzed about, frightening the enemy - who knew they were about to have the fight of what was going potentially to be the rest of their short lives, and attacking them with the utmost of ferocity. A very different beast in my view to the classic Greek phalanx. If I had to undertake the difficult task of classifying the Greek phalanx in DBA terms I would put it in the horde category (sticks like glue and hard to defeat) but give it an extra combat factor or two). It should be destroyed if doubled or if it loses in cc while hard flanked (similar to a CP) Swiss pikemen, as I have suggested before, would be 6Bd. Having said that I appreciate it is easy to come up with simple sounding solutions while having forgotten the side effects so I shall pause there and wait to have the shortcomings of my suggestions explained to me. All the best Stephen I will second your reasoning here as In the wars of the Diadochi the Phalanx was often locking in combat but the decisive part of the battle took place on the wings....on one occasion the foot surrendered because their cavalry was beaten or driven off. The Swiss Pikes were different entirely....even from pike units of Scots and Lowlanders of their same era. Yes they were fast and should be regarded as fast foot due to the speed at which they could manouvere, but also regarded as Solid as they could take on and beat any formed foot they encountered. I'm not sure what "remedy" would be the best fit for either and how it would effect games by changing the rules.....plus I think it would be wrong to just give one type of troops special rules when lots of different troops were also exceptional.đ€ It's a big challenge to make Pike, Spear and Blade feel different and still remain relatively well matched. Swiss Pike could be dealt with a deeper formation like 8Bw, 6Kn, etc. I agree that pike phalanxes pinned enemy and could grind out a victory rather than punch through. I tried experimenting Pk at +4 that couldn't be recoiled, only destroyed when doubled, so they weren't overlapped often. But side support spears still crushed them, let alone blades. Still haven't found a good mix. Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 3, 2024 2:35:06 GMT
Legionaries fought with javelin and short sword and were able to adjust their formations for close-order protection or to move effectively across terrain. Legionaries should be 4Ax. Heresy, utter heresy. But I really think that there should be another type of foot element like 'Axe men' (Am) or the like with a CF of +4 against foot and as slow as Bd, but less disciplined... Don't we need a link between Bd and Ax? Maybe I should start a thread on this question in Rants & raves? Tweaked 4Wb?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 1, 2024 10:29:53 GMT
A minor update on my latest experience. Following a recent recommendation from paulisper I got some metallic speed paint and on larger surfaces they are great I do believe on 15mm you donât get the full benefit. Maybe shields will be better, at the moment (thanks to timr ) my preferred method for steel type armour is citadelâs rattling grime with a silver/chainmail drybrush/edge highlight. K At the moment, Iâm adding a black wash to the silver SpeedPaint and then drybrushing with a standard Vallejo Steel. This really adds to the overall effect and is worth the added effort. Iâm doing the same with Bronze, by washing with Strong Tone and then drybrushing - nice đ P Another way to get bronze is to use a standard acrylic metallic and then paint over it with Speedpaint. Hardened Leather paint gives a deep red brown bronze. Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 25, 2024 0:44:05 GMT
Hey Jim, I thought I'd reply here. I found a copy of your weather rules but I'm not sure which version it is. I didn't entirely understand them sorry. As an example, and considering I've just started a Wars of the Roses campaign it seems appropriate, would snow have the following rules: Reduces visibility - Shooting range for Artillery and Bow reduced to 2BW. Elements outside of Command Distance cannot move. Restricts movement - All tactical moves cost 2 PIPs unless it involves the Generalâs element. No element can move more than 2BW. Combat disadvantage if shooting - -1 Tactical factor. 1. What does Tactical Factor mean? 2. At the Battle of Towton, which was fought in a snow storm, archery was still effective in causing casualties before the men at arms clashed. I'm concerned that although I understand why ranges are reduced, that melee troops will arrive before much damage if any can be caused. Otherwise, good work and I look forward to trying these out. Thanks for having a look at these! Tactical factors is the term Phil Barker uses for the combat modifiers such as up hill, bad going, etc (see page 11 of the original purple book as a sub section of RESOLVING SHOOTING OR CLOSE COMBAT). As for archery during snow storms, I am no expert on archery, nor, as an Australian, on snow (though I spent a year in Canada and got a very good lesson). But from the Annals of Wikipedia it seems that the Yorkists had an advantage from the wind of the blizzard and the Lancastrians a disadvantage. I felt wind direction was one step too far for DBA. But you could easily add it by rolling a die to choose a direction and penalising any shooting within 90 degrees of "into the wind". Let me know how you go. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 25, 2024 0:30:32 GMT
The intent isnât to make things more complicated, itâs to be able to use a terrain tile system instead of terrain pieces on a battle mat. I was thinking 12â square tiles would be easier, but youâre correct that I could make 8â tiles and have minimal changes to how DBA works. It would just require cutting my own tiles instead of using something like foam ceiling tiles. I would stick with your 12" tiles for ease, as you say. I'd make 9 (or more) of them for a 3' x 3' board that you'll be able to use for so much more than DBA (is there more than DBA?). Then just fence off the section you'll be using for DBA. This is how I made a multisized board but there are many other better ways I'm sure. The easy availability of magnets provides many options. multisized board
Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 24, 2024 0:30:44 GMT
Vikings have 11x4Bd. Norse Irish can get to 4x4Bd then mostly Ax. Not my area of history but Wikipedia suggests Vikings fought on both sides so may be Brian could loosen the purse strings and hire Viking allies. Now it's 11 v 7 in terms of 4Bd. Also, the proximity to the coast, the role of the sea and tide in the Annals, would allow for large areas of Marsh, methinks. This is not something that would be recorded as it was probably ubiquitous at the time.
So some Viking allies and lots of Marshland may give Brian a fighting chance?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 24, 2024 0:11:46 GMT
Is this worth the complication? The invader has "chosen" (read "dice roll") to attack. History is littered with ill-advised offensives. The defender, knowing their terrain, will choose the best place they can find to defend. So let the defender choose size of battlefield and terrain. Any tweaks need to allow for a playable battlefield. That may mean that the invader must attack (e.g. advance four units beyond a certain point and initiate combat) otherwise they lose the battle (e.g. cowardice destroys the reputation of the general). That way light armies at home can protect their hills and forests. Heavy Infantry will need to fight it out. Allow the invader a chance to add one terrain piece (e.g. a difficult hill or wood for Thracians to rally on when attacking hoplites) or remove one piece (clear land for cavalry), probably using a dice roll, may help balance the battlefields. I think we worry too much about situations like historically successful mounted armies unable to make headway against light armies in terrain. Historically, this didn't happen much if at all(the generals understood DBA well). Most successful armies were either flexible (e.g. Imperial Rome and beyond) or suited to the terrain and enemies they were facing (Hellenistics, Mongols). If Ghengis or Alexander cross the Atlantic to fight Aztecs then they should expect jungle! If you stay in period you usually don't find too many issues. We should look at rules that make the game dull. Pikes crossing Rivers is a clear example. One possible variant I've toyed with is that all mounted armies can dismount from the start of the game to 3Ax or 4Ax (as appropriate). If Ghengis needed to take the hills, he would've dismounted his men and sent them in on foot. The Ax category is not too powerful (unlike, say, 3Bd) and will allow a good fight in the Hills and Woods. This is not an original idea. Alexander turned his phalangites into Ax in the hills of Afghanistan!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 23, 2024 10:23:15 GMT
Some interesting thoughts on the unanswerable question of how hoplites actually fought. This one concentrating on the Early Hoplite Greeks (in DBA terms) Modelling Greek WarfareCheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 23, 2024 10:17:15 GMT
I really liked the idea, and the pictures, so I'm keen to give it a go. What do you think you'd advise to change to improve it when I get round to it? Not sure I'd change it to start but I would just commit to the first age and see how that ends up. You can then put it away for a while and come back to it if you want to continue. Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 15, 2024 7:13:42 GMT
Hi turniptom,
These rules variants based on DBM/DBMM may give you some variety.
Time and Weather
Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 15, 2024 7:07:15 GMT
Firstly, welcome turniptom!
I've only done the whole campaign, once as it is quite an undertaking as I am mostly solo. I have done a few eras to see how things work. I also had to proxy some armies for the neighbours. It was fun but not memorable as a saga. However, I did some dice testing with a 40-60 split between Vikings and Saxon and 30-70 split between small neighbours and either main army. That gave some rather fun results from the Vikings being thrown out before establishing a base to Harald Hadraada facing William for the crown. So I'm guessing they will worth the time investment as soon as I can get some Pre-Feudal Scots!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 15, 2024 7:00:36 GMT
They do look tempting. Would love to see them next to smaller 15mm like Peter Pig to alleviate concerns for the future. They remind me of the Battle of Five Armies miniatures from GW. But they were either 2cm or 4cm so could be used on WRG bases. These seem like they're 6cm (?) like the either Epic releases. They seem challenging to cut down to size. At lease standard 15mm terrain would work with them.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 13, 2024 0:36:06 GMT
I think you've summarised things well. The small scale gives a better visual effect. The bigger scale is more fun to paint. Most importantly, 15mm gives you far more options to play against others and that, I think is the biggest hook. If I started again, knowing that I would be gaming mostly solo, I would go for the smaller scales. But once your 15mm armies snowball, it's hard to change. I haven't given up on the small scales. There are some very cheap, quite generic, laser cut MDF 2mm "figures" for Strength and Honour that could make a pool for dozens of DBA armies. They would take no time to paint and much of your terrain will be usable. National character can be added in command elements, camps, BUA, terrain, etc
Cheers
Jim
|
|