|
Post by sicadi on Jun 9, 2019 15:34:21 GMT
Hi Martin You had plenty of luck against me - all of it bad! An alarmingly consistency for rolling 1 for both pips and combat made your task beyond impossible. If you’re trying to make things hard go for the Lysimachus b list. Kn general, LH, El, Ps and 8 Pk - mind the flanks. There was a point raised in a previous thread about Pk being double based. I like the idea (3 ranks on a 40mm square would give a real feel of a pike block) but the lists would need a tweak as they become too powerful. Also a little double edged as losing the first is painful. Loved your response at the end of the game when I puzzled why you were using the army. With an understandably slightly manic look in your eyes - “cos it’s hard” Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Jun 9, 2019 11:11:29 GMT
I thought the scoring system worked well. 3 points for a win, nothing for losing but 1 point for a draw. There should be value in not losing. No points for a draw if you have an army that is overmatched by its opponent tends to create false games. Make the superior army take chances and overstretch itself. Certainly didn’t produce any negative games for myself (quite technical interesting ones if anything), and if you just sit in a corner hiding you end up lower mid table with no chance of winning. Well done for me who came up with the system! Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Jun 8, 2019 18:36:44 GMT
Very enjoyable day in Bakewell as always Well done and thank you Simon and all my opponents (and everyone for that matter!)for a most enjoyable day . Six and a half hours gone in a flash! Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Apr 18, 2019 18:25:54 GMT
Hi Stevie I get the play balance bit but losing 50% of your demoralisation quota in 1 hit for a +1 against some troop types? Seems harsh to me, but so does losing a Ps for 25%..... I really ike the idea of DBA being aesthetically pleasing. Eye candy call it what you like, and these troop types definitely enhance the look of the game but nobody appears to use them much purely because the risk is too big. Maybe the answer would be to have the double based element as the only choice, give it the small advantage but only counting as one if lost. As I said earlier some armies are just naturally better under DBM and I don’t feel this would break the rules too much Rant over and I’ll get back to the Communal Italians and Maurikians..... Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Apr 18, 2019 16:30:17 GMT
Hi all
very interesting thoughts on what is and what could have been.
I have played 3.0 only for the past 15 months or so and reckon must have clocked up around 200 games. What I have not experienced much are double based elements, maybe only 1 game. Do players think they are not worth the risk? I really like the idea of pikes being double based but really dislike the penalty of losing 2 element equivalents. Cannot see why certain troops are penalised in this way. After all if this is how Communal Italian crossbows or Byzantine cavalry fought then why then penalise them? There is after all no points system and some armies are just “better” than others.
So in effect would it be better to lose the notion of double based and just say pikes in 2 ranks on a 30mm (or 40mm) 8Bw on 40mm and so on?
just a thought....
Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Apr 17, 2019 7:42:57 GMT
The chariots come with an archer and a pair of javelinmen from the appropriate codes Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Apr 16, 2019 11:52:24 GMT
Hi all Just had some arrive in the post. They are more Xyston size than Essex, so around 18mm at a guess. Just offered up to Chariot body to a 40mm deep base and looks to be fitting ok. Not sure and had my suspicions before but I think the images on the website are CGIs. Nice clean castings at the moment as well and the range has everything you need for a DBA Classical Indian so no real need to be concerned compatibility wise, although I would have like an El general figure. Craig ps forgot to mention 3 quid a bag for 8 infantry good value these days and if you can wait for the 25% off January sale then a real bargain me thinks.
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Apr 10, 2019 16:51:33 GMT
Hi all I am currently painting Papal Italian and desperate to find some images of flags/shield designs but struggling i seem to remember seeing red background with a white cross and some kind of crossed keys? image but cannot find these again Has anyone got any pointers please Thanks Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Apr 7, 2019 8:10:36 GMT
Well done Martin for your superb organisation and welcome Excellent days gaming against opponents both old and new. Biggest lesson of the day 5 hours + driving and a day in the chair not so good, so an overnight stay next time me thinks! Thanks to all Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Mar 16, 2019 9:10:12 GMT
Hi Baldie I have used CB figures quite a lot and tend to find Essex a good match size wise. Try figure RO23 from the Roman range. Lance, no shield , chain mail on an unprotected horse Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 20, 2019 8:10:26 GMT
Hi all Could the Cannae issue be fixed by taking blades down to a base 4 with +1 for a rear support. This makes the Romans fight in a deeper more historical formation (and possibly represents a very abstract portrayal of the mysterious line swap). Like the idea of 4 Ax having side support with the mounted recoil option. Sorry if this has been suggested elsewhere... Strength of DBA is its simplicity. There must be a simple yet elegant solution
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 15, 2019 18:15:11 GMT
Hi Martin In the description of blades on page4 CP, Lit, and CWg are treated as solid blades who cannot move into contact with the enemy. Not sure where you’re getting the war wagon sub-class from.
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 15, 2019 12:56:44 GMT
Hi in answer paddy Just thought the cp flanked by 8bw gives the bw a little more in close combat. A solid blade that does not recoil giving +1 to a deep bow already at +3. Hopefully do some damage with the shooting first. I don’t for 1 minute think it’s a “Death Star”. Not sure this even exist in DBA. I like unusual armies and all I play with at the moment are classical late book1 / early book2, so thinking of looking a little outside of this to expand my collection. Thanks for asking
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 13, 2019 20:09:20 GMT
Thanks for the responses fellas Not sure where it says only active generals can be a CP but it may Suspect it is within the rules but maybe not as intended. Can’t find an army where the general can only be a CP. Just thought it gave the 8 Bw even more potential if caught in close combat Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Feb 13, 2019 12:18:01 GMT
Hi all was wondering if it is ok to use a CWg as the nominal generals choice in an allied contingent. Cannot see anywhere that you can’t but something feels not quite right Thinking Papal Italian with a single Communal Italian contingent of 2x8Bw + their general Thanks in advance for any help
|
|