|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Feb 7, 2021 7:31:27 GMT
I tried DBM and later DBMM, but found that I preferred DBA (including using Big Battle DBA if I wanted bigger games). There was just as much play value with a lot less hassle.
Amarti and Warhammer Ancient Battles didn't do it for me, although I know that others enjoy them.
More recently, I was into Triumph!, and particularly liked the "usually slightly bigger armies than DBA" format. There were things that I liked, and things that I put up with because, on the whole, it was a good experience. However, I had been playing the early access versions, and disliked version 1.0 when it came out! After that, I started my own rules, "Warfare's Tremendous Feats".
Different people want different things from rule sets. I like quick play and easy set-up, and at least a good nod towards realistic outcomes. Although I own d10s, d8s, averaged dice etc., I prefer using ordinary d6s. I am not a fan of using cards in wargaming. Unless I am doing a skirmish wargame (which hardly ever happens nowadays) I don't like individually based figures. One of the reasons that I am also developing my own alternative to DBN is that I found the attrition markers a bit of a chore. I like armies acting as armies, not individual units all doing their own thing.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jan 15, 2021 7:48:49 GMT
DBA 3.0 lists with fantasy 15mm minis: Am I a heretic ? Nope. Much as I like Hordes of the Things, and have had many happy hours playing it, sometimes slightly more detailed conventional troop types give a more enjoyable fantasy game. HotT replaced Psiloi by Ambushers and Elephants with Behemoths. It also merged Auxilia with Warband, Pikes with Spears and Light Horse with Cavalry.
A lot of fantasy troops can be classified as conventional ancient troop types. For instance, centaurs could be Light Horse, Cavalry or Knights according to preference, although they might have a bit of difficulty dismounting .
Depending upon the fantasy battle, the fantasy enhancements of HotT that I find most useful are Beasts, Flyers, Heroes and Magicians. I also use another troop type to represent troops of Ents or large Trolls.
If you need fantasy enhancements, but want DBA3, it might be worthwhile investigating medievalthomas' "D3H2", which, I believe, is a blend of HotT and DBA3. Not being a DBA person, I haven't looked at it, but the threads about it on the HotT board of this forum seem to attract a lot of interest.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 10, 2020 5:33:35 GMT
If you are going to be reading a few, you could include "The Age of Arthur" by John Morris. I understand that some of it isn't well received by many or most historians, so I would be cautious about suggesting it if that is all that you are going to read. Nevertheless, there is a lot of good stuff in it which will help you understand the period between 350 and 650 AD.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jun 9, 2020 12:05:54 GMT
Hello Vodnik,
The main way that I decide whether a troops will be Light Infantry or Raiders is whether they tended to rely upon javelins, or whether they just used javelins to "soften-up" their enemies before attacking with melee weapons. Light Infantry tended to rely upon javelins or thrown weapons, but usually had some melee capabilities. Raiders are primarily melee troops who may also have throwing weapons. For instance, I believe that the Spanish Scutarii were fast-moving swordsmen or spearmen who would throw heavy javelins before moving into melee. This makes them Raiders.
Another factor to consider is how well they would fight against troops known to be Heavy Infantry and Elite Infantry in both Good Going and Bad Going. Light Infantry should be at a disadvantage against Heavy Infantry in Good Going, but should have the advantage in Bad Going. In real life, they should not be better than Elite Infantry in Bad Going. Raiders should be able to match Heavy Infantry in Good Going, and be better than either Heavy Infantry or Elite Infantry in Bad Going.
Hope that you get your figures back soon. It must be extremely frustrating to be without them.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jun 7, 2020 15:16:09 GMT
Hello vodnik,
Shieldwall says that the Franks should be "Heavy Infantry" to me.
The other Germanic warbands would probably be "Host", but you could try them as "Heavy Infantry" if you prefer. I usually use my Early Anglo-Saxons as "Heavy Infantry" because I doubt whether Romano-British and Early Anglo-Saxon infantry tactics were very different.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on May 29, 2020 9:57:17 GMT
Any way to find a copy of the 1.1 rules? I have just looked on Amazon, and they have a few copies at about £8.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on May 29, 2020 4:14:27 GMT
There were a few army list additions as well. For instance, the Camillan Roman and Polybian Roman were split from each other to become army lists 46a and 46b. Most of the army lists were unchanged from version 1.0 to version 1.1.
These old army lists were based upon the old WRG army lists You can use v2 army lists with version 1.1 providing you either avoid using Horde or substitute Spear for Horde. In fact, you can do that without it being a house rule! In version 1.1 the authors recommend using army lists based upon the DBM army lists, which the army lists for version 2 were.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on May 29, 2020 3:53:30 GMT
You could look for a second-hand copy on either Ebay or Amazon. Alternatively, I believe that John Curry did a compendium of earlier versions of DBA, which will include it. There might be specific information about John Curry's book on Phil and Sue Barker's website. (Not selling my copy of DBA v1.1 I am afraid!) I do know that they had (and probably still have) a free to download PDF of version 1.0 of DBA, which is fairly close to version 1.1. The main differences that I noticed were: The authors added the following to the first paragraph of the introduction for 1.1: “Since DBA is now being used extensively for competitions not restricted to historical opponents, this version1.1 incorporates changes to make it more suitable for this, and to harmonise with its DBM big battle derivative.” This implies that many (or most) of the changes from 1.0 were for play-balance rather than accuracy. Tactical MovesThe following was added: “A legal move cannot be taken back once made.” In version 1.0, Light Horse slow down to 400 paces when moving by road, whereas in 1.1, they do not. The ‘threat’ or ‘Barkering’ zone is 200 paces in version 1.0, rather than the base width of 1.1. Distant ShootingWar Wagons do not shoot in 1.0. but do in version 1.1
Close Combat
There a small number of changes to combat factors: Artillery went from 3 v foot and 2 v mounted in 1.0 to 4 v foot and 4 v mounted in version 1.1 Warband went from 3 v foot and 3 v mounted in 1.0 to 3 v foot and 2 v mounted in version 1.1 In 1.0, when an element wins when fighting 2 or more enemies, only the one to its front recoils, flees or is destroyed. The other(s) stay in contact. In 1.1, enemies in flank or rear contact recoil. Rear Support
Warband do not get rear support in version 1.0. but do in version 1.1 Combat Outcome
Scythed Chariots are not destroyed by equal totals in 1.0, as they are in 1.1. Total less than enemy but more than halfElephants are not destroyed by Auxilia or Light Horse in 1.0, but are in 1.1. Auxilia are destroyed by Scythed Chariots in 1.0, but not in 1.1. Warwagons are destroyed by everything in 1.0, but only by Artillery or Elephants in 1.1.
Total half or less than enemy
Light Horse are not destroyed by War Wagons in 1.0, but are in 1.1. Psiloi are destroyed by any mounted in 1.0, whereas in 1.1 the only mounted that destroy them are Knights, Cavalry or Light Horse.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on May 27, 2020 13:26:45 GMT
Hello vodnik,
If you click on the link in my first page, it should take you to the group's home page. There should be a link to the group's files, probably on the left. (You may have to join the group to download them.) If you have any problem getting the files, or if you don't want to join the group, you could send me a personal message through this forum with your email address so I could send copies to you.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on May 27, 2020 9:30:43 GMT
I have put a set of rules on an io group (a bit similar to the old Yahoo groups). I chose that method of putting it on the Internet because it will make feedback and answering questions easy. There is a set of core rules, and various supplements for different periods. The supplements each include a play-sheet, troop types and any rules specific to the period.
The Ancient and Medieval and the Fantasy supplements are done, and shouldn't need tweaking. The Pike and Shot supplement will do for the English Civil War etc., but needs further work as it needs more troop types for the 16th Century, and also for Eastern armies. The Retro-Science Fiction supplement probably has most of the troop types it will get, but might need tweaking on further play-test. The American War of Independence supplement is extremely new and raw, but seems promising.
Historical armies tend to be between 12 and 18 bases each. The bases have to be the same width, but depth isn't that important. If you use 40mm wide bases, 3' by 2' (about 90 cm by 60 cm) playing area is idea. For 60mm wide bases you should aspire to 4' 6" by 3' (about 135 cm by 90 cm). For 80mm bases 6' by 4' would be ideal.
Combat mechanism is different from DBA or HotT. Each army starts with 28 break points (BP). You lose BP in unfavourable combat outcomes. As soon as you lose more than the 28 BP that you started with, you lose. Bases tend to be lost a little less often than with familiar rules, and it is possible to win despite losing more than your opponent. Also, after throwing to resolve a combat you don't bother about whether one total is double the other, you look at the difference in totals.
There aren't any army lists. I might post some suggestions about adapting or creating your own at some point.
If anyone is interested:
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Apr 10, 2020 19:12:43 GMT
Have only just seen this thread because I have been off the Internet for a while because of a terminally sick laptop, which has only just been replaced. I am very pleased that Paul has had a go at developing Solo DBA for version 3, and hope that it is a major success.
Richard Lee
|
|
|
Scale
Feb 1, 2020 6:20:18 GMT
Post by Piyan Glupak on Feb 1, 2020 6:20:18 GMT
You raise a good point. Not all figures of the same alleged size are 100% compatible. Figures from different manufacturers can sometimes happily share the same base, some can be in the same army but look strange on the same base, some would be okay as opponents but you may not want them in the same army. Occasionally, you may get armies opposing each other where the figure size difference is really noticeable. However, a manufacturer's figures may vary from range to range. If you are interested in a particular army then you might be as well to mention what you are interested in. There is a reasonable chance that someone would help. You would be wise to say what figure size you are interested in, as Irregular Miniatures do a lot different figure sizes. Although 15mm is the most common size for DBA, there are plenty of 6mm and 25/28mm armies out there (and some 10mm and 20mm armies).
In general, most 15mm figures that I have seen would be okay as opponents in separate armies, at least. With 6mm, unless you know which manufacturers you can mix, you are generally better sticking to the same manufacturer. With 25/28mm figures, there is a huge variation in size.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jan 28, 2020 4:54:56 GMT
I'm not sure why but I have a serious urge to get these and put them on 60mm DBA bases. Picoarmor 3mm ancientsDo I need help? Cheers Jim No, you need the 3' to 4' board!
(You might consider basing the Celtic and Roman infantry in noticeably different formations though, to easily distinguish troop type at a glance.)
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jan 14, 2020 16:48:41 GMT
felixs - I haven't kept my copy of the original version of Hordes of the Things, but I don't recall many actual changes from version 1 to version 2. There seemed to be a lot more clearing up of ambiguities and adding useful diagrams. The terrain system might date from version 2, but as I gave away my copy of HotT version 1 in 2008, I can't confirm that. Concerning merging troop types, this also included Cavalry with Light Horse, Warband with Auxilia, and Psiloi partly being merged with Bows to give Shooters as well as possibly becoming Lurkers. For most fantasy battles, I tend to agree with your last paragraph in which you said that you prefer to be able to differentiate between, for example, Spear and Pikes. On the other hand, rules can get a little cumbersome if there are too many troop types after the fantasy elements are added. This site is not the place for me to discuss the rules that I am writing, otherwise I would say more.
Edit: You mentioned Strongholds. Strongholds were present in the original HotT, and were largely accepted by HotT players (probably because of the fantasy settings). The garrisoned city type built-up areas were not present in DBA version 1. BUAs in version 1 represented villages that were bad-going and blocked line of sight, like woods but with buildings instead of trees. I suspect that the authors of DBA introduced the walled cities that may be garrisoned into DBA version 2 because they liked Stongholds in HotT. They were not universally popular among DBA players at the time!
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jan 13, 2020 5:54:44 GMT
Nothing wrong in using ancients rules for fantasy battles. Sometimes the extra detail that there tends to be with conventional troop types in rules for historical battles can be more important than a rules author's ideas on how fantasy troop types would work. For instance, in battles set on Tolkien's Middle Earth, the wizards don't seem to sling magic about at opposing units, but seem to have a role closer to that of diplomats and the intelligence community.
By the way, I believe that you will find that Hordes of the Things is not based on version 2 of DBA. It owes its origins to version 1,obviously with a huge amount of adaption, including merging many conventional troop types.
|
|