|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jan 22, 2017 5:51:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Dec 26, 2016 7:19:11 GMT
Seasonal greatings Vodnik, your post appeared when I have been asking myself where have all the 2.2 and 2.2+ Gamers gone? I valued all input from gamers using all versions of dba as some of the basic mechanisms are prevelent in all versions of the rules. It would be nice to see all gamers using the new forum. There will be several reasons why there will be less heard from players of versions 2.2 and 2.2+ than version 3. For instance, I understand that some (although not all) of the 2.2+ players have started playing "Triumph!". The 2.2 and 2.2+ rules tend to be well-known and well discussed previously. Many of the people who play 2.2 or 2.2+ have done so for some time, so there may be less that they need to discuss. In my case, my current ancients game of choice is DBA version 1.1, using the army lists for version 2.2. However, if there were potential opponents locally who played either 2.2 or 2.2+, I would gladly play either.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Dec 12, 2016 6:39:54 GMT
Unfortunately, if I understand it correctly, Keith McNelly’s ‘Programmed Leaders for Ancient Campaigns’ gives Ambitious Tyrants +1 on the PIP dice but -1 on combat dice. When I played the battle, the People of the Dawn got massacred by the People of the North Wind. Did you apply the -1 to combat dice to just the general's element (which I suspect is the intent) or every element in the army? I applied it to every element in the army. Hmm... -1 (or not giving the +1 factor) to the combat roll of just the general's element would make a lot more sense. Thanks, Alan.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 29, 2016 8:08:24 GMT
My thanks to Cromwell as well.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 27, 2016 7:21:08 GMT
Camps are supposed to be able to hold a camp follower or foot element. I suggest using the normal camp size for 60mm wide bases for whichever version of DBA you are using. For example, DBA 2.2 specified that the camp should fit into a rectangle whose length plus width was no more than four times the base width, which would be 240mm for armies on 60mm wide bases. You should find that you have a lot of scope for modelling camps.
Edit: Didn't see your pikemen before I first posted this. They look good. I like the idea of using flexible bristles for pikes. Pikes that are moulded onto the figures tend to bend. A friend of mine tried to use pins for pikes, but when he either dropped or accidentally put his hand on them, all the pins that he had carefully superglued on came off rapidly.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 23, 2016 7:32:37 GMT
Although I would certainly try, and probably choose, 60m by 30mm for chariots and elephants; that is purely a matter of personal choice, and I certainly wouldn't argue with anyone who went for 60mm by 60mm.
I do concur with mellis1644 that not completely filling a base with figures and making the bases scenic works particularly well for 6mm.
Although I don't have any more DBA armies planned in 6mm on 60mm wide bases, I do do my horse and musket armies on 60 mm wide bases for DBN. For most infantry, I have 24 figures two lines of 12 figures, with half a centimetre gap between them for 'Light Infantry'. "Jagers' and 'Guerrillas' get 12 figures per base, distributed almost randomly (the 'Jagers' I usually try to do in pairs). Cavalry get 9 figures per base, 'Light Cavalry' in one line and 'Heavy Cavalry' in echelon (the outer 3 on each side about half a centimetre further back than the middle 3). For the Napoleonic armies, I do use deeper bases for the artillery, using limbers and things like behind the guns (4 guns plus crew per base). I used to find it tempting to manoeuvre other units immediately behind the guns in an unrealsitic manner, and adopted deeper (80 or 90mm for foot artillery, 60mm for horse artillery) to stop me doing that. The American War of Independence armies are a much smaller project; I couldn't find the right limbers and crew easily, so the artillery is just on 60mm by 30mm.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 22, 2016 7:32:46 GMT
Twelve psiloi to a base would look certainly better than the 16 that I used. For light horse, about 8 would look better than 12. It might be worth doing a couple of bases as a test run, before you commit yourself to a standard. You may find that even fewer per base would work well. What I have found is that the exact number of figures isn't so important if you have a lot more figures than you would use with 15mm or 25mm. There is a very noticeable difference between 2 and 3 figures on a base, whereas you might not notice whether some bases have 8 and some have 9 figures.
The depth of recoil would be the same for all if you used bases of the same size. In my opinion (which some people may disagree with) the different base depths in DBA are not some arcane but deeply thought-out and vitally important part of the combat mechanism, but are due to several factors, including:
* Base depths being dictated by larger figure mounted figures, including elephants and chariots * The authors finding backward compatibility with basing for WRG 7 convenient * Trying to indicate the category of troop type on the base
I have noticed that the ratio between recommended base depth and base width is different for 40mm and 60mm bases for chariots and elephants. I understand that for DBA version 3, close order troops with 4 figures on a base can either be based on 60mm by 20mm or 60mm by 30mm bases, whereas before the recommendation was 60mm by 20mm.
Personally, I like the neatness of bases of similar size, and also the convenience for storage, and not having to have lots of different sized bases in stock before I start an army. I stress that this is a purely personal preference; you might well like things done differently.
With 6mm figures, you can usually show information about the troop type on a base in different ways. Knights or cavalry? Consider basing the knights in a 'V'. Close order foot or auxilia? Put your ranks of hoplites or legionaries close to each other whereas allow a bit more space between ranks of auxilia or looser order warband. (You could splitting up the strips of warband figures to base them in a 'Charge' formation.)
As far as I know, there aren't any competitions for 6mm figures on 60mm wide bases. You would be lucky to find other DBA players in travelling distance that use 6mm figures on 60mm wide bases. You would almost certainly play with and against armies painted and based by you. You may as well please yourself and do what you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 20, 2016 7:00:41 GMT
Some years ago, I did a couple of 6mm armies (II/10 Camillan Roman and II/27b Pyrrhic) on 60mm wide bases. I used the same sized bases that 25mm figures would use, except that the elephants were on 60mm by 60mm bases, and two of the pike elements had deeper bases to accommodate pikes pointing forward. I used 48 figures per base for close order infantry, 48 figures for the Italian auxilia, 18 figures for cavalry and knights, 12 figures for light horse, 16 for psiloi, with 4 elephants on the jumbo base. In retrospect, slightly less psiloi and light horse figures per base would have looked better. They looked good (even with my mediocre painting) but have only been used a few times because I much prefer to use the smaller boards (24" or 30" square rather than 3' or 4' square). I found the project a bit of a chore because of the number of figures to paint. It got bogged down and it was a matter of years between finishing the Romans and finishing the Pyrrhic army. What I tend to find more satisfying both to paint and play is BBDBA armies in 6mm on 40mm wide bases. Another problem was the fact that I find it difficult to straighten pikes if they if they are based in more than 2 ranks. Although I don't plan to do any more 6mm on 60mm wide bases ancient armies, if I did I would consider using less psiloi figures, reducing the cavalry and knights from 18 figures in two ranks to one rank of 9, and consider reducing the number of close order infantry and auxilia to 3 ranks instead of 4. I would probably use 60mm by 30mm bases for everything. probably reducing the numbers of elephants to 3 per base. I wouldn't bother with pike facing forward. If you have a look at the Baccus site, you will be able to see how they have done their figures for photographs. Somewhere on their forum is a good thread with a lot of pictures of 6mm figures based on various bases. www.baccus6mm.com/index.php
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 18, 2016 6:54:10 GMT
A Tim Kohler has asked (on the old Fanaticus forum) if people who intend to play in the tournament contact him, presumably to help him organise things. www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?p=203725#post203725I did mention this forum, and said that I would mention his request here. Although I love living in Bulgaria, it would be so nice to get to be able to get to Recon at Pudsey Civic Hall for the HotT tournament.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 16, 2016 7:53:27 GMT
Whenever I visit this site I go to the 'Home' page first. On the home page (before I follow the link to the forum), the latest posts always seem to show the name of the original poster (whoever started the topic ) rather than the name of the person who made the most recent post. That isn't a major problem for me, because whenever I visit the forum, it shows whether or not a board has unread posts.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 16, 2016 7:45:45 GMT
With the display name "Cromwell" I think that might be a possibility...
It was my interest in the English Civil War that first got me into wargaming, although I spend more time on the ancient period now. I had been a member of the English Civil War Society earlier in my life. I must admit that I have sometimes wondered whether the 'Cromwell' of this forum had been one of the lads on the other side of a lot English Civil War Society re-enactments.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 16, 2016 7:34:46 GMT
I used to enjoy the HotT competition at Pudsey. I used to attend when I lived in Sheffield, and for a year or two afterwards. The show is worth going to as well (although not on the scale that Triples used to be). Also, I seem to remember a really good chip shop a short walk from Pudsey Civic Hall.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 11, 2016 12:13:19 GMT
A bit of a hiccup occurred in the campaign. It happened a while ago. Unfortunately, I needed to think about it. I have also been a bit busy, so I haven't given an update, or been able to continue the campaign.
The People of the North Wind (whose army is loosely based upon the mid to late Bronze Age of northern Europe) invaded Colwe, one of the provinces of the People of the Dawn (who have one of the armies based upon early Bronze Age northern Europe). The leader of the PotD was defined as an "ambitious tyrant", and resisted the invasion. So far so good.
Unfortunately, if I understand it correctly, Keith McNelly’s ‘Programmed Leaders for Ancient Campaigns’ gives Ambitious Tyrants +1 on the PIP dice but -1 on combat dice. When I played the battle, the People of the Dawn got massacred by the People of the North Wind. The PotD quickly lost 2 centaur Rider elements, 1 eagle flyer and 1 shooter. The People of the North Wind suffered no loss. I believe that it would be very difficult for the army of an 'Ambitious Tyrant' to win a battle.
After a few days to think about it, I thought that I would fight the same battle on the same terrain without either the PIP or combat adjustments. I might have worked out how to play the PotD army better than I did before. At any rate, the result was very different. The PotD lost 8 points, including their Warband general, the eagle Flier, and 2 elements of Beasts (boars). The PotNW lost 12 points, 1 ensorcelled Magican, 2 Blades and 2 Spear. The game was also more satisfying.
After a few more days thinking about it, changing my computer and wrestling with both Windows 10 and Linux Ubuntu (Ubuntu is easier, in my opinion), installing a small pond in the garden etc, I have decided to use the result of the second attempt at fighting the battle, and to ignore the alterations to PIP and combat dice.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 11, 2016 6:17:05 GMT
Re: New Players An essentially element of DBX gaming is teaching others to play. Don't expect people to buy the rulebook and teach themselves to play (particularly using an older version). You have to actively recruit. I have taught lots of people whose first miniature wargame was DBX (some version). I'm using the popularity of Game of Thrones (Ice and Fire) as a recruiting tool. TomT I managed to teach myself (and my original playing circle). At that time, the current version was DBA 1.1. My opinion is that earlier versions are easier to learn to play without tuition than later versions. Some of the people who learned DBA and HotT playing with me were experienced wargamers, but a reasonable proportion were not. DBA was the third set of rules that I tried as a novice wargamer, and the first that I felt really comfortable with. I started with 'Forlorn Hope' for English Civil War battles, but the recommended conversion for 6mm figures at that time made them clumsy to play, and not particularly believable in results. I tried DBM (which was the most widely used and talked about set of ancients rules of the time) but found them difficult to learn without help from an experienced player. I then tried DBA because I read somewhere that it was a good way to get used to the basic mechanisms. I rapidly found that I could play DBA easily, and enjoy it. So could my friends. Soon after, DBR replaced Forlorn Hope for my ECW games, and HotT followed
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Nov 10, 2016 5:27:13 GMT
Here is a link for the PDF file for Solo DBA:- fanaticus.website/variants/SoloDBAVer2dot2.pdfThis version is intended for DBA Version 2.2. A version for DBA 2.2+ was started, but progress on that slowed to a stop. I know that a few people still play 2.2+, but a lot of the people who were interested in it seem to have transfered their interest to a new set of wargames rules called "Triumph!". I have gone back to using DBA version 1.1 for my historical ancients wargaming. You could probably adapt it to any version of DBA, or to Hordes of the Things. There are other methods for solo playing around. By the way, there is quite a lot of useful information on this site: fanaticus.website/There isn't a forum there, but it ended up with most of the reference documents of the old Fanaticus site. Most of the content is intended for DBA, but some is useful for HotT.
|
|