|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Sept 14, 2016 15:47:54 GMT
Looks interesting. I tried a 4 by 4 map (assuming 6" squares) and got 7/16 open ground.
I might have a tinker with a non-computerised dice-run terrain generator sometime soon. For 2' by 2' (600mm by 600mm) boards I would be trying to put most of the bad-going near the edges to help reduce the 'edge of the world' syndrome. On the other hand, I have prepared a new 800mm by 600mm board (about 32" by 24") which I might start using.
For family reasons, I don't expect to be doing anything significant for the next 2-3 weeks.
EDIT: I was trying to use it to generate a DBA battleground, which might not be what it was designed for. I have a feeling that it would be vastly more useful for doing a small campaign map. Some terrain squares could be considered impassible (such as mountain). The 'Open Ground' squares could have a small number of terrain features, whereas other types of square would have greater numbers of terrain features, the majority of which would be of the type indicated by the terrain type. For example 'Heavy Woods' might have 4 or 5 area terrain features, at least 3 of which cowould be woods.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Sept 14, 2016 3:30:21 GMT
Well done! I hope it will be useful for a lot of people.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Sept 8, 2016 5:00:22 GMT
May I add my thanks? Well done.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Sept 6, 2016 5:24:48 GMT
The last thread that I started on the original Fanaticus board was about the Battlemaker campaign system, It might be useful to mention it on the current Fanaticus board. I have been trying Jim Wright's 'Battlemaker Campaign System', and can recommend it for solo play. It is a simple system intended for 2 armies, whereby armies advance or are pushed back along a track of 5 locations. When one army pushes the other off its end of the track, the campaign is won. The date of last update on the document is 24th December, 1999, so it was written during the 1.2 amendment sheet to v1.1 era. It also gives support to those who favour a rectangular board 32" by 24" (which I understand was an idea that has been largely dropped in favour of 30" square boards). I feel sure that it can be readily adapted to whatever version of DBA that you prefer. I have been using it with version 1.1 (which was the version that I started DBA with, some years ago), but using version 2 armies. The armies that I am using it for are I/14d Early Northern Barbarians Europe 1400-701 BC and I/33b Villanovan Italian 799-587 BC. I find that running a simple campaign (which has been going on for a few days, on and off) gives a bit more focus to the games than individual, unconnected games would have. 'The Battlemaker Campaign System' was available on the resources side of original Fanaticus, but is now on swammeyjoe's new archive of the Fanaticus documents: fanaticus.website/It is on the campaign page, under the 'Alternative Campaign Formats' heading: fanaticus.website/campaigns/c...ttlemaker.html
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Sept 3, 2016 7:43:07 GMT
On re-reading the v1.0 PDF I have spotted an error in my original post. Warband do not get rear support in version 1.0.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 23, 2016 10:37:26 GMT
ammianus and @tony Aguilar Sadly, I don't have Khan Krum's Early Bulgar army, but I do happen to have the IV/25 Later Bulgar, which represents the Second Empire. We are a lot closer to Veliko Tarnovo than Pliska, so the Second Empire tends to be in our minds more.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 23, 2016 10:20:53 GMT
My girlfriend (here in North America) is Bulgarian! Small world indeed, guys. Now if I can get her playing DBA, and we can swing a trip back home soon, we may have a mini tournament lol... My wife is Bulgarian. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to persuade her to have a go at DBA.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 20, 2016 9:55:56 GMT
Yes, I started to use it as a base to write skirmish scenarios for my (mainly Foundry) Bronze Age North Europeans.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 20, 2016 5:29:36 GMT
Must admit that my impression was that Salisbury Plain was known to be a well-settled area during the Neolithic and Bronze Age. I seem to remember reading (probably during the late 1960s or 1970s) that the heavier soils in the valley bottoms only tended to become easily cultivatable when iron ploughs became available.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 20, 2016 5:24:05 GMT
I am glad to repeat my thanks on this website. (I post under my real name, which is Richard Lee, on the original Fanaticus site.)
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 18, 2016 13:41:05 GMT
Thank you, that is certainly a solution for some armies against some opponents, although Warband can be be dangerous for some of types of enemy infantry.
I think that what I will do with Hordes is to consider the enemy army list, and play them as whatever infantry type (except Psiloi) that would be likely to cause the least damage.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 18, 2016 8:37:29 GMT
In my opinion, the army lists are the best part of version 2. I use them in place of the version 1 ones. The only element type that I have to avoid, or think of an alternative for, are Hordes.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 17, 2016 7:46:22 GMT
A couple of weeks ago I read through the PDF of version 1.0 and compared it to my version 1.1 rule book. It is possible that I missed some things, but this is what I noticed: The authors added the following to the first paragraph of the introduction for 1.1: This implies that some (or most) of the changes from 1.0 may have been for play-balance rather than accuracy. Tactical MovesThe following was added to v1.1: “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 v1.0, but do in v1.1. Combat FactorsThere a small number of changes to combat factors: Artillery are 3 versus foot, 2 versus mounted in v1.0. In v1.1 they are 4 versus foot and 4 versus mounted. Warband are 3 versus foot and 3 versus mounted in v1.0 whereas they are 3 versus foot and 2 versus mounted in v1.1. Combat OutcomeIn 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. Warband in support in v1.0 are not specified as being destroyed if the element they are supporting is, whereas they are in v1.1. (This might be an accidental omission.) Scythed Chariots are not destroyed by equal totals in 1.0, as they are in 1.1. When the total score is less than enemy but more than half: - Elephants 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.
When the 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.
Army ListsNot looked at in detail but minor changes have been made. Some of the army lists have been split into (a) and (b) lists, for instance, v1.0 army list 46 'Camillan Roman' is spilt into 46a 'Camillan Roman' and 46b 'Polybian Roman' for v1.1. The original 'Camillan Roman List' is actually the same as the newer 'Polybian Roman' list. The Camillan Romans had 3 Blade elements replaced by Spear for v1.1. Edit: Warband do not get rear support in version 1.0.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 14, 2016 6:17:39 GMT
It is worth being aware of Donnington Miniatures, who sell their figures individually, as well as in army packs. (I don't know whether their DBA army packs are still for the version 2 army lists or whether they are now for version 3.) Their prices for individual figures tend to be no more expensive than for army packs, except that post and packing would be expensive for very small orders. If you know what you want, having seen the army list of the version that you intend to play, they might be a good option. www.donnington-mins.co.uk/Again, if you want to add figures in the future, for instance because the army list changes, they are a useful company to know.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 11, 2016 5:05:26 GMT
Thank you. This will help people who doing Spartan armies long after the original Fanaticus board goes.
|
|