|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 9, 2016 5:33:04 GMT
I purchased Livy's 'History of Rome' for my Kindle, in July (£0.99), and am ploughing through it slowly. Yes, you have to take Livy with a very large pinch of salt, but it is nice to read what assorted historians have extrapolated from as a source for Roman history before the First Punic War. With Livy, prevailing wisdom is that he wrote it as propaganda to try and get young Romans of the early empire to aspire to the patriotic, stoic and war-like virtues that Romans liked to believe were traditional to Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 9, 2016 5:17:25 GMT
At the moment there are some people whose opinions I value on the old site who might not join this site. If I want to start a topic I have to think which site to start it on, or whether do it on both (not necessarily on the same day). However, in a little about a month, there will just be this one.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 7, 2016 10:45:52 GMT
Looks as if I managed to send you a personal message, Steve. Please let me know on this thread if you didn't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 6, 2016 2:44:24 GMT
Very good to hear from you, Steve. Wow! Just had a look at the map, and it looks as if Dimcha is just past Recen, on the road to Pavlikeni.
I live in a village called Draganovo, which is a little to the north of Dolna Oryahovitsa, which is a little to the north of Gorna Oryahovitsa. I am not far away, on the other side of the Ruse to Veliko Tarnovo road.
Concerning 20mm WWII, a few years ago I started to paint up some of the Airfix Japanese figures for a company level game. The project floundered because someone else was to do the US marines, and I have a feeling that they didn't get far.
Ancients are my main wargaming interest, although I have ECW and Napoleonic armies in 6mm. Last year I started painting a couple of AWI armies in 6mm. I also dabble in Hordes of the Things from time to time. Most of my armies are 15mm or 6mm, but I did go through a 25/28mm phase, and have some armies.
If I can work out how to use the personal messages function of this forum, I will send you my email address.
Richard Lee
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Aug 5, 2016 4:50:47 GMT
What's the gaming surface you use, Keith? Is it 2' flocked squares or a textured material? It's a 2' square cloth gaming mat, originally created by Citadel or Games Workshop, I can't recall which. It is the only product I have which is made by a fantasy supplier. It came as a 6'x4' mat and I chopped it up for DBA and BBDBA. It folds up nicely and is very transportable. I bought several a few years ago. I got one a few years ago. At that time they had a thick paper backing rather than cloth. I ended up cutting it up to stick on a 3' by 5' board primarily for double-sized DBN games using 60mm bases.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 26, 2016 7:54:15 GMT
Thanks for that, Bob.
Concerning 'Mortem et Gloriam', one difference (which I am aware that Bob knows well) is that DBA was written before DBM. DBA was not written as a cut-down version of DBM; DBM was written as an expanded version of DBA. Of course, it might well be that DBM, and later DBMM, influenced later versions of DBA.
The special, colour-coded cards, unique dice and other paraphernalia tend to make me less likely to show interest in 'Mortem et Gloriam'.
I fully agree with Bob when he says:
"When will people realize that people play DBA as an end to itself, and not as an intro to some more complicated game."
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 21, 2016 17:51:15 GMT
Must admit that that I haven't tried a pair of armies with more mounted, but I did manage to get in an Etruscan League (I/57a) versus Tullian Roman (I/59) and an Early Northern Barbarian Europe 2000-1401 BC (I/14c) versus another Early Northern Barbarian Europe 2000-1401 BC army game. Quick, easy, and enjoyable solo games.
I suspect that version 2.2 would be better for competitions, but for solo play, so far the only modification that I have had to use have been using the version 2 army lists. For 2.2, I tend to use several house rules.
What might be interesting would be to do a solo campaign, to give the games a bit of focus.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 21, 2016 11:25:10 GMT
DBA version 1.1 was the version of DBA that I started with, and that sold me on the DBA system. When the 1.2 amendment sheet, version 2.0, the 2.1 amendment sheet and version 2.2 came out, I changed to the current version. Over the last couple of years, I have been thinking hard about the game that I want to play. I haven’t played 1.1 for quite a few years, but it does have very fond memories. It also has simplicity, which I see as a virtue.
The main thing that I liked about version 2 was the army lists. There were many more of them, and they were, I believe, based upon the DBM army lists. I have a feeling that going from the old WRG army lists (upon which DBA version 1 army lists were based) to the DBM ones might have been a bigger change than going from the DBM to the DBMM army lists. However, I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable about the DBMM system.
The Camillan Roman army (II/10) was 1 x Cv general, 1 CV, 3 x Bd, 5 x Sp, 2 x Ps. This happened to be the same as the version 1.1 Camillan Roman army list 46a.
The Gallic army(II/11) was 1 x LCh general, 2 x LCh, 8 x Wb, 1 x Ps. The version 1.1 Gallic army list 35 more mounted, two Psiloi but only 8 Warband.
The gallant Gauls invaded Roman territory. There were 2 gentle hills on either side of one end of the board, and two woods on the other end, but the woods were a little closer to the middle than the hills. A road ran thought the middle of the board, between the woods and between the hills.
One thing that I noticed was that with 1.1 (like HotT) there is no requirement to deploy away from the base edge. However, it was convenient to do so.
The Gauls and the Romans were both on a side with a wood and gentle hill. The Gauls got the side with their wood in a slightly more convenient place than the Roman’s. Warband are not bad-going troops in version 1.1.
Both the Roman Princepes and Triarii (Spear) and Gallic Warband were deployed in double ranks where possible.
As the deployments were offset, and the Romans were in a position that suited them, the Gauls started manoeuvring in for a frontal attack. The were just beginning to line up for the final march in when the Roman Leves (Psiloi) charged out of the wood attack to the unsupported Celtic javelinman element. Sadly for the Romans, Mars was against them, and one of their Psiloi elements died.
As the bold Gauls got into line for attack, their javelinmen dealt with the other element of Leves. The Romans re-arranged their cavalry to be able to plug gaps in case of breakthrough.
When the Gallic line hit, one Hastati (Blade) element was swept away. However, two Gallic Warband died. The Roman counterattack upon the two Warband elements that broke through didn’t kill them before the end of the game. What finished off the game was that, with a bit of help from their javelinmen, a double rank of Warband crashed through a double rank of Triarii (Spear).
Not a bad little solo game, in my opinion. I played it on a 2’ by 2’ playing area. With 2.2, I found that a 30” square playing area was a lot better. It might be interesting to try some armies with more mounted with 1.1 on 24” square.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 19, 2016 15:56:28 GMT
Thanks, braisdefer, I have downloaded 'The Portable Wargame Ancients', and will look at it later. I saw 'One Hour Wargames' on Amazon, and will try to look at reviews later.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 19, 2016 5:44:30 GMT
What particular rules do you like in 1 or 1.1 that were lost in 2? I know lots of people did not like BUA . what other additions were bad? Thanks Hello Bob. In no particular order, things about 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 that I don't like include: - BUAs
- Littoral landings
- 'Quick-kill' by Light Horse on Pikes or Spear
- Loss of rear support for Spear by Spear except against Spear or Knights
- Additional tactical moves, for instance by Psiloi in the first bound, Warband moving into contact, Light Horse
- Double-based mounted elements
- War-Wagon basing
- Dismounting at any time after deployment
- Litters general's elements as non-shooting War Wagons
I also tend to see the following as mixed blessings that, for instance, risk additional complication or restriction, but are sometimes useful: - Hordes - which I see as the beginnings of grading sneaking into DBA
- The terrain system - which, I am sure, works far better for tournaments, but is more restrictive
- One Psiloi giving rear support v. mounted etc. to up to 3 elements of Spear, Blades or Auxilia
- Aggression factors of army lists
I am unsure about: - Warband's immunity to bad going - did the Gauls and British really fight the Romans in woodland by choice?
In general, I find myself looking for something simple and basic that works for solo games between contemporary and believable enemies. When version 2 came out, I accepted it as a package; latter I became a bit more critical of some aspects. If I am playing solo, it doesn't matter too much what I play. It would be convenient to use something that doesn't need too many house rules. At the moment, I am looking at some of the differences between 1.0 and 1.1. Although the introduction of version 1.1 says: There are a couple of things that I thought might have been simple oversights or errors in 1.0, such as Warband providing rear support not being destroyed when the element that they are supporting gets killed.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 19, 2016 4:53:58 GMT
On the tinkering side, it is worth having a look at 'One Hour Wargames' and 'The Portable Wargame'. Both are simple systems that are also very subtle and suit solo play. Thanks. I will keep my eyes and ears open for information about them. I don't live close to any other active wargamer, so I tend to get my information from the Internet. A few years ago I lived in a city that had a good wargames club (that I was a member of) and which also ran a good wargames show (which even had a DBA competition).
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 18, 2016 16:48:29 GMT
Thank you for your replies. vodnik - This was just one example. I agree that Spear would not always be the best choice to replace Hordes for all armies. The version 2 Early Egyptians have most of the infantry Bows and Blades. The Hordes element represents "Conscripts under local commanders" according to the DBM lists (upon which the DBA version 2 lists are based). The trick would be trying to represent them as being less efficient than Pharaoh's more professional troops, but to minimise any effect of additional abilities of the alternate class. In this case, there are no other spear to give or benefit from rear support. Assuming that they are to remain hand-to-hand fighters, spear will not fight as well against infantry as the blades. Unfortunately, they will be a bit more robust against mounted. However, the only contemporary opponents for them that I have are Nubians that do not include mounted. braisdefer - I will be playing solo as well. It was interesting to hear that someone else has been thinking along the same lines, and putting their thoughts into practice.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 18, 2016 4:33:10 GMT
I am not quite sure whether to post this in 'House Rules' or here. Has anyone tried using the army lists from version 2 with either version 1.0 or 1.1? I started playing DBA when it was 1.1, and have very fond memories. Although it is a long while since I played version 1.1, I have to admit that some aspects appealed to me more than later versions did. On the other hand, the army lists that came in with version 2 were much better. (I see them as being significantly more accurate, and also there were many more lists.) Obviously, you would have to ignore options for Hordes. Where Hordes are compulsory in the version 2 lists (such as in the I/2 Early Egyptians), it would be necessary to substitute another troop type. For this example, I would probably treat the Hordes element as Spear. Is there any advice that someone who still plays version 1 or 1.1 but knows version 2.0/2.1/2.2 would give? Thank you in advance for any suggestions.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 13, 2016 7:07:04 GMT
I don't know whether or not you have come across Luke Ueda-Sarson's web site. I don't always agree with everything he suggests, but I usually look at it for Middle Earth battles. He also has DBA and DBM army lists. lukeuedasarson.com/HotTME.htmlDavid Kuijt also did some DBA army lists a while ago: www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/orcs/TolkeinDBA.htmlAgain, I tend to look at the books carefully and make up my own mind, although I like to see what he thought about things.
|
|
|
Post by Piyan Glupak on Jul 12, 2016 6:29:25 GMT
A couple of random thoughts. Please excuse me if they are irrelevant.
I can't remember reading anything that implies dwarves used archery in warfare. Although Fili and Kili used bows for hunting in Mirkwood in The Hobbit, I got the impression that they weren't that wonderful with them. If I was using DBA for Middle Earth battles, I might allow one Psiloi on the basis that the author and commentators within the books would concentrate on the main high-status troop type.
When I did a scenario for the Battle of the Five Armies in standard HotT, I made Thoren Oakenshield and his remaining companions a Hero element.
|
|