|
Post by mthrguth on Sept 12, 2017 5:56:26 GMT
Its not like you can go into any hobby store and find DBA armies. Game stores often stock Games Workshop figures, Malifaux, Star Wars, and Flames of War. But most of your DBA and ancients armies are going to be mail order.
Back in the day, there were Scruby miniatures. Then, Airfix plastic-but always a trick to get them to hold their paint. Minifigs seemed like a real advance over Scruby. But some people found their figures too squat and blocky. Then there was Hinchliffe-taller and thinner than Minifigs, more dynamic, but sometimes bizarre anatomy. Then came Essex; large ranges, larger figures, more anatomically balanced and somewhat more active than minifigs.
Old Glory is more dynamic than Essex for poses. Somehow their 15mm business has split from their 28mm business. As if Old Glory was not enough there has been a profusion of of manufacturers; Wargames Foundry 28mm figures are excellent, oh, no 15mm figures.......Some ranges come and go, like Falcon figures 15mm. Khurasan and Mirliton 15mm figures are great, unless you get old Mirliton figures from degraded molds. Khurasan uses different designers for different ranges. Look before you buy.
Eureka miniatures Australia has 28mm and 15mm figures. They have better molds than Eureka UK for some of the 15mm Grumpy's Miniatures.
So, a ton of choices.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Sept 12, 2017 5:42:41 GMT
Having a commission painter can be trying. A good painter can suddenly be overwhelmed with commissions and become unreliable, either regarding delivery times or maintaining quality of work. Or, they may raise prices to control the number of orders. Others may not deliver what you thought you were paying for. In my area many of the gamers now send their armies in mass shipments to Sri Lanka for painting by Fernando. The turnaround time is long. The quality is good. But, they are not historians, so errors can occur. For example, you may get your light infantry painted the same as line infantry; or Confederate infantry all in exactly the same uniform. Just to be clear, that's not their fault. They ask for very specific directions-provide them! Sometimes you'll find some really good work on EBAY, and then it just sits there, inexplicably. www.ebay.com/itm/15mm-Painted-DBA-II-49-Marian-Roman-army-105-BC-25-BC-/253131012204?hash=item3aefc8b86c:g:mpQAAOSwaMpZodZTThe above fellow, Alexi, has proven 100 percent reliable. He's a gamer in Moscow. He is not a contract painter per se, and I can't imagine how hard it may be for him to get figures. He does great shading, IMO, excellent shields; uses nice figures like Baudea and Mirliton. I'd buy more of his work if my wife couldn't monitor my checking account! Right now I think he is clearing his shelves of unfinished projects, so you see a variety of periods from him from ancient to WWII. He posted here under the Bazaar or who's painting what section with photos of other work. If I have to put an army together quickly to help my friends put on a campaign, I may buy individual units from wargamepainting or DPS on ebay. They can paint premium, search Ancient Pro-Painted DPS Sui Chinese Korea Expedition 400pts Army DBMM320. Both these services have proven 100 percent reliable. EBAY basic painted DBA armies in 15mm with less artistry may sell for around $100 used, painted. theminiaturespage.com has a section listing painters. I had a very bad experience with Old Guard painters in Russia. I am glad I took a risk and did business with Alexi. There is also a fellow in Greece who took figures from me, stopped corresponding, and now is back on ebay.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 29, 2017 1:16:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 29, 2017 1:13:21 GMT
Wish I knew how to post photos. Check a few posts down on this thread for his PM and ask for some photos. The army is also up on ebay. I've had 3 successful transactions with him. He always uses EBAY, so there is some protection, and shipping has not been a problem. He says he actually prefers Xyston figures to the Baudea Marians, which are smaller in size. But he still paints them to a great standard.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 27, 2017 11:53:52 GMT
RE Vikings: In 2.2 I was successful winning several events with Vikings. I went with the Leidang low aggression army when playing 2.2. This allowed me to get the waterway, and then to make two parallel highways of bad going. The idea was that if I was attacked by knights, the knights would have to either accept being overlapped OR fight elements in the bad going.
The pattern is blade in bad going, blade, blade, blade in bad going.
Of course, in 2.2 the blades could get rear support from psiloi, which further deterred the knights. The Medieval German with 6 figure knights are REALLY tough on blades in 3.0. Like Swiss, they are susceptible to unlucky dice rolls.
I played Swiss in the Nats at HMGS and lost two blades on 6-1 rolls to lose the game. But, I actually didn't mind being the aggressor in most games with Swiss; the fast blades can cope with bad going except against WB, which are a difficult troop type to use effectively; and are hell on wheels against infantry in the open.
Another issue is board size. The default 3.0 size is 24x24 inches. It may not seem like much, but going to 30x30 makes it much more difficult to gum up the board. I saw this in one of the NATS games. The poor Canadian player brought a warband army. On the big board he was able to build a terrain fortress, but he could not use bad going as a highway into my set up area; the terrain pieces were just not big enough once one went missing (placed by attacker). Eventually he suffered 'PIP exhaustion' as my troops moving in good terrain could outmaneuver the WB in the bad going.
David Kuijt had some very good advice. YOU CAN'T WIN EVERYWHERE in DBA. Will your troops have an advantage in good going, or bad going? Sometimes you need to sacrifice even two elements so that you can get winning odds for 4 elements in the terrain that is favorable to you.
Dunes and camels are a nice terrain combo, because the camels get the 'freebie' of treating dunes like clear terrain.
DBA 3.0 offers several armies freebies-unique capabilities of rare troop types; double elements, camels, dismounting, mounted archers. Low aggression is a freebie for many Indian armies because they have the elephant/knight to dominate clear terrain; and enough bows to seriously contest bad going as well. They can use their low aggression to set up a wide open plain against foot armies; or set up rough going with gaps against mounted opponents. Dice can always wreck a plan. You may never get the pips to dismount; and losing one double elements brings you close to tragedy.
Dunes and camels are a nice terrain combo, because the camels get the 'freebie' of treating dunes like clear terrain.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 24, 2017 23:39:54 GMT
PLEASE NOTE THOUGH that ADLG, THE MOST PLAYED set of Ancients rules at HMGS east conventions events and probably worldwide is always played RAW. FAQ's for ADLG are frequently posted, but always run through the author of the rules, so that all FAQ's, which include a couple of significant rule modifications/i.e. changes, are thus official and respect the intellectual property rights and intent of the author.
When 2.0 was out and HMGS east banned built up areas Phil was pretty upset. He wanted to know who was changing his rules and accused the HMGS organizers of trying to dodge the challenges of playing the full game.
Until several years have passed and many more games played at tournaments I would prefer to play RAW. Having every DBA army except Sumerians, go figure, I can adapt my tournament selection to any particular format including use of old army lists, so I won't boycott any esoteric tournaments. I would point out though the army list for my Tibetans specifically cites the reference to them dismounting during battle. If the lists are part of the rules, then banning in game dismounting violates the army list, as well as the text rules.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 24, 2017 9:31:56 GMT
I find this debate interesting. RULES AS WRITTEN allow dismounting during the game. Obviously this gives some armies different capabilities from armies which don't have dismounting elements.
RAW were allegedly subjected to rigorous playtesting to produce the most perfect, best ever, most fun, most accurate version of DBA.....
So, refusal to play RAW is an accusation that Phil Barker is in error, RAW are in error, less than advertised, less than adequately tested.
If the author had wanted the dismounting rule written differently he could have said so. He did specifically mention that different size boards might be used. So that is RAW. His spouse published a how to play guide on the game. So both the missus and the author had a perfect opportunity to suggest amending RAW of dismounting.
Changing the rules is bad precedent. I don't expect to come to a chess tournament and find that en passant is no longer used, or that Queen Side Castling is banned.
All banning dismounting does is change the meta so that other armies become more powerful as 'dismounting armies' are diminished. Ditto with different board sizes. What will you ban next, waterways, littoral landings 6 figure elements, fast troops, allies with elephants ? This is exactly what happened in the USA with HMGS banning in game dismounting, then banning BUA, then increasing the board size, and then publishing TRIUMPH.
How about banning the use of the aggression factor, which virtually guarantee that Mongols fight in the woods and Indian elephant armies always fight on the board of their choice? After all, why should one army of fast aux suck because it has an aggression factor of 4, while the other is playable because it has an aggression factor of zero?
So, it is fair to force people to find ways to cope with 6 elephant nightmares but too much to ask them to cope with a once a game in-game dismount which already has several restrictions in the RAW? Easier to ban something that caught you once than it is to make you find proper strategies.
PLAY the RAW. Don't like the rules, call PB and get him to change them. Good luck with that by the way.
Oh, I agree that dismounting is bull, but for a different reason. The real issue with dismounting is that mounted elements represent far fewer troops than infantry elements. Depending on the numbers, it should take more than one mounted unit to produce a dismounted element. Example, the dismounting Lithuanian cavalry really only have the numbers to produce psiloi, not Bow on an element to element basis.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 12, 2017 11:43:28 GMT
I don't like that they are so strong in bad going. The -2 penalty still leaves them a factor up on aux in bad going. And this is the same problem with knights, who fight blades at 1 even in bad going. Don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 7, 2017 1:09:10 GMT
I'm thinking about it. Train is TOO slow. Can't stay for Sunday's event because of work on Monday. Anyone coming down from Canada?
Mike
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 5, 2017 14:59:24 GMT
If I am correct, Hurricon 2017 is Sept 28 to Oct 1. I have fear of flying, thanks Jet Blue. Live near Washington D.C. Have to be back for work in AM Oct 2nd.
Anyone driving down to Hurricon on I 95 corridor from DC or Northern VA??
I'd love to come down for more DBA.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 5, 2017 14:54:35 GMT
Elephants are no stronger than psiloi, they can't kill them, they can't make them flee. Stick a psiloi in their face and watch the horror.
Board size is relevant to elephants. At the NIT this year the switch to the 30 inch board really screwed one Canadian player, great sport and opponent I should say; who had a warband army. He found the increase in board area over the 24 inch square board really hurt his plans. Number of terrain pieces does not increase on the larger board; and increasing the size of your terrain pieces is a bad answer, since the bigger terrain pieces, as opposed to more small pieces get more in the way.
I would expect the same for elephants. More board area means more opportunity for the elephant player to get outflanked. Once an elephant command gets split into two groups it experiences all kinds of Pip issues. So, I think we have to decide what the board size will be before considering power issues.
Tactical factor suggestion, elephants minus one against psiloi and aux. This restores the 4 versus foot factor which was traditional through previous issues of DBA.
Reread Elephant in the Greek and Roman World, summarizes most battle descriptions of elephants. With mechanism of side support established I wonder if elephants should have lower factors but give side support? Against cavalry elephants were used en masse for intimidation. But in Hellensitic pike battles they are used as groups of mobile strongpoints distributed along the battleline.
So, elephants 4-4 but give +1 to infantry adjacent? And, disorder cavalry in contact, -1 to mounted friend or enemy in ANY contact including corner to corner.....
Sorry I couldn't win the NIT to prove that I actually know something about the game. But over the two events I did turn in the top total score. Not bad since I can't practice with experts anymore.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Aug 5, 2017 12:22:51 GMT
I bought a NKE Egyptian army from Alex on Ebay so I could make a BBDBA Egyptian army. He then painted and sold me some extra figures. That is TWO orders from Russia with no problems. I was a little worried because Old Guard Painters, another Russian company, lost my order, which later showed up as prizes for a tournament. Again, Alex sells through either EBAY with Paypal or Paypal-so there is some protection for the buyer.
The work is very attractive as you can see with shading, outlining and very nice shields especially on the Byzantine infantry. Better than my eyesight can do. Did I mention he pays postage? That reduces the purchase price. He will post pictures of the Egyptians in the Who's Painting What section so you can see more of his work.
Recommended without hesitation.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Jul 17, 2017 16:20:25 GMT
I think it is alexkalinin who has just posted 3 armies for sale on the Bazaar. I had NO problem getting figures from the USSR from him. Very good painting, better than DPS or WPS from China. The only USSR painter I had problems with was Old Guard. What a tale to tell. So, support dBA in the USSR and buy one of his lovely armies.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Jul 8, 2017 12:06:07 GMT
If you see this you can PM me your email through this site!
He is a talented painter and ancients gamer from Russia.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Jun 9, 2017 17:49:04 GMT
As someone who participated vigorously in debates during the development of 3.0 I find it quite ironic that my erstwhile opponents are now identifying problems with the 'most thoroughly playtested set of DBA rules ever.' As I recall DBA 2.2 lasted 8 years before there were calls for a fix.
Issue 1. I disagree that blades are underpowered relative to knights. At present, a knight element destroys a blade 15/36 times at contact; the blade quick kills the knight, if you will forgive my use of the term, only 6/36 times. Historically German knights were unable to defeat Swiss HALBERDIERS frontally, without dismounting as at Laupen. Late Roman legions were able to stand off both Sassanid and Parthian Cataphracts, although they were occasionally broken. But changing the win/loss ratio from 2.5/1 to 5/1 would be grossly unhistorical. The Gothic cavalry at Adrianople lack couched lances and armor sufficient to be classed as knights, their success; according to Prof. Ken Harl of University of Louisiana, was due to tactical surprise and positioning as with Hannibal at Canna and not a knightly mounted charge.
The DBA 2.2 solution, blades getting rear support from psiloi, was well attested to historically. Read the recent book 'The Nisbis War' to see how this worked in the later Roman era. Rear support in 2.2 gave a legion a 4/36 chance of a quick kill versus a 9/36 for the knights. But losing knight formations are worse after a recoil in that edition
I agree that making elephants a 5 against foot is problematic. Successor armies in particular intermingled elephants to 'side support' their infantry. This would be historical and an interesting addition to the rules. By increasing the elephant factor in 3.0 and doing away with rear support against mounted the balance between infantry and elephants became severely disturbed. In earlier DBA editions it was quite sensible to attack elephants with light infantry with a good chance of success. Aux really have no chance against elephants at 2 vs. 5.
Elephants should not be more vulnerable against bowfire, at least as discussed in a recent edition of Slingshot by a former big game hunter. He notes that it was considered a miracle when during one safari an elephant was stopped with a .303 bullet. Usually they could not, and this is why elephant guns were invented. I doubt that longbows had the same power as the .303.
DBA 1.0 and 1.1 did have knights killed if beaten by bows in their own bound. As if a 4 versus 3 advantage preceeded by a turn of shooting was not harsh enough to discourage knightly charges against bow lines. But historian Kelly Verbruggen does not believe that knights versus longbows was such a mismatch- that English bowmen were defeated in several engagements where they did not also have the advantage of favorable ground on which to set up their 'herce'.
There is already an alternative to DBA 3.0 which addresses many of these issues, it is published by The Washington Grand Company and is called Triumph. They've been playtesting this now quite vigorously for 2 years, and it is pretty good. Players who find issue with DBA 3.0 might give it a try.
|
|