|
Post by strelnikov on Sept 13, 2018 17:35:48 GMT
I use HFG for Napoleonics right now.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Sept 12, 2018 15:17:17 GMT
Cromwell,
I have played DBN but that was quite some time ago and I do believe this required DBA 2 for its basic system. I did not pursue DBN any further as this was the period of time I sold most of my DBA armies. It was during the play test period of DBA 3.0 that I thought DBN should also be revised to the newer version. This did not happen so I proceeded with the help of a dozen other Fanatici did that but selected DBA-HX (Humberside extension) had two practical reasons; it was truly an old variant using DBA 1.1 and more importantly it offered a large number of army lists. Tony Barr had no problem with the upgrade to 3.0 and the army lists were presented in a different format so as to offer players more options.
The changes from 2.2 to 3.0 now meant skirmishers could perform like their ancient counterpart by moving rapidly through difficult terrain and screening troop formations improved as they could shoot with the same restriction for moving and shooting applying for them as well. Further, side support and equal combat results are useful features to replicate troop differences, i.e., elite, line and conscript.
I've been playing Phil Barker's "Horse, Foot, & Guns" (HFG). It has very similar game mechanics, but is more detailed than DBA. However one of the interesting things I like about it is that troops cannot move directly into close combat unless they begin a bound within a minimum distance of the enemy (1/2 BW for infantry, 1.5 BW for mounted). This usually ensures that the advancing force will undergo at least one bound of fire from the defender. If the phasing player witholds fire & wins or ties the distant combat roll, they can "press forward" into close combat in the same bound. This creates some interesting battle effects.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Jun 24, 2018 2:58:57 GMT
I like to take the following mix: 3 x Cv, 8 x 3Wb, & 1 x Ps. I like rapidly closing, attacking one flank with Cv & 3Wb. Use rear support vs blades, & terrain to compensate for the reduced frontage. Does the recoil on ties for fast Wb cause any problems? I'm assuming using 3Wb is better since they are much faster, even if rough, but 4Wb would ignore that tied problem..? Sometimes the 3Wb recoiling from 4Bd works to your advantage since the Bd have to pursue, sometimes into trouble. I prefer speed of manoever.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Jun 22, 2018 23:44:43 GMT
I like to take the following mix: 3 x Cv, 8 x 3Wb, & 1 x Ps. I like rapidly closing, attacking one flank with Cv & 3Wb. Use rear support vs blades, & terrain to compensate for the reduced frontage.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on May 25, 2018 15:29:52 GMT
An account of this battle on my blog here: link
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Mar 27, 2018 21:49:02 GMT
Moderate turnout for this years Adepticon 2018 DBA themed event, 9 players registered. Three no-shows, but was made up by two players signing up at the desk. We played 3 rounds. The List below shows results: (Name/Army/W-L-D/pts) 1. Matt Adami - Cilisian Armenian 2-0-1 27 pts 2. Dave Moore - Later Crusader 2-1-0 24 pts 3. Bill Hupp - Ayyubid Egyptian 2-1-0 22 pts 4. Andrew Kirby - Early Crusader 2-1-0 22 pts 5. Bob Beattie - Early Crusader 1-1-1 15 pts 6. Mike Horton - Komnenian Byzantine 1-2-0 15 pts 7. David Shepps - Later Crusader 1-2-0 12 pts 8. Mike Colmen - Early Crusader 0-3-0 3 pts Some pics are up on the FB DBA page, I will add some more shortly. Jim, thanks for running this tournament. I had a great time.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Feb 20, 2018 19:29:19 GMT
I havn’t played since 2.0 years ago. I purchased a copy of 3.0 and was looking through the army lists and checked one of my favorites the Attalid Pergamene. I noticed the “ traditional light armed peltasts” are rated as (Ps). Is this a mistake? Previous versions of dba and other rules rate them as auxilia or light infantry. Why the difference in 3.0? In DBA 3.0, you can have allied troops. The Attalid Pergamenes could replace some (3) of their plentyful Ps with either certain Ariarathid Kappadokian or Hellenistic Greek (Achaian) allied elements (though, the allies have to operate either as single elements or in seperate groups).
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Feb 20, 2018 19:07:36 GMT
Stevie, it seems the DBMM army list is in agreement with the older DBM one regarding the pezetairoi.
I am also warming to the idea of the Hypaspists being given the option of 3Bd. At Gaugamela, the Hypaspists (along with the Agrianians) seem to have been a faster moving link between the Companions & the Phalanx on the Macedonian right. It also seems that the Hypaspists contacted the main Persian battle line before the Phalanx did. 3Bd may represent this the best.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Feb 20, 2018 17:08:05 GMT
The DBM Army List Book II dated November 1998 states under the Alexandrian Macedonian, List 12:
"Replace pezetairoi's pikes with javelins - Reg Ax(O).....0-12" PB allowed 12 out of a possible maximum of 48 to be so armed back then. PB mentions this happened at Halikarnassos in the text for the list.
For the Hypaspists it states: "all Reg Sp (S)...Reg Ax(S)...or all Reg Pk (S)." PB also allowed the CinC to be regraded as a Hypaspist element only before 334BC.
JFC Fuller mentions the re-arming of the pezetairoi in his book: The Generalship of Alexander the Great.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Feb 20, 2018 14:07:09 GMT
P.S. I also agree with primuspilus that Alexander's phalangites should be Pk/4Ax. Paddy DBM allowed Alexander's phalangites to be Pk/4Ax.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Feb 14, 2018 0:29:28 GMT
I like this idea. It is simple & doesn't change the factors or combat that much. May also combine with LH fleeing when doubled in DC by Bw/Art. We'll try it & see how it works, though we may restrict it to only LH,Cv,Kn,Ps armed with bows/slings.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Feb 13, 2018 15:08:21 GMT
I'm wondering what thoughts people have regarding Horse Archer shooting in DBA. I am satisfied with how DBA treats LH in general, but my regular gaming friend has problems with how DBA abstracts horse archers, especially since he has a Hun army. I think the effectiveness of LH is demonstrated by Timurilank's latest post ( link), but I've been kicking around a few ideas how we could make horse archers more interesting. My thoughts are: > allow horse archer LH to shoot (+1 vs infantry or +2 vs cavalry) at the closest target in their threat zone. > allow support shooting (up to 2) from other horse archer elements within 1 BW of the target. > combine horse archer shooting with stevie's fatigue rules ( link), or simply make the recoiling element a -1 due to disorder. > allow horse archers who recoil an opponent in shooting the option to "press forward" 1 BW and engage the fatigued opponent in close combat in the same bound. Any other thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Dec 28, 2017 21:45:57 GMT
I am getting back into DBA and looking to see if there is anything in Indy or Chicago. I am willing to travel which is why I mention both cities. I live near Wheaton, 25 miles west of Chicago, & have both 28mm & 15mm armies for DBA 3.0. We have an informal group that plays DBA 3.0, among other things. The Adepticon in March (located in Schaumburg IL) has had a DBA 3.0 tournament the last 2 years. An announcement on that should be coming out shortly.
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Oct 26, 2017 1:13:45 GMT
There was talk about a second book. Is one in the works?
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Oct 9, 2017 13:56:21 GMT
...i like your planations, great work I think you are referring to the fields. I made them from black stiff felt pieces, dry-brushed brown, with flock added. I use them as "plough" for DBA.
|
|