|
|
Post by wingman on Nov 22, 2018 3:53:05 GMT
I know the rules call for 4' x 4', but space is really tight in the man cave. What do you think is the smallest board size that I can get away with? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Nov 22, 2018 4:25:19 GMT
Probably 3'×3' or 900mm×900mm, depending if your preference is imperial or metric.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2018 10:29:50 GMT
Welcome to the wonderful world of DBA Wingman.  Table sizes for elements with a 60mm frontage are:- 15 base widths square = 900mm or 35½ inches (let’s call it 3 foot square) 20 base widths square = 1200mm or 47¼ inches (let’s call it 4 foot square) As Gregorius says, if a 4 foot table is too big, use a 3 foot table. The problem is, fleeing mounted troops have a tendency to run right off a small 3 foot table, and outflanking is very difficult. So here are some ‘House Rules’ you might like to consider for 3 foot tables. Fleeing off the Base Edge on 3 foot table:-Fleeing troops must move half of their fleeing distance, and if that takes them right off a table base edge, then so be it. However, if after fleeing for half their flee move they are still on the table, they continue the flee move but halt at a table base edge. (this simulates having a larger 4 foot table, 20 BW deep)And as for outflanking:-See this: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1040/off-table-outflanking-marches Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by daveh on Nov 22, 2018 11:27:25 GMT
So for the 20mm armies I have done on 60mm bases which are Early Hebrew and Early Philistines with only 1 cavalry element in the Philistine's Chariot then 15BW square will probably work fine as all those Auxilia and Blades don't move that far.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2018 13:29:01 GMT
That is true Daveh. Yes, it all depends on the armies fielded. But I find that mounted armies like the Persians (armies I/60 and II/7) flee a lot when doubled by Spears and Pikes. On a 15 BW deep table, deploying 3 BW from the centre-line and at least 4 BW from their own base edge (so they can flee without leaving the battlefield), only leaves mounted a ½ BW ‘safe zone’ to deploy into...which is a wee bit tight! Advancing helps give more fleeing room of course, as does having some sort of blocking terrain or friends behind them to halt the flee. (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1620/fleeing-troops-interpenetrate ) This is why I much prefer the larger 20 BW square table size... (...and having long arms like an orangutan helps!  )Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 22, 2018 15:10:44 GMT
The rules do not call for a 4’ x 4’ battlefield. The rules allow 3’ x 3’ up to 4’ x 4’ and anywhere in between as long as there’s a square. Phil actually prefers the smaller of the range, note his comment,”. . . 900mm/ 36” to 1,200mm/ 48” square for the larger scale. Be warned that areas larger than the minimum are unnecessary and may encourage overly defensive play or result in longer or even unfinished games.“ I’m not so worried about the light horse. Phil added the rule about hitting a side edge and turning to your own deployment edge to compensate for the smaller size. If you flee to the enemy edge just think of them reaching enemy’s rear and looting. If you flee to your own rear, it could be the same |
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Nov 23, 2018 3:24:28 GMT
Thanks for the input. I believe that I'll go with the 36" square size. Now I just have to figure out how to do it. Maybe 2 pieces of plywood with a hinge so that it can be folded up. I have to use the 2' x 4' pre-cut pieces of plywood from Home Depot.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 23, 2018 18:30:53 GMT
Also the bigger table helps reinforce the totally erroneous notion that all ancient battles involved massive attempts to encircle one another. In most cases historically, you aimed for the weakest link somewhere, smashed into it like a freight train, and hoped the shock would cause the whole line to buckle and give way. One did this due to the constraints of time, the need to bring things to a decision (the time we have for war is brief) and the tendency of armies to anchor one or both flanks on large, imposing terrain features.
The handful of spectacular encirclementss in historical accounts have been latched onto by wargamers, and extrapolated WAY beyond the end of the high quality data.
We found using the bigger board felt way too much like playing at Rommel in the Desert, rather than actual ancient battles aligned with historical accounts. But to each their own, and it is all about having fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Nov 23, 2018 19:10:13 GMT
Also the bigger table helps reinforce the totally erroneous notion that all ancient battles involved massive attempts to encircle one another. In most cases historically, you aimed for the weakest link somewhere, smashed into it like a freight train, and hoped the shock would cause the whole line to buckle and give way. One did this due to the constraints of time, the need to bring things to a decision (the time we have for war is brief) and the tendency of armies to anchor one or both flanks on large, imposing terrain features. The handful of spectacular encirclementss in historical accounts have been latched onto by wargamers, and extrapolated WAY beyond the end of the high quality data. We found using the bigger board felt way too much like playing at Rommel in the Desert, rather than actual ancient battles aligned with historical accounts. But to each their own, and it is all about having fun. Interesting, never looked at it this way before.
I am a big fan of the larger tables sizes and also a fan of Biblical battles, so obviously not playing them properly
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Nov 23, 2018 19:27:17 GMT
Also the bigger table helps reinforce the totally erroneous notion that all ancient battles involved massive attempts to encircle one another... I agree. A review of many battles of the classical period illustrates that most battles did not involve encirclements. Rather the frontage was constrained if not by terrain then by command and control. Often very large battles found armies deploying in increasing depth rather than expanding. We continue to have excellent games with the minimum board dimensions and when I have played on a larger table my view is the DBA model is weakened. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 23, 2018 23:51:56 GMT
And to be sure, occasionally one does a score a victory through a brilliant flanking maneuver on the smaller board. And one then rightly notes such an event as a profound rarity worthy of much awe, adulation and study. Kind of like reality as opposed to fantasy?...
|
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Nov 24, 2018 0:57:51 GMT
Good observations. I revised my choice of material today to using some of those 2' x 2' interlocking foam flooring squares. Much more lightweight than plywood and can be broken down into smaller pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 24, 2018 4:08:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Nov 26, 2018 8:10:59 GMT
I use a 4'x4' board for both my 20mm and 28mm armies. My 20mm armies based as 28mm. My battlefield is made up of 4 x 2'x2' boards. Very easy to stack away. Which I will have to do at Christmas  |
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Dec 27, 2018 2:00:20 GMT
I've been thinking more about this. My table is 29" x 72". I am hesitant to make the board 36" deep as it will have about 3.5" of overhang right in front of each of the players. This could lead to disasterous events during the games. Would this loss of depth be a big issue during play?
|
|
)
