|
|
Post by sicadi on Jun 12, 2019 12:31:21 GMT
Hello everyone
I returned to DBA around 18 months ago and reckon I must have played 200+ games (including 6 competitions)
I certainly have not played against any double based elements (not even aware they have been used in any of the competitions) and have only used them myself with my Communal Italians (8 Cb). I raised this point earlier this year in an other thread that this seems to be an anomaly. The problem appears to be the penalty for losing a double based element in too risky and therefore they just don’t get used. I believe this is down to play balance. Why use an 8 Cb when you get a + 1 vs other foot, but lose the equivalent of 2 elements if it’s lost? Less risky so let’s go with a 4Cb instead.
Using the Communal Italians I found them quite unwieldy due to the bigger base size and would imagine this gets worse for 6 Cv and 6 Kn.
I think a possible solution to get folks using these guys would be to put them in with El, Hd etc for movement, ie +1 PIP
Possibly this gives a better play balance to offset the small combat bonus against certain troop types
Interested if anyone has thoughts?
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 12, 2019 12:56:17 GMT
Hello everyone I returned to DBA around 18 months ago and reckon I must have played 200+ games (including 6 competitions) I certainly have not played against any double based elements (not even aware they have been used in any of the competitions) and have only used them myself with my Communal Italians (8 Cb). I raised this point earlier this year in an other thread that this seems to be an anomaly. The problem appears to be the penalty for losing a double based element in too risky and therefore they just don’t get used. I believe this is down to play balance. Why use an 8 Cb when you get a + 1 vs other foot, but lose the equivalent of 2 elements if it’s lost? Less risky so let’s go with a 4Cb instead. Using the Communal Italians I found them quite unwieldy due to the bigger base size and would imagine this gets worse for 6 Cv and 6 Kn. I think a possible solution to get folks using these guys would be to put them in with El, Hd etc for movement, ie +1 PIP Possibly this gives a better play balance to offset the small combat bonus against certain troop types Interested if anyone has thoughts? Craig I don't have a problem with them in DBA 3.0 and we do use them in our groups/tournaments. They do need to stay away from Artillery fire and concentrated Bw fire, however, as they die just as easily as a regular Bw. I'm glad that in DBA 3.0 they behave differently than in 2.2 when they just were just deep Bw units, that could stick their nose out of BG further. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 12, 2019 12:58:33 GMT
Persian Sparabara (8Bw) were about 10 ranks deep - about half the depth of a Roman blade. Why should they be so unwieldy?
I have never been a fan of the DBE meme. It should reflect particularly deep formations (eg Thebans at Leuctra), hence the double loss count for the first one, and difficulty maneuvering. I can't see how a DBE is a decent model for a combined arms formation like 8Cb is supposed to represent.
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Jun 12, 2019 14:25:16 GMT
Persian Sparabara (8Bw) were about 10 ranks deep - about half the depth of a Roman blade. Why should they be so unwieldy? I have never been a fan of the DBE meme. It should reflect particularly deep formations (eg Thebans at Leuctra), hence the double loss count for the first one, and difficulty maneuvering. I can't see how a DBE is a decent model for a combined arms formation like 8Cb is supposed to represent. I think you make an excellent point and I agree with you. Craig |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Jun 12, 2019 19:52:47 GMT
Why use an 8 Cb when you get a + 1 vs other foot, but lose the equivalent of 2 elements if it’s lost? Easy -- 'cause they just look so darn cool.  Eric Donaldson's Communal Italians shown above. You're not alone in seeing the dilemma of the risk in using them, however. Many long threads already on this very topic. Stevie, a regular contributor on this site, does have a suggested remedy for 8Bw / 8Cb / 8Lb elements you may want to try: Simply give them an add'l +1 in CC against Sp, Bd and supported Pk, unless in BG. Helps offset their dear cost if lost. |
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Jun 12, 2019 20:46:34 GMT
Why use an 8 Cb when you get a + 1 vs other foot, but lose the equivalent of 2 elements if it’s lost? Easy -- 'cause they just look so darn cool. Eric Donaldson's Communal Italians shown above. You're not alone in seeing the dilemma of the risk in using them, however. Many long threads already on this very topic. Stevie, a regular contributor on this site, does have a suggested remedy for 8Bw / 8Cb / 8Lb elements you may want to try: Simply give them an add'l +1 in CC against Sp, Bd and supported Pk, unless in BG. Helps offset their dear cost if lost. I couldn’t agree more that they look so good and that’s why I painted my own as 8 Cb not 4Cb I have figures to do a Maurikian Byzantine and I can assure you they will be 6 Cv. Just a shame they seem to suffer more for looking good than they gain. I guess I was just trying to stick up for the small guys (or big in this case) Craig |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jun 12, 2019 21:07:11 GMT
Next Bakewell matched pairs I am def bringing Sparta and EAP I cant do worse than usual.
They do indeed look fab.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jun 12, 2019 21:28:08 GMT
They look outstanding, provide some variety and generally model aspects of the troop types they represent. But I am known to use troops because they look challenging, unusual or add variety and effectiveness come a distant second place.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Jun 12, 2019 23:00:46 GMT
...effectiveness comes a distant second place. Yep, I very much agree. Given a choice between 8Bw or 4Bw, I'll paint and field the former almost every time, despite the particularly woeful performance of my Neo-Babs recently. (Grins.)  |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jun 12, 2019 23:42:01 GMT
Given a choice between 8Bw or 4Bw, I'll paint and field the former almost every time, despite the particularly woeful performance of my Neo-Babs recently. (Grins.) We played a couple of games from the Sengoku Jidai period over the last couple of weeks. Trying to determine if I should use a command post or a 6Cv general is always a difficult choice from the modelling perspective. The other cavalry stand just has to be a 6Cv because it looks so good! My opponent always uses 6Cv and if he was to suffer a loss of his general it would count as three. But it doesn’t matter as we can start the next game sooner! |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 13, 2019 0:39:27 GMT
Paul:
Lovely!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 13, 2019 1:45:02 GMT
If the look is what one is after, I can see double basing ALL HI foot elements. 6-7 figures on a 30mm stand would look choice for a hoplite spear phalanx, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Jun 13, 2019 5:02:26 GMT
Perhaps there is the need of a new element to replace the DBE with for the 'combined arms' troops?
As with HD an option for a 30 or 40mm deep base and with combat factors of +3 against foot and +3 against mounted due to the mix of pole arms and bow/crossbow. Same range for distant combat as other bow units and the +1 modifier in close combat for side support from BD or SP.
A bit weaker against mounted, but not counting as a 'extra' element when the first one is lost.
But then there is the T'ang CB element troops which the army list notes were equipped with both halberds and crossbows. While the army list recommends using a mix of halberd and crossbow armed figures for the element, they are still just considered a CB unit in combat. Would seem to be another case for a better combat factor against foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jun 13, 2019 11:41:44 GMT
Perhaps there is the need of a new element to replace the DBE with for the 'combined arms' troops? As with HD an option for a 30 or 40mm deep base and with combat factors of +3 against foot and +3 against mounted due to the mix of pole arms and bow/crossbow. Same range for distant combat as other bow units and the +1 modifier in close combat for side support from BD or SP. A bit weaker against mounted, but not counting as a 'extra' element when the first one is lost. But then there is the T'ang CB element troops which the army list notes were equipped with both halberds and crossbows. While the army list recommends using a mix of halberd and crossbow armed figures for the element, they are still just considered a CB unit in combat. Would seem to be another case for a better combat factor against foot. We could even call them "Pavisiers"!
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 13, 2019 21:20:44 GMT
Perhaps there is the need of a new element to replace the DBE with for the 'combined arms' troops? As with HD an option for a 30 or 40mm deep base and with combat factors of +3 against foot and +3 against mounted due to the mix of pole arms and bow/crossbow. Same range for distant combat as other bow units and the +1 modifier in close combat for side support from BD or SP. A bit weaker against mounted, but not counting as a 'extra' element when the first one is lost. But then there is the T'ang CB element troops which the army list notes were equipped with both halberds and crossbows. While the army list recommends using a mix of halberd and crossbow armed figures for the element, they are still just considered a CB unit in combat. Would seem to be another case for a better combat factor against foot. We could even call them "Pavisiers"!
...and call the new rules “3.0 +”....😊 |
|
