|
|
Post by judebecker on Oct 18, 2019 14:47:33 GMT
I've got Carthaginians and Romans for 2nd Punic war based like this, mostly on 40 by 40mm. What would the effect be in DBA 3? I read that when recoiling a base depth this might create an issue. But, if all are based alike, it might be solvable. I've never liked the single rank DBx basing as it looks rather undermanned. Other ideas are to rebase on 80 by 40 and then double all distances in game. Or, rebase onto the 28mm 60mm wide bases and use 28mm distances.  |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 18, 2019 15:10:35 GMT
I've got Carthaginians and Romans for 2nd Punic war based like this, mostly on 40 by 40mm. What would the effect be in DBA 3? I read that when recoiling a base depth this might create an issue. But, if all are based alike, it might be solvable. I've never liked the single rank DBx basing as it looks rather undermanned. Other ideas are to rebase on 80 by 40 and then double all distances in game. Or, rebase onto the 28mm 60mm wide bases and use 28mm distances. Just use the recoil distance as written. This isn't that difficult for a non tournament game. You could either just estimate or actually measure it... depending on what is warranted. Deeper basing...and wider is great. Real men use double deep 80mm bases with 15s! Who says we all don't suffer from Meglomania! Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 14:40:36 GMT
Impetus based figs with 15mm would look fantastic for DBA..
|
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Oct 22, 2019 15:56:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 21:07:46 GMT
The fact that DBA 3.0 is all Base Width based, is great to scale to any size you like.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Oct 23, 2019 6:37:31 GMT
I've got Carthaginians and Romans for 2nd Punic war based like this, mostly on 40 by 40mm. What would the effect be in DBA 3? I read that when recoiling a base depth this might create an issue. But, if all are based alike, it might be solvable. I've never liked the single rank DBx basing as it looks rather undermanned. Yes, there will be some unintended consequences by mounting all your elements on 40x40 bases. For one, your games will end sooner, as there will be times when elements will be destroyed because they are unable to recoil. Games with players whose armies are conventionally based could be a little awkward at times. But I do agree with you when you say you don't like the visuals of single-ranked elements. My friend, Eric Donaldson and I stay within the allowed confines of the basing parameters but often (not always) add additional figures --if-- we find it enhances the visual effect. (Totally subjective, that, I know.) Here are two examples: First, my II/7 LAP Kardakes Spearmen (15mm Mikes Models).  I simply added one figure per base (40x20), but it gives the effect of two ranks. (And the banners end up nicely centered too.) Next, photo is of Eric Donaldson's II/19 Seleucid Pikemen, 15mm Essex. (Regulars on this site have seen this photo before, so my apologies.) It's gotta be the ultimate in basing heresies while still perfectly legal. There are (count 'em) 12 figures on each of those four, 40x20 "4Pk" bases. While some may disagree, I think THAT looks like a phalanx. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2019 8:34:02 GMT
Aww, look at those ickle Persians! They're soooo cute!  |
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Oct 23, 2019 12:41:48 GMT
As a manufacturer of 15mm figures, I fully support the use of the larger bases with more figures!
Bill Hupp
T&R Miniatures
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Oct 23, 2019 12:49:20 GMT
One of the complaints about playing DBA in our group (from one of our prolific painters) is that units look too small with 2 to 4 figures.
The easiest way to deal with this is to go to the doubkle size bases and as waa noted use the BW convention for measurement.
We have made magnetic bases that are 80 x 30, 80 x 40, 80 x 60 and 80 x80 and that allow 4 regular bases to be grouped together.
We have played a lot of big battle DBA and that is almost enough figures to go to 4 elements per 80mm bases and play 12 on 12 for a bit of a faster game.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 23, 2019 21:09:00 GMT
I've had an itch to do 6mm Baccus on double sized bases and boards. Very tempting. An 80x30 base could hold 96 hoplites! What's stopped me is the increased board size. I like 750x750 boards. But 1500x1500 is a bit cumbersome for DBA. May still do it along the 25mm base size convention.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 24, 2019 6:53:41 GMT
I've had an itch to do 6mm Baccus on double sized bases and boards. Very tempting. An 80x30 base could hold 96 hoplites! What's stopped me is the increased board size. I like 750x750 boards. But 1500x1500 is a bit cumbersome for DBA. May still do it along the 25mm base size convention. Cheers Jim works for me - see some of my recent photos from Bakewell on the FB DBA pages... P |
|
|
|
Post by judebecker on Oct 24, 2019 13:12:37 GMT
Much of this also depends on the figure size. I bet if Phil Barker had to rethink his standard DBx basing they would now be bigger to accommodate the scale creep over the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Oct 25, 2019 2:53:32 GMT
A problem with increasing base size to deal with miniature scale creep is that the manufacturers will just keep 'creeping.'
And insofar as I am concerned the way to deal with scale creep is to avoid buying figures from the manufacturers who practice it.
As to alternate base sizes, as long as one is providing both sides, use whatever base size suits.
I personally like the existing in part as it allows me to maximize the number of armies I can build and field in a reasonable amount of time.
|
|
