Erik
Munifex
Posts: 12
|
Post by Erik on May 4, 2020 18:20:40 GMT
Hello everyone
Just recently started playing DBA and i have a question about deploymentzone. I use 28 mm miniatures mounted on 6x4 cm bases. The rules say, that (most) elements need to have at least 4 BW to the board sideedge. I play on a 36 board and that does not leave much space for my army.
Is this correct and do other people play with such a narrow deploymentzone. Ofcourse I could play on a larger board, but I would like to know if this is common for 28 mm. I think the rules argue a bit against using a larger table or at least say that should consider playing on the smaller one.
Cheers
Erik
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 4, 2020 18:45:36 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus Erik.  Actually, the Playing Area rules on page 2 say:- “The battlefield is square, with sides 600mm/24” to 800mm/32” for the smaller scale (i.e. 40mm bases), and 900mm/36” to 1200mm/48” square for the larger scale (i.e 60mm bases).” In other words, small tables are 15 BW square if using 40mm bases, and 20 BW square if using larger tables. Likewise, small tables are 15 BW square if using 60mm bases, and 20 BW square if using larger tables. So no matter what size bases you are using, smaller tables always give you 7 BW to deploy in, while ‘wing troops’ (i.e. LH-LCm, Cv-LCh, Cm, Ax, Ps, and Mtd-Inf) have 11 BW to deploy in. Many players, especially those with a mounted army, find this a bit cramped, so prefer to use the larger boards, where they have 12 BW to deploy in (and ‘wing troops’ have 16 BW of space). Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2020 FAQ: ancientwargaming.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/dba_faq_q1_2020_final.pdf |
|
Erik
Munifex
Posts: 12
|
Post by Erik on May 4, 2020 20:08:54 GMT
Hello Stevie
Thank you very much for your answer. Its nice to know I am not the only one i find the smaler table a bit cramed.
Erik
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on May 5, 2020 14:46:26 GMT
Welcome Erik, well it‘s not crammed, playing my „Late Swiss“-Army 🤣 cheers, Ronald
|
|
Erik
Munifex
Posts: 12
|
Post by Erik on May 5, 2020 19:39:49 GMT
I recon you only need 6 BW of deployment |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 6, 2020 6:27:50 GMT
Here is something you might like to consider Erik.
I have been suggesting for some time now that the invader gets to choose the table size.
This does not change any of the existing DBA rules...Phil Barker allows for larger tables,
but he neglects to inform us who it is that decides.
Defenders already have the right to choose the amount of terrain, its type, its size,
its shape, its orientation, and its placement within a quarter...and if all that isn't
enough they can even place a road to limit the invader's choice of table edge!
To allow defenders to also choose the table size is giving them far too much power.
Many mounted armies have high aggression. And mounted armies, what with their
high mobility and superior scouting abilities, would or should be able to pick what
type of battlefield to fight on, rather than blindly pick a fight on a densely packed
field of battle that is totally unsuitable for their troops.
Aggressive foot armies, often led by clever generals, would also benefit by choosing.
Alexander the Great might want a wide battlefield when he fights the Persians
so they can’t defend the entire stretch of river, or to spread them out so he can
concentrate his best troops against one wing buying time while the Persians have
to spend several bounds wheeling their opposite wing trying to get them into the
battle. Even Ronisan’s highly aggressive Swiss would benefit from having a wide
battlefield that spreads out the bad going terrain, leaving lots of good going areas
for his pikemen.
So let invaders choose the table size, while the defenders choose the terrain...
...it makes a better, more play-balanced and more realistic game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 6, 2020 7:32:21 GMT
Will def try this with some club games.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 6, 2020 9:13:12 GMT
Yeah that's a good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 6, 2020 21:06:21 GMT
We play almost exclusively in 28mm and use 4'X4' tables. Works great and you have room to deploy. (Most game clubs have 6X4 tables so this leaves a couple of feet for dead piles, Barker Markers, beers etc.)
Even in 15mm on a 2X2 deployment is too tight to get your a Heavy Foot army in line of battle.
We base all Fast Foot on 60X30 and all other Foot on 60X20. Fast Mounted on 60X50 others on 60X45 (Hordes go on Mounted bases).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on May 7, 2020 9:11:19 GMT
Many mounted armies have high aggression. And mounted armies, what with their high mobility and superior scouting abilities, would or should be able to pick what type of battlefield to fight on, rather than blindly pick a fight on a densely packed field of battle that is totally unsuitable for their troops. Aggressive foot armies, often led by clever generals, would also benefit by choosing. Alexander the Great might want a wide battlefield when he fights the Persians so they can’t defend the entire stretch of river, or to spread them out so he can concentrate his best troops against one wing buying time while the Persians have to spend several bounds wheeling their opposite wing trying to get them into the battle. Even Ronisan’s highly aggressive Swiss would benefit from having a wide battlefield that spreads out the bad going terrain, leaving lots of good going areas for his pikemen. Not sure I agree with this. Hastings, Agincourt, Poitiers, Crecy. Bannockburn all heavily mounted armies against mostly foot armies all fought on terrain suitable to the defender. Granicus - position chosen by the Persians Bicocca - Swiss demanded to attack an earthwork fortified sunken road! Yes it may make sense for your largely mounted army to choose a nice wide open plain to fight on, but history shows this isn't always an option. In fact you could argue that it is the invader who is usually the one seeking to force a battle, therefore they have to accept the position where the defender chooses to make a stand. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 7, 2020 11:06:46 GMT
I think you may be missing the main point Sheffmark. I am talking about aggression....not the composition of the army. Many mounted armies in DBA have high aggression... Many good going only armies (Mounted, Spears, Pikes, and the like) have high aggression... And of course some mounted armies (such as the Persians and Parthians) have low aggression. High aggression armies, whatever their composition, should have some sort of control over where they give battle, especially as they are likely to be the invaders and can choose exactly where they wish to invade a neighbouring country. They should not be forced to bang their heads against a brick wall by trying to fight in an area that is totally unsuitable for their troops...especially clever aggressive generals like Alexander. As for “In fact you could argue that it is the invader who is usually the one seeking to force a battle, therefore they have to accept the position where the defender chooses to make a stand.” I completely disagree. Put yourself in the shoes of an ancient commander. Would an invading ancient general commanding a good going army (Mounted, Spears, Pikes, and the like) deliberately throw his men onto a field of battle that was totally unsuitable? Only the stupid ones would! The clever ones would simply head north or south to threaten a nearby city a day or two’s march away, or go around the defenders to cut off their lines of supply, in both cases forcing the defenders to move thereby drawing them out of their entrenched position. Most countries have variable regions, some densely packed with terrain, and some regions that are more open. So why would a Pike/Spear/Mounted good going army chose to invade the region that knackers themselves? Wouldn’t they choose to invade the more open regions instead? Isn’t it part of a general’s job to pick the best ground for his men? (Unless all countries being invaded are like Mordor, where there is only one way in or out!)  Defenders will still choose and place all the terrain (as at Hastings)...but the invader can at least have some control over whether the battlefield is to be small and cramped, or if it will be more open and dispersed, and therefore more suitable for their forces. |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 7, 2020 11:46:02 GMT
May 7, 2020 12:06:46 GMT 1 stevie said:
Would an invading ancient general commanding a good going army (Mounted, Spears, Pikes, and the like)
deliberately throw his men onto a field of battle that was totally unsuitable? Only the stupid ones would!
Baldie Said
I assure you I have no fear of doing this at all
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 7, 2020 12:24:34 GMT
May 7, 2020 12:06:46 GMT 1 stevie said: Would an invading ancient general commanding a good going army (Mounted, Spears, Pikes, and the like) deliberately throw his men onto a field of battle that was totally unsuitable? Only the stupid ones would! Baldie Said I assure you I have no fear of doing this at all And we all know that history is littered with such generals |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 7, 2020 12:37:58 GMT
So as the invader, just pick a small cramped table smothered by the defender with bad going terrain... ...and your wishes will be fulfilled. But don’t deny the clever ancient generals their ability to shine...  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 8, 2020 0:59:56 GMT
We play almost exclusively in 28mm and use 4'X4' tables. Works great and you have room to deploy. (Most game clubs have 6X4 tables so this leaves a couple of feet for dead piles, Barker Markers, beers etc.) Even in 15mm on a 2X2 deployment is too tight to get your a Heavy Foot army in line of battle. We base all Fast Foot on 60X30 and all other Foot on 60X20. Fast Mounted on 60X50 others on 60X45 (Hordes go on Mounted bases). TomT Tom
Why do you differentiate between Fast Mounted on 50mm base depth and Other Mounted on 45mm depth? Recoils? Something else?
Cheers
|
|
