|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 2, 2020 8:43:33 GMT
Having fallen in love with the visual appeal of Big Base DBA (15mm or smaller figures on 80mm wide, deeper bases) and Hybrid DBA (15mm or smaller figures on 60mm wide, deeper bases) to make 'elements' look more like 'units', especially infantry, I wondered if a similar thing could be done with standard 40mm wide DBA elements to keep the original table size.
Part of the appeal of DBA for me is the elegant minimalist design: 2 armies and terrain on a 2ft board. Hybrid DBA requires 50% more space, so a 3ft square board, and Big Base DBA requires 100% more space, so a 4ft square board. The chief beneficiary of the larger bases is infantry, suddenly resembling actual units as soon as they're in 2 ranks, and proportionately looking much better alongside cavalry bases that otherwise disproportionately dominate the standard sized DBA battlefield. What if the base widths remained the same (40mm) but infantry bases other than Ps or Hd became 30mm deep, in line with cavalry bases? Ps could stay at 20mm, and Hd could be 40mm deep. Hoplites and legionaries would be 2 ranks of figures, on 1 30mm deep base. Rear supported Wb and Pk would be 4 ranks of figures, on 2 30mm deep bases.
Solid foot would have 8 figs per base in 2 ranks. Fast foot would have 6 figs per base in 2 ranks. Mounted would remain unchanged, ranging from 2LH to 3Cv and 4Kn on the same size base as most infantry.
Most foot would now recoil the same distance as most mounted. The table size remains the same, because the great majority of infantry bases are no deeper than standard cavalry bases.
Are there any concerning issues with this in gameplay? (If not, it seems very appealing.)
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 2, 2020 9:38:58 GMT
The different base depths helps break up the battleline during melee, which would be less of a concern with uniform base depths. That's why I keep heavy infantry on 15mm bases. I think it adds to the game even if the elements are a little unstable over terrain. It's also why I am seriously tempted with 6mm in order to get the unit look you describe!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 2, 2020 9:48:46 GMT
Perhaps one could argue that the battlelines don't need that much added 'artificial' help to break them up. This might leave an extra PIP or 2 for other things...
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Nov 2, 2020 10:48:51 GMT
...wargaming does not need to be simple. DBA has in every version another tactic layout, sometime inspired by DBM(M). There are also certain usersusing their own basingsTriumph has other useful ideas...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 2, 2020 11:45:01 GMT
I also note that DBN and DBA-HX use almost identical basing to what I just suggested. Seems to work just fine for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Nov 2, 2020 12:01:10 GMT
In response to your suggestion that Ps stay at 20mm, I actually have it the other way round in my 6mm setup. Most foot on a 40x20mm base and cavalry on a 40x30mm base, but Ps also on the 30 deep base. For two reasons, it gives more space to do a loose formation unit (Bd are 24 figures on a 40x20 and Ps is 8 figures on the 40x30) but also in the context of the period I'm playing, Punic wars, the Velites units were the same size as the main body units. So how can they be the same amount of men in the same space and be a looser formation? So it makes sense to me for Ps to be on a deeper base. They're the loosest formation troops in the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 2, 2020 12:12:00 GMT
In response to your suggestion that Ps stay at 20mm, I actually have it the other way round in my 6mm setup. Most foot on a 40x20mm base and cavalry on a 40x30mm base, but Ps also on the 30 deep base. For two reasons, it gives more space to do a loose formation unit (Bd are 24 figures on a 40x20 and Ps is 8 figures on the 40x30) but also in the context of the period I'm playing, Punic wars, the Velites units were the same size as the main body units. So how can they be the same amount of men in the same space and be a looser formation? So it makes sense to me for Ps to be on a deeper base. They're the loosest formation troops in the game. I approached it from the point of view that there's much fewer of them (Ps), and if Ps were allowed to rear support other troops they might look better as 2 figures on the standard 20mm base behind (or in front for that matter) a proper formation of soldiers in far greater numbers (on a base physically requiring a little extra depth). I see Ps more as a thin mist in front of (or behind) a solid block of men. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 2, 2020 17:13:11 GMT
Age of Hannibal (ancient version of DBx derivative Fantasy Rules!) uses square bases. I prefer the thinner bases of DBA but you can certainly cram more into em.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Nov 2, 2020 21:01:12 GMT
But in reality it was more than a thin mist. The Republican Romans had a row of 1200 hastati per Legion and the same number of Velites, if they're looser formation than the hastati then they're going to be at least double the depth of their formation or more (probably at least three times as deep). Maybe it's different in other time periods but at least in the Republican Roman period the Ps were not at all close to a 'thin mist'
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 2, 2020 23:11:08 GMT
Yes, you're quite right. There's mists and then there's clouds.  Different situations for skirmishers in different theatres and periods. I'm coming around to the idea of Ps being on the same depth as most others, so the recoils are the same. It would also enable a 3rd skirmisher figure on the base, half that of most 'fast' foot.
Of course, if you *can* squeeze an extra rank of infantry figures onto 'standard' 20mm deep bases, then nothing really changes re gameplay and 'job done'. Will depend on the figure manufacturer though, as there's a big difference in room between 20mm and 30mm depth. And it will also be particularly problematic with solid archers, especially crossbowmen, in 2 ranks on 20mm depth because of their alignment. So this is why 30mm was recommended.  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 3, 2020 23:13:36 GMT
Another option is to have most solid foot on 25mm deep bases, and all fast foot on 30mm deep bases, much like DBN.
|
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Jan 5, 2021 13:09:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jan 6, 2021 7:47:49 GMT
Actually, I've come up with what looks like a winning formula: All base sizes as per rules, with 20mm deep bases employed rather than the 15mm depth option. Mounted troops: unchanged, except cataphracts can be 3 to a base, packed closely, whereas other knights and cavalry are arranged with a little more space in between. Infantry: Fast foot: 4-5 figs/base in loose formation, checker-boarded; 4 figs if Fast Bw; 5 figs if Fast Pk; 4-5 figs if Fast Wb/Ax/Bd. Solid foot: 6-8 figs/base. Solid Sp, Pk, Bd, Ax, Wb in 2 ranks, in even or uneven ranks depending on type. Solid Bow: 6 figs in 2 ranks. Hd: 10+ figs, on 30-40mm deep bases as desired.
Double-elements: comprised from the above.
Ps and everything else: unchanged.
This system provides a balanced look between the different elements as an overall relationship.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 18, 2021 18:14:13 GMT
Depth of base is a left over from WRG1-7. Battlelines should not in fact break up due to artificial base depths. It is a weakness not a strength of DBX. Troops would tend to fall back on formed troops to the rear and align with them.
Your suggestions are good though raise the figure count.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 18, 2021 19:42:30 GMT
Depth of base is a left over from WRG1-7. Battlelines should not in fact break up due to artificial base depths. It is a weakness not a strength of DBX. Troops would tend to fall back on formed troops to the rear and align with them. Your suggestions are good though raise the figure count. TomT Blimey you just woke from a long slumber? Reply to every post on the forum. |
|
Different situations for skirmishers in different theatres and periods.
