|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 18, 2021 21:20:25 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. Oh be fair Baldie... ...some people actually have lives to live, instead of scanning the Fanaticus site every day. (and I must be one of the worst offenders!  ...I blame it on boredom cos of Covid...) |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 18, 2021 22:06:17 GMT
I for one am def addicted to the forums I am def going to cut down
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 18, 2021 22:06:32 GMT
Probably from tomorrow
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 18, 2021 22:06:44 GMT
Sat?
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Feb 19, 2021 14:41:17 GMT
Everyone knows what you're really doing Baldie, increasing the number of posts just to get to 'Emperor' status!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 19, 2021 16:47:18 GMT
Correct, next statement!
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Feb 20, 2021 2:19:11 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 I'd have liked to make base depths 30mm for most elements (cavalry and infantry), as it provides that little bit extra room for a 2nd rank of foot figures (especially firing crossbowmen or figures in very attacking poses), but...
You run into problems with elements that can have rear support, such as Wb, Pk, 8-this-or-that. Because when the depth of those deeper formations exceeds the 40mm frontage it causes problems when flanked and there isn't enough space out of that 40mm frontage to use as 40mm depth when rear-supported flanked elements turn to face.
In AdG, you can have Pk on a 40mm deep element, in 3 ranks. This represents a pike unit. DBA still has Pk needing multiple bases one behind the other to represent the full-strength pike block. If DBA rules were modified so that Pk were a single element 40mm deep with figures in 3 ranks, this would be an improvement IMO. Same for Warband, etc. But how to do this is the problem, and as yet has never been resolved. (It requires changing army lists too.)
A compromise could be to mount all the non rear-supported elements 30mm deep. (This would be a boon to Cb units because there would be more room to have 2 ranks firing with my suggested basing system). Pk, Wb, etc would stay on 20mm deep bases so that when they're 2 elements deep in rear-support their combined depth doesn't exceed their frontage. But this then looks a bit weird when they line up without rear support, suddenly being on shallower depth bases than other troop type elements.
So for now, I'm keeping all foot on 20mm deep bases.
|
|
|
|
Post by macsenwledig on Mar 10, 2021 19:41:38 GMT
I've been pondering such things too. I am on 40 x 20 for all foot and 40 x 30 for cav
also gone for 10mm so can get 2 lines of figures on the infantry bases
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Mar 10, 2021 23:39:41 GMT
I've been pondering such things too. I am on 40 x 20 for all foot and 40 x 30 for cav also gone for 10mm so can get 2 lines of figures on the infantry bases You can't go wrong with 10mm, except for availability of figures for some armies. I'm sticking with 15mm for now, and choosing figures that I know will rank up OK on a 20mm deep base.
|
|
|
|
Post by macsenwledig on Mar 11, 2021 12:45:12 GMT
yeah availability can be an issue in 10mm although for Dark Ages Britain its relatively well serviced
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Hollin on Jan 9, 2023 20:13:43 GMT
60x30mm?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jan 9, 2023 21:13:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jan 10, 2023 8:13:56 GMT
|
|
...I blame it on boredom cos of Covid...)
