|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 11, 2022 21:07:57 GMT
So with the Thebans their strength is in their superior 2 x 8Sp, their 2 x Cav (slightly better than other Greeks) and their 3 xPs, better than many Greek armies. That is a solid battle line with better mounted and more BG troops than most of their enemies. So looking at historical enemies what should the terrain be?
The deployment area is (approx) 7BW wide, with 2 more either side for Cav/LH/Aux/Ps. So with 7 Sp elements holding a clear central area surely the Thebans should try and close down the flanks with BUA (edifice) or woods. Unless they are against Macedonians when they should maximise their manoeuvre space on at least one flank or the Galatians where BG would be a liability. So I’d go for an edifice, 2 medium woods and a road to cut down the options.
I think the historical enemy that would worry the Thebans most would be the Phokians with their Art as a lucky shot takes out the 8Sp. Them and the Thessalians who are always dangerous with their 4 Cav.
|
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 12, 2022 5:51:55 GMT
So with the Thebans their strength is in their superior 2 x 8Sp, their 2 x Cav (slightly better than other Greeks) and their 3 xPs, better than many Greek armies. That is a solid battle line with better mounted and more BG troops than most of their enemies. So looking at historical enemies what should the terrain be? The deployment area is (approx) 7BW wide, with 2 more either side for Cav/LH/Aux/Ps. So with 7 Sp elements holding a clear central area surely the Thebans should try and close down the flanks with BUA (edifice) or woods. Unless they are against Macedonians when they should maximise their manoeuvre space on at least one flank or the Galatians where BG would be a liability. So I’d go for an edifice, 2 medium woods and a road to cut down the options. I think the historical enemy that would worry the Thebans most would be the Phokians with their Art as a lucky shot takes out the 8Sp. Them and the Thessalians who are always dangerous with their 4 Cav. That's a very interesting and different take! Food for thought, again...  The Tournament I'm going to is all Book 2 armies, so I'll likely have opponents with even more diverse armies.
I get the feeling that using the terrain will be one of my greater challengens, which is ... refreshing!  |
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 17, 2022 14:48:04 GMT
So, the majority of the army has arrived and I have started work on the light troops. I will do these first to get a feel for the range and to get the colours down before going over to the Hoplites. Really impressed with the models, the detail is crisp and the poses and designs are really nice. But I have to say, drilling those tiny holes for the spears will not become my new favourite pastime, even though the result is VASTLY superior to the alternatives. Oh well . |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Apr 18, 2022 6:01:20 GMT
I have had a few holes in finger or thumb following a Xyston drilling session.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 19, 2022 8:04:06 GMT
Yeah! Lol Baldie….and then your phone doesn’t recognise your fingerprint for a week. I’ve been there!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2022 9:01:52 GMT
Oh....one more thing...here are some thoughts on basing. The old WRG rules from fifty years ago had the heavy foot (Sp/4Pk/4Bd/4Wb) on shallower bases. But what with ‘scale creep’ by modern figure makers, especially Xyston, DBA now allows heavy foot to be on bases with the same depth as Ax/Bows/3Wb/3Bd/Ps. Having almost all foot on bases ½ a base width deep does have certain advantages:- * It reduces ‘overhanging’, where weapons and limbs extend over the bases-edges, making nice neat frontal and rear contact difficult and messy. * It makes it easier to get four of the larger 18mm figures on a base. * It slightly helps them to stand upright on hills, but only slightly. * But its main advantage is that all foot will recoil the same distance, ½ a base width, preventing enemy overlaps when different base depths recoil different distances. Many (but not all) modern players prefer ½ base width deep bases for their foot elements, although those elements on double bases will still need to be deeper of course. So it’s entirely up to you.  |
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 19, 2022 17:58:27 GMT
Oh....one more thing...here are some thoughts on basing. The old WRG rules from fifty years ago had the heavy foot (Sp/4Pk/4Bd/4Wb) on shallower bases. But what with ‘scale creep’ by modern figure makers, especially Xyston, DBA now allows heavy foot to be on bases with the same depth as Ax/Bows/3Wb/3Bd/Ps. Having almost all foot on bases ½ a base width deep does have certain advantages:- * It reduces ‘overhanging’, where weapons and limbs extend over the bases-edges, making nice neat frontal and rear contact difficult and messy. * It makes it easier to get four of the larger 18mm figures on a base. * It slightly helps them to stand upright on hills, but only slightly. * But its main advantage is that all foot will recoil the same distance, ½ a base width, preventing enemy overlaps when different base depths recoil different distances. Many (but not all) modern players prefer ½ base width deep bases for their foot elements, although those elements on double bases will still need to be deeper of course. So it’s entirely up to you.  Yeah, I thought about that, but I actually like the slimmer look. Also, since this will be my first "real" DBA army, I want to make authentically Old School  . I am building some 28mm Nubians and ROmans, too, on 60mm frontage (not my decision, we used to play 80mm HotT where I live, but all the DBA armies are 60mm...). In that scale, I will most definitely NOT base Bd 20mm deep. That is not the look.
In other news, the light troops are already done and work has begun on the Hoplites. I'll try to get some pictures up, but I'm a little rusty on forum tech - I should probably upload them somewhere else and put a link here, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 19, 2022 18:32:00 GMT
Plus the narrower - and only true - depth is a better match for the 8Sp, which "have" to be on a 30mm deep base.
PS On the rare occasions I post photos, I generally put them on my club's Facebook page, which is public, and then put a link here.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 19, 2022 20:16:31 GMT
Stevie, can I correct you.
On page 5 of the rules it states “Players should keep as closely as possible to the minimum depths recommended. Larger alternatives are to accommodate figures based for other rule sets or over-large figures.”
Xyston DO fit on 15mm bases. All my Xyston HI fit on 15mm bases, as do Essex, Magister, Baeuda, Alternative, Naismith and many more. Indeed I have yet to find any 15mm or 18mm figures that do not fit on 15mm deep bases. So they should be placed on 15mm bases according to the rules. The ONLY justification for using 20mm bases is that the figures were based for a different rule system OR simply won’t fit on the smaller bases. If so try 16mm or 17mm etc….
If a player chooses to base HI on 20mm bases then they should be able to name the rule set they were based for or explain why they don’t fit on 15mm bases when others do. If the figures are for a DBA specific army then they should be based on 15mm. Otherwise the players are at least bending the rules if not breaking them!
A player that bases 4Bd or Sp etc. on 20mm bases for tactical convenience because the rest of his army is 4Bw or Ax or Ps and bases on 20mm bases should be questioned and awarded an asterisk on any result.
Rant over. Just my 2p! I don’t write the rules…..
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 19, 2022 21:17:59 GMT
Stevie, can I correct you. On page 5 of the rules it states “Players should keep as closely as possible to the minimum depths recommended. Larger alternatives are to accommodate figures based for other rule sets or over-large figures.” Xyston DO fit on 15mm bases. All my Xyston HI fit on 15mm bases, as do Essex, Magister, Baeuda, Alternative, Naismith and many more. Indeed I have yet to find any 15mm or 18mm figures that do not fit on 15mm deep bases. So they should be placed on 15mm bases according to the rules. The ONLY justification for using 20mm bases is that the figures were based for a different rule system OR simply won’t fit on the smaller bases. If so try 16mm or 17mm etc…. If a player chooses to base HI on 20mm bases then they should be able to name the rule set they were based for or explain why they don’t fit on 15mm bases when others do. If the figures are for a DBA specific army then they should be based on 15mm. Otherwise the players are at least bending the rules if not breaking them! A player that bases 4Bd or Sp etc. on 20mm bases for tactical convenience because the rest of his army is 4Bw or Ax or Ps and bases on 20mm bases should be questioned and awarded an asterisk on any result. Rant over. Just my 2p! I don’t write the rules….. Rant noted. Mine stay on 20mm. The depth of elements is unrelated to any reality in terms of space occupied by units historically, so it’s immaterial. …that’s my rant over 😶 |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 19, 2022 21:49:11 GMT
Oh....one more thing...here are some thoughts on basing. Many (but not all) modern players prefer ½ base width deep bases for their foot elements That’s a bold shout and I’d love to see your evidence base for this. I’m struggling to think of a single player I’ve met at a UK tournament who’s based their heavies on 20mm, instead of 15mm, depth bases… P |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Apr 19, 2022 22:18:49 GMT
Martin, If it’s immaterial - then why do it? (....sorry if I’m playing Devils advocate here!) Please come clean - what exactly are the pros and cons of 15mm basing vs 20mm basing?
…and why are the rules that we love so much so imprecise when it comes to something as simple as base sizes?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2022 22:28:53 GMT
Oh....one more thing...here are some thoughts on basing. Many (but not all) modern players prefer ½ base width deep bases for their foot elements That’s a bold shout and I’d love to see your evidence base for this. I’m struggling to think of a single player I’ve met at a UK tournament who’s based their heavies on 20mm, instead of 15mm, depth bases… Well, me and Martin are two for a start. I have great trouble getting my Xyston Polybian Legionaries on 15mm deep bases without ‘overhanging’ (I’m talking about the Principes that are throwing their Pila). Are we to base our elements depending on the pose of the figures, leading to an army of say 4Bd with some of them on 20mm deep bases while others are 15mm deep... ....recoiling different distances...all within the same army?! Much easier to keep things simple, and just have all heavy foot on 20mm deep bases. (If my opponent is completely anal about it I could always recoil my heavy foot 15mm...
...if more complexity and unnecessary fiddly micro-measuring is considered desirable)======================================================= As for posting pictures Skalde (see, I am trying to stay on topic ), I use imgbb.com/ which is free, using the ‘Direct Link’ option. And to display it here on Fanaticus the format is:- img src="https://i.ibb.co/tzHgwCf/Dalek-Army.jpg" style="max-width:50%;" inside square brackets. Since you have an interest in HoTT, here is an example:- See fanaticus.boards.net/post/38130/(Quote the above post to see the full picture display format) Note that my Dalek Blades are on 20mm bases, as they won’t fit on 15mm deep bases... ...and my War of the Worlds Martian Tripod Blades are on 40mm deep bases!, for obvious reasons. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/37165/ |
|
|
|
Post by skalde on Apr 20, 2022 3:12:05 GMT
As for posting pictures Skalde (see, I am trying to stay on topic  ), I use imgbb.com/ which is free, using the ‘Direct Link’ option. And to display it here on Fanaticus the format is:- img src="https://i.ibb.co/tzHgwCf/Dalek-Army.jpg" style="max-width:50%;" inside square brackets. I have never seen such focus! Thanks, that looks like a pretty nifty site! |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 20, 2022 7:12:39 GMT
Martin, If it’s immaterial - then why do it? (....sorry if I’m playing Devils advocate here!) Please come clean - what exactly are the pros and cons of 15mm basing vs 20mm basing? …and why are the rules that we love so much so imprecise when it comes to something as simple as base sizes? 20mm for all foot (bar hordes) means groups more often stay as groups after pushing and shoving. The 15mm to 20mm differential is an old leftover from ‘back in the day’, to keep ex-WRG 7th / DBM /DBMM all happy, and not require rebasing, which would have been accompaied my mass whinging. It serves no meaningful purpose in a set of rules like DBA where an element is 1/12 of an army with no specific size….an enormous mass of Achaemenids or a comparatively teeny ‘Great Army’ of norsemen. And why are the rules imprecise?…no idea, not a rules author. If anyone can come up with documentary evidence to ‘prove’ that an indeterminate number of hoplites draw up at lesser depth than an indeterminate number of Hypaspists, Agrianians, Thracian 4Ax or whatever I’ll award them the gold star for research. Another rant over…. (+ not enough hours in my life to argue issues like this, BTW. I’m too busy counting the rivets in my hoplite shield-rims, to check they’re not incorrect…..🙃). |
|
The Tournament I'm going to is all Book 2 armies, so I'll likely have opponents with even more diverse armies. 
. I am building some 28mm Nubians and ROmans, too, on 60mm frontage (not my decision, we used to play 80mm HotT where I live, but all the DBA armies are 60mm...). In that scale, I will most definitely NOT base Bd 20mm deep. That is not the look. 
), I use