|
|
Post by hoffmannsama on May 8, 2022 2:02:32 GMT
TLDR VERSION:
6Bd are counted as a FAST element in DBA, which I didn't know prior to posting this. Being a FAST element, kills the idea. It was suggested by another member that you could still stagger the infantry on a normal 4Bd, to achieve similar results. Although, if interested in a different take on the DBA army list for Polybian Romans there is the revised list below.After watching Tony's Hannibal battles, I couldn't help thinking how badly the Romans are depicted in DBA. I'm really not a Roman army fan, I like the fall of the west era armies, but never been a real Roman fanatic. None the less, looking at a Roman army that looked nothing like a Roman army on the DBA field made me wanna try out an idea that I've had for awhile. Instead of Roman Hastati and Principes being separate elements, they are grouped as one element of 6Bd. Very few units in DBA are 6Bd, so I think adding some more not only fits nicely into the rules, but also adds more flavor to Roman armies. A element of 6Bd of hastati and principes could be arranged like below on a 40mmx40mm base. H= hastati P= principes Polybian Roman army list would look this: 1 x General Cv 1 x Allied Cavalry Cv 3 x Hastati and Principes 4Bd(was 6Bd before discussion of rules) 1 x Triarii Sp 3 x Socii Infantry 3/4Ax or Sp 1 x Socii Sp 1 x Velites Ps 1 x Socii Skirmishers Ps You could have a Roman army more similar to the one in the DBA book for Scipio at Zama, but with the revised one, not only do models on the bases look more like the traditional Roman formation, but at a 6 in combat against infantry, they are the human battering rams that they were. 3/4Wb are at a higher risk when up against a Roman 6Bd (Victory = 8% of rolls/ Destroyed = 25% of rolls), but if the 3/4Wb increase their depth to 2 elements, they have the advantage with dice rolls (Victory = 16.6% of rolls/ Destroyed = 11.1% of rolls) If I can get the images to display, I'll post a few pictures of the maniples I painted up. My cinematography skills are just as bad as my painting skills.    
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 8, 2022 6:42:59 GMT
...the idea is not bad, but the strength of a Roman army was its superior generals and the supplies...
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 8, 2022 11:02:37 GMT
I think that if you asked that question of any contemporaneous Successor army the answer would be a resounding NO! The Macedonians, Selucids, Ptolemaics and Pergamonese all reject the idea of Roman Bd with an extra +1 in Combat with extreme predjudice   Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 8, 2022 14:24:39 GMT
I like your outside the box thinking. I think that it would look better with 4 figures across instead of three and staggered as you have it. Also a 6Bd is a FAST element so I don't think that is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoffmannsama on May 9, 2022 20:15:30 GMT
I like your outside the box thinking. I think that it would look better with 4 figures across instead of three and staggered as you have it. Also a 6Bd is a FAST element so I don't think that is appropriate. Why don't you think "FAST" suites the Roman maniples? Seemed like their formations traversed "ROUGH GOING" better than other "SOLID" element armies did. |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 10, 2022 2:54:11 GMT
I like your outside the box thinking. I think that it would look better with 4 figures across instead of three and staggered as you have it. Also a 6Bd is a FAST element so I don't think that is appropriate. Why don't you think "FAST" suites the Roman maniples? Seemed like their formations traversed "ROUGH GOING" better than other "SOLID" element armies did. Not appropriate especially if they could outdistance Roman Solid Auxilia. |
|
eg407
Beneficiarii
Posts: 92
|
Post by eg407 on May 10, 2022 10:05:04 GMT
That's a fun idea. But one tweak, that takes us outside of the rules as written, but would work in home games is making the 8Bd. We already have an 8Bw element. So why not 8Bd. It would be solid, but also have the +1 etc. It could be modeled with two ranks of 2 figure for each line. So you get the square manipular chess board look that seems to be the standard reading of the formation. It would also allow distinction with the point mentioned in another thread of making the slave gladiators in Sparticus' slave army 6Bd. This would give the slaves a difference, but also keep them more brittle.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 11, 2022 5:49:00 GMT
The positioning of figures does have a certain appeal.
However, the +1 for support in combat would apply against enemy foot, not mounted.
I am not so sure Fortuna would enjoy the flood of prayers for an ‘equal score or better”
when facing Seleucid cataphract.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 11, 2022 9:20:53 GMT
Hmmm...if it’s just the visual appearance that concerns us, then here’s a thought. Simply have the 4Bd on 20mm deep bases (or even 25 or 30mm deep if necessary), like this:- | ●●| ●●| ●●| ●●| ← Principes |○○ | ○○ | ○○ | ○○ | ← Hastati Or alternatively have each individual figure staggered, like this:- | ● ●| ● ●| ● ●| ● ●| ← Principes |○ ○ | ○ ○ | ○ ○ | ○ ○ | ← Hastati Although I must confess that I don’t really like the look, and would much prefer:- |●●●●|●●●●|●●●●|●●●●| ← Principes |○○○○|○○○○|○○○○|○○○○| ← Hastati (The gaps between the Maniples are there, they are just not shown at the DBA scale) These may ‘ look’ like double-bases, but they are not. They are merely ordinary 4Bd with a purely decorative 2 nd rank. Foot still recoil and pursue ½ a BW, no matter how deep they are. So there is no need to turn Romans into super double-based elements, distorting the playbalance with an extra +1 and the victory conditions. As I’m a devoted follower of Paulhannah’s ‘basing heresies’ (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/35568/ ), here is an example where I’ve used two conventional 20mm deep foot bases on single 40mm deep stands:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/40902/ . |
|
|
|
Post by hoffmannsama on May 15, 2022 21:59:30 GMT
Hmmm...if it’s just the visual appearance that concerns us, then here’s a thought. Simply have the 4Bd on 20mm deep bases (or even 25 or 30mm deep if necessary), like this:- | ●●| ●●| ●●| ●●| ← Principes |○○ | ○○ | ○○ | ○○ | ← Hastati Or alternatively have each individual figure staggered, like this:- | ● ●| ● ●| ● ●| ● ●| ← Principes |○ ○ | ○ ○ | ○ ○ | ○ ○ | ← Hastati Although I must confess that I don’t really like the look, and would much prefer:- |●●●●|●●●●|●●●●|●●●●| ← Principes |○○○○|○○○○|○○○○|○○○○| ← Hastati (The gaps between the Maniples are there, they are just not shown at the DBA scale) These may ‘ look’ like double-bases, but they are not. They are merely ordinary 4Bd with a purely decorative 2 nd rank. Foot still recoil and pursue ½ a BW, no matter how deep they are. So there is no need to turn Romans into super double-based elements, distorting the playbalance with an extra +1 and the victory conditions. As I’m a devoted follower of Paulhannah’s ‘basing heresies’ (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/35568/ ), here is an example where I’ve used two conventional 20mm deep foot bases on single 40mm deep stands:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/40902/ . I thought about the two depictions above, but was leaning towards the 6Bd, before I knew they were FAST(would three 6bd really distort the play balance?). Like Tony pointed out, 6Bd are just too fast, being a fast element. I still think the DBA Polybian Roman army could be fixed up a little better, even if the hastati and principes remain 4Bd (and they probably should). I like the decorative route too, especially the pikes in the first link. Phalanx pikes are another one of those units, like the maniple and the Theban army list, that can keep me up late at night thinking about DBA. Double base DBA also looks cool, but I don't care much for painting, I like DBA's weird short rules more than painting the minis. Thanks for the feedback on the idea, only if I knew they were FAST before I posted all of this. Sometimes I'm looking where I think a rule to be, but it is somewhere else entirely. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2022 23:06:07 GMT
It always seemed to me that Polybian Romans were a "prototype" army for PB, with a line of heavy infantry (Hastatii/Principes mixed together), a reserve of Triarii and flanks covered by lights and cavalry. Separating Hastatii and Principes seemed too granular for the DBA-level that the general represents. But there is an answer. 6mm figures! You could easily make the chequerboard with these and they don't take that long to paint, once you realise that no one is going to see any detail from arms length.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on May 16, 2022 7:33:38 GMT
It always seemed to me that Polybian Romans were a "prototype" army for PB, with a line of heavy infantry (Hastatii/Principes mixed together), a reserve of Triarii and flanks covered by lights and cavalry. Separating Hastatii and Principes seemed too granular for the DBA-level that the general represents. But there is an answer. 6mm figures! You could easily make the chequerboard with these and they don't take that long to paint, once you realise that no one is going to see any detail from arms length. Cheers Jim Spot on - the line relief part is all included within the base, in my perception of DBA. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 24, 2022 18:17:21 GMT
Double basing is a mess so to be avoided.
It survived only becuase of legacy armies.
How to fix Romans:
Give them Lethal (+1 on a winning score) to represent effects of HTW and close combat skills. My son suggested then removing Cry Havoc v. Knights as compensation.
Also considered giving them Cry Havoc (Destroy opponent on Equals) v. Pike to represent close in fighting skills in a sustained melee v. Pike but probably to big a pop v. Pike. Also pondering Joe Collins suggestion that its Pike that should get Drive Off (Recoil opponents on Equals) and this would conflict.
As to mobility you want the Aux to feel more nimble than the Legionaries or else you have eliminated the varied tactical uses.
But stay away from anything that uses double basing.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
