|
|
Post by vodnik on Nov 18, 2016 8:34:31 GMT
…a few German gamers had a discussion about later German lists. The idea was to replace the old lists: II/65-67, II/70-73 und III/2 by a new Later German list. The gamers were DBM players in 2008. But they did recognise that this would panic Phil Barker. If you compare the numbers of Anglo-Saxon gamers with the small group in Germany…we are in 2016 playing DBA or DBMM but the lists of the German tribes are still the same…
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Nov 18, 2016 9:13:01 GMT
…a few German gamers had a discussion about later German lists. The idea was to replace the old lists: II/65-67, II/70-73 und III/2 by a new Later German list. The gamers were DBM players in 2008. But they did recognise that this would panic Phil Barker. If you compare the numbers of Anglo-Saxon gamers with the small group in Germany…we are in 2016 playing DBA or DBMM but the lists of the German tribes are still the same… What were they suggesting needed replacing?
Most of the lists mentioned have a solid core of warband supported by a mounted elite (Cv/3Kn) and archers (Ps). After the establishment of kingdoms during the late 5th early 6th century do we find the aggressive warrior (4Wb) replaced by farmers/militia armed with spear (4Sp).
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Nov 18, 2016 11:07:01 GMT
…the later German army list without any troop proportions with point costs for DBM:
Cavalry - all Irr Kn (F) @ 9AP or all Irr Cv (O) @ 7AP
Foot warriors - Up to ¼ Irr Wb (S) @ 5 AP, remainder Irr Wb (O) @ 3AP
Skirmishers - Up to ¼ Irr Ps (S) @ 3AP, up to ¾ Irr Ps (I) @ 1AP, remainder Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP or Irr Bw (I) @ 3AP
Plashing or abatis within wood - TF @ 2AP
Boats - Irr Bts (O) @ 2AP [Wb, Ps, Bw] or Irr Bts (S) @ 3AP [Wb, Ps]
Camp - Irr Bge (O) @ 2AP, or loaded wagons or flocks and herds - Irr Bge (I) @ 1AP 0-2 per general
Wagon laager to protect camp - TF @ 1AP 0, or 1-2 per Bge (O)
Cv can always dismount as Wb (S). Ps (S) can support Cv.
Ally contingents can include cavalry and wagon laager.
Allied contingents need not include infantry.
…note the difference between knights & cavalry - different quality of warriors - skirmishing bowmen - in DBA there are formed bowmen - all infantry armies...
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Nov 18, 2016 12:13:42 GMT
…the later German army list without any troop proportions with point costs for DBM: Cavalry - all Irr Kn (F) @ 9AP or all Irr Cv (O) @ 7AP Foot warriors - Up to ¼ Irr Wb (S) @ 5 AP, remainder Irr Wb (O) @ 3AP Skirmishers - Up to ¼ Irr Ps (S) @ 3AP, up to ¾ Irr Ps (I) @ 1AP, remainder Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP or Irr Bw (I) @ 3AP Plashing or abatis within wood - TF @ 2AP Boats - Irr Bts (O) @ 2AP [Wb, Ps, Bw] or Irr Bts (S) @ 3AP [Wb, Ps] Camp - Irr Bge (O) @ 2AP, or loaded wagons or flocks and herds - Irr Bge (I) @ 1AP 0-2 per general Wagon laager to protect camp - TF @ 1AP 0, or 1-2 per Bge (O) Cv can always dismount as Wb (S). Ps (S) can support Cv. Ally contingents can include cavalry and wagon laager. Allied contingents need not include infantry. …note the difference between knights & cavalry - different quality of warriors - skirmishing bowmen - in DBA there are formed bowmen - all infantry armies... Looking at the army lists you presented I found the following; * All mounted are 3Kn with the exception of the Burgundi (Cv). * DBA does not make a distinction between superior (S), ordinary (O) and inferior (I). – see below. * Archers for the barbarian armies are (Ps) or for the Suevi and Burgundi (3Bw). * Temporary fortification (TF) and wagon laager might be better placed in a historical scenario. * Boats, the Frisians have Littoral as home terrain, though the Goths and Saxons did make sea raids. * The Tervingi and Early Visigoths have the option to replace a general (Cv) with 4Wb. * The Alans, Greuthingi, Burgundi, Gepid and of course Huns do not have an option for allied contingents. * The Alans and Greuthingi can supply a mounted allied contingent. I believe the moral issue has been discussed under house rules or 3.0 with suggestions as to how that can be done. I do like the historical scenario to treat incidental situations or features, such as the use of a wagon laager and seafaring raids conducted by armies not having Littoral as home terrain. Both will appear in my latest campaign. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Nov 18, 2016 20:51:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Nov 20, 2016 8:36:48 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 24, 2016 11:36:33 GMT
The first draft is complete and with maps drawn for the three scenarios I can begin play testing them starting next week. This is not a campaign that can be completed in an evening, but certainly three (one scenario per evening).
An overview has been posted to the blog. dbagora.blogspot.nl/2016/12/from-migration-to-kingdom-campaign.html
I will post photos and comments of the tests to the blog as they become ready. |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 25, 2016 15:13:10 GMT
...the Vandals of about 406 is still a warband army and also Suevi but the Alans as a Sarmate people is a mobile one...a crash between those and late Romans could we quite dangerous for all...
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 25, 2016 15:23:43 GMT
...the Vandals of about 406 is still a warband army and also Suevi but the Alans as a Sarmate people is a mobile one...a crash between those and late Romans could we quite dangerous for all... Vodnik,
Very true.
The first scenario and map will be posted tomorrow to the blog.
I did not find that much evidence that the three nations cooperated extensively.
There is more to suggest differences among the tribes lead to the fragmentation of the host and that will be explained in the scenario tomorrow.
This detail posed a few problems as to how best to work this in the scenario but I think I have found a workable solution.
This and other options will be tested during the week and results posted to the blog.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 26, 2016 8:47:27 GMT
Migration to Kingdom – scenario 407 AD
I have posted an initial outline for the first scenario to the blog. View this as an over the shoulder look at a scenario in development.
Campaign moves and battles will be reported and posted here as they develop.
With luck that should be either Wednesday or Thursday.
dbagora.blogspot.nl/2016/12/migration-to-kingdom-407-ad.html
Cheers,
Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 26, 2016 9:37:31 GMT
...from Wednesday to Friday i will sty on the Alenannic country side  but i will try to be online... |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 27, 2016 12:12:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 30, 2016 10:22:49 GMT
Migration to Kingdom – scenario 408 AD.
I have just posted the second scenario of 408 AD to the blog.
Considering that each of the barbarian nations are a confederation of smaller tribes there should be some form of friction among them; some in favour of continuing to move, others wish to remain and yet others would leave to join other nations.
I mentioned two ways this might be handled.
Constantine III’s biggest problem will be the confrontation with Stilicho.
dbagora.blogspot.nl/2016/12/migration-to-kingdom-408-ad.html
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 2, 2017 8:29:10 GMT
Migration to Kingdom - play testing scenario 408 AD
The complete scenario has been played and an overview can be followed at the blog.
dbagora.blogspot.nl/2017/01/migration-to-kingdom-testing-scenario.html
I have noted two minor changes I would make for the barbarian side. These I will mention after completion of the last scenario 409 AD which should be posted later this week. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jan 5, 2017 8:43:52 GMT
Migration to Kingdom – scenario 409 AD
The final scenario 409 AD is posted to the blog.
If the game follows the actual timeline then the Vandals accompanied by Suevi and Alan will make their crossing over the Pyrennees in late fall to end the game.
This final scenario will definitely keep the Roman player hopping about the map suppressing revolts and repelling coastal raids while his authority slowly erodes away.
dbagora.blogspot.nl/2017/01/migration-to-kingdom-scenario-409-ad.html
|
|
but i will try to be online...