|
|
Post by timurilank on May 4, 2017 7:26:59 GMT
Enjoy your beer. Mine is a glass of red wine. I will look at the medieval items tomorrow after I have my coffee and croissant. After tomorrow I shall miss the early morning ritual of bicycling to the baker for fresh croissants. Enjoy your wine, still go to your bakers, mine is on the corner, a 1min walk.
Mine is not a French breakfast (I am English), doughnuts, pineapple tarts, bacon twists and nice hot chocolate.
Can I say to you both, thanks, I had no idea it was as bad as it was.
David Constable
I believe I have seen one or two types of donuts here in the Netherlands and these are generally covered with Dutch sprinkles (hagelslag). The pineapple tarts and bacon twists are unknown here but in Amsterdam there are places that serve ‘English” breakfasts. They sound dangerous. 
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 4, 2017 7:35:57 GMT
DBA3 have handguns used solely by skirmishers (Ps). Using the Bw factors for the matchlock armed Ashigaru would work; these might be better represented as ‘solid’ to reflect their fire drill.
Exactly what I meant: Just use firearms-armed miniatures and treat them as Bw. In fact, Solid Lb would probably be best, as it could represent the improved lethality against shock attacks best. Takeda cavalry should probably be Kn anyway, at least at Nagashino. (And if one really wants to play Nagashino, house ruling is necessary anyway, as with most (all?) historical battles). |
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on May 4, 2017 8:06:59 GMT
Well done Stevie and Timurlank. A herculean effort.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 4, 2017 8:15:53 GMT
I think you’re right felixs…army IV/59b Samurai of the 1465-1542 AD period are too early to cover the Imjin War of 1592- 1598 AD.
That conflict goes beyond the end date of DBA 3.0 and belongs to the DBR ruleset.
Nonetheless, army IV/59b Samurai (1465 - 1542 AD) should still probably be a mutual enemy of IV/78 Yi Dynasty Koreans (1392 - 1598 AD) if only to cover the ‘Sampo Waeran/Three Ports Japanese Riots’ of 1510 (although this was more of a large skirmish involving some 4 or 5 thousand Japanese, there was a Japanese fleet providing military support, and the Korean government of Jungjong Joseon had to send an army lead by generals Yu Dam-nyeon and Hwang Hyeong to suppress the rioters).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your wine, still go to your bakers, mine is on the corner, a 1min walk.
Mine is not a French breakfast (I am English), doughnuts, pineapple tarts, bacon twists and nice hot chocolate.
Can I say to you both, thanks, I had no idea it was as bad as it was.
David Constable
I believe I have seen one or two types of donuts here in the Netherlands and these are generally covered with Dutch sprinkles (hagelslag). The pineapple tarts and bacon twists are unknown here but in Amsterdam there are places that serve ‘English” breakfasts. They sound dangerous.
HA! A full English breakfast for me…two fried eggs, bacon and beans, all as greasy as possible (who wants to live forever?).  And thanks for the compliments David and gregoris. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 4, 2017 8:38:34 GMT
I think you’re right felixs…army IV/59b Samurai of the 1465-1542 AD period are too early to cover the Imjin War of 1592- 1598 AD.
That conflict goes beyond the end date of DBA 3.0 and belongs to the DBR ruleset.
Nonetheless, army IV/59b Samurai (1465 - 1542 AD) should still probably be a mutual enemy of IV/78 Yi Dynasty Koreans (1392 - 1598 AD) if only to cover the ‘Sampo Waeran/Three Ports Japanese Riots’ of 1510 (although this was more of a large skirmish involving some 4 or 5 thousand Japanese, there was a Japanese fleet providing military support, and the Korean government of Jungjong Joseon had to send an army lead by generals Yu Dam-nyeon and Hwang Hyeong to suppress the rioters).
The nature of the Samp'o waeran would not fit under DBA at all (but neither do early Viking raids... so, whatever ) and would surely be quite different from what the "Samurai" list is supposed to represent. Again: House rules and army lists for specific scenarios are in order. Of course, that is also true for the various rebellions of the Chosôn period: Armies would look quite different from what the list allows for. I am all for including both Japanese armies of that period as enemies. Also to cover the pirate raids (Vikings again...), which sometimes were quite large. The most important enemy of the early Chosôn has not even got a list: The Jurchen tribes of Manchuria, who were engaged in mutual raids and open warfare with Chosôn for more than a century (so much for "peaceful" Chosôn...). I never understood why DBA stops before the Imjin War, as I see no problem playing that war using DBA. But I have opened a separate thread in the pike and shot section for that. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 4, 2017 13:32:35 GMT
Here they are…the VERY LAST of the Book IV errors:- 
Then there is the question of presentation.
I originally planned to have a short one-line note under each entry to explain the reason for the edit, but that was before anyone realised just how many corrections there actually were. And it would make pretty dull reading:-
“Wrong date”, “wrong date”, “not mutual enemies”, “wrong date” etc.
I have a new idea. The errors all fall into one of these four categorises:-
A) Dates that don’t match.
B) Enemies that are not mutual.
C) Geographical errors, where they couldn’t have physically reached each other.
D) And last of all, the forgotten wars, where a major conflict has been omitted (Khazar vs. Rus for example).
Category ‘A’ and ‘B’ corrections are easily spotted and players can look in the lists to see these for themselves.
So only category ‘C’ and ‘D’ corrections need to be explained, and to keep things looking tidy these can be in the form of a numbered footnote, either at the bottom of each page of the final document or at the end as an appendix.
With this in mind, I want to go back to the start of this long, long thread and dig out your lovely little explanations.
I found them to be quite informative, and I’m sure that other people would think the same.
I like the idea of annotating each entry with a letter code. If I recall, category ‘C ’ accounted for less than one in fifteen; these being the nomadic or migrating tribes. The last, category ‘D ‘ was quite rare. The first two are somewhat linked with each other, the change of start and end dates accounted for the transfer of many enemies to the wrong sub-list. Adding new armies did change the army list numbers for those following, this accounted for more errors; Patrician, Visigoth, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 4, 2017 18:39:49 GMT
I like the idea of annotating each entry with a letter code. If I recall, category ‘C ’ accounted for less than one in fifteen; these being the nomadic or migrating tribes. The last, category ‘D ‘ was quite rare. The first two are somewhat linked with each other, the change of start and end dates accounted for the transfer of many enemies to the wrong sub-list. Adding new armies did change the army list numbers for those following, this accounted for more errors; Patrician, Visigoth, etc.
I see what you are saying about the ‘cascading errors’ caused by the creation of new sub-lists and the sloppy editing…
…but are players really interested in what caused the errors, or do they just want to know what the fix is?
The category ‘A’ and ‘B’ errors, which make up the vast bulk of the corrections, they can easily see and check for themselves just by looking at the existing lists and seeing the dates that don’t match and the enemies that are not mutually listed.
It’s the ‘C’ and ‘D’ corrections, those they can’t see just by looking at the existing lists, that need to be explained.
And fortunately there are very few of those. It’s these that require your nice little explanations, otherwise players will be asking “why were these enemies and allies added or removed?”.
If you like, we could simply put a short explanation for the cause of the cascading ‘A’ and ‘B’ errors in the introduction…
…in fact, what you just posted above did exactly that.
But hold fire for the moment as I go through each and every one of our corrections to find out just why it has been included.
Once we know how many are in each category we will be able to judge things more accurately.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 4, 2017 22:09:46 GMT
I like the idea of annotating each entry with a letter code. If I recall, category ‘C ’ accounted for less than one in fifteen; these being the nomadic or migrating tribes. The last, category ‘D ‘ was quite rare. The first two are somewhat linked with each other, the change of start and end dates accounted for the transfer of many enemies to the wrong sub-list. Adding new armies did change the army list numbers for those following, this accounted for more errors; Patrician, Visigoth, etc.
I see what you are saying about the ‘cascading errors’ caused by the creation of new sub-lists and the sloppy editing…
…but are players really interested in what caused the errors, or do they just want to know what the fix is?
The category ‘A’ and ‘B’ errors, which make up the vast bulk of the corrections, they can easily see and check for themselves just by looking at the existing lists and seeing the dates that don’t match and the enemies that are not mutually listed.
It’s the ‘C’ and ‘D’ corrections, those they can’t see just by looking at the existing lists, that need to be explained.
And fortunately there are very few of those. It’s these that require your nice little explanations, otherwise players will be asking “why were these enemies and allies added or removed?”.
If you like, we could simply put a short explanation for the cause of the cascading ‘A’ and ‘B’ errors in the introduction…
…in fact, what you just posted above did exactly that.
But hold fire for the moment as I go through each and every one of our corrections to find out just why it has been included.
Once we know how many are in each category we will be able to judge things more accurately.
Please feel free to use my explanations as a footnote to corrections 'C ' and 'D '. Where required I did quote references or source material.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 4, 2017 22:22:00 GMT
Hmmm…you know what, after thinking about it over a few beers, I’ve changed my mind.
After all, it’s not up to me to decide what information the players may or may not require.
And it would be a pity to waste all timurilank’s excellent forensic work in discovering the causes of the errors.
So yes, let’s give them the lot and let them decide for themselves.
However, to keep things tidy and easy to read, I still think it would be best to have the corrections first (which by the way comes to a total of 9 pages of A4 sized paper), and then the notes about the reason for each individual correction later in a separate section at the back of the final document.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 4, 2017 22:51:02 GMT
Hmmm…you know what, after thinking about it over a few beers, I’ve changed my mind. After all, it’s not up to me to decide what information the players may or may not require. And it would be a pity to waste all timurilank’s excellent forensic work in discovering the causes of the errors. So yes, let’s give them the lot and let them decide for themselves. However, to keep things tidy and easy to read, I still think it would be best to have the corrections first (which by the way comes to a total of 9 pages of A4 sized paper), and then the notes about the reason for each individual correction later in a separate section. Nine pages in two and a half months- that seems incredible.
But it was time well spent and rewarding as I now I have new source material for some future projects.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 5, 2017 1:23:40 GMT
Hmmm…you know what, after thinking about it over a few beers, I’ve changed my mind. After all, it’s not up to me to decide what information the players may or may not require. And it would be a pity to waste all timurilank’s excellent forensic work in discovering the causes of the errors. So yes, let’s give them the lot and let them decide for themselves. However, to keep things tidy and easy to read, I still think it would be best to have the corrections first (which by the way comes to a total of 9 pages of A4 sized paper), and then the notes about the reason for each individual correction later in a separate section. Nine pages in two and a half months- that seems incredible.
But it was time well spend and rewarding as I now I have new source material for some future projects.
You guys are troopers to be sure. When 3.1 is started...This will be part of the process. If I have any say in it. I suspect I will. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 5, 2017 7:55:03 GMT
Error types A and B are two well differentiated errors of internal consistency, correctable by editing.
An excellent job has been done in this forum to identify these.
I don't think error types C and D are good monikers, because there are a lot of other historical errors that categories C and D do not include.
I think C and D errors are more generally, part of errors of historiography, correctable only by analysis and argument. That process can be great fun, but its complicated, subjective, specialized and divisive.
A couple of posts on a forum after reading the wikipedia entry is not sufficient to persuasively argue this stuff.
Some of the work on the underlying DBM lists - most specifically the classical lists - was probably very detailed and by very well informed people.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 5, 2017 21:35:58 GMT
You make some good points Dangun, as always. But some category ‘C’ and ‘D’ errors are so obvious they instantly set off alarm bells. One example of a category ‘C’ error (i.e. a geographical error) is that old favourite of mine, the II/10 Camillan Romans and the II/28b Other Armenians being mutual enemies. Even the most basic of Roman History books will show that it was physically impossible for these to have fought each other…the Romans had not yet set foot outside of Italy during the 400-275 BC period! Also, the DBMM army lists do not have these two as mutual enemies either. Ah, but II/28 is suspiciously right next door to II/27, the army of Pyrrhus of Epirus, who the ancient historians (and DBMM) tell us was an enemy of the the Camillan Romans. What other conclusion can there be other than a slip of the editor’s finger? And an example of a category ‘D’ error (i.e. a forgotten war) that springs to mind is the conflict between the III/16 Khazars and the III/48 Rus, which even the DBA 3.0 and DBMM historical notes on the Rus makes reference to, not to mention the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Old Russian Chronicles, and many other scholarly works. But the DBA 3.0 Army Lists (and those of DBMM) make no mention of the Khazars and Rus being enemies. Were the very well informed people who drew up these army lists unaware of the campaign of AD 965 by Prince Svyatoslav of Kiev which led to the break-up of the Khazar Empire? Or is it just an omission by the proofreader? Even the most informed academic can be undone by sloppy editing.  But wait until I have gone through the entire list on page 5 in order to verify the reason for each correction. Once the ‘C’ and ‘D’ category items have been labelled as such we can concentrate on these to double-check their justification. I am a bit worried that I had mistakenly suggested that the IV/13d Medieval Germans should remove the IV/82a French Ordonnance as an enemy...the IV/13d Medieval Germans don’t have the IV/82a French Ordonnance listed as an enemy! I wonder if I have included any other errors in the correction list. After all, we can hardly complain about the sloppy editing of the "DBA 3.0 Army Lists" when we ourselves may be guilty of the same crime with the "Army List Corrections". |
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 6, 2017 7:27:55 GMT
Errors will always occur, so will items that form a problem.
For DBX series we have, and need fanaticus.
Just do the best you can, and on the forum (not the Wiki) put corrections, people will understand, but above all, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, get it proof read by a twelve year old who plays DBA, not an English professor, and beware American English verses English English, change words you use if need be.
Good luck.
David Constable
P.S. - I put in not the Wiki because the Wiki gives problems using Windows 7, in fact I really do not know what I am going to do over computers, I am having to revert back to Windows 98 for work, because of security problems with 10, that is going to be a pain. The work will have to be moved around on CD. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 7, 2017 13:43:49 GMT
Errors will always occur, so will items that form a problem.
For DBX series we have, and need fanaticus.
Just do the best you can, and on the forum (not the Wiki) put corrections, people will understand, but above all, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, get it proof read by a twelve year old who plays DBA, not an English professor, and beware American English verses English English, change words you use if need be.
Good luck.
David Constable
Thanks for the input David. That is very good advice.
Unfortunately I don’t know any 12 year olds who play DBA (although my mental state does approach that after several beers….) 
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timurilank,
I’d like to change the layout slightly on page 5 to demonstrate how it may appear in the final document.
Some of the names and titles of the armies are a bit too long to fit on a single line, even with narrow margins.
Taking out unnecessary ‘AD’ and ‘BC’ and replacing the word ‘Army’ with an ‘s’ would help, so that…
I/51 Later Sargonid Assyrian Army (680 BC – 609 BC) remove I/44b Later Neo-Babylonian Army (604 BC – 589 BC)
…becomes for example…
I/51 Later Sargonid Assyrians (680 – 609 BC) remove I/44b Later Neo-Babylonians (604 – 589 BC)
That would also leave a bit more space to temporarily fit in words like ‘wrong dates’ and ‘non-mutual’ at the end so we can ascertain how many corrections there are in each of the ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories (I think that would be better than just using a single letter, even if it’s only temporary, as people are –I hope!– already reading the page 5 corrections).
|
|
