|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 22, 2017 21:03:13 GMT
II/82a Patrician Roman (408 AD – 493 AD) add II/81c Armorican Army (429 AD – 580 AD)
(I doubt that the Eastern Patrician army reached as far as northern Gaul, so II/82 should probably be II/82a.
And although II/81c lists II/82, II/82a makes no mention of II/81c as an enemy, but they are mentioned as allies.)
The problem is related to my comment above (incorrect list possible taken from 2.2).
Armorica were staunch allies to the end of the Patrician period (Kingdom of Soissons).
Action: Do not recommend adding to the list of enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 22, 2017 21:04:26 GMT
II/65c Alaric & successors (408 AD – 419 AD) remove II/81c Armorican Army (429 AD – 580 AD)
(The dates don’t quite match, and I’m not sure that the Visigoths got as far as northern Gaul that early.
Anyway, II/81c makes no mention of II/65c. One for timurilank I think.)
II/65c are listed as enemies of the Later Imperial Roman, both II/78a and b.
Unfortunately, the dates for II/78 Later Imperial Roman end at 408 AD.
Stranger still, II/65c does not appear on either Patrician Roman sub-list, II/82a and b.
Are we to consider Alaric as having attained a ‘Patrician’ status from 408 AD until his death?
Or, most likely this is an oversight as II/65c Alaric is a new entry to the 3.0 army lists.
Action:
Add II/65c as enemy to II/82a Patrician Roman (West).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 22, 2017 21:05:47 GMT
II/69b Sassanid Persian Army (225 AD – 493 AD) remove III/11b Other Turkish Armies (500 AD – 1330 AD)
(Army II/69b lists III/11b as an enemy, but III/11b does not mention II/69b only II/69c, and the dates don’t quite match.)
Agree.
Action:
II/69c Sassanid Persia (494 – 651 AD) and III/11b Other Turkish Armies (500 – 1330 AD) should be the correct entries.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 22, 2017 21:36:31 GMT
I think this is a mistake caused by the changes from 2.2 to 3 in the Early Bedouin lists. I/6c used to be Early Bedouin 999-312BC which I think should be an enemy of Antigonas. One of his generals (possibly Demetrios) started a fight with some arab tribes over control of some Asphalt beds IIRC. These tribes would now be covered by I/6b. I think you’re right. Therefore:- I/6c Early Aramaean Army (2000 BC – 1101 BC) remove II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) (Not only is I/6c out by 780 years, but II/16a makes no mention of them.) I/6b Early Arab Army (1000 BC – 312 BC) add II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) incorrect II/16a Antigonos’ Army (320 BC – 301 BC) add I/6b Early Arab Army (1000 BC – 312 BC) incorrect (These two should be mutual enemies, to cover Antigonos’/Demetrios’ raid into Arabia...I think it was to capture a caravan/camp)
I have been doing some research into this and Wikipedia has a very nice section describing this very conflict:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonid%E2%80%93Nabataean_confrontations
Basically the Arab nation that defended against and defeated the Antigonid forces in 312 BC were the Nabataeans of ancient southern Palestine, and these have an entry in the lists as II/22f Any Arabo-Aramaean Army (312 BC – 126 BC)...but not the II/22a Army of Nabataea (250 BC – 106 AD), as the start date is too late for 312 BC.
As II/16a Antigonos and II/22f Any Arabo-Aramaeans are already listed as mutual enemies, I withdraw the earlier suggestion quoted above (although I/6c still needs to remove II/16a due to the date disparity).
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 22, 2017 23:21:39 GMT
I’ve been thinking...I wonder if it would not be better to split the II/81c enemies into two separate entries.
I don’t mean creating a new subset of II/81 (as the two armies of II/81c have the same elements/terrain type/aggression), just splitting their enemies as they are almost totally different from each other.
For example:-
Replace II/81c Enemies with British Enemies: II/54b, II/73, II/68a, II/68b, II/81c, and British Allies: none.
Replace II/81c Enemies with Armorican Enemies: II/70, II/72d, II/73, II/83a, and Armorican Allies: II/58, II/72d.
This might be better than just mixing all these enemies together in a single line and leaving it up to the players to sort out.
(Also, shouldn't the II/81c British have other II/81c British as mutual enemies, to reflect the quarrelsome nature of these sub-Roman kingdoms, just like II/81a does?)
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 23, 2017 6:43:34 GMT
I’ve been thinking...I wonder if it would not be better to split the II/81c enemies into two separate entries.
I don’t mean creating a new subset of II/81 (as the two armies of II/81c have the same elements/terrain type/aggression), just splitting their enemies as they are almost totally different from each other.
For example:-
Replace II/81c Enemies with British Enemies: II/54b, II/73, II/68a, II/68b, II/81c, and British Allies: none.
Replace II/81c Enemies with Armorican Enemies: II/70, II/72d, II/73, II/83a, and Armorican Allies: II/58, II/72d.
This might be better than just mixing all these enemies together in a single line and leaving it up to the players to sort out.
(Also, shouldn't the II/81c British have other II/81c British as mutual enemies, to reflect the quarrelsome nature of these sub-Roman kingdoms, just like II/81a does?)
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
This is an excellent idea. Dividing the enemies of II/81c into two groups would be very helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 23, 2017 7:53:57 GMT
II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) remove III/40b Viking Army (850 – 1280 AD)?
(Army II/68b lists II/40b as an enemy, but III/40b does not list II/68b, and the dates don’t quite match.
Or, add II/68b as an enemy to III/40b and shuffle the end date of II/68b up a bit. I’ll leave it with you to decide.)
Action:
Suggest omitting III/40b as an enemy of the II/86b as after 842 AD we find the Picts are replaced by the III/45 Pre-Feudal Scots 842 – 1124 AD. The Pre-Feudal Scots have both III/40a and 40b as enemies and III/40b may be ‘allies’.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 23, 2017 7:54:46 GMT
II/81b Vortigern’s Army (429 AD – 441 AD) add II/54b Scots-Irish Army (433 AD – 841 AD)
Action:
The II/81b are listed as an enemy of II/65b Scots-Irish, so yes, the Scots-Irish should be added to the list of enemies for Vortigern.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 23, 2017 7:56:15 GMT
II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add II/54b Scots-Irish Army (433 AD – 841 AD)
(Another messy one I’m afraid. Army II/54b lists II/81bcd as enemies, but only II/81d mentions II/54b, II/81b and II/81c do not. If added the dates will match, although in this period that doesn’t mean much.)
Action:
Clearly an omission as the II/81b, c, and d are listed correctly as enemies for the II/54b in DBA2.2.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 23, 2017 7:57:01 GMT
II/81c British Armies (471 AD – 580 AD) add both II/68a and II/68b Pictish Armies (211 AD – 842 AD)
(No wonder this period was called the ‘Dark Ages’! Army II/68a lists II/81abc, and II/68b lists II/81cd, but II/81c makes no mention of either II/68a or II/68b. Also, I doubt if the Picts reached as far as the Armorican’s in Brittany.)
Action:
Both II/68a and 68b are listed as enemies for II/81c in DBA2.2, so this is an omission.
Grouping the enemies of II/81c between the British and Armorica would help.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 23, 2017 10:19:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 24, 2017 10:22:37 GMT
Mutual Internal EnemiesNow I know that adding these is going to cause more work, but if they are not added then someone is bound to bring them up in the future, so we might as well get it done now. II/8c Apulian Army (420 BC – 206 BC) add II/8c as an enemy. II/22f Any Arabo-Aramean Army (312 BC - 126) add II/22f as an enemy. II/24 Early Rhoxolani Sarmatian (310 BC – 100 AD) add II/24 as an enemy. II/39a Iberian Army (240 BC – 20 BC) add II/39a as an enemy. II/39b Celtiberian Army (240 BC – 20 BC) add II/39b as an enemy. II/39c Lusitanian Army (240 BC – 20 BC) add II/39c as an enemy. II/57 Later Moorish (25 AD – 696 AD) add II/57 as an enemy. II/60 Caledonians (75 AD – 211 AD) add II/60 as an enemy. II/67b Other Greuthinggi, Early Ostrogothic, etc (200 AD – 493 AD) add II/67b as an enemy. II/68b Pictish Army (500 AD – 842 AD) add II/68b as an enemy. II/70 Burgundi & Limigantes (250 AD -539 AD) add II/70 as an enemy. II/72a Quadi Army (250 AD – 406 AD) add II/72a as an enemy. II/72c Suevi (250 AD – 584 AD) add II/72c as an enemy. (Adding themselves as mutual internal enemies in this way helps to portray these as representing several independent tribes and not single nations, much like the II/11 Gallic list does. There are probably more in the Book I & Book III lists, but I haven’t had time to go through them yet.) Exceptions to the above:-I assume this would not apply to the II/13 Samnites, as their Samnite Confederation (consisting of the Hirpini, Caudini, Caraceni and Pentri tribes) appears to have been well organised and stable enough to be treated as a single nation. Likewise, the I/57 Etruscan League also seems to have been well organised and stable enough to be treated as a single nation. And the II/30 Galatians (although consisting of the Tectosages, Trocmii and Tolistobogii tribes) appear to be a closely allied and tightly knit bunch that eventually became a kingdom, so they too can be treated as a single nation. Other entries, such as the I/58 Meroitic Kushites, I/62 Lykians, I/63 Paionians, II/14 Ariarathid Kappadokians, II/46 Kushans, II/83b Later Visigoths, and II/84 African Vandals, were monarchies that can also be considered to be single nations. A great many other armies already have their own mutual internal enemies, so can be left as they are. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 24, 2017 10:34:22 GMT
DBA3 Historical opponents
Book IV (the saga continues...)
IV/3 Anglo-Norman (1072 – 1181 AD) remove IV/39a Navarrese Army (1234 – 1327 AD)
(The dates don’t match. I think IV/3 may have got mixed up with IV/23, which is a mutual enemy of IV/39a)
Action:
I agree that this is an incorrect entry.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 24, 2017 10:35:04 GMT
IV/5a Sicilian Army (1072 – 1193 AD) add IV/13a Medieval German Army (1106 – 1150 AD)?
(Army IV/13a lists IV/5a as an enemy, but IV/5a does not mention IV/13a....
....or should IV/13a remove IV/5a? I’m not an expert of medieval history, but I know that one of these is wrong)
The Holy Roman Emperor, Lothair II did campaign against Roger of Sicily in 1136 AD. The campaign was not of long duration and Lothair II died while returning home in December 1137 AD. Of the three Hauteville kings (Kings of Sicily) it was Roger II who fought against Lothair II, Holy Roman Emperor and Henry, Duke of Bavaria.
Action:
Add IV/13a as an enemy of IV/5a Sicilian Army.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 24, 2017 10:35:43 GMT
IV/6b Abbasid Iraq (1092 – 1258 AD) add IV/6a Turkish-ruled Ayyubid remnant Syria (1092 – 1286 AD)
(Army IV/6a lists IV/6b as an enemy, but IV/6b does not list IV/6a)
Action:
This does seem to be an omission.
|
|
