|
|
Post by Obadiah on Feb 19, 2017 8:13:27 GMT
Hey all,
Just wondering if people are keeping their 4Bd and Spear units set on 15mm bases or are you converting to 20mm. What are the advantages/disadvantages for each in your opinion?
IMO, I can see having the spears and blades with the same base depth as the wb, ax, ps, etc might be helpful for keeping straight lines when push back occurs. On the other hand to allow units to be useful for other games - like older 2.2 tourneys and other games like Triumph!. Anyway, happy to hear your thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 19, 2017 8:37:06 GMT
Hey all, Just wondering if people are keeping their 4Bd and Spear units set on 15mm bases or are you converting to 20mm. What are the advantages/disadvantages for each in your opinion? IMO, I can see having the spears and blades with the same base depth as the wb, ax, ps, etc might be helpful for keeping straight lines when push back occurs. On the other hand to allow units to be useful for other games - like older 2.2 tourneys and other games like Triumph!. Anyway, happy to hear your thoughts. I changed to the deeper bases in July of 2015. The lines are not only tidy but there is less need to measure pursuits and recoil for foot elements. The Bd, Wb and Sp elements look better with the additional space. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Feb 19, 2017 8:56:23 GMT
I was reluctant to convert as the 15mm base depth for Sp and Bd meant they recoiled a shorter distance which prevented gaps opening up in a battle-line as quickly.But as Timurilank explained, it is far tidier when measuring persuit and recoils.
Plus your figures don't look so crouded on the base.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Feb 19, 2017 11:28:36 GMT
I haven't rebased my figures, largely because I have so many of them. When adding extras to make old armies compatible with the new army lists, I have also retained the 15mm basing to retain internal consistency. As most of the non competition battles I fight are between two of my armies it makes no difference.
Changing to 20mm deep has some advantages, but remaining with 15mm depth has advantages too. Primarily, you often have an extra recoil before being destroyed. It is this which prevents a house rule saying all infantry recoils and follow ups should be 20mm as then the 15mm bases would have an uncompensated advantage. Staying in line when recoiled is less of an issue than it initially appears as heavy infantry are often in line with other heavy infantry, so they do all recoil the same distance. If, as blades or pikes, you pursue (20mm) and then recoil (15mm), you remain doubly overlapped, but you do overlap the elements to the side, which might not otherwise happen, so again there are plusses and minuses.
I do have a set of spacers to make my 15mm bases into 20mm for competition reasons, as almost everyone else has moved to 20mm bases, but they are a fiddle and look unattractive.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 19, 2017 14:03:58 GMT
20mm bases are easier for many newer more active poses for minis. In addition, it radically helps with teaching newer players if most recoils for foot are the same. I haven't found the recoil issue to really count much in games at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 2, 2017 18:18:22 GMT
When I began re-basing and renovating my armies for V-3, I was reluctant to go to the optional, 20mm bases. I didn't want opponents to think I was gaining any slight tactical advantage with the uniform, 20mm basing for close-order foot. But, as others noted here, there are some itsy-bitsy tactical disadvantages too. (That helped ease my anxieties for my mortal soul.) Most of all, it was the visuals that won me over. When I saw what my friend, Eric Donaldson, was doing visually with that extra 5mm of space, I became a total convert. Here's a classic example (below) of one of his "basing heresies", as we whimsically call them.  Note the "8Pk" elements in Eric's Seleucid army. There are really just four Pike elements, but the impression is that of a very dense phalanx. (The slender and upright pose of these 15mm Essex figures helped too; doesn't work with every figure, of course.) So, yes, I'm now using only the optional 20mm bases as I continue my V-3 renovations. So, our thanks to PB and/or those on development team who got that optional, 20mm base-depth included in "Purple". |
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on May 3, 2017 0:29:58 GMT
Paul,
I've decided not to rebase my 15mm elements. There are just too many bases to retrofit. If an army needs updating I'll stick with the 15mm base. However, for new armies I'll definitely use the 20mm base size.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 3, 2017 4:39:59 GMT
With 100 odd armies - there was no way I was going to rebase them all, so I stuck with the 15mm bases. As it stands I have only just gotten 52 of the armies up to DBA3 code. Given that I build my army collection up into "Campaign Sets" of up to 13 armies I have also decided to use the 15mm bases on into the future so that I won't have any mixes of base depths for armies that are regularly fighting each other. And - my painting isn't good enough for me to worry about the visuals  cheers |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 3, 2017 7:48:39 GMT
Very good point. And one that I missed.
I have some re-basing to do (do not like some of my bases anymore. Cardboard tends to warp, plus I would like to redo some of the terrain on it). So thank you very much for bringing this up.
I will test this with paper counters and see whether I like the 20mm bases.
Ease of play is certainly in favour of this. Equal recoil distances are a lot easier to do and less fiddly. Having to watch out for 5mm difference has not been my favourite thing to do in DBA so far.
Aesthetics are a matter of personal taste - probably 20mm looks better in most cases. Pikes and Spear might look better on 15mm bases, but since Spear rear support is no more, this argument gets weaker. With Pikes 20mm give more room to accomodate the pikes, especially with shields. 20mm is probably better. (I based the Spears of my Amazon army for HotT on 20mm bases anyway. The bases of the miniatures would not have fitted on 15mm... Look good.).
The only potential problem I see:
Would anything be lost in troop interaction? As it stands, 15mm and 20mm troops mixed together do not make as good a battle line as those of exclusively either 15mm or 20mm. Recoils seriously distort such lines and they require more PIP's to repair than those of only one element depth.
So much for the game effect.
But is this important for any (historical) tactic to work?
I cannot think of any. It even seems to me that better interaction (i.e. both 20mm) between legionaries and auxilaries would be more historical. For Warband armies, having everything on 20mm bases would remove a lot of strangeness (Often the general is on 15mm 4Wb because the general would be Reg(ular) or (S)uperior in DBM(M). This does not translate well to DBA). For medieval battles, better interaction between Blades and Bow would also be good, I assume?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 3, 2017 12:17:48 GMT
I will not be re-basing any of my old units on 20mm and any new units of 4Sp/4Bd/4Pk will be on 15mm as well.
I like the look of them on the 15mm stands.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 3, 2017 13:05:56 GMT
I will not be re-basing any of my old units on 20mm and any new units of 4Sp/4Bd/4Pk will be on 15mm as well. I like the look of them on the 15mm stands. Totally understandable. I think it really depends on the minis in question (whether they fit and how dynamic their poses are), the units depicted and, of course, taste. Your armies, Tony, should surely not be tinkered with I just thought of another reason why an extra 5mm could be nice: Less likely to fall over. This is often an issue, especially in terrain and up or downhill. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 3, 2017 17:05:57 GMT
ditto to Tony, 4Wb too. I have about 1000 figures based for DBA, I don't know how many are solid foot but too much work to switch. I too like the look of the narrow bases. I am currently in a sub Roman British phase so have armies with both solid spear and solid auxilia. Difficult to tell These apart if they're both based on 20 mm deep bases. I have some sabot bases that allow me to convert Spears to Auxilia.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 3, 2017 19:20:54 GMT
I use the universal mounting system for 25mm for all new armies:
Lights 2 per Stand
Mediums (Bow/Warband/Aux) 3 per stand
Mounted not light 3 per Stand
Heavy 4 per Stand
Foot 20mm depth/30mm if Fast
Mounted 45mm.
Makes game much easier to learn for new comers and much easier for me to teach as the number of figures and depth make clear function, MA and often Combat Factor.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 3, 2017 19:48:15 GMT
I'm basing all my new foot on 20mm armies. The additional depth is ideal for the more active figure poses. I have decided to selectively rebase some existing armies, usually where there are issues with large or animated figures.
I see the advantage is primarily fitting the more animated figures on bases and reducing weapon over hang.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 24, 2022 10:51:47 GMT
Forgive me for reviving this very old thread, but I have given this some thought. Some players that have kept to the original 15mm deep bases for their heavy foot (i.e. Sp, 4Pk and 4Bd) are concerned that they’ll be at a slight disadvantage by modern opponents who have their heavy foot on 20mm deep bases, as allowed in DBA 3.0. Having all foot that do recoil moving back the same distance does keep them together and reduces overlaps, compared to having some foot recoiling 15mm while others recoil 20mm. If this is considered to be a major issue, then may I suggest the following simple solution:- (a) If you have heavy foot on 20mm deep bases, they still recoil 15mm. ---OR ALTERNATIVELY--- (b) If you have heavy foot on 15mm deep bases, they will recoil 20mm. That way everybody will be treated equally. What are the thoughts of the wider DBA community and tournament organizers on this subject? |
|
