|
|
Post by Roland on Mar 29, 2017 3:09:39 GMT
Been trying to play a good bit more 3.0 of late. It is now the game of choice for my brother and myself. Having played a lot of 1.0 and 2.0 in the day, 3.0 feels like a very much more subtle and different beast. Consequently there isn't a game that goes by that doesn't leave us with a trove of new questions.
I have a question concerning general CPs. As we play mostly medieval armies, I feel like our general's troop types are pretty clear, however, can someone give me an example of an army whose general is a CP or Lit?
Cheers,
Fred
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 29, 2017 8:00:36 GMT
Inca IV/81 (Lit), Henry Tudor's army in 1485 IV/83b (CP), Papal Italian III/77 (Lit), Norse-Irish in 1014 III/46 (CP).
Never used one and have no desire to. They strike me as an option for the modeller rather than the wargamer.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 29, 2017 8:18:56 GMT
Been trying to play a good bit more 3.0 of late. It is now the game of choice for my brother and myself. Having played a lot of 1.0 and 2.0 in the day, 3.0 feels like a very much more subtle and different beast. Consequently there isn't a game that goes by that doesn't leave us with a trove of new questions. I have a question concerning general CPs. As we play mostly medieval armies, I feel like our general's troop types are pretty clear, however, can someone give me an example of an army whose general is a CP or Lit? Cheers, Fred I do have that option with II/69c Sassanid, the King of Kings on an elevated golden throne (Lit). But, have not used this as I prefer to have my command mobile and if needed to ‘add his steel’ to a combat.
I will use this option for a scenario involving an incapacitated commander similar to Charles XII wounded in a cavalry skirmish the day before Poltava.
|
|
|
|
Gen. CP
Mar 29, 2017 8:22:43 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Mar 29, 2017 8:22:43 GMT
Inca IV/81 (Lit), Henry Tudor's army in 1485 IV/83b (CP), Papal Italian III/77 (Lit), Norse-Irish in 1014 III/46 (CP). Never used one and have no desire to. They strike me as an option for the modeller rather than the wargamer. Or a Seated Samurai General (CP) in a IV/59b Post Mongol Samurai army. I had thought of doing one for the Papal Italian army, but the Pope was not on the Battlefield at Civitate and watched his army loose from the city. |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Mar 29, 2017 8:30:53 GMT
It's late, so I can't recall all of them, but here are a few more: - I/2a Early Egyptian (Lit) (Here's my attempt at modelling this.)
- II/69c Sassanid Persian (Lit) "General on elevated Golden Throne". Oh, if I could only devise a way to scratch-build this.
- III/25a Arab Conquest (CP) (Again, here's my Arab CP Gen element.)
- IV/71a Chimu (Lit)
I think all of these are optional, not mandatory. I nearly always choose them. Cuz they look cool.
And don't forget CWg elements, e.g Khazars, etc. War Wagons that can't shoot! What's not to love, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Mar 29, 2017 12:34:12 GMT
It's late, so I can't recall all of them, but here are a few more: - I/2a Early Egyptian (Lit) (Here's my attempt at modelling this.)
- II/69c Sassanid Persian (Lit) "General on elevated Golden Throne". Oh, if I could only devise a way to scratch-build this.
- III/25a Arab Conquest (CP) (Again, here's my Arab CP Gen element.)
- IV/71a Chimu (Lit)
I think all of these are optional, not mandatory. I nearly always choose them. Cuz they look cool.
And don't forget CWg elements, e.g Khazars, etc. War Wagons that can't shoot! What's not to love, right? So are most CP's merely optional and _not _ a mandatory for armies?! If I paint up a pike block for my brother's general and position the Earl of Douglas as a 5th model at the front is it suddenly a CP?! |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 29, 2017 13:22:35 GMT
It's late, so I can't recall all of them, but here are a few more: - I/2a Early Egyptian (Lit) (Here's my attempt at modelling this.)
- II/69c Sassanid Persian (Lit) "General on elevated Golden Throne". Oh, if I could only devise a way to scratch-build this.
- III/25a Arab Conquest (CP) (Again, here's my Arab CP Gen element.)
- IV/71a Chimu (Lit)
I think all of these are optional, not mandatory. I nearly always choose them. Cuz they look cool.
And don't forget CWg elements, e.g Khazars, etc. War Wagons that can't shoot! What's not to love, right? So are most CP's merely optional and _not _ a mandatory for armies?! If I paint up a pike block for my brother's general and position the Earl of Douglas as a 5th model at the front is it suddenly a CP?! No need to have the Earl of Douglas as a 5th model as the general would become one of the four pikemen on the base. As an option, Maximilian (IV/13d) could fight in the front rank of his Landsknecht.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Mar 29, 2017 17:56:12 GMT
Henry Tudor as a stationary element is a Phil thing and not officaily optional. IN any tournament I run though you may field him as a Knight General to get the proper historical troop type.
My son used the Papal Italiens in many 3.0 playtest games. He used the Perry Brother's "Pope Mobile" as the model. He managed to survive with the immobile Gen.
Glad your enjoying DBA 3.0 - oddly enough most of our development efforts centered around making DBX less subtle and more a "battle" fighting game - with less dancing elements and more swift hard hitting manuvers. Perhaps not as successfully as we had hoped...
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Mar 29, 2017 18:07:38 GMT
I forgot one: IV/10 Mound Builder American (Lit). My slightly modified (added cross-bars and add'l litter bearers), Eureka model is shown here. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 29, 2017 20:31:47 GMT
It is interesting that Artillery and WWg can not go into bad going but I find no restriction for the CP/Lit/CWg general. Here is a complete list I made up during development. Notice that all allow for at least two options. One for the gamer and one for the modeler  III/25a Arab Conquest Army 622-638 AD: 1 x General (Cv/4Bd) or in black tent (CP), III/46 Norse Irish Army: 1 x General (4Ax or in 1014 CP), III/76 Konstantinian Byzantine Army: 1 x General (Cv) or if emperor on horse with purple caparison with Varangian escort (CP), IV/59b Samurai Army 1465-1542 AD: 1 x General (6Cv/Cv) or if seated on chair (CP), IV/83b Rebel Army of Henry Tudor 1485 AD: 1 x General if Henry mounted but avoiding contact (CP) or if Oxford on foot (4Bd), II/18f Queen Olympias’ Army 317-316 BC: 1 x General (Lit if Olympias & bodyguard, 4Pk if not I/2a Early Egyptian Army 3000-1690 BC: 1 x General (4Bd or Lit), II/42c Sinhalese Army 175 BC-300 AD: 1 x General on elephant (El) or in palanquin (Lit), II/42d Sinhalese Army 301-1515 AD: 1 x General on elephant (El) or in palanquin (Lit) II/69c Sassanid Persian Army 494-651 AD: 1 x General on elevated golden throne (Lit) or on horse (Cv or 4Kn), III/77 Papal Italian Army: 1 x General; either papal gonfalonier (3Kn) or pope on portable throne with papal bodyguard (Lit), IV/10 Mound Builder American Army: 1 x General (“Great Sun” in Lit or 4Bw) IV/71a Chimu Imperial Army 1350-1480 AD: 1 x General (Lit/3Bd), IV/81 Inca Imperial Army: 1 x General (Lit or 3Bd or 4Ax) (what is the difference between the "/ " option and the "or" option in the above two? Just Phil's lack of consistency) III/16 Khazar Army: 1 x General (3Kn or Cv) or if the Khagan, in his wagon (CWg), III/73a Communal Italian Army 1029-1150 AD: 1 x General on horseback (3Kn) or with Carroccio standard wagon (CWg), III/73b Communal Italian Army 1151-1320 AD: 1 x General on horseback (3Kn) or with Carroccio standard wagon (CWg), IV/3 Anglo-Norman Army: 1 x General (3Kn/4Bd) or with standard wagon (CWg), IV/37c Javanese Army: 1 x General in ceremonial chariot with foot guards (CWg) or on elephant (El) |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Mar 29, 2017 20:54:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Mar 29, 2017 21:00:07 GMT
Bob said: "It is interesting that Artillery and WWg can not go into bad going but I find no restriction for the CP/Lit/CWg general."
Well, then that's one thing that the poor "Khagenwagen" (Khazar CWg) can do that it couldn't in V-2. ;-)
Thanks for reprising that complete list, Bob. For me, it's a to-do list. I want 'em all! (Grins.) And, as an aside, thanks to all of you on the DBA-3 development team for including these rare and unusual elements. For those of us who enjoy the painting and modelling every bit as much as the gaming, these kinda quirky elements are a real treat to create. Again, thanks.
p.s. Bob: Missing in your splendid list, however, is the I/2a OKE Lit Gen.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 30, 2017 4:00:59 GMT
As I recall, these were all Phil's ideas! Most (all?) of the helpers did not want the complexity of three new element types.
Paul, thanks for the addendum. My eyes passed over that early one.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Mar 30, 2017 4:01:28 GMT
Duplicate posted
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Mar 30, 2017 4:20:57 GMT
As I recall, these were all Phil's ideas! Most (all?) of the helpers did not want the complexity of three new element types. Paul, thanks for the addendum. My eyes passed over that early one. I added it. Yes it was a very strange set of conversations which included 1) Why have three element types (CP/CWg/Lit) that all behaved in the same fashion - you could conceivably call them all Command Position (CP) and be done with it - the answer seemed to revolve around the need for wargamers to know whether to model the CP as a litter, a wagon or some descriptive scene. Personally I would have thought you could put the words "in litter" or "in wagon" as part of the descriptive scene and be done with it.
2) Me arguing that a couple of odd or extended size elements (a Byzantine General on a horse with Varangian Guards - Solid Bd on a Cv base was one and I think the seated Samurai General was another) were better placed as being defined as a CP
3) The original discussion that CP should be immobile 
I have modelled a couple of CPs so far Konstantinian Byzantine, Norse Irish and Arab Conquest - my Javanese LCh converts to CWg without any effort. In my last Norman Conquest campaign I put the CP into the Norse Irish army and the player was not overly fond of the element. It looks great but all that solid Bd not being able to fight seems a waste.
Cheers
|
|
