gingergiant
Munifex
Re-evaluating my wargaming aims and status
Posts: 5 
|
Post by gingergiant on May 25, 2017 20:30:35 GMT
Hi all
I'm comng back to the fold of DBA after a number of years away. Recently purchase a Thracian Army (as it seems to have a good spread of enamies) and currently paintng a couple of Roman armies (Polybian & Marian).
As I sold my DBA items many years ago I need to create a new board and scenic items. First will be the board but I was surprised to see in v.3 that size of board is now 24" to 32" square... What is the reasoning with the size increase to 32" from 24" that was the stautory size in v.1.2 & v.2?
Secondly Camp size seem to have been reduced from 9 base widths to 6 base widths, again why if the board size has increased?
Am I reading the new rules correctly or totally of the mark?
Best regards to all
Ian
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 25, 2017 20:58:21 GMT
Hi all I'm comng back to the fold of DBA after a number of years away. Recently purchase a Thracian Army (as it seems to have a good spread of enamies) and currently paintng a couple of Roman armies (Polybian & Marian). As I sold my DBA items many years ago I need to create a new board and scenic items. First will be the board but I was surprised to see in v.3 that size of board is now 24" to 32" square... What is the reasoning with the size increase to 32" from 24" that was the stautory size in v.1.2 & v.2? Secondly Camp size seem to have been reduced from 9 base widths to 6 base widths, again why if the board size has increased? Am I reading the new rules correctly or totally of the mark? Best regards to all Ian Welcome back to the ‘fold’. Page 7, states camp size must total no more than 4 base widths. The larger board size is an option, therefore not compulsory. It does however have advantages over the smaller board; the larger quadrant means less terrain features are discarded and if you enjoy using a cavalry strong army, you will appreciate the extra space. The loss of a camp no longer equals two elements, but one. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 25, 2017 23:01:41 GMT
The bottom line is the 24" board works well, but some LH and Cv armies can be out of action at the outset against a LI-defender with terrain advantage. Meanwhile a HI-army is in similar dife straits on the bigger board against mobile opponents for the opposite kind of reasons.
Overall I think the board size you go with depends a lot on your various armies, but I personally find the 24" more compact and fun, even if it doesn't always work in all situations.
|
|
gingergiant
Munifex
Re-evaluating my wargaming aims and status
Posts: 5
|
Post by gingergiant on May 26, 2017 6:49:43 GMT
Thank you for the quick respones.
I'll take stock of the armies I'm thinking of collecting before deciding on board size. But would it be seen as unfair if I create a the larger board for my more mobile armies when gaming opponents with less mobile arimes... Hmmm...decisions, decisions.
I could always create two boards and dice for the size of board before the game... just an idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 26, 2017 7:25:59 GMT
Table dimensions have often been debated with some players preferring larger tables under 2.2. When developing DBA 3.0 Phil Barker accomodated both. We use 24" boards locally and I have always found them to provide an excellent game.
On our tables new players often start by selecting large terrain pieces and over time reduce the terrain dimensions. In one competition I attended in Australia, where larger tables were in use, I often found players were just putting ever larger terrain pieces down to reduce the open area.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 26, 2017 17:53:00 GMT
Prior to the beginning of DBA three development, a number of players in the eastern United States thought that they knew best for the game, and therefore required 32 in.² battlefields for the games they put on at conventions. Phil invited some of these dissident DBA players to participate in the development of 3.0 and they made it one of their preconditions to require the 32 inch boards. Phil did not accept this and some other suggestions so they dropped out. Others including myself (Not a dissident)continued to lobby for the larger board size as an option. We suggested to Phil that it shouldn't really matter to him what size the game was played on, rather it should be what the players found enjoyable. He did agree to the range of sizes, but with the caveat that bigger boards would mean longer games. This of course was actually ameliorated by the fact that movement was bigger and so games could be shorter.
'The standard playing area, “the battlefield”, is square; with sides 600mm/24” to 800mm/32” for the smaller scale and 900mm/36” to 1,200mm/48”square for the larger scale. Be warned that areas larger than the minimum are unnecessary and may encourage overly defensive play or result in longer or even unfinished games. "
My version of 2.2 says that a camp must fit within a rectangle with length plus width equals four base widths. My version of 3.0 says, "A camp must be at least 1 BW x ½ BW and fit into a rectangle the length plus width of which totals no more than 4 BW. ". Other than giving a minimum size, I don't see a difference between two and three. Gingergiant, where are you getting your dimensions from?
|
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on May 26, 2017 21:15:58 GMT
In my first ever DBA 3 English Open event at PAWs my Vikings, littoral, came accros Martin I recollect with an anti littoral landing camp of dimensions 0.5 BW by 3.5BW I think it was. In the rule parameters, and messed up my possible landing locations when Placed on the waterway at the board side.
|
|
gingergiant
Munifex
Re-evaluating my wargaming aims and status
Posts: 5
|
Post by gingergiant on May 26, 2017 22:08:14 GMT
My version of 2.2 says that a camp must fit within a rectangle with length plus width equals four base widths. My version of 3.0 says, "A camp must be at least 1 BW x ½ BW and fit into a rectangle the length plus width of which totals no more than 4 BW. ". Other than giving a minimum size, I don't see a difference between two and three. Gingergiant, where are you getting your dimensions from? Thanks for the reply Bob. I'm reading version 2 rules were it states under the heading Camps "It must fit into a rectangle the length plus width of which totals no more than 6 element base widths..." It would seem the change of Camp size was amendent in version 2.2. Just shows how long ago I was last gaming DBA... |
|
gingergiant
Munifex
Re-evaluating my wargaming aims and status
Posts: 5
|
Post by gingergiant on May 26, 2017 22:12:39 GMT
In my first ever DBA 3 English Open event at PAWs my Vikings, littoral, came accros Martin I recollect with an anti littoral landing camp of dimensions 0.5 BW by 3.5BW I think it was. In the rule parameters, and messed up my possible landing locations when Placed on the waterway at the board side. Hi Phippsy. So I think your saying that the smaller base size can still have an affect on the game if positioned well... I'll be following version 3 from this point forward to smaller Camps it is. Cheers |
|
gingergiant
Munifex
Re-evaluating my wargaming aims and status
Posts: 5
|
Post by gingergiant on May 26, 2017 22:15:24 GMT
My version of 2.2 says that a camp must fit within a rectangle with length plus width equals four base widths. My version of 3.0 says, "A camp must be at least 1 BW x ½ BW and fit into a rectangle the length plus width of which totals no more than 4 BW. ". Other than giving a minimum size, I don't see a difference between two and three. Gingergiant, where are you getting your dimensions from? Thanks for the reply Bob. I'm reading version 2 rules were it states under the heading Camps "It must fit into a rectangle the length plus width of which totals no more than 6 element base widths..." It would seem the change of Camp size was amendent in version 2.2. Just shows how long ago I was last gaming DBA... Drat... Having just reread my original post I can see why you asked the question about where I was getting my dimensions from. How I typed 9 and 6 when I know it should have been 6 and 4 I don't know. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 26, 2017 22:41:49 GMT
I'll be following version 3 from this point forward to smaller Camps it is. For me one of the important aspects of wargaming with miniatures is visual component of the game. With DBA, and despite only 12 elements, this can be achieved by well painted and based figures, well modelled terrain and visually interesting camps. I have seen one player use a camp that was 1BW x 1/2BW in my view it did look particularly interesting. In contrast there are some excellent examples on the internet. You will find a few on my website of my own and visitors, along with a number on Mark Davies excellent site, such as this one below.  Camps don't need to be large, but if they are too small it is hard, in my view, to make them interesting. Don't forget for a camp to be legal you also need it to contain some miniatures, or it counts as undefended. It can be interesting when the camp followers sally out as well! Mark's site, with photos of his interesting but very practical camps, can be found here: hesperiana.wordpress.com |
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on May 27, 2017 1:43:12 GMT
30 inch boards is the alternative and I prefer minimizing board edge issues.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 27, 2017 7:17:50 GMT
I have four 24"x24" terrain boards. When playing DBA with my 10mm figures I use one board. However for my 20mm and 28mm figures I use all four boards thereby having a 48"x 48" gaming area.
Not a great problem as I mainly game solo.
However on my 482 x 48" set up I deploy as per rules for 32" set up.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 1, 2017 16:19:22 GMT
I found that deployment was cramped on the 24" (or 3' for 25mm) boards.
I've come to like the larger boards and always play on a 4X4 for 25mm (and lots of times on a 6X4 for team games).
I'm interested in others ideas and opinions re tight deployment etc. I'm esp interested in those who have tried both. As Bob says the larger board option was pushed on Phil - he favors the small option.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jun 1, 2017 18:40:05 GMT
Tom,
I prefer the larger boards. In my limited experience (a fair few games, but only two opponents), players still tend to line armies up opposite each other, but the edge effects are minimised. We don't tend to use many LH- or even Psiloi-heavy armies, so the possibility of flanking manoeuvres hasn't really impacted. Big surprise on the smaller boards was that many armies, especially medieval ones, cannot now set all of the elements out in a line at the start, but have to bring some from behind the main battle line in the first couple of moves. The larger board reduces this requirement which is a bit of a time-waster.
Scott
|
|
