|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Jun 1, 2017 18:41:39 GMT
We use 24" x 24" and 30" x 30" in all our tournaments.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 1, 2017 18:46:58 GMT
Tony, what determines the board size in any particular event? I assume these are for 15 mm games. What size do you use for 60 mm wide bases?
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 11, 2018 1:34:56 GMT
In preparation for the tournament I will be attending in a month and a bit, I am getting ready to play on a 24" board, and will start doing some solo battles once my next 15mm army arrives in the mail.
I have practiced setting out my table and diced for terrain, and my goodness things get cramped real quick.
This is going to be one heck of a learning curve for me.
I initially prefer a much larger area (use the max. allowed for my 1/72 armies), but since I have not played any battles on the smaller pitch, perhaps I am not seeing the beauty and complexity in a small table.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 11, 2018 6:06:09 GMT
In preparation for the tournament I will be attending in a month and a bit, I am getting ready to play on a 24" board, and will start doing some solo battles once my next 15mm army arrives in the mail. I have practiced setting out my table and diced for terrain, and my goodness things get cramped real quick. This is going to be one heck of a learning curve for me. I initially prefer a much larger area (use the max. allowed for my 1/72 armies), but since I have not played any battles on the smaller pitch, perhaps I am not seeing the beauty and complexity in a small table. Using larger terrain pieces on the smaller board you may discard more features than placing them down. Though we use the larger game board, I found 2BW x 3BW or 3BW x 4BW an ideal size for most rough and bad going, such as wood, marsh, rocky ground, scrub and BUA (hamlet). Fast troops can quickly move through such small features but will prove a problem for solid types. Do not forget, some features will become an obstacle by reducing the command distance.
Fighting in ‘hilly’ terrain I would mix the sizes for difficult hills, as an example, one large with two small. |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 11, 2018 11:38:55 GMT
I will give it a shot, thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 11, 2018 12:13:39 GMT
I initially prefer a much larger area (use the max. allowed for my 1/72 armies), but since I have not played any battles on the smaller pitch, perhaps I am not seeing the beauty and complexity in a small table. Your analogy of a pitch does conjure a "home ground advantage" situation! I use three sizes: 60cm x 60cm, 67cm x 67cm (that was the width of the practice putting green material that I picked up cheap so I just squared it off) and 75cm x 75cm. I chose the larger one not for cavalry but for hoplites! I didn't like the "L" or "[" shape initial deployment of the larger phalanx (8 spears and above) and the waste of pips getting into line. I'm just in the middle of an Anglo-Saxon - Viking matched pair so I will have to see how those battles play out with regards to the shield wall. My Gauls will likely want the smaller field though. My poor New Kingdom Egyptians are still waiting for inspiration for a more arid battlefield. Happy for any suggestions! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 11, 2018 13:34:12 GMT
Your 67cm x 67cm board is close to halfway between the min. and max. size... seem like a nice compromise.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 11, 2018 16:20:35 GMT
Just be aware that the bigger board can leave foot armies utterly vulnerable - hopeless even against any kind of mounted force. History shows that the arms race between foot and mounted was a back-and-forth affair, and it was not the case that mounted always dominated foot. Also, while the "open flank" is tempting, ancient battles rarely got decided by one side outflanking the other. Seems (anecdotally at least) that about 2/3 of battles were decided in the dead centre, by hard, careful exploitation of weaknesses. The 24" board forces this approach by and large, yet still allowing the open flank if the enemy has screwed up, or a sudden opportunity present itself. In our games, the ratio of flank to centre decided battles seems to square a bit with history. The 30+ inch boards will lead to far more battles being driven by flank-dancing.
I recommend that the 30" board should allow one of two things: 1. placement of terrain right up to the board edge, or 2. placement of one "oversize" (i.e. illegal) piece.
Just my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 12, 2018 21:33:05 GMT
We may wish to consider allowing the Defender to pick board size between the legal max and min.
We always play on 4X4 boards for 25mm and feel it provides equal opportunities for all types of armies. I've found the smaller boards cramped and easy to jam up with troops and terrian leaving mounted with little for head butting. Also you must consider historical battles such as Najera where a largely foot army nevertheless pulled off a wide flanking maneuver. Impossible on the small boards.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 12, 2018 22:00:59 GMT
Tom, would you propose lugging two boards around? Why not just keep the bigger board, but allow a bigger range in size of terrain pieces. Still allows flanking in rough, "jammed up" boards, ... if you are prepared for the PIP costs. By the way, one thing to note is that on the big boards, camps almost never get sacked. Who has the time/PIPs?
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 13, 2018 3:19:34 GMT
My 75cm board is surrounded by a neat little frame made from self-adhesive vinyl tiles cut into strips. These are marked appropriately to help with deployment. I am planning on making some cardboard inserts that can be placed inside the frame so it can be temporarily "shrunk" down to smaller sizes. That way one board can have multiple sizes with just a some strips of card or lengths of wood. You could get really creative and model these borders as impassable cliffs and mountains, impenetrable jungle or forest, desert depressions, deep ocean, The Nile, etc. Afterall, "world making" is a great part of wargaming.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 13, 2018 14:16:39 GMT
We may wish to consider allowing the Defender to pick board size between the legal max and min. TomT As some of you will already know, I have for a long time favoured allowing the invader to choose the table size. Allowing the defender to do so seems to me to give the defender too much freedom. The defender already gets to decide on the amount of terrain to be placed… …and they choose the type of terrain… …and the size and shape of each terrain piece… …and places and orientates each one in the randomly rolled for quarters… …and if that’s not enough, they can usually place a road as well to even limit the invader’s choice of base edge! How much more power do defenders need? Letting the invader choose the battlefield size is a much better ‘fairer’ arrangement. After all, one would assume that an invader would choose exactly when and where they decided to invade an enemies country. And any commander of a mounted army that chooses to invade where the battlefield is small, cramped, and covered with restrictive terrain that is totally unsuitable for his army does not deserve the title of “General”! Giving the invader the choice of table size gives invaders at least a little bit of control of where they fight, and helps aggressive and/or mounted armies (mounted armies such as the Huns, Scythians, Mongols, and such like, would have the scouting and mobility to choose where they want to give battle, and aggressive armies such as those led by Alexander, Pyrrhus, Hannibal, and so on, are under the command of clever generals who know a good or bad battlefield when they see one, and are unlikely to want to fight where their army is at a severe disadvantage). (Note that this is not changing any of the DBA rules.
Phil Barker allows for two different table sizes, but doesn’t tell us who gets to choose.
So let the invader decide…)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 14, 2018 15:51:47 GMT
Good points all. My "boards" are rolled up felt clothes so its not big deal to bring both. Other option would be to have 30" boards but with 24" lines so that they could do double duty (that's 4x4 and 3X3 for the big boys). If we allow bigger terrain, you would need two sets (maybe).
I had hoped that going to BW movement would allow enough "speed" to reach Camps etc. even on bigger boards. When introduced there was much complaining that it made armies so quick that games would only last 15 minutes. But as more feedback comes in perhaps we will determining that reaching Camps is (almost) impossible on the bigger boards even with the alleged hyper drive of BW movement which caused an entire block of ex-DBAers to create their own movement system and still panic HOTT purists).
(One Phil quirk - 32" boards - didn't even the US heretics essentially settle on 30"? Does anyone want to bother with additional 2"? Phil has a go his own way bone which helps with innovation but can make him frustrating re player feedback, this comes up in basing depth etc. where he just won't go with player initiated standards.)
If all else fails we could create a feedback loop by experimenting with allowing (either Attacker/Defender) to choose 30/24 [4/3] and see if it creates insurmountable problems both logistically and play balance wise.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 15, 2018 21:19:06 GMT
I managed to play one game on a 24" board, and it was nowhere near as bad as I though it would be, and that is from using two armies that had quite a bit of mounted elements.
I think my initial shock at seeing the board with the terrain on it, was compounded by the fact that I have only played with larger figures on a 48" board, so it looked abnormally small.
I think I will try a few games on a 36" sized board for my larger figs. and see how that goes.
|
|
