|
Post by davidconstable on May 2, 2017 7:00:06 GMT
Agree, which is why I said yes.
Manzikert Plain is in places very different, and ground levels alter, as does agriculture, let alone the position of a battlefield.
When I was at Magnesia, the dry river clearly showed the effects of farming, there was a layer about 150mm on average deep of improved soil (for want of a better word) over the original ground type, and you could tell that by slingshots and arrow heads embedded in the bank.
I took my samples as best I could, but I would not be certain they are 100% correct.
The history of the houses I live in has been re-written, 14 no longer being mediaeval in origin, circa 1750AD at oldest and possibly as late as 1875? however 12 is back a couple of centuries, 13th at least.
Terrain, uniform colour, all tend to be subjective, my 1968 issued camouflage jacket is well faded due to sun and washing, and the pips added in 1975 are actually WW2 issue type (just to confuse things).
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 2, 2017 6:27:24 GMT
Hello Tom
I am looking at modifying DBA2.2 rather than starting from scratch. If I could start from "Wargames" 1962 I might be tempted, but I do not want DBA3 complications, so improving (in my mind at least) DBA2.2 is a good possibility.
Solo with automatic terrain placement allows at least the chance of LH armies having open terrain, and warbands hills and forest, just needs sorting. A building choice allows anything from a marching fort to a full castle, players choice, but same rules.
DBA3 might in theory be better? but is way to complicated for me.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 1, 2017 4:04:47 GMT
So I have to assume that change was never discussed.
What would happen if you added the option of a non terrain piece, if placed it acted like a piece of terrain, no piece being laid upon it, but it was removed before deployment. That way a Parthian or Light Horse army could choose one compulsory piece, two non terrain pieces.
Only interested in these things because I am converting my armies back to DBA2.2, and well into the plan to play a modified version solo.
Thanks for the input.
David Constable
P.S. - No reply please as a rhetorical question only.
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 30, 2017 15:29:29 GMT
Google earth or Bing maps will give you a good idea. Yes, providing the colour reproduction is OK. It is interesting sometimes watching the colour change if you are following a railway or road route in the UK on Google Earth.
Also photo colour can be unreliable depending upon age, the real thing does not usually change, unless it gets wet.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 30, 2017 8:44:57 GMT
A follow up to this query.
In my tin case for carrying my armies around are two armies, rules etc. Also carefully packed is a set of ten? tubes of earth/sand from some actual ancient battlefields in the Middle East, Raphia, Magnesia (190BC) and Manzikert Plain amongst them, this was given to my niece for safe keeping, it has unfortunately gone missing, hopefully it will turn up. When/if it does I will post as accurate a colour picture as I can obtain for people to see.
Purely as an aside, my original dark coloured DBA bases where based on a colour that very roughly represented an average of the samples, so if you can find any of those, probably on the Yahoo group taken by Martin Smith, you will see what I used.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 30, 2017 8:28:48 GMT
I love the fanaticus site, I invariably ignore something I am not immediately interested in, then look at it in an odd spare moment (waiting for F1 to start). This is one of those cases, lovely model, and do not worry about the photo, I had to send a picture (damaged furniture) via a freebee "Times" newspaper camera that was about eight years old, believe me your picture is a "Mona Lisa" quality job compared to that.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 29, 2017 16:35:50 GMT
One suspects that to an extent dips where filled in by hummocks, however if the plain was relatively flat then bushes can be burnt and smaller rocks broken up, larger rocks moved. With the few days available the worst could be removed.
Since it was cleared for the scythed chariots, they can handle limited size obstacles, but larger rocks were a problem, and the only mention of hills occur at the edge of the battlefield. So in DBA terms, gentle hills at the two sides, a road near the middle would work.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 29, 2017 16:24:13 GMT
PART CUT I think, the senator, let's say around 200 AD, would have no great problem to understand modern speakers from Britain all the way to Egypt. Of course he would notice terrible accents. But perhaps he would have had more problems to understand someone who learned speaking in the streets of Rome. Franz Yes, which is how most soldiers would have learned, and the local slang carried over into speech would have been very interesting.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 29, 2017 5:28:09 GMT
I agree with Bob, look at most historical battles, they tend to involve a BUA type area or a road.
My favourite, Gaugamela, has NO TERRAIN, cannot happen in a DBA game and I suspect most rules (unless you create scenarios). For those unfamiliar, Darius cleared the battlefield area for his scythed chariots, possibly only one bush was left, marking the spot where Darius was.
Even across a desert you usually have tracks (roads in DBA terms), people follow these, and the sand tends to get compacted.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 28, 2017 19:56:39 GMT
I find that age goes with pronunciation, the limited amount of Latin I picked up at school differs from Scott (circa 30 years younger), and probably what is taught today.
Can you imagine a Roman senator talking Latin with locals from Wales, England, Spain, Greece and Egypt, all at the same time.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 28, 2017 8:18:01 GMT
Actually, I think that Arable gives too much variation. They can have an Edifice BUA and 3 Difficult Hills or Woods (all bad going)...only one less than Hilly or Forest regions. Or they can have 2 plough (and 5 times out of 6 these can be removed), a 1BW deep Waterway or Road, and just a tiny 1BW x 1BW patch of rough going...which is even less defensive delaying terrain than Steppe or Dry regions. In other words, Arable can represent either a flat open billiard table or a heavily wooded/mountainous district. (Thatβs why I prefer randomly selected terrain β few generals in history had the luxury of picking their terrain like they were shopping in a supermarket) 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
Actually that is worse for a Parthian expecting to fight in the desert. Where does all that terrain suddenly appear from?
Accepted that probably the system as is suits most armies, but I have to assume that it was kept the way it is for simplicity.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 27, 2017 20:17:38 GMT
I was thinking about an extreme possibility, Crassus in Parthia, attacking in the east in a desert, while others defended in the hilly terrain of Hadrians Wall in Scotland UK.
The only way I can see around it, specify terrain and aggression against each enemy army, but that makes the lists even more complicated, especially for checking.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 27, 2017 8:38:32 GMT
Just a matter of curiosity really.
During the development of DBA3.0 did anybody raise the obvious problem of terrain type, or was it decided that it was to complex?
For example - if you look at II/78a Western Roman Army, the terrain it can defend in varies from the Scottish border (UK) in the north down to Africa in the south, very different terrains, but in fact it is Arable, no matter where it is.
Now I am sure that this is not going to be the only case, just that I played against the "b" version on Monday, and was thinking about the game.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 26, 2017 7:33:10 GMT
I read somewhere that camels vary from light brown to dark brown, but light brown is considered "better" for a riding camel, so I would do camels a light rather than dark brown. I have also noted from looking at pictures that camels tend to have lighter legs than bodies, whereas horses it is usually the other way around. John That is why I wrote ignore racing camels, these days people use them for sport, they tend to be very light with hair that tends to be thinner than other camels, and a lot less of it.
The preferred riding colour is biased by modern views, so people today would go for a lighter colour, however in 1970 it was definitely a tribal/group colour, to an extent an interchange of young camels occurred between tribes/groups as a mother might reject a youngster that was not an acceptable colour. One old man rode a camel that was nearly black, he felt it made him distinctive.
There is a tone change between legs and bodies, with the legs being lighter, but hair on the legs is thinner, with a lot less layering, so a camel being cleaned in winter will show that up, even after a first brush to get the worst dirt out of the hair.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 20, 2017 6:55:06 GMT
Camel colour varies a lot, from off-white to a light brown. In the 70s I saw a few, and tribe/group colour tended to be similar, but at a watering hole a real mixture occurred.
For an army I would probably vary, but make bases use a similar colour camel, to represent a single tribe/group. You need a dark base colour, depending on the time of year the hair is long or short, long hair tends to get dirty and give a dark undertone.
Do not use pictures of racing camels.
David Constable
|
|