|
Post by felixs on Sept 14, 2017 7:50:18 GMT
Thank you for these great battle reports!
It might be up on your site somewhere, but I cannot find it. How did you do the desert bases? I seem to be unable to get the colours right.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 13, 2017 20:10:56 GMT
Your Vikings looks absolutely stunning.
They totally put to shame the Early German (II/47g) that I finished painting today. Nevertheless, I will still base them and enjoy playing with them ^^
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 13, 2017 17:09:06 GMT
Actually, I think that this is a good way to handle it and I will do a few more games paying attention to whether I do it in the right order.
The arguments in favour of the DBA 3.0 rulings make perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 11, 2017 9:34:43 GMT
The Chinese internet yields little help on how the Han carts might have looked. My books also do not help much - battle carts are mentioned, but the look of those seems unclear. Some 1500 years too late, but maybe still interesting are these (I assume) reconstructions of Ming era battle carts: jd.cang.com/478841.htmlAnd another reconstruction, down the page: jiaguwen111.blog.sohu.com/162350609.htmlPlus here is a breakdown of two kinds of organizations as give in military manuals of the Ming general Qi Jiguang (1528-1588), the Lianbing shiji, the text in which these formations are described is from around 1580. The concept would be very similar to that used by the Han, except that the Han would not have firearms, of course ^^ baike.baidu.com/pic/%E8%BD%A6%E8%90%A5/10702845/21017262/7e3e6709c93d70cf75a6f715f1dcd100baa12b4d?fr=lemma#aid=21017262&pic=7e3e6709c93d70cf75a6f715f1dcd100baa12b4dbaike.baidu.com/pic/%E8%BD%A6%E8%90%A5/10702845/0/8326cffc1e178a8237a521b8ff03738da977e809?fr=lemma#aid=0&pic=8326cffc1e178a8237a521b8ff03738da977e809I would imagine that such carts would be drawn by oxen, rather than horses. But horses might have been used if in ample supply. Availability of horses varied greatly between the different campaigns of the Han. Assuming that there are no illustrations or descriptions of how these carts looked, I would scratch-build something based on supply wagons. It seems likely that those war wagons were improvised anyway, so something that looks a bit scratch-build, even awkward would not be out-of-place. I would take my inspiration from the pictures I linked above and from Hussite war wagons, of which many pictures are easily found.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 11, 2017 6:17:01 GMT
Stunning terrain, absolutely great. I will borrow many of your ideas. Thank you very much for putting up the pictures and explanations. Your hard work on these things is very much appreciated!
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 10, 2017 9:49:34 GMT
I think Phil thought the issue was better addressed by giving the defender the first move. Ouch... I might have been playing this wrong all the time. Need to check with my regular opponent.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 17:10:08 GMT
Shooters (Sh) is a term from Hordes of the Things. It does not exist in DBA. I assume you mean Bows and Artillery.
Bows come in two flavours: 1) Bw, 2) Lb and Cb. They also come as Solid (4Bw, 8Bw) and Fast (3Bw). Artiller (Art) is just that.
Lb and Cb is a bit better than Bw, because it is more effective against Kn.
I like a few Bw in my armies, but I do not have too many armies that have them. They are extremely useful for disrupting the enemies formation, thus costing him PIP's and they can be quite deadly if they concentrate their fire. Thus you ideally want three Bw elements, so that the enemy is at -2.
I have little experience with Art, only having them in my Chosôn army. But I like Art a lot, just because I think they are fun. From reading the rules, they should also be quite effective against some elements (El...).
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 16:24:38 GMT
One of the very few points that I liked better in DBA 2.2 was how it allowed for two pairs of the defenders elements to be exchanged after deployment.
Does anyone know why that is gone? Given the stone-paper-scissor nature of DBA, I always thought that this was a very good rule and that it did a lot to balance the massive bonus of setting up after knowing your opponents positions. Apparently, not everyone thinks that way.
I understand that the massively increased movement distances make DBA 3 much less static than 2.2 was. Still - re-deployment depends on PIP's and is still difficult to do for heavy foot.
I am thinking of re-using that rule in DBA 3 as a house rule. Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts on why I should or should not do it?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 12:55:44 GMT
Nice looking Maori! timurilank - Good to know, Essex is trying to maximize the number of armies offered and a lot of them end up using the same figures. True. Just would like to add that I think that Essex does this in a way that is mostly sensible. All the army packs I have from them have been good and all those that I looked into (including some more exotic ones) were at least ok. (Of course, for many of the armies, especially the less well-known ones, it is not even really clear what they should look like.) It might be interesting to have a list of armies that lack figures and can thus not be built. We had a thread on Vietnamese armies earlier, which illustrated the problem with building Vietnamese armies due to a lack of suitable figures. I can think of no other example. (Depends, of course, on how "accurate" one feels one has to be and also depends on what quality of figures one finds acceptable and what figures one is ok with mixing etc.)
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 11:31:07 GMT
In DBR they have a few skirmishers, which are useful, and naval in the form of waka. Everything else is Bd(F). DBR, of course. Sorry for confusing that with DBM. In DBM it seems to be Irr Bd(F) only. Nothing else... A few skirmishers surely would come handy...
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 9:58:53 GMT
Ideally another Maori iwi (tribe) as I prefer historical opponents. That is what I meant. They have no other historical opponent according to the list. Even though I would think that it is not too far fetched to put another sea-faring army from roughly that area against them. Your figures look great. And a DBM army of Maori is quite something. That is only Bd(F) and nothing else? Wow... How does that play? Both in DBA and DBM?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 9:17:40 GMT
It is time I got my Maori out of their box for some DBA action... Who to fight against? However, Maori should be more interesting now, since fast Bd would make for a more interesting game.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 9, 2017 9:14:31 GMT
and a partidge in a pear treeeeee). That would be the camp then, I suppose?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 8, 2017 13:51:26 GMT
The Americas and Oceania do not show up that often in my tournaments but that is a bit like the single digit numbers not turning up in lotto draws as often. There are fewer armies in this category than say Medieval Europe or Asia. Obviously. This has a lot to do with historical records, research and designers and players' biases. The granularity of European lists is a cruel joke compared to other areas of the world. Again, easy to see, why this is so.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 8, 2017 9:45:38 GMT
Is there any way we can find out if there is an army which not one person is interested in fielding? If there is such an army, then I am interested in fielding that army. Does that solve the problem? But there clearly exists an obvious pattern of what armies are popular. I would think: 1) Rome and the usual suspects. (The not-so-ususal suspects do not get much coverage). I would lump the Hellenistic world in here - but that could also be a separate entry. 2) Late Medieval, mostly centering around the 100YW and the Wars of the Roses. (Also the crusades and the Teutonic order - even though no one does the Prussians) 3) Vikings - and little else for Dark Ages. 4) Mongols 5) Spartans 6) Japan, for some reason. 7) Egyptians 8) Armies that featured in a movie or that have got a shiny new line of miniatures. 9) Armies that did/do well in competition due to their balanced composition (The Sassanid Persians etc.) In short, everything that one gets exposed to in school and TV. Very unpopular seem to be: 1) The Americas 2) Non-Mongol Central Asia 3) Oceania (except, maybe, for Hawaii) 4) Northern and Eastern Europe 5) Non-Japanese East Asian armies (except for Qin)
|
|