|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 3, 2017 11:13:33 GMT
They look great.
Maybe the look of the bases could be enhanced by adding the occasional spot of grass flocking.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 3, 2017 9:23:49 GMT
Talk about good timing. I have my Celts primed and ready to go. Even ordered the druid from Magister militum (Chariot range) for the hordes. I was only thinking of Gauls and Ancient British but I am now going to shamelessly steal your idea and look into the other armies. Jim You could also have a much simpler version of the above if you leave out all the 4Wb options. All the 4Wb could also be fielded as 3Wb, depending on your view of history. Please tell us if you find anything else that should be in this, or if you find that anything really does not fit in at all. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 2, 2017 16:11:08 GMT
My revised list for such a project (for which I already have most stuff) looks like this:
I/14c Early Northern Barbarians (Iron Age)
II/11 Gallic
II/30 Galatian
II/52 Dacian
II/53 Ancient British
II/54 Scots-Irish
II/60 Caledonian
I need the following (this includes most options and allows for fielding everything):
1 LCh*
3 LCh
1 Cv*
4 Cv
1 4Wb*
1 3Wb*
9 3Wb
9 4Wb
2 4Bd
3 Ps
2 3Bd (falxmen)
2 LH
1 3Kn (Sarmatians for the Dacian)
For added flavour, the two variants of 7Hd for Ancient British and for the Scots-Irish might be an option. I think the British will get their druids, but I can do without the rather strange priest-option in II/54b.
The above assumes that 3Ax can be done with 3Wb and that 4Bd can be done with 4Wb, both of which I am fine with. Probably not going to field II/30c anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Sept 1, 2017 11:18:49 GMT
I really like what you do with your campaign.
And the armies are gorgeous, especially with your great terrain in the background. The lesson to learn is that terrain is much more important than the details of painting individual figures. We have too much of a miniature close-up mindset. Also, the colours work very well.
Thank you for all the inspiration.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Aug 31, 2017 8:50:02 GMT
The Celts also would be about right for the last vestiges of the Early Northern Barbarian (European version), and are not far adrift from the Dacian look, either. M I/14c is a good suggestion, thank you! I imagine the Dacians as a bit distinct from what I have done so far for my Celts. But then - I could just add the falxmen (2x3Bd) and a single element of 3Kn (Sarmatians) and would have a very interesting alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Aug 31, 2017 6:53:49 GMT
What about the Celtiberains? II/39b Too many Blade, not enough Warband?  Good point. The reason they do not feature here is: I already have them as a separate army |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Aug 30, 2017 18:42:06 GMT
Hello,
I am in the process of re-furbishing my Galatians into something that can portray all the (more or less) appropriate Celtic armies. Lots of 4Wb, 3Wb and then some...
So far, I have calculated the elements needed to field most options for:
II/11 Gallic
II/30 Galatian
II/53 Ancient British
II/60 Caledonian
Have I missed something?
Of course, these armies differ in detail, sometimes even in rather fundamental things. I am going for a rather generic "Celtic" look. The shield designs do a lot, the odd bit of woad here and there is fun, some naked fanatics mixed in etc. It does not need to be 100% accurate, I am fine with something that is reasonably close with some artistic licence.
Any other armies I should include?
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jul 17, 2017 18:40:25 GMT
Have you tried them on the table yet? Yes, I have used them in a couple of games. They are excellent and just the right length for a 600mm square board, as the river pieces are made to 300mm length. Something even more spectacular might be doable, but these rivers are more than adequate. Plus they can be linked with the big river set, which I find quite good for a Waterway. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 10, 2017 8:24:51 GMT
I do however believe that DBA needs new versions and refinements to continue. My agenda here is too encourage new ideas and thinking. Let us not let the ugliness of the past keep us from a constructive and growing future. I do not believe that DBA needs new versions per se. I believe that DBA in the current rules needs: 1) Clean-up of the rules. Most things (everything?) seem to work conceptionally. But it is too hard to understand some of these things from the rules. Plus there are a few contradictions. 2) Maybe minimal changes to make Solid infantry better. But I am ok with the rules as they are.* (* Fast Warbands are clearly better. But I still enjoy playing with Solid Warbands, it is an extra challenge. Etc.) What DBA does not need: 1) Changes to the army lists. 2) More complicated factors. 3) Attempts to balance the rules as a competition game. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 9, 2017 14:12:12 GMT
Thank you.
Yes, it is a very interesting match-up and I am not complaining.
I like to use less-than-perfect armies for exactly these reasons: They make you think about how to turn your liabilities into assets. It seldom works, but if it does, it is great fun. Plus, DBA allows for a considerable ammount of dice luck, so one can always hope...
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 9, 2017 8:05:55 GMT
I think some lists were an inaccurate translation from new ideas worked into the DBMM lists. An errata might be ok for this. My vote would be to not bother changing, may players are reasonably casual and dip into DBA every now and then, rules changes are a good way to scare them off - and past changes did. If there _was_ to be new edition, I reckon a) the Break-off should come back, which can help Ax, b) give Ax side-to-side support to make them sorta 2nd rate line troops, c) give some penalty to CB and LB to compensate vs their anti-knight capacity - no move and shoot?, or lose some kills vs LH, Ps? David F Brown General point: List changes are not very important. Historically interested gamers will tweak the lists anyway (and DBA allows for that easily), hardcore tournament players will choose whatever they think is effective. Everyone else is in-between. David: 1) Break-off could be good. But we would need to talk about what that is meant to represent. Ps and LH have that factored in. 2) I am not sure that we need "2nd rate line troops". This grading is exactly what DBA tries to avoid. Auxilia is a rough terrain fighter and that works for the game (Ironically, this seems to represent most cases quite well, just not the troops that historically were called "Auxilia" by the Romans...). 3Ax is fine, but 4Ax is a bit underpowered because it is too slow and does not hit hard enough. But that is a general problem of the "Solid" vs. the "Fast" types and should be fixed accordingly. 3) Lb and Cb are no problems IMHO. The advantage is only against a single enemy element, which historically seems to make sense. A better way would be for tournament organizers to rule that all Bw count as Lb/Cb. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 8, 2017 16:47:22 GMT
I have no figures for the Cb, they are on my to-do list. So far, Ps is the only option.
Of course, Sp can defend a riverbank, but they can do little else, also, the risk that the river might be paltry is not to be underestimated. But yes, defending a riverbank (or defending a gentle hill) makes Sp against Kn better.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 8, 2017 15:36:52 GMT
Thank you.
I have two armies for both II/35a and II/35b and only a few elements away from II/35c.
Maximum size features have not been deployed. Everything was medium sized, which was hard enough to fit in in some cases.
We used a river in two games. The main effect has been that it was harder to maneuvre the Sp and easier for the Kn to catch them disadvantaged.
What armies are you referring to? Ancient Spanish (II/39) does not have these problems. I have played quite a few games with II/39a and II/39b and found them very balanced and a joy to handle. You are probable thinking of Carthaginians, Romans and maybe Italians?
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 8, 2017 9:43:50 GMT
Excellent. Some of the rules need tydiying up and clarification, so DBA 3.1 would be great. I would think that not only Fast Blades are too powerful, but Fast troops in general. Some kind of fix that would either make Solid elements more attractive or Fast ones less so would be good. Maybe Fast elements could be recoiled by Solid elements on equal results? (But I fear that is not enough). Felixs, I don't understand your last comment. Are you suggesting a rule like this, If results are equal
“Fast” foot Recoiled by “Solid” foot in close combat with it or shooting at it,. . .
Bob, you are quite right. That comment makes no sense, since such a rule already exists. I was a victim of my own stream-of-consciousness editing. Sorry for the confusion I caused. My original idea was, that Fast foot should be destroyed in all such cases, but that then seemed to harsh, so I changed it. Coming up with the rule as it is |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 8, 2017 9:39:44 GMT
Dear all,
having converted my Feudal Spanish to DBA, I am now able to do mirror matches (inter-feudal war) with them.
Feudal Spanish consists of Kn, Ps, Sp and a LH or two. Terrain tends to be relatively dense, because of the high ammount of Ps. Open ground is usually not very wide and deployment of the heavy troops is often quite challenging. While it is simple to see what to do with the Kn (charge!) the Ps (support and skirmish), the LH (support, skirmish and threaten), the Sp give me a headache.
This gets worse once you have one sides general on foot as a Bd, which has very similar problems to Sp, arguable worse in this match-up.
Problem: The Spear seem nearly useless. In the open, they get slaughtered by Kn. In BG, they do not get their side-support bonus, and the -2 makes them vulnerable to Ps (as it should be, of course). So there is really nowhere to go.
I have tried to build a line of three Sp at the center and Kn at the flanks, but odds are not good for the Sp. They need a double overlap on Kn to really threaten them, but that needs quite a bit of luck with the dice. Success ratio is quite bad, about 1:3 or so.
Local distribution of numbers is of course important in any DBA game (and decisive in mirror matches). But the Sp are mostly too slow to not be out-manoeuvred by the Kn.
The result so far is, that one Sp guards the camp (very useful for that) and the other two Sp try to hide somewhere safe. Keeping them near the camp to maybe catch an overly rash Ps or LH usually seems like a good, if strange, idea.
Does anyone have good ideas of what to do about this?
|
|
