Post by felixs on May 3, 2017 7:48:39 GMT
Very good point. And one that I missed.
I have some re-basing to do (do not like some of my bases anymore. Cardboard tends to warp, plus I would like to redo some of the terrain on it). So thank you very much for bringing this up.
I will test this with paper counters and see whether I like the 20mm bases.
Ease of play is certainly in favour of this. Equal recoil distances are a lot easier to do and less fiddly. Having to watch out for 5mm difference has not been my favourite thing to do in DBA so far.
Aesthetics are a matter of personal taste - probably 20mm looks better in most cases. Pikes and Spear might look better on 15mm bases, but since Spear rear support is no more, this argument gets weaker. With Pikes 20mm give more room to accomodate the pikes, especially with shields. 20mm is probably better. (I based the Spears of my Amazon army for HotT on 20mm bases anyway. The bases of the miniatures would not have fitted on 15mm... Look good.).
The only potential problem I see:
Would anything be lost in troop interaction? As it stands, 15mm and 20mm troops mixed together do not make as good a battle line as those of exclusively either 15mm or 20mm. Recoils seriously distort such lines and they require more PIP's to repair than those of only one element depth.
So much for the game effect.
But is this important for any (historical) tactic to work?
I cannot think of any. It even seems to me that better interaction (i.e. both 20mm) between legionaries and auxilaries would be more historical. For Warband armies, having everything on 20mm bases would remove a lot of strangeness (Often the general is on 15mm 4Wb because the general would be Reg(ular) or (S)uperior in DBM(M). This does not translate well to DBA). For medieval battles, better interaction between Blades and Bow would also be good, I assume?
I have some re-basing to do (do not like some of my bases anymore. Cardboard tends to warp, plus I would like to redo some of the terrain on it). So thank you very much for bringing this up.
I will test this with paper counters and see whether I like the 20mm bases.
Ease of play is certainly in favour of this. Equal recoil distances are a lot easier to do and less fiddly. Having to watch out for 5mm difference has not been my favourite thing to do in DBA so far.
Aesthetics are a matter of personal taste - probably 20mm looks better in most cases. Pikes and Spear might look better on 15mm bases, but since Spear rear support is no more, this argument gets weaker. With Pikes 20mm give more room to accomodate the pikes, especially with shields. 20mm is probably better. (I based the Spears of my Amazon army for HotT on 20mm bases anyway. The bases of the miniatures would not have fitted on 15mm... Look good.).
The only potential problem I see:
Would anything be lost in troop interaction? As it stands, 15mm and 20mm troops mixed together do not make as good a battle line as those of exclusively either 15mm or 20mm. Recoils seriously distort such lines and they require more PIP's to repair than those of only one element depth.
So much for the game effect.
But is this important for any (historical) tactic to work?
I cannot think of any. It even seems to me that better interaction (i.e. both 20mm) between legionaries and auxilaries would be more historical. For Warband armies, having everything on 20mm bases would remove a lot of strangeness (Often the general is on 15mm 4Wb because the general would be Reg(ular) or (S)uperior in DBM(M). This does not translate well to DBA). For medieval battles, better interaction between Blades and Bow would also be good, I assume?
