|
|
Post by felixs on Nov 16, 2021 19:49:18 GMT
Thank you for the battle report. It is also lovely to hear that another person uses fantasy armies with DBA rules. I'm currently painting up some Dark Alliance goblins and I feel the unit types in DBA fit Tolkien a bit better than HOTT.
I do that too. Maybe it is more popular than we think?
Works excellent - the variation in troop types in DBA 3 have turned DBA in a very good choice for fantasy battles. The only thing that is really missing are flyers (but LH work OK for that mostly) and large flyers (never been happy with HOTT dragons). DBA El are perfect for almost any sort of non-flying (or even fluttering) monster, giant etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Aug 7, 2021 9:31:11 GMT
Every time I browse through the DBA army lists, I find something that I would like to try out. Of course, people talking about these things makes that worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jul 23, 2021 10:14:04 GMT
The idea is absolutely great!
Hope you keep us involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jul 19, 2021 19:50:59 GMT
It is possible that I missed something.
I surely do not want to discourage anyone - you might find it less fiddly than I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jul 9, 2021 10:20:03 GMT
I have tried it a few days ago.
While I did like the visuals, I found the handling fiddly and it it too hard to reach the level of precision that DBA really requires. It is too difficult to align elements in corner-to-corner contact, group movement is wonky etc.
Feels like an early beta (which I guess it is). That is fine, but to me it is no fun to play that way. If usability is improved, I might re-consider.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 28, 2021 11:41:54 GMT
After a long period of not doing anything at all, I am back at my late Late Samurai.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 12, 2021 16:53:36 GMT
Maybe Phil Barker thought it easier this way.
Pushing back two Ps could be seen as the easier procedure on the tabletop than the somewhat more fiddly picking up of the front element and putting it behind the rear element.
I can imagine arguments for just the opposite too.
Or maybe there is something in DBMM that explains this? I have no idea, not very familiar with the DBMM rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 18, 2021 10:18:09 GMT
Yup, especially if you have the centre figure slightly forward.
I am not sure. I would say that it depends on the figures in question. Some of the bigger ones are, IMHO, impossible to fit. Especially if they are in "dynamic" poses. You will only know if you try it, I would say.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 27, 2021 18:04:41 GMT
Asked on the Society of Ancients forum - Duncan Head replied with: “ Late Republican helmets were mostly bronze Montefortino and Coolus types, with some iron Gallic styles (the Agen-Port styles) being adopted from Caesar's day onwards. Imperial legionaries might wear iron or bronze. Auxiliaries are a lot less certain, but also probably both, with maybe bronze being more common then in the legions.“ There ya go.....
Thank you very much!
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 27, 2021 6:49:33 GMT
I'd go all bronze (even if some wore iron) and make them look just that bit earlier than an Imperial Roman legionary.
That is a good point.
And mixed looks too unorderly for my taste.
Plus it reminds me, I need to build an Imperial Roman army too..
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 26, 2021 20:41:32 GMT
Thank you. Phil Barker also mentions "bronze helmets" in the DBA army list description for Marian Roman. Bronze helmets are very common in wargames publications. I assume they are also more common in museums, since bronze is easier preserved in most climates. Looking at what wargame-oriented miniature painters do with their Marian Roman helmets, most seem to choose bronze. Few opt for iron/steel, fewer opt for a mix.
However, I also found the following, which I would like to share: P. Cagniart: "The Late Republican Army (146-30 BC)" in Erdkamp, "A Companion to the Roman Army".Malden etc.: Blackwell, 2007: p. 89 gives: "The most common form of helmet was in the shape of a bowl with cheek pieces and neck protection (the Montefortino type). Helmets were made of iron or bronze. The helmet offered the best protection while leaving the soldier with unobstructed vision and hearing, this lack of obstruction being vital since the manipular or cohortal formation depended upon orders that had to be seen (signa of the units) or to be heard (cornu or trumpet). On the top of the helmet was a device intended to hold horsehair or a hole intended to hold feathers. This caused the soldier to look taller and thus more impressive." Apparently, both is accurate. But Cagniart gives no figures as to likely ratios or whether bronze and steel might be mixed in the same unit etc. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 26, 2021 8:44:33 GMT
Hello everyone,
this might seem a very stupid question:
What colour should I paint the helmets for Marian Romans?
Mine are painted steel. But nearly everyone else seems to do them in bronze. A quick search on the topic is inconclusive, wargamers have done both, with most opting for bronze. I assume that this might be as much an aesthetic choice as anything else.
I am currently re-basing and touching-up my Romans, so this would be a good time to change the helmets to bronze, if that is historically accurate.
Can anyone enlighten me?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 19, 2021 9:18:47 GMT
High elves could be medieval French or english armies. Byzantins would do too.
I have always thought that Byazantines are the perfect fit for Elves. A dying empire, tragic and decadence everywhere, standing against the storm, thinking of oneself as elites while being out-numbered and possibly out-classed by the new-comers. Plus the overall looks is probably the closest that one would get to Tolkien-esque elves.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 15, 2021 21:52:42 GMT
Well, why not? I am not sure whether DBA or HotT is suitable for any form of Sci-Fi, but no other than the most honourable Kaptain Kobold at the Stronghold seems quite fond of using the rules for that purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jan 15, 2021 15:50:58 GMT
Fantasy of the more conservative sort (Tolkien, Martin, Williams, Pullman etc.) is relatively easy to do with DBA.
What has been astounding to me is how versatile DBA 3 really is. The borad choice of troop types does, as has been mentioned, allow for a sort of differentiation that was unheard of in earlier editions of the game. This is extremely useful for depicting Warhammer-esque and D&D-style fantasy warfare.
Really, the only thing that is really missing are flyers and dragons.
Magic is a bit of a problem. Personally, I am not that happy with the way magic is handled in HotT, as it seems both too abstract and too detailed for me. Too abstract because having the magician (and his crew) as a seperate unit implies (to me) a level of detail that makes the actual effect feel a bit lack-lustre. Only a single spell is just not very "fantasy" in feeling. On the other hand, the rules for frogging, de-frogging and that for heroes appearing in the enemy Stronghold etc. are a bit too much for me. Plus they lead to stupid frog jokes.
Personally, I find it totally acceptable to just depict magicians as part of other units and treat them as normal. They are just part of the overall support.
D&D-style magicians could be Artillery. I would suggest that this is just as good (or bad) as what HotT does.
I think it is obvious that an army of Orcish wolf riders must be Mongols.
Haradrim should be some kind of Arabic or Persian army, alternatively Indian.
|
|
