|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 1, 2019 9:52:59 GMT
(Followed by a 12 element per side ACW game, using a DBA HX rules variant, tweaked for v3. Enjoyable, quick and a bit of a change....) Please provide more details of this! I've been working on one, using DBA3, DBA-HX and HFG as well as some new ideas for troop arrivals, artillery supplies, fine tuning different troops in different theatres etc. I've put it away because I'm worried that it's getting bogged down in unnecessary detail. I'm aiming for ~20000 men per army (~1 Confederate corps). I'd love to your tweaks as they may have some elegant solutions. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 21, 2019 6:24:06 GMT
For those of us Downunder I would highly recommend Back-2-Basix from South Australia.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 29, 2019 12:54:47 GMT
I would certainly hope so. I've always thought the intent of the rule was to allow more mobile troops the chance for some semi-independent strategic movement with the first turn bonus reflecting pre-battle orders. If so, then a flying column of mobile troops would be completely appropriate.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 24, 2019 7:56:41 GMT
This is a really interesting discussion.
Bob's comment is absolutely correct. These rules are based on Phil Barker's view of Ancient and Medieval warfare. I don't think that anyone would think that PB hadn't heard of Cyrus, Alexander, Genghis or Attila. Nor that he ignored Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers and others. For his own reasons he made the decisions that are in the rules. It is amazing that after three years of development with dozens if not hundreds of playtests, we are still talking about "major omissions". Still, if someone else took on the mantle and revised the rules, we would still have to deal with that author's view on Ancient and Medieval warfare (yes, even if they are based on historical accounts; they didn't write for wargamers).
If there are true weaknesses in armies that were historically successful then perhaps revision is required. But what is more important for me is play balance. It is a game after all. Yes, I would like Alexander and Phillip to be more likely to win against historical opponents. But not to the point that they win 80% of the games! Who would ever spend time and money on building their enemies? If we get play balance right then we have a rich game and we support the figure makers and encourage them to make more ranges. If not, the game will become stale.
I do support experimental rules based on historical accounts to try and improve play balance. If they reach the point that they slightly favour the historically successful army, even better. But I would put forward that there should be "devil's advocate" playtesting. If we improve one troop type, does it tip the balance some where else in the 4500 years covered the wrong way and the historically weaker army becomes superior? You may find that changing troop classifications give a historically better result than changing the rules (Personally, I think too many armies have Sp when they should be 4Ax).
Anyway, people will play what they want to play. The important thing is to live and let live (unless you're hard flanked, of course). stevie's observation that people will vote with their feet is right. Look at shooters/warband in HOTT or BUA in 2.2. As long as we have some fun and a beverage of your choice then all is well.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 23, 2019 21:09:00 GMT
I've had an itch to do 6mm Baccus on double sized bases and boards. Very tempting. An 80x30 base could hold 96 hoplites! What's stopped me is the increased board size. I like 750x750 boards. But 1500x1500 is a bit cumbersome for DBA. May still do it along the 25mm base size convention.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 13, 2019 11:07:26 GMT
Seriously? Compare it to Museums new Indian elephant - this is rubbish. The computer rendition looks good (though the soldiers look more they came from a modern gym and eat pounds of protein bars). But I haven't seen an actual model. Do you have a picture of one to see? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 11, 2019 5:11:15 GMT
Looks fantastic!
You could use some Milliput if you want to extend the tusks.
The 3D printing bug is stirring again...sigh...more overtime...
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 9, 2019 6:55:58 GMT
I like the Fantassin/Warmodelling/Capitan and now, Stonewall Figures, Punic War miniatures. But seen some queries about service so I haven't made the plunge yet.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 21, 2019 3:17:48 GMT
Low PIPs impact LH armies disproportionately - so giving them +1 PIP per 4 elements of LH on the table counteracts this and IMHO provides a more historical looking game......but you need a lot of LH to benefit from this. I have some concerns that getting 8-9 PIPs may unbalance the game the other way. So I've got an alternative for you paddy649. If an army has more than "X" elements of LH (you choose the number) then the general can choose to take 3 PIPs rather than roll the die for PIPs. As this is less than average for a die roll you have some incentive to take a risk with the die roll. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 16, 2019 6:50:59 GMT
Illegal pick No rough/bad going choice My bad. The scrub/boggy ground had to be dumped because the Plough were quite...err...large! Muddy-Puddle! Love it. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 16, 2019 5:58:06 GMT
The "postage stamp + 2 roads" even works in Tropical! That is a Green Martini! The recipie is 2 roads in Tropical garnished with a Postage Stamp wood. 2 roads in Hilly garnished with a Postage Stamp difficult hill is called a Martini on the Rocks. Okay paddy649 let's see how you go with this one: Middle Anglo Saxons defending against Welsh. Choose 2 Plough, 1 extra Plough, 1 road expecting to be left with 1 road on the board after the first turn and good ground for a shield wall. Of course, you know what the Saxon general rolled for PIPs... Look forward to seeing what sort of martini this one is! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 14, 2019 14:41:27 GMT
As much as I have used this forum in the past, I'm afraid it is going the way of The Miniatures Page for me. Time constraints have limited my DBA 3.0 promotion activities to Facebook and Youtube. Say it isn't so Tony! Seriously, we need you on this forum. For no better reason than your videos are THE BEST example of the rules in practice. Not only that, that the way you play them are in the best spirit of warGAMING. We need more such views in the discussion, not less. If we could fix the picture issues on this site then I would love to contribute to the miniature discussion on this board (love my dark ages Splintered light minis but lots of projecting weapons!) Please stay involved, even if it's only the occasional observation. Cheers Jim PS. I may even make that 10000 mile journey to one of your tourneys one day! |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 12, 2019 12:38:21 GMT
To be clear, the gist of the discussion seems no longer "what do the rules say?" but rather "what SHOULD the rules say" about rivers. Absolutely correct, at least on this thread. I started this thread so those of us that think that the River rules need a change can discuss (and maybe even agree?) on a solution. I am hopeful (but not optimistic) that the FAQ team will solve this problem. But it couldn't hurt to have an alternative to consider. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 7:55:48 GMT
As for the Hydaspes, you could have the river lengthwise along one side, with Alexander and Porus facing off with the bulk of the forces, and two detachments on either side of the river to represent Craterus and the covering Indian troops.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 7:51:24 GMT
We have to be a bit practical here Jim. If I am invading with a Pike or Spear army, and my defending opponent plops a river onto the table that strips away my side/rear support, then I will simply refuse to cross it. “Are you going to advance over the river?” “No, are you?” “No, I ain't gonna to cross it either...” You might as well pack up and go down the pub! (This used to annoy the hell out of my mates...then the buggers started doing the same to me!
The result?...rivers never got used)Pikes and Spears need an incentive to enter a river...and offering them suicide isn’t it. Otherwise, rivers become unplayable and break the game (although pub landlords love ‘em!) And I don’t think that the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC is a good example. All the fighting occurred after Alexander had crossed the river...he didn’t fight his way across. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes ) Well... - you could invade along the length of the river and you get to deploy after your opponent - if he puts a road then you can deploy on the closer side and try and get to the river first - or you can play on the larger boards (I know you like to give the invader the choice of boards) and try and deploy with a force somewhere to force a crossing But if you like playing Early Spartans like me you are probably going to have to tough it out. But then again, I can't find a report of the Spartans forcing a river crossing in a major battle. I don't think this breaks the game. (But I have heard worse excuses for a beer). It does make Spears and Pikes more challenging. But it also gives light armies a chance against them. Cheers Jim |
|
