|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2019 11:49:53 GMT
Inspired by Tony and Mitch and their Youtube battles, I re-fashioned my Waterways to have a narrow, rocky beach rather than a wide beach. I now play by their convention that touching the rocky beach is touching the Waterways. Cheers Jim   |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2019 11:46:07 GMT
Here is my new DBA battleboard. It can easily move from 60cm to 66cm to 72cm by removing the inserts. Why 72cm? It still allows 10 elements of heavy infantry to be deployed side by side. Why 66cm? It's halfway between the two! Cheers Jim    |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2019 11:38:11 GMT
I think that it is important to remember that the Psiloi are still in BAD GOING whilst the Camels are in GOOD GOING. It's not quite true that both elements are in the same terrain. Psiloi are penalised by being only able to form a Group with other Psiloi.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 24, 2019 11:40:33 GMT
One strategy I use to decipher Barkerese is to rewrite the sentence leaving in only the parts that are relevant to the current situation. So in this situation I would read the rule as:
A group move across Bad Going must be in or into column unless entirely by Psiloi
So I interpret this as the group move between the Psiloi and the Camels is not possible because the Psiloi are in Bad Going and therefore the only way they can move as a group is if the entire group consists of Psiloi. It's one group so if part of it is across Bad Going then the move is "across Bad Going".
Is it realistic? Who knows? Maybe somebody can dig out something from the history books. Even WW1 may give some clues.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 18, 2019 22:01:01 GMT
Funny, Jim, I always thought the "solid/fast" delineation was the most radical departure from canonical DBA we've ever seen... I like "Peltasts" but does that really fit outside classical era? To me, 4Ax are the true Auxilia ... <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.40000000000009px; height: 4.920000000000016px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_54836227" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.4px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1356px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_30032163" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.4px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 152px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_54210165" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="28.40000000000009" height="4.920000000000016" style="position: absolute; width: 28.4px; height: 4.92px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1356px; top: 152px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_56708077" scrolling="no"></iframe> It doesn't but neither does Psiloi. Warband is also thrown around, as is Knights. So I was trying to stay in theme!  But if you had two separate troop types you don't have to relate one to the either. Or you could have potentially Fast/Solid versions of each, giving 4 categories if required. I struggle to see Roman Auxilia as the evolution of Thracian Peltasts. If anything, they would have more in common with the Warbands they were initially designed to counter, i.e. a (disciplined, they were Roman after all!) form of infantry that are not hindered by rough ground and fight hand-to-hand. But that's me. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 18, 2019 21:51:00 GMT
I like to imagine that combat can occur from the back of the cavalry element to the back of the opponent's element. We're told that 1BW is 80 paces. That gives at least 100 paces (90m?). That gives more than enough room for a pursuit of a broken enemy in my mind's eye. I've always looked at the pursuit rule as trying create some disorder rather than an appearance on the table, i.e. as battle progresses, these troops find it harder to maintain cohesion and have to act more independently unless chieftains/nobles/officers can get them in line. I don't like how it neuters Pikes but Pikes have a few problems. (I mean a 3x2 block of elements is Alexander's Pike Phalanx?).
That's my 2c (2p) worth.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 18, 2019 4:08:47 GMT
Just as a thought exercise. How would you write the rules if you had two different troop types: ie Peltasts (replacing 3Ax) and Auxilia (replacing 4Ax)? This may provide a bit more freedom that the fast/solid differentiation. It plays on medievalthomas' idea of a "medium infantry" but with a more DBA-esque terminology.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 13, 2019 13:04:18 GMT
Very tempting greedo. But shipping from the US to Australia is draconian. Shame. Lovely figures.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 9, 2019 11:02:44 GMT
Anybody else going in for this? Look interesting. linkCheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 9, 2019 10:58:22 GMT
But I would hope that if a player fielded an (Thracian) army circa 600BC with 9 elements of 4Ax then nobody would look down their glasses at them. After all, it is a legal army. I truly hope we don't go down the path of trying to micromanage players model collections. If wanted someone to look over my shoulder and comment on the colour I painted the metal fastener then I would do Napoleonics! Cheers Jim Ha! Whether the Ps, 3Ax, and 4Ax represents three different time periods, or they represent three different tribes, they are still three separate armies fighting in their own distinct styles...and as different as chalk is from cheese. So if you want all three types of Thracians Jim, then ya gonna ‘ave ta pay for ‘em (you cheapskate  ). (And what about tight-wads like me that plonk 4Ax on the table and say “oh, those are acting as 3Ax for this battle”...?)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Ha! I've already got an all-option venerable Tin Soldier Thracian army. Not only that but I've put in an order for the new Tin Soldier release of Thracian javelinmen. But that's it! Finished! No more Thracians! ... but if they release naked stone-throwers... A positive of an all option Thracian army is that you can stage a an inter tribal battle. And they were some local coalitions like at the Battle of Drabescus. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 8, 2019 23:21:35 GMT
After all, we don’t complain about the I/59 Tullian Romans (looking like hoplites), the II/10 Camillan Romans (looking like Triarii), and the II/33 Polybian Romans (looking like hastati & principes), and say “oh dear, I’ve now got to go and buy three different armies to represent them all”. And why don’t we complain?...because they are in three different army lists. Well, just because the I/48 Thracian army list has 3 different Thracian armies from 3 different periods squeezed into one, with the Ps the early Thracians, the 3Ax representing the middle Thracians, and 4Ax the later thureos shielded Thracians, isn’t it just the same as the Romans above? It may say “Illyrians” at the top of army I/47, but there are two different armies from two different periods fighting in two different styles in there...and it’s the same with the I/48 Thracians, the II/39 Spanish, and the II/11 Gauls...etc. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Wow! My initial post was just a tongue in cheek comment that with 4Ax+1, Illyrians will be more attractive. I didn't think it would raise a serious discussion. But let's look at the Thracians. stevie, your saying they are three different armies. But PB writes in his DBMM army lists that Hill Tribe Thracians can have a rhomphaia throughout the period covered. Indeed he cites non other than Thucydides, who states that the best fighters were independent swordsmen who cam down from the Rhodope Mountains. He goes on to explain that these swordsmen may have been rhomphaia-men, the earliest excavated rhomphaia dating from the late 4th century BC. He also states that they may also have had long spears. Now how do "swordsmen" (according to Thucydides) fit into a Ps or 3Ax model? We simply don't know how all the different Thracian tribes fought at different times. I think PB is acknowledging this lack of knowledge and is being quite flexible in his approach. Your approach to your armies is absolutely fine. But I would hope that if a player fielded an army circa 600BC with 9 elements of 4Ax then nobody would look down their glasses at them. Afterall, it is a legal army. I truly hope we don't go down the path of trying to micromanage players model collections. If wanted someone to look over my shoulder and comment on the colour I painted the metal fastener then I would do Napoleonics! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 8, 2019 0:14:22 GMT
Not most I think, and certainly not me. But I know at least one such enthusiast in Canberra who hosts regular 6-8+ person campaigns and provides all the troop elements, terrain, camps and playing surfaces. Each player just has to turn up to play. Great work Macbeth and long may it continue! Sounds like fun! I must get up to Canberra for an event one day! Yes lot's of options is great for campaigns. For example stevie's mapless campaign rules work a lot better if there are actual "weaker" units available to choose from. I also like randomizing the make up of armies for scratch matches. Gives a good tactical challenge for tried and tested match ups and roughly simulates a general fighting with what's at hand rather than carefully crafting their force. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 7, 2019 23:36:08 GMT
One unexpected outcome is that my planned Illyrian army will cost double as I'll need 3Ax and 4Ax options! Jim Just curious, Jim. Why do you need 4Ax and 3Ax across the board? I always interpreted the choice to mean that PB was allowing players to field the army as they believe they actually fought? So Lydians are 4Sp or 4Ax for solid foot, but I didn't imagine he meant they would cycle back and forth between being 4Ax and 4Sp hoplites? Otherwise I gotta have something like 38 elements just to field a "complete" 12-element Thracian army? Ouch! Do most players build every possible choice? My Illyrians are I think 2 x Ps, 9 x 4Ax, and LH general, if I recall. I subscribed to the view of them carrying large shields, and fighting closer order. My Early Thracians are mostly Ps and 3Ax. Makes for an interesting fight! I'm not quite sure about the point of this question. The simple answer is that I like toy soldiers! That's all the reason that I need. I don't think PB has any interest in the armies I build. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 7, 2019 9:20:47 GMT
One unexpected outcome is that my planned Illyrian army will cost double as I'll need 3Ax and 4Ax options!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 6, 2019 10:25:21 GMT
Hi stevie.I like the 4Ax+1 adjustment but I have one nagging doubt and I wanted your (and anybody elses) thoughts. We are told that the Romans developed Auxilia to match Warband. So 4Ax will get the Solid v Fast bonus against 3Wb but 3Wb can get rear support +1. Do you think this gives the right balance? Cheers Jim At the moment Jim, some people (but not myself) think that Warbands are already too weak. Yes, they get +1 for rear-support...but at the cost of shortening their battleline. I don't see any calls for making Wb even weaker. The current situation, with both 4Ax and Wb having and keeping a CF of 3 each, seems about right. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Thanks stevie. |
|
).