|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 2, 2018 2:36:55 GMT
Really? More temptation? "Sigh" The (lead) mountain goes up and up...
Now to get out the Eureka/AB minis that have been collecting dust.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 29, 2018 13:59:53 GMT
I'm thinking that a Gallic army could be great fun, but being disadvantaged +3 to +5 in combat with the Roman infantry is a tough hill to climb. The quick kill outcome is great if it works... You'd be surprised how the quick kill can distract the Roman player and cause them to hesitate. Play aggressively and try to make contact on your bound so you can choose the combats. Also, work on the flanks with your cavalry as that can also tip the balance in your favour. The Roman skirmishers can delay and disrupt you if used well. Finally, beware the triarii. Very tough to beat. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 25, 2018 2:26:12 GMT
Personally, I paint them "wood", i.e. whatever my choice for wood is at that time.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 9, 2018 4:06:58 GMT
This sort of model could drive me into 2mm gaming! linkJim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 7, 2018 10:15:27 GMT
Hmmm... I love "Choose your own adventure" puzzles! a. I would start at "1". This would take a few days to weeks until the new elements were painted. Then I would put the army into battle array and stare at them for about 15 seconds until... b. I would take the first old element and start "2". After a few hours to days I would realise... c. I should've done "3". But then the new ones look so much better so I would move to... d. "4". Let's face it. We all end up at "4" eventually. Cheers Jim Jim, I think you have it... been wrestling with this one over the past 24hrs, as I look at reworking the bases of my Early T'Ang, and thinking 'I could fudge this and go with steps 1, 2 or 3, but would I really be satisfied.... really...?' It's gonna be a full on option 4 across the board, in all probability, and it's gonna hurt, but hopefully it'll be worth it in the end  P. It'll be worth it Paul, I'm certain. It will also be cheaper than therapy if you don't! đ Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 7, 2018 10:13:02 GMT
I agree Simon. We shouldn't limit players modelling provided that the "spirit" of the rules is maintained.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 5, 2018 10:22:52 GMT
Mitch and Tony, fantastic work as always. Your videos always create the DBA itch that needs to be scratched!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 5, 2018 10:20:40 GMT
Aww, c'mon! Seriously? How can the lead mountain shrink under these conditions?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 5, 2018 10:18:30 GMT
Gorgeous!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 5, 2018 10:15:40 GMT
Here's a question, which I would like feedback from the cognoscenti of the Fanaticus Forum on.  Many years ago, under 2.2, I started painting up matched-pair armies for the Northern Cup and I'm now in the process of revisiting some of the earlier armies and bringing them up a) to full 3.0 spec and b) gradually adding in all options, as often I just bought and painted what I felt where the best 12 elements, to get them onto the table in time for the tournament. Now, the problem is that my painting style has evolved and improved down the years and I'm caught in a bit of a conundrum... So, do I: 1) Paint up the new elements in my new style and leave the previous elements as they are - The 'F**k it, can't be arsed' approach 2) Paint up the new elements in my new style and just touch up the bases on the old elements to make them match as much as possible superficially - The 'F**k it, I'm kinda bothered, but only from 3 foot away' approach 3) Paint up the new elements in the old style that the previous figures were done with and ensure everything is as consistent as possible - The 'F**k it, I am arsed, but will take the path of least resistance, even though it grates aesthetically' approach 4) Paint up the new elements in my current style and then repaint/touch up the old elements to conform with my latest techniques - The 'F**k it, I am 100% OCD and this will bug me to my grave if I don't do it' approach Looking forward to your feedback  P. Hmmm... I love "Choose your own adventure" puzzles! a. I would start at "1". This would take a few days to weeks until the new elements were painted. Then I would put the army into battle array and stare at them for about 15 seconds until... b. I would take the first old element and start "2". After a few hours to days I would realise... c. I should've done "3". But then the new ones look so much better so I would move to... d. "4". Let's face it. We all end up at "4" eventually. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 5, 2018 10:05:50 GMT
Is âexcept ploughâ meant ânot ploughâ then as plough is not Good Hoing this would be tautology and that isnâf Mr Barkerâs style. So âexcept ploughâ must mean that for these purposes plough is excepted and so a camp can be placed on plough.....which makes sense historically. They are after all just fields and those donât stop you pitching a tent. Hi paddy649! I think this is a great example of Mr Barker's style. As described by primuspilus so well, at the time of camp placement, Plough is Good Going. It's only after you roll a "1" on first PIP roll that it becomes Rough Going. So the exception is warranted. I'm pretty sure there is something in the introduction that the rules are written in the order that you will require them but sadly, the sacred Purple tome has not made this business trip. Why this is the case is up for conjecture. Maybe Phil didn't think you would place a Camp in the fields from which you expect to feed your army? Either way, I'm sure he would be bemused by our discussion. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 5, 2018 6:12:40 GMT
Agreed. I place them in (heavy infantry) deployment zone, in Good Going, not in Plough.
I don't think this one can be blamed on writing style.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 2, 2018 2:57:18 GMT
Hi stevie! How did you get this post past primuspilus? I'm not sure "failure" is a fair description given the size of the Persian empire. Yes, the hoplite phalanx trumped them, but mostly in terrain which allowed secure flanks. Many spear armed armies were defeated before crossing the Aegean. Personally, I would have liked some of these spear armed troops to be reclassified as 4Ax for a better effect as currently all spears are the same, which seems strange given the varying qualities of such a ubiquitous troop type. Jim Ha! Donât blame me...blame the ancient warriors who all gave up using pavises for a millennia and a half! Perhaps they knew something that we donât...
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Maybe Darius III would go back to the old ways if playing DBA 3? If the surgical fix includes Pk then the pursuit rules of Pk, which seems to be designed for the BdvPk encounter, makes Pk vulnerable to troops that, at least in the Near East, did not seem to trouble Pk in open terrain. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 1, 2018 15:20:19 GMT
Sorry David. I was having some fun with stevie! I can see why you were confused. I deleted your section to improve the clarity but I ennded up making it more opaque! Hopefully my edit makes it clearer.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 1, 2018 10:46:56 GMT
The truth is that when the Persians abandoned placing large wicker pavises in front of their bowmen, it took some 1,500 years before this tactic came back into fashion in the 12th and 13th centuries. Certainly the Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, and Dark Age armies never used them. Not used for some 15 hundred years?...this seems to suggest that they were a bit of a failure.
Hi stevie! How did you get this post past primuspilus? I'm not sure "failure" is a fair description given the size of the Persian empire. Yes, the hoplite phalanx trumped them, but mostly in terrain which allowed secure flanks. Many spear armed armies were defeated before crossing the Aegean. Personally, I would have liked some of these spear armed troops to be reclassified as 4Ax for a better effect as currently all spears are the same, which seems strange given the varying qualities of such a ubiquitous troop type. Jim |
|
