|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 1, 2018 10:16:27 GMT
You whimp! Where are the Cathaginians and the Romans? (And the Spanish, and Syracuse, and Greek Hoplites, and...well, when does the madness end?) Welcome to your friend! Joe Collins It never ends! Ain't it grand? Jim |
|
|
|
Romans
Oct 1, 2018 10:07:15 GMT
Post by jim1973 on Oct 1, 2018 10:07:15 GMT
On a more serious note, I think there is some science that Britain has had warmer periods in the past, ancient and medieval. The Celts were happy enough to fight bare chested and the Romans grew some grapes in parts. Anybody more knowledgeable to inform us?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 1, 2018 10:03:26 GMT
Exactly my sentiment Cromwell,I remember one chap not too long ago posted a picture of his Impressive Roman army with Browns and firs shivering on snow covered bases...just like any Southerner would be like up here..never mind a Mediteranian.😁 This got me thinking... I've thought about the implausibility of Mediterranean clothing for Scotland before, but, should similarly Cimbri and Teutones, these Germanic tribes that famously roamed Southern France and northern Iberia, be modelled with the distinctive "ouch that must hurt" reddish sunburn of British and German tourists...? That is funny!  Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 20, 2018 11:03:33 GMT
I'll try it on the table. It will certainly lengthen the melee, which is a good thing. But I still can't see the Persians falling back and coming forward with their shields at the ready. Having said that we're not certain how they fought, so maybe. If the effect makes the games more even then that's a good thing.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 20, 2018 10:29:12 GMT
However, we need to be careful with 8Bw. With a combat factor of 2, +1 for being double based, and a +1 for side-support from Bd, AND yet another +1 from this new Tactical Factor, that would give them a final combat factor of 5...the same as Bd! This would make them far too powerful. Ideally, it would be best if 8Bw levelled off at CF 4. I say take away the side-support from 8Bw. After all, just why do bows get a +1 for being side-supported? Bows don’t form shield walls! Is it because some of the side-supporting Bd are assumed to be mixed in the front rank of the bows to help protect them? Well, if that is the case, 8Bw in DBA already have quote “several ranks of close fighters (as opposed to a single rank of pavisiers) in front of the shooters”. So what is the justification for 8Bw getting side-support?
Ahhhhh stevie, as you are an avid reader of the ancient historians you would know that the reports on hoplite v sparabara were consistent in saying that the hoplites only got the upperhand after they disrupted the Persian line. This seems to me to indicate, in DBA terms, what would happen if they did have side-support. I would imagine pavsiers would rather not try and retreat with their big shield under enemy pressure. I agree that sparabara are better modelled as CF4 (Immortals probably at CF5) but think that they would suffer more than 4Bw if disrupted. Joe indicated that EAP v Greeks fights usually run at 1:2, so a little tweak to get this over 40% would make the EAPs more interesting to wargamers and they deserve to be on the table more often. Particularly these new miniatures from Xyston and FIB. If the 4Ax also works then some of the enemies of Persia that currently fight as hoplites (e.g. Lydians) could also be reclassed as 4Ax to give a better historical result. I look forward to trying the new 4Ax suggestions. My Hypaspists are tired of hiding from those mercenary hoplites (probably Thebans!). Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 1, 2018 0:34:29 GMT
Hi Tony, I have a 67cmm×67cm (27'x27') piece of practice putting green that I am too lazy to cut up further after squaring it off! Cheers Jim There is always that one guy.  It does allow for 24/27/30 inch board for more variety. Of course, being obsessive, eventually I'll need one of each for all the climatic regions. (Currently working on various Bloodbowl pitches. Astrogranite, ice and wooden so far. Stone and grass to go). Then back to Ancients. 'Sigh'. It never ends... (that's a quote from my wife) Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 17, 2018 23:11:52 GMT
Hi Tony,
I have a 67cmm×67cm (27'x27') piece of practice putting green that I am too lazy to cut up further after squaring it off!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 14, 2018 23:16:10 GMT
The Camp follower limitations written in the rules are an unnecessary complication and universally ignored. Why would you limit player's creative ideas modelling a camp by having either/or rules? Definitely a rule that should be removed in any future iterations. I enjoy painting camps with all menagerie of people present and I also enjoy painting camp follower elements as again they are fun and may even give someone a nasty surprise. All camps in my games are occupied and can provide followers. If someone has a particularly poor memory then a casualty ring can be placed on the camp to indicate that it is currently empty for game purposes.
Game on!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 4, 2018 9:55:52 GMT
For wacky elements I do like the screaming women horde in the Ancient British list (see post) fanaticus.boards.net/post/11194For strange armies the Kyrenean Greek list where hoplites get to ride around on chariots before deploying are fun. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 29, 2018 11:25:04 GMT
I'm at Heathrow awaiting my long flight to Melbourne. During my stay I managed to meet up with stevie and menacussecundus for some DBA. Both were gracious and welcoming hosts that went out of their way to fit me into their schedules. People like that make wargaming so enjoyable. Also, I'd like to thank the North London Wargames Group and South East London Wargaming Group for hosting us.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 29, 2018 11:12:05 GMT
Ahhh, but stevie, I think PB has (see my earlier post). Of course, as with much of DBA, it invokes Obi-wan Kenobi's "from a certain point of view" disclaimer.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 27, 2018 17:06:50 GMT
I don't think the terrain system is broken (at least not yet; somebody may come up with the killer combo). I'm not convinced about the two board solution for practical reasons (I don't want to lug around multiple boards and multiple different sized terrain pieces). Besides, I don't have LH armies and I want may Thracians and Welsh to have a good chance at a win.
But I can see how you want to give the invader more say in the battlefield (they do get a very small say currently). So what about this for a house rule for you to try stevie?
After the defender has deployed the terrain, the invader gets to choose if they want to add one further piece of optional terrain (within the prescribed limits and not a BUA) or remove one piece of optional terrain (again exceptions will apply like BUA). To add a piece, simply follow the current process. To subtract a piece, roll the dice for the quadrant, 5 the defender chooses, 6 the invader chooses, then remove a piece of terrain from that quadrant if you want.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 26, 2018 22:44:11 GMT
For me, it's DBA. The compact size of DBA that allows me to create multiple armies over a large span that is attractive. If I had to populate a 6' x 4' or 8' x 5' table then I probably wouldn't have the enthusiasm. Simply, I don't have the time or space to paint large armies. I'm envious of those large tables covered with figures but sadly, the golden age passed me by. On the other hand, DBA inspires me that large numbers of miniatures isn't required to do this hobby. Once my ancients are up to date, I'm looking at DBHx for Napoleonics and HITT for WW1.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 25, 2018 1:39:04 GMT
Re-reading the rules, I think PB has actually dealt with this issue, admittedly in his own, unique style:
BATTLEFIELD TERRAIN
Players must be able to provide a battlefield in case they become the defender.
I'll see what others think but I can only interpret this statement as the defender provides the battlefield.
I do understand stevie's concerns but I think that the rules are clear. If it helps stevie, I cannot find anything that demands that the composition of the armies be declared prior to actual deployment. I think that is just etiquette. But if you wanted to give the invader a little push then let the general decide the composition after the defender has deployed. Technically, I think this is within the rules.
Personally, I wouldn't mind a little more pre-game detail. Just enough to give the players a little more to think about when forming their plans without changing the battle mechanics at all. Things like weather, time of day, supply, strategic situation, etc could be worked out quickly with some effect that the players will need to take into account. May help decide who wins on a stalemate. Cromwell has discussed some Peter Pig rules on another thread and it something done rather well by them.
I just got a copy of the "other purple" (DBMM) for reference and I may steal some ideas for my games as a like a bit more randomness leading up to deployment. I can provide my own chaos after that!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 19, 2018 17:25:35 GMT
I played some games with stevie last month and he definitely likes the idea of choosing the preferred board size. It certainly has some merit. My hoplites like a 75x75cm (30x30 inch) board but my Thracians and Arkananians certainly like the traditional board. Who should choose? As stevie has previously posted, the rules don't actually say. Maybe the dice on a two-thirds/one third probability? Maybe a bonus to armies with more "scouts"?
Practically, there may be a (small) issue with terrain piece sizes available (larger pieces to populate a large board may struggle to fit into a smaller board. Easily fixed with an assortment of felt but may disappoint those with carefully crafted dioramas.
The gentlemen's agreement (default) should of course be that the host providing the board and terrain (nibbles, drinks, etc) gets to choose unless prior agreement.
Look forward to the discussion.
Jim
|
|
