|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 17, 2018 20:42:24 GMT
What an intense and I'll bet fun weekend! Takes some commitment to organise all that. My hat's off to you gentlemen. Love to attend one year. Who knows? It's only 10000 miles from home.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 13, 2018 20:44:06 GMT
I've been interested in trying ECW with Baccus 6mm. I thought I'd base for DBx (DB-RRR). Would this work with the grid rules? Could you use a smaller table with smaller grids? Cheers Jim I can't speak for the ECW rules but I have played some of their other grid based games such as the new version of Squarebashing for WW1. The advantage of grid based games generally is that basing doesn't really matter as long as you can get the required number of units/bases in the grid size that you choose to use. Other grid based games worth looking at are Bob Cordery's Portable wargame ancient rules and Simon Miller's To the Strongest. Regards, Simon I have Bob's rules as I spent a few weeks painting up the Perry's Travel Battle. It's a good concept but I haven't got it to feel right yet. That balance between game and "looking" like history (as opposed to simulating history). I'm actually thinking of getting the boards separately and playing on a board the size of DBA. Might make some more manoeuvring happen. Also looking forward to Bob's Napoleonic rules. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 13, 2018 9:59:06 GMT
Awesome look! Essex right? True 15mm. Even 20mm depth won't allow two ranks with some of the nominal "15mm" around today!
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 13, 2018 9:24:51 GMT
I've been interested in trying ECW with Baccus 6mm. I thought I'd base for DBx (DB-RRR). Would this work with the grid rules? Could you use a smaller table with smaller grids?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 11, 2018 22:22:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 11, 2018 17:40:04 GMT
Agreed. Not much. Some rare(ish) instances in a scramble where that extra recoil distance puts you hard up against something that can't move.
But the irregularity does look nicer as the battlelines deteriorate in my opinion. Having said that, if you have a lot of rebasing to do (a possible punishment in purgatory for a dice-loading wargamer) then I'm sure you will have understanding from your fellow wargamers.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 4, 2018 20:46:41 GMT
Yeah you’re probably right. Might just allow Ps to be superior if they are slingers... Agrianian javelinmen were considered superior... Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 3, 2018 13:18:25 GMT
That is a very good counter analysis Jim. Yes, it’s not easy to translate ancient writings into a modern set of wargame rules. (Even I have to admit that having Imperial Roman Auxilia recoiling/breaking off 1 BW doesn’t look right to my own 21st century eyes)Very well, I submit to peer pressure and therefore change my previous deductions:- Ps are light skirmishers, who don’t like getting into hand-to-hand combat (and should allowed to recoil/evade a full base width). 3Ax are peltasts, who can skirmish like Ps or fight hand-to-hand (so should also be allowed to recoil/evade a full base width). 4Ax are regular/veteran/professional 3Ax (better with a +1 against heavy foot, but they LOOSE the ability to evade 1 BW). Thus 3Ax have a speed advantage, but are weak against Sp/Pk/Bd. And 4Ax are slower, and recoil as normal, but are a bit stronger against Sp/Pk/Bd. As most 4Ax armies (apart from the Samnites) have the option of deploying as 3Ax or 4Ax, it’s as if their general on the day of battle has given them specific orders as to how he wants them to behave that day...either as peltasts (and evade charges by recoiling 1 BW), or to fight toe-to-toe and give ground slowly (as Hannibal did at Cannae). Leave it up to the players to decide. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
I think that's a good place to start playtesting and then see how things go. Unfortunately nothing short of a message from PB will help Phillip ans Alexander's Hypaspists. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 2, 2018 21:40:11 GMT
Hi stevie. Love reading your posts and thanks for the quotes. My copy of Duncan's work is on the other side of the planet. I'm not sure what's written can be taken in different ways. Here are some thoughts: Maybe this indicates that they should be 3Ax, at least some of the time, an army list problem rather than a rule problem. This reads to me that the Achaians were doing something unusual, maybe acting as 3Ax rather than 4Ax? Sounds like they were 3Ax through this period, not the 4Ax available on the list Again, I read this as early on they were 3Ax and could retire, whilst later they were 4Ax but I cannot see them retiring as easily. Again, I don't see anything to suggest that Scutarii (4Ax) retiring from the heavy infantry. They stood toe-to-toe. Nothing here to say to me that the "4Ax" would retire. Seems as though they would stand and fight. IMHO, I cannot see the case for 4Ax retiring one base width based on these excerpts. Sadly, this would agree with my 21st century thinking, that troops with enough troop density, armour, esprit de corps and spear/sword points to stand against legionnaires or a phalanx are unlikely to be as mobile as contemporaries that were not ashamed to back off and throw javelins. The problems may be in the army lists. But that's just my thoughts. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 1, 2018 8:30:32 GMT
Very nice! You are good at this peer group pressure thing aren't you paddy?*sigh* Legio Heroica Crusader and Saracen are in the mountain somewhere. Time to dig them out. And I will unashamedly steal your idea for creating little corps of the more fashionable groups that fought!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 1, 2018 8:25:58 GMT
Jim, the Thracian list covers an extended period including Skythian horse archer allies, and the full spectrum from fox-skin hat wearing, pelta-carrying, cloaked javelin-men, to later shielded, helmeted rhompaia-wielding professionals. I see the 1BW applying to the 3Ax, and the +1 stiffening against HI applying to the later, heavier-equipped troops. I agree. My gut feeling is that the 4Ax should be available later in the period. But, like much of ancient history, we are only left with a few snippets to deduce from. And of course, history is usually written by the victors (How many men did Xerxes' bring again?). So I suspect PB has left the door open for individual tastes, for which he should not be criticised, as real proof is unlikely to be discovered. But rule changes/house rules will interact with army lists and we need to be mindful of these interactions. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 30, 2018 22:04:41 GMT
Alrighty Jim...”disciplined regulars or veteran mercenaries”.  Army II/35 Late Macedoinians: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II/20b Ptolemaics: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II/19b Seleucids: the Thracians are 4Ax... Army II18b Polyperchon: the Illyrians are 3/4Ax... Army II/17ab Lysimachids: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Army II/15 Alexander Imperial: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Army II/12 Alexander: the Thracians are 3/4Ax... Just don’t let your 21st century thinking contradict the ancient historians... ...and they say the Thracians fought in ‘peltast fashion’, not the same as those wild fierce Celts. (Indeed, the wild fierce charge of the Celtic Galatians came as something of shock to them) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Actually, I was referring to the plain old Thracian army list, which allows a lot of 4Ax. I agree that the classical description is of peltasts. I agree that the Thracians in service with Hellenistic armies can be 4Ax. I agree in theory that 4Ax needs a boost against heavy foot and +1 is a start. I'm not sure they should also get "evade" type recoils on top, particularly as experience, density and a position on the line makes this seem less likely. But the actual Thracian list may or may not play historically, at least in the classical period. I'll try it out and see. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 30, 2018 7:59:23 GMT
...because unlike irregular native 3Ax, the 4Ax are disciplined regulars trained to close-up into a tight close formation when facing heavy foot. (I don’t really care about which method is used...
..I just want my little metal soldiers to behave as the ancient historians said they did.
At the moment, some of them don't...)
I don't mind this solution but I'm not sure my Thracians were never described by the historians as "disciplined, regulars". More as "scary, hairy with big sword/scythe thing". But that is not the fault of the rule per se. 4Ax, given its weaknesses, was unfortunate for the Thracians. I'm leaning more towards 3Wb for my house rules. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 29, 2018 21:16:09 GMT
I think we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think most people on this site seem to enjoy DBA and its mechanisms. It's not perfect but there is no "perfect" ruleset. ADLG and Triumph amongst others seem to be going forward with their basis squarely in DBA. I think that most of the time DBA is mostly plausible. There are quirks that seem unusual/inflexible/implausible (e.g. Waterway/Road deployment) but they don't break the rules as far as I'm concerned. But House rule your way around that issue that bugs you personally and show us the outcomes after testing the change. Even limited tests (with concise results) are a help. We don't want to make untested rules on the fly. I admit that I am guilty of this myself.
Great information to know. This deserves serious playtesting given that it came from the creator of the rules. It would be nice to have a list of PB's ideas that didn't make the cut. I'll be interested to see how the departed playtester's ruleset correlates with their opinions during DBA testing.
I don't find it that difficult with the armies that I play regularly and stevie and I made the hint cards mainly as I wanted some help playing new armies. I'm not sure there is any benefit to the game in making it simpler. Once you get the hang of PB's style (which is what it is), the rules are simple and yet rich and subtle.
Actually, this thread was about 8Bw, in particular Sparabara/Hoplite interaction. The current +3/+5 doesn't seem to give the results written in the history books and also doesn't give as fun and tense a game. A +4/+5 seems to improve this situation. Side-support provides this as does a solid Bow +3 in close combat (and improves Persian 4Bw). A +3 shooting as promoted by PB may also have some promise for both 8Bw and 4Bw. So for my neck of the Ancients woods, I will test these solutions and report back, maybe with some more fluff (Thessalian rhomboid as 4Cv on a 40x40mm base is just too tempting!).
But let us remember how much we love a ruleset that can generally give you a good game and also let you create dozens of armies for the same cost in time and money that others require to field just one matched pair.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 25, 2018 19:34:49 GMT
Back to my original question: Is a City or a Fort any type of going? No. In my humble opinion. Jim |
|
