Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DBA] DBA LISTS 2a

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Johansson
    http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/DBA%20LISTS%202a.pdf ... -- Andreas Johansson Why can t you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/DBA%20LISTS%202a.pdf

      On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:24 AM, David Kush <adherbaal@...> wrote:
      > My computer-fu is weak and I can not find "DBA LISTS 2a.pdf can anyone help me?
      >
      > --- On Sun, 10/31/10, suzanlb <suzanlb@...> wrote:
      >
      > From: suzanlb <suzanlb@...>
      > Subject: [DBA] DBA LISTS 2a
      > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
      > Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 6:41 AM
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >      Today I have placed the first 10 lists from section 2 as a file
      >
      > DBA LISTS 2a.pdf to make it available for comments.
      >
      > I will add more next weekend.
      >
      >
      >
      > I would welcome suggestions about these 10 lists.
      >
      >
      >
      > Sue.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >



      --
      Andreas Johansson

      Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
    • Keith McNelly
      ... Dear Sue, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Firstly while I do like the introductory paragraph I do worry about how this may impact the total page
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 1, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 01/11/2010 02:41, suzanlb wrote:
        > Today I have placed the first 10 lists from section 2 as a file
        > DBA LISTS 2a.pdf to make it available for comments.

        Dear Sue,

        Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

        Firstly while I do like the introductory paragraph I do worry about how
        this may impact the total page count. Could the rule book become too
        large. Yet you already have such useful background information included.

        Now to individual list comments:

        II/2 Mountain Indian:
        =====================

        The DBMM list seems to promote a greater number Pk armed troops is the
        Ax/Pk mix here as you desire?


        II/3 Mountain Indian:
        =====================

        Would a later list me useful in addition to what you have. Perhaps
        II/3a 500BC-319AD: As defined already
        II/3b 320AD-545AD: 1xEl(Gen), 2xEl, 2x(Cv or Bw), 2xCv, 1x(Bd or Bw or
        Ps), 4xBw.

        Though even this allows the use of heavy chariots for too long.


        II/5 Later Hoplite Greek:
        =========================

        I would suggest what mercenary Peltasts are represented by in the
        introductory paragraph. Also perhaps a note on Thracian Ax as mercenaries?


        II/9 Syracusan:
        ===============

        The DBMM lists gives the Syracusans an aggression of 2 across the entire
        period.


        II/10 Camillan Roman:
        =====================

        The DBMM lists gives this list an aggression of 3.

        I also wonder how the troops could be deployed and therefore
        represented. In DBA I see little likelyhood of deployment in three
        lines, which the current list proposes. I would therefore suggest
        merging the various troop types of hastati, principes and triarii into a
        generic blocks or elements of generic heavy infantry. In DBA an element
        after all represents 1000 men or more in several ranks.

        The introductory paragraph could simply say. "In DBA terms the hastati,
        principes are merged into combined heavy infantry stands with a final
        reserve of two triarii."

        I would also suggest an option for the use of anti-elephant wagons
        should they player believe some sources allowing the modelling of
        Asculum. However, these should not be able to conduct distance shooting
        so (Lit) seems an option.

        My alternate list being:
        1xCv(Gen), 1xCv, 8xSp, 1xPs, 1x(Ps or WWg(Lit)).




        --
        Kind Regards

        Keith McNelly
        Email: keith.mcnelly@...
        Website: http://thewargamesroom.blogspot.com/
      • Andreas Johansson
        I reproduce below a post of mine on the Fanaticus forum prompted by a remark by Snowcat about the high proportion of HCh in Sue s Ch in list: Speaking of
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 3, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I reproduce below a post of mine on the Fanaticus forum prompted by a
          remark by Snowcat about the high proportion of HCh in Sue's Ch'in
          list:



          Speaking of chariot numbers, this is something we could use a
          guideline on, as the proportionalities get odd. 1/4 of elements as HCh
          is a much smaller proportion of the army in terms of men than 1/4 of
          elements as Cv, according to the troop scale stated in DBA 2.2.

          Consider the Qin. The nine remaining elements make up about 8000 men
          (1000 per heavy foot element, 500 per psiloi or light horse). Three
          elements of cavalry is about 2250 men, for 22% of manpower. Three
          elements of three-man chariots is about 450 men, for 5% of manpower.

          It doesn't get any less confusing when we consider that a chariot
          element represents the same number of troops (50 vehicles) in DBA and
          DBMM (despite the later having 1/2 the frontage in paces) , while
          infantry and cavalry elements represent several times the numbers in
          DBA than in DBMM. This would imply that DBA armies should have
          radically higher percentages of chariot elements than their DBMM
          equivalents. (There are similar, but milder, issues with heavies v.
          skirmishers: in DBA, 1xSp is twice as many men as 1xPs, in DBMM
          they're the same number.)

          My Classical Indian proposal, frex, presupposes that DBA lists should
          have a higher proportion of El and L/HCh elements than their DBMM
          equivalents. If this isn't the Barkers' intention, it'd be nice to
          know.

          --
          Andreas Johansson

          Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
        • Keith McNelly
          ... I have never understood the reason behind an element of light troops representing less troops in DBA. I have therefore ignored the light troop ratio and
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 3, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            > It doesn't get any less confusing when we consider that a
            > chariot element represents the same number of troops (50
            > vehicles) in DBA and DBMM (despite the later having 1/2
            > the frontage in paces) , while infantry and cavalry
            > elements represent several times the numbers in DBA than
            > in DBMM. This would imply that DBA armies should have
            > radically higher percentages of chariot elements than
            > their DBMM equivalents. (There are similar, but milder,
            > issues with heavies v. skirmishers: in DBA, 1xSp is twice
            > as many men as 1xPs, in DBMM they're the same number.)

            I have never understood the reason behind an element of
            light troops representing less troops in DBA. I have
            therefore ignored the light troop ratio and consider a Ps
            element as a similar number to other troops OR that they
            represent a body of light troops.

            The issue is, IMO, particularly problematic when you
            consider the loss of a stand of Ps, impacts the army to the
            same level of heavy foot. Surely light troops are not twice
            as critical to an armies morale than heavy foot.

            Rgds - Keith
          • Andreas Johansson
            On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Keith McNelly ... The reason is supposed to be that light troops typically formed up with fewer men per unit frontage. (To what
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 3, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Keith McNelly
              <keith.mcnelly@...> wrote:
              >
              >> It doesn't get any less confusing when we consider that a
              >> chariot element represents the same number of troops (50
              >> vehicles) in DBA and DBMM (despite the later having 1/2
              >> the frontage in paces) , while infantry and cavalry
              >> elements represent several times the numbers in DBA than
              >> in DBMM. This would imply that DBA armies should have
              >> radically higher percentages of chariot elements than
              >> their DBMM equivalents. (There are similar, but milder,
              >> issues with heavies v. skirmishers: in DBA, 1xSp is twice
              >> as many men as 1xPs, in DBMM they're the same number.)
              >
              > I have never understood the reason behind an element of
              > light troops representing less troops in DBA.

              The reason is supposed to be that light troops typically formed up
              with fewer men per unit frontage. (To what extent that is true or even
              knowable across the DBA period I do not know.)

              But evidently Phil changed his mind about this when writing DBMM. (I
              don't know why.)

              > I have
              > therefore ignored the light troop ratio and consider a Ps
              > element as a similar number to other troops OR that they
              > represent a body of light troops.
              >
              > The issue is, IMO, particularly problematic when you
              > consider the loss of a stand of Ps, impacts the army to the
              > same level of heavy foot. Surely light troops are not twice
              > as critical to an armies morale than heavy foot.

              That's indeed perverse.

              What I do like about the DBA model is that you get a halfway
              consistent figures:men ratio - in DBMM, model count is just an
              indicator of unit type, with each Ps model representing twice as many
              men as each Sp figure.


              --
              Andreas Johansson

              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
            • SPAR Prestatyn
              I presume it s because a 40mm base is a 75mm frontage therefore troops in skirmish order will take up twice the space of close order troops on a given
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                I presume it's because a 40mm base is a 75mm frontage
                therefore troops in skirmish order will take up
                twice the space of close order troops on a
                given frontage.
                Close order Pk can be 16 ranks deep.
                I doubt Ps operated in that depth.
                Sorry if I sound too Napoleonic.

                Regards

                Mike

                Sent from iPhone

                On 3 Nov 2010, at 20:55, Keith McNelly <keith.mcnelly@...> wrote:

                >
                > > It doesn't get any less confusing when we consider that a
                > > chariot element represents the same number of troops (50
                > > vehicles) in DBA and DBMM (despite the later having 1/2
                > > the frontage in paces) , while infantry and cavalry
                > > elements represent several times the numbers in DBA than
                > > in DBMM. This would imply that DBA armies should have
                > > radically higher percentages of chariot elements than
                > > their DBMM equivalents. (There are similar, but milder,
                > > issues with heavies v. skirmishers: in DBA, 1xSp is twice
                > > as many men as 1xPs, in DBMM they're the same number.)
                >
                > I have never understood the reason behind an element of
                > light troops representing less troops in DBA. I have
                > therefore ignored the light troop ratio and consider a Ps
                > element as a similar number to other troops OR that they
                > represent a body of light troops.
                >
                > The issue is, IMO, particularly problematic when you
                > consider the loss of a stand of Ps, impacts the army to the
                > same level of heavy foot. Surely light troops are not twice
                > as critical to an armies morale than heavy foot.
                >
                > Rgds - Keith
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David
                Andreas is right about some of the List 5 Greek armies getting Cv Generals. It would replace the single Cv element allowed though, leaving a non-general Sp.
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 11, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Andreas is right about some of the List 5 Greek armies getting Cv Generals. It would replace the single Cv element allowed though, leaving a non-general Sp. Don't know how to write this into the DBA list format. Taking a Cv General shouldn't double your Cv elements.
                  I agree with his Camillan Roman suggestions as well.
                  --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Sundry comments follow. I have not looked at enemies and allies, nor
                  > at aggression values or terrain, since even my enthusiasm for
                  > crosschecking knows limits.
                  >
                  > As an aside, it would be easier to offer constructive criticism if
                  > some sort of guidelines for how conversion is supposed to work were
                  > announced.
                  >
                  >
                  > 1. GOP Indian
                  > This says the Republicans detested kingdoms, the DBMM list that they
                  > were detested by kingdoms.
                  > Some typos: elephant -> elephants, Bowmen -> bowmen, long-bows -> longbows
                  > The general should be LCh. The proportions in the DBMM list suggest
                  > more than one Bd should be allowed.
                  >
                  > 2. Mtn Indian
                  > The DBMM list doesn't allow a LH CinC, but does have Cv and Pk (F) as
                  > well as El. Archers should be allowed to be Bw.
                  > I note Pk (F) here becomes Pk while they became Sp in the first lot of
                  > lists. It might be simplest to indicate them as "PkF" or the like till
                  > Phil decides how he wants to DBAize them. Also, you should not be able
                  > to take the spearmen as all Ax.
                  >
                  > 3. Classy Indian
                  > lierature -> literature, thay -> they
                  > Chariots, Bd, and Hd should be compulsory. Perhaps:
                  > 1xEl (Gen), 2xEl, 2x (HCh or LCh), 2xCv, 1x Bd, 2xBw, 1x (Bw or Ps), 1xHd
                  > For colour, I'd like a note about the maiden guard, perhaps simply
                  > "One element of Bd or Cv may be depicted as maiden guard."
                  >
                  > 4. Warring States 6 Ch'in (pinyin: Qin)
                  > sriffened -> stiffened, elie -> elite, Chi’in -> Ch'in (twice)
                  > Pk (F) here seemingly become Sp. In the DBMM list, from 355 BC, almost
                  > all Pk (F) becomes up to half Ax, reminder Bd. To conform, we'd either
                  > need clumsy options like "4xSp or (2x (Ax or Bd) + 2xBd)", or, better,
                  > split into time-based sublists (à la Hellenistic Greek).
                  > Chao, Ch'u, and Other should be allowed Cv like the Ch'in are. If the
                  > lists are split into before and after 355, only the after lists should
                  > be allowed Cv.
                  >
                  > 5. Hoplite Greek
                  > "It can also be used to describe foreign expeditions such as those
                  > described by Xenophon." - the first instance of "describe" should be
                  > "represent" or similar.
                  > Not sure where the 4xAx in the Phokian list comes from? Perhaps they
                  > should be Sp as mercenary hoplites of the Sacred War?
                  > Phokians, Italiots, Siciliots, and Others should be allowed a Cv general.
                  >
                  > 6. Bithynian
                  > thureophorai -> thureophoroi (unless female, I suppose!), advanced ->
                  > advance, againstthe -> against the, housand -> Thousand
                  > The 1xLH could become 1x (Cv or LH) to reflect the 265 BC upgrade in
                  > the DBMM list.
                  > The Wb should perhaps go in favour of allowance for Galatian allies.
                  >
                  > 7. LAP
                  > defeat -> defeats
                  > The DBMM list can have decent numbers of Kn (up to twelve), so
                  > allowing at least one element seems justified. I would suggest making
                  > one of the LH and/or the general's element (in honour of Cyrus the
                  > Younger) exchangible for Kn.
                  > If Pk (F) are to become Pk, perhaps 0-2 Pk for Iphikrates.
                  >
                  > 8. Campanian vel sim
                  > Roamn -> Roman
                  > There could be an extra sublists for post-340 Campanian, I'd suggest:
                  > 1xCv (Gen), 1xCv, 2xBd, 3xSp or 3xBd, 1xSp, 4xPs
                  >
                  > 9. Syracusan
                  > AsRome -> As Rome
                  > Switch places of Cv and LH (making the later optional and the former
                  > compulsory, as in the DBMM list)
                  >
                  > 10. Camillan Roman
                  > Perhaps amend to:
                  > 1xCv (Gen), 1xCv, 2xBd, 4xSp, 2xPs, 2xAx
                  > This (i) achieves the 1:2:1 proportions of Bd, Sp, Ps of the DBMM
                  > lists and (ii) reflects the non-assimilated Italian allies. The later
                  > aren't compulsory, however, so perhaps instead "2x (Ax or 1xSp +
                  > 1xPs)", with the later option covering Rorarii and Accensi as well as
                  > extra principes/triarii and leves.
                  >
                  > --
                  > Andreas Johansson
                  >
                  > Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                  >
                • Dale Hurtt
                  ... Would it not be something like: (1xCv(Gen) + 1xSp) or (1xSp (Gen) + 1xCv), ... Dale
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 12, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > David" wrote:
                    >
                    > Andreas is right about some of the List 5 Greek armies getting Cv
                    > Generals. It would replace the single Cv element allowed though,
                    > leaving a non-general Sp. Don't know how to write this into the DBA
                    > list format. Taking a Cv General shouldn't double your Cv elements.

                    Would it not be something like:

                    (1xCv(Gen) + 1xSp) or (1xSp (Gen) + 1xCv), ...

                    Dale
                  • Andreas Johansson
                    ... It would. There was some discussion on the Fanaticus thread* about less clumsy ways of expressing the same thing. *
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 12, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Dale Hurtt <dale_hurtt@...> wrote:
                      >> David" wrote:
                      >>
                      >> Andreas is right about some of the List 5 Greek armies getting Cv
                      >> Generals. It would replace the single Cv element allowed though,
                      >> leaving a non-general Sp. Don't know how to write this into the DBA
                      >> list format. Taking a Cv General shouldn't double your Cv elements.
                      >
                      > Would it not be something like:
                      >
                      > (1xCv(Gen) + 1xSp) or (1xSp (Gen) + 1xCv), ...

                      It would. There was some discussion on the Fanaticus thread* about
                      less clumsy ways of expressing the same thing.

                      * http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=10358

                      --
                      Andreas Johansson

                      Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                    • elsyrsyn
                      Is this file still available? The link below does not seem to work properly, and I do not see it in the files section of the Yahoo group with the other parts
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 24, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Is this file still available? The link below does not seem to work properly, and I do not see it in the files section of the Yahoo group with the other parts of the book 2 lists.

                        Thanks,
                        Doug

                        --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/DBA%20LISTS%202a.pdf
                        >
                        > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 5:24 AM, David Kush <adherbaal@...> wrote:
                        > > My computer-fu is weak and I can not find "DBA LISTS 2a.pdf can anyone help me?
                        > >
                        > > --- On Sun, 10/31/10, suzanlb <suzanlb@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > From: suzanlb <suzanlb@...>
                        > > Subject: [DBA] DBA LISTS 2a
                        > > To: DBA@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Date: Sunday, October 31, 2010, 6:41 AM
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >      Today I have placed the first 10 lists from section 2 as a file
                        > >
                        > > DBA LISTS 2a.pdf to make it available for comments.
                        > >
                        > > I will add more next weekend.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I would welcome suggestions about these 10 lists.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Sue.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > ------------------------------------
                        > >
                        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > --
                        > Andreas Johansson
                        >
                        > Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.