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

Re: DBA Army Lists 2/31-60

Expand Messages
  • Tony Aguilar
    ... Why are the Later Carthaginians classes as Littoral in 2.2, and now 3.0 as well? 1. Littoral Terrain types should have naval capability in the form of
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 1, 2011
      --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "suzanlb" <suzanlb@...> wrote:
      >
      > I have just added thenext group of lists for comments.
      >
      > Sue.
      >

      Why are the Later Carthaginians classes as Littoral in 2.2, and now 3.0 as well?

      1. Littoral Terrain types should have naval capability in the form of ships listed in DBM/DBMM army list in order to make a LIttoral Landing. According to the DBM one (my DBMM list is shortly OTW) has hardly any ships at all (0-2 Galleys to be exact.) The Romans on the other hand, are given much more naval capability, but aren't Littoral (nor should they be.)

      2. What battles did the Carthaginians use a naval landing in? I am not aware of any, or that were fought sea side.
      __________________
    • suzanlb
      Hi everyone. Thank you for your continued interest and input. In due course, the revised versions will be made available. I am waiting until I have discussed
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
        Hi everyone. Thank you for your continued interest and input.

        In due course, the revised versions will be made available. I am waiting until I have discussed these with Phil so that the version to be displayed will be close to the final version.

        I realise this feedback wll be useful for but I think an intermediate version without Phil's approval could be misleading. Parts at least of section 2 should be available by the time I'm putting sctions 3 & 4 up for comments.

        Sue.

        --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "Martyn" <martynmiddlewick@...> wrote:
        >
        > Sue, thanks for the continued requests for feed back.
        >
        > A couple of questions, first, are you able to post the army lists on your website as well as here? There seems to be a bit of reluctance from some to join.
        >
        > Second, you have already issued various sections of the army lists for comment as well as raised some other areas for discussion, are you in a position to give any feedback yourself as to the direction that is being considered in the light of comments received? I appreciate that this gives you more works and maybe Phil is not yet able to consider those aspects, but it would help to keep active participation if there is some concrete development to the input made by DBA gamers. A few little nuggets to wet the appetite if you like.
        >
        > Thanks again for yours and Phil's efforts, can't wait to see how v3.0 develops.
        >
        > Martyn
        >
        > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "suzanlb" <suzanlb@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I have just added thenext group of lists for comments.
        > >
        > > Sue.
        > >
        >
      • PJ
        Army List 56 Early Imperial roman Hi Sue I am disappointed to see that the E I Roman list still has compulsory artillery. They are not compulsory in the DBMM
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 2, 2011
          Army List 56 Early Imperial roman

          Hi Sue

          I am disappointed to see that the E I Roman list still has compulsory artillery. They are not compulsory in the DBMM list any chance that you could add an or Ps there?

          On the subject of dismounting I note that the Auxiliary Cavalry in the DBMM lists can dismount as Auxilia but the DBA equivalents cannot...

          I also note their enemy - 53 Ancient British have a similar dismounting incapacity -Chariots can in DBMM as Warband but not in the DBA list. Celtic chariotry did habitually dismount to fight. For myself I am happy that this is part of the factors but if we are allowing dismounting surely they should have the ability...


          --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "suzanlb" <suzanlb@...> wrote:
          >
          > I have just added thenext group of lists for comments.
          >
          > Sue.
          >
        • Keith McNelly
          Dear Sue, Thankyou for allowing the opportunity to submit some feedback on the DBA army lists. Here are a few comments on some of the lists in the draft lists
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 3, 2011
            Dear Sue,

            Thankyou for allowing the opportunity to submit some feedback on the DBA
            army lists. Here are a few comments on some of the lists in the draft
            lists you have posted. I trust they are of use.

            II/31 Hellenic Greek:
            =====================

            1. Should the Aitolians be Hilly?


            II/32 Later Carthaginian:
            ===========================

            1. The DBMM lists provide Hannibal with an Aggression of 4 and other
            Punic Generals with an aggression of 2. This is a great concept and I
            suspect would be ideal for a Carthaginian DBA.

            2. You make reference to the Warband being mixed with Spanish and being
            classed as Auxilia, yet there is only one Auxilia option in the list.

            3. Should Punic generals be always cavalry stands? While the only
            reference I have seen to them being mounted in DBA cavalry are almost
            always on the wings. Carthaginian generals seem to be more often in the
            centre, but how you would model this in DBA I am not sure.

            4. Are there too many Ps in the list given that typically we are
            modelling sizeable battles? The loss of the Ps will break the army.

            5. Phil added in the option of Expendable elephants in an effort to
            model Zama. Is there an option to do the same in DBA?

            Here are some possible lists:

            II/32a: (Before 203BC and not Hannibal in Italy): 1xCv (Gen), 1xLH,
            3xSp, 1xAx, 3x (Wb or Ps), 1x (El or Cv), 1x (El or LH), 1xPs.
            Aggression 2.

            II/32b (Hannibal): 1xCv (Gen), 1xLH, 2xSp, 2xAx, 3x Wb or 3x Ax, 1x Cv,
            1x (El or LH), 1xPs.
            Aggression 4.

            II/32c: Post 203BC: 1xCv (Gen), 1xLH, 6xSp, 2xAx, 1x (Exp or Cv or LH or
            Ps), 1x (Exp or Ps).
            Aggression 2.


            II/33 Polybian Roman:
            =====================

            1. The modelling of the Triarii is problematic in DBA. The reserve of
            Triarii in DBA is actually of lower quality than the Principes are
            Hastati in infantry combats. This is of course due to the rating of
            Bd/Sp. You elude to this in your list notes. I suggest you consider
            modelling the Triarii as Blade and assume the heavy Roman infantry in
            merged. Players may of course still use spear armed figures if they wish.

            However, the lack of depth in Polybian Roman armies also means that
            Successor armies are frequently outflanked. I do not know how this can
            be best modelled but I do think it should be considered when drawing up
            the army lists. I suspect the issue is best addressed in the rules.

            2. I note the aggression in DBMM for this list has moved to three. I
            think this better models the expansion of the Romans in Italy.

            3. I wonder if there should be an option for non-reformed Italian allies
            within the confines of the DBA list?

            Aggression 3:
            II/33. Polybian Roman Army: 1xCv (Gen), 1xCv, 8xBd, 2xPs.


            II/39 Ancient Spanish:
            ======================

            1. It may be below the level of DBA but the addition of flaming ox
            wagons may be an interesting addition and give the Spanish the ability
            to break the Carthaginian line in DBA as well?

            II/39a Iberian Army: 1xCv (Gen), 1xLH, 6xAx, 3xPs, 1x (Ps or Exp)


            II/49 Marian Roman:
            ===================

            1. The cavalry in this army was primarily comprised of mercenaries. I
            believe their should be an ability to have cavalry on each wing and the
            general in the centre. I would propose the following:

            II/49. Marian Roman Army: (1x Cv + 1x Bd (Gen)) or (1x Cv (Gen) + 1x
            Bd), 1x (Cv or LH), 8xBd, 1x (Ax or Ps), 1xPs.


            Again, thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback Sue. I trust the
            above comments are of some use.



            --
            Kind Regards

            Keith McNelly
            Email: keith.mcnelly@...
            Website: http://thewargamesroom.blogspot.com/
          • Andreas Johansson
            The following comments may duplicate others in part, but I m trying to focus on stuff I don t recall seeing mentioned yet. 31 Hellenistic Geek The notes says
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 5, 2011
              The following comments may duplicate others' in part, but I'm trying
              to focus on stuff I don't recall seeing mentioned yet.


              31 Hellenistic Geek
              The notes says Sparta is covered up to 195 BC, but (e) says 222-149 BC

              32 Later Carth
              Trebia -> Trebbia
              The (Wb or Ps) need to be (Wb or Ax or Ps) to account for Hannibal's
              regularized Gauls. There might be a case for splitting the list into
              theatre sublists (Italy, Africa, Hispania).

              33 Polly Roman
              Camilln -> Camillan
              yar -> year
              hastati -> hastati and principes
              The Bd:Sp ratio is lower than in the DBMM list, but this may be hard
              to get right for a 12 element army
              Could use an optional Ax element to represent the various auxiliaries
              in the DBMMlist (unassimilated Italians, extraordinarii, Spanish,
              Illyrians, Ligurians, Macdonians, Thracians)
              It would be desirable to allow a Bd general (but preferably without
              decreasing the numbers of cavalry if that option is taken)

              34 Attitude Pergamene
              The general and the Cv should both be "Kn or Cv"
              There's too few compulsory Ps compared to Ax.
              Ex-Seleucid troops would be a fun option (probably (1xKn+2xPk+1xEl))

              35 Later Macedonian
              The remarks about guard pikemen seem somewhat irrelevant to DBA as
              theyre not in any way distnguished by the rules from the ordinary lot.

              36 Graeco-Bactrian or -Indian
              The Graeco-Indians would seem equally entitled to Ax as the (a) list,
              perhaps as an alternative to the Bd.

              37 Parthian
              Sublists for Media-Atropatene/Elymais/Persis (with Bw) and
              Indo-Parthian (with whatever Pk (F) are going to become in DBA 3.0 and
              perhaps El) would be nice.
              The main list should perhaps be allowed a bit more Ps.

              38 Hsiung-Nu or Juan-Juan
              The upgrade of southern nobles and generals to Kn is optional in DBMM.
              0-12 Hd (O) in DBMM could translate into an optional element in DBA.
              Not sure why Juan-Juan have less Cv than early Hsiung-nu?
              Worth representing the Kang-chu allies in some way?

              39 Ancient Spanish
              fott -> foot
              All Wb should become Bd (and the Iberians get one optional element)
              A Sertorian sublist would be nice.


              40 Numidian / Early Moorish
              The comment about allies is irrelevant to DBA isn't it?
              Should have some compulsory Ps

              41 Han Solo Chinese
              Sp should become (Ax or Bd)
              Western Han isn't a place (and thus shouldn't be contrasted with
              "elsewhere"), but the term for the earlier part of the dynasty. In DBA
              terms, the DBMM regrade to Bw (X) would amount to changing the heavy
              foot to "3x (Ax or Bd) or 3xBw" in the (a) list.
              The comment about desperate rebels doesn't make sense - Hd (S)
              presumably still becomes Wb in DBA, and anyway there's no
              corresponding elements in the draft DBA lists. If they're to be
              represented, I suggest a third sublist:
              II/41c Han Chinese Rebel Army 202 AD - 189 AD: 1xCv (Gen), 1xCv, 1xLH,
              2xBw, 2x (Ax or Bd), 1xPs, 4xWb (presumably only 2/41ab for enemies)


              42 Tamil and Sinhalese
              Sinhalese should have a Lit option for the general.


              43 Maccabees
              General should be allowed to be LH, Ax, or Kn. Possibly also Lit (when
              accompanied with priests, trumpets of massacre, rams horns, and great
              standard)
              6xPk seems very generous, perhaps reduce to 4

              44 Commagene
              Needs to take into account of Pk being regraded to Sp or Bd from 80BC
              in the DBMM list.

              45 Sicilian and Italian Slave Revolts
              Not sure how axemen in particular suggests a Hellenistic Asiatic background?

              46 Kushan
              Iraq -> Iran
              All foot should be optional
              The general should have an El option

              47 Early Germans
              Last sentence of notes is a bit confusing, perhaps "The Cimbri and
              Teutones destroyed four Roman armies before being defeated by Marius,
              but the most famous German victory of the period was at the battle of
              Teutoberger Wald in 9 AD."
              Could use a Suevian sublist with a few Sarmatian Kn.

              48 Mithridatic
              Should have a Kn option for the general. The option for a non-general
              Cv can be dropped as the only Cv in the DBMM list are generals'
              elements.

              49 Marian Roman
              Could have an option for some Gaulish auxiliaries (Wb or Ax)

              50 Hasmonean Jewish
              The DBMM list allows an arbitrary mix of Pk or Ax

              51 Late Judean
              Heriodians -> Herodians

              52 Dacians et Carpi
              Burebastis -> Burebistas
              Giving these guys even one Art seems generous.

              53 Ancient British
              A sublist for Cassivellaunus's chariot force would be nice (Perhaps
              1xLCh (Gen), 2xLH, 5xLCh, 4x (LCh or Ps))
              The DBMM lists allows all chariots to dismount (as Wb) at any time.

              54 Scots Irish
              The DBMM list has no compulsory chariots beyond generals, and
              charioteers can always dismount (as Ax).

              55 Nobades et consortes
              The comment about the old WRG list doesn't seem very relevant nowadays.
              It be worthwhile noting the Blemmyes were expelled by the Nobades (so
              lower Nubia remained within the purvey of this list).
              The (b) list probably shouldn't allow up to 6 Ax.
              The (b) and (c) list could get up to one LCm for colour.
              Arab swordsmen (Bd) shouldn't be compulsory in the (c) list.

              56 EIR
              1x3v -> 1xCv

              57 Later Moorish
              The foot should be something like 3xAx, 3x (Ax or Ps)

              58 Alan
              The list notes could use a comment about the axemen (Bd), who are
              unexpected in a steppe army.

              59 Revolting Jews
              The DBMM list doesn't allow a Wb CinC.

              60 Caledones
              Ought be Hilly.

              --
              Andreas Johansson

              Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
            • John Acar
              Polybian Roman I ve been doing some thought about this one. I am not so sure it is very representative of the classic early republican army. Usually the
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 5, 2011
                Polybian Roman
                I've been doing some thought about this one. I am not so sure it is very
                representative of the classic early republican army. Usually the Romans
                fielded a consular army and allies (not to be confused with allied
                legions). Even in Italy, there were likely some extra troops with the
                army. Over seas there were almost certainly other allies accompanying the
                army. I would propose the following:

                1X3CV 4X4BD 1X4SP (GEN) 2X2PS
                That is 8 units that could make up the core of the army. Then have
                optionals something like:
                (2X4PK, 1X2PS or 4AX or EL, 1X3CV) OR (2XLH, 1XPS, 1XAX) OR (1X3WB, 2X4AX
                or 3AX, 1X3CV)

                The first option represents a typical army in Greece or the Middle east,
                the second in Carthage and the third for Italian or Spanish allies. Note
                that the ratios of troops in the Roman portion is just about right.

                John

                Some barbarian is waving my shield, since I was obliged to leave that
                perfectly good piece of equipment behind under a bush. But I got away, so
                what does it matter? Life seemed somehow more precious. Let the shield
                go; I can buy another one equally good.

                --Archilochus
              • gavinm_pvale
                I agree on the Art point - they should not be compulsory. Almost all primary accounts of this army in action don t mention artillery at all. Gavin Moore
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 6, 2011
                  I agree on the Art point - they should not be compulsory. Almost all primary accounts of this army in action don't mention artillery at all.

                  Gavin Moore

                  --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "PJ" <pj.duckworth@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Army List 56 Early Imperial roman
                  >
                  > Hi Sue
                  >
                  > I am disappointed to see that the E I Roman list still has compulsory artillery. They are not compulsory in the DBMM list any chance that you could add an or Ps there?
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "suzanlb" <suzanlb@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I have just added thenext group of lists for comments.
                  > >
                  > > Sue.
                  > >
                  >
                • gavinm_pvale
                  Sue Some of my comments support the comments that have already been made. I m also working on the basis that the DBMM lists reflect current thinking. II/32 Too
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 7, 2011
                    Sue

                    Some of my comments support the comments that have already been made. I'm also working on the basis that the DBMM lists reflect current thinking.

                    II/32

                    Too many Ps possible, not enough Ax options, Celtiberians are now Bd.

                    1 Cv Gen, 1 LH, 3 Sp, 1 Ax, 2 (Ax or Wb or Ps), 1 (Bd or Ax), 1 El or Cv, 1 El or LH, 1 Ps

                    The army at Zama 202 BC needs its own list with lots more Sp and arguably the El to be replaced by SCh representing DBMM "Expendables"

                    II/33 Polybian Roman

                    Many incarnations of this army contain sizeable amounts of Ax.

                    1 Cv Gen, 1 Cv, 4 Bd, 1 Sp, (1 Bd + 1 Sp)or 2 Ax, 2 Ps

                    II/39 Ancient Spanish

                    Celtiberian Wb should be replaced by Bd in all three lists. Lusitanians should be allowed Marian Roman ally.


                    II/48 Mithradatic

                    General should be Kn or Cv, there shouldn't be any non-Gen Cv, and the later army has too many Bd.

                    Kn or Cv (Gen), 1 (Kn or LH), 1 LH, (1 SCh + 4 Pk) or (4 Bd + 1 Ax),
                    1 Ax, 2 (Ax or Ps), 1 Ps

                    Gavin Moore
                  • Andreas Johansson
                    ... Also, the list notes claim the list covers a number of minor states, but there s no Others sublist(s) to accomodate those. -- Andreas Johansson Why can t
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 13, 2011
                      I wrote:
                      >
                      > 31 Hellenistic Geek
                      > The notes says Sparta is covered up to 195 BC, but (e) says 222-149 BC
                      >

                      Also, the list notes claim the list covers a number of minor states,
                      but there's no "Others" sublist(s) to accomodate those.

                      --
                      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.