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

Re: [DBA] DBA LISTS

Expand Messages
  • Andreas Johansson
    Sorry to keep harping on the Warring States Chinese, but I m puzzled by the way the DBA list on the WRG page seems to reflect a quite different interpretation
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 1 5:47 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry to keep harping on the Warring States Chinese, but I'm puzzled
      by the way the DBA list on the WRG page seems to reflect a quite
      different interpretation of these armies than the DBMM list, and by
      the discrepancies between the DBA list notes and the actual list.


      Starting with the close combat foot and ignoring the Ch'in Wb, the
      DBMM list has them in the early period (before 355 BC) as Pk (F) with
      long polearms and no shields, in the late period (from 355 BC) as a
      mixture of Ax and Bd with respectively spear and halberd/dagger-axe,
      and often shield.

      The DBA list note has an essentially opposite interpretation: the
      early foot is said to be Bd, and the late to be Sp. This is unexpected
      enough by itself - it becomes even more so when one recalls than that
      when the DBMM lists were developed, it was generally agreed that
      shieldwall tactics were unknown, and therefore Spear (not incl Pk (F)
      = 3Sp) classification unsuited, for Chinese infantry until the
      post-Han period. Has Phil had a change of heart on this?

      Confusion magnifies when one look at the actual proposed lists: The
      Yueh indeed has Bd in (approximately) the early period (and don't
      exist in the late), but the Chao, Ch'u, and Others have Sp through-out
      (except that the others have in addition 1xBd, seemingly representing
      the swordsmen of the DBMM list). Whichever interpretation is favoured,
      the notes and lists should adopt the same!


      Switching to archers and crossbows, the DBA lists have them as chiefly
      Bw through-out, the DBMM list as Ps early and Cb late. Proportions
      don't match either. There's also an option to combine close combat
      foot and shooters into Bw (X).


      Switching to mounted, the DBMM option to switch to Cv is
      inconsistently reflected in the DBA lists. Particularly weird is how
      the Ch'in start out with "HCh or Cv" and then goes to "HCh" only when
      the sublist ends and they become Others in 220 BC. Also, the Ch'in
      list is allowed an extra "HCh or Cv" compared to others for no readily
      discernible reason.


      Taking in all the above, I'd like to suggest the following revised
      lists, based on the DBMM lists but simplifying some, in particular
      moving back the adoption of Cv to coincide with the changes to foot..
      If a change of heart re: the representation of close combat foot has
      indeed happened, I still think the rest of these proposals ought be
      adopted:

      II/4a Ch’in Chinese Army 355-221 BC: 1x (HCh or Cv) (Gen), 1x (HCh or
      Cv), 4xWb, 4xCb, 1x (Cb or Ps), 1x (Ps or LH)

      II/4b Yueh Chinese Army 480BC-333 BC: 1x HCh (Gen), 1xHCh, 5xSp, 3xPs,
      1x (Sp or Wb) 1x (Bd or Wb or Cb)

      II/4c Chao Chinese Army 307BC-202 BC: 1x (HCh or Cv) (Gen), 1x (HCh or
      Cv), 1xAx, 2xBd, 4xCb, 1x(Cb or Ps), 2xLH

      II/4d Ch’u Chinese Army 480-356 BC: 1xHCh (Gen), 1xHCh, 4xSp, 3xPs, 2x
      (Sp or Wb), 1x (Bd or Cb)

      II/4e Ch’u Chinese Army 355-202 BC: 1x 1x (HCh or Cv) (Gen), 1x (HCh
      or Cv), 1xAx, 2xBd, 3xCb, 2x (Cb or Wb), 1x (Bd or LH), 1x (Ax or Ps)

      II/4f Other Chinese Armies 480-356 BC: 1xHCh (Gen), 1xHCh, 6xSp, 3xPs,
      1x (Bd or Cb)

      II/4g Other Chinese Armies 355-202 BC: 1x (HCh or Cv) (Gen), 1x (HCh
      or Cv), 1xAx, 2xBd, 5xCb, 1x (Bd or LH), 1x (Ax or Ps or Hd)

      If the DBMM Bw (X) is to be reflected, all Ax, Bd, and Cb in (c), (e),
      and (g) should be exchangible for 8Cb (however we note that in the new
      style). But it may be a complication too much.


      Note finally that the typo "Chi'in" (for Ch'in) persists in the list notes.


      On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
      > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
      >> The Others list also needs
      >> the HCh exchangeable for Cv (else Ch'in generals revert to HCh when
      >> the Ch'in sublist ends!), and the same should probably apply to the
      >> Ch'u list too.
      >
      > Looking in my notes, ought apply to both Ch'u and Chao in addition to Others.
      >
      >
      > --
      > Andreas Johansson
      >
      > Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
      >



      --
      Andreas Johansson

      Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
    • gavinm_pvale
      There still seems to be a fair bit of junk DNA inherited from the 2.2 lists (and by implication the old DBM lists). I don t want to sound harsh but I m not
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 1 6:44 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        There still seems to be a fair bit of "junk DNA" inherited from the 2.2 lists (and by implication the old DBM lists).

        I don't want to sound harsh but I'm not sure that thorough, consistent reviews, in line with the DBMM master lists, have been done in all cases.

        Gavin M


        --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
        >
        > Sorry to keep harping on the Warring States Chinese, but I'm puzzled
        > by the way the DBA list on the WRG page seems to reflect a quite
        > different interpretation of these armies than the DBMM list, and by
        > the discrepancies between the DBA list notes and the actual list.
        >
        > ...
      • Andreas Johansson
        Comment on the first few Bk III lists. Further feedback may or may not be postponed indefinitely by computer trouble. III/1 Early Slav The notes define
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 2 12:29 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Comment on the first few Bk III lists. Further feedback may or may not
          be postponed indefinitely by computer trouble.

          III/1 Early Slav
          The notes define "Southern Slavs but there are no such sublis (in DBMM
          they only differ by being allowed slightly different terrain). The
          Bohemian sublist should be renamed "Western Slav" to correspond with
          the list notes and the DBMM list.
          The Others list should have an optional non-general Cv (exchangible for an Ax).

          III/2 Early Lombard
          settle of Lombards -> settlement of Lombards
          In the DBMM list, the Kn can dismount as Wb (with the restriction that
          the general has to do so if any does, but such complication is not
          appropriate for DBA).

          III/3 Italian Ostrogoth
          The DBMM list has another funky dismount version here: any Kn can
          deploy as Sp if the CinC does so. Could possibly justify a (1xKn (Gen)
          + 5Kn) or 1xSp (Gen) + 5x (Sp or Kn)) option in the DBA list.

          III/4 Early Byzzie
          Extraneous space in "Kn //Sp".
          The Ps could be (Ps or Bw) as in DBMM.

          III/5 Middle Frankish
          Is the Wb in the Neustrian/Provencal/Aquitanian list and the Sp in the
          Austrasian/Burgundian meant to represent internal allied contingents?
          If not, I don't see why they're there.


          --
          Andreas Johansson

          Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
        • Mark
          I d add that it s odd that the South Welsh (unchanged from 2.2) are 8xBw and not 8xBw or Ps. That s an option in the DBM list (I ve not seen the DBMM list.
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 2 1:06 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            I'd add that it's odd that the South Welsh (unchanged from 2.2) are 8xBw and not 8xBw or Ps. That's an option in the DBM list (I've not seen the DBMM list. What's the evidence they fought as massed archers?

            --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
            >
            > Comment on the first few Bk III lists. Further feedback may or may not
            > be postponed indefinitely by computer trouble.
            >
            > III/1 Early Slav
            > The notes define "Southern Slavs but there are no such sublis (in DBMM
            > they only differ by being allowed slightly different terrain). The
            > Bohemian sublist should be renamed "Western Slav" to correspond with
            > the list notes and the DBMM list.
            > The Others list should have an optional non-general Cv (exchangible for an Ax).
            >
            > III/2 Early Lombard
            > settle of Lombards -> settlement of Lombards
            > In the DBMM list, the Kn can dismount as Wb (with the restriction that
            > the general has to do so if any does, but such complication is not
            > appropriate for DBA).
            >
            > III/3 Italian Ostrogoth
            > The DBMM list has another funky dismount version here: any Kn can
            > deploy as Sp if the CinC does so. Could possibly justify a (1xKn (Gen)
            > + 5Kn) or 1xSp (Gen) + 5x (Sp or Kn)) option in the DBA list.
            >
            > III/4 Early Byzzie
            > Extraneous space in "Kn //Sp".
            > The Ps could be (Ps or Bw) as in DBMM.
            >
            > III/5 Middle Frankish
            > Is the Wb in the Neustrian/Provencal/Aquitanian list and the Sp in the
            > Austrasian/Burgundian meant to represent internal allied contingents?
            > If not, I don't see why they're there.
            >
            >
            > --
            > Andreas Johansson
            >
            > Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
            >
          • Peter Feinler
            None of the lists that Sue has initially posted have been updated to reflect DBMM. She seems to be relying on this mailing list and elsewhere for this. What
            Message 5 of 27 , Feb 2 4:03 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              None of the lists that Sue has initially posted have been updated to reflect
              DBMM. She seems to be relying on this mailing list and elsewhere for this.
              What Sue has done is to remove the element numbers and add more text and
              list notes.

              Peter
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "gavinm_pvale" <gavin.moore@...>
              To: <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 1:14 AM
              Subject: [DBA] Re: DBA LISTS


              > There still seems to be a fair bit of "junk DNA" inherited from the 2.2
              > lists (and by implication the old DBM lists).
              >
              > I don't want to sound harsh but I'm not sure that thorough, consistent
              > reviews, in line with the DBMM master lists, have been done in all cases.
              >
              > Gavin M
            • Andreas Johansson
              More comments: III/6 Emishi The Emishi being a tad obscure, I would suggest expanding the list notes to something like this: The Emishi were the indigenous
              Message 6 of 27 , Feb 4 12:44 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                More comments:

                III/6 Emishi
                The Emishi being a tad obscure, I would suggest expanding the list
                notes to something like this:
                "The Emishi were the indigenous people of northern Japan, including
                both the Ainu and groups ethnically closer to the Japanese. In the 8th
                and 9th centuries they are described as superb horse archers; earlier
                as archers, but not as horsed. This list is provided as the main enemy
                for the contemporary Japanese."


                III/7 Pre-Samurai Japanese
                Terrain should probably be Hilly (it's in any case wrong that these
                are Arable while the Early Samurai are Hilly).
                The a/b split is one year earlier than the Kofun/Ritsuryo split in the
                DBMM list.
                The sublists could helpfully be renamed respecitvely "Kofun" and
                "Ritsuryo or Early Heian".
                The (a) list should lose the Ax in favour of Pk, and perhaps have more
                of these (would suggest one each of Bw and Cv exchangible for extra
                Pk).
                The (b) list shouldn't have Ax, and could use a lower minimum of Cv
                (substitute Bw for both).

                III/8 Central Asiatic City State
                Lacks a comma after the second instance of "Khotan" in list-notes.
                The Kn variant (Sogdians) could use a few optional Cv, perhaps turn
                the 5xKn into 2xKn + 3x(Kn or Cv).

                III/9 Burmese
                Should allow a Cv general.
                The (b) list could use 1xBd to represent the swordsman guard (drop one Ax).

                III/10 Hindu Indian
                Desert Rajputs should have Dry terrain (others remain as Tropical).
                Rajputs should have at at least one non-general El, and optional Cm. Perhaps:
                1x (El or Kn (Gen)), 2xKn, 1xEl, 2xBd, 3xBw, 1x(Cm or Bw), 2xPs.
                There's a case for Hd in each sublist (exchange for Sp in (a) and Ps in (bc)).

                III/11 Central Asiatic Turkish
                Ad -> AD
                The Uighur's have too many Cv compared to LH (change to 1xCv, 4xLH,
                the general remaining as Cv).
                "Other" archers should be allowed to be Bw as well as Ps. Possibly
                switch numbers of Ps/Bw and Hd (the DBMM list allows more of the
                former in terms of elements, but more of the later in terms of men, so
                it depends on how many men the different element types are going to
                represent in DBA 3.0).
                Missing opening parenthesis before "III/15" in (b)'s ally line.

                III/12 Christian Nubian
                Monophysote -> Monophysite
                The general should be allowed to be Kn.
                The 4xWb should become "3xBd or 3xAx", the freed slot becoming
                something like "1xHd or Ps or Bw or LCm".

                III/13 Avar
                The (b) list could use an optional Art. (replacing one Ax, probably)

                III/14 Early Bulgar
                Kutrigar -> Kutrigur
                Hunnnic -> Hunnic
                812/13 doesn't seem the best date for the b/c split, both 803/04 and
                852/53 being more significant in the DBMMlist.
                In (c), Cv should become Kn.

                III/15 Tibetan
                As noted by others, in DBMM the Kn can all dismount as Sp.
                The "LH or Cv" could be "LH or Cv or Kn" as the DBMM list has no
                compulsory troops beyond the Kn.

                III/16 Khazar
                Oy. The DBMMlist is rather complicated. Perhaps:
                1x(Kn or Cv or WWg (Gen)), 2x(Kn or 2xCv), (4xLH + 2xHd + 1xPs) or
                (4xCv + 2x(Ax or LH) + 1x (Kn or LH)), 1x (Art or LH)

                III/17 Maurician Byzzie
                The version wiht foot has perhaps too few foot - could lose one Cv and
                one LH for one extra each of Bd and Ps.
                The 4 Art allowed in the DBMM list could justify one in the DBA list
                (is there a policy on how many are required?)

                III/18 Breton
                The 3xLH should become 3x(Cv or LH)

                III/19 Welsh
                The DBMM list moved the N/S split to 1149/50, and the South Welsh end in 1197.
                Missing space in "South Welsh Army1100".
                The Wb general in (a) should become Bd (the Cv option should remain
                unchanged). could be allowed to replace some (up to 2 perhaps) Wb with
                Bd (as Dubliners or Ostmen).
                The (b) list should have no Wb and no Kn general option. It should
                have some Ax, so perhaps:
                1xCv (Gen), 9xBw, 1xAx, 1x(Ax or Ps)
                The (c) list should have an obligatory Kn general. It probably ought
                have one obligatory Ps (so only up to 2 Lb).
                The DBMM list allows all Cv to always dismount as Bd.

                III/20 Sui & T'ang
                The Sui should not have obligatory Hd (the option in the DBMM list
                reflects a single campaign!) I suggest "4xHd or 2x (Sp or Bw) + 2x (Bw
                or Ps)).
                The all-mounted version of the T'ang seems to have too much LH -
                exchange one element for an extrra Cv.



                --
                Andreas Johansson

                Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
              • Andreas Johansson
                ... Oops, that s only 11 elements. Try: 1x(Kn or Cv or WWg (Gen)), 2x(Kn or 2xCv), (4xLH + 2xHd + 2xPs) or (4xCv + 3x(Ax or LH) + 1x (Kn or LH)), 1x (Art or
                Message 7 of 27 , Feb 4 12:50 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > III/16 Khazar
                  > Oy. The DBMMlist is rather complicated. Perhaps:
                  > 1x(Kn or Cv or WWg (Gen)), 2x(Kn or 2xCv), (4xLH  + 2xHd + 1xPs) or
                  > (4xCv + 2x(Ax or LH) + 1x (Kn or LH)), 1x (Art or LH)
                  >

                  Oops, that's only 11 elements. Try:

                  1x(Kn or Cv or WWg (Gen)), 2x(Kn or 2xCv), (4xLH + 2xHd + 2xPs) or
                  (4xCv + 3x(Ax or LH) + 1x (Kn or LH)), 1x (Art or LH)


                  --
                  Andreas Johansson

                  Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                • Peter Feinler
                  I really think that the Kofun spearmen are much better classified as Sp rather than Pk. In the DBMM list they have been classified as Pk (X) because they are
                  Message 8 of 27 , Feb 4 4:06 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I really think that the Kofun spearmen are much better classified as Sp
                    rather than Pk. In the DBMM list they have been classified as Pk (X)
                    because they are well armoured and have large shields and have spears that
                    may be up to 4 metres long. This means that in close combat in DBMM they
                    are generally much less effective than Pk (O). All in all it looks a lot
                    closer to DBA Sp than DBA Pk. Incidentally Kofun figures also look much
                    more like Sp than Pk. It's also worth bearing in mind that with Koreans as
                    a major historical opponent, you probably want a classification that isn't
                    better than most Korean close fighting foot. And then there's Duncan Head's
                    article in Slingshot where he suggested that the DBMM classification should
                    be Sp (I).

                    Peter
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Andreas Johansson" <andreasj@...>
                    To: <DBA@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 7:14 AM
                    Subject: Re: [DBA] DBA LISTS


                    > III/7 Pre-Samurai Japanese
                    > Terrain should probably be Hilly (it's in any case wrong that these
                    > are Arable while the Early Samurai are Hilly).
                    > The a/b split is one year earlier than the Kofun/Ritsuryo split in the
                    > DBMM list.
                    > The sublists could helpfully be renamed respecitvely "Kofun" and
                    > "Ritsuryo or Early Heian".
                    > The (a) list should lose the Ax in favour of Pk, and perhaps have more
                    > of these (would suggest one each of Bw and Cv exchangible for extra
                    > Pk).
                    > The (b) list shouldn't have Ax, and could use a lower minimum of Cv
                    > (substitute Bw for both).
                  • Les
                    ... III/12 Christian Nubian ... I think if you want to go that way with the infantry,the freed slot should be 1x Ax or Hd,to match the Lesser Foot in the DBMM
                    Message 9 of 27 , Feb 4 4:26 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > More comments:
                      >
                      III/12 Christian Nubian
                      > Monophysote -> Monophysite
                      > The general should be allowed to be Kn.
                      > The 4xWb should become "3xBd or 3xAx", the freed slot becoming
                      > something like "1xHd or Ps or Bw or LCm".
                      >
                      I think if you want to go that way with the infantry,the freed slot should be 1x Ax or Hd,to match the Lesser Foot in the DBMM list,or maybe LCm? As for the Gen being Kn,undecided,as DBA Kn is different to DBMM.
                      LES
                    • Andreas Johansson
                      ... I originally had it as 1x(Hd or Ax or Ps or Bw or LCm), but five choices did seem a tad excessive. The Bw/Ps is in there because the DBMM list allows more
                      Message 10 of 27 , Feb 4 10:45 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Les <laparsons@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> More comments:
                        >>
                        >  III/12 Christian Nubian
                        >> Monophysote -> Monophysite
                        >> The general should be allowed to be Kn.
                        >> The 4xWb should become "3xBd or 3xAx", the freed slot becoming
                        >> something like "1xHd or Ps or Bw or LCm".
                        >>
                        > I think if you want to go that way with the infantry,the freed slot should be 1x Ax or Hd,to match the Lesser Foot in the DBMM list,or maybe LCm?

                        I originally had it as 1x(Hd or Ax or Ps or Bw or LCm), but five
                        choices did seem a tad excessive. The Bw/Ps is in there because the
                        DBMM list allows more shooters than close combat foot.

                        > As for the Gen being Kn,undecided,as DBA Kn is different to DBMM.

                        Until Sue indicates otherwise, I'm assuming that element translations
                        remain as between DBM and DBA 2.x

                        --
                        Andreas Johansson

                        Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                      • Les
                        ... As the choices in DBM are Cv(O) or (S),there should be no option for a Kn Gen then? LES
                        Message 11 of 27 , Feb 5 1:11 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                          >

                          > > As for the Gen being Kn,undecided,as DBA Kn is different to DBMM.
                          >
                          > Until Sue indicates otherwise, I'm assuming that element translations
                          > remain as between DBM and DBA 2.x
                          >
                          As the choices in DBM are Cv(O) or (S),there should be no option for a Kn Gen then?

                          LES
                        • Andreas Johansson
                          ... No. I mean that if DBM Kn (I) became DBA 2.2 3Kn, DBMM Kn (I) becomes DBA 3.0 Kn. -- Andreas Johansson Why can t you be a non-conformist just like
                          Message 12 of 27 , Feb 5 1:17 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Les <laparsons@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                            >>
                            >
                            >> > As for the Gen being Kn,undecided,as DBA Kn is different to DBMM.
                            >>
                            >> Until Sue indicates otherwise, I'm assuming that element translations
                            >> remain as between DBM and DBA 2.x
                            >>
                            > As the choices in DBM are Cv(O) or (S),there should be no option for a Kn Gen then?

                            No. I mean that if DBM Kn (I) became DBA 2.2 3Kn, DBMM Kn (I) becomes
                            DBA 3.0 Kn.


                            --
                            Andreas Johansson

                            Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?
                          • WilliamM
                            ... ... The Burmese list needs a bit more than this. For one thing, the DBMM version has far more archers that crossbows and the crossbows are optional,
                            Message 13 of 27 , Feb 6 6:01 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > More comments:
                              >
                              <snip>
                              > III/9 Burmese
                              > Should allow a Cv general.
                              > The (b) list could use 1xBd to represent the swordsman guard (drop one Ax).

                              The Burmese list needs a bit more than this. For one thing, the DBMM version has far more archers that crossbows and the crossbows are optional, as are some Ps. There are also Thai allied Wb available after 1287.

                              How about the following?

                              III/ 9a Burmese Armies 500 - 1043 AD:
                              1xEl (Gen), 1xCv, 6xAx, 3xBw, 1xBw or Cb or Ps.

                              III/ 9b Burmese Armies 1044 - 1526 AD:
                              1xEl (Gen), 2xEl, 1xCv, 1xBd, 4xAx, 2xBw, 1xCb or Ps or Wb.

                              (To keep those with V2.2 armies happy, you could specify all the Bw & Cb as "Bw or Cb" unless DBA3.0 intends to have some real distinction in how they play.)

                              For references, there is 'Armies of Medieval Burma AD700-1300' by Dan Mersey, available from Outpost games.

                              Bill
                            • WilliamM
                              I ve just realised I missed that generals can be Cv rather than Elephants, so both sub-lists should begin 1xEl or Cv (Gen),... And yes, in DBMM it is possible
                              Message 14 of 27 , Feb 6 7:37 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I've just realised I missed that generals can be Cv rather than Elephants, so both sub-lists should begin

                                1xEl or Cv (Gen),...

                                And yes, in DBMM it is possible to field an early Burmese army with no elephants.

                                --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "WilliamM" <turenne@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > More comments:
                                > >
                                > <snip>
                                > > III/9 Burmese
                                > > Should allow a Cv general.
                                > > The (b) list could use 1xBd to represent the swordsman guard (drop one Ax).
                                >
                                > The Burmese list needs a bit more than this. For one thing, the DBMM version has far more archers that crossbows and the crossbows are optional, as are some Ps. There are also Thai allied Wb available after 1287.
                                >
                                > How about the following?
                                >
                                > III/ 9a Burmese Armies 500 - 1043 AD:
                                > 1xEl (Gen), 1xCv, 6xAx, 3xBw, 1xBw or Cb or Ps.
                                >
                                > III/ 9b Burmese Armies 1044 - 1526 AD:
                                > 1xEl (Gen), 2xEl, 1xCv, 1xBd, 4xAx, 2xBw, 1xCb or Ps or Wb.
                                >
                                > (To keep those with V2.2 armies happy, you could specify all the Bw & Cb as "Bw or Cb" unless DBA3.0 intends to have some real distinction in how they play.)
                                >
                                > For references, there is 'Armies of Medieval Burma AD700-1300' by Dan Mersey, available from Outpost games.
                                >
                                > Bill
                                >
                              • WilliamM
                                ... In contrast to the Japanese, the Emishi should probably not be hilly if the DBMM terrain is anything to go by. While the Japanese have a compulsory DH in
                                Message 15 of 27 , Feb 6 9:17 AM
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Johansson <andreasj@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > More comments:
                                  >
                                  > III/6 Emishi
                                  > The Emishi being a tad obscure, I would suggest expanding the list
                                  > notes to something like this:
                                  > "The Emishi were the indigenous people of northern Japan, including
                                  > both the Ainu and groups ethnically closer to the Japanese. In the
                                  > 8th and 9th centuries they are described as superb horse archers;
                                  > earlier as archers, but not as horsed. This list is provided as the
                                  > main enemy for the contemporary Japanese."
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > III/7 Pre-Samurai Japanese
                                  > Terrain should probably be Hilly (it's in any case wrong that these
                                  > are Arable while the Early Samurai are Hilly).

                                  In contrast to the Japanese, the Emishi should probably not be hilly if the DBMM terrain is anything to go by. While the Japanese have a compulsory DH in DBMM, the Emeshi do not even have an optional DH.

                                  The Emishi do have a compulsory Wd and optional GH and BF (DBA Marsh) which DBA Hilly terrain does not allow. (There is a WH in DBMM but DBA wood would cover that.)

                                  The equivalent DBA terrain for III/6 Emishi would be Forest, not Hilly.

                                  (Forest does lack the BUA allowed in DBMM but no-one is going to pick that in DBA with no foot except Bw & Ps.)

                                  Bill
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.