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

Re: new lists - artillery

Expand Messages
  • Adrian
    Indeed, there was a player at Historicon who had an Orc bowman in one of his armies. Does anyone worry about the representation of an element in a game? My
    Message 1 of 45 , Sep 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      "Indeed, there was a player at Historicon who had an Orc bowman in one of his armies. Does anyone worry about the representation of an element in a game? My interest, as the builder of an army, is to get it as accurate as possible. If the list makers can tell us that one group of soldiers should be a Wb and another be an Ax, even though they look similar, then they can tell us what sort of artillery is to used.
      Bob"

      ACH- In a game where you have such a small number of elements I would find it personally offensive if someone laid down a total fantasy element. I have no real objections to players using other armies elements to represent a missing element in their own army (but this does beg the question as to why taking into account that even with my eyesight I can paint a four figure element in about a week), but when you start getting players putting down orcs, elves etc then the game no longer has the correct historical feel to it. In that case players might as well lay down twelve strips of cardboard with just the letters written on them to say what they represent i.e Bd, Wb, Cv, Kn, Art etc.
    • omaribnharoun
      That was my intent on a few armies. I put together a full Early Imperial Roman (Principate) army for Field of Glory, and using the variety of extra troops
      Message 45 of 45 , Sep 3, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        That was my intent on a few armies. I put together a full Early Imperial Roman (Principate) army for Field of Glory, and using the variety of 'extra' troops (mostly 2Ps, but some 2LH) I had wanted to find an army to add them to for DBA.

        Presently, I have the following (my book is with a friend, so forgive me if I dont have the exact numbers/titles):
        - Huns (11 2LH, 1 2LH/3CV General)
        - Early Imperial Roman (x2 - for matched pairs)
        - Late Medieval German (Landsknechts, the last Late Medieval German list I think)
        - Middle/Late Imperial Roman (unassembled)

        Considering a samurai or asian army, because I like the look. Doing the matched pairs thing seems like the best way to assemble a collection.

        I have the following laying around:
        8x 2PS (Javelins)
        8x 2PS (Archers)
        8x 2LH (Numidians and "Barbarian" Horse Archers)

        Was thinking a gothic list would only require a few extra stands, and could work with the Romans? Not sure who I could pair the Huns against using what I have extra.

        With the Samurai, what is a good list from 2.2?


        Omar


        --- In DBA@yahoogroups.com, "Jan" <janandjeffhayes@...> wrote:
        >
        > Please note, the Late Imperial Roman and Patrician Roman lists morph easily into each other. Particularly with the imminent DBA 3.0 Lists, these two armies allow you to make a very diverse family of armies some very "Roman" looking, others with a very Gothic of Hunnic aspect. These two armies fought an extreme range of enemies from Picts to Persians. As an opponent, a generic Gothic army with a few interchangeable pieces can also morph into many barbarian armies: Vandals, Franks, Goths, Bavarians, you name it. Great deal of flexibility with this selection.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.