PDA

View Full Version : DBA ARMY LISTS Section 2


Susan Laflin-Barker
10-31-2010, 09:47 AM
I've just placed the first 10 lists in section 2 on my website (www.wrg.me.uk) and I'd welcome comments on these 10 lists.
I'll add more next weeknd.
Sue.

vonBerlichingen
10-31-2010, 10:26 AM
For the Chinese armies as well as the armies from the Chinese periphery that were named by the Chinese, how about using pinyin, too, if only in parentheses?

Wade-Giles is rather early- to mid-20th century, while pinyin is now used much more extensively. Using pinyin would make research from more recent sources much more convenient. It could also make DBA more accessible to members of the Chinese diaspora...

The Last Conformist
10-31-2010, 01:00 PM
For the Chinese armies as well as the armies from the Chinese periphery that were named by the Chinese, how about using pinyin, too, if only in parentheses?

Wade-Giles is rather early- to mid-20th century, while pinyin is now used much more extensively. Using pinyin would make research from more recent sources much more convenient. It could also make DBA more accessible to members of the Chinese diaspora...
Phil has rather adamantly opposed using pinyin in DBMM*, so I doubt it'll happen. It'd be nice if it did, however.**


* Some lists do refer to "Zhuang" (W-G: Chuang) because Phil didn't realize it was pinyin.

** Personally, I'd be happiest with pinyin only, but giving both should minimize total unhappiness.

gsa
10-31-2010, 01:14 PM
The start of the list of troop types might read better if it was along the lines:

1 x Gen (insert type or types)

Putting the 'Gen' bit at the end seems a little clunky.

Steve

The Last Conformist
10-31-2010, 01:38 PM
The start of the list of troop types might read better if it was along the lines:

1 x Gen (insert type or types)

Putting the 'Gen' bit at the end seems a little clunky.

Steve
I prefer it the way it is. We know the first element is the general, so what type he is is the more interesting information and better put first.

pawsBill
10-31-2010, 04:20 PM
I've just placed the first 10 lists in section 2 on my website (www.wrg.me.uk) and I'd welcome comments on these 10 lists.
I'll add more next weeknd.
Sue.

Did we miss the bulk of Section 1? I only remember seeing the first 15 armies or so.

For the Indian armies in this new selection, I think the Mountain Indian needs to change from "...4xPk or Ax..." to "...4x(Pk or Ax)..." (or even "...4x(Sp or Ax)..." if DBMM Pk(F) are to translate as the old DBA 3Sp) as the long spearmen should all be the same type. I know DBMM has only Pk(F) but DBA Pk or Sp may not fit the character of these troops in this case as well as Ax would.

I also think the Classical Indian needs amending - there should be a higher proportion of Blade compared to number of Bow (and at least one compulsory Blade) and also a compulsory Horde.

Bill

The Last Conformist
10-31-2010, 04:21 PM
I'm reproducing below the comments I posted on the Yahoo list, in case someone here wants to critique the critique.


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 & 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, Bruttiand -> Bruttians
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.

edit: typo

General Hnlun
10-31-2010, 08:22 PM
I would also like to voice my opinion that pinyin even in conjunction with Wade-Giles should be used for Chinese armies where appropriate, peoples named by the Chinese on their periphery.

Tony Aguilar
10-31-2010, 08:34 PM
I would also like to voice my opinion that pinyin even in conjunction with Wade-Giles should be used for Chinese armies where appropriate, peoples named by the Chinese on their periphery.

I emailed Sue with the same request when the Book 1 lists were posted about a month ago.

The Last Conformist
11-01-2010, 08:13 AM
I wrote
There could be an extra sublists for post-340 Campanian, I'd suggest:
1xCv (Gen), 1xCv, 2xBd, 3xSp or 3xBd, 1xSp, 4xPs
In case anyone cares, this is 2xCv + 2xPs plus eight elements of two variants of Romanized foot: a "Camillan" one with equal numbers of hastati (Bd), principes (Sp), triarii (Sp), and leves (Ps), and a "Polybian" one with the principes converted to Bd and the triarii reduced. For additional temporary accuracy it could be split into two sublists, a Sp-heavy one until 275 BC, and a Bd-heavy one after that date.

Roland Fricke
11-01-2010, 10:35 AM
I'd like to see the background informatino go to the end of each army section. When I search for armies, the title stands out but the detailed lists is sort of buried at the end after the background. Just my opinion but I'd like the detail list info right after the bold faced army name for ease of reference.

Jon-Michel Seman
11-01-2010, 01:28 PM
I'd also like to cast a vote for pinyin.

I think the blurbs about the army are a little distracting. I'm not sure they add as much useful information as putting in some information about what the elements are supposed to represent would.

In any case, it's great you're soliciting feedback from the community.

JM

Snowcat
11-02-2010, 08:41 PM
I'm reproducing below the comments I posted on the Yahoo list, in case someone here wants to critique the critique.

4. Warring States 6 Ch'in (pinyin: Qin)

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.

Agreed.
And the Qin option to now have up to 1/4 of the army HCh seems high.

The Last Conformist
11-03-2010, 06:35 AM
And the Qin option to now have up to 1/4 of the army HCh seems high.

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 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.

Snowcat
11-03-2010, 07:02 AM
Hmm, hadn't thought of that. :)
I was more wondering where the idea of the Qin now being able to field at least 50% more chariots than other states, and 3 times as many as some has come from.

The Last Conformist
11-03-2010, 07:15 AM
Hmm, hadn't thought of that. :)
I was more wondering where the idea of the Qin now being able to field at least 50% more chariots than other states, and 3 times as many as some has come from.
That's a good point too - the Qin don't get more than anyone else in the DBMM list.

Also, the regrade of Qin infantry to Wb is optional in DBMM, so perhaps the DBA list should have 4xWb or (2x (Ax or Bd) + 2xBd). But if chariot numbers are harmonized, a non-crazy Qin list looks a lot like an Others list, so perhaps unnecessary.

Susan Laflin-Barker
11-04-2010, 11:42 AM
Steven Bowns has taken over updating section one, so I've moved on the section 2. Thank you for the comments so far - I've printed them out and will go through them - possibly with Phil which will get us to the final version so much quicker.

Lists 2b - the next 20 - are now available on my website. Comments please.

Sue

Bill Sumruld
11-04-2010, 12:53 PM
Sue, right off the bat, what has always puzzled me is the rationale for making the general for II/11 Gallic always either LCh or Wb but never Cv. What was the rationale for that? I'll be dogged If I know any real historical reason for it.

Bill Sumruld
11-04-2010, 12:59 PM
Also puzzling to me, especially in light of the description of the Samnites (II/13) and their preferred methods of warfare as well as the Romans' fear of them, is why the Samnites rate no Ps at all? Some of the description that you have given simply screams Ps to me. What was the rationale for that?

The Last Conformist
11-04-2010, 03:40 PM
I reproduce my comments from the Yahoo list below:

I (mostly) haven't looked at terrain, enemies & allies, or aggression.

11. Gallic
There should be a Cv option for the general.
There could be a late period downgrade of warriors to Ax (as per the DBMM list)
Separately, there could be an allowance for a few Ax on account of the Ligurian allies. Alternatively, they could be considered an Italian Hill Tribe ally.
Chariot numbers may need review, as per previous comments regarding scale.

12. Alex Mac.
The comment about hypaspists would be more useful it it told me which element they correspond to.
Some Pk (two elements probably) should be allowed to be downgraded to Ax (both Philip and Alexander are allowed this in the DBMM list).

13. Samnite
Could have an option for an element of psiloi skirmishers.
The DBMM list allows various combinations of allies.

14. Kappadocian
The general should be allowed to be Kn.
Perhaps allow 1-2 elements of mercenary hoplites (Sp).

15. Alex Imp
The elephants and _which_ other troops were supplied by Poros?

16. Asiatic Early Suckers
WWg, being unable to contact BUA, are unsuited to represent Demetrios's towers. And siege works don't really belong in a battle set anyway.
It's unclear why Alketas gets no mounted beyond the general's element - in the DBMM list, he gets as much (non-El) mounted as Eumenes, and little less than Antigonos or Demetrios.

17. Lysimachid
Should perhaps have an option for an El (the DBMM list allows up to 3) and/or fewer phalangites.

18 Mac. Early Suckers
In the notes, Ptolomy -> Ptolemy (twice) and Antigonas -> Antigonos
What's the Sp element in Polyperchon's army? Only Cassander is allowed hoplites in the DBMM list.
It'd be nice with a list for Olympias. (*)
Antigonos Gonatas's should have a Cv option for the general.

19. Seleucid
The notes should remark that the Asiatic elephants were replaced by African ones, lest people wonder why nellies are nevertheless allowed later.
The camels should be LCm.
The (a) list should perhaps have Cv instead of the 2nd Kn element (line cavalry are Cv (O) in the DBMM list until 276 BC)

20. Ptolemaic
pletasts -> peltasts
The (a) list has too many Pk and two few Ax (4xPk, 3xAk would be better).
Who are the "Bd or Ax" in (cd)? (d) Anyway seems to have too many Ax, as thureophoroi are no longer available in the DBMM list at that date.

21. Ch'iang and Ti
It may be worth pointing out these Ch'in aren't the same as the Ch'in of II/4
In the (b), there seems no reason the non-general horsemen can no longer be Cv.
In (ab), who are the lone Ps at the end of the lists?
In the (c) list, Chinese heavy infantry should be Bd not Sp, and there should be just one LH.

22. Arabo-Aramaean
Grea -> Great, someof -> some of, Adianbene -> Adiabene
All should be allowed to take archers as Ps instead of Bw, and generals as Cv instead of Kn.
Nabataea and Hatra could use more LH

23. Later Pre-Islamic Arab
That etymology of "Saraceni" is not undisputed.
The 1xCm in each sublist should be 1xLCm as light scouts.
Yemen seems to have too few archers and skirmishers. (And all the archers in all sublists could be "Bw or Ps" as in DBMM.)

24. Early Rhoxolani Sarmatian
DBMM allows Bw instead of Ps.

25. Bosporan
Should have fewer LH and more Kn in the 2nd part of the list.

26. Siracae et sim
Sarmatiians -> Sarmatians, chage -> charge
The Ps could be "Ps or Hd"

27. Pyrrhic
(Cv orLH) -> (Cv or LH)
The Sp should be (Sp or Pk) - Pyrrhos made the Tarentines switch to Macedonian equipment.

28. Early Armenian and Gordyene
Should explain why Hiberians and Albanians are relevant (and perhaps make clear these are Caucasian, not Balkan, Albanians).
The (c) list should retain Kn, not switch to Cv (and could usefully be merged with (b)).

29. Tien and K'un-ming
K'un Ming -> K'un-Ming, armoureed -> armoured

30. Galatian
numer -> number, Thessalain -> Thessalian
(a) should allow a Cv general (and arguably also the other LCh as Cv - the DBMM list has no compulsory chariots). It should also allow some Thessalian or Aenianian Ps.
(c) should allow more Bd (DBMM allows complete replacement of Wb by Bd, incl CinC)



(*) The DBMM list has Olympias herself as Bge (S). I'm not quite sure what this represents, but if it's her unwarlike entourage remarked on by Diodorus an Athenaeus, I'm tempted to suggest the following list:

1xHd (Gen), 1xKn, 6xPk, 2xAx, 1xEl, 1xPs.

Alternatively, Duncan Head suggests she might have used a litter, which would naturally yield a Lit (Gen), which is tres cool in a Successor army.

The Last Conformist
11-04-2010, 03:41 PM
Also puzzling to me, especially in light of the description of the Samnites (II/13) and their preferred methods of warfare as well as the Romans' fear of them, is why the Samnites rate no Ps at all? Some of the description that you have given simply screams Ps to me. What was the rationale for that?
I believe the rationale is that they were quite capable in close combat if they had to. But the DBMM list adds some Ps.

Redwilde
11-04-2010, 08:08 PM
Here's a more general thought...

The way the General stands are currently listed can noticably affect the overall troop composition in an army with a choice of Generals.

Could the list format be changed so that the options for general are not directly linked to troop selection?

For example,
II/11 Gallic
[Wb or LCh Gen]; 1xWb or LCh, 2xLCh or Cv, 8xWb, 1xPs.

Paul A. Hannah
11-04-2010, 08:34 PM
Simple typo, Sue, in the comments for the II/20 Ptolemaic list: "plia" should, of course, be "pila".

And, in the comments for the II/22 Arabo-Aramaean list, please correct the typo in "Herod the Great".

Another typo in II/23: "unarmopured" should be "unarmoured". Thanks. :-)

The Last Conformist
11-05-2010, 06:37 AM
Here's a more general thought...

The way the General stands are currently listed can noticably affect the overall troop composition in an army with a choice of Generals.

Could the list format be changed so that the options for general are not directly linked to troop selection?

For example,
II/11 Gallic
[Wb or LCh Gen]; 1xWb or LCh, 2xLCh or Cv, 8xWb, 1xPs.
Something like this would be particularly appreciated in IV/13d, where taking the Kn option for the general means you end up with an odd number of Pk!

Could be more succinctly expressed by asterisking or bolding the types eligible for generality. Taking into account that the Gauls as per above should be allowed all mounted, generals included, as Cv, perhaps:
2x (LCh* or Cv*), 1x (LCh or Cv or Wb), 8xWb*, 1xPs
or
2x (LCh or Cv), 1x (LCh or Cv or Wb), 8xWb, 1xPs
with a note in the intro to the army lists to the effect of "the army's only general is included in one element, of a type asterisked/bolded in the army list".

Snowcat
11-05-2010, 07:55 AM
That's pretty much the way Impetus does it. :)

cpagano
11-05-2010, 09:33 AM
Perhaps the least confusing way to do it is:

2x (LCh or Cv), 1x (LCh or Cv or Wb), 8xWb, 1xPs
Gen; LCh, Cv, Wb

This gives the army lists and then indicates which elements can serve as the general.
If you prefer to list the general first then simply reverse the order of the two lines.

If space is an issue then it can all be put onto one line;

2x (LCh or Cv), 1x (LCh or Cv or Wb), 8xWb, 1xPs; Gen: LCh, Cv, Wb

but the first example is probably the easiest to read.

cpagano
11-05-2010, 09:56 AM
2x (LCh or Cv), 1x (LCh or Cv or Wb), 8xWb, 1xPs
Gen; LCh, Cv, Wb


I really think that this format is the easiest to use, but one problem with it is that Phil may feel that for some armies a particular element type should only be chosen if it is going to represent the general.

Take the following hypothetical army:

1x (Kn or Cv), 2xCv, 8xWb, 1xPs
Gen: Kn, Wb

If Phil wants people to take the Kn option only when it will be the general and take the Cv option when the general is with the Wb, then perhaps the army list could be written;

1x (Kn* or Cv), 2xCv, 8xWb, 1xPs
Gen: Kn, Wb

with the asterisk indicating that the option is only to be taken when it is the general.

Lobotomy
11-05-2010, 06:33 PM
I really think that this format is the easiest to use, but one problem with it is that Phil may feel that for some armies a particular element type should only be chosen if it is going to represent the general.

Take the following hypothetical army:

1x (Kn or Cv), 2xCv, 8xWb, 1xPs
Gen: Kn, Wb

If Phil wants people to take the Kn option only when it will be the general and take the Cv option when the general is with the Wb, then perhaps the army list could be written;

1x (Kn* or Cv), 2xCv, 8xWb, 1xPs
Gen: Kn, Wb

with the asterisk indicating that the option is only to be taken when it is the general.

All these suggestions change the convention about generals used since 1.0. Please leave it the way it is and do not recreate the wheel, as it will be square, not round.

The Last Conformist
11-05-2010, 07:02 PM
Er? 1.0 just listed the troops, without specifying which element the general should be in.

Martin Smith
11-06-2010, 10:54 AM
All these suggestions change the convention about generals used since 1.0. Please leave it the way it is and do not recreate the wheel, as it will be square, not round.

Totally agree - WHY should it change??
M

The Last Conformist
11-06-2010, 11:26 AM
Rewilde explained the rationale for the suggestion in post #22:
The way the General stands are currently listed can noticably affect the overall troop composition in an army with a choice of Generals.

Why should a Marian Roman army necessarily have less mounted because the general opts to join the legionaries? Caesar fought on foot at Munda, where a fifth of his army was cavalry.

On a more game mechanical level, why should Maximilian be forced to use a suboptimal three Pk elements if he opts to fight mounted?

Mark Davies
11-06-2010, 02:07 PM
Why should a Marian Roman army necessarily have less mounted because the general opts to join the legionaries? Caesar fought on foot at Munda, where a fifth of his army was cavalry.
Very true. This a problem for the EIR list as well. And arguably the Polybian general should have the option to on foot in the same way.

TWR
11-06-2010, 07:48 PM
Carthaginian I must add as well.

Was Hannibal on the flank of his army or was he somewhere in the centre? This of course is the problem assigning a general to a particular stand when in DBA these stands represent block of troops. Though of course assignment to a particular stand is important for some armies, Successor armies for example.

Macbeth
11-07-2010, 07:18 PM
16. Asiatic Early Suckers
WWg, being unable to contact BUA, are unsuited to represent Demetrios's towers. And siege works don't really belong in a battle set anyway.


Quite true, but remember that Demetrios' towers were designed to be wheeled up close to the walls and then pepper them with artillery fire, rather than be an assault tower

;)

Cheers

TWR
11-07-2010, 08:09 PM
I find it frustrating that there is no point taking the Demetrius' "towers" towards a BUA area. While DBA would allow me to use them on the battlefield I keep resisting the option as it seems, well odd. Instead my version of Demetrius's army makes do with assualting BUAs with pike or elephants.

Hopefully the will be removed from the new version of the list.

Snowcat
11-07-2010, 08:14 PM
Just fix the Tibetans in Bk 3 - that'd be nice. :up

Tony Aguilar
11-07-2010, 09:29 PM
I find it frustrating that there is no point taking the Demetrius' "towers" towards a BUA area. While DBA would allow me to use them on the battlefield I keep resisting the option as it seems, well odd. Instead my version of Demetrius's army makes do with assualting BUAs with pike or elephants.

Hopefully the will be removed from the new version of the list.

It is odd that something like Demetrios' towers (siege engines) can be in an army list, yet other elements, which are just as commonly available (according to DBM/DBMMM) are not an option.

Susan Laflin-Barker
11-14-2010, 05:53 AM
Thank for the comments so far on armies II/11 to II/30.

I'll go through them and see what I can do to sort out the problems.

Sue.