PDA

View Full Version : Book III Lists


Martyn
03-14-2011, 01:12 PM
Not sure if this has been posted earlier, but I noticed that Sue has put the next section of army lists on the Yahoo group III/61-80.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/kEl-Tcpic4kRtDO0hTnk29iFB-3DK88UbOhtDac5GrDitChmCGrQgE7dW_XJSAlSkhRcEI58X_MJ omfn044GH3wUJ4rFsQlwnJil-ss/LISTS%203d.pdf

There is also an update for III/1-60

http://http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/kEl-TbzmuTERtDO0McLTmWQgUWP9ovkRDLOAAxOdumEFvsHZ_O6WeJ 2ttH1RzcC8GiNexcHohsopTJA6p3Reb-IQ4Df7vIV1v_cMCN4/LISTS%203abc.pdf

snowcat
03-14-2011, 08:03 PM
Those links aren't working.

Martyn
03-15-2011, 09:01 AM
Those links aren't working.

The first one seems to be ok, let's try again for III/1-60

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wFR_TRV-_o55rc98A8fXjlbHYIqchJ9LYT6kVL9EsxPJGyKPrMuTYiyCbz vMD8xTwBUnCK5lJPljCQqQmgltt1eVcggg2Uo4P4RKWE8/LISTS%203abc.pdf

It might be that you have to be signed up to the Yahoo group to access it.

maerk
03-15-2011, 11:51 AM
It might be that you have to be signed up to the Yahoo group to access it.

Sorry Martyn, for me the link doesn't work either way.

These work for me:

III/1-60
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8H5_TXCWTjbK5zNYwHv5WkRZ_N6S6zf6Yb_fI4zXVxzWv6G3OA D3yXvB0SfnEYSuzxXsx9OlbhMcZisTd8kHsByZnYK0EQ/LISTS%203abc.pdf

III/61-80
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8H5_TRikBzrK5zNYX02jWthXD8R_6FzBFI918v7jmofDqFDZoq _P5HxrM6GiYx4B8OkNbUMw8Bt7wjzTLUmIgB2DSv1buw/LISTS%203d.pdf

Martyn
03-15-2011, 12:41 PM
Sorry Martyn, for me the link doesn't work either way.

These work for me:

III/1-60
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8H5_TXCWTjbK5zNYwHv5WkRZ_N6S6zf6Yb_fI4zXVxzWv6G3OA D3yXvB0SfnEYSuzxXsx9OlbhMcZisTd8kHsByZnYK0EQ/LISTS%203abc.pdf

III/61-80
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8H5_TRikBzrK5zNYX02jWthXD8R_6FzBFI918v7jmofDqFDZoq _P5HxrM6GiYx4B8OkNbUMw8Bt7wjzTLUmIgB2DSv1buw/LISTS%203d.pdf

How strange, I came onto Fanaticus without logging on and saw this so I tried these two links, nothing doing all I get is a broken link message. However when I tried my original link and the reposted link these worked fine :???

What's happening? Now I know next to nothing about computers and the internet so itís all a mystery to me. Can anybody explain (preferably with out any tech jargon).

It would all be so much easier if Sue would post onto her website.

winterbadger
03-15-2011, 01:32 PM
Hmmm. I've tried all those links, and while the files download, Acrobat tells me that are damaged.

Jeff
03-15-2011, 01:59 PM
Looked at them this morning and now they are not there...crap I knew I should have downloaded them.

Jeff

timurilank
03-16-2011, 08:47 AM
The pdf file is still there, dated Mar. 11, 2011.
It is directly under Lists III 1-60.

Martyn
04-04-2011, 04:35 AM
The latest Book III lists are on the yahoo group

I will post the link more in hope than expectation that it will work.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gHqZTb0bjHUA3moBebbnQbUBFJAu9J2v3w3zGPgYdxJFQDeZeC _PIDWwWucI0Hy3CFZQ54NH6Sj_aCgUWW_cl0CJBsVV-Jn7bFDq06U/LISTS%203.pdf

This seems to be the latest iteration of the whole Book III list, presumably a final draft pending comment.

snowcat
04-04-2011, 05:55 AM
Nice to see the possibility of a Tibetan-Nepalese option in III/15. :)

snowcat
04-04-2011, 08:39 AM
Arab Conquest looks nicer with Bd and Ps support too.

Tony Aguilar
04-04-2011, 09:38 AM
Arab Conquest looks nicer with Bd and Ps support too.

Although it may not involve rebasing, that is a pretty significant change.

Jeff
04-04-2011, 10:10 AM
I can not seem to get on the yahoo page where the links are going to. What yahoo group do I need to belong to? I viewed the lists when they came out but did not save them apparently.

Jeff

Martyn
04-04-2011, 10:26 AM
I can not seem to get on the yahoo page where the links are going to. What yahoo group do I need to belong to? I viewed the lists when they came out but did not save them apparently.

Jeff

The Yahoo group is as follows

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/

When Sue updates a list she removes the old one, keeps it simple so everybody is singing from the same hymn sheet but makes it difficult to track back.

Jeff
04-04-2011, 01:18 PM
Thanks, I found the right ones

Jeff

Tony Aguilar
04-04-2011, 01:25 PM
Thanks, I found the right ones

Jeff

Just remember, nothing is set in stone yet.

Martyn
04-04-2011, 01:50 PM
Thanks, I found the right ones

Jeff

Just a reminder, the Book II lists are on Sue's web page.

Book III as above on Yahoo, Book IV not started yet.

Not sure about Book I, anybody remember if this has been done?

Just remember, nothing is set in stone yet.

The original premis was Sue is doing this subject to Phil's OK. No news on that but we assume that he is happy otherwise there could be a major domestic in the Barker household considering all the work Sue has put in. :D Do any of the cats have any inside info they are able to impart on this?

david kuijt
04-04-2011, 02:33 PM
The original premis was Sue is doing this subject to Phil's OK. No news on that but we assume that he is happy otherwise there could be a major domestic in the Barker household considering all the work Sue has put in. :D Do any of the cats have any inside info they are able to impart on this?

Phil hasn't looked at any of these lists yet, as far as I know. He also has not approved (or disapproved) the general idea of removing the subtype numbers from the element types. You can make any assumptions you like, of course. My guess based upon the discussion a month ago is that the subtype numbers are going to be back in, eventually.

Rich Gause
04-04-2011, 02:41 PM
Phil hasn't looked at any of these lists yet, as far as I know. He also has not approved (or disapproved) the general idea of removing the subtype numbers from the element types. You can make any assumptions you like, of course. My guess based upon the discussion a month ago is that the subtype numbers are going to be back in, eventually.

Good. The subtypes should stay in(they should also be made optional and current basing should be grandfathered, and deeper bases to allow minis to fit also.) I think it is premature to be working on army lists before the rules are done anyway. How the heck are you supposed to decide how to depict pavasiers and dismounting knights, shot etc... when we don't even know if they will be changed or not?

winterbadger
04-04-2011, 02:58 PM
I think it is premature to be working on army lists before the rules are done anyway. How the heck are you supposed to decide how to depict pavasiers and dismounting knights, shot etc... when we don't even know if they will be changed or not?

Well, PB *may* be assuming that he isn't going to change any of the troops types. If you start off with that premise, there isn't much reason not to start revising the army lists right away.You save yourself time, and it sounded from the rumours we were hearing at the outset as if he wanted this done and dusted very quickly.

Just my speculation.

peleset
04-04-2011, 08:50 PM
For some reason everytime these links are provided, when I click on them, I get 'web page can not be found'.

Martyn
04-05-2011, 04:17 AM
Phil hasn't looked at any of these lists yet, as far as I know. He also has not approved (or disapproved) the general idea of removing the subtype numbers from the element types. You can make any assumptions you like, of course. My guess based upon the discussion a month ago is that the subtype numbers are going to be back in, eventually.

Thanks DK. Whilst rejoicing in the possibility that the subtype numbers will return, I do find it hard to believe that Sue is undertaking all of this work without any approval from Phil. Officially it may be up for final consideration, but unofficially?

I suppose this is another aspect where I will just have to wait patiently to see, as hard as that may be.

winterbadger
04-05-2011, 08:42 AM
Thanks DK. Whilst rejoicing in the possibility that the subtype numbers will return, I do find it hard to believe that Sue is undertaking all of this work without any approval from Phil. Officially it may be up for final consideration, but unofficially?

Well, what she originally said was

When I have finished and produced a recommended set, we shall then have to get Phil to approve them.

Who knows what that means about the "subsurface dynamics"? Not me, that's for sure.

Don Ray
04-09-2011, 10:42 PM
Hi All,
Who has references for III/68 Western Sudanese? I've been using Smaldone's excellent book on the Sokoto Caliphate to urge on DBA 3.0 that these armies can be safely extended to 1860 before guns become significant. One person on there referred vaguely to an article on DBM yahoo by Richard Young on this army but I couldn't find it. Any suggestions?
Don

Filippo S.
04-15-2011, 05:49 AM
Why does 2 compulsory HD still be in those lists? Someone knows?

III/73a Communal Italian army 1029-1150 AD: 1xKn (Gen), 1x(WWg or Sp), 1xKn, 5xSp, 2x(Cb or Ps), 2xHd.

III/73b Communal Italian army 1151-1320 AD: 1xKn(Gen), 1x(WWg or Sp), 1xKn, 1x(Kn or LH), 2xSp, 2x(Sp or Ax), 2x(Cb or Ps), 2xHd.

A good news about the new optional Wwg (carroccio), which never was a platform from which shooting at the enemies... finally has someone understood it?
But still 2HD present... it's the only list in all III book, all others have them with an option (may be in all 4 books).
Who they should represent? Folkstown? I'm wondering it since 7years.
Folkstown (common citizen, call them as you like) didn't go on front-line.

If not forced by an ad-hoc scenario I've never saw (in over 240 official games) 2Hd on the field. There may be a reason?

Give the communal an option: please! :rotfl

Martyn
04-15-2011, 06:21 AM
Why does 2 compulsory HD still be in those lists? Someone knows?

III/73a Communal Italian army 1029-1150 AD: 1xKn (Gen), 1x(WWg or Sp), 1xKn, 5xSp, 2x(Cb or Ps), 2xHd.

III/73b Communal Italian army 1151-1320 AD: 1xKn(Gen), 1x(WWg or Sp), 1xKn, 1x(Kn or LH), 2xSp, 2x(Sp or Ax), 2x(Cb or Ps), 2xHd.

A good news about the new optional Wwg (carroccio), which never was a platform from which shooting at the enemies... finally has someone understood it?
But still 2HD present... it's the only list in all III book, all others have them with an option (may be in all 4 books).
Who they should represent? Folkstown? I'm wondering it since 7years.
Folkstown (common citizen, call them as you like) didn't go on front-line.

If not forced by an ad-hoc scenario I've never saw (in over 240 official games) 2Hd on the field. There may be a reason?

Give the communal an option: please! :rotfl

The Horde elements make up a large part of the army in DBMM so that is probably why they are compulsory in DBA.

As to who they are have a look at this old thread.
http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=2476

Filippo S.
04-15-2011, 09:12 AM
The Horde elements make up a large part of the army in DBMM so that is probably why they are compulsory in DBA.


You're right Martyn: DBMM. Hd in DBMM with dozen of elements, and different rules.

I was mistaken (it was a sarcastic question).
I EXACTLY know how to represent Communal hordes, maybe most of my ancestors fought there :D
My question is really about the use of them in DBA.
I think the most representative list for communals is in FoG, with better and lesser spearmen. Farmers didn't go to battle and if so not in front-line.
DBA is a game where you must use all your elements, there are no reserve.
Reserve there the farmers stay... in the camp with Carroccio.
Ciao

Martyn
04-15-2011, 03:13 PM
You're right Martyn: DBMM. Hd in DBMM with dozen of elements, and different rules.

I was mistaken (it was a sarcastic question).
I EXACTLY know how to represent Communal hordes, maybe most of my ancestors fought there :D
My question is really about the use of them in DBA.
I think the most representative list for communals is in FoG, with better and lesser spearmen. Farmers didn't go to battle and if so not in front-line.
DBA is a game where you must use all your elements, there are no reserve.
Reserve there the farmers stay... in the camp with Carroccio.
Ciao

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

With regard to your question on the use of hordes it is a problem that I have yet to come across, but, as I am painting my first Hd containing army at present, Feudal English, (and they too have two compulsory hordes) I am going to learn very quickly.

In any game which strives to keep the opposing armies in balance you always end up having to use all your troops. The art is keeping the more vulnerable in positions where they fulfil a useful role but are less exposed. So maybe the best place for the Hd is back at camp, in a BUA, behind a marsh, perched on top of a hill, etc or maybe they are able to occupy a place in the front line. It all depends on the layout of the terrain and the composition of your opponent. You may even find that against some opponents they are useful.

The army lists are based to a degree on historic fact (or bigoted prejudice of the winner) so I assume that there is historic evidence to support the use of Communal Hordes in the army (not an era I know much about, or should I say yet another era I know nothing about).

Filippo S.
04-18-2011, 04:50 AM
The army lists are based to a degree on historic fact (or bigoted prejudice of the winner) ...

I think so, at least in most of the cases; I understand either that with over 300 lists there can be some flaws.
The problem with hd in DBA is a fragile element in medieval period were there are a lot of bowmen. They cannot go In BG, 2PIP to move, Qkilled near by anyone, too much for my taste.

Let's see, maybe in the 3.0 version Hd will be a killer element :D
Ciao

Doug
05-26-2011, 08:54 AM
You're right Martyn: DBMM. Hd in DBMM with dozen of elements, and different rules.

I was mistaken (it was a sarcastic question).
I EXACTLY know how to represent Communal hordes, maybe most of my ancestors fought there :D
My question is really about the use of them in DBA.
I think the most representative list for communals is in FoG, with better and lesser spearmen. Farmers didn't go to battle and if so not in front-line.
DBA is a game where you must use all your elements, there are no reserve.
Reserve there the farmers stay... in the camp with Carroccio.
Ciao

The Hd are supposed to represent the Contadini (peasantry), and are there because the original list interpretation was that the city states that were represneted by the list were unable to field large armies without using Contadini Kn and Hd.

The same problem exists in II/69 Sasanian Persian, where the Horde are there to represent the peasant farmers brought along to dig ditches, raise banks and perform the manual labour in sieges. The actual troops were part of seven military classes, entirely separate. (Including infantry it should be noted). Similarly with the Sui, which occasionally fielded very large armies bulked out by masses of untrained farmers.

There should be some sort of option to take the many armies that didn't include these elements. Or perhaps allow two Horde to an ordinary element?

That would be very interesting.

Jeff
05-26-2011, 09:13 AM
There should be some sort of option to take the many armies that didn't include these elements. Or perhaps allow two Horde to an ordinary element?

That would be very interesting.

Why,? Hd are totally awesome. I wish that some armies had more of them. But then again we can not pick and choose. Besides it is alot of fun to thump someone with a Hd and gain the braggin rights affiliated with the victory.

Jeff

Redwilde
05-26-2011, 01:32 PM
The same problem exists in II/69 Sasanian Persian, where the Horde are there to represent the peasant farmers brought along to dig ditches, raise banks and perform the manual labour in sieges.
[]
Or perhaps allow two Horde to an ordinary element?

A 13th stand of Horde is too big an advantage. But if some portion of the polloi are still digging ditches and raising banks, maybe if you have any Horde, you get to upgrade the Camp Followers to Horde as well.

David Brown
05-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Hd should not exist in DBA, they are trying to be another troop type but are just no good at it.

I think v1 said something to the effect that troops with poor morale /training could be considered the equal of others by virtue of greater numbers. The way that troops with lesser armour could be compensated by better mobility.

In oldspeak Hd could be 8SP or 8Ax.

I think in the past I have said that if Hd must exist they should be fielded as two such for the price of one.

If nothing else in BB you can have a real horde of them.

Regards

DB

Pavane
05-26-2011, 08:15 PM
At the Battle of Largs 1263, the Norwegian army consisted of contingents from King Magnus III of Man and King Dubhghall mac Ruaidhri of the Hebrides. The Western Isles of modern Scotland and the Isle of Man were under the suzerainty of Norway at that time. Shouldn't the III/40b list allow III/77 Scots Isles & Highlands as allies?

ferrency
05-26-2011, 10:54 PM
Hd should not exist in DBA, they are trying to be another troop type but are just no good at it.

I have contended in the past that some hordes might be represented best as a patch of bad going.

Alan

Rich Gause
05-26-2011, 11:20 PM
Armies that have no compulsorary Hd in DBMM should not have any compulsorary Hd in DBA.

Doug
05-27-2011, 12:26 AM
Why,? Hd are totally awesome. I wish that some armies had more of them. But then again we can not pick and choose. Besides it is alot of fun to thump someone with a Hd and gain the braggin rights affiliated with the victory.

Jeff

I won the Reactor competition in Canberra on the weekend using Communal Italian with 2 Hd, so I am not averse to using them. I just don't see why they should be compulsory for some armies when this isn't historically accurate.

Musashi
05-27-2011, 01:20 AM
I won the Reactor competition in Canberra on the weekend using Communal Italian with 2 Hd, so I am not averse to using them. I just don't see why they should be compulsory for some armies when this isn't historically accurate.

Did your horde do anything other than take up space? That is the million dollar question.

No flourishes of heroics due to the fearsomeness that is the mighty pitchfork.

Filippo S.
05-27-2011, 03:27 AM
I won the Reactor competition in Canberra on the weekend using Communal Italian with 2 Hd, so I am not averse to using them. I just don't see why they should be compulsory for some armies when this isn't historically accurate.

You like'em, use'em. :up

They are "historically incorrect" on that list, that's all.
Ciao

Martyn
05-27-2011, 04:51 AM
Hd should not exist in DBA, they are trying to be another troop type but are just no good at it.

I think v1 said something to the effect that troops with poor morale /training could be considered the equal of others by virtue of greater numbers. The way that troops with lesser armour could be compensated by better mobility.

In oldspeak Hd could be 8SP or 8Ax.

I think in the past I have said that if Hd must exist they should be fielded as two such for the price of one.

If nothing else in BB you can have a real horde of them.

Regards

DB


The comment in v1 was a general comment at the start of the Troop Definitions as follows

Troops are defined by battlefield behaviour instead of the usual formation, armour, weapons and morale classes. We distinguish only between troops whose fighting style differs sufficiently to need to be treated differently by either their general or their foe. Apparent anomalies caused from grouping together some troops with greatly disparate armour can be rationalised as the disparity being compensated by other factors, such as ferocity or skill, and are unobtrusive if the army fights only opponents of its own era.
I assume this is the comment you were referring to.

This is the same as is in v2 where Hordes were introduced as a separate troop type and is not specific to them.

FWIW I think the Horde element has a place in DBA but it may be overused within some of the army lists where they were not used in the battle lines.

Derek de Villiers
05-27-2011, 06:16 AM
Hello
I agree that hordes should not be compulsory in DBA for armies when this was not historically the case as pointed out by others. Nevertheless I do think that horde have a place in DBA. Hordes defending a camp can get lucky with their dice throws.
Kind Regards
Derek

Jeff
05-27-2011, 08:39 AM
Did your horde do anything other than take up space? That is the million dollar question.

No flourishes of heroics due to the fearsomeness that is the mighty pitchfork.

My Sassanid hd have the most kills in that army...Islamic Persian hd took a camp. Oh and the Sassanid hd has held back multiple kn attacks. All in supporting them and rolling good dice. I like the challenge.

If it's historical accuracy your looking for....@$):;)$&& maybe this is not the game to play. Free company for example.. Literal Carthage..ancient Chinese fighting Hussites... To name a few. Why pick on hd? I would argue that EVERY army should have hd because non of the fancy pants fighters wanted to dig in or do camp chores.

I look forward to conquering the world with my farmets armed with pitch forks.
Farmers armed with tools.

Jeff

Filippo S.
05-27-2011, 11:04 AM
If it's historical accuracy your looking for....@$):;)$&& maybe this is not the game to play. Jeff

Maybe:???, but... why continue on doing errors if a new version is coming.

I write what I saw:
- used be me a couple of times
- used by my opponents less then a couple.
There'll be a reason...

Compulsory Hd should be present in all armies, and they are, I remember they are called: "camp followers" :D

I will continue on playing, 2.2 or 3.0, Hd or not, as they say on NBA commercial: I like this game.

winterbadger
05-27-2011, 12:00 PM
If it's historical accuracy your looking for....@$):;)$&& maybe this is not the game to play.

This argument carries no weight with me. I read it the opposite direction--if one isn't interested in history, this is the wrong game to play. If it's not going to be a historical game, why have historical army lists? Why have historical army types? Why have historical campaigns? Why not have orcs and elves and goblins? There is plenty of scope for wizards and dragons and teddy bear pirate armies in HOTT.

Filippo S.
05-27-2011, 01:43 PM
This argument carries no weight with me. I read it the opposite direction--if one isn't interested in history, this is the wrong game to play. If it's not going to be a historical game, why have historical army lists? Why have historical army types? Why have historical campaigns? Why not have orcs and elves and goblins? There is plenty of scope for wizards and dragons and teddy bear pirate armies in HOTT.

TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU! :up :2up

http://www.dba-italia.org/images/dba_i_love_this_game.jpg
I hope NBA will not sue me

Jeff
05-27-2011, 02:07 PM
All I am saying gents, is that although it is historically based, DBA does not perfectly represent all the units as they were in history. This is simply because we cram 500+ armies into 12 elements regardless of the size of the force. Do you think that an army like free company has the same amount of troops as say the Ming?

Then again I play because I really enjoy it.

The hd or not to hd question seems more like an "hd are worthless and I don't want to play with them as a mandatory unit" discussion, regardless if they are a historical element or not.

winterbadger
05-27-2011, 03:09 PM
All I am saying gents, is that although it is historically based, DBA does not perfectly represent all the units as they were in history. This is simply because we cram 500+ armies into 12 elements regardless of the size of the force. Do you think that an army like free company has the same amount of troops as say the Ming?

You're conflating two unlike things, and introducing an irrelevancy. The question that several people have raised is whether the proportions of elements in DBA armies represent the proportions of troops in the historical armies, to the extent we can know them and given that the author has an unpredictable willingness to write sublists to represent different variations.

That has nothing to do with the DBA model of 12-element armies, which is a wholly different issue. I refer the honourable member to the umptibazillion times that people have pointed out that armies are supposed to represent historical matchups, not an absolute scaled representation. We've been over this during the discussion of American army lists. We've been over it in the tangents in the discussion about river rules. I guess we'll keep going over it again and again until the end of time. :rolleyes

Then again I play because I really enjoy it.

As do we all. That is not a feature that distinguishes you from any of the rest of us. What does seems to be your contentment with army lists that don't, from other peoples' point of view, accurately describe the historical army. You don't care about that? Fine--no reason you should. But then why object when others advocate for more historical lists?

The hd or not to hd question seems more like an "hd are worthless and I don't want to play with them as a mandatory unit" discussion, regardless if they are a historical element or not.

No, that's very clearly not what everyone is saying. David said that, or something like it. But most of the recent posts (by Filippo, Doug, Martyn, Derek, and me) have not been opposed to the use of Hd, just asking why they are being put into lists where they seemingly have no place, or are appropriate possibly as a variant but not as a mandatory choice. Some are even suggesting that they are appearing in DBA draft lists as mandatory where they aren't mandatory in DBMM lists (I can't speak to that, as I don't have the DBMM army lists). Those are two very different points.

Doug
05-27-2011, 10:25 PM
No, that's very clearly not what everyone is saying. David said that, or something like it. But most of the recent posts (by Filippo, Doug, Martyn, Derek, and me) have not been opposed to the use of Hd, just asking why they are being put into lists where they seemingly have no place, or are appropriate possibly as a variant but not as a mandatory choice. Some are even suggesting that they are appearing in DBA draft lists as mandatory where they aren't mandatory in DBMM lists (I can't speak to that, as I don't have the DBMM army lists). Those are two very different points.

Just to take a very obvious example that I know well. During the Rome-Persian Wars there were numerous examples of all-mounted Sasanian forces. During the late 6th Century Persian invasion of Palestine, the forces involved did not include the hordes of peasant - these were principally characteristic of Shapur's invasions of the 4th Century, when the campaign was one of sieges - so the siege of Amida for example.

List II/69 should have the option of Hd to represent the 4th Century campaign, but they should certainly not be mandatory, and in fact, there should be options for an all mounted force.

Andreas Johansson
05-28-2011, 04:11 AM
Some are even suggesting that they are appearing in DBA draft lists as mandatory where they aren't mandatory in DBMM lists (I can't speak to that, as I don't have the DBMM army lists).
There's a fair number of lists like that, most egregiously the Sui (four obligatory hordes in DBA 2.2, none in DBM or DBMM).

Connecting to Doug's posts, there are also many lists beyond the Sassanids who can be all-mounted in DBM(M) but not in DBA.

I've asked Sue if there's any thought behind these discrepancies, but she has (shock horror) not replied. However, some (not all) look to be resolved in DBA 3.0.

(Some perhaps better should not be resolved - I don't know if we really want IV/13ab fieldable as 1x3Kn//4Bd (Gen), 11x3Kn//4Bd in DBA.)

Musashi
05-28-2011, 05:28 AM
(Some perhaps better should not be resolved - I don't know if we really want IV/13ab fieldable as 1x3Kn//4Bd (Gen), 11x3Kn//4Bd in DBA.)

Horde or some unit like it will be one of the main things I'll look up as soon as 3.0 is released. I still miss my stampeded cattle.

Musashi
06-01-2011, 05:58 PM
Hey has anyone seen the 3.0 list for Early Japanese..in DBA terms this would be III 7 a and b.

The DBA if far from complete. It doesn't include the earlier Kofun Period or any of the Yayoi period.

The DBMM has this:

I/64 Early Japanese, 500BC-500AD.
Hilly. Ag: 1 before 275 AD. then 2. E = I/64, II/75, 76, 77. A = II/75
(a) Yayoi culture 500BC-274AD: 1x3Bw or 4Bd or 3Ax (Gen), 3x4Bd,
1x3Ax, 2x3Ax or 4Pk, 6x3Bw or 2Ps
(b) Kofun culture 275-407AD: 1x3Bw (Gen), 7x3Bw, 4x4Pk
(c) Kofun culture 408-500AD: 1x3Bw or 3Cv or 3Kn (Gen), 7x3Bw, 4x4Pk



Quite a bit different than the 2.2 DBA.

Anyone seen any details on this on tentative 3.0 list?

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-01-2011, 06:38 PM
Hey has anyone seen the 3.0 list for Early Japanese..in DBA terms this would be III 7 a and b.

The DBA if far from complete. It doesn't include the earlier Kofun Period or any of the Yayoi period.

The DBMM has this:

I/64 Early Japanese, 500BC-500AD.
Hilly. Ag: 1 before 275 AD. then 2. E = I/64, II/75, 76, 77. A = II/75
(a) Yayoi culture 500BC-274AD: 1x3Bw or 4Bd or 3Ax (Gen), 3x4Bd,
1x3Ax, 2x3Ax or 4Pk, 6x3Bw or 2Ps
(b) Kofun culture 275-407AD: 1x3Bw (Gen), 7x3Bw, 4x4Pk
(c) Kofun culture 408-500AD: 1x3Bw or 3Cv or 3Kn (Gen), 7x3Bw, 4x4Pk



Quite a bit different than the 2.2 DBA.

Anyone seen any details on this on tentative 3.0 list?

From the .pdf by Sue:

III/ 7 PRE-SAMURAI JAPANESE 500 AD - 900 AD
This list covers the Japanese armies of the Later Kofun, Ritsuryo and Early Heian states that preceded the rise of the
Samurai. Kofun armies intervened in Korea and Ritsuryo armies mainly fought the wild Emishi. Initially the armies were
mainly providd by uji nobles and their retainers. They were mostly armoured foot behind pavises and were either archers
(Bw) or armed with spears, some 4 metres long (Pk). These feudal troops were replaced by conscript Heishi militia, who
were similarly armed but had 1 pavise for every 5 men. Cavalry (some on armoured horses) were introduced from Korea.
A few captured Sui artillery pieces were passed on by the Koguryo in 618, but it did not become widespread until the mid-seventh
century.
Terrain Type: Hilly. Aggression: 3. References: Slingshots 251 & 252.
III/7a Pre-Samurai Japanese (Kofun) Armies 500 - 645 AD: 1x (Cv or Bw (Gen)), 1xCv, 2xPk or 2xSp, 7xBw,
1x (Bw or Ps),
Enemies: II/77a, II/77b, III/6a, III/7a, III/20a, III/20b Ally: II/75
III/7b Pre-Samurai Japanese (Ritsuryo or Early Heian) Armies 644 - 900 AD: 1x (Cv or Bw (Gen)), 2xCv, 6xBw,
1x(Bw or Sp), 1x(Bw or Ps), 1xArt
Enemies: II/77b, III/6a, III/6b, III/7b, III/20b Ally II/75

Martyn
06-02-2011, 04:02 AM
Hey has anyone seen the 3.0 list for Early Japanese..in DBA terms this would be III 7 a and b.

The DBA if far from complete. It doesn't include the earlier Kofun Period or any of the Yayoi period.

The DBMM has this:

I/64 Early Japanese, 500BC-500AD.
Hilly. Ag: 1 before 275 AD. then 2. E = I/64, II/75, 76, 77. A = II/75
(a) Yayoi culture 500BC-274AD: 1x3Bw or 4Bd or 3Ax (Gen), 3x4Bd,
1x3Ax, 2x3Ax or 4Pk, 6x3Bw or 2Ps
(b) Kofun culture 275-407AD: 1x3Bw (Gen), 7x3Bw, 4x4Pk
(c) Kofun culture 408-500AD: 1x3Bw or 3Cv or 3Kn (Gen), 7x3Bw, 4x4Pk

I donít have the DBMM book 1, is there an additional army list for Early Japanese which predates the Pre Samurai?

I/64 would be an extra list at the end of book 1 and there is an additional army in book 3 so it is not unlikely that an additional army could have been added.

Quite a bit different than the 2.2 DBA.

Anyone seen any details on this on tentative 3.0 list?

The v3 book 1 armies are unknown, the revision of this part has not progressed and there seems to be some confusion over what is happening to it. Sue does not appear to be working on this. The most recent developments were book 4 lists 1-20.

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-02-2011, 08:21 AM
Whoops! My bad, Mushashi.


I thought you wanted to see the DBA v3.0 list. :sick

Musashi
06-02-2011, 08:29 AM
I don’t have the DBMM book 1, is there an additional army list for Early Japanese which predates the Pre Samurai?



There is some really fascinating archeology going on in Japan about the pre and proto historic period in Japan.

The Kofun burial mounds are barely understood even though there were about 30,000 of them with 5,000 that you can still visit today. The largest being my camp model of the Daisen Kofun in the Osaka area.

The Kofun era that DBA lists is quite late. The Kofun were built from roughly 300AD to 700AD. The introduction of Buddhism in mid 500's pretty much spelled the death knell of that form of burial struture. The Daisen Kofun is one of the least recognized and understood monolithic architectures in the world. The size has to be spoken of in relation to the Khufu pyramid....we're talking that kind of size.

So DBA has no Japanese listing for the meat of the Kofun era. Yes, precious little is known about the exact nature of any standing force in 300AD, but the Yayoi is generally understood...which gets us back to at least 100BC. Himiko might be just legend, but it's something that is being researched feverishly. The majority of the larger Kofun were already built by the time our DBA dates are given.

For sure, the Kofun armies took a part in an attack on the Silla Koreans, as a well known and documented Koguryo King helped the Silla during that episode...and this was 400AD roughly.

I'm picking at straws nonetheless though, as you can't get around the fact that there is nothing in the Japanese record archealogically, that points to anything martial in nature before the Yayoi.

The Jomon period which preceeds the Yayoi lasted an incredible 18,000 years (give or take a few thousand years lol. It is broken down by different pottery styles, but as late as 300BC Jomon culture is still prevalent. They seemed to be sedentary hunter gatherers who produced intricate pottery. In fact that is a fun history trivia question. Who produced the oldest pottery that we know of in the history of mankind? The Jomon Japanese did. We have found pottery of theirs that predates any other pottery in the entire world. There are a few shards from China and around Tibest I think as old, but nothing like the amount found in Japan. Really prolific! Incredible!

There have been no walls, moats, fortresses, weapons caches, shields found, or anything that would indicate that before the Yayoi period there was anything resembling a standing army found, much less any evidence of large scale conflict.

I'm sure not suggesting they were all tree hugging druid hippies, but zero record of anything army-ish, is pretty fascinating unto itself. In DBA terms, you have until Book III until a Japanese army even shows up. Most people think the change came from horses and military tech arriving on the shores of Japan from Korea or China toward the end of the Jomon period.

I guess before that the Japanese were too busy hunting elephants and giant deer and worshiping a fertility goddess to bother with killing each other en mass. lol

My thinking was if the years for Japanese DBA fun are so limited, then why have it start off at 500AD, which shortens what little we do have, historically available to us by a couple of important centuries.
Whereas the DBM book has a listing for Yayoi, which I think is proper and allows for more wargaming possibilities which are supported by the historical record.

:)

Martyn
06-02-2011, 12:49 PM
Interesting stuff Musashi, thanks.

Itís always good to see reporting of current archaeological research, helps to keep up to date. I was intrigued by the lack of archaeological evidence for weapons, presumably they have found hunting equipment, but it seems strange that they have found nothing to suggest a more aggressive use of such implements.

Musashi
06-02-2011, 01:42 PM
Yes, hunting equipment but nothing that could be said to be purpose built to kill a person.

There were very early stone, jade and pottery jewelry, fibers weaved to include hemp. First hemp rope found dates to 21,000 BC. Widespread use of hemp fiber clothing around 12,000 BC. They used fishing hooks and harpoons made out of bone which were state of the art for their time:

The pottery is quite exquisite from about 2,000 B.C onwards:

The Jomon period continues up to 300 BC...which again is completely amazing when you consider what else we are normally wargaming by that time period elsewhere.

The pottery was very widespread, across island for trade...so it wasn't like the Jomon were animal skin wearing cavemen up until 300 BC. They had a good command of working with different wood species to create architectural longhouses with multiple fire pits. This woodworking skill persists to this day, with Japanese carpenters being artisans of the highest order. The oldest surviving wooden building in the world, dating from the 7th century is Japanese,

Horyu-ji Temple, Nara, Japan (http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/japan/nara/horyuji.php)

http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/japan/nara/photos/horyuji05.jpg

But still what you don't find from 10,000 BC up to 300 BC are weapons of war. I suppose what you can conclude from this is that they simply didn't live a lifestyle where there was a desire to misappropriate your neighbors stuff. lol. The Island isolation must have prevented the need to repeal invaders. Of course all that changed with a massive influx of foreigners around 300 BC. Suddenly the new people brought with them bronze and iron age expertise, rice based agriculture AND weapons technology. But the Japanese at that time didn't get conquered they simply integrated the new people. Interesting.

The days of an egalitarian lifestyle in Japan were over technically, but the Jomon way of life went right on alongside the new Yayoi culture for centuries, and indeed could be said to be manifest in the Emishi and later Ainu peoples of Northern Japan. Genetically, these new Yayoi culture people have been proven to be truly different. They represent Haplotype O, whereas all of the mainlanders were descendants of land bridge settlers with DNA haplotype C and D.

From a DBA wargaming perspective, it's a shame we can't model an army circa Himiko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himiko). We know the soldiers who appear followed the mainland asian weaponry closely, with daggar axes the beginning of armored horses.

Basically my contention is that the DBM list is quite accurate based on what I've seen, and the DBA list unnecessarily truncated.

One famous weapon was in Japan before our DBA III7a army lists This was connected withEmperor Yūryaku (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Y%C5%ABryaku) who is connected with the Inariyama burial mound sword (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inariyama_Sword)which is a treasure of Japan, which was found in the burial goods of Inariyama Kofun. It's a treasure of Japan and an incredible find. It is thought to represent the likely unification of most of Japan in the Kofun period.

http://blogimg.goo.ne.jp/user_image/20/62/fb4f5e44cc1d4ae69c2905c22b8b7365.jpg

The sword isn't as impressive today, due to decay, but with its inscribed Chinese characters, with some imagination, reminds me greatly of the sword, The Green Destiny, from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. The cool factor is very high!

All of this, and more, is lost when the DBA Pre-Samurai list starts as late as it does.

The Kofun era of 250AD to 538AD, followed by the Asuka Period up to about 900AD, collectively called the Yamato Period, are respresented in the DBA army lists, but again, critical centuries in the beginning are left out.

The largest Kofun, the Daisen Kofun I've referenced before:

http://lh5.ggpht.com/_Cg02E5r8Wzo/S-wjjtmKgyI/AAAAAAAACMQ/7vv5wo44g18/daisen_kofun_sakai_osaka_ge.jpg

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_Cg02E5r8Wzo/S-0bDGPs-nI/AAAAAAAACNA/vSjbj1FojnE/7_kofuns_sakai_osaka_ge.jpg


If the Daisen Kofun was indeed built for Emperor Nintoku...then this was completed right at 400AD. This Kofun is the largest single person burial plot on earth. The details of the scope are summarized here if you're interested:


http://www.culturalprofiles.net/japan/units/6735.html

So my III 7a Pre-Samurai Army is at the earliest, at least 100 years AFTER the Daisen Kofun was constructed. I'm sure in the big scheme of things, 100 years isn't that big of a deal, and what we know of Kofun military would more closely represent the troop types in DBM..which is no doubt why the 3.0 DBA list is moving that way.

Maybe 3.0 will expand the years listed for the Kofun Era Japanese and my knitpick will be satiated.

Tony Aguilar
06-02-2011, 01:46 PM
The sword isn't as impressive today, due to decay, but with its inscribed Chinese characters, with some imagination, reminds me greatly of the sword, The Green Destiny, from Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. The cool factor is very high!


No "Wire-Fu" for me, thank you.

Musashi
06-02-2011, 02:57 PM
No "Wire-Fu" for me, thank you.

I don't need any wires to kick your butt all across the DBA table.

Musashi
06-02-2011, 03:14 PM
Whoops! My bad, Mushashi.


I thought you wanted to see the DBA v3.0 list. :sick

Oh, no thanks, I did want the 3.0 list...sorry never responded to your reply properly. That really helped. :)

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-02-2011, 03:19 PM
Oh, no thanks, I did want the 3.0 list...sorry never responded to your reply properly. That really helped. :)

:up

Say...while I got you on the line and you're tossing about some great info on Japanese history, do you have any links that cover the Emishi? I've found a few sites but none have enough good artwork or info on archaelogical sites.

Their plight seems to have some eerie yet sad similarities to the American Indian, minus the Casinos...

Tony Aguilar
06-02-2011, 03:24 PM
I don't need any wires to kick your butt all across the DBA table.

Insolent tone not get you secrets you desire, Round-eye.

Musashi
06-02-2011, 03:54 PM
Regarding the Emishi:

I'm looking into this fully myself right now. Learning quite a bit lately.

Most of the really good research is being done by....drum roll....the Japanese lol.

Most of their research has not been published in English language journals. I have been able to talk to my wife into scanning a few pages that I could tell would be juicy, but I can't seem to convince her to read an entire publication and translate it for me lol. Go figure!

Actually she has been somewhat informative asking her about Japanese people's reaction to the Emishi like people....the Ainu. My wife says the majority of Japanese people seriously look down on Ainu. A fairly large negative reaction to them, even in today's world...but certainly when my wife was growing up. She is from Shikoku, toward the southern portion, but still it was clear to hear Ainu=hairy caveman type. I think Emishi have historically been given the same rap.

Here are a few pictures from Wiki....note the hair. Dude seriously if Ainu=Emishi then we need some figure manufacturer to get to work on this. lol

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Bjs48_02_Ainu.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/AinuManStilflied.JPG/495px-AinuManStilflied.JPG

If I had to take a wild guess to paint Emishi, I'd follow traditional Ainu dress...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/AinuSan.jpg/588px-AinuSan.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Sakhalin_ainu_men_II.jpg

A royal decree made the Ainu culture essentially verboten and caused widespread discimination against Ainu culture which persists to this day. I read an article that Ainu transplants in Tokyo (they're obviously from Hokkaido area originally) Here it is:

http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/tokyo%E2%80%99s-thriving-ainu-community-keeps-traditional-culture-alive

Ainu culture is said to have begun approximately 11th century AD. Emishi are obviously several hundred years older than that. What they do have in common are rough geographic location, and the mainlanders opinion of them as being barbarians.

I haven't had time to research Emishi specifically yet, but if you look at the migration patterns that are known, and now the exciting dna analysis that is going on right now, more than ever before, we can narrow down where modern people hail from historically. This works especially well on an island like Japan where the breaks in the genetic family tree are not as subject to transients.

The history of the settlement of Japan, if you look into it, will show that people moved in over two land bridges that used to connect, and also from Hokkaido to Honshu when it was frozen over. Most of the DNA from many of the Northern Japanese and the Okinawans and Southern chains were similar due to the land bridges which existed at one time. The haplotype O were much later and concentrated in the center of Japan (which is true to this day) and can be said to be from Korea or Southeast China. The earlier northern land bridge people were from Eastern Russia.

There are many stories and even early pictures showing these people to be more fair skinned and hairy....

Again, I haven't done the research yet, but what I'm expecting to find is that to look into the Emishi, you'd start with the migration pattern and I bet we'll find the Ainu or a people like them will represent a similar expression of what we might expect to see in the Emishi. The language of Emishi was known to be different and so too the Ainu.

Just my initial thoughts on the matter, completely lacking in any hard facts or evidence. I'm busy playing historical sleuthing games with the Emishi myself.

I have to work through the early kofun period more fully first though. ;-)


EDIT: I just did a quick search on wiki for Emishi and Ainu, and sure enough there is a quick reference that claims they are related in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emishi

Musashi
06-02-2011, 03:59 PM
Insolent tone not get you secrets you desire, Round-eye.

LOL Tony, you're ancient chinese secret voice impression is.......well....awful. I know it is precisely that awfulness which amuses you.


Since I do need to learn your secrets, I promise to be nicer in the future. I think.

Musashi
06-02-2011, 04:02 PM
Oh, and don't forget the hilly nature and cold of the Emishi. Armies rarely fought in the middle of Winter, but something not to lose track of, is the weather pattern in 300-700AD would be similar today. It is seriously snowy up there. Winter Olympics Snowy in many parts. Against the Sea of Japan side.

1972 Winter Olympics Sapporo

The Emishi lived in Tohoku and Hokkaido.

Here is map of Tohoku:

http://www.discover-japan.info/pics/tohoku.gif

and Hokkaido:

http://www.divejapan.com/images/hokkaido_450_2.jpg

I've never been there, but it's hilly and cold. Here is climate map. The blue stuff would equal lots of snow up north lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Japan_climate_classification_1.png

Gives you a feeling for the terrain and climiate and how crazy it is for them to have a bunch of LH.....but they did.

As regards Emishi, I'm currently of the opinion to follow the DNA first, then track their immediate progeny to make generalizations...and then run into some Japanese scholar who can tell you what exactly the current state of research is lol.

See my previous previous post lol. I included some pics of Ainu.

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-02-2011, 07:15 PM
Great stuff, Musashi! :up

I'd seen the Wiki stuff and even found an older site that looked pretty interesting as well:

http://emishi-ezo.net/

Musashi
06-02-2011, 08:47 PM
Great stuff, Musashi! :up

I'd seen the Wiki stuff and even found an older site that looked pretty interesting as well:

http://emishi-ezo.net/

That's a great link and quite updated. I will read through it with great interest! Good find!

Andreas Johansson
06-03-2011, 03:38 AM
Gives you a feeling for the terrain and climiate and how crazy it is for them to have a bunch of LH.....but they did.

Somewhat reminicent of Lithuania, which is flatter, but still pretty cold and heavily forrested, and also a LH army.

Hannibal Ad Portas
06-03-2011, 12:59 PM
I was going through the proposed 3.0 army lists on the Yahoo group files section and it is full of changes. Many of the changes are interesting and actually make some armies significantly more competitive, but will require painting and basing aplenty to make it work.

DBA has been running for quite some time with no changes to the lists (a decade) and its popularity has led to folks creating some rather extensive collections. I don't think large numbers of army changes will be all that welcome. It is hard to match painting and basing styles to alter an army to match a new list. I think if I were running a tournament in the future, then I would allow any valid list from 2.0/2.2 as well as from 3.0.

Some interesting examples:

Christian Nubians now feature blade instead of warbands:eek

The Western Sudanese list is now one of my favorites since the 5 x Ax option has been replaced with 5 x Sp;)

guthroth
06-29-2011, 03:19 AM
Sorry to ressurect a dead thread, but since the proposed Book 3 lists have now been taken down, could someone tell em please how, if at all, any of the Viking/Leidang lists will change ?

I'm putting together an army and I'm wondering if I can cover any changes by painting a couple of extra elements. :???

Thanks,

Pete

Martyn
06-29-2011, 04:20 AM
Sorry to ressurect a dead thread, but since the proposed Book 3 lists have now been taken down, could someone tell em please how, if at all, any of the Viking/Leidang lists will change ?

I'm putting together an army and I'm wondering if I can cover any changes by painting a couple of extra elements. :???

Thanks,

Pete

Hi Pete, some changes proposed to the list, but they are only proposed at present not finalised.

The list is:

III/40a Viking army 790 - 849 AD: 1xBd (Gen), 10xBd 1x (Bd or Wb)
So you lose the option of a PS

III/40b Viking army 850 - 1280 AD: 1xBd (Gen), 10xBd, 1x (Bd or Wb or Ps or Bw).
No change

III/40c Leidang army 790 - 1070 AD: 1xBd (Gen), 8x (Bd or Ax), 2xBw, 1x (Ps (Lapps) or Hd)
So you lose the option of a Wb plus change in the options reduces the options for one of the Ps

III/40d Leidang army 1070-1280 AD: 1xKn (Gen), 8x (Bd or Ax), 2xBw, 1x (Ps (Lapps) or Hd or Kn)
So you lose the option for the Sp plus change in the options reduces the options for one of the Ps, but gain an option for a Kn.

Hope that helps.

guthroth
06-29-2011, 08:11 AM
'Triffic. :2up

I can now decide how many extra bases I need.

Thanks,

Pete

pawsBill
06-29-2011, 03:31 PM
I was going through the proposed 3.0 army lists on the Yahoo group files section and it is full of changes. Many of the changes are interesting and actually make some armies significantly more competitive, but will require painting and basing aplenty to make it work.

DBA has been running for quite some time with no changes to the lists (a decade) and its popularity has led to folks creating some rather extensive collections. I don't think large numbers of army changes will be all that welcome. It is hard to match painting and basing styles to alter an army to match a new list. I think if I were running a tournament in the future, then I would allow any valid list from 2.0/2.2 as well as from 3.0.

Some interesting examples:

Christian Nubians now feature blade instead of warbands:eek

The Western Sudanese list is now one of my favorites since the 5 x Ax option has been replaced with 5 x Sp;)

Neither of these examples would require you to disgard or paint new figures & you probably wouldn't need to rebase either (given the increased flexibility of the basing).

Your Nubian Wb elements just become the Bd elements and your Sudanese Ax elements just operate as Sp (think the current 3Sp in V2.2)

Redwilde
07-13-2011, 11:39 AM
As Swampster pointed out in another thread, the Papal Italian list (now #III/77 in the new proposals) does not reflect it's dependence on Communal Italian allies. The core Papal troops would be insufficient to field a DBM army on their own. The DBM list requires 2-3 Communal Italian allied contingents. If the Papal list were built around 2 of these contingents (half the DBA army), there could still be an option for an additional Communal Italian ally for Big Battle.

The current list has no proposed changes from 2.2:
1x (Kn or Sp)(Gen), 1xKn, 1Sp, 1x Cb, 1xPs, 1x (Ps or Hd)

If it's split half and half it would look something like this:

Papal troops:
1x (Kn or Sp)(Gen), 1xKn, 1Sp, 1xCb, 1xPs, 1x (Ps or Hd)

Communal troops:
1xKn, 3Sp, 1x (Cb or Ps), 1xHd

Total combined:
III/77 Papal Italian:
1x (Kn or Sp)(Gen), 2xKn, 4xSp, 1xCb, 1x (Cb or Ps), 1xPs, 1x (Ps or Hd), 1xHd.

And someone who has a version 2 DBA army could field the above by using the optional Sp(Gen) stand as one of the proposed required 4xSp.

kontos
07-30-2011, 01:27 PM
The latest Book III lists are on the yahoo group

I will post the link more in hope than expectation that it will work.

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/gHqZTb0bjHUA3moBebbnQbUBFJAu9J2v3w3zGPgYdxJFQDeZeC _PIDWwWucI0Hy3CFZQ54NH6Sj_aCgUWW_cl0CJBsVV-Jn7bFDq06U/LISTS%203.pdf

This seems to be the latest iteration of the whole Book III list, presumably a final draft pending comment.

Does anyone have the Book III list draft? It is no longer on the DBA files page.

kontos
07-30-2011, 11:55 PM
Does anyone have the Book III list draft? It is no longer on the DBA files page.

Thanks to everyone who sent me a copy. I can now open a book store! Thanks!!! :D

Ammianus
07-31-2011, 07:05 AM
Kontos,
may I take a copy off your hands?
Thanks,
A

Macbeth
07-31-2011, 09:37 PM
Me three Kontos

my favourite armies (Pre Feudal Scots, Christian Nubian, Sung Chinese) are all Book III types and I would love to see how they turn out :D

dllandwaster{at}gmail{dot}com

Cheers

Lydia
08-08-2011, 08:07 AM
I've searched the forums and although I can find suggestions (to put it mildly) to do away with the Carroccio element (in DBMM it's Superior Baggage) I can't see any suggestions to make it a LITTER GENERAL which it is now.:??? Is there a thread somewhere where the litter idea came up?

Lydia
08-08-2011, 08:10 AM
The previous draft of the Norman list had a 'Normans in Italy' option of Greek Ax. That has gone, leaving only a mention in the list notes. Did someone object to having an option?

Martyn
08-08-2011, 08:22 AM
I've searched the forums and although I can find suggestions (to put it mildly) to do away with the Carroccio element (in DBMM it's Superior Baggage) I can't see any suggestions to make it a LITTER GENERAL which it is now.:??? Is there a thread somewhere where the litter idea came up?

There has been far more discussion on the lists on the yahoo group than here.

There was, if I recall, a comment made about Carroccio elements in general but I am not aware of any prolonged debate. It does appear to be adding some complication if there is a special rule for these Litters to be treated as Bd compared to other Litters.

Andreas Johansson
08-08-2011, 08:29 AM
There was, if I recall, a comment made about Carroccio elements in general but I am not aware of any prolonged debate. It does appear to be adding some complication if there is a special rule for these Litters to be treated as Bd compared to other Litters.

Unless Phil changes his mind again, all Lit will count as Bd in 3.0.

Making the carroccio a general seems strange. Making it Lit seems like a good idea however (indeed I've suggested it myself).

winterbadger
08-08-2011, 09:52 AM
I've searched the forums and although I can find suggestions (to put it mildly) to do away with the Carroccio element (in DBMM it's Superior Baggage) I can't see any suggestions to make it a LITTER GENERAL which it is now.:??? Is there a thread somewhere where the litter idea came up?

Oh, man, this train wreck just gets more hilarious by the day. :up

Rich Gause
08-08-2011, 10:04 AM
Unless Phil changes his mind again, all Lit will count as Bd in 3.0.

Making the carroccio a general seems strange. Making it Lit seems like a good idea however (indeed I've suggested it myself).

If you are going to have Litter Generals Bd or even Sp is a much better choice in my opinion than a WW that doesn't shoot.......................

Redwilde
08-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Unless Phil changes his mind again, all Lit will count as Bd in 3.0.

Making the carroccio a general seems strange. Making it Lit seems like a good idea however (indeed I've suggested it myself).

A lone carroccio or Anglo-Norman cart with a flag is a superb camp idea. At least Bd is a much better concept than the death ray of doom from the holy icon. But yes, quite a strange general...

Haardrada
08-08-2011, 04:20 PM
The previous draft of the Norman list had a 'Normans in Italy' option of Greek Ax. That has gone, leaving only a mention in the list notes. Did someone object to having an option?

The list no longer has Cav or Lh and you must use the foot troops. Is it not obvious that by the multitude of mistakes,typos and omissions that its a case of forget the rush for a deadline and slow down,proof read and get it right? That would be a whole lot better than releasing the rules and its how soon is it until the amendment sheets are published!

Lydia
08-09-2011, 08:47 AM
The list no longer has Cav or Lh and you must use the foot troops. Is it not obvious that by the multitude of mistakes,typos and omissions that its a case of forget the rush for a deadline and slow down,proof read and get it right? That would be a whole lot better than releasing the rules and its how soon is it until the amendment sheets are published!

The cavalry never really belonged in that list. It was perhaps intended to be Breton but they gave up cavalry tactics and switched to knight tactics years before the Norman list begins (although the Breton list may not reflect that). The changes between drafts seem deliberate so I don't think this is just a typo.

I know that everyone's a bit fed up with going back with edits, but if we didn't get to do that we would complain too!

Lydia
08-09-2011, 09:10 AM
At least Bd is a much better concept than the death ray of doom from the holy icon.

Great! An artillery general! [writes quick email to SLB]. But seriously...

I found the thread on Yahoo where Jim Webster read that in the Osprey book on the Condottiere, some Condottiere leaders appear to have commanded their armies from the carroccio. But the book also mentions that some commanded their armies from their personal tent - war tent anyone? The book then goes on to state that it was far more common for the leaders to be "present on the field". By implication then, the carroccio wasn't.

I see that Litter is the lesser of two evils, but a solution where the carroccio does not move and fight should be the one to go for. The Anglo Norman war wagon is now relegated to being a camp (and both elements are rated the same in DBMM) so why not this? I own a Communal Italian army by the way, and 'I heart my carroccio' but I can see it's not right to have it in combat.

Andreas Johansson
08-09-2011, 09:29 AM
But the book also mentions that some commanded their armies from their personal tent - war tent anyone?
The DBMM Arab Conquest list actually allows the CinC to be the Prophet in his black tent.
I see that Litter is the lesser of two evils, but a solution where the carroccio does not move and fight should be the one to go for. The Anglo Norman war wagon is now relegated to being a camp (and both elements are rated the same in DBMM) so why not this? I own a Communal Italian army by the way, and 'I heart my carroccio' but I can see it's not right to have it in combat.

A fringe benefit of using the carroccio as a camp would be that it doesn't have to fit on a 80mm deep base and I could thus use mine with the (separately based) front pair of oxen.

Tony Aguilar
08-09-2011, 09:42 AM
Is it not obvious that by the multitude of mistakes,typos and omissions that its a case of forget the rush for a deadline and slow down,proof read and get it right? That would be a whole lot better than releasing the rules and its how soon is it until the amendment sheets are published!

I agree, I don't understand what the rush is all about. I mean if you are going to rush and get it wrong, why do it at all?

kontos
08-09-2011, 09:51 AM
I agree, I don't understand what the rush is all about. I mean if you are going to rush and get it wrong, why do it at all?

What amazes me is the lists are being changed based on input from all over the globe and we (some) can't get what we (some) want from the main body of rules. :rolleyes

Lydia
08-10-2011, 07:19 AM
The DBMM Arab Conquest list actually allows the CinC to be the Prophet in his black tent.

I'd not forgotten that tent but in that list it's there so as to prevent great offence being caused. The DBA army contains no such requirement... I wonder if that says something about DBA players?

Menacus Secundus
08-10-2011, 10:25 AM
I'd not forgotten that tent but in that list it's there so as to prevent great offence being caused. The DBA army contains no such requirement... I wonder if that says something about DBA players?

I think it may say more about the mechanics of DBA, but I don't know enough about DBMM to say for sure.

If the tent is also the army's camp, it has to be placed on the player's base line, which means that the army either has to stay on the defensive or pay the extra PIPs for being out of command range.

Martyn
08-10-2011, 10:50 AM
I think it may say more about the mechanics of DBA, but I don't know enough about DBMM to say for sure.

If the tent is also the army's camp, it has to be placed on the player's base line, which means that the army either has to stay on the defensive or pay the extra PIPs for being out of command range.

I think that the element was still treated as a CinC with the appropriate element characteristics, but a model should not be used in deference to the Islamic faith and the limits on acceptable depictions of the prophet.

Doug
08-12-2011, 09:49 AM
I think that the element was still treated as a CinC with the appropriate element characteristics, but a model should not be used in deference to the Islamic faith and the limits on acceptable depictions of the prophet.

Yep... that was the approach taken in DBMM.

Andreas Johansson
08-12-2011, 12:37 PM
If the tent is also the army's camp, it has to be placed on the player's base line, which means that the army either has to stay on the defensive or pay the extra PIPs for being out of command range.

ObNitpick: The extra PIP always applies if the general is in a camp or BUA, so staying on the defense wouldn't help.


Mechanically, the Prophet's tent is treated the same as a command litter in DBMM. (I'm not suggesting the DBA list therefore gets a Lit general!)

Imperator
08-12-2011, 07:18 PM
Here are the latest DBA Book 3 lists posted by Sue for comment by August 15.

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_3.pdf

Comments to sue@wrg.me.uk

Menacus Secundus
08-13-2011, 06:47 AM
ObNitpick: The extra PIP always applies if the general is in a camp or BUA, so staying on the defense wouldn't help.


Not nit-picking at all, Andreas. Yet another example of my ability to read something a dozen times and still not take it in until someone underlines it for me.

Lydia
08-13-2011, 08:55 AM
Here are the latest DBA Book 3 lists posted by Sue for comment by August 15.

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_3.pdf

Comments to sue@wrg.me.uk

These are the ones that were posted on 7 August. There are a few comments on these on this thread already.

Filippo S.
08-19-2011, 07:12 AM
Quoted from the pdf: 1 x General (on horseback (Kn) or with Carroccio standard (Lit)),
more: Note: In DBA a litter general now fights as an element of Bd.

Seriously? Is it not a joke? :rotfl

I should buy "Ian Heath, Armies of the Middle Ages 1".
I got other books from this author :up and I'm quite sure nowhere is written something so silly. :D

In none of the books I read Carroccio is the army-commander... and never pushed into the middle of the battle as a fighting element.
Did anyone saw a real carroccio?
Simply have a look to the "Palio di Siena" here on youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiFtOPJblqY), drive it into middle of the fight if you can.

"Au contraire" it's just when the things go wrong that the winning side goes to sack/to siege the opposite carroccio on the rear lines. Not to talk about the 2 compulsory hordes.
No way, this list is not for DBA, I wrote it dozen of times.
Ciao

Lydia
08-19-2011, 09:28 AM
Quoted from the pdf: 1 x General (on horseback (Kn) or with Carroccio standard (Lit)),
more: Note: In DBA a litter general now fights as an element of Bd.

Seriously? Is it not a joke? :rotfl


The Osprey book on Condottieri (spelling?) mentioned that there were recorded instances of Condottieri generals stationing themselves with the carroccio. Wishful thinking, I think has lead to this being taken to mean that the carroccio was a mobile command post. Remember it's optional, and your howls of derision might disconcert anyone who chooses to field it.

As for the Horde, I guess it was assumed that contadini levies were the same as any other peasant levies, so Hd.

Filippo S.
08-22-2011, 03:48 AM
The Osprey book on Condottieri (spelling?) mentioned that there were recorded instances of Condottieri generals stationing themselves with the carroccio. Wishful thinking, I think has lead to this being taken to mean that the carroccio was a mobile command post.
As for the Horde, I guess it was assumed that contadini levies were the same as any other peasant levies, so Hd.

The fact is not about optional, this is correct.
It was not a "first-line-impact-mobile-combat-platform", just the simbol of the city/league carefully guarded in the rear, like the holy cross for the crusader... what happened when they lost? Holy cross: bye-bye.

HD... I agree, but all lists should have 2 (or at least 1) Hd, in middle-ages most of the infantry were levies :)

Ciao

Lydia
08-23-2011, 08:31 AM
As I said, the carroccio thing is the product of wishful reading. And it's contagious as the Anglo Normans get an option to have one too.

Horde is a fairly OK but a little inconsistent. 6 to 16 Hd in DBMM translates to 2 compulsory Hd in DBA for the Communal Italians. 0 to 7 Hd for the Papal Italians translates to 1 compulsory Hd. 0-12 Hd becomes 2 optional ones for the East Franks but none for the West Franks, and 0-10 for the Anglo Danish translates to 1 optional Hd. The West Franks list is really optimised to be a Norman one in 1066 or 1061, even down to the embedded anachronistic Breton Cv allies for 1066, so that's why they don't have their levies.

I actually like Hd, by the way, mainly because mine killed a Kn general once.

Rich Gause
08-23-2011, 09:47 AM
As I said, the carroccio thing is the product of wishful reading. And it's contagious as the Anglo Normans get an option to have one too.

Horde is a fairly OK but a little inconsistent. 6 to 16 Hd in DBMM translates to 2 compulsory Hd in DBA for the Communal Italians. 0 to 7 Hd for the Papal Italians translates to 1 compulsory Hd. 0-12 Hd becomes 2 optional ones for the East Franks but none for the West Franks, and 0-10 for the Anglo Danish translates to 1 optional Hd. The West Franks list is really optimised to be a Norman one in 1066 or 1061, even down to the embedded anachronistic Breton Cv allies for 1066, so that's why they don't have their levies.

I actually like Hd, by the way, mainly because mine killed a Kn general once.

It would be nice to have some consistency as to how the DBMM lists are translated to DBA; especially in regards to which units are compulsorary and which optional.

Filippo S.
08-25-2011, 06:22 AM
Horde is a fairly OK but a little inconsistent. 6 to 16 Hd in DBMM translates to 2 compulsory Hd in DBA for the Communal Italians. 0 to 7 Hd for the Papal Italians translates to 1 compulsory Hd. 0-12 Hd becomes 2 optional ones for the East Franks but none for the West Franks, and 0-10 for the Anglo Danish translates to 1 optional Hd.

Right math nothing to say and I could agree with you...but then we'd BOTH be wrong.
Are DBMM lists error-free?
I don't think so, they surely are a good point to start and a great research-job... let keep things simple: 2HD are ok.
Ciao