PDA

View Full Version : Book IV - I-20 (Draft) Lists


Chris Brantley
05-09-2011, 10:32 AM
Sue has forwarded the draft army lists for Books IV (Lists 1-20) for Fanatici review and feedback. You can access them at: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_IV_1-20.pdf

I don't have instructions on where to send feedback..but would assume you can post here and she'll see it.

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-09-2011, 11:10 AM
Sue has forwarded the draft army lists for Books IV (Lists 1-20) for Fanatici review and feedback. You can access them at: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_IV_1-20.pdf

I don't have instructions on where to send feedback..but would assume you can post here and she'll see it.

She's been getting chatter on the Yahoo DBA site in a few threads regarding this.

I'm thrilled that I gotta order more archers now for my Moundies...:outrage

snowcat
05-09-2011, 11:20 PM
The Jurchen-Chin (a) list is much improved. :)

Haroldo Hic
05-10-2011, 03:09 AM
Please leave out the descriptions. I think they are unnecessary because
a) they sometimes do not correlate to the corresponding list
b) do nothing to clarify things.
c) Some statements seem to be randomly chosen
d) they use up valuable space

examples:
a) Germans 13/d: The description says the emperor MaximilianI occasionally fought on foot with the pike. So, where is the Pk(Gen) option?
b) Germans 13/e: What is a "Free Canton army" supposed to be? What time period? There is a 12-line description but no word about this....
c) Sicily IV/5 for instance: "...Their experience against horse-archers encouraged the early adoption of full mail armour". This information is needless and probably misplaced...

please keep the Army Lists short
and rather give the rules section more space (eg for a clearer layout and figures for better understanding).

cheers, and thank you for this great game
menic

Andreas Johansson
05-10-2011, 11:29 AM
b) Germans 13/e: What is a "Free Canton army" supposed to be?
I'd think that fairly low on the list of unexplained obscure stuff in the lists ...

Be that as it may, it refers to effectively independent peasant republics within the Holy Roman Empire, such as those of the Stedinger and the Dithmarscher.

What time period? There is a 12-line description but no word about this....
1106 AD - 1518 AD

please keep the Army Lists short
If I understand correctly (and Sue isn't exactly generous with the details), the descriptions will be in a separate "starting wargaming" book only. The DBA rulebook (to which Phil's aversion to increasing pagecount applies) will probably have the bare lists.

Filippo S.
05-10-2011, 12:29 PM
Fantastic, keep on errors... yeah!

IV/5 SICILIAN - AGG 3... a list with 6 (six) Ps.
IV/3 ANGLO-NORMAN - AGG 2 a list with everything but Tanks and RPG :)
IV/13a Medieval German - AGG 1 a classical agressive army, they fought everywhere.

In an open medieval tournament which one will you choose? :rotfl

Redwilde
05-10-2011, 03:39 PM
IV/3 ANGLO-NORMAN - AGG 2 a list with everything but Tanks and RPG :)


It has the super tank! 1 cart with a flag on it that's equal to 50 warwagons bristling with gunpowder weapons. And in a big battle, that lone cart splits into 3, each as powerful as the original.

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-10-2011, 04:29 PM
Good Lord,

The Mound Builders have become mostly bow, and now the Northwestern Americans are mostly blade???? I just had the Mound Builders beautifully painted and based.....arrrrrggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

...and the Hawaiian army I painted now has to have a stinking horde. What a pain in the a--

Medieval German (a) now sports two blades in place of their option for spear, blade, pike....although I think that actually hurts that list.

Tony Aguilar
05-10-2011, 04:41 PM
Good Lord,

The Mound Builders have become mostly bow, and now the Northwestern Americans are mostly blade???? I just had the Mound Builders beautifully painted and based.....arrrrrggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

...and the Hawaiian army I painted now has to have a stinking horde. What a pain in the a--

Medieval German (a) now sports two blades in place of their option for spear, blade, pike....although I think that actually hurts that list.

Don't forget that these lists are not official yet and there is no word that Phil has "blessed them."

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-10-2011, 04:55 PM
I know they are not official, but the trend isn't looking all that great. Lots of changes. I really find it hard to believe the Northwest American list should even exist as a large field army anyway....and then you give them 6 blades??

Kadzik
05-10-2011, 06:13 PM
Changes from 1.0 to 2.0 were bigger.

New lists look pretty nice. I'm mostly interested in ancient period, but I cannot wait for Lusignan Cypriot. Current list is quite nice, but Sue could divide it into a and b, the later covering period of groving venetian influence.
I wondered also how Ayyubids would look like, but hopefuly nothing changes.

Redwilde
05-10-2011, 07:23 PM
I really find it hard to believe the Northwest American list should even exist as a large field army anyway....and then you give them 6 blades??

Perhaps those are the lacrosse teams?

Filippo S.
05-11-2011, 04:10 AM
the Northwestern Americans are mostly blade???? ...
Medieval German (a) now sports two blades in place of their option for spear, blade, pike....although I think that actually hurts that list.

NW-Americans are blades? Did anyone has read the DBA definiton of "blade"...
Communal has 2Hd and in a NW-Americans there are 6 blades... should I have read the wrong books until now.
So Bd are: Legionaries, Vikings, Samurai, Billmen and NWA tribesmen? OK.:???

I really find it hard to believe the Northwest American list should even exist as a large field army anyway

At least another one who has read the same "wrong books" :up

Fab
05-11-2011, 09:17 AM
NW-Americans are blades? Did anyone has read the DBA definiton of "blade"...
Communal has 2Hd and in a NW-Americans there are 6 blades... should I have read the wrong books until now.
So Bd are: Legionaries, Vikings, Samurai, Billmen and NWA tribesmen? OK.:???


Most likely the NW-American blades are "Irregular Bd Inferior" ;)

Cheers
Fab

Jeff
05-11-2011, 09:17 AM
I know they are not official, but the trend isn't looking all that great. Lots of changes. I really find it hard to believe the Northwest American list should even exist as a large field army anyway....and then you give them 6 blades??

The trend for DBA 2.2 looks great.:2up

ferrency
05-11-2011, 09:53 AM
The Mound Builders have become mostly bow, and now the Northwestern Americans are mostly blade????

Where are you seeing this?

On the lists at the start of this thread, I see:

IV/10 Mound Builder American army: 1xLit (Gen), 1xBd, 4xBw, 2x (Ps or Bw), 4xWb.

IV/11 North-Western American army: 1xBw (Gen), 9xBw, 2xPs.

That's no change for NW Americans, anyway...

Alan

Filippo S.
05-11-2011, 11:47 AM
Most likely the NW-American blades are "Irregular Bd Inferior" ;)Fab

It's a pity there are no Bd-Irr(I) in DBA, they would be perfect for this role! :rotfl

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-11-2011, 12:27 PM
Sue's update for the Mound Builders is the following:

1xLit (Gen), 1xBd, 6xBw, 2x (Ps or Bw), 2x(Wb or Bw)


At least that's what I read when I pull up the revised list.

ferrency
05-11-2011, 01:51 PM
Sue's update for the Mound Builders is the following:

1xLit (Gen), 1xBd, 6xBw, 2x (Ps or Bw), 2x(Wb or Bw)


At least that's what I read when I pull up the revised list.

My mistake, you're right. I was reading an older draft with a similar-but-not-identical filename.

I pointed Sue to this link on the Yahoo group, though I don't know if the lists here influenced anything:
http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=3303

Personally, I found the 2.2 NW American list very dissatisfying for representing Tlingit. From what I've read, they fought a lot more like Warbands than Bows: a mad rush for personal glory in combat, not massed fire. This version of the new list will require me to paint 5-7 more elements, but it'd be a lot more satisfying historically and during play.

Alan

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-11-2011, 09:29 PM
Well...the new NW Indian list with up to 7....count them, 7 blades might be more satisfying to some, but it doesn't seem quite right. Warband makes more sense for a substantial percentage of the force than blade and that is how the Tlingits are dealt with by the NW Ancients gamers in the link Ferrency mentioned.

Maybe some blades...yes....some warbands....yes....but SEVEN blades??? With DBA guidelines of 750-900 men per 3 figure stand, that works out to a minimum of 5250 blades in the army!! That's on par with a DBA Polybian Roman army. From what I have read so far, Tlingit warfare involved mostly raiding parties....clan warfare and battles with other tribes like the Haida. Certainly some of the men wear armor and have weapons that can be classified as blade, but was it really that large a percentage of the raiding force, if in fact such a large Tlingit army was ever fielded??

kontos
05-11-2011, 10:20 PM
From what I have read so far, Tlingit warfare involved mostly raiding parties....clan warfare and battles with other tribes like the Haida. Certainly some of the men wear armor and have weapons that can be classified as blade, but was it really that large a percentage of the raiding force, if in fact such a large Tlingit army was ever fielded??

Maybe 3.0 is being designed to be a "skirmish" game? :rotfl

Filippo S.
05-12-2011, 03:23 AM
Well...the new NW Indian list with up to 7....count them, 7 blades might be more satisfying to some, but it doesn't seem quite right. Warband makes more sense for a substantial percentage of the force than blade and that is how the Tlingits are dealt with by the NW Ancients gamers in the link Ferrency mentioned.


Are there more Bd than the aztec army? I can hardly believe it. :D

Pavane
05-12-2011, 09:19 AM
I only have one Book IV army at the moment: Scots Common. I will have to paint one Blade element for the new list to represent the Isleman contingent available to DBM/M players. This makes sense to me.

David Constable
05-12-2011, 10:35 AM
I only have one Book IV army at the moment: Scots Common. I will have to paint one Blade element for the new list to represent the Isleman contingent available to DBM/M players. This makes sense to me.

Book IV (and some III) can be useful if you try DBA-RRR as well.

David Constable

ferrency
05-12-2011, 11:07 AM
From what I have read so far, Tlingit warfare involved mostly raiding parties....clan warfare and battles with other tribes like the Haida. Certainly some of the men wear armor and have weapons that can be classified as blade, but was it really that large a percentage of the raiding force, if in fact such a large Tlingit army was ever fielded??

Based on my reading of Phil's design goals in 2.2, I think all element type selections must be evaluated in historic context only. Comparing Tlingit to Romans is not useful.

Yes, NW Americans should probably have a lot more Warband than Blades.

But in a historical context, does the element selection make more sense? That is: do they act like blades in comparison to their historical enemies?

One enemy of NW Americans is Hawaiians, who have a blade core with some pikes. This is who you should be comparing NW Americans with. Yes, Tlingits were unable to put together an army of 5000 blades, but neither were the Hawaiians they were fighting. Relative to each other, the forces are evenly matched.

The way the comparison should be made is: independent of the figure scale, which is variable in DBA, do the DBA element types act the way the historical troops acted? In historical matchups, do the battles generally proceed as they did historically?

Personally I'm sick of hearing about how few Americans there were, when we have much more evidence for the tiny size of some European field armies during certain periods of history, yet players rarely complain about how DBA deals with them.

Alan

Gascap
05-12-2011, 12:10 PM
Personally I'm sick of hearing about how few Americans there were, when we have much more evidence for the tiny size of some European field armies during certain periods of history, yet players rarely complain about how DBA deals with them.


Amen.

To the people complaining about American armies:

If people don't want American armies in the books, then there are several options: don't play with them personally, don't allow them in events _you_ run, and/or don't allow them in clubs _you_ run.

Comparing an element's soldier count in NW Americans to that in Polybian (or any) Roman army makes no sense. There's no prescription in the rules about how matches are meant to go. So, event rules aside, you either have historical matches or you don't. If you have historical matches, then soldier count and element type can only be looked at in the context of the particular match, and it's sort of self-correcting. If the match isn't historical, you're doing it wrong if you're worried about the fact that a unit of one army is not the same size historically as a unit of another that it never actually faced.

DBA is, sorry, just not a "historical game" in the sense that people conveniently try to make it as soon as these sorts of rants come up. DBA allows several things to happen very smoothly, including:
-pickup games that can be fair regardless of the time periods involved
-open tournaments where a variety of armies from a several-thousand-year span are viable
-restricted events and scenarios aimed at limiting army selection for the sake of "interesting" matches or to reproduce historical events

If you'd like to give up some of the openness and remarkable flexibility of DBA for the sake of making matches more historical, or making the army lists more exclusive, whatever - just don't force your beliefs on others. You'll have to give up the ubiquitous Samurai vs. Viking matches too though. Finding a more exclusive list of armies, limiting armies in one's personal collection or in events, are all possibilities, but when statements like "this army shouldn't even exist" are made, it just sounds ignorant. There are over 400 lists in the rules - no one is forcing anyone else to take any particular army. The American lists aren't hurting anyone by being included, and for those who like these cultures and want to paint little figures of these people, they're very much welcome inclusions in the lists.

JM

Andreas Johansson
05-12-2011, 12:58 PM
The American lists aren't hurting anyone by being included
Given that they take up space and took up development time, both of which could have been applied to other lists, I don't think that's true.

winterbadger
05-12-2011, 01:03 PM
DBA is, sorry, just not a "historical game" in the sense that people conveniently try to make it as soon as these sorts of rants come up.

I'll add another agreement here. I think DBA tries to be historical (somewhat) in the context of historical matchups. I think the issue of numbers is not a good ground to get wound up about; the battle of Stamford Bridge, which got mentioned recently, featured maybe 20-25,000 combatants, tops; the Han Chinese battle of Red Cliffs involved at least 300,000. But DBA would play both of them with 12 elements.

I think Alan's objection is much more reasonable--did elements of a particular army fight, in their period and against their historic opponents, more like element types A and B or C and D? If NW Indians fought in disciplined bands of close-combat warriors carrying hand weapons, then maybe Bd is a good type for them; if they fought more impetuously and individually in rushes, then Wb seems like it would be better. If most of the weight of their fighting army was guys with bows firing en masse, then Bw fits them; if the bow-users skirmished and harassed, rather than trying to defeat the enemy by dense missile fire, then Ps are a better match.

ferrency
05-12-2011, 01:03 PM
... took up development time...

Judging by the opinions of both proponents and detractors of the American lists regarding the quality of those lists, I'd say "apparently not."

Alan

winterbadger
05-12-2011, 01:05 PM
...took up development time...

Judging by the opinions of both proponents and detractors of the American lists regarding the quality of those lists, I'd say "apparently not."

Alan

:2up (insert obligatory extra characters...)

Gascap
05-12-2011, 01:12 PM
Given that they take up space and took up development time, both of which could have been applied to other lists, I don't think that's true.

:rolleyes

This implies that there are "more deserving" lists out there. What then, makes "other lists" more deserving of time than Native American lists? This is why I commented originally that certain comments in these discussions have an air of ignorance...

JM

Tony Aguilar
05-12-2011, 01:23 PM
:rolleyes

This implies that there are "more deserving" lists out there. What then, makes "other lists" more deserving of time than Native American lists? This is why I commented originally that certain comments in these discussions have an air of ignorance...

JM

Other lists weren't offended by the use of "Geronimo." :rolleyes

Gascap
05-12-2011, 01:33 PM
I think Alan's objection is much more reasonable--did elements of a particular army fight, in their period and against their historic opponents, more like element types A and B or C and D? If NW Indians fought in disciplined bands of close-combat warriors carrying hand weapons, then maybe Bd is a good type for them; if they fought more impetuously and individually in rushes, then Wb seems like it would be better. If most of the weight of their fighting army was guys with bows firing en masse, then Bw fits them; if the bow-users skirmished and harassed, rather than trying to defeat the enemy by dense missile fire, then Ps are a better match.

For the sake of keeping my original objection short, I didn't comment on unit type. But you're right, Jan. I'll add now what I was going to say earlier:

People don't seem to have similar complaints with HOTT. Let me address the inevitable rebuttal first, re: HOTT being fantasy and DBA being historical.

DBA _can_ be historical. But it also allows for open games. If people are complaining about the presence of American armies, then they are probably playing open games at least part of the time. If they're not playing open, they can participate in and/or run events that exclude American armies, and have nothing to complain about. With that in mind, if you are playing open games, you are playing rules that have a historical skin, nothing more.

I've seen people use the Behemoth element type in HOTT to represent Macedonian phalanxes. Why? Is it a giant creature that munches on mounted troops? Not literally. But it does _behave_ like a Behemoth wrt to its interactions with other contemporaries: it doesn't do well in terrain, it's large and unwieldy, and it's especially good at destroying mounted troops. I'll buy that.

I've also seen the Magician element type used to represent indirect fire artillery in sci-fi games. It doesn't literally use magic, so why aren't we up in arms about it? Because its interactions and in-game behavior fit in context.

The list can go on: mustard gas clouds in WWI as gods, Jedi as blades, etc.

HOTT relies on a certain level of abstraction, but so does DBA. DBA can function without the need for a points system because of this abstraction. This abstraction gives DBA the flexibility to allow fair matches between armies from different millennia and continents. At the element-classification level, a lot of this abstraction relies on categorizing elements in bubbles which include the armies that the element fought against, as well as the different grades of soldiers within an army.

So many of these complaints about element types seem to center around American armies. Why aren't there people complaining that Biblical soldiers in bath towels with pointy sticks are the same element as plate-wearing late medieval Western European spearmen? Take whatever notion it is that allows you to accept Biblical spear = Late Medieval European spear and apply it to American armies.

But the bottom line remains: flexibility and historical accuracy can be used as the two extremes of the DBA spectrum. Gaining more accuracy results in losses in flexibility. As I said before, there are already mechanisms in place that allow this: create your own events, selectively participate in exclusive events, collect only certain armies, etc. Again, what harm is done by having American army lists?

JM

kontos
05-12-2011, 01:47 PM
Well stated JM. Nothing I need add to that. :up

ferrency
05-12-2011, 01:56 PM
If NW Indians fought in disciplined bands of close-combat warriors carrying hand weapons, then maybe Bd is a good type for them; if they fought more impetuously and individually in rushes, then Wb seems like it would be better. If most of the weight of their fighting army was guys with bows firing en masse, then Bw fits them; if the bow-users skirmished and harassed, rather than trying to defeat the enemy by dense missile fire, then Ps are a better match.

I basically agree, but also think it's a bit more complicated than this. I think "within the context of the battle" is necessary here.

That is: "if their bow-armed foot played the role of massed fire within the context of the battles they fought, then they should be represented as bows."

In an army of 10,000, "skirmishing bowmen" should be psiloi. If you're dealing with an army of 1000, "skirmishing bowmen" may provide enough support to be considered "firing en masse" within the scale of the battles being fought.

This means that if you fought Tlingit vs. Romans, the "Bw" classification will probably look wrong. But in historical context, it is appropriate.

In my limited reading of Tlingit warfare, they did seem to rush impetuously into combat instead of fighting in an organized line. However, relative to their historical enemies, this may not be the only factor to consider when deciding whether they're blade or warband.

Relative to their historical enemies, were they strongest in the open or in bad going? Are historical combat results best represented by the warband's quick kill of other foot, or by the blades' back and forth push? I don't know the answer to these questions, but it should inform the element type selection.

Emphasizing the historical role of the troops in the battles they actually fought, relative to the game-rule effects of the element types, means that you're figuring out troop types a bit more like you would in HotT than in DBA. But for the cases where DBA element types are not a perfect match, such as these, this may be the best way to get a list that works correctly within its historical context.


No one even uses the American lists, for the most part. Part of that is because of the composition, part of it is figure availability, and part of it is because whenever you bring one out in public people heckle you.

If the only time anyone uses the lists is within a historically themed context, then it would seem in the best interest of those players to use lists that are optimized for historical matchups and not to provide "realistic" element choices against Romans in an ahistorical "open" format.

Alan

ferrency
05-12-2011, 02:02 PM
People don't seem to have similar complaints with HOTT.

Yeah, what he said. Note to self: read, then write...

Alan

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-12-2011, 02:06 PM
Other lists weren't offended by the use of "Geronimo." :rolleyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lXiUleCN2w

:rotfl

winterbadger
05-12-2011, 02:25 PM
However, relative to their historical enemies, this may not be the only factor to consider when deciding whether they're blade or warband.

Relative to their historical enemies, were they strongest in the open or in bad going? Are historical combat results best represented by the warband's quick kill of other foot, or by the blades' back and forth push? I don't know the answer to these questions, but it should inform the element type selection.

Very good points. The modularity of DBA assumes that troops in all cultures that fought in similar ways had a set of characteristics that were all the same, but you're right that one needs to key on "what are the effects of designating troops as element type A?" more than "do they match the broad description of element type A?"

Sometimes the result will be that one has a set of characteristics, only some of which apply. Wb are characterised (off the top of my head--someone will probably point out other things I'm forgetting): slower movement than some foot but a quick rush to combat; mediocre combat bonus but the ability to take supports against many troops and to QK many types; not being affected in combat by BG; prone to pursue defeated enemies.

What if a type matches some but not all of those characteristics? Unless one uses house rules, one has to decide whether to class it as another type and lose some of the Wb unique characteristics or to class it as Wb and just accept that it will behave a little differently than historically because you're calling it Wb.

No one even uses the American lists, for the most part. Part of that is because of the composition, part of it is figure availability, and part of it is because whenever you bring one out in public people heckle you.

Really? That's a shame! To me, such armies are cool and broaden the diversity of the hobby. If people only played classical Hellenic/Hellenistic, Dark Ages Europe, or High Middle Ages Western Europe, the game would get boring very fast!

If the only time anyone uses the lists is within a historically themed context, then it would seem in the best interest of those players to use lists that are optimized for historical matchups and not to provide "realistic" element choices against Romans in an ahistorical "open" format.

Indeed. "Realistic" choices for an ahistorical matchup makes no sense to me. In fact, the author even anticipated this, saying

Apparent anomalies caused by {using the same type for troops that historically were armed differently} 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. (my emphasis)

Here he's talking just about armour, but I think the same thing goes for weapons and even putative numbers of troops per element. And, in relation to the latter point, he also says

The number of men represented by an element varies according to the size of army simulated...

which seems pretty clear to me: just because a Bd element in a Roman army represents 1,000 men doesn't mean it has to represent 1,000 men in an Aztec army (or Khmer army or Hawaiian army).

ferrency
05-12-2011, 02:38 PM
In fact, the author even anticipated this, saying
I almost pulled those exact two quotes into this discussion.

But at this point I'm not sure we're arguing against anyone anymore ;)

Alan

El' Jocko
05-12-2011, 03:39 PM
:rolleyes

This implies that there are "more deserving" lists out there. What then, makes "other lists" more deserving of time than Native American lists? This is why I commented originally that certain comments in these discussions have an air of ignorance...

I don't think that Native American lists are less deserving, but it's certainly true that Pre-Columbian American history isn't understood the same way that European and Asian history are understood. And the military histories of the American polities are certainly much less documented than that of the Western polities. Maybe that's just because the research hasn't been done and the books haven't been written. Or maybe we're never going to know as much about a pre-literate society. But I don't think the information is out there right now. Personally, I can't name a single battle fought by any Pre-Columbian army. Which makes it kind of hard for me to get excited about these armies, or have much interest into what goes into the army lists.

- Jack

ferrency
05-12-2011, 04:06 PM
Personally, I can't name a single battle fought by any Pre-Columbian army. Which makes it kind of hard for me to get excited about these armies, or have much interest into what goes into the army lists.

Yeah, that's true. But some of these guys look pretty damn cool, don't they?

That's the main reason I'm interested in them. I don't know that much about other areas of military history either, until I decide the figures or army lists look cool and start doing some research.

It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg, really. If you were interested in the armies, you'd learn some of the history. The fact that you can't name any battles probably has as much to do with how interested you are in the armies, as the other way around.

Alan

Gascap
05-12-2011, 04:19 PM
Personally, I can't name a single battle fought by any Pre-Columbian army. Which makes it kind of hard for me to get excited about these armies, or have much interest into what goes into the army lists.

- Jack

If you don't have much interest in what goes into the army lists, then it's not you that I'm worried about :)

My beef is with the people that will probably never use these armies, but also want to deny others the ability to use them due to some misguided attempts to make DBA more "historically accurate."

I seriously think they and I are playing two different games.

There are plenty of games out there where playing Romans = win. DBA isn't one of them, and that's one reason why I like it :up

I don't think that Native American lists are less deserving, but it's certainly true that Pre-Columbian American history isn't understood the same way that European and Asian history are understood. And the military histories of the American polities are certainly much less documented than that of the Western polities. Maybe that's just because the research hasn't been done and the books haven't been written. Or maybe we're never going to know as much about a pre-literate society.

I think you're mostly right, but another problem is that much of what we "know" about pre-Columbian American history is steadily being disproved by updated and less-biased archaeology. This is true to some extent of all histories, and that's good enough for me to say that a) we can't expect all the lists designed for this wargame to be accurate representations of history given the level of abstraction employed by DBA (if you start cutting out lists due to lack of evidence, you start sliding down one heck of a slippery slope :) ) and b) it just doesn't matter in a historically-skinned game (or maybe at all). More research etc. is useful for scenarios, but not the "base game." And in my opinion, how many men were at The Battle of Some Jerk Who Can't Get it Up Fighting Some Other Jerk Who Has Father Issues is good for Trivial Pursuit, but it's not History :)

And not all pre-Columbian societies were illiterate; Mesoamerica was one of only [a very small number depending on who you ask] places where writing was independently invented. "The More You Know! (tm)"

JM

Redwilde
05-12-2011, 04:37 PM
Yeah, that's true. But some of these guys look pretty damn cool, don't they?

Feathers and jaguars do look way cooler than your bog average dark age lumpen spear.

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-12-2011, 08:24 PM
I truly enjoy gaming with American armies, but I don't think that should have anything to do with the DBA composition of said armies. I like Alexander the Great's army too, but that doesn't mean they get 4 elements of knights. I have no beef with blades being a component of the NW Indian list, but giving that list 7 blades just seems unreasonable. At least I can find some good accounts of large Hawaiian armies in battle, albeit outside of the DBA period....there is still something to learn from those accounts. What accounts of Mound Builder battles accounted for the deletion of two warband elements in favor of more bows? What reason do we have to change the army list of almost all bow for the NW Indians to predominantly blade? The Mound Builders will now move on to wanker status and the NW Indians will probably become the top dogs amongst the Americas lists. I agree that the NW Indians should have had blades added, as well as warband....but more along the lines of the lists created by the Northwest Ancients folks than what we have ended up with so far.

platypus01
05-12-2011, 09:02 PM
As one who had a reasonable input in some of the Book IV pre-Columbian lists in DBMM, I'm a bit upset by some of the comments on this thread. A lot of work went into these lists, and to have that blown off by someone who has never even read say, Diaz or Mosley, is a bit insulting. The DBMM lists had many, many hours of work done on them, by many very knowledgable people.

The reason the lists are there is because people want to play with them. Who will tell these people that they can't have them because they aren't important enough?

The scale of armies in DBA varies wildly. Battles between the Inca and the Chimor empires were similar in scale to many ancient battles. Armies in North Western surpassed many raised in dark-age Britain. When a Middle Saxon army meets a Polybian Roman army in an open tournament, the scale ration is something like 1:10. Picking on pre-Columbian armies for this same problem is inconsistent.

The lists work against their historical foes. This is all you can expect. Open tournaments are fun. But you can't expect historical rigour.

Cheers,
JohnG

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-12-2011, 09:59 PM
I can appreciate all the work that goes into list creation, but I would like to know the rationale for the NW Indian list getting 7 blades. Warband makes more sense as a predominant heavy foot element than blades. How is that making them fight better against historical contemporaries....most of the descriptions I have read of combat in that region involve raids to seize prisoners and such....It also seems to me their most likely adversaries are other NW Indians, despite the list of enemies given....

I would be all for a variety of NW Indian lists, or one with more options to reflect different tribes...but 7 blades just doesn't seem right at all.

david kuijt
05-12-2011, 10:21 PM
most of the descriptions I have read of combat in that region involve raids to seize prisoners and such....

Strangely like the Vikings, who are 10 blades.

Rob, raids to seize prisoners has nothing to do with warband classification. Auxilia, Blade, Bow, LH -- all those troop types are associated with raids to seize prisoners, and probably every other troop type except Artillery.

Jeff
05-12-2011, 10:51 PM
probably every other troop type except Artillery.

Hey what do you have against Artillery?:2up

They want prisoners to. :(

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-12-2011, 11:16 PM
David, the difference between Vikings and NW Indians is that I can point to actions where they had enough men to actually make the DBA army size rational. The real issue in the debate though is whether or not NW Indian armies should be made up of such large numbers of blades....warband makes more sense....with some blades, perhaps up to two elements....but 7 blades seems out of whack. What would be your take on the army list for NW Indians David? I agree with others that they shouldn't be all bow armed....but would be curious to know what you would suggest for a NW Indian list(s)??

winterbadger
05-12-2011, 11:46 PM
David, the difference between Vikings and NW Indians is that I can point to actions where they had enough men to actually make the DBA army size rational.

I think it has been amply demonstrated that this argument is a total red herring. Army size is irrelevant, as long as like armies are fighting like.

The real issue in the debate though is whether or not NW Indian armies should be made up of such large numbers of blades....warband makes more sense....with some blades, perhaps up to two elements....but 7 blades seems out of whack.

It would help if you could describe what you think the army composition is, and more importantly why, and what evidence you have backing up that view (which books or articles you've come across on the subject). Simply saying "That ain't right!" isn't very illuminating, and it isn't going to convince those who have read a god deal on the subject. NB: this does not include me, as I know nothing about the period or region! But from the sound of it, it does include Alan, JM, and John G,

Rich Gause
05-12-2011, 11:59 PM
I don't have a big problem with classifying NW American close combat guys as Bd, it would depend on how they fought relative to their historical opponents. The DBMM list says their warfare was about taking land and they wore hide and wooden armor and had log fortifications so Bd seems like it could be reasonable especially when compared to their opponents. I don't have a problem with them keeping the Bd classification when fighting European armies either, if it works for Egyptians vs Medieval dismounted Kn it works with them too. I do have a problem with taking a list that covers 600 years from a pre-literate culture and making the previous list unusable. Based on what evidence? I doubt very much that anybody could look at the entire history(or lack thereof) of all the cultures rolled into NW American(and there must be a lot since they are enemies of the Eastern Forest guys) from 1100-1770 and say that a DBA army could never have been Bw(G), 9 Bw, 2 Ps. If the list should be based on the DBMM list, which I don't have a problem with, then the possibilities in the 2.2 list should be included unless there is very conclusive evidence that the 2.2 list is just flat wrong. Based on the DBMM and the 2.2 list I would do something like:

Bd or Bw(G), 2 Bw, 1Ps, 3x(Bd or Bw or Ps) 5x(Bd or Bw).

That would allow the 2.2 list, or a more closely copied version of the DBMM list. If the other Precolumbian lists got similiar treatment it shouldn't be a problem.

ferrency
05-13-2011, 01:23 AM
...it isn't going to convince those who have read a good deal on the subject. NB: this does not include me, as I know nothing about the period or region! But from the sound of it, it does include Alan, JM, and John G,

My research is mostly limited to the construction and look of Tlingit armor and arms. I have read a bit about how they fought, but not enough to claim to know what their list should be. I do know it's inappropriate to compare them to ahistorical armies, however.

The NW American list covers a variety of people, who lived across a wide area that wasn't always densely populated. Providing these people with only a single list variant does them a great disservice in the context of historic matchups.

I do know that the Tlingit lived in a very rich area, had ample resources to go to war, and did go to war. Woe betide anyone who didn't like the taste of salmon, however.

Alan

Filippo S.
05-13-2011, 05:10 AM
But some of these guys look pretty damn cool, don't they?

Sure they are VERY cool!
I own three of them:
Aztecs => http://www.dba-italia.org/modellismo/simoncini/4-63-aztecs.php
Tlaxcans =>http://www.dba-italia.org/modellismo/simoncini/4-19-tlaxcans.php
Tupi=> http://www.dba-italia.org/modellismo/simoncini/4-29-amazonici.php

The first 2 were the army were I had to study more, I'm very pleased with the results.
Ciao

winterbadger
05-13-2011, 08:21 AM
Sure they are VERY cool!
I own three of them:
Aztecs => http://www.dba-italia.org/modellismo/simoncini/4-63-aztecs.php
Tlaxcans =>http://www.dba-italia.org/modellismo/simoncini/4-19-tlaxcans.php
Tupi=> http://www.dba-italia.org/modellismo/simoncini/4-29-amazonici.php

The first 2 were the army were I had to study more, I'm very pleased with the results.
Ciao

Those are excellent, Filippo! I have some Central American armies sitting in my lead pile, waiting partly because I shudder at the difficulty of doing the figures justice! You have done them justice and more. I love your camps, too!

david kuijt
05-13-2011, 09:02 AM
David, the difference between Vikings and NW Indians is that I can point to actions where they had enough men to actually make the DBA army size rational.

Troop type and troop size are independent. You seem to be working with the hidden assumption that 100-man elements can't be "Blade" and can be "Warband," which doesn't make sense -- if 100 man elements can't be "Blade", they can't be Spear, Bow, or pretty-much anything else.

So if your position is that the army size is too small to use DBA at all (and that is a defensible position -- it certainly must be true eventually, as army size reduces, so it is a matter of WHEN (what threshold) not IF), then you should say that, rather than focusing on troop type.


The real issue in the debate though is whether or not NW Indian armies should be made up of such large numbers of blades....warband makes more sense....with some blades, perhaps up to two elements....but 7 blades seems out of whack. What would be your take on the army list for NW Indians David?

I haven't done the reading, but (as someone born in the Pacific NW) I'm aware that the Haida and others had a focused system of warfare with a lot of Viking similarities (small-ship naval raiding on towns and settlements), and that the population of the area was fairly large pre-Smallpox.

If they fought in non-impetuous non-psycho groups with some organization and emphasis upon individual ability rather than defensive wall grouping, then Blade is the right class.

The only way they should be "part X and part Y" is if you can justify differentiation based upon troop behavior (or equipment, which implies behavior). Unaided intuition is a poor method for army classification.

winterbadger
05-13-2011, 10:11 AM
Unaided intuition is a poor method for army classification.

I like that. :) It sounds like something Lt. Cdr. Data would say, if he played wargames.

Alex Bostwick
05-13-2011, 11:07 AM
We're ignoring a huge problem: I'm speaking, of course, of the change to the Later Crusaders list! One Light Horse instead of one Cavalry option?! A travesty, I say!

But seriously, it's a good change, and makes more sense.

As for the North Western Indian issue, I agree with Jan, DK, Alan and anyone else in that camp: apples and oranges are both fruit, yeah, but they taste a hell of a lot different. Sizes of elements have been skewed enormously. For instance, a Feudal English army would probably accurately represent about five hundred dudes, one thousand on the outside (during a typical battle; that is, between two rival nobles), and yet they are still twelve elements. Early Crusaders, by comparison, began as about thirty thousand dudes, and were whittled down to about ten thousand by the time they reached Jerusalem (hungry, thirsty, and in desperate need of some Middle Eastern hospitality)- and yet the army size is no different. This is, for me, simultaneously the greatest and worst thing about DBA: the twelve-element base makes it wonderfully flexible and easily transportable, but, as a result, outside of scenario games (including giant battles) it is difficult to accurately represent smaller or larger forces.

What is important to recognize is not that the army has seven Blade elements- that is immaterial. You need to realize that the army is seven-twelfths blade. It is the ratio to the force as a whole that is important, not the simple number. For reference, I always expand an army list to Big Battle totals before judging; in this case, twenty-one out of a total thirty-six elements would be Blade types. That seems perfectly reasonable to me- then again, I've done remarkably little research into the period and region, so I could be completely wrong. It's happened to me before.

-A-Bos

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-13-2011, 11:49 AM
Of course, the NW Indians are now the equal of Roman legions:up. Ridiculous. Can't wait to paint them up now though. They should be decent even in big battle now, since they have bows and light troops to back them up.

I would love to read the historical records that justified converting an all bow army to the new, much more formidable force. Were the NW Indians really that much better armed and trained that they deserve this treatment? I certainly think blade elements should be part of the list, but not the dominant element type. The Mound Builders seemed to be from a much more organized civilization, but they are just a bunch of light troops with warbands....and a token blade element. It seems to me that the folks in the Northwest Ancients group had researched their army lists about as well as they could for the NW Indians and they didn't give any of the lists they created 7 blades....

I am also not sure why everyone is talking about how the NW Indians performed against their historical contemporaries either....so far the only stuff I have seen shows that they are their own enemies....clan warfare with raids on villages and to capture opposing chiefs.

Oh well....American Vikings, here we come!

Andreas Johansson
05-13-2011, 11:49 AM
I doubt very much that anybody could look at the entire history(or lack thereof) of all the cultures rolled into NW American(and there must be a lot since they are enemies of the Eastern Forest guys)
They're also enemies of the Chimu and the Hawaiians ...

Dealing with some of the American lists, Phil took an extremely (one is tempted to say absurdly) liberal view of "historical enemies". If the same standards had been applied to Old World armies, EIR would be a historical enemy of the Classical Indians: the NWA/Hawaiian enmity is based on hypothetical voyages their by the NWA, while we have actual evidence of Roman voyages to India. In neither case is there even the suggestion of actual warfare between the two, which tends to be the criterion in the Old World.

So, I don't know what if anything is the basis for the NWA and EFA being listed as enemies, but you shouldn't assume it's necessarily based on any actual known contact between the two.


See also the EFA having the Welsh listed as an enemy .... apparently St Brendan had a bunch of less famous but more martial companions. :silly

ferrency
05-13-2011, 11:58 AM
Of course, the NW Indians are now the equal of Roman legions:up. Ridiculous.

So what you're saying is: you still just don't get it at all.

Okay, I'm fine with that. Moving on.

Alan

Andreas Johansson
05-13-2011, 11:59 AM
I would love to read the historical records that justified converting an all bow army to the new, much more formidable force. Were the NW Indians really that much better armed and trained that they deserve this treatment?
Neither superior training nor armament are criteria for Bd-hood, they just have to be better than Hd.

The historical sources would chiefly be accounts by Russian traders and military men in the 18th century. (Phil was not impressed by the suggestion this means the list belongs in DBR rather than DBMM or DBA).
The Mound Builders seemed to be from a much more organized civilization, but they are just a bunch of light troops with warbands....and a token blade element.
That's an absurd statement - Bd isn't some sort of achievement badge for civilizational sophistication.

Oh well....American Vikings, here we come!

The European Vikings, as it happens, weren't noted for superior training, armament, or societal organization either.

winterbadger
05-13-2011, 12:01 PM
So what you're saying is: you still just don't get it at all.

Water, Duck, Back.

Okay, I'm fine with that. Moving on.

Sometimes it's all one can do. :beer

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-13-2011, 12:06 PM
Oh no Alan,

I get what you are saying. I simply disagree with you. I have respect for your opinions though.

The unit size question aside, I still don't see what justifies classifying the majority of the NW Indian army as blades and still have not heard justification for changing the previous list so completely. I have viewed the lists created by the NW Ancients gaming group and their lists don't seem to agree either.

I think this is a great list for gaming though....and I will just take it as that. Many DBA matches are more fantasy than history anyway, so I shouldn't let it bother me.

Also Winterbadger, it is not absurd any more absurd to classify more Mound Builder elements as blade than it is to classify most of the NW Indian list as blade. What monumental historical or archaeological work justified the change of the list from predominantly bow to blade. I understand they fought well with small groups of Russian traders and such....but that was in the 1700's.... a period which most of the DBA lists don't reach.

Andreas Johansson
05-13-2011, 12:09 PM
The unit size question aside, I still don't see what justifies classifying the majority of the NW Indian army as blades and still have not heard justification for changing the previous list so completely.

I'm less than convinced about NWA Bd, but most of your arguments against them are completely beside the point.

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-13-2011, 12:18 PM
Swell....than at least my "intuition" must be working well enough that your intellect comes to a conclusion that the NW Indian blade numbers might be off.

The DBA description of blade elements does make more sense than horde (which I never interjected), or warband (as defined in the DBA booklet). However, the blade element description doesn't seem to be an exact fit either.

Perhaps Auxilia in place of some of those blades...if not warband?

winterbadger
05-13-2011, 12:29 PM
Also Winterbadger, it is not absurd any more absurd to classify more Mound Builder elements as blade than it is to classify most of the NW Indian list as blade.

Sorry, I think I've lost track of some thread of the conversation. Where did I say anything was absurd, and where did I suggest that I knew a darn thing about whether NW Indians or Mound Builders should be Bd or Wb or Praxian ducks? I think I just suggested that if one doesn't agree with the makeup of a proposed draft list it might be more conducive to getting agreement from others if one discussed the actual attributes of the historical army and their tactics (which are much more important to classification than their weapons and armour) that simply repeating that you don't like the list.

Andreas Johansson
05-13-2011, 12:34 PM
Swell....than at least my "intuition" must be working well enough that your intellect comes to a conclusion that the NW Indian blade numbers might be off.
I have no objection to the number, only a suspicion that they shouldn't be Bd at all. (Ax or Wb might have been better.)

A problem is that not only is the evidence for tactics very late, it's also against an opponent that's definitely not a DBA army (Russians with muskets) and about fights that weren't field battles. You can't readily tell the difference between Bd and Ax when they're scaling a palisade.


And now I think I'll step out of the discussion. I spent enough time arguing about these guys back in DBMM list work, and all the allegedly Hawaii-reaching canoes have sailed anyway.

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-13-2011, 12:38 PM
Forgive me Winterbadger, it was Andreas who added the absurd comment. I am having to defend my opinion against a lot of opposition and it was wrong of me to attribute that comment to you. I do agree that it is good to base the argument on historical facts or on other available research and I have endeavored to do so. At least I am making an effort to correct a proposed list that I do not think seems to be right. The small amount of reading material I have seen on the subject points to an army that participated in raids, often including raids to take prisoners. In fact, some of the best evidence of how the NW Indians fought comes from a period long after most DBA army lists exist and that makes the task even more difficult. Since the NW Indians did their raiding in difficult terrain, perhaps auxilia might be a good choice for some elements, although warband in later DBA editions are pretty handy in bad going. That some NW Indian forces were better armed and armored, as evidence by archaeological finds, makes a portion of the force better classified as blades....but I don't think those finds can lead one to conclude the majority of the army was so well equipped.

Hannibal Ad Portas
05-13-2011, 12:45 PM
Thanks Andreas....at least I don't feel totally alone now in thinking there is something wrong with the NW Indian proposed list;). Perhaps things will change in the final draft? I have nothing against a portion of the army being blade. It makes some sense based on the DBA book classifications. I just think that the numbers of blades in the army seem off. I agree with you that auxilia or warband for the rest of the heavier foot makes sense...and that is very much consistent with the NW Indian lists I saw in use last year by the Northwest Ancients gaming group.

Jeff
05-13-2011, 01:26 PM
Not sure if you guys figured it out yet but,

YOu DO NOT HAVE A SAY!

PB is making 3.0 in his image, what ever that is.

Sorry, I should just stay out of it

winterbadger
05-13-2011, 01:35 PM
Not sure if you guys figured it out yet but,

YOu DO NOT HAVE A SAY!

PB is making 3.0 in his image, what ever that is.

Sorry, I should just stay out of it

Erm, I think the reason that Sue is publishing the draft lists and asking for comment is precisely because they do want us to have a say. Doesn't mean that they will end up doing what we want, surely being able to prove (hopefully polite, fact-based) feedback is better than not being allowed to at all.

Tony Aguilar
05-13-2011, 01:48 PM
What is important to recognize is not that the army has seven Blade elements- that is immaterial. You need to realize that the army is seven-twelfths blade. It is the ratio to the force as a whole that is important, not the simple number.

You are quite correct on this point, A-Bos. :up

Gascap
05-13-2011, 02:03 PM
Not sure if you guys figured it out yet but,

YOu DO NOT HAVE A SAY!

PB is making 3.0 in his image, what ever that is.


I think you're right, regarding how the lists will finally turn out.

I can't speak for the others who have generally aligned with my objections, but personally, the reason I bothered to enter this discussion was about attitudes (not yours, Jeff) towards the lists, and not the details of the lists.

DBA is not, as some would have it, "made of two types of armies: Roman armies, and armies whose asses the Romans kicked." It's so much more, but making arguments that presume that Roman Bd are the standard against which all other units must be measured bastardizes the game.

DBA is more than classical armies, Vikings, and Western Europe. If you want to play those armies, fine, just don't stop others from playing their preferred armies, regions, and periods. Live and let live, why is it so hard?

Suggesting that American lists take away resources from developing other lists implies at best that the preferences of certain players outrank the preferences of the rest.

Likewise, I suspect that the recent changes in the American lists were not done arbitrarily. Whether they're supported by a quantity and quality of research equaling the research backing the popular lists is irrelevant.

But at this point I think I'll move on, as others are starting to do. "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."

JM

Jeff
05-13-2011, 02:04 PM
I think that the key words are " Sue is publishing" When PB publishes, I might actually believe it.

Actually, much to the contrary, surely being able to prove (hopefully polite, fact-based) feedback is better than not being allowed to at all. Being able to talk about and discuss a topic with limited opportunity to be listened to is counter productive. I would much rather have had 3.0 published and had my first look once I cracked the cover. Speculation is a ulcer waiting to happen.

Enough said, I will stay out of the discussion.

Jeff

Tony Aguilar
05-13-2011, 02:05 PM
DBA is more than classical armies, Vikings, and Western Europe. If you want to play those armies, fine, just don't stop others from playing their preferred armies, regions, and periods. Live and let live, why is it so hard?

I agree everything pales to Asian armies. :D

Why do people eat their food but don't play their army? ;)

Jeff
05-13-2011, 02:06 PM
I think you're right, regarding how the lists will finally turn out.

I can't speak for the others who have generally aligned with my objections, but personally, the reason I bothered to enter this discussion was about attitudes (not yours, Jeff) towards the lists, and not the details of the lists.

DBA is not, as some would have it, "made of two types of armies: Roman armies, and armies whose asses the Romans kicked." It's so much more, but making arguments that presume that Roman Bd are the standard against which all other units must be measured bastardizes the game.

DBA is more than classical armies, Vikings, and Western Europe. If you want to play those armies, fine, just don't stop others from playing their preferred armies, regions, and periods. Live and let live, why is it so hard?

Suggesting that American lists take away resources from developing other lists implies at best that the preferences of certain players outrank the preferences of the rest.

Likewise, I suspect that the recent changes in the American lists were not done arbitrarily. Whether they're supported by a quantity and quality of research equaling the research backing the popular lists is irrelevant.

But at this point I think I'll move on, as others are starting to do. "To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead."

JM

Agree. Just tired of beating the dead horse and then dragging it out for another ass whoopin.

winterbadger
05-13-2011, 02:21 PM
Actually, much to the contrary, Being able to talk about and discuss a topic with limited opportunity to be listened to is counter productive. I would much rather have had 3.0 published and had my first look once I cracked the cover. Speculation is a ulcer waiting to happen.

So, first you declare loudly that no one has any input.

Then, when it's pointed out that not only do we have input, we are being asked for our input, you complain that we don't have complete control over the outcome and proclaim that, failing supreme power, you don't want to hear anything about the new edition until it comes out. It seems that the solution is pretty darn simple.

Stop reading the subforum that is very clearly labelled "DBA 3.0". That way you escape the ulcer and the rest of us that want to participate in the discussion can do so.

Otherwise it seems you are simply giving new life to an old story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger).

Gascap
05-13-2011, 02:23 PM
I agree everything pales to Asian armies. :D

Why do people eat their food but don't play their army? ;)

Ever eaten a potato, squash, tomato, corn, pepper, chocolate, beans, etc. etc.? ;)

But in seriousness, I think the same attitudes that have bothered me on this thread are also a threat to Asian armies, especially my Khmer and Malay armies, which suffer from many of the same "problems" people have been accusing the American armies of. Luckily, only some of my obscure non-European armies are on the chopping block in this thread :)

JM

ferrency
05-13-2011, 02:28 PM
Luckily, only some of my obscure non-European armies are on the chopping block in this thread :)
Because only some of your obscure non-European armies are in Book IV, armies 1-20? :)

ferrency
05-13-2011, 02:30 PM
Why do people eat their food but don't play their army? ;)

Eh, I don't eat Roman food either :)

ferrency
05-13-2011, 02:32 PM
Suggesting that American lists take away resources from developing other lists implies at best that the preferences of certain players outrank the preferences of the rest.

It also assumes that the resources used to create the American lists would otherwise have been used for some other DBA-related purpose, which is not at all clear.

Tony Aguilar
05-13-2011, 02:34 PM
Eh, I don't eat Roman food either :)

No olive oil for you! :p

winterbadger
05-13-2011, 03:04 PM
Eh, I don't eat Roman food either :)

I never could thole garum... :silly

Redwilde
05-13-2011, 03:28 PM
No olive oil for you! :p

All of Gaul is divided into three fats; one part cooks with olive oil, the other with butter, and the third with lard.

Andreas Johansson
05-13-2011, 05:44 PM
Suggesting that American lists take away resources from developing other lists implies at best that the preferences of certain players outrank the preferences of the rest.
No it doesn't. It only assumes that development resources are limited. More time for any set of lists would have meant less for some or all the rest.

Likewise, I suspect that the recent changes in the American lists were not done arbitrarily.
If you care to learn if they were, most of the discussions are available in the archives of the DBMMlist Yahoo list.

Jeff
05-13-2011, 07:38 PM
So, first you declare loudly that no one has any input.

Then, when it's pointed out that not only do we have input, we are being asked for our input, you complain that we don't have complete control over the outcome and proclaim that, failing supreme power, you don't want to hear anything about the new edition until it comes out. It seems that the solution is pretty darn simple.

Firstly, no body(aside from some specific individuals) on Fanaticus was "asked" anything by the PB or Sue to provide input; otherwise all DBA 3.0 business would be conducted here on the DBA webpage/forum instead of the Yahoo page!

Stop reading the subforum that is very clearly labelled "DBA 3.0". That way you escape the ulcer and the rest of us that want to participate in the discussion can do so. Otherwise it seems you are simply giving new life to an old story.

Actually, I am very interested in DBA 3.0 because I am very invested in and enjoy playing DBA. Since the labeled subforum states "DBA 3.0" I plan on continuing to read it in the slim chance that some kind of update will be posted. So if the discussion is going to be about DBA 3.0 on the subforum DBA 3.0, instead of bickering about what Bd is and what it is not, then I am looking in exactly the correct spot. Maybe the subforum should read "army list discussion", " bicker here about the army lists", or "Native Americans are really Roman Legionaries in disguise"

Enjoy your discussion.

Jeff

Gascap
05-13-2011, 09:55 PM
suggesting that american lists take away resources from developing other lists implies at best that the preferences of certain players outrank the preferences of the rest.
no it doesn't. It only assumes that development resources are limited. More time for any set of lists would have meant less for some or all the rest.

I agree that "more time for any set of lists would have meant less time for some or all the rest" _if_ we accept that they can't look at each list for some reason (which I haven't seen them say, but let's move on for the sake of argument).

...but the real problem is our earlier exchange:

The American lists aren't hurting anyone by being includedGiven that they take up space and took up development time, both of which could have been applied to other lists, I don't think that's true.

So, logically, if "more time for any set of lists would have meant less time for some or all the rest" and "they [American lists] take up space and took up development time, both of which could have been applied to other lists, I don't think that's true" then I don't see what conclusion there is except that you think some lists are more deserving of the supposedly-limited time that the authors have to distribute. In other words, if you assert there isn't enough time to go around, and insist that the American lists are in fact hurting someone because they take up limited time, then there must be lists that you consider more deserving of this time.

If you care to learn if they were, most of the discussions are available in the archives of the dbmmlist yahoo list.

Thanks, but as I said in my reply to Jeff, it's not the changes that concern me; it's the attitude that the American lists somehow shouldn't be allowed in due to any number of reasons that we've more than adequately shut down.

JM

Andreas Johansson
05-14-2011, 01:27 AM
I agree that "more time for any set of lists would have meant less time for some or all the rest" _if_ we accept that they can't look at each list for some reason (which I haven't seen them say, but let's move on for the sake of argument).
Each list has got some attention. The question is how much.

...but the real problem is our earlier exchange:



So, logically, if "more time for any set of lists would have meant less time for some or all the rest" and "they [American lists] take up space and took up development time, both of which could have been applied to other lists, I don't think that's true" then I don't see what conclusion there is except that you think some lists are more deserving of the supposedly-limited time that the authors have to distribute. In other words, if you assert there isn't enough time to go around, and insist that the American lists are in fact hurting someone because they take up limited time, then there must be lists that you consider more deserving of this time.
No, there doesn't. Even if the Tupi were somehow the objectively most deserving list, extra time spent on them still hurts everyone else. We might not care that it does, but does it does. Similarly for any other list, American or not.

Gascap
05-14-2011, 10:35 AM
No, there doesn't. Even if the Tupi were somehow the objectively most deserving list, extra time spent on them still hurts everyone else. We might not care that it does, but does it does. Similarly for any other list, American or not.

This argument is clearly going nowhere. I don't insist that American lists are more deserving. I don't think any list is more deserving, because that has implications that I don't like. It wasn't I who said that American lists taking away development time was how they hurt people.

I don't see this as a compelling argument that the American lists are hurting anyone. If anything, if we're to follow your line of reasoning, it means that the lists shouldn't be updated, but it doesn't mean that they should go. After all, if they're not updated, they get to stay, and don't take precious development time away from the real lists like the Roman lists.

On the other hand, it seems that the developers _are_ bothering to go through the American lists. Maybe this is the source of all the fuss about how bad DBA 3.0 will be. "DBA 3.0: Rise of the Americas, Fall of Everyone Else" :rolleyes

JM

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-14-2011, 11:05 AM
lol

Folks, with all due respect to Sue, her research, and any possible members of her playtesting team, let's review the order of the new lists:

Book 1 Lists: Did the first 16...nothing was changed. Got the sound of crickets in response. Info pulled .00058 seconds after it was posted. Nothing seen of Book 1 after that.

Book 2 Lists: I can presently find these changes on Sue's WRG page. Plus they're in the Yahoo! Group. Also on TMP, CNN, WI #289, Glamour magazine, The Wall Street Journal, Perez Hilton's blog (not that there's anything wrong with that!), and at most WalMart's and DIY centers around the world. Clearly she wishes these to be more accessable than Kim Kardashian's unmentionables drawer.

Book 3 Lists: "The Living Proposed Changes Lists!" Out there and still getting updated. Not to be confused with "The Living Daylights", a 007 flick that sucked only mildly, but was easier to digest.

Book 4 Lists: Only made the first 20 of these. Dominated by North American lists which gave the look and feel of creating a logjam that will anger fussy, undersexed, veteran DBA gamers who own literally hundreds of armies, but really only play their Selucid lists because "Scythed Chariots = Comfort Zone". This list has jumpstarted the economy by causing a Midwestern sockmonkey to order more Mound Builders Honored Men with Bows from Eureka Minis so he can climb the mounds near his home with a clear conscience and a complete army.

And you guys are complaining about list order and diverted resources?

It would seem to me that the lady is using a dartboard and a fifth of Chivas Regal to do this.

Criminy... :silly

Gascap
05-14-2011, 11:28 AM
<snip>
that will anger fussy, undersexed, veteran DBA gamers who own literally hundreds of armies, but really only play their Selucid lists because "Scythed Chariots = Comfort Zone".


Glad (?) to see this isn't just a Pittsburgh thing ;)

But you're right. Suggestions that there's a limited amount of development time to go around, besides all of the other implications I've insisted on, also implies that there's some sort of consistent development model. There's no indication that there's a hard deadline (and therefore limited time) or that there's some sort of development model guiding the review of the lists.

The American lists look like they're staying, and I'm sure that the minority of players who use them will face continued heckling even if we play among ourselves in the corner and don't let our taint go anywhere near the Real Players. So, 3.0 isn't changing anything in my DBA after all...

This horse is dead, processed, and removed of enough taste and nutrients that it's ready for a Big Mac :yawn

JM

Tony Aguilar
05-14-2011, 02:29 PM
The American lists look like they're staying, and I'm sure that the minority of players who use them will face continued heckling even if we play among ourselves in the corner and don't let our taint go anywhere near the Real Players. So, 3.0 isn't changing anything in my DBA after all...


I have never seen or hear of any hackling for the use of the "American" lists.

I have heard heckling directed at people who insist on using Tamils/Med. French/Anglo-Normans/Classical Indians time and time again however.

Redwilde
05-14-2011, 03:32 PM
The Armies of the Americas theme event some years ago was quite fun!

Haardrada
06-13-2011, 06:09 PM
EyFantastic, keep on errors... yeah!

IV/5 SICILIAN - AGG 3... a list with 6 (six) Ps

This is what gets me,even with Dba 2.2 that some lists show an alernative choice of troop type.,yet these Ps do not get the option to be Bw!

snowcat
06-13-2011, 07:24 PM
All this talk about NW American being Blades...

Yes, but how about Eastern Forest Americans now switching almost entirely from Wb to Bw?!

So the Iroquois are now shooties...!

Hmmm (don't hate it, just "hmmmm")

:)

snowcat
06-16-2011, 10:52 AM
See? No-one cares about the Eastern Forest Americans! :rolleyes

kontos
06-16-2011, 11:16 AM
See? No-one cares about the Eastern Forest Americans! :rolleyes

But we do care about you, Cat. ;)

David Constable
06-16-2011, 11:24 AM
See? No-one cares about the Eastern Forest Americans! :rolleyes

This is a non political post, just curious.

When did they become Americans?

As far as I know the Americans did their best to eliminate the natives. Speaking at least from a person who lives in the U.K. Lincoln's Gettysburg address aside.

Now you need to identify, so I suppose that Americans is as good as any, but it would be nice from my point of view to know the tribes, Google works better that way.

David Constable

neldoreth
06-16-2011, 01:04 PM
This is a non political post, just curious.

When did they become Americans?

As far as I know the Americans did their best to eliminate the natives. Speaking at least from a person who lives in the U.K. Lincoln's Gettysburg address aside.

Now you need to identify, so I suppose that Americans is as good as any, but it would be nice from my point of view to know the tribes, Google works better that way.

David Constable

I imagine part of the problem is that we have no pre-European name for the place. Native American, indigenous peoples of the Americas, Original Americans all stem from the later-applied name 'America'.

The other reason is that Phil is infamously insensitive to cultural naming. One example is the Ch'in, which, although it's the best way to spell the name, doesn't coincide with the modern spelling "Qin".

In any case, I'm all for lobbying him to use "First Nations" instead of Americans or the indigenous peoples in what is now north America. I'm all for "Easter Forest First Nations".

n.

Rich Gause
06-16-2011, 02:04 PM
I imagine part of the problem is that we have no pre-European name for the place. Native American, indigenous peoples of the Americas, Original Americans all stem from the later-applied name 'America'.

The other reason is that Phil is infamously insensitive to cultural naming. One example is the Ch'in, which, although it's the best way to spell the name, doesn't coincide with the modern spelling "Qin".

In any case, I'm all for lobbying him to use "First Nations" instead of Americans or the indigenous peoples in what is now north America. I'm all for "Easter Forest First Nations".

n.

I prefer the current name. I see it as more accurate. There is evidence that the origional human inhabitants of North America were Europeans who were overwhelmed by Asian colonists who then in their turn were dispossessed by more Europeans.

winterbadger
06-16-2011, 02:32 PM
I prefer the current name. I see it as more accurate. There is evidence that the original human inhabitants of North America were Europeans who were overwhelmed by Asian colonists who then in their turn were dispossessed by more Europeans.

Anything, so long as they aren't Easter Forest anything. That suggests something out of the Splintered Light catalog (http://www.splinteredlightminis.com/images/splinteredlands/DRFA04.jpg).

teenage visigoth
06-16-2011, 02:34 PM
I've steered clear of the dogpile that is the 3.x debate. but no longer.

I'm confused as to why our Eastern Forest Peoples get nerfed into a Bw army, whilst the West Coast Peoples get all bladed-up. All respects to Mr Heath as reference, that ain't how it worked.

OK, maybe...a Bw army is the best descriptor for the Beothuk and other proto-Mi'kmaq peoples who had run-ins with the Vikingz. The Iroquoian language people living farther inland who were more heavy populated are better described via the 2.2 list.
Wait...could it be...that a sweeping generalization on non-European peoples is simplistic and perhaps there might even be a reason to have, I don't know, a differentiation of cultures and leading to different list interpretations...? Whoa...

But what really rankles me is that the Barkers continue to swallow the Elizibethan clap-trap* about Welsh colonists. Any halfways-serious scholar of North American history knows the story is BULLSH!T made up by John Dee to justify colonization. The medieval stories of Prince Madoc also has him frolicking with Trolls? Why the hell not include those as well?

OK, yeah, it increases the enemies list of the now nerfed Eastern Forest Americans** by one and hey, game wise that's just swell.

But you can't just go 'round accepting junk science in one hand and demanding split hairs as to how many laces an Iphicratian peltast tied his booties up with on the other. No half-assed field of inquiry and knowledge accepts that, even archaeology, history and wargaming.***

Ground control to Major Barker, your circuit's dead there's something wrong...

And yes, neldoreth is correct. 'First Nations' or even 'Nations' is acceptable.

Hah, I feel better now.

your current debate will resume...

-Sean










*I have ruder and more descriptive words

** So wrong, so very very wrong

***Ok, you're allowed in Religion, but that's me going off topic.

david kuijt
06-16-2011, 02:43 PM
In any case, I'm all for lobbying him to use "First Nations" instead of Americans or the indigenous peoples in what is now north America. I'm all for "Easter Forest First Nations".


America is the accepted term for the continent right now in the English language, which is the language within which the debate occurs.

Naming denizens of the continent after the continent is better than calling them Indians (given their lack of Chicken Makhani and Chapati in their diet); I might be insensitive, but I'm just not all that wrought up about this issue.

All these naming issues are complex. What is the proper name for the Aztecs? Not Aztec -- Mexica. They are Mexicans. But that name was stolen to be used for the region (and residents of the region), so for centuries, now, we've been calling them Aztec, rather than Mexica. To avoid confusion.

Rich Gause
06-16-2011, 03:14 PM
I've steered clear of the dogpile that is the 3.x debate. but no longer.

I'm confused as to why our Eastern Forest Peoples get nerfed into a Bw army, whilst the West Coast Peoples get all bladed-up. All respects to Mr Heath as reference, that ain't how it worked.

OK, maybe...a Bw army is the best descriptor for the Beothuk and other proto-Mi'kmaq peoples who had run-ins with the Vikingz. The Iroquoian language people living farther inland who were more heavy populated are better described via the 2.2 list.
Wait...could it be...that a sweeping generalization on non-European peoples is simplistic and perhaps there might even be a reason to have, I don't know, a differentiation of cultures and leading to different list interpretations...? Whoa...

But what really rankles me is that the Barkers continue to swallow the Elizibethan clap-trap* about Welsh colonists. Any halfways-serious scholar of North American history knows the story is BULLSH!T made up by John Dee to justify colonization. The medieval stories of Prince Madoc also has him frolicking with Trolls? Why the hell not include those as well?

OK, yeah, it increases the enemies list of the now nerfed Eastern Forest Americans** by one and hey, game wise that's just swell.

But you can't just go 'round accepting junk science in one hand and demanding split hairs as to how many laces an Iphicratian peltast tied his booties up with on the other. No half-assed field of inquiry and knowledge accepts that, even archaeology, history and wargaming.***

Ground control to Major Barker, your circuit's dead there's something wrong...

And yes, neldoreth is correct. 'First Nations' or even 'Nations' is acceptable.

Hah, I feel better now.

your current debate will resume...

-Sean










*I have ruder and more descriptive words

** So wrong, so very very wrong

***Ok, you're allowed in Religion, but that's me going off topic.

Totally agree on the army list thing.

David Constable
06-16-2011, 03:14 PM
I imagine part of the problem is that we have no pre-European name for the place. Native American, indigenous peoples of the Americas, Original Americans all stem from the later-applied name 'America'.

The other reason is that Phil is infamously insensitive to cultural naming. One example is the Ch'in, which, although it's the best way to spell the name, doesn't coincide with the modern spelling "Qin".

In any case, I'm all for lobbying him to use "First Nations" instead of Americans or the indigenous peoples in what is now north America. I'm all for "Easter Forest First Nations".

n.

Thanks.

David Constable

snowcat
06-16-2011, 10:21 PM
So the NW American go from Bw to Bd.
Then the EF American Wb become Bw (except for a couple).

So what's behind the complete turnaround in fighting styles?

Andreas Johansson
06-17-2011, 01:06 AM
So the NW American go from Bw to Bd.
Then the EF American Wb become Bw (except for a couple).

So what's behind the complete turnaround in fighting styles?

If you care to dig through the DBMMlist archives, you can probably find out.

snowcat
06-17-2011, 03:39 AM
I might just try that.

IMO they had it about right when it was Wb and Ps. But mostly Bw, a couple of Wb and Ps?

What??

It even says in the description their bows were quick but weak; and given that the majority of the warriors went around with nasty clubbing and carving weapons - I'd say Wb and Ps was bang-on. If it ain't broke, why fix it??

I'll dig.

snowcat
06-17-2011, 03:51 AM
Well I dug.

And no-one seems to know. It just 'happened'.

They're now predominantly Bw(I) in DBMM. What a crock.

The DBA description says: "Bows were described as “quick but not strong” and after an exchange of shooting, the warriors
would close and continue with hand weapons." Except now they can't because there's only 2 of them! I mean really.

teenage visigoth
06-17-2011, 09:31 AM
Snowcat for the Win.(you win your research badge)

Of course if this DBMMMM twaddle is published, we do indeed lose.

nick hux
06-17-2011, 01:47 PM
Well I dug.

And no-one seems to know. It just 'happened'.

They're now predominantly Bw(I) in DBMM. What a crock.

The DBA description says: "Bows were described as “quick but not strong” and after an exchange of shooting, the warriors
would close and continue with hand weapons." Except now they can't because there's only 2 of them! I mean really.

I had a look, and I found this:

In the notes, change:
"Their main weapon was originally not their short-ranged bow, which was used only for ambushes, but the stone-headed tomahawk, used in conjunction with wooden armour. Europeans described their tactics as "Sneaking up like foxes, fighting like lions, then disappearing like birds", "fighting with leaping and dancing, that no arrow hits" and "venturing into the thickest with great valour and courage to bring away enemy heads"."

to
"Before the impact of firearms, and population loss to European diseases, led to the adoption of sneakier tactics and a decline in archery, the bow was the main weapon. It was supplemented by wooden or stone-headed clubs and occasional spears, and some tribes used shields and/or wooden armour. Ambushes and fighting from cover were common, but in the rare pitched battles warriors would form up in well-ordered ranks, exchange arrows at short ranges until their ammunition was exhausted, and then close with hand weapons; one side would then usually flee after taking only a few casualties."


Justification:

The description of Eastern American warfare in the DBM list relates to the period of the mid- and later 17th century, and is not at all an accurate description of the pre-contact period, in so far as this can be determined, nor even of the 16th century. For example the "foxes, lions and birds" quote, repeated by many later writers, seems to come originally from the French "Jesuit Relation" of 1660 – "They come like foxes through the woods, which afford them concealment and serve them as an impregnable fortress. They attack like lions, and, as their surprises are made when they are least expected, they meet with no resistance. They take flight like birds, disappearing before they have really appeared" (http://puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/relations_45.html ).
Similarly, "When they fight in a plaine, they fight with leaping and dancing, that seldome an Arrow hits" is from Roger Williams' "A Key into the Language of America" of 1643 (http://www.amazon.com/Key-Into-Language-America/dp/1557094640).

By contrast with the picture presented in the DBM list, in Ian Heath's "Armies
of the 16th Century 2: The Armies of ... the Americas", every single one of the Eastern American warriors – figures 207-210 for "Virginia" and 211-217 for further north – is bow-armed. Descriptions of warfare (pp.131-133 and 138-140) suggest that when pitched battles took place the Indians drew up in ranks, not in loose clouds of skirmishers – "ranking themselves fifteen abreast ... all duly keeping their ranks"; the chief "shows them the rank and order which they are to observe when they fight with their enemies". They start by shooting, and "When they had spent their arrows they joined together prettily, charging and retiring, every rank threatening the other". Since "they soon retire and save the wounded" and "seldom 20 (are) slain", "one side would flee after suffering a relatively small number of casualties", they cannot have fought hand-to-hand for very long. Champlain's first battle with the Iroquois in 1609 showed how far the tribesmen were from sneaking up or rushing on like "Fast" warband – "They came slowly to meet us with a gravity and calm which I admired" and their leaders advanced slowly and openly enough for Champlain to have a clear shot at them (http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/explore/virtual-museum-of-new-france/exhibitions\ /champlain/vmnf-champlain-warfare-22 ).

Bows is the obvious class for such bow-armed warriors, Inferior given the short-ranged bows and the lack of armour and effective hand-weapons of most of them. Armoured ones could be (O) even though the wooden armour was no use against shot or even iron arrowheads, because as Champlain said the armour and shields were effective against the weapons that they would have met before European contact – "they were provided with shields made of cotton thread woven together and wood, which were proof against their arrows".

The only possible alternative I can think of would be "the Tupi Solution", namely mixing Bows with a close-combat type to represent the and-to-hand phase, perhaps on the assumption that not every man in fact carried a bow. If so, what?
Not Warband, for what seem to have been ranked, steady troops. The various clubs are similar to the hand-weapons used by other Amerindian Inferior Blades, so that might be best. But there seems to be no compelling reason why they should not be all Bows.

I think that is a bit more than "it just happened"!

Nick

pozanias
06-17-2011, 03:47 PM
Based on that description, I would not have concluded that "bow are the obvious class". I could easily seem them being classified as Auxilia (*PERHAPS* even as blade, a la Romans with Pilum). I think I would make it 12 x Bw or Ax. Or perhaps, 6 x Bw, 6 x Ax.

I don't really know anything about pre-colonial American armies, so I am commenting based solely on what I have read on this thread. But I can see how the list creators would struggle to classify the element types.

teenage visigoth
06-17-2011, 04:09 PM
Thanks Nick, I didn't find that reference when I went through either. :)

But it's still very assumption-y...

What I find curious is the dismissal of the warband troop type. Simply because of 'well-ordered ranks'? However 'fighting with leaping and dancing' does not seem to correspond with massed archery. Psiloi archery yeah...but not Bw. :???
(I seem to recall Early Germans being described such in some narratives... am I totally off base? That's why they were 4Wb and not 3, no?)

Don't get me wrong, I think it the Bw list is fine definition of the Beothuk , or if you prefer viking fighting 'skraelings' . It's way dodgy for the Great Lakes peoples.

And having researched l'anse aux meadows (http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index.aspx) fairly well, I can categorically state there was NO DBA sized Norse army quartered there. :up

And finally what is this 'ordinary' and 'fast' and 'inferior' and why is it referenced in terms of DBA troop types?:rolleyes
(It's a rhetorical question, I know it's DBM gibberish, I'm just making a point)

-TV

ferrency
06-17-2011, 04:29 PM
What I find curious is the dismissal of the warband troop type. Simply because of 'well-ordered ranks'? However 'fighting with leaping and dancing' does not seem to correspond with massed archery.

My interpretation of the description above is that the "leaping" description applies only to post-contact warfare, when Wb was a more appropriate element type. The pre-contact period was massed bows.

Alan

Rich Gause
06-17-2011, 04:51 PM
I think a mix of Warband or Ax, Bow, and Psiloi sounds like the way to go which for the 500 years involved could easily be 12x(Ax or Bw or Ps or Wb). If all the other Native American armys are going to be classed as Bd I could see doing that too.

snowcat
06-17-2011, 09:54 PM
I had a look, and I found this:



I think that is a bit more than "it just happened"!

Nick

I looked through the DBMM forum messages and found nothing useful, just surprise at the change. That's what I commented on.

Now I've looked at the DBMM army list notes that you provided a summary of. Here it is in full:

The forest peoples of the Atlantic coast of America, like the earlier woodland Hopewell culture destroyed by more barbarous tribes between 500 and 750 AD, were more culturally advanced than they are usually given credit for, living in fortified agricultural villages with substantial buildings and forming large leagues. Their legends recall emigrating from the south-west and having to learn woods fighting skills to expel previous occupants. Before the impact of firearms and population loss due to European diseases led to the adoption of sneakier tactics and a decline in archery, the bow was the main weapon. It was supplemented by wooden or stone-headed clubs and occasional spears, and some tribes used shields and/or wooden armour. Ambushes and fighting from cover were common, but in the rare pitched battles warriors would form up in well-ordered ranks, exchange arrows at close range until these were exhausted, then close with hand weapons; one side would then usually flee after taking only a few casualties, hoping to tempt pursuers into ambushes. Hopefully, classing the generals as an impetuous troop type will cause a loss of control that produces the historical effect. Bows were described as “quick but not strong” and rate of fire took precedence over accuracy. Each warrior carried his own food for 8 weeks in the form of a bag of cornmeal to be mixed with water, so there is no mobile baggage, but they did very quickly construct camps with bark shelters and a light palisade like those surrounding their villages. They are included here as enemies for the mound builders of the Mississippi basin, Vinland Vikings or the Welsh colonists of Prince Madouc in 1171 from whom the Mandan tribe is plausibly traced. The start date is arbitrary, the end date that of the introduction of firearms.

Thanks for the info. :)

nick hux
06-18-2011, 03:55 AM
I looked through the DBMM forum messages and found nothing useful, just surprise at the change. That's what I commented on.

Now I've looked at the DBMM army list notes that you provided a summary of. Here it is in full:



Thanks for the info. :)

That explains it! The notes I found were from the Tabulae_Novae_Exercituum Yahoo forum. I think that still seems to be the main place where list changes are proposed.

Nick

snowcat
06-18-2011, 09:06 AM
Of course - TNE!

Gee it's been a long time since I was there snooping around in the days of DBM...

:)