PDA

View Full Version : Final Draft - DBA 3.0 Book I Army Lists


Imperator
07-11-2011, 03:30 PM
reposted for Sue Laflin-Barker:

"Here are the Book I lists for the Fanaticus site. I will take comments until the end of July 2011."

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

Comments should be sent to Sue at: sue@wrg.me.uk

Redwilde
07-11-2011, 06:38 PM
Hmm, looks like there are potential changes in the Mitanni and Syro-Canaanite lists. Good thing I wasn't planning on doing purchasing on my 10mm Thutmoses big battles until after I caught up on painting more recent acquisitions.

And big changes in I/6ab Bedouin. I can't speak to the research behind this, but for pure camelly flavour in the b list extended through the whole time period-- I like it!

Kingo
07-11-2011, 10:45 PM
his installed should be HE INSTALLED in the description.

Andreas Johansson
07-12-2011, 02:45 AM
And big changes in I/6ab Bedouin. I can't speak to the research behind this, but for pure camelly flavour in the b list extended through the whole time period-- I like it!

No research behind that I fear - just an oversight. The camelly sublist should begin sometime in the 2nd millennium.

Victor
07-12-2011, 06:38 AM
Should the Trojans (I/26) have the Hittites (I/24) as allies?

My only reference is watching a documentary on the History channel which had Hittite written sources claiming an army was sent to help the Trojans, which the Hittites called Wilusa. Though I notice that this is also mentioned in the blurb to the lists aswell.

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-12-2011, 07:53 AM
WOW! :eek

No C & D lists for the Sumerians?! And I just finished painting two Hd elements...:silly

Redwilde
07-12-2011, 10:50 AM
No C & D lists for the Sumerians?!

And the new b list now has 1x (Pk or Bw) instead of the earlier 1x (Pk or Bd). Just curious -- is that a deliberate change or a typo?

Andreas Johansson
07-12-2011, 12:02 PM
WOW! :eek

No C & D lists for the Sumerians?! And I just finished painting two Hd elements...:silly

Feel free to echo my call on the Yahoo list for a reinstated "Great Revolt" sublist with Hd.

broadsword
07-12-2011, 01:06 PM
I am a bit sad to see the demise of the 8Bw in the EAP. It was a nice element to use as 8Pv using DK's variant, and it gave a nice "weightyness" to Persian numbers at Marathon!. Now how will all those Persian bows be based? Not with Sparabarra anywhere in sight...:sick

Andreas Johansson
07-12-2011, 01:32 PM
I am a bit sad to see the demise of the 8Bw in the EAP. It was a nice element to use as 8Pv using DK's variant, and it gave a nice "weightyness" to Persian numbers at Marathon!. Now how will all those Persian bows be based? Not with Sparabarra anywhere in sight...:sick

Given Sue's recent comments regarding DBE's - namely they're supposed to remain in armies where they were a "essential and well-documented part of their tactics" - I would not assume they're going to be left out of the published 3.0 lists. If EAP doesn't get 8Bw, it 's hard to imagine who would.

Redwilde
07-12-2011, 02:23 PM
The double deep foot look fine and have no mechanical problems in DBA.

It's the double deep mounted that cause problems. The inelegance that can arise with the contactor making room for a mounted DBE turning to face is too big a detraction than the looks are worth for me.

Si2
07-12-2011, 03:57 PM
This is nothing that doesn't exist already - a double based mounted element is the same depth as a chariot base. So effectively chariots perform exactly as double mounted Cv and Kn.
So nothing new.
Si2

Rich Gause
07-12-2011, 04:00 PM
This is nothing that doesn't exist already - a double based mounted element is the same depth as a chariot base. So effectively chariots perform exactly as double mounted Cv and Kn.
So nothing new.
Si2

Chariot bases are 40mm, double Cv an Kn are 60mm.................

broadsword
07-12-2011, 04:01 PM
Here's hoping those minis designers keep mounted troops able to fit on small bases. I heard keeping chariots on 40x40 is becoming tricky. I could see a 60 deep chariot base causing similar issues to what you were just mentioning.

Andreas Johansson
07-12-2011, 04:07 PM
This is nothing that doesn't exist already - a double based mounted element is the same depth as a chariot base. So effectively chariots perform exactly as double mounted Cv and Kn.

Not so in 15mm scale, where chariots are 40mm deep, but DBE Kn and Cv are 60mm deep.

Si2
07-12-2011, 04:54 PM
Not so in 15mm scale, where chariots are 40mm deep, but DBE Kn and Cv are 60mm deep.

Well, there was no mention that the 'other figure scales' were being referred to was there?

When it comes to the BASING YOUR FIGURES AND MODELS table, there is only one scale mentioned specifically - 25mm, everything else is 'other'.


The comment still stands though - no change for me.

SI2

pawsBill
07-12-2011, 05:41 PM
And the new b list now has 1x (Pk or Bw) instead of the earlier 1x (Pk or Bd). Just curious -- is that a deliberate change or a typo?

It appears to be deliberate. Bd should only be appropriate for a Kish C-in-C.

Si2
07-12-2011, 06:00 PM
Early Libyan 7c gets a dramatic overhaul from 11Ps to 11Sp!

CuttingEdge
07-12-2011, 06:02 PM
I completely disagree with the pre-amble to the Early Sumerian List.
It is unlikely or at least highly speculative that the front rank spearmen of Lagash (to which it refers) only had axes and the large shield. The only picture we have for the Lagash Spearmen is the Stele of Vultures and which clearly shows all Spearmen (including front rank) with long spear and shield. It is pure speculation that the front rank could only carry an axe as well as the large shield. In fact the cross-bands on the chest of the spearmen are likely to be as follows - the part over the left shoulder is part of a typical Sumerian garment, whilst the one over the right shoulder represents the strap used to attach to the shield to hold it steady whilst marching or even stationary when presenting a shield wall of bristling spears. The shield was likely made of wicker covered by leather and with copper studs as with the earlier spearmen with copper studded cloaks.
Comparsions of other long spear wielding spearmen who also had large tower shields are the Minoans or Early Mycenaeans. They are also shown with a two-handed spear and a large shield held by a strap over the shoulder and in the front rank. Why not the Sumerians?

Si2
07-12-2011, 06:26 PM
Peter
The Stele does show two hands on each spear. You can see how someone could jump to the conclusion that the shields are held by someone else.
Shield bearers were common in this period.
I'm interested to know what drives you to think they spear wielders carried the shield as well as the spear?
The standard shows no shields at all....

Si2

CuttingEdge
07-12-2011, 06:33 PM
Si, you are thinking of the standard of Ur not the Stele of Vultures

CuttingEdge
07-12-2011, 06:34 PM
The two hands on each spear are the from the same man. :-)

Si2
07-12-2011, 06:47 PM
Peter
The stele shows two hands per spear in the top section - probably as you say from the same man; so is his shield hanging from something or is the representation of a static position?

The cross belts (edit - meant shoulder belts) are in the lower part - following the chariot.


Si

CuttingEdge
07-12-2011, 07:05 PM
Well it is always unclear as to the straps but the spearmen in the lower left have the banding or strap only over the left shoulder which is shown in many Sumerian images on men and women. They don't have a shield. It is a surmise but to make the other strap over the right shoulder is the strap attached to the shield. In my opinion it is more plausible than the separate axemen/shieldbearer with shield but without spear. I am only suggesting how the shield could be held with a spear as well as shown in The Stele of Vultures. It does not necessarily show separate shieldbearers but shows a lot of spears, some of which can be held in the front rank and those behind with spear but without shield.
The Minoans do the same thing but no one suggests that they have separate shieldbearer.
Do you want your DBA looking like spearmen or not. Either 3 bases of spears (PK) with just a shield with the other 3 or 6 bases of proper spears. :-)

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-12-2011, 07:11 PM
Well it is always unclear as to the straps but the spearmen in the lower left have the banding or strap only over the left shoulder which is shown in many Sumerian images on men and women. They don't have a shield. It is a surmise but to make the other strap over the right shoulder is the strap attached to the shield. In my opinion it is more plausible than the separate axemen/shieldbearer with shield but without spear. I am only suggesting how the shield could be held with a spear as well as shown in The Stele of Vultures. It does not necessarily show separate shieldbearers but shows a lot of spears, some of which can be held in the front rank and those behind with spear but without shield.
The Minoans do the same thing but no one suggests that they have separate shieldbearer.
Do you want your DBA looking like spearmen or not. Either 3 bases of spears (PK) with just a shield with the other 3 or 6 bases of proper spears. :-)



I'd like my Inanna-damned Bd and Hd back please...:silly

Si2
07-12-2011, 07:14 PM
I've only glanced down the initial armies in the new revision, but already I notice a lot more Bw for Ps choice.
Sumerian get one, Anatolians get loads, 6a gets a couple, early Syrian get five, 16 gets two, Minoan get one, Mitanni get three.... it goes one.

Is this some wholesale rethink of how these armies thought or have we got some sort of DBMM Ps (x) (I've not idea what that is, it's just an example...) element type translation going on??

Bow are a nice element, to have a few of, when faced by chariots.

SI

Si2
07-12-2011, 07:22 PM
Well it is always unclear as to the straps but the spearmen in the lower left have the banding or strap only over the left shoulder which is shown in many Sumerian images on men and women. They don't have a shield. It is a surmise but to make the other strap over the right shoulder is the strap attached to the shield. In my opinion it is more plausible than the separate axemen/shieldbearer with shield but without spear. I am only suggesting how the shield could be held with a spear as well as shown in The Stele of Vultures. It does not necessarily show separate shieldbearers but shows a lot of spears, some of which can be held in the front rank and those behind with spear but without shield.
The Minoans do the same thing but no one suggests that they have separate shieldbearer.
Do you want your DBA looking like spearmen or not. Either 3 bases of spears (PK) with just a shield with the other 3 or 6 bases of proper spears. :-)

Do you think there's any link to the cloaked spearmen on the standard?
They carry a spear in two hands with no shield.
Is this a completely different unit with different tactics?

The stele does show a lot of spears and a lot of arms, although the heads and feet add up there appears to be twice as many spears as there are men.

Of course I want spearmen looking like spearmen!
How else will I be able to tell them from the Ax:up

Si

CuttingEdge
07-12-2011, 07:32 PM
Do you think there's any link to the cloaked spearmen on the standard?
They carry a spear in two hands with no shield.
Is this a completely different unit with different tactics?

The stele does show a lot of spears and a lot of arms, although the heads and feet add up there appears to be twice as many spears as there are men.

The Cloaked spearmen from the Standard of Ur are perhaps from an earlier period before the introduction of shields and the cloak with copper studs served as protection by deflecting blows or arrows to a limited extent. Same tactics but not as effective the later shield.
Why is there more spears than heads - because the front rank have spears too! Also there will be some from back ranks off the picture and not shown

CuttingEdge
07-12-2011, 07:42 PM
Of course I want spearmen looking like spearmen!
How else will I be able to tell them from the Ax:up

Si

A more realistic Sumerian army would be to have the general as Bd (axe bodyguard) or Heavy chariot, 1 heavy chariot or 1 bodyguard bow; 8 or 6 spearmen and 2 Ax (Amorites - for later period) and 2 Ps (bow, sling or javelin)
Pete

Andreas Johansson
07-13-2011, 01:14 AM
Well, there was no mention that the 'other figure scales' were being referred to was there?
When people don't specify, they typically mean 15mm. It's by far the commonest DBA scale.

Andreas Johansson
07-13-2011, 01:25 AM
Is this some wholesale rethink of how these armies thought or have we got some sort of DBMM Ps (x) (I've not idea what that is, it's just an example...) element type translation going on??

In the DBMM lists, lots of indescript archers who used to be Ps (O) are now "Ps (O) or Bw (I)". This in turn reflects an idea that sufficiently large masses of archers can't effectively skirmish, but would necessarily end up doing massed static shooting for lack of space to hop around.

(Personally, I incline to the view that if such large numbers of troops get to chose between two rather different classifications, there's a problem with the model. There probably ought be some intermediate classification. I have similar reservations wiht the also common Ax (I) or Ps (S) javelinmen and LH (S) or Cv (O) steppe horsemen. But the relevant Shp (S) sailed long ago ...)

Richard Lee
07-13-2011, 02:24 AM
Chariot bases are 40mm, double Cv an Kn are 60mm.................

I think Si tends to use 25mm armies. Chariots and things like elephants tend to be on bases that are a bit deeper than they are wide in 25mm, if I remember correctly.

Edit: Sorry, this point has already been covered.

Martyn
07-13-2011, 06:10 AM
Early Libyan 7c gets a dramatic overhaul from 11Ps to 11Sp!

Presumably that is a typo and should be Ps. I donít have the DBMM list but it is a radical change from the DBM list.

Also is the d) list supposed to overlap with the c) list to that extent? Again not supported by the DBM list but MM may have changed things.

Andreas Johansson
07-13-2011, 06:22 AM
Presumably that is a typo and should be Ps. I donít have the DBMM list but it is a radical change from the DBM list.
The 'MM list allows regrading lots of troops to Sp in that period (based on some reliefs and a description of Libyan troops in Carthaginian service). Not anything close to 11/12 of the army however.

Also is the d) list supposed to overlap with the c) list to that extent? Again not supported by the DBM list but MM may have changed things.

The 'MM list doesn't put an end date after which you can't field a non-Garamantean army, so arguably the (c) list should run all the way to AD 70.


Sue's draft Early Libyan list seems rather confused, or at least I can't work out the reasoning behind it. As I put it on the Yahoo list:

I'm hard pressed to see the logic in the draft lists. Based on the 'MM
lists, I'd expect something like:
(a) 1x(Wb or Ax) (Gen), 3xPs, 2x(Ps or Bw), 6xAx or 6xWb
[where 'MM Hd (S) become DBA Wb, specifically 5Wb in 2.2 terms.]
(b) 1xLCh (Gen), 1x (LCh or Bd), 3xPs, 2x(Ps or Bw), 5x (Ax or Wb)
[Yes, this has free mix of Ax and Wb, unlike (a) and (c). This
reflects the 'MM option to regrade Ax (I) as Wb (F) in this period.]
(c) 1xLCh (Gen), 1x(LCh or Ps), 3xPs, 2xPs (Ps or Bw), 5xWb or 5xAx or 5xSp
[Not sure why this one should end in 200 BC particularly, but don't
have a better suggestion either.]
(d) 1x(LCh or LH) (Gen), 1x (LCh or LH or Wb), 3xPs, 2x (Ps or Bw), 5xAx
[The 'MM list is not entirely clear whether Garamanteans can still
have their warriors as Hd (S), but I think the intention is not.]


I think it's safe to assume that people with later Libyan armies will have some updating to do ...

Martyn
07-13-2011, 06:51 AM
The 'MM list allows regrading lots of troops to Sp in that period (based on some reliefs and a description of Libyan troops in Carthaginian service). Not anything close to 11/12 of the army however....

Thanks Andreas,

I would have thought that the Libyans during the Carthaginian ascendancy would either have been recruited into the Cartho army as Sp, or those outside of Cartho sphere of influence would have continued in their traditional way.

After the Roman defeat of Carthage the Libyans would have continued as before just exchanging masters.

I was not aware of any reference that the Libyans as a whole changed. Your comment that Libyans in Cartho service were depicted as Sp is not surprising as the Cartho lists have always included a core of African/Libyan Spearmen.



The 'MM list doesn't put an end date after which you can't field a non-Garamantean army, so arguably the (c) list should run all the way to AD 70.


Sue's draft Early Libyan list seems rather confused, or at least I can't work out the reasoning behind it. As I put it on the Yahoo list:

I like the look of your list more

I think it's safe to assume that people with later Libyan armies will have some updating to do ...

You can say that again.

Lydia
07-13-2011, 07:56 AM
And big changes in I/6ab Bedouin. I can't speak to the research behind this, but for pure camelly flavour in the b list extended through the whole time period-- I like it!

There need to be time limits set on these lists. As the introduction to the list states, some of the peoples it represents were pre-camel. The DBMM list is a complicated wee beastie, with different peoples having different mounted command elements in certain time periods (the Amurru get a 4 wheeled Battle Cart!), but all starting off on foot. The old version of the list managed to approximate that fairly well, with the exception of missing out the choice of having some Bw in list 6c, and the aforementioned Amurru panzer.

Lydia
07-13-2011, 08:04 AM
Not spamming but I thought I'd better keep one topic per post. List 35c continues an error in the old version of the lists by having the Phoenicians switch to being all hoplites for a while. They are optional in the DBMM list so 35c should be 1x (HCh or Sp) (Gen), 1xHCh, 1xCv, 6x(Sp or Ax), 3xPs. List 35d should have a Cv option for the general.

Rong
07-13-2011, 10:39 AM
Does anyone have a book 1 list available?

Martyn
07-13-2011, 10:42 AM
Does anyone have a book 1 list available?

Check the first post on this thread

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-13-2011, 11:01 AM
There need to be time limits set on these lists. As the introduction to the list states, some of the peoples it represents were pre-camel. The DBMM list is a complicated wee beastie, with different peoples having different mounted command elements in certain time periods (the Amurru get a 4 wheeled Battle Cart!), but all starting off on foot. The old version of the list managed to approximate that fairly well, with the exception of missing out the choice of having some Bw in list 6c, and the aforementioned Amurru panzer.

Agreed...jumping from Ax scrubs to Wall-o'-Camel is a bit drastic, IMHO.


And my Essex guy is all outta camels... :sick

CuttingEdge
07-14-2011, 07:09 AM
Kassite Babylonian I/21a should be called "Kassite and Middle Babylonian" and not Later Babylonian as that is for the early Iron Age. The Middle period is the same as the Middle Assyrian period and should be termed as such.
pete

Imperator
07-17-2011, 08:50 PM
Sue Laflin-Barker has forwarded an updated version of the Book I lists and asked me to convey the following:

"Will you please replace the previous one and tell everyone about it.
The comments in red are things that need fixing - some are notes to
myself or Phil others for general comment."

See updated lists at: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_Ia.pdf

As before, comments by end of July to Sue at: : sue@wrg.me.uk

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-17-2011, 09:20 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hey TV...the Illyrians just became the replacement for the Early Libyan "Punked" list...:rotfl

Tony Wilson
07-18-2011, 04:23 AM
Hooray !
The armies of Urartu finally get a makeover.
Not perfect, but a good start;
The spear goes, and the horde goes, there was no justification for either anyway.
A few more Psiloi(archers) added which is fine for a mountain people noted for their archery.
Our Cimmerian mercenaries get a look in at last, (Light Horse added).
Both chariots become heavy - shame - probably makes it a more dangerous army, but I've never seen any evidence to support this , both should be light ,or at least have that as the option, and personally I'd have made the Light horse option one of the Chariots, not one of the cavalry.

Still all in all a pleasant surprise, which might move my favourite Biblicals out of the dog-house.

Hey! look at the Assyrians!

Lydia
07-18-2011, 08:38 AM
Hooray !

Hey! look at the Assyrians!

Hey indeed. Very good, but I'll have some painting to do. Would the optional Bw in the Neo Assyrian Later Sargonids be pavisiers? They are an option in the DBMM list as there was much conflict on the Yahoo Group as to what troop type was represented by an Assyrian a relief of a guy with a spear and shield with a guy standing behind him with a bow.

Andreas Johansson
07-18-2011, 08:44 AM
Hey indeed. Very good, but I'll have some painting to do. Would the optional Bw in the Neo Assyrian Later Sargonids be pavisiers? They are an option in the DBMM list as there was much conflict on the Yahoo Group as to what troop type was represented by an Assyrian a relief of a guy with a spear and shield with a guy standing behind him with a bow.

We-ell, the corresponding troops in the 'MM list are not Bw (X) pavisiers. If your intepretation is otherwise, there's of course no reason you shouldn't depict your troops that way.

CuttingEdge
07-18-2011, 11:26 AM
I/6b is certainly wrong on the dates using the coventional chronology as used by DBx. Camels were only used after 1000 BCE, so the dates need changing from 1000 - 312 BCE. I don't see much point then in having the early Aramaean army, which although different historically would have a similar composition of forces for DBA purposes.
The first sublist I/6a should then have an end date of 1000 BCE as an infantry army, until the introduction of the camel as a weapon of war in 1000BCE. These nomads had the same composition of forces until 1000 BCE though different sub-group names can be applied to them. e.g. Amurru or martu in the early bronze age, amorites, then shosu, early pre-camel aramaeans etc. A general chariot could be an option after 1500 - 1000 BCE if the list wishes to become more complicated?

CuttingEdge
07-18-2011, 11:32 AM
Not sure why the Early Libyan I/7c list has been titled the "chariot period". This period had long been gone, being the late bronze age of the previous millenium. The chariots of this sublist were the 4 horse chariots used with carthaginian armies. The earlier period had the 2 horse light chariots.

Martyn
07-18-2011, 11:39 AM
Not sure why the Early Libyan I/7c list has been titled the "chariot period". This period had long been gone, being the late bronze age of the previous millenium. The chariots of this sublist were the 4 horse chariots used with carthaginian armies. The earlier period had the 2 horse light chariots.

The Early Libyan list is the one covering the longest time period in the lists and therefore does cross the self imposed book thresholds.

I don't think the increased complexity makes it worth while splitting the list just to suit the arbitrary time slots for the books.

CuttingEdge
07-18-2011, 11:41 AM
I would suggest that there is an error in the dating here. proper swords were not used in the near east at 1800 BCE. This is the middle bronze age when the axe was the close quarter weapon. The swords which are referred to in the list are of the period 1300 BCE and therefore of the Late Bronze age.
Also curious that cavalry can be used at such an early date (late bronze age) when no one else had them? This is clearly wrong. In reality I don't see the point of this list as so little is known of the period and perhaps would have been similar to the other Arabian nomads of the Bronze age generally. However, I have no doubt it will remain in DBA

CuttingEdge
07-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Again Cv in an early bronze age army? clearly an error, unless this refers to a light chariot (pulled by onager/donkey hybrids)

Andreas Johansson
07-18-2011, 11:49 AM
Again Cv in an early bronze age army? clearly an error, unless this refers to a light chariot (pulled by onager/donkey hybrids)

Error for LCh (a "straddle-car" in this case, not a proper chariot).

teenage visigoth
07-18-2011, 02:50 PM
I would suggest that there is an error in the dating here. proper swords were not used in the near east at 1800 BCE. This is the middle bronze age when the axe was the close quarter weapon. The swords which are referred to in the list are of the period 1300 BCE and therefore of the Late Bronze age.


Cutting Edge, I love your input on the Book 1 list discussions.

Regarding the Makkan et al, what ref's do you have on these obscure sorts? I can't find much at all.

-tv

CuttingEdge
07-18-2011, 06:49 PM
The Makkan list is very much a Nigel Tallis "invention" after, I understand his excavations in Yemen. Numerous copper slashing swords were found but it seems to be unclear as to the exact date. I posulate that they would be late bronze age rather than earlier i.e. before 1500 BCE, when axes and only daggers seem to be used. I think the technology for long swords came later in the late bronze age and early iron age. Yadin seems to take this view looking at the pictorial and archaeological discoveries in the region as a whole. It would be surprising if makkan and that region were different and more technologically advanced than other states in the region. That's my view though I am of course open to debate.

teenage visigoth
07-18-2011, 06:58 PM
CE,

I'm on the same side with you regarding 'swords' or 'tricky to make cast coppery-bronzey stabby thingies' vs the ubiquity of axes.

The Makkan list in DBA is singularly appealing for its longevity. What visual drama the army itself has outside of kited doods with headbands remains to be sold to me...

...that said I am open to idea... ;)

-tv

Si2
07-18-2011, 08:05 PM
CE,

I'm on the same side with you regarding 'swords' or 'tricky to make cast coppery-bronzey stabby thingies' vs the ubiquity of axes.

The Makkan list in DBA is singularly appealing for its longevity. What visual drama the army itself has outside of kited doods with headbands remains to be sold to me...

...that said I am open to idea... ;)

-tv

I'm interested in kited dudes - these could double up as fliers in HOTT!
But who's holding the strings?
Si

teenage visigoth
07-18-2011, 10:30 PM
kilted...

non aerial bronze wielders.

teacherdude
07-18-2011, 11:42 PM
Howdy Yall,

Anyone know why this link is not working for me?

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

I keep getting OOPS Page Not Found.

thanks

teenage visigoth
07-19-2011, 02:27 AM
Again Cv in an early bronze age army? clearly an error, unless this refers to a light chariot (pulled by onager/donkey hybrids)

Clearly a case of 'onager of again'.

teenage visigoth
07-19-2011, 02:29 AM
Howdy Yall,

Anyone know why this link is not working for me?

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

I keep getting OOPS Page Not Found.

thanks

You obviously have displeased the many strict and angry gods of Book I. Best pick out a good goat.

'Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.'
-Joseph Campbell

Doesn't work for me either...

Martyn
07-19-2011, 03:51 AM
Howdy Yall,

Anyone know why this link is not working for me?

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

I keep getting OOPS Page Not Found.

thanks

I think you are trying the original link which has been replaced by revision 'a' as per the later post attached below.

Sue Laflin-Barker has forwarded an updated version of the Book I lists and asked me to convey the following:

"Will you please replace the previous one and tell everyone about it.
The comments in red are things that need fixing - some are notes to
myself or Phil others for general comment."

See updated lists at: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_Ia.pdf

As before, comments by end of July to Sue at: : sue@wrg.me.uk

Lydia
07-19-2011, 05:56 AM
We-ell, the corresponding troops in the 'MM list are not Bw (X) pavisiers. If your intepretation is otherwise, there's of course no reason you shouldn't depict your troops that way.

Oh - they were in a draft of the DBMM lists but they must have fallen off again, either that or I was reading what I wanted to read:) The final draft DBMM list states emphatically that Double Basing is not allowed for the Long Shield Infantry and their Bowmen companions.

teacherdude
07-20-2011, 08:22 PM
Howdy Yall, I have read through most of these posts - er ok, so I scanned through most of these post about BK 1 army lists. After I looked at the lists, I noticed that several armies have either 11 elements in their list or some have 14 elements in their list.

I mean, the required number of elements is 14 elements not that there are 14 available to choose from but the army size is 14. Same for several armies only have 11 elements in their army after choosing all the minimums and optional.

Are they being corrected by anyone?
Just wondering :-)

snowcat
07-20-2011, 09:14 PM
Which ones?

CuttingEdge
07-21-2011, 05:35 AM
Yes, whcich ones? All armies will have a minimum of 12 elements and only 12 will be used in the game. The other elements in each of the lists are just options. I would be surprised if you have found an army with only 11 as that would clearly be a big error.

Martyn
07-21-2011, 07:00 AM
Yes, whcich ones? All armies will have a minimum of 12 elements and only 12 will be used in the game. The other elements in each of the lists are just options. I would be surprised if you have found an army with only 11 as that would clearly be a big error.

There have been some errors in the early drafts of the lists where the numbers did not stack up, but generally these were spotted by the many eyes here and on the yahoo group and have been corrrected.

teacherdude
07-21-2011, 08:10 AM
Here is one, however like Martyn said I might have an earlier draft.

This one has eleven elements:

II/69c Army of the Decline of Sassanid Persia 577AD-651AD : 1x(Kn or Cv)(Gen), 1xKn, 1x(El or Cv), 3xCv, 1xPs, 1xAx, 1x(Ax or Bd), (2xBw or 2xHd).

This one has 14 elements:

I/56a Early Kyrenean Greek Army 630-314BC: 1x (LCh or Cv or Sp) (Gen), 2xLCh, 2x(LCh or Sp), 6xSp, 3xPs.

I havent looked at all the lists, it was just interesting that two armies that my son was thinking of building and checked the new list had these errors. Hopefully they have been corrected :-D

Martyn
07-21-2011, 08:26 AM
Here is one, however like Martyn said I might have an earlier draft.

This one has eleven elements:

II/69c Army of the Decline of Sassanid Persia 577AD-651AD : 1x(Kn or Cv)(Gen), 1xKn, 1x(El or Cv), 3xCv, 1xPs, 1xAx, 1x(Ax or Bd), (2xBw or 2xHd).

This one has 14 elements:

I/56a Early Kyrenean Greek Army 630-314BC: 1x (LCh or Cv or Sp) (Gen), 2xLCh, 2x(LCh or Sp), 6xSp, 3xPs.

I havent looked at all the lists, it was just interesting that two armies that my son was thinking of building and checked the new list had these errors. Hopefully they have been corrected :-D

From a quick check of what I understand is the latest versions of the two lists these errors are still there. I'm sure Sue won't object to an email.

SUMRULD
07-21-2011, 03:25 PM
II/5a LHG Spartans actually has 13 elements listed and I also have found other lists that have 11 or have more than 12 in every book of armies I have looked at so far. In the Spartans the fault seems to occur by allowing them 3 x Ax without cutting back adequately on the Sp. So, right now I am guessing the maximum number of Ax should have been 2 not 3 in the new list. But should we be having to guess at this point in list preparation?

Martyn
07-21-2011, 03:52 PM
II/5a LHG Spartans actually has 13 elements listed and I also have found other lists that have 11 or have more than 12 in every book of armies I have looked at so far. In the Spartans the fault seems to occur by allowing them 3 x Ax without cutting back adequately on the Sp. So, right now I am guessing the maximum number of Ax should have been 2 not 3 in the new list. But should we be having to guess at this point in list preparation?

I seem to remember that one being pointed out some time ago on the yahoo group.

Sue has stated that she is doing a final trawl through the lists so perhaps she is picking up all the point raised at various times before the final version is complete.

Taking a very cynical view, maybe she is deliberatly leaving incomplete versions generally available so we have to buy the finished product. ;)

sue@wrg.me.uk
07-23-2011, 05:29 AM
I shall be away for a week and will not be answering any emails or doing any work on these army lists until next weekend. (31st July)

Sue

a.pietras
07-25-2011, 12:26 PM
On Hittites and DBA 3.0

Please excuse my language and any mistakes I made.

There are several points that bother me about 1/16 and 1/24 lists.

1) The flavour text in 1/24 list is in my opinion wrong. The information about Anatolian javelin armed chariots, and Hittite 3-man chariots armed with lance does not mach the current state of research. We donít have to rely on the Ramesses reliefs.
Itís similar situation to the allied reports about Tiger tanks in German use, there where much more reported than ever existed. We have German documents and know from them how many were produced and where they were used. Just as we can verify allied reports, we can verify the thesis that comes from the interpretation of Egyptian reliefs.
We have Hittite texts.They provide ample arguments for the thesis that the bow was the main weapon of the Hittite chariots. Just like everywhere else in the region before the Hittites and after (The Scythed chariots donít count as they where introduced much later.).

The reference for that is:
Beal, The Organisation of Hittite Military, 1992
Drews, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C, 1993
Lorenz, Schrakamp, Hittite Military Warfare, Colloquia Anitqua 2, 2011

2)The composition of the 1/16 list is strange. Why are Hittite foot soldiers graded as pikemen ? What are the arguments for that ? Ax I understand as it would mean they were organised group of men with weapons. Wb, Bd I would understand, because the Hittites could have been a fierce group, relying on the impact, and clash of hand to hand weapons. Sp to mark their high level of organisation and life in barracks could also work. But Pk ? I just canít understand it, and donít see anything textual or archaeological to support it. One could argue that maybe on the Egyptian reliefs those Hittite foot soldiers look like Pk, but that is 1/24 list not 1/16.

3)The allies and enemies for Hittites and Mitanni should be more like this:

I/16 Old Hittite E: I/4c (Hurrian), I/4d Gasgan, I/15 (Later Amorite), I/20b (Syrian) , Arzawa, Lukka, I/18 Ahiyawa, I/19 Mitanni; A: I/4c (Hurrian)

I/19 Mitanni E: I/4c (Hurrian), I/15 (Later Amorite), I/20b (Syrian), I6a (Ahlamu), I/22a (Egypt),
I/25a (Assyria), I/4c (Nairi), I/24ab (Hittites); A: I/24ab (Hitties), I/20b (Syrian), I6a (Ahlamu), I/4c (Hurrian)

I/24ab Empire Hittie
E: 24/a: I/4c (Hurrian), I/4d (Gasgan), I/6a (Amurru), I/20b (Syrian), I/22a (Egypt), I/25a (Assyria), I/19 (Mitanni), I/18 (Ahiyawa), I/26b (Wilusa), Arzawa; A: I/4c (Hurrian), I/6a (Amurru), I/20b (Syrian), I/21a (Babylon), I/19 (Mitanni), I/26b (Wilusa), Arzawa, I/20a (Ugarit), Lukka

E: I/24b : I/4c (Hurrian), I/4d (Gasgan), I/6a (Ahlamu), I/20b (Syrian), I/22a (Egypt), I/25a (Assyria), I/26a (Ahiyawa), I/26b (Wilusa), Lukka, Alashya, I/28 (Sea Peoples) A: I/4c (Hurrian), I/6a (Amurru), I/20b (Syrian), I/21a (Babylon), I/26a (Ahiyawa), I/26b (Wilusa), Arzawa, I/20a (Ugarit), Lukka

4) The Arzawa, Alashya and Lukka do not have their army lists. Arzawa was quite important. There was a time when it worked with Pharaoh on marriage alliance. It was also in coalition that threatened the existence of Hittite state, so it should get some representation. The Lukka on the other hand is interesting as some of it later joined the Sea Peoples.

I suggest Lukka joining 1/4d and Arzawa and Alashya 1/4c,

Anyone wants to discuss those points before Iíll send them ?

Redwilde
07-25-2011, 01:50 PM
Anyone wants to discuss those points before Iíll send them ?

I'm currently reading The Kingdom of the Hittites: New Edition, Trevor Bryce, Oxford University Press, 2005. Significant inscriptions and seals have been found since the first edition. And the New Edition now has maps, which helps tremendously in following the text!

This is a social-political history and does not delve into weapons and equipment. It does go through a thorough coverage of the shifting allies and enemies of the various wars. I'd have to comb through it to put together a list.

That would be a fair amount of work though -- Does any one know if this book was used as a resource in compiling the enemies and allies for DBMM?

But off the top of my head -- yes Lukka is a major player. Geographically, they're on the big southwest peninsula no where near the Kaska (Gasgans) of the north. The name is cognate with the later classical Lykians of the same locale.

The 'Sea Peoples' (a term coined in the 19th century) are covered in pp.333-340. The Lukka are clearly identified in Hittite letters as one of the tribes conducting major seaborne assaults. The list of the various tribal names from Egyptian, Ugaritic, and other documents and their possible cognates are discussed. It is possible that all of the involved tribes came from southwestern Anatolia.

Bryce places the Arzawa are in western Anatolia [on the coast above Lukka and below Wilusa. Wilusa = possibly cognate with Ilion = which this author places as Troy, cf. Chapter 14.], but back to Arzawa, that's quite removed geographically from the folks in the I/4c list.

Also, Bryce places Alasiya (Alashya) as Cyprus (noting this is a hotly debated topic in the field).

a.pietras
07-25-2011, 02:12 PM
Placing in existing army lists was based only on possible army compositions not on geography :-) as the kassites living in middle zagros mountains were also quite far from nairi.

Of course the ideal thing would be to produce new autonomus lists for both Arzawa and Lukka. But putting them in existing ones would at least give them without changing army numbers between versions.

Andreas Johansson
07-25-2011, 05:44 PM
2)The composition of the 1/16 list is strange. Why are Hittite foot soldiers graded as pikemen ?

Which version of the lists are you looking at? Sue's latest draft has:

I/16 Early Hittite Army: 1x(LCh or Bw)(Gen), 1x (LCh or Sp or Ax), 6x (Sp or Ax), 2x (Bw or Ax or Ps), 2x (Hd or Ps)

Edit: Should Sue read this when she returns, she might want to note the refs for this army says "Slingshot". There should presumably be one or several issues specified.

a.pietras
07-25-2011, 06:56 PM
The one that was linked in the first post had the following:

I/16 Early Hittite Army: 1xLCh (Gen), 1x LCh, 6x (Pk or Ax), 2x (Bw or Ax), 2x (Hd or Ps).
Enemies: I/4c, I/4d, I/15, I/18, I/19.

The new one? would be ok. (I miss the Bd element, but only because I have painted one.)

Thanks for clearing that.

Martyn
07-26-2011, 05:49 AM
The one that was linked in the first post had the following:

I/16 Early Hittite Army: 1xLCh (Gen), 1x LCh, 6x (Pk or Ax), 2x (Bw or Ax), 2x (Hd or Ps).
Enemies: I/4c, I/4d, I/15, I/18, I/19.

The new one? would be ok. (I miss the Bd element, but only because I have painted one.)

Thanks for clearing that.

Note: The original list which is at the start of this thread has been replaced by a subsequent revision 'a'


Sue Laflin-Barker has forwarded an updated version of the Book I lists and asked me to convey the following:

"Will you please replace the previous one and tell everyone about it.
The comments in red are things that need fixing - some are notes to
myself or Phil others for general comment."

See updated lists at: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_Ia.pdf

As before, comments by end of July to Sue at: : sue@wrg.me.uk

Redwilde
07-28-2011, 08:20 PM
Hittite 3-man chariots armed with lance does not match the current state of research. We donít have to rely on the Ramesses reliefs.

This evening I happened to be thumbing through some ancient magazines, and came across Miniature Wargames #1, 1983. In it was an article by the editor, Duncan McFarlane: "The myth of the three man Hittite chariot"!

It's safe to presume that Phil Barker read that article, since he had another one of his own in that same issue. He hasn't been persuaded in the past 30 some years. He's not likely to start now.

Lydia
07-30-2011, 12:03 AM
List I/6 used to have 2Cm. They have been converted to 'Cm' so they have lost their Light Horse characteristics. Was I/6 the only list that included them?

Andreas Johansson
07-30-2011, 01:42 AM
List I/6 used to have 2Cm. They have been converted to 'Cm' so they have lost their Light Horse characteristics.
Light Camelry (now denoted LCm) has been restored in the latest draft. Note that the list as a whole is substantially reworked (the sublist split is different, for a start).
Was I/6 the only list that included them?
No.

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-30-2011, 11:29 AM
Light Camelry (now denoted LCm) has been restored in the latest draft. Note that the list as a whole is substantially reworked (the sublist split is different, for a start).



In the Book 1a draft from July 17th? The I/6b list still shows no LCm...just the CmGen and 4x Cm elements. Is there a later version of the draft?

Andreas Johansson
07-30-2011, 11:51 AM
In the Book 1a draft from July 17th? The I/6b list still shows no LCm...just the CmGen and 4x Cm elements. Is there a later version of the draft?

I wasn't aware we were talking of the (b) sublist specifically. There is a LCm in (c).

(This is the same as in 2.2, which had 2Cm in (c) but not in (b), except (b) and (c) don't mean the same anymore.)

Inanna'sBoyToy
07-30-2011, 12:20 PM
I wasn't aware we were talking of the (b) sublist specifically. There is a LCm in (c).

(This is the same as in 2.2, which had 2Cm in (c) but not in (b), except (b) and (c) don't mean the same anymore.)

I just got a 6c Army pack on the cheap from WargamesInc but if the 3.0 "b" list is set in stone I gotta act like a long-haul trucker with a niccotine addiction and find a pack of Camels fast... :rotfl

kontos
07-30-2011, 12:44 PM
I am a smoker. I prefer Marlborough. :D

(Might and Reason - A GREAT GAME!)