Draft DBA 3 Book 2 Lists

[Imperator]

From Sue:

"Here is the file for book two - it's only partially re-formatted and I'll continue working on it but the Fanaticus group may wish to see it and comment."

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_2.pdf

Comments accepted through August 10

Comments to sue@wrg.me.uk please.

[Doug]

From Sue:

"Here is the file for book two - it's only partially re-formatted and I'll continue working on it but the Fanaticus group may wish to see it and comment."

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_2.pdf

Comments accepted through August 10

Comments to sue@wrg.me.uk please.

Already commented on c which is one element short and suggested an alternative which would allow an all mounted version for b and c.

cheer

[SUMRULD]

As of my viewing at 1 pm Mountain Standard Time II/5a still has 13 elements in this list. So do we get rid of one Sp or of one Ax?

[Chris Pagano]

I like the additional flexibility with the Marian Romans.

[Ivan]

It seems II/24 & 26 are missing 1 LH element. Possibly one too many CV in the lists.

[Menacus Secundus]

It seems II/24 & 26 are missing 1 LH element. Possibly one too many CV in the lists.

:??? They only had 1 (optional) LH in the v2.2 lists and still have the option of one in the latest draft.

[Lydia]

The options in the Parthian list have changed. There is more optional foot, and it is no longer a choice between cataphracts and foot. The additional foot are (I think from looking at the DBMM lists) Median (etc) archers (bows) or Hyrkanian tribesmen (auxillia). I had to Google Hyrkania, and it turns out that Red Sonja was from there, which is nice. Other than the problem of finding nine women in chainmail bikinis (in 15mm scale of course) the list tallies nicely with DBMM.

[kontos]

The options in the Parthian list have changed. (Deleted text)
Other than the problem of finding nine women in chainmail bikinis (in 15mm scale of course) the list tallies nicely with DBMM.

I would want these. Maybe Splintered Light could do something here! :2up

[Redwilde]

Other than the problem of finding nine women in chainmail bikinis (in 15mm scale of course) the list tallies nicely with DBMM.
I would want these. Maybe Splintered Light could do something here!

No problem. The Copplestone pack of 10 Barbarians includes 1 female in a chainmail bikini and 1 in a fur bikini

[Martyn]

Just posted on the Yahoo group latest version of book 2, just in case it is not subsequently provided here I include the link to the yahoo group file.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/files/Lists2.pdf

Having had a very quick look I am a bit disappointed that the troop type identification does not go further. Too many entries which say “2 x infantry (Ax)” which is not terribly helpful (they would hardly be cavalry). I thought from the first book that there would be more specific descriptions of the origin of the troops, for example Spanish or Thureophoroi, which would be a great help to anybody starting out.

[kontos]

No problem. The Copplestone pack of 10 Barbarians includes 1 female in a chainmail bikini and 1 in a fur bikini

Nice looking miniatures. Hmmmmmmmm? :D

[Victor]

I noticed the Later Hoplite Greek list has the following in it's description;

"If allies are used in a big-battle DBA game, hoplites from one city state will not provide rear support to those of another state."

Is this a good or bad thing having exceptions and new rules being introduced through the lists? Seems to me a move away from simplicity, but does add flavour.

[david kuijt]

I noticed the Later Hoplite Greek list has the following in it's description;

"If allies are used in a big-battle DBA game, hoplites from one city state will not provide rear support to those of another state."

Is this a good or bad thing having exceptions and new rules being introduced through the lists? Seems to me a move away from simplicity, but does add flavour.

So allied Hoplites cannot support other Hoplites, but any other Spear can support any other Spear, even if they don't speak the same language or come from a similar culture? And Libyan Psiloi can support Sea Peoples Blade, or Aztec Psiloi support Tlaxcalan Blade, and so on? Oh, that's poorly done.

[kontos]

So allied Hoplites cannot support other Hoplites, but any other Spear can support any other Spear, even if they don't speak the same language or come from a similar culture? And Libyan Psiloi can support Sea Peoples Blade, or Aztec Psiloi support Tlaxcalan Blade, and so on? Oh, that's poorly done.

I support you David. Hmmm, you're Canadian and I'm American. No matter, I support you on this, DK. :D

[snowcat]

Yup, micro-flavouring is a bit of a Pandor'a Box.

[Lydia]

In the book 1 lists a lot of the specific descriptions were too specific or ended up being '2 x javelinmen, archers, or slingers (Ps)' which is a wordy way of saying 2xPs.

[Si2]

II/56 - optional artillery.. - huzzah!:2up

[Imperator]

From Sue: "Here is the latest version of the BOOK TWO LISTS with comments received so far included. Please send any more comments to me at the email address."

What I've done is replaced the previous file with the current file. The original link stays the same: http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/DBA3/LISTS_2.pdf

[Rich Gause]

I noticed the Later Hoplite Greek list has the following in it's description;

"If allies are used in a big-battle DBA game, hoplites from one city state will not provide rear support to those of another state."

Is this a good or bad thing having exceptions and new rules being introduced through the lists? Seems to me a move away from simplicity, but does add flavour.

That is probably something from the DBMM list and doesn't belong in DBA.

[Doug]

I would rather see a blanket exemption that allied contingents cannot support others. I applaud the sentiment that it is more 'realistic' - but the patchwork nature of such 'rules' is a concern.

[Martyn]

I would rather see a blanket exemption that allied contingents cannot support others. I applaud the sentiment that it is more 'realistic' - but the patchwork nature of such 'rules' is a concern.

I feel that it has to be an all or nothing approach. I hate to think of the confusion if this is introduced piecemeal particularly if done so through the lists rather than in the rule book.

[pozanias]

I feel that it has to be an all or nothing approach. I hate to think of the confusion if this is introduced piecemeal particularly if done so through the lists rather than in the rule book.

I agree. Having different rules for different lists is a really bad idea. As Doug said, the benefits are simply not worth the added confusion/complexity.

[Rich Gause]

It is already less efficient Pip wise to use a different command for support. That should be enough. If an ally shouldn't be able to support in DBA for "realism" reasons (a notion I find ludicrous based on all the other things we accept to make the game simple and playable) then maybe they should't be able to prevent overlaps or move elements from their command into an allied command's area. The game is supposed to be simple and playable, lets keep it that way. If they are talking about elements from a single DBA army having support issues that is just too ridiculous for words..............

[Redwilde]

Is this a good or bad thing having exceptions and new rules being introduced through the lists? Seems to me a move away from simplicity, but does add flavour.

It is a bad thing. A bad, bad thing. We must smack it on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

[Crocus]

I've just looked on the Yahoo site at SLB's new Sub-Roman Britons lineup and I am pleased with the inclusion of Bd in the twilight list. It will give my rather unsuccessful army a lift I think and give me a chance to put some pretty, more romanesque figures on the table!

If I ever finish my Saxon horde (Big Battle size) they will make a better match than all those Ax. Incidentally I would still like the inclusion of Bd as the hearthguard in the Sea Wolves list, or something superior to Wb (some hope!) for my nice mailed and helmetted Teutonic minis. Subconscious romantic anti-German Celtic bias I'm sure - the sharp Angles did win after all!

When're the new rules out - latest word?

[pozanias]

When're the new rules out - latest word?

This fall. Sue recently posted a timeline somewhere. It may even be at the beginning of this thread. :D But I believe the plan was for it to be published before the Barkers attend Fall-In (US Gaming Convention) which is scheduled for late October this year.

[David Constable]

This fall. Sue recently posted a timeline somewhere. It may even be at the beginning of this thread. :D But I believe the plan was for it to be published before the Barkers attend Fall-In (US Gaming Convention) which is scheduled for late October this year.

Yes, in the U.K. we also have a big trade do at Derby and the English Open at Portsmouth, so it is a good month.

David Constable

[Macbeth]

I have just sent Sue a comment on the Abbysinians

The descriptive texts mentions the use of El generals but doesn't give that as an option.

The aggression for the (b) sublist is redundant as the change in agression is listed for pre 576AD whilst the list kicks off at 1285AD.

Is this the sort of thing we are meant to be proofing? (I can do this :D)

or

Are we meant to be citing academic sources on the actual defintions of troops? (I am out of my depth in this :p)

Cheers

[kontos]

I have just sent Sue a comment on the Abbysinians

The descriptive texts mentions the use of El generals but doesn't give that as an option.

The aggression for the (b) sublist is redundant as the change in agression is listed for pre 576AD whilst the list kicks off at 1285AD.

Is this the sort of thing we are meant to be proofing? (I can do this :D)

or

Are we meant to be citing academic sources on the actual defintions of troops? (I am out of my depth in this :p)

Cheers

Wait until you see what we'll have to do with the rules!!!! :rotfl

[OzarkOrc]

I think I may have jumped threads here- but looking through some of the lists, a lot of armies (Not just the Early Libyans) seem to be gaining Mounted; II/47 Early Germans (Used to be the generic list was one 3Cv (Gen) and a lot of Wb....)

Same for the Skythians, who gain a second Knight option;

Oh well, most of my Early Germa Armies do have a second Cavalry Element available to them; But a third (III/47g)?

[Zhukov]

So I have a Classical Indian army... where is the justification for the required stand of Horde? Nothing I've read in any book I've read suggest anything in regards to a 'mob' of troops. (Not to mention, I'm not really keen on spending any $$$, lol).

ALSO, did anyone notice the subtle change to the Aggression Factor for the Polybian Romans? In 2.2, it's a 1 before 202 BC, then it's 4. This represents the change of Roman thinking in terms of expanding due to the victory at Zama. (By comparison, the Late Carthage army in 2.2 is an Ag:3). In 3.0, they wish to change the Romans to a set number of 3 throughout while keeping Carthage at 3. Is this really the best thing to do? I would think the armies of Hannibal should have a distinct advantage when being deployed?

-Zhukov

[Bobgnar]

Good point on the Indians, I made the same complaint a while back. To compensate, I just added some depth to a now unnecessary Bow element by gluing on strip to the back to make it Horde depth. A sparse horde with 3 elements but I found an Indian looking figure to add in.

I have some extra figs in 15mm, if you want a couple to make a Horde, send me your address.
beattie at umich dot edu

[Martyn]

ALSO, did anyone notice the subtle change to the Aggression Factor for the Polybian Romans? In 2.2, it's a 1 before 202 BC, then it's 4. This represents the change of Roman thinking in terms of expanding due to the victory at Zama. (By comparison, the Late Carthage army in 2.2 is an Ag:3). In 3.0, they wish to change the Romans to a set number of 3 throughout while keeping Carthage at 3. Is this really the best thing to do? I would think the armies of Hannibal should have a distinct advantage when being deployed?

-Zhukov

Don’t get blinded by the Hannibal factor. These lists cover the period that includes all three Punic wars. In v2.2 there is only a single list for the Later Cartho and the Polybs, at least now in the v3 list the Later Carthos get a split list for after Zama (wish there were more).

If you look at the 1st Punic war this was primarily fought in Sicily where the Romans were trying to break into a Cartho sphere of influence. Strategically the Romans were the aggressor but tactically most battles occurred in Siciliot Greek or Syracusan territory. The other main combat zone was in Cartho territory when the Romans invaded. No major battles occurred on Roman territory so having an aggression of 1 does not reflect the reality.

In the 2nd Punic War the Romans were on the strategic defensive where Hannibal was concerned but aggressors into Carthaginian Spain and subsequently into Africa leading to Hannibal’s withdrawal from Italy and defeat at Zama.

This should lead to a low aggression for the Later Cartho except for Hannibal and a high aggression for the Polybs except when facing Hannibal (it’s all getting rather complicated).

One advantage is that terrain for LC, Siciliot Greek and Syracusan is Littoral so defensive Carthos get the same terrain pick regardless of the theatre of operation (except for Spain)

[vonBerlichingen]

It's unfortunate that they have stuck to the antiquated Wade-Giles romanization for Chinese state names...

[Bob Santamaria]

It's unfortunate that they have stuck to the antiquated Wade-Giles romanization for Chinese state names...


I like that system. I resent the evil PRC telling me how I may pronounce their place names in English. The last English Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, was onto this point and always said "Peking" not "Beijing". He quite rightly pointed out that the Chinese have no more right to tell us how to pronounce their place names in our language than we do in reverse. Paris not Paree, Moscow not Moskva, and damn the PRC, the most evil regime in the history of the universe.

[Doug]

Now now Bob, you should know that's 'British' Governor, not 'English'.

[Bob Santamaria]

Now now Bob, you should know that's 'British' Governor, not 'English'.

Point taken - his daughters are gorgeous and his wife named "Lavender"

[vonBerlichingen]

I like that system. I resent the evil PRC telling me how I may pronounce their place names in English. The last English Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, was onto this point and always said "Peking" not "Beijing". He quite rightly pointed out that the Chinese have no more right to tell us how to pronounce their place names in our language than we do in reverse. Paris not Paree, Moscow not Moskva, and damn the PRC, the most evil regime in the history of the universe.

Actually, Wade-Giles and pinyin yield similar pronunciations, so you brought the wrong rant to this sub-thread!

Regardless, and whether you may like it or not, pinyin is what is now commonly used to write about Chinese history and archaeology.

The effect is that Wade-Giles hold-outs will tend to isolate themselves to an earlier period of archaeological and historical literature, and distance themselves from newer discoveries and interpretations.

A case in point is that the Barkers are still referring to Peers' oldish Osprey books, when there is more recent literature in English about ancient Chinese military history.

[El' Jocko]

A case in point is that the Barkers are still referring to Peers' oldish Osprey books, when there is more recent literature in English about ancient Chinese military history.

Since we've wandered off topic already, any recommendations of particular books to check out?

- Jack

[vonBerlichingen]

There are lots of books by Ralph Sawyer, besides incidental coverage in the many books and articles on Chinese archaeology that have been published in the last two decades...

[john meunier]

I noticed the Later Hoplite Greek list has the following in it's description;

"If allies are used in a big-battle DBA game, hoplites from one city state will not provide rear support to those of another state."

Is this a good or bad thing having exceptions and new rules being introduced through the lists? Seems to me a move away from simplicity, but does add flavour.


In the latest rules, it does not look like Sp ever provide rear support, so this is now a moot rule. I wonder if anyone has pointed that out to Sue for the army list revision.

[Bobgnar]

There is still Ps support for Sp vs some things. Should this non-support rule apply for all allies with Wb and Ps?

[larryessick]

There is still Ps support for Sp vs some things. Should this non-support rule apply for all allies with Wb and Ps?

You do the history, what do you suppose?

If you have examples where units from one contingent willingly and effectively integrated into units from another contingent, yet followed the command and control of their own officers and generals, then certainly allow big battle armies to mix and match to their hearts content.

OTOH, if this appears entirely ahistorical and unrealistic then a blanket rule prohibiting elements from one command providing support to those of a different command should be an easy and obvious one to make.

[Ammianus]

On the non-supporting spear issue. On the proposed army lists the Picts & Sub-Roman Brits have units lists as SP (not 3,4,or 8SP). My guess is that these will not be double-units and will not have any gain from deploying in tandem pairs. Is that correct?

[john meunier]

On the non-supporting spear issue. On the proposed army lists the Picts & Sub-Roman Brits have units lists as SP (not 3,4,or 8SP). My guess is that these will not be double-units and will not have any gain from deploying in tandem pairs. Is that correct?

It looks like the 8Sp is aimed at the giant Theban formation that took down the Spartans.

As far as I can read, no other spear will provide rear support under any circumstances.

[Bobgnar]

On the non-supporting spear issue. On the proposed army lists the Picts & Sub-Roman Brits have units lists as SP (not 3,4,or 8SP). My guess is that these will not be double-units and will not have any gain from deploying in tandem pairs. Is that correct?

A "plain" Sp means 4 figures or if you are cheap like me, you could do 3 Sp on a narrow depth base. There seems to be no 3Sp on a Ps size base.
Rules say

SPEARS Sp Sp (S, O, I) 20mm 15mm 4
8Sp 2 elements of above. 60mm 40mm 8


What I wonder is why 8Sp is on a square base instead of just double the depth of the 4 figure one.

Single elements of Sp get no rear support from other Sp vs anything.

What will be interesting is 8Sp with Ps support vs Mounted and Wb. Add a General and you are at +6 but game over if you lose to Wb or LH or are doubled :) That counts as 4 elements lost with two stands gone
4G.

[Ammianus]

thanks John & Bob (& Fido)!

[Victor]

It looks like the 8Sp is aimed at the giant Theban formation that took down the Spartans.

As far as I can read, no other spear will provide rear support under any circumstances.

Presumably 8Bd will be early replublican legions?

[snowcat]

There is no 8Bd.

[Victor]

There is no 8Bd.

Oops, misread it...

[snowcat]

And 6Bd seems to be gone for now, despite some of the other double-based elements surviving or being 'created'.

"Hello to all those Early Swiss fans . . . "

;)

[Victor]

And 6Bd seems to be gone for now, despite some of the other double-based elements surviving or being 'created'.

The 6Bd may still be in, the "now not used" comment looks like it refers to DBMM. I wonder which armies get the mounted infantry?

[snowcat]

Yes, bring on the 'final' Army Lists! :)

[Doug]

The 6Bd may still be in, the "now not used" comment looks like it refers to DBMM. I wonder which armies get the mounted infantry?

I believe the Elamites with their kallapani cart-mounted infantry were bruited as a possible candidate..

[vonBerlichingen]

Any idea as to why Lusitanians still cannot have Roman allies? Sertorius had the equivalent of around two legions of Romans in his army, yet DBA Lusitanians can get no more than one element of Bd!