Change might be coming

Now that my Lydians are complete I have the armies that I might take to the DBA competition at IWC next year, and the armies for my 12th century Italy and environs DBA campaign. Although the Lydians were great fun to paint I’d like a bit of a break from DBA armies. DBA 3.0 bits and pieces have begun to show up on Sue Laflin-Barker’s webpage. She seems to be on a simplification crusade – hopefully she won’t simplify away too many troop types and too many of the game’s subtleties but I’m a little sad to see what would happen to my Nikephorian Byzantine army. No double based knights (which were distinctive and attractive but a real pain to maneouvre) and no double based bows. The community had hoped for the 8Bw to be better represented in DBA3.0 but I don’t think the authors have been keeping themselves up to date with the forums as they are absent from the first draft of the ‘basing your army’ page. Although my army in its current state would still be legal in DBA3.0 I’m still not sure that it would work too well having two sets of basing standards in the same game. 

Elements from my Nikephorean army - missing from DBA 3.0?

  

I don’t want to expend too much effort on painting armies when there’s so much change afoot with the rules system, so in the meantime (which could be many years) I’ll focus on finishing things I’ve started, and any DBA armies I choose to paint will be selected with an eye toward versatility. With that in mind I’ve thought about things that I want to do with DBA over the next couple of years (besides playing it) and there’s still plenty to keep me busy.  

Variety being the spice of life I’ve got some model aircraft lined up for building – it’s 60 years since the start of the Korean War and 70 since the Battle of Britain, so next up is a Fairey Firefly off HMS Triumph in 1950.  

From a non-DBA gaming point of view Song of Blades and Heroes is tempting and I’ve bought some figures for that. I’ve been looking at Ambush Alley for modern skirmish gaming, I’m not sure whether to sell some 1/72 modern kits and get 15mm figures for it – the advantage being that it uses a 2′ board at that scale – or just game in 25mm starting with what I’ve got. Both of those games involve minimal figure painting but a bit of work on terrain. I’ve made some damage cards for Wings of War (saving myself $90 in the process) and I pick up aircraft whenever I see them going cheap – I’ve a British and German fighter and a Belgian and German two seater now, which seems to be enough. I might soon have enough DBA figures to field a Dark ages/Early Medieval Field of Glory army so long as people don’t look too closely. I’d like to investigate DBMM 100, too, although it might be seen as heretical.

Advertisements

4 responses to “Change might be coming

  1. I’d not be sorry to see the double-ranked elements go, though I think a case for the 4Bw could be made as a special element. 6Bd and 6Cv are just silly!

    John’s heard good things about DBMM 2.0, so if you do look at it, I’d be interested to hear what you think.

  2. Yes the 6Kn were a pain to maneouvre but they look way cool. I wouldn’t be too unhappy if they became 4Kn like the later Roman types.
    8Bw currently covers both pavisier troops, where the archer is protected from return fire by a big shield, and protected archers, where the archers are protected from enemy close fighters by (in the case of the Byzantines) seven ranks of spearmen. DBA 2.2 does this by treating them just like any other archers. Clearly unsatisfactory but in order to improve upon it you’d need two new element types.
    I figured out the other day that I could put together 80 point East Frankish and Communal Italian DBMM armies so I should have a go at DBMM100 soon.

  3. I’m not sure I see your point on the double basing. All double based elements are missing from the table. However, in another basing discussion on the yahoo group Sue remarks:

    “C. As B except that any troops based double-depth only recoil half the double-depth base.”

    So it looks like DBEs will be handled in another section of the rules. We’ll have to see a bit more of the rules first.

    There have also been mutterings about HotT integration and the possibility of moving to a points system thereby putting to death the ludicrous 12 element limit.

    For the record, I much prefer DBMM100. All the chrome in half the time and no buttocks of death. 😉

    • Well I guess one thing to think about is that even if a double based knight only recoils 30mm its buttocks are still 60mm deep. If when recoiling it ran into another unit in that extra 30mm what would happen? Also the distance moved by a rear corner when, eg, pivoting a double based element is that much further – would movement be measured from half way down the base? It will be interesting to see how the rules evolve.
      Points based DBA sounds interesting but you’d run out of table space pretty quickly for those Early Libyans – maybe that’s another one for DBMM100 with its bigger board?
      I haven’t played much HoTT but I’m told that some things that are a pain in DBA are handled better there. If you Google “Historical Hott” there’s a guy who uses HoTT for historical gaming and he seems to have fun.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s