1
Rules Questions / Re: The DBMM Commentary
« on: January 16, 2021, 11:37:01 AM »
Can anyone tell me where the Commentary has migrated to since closure of the DBMM yahoo list.
Thanks.
Grandad
Thanks.
Grandad
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1]
2
Competitions / Re: Italian Team Championship 2020
« on: December 16, 2019, 12:16:39 PM »
I forgot to mention in my original post that if anyone is interested in forming a team they are welcome to contact me direct at tomworden@eircom.net
3
Competitions / Italian Team Championship 2020
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:24:11 PM »
Hi,
My grandson and I are going to the ITC 2020 on 14th/15th March next, and we are looking for 2 additional players with whom to form a team.
Anyone out there interested?
Tom Worden
My grandson and I are going to the ITC 2020 on 14th/15th March next, and we are looking for 2 additional players with whom to form a team.
Anyone out there interested?
Tom Worden
4
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: December 02, 2019, 04:27:54 PM »
Thanks, Lawrence.
The more I think about Camelry and the contents of the SoA thread, the more I incline to the view that the factors in DBMM for this troop type are reasonable. I suppose that the charge by Lawrence’s group which overturned the Turkish cavalry can be achieved if the former were treated as Cm(S), or the latter as simply very unlucky!
However, I still think the base cost is a bit too much.
The more I think about Camelry and the contents of the SoA thread, the more I incline to the view that the factors in DBMM for this troop type are reasonable. I suppose that the charge by Lawrence’s group which overturned the Turkish cavalry can be achieved if the former were treated as Cm(S), or the latter as simply very unlucky!
However, I still think the base cost is a bit too much.
5
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: November 30, 2019, 01:56:31 PM »
Further to my last post, I have now read the camel thread on the SoA forum. I thought the most interesting point was that Lawrence's camelry was able to overturn Turkish cavalry horses. It seems to be asumed that such horses were smallish or light steeds, which rendered them particularly vulnerable to the camels, but I wonder how valid that assumption is? Does anyone know much about Turkish WW1 horse quality?Another interesting point, for me, was yhe apparent consensus that camels are generally abandoned in favour of horses if the latter are available, except when terrain/climactic considerations dictate the continued reliance on camels as preferable. Horses are certainly considered more responsive and ly faster over at least short distances. All that seems perfectly logical. However, I don't think the suggestion that camels smell so strange as to be capable of upsetting horses significantly stands up, and similarly I have doubts about the appearance of camels being a major disconcerting factor. What seems to me to be largely ignored is the sheer nastiness of camels, who in my admittedly limited experience are prone to hissing, spitting, biting and generally behaving aggressively.
If you add all that lot up, I get the impression that:
1. Camelry should be able to perform with a decent prospect of success against cavalry, but possibly be disadvantaged against knights by virtue of the latters' generally heavier horses
2. Camelry should be less manoeverable than cavalry
3. Possibly Camelry should have a shorter move than cavalry - though whether that should be reflected in the tactical move distances on a wargames table is moot.
4. Camelry don't really merit a special "disrupting" capacity against cavalry/horses, as long as the former can meet the latter on terms which allow the camelry a reasonable chance of winning a combat.
Point 2 above also brings me to consideration of whether Irregular Cv(S) should remain unmanoeverable - surely they would generally be more manoeverable than Camelry?. All things considered, including the contents of this site's thread on the subject, I think I would be in favour of them ceasing to be any different in terms of manoeverability than Cv(O). , unless, perhaps, if double-based with other Cv (of whatever grade). Double-basing could provide the answer to Mr. Barker's apparent desire to limit the manoeverability of shower-shooting portions of mounted armies, such as (according to his views) Sassanids.
If you add all that lot up, I get the impression that:
1. Camelry should be able to perform with a decent prospect of success against cavalry, but possibly be disadvantaged against knights by virtue of the latters' generally heavier horses
2. Camelry should be less manoeverable than cavalry
3. Possibly Camelry should have a shorter move than cavalry - though whether that should be reflected in the tactical move distances on a wargames table is moot.
4. Camelry don't really merit a special "disrupting" capacity against cavalry/horses, as long as the former can meet the latter on terms which allow the camelry a reasonable chance of winning a combat.
Point 2 above also brings me to consideration of whether Irregular Cv(S) should remain unmanoeverable - surely they would generally be more manoeverable than Camelry?. All things considered, including the contents of this site's thread on the subject, I think I would be in favour of them ceasing to be any different in terms of manoeverability than Cv(O). , unless, perhaps, if double-based with other Cv (of whatever grade). Double-basing could provide the answer to Mr. Barker's apparent desire to limit the manoeverability of shower-shooting portions of mounted armies, such as (according to his views) Sassanids.
6
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: November 29, 2019, 02:58:43 PM »
Thanks for that. I will have a look at the SoA thread. I had in mind the early Bedouin army, in particular, which has the opportunity of using loads of mounted Camelry. However, I suppose it can be argued that Camelry is and should be any good only in dunes or brush, so if one wants to use them effectively then do so only against opponents with the relevant terrain. Then again, if they are really a kind of mounted auxilia, perhaps the issue might be addressed by reducing their cost and/or making Camelry half an ME each, though that then raises the issue of whether LH camels should also be half an ME, and, if so, why not other LH too?
A tricky issue!
A tricky issue!
7
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: November 24, 2019, 08:46:58 PM »
Apologies for the delay in posting this since my last email. I was given further food for thought, which resulted in some last minute changes to my draft amendments.
I attach a list of points which bothered me, followed by suggested solutions formulated in terms of darft amended wordings to the rules.
I hope the attachment will give much food for thought to others, and engender a lively and, most of all, a productive discussion.
Finally, may I say I entirely agree with Lawrence Greaves that if there is to be a generally accepted set of amendments there needs to be a committee set up similar to that which produced the DBA amendments before the last "official" version of that rule set came out.
Tom Worden
I attach a list of points which bothered me, followed by suggested solutions formulated in terms of darft amended wordings to the rules.
I hope the attachment will give much food for thought to others, and engender a lively and, most of all, a productive discussion.
Finally, may I say I entirely agree with Lawrence Greaves that if there is to be a generally accepted set of amendments there needs to be a committee set up similar to that which produced the DBA amendments before the last "official" version of that rule set came out.
Tom Worden
8
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: November 07, 2019, 11:06:25 PM »
I am currently working on a set of proposed amendments to DBMM v.2.1 in hopes that if it can address enough of the concerns about the existing rules the DBMM user community might agree (in the absence of any co-operation by Mr Barker, which would, of course, be desirable) to creation of a committee to review all amendments proposed by any interested party with a view to producing a “universal” set of amendments, to be adopted in the same way as the commentary has been so widely accepted.
Without Mr Barker’s approval it would obviously be impossible to produce an amended set of the complete rules, but I don’t believe that should deter the publication of a set of comprehensive and precisely worded amendments with clear directions as to where in the existing rules these amendments should be inserted.
I have also been trying to think of rules to cover certain lacunae in the ability of the current rules to reflect real occurrences, such as the occasional impetuous behaviour of so-called regular infantry. After all, if you want to fix something it seems pointless to ignore the possibility of improvement by addition of new features.
Some of the suggestions put forward by Neil Williamson and Sir Barritus address matters I had already considered, and some deal with issues which I haven’t previously thought about. In connection with the latter, I propose to incorporate in my draft, with appropriate acknowledgement of the source, details of those suggested amendments which seem to me to have merit, and I hope to submit my draft to this group shortly to get the ball rolling towards the objective referred to in my first paragraph. Meanwhile, I’d be interested to know what other members think about trying to create a broadly accepted set of amendments, for use, for example, at tournaments.
Without Mr Barker’s approval it would obviously be impossible to produce an amended set of the complete rules, but I don’t believe that should deter the publication of a set of comprehensive and precisely worded amendments with clear directions as to where in the existing rules these amendments should be inserted.
I have also been trying to think of rules to cover certain lacunae in the ability of the current rules to reflect real occurrences, such as the occasional impetuous behaviour of so-called regular infantry. After all, if you want to fix something it seems pointless to ignore the possibility of improvement by addition of new features.
Some of the suggestions put forward by Neil Williamson and Sir Barritus address matters I had already considered, and some deal with issues which I haven’t previously thought about. In connection with the latter, I propose to incorporate in my draft, with appropriate acknowledgement of the source, details of those suggested amendments which seem to me to have merit, and I hope to submit my draft to this group shortly to get the ball rolling towards the objective referred to in my first paragraph. Meanwhile, I’d be interested to know what other members think about trying to create a broadly accepted set of amendments, for use, for example, at tournaments.
9
General Discussion / Re: Suggested rule changes for next edition
« on: October 25, 2019, 04:43:12 PM »
Is there any point in contacting Phil?
I understood he had declared himself uninterested in making any further changes to DBMM.
I suspect that the only way forward would be an attempt to achieve consensus on appropriate rule changes including the exact wording thereof - similar in format perhaps to the commentary.
I understood he had declared himself uninterested in making any further changes to DBMM.
I suspect that the only way forward would be an attempt to achieve consensus on appropriate rule changes including the exact wording thereof - similar in format perhaps to the commentary.
Pages: [1]