1
General Discussion / Re: Irregular Bd (I) or Irregular Ax (S)?
« on: November 10, 2020, 10:49:45 AM »
Yes I'm definitely planning a few sabot bases.
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
General Discussion / Re: Irregular Bd (I) or Irregular Ax (S)?
« on: October 11, 2020, 04:05:59 AM »
Thanks. Never thought of that, will have to see if I can track down some steel bases, even if it means having to ship them. I did actually try a whole army bases on steel bases years ago, wasn't actually keen on them in all honesty but as sabot bases for pikes or adaptors in this way they would be ideal, lacking the height of MDF.
3
General Discussion / Re: Irregular Bd (I) or Irregular Ax (S)?
« on: October 10, 2020, 02:57:21 AM »I made up some Franks etc to use as warband(O) but they can also be used as Bd(I) Foederati and I made some magnetic sabot bases so I can use them as Ax(S) too.
I'm guessing the sabot bases are merely to convert the 15mm bases to 20mm in the case of the Bd(I) being used as Ax(S)? Had a quick panic when I read that initially, thought there was some double based element rule I'd missed for Ax(S), panic merely because the bases I have ordered have just been shipped LOL.
4
General Discussion / Re: Help with Seleucid list interpretation
« on: October 10, 2020, 02:33:29 AM »
@ Anthony, thanks for the info but I'm not based in Thailand.
5
General Discussion / Re: Help with Seleucid list interpretation
« on: October 07, 2020, 07:01:52 AM »
Thanks so much for such a comprehensive and thoughtful reply. I was actually a member of this group a while back but blowed if I can remember the user name or the email address I used so, start again LOL.
I get what you mean about the golf-bag army. It's appeal is the variety of the troop types making it, for me, a more interesting army to play vs say Romans which I like but I used to find somewhat limited in terms of units, deployment and tactics. Double edged sword though as taking too many tools from that box and you end up having to keep to many moving parts in sync. Competitively there's likely no way I'd take Scythed Chariots, Elephants possibly, but I'd have to be putting both on the table in all honesty LOL. I will be using the army mostly against historical opponents or, at the very worst, mostly Book 2 so no Seleucid vs Teutonic Knights etc. For later book encounters I'll be using Later Crusaders, Fatimid/Ayyubid and French 100YW.
No idea how I missed the Agema 0-All. What I think I might do is use Agema figures from FiB (not the fully armoured but still pretty well protected) allowing me to play them as Kn(F) or Kn (X) but for the line cavalry, use some suitable heavy cavalry figures again to be able to play them as Kn(F) alongside some Cataphracts for the Kn (X) upgrade. As you say, good idea to have a mix, and a very good point about the stratagems too.
Good point about the Galatians too, some of these units I tend to skip over when looking at lists, at least at first, when I see they are 1/2 infantry and 1/2 cavalry, certainly more scary for infantry as you say, I'll probably pick up some Roman style anyway, just to have the option. I'm probably not going to fret too much over what percentage of the line cavalry should have been cataphracts given we don't have that much by way of concrete evidence anyway. I'll have a look at Xyston, I can't recall if Xyston is one of ranges bought out by Plastic Soldier Company with planned releases yet to come. Quite surprising really that Forged in Battle don't really do any Macedonian / Greek cavalry unless Companion, Cataphract or Agema, not unless you look at the Bactrians. Have to be careful a little though as living in SE Asia, using too many random companies for single unit purchases gets prohibitively expensive with the postage. I do need some figures from Museum though so I'll look at their older Macedonian offerings too, much as I like the look of the figures the Bronze Age cavalry are a no no.
Was there ever any errata published for DBMM army lists? I'm also doing an Ayyubid/Fatimid army and it's quite surprising to see Abid al Shira classified as Reg Bd even if they are (I). Was more expecting them to be Sp, Ax or even Wb, maybe with Ps support but Bd(I)? Might be better to start another thread given this is a about the Seleucids LOL.
Thanks for the link to the Commentary
I get what you mean about the golf-bag army. It's appeal is the variety of the troop types making it, for me, a more interesting army to play vs say Romans which I like but I used to find somewhat limited in terms of units, deployment and tactics. Double edged sword though as taking too many tools from that box and you end up having to keep to many moving parts in sync. Competitively there's likely no way I'd take Scythed Chariots, Elephants possibly, but I'd have to be putting both on the table in all honesty LOL. I will be using the army mostly against historical opponents or, at the very worst, mostly Book 2 so no Seleucid vs Teutonic Knights etc. For later book encounters I'll be using Later Crusaders, Fatimid/Ayyubid and French 100YW.
No idea how I missed the Agema 0-All. What I think I might do is use Agema figures from FiB (not the fully armoured but still pretty well protected) allowing me to play them as Kn(F) or Kn (X) but for the line cavalry, use some suitable heavy cavalry figures again to be able to play them as Kn(F) alongside some Cataphracts for the Kn (X) upgrade. As you say, good idea to have a mix, and a very good point about the stratagems too.
Good point about the Galatians too, some of these units I tend to skip over when looking at lists, at least at first, when I see they are 1/2 infantry and 1/2 cavalry, certainly more scary for infantry as you say, I'll probably pick up some Roman style anyway, just to have the option. I'm probably not going to fret too much over what percentage of the line cavalry should have been cataphracts given we don't have that much by way of concrete evidence anyway. I'll have a look at Xyston, I can't recall if Xyston is one of ranges bought out by Plastic Soldier Company with planned releases yet to come. Quite surprising really that Forged in Battle don't really do any Macedonian / Greek cavalry unless Companion, Cataphract or Agema, not unless you look at the Bactrians. Have to be careful a little though as living in SE Asia, using too many random companies for single unit purchases gets prohibitively expensive with the postage. I do need some figures from Museum though so I'll look at their older Macedonian offerings too, much as I like the look of the figures the Bronze Age cavalry are a no no.
Was there ever any errata published for DBMM army lists? I'm also doing an Ayyubid/Fatimid army and it's quite surprising to see Abid al Shira classified as Reg Bd even if they are (I). Was more expecting them to be Sp, Ax or even Wb, maybe with Ps support but Bd(I)? Might be better to start another thread given this is a about the Seleucids LOL.
Thanks for the link to the Commentary
6
Book 4 / Re: Errata - Book 4 2nd edition
« on: October 05, 2020, 07:21:40 AM »
Title of this thread is somewhat confusing, opened it expecting to find official errata for book 4, instead it seems to be a list of outstanding questions for which an Errata might be needed?
7
General Discussion / Help with Seleucid list interpretation
« on: October 05, 2020, 07:14:03 AM »
In the process of putting together a shopping list for Seleucids. Years since I played DB games at that was DBM so I've yet to get my head round the changes with DBMM. I'm very tempted to build a list for around 200 BC thus allowing me to take Antiochus III as a Brilliant General. One of my considerations is the cavalry upgrades.
After 205 BC the generals may be upgraded to Kn (X) but I'm not sure that's a good idea, I don't really intend throwing the generals into infantry battles and if attacked by mounted I think I'd rather have the generals as Kn (F). As there are no other changes listed for generals before 205 BC I'm assuming that, while the 205 change merely calls them Kn(F) generals, they will remain as Reg Kn (F) in single element wedge?
The Companions I think don't change at all from the look of it. All the Agema however must change to Reg Kn(X) which would have to be Cataphracts I guess.
In terms of the Line Cavalry, post 276 BC they will all have become Reg Kn (F) but as a 200 BC list is not long after their optional upgrade of Kn(F) to Kn(X) in 205 BC (again which I assume will HAVE to be Cataphracts), it probably gives me some justification to retain up to 1/2 of the Line Cavalry as R Kn (F). While Kn(X) are OK against infantry I tend to prefer Cv(O) or Kn (F) overall given that, IIRC, Kn(X) fight as Kn(I) against other knights?
The only thing a 205 BC list prevents is the use of Roman Argyraspides which I thought might be useful in making the heavy infantry less of a one trick (pike) pony and give them a bit more flexibility. Only problem with going that late is that the Brilliant General is not available and also, thematically, I guess pretty much all the Line Cavalry would have to be represented as Cataphracts.
Any thoughts / comments welcome.
Also, wondering if these would be suitable for Line Cavalry Kn (F)? I do like the look of FiB Prodromoi but they were LH AFAIK so likely less suitable.
https://www.museumminiatures.co.uk/heavy-cavalry-bell-cuirass.html
I'm guessing not as they look too early and having checked the page again they are actually listed as Bronze Age. Not an awful lot around from the manufacturers I've been looking at for Line Cavalry that are not either Light, Cataphract or Companion.
Maybe these Bactrian Greek?:
https://www.forgedinbattle.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=614&search=heavy+cavalry
As an aside, is there still a DBMM commentary document available updated for DBMM 2.1? I know it used to be in the Yahoo Groups Files but IIRC Yahoo Groups are dead now.
After 205 BC the generals may be upgraded to Kn (X) but I'm not sure that's a good idea, I don't really intend throwing the generals into infantry battles and if attacked by mounted I think I'd rather have the generals as Kn (F). As there are no other changes listed for generals before 205 BC I'm assuming that, while the 205 change merely calls them Kn(F) generals, they will remain as Reg Kn (F) in single element wedge?
The Companions I think don't change at all from the look of it. All the Agema however must change to Reg Kn(X) which would have to be Cataphracts I guess.
In terms of the Line Cavalry, post 276 BC they will all have become Reg Kn (F) but as a 200 BC list is not long after their optional upgrade of Kn(F) to Kn(X) in 205 BC (again which I assume will HAVE to be Cataphracts), it probably gives me some justification to retain up to 1/2 of the Line Cavalry as R Kn (F). While Kn(X) are OK against infantry I tend to prefer Cv(O) or Kn (F) overall given that, IIRC, Kn(X) fight as Kn(I) against other knights?
The only thing a 205 BC list prevents is the use of Roman Argyraspides which I thought might be useful in making the heavy infantry less of a one trick (pike) pony and give them a bit more flexibility. Only problem with going that late is that the Brilliant General is not available and also, thematically, I guess pretty much all the Line Cavalry would have to be represented as Cataphracts.
Any thoughts / comments welcome.
Also, wondering if these would be suitable for Line Cavalry Kn (F)? I do like the look of FiB Prodromoi but they were LH AFAIK so likely less suitable.
https://www.museumminiatures.co.uk/heavy-cavalry-bell-cuirass.html
I'm guessing not as they look too early and having checked the page again they are actually listed as Bronze Age. Not an awful lot around from the manufacturers I've been looking at for Line Cavalry that are not either Light, Cataphract or Companion.
Maybe these Bactrian Greek?:
https://www.forgedinbattle.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=614&search=heavy+cavalry
As an aside, is there still a DBMM commentary document available updated for DBMM 2.1? I know it used to be in the Yahoo Groups Files but IIRC Yahoo Groups are dead now.
Pages: [1]