Topics

1

Competitions / Cancon 2022 - Saturday 22 January - Sunday 23 January

« on: January 06, 2022, 01:26:37 PM »

This Cancon’s DBMM v2.1 15mm competition is for armies of 400AP (including stratagems).

There will be four rounds of 3 hours 30 minutes (+/- 10 minutes) on Saturday and Sunday.

Armies permitted are all those within the years 3000BC to 1525AD, one list only.

Please send your list to the tournament organiser by Saturday 15 January for checking.

Late lists will be made available for viewing.

If you have any questions please ask me (peter DOT barritus AT yahoo DOT com DOT au)!

Online entries at https://cgs.asn.au/cancon/cancon-tournaments/

2

Book 2 / Winning with Late Imperial Romans

« on: September 02, 2021, 10:51:35 AM »

How do you do it?

It's a list with tremendous variety and plenty of potential, but I've never worked out how to make a successful go of it.

Does anyone have any ideas, clues or suggestions? Has anyone had success with one in an open competition?

Cheers

Peter

3

General Discussion / Help interpreting lists

« on: October 01, 2020, 01:40:12 PM »

There are a couple of cases of inconsistent wording in the lists, and I was wondering if anyone might have some insights into how we should interpret the wording.

1. One troop type "replacing" another.

In the lists, upgrades are usually well explained, such as upgrading All/none Toltec-Chichimec Bd (I) to Bd (F).

But changes to troops labelled as "replacing" are less easy to follow.

For example, in the Romanian Frank army, from 1312, I can have 5-12 Irr Kn (O), but I can "replace" 0-10 of them with Reg Kn (O). Okay, I'm reasonably sure that means I can have 0-10 Reg Kn (O), and can then take some Irr Kn (O) as well, to the number of (5-12) minus the number of Reg Kn (O) I've taken. So, for example, if I take 8 Reg Kn (O), I can then take 0-4 Irr Kn (O).

But what about the Anglo-Irish? I can take 4-12 Irr Kn (O). From 1293 I replace 2-6 of them with Irr Cv (I). Does this mean the entry for the Irr Kn (O) is deleted and replaced with the Irr Cv (I) entry? Or (as I suspect is the case) is it that I have to take 2-6 Irr Cv (I), and however many I take is deducted from the number of Irr Kn (O) I can take? So, for example, if I take 3 Irr Cv (I), I can then take 1-9 Irr Kn (O).

The reason I ask is that, in ordinary English usage, when you want to be precise in what you're writing about, different words will have different meanings. But in these lists different words are used with what appears to be the same meaning. For example, in the Anglo-Irish list the word "downgrade" is used in a way which appears to mean exactly the same thing as "replace": from 1328 you downgrade 1/2 to all Irr Kn (O) to Irr Cv (O).

Why the different word? Why are some Irr Kn (O) "replaced" with Irr Cv (I), but other Irr Kn (O) are "downgraded" to Irr Cv (O)? Is there a difference other than the word used? If so, what is that other difference? If not, why use the different word? It simply causes confusion.

2. Number of Bge elements available.

The rules say ('Baggage' page 9) that each general has 0-2 baggage elements plus any Baggage (S) its army list permits. Thus, for example, the Communal Italian army can have 0-2 Bge (O) per general, and also has a Bge (S) Carroccio.

But there are other armies where a Bge (S) that is available only at the apparent expense of normal baggage elements. For example, in the Arab Conquest list 0-1 Bge (S) is available, but only by replacing one of the army's normal baggage elements. The same goes for the Norse Irish Cathach reliquary and clerical escort Bge (S) element, which replaces a normal baggage element.

First thing, how does this work with the rules, when the rules say Bge (S) is in addition to the normal baggage. Can I ignore the list and take 2 baggage elements in addition to the Bge (S) element? Or do I have to ignore what the rules say about having 2 baggage elements plus the Bge (S) element?

Second, if the list is to take precedence over the rules, how does it work in practice? Does this mean the Bge (S) element is required to be allocated to a baggage command with the rest of the baggage elements, or can it be allocated to the command itself, and thus provide its combat bonus to adjacent troops as well as its enhanced ME to the command?

Thank you!

4

Rules Questions / Artillery shooting from a PF tower

« on: September 06, 2020, 01:18:23 PM »

On page 11 it says that Art in a PF which are to shoot out must be in a tower.

On page 12 the costing example strongly suggests towers are square.

On page 34 it says that any edge of an element in a PF tower can be the shooting edge, and that an element is a valid target if any part of it is visible within half a base width of straight ahead of any part of the shooting edge.

Put all this together, and it appears that elements approaching from a 45 degree angle towards a tower's corner are pretty much untouchable by shooting until they come within half a base width of the tower, at which point they're only one move away from contacting.

Something about that doesn't seem right.

Have I got the rules right, or is there something I'm missing?

Cheers

Peter

5

Rules Questions / Some thoughts on Inert generals

« on: August 28, 2020, 03:30:19 PM »

I've always enjoyed using armies with Inert generals - a good way to place lots more troops on the table and make your army much more of a visual spectacle.

But as I've been contemplating the rules over these last few gameless months, I wonder whether the category of Inert generals might be worth looking at again, with a view to splitting it in two - Rash and Cautious.

The basic business of Inert generals is that the C-in-C loses his special PIP, and all PIP dice are reduced by 1 (fewer stratagems too, but that's not affected by this discussion). Fewer PIPs means it's harder to move lots of troops, but also harder to prevent impetuous troops from going spontaneous.

And here lies the problem: for some armies with Inert generals, letting the bulk of the troops go sponno is just fine. You use the available PIPs to move the Sp and Bw in your Later Crusader army, and let your extra Kn available to Inert Guy de Lusignan go haring off towards the enemy for free. Conversely, the list notes suggest the Caledonians under Calgacus sat around instead of charging impetuously, yet under the rules, taking Calgacus as the Caledonian C-in-C makes an impetuous charge more likely, not less.

So what I'd like to suggest for a future version of the rules is to replace Inert generals with Rash and Cautious generals. Rash generals are just like the current Inert generals, except that all troops under them (except perhaps Hd (O) and (I) and Art) are impetuous. Cautious generals are just like the current Inert generals, except that all troops under them are not impetuous.

Current Inert generals in lists would then be re-classified as one or the other. For example, I'd say generals like Rameses the Great, Varro and Charles the Bold would be Rash, while generals like Nikias, Darius, Lepidus and Calgacus would be Cautious.

Rash generals: This doesn't automatically mean that you'll have massive regular armies swarming across the table like crazy warband armies, because you'll have large groups of troops who are still quite cheap to hold or to move in the ordinary way. But it does mean that the occasional bad PIP dice will result in groups being moved forward when the player might prefer to keep them in place, or individual elements moving into disadvantageous contact. This would seem a good way to re-create the disasters the named generals above experienced, with otherwise well-trained armies moving forward into combat perhaps more eagerly than tactical circumstances would have recommended.

Inert generals: This would re-create the lumpish behaviour of armies led by the named generals above, such as the Athenians sitting around on their backsides at Syracuse, or Calgacus's Caledonians passively awaiting a Roman charge when they could have instead been doing good warband things to the Romans.

I'd be curious to hear your comments and criticisms of any flaws with the idea.

Cheers

Peter

6

Book 2 / Late Romans and African Vandals

« on: August 28, 2020, 03:04:37 PM »

I've just finished reading Michael Kulikowski's "Imperial Tragedy". It's not only given me some fascinating new insights into the final century of the Western Roman Empire, but suggested some changes to Late Roman and African Vandal lists for next time someone is inspired to update the lists.

Patrician Roman (Western): The steady disintegration of the Western Empire suggests that by around the middle of the 5th century (say, after the death of Aetius) that Western Patrician Roman armies should have a limit placed on the number of regular elements, perhaps no more than 20 regular elements. That way the player is forced to use either a lot of foederate foot or allies. The problem at the moment is that, even though the list notes talk about the need for Patricians to use allies, even an army of Odoacer can be fielded at 400AP with an entirely regular army of three generals, Kn, Cv, LH, Bd, Ax, Art and Ps.

African Vandal: Kulikowski points out that after the death of Gaiseric the Vandals suffered a series of defeats at the hands of both Goths and Moors, which suggests that from about 480AD all Vandal Kn (F) should be downgraded to Irr Kn (I). Frankly that's still fairly formidable, and will give Cv opponents plenty to sweat about, but they'll also be considerably more fragile. It would also make Gelimer's Inertness all the more of a problem, as he's going to have to pay PIPs to move those great lumps of Kn anywhere.

7

Book 4 / Medieval French

« on: November 09, 2019, 01:05:40 PM »

This list contains some useful heavy infantry, but I've got a question about how one type evolves through the history of the list.

In the basic list you can choose "Communal Infantry" (Reg Sp (I)) and "Brigans" (Irr Bd (I)).

After 1350 you replace the Communal Infantry with Pavisiers (Reg Sp (O)), and the Brigans are re-armed with spear and pavise as Irr Sp (O).

Then, after 1400, Pavisiers can be replaced by Voulgiers (Reg Bd (O)).

Does this term "Pavisiers" apply only to the Reg Sp (O) Pavisiers, or can it include the Brigans which are, after all, carrying pavises?

8

Rules Questions / Weather score 0 - fog and mist

« on: October 31, 2019, 11:32:44 AM »

Fog in Cool if winter or in Cold in autumn, mist in other seasons in Cool, or any season in other climates except Dry from 1 hour before dawn.

Okay, so is there mist in Cold in seasons other than autumn? I assume not, otherwise why the specific mention of Cool and Cold in the fog part of the sentence, but only Cool gets mentioned in the mist part of the sentence?

Let's summarise it in a chart:

Dry - no mist or fog in any season;
Warm and Tropical - mist in any season;
Cool - fog in winter, mist in other seasons;
Cold - fog in autumn, ____ in other seasons?

Thank you!

9

Competitions / Cancon 2020 - Sat 25 January to Mon 27 January 2020

« on: October 02, 2019, 07:49:11 AM »

DBMM v2.1 @ Cancon 2020 (Exhibition Park In Canberra) - Australia's biggest wargaming event with over 900 entries in 30+ games, and 30+ traders

Organiser: Me! (peter DOT barritus AT yahoo DOT com DOT au)

= = = =

Once more unto the dice!

This Cancon’s DBMM v2.1 15mm competition is for armies of 400AP (plus 10AP for stratagems).

There will be six rounds of 3 hours 30 minutes (+/- 10 minutes).

Armies permitted are all those within the years 3000BC to 1525AD, one list only.

Please send your list to the organiser by Saturday 18 January for checking.

Late lists will be made available for viewing.

I recommend you enter as soon as you can - entries for last Cancon sold out more than two months before the event (entries at https://cgs.asn.au/cancon/cancon-tournaments/).

If you have any questions please ask me!

10

Rules Questions / Delay battle stratagem

« on: April 19, 2019, 03:46:28 PM »

This stratagem is available either to any invaders, or to defenders with fortified baggage.

Can you put Bge (I) inside a fortified BUA in order to use the stratagem?

The reason I ask is that armies with no access to fortifications for their baggage have to place their baggage inside a fortified BUA if they want it protected. But while only Bge (O) can gain a combat benefit from defending fortifications, the words in the section about the Delay Battle stratagem don't say anything about being behind fortifications you can benefit from, merely about being inside fortifications.

Also, there are a number of armies which don't have the option of Bge (O), so the stricter reading of the rules suggests they wouldn't be able to even try to use the Delay Battle stratagem if defending, and that seems a little unfair.

11

Competitions / Americon - 200AP competition in Canberra

« on: April 09, 2019, 03:14:15 PM »

Welcome to Canberra's second DBMM mini-con.

This time the theme is Americon - armies of America (and the Pacific) up to 1535 (that is, including the Spanish invasions).

Americon is a one-day three-round DBMM200 15mm competition to re-create the battles of that time, featuring the following armies: Maya; Chichimec and Pueblo Cultures; Toltec; Eastern Forest American; Mound Builder American; North-Western American; Tarascan, Toltec-Chichimec or Chinantec; Tupi; Mixtec or Zapotec; Aztec; Chanca; Chimu; Amazonian; Inca; Mapuche; Polynesian and Melanesian.

When: Sunday 28 April, 10am - 5pm

Where: Jolt Games, 56 Hoskins Street, Mitchell (joltgames.com.au)

What: DBMM v2.1 15mm, 200AP (using the DBMM200 rules), armies to be chosen from the seventeen armies above. Games to be 1 hour 45 minutes +/- 5 minutes (please bring your own terrain). Loaner armies will be available.

How much: Entry is $10, payable on the day

Organiser: Peter Barrett (peter DOT barritus AT yahoo DOT com DOT au)

Please contact the organiser to confirm your interest, or for any questions about the comp.

Cheers

Barritus

12

Rules Questions / Moving into a gap between two enemy elements when...

« on: April 01, 2019, 01:16:12 PM »

...there's a gap less than 80 paces wide.

According to the rules on p32, "The only instances in which an element can move inside a space insufficient for its own frontage between...elements...[is]...(c) to slide sideways to line up in a TZ or in close combat.

1. Imagine there are two enemy elements which are 70 paces apart (35mm in 15mm scale), and their front edges are in line.

My understanding is that I can't move one of my elements sideways into that gap to hit one of the enemy elements in the flank. Is that right?

2. If so, now what if the two enemy elements are still parallel, but the front edge of one is in front of the front edge of the other.

My understanding is that I can move one of my elements sideways to hit the flank of the enemy element which is in front, and it then uses EMTLU to slide into legal contact. Is that right?

13

Battle Reports / Galatians v Mongol Conquest

« on: March 04, 2019, 02:07:23 PM »

My Galatians (of the Wb (O) persuasion) faced Jon's Mongols. I went for a double flank march (Galatian and Pisidian commands), with the two on-board commands already outnumbering Jon's entire army.

The terrain was almost perfect for me - difficult terrain at one end of Jon's deployment zone for the Pisidians to advance into, and rough at the other end for the Wb to take, and my flanks well enough covered that the Mongols would be discouraged from flank marching.

I advanced quickly enough to slow down Jon's attempt to get LH around my left flank - some made it, but only just, as my Galatian flank march arrived on that side to occupy their attention.

In the centre the Mongol Hd (I) fought like demons against charging Wb, for the mortifying result of three draws and a recoil on the Wb at first contact! But after that the Wb had the numbers to maintain a steady stream of repulses on the Mongol LH, and a gradually increasing number of spent results as the overlaps built up.

Jon was only able to get his Cv (S) from the centre to the edge of the rough on his right flank when the flank marching Wb arrived, and by the time the Wb attacked the Cv (S), I had some Cv coming through from the on-board command to hit the flank of the Cv (S) too.

Meanwhile the flank marching Galatian Cv and chariots charged into some of the Mongol LH who'd got around my flank, and knocked over a few of them.

Eventually the Mongol right wing collapsed, and the transmitted result plus a massive number of spent results was enough to break the Mongol left flank command. Galatian losses were quite a few Wb (particularly from my right wing command facing Cv (O)), along with some Cv from the left wing and the Galatian flank march. The Pisidian ally rolled to arrive in the final bound of the game.

Thanks to Jon for a game which was probably a bit more amusing for me than for him (apart from the Hd debacle).