For the the stuff that doesn't fit in elsewhere!
Rob's Quick Guide to the DBMM v1.0 Baggage Rules
Bge are usually 0-2 per general.
If command Bge:
Bge are 2ME, they behave like any other element and must be in their command
(obviously!)
If army Bge:
They are 0.5ME for their own command and also for any other command which
contributes Bge to the army bge. When lost they deduct their 0.5ME from their
own command (obviously!) and any command which received ME from them.
They can be deployed in a separate train command (the usual) or
they can be grouped in one of the other commands (generally bad because it means
that when that command breaks every other command
loses ME since the Bge count as lost).
When a separate army bge (train) command breaks, the army loses all that
commands ME and all commands also lose all the ME they gained from army bge.
<interp alert> When a command that has received ME from army bge breaks, the
"bonus" ME from army bge is not counted as lost. </interp>
In general it is best to use army Bge grouped in a separate train command as you
will end up with more ME and when your commands
break then you don't lose the bonus ME due to army bge.
Probability of Battle Start Times in DBMM v1.0 by L Greaves
time, probability %
1, 0
2, 0
3, 5.71
4, 5.79
5, 11.57
6, 11.73
7, 17.59
8, 12.11
9, 12.35
10, 6.79
11, 6.94
12, 1.31
13, 1.39
14, 1.39
15, 1.39
16, 1.31
17, 1.23
18, 1.08
19, 0.93
20, 0.69
21, 0.46
22, 0.31
23, 0.15
24, 0.08
Phil Barker on How Many Guns in Art Elements
> And we might need some more definite decision on how many pieces are
> represented by different grades of Art element.
The larger number should apply, unless there was a significant effect by a
smaller total . For example, at Bedriacum 2 big stone throwers had a
dominating effect.
Similarly, the elephant scale is 16, but a single element can represent only
4.
Jim W's Painting 15mm for crappy painters.
Stick figures to base
White undercoat
block in tunic colours
block in flesh colours
paint shield, spears, weapons etc
wash over with ink (windsor and newton 'peat' is my choice)
Paint base with mixture of pva glue and green colouring, add flock
Tom A's Recomends a Discussion on Chinese History/Sources
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29519
This both gives some background info on Chinese generals and, far more
interestingly, brings out the difficulties of using ancient sources.
Even in a well known ancient text there are enormous problems in
understanding the meaning.
Lorenzo's Easy to Remember Gradings Guide
I don't know if this can help you, but this is the way I memorized the
S in melee:
Cavalry S
Vs Infantry: Winning and losing in own bound
Vs mounted: winning in own bound, losing in enemy
Infantry S
Vs Infantry: winning in own bound
Vs mounted: losing in enemy bound
S Shooting
S shooting: winning in any bound
S target: losing in any bound
S target has 2 exceptions: it's not applied if firer is artillery,
and apply the +1 just if losing, not on even scores.
Notes:
Winning means apply -1 to enemy roll, losing means apply +1 to its own roll.
All results apply to even score as well.
I find it much easier than the rules text.
AP per ME for DBMM Troop Types by Toby Partridge
I am sure other people have worked this out, but I haven't seen a table of AP per ME,
which is important IMHO in determining how effective a troop could be as a filler...
0.5 - I Bge(I)
1.0 - I Bge(O),I Bge(F), R Bge(I)
1.5 - I Bge(S), R Bge(O), R Bge(F)
2.0 - Ps(I), Hd(O), Hd(F)
2.5 -
3.0 - R Bge(S), R Pk(I), LH(I)
3.5 - R Sp(S), I Bd(S)
4.0 - R Bw(I), I Ax(S), I Ax(I), R Pk(O), R Pk(X), I Sp(O), R Sp(I), I LH(F), I LH(O), Ps(O), I Kn(I), I
Bd(I), I Bw(O)
4.5 - R Bd(S), I Cv(S), I Kn(F)
5.0 - R Ax(S), R Pk(S), R Sp(O), R Cv(S), R LH(O), R LH(F), I Cv(I), I Kn(O), R Kn(I), I Bd(F), I
Bd(O), R Bd(I), Wb(S), R Bw(O), I Bw(S), I Bw(X)
5.5 - I Kn(X), R Kn(F)
6.0 - I Sp(I), I Ax(O), I LH(S), R Cv(I), R Bd(F), Ps(S), I Kn(S), R Kn(O), I Bd(X), Wb(O), Wb(F), R
Bw(S), I Bw(I)
6.5 - R Kn(X)
7.0 - I Cv(O), R Bd(O), R Bw(X)
7.5 - R Kn(S)
8.0 - R Cv(O), R Ax(O), R Bd(X), I Bw(X/O) DBE
8.5 -
9.0 - R Kn(I) DBE
9.5 -
10.0 - R Bw(X/O) DBE
10.5 -
11.0 -
11.5 - R Kn(X/I) DBE
So far the DBE Kn(X/I) is the worst value element I have found AP for ME.
The interesting thing is how bad Reg Ax(O) are for generating ME for your army - 8 AP for
every ME.
DBMM Regular Generals PIP Allocations by Lawrence Greaves
> More importantly though, the "Low PIP liability" is a myth in another
> way; the "low PIP" command doesn't actually have low PIPs! One of our
> resident statisticians provided this, which I've retained.
>
>> 2 dice 4.47, 2.53
>> 3 dice 4.96, 3.5, 2.04
>> 4 dice 5.24, 4.10, 2.90, 1.76
>
> To this can usually be added a regular sub general's bonus PIP, so the
> low PIP command in a 3 command army gets an average of 3.04 PIPs,
> compared to 3.5 for an irregular command. Even a 4th command will end up
> with 2.76 PIPs, still a difference of less than one PIP - for the worst
> command in the army.
>
> Add in magic tents and it looks even better!
>
> Extra PIPs for magic tents hand over the following extra PIPs.
>
>> 0.28 to the highest
>> 0.6 to the middle
>> 0.86 to the lowest.
>
> So now, the low PIP "fighting" command averages *more* than an irregular
> command, 3.9 for a third command or 3.62 for a fourth.
Phil Barker's Potted History of DBx
The first DB rules were DBC, written at Sue's instance for a nephew she had
given Romans and Brits. His response was to take up Warhammer. DBC was
demonstrated once at COW with 2mm figures in a 4 player game. No vast swell
of enthusiasm.
DBSA was produced as a 10 minute game for an SOA conference, with Sue and I
providing 8 3-dimensional 24" square terrain boards and 8 pair of armies. It
was a huge success with everyone but the then SOA committee, who did not
think it worth supporting or publishing.
The reason for its success was that with a 10 minute game being aimed at,
only absolute essentials could be included and I had to boil things down as
much as possible, telescoping what had been several stages of play into
action and result. Real competition wargamers were hostile to this, but got
shouted down by the intelligent mob.
Public pressure meant that WRG had to publish a revised version as DBA.
Because Paul Bailey was reluctant to sell something that small and cheap, it
was bundled with a campaign system by Richard and army lists mostly by Sue.
More public pressure led to DBM, so you could have big games with a full
army on a normal table. I invented the mechanisms, Richard did most of the
testing, and we both did the wording. I was the one who argued for
simplicity...
PHIL'S WARGAMING TESTAMENT
My idea of a good set of wargames rules is that:
1) The player should have the information available to and the restrictions
imposed on a historical general, and should gain the same advantages from
making a plan as a historical general. As far as humanly possible, he should
be that general.
2) The game should be set in something closely resembling the real world,
with all the inconveniences a general had to cope with, including local
geography, the sun rising and setting, occasional bad weather, terrain being
of an inconvenient type or in an inconvenient place (not manipulated by the
player), the possibility of movement by water, treachery, incompetence,
unusual cunning or initiatives by opponents, bad luck and what Clausewitz
calls "friction". A good general (and by extension a good player) is one
that can rise above or even exploit these things.
3) The player should as far as possible only have to do those things a real
general had to do - basically move troops with the ultimate intention of
contacting enemy and observe and exploit the result. A real general did not
have to make calculations, follow testing procedures, place markers or
cross-reference tables, so neither should a player. Mechanisms should be
minimised. Rules should exist to fight a battle with the minimum of fuss,
not to show-off how clever and subtle the rule-writer can be.
4) A real battle had to have a result, or else a lot of people had died for
nothing. A wargame should accordingly favour results. Rules must not
mitigate a local result, but instead try to provide ways to exploit a local
result. Mitigation rules favour the unenterprizing, incompetent or unlucky.
The real world has no favourites.
5) The game should look like a real battle and be seen by participants and
onlookers to progress like a real battle. It should be interesting and
exciting.
6) The best test of historical accuracy lies in numerous historical
refights, the results of which should fall within the bounds of historical
possibility. This enables you to confidently extrapolate to games between
unhistorical opponents.
7) The game should be played between wargames armies with a close
resemblance to their historical prototypes. This requires the production of
unambiguous and as far as possible historically accurate army lists for the
great majority of the armies of the period and area.
A set of rules that does not conform to these is in my considered opinion
not a set of wargames rules, but just a game played with toy soldiers.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.