DBA Early Armenian Army II/28(b) in 28mm

One day Don went out and purchased a painted 28mm Seleucid army on eBay and after looking at it I decided I needed a 28mm army to use against it. Looking through the list of enemies I selected the Early Armenian army II/28(b). 


Why this army? Well, I like Light Horse, that is for sure, and I thought that the Cataphracts would be interesting to play. Pitting Auxilia and Psiloi against Pikes would certainly be a challenge, but as I only needed 4 VP to win, I decided it would be easier to crush the non-Pike elements for the win. Looking to the future I can also see using this army to fight against a myriad of Roman lists, so they were not going to be one-use.


If you have followed posts on my other blogs – specifically on the Wooden Warriors blog – you know that at times I like to make my own figures from wood. One thing I always wondered about was how opponents might react to my using my hand-made wooden figures against their commercial, metal figures. Well, this army would be such an experiment. If it failed – the figures looked wrong, compared to commercial figures, or if people objected to me using them – I could always make another army to match against them. (That is where the Romans come in.)


Click on the figure below to see an enlarged version.

You can see more details in the Wooden Warriors blog entry. There were also all kinds of work-in-progress blog entries showing the cataphracts, horse archers, warriors (Auxilia), and archers separately. 


I am still making the Romans – I ran out of steam and I still haven't figured out what to use for the shields – but they will be sent to Bob Barnetson for painting (as he does a fair bit of painting for me now). I want to see what someone else can do with them and whether they are enjoyable for others to paint as I think they are.


Now, if only I would finish the Seleucid elephant that Don is missing, I would get a game in with these guys!

DBA Early Etruscan Army I/55(a)

I am not quite sure where I got this army – I think I bought it from someone on the TMP Ancients Marketplace – but these are Miriliton Etruscans, and from the composition of the DBA army pack they are Early Etruscans.

I held onto the army for awhile before sending it off to Bob Barnetson to have it painted, mostly because I was unsure of how it should look. You can see Bob's original work on his blog. The only real changes I have made are adding magnets to the bottoms of the bases, painting the sides of the bases, and adding shield transfers.

First up is the General in his Light Chariot on the left, and the two Cavalry in the center and right. Note that the right unit is in the style of Italian Greeks, so I applied some LBMS transfers to their shields.

Next are the two Psiloi in the army. I am not sure why Bob did not put the archers on one stand and the javelins on the other, but I was not going to mess up the basing by correcting that.

In the center is the single Blades unit in the army.

Although these are Spears, Miriliton mixed in a few with different shields. Again, I think I would have preferred mixing them in with the other Spears units, but this is fine. It allows me to use them as a specific sub-tribe of some sort. Unfortunately (for the list), they are not Auxilia.

Finally, there are the other Spears units. These are all styled as Italian Greeks with hoplite shields, so I put some LBMS shield transfers on them too. It certainly added a bit of color to the original figures.

I am not really sure of the historical accuracy of the Miriliton figures; they feel as if they come from a later period like the Etruscan League (I/57), but I can morph this army into the (a) variant of that list by painting another Spears unit.

The LBMS shield transfers were an interesting exercise. Don't assume they are like the decals of your childhood; they are not. Read the piece of paper that comes with the transfers; it is not a catalog, but rather instructions! Had I read the little piece of paper, I might not have wasted three transfers!

Basically you cut out the design, peel the thin, light plastic sheet off of the face, press the uncovered face to the surface (shield) as it has adhesive on it, then wet the paper backing in order to slide it off of the transfer. You do not have to wet the whole thing first and then slide the transfer off onto the shield. Doing so means you will not be able to peel off the plastic covering!

I used the Carthaginian shield transfers because it was the closest thing I could find to what I wanted, but I really need to buy some of the Greek ones, given that I have something like 100+ hoplites to do at some point. (You hear that Bob? One hundred Xyston hoplites are waiting for you to paint someday. All I need are shield transfers and spears.)

Now all I have to do is pull out my Italian Greek army (I/52(i)) for a game ...

No Post for Awhile

Obviously there has been no post for awhile. I need to rectify that. My goal this weekend is to at least get some pictures up on the blog of new DBA armies that I have acquired. I've gotten an Early Etruscan army that is painted based, but needs some decals for the shields, and a Kappadocian army that is painted and based, but needs a few details on the cloaks so they look a little less uniform. I also have a Trojan War army that just needs edging on the base. All of these were painted by Bob Barnetson (a.k.a. Bob in Edmonton). Bob's blog is here. He has a new set of Greeks for me coming too.

I've purchased a number of medievals from Mikey Gees. They were all listed as Teutonic armies, but some are more like generic German medieval. But they are all nicely painted. I may have a problem getting some into formation, however, because their lances overlap the bases by a significant amount.

I've also bought an army I have wanted to try for awhile: Hussites. Nothing like seeing what five War Wagons can do. I bought that army to fight two specific opponents and their armies. The first (with his Later Polish) moved away and the second (with his Medieval Germans) doesn't game much anymore. So, buying my own Medieval Germans now seems like a brilliant idea.

Of course, just because I want to put up pictures doesn't mean I am ignoring the DBA Solus project. I have always gone through phases and I just have not cycled back to DBAS yet. I have been doing a lot of Flames of War of late (as indicated on my Dale's Wargames blog), but I want to get back to solo wargaming - just because.

So, don't lose hope! I will return to this space.

New DBA 3.0 (Draft) Army List for Armenia

I was just looking at the WRG website and reading the draft army lists for Section II of the upcoming DBA 3.0 rules and noticed that the Armenian list I am building has had a change! Instead of 2x2Ps it is now 2x(Ps or Bw), so that means I can build two more elements (six more foot archers) in order to have some options!

I am not sure under what circumstances I might use the Bow elements over the Psiloi, but options are options.

Terrain Placement - Anchoring Flanks (Part 2)

Littoral Waterway Defense


The Littoral Waterway Defense uses the compulsory Waterway terrain piece, along with three optional Bad Going Terrain (two Steep Hills and one Woods). The reason this cannot be used for Arable defenders as the Waterway is optional, leaving only two other optional terrain pieces, and this defense requires a Waterway and three terrain pieces.

The figure above shows the terrain placement. The Waterway allows you to remove a section of the board, making it easier to use three pieces of terrain to create anchor points for the flank. As shown in the figure below, this board rotated in every combination still has viable anchor points, either with the terrain pieces, the Waterway, or the board edge.

Some people may prefer not to "turtle" once they have established their battle line between two anchor points, feeling that it gives the initiative over to the enemy. If so, that makes it a good choice for your solo "opponent"; it allows you to try something new that you would not normally do yourself, giving you more experience against that type of defense and foe.

Arable Waterway Defense


The biggest problem with anchoring flanks in Arable home topography's is that you do not have four Bad Going terrain choices to ensure that, no matter which way the board is rotated, the board remains the same. Given that you must use a compulsory piece of terrain - either a BUA or a Road - you can use the BUA to anchor a flank.

I will defer the discussion on using a BUA for the time being, but suffice it to say you can exchange one of the Bad Going terrain pieces for the BUA and achieve the same results, as shown in the figure below.

Note that I have placed the BUA opposite to the Waterway, increasing the odds that the defender will have the waterway to its flank, rather than behind it. The figure below shows the possible battle lines for each way the board can be rotated by the attacker. Note that the attacker will generally favor the baseline opposite the BUA with the Waterway to the left flank (in this case), so the odds are the defender will defend with the lower-right configuration.

So, what if you need to anchor your flanks, have the Arable topography, but don't want to use a BUA? We'll look at that next time.

Terrain Placement - Anchoring Flanks (Part 1)

The primary differentiator between Anchoring Flanks and Concentrating Forces is the type of terrain the battle line rests its flanks upon, or the distance between the battle line's flank and the terrain piece. Anchoring Flanks not only allows the flank to rest upon Bad Going terrain, it prefers it.

Looking at the terrain types, the following can be considered:

• Steep Hills: Preferred as it is Bad Going, plus it allows your flanking light infantry to gain an advantage (uphill) should the enemy light infantry try to flank your battle line through the terrain.
• Gentle Hills: Not acceptable as it is not Bad Going, so virtually any fast moving elements can attack your flank and it will have an advantage (uphill).
• Woods: Preferred as it is Bad Going, plus it creates more of a command issue (extra PIP) for the attacking flanking force trying to outflank the battle line.
• Marsh: Acceptable as it is Bad Going, but it does not create a command issue as with Woods, nor an advantage for light infantry guarding the flanks. However, it might be upgraded to Preferred if the defending army protects the flanks with missile weapons. Note also that the shape of a Marsh can be "sausage-like".
• Rough: Rate the same as for a Marsh.
• Dunes: Rate the same as for a Woods, unless the attacking army has Camels. If the attacker has Camels and you defend the flank with Bows, rate it as Preferred, otherwise it is not acceptable.
• Oasis: Rate the same as for a Woods, unless the attacking army has Camels, in which case it is rated as not acceptable.
• BUA: This is a whole discussion unto itself and will be addressed in another blog entry.
• Waterway: Preferred as it is Impassable. A Littoral attacking army may use it to make a landing, so it is something that must be considered as to whether it is to be placed at all, but for the purposes of Anchoring Flanks, it works.
• River: 67% of the time a river will be useful for Anchoring Flanks and 33% of the time it will not. The problem is that you do not know which it will be until after you select it and the game has started. Consider it acceptable, especially in combination with a BUA.
• Road: Dangerous as it is essentially open ground and the enemy has the possibility of rapidly advancing upon your flank using road movement. Do not anchor a flank on a road.

So, with the various rating established, we can look at each of the Topography values and determine the best terrain to consider for Anchoring Flanks, in order of preference:

• Arable: Waterway, Steep Hill, Woods, and River. A Gentle Hill or Road can be used, but should not be on the flank.
• Forest: Woods, Marsh, and River. A Gentle Hill can be used, but should not be on the flank.
• Hilly: Steep Hill, Woods, and River. A Road can be used, but should not be on the flank.
• Steppe: Rough and River. A Gentle Hill can be used, but should not be on the flank. Let's hope that if you have this topography you have an army that prefers not to Anchor Flanks!
• Dry: Steep Hill, Oasis, Dunes, and Rough. Pretty much every choice is a good one for an army that wants to Anchor Flanks.
• Tropical: Woods, Marsh or Rough, and River. A Road can be used, but should not be on the flank.
• Littoral: Waterway, Steep Hill, Woods, Dunes, Marsh, and River.

So, we now have the "which terrain", let's talk about "how many pieces".

The 4 Point Defense

As the defender, the best way to ensure that your flanks are anchored when it comes time to deploy is to set up a "4 point defense" - or a board that has four defense points (in this case, terrain pieces). For example, see the figure below.

In the figure the green is the board (24" by 24") and the brown are terrain pieces (in this case the maximum 180mm x 180mm). The thin black line indicates exactly 40mm from the board edge, so with the terrain overlapping the lines, an element cannot pass between the board edge and the terrain piece; at some point it must pass through the terrain.

The "A" at the top of the screen is a reference point. If the board ends up being rotated by the attacker's choice of preferred baseline and the subsequent roll, the board configuration will essentially be the same no matter how the board is rotated, as shown in the figure below.

So, with the 4 point defense in place, your battle line can anchor it's flanks and the light troops can defend the terrain. The figure below shows how a defender (in blue) might utilize the setup.

In order to use the 4 point defense the defender's topography rating must have either preferred or acceptable terrain as one of the compulsory terrain types, given that you cannot choose four optional pieces of terrain and this defense requires four terrain pieces. So, returning to our Topography rating for the defender, what would the 4 point defense look like for each?

• Arable: A 4 point defense cannot be used as none of the compulsory terrain is ideal for anchoring flanks. (Exception: see the discussion on placing a BUA in a later blog entry.)
• Forest: Two Woods and two Marshes serve as the four points.
• Hilly: Two Steep Hills and two Woods serve as the four points as none of the compulsory terrain is ideal for anchoring flanks.
• Steppe: A 4 point defense cannot be used.
• Dry: For missile-oriented armies, or against armies that have Camels use two Steep Hills and two Roughs. Against missile-oriented armies use two Roughs and two Oasis.
• Tropical: Two Woods and two Marsh or Rough.
• Littoral: A 4 point defense cannot be used, as a Waterway is compulsory.

Well, that's a start. Next we will look at the next defense to consider for Anchoring Flanks: the Waterway Defense.

Terrain Placement - Part 2

In the last blog entry I started discussing terrain placement. The idea was that the attacking and defending army types would determine how the defender would arrange the terrain to suit his fighting style.

The last thing I wrote was how I should probably have included a Light Horse army type, so here it is, along with a Knightly army type:

Defending Army Type
////\\\\	HI	LI	Mixed	Mtd	Kn	LH
HI	OA/CF	DF/AF	OA/CF	OA	OA	OA
LI	CF	OA/DF	OA	OA	OA	OA
Mixed	CF/AF	DF	OA/CF	CF/OA	CF/OA	CF/OA
Mtd	AF	DF	CF/AF	OA	OA	OA
Kn	AF	DF	CF/DF	OA	CF	OA
LH	AF	DF	AF/CF	AF	AF	OA

As a reminder, the codes are defined as:

• AF = Anchor Flanks: the Defender needs to set terrain such that he can anchor the flanks of the main battle line on terrain.
• CF = Concentrate Forces: the Defender needs to set terrain such that he can concentrate his forces without necessarily exposing his flanks to attack by forces in Bad Going.
• DF = Disrupt Forces: the Defender needs to set as much terrain as possible in order to disrupt the enemy's battle line and to make him vulnerable to attacks from the Defender's forces in Bad Going.
• OA = Open Area: the Defender needs to place minimal terrain - in number, size, and disruptive effects - to keep maneuver to a maximum.

So now that we have a general description of how to use terrain to the defender's advantage, which terrain do we place and where do we place it? That is the topic of the next blog entries.