SRB Hordes/Peasants

[Martin Smith]

Looking at the DBA v3 Sub-Roman Brit army list, it now includes the option, in the 'c' list, covering Britain 471-580 and Armorica 429-580, for up to 1/3 of the army as hordes (7Hd) or peasants. I can't see any hordes in my copy of the DBM lists, so this has presumably trickled through from some change from the DBM to DBMM lists (?).

Can anyone with the DBMM lists summarise what comments there may be in the text referring to these low grade troops, please?

[Swampster]

None in the DBMM lists. That may be a clue that they will be in the new 'MM lists which are supposedly available soon.

[Martin Smith]

None in the DBMM lists. That may be a clue that they will be in the new 'MM lists which are supposedly available soon.

Ooooerr....DBA lists ahead of DBMM?? That'll put the cat among the pigeons  . Thanks, Peter.

M

[Swampster]

There have been a couple of other things in the DBA lists which have made 'MMers sit up and take notice. In at least one instance it caused a pre-emptive strike to try to avert the change, which may well have succeeded. I know Phil asked for input on the DBA lists but I don't know how much discussion there was. There has been virtually none about the 'MM lists, unlike the previous iteration. Phil asked for suggestions but there has been very little about whether any have been adopted or to debate changes he has come up with himself. That has made the process much quicker (once they are finally published) but there may be some who are left less than gruntled.

[Martin Smith]

There have been a couple of other things in the DBA lists which have made 'MMers sit up and take notice. In at least one instance it caused a pre-emptive strike to try to avert the change, which may well have succeeded. I know Phil asked for input on the DBA lists but I don't know how much discussion there was. There has been virtually none about the 'MM lists, unlike the previous iteration. Phil asked for suggestions but there has been very little about whether any have been adopted or to debate changes he has come up with himself. That has made the process much quicker (once they are finally published) but there may be some who are left less than gruntled.

Despite assurances to the contrary, the majority of DBA army lists had some form of change. You might think 'so what, small armies, what's the worry' but having collected, painted and based a large number of armies over 15-20 years it's a right b*gger trying to a) find extra figs, some of which have migrated to the US, b) paint them in the same style as you did 15 years ago (for better or worse!) and c) base them  the same, so they blend with their colleagues.

Hope for your sake the MM lists don't change too much.

M

[Swampster]

Hope for your sake the MM lists don't change too much.

M
[/quote]

There are some changes I hope do happen -  decent Medieval German list for one - but it is a pain when an army you have has to change.

[Andreas Johansson]

I know Phil asked for input on the DBA lists but I don't know how much discussion there was.

There was some, but mostly in terms on how to update the DBA lists to conformity with the DBMM lists. Lists that are "ahead" of the DBMM versions in terms of incorporating newer thinking or research are the exception.

In at least one case - Xi Xia - the DBA 3 list is ahead of the DBMM list because it's based on a proposal by Duncan for an updated DBMM list.

Regarding Medieval German, I sent Phil a proposal way back when for a version that achieves almost the same in practice as the current list, minus a couple apparent bugs, yet should be much less confusing to use. Unfortunately, I never got any response at all to it. Which, on past experience means that it may be accepted more-or-less wholesale, or ignored altogether. No way to tell.

[Imperial Dave]

fairly happy with their inclusion as we underestimate the lack of 'organised' wholesale armies in this period. Hordes give us the Militia option