"6mm DBMM Triplex Acies" Topic

Hello everyone!

I am starting up DBMM from not doing ancients before, mostly to do solo play and try to get others interested. That said, I've been having some difficulty deciding how I am going to base my minis.

I plan to use 6mm Baccus, but can't decide between 15mm basing or 25mm basing.

Armies planned are Camillian Romans, Etruscans, Polybian Romans, and Later Carthaginian's.

The 40mm frontage allows me to have two to three strips of 4 figures in a line, but I also would like to display the manipular formation which would require the 25mm basing of 60mm frontage, as I could have two strips on the say front left of the base and then two strips to the back right of the base, allowing for a display of the checkerboard formation. If I did that, then I would need separate armies for Camillian and Polybian Romans, as the Camillian list has Hastati and Principes as separate elements that the Polybian list does not.

Would it make more sense historically to have each element based in solid lines? Or to try and display the checkerboard pattern on the base?

My thought process is that if it makes more sense historically to have the Hastati/Principes in a solid line then I would go with 15mm frontage, but if it makes more sense to have the checkerboard pattern displayed then I would go with 25mm frontage and have the maniples displayed on the element.

An upside to having the elements in solid line would be that I can use Camillian troops in the Polybian list and visa versa.

Thoughts for a new ancients war gamer?

Hello everyone!

I am starting up DBMM from not doing ancients before, mostly to do solo play and try to get others interested. That said, I've been having some difficulty deciding how I am going to base my minis.

I plan to use 6mm Baccus, but can't decide between 15mm basing or 25mm basing.

Armies planned are Camillian Romans, Etruscans, Polybian Romans, and Later Carthaginian's.

The 40mm frontage allows me to have two to three strips of 4 figures in a line, but I also would like to display the manipular formation which would require the 25mm basing of 60mm frontage, as I could have two strips on the say front left of the base and then two strips to the back right of the base, allowing for a display of the checkerboard formation. If I did that, then I would need separate armies for Camillian and Polybian Romans, as the Camillian list has Hastati and Principes as separate elements that the Polybian list does not.

Would it make more sense historically to have each element based in solid lines? Or to try and display the checkerboard pattern on the base?

My thought process is that if it makes more sense historically to have the Hastati/Principes in a solid line then I would go with 15mm frontage, but if it makes more sense to have the checkerboard pattern displayed then I would go with 25mm frontage and have the maniples displayed on the element.

An upside to having the elements in solid line would be that I can use Camillian troops in the Polybian list and visa versa.

Thoughts for a new ancients war gamer?

Well, I've played one DBMM game, so take this with a pinch of salt ….

You're putting together both sides, so do whatever appeals to you the most

Note that the table size for 60mm basing is substantially bigger than 40mm, if you can stand having a table take over a whole room for multiple days, 60mm is good, otherwise go 40mm.

Also figure out how much you will have to paint. DBMM ends up with a lot of bases, multiply this by 10+ figures on a base and that could be too much painting. I highly recommend that you paint a few first before making the basing decision

John

I don't know that the chequerboard formation was always used throughout the period. For example it is specifically mentioned for Zama (Polybian era). But it would look good.

A couple of things to consider:

1)
If you're only playing solo and/or supplying both armies, you could consider 15mm basing but use the Ax/Ps depth for your heavy infantry. Some people do that anyway. That might give you room to fit the same pattern. I think in those cases people recoil the (revised) full base depth so group formation is not affected.

2)
If you are planning to play other people at competitions (and you live in the UK) then I think the convention is that 6mm is played on the 25/28mm bases.

3)
Consider too that DBMM100 or 200 give great games and don't need as big a table.

What would you do for the Etruscan heavy infantry – 2 solid ranks or maybe three?

Cheers,
John

Ps.

1 The Camillan list is a pig but yes, I do have the lead . . .

2 You should consider Gauls, Samnites or other Italians in the Camillan period.

Good to know about the table size requirements, I was basing things off of the recommended ping pong table size for 25mm, but it would make sense that it would need to be much longer.

It's tempting to make the bases slightly larger but going away from the standard base sizes makes me feel like I'm "breaking the rules" even though it doesn't really matter.

I'm not in the UK, but the 60mm bases do look quite good.

DBMM100/200 is how I am planning on starting, thank you for that recommendation.

With the etruscans I'm planning on doing two solid ranks, the checkerboard considering is just for the Roman. And I'm also planning on doing a Samnite army as well but that's later on in the planning.

I suppose the real question is the age old one of how does the triplex formation work in reality? Did they form a rank or keep the spacing?

Basing will depend on your objective. If you have selected 6mm simply because you like that scale and you lack a 15mm or 25mm force mix, then any basing option is viable. If you want to play on a smaller playing area, then smaller basing options could be the best direction. If you want your bases to be pieces of diorama, then larger bases are best.

In my case I went for 3cm wide bases because I want a small playing area and I already have a standard based 15mm army, several for that matter. However the downside of my basing option is I need to supply both 6mm force mixes, which is not a major issue with 6mm but needs to be considered.

My comrade has 6mm on standard 4cm wide DBMM bases and he also has to provide both force mixes, so in the 6mm world this is probably very common.

I did try the 6cm wide bases option, but decided a better option was to use 6cm wide movement trays, into which I place my 3cm wide bases. I normally do these 3 ranks deep, so I need six 3cm wide bases for each of my 6cm movement trays.

This video outlines some of the conclusions i came to concerning basing 6mm ancient figures.
youtu.be/_R35tM-35IQ

As others have said, the basing is basically up to how much you want to spend on the figures and how many 6mm figures you want to paint. For 6mm a 60mm bases does make for a more diorama like look, but with the addition of painting more figures for the same number of elements.

In New Zealand, DBMM is mostly played using 28mm figures on a 6'x4' board. This is the same table size as what is used for most full sized 15mm battles, as in Australia and the UK. This gives a more constricted battle in 28mm.

I play a lot of DBMM (in 15mm) and a number of my armies have all foot on 40mm x 20mm bases. Base depth is not as important in DBMM, though thinner bases have some advantage when moving.

In regard to Romans in solid line, the issue is "we don't know". We don't know if the manipular formation was really used in combat, or if it was a manoeuvre formation. Much of Roman warfare is conjecture when it comes to actual battlefield usage. For example the "relieve the line" thing loved by many rules writers is not explained in any contemporary source. We know they swapped men from the front rank of a formation. We don't know how, or when, or how often. Personally you should make it look like how you want it to look.

Thank you for your input, I think I have decided to do 15mm basing but with 20mm deep bases. If it works for DBA3.0 it works for DBMM, especially as it is just me and I will be supplying all armies.

Thank you platypus for saying that you have all armies on the 40x20, that helps me to be more comfortable with this decision.

I believe that I will do the manipular representation, even though it may have 4 lines if I have two bases back to back.

I really appreciate everyone's input, it has been extremely helpful.