Help support TMP

"Orders of Battle for DBR?" Topic

De Bellis Renationis

10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the De Bellis Renationis Rules Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Link

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

Battle-Market: Tannenberg 1410

The Editor tries out a boardgame - yes, a boardgame - from battle-market magazine.

Featured Workbench Article

Adam Paints Three More Pirates

It's back to pirates for Adam8472 Fezian!

Featured Profile Article

Visiting Reaper - 2000!

The Editor takes a virtual tour of Reaper's new offices.

573 hits since 24 Jan 2017
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Field Marshal31 Oct 2007 2:50 a.m. PST

Has anyone put together some orders of battle for TYW and ECW fro DBR?…..Interested in seeing what people come up with while i wait for army book 2 to arrive in the mail!

Grizwald31 Oct 2007 2:59 a.m. PST

Marston Moor:

Royalist Army
Royalist Strength DBR(c) Organised
Left Wing
Horse (Goring) 2500 8 41 troops
Foot (c. muskets) 500 1
Foot (Newcastle & Eythin) 10000 25 22 regiments
Horse 1500 5 25 troops (in reserve)
Right Wing
Horse(Pr. Rupert) 2100 7 35 troops
Foot (c. muskets) 500 1
Artillery 20 3

Allied Army
Parliament Strength DBR(c) Organised
Left Wing
Horse (Cromwell & Leslie) 4500 15 75 troops
Foot (c. muskets) 600 2
Centre (Leven)
Foot 11000 27 28 regiments
Right Wing
Horse (T. Fairfax) 4500 15 75 troops
Foot (c. muskets) 600 2
Artillery (Hamilton) 25 3

Grizwald31 Oct 2007 3:00 a.m. PST

Rats! Formatting is no good here.
First number is actual strength, 2nd number is number of bases for DBR (Condensed scale)

Field Marshal31 Oct 2007 3:02 a.m. PST

You are a gentleman and a scholar Mike! Thank you….its a good start…

a1companion31 Oct 2007 3:37 a.m. PST

Hi Morgrim,

Have you seen these?
De De Bellis Civile 1644-1645 ?
I would disagree with some of the the authors troop classification but on the whole a useful little book.
(despite the maps being difficult to read)

Grizwald31 Oct 2007 4:01 a.m. PST

"De Bellis Civile 1644-1645"

I have the previous volume for 1642 – 1643. Lots of errors, confusion, maps difficult to read, scale inaccuracies …
Not recommended. The second volume for 1644 – 1645 may be better?

Connard Sage31 Oct 2007 4:28 a.m. PST

The second volume for 1644 1645 may be better?

Not much. Your comments regarding the first volume still apply.

a1companion31 Oct 2007 6:21 a.m. PST

I incorrectly associated the early volume with the later one, linked. I have the early one.
It is a shame to hear the same faults echoed by other readers (of both volumes).
Still, worth a read for 5.00.

Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP31 Oct 2007 8:54 a.m. PST

For all the effort that went into DBC books, you'd think the author would have gotten some play testors who were not involved with development.

Our group tried a few scenarios but could not decipher much of what was going on. Map scales, and troop lists did not match. Is it Normal scale or Condensed, 15mm or 25mm??? Maybe use the army lists but make up your own battlefields.

Perhaps I am just too dumb to understand the books.

WargamesRoom01 Nov 2007 11:23 a.m. PST

The books are all in "Normal" scale. I would think that in theory you can use either 15mm or 25mm as what map scaling is given in paces.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.