DBMM New Zealand : Ming Chinese vs Yuan Chinese - shared by Herbert Wong, 18 February 2024

I had been returned to workshop few days ago while my family still enjoying the CNY holiday in my wife's hometown in Zhaijiang province. Taking this opportunity, I have played a solo game of DBMM used 28mm collection, Ming Chinese vs Yuan Chinese, the Hung Wu's unification war, year set at 1369 AD.

Pic 1 was army lists, noted that Yuan's Mongol Cav (RCvO/RLHS) must contained half to all RCvI. The interesting points for this game:

1) Yuan has 4 Reg comds with mainly mounted, a very high speed army.

2) Yuan's 8 RBgeI contribute lots to the ME, total 93.5ME.

3) Ming army almost got same quantity as Yuan's Mounted troop but with slighly higer quality, RCvO vs RCvI.

4) Ming got RBdO and RBwX as Hung Wu's veteran. However there was no Ps nor Ax in Ming army.

5) Ming's drawback is their ME, 66 only.

Yuan's plan was use their speed advantage to spread out Ming's line, then quickly concentrated and hit part of Ming's line. Ming's plan simple: with higher quality of troop, tried to fix the enemy and charge!!

Yuan started the game with movement to 2 wings, Ming reacted accordingly, after several bounds of maneuvering, Yuan concentrate their biggerest Command with helps also from 2 other commands hit the Ming's spread out left wing command (24ME). Ming considered direct help from other was not work as long distance and decided to attack Yuan's others, also Yuan's baggage was a good target as well (16ME).

Dice roll looked good to Ming, Yuan's 3 out of 4 command Disheartened, 1 more ME would broke the entired Yuan army. but a 6,1 roll in between 2 side 's Gen turned the tide. Ming lost his smallest Command's Gen, however this command got only 10ME, a Gen loss directly led it to broken, also the 1 ME spreading broke the hard suffering 24ME command......the game won by Yuan, only because of army list's ME advantage : 93.5 vs 66.

[Admin: There are heaps more pics on the Facebook post]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/824840264342234/posts/2532123410280569/

Vincent Cholewa

Admin

Group expert

Many thanks for posting, Herbert. Do you make any adjustments to the rules to play solo?

Herbert Wong

Author

Vincent Cholewa Hi Vincent, basically follow normal rules, however you need to think logically on both sides, and certainly such as concealed command, ambush, outflank are difficult be used.

Gavin Pearson

Such magnificent armies.

Kenneth Chan

How do you find 28mm on 6x9 table compare with 15mm on 4x6 table?

Herbert Wong

Author

I feel not much different, however for 28mm ,the table wide is in scale but not the table depth, so less manueverubility than 15mm. Truthly to say not a big deal IMHO.

Kenneth Chan

How deep should it be if we need to maintain the same?

James Cheung

Herbert Wong the frontage of element if increased from 40mm to 60mm, an increase of 50%. Thus a 9 foot table width is in line with the increase of the length of frontage.

The depth of each element is

80mm to 120mm, 50% increase

30mm to 40mm, 33.33% increase

20mm to 30mm, 50% increase

15mm to 20mm, 33.33% increase

Thus it seem to me that an increase of table depth from 4 foot to 6 foot is also in line with the increase of depth of each element.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

1h
Like
Reply
Share
Edited

Kenneth Chan

15 to 20mm is 33.33% increase, am I right?

James Cheung

Herbert Wong FYI the original rules of playing area in page 3 for 25mm is 9x5 which is not inline with the increase in depth. Your 9x6 table should be fine.

James Cheung

Kenneth Chan you are right but anyway the max increase in depth is also 50% and thus an increase of table depth from 4 to 6 foot should be ok.

Kenneth Chan

Therefore if we play on 6x9 table using 28mm, it should be constued as playing under the same condition as 4x6 table for 15mm

Sunday, 18 February 2024

Ming Chinese vs Yuan Chinese - shared by Herbert Wong, 18 February 2024

No comments:

Post a Comment