Post by stevie on Jun 11, 2023 18:55:32 GMT
As noted in another thread (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/47337/ ),
DBA has a lot of weak wimpy armies with high aggression. This means they
are likely to be the invaders, and their defending opponents will ensure that
they will have to fight on a battlefield that is totally unsuitable for their army…
…i.e. either a flat open billiard table with nowhere to hide in if an Auxiliary or
Psiloi army, or a table flooded with loads of bad going if a mounted army.
Now there is nothing wrong with a weak wimpy army fighting against another
weak wimpy traditional contemporary historical enemy. Indeed, this can often
lead to some exciting evenly balanced battles. The problem is when a weak army
with a high aggression is forced to fight a powerful army with a low aggression.
For example:-
Of the 33 enemies listed for the I/47 Illyrians, 16 of them, that’s about half, have
a lower aggression, yet they are loaded with Spears, Pikes, Blades and Knights.
Honestly, if your Illyrian army doesn't lose the aggression roll (and aggression 3 has
only 3 chances out of 36 of losing against II/31 Hellenistic Greeks aggression of zero)
then you might as well surrender now rather than waste time on a forgone conclusion!
What would happen in reality?
Well, each general would try and choose a battlefield that best suited his army
(any that didn’t would soon face a mutiny, or find himself assassinated!).
So Illyrians invading Greece or Macedonia would stick to the mountainous hills
and wooded forests…not blissfully wander into an open plain to be massacred.
Yet this is exactly what the DBA aggression system forces you to do.
If I can use a more modern example, it’s as if in 1940 the Wehrmacht went ahead
with “Operation Sealion”, the invasion of Britain, and they were not allowed to land
on the nice open beaches on the south and eastern English coast.
No, the British are the defenders, so they get to decide where the Germans must
land, and they say it must be under the steep high cliffs of Dover!
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this is rubbish.
It’s the invaders who decide where to invade…not the defenders.
So what can we do about it?
As with most good ideas, someone other than myself has come up with the best solution.
It was David Constable that first suggested the following:-
* Roll for aggression as normal to see in which country the battle is being fought.
* Both sides secretly choose two or three terrain features appropriate for that region.
The defender must choose at least one compulsory feature, the invader can choose any.
* There is a new terrain feature called ‘open ground’ (a piece of string up to a maximum
of 18 BW long in a loop, and like a Waterway only one can be present in any region).
No other terrain (except a Road) can be placed on top of ‘open ground'.
* The defender places all terrain as per the current placement rules, but must alternate placement,
i.e. first a defender's piece, than an invader's piece, then another defender's, and so on.
* After the first compulsory feature has been placed, any additional terrain that exceeds
the maximum allowed amount or won’t fit is discarded.
* The invader now chooses the base edges, limited by the presence of any Roads.
There you go…both generals are seeking the best terrain that suits their army.
If both choose the maximum large woods, you have Teutoberger Wald, 9 AD.
If both choose the minimum small terrain, you have Gaugamela, 331 BC.
The invader could even choose a BUA City, which belongs to the defender.
And to prevent this, the defender could also choose a BUA (there can’t be
two BUA’s on the table, so both would be discarded).
With this system we might even get to see more of the wimpy armies in tournaments.
It’s fairer, more realistic, balanced and historical.
What’s not to like?
DBA has a lot of weak wimpy armies with high aggression. This means they
are likely to be the invaders, and their defending opponents will ensure that
they will have to fight on a battlefield that is totally unsuitable for their army…
…i.e. either a flat open billiard table with nowhere to hide in if an Auxiliary or
Psiloi army, or a table flooded with loads of bad going if a mounted army.
Now there is nothing wrong with a weak wimpy army fighting against another
weak wimpy traditional contemporary historical enemy. Indeed, this can often
lead to some exciting evenly balanced battles. The problem is when a weak army
with a high aggression is forced to fight a powerful army with a low aggression.
For example:-
Of the 33 enemies listed for the I/47 Illyrians, 16 of them, that’s about half, have
a lower aggression, yet they are loaded with Spears, Pikes, Blades and Knights.
Honestly, if your Illyrian army doesn't lose the aggression roll (and aggression 3 has
only 3 chances out of 36 of losing against II/31 Hellenistic Greeks aggression of zero)
then you might as well surrender now rather than waste time on a forgone conclusion!
What would happen in reality?
Well, each general would try and choose a battlefield that best suited his army
(any that didn’t would soon face a mutiny, or find himself assassinated!).
So Illyrians invading Greece or Macedonia would stick to the mountainous hills
and wooded forests…not blissfully wander into an open plain to be massacred.
Yet this is exactly what the DBA aggression system forces you to do.
If I can use a more modern example, it’s as if in 1940 the Wehrmacht went ahead
with “Operation Sealion”, the invasion of Britain, and they were not allowed to land
on the nice open beaches on the south and eastern English coast.
No, the British are the defenders, so they get to decide where the Germans must
land, and they say it must be under the steep high cliffs of Dover!
Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows this is rubbish.
It’s the invaders who decide where to invade…not the defenders.
So what can we do about it?
As with most good ideas, someone other than myself has come up with the best solution.
It was David Constable that first suggested the following:-
* Roll for aggression as normal to see in which country the battle is being fought.
* Both sides secretly choose two or three terrain features appropriate for that region.
The defender must choose at least one compulsory feature, the invader can choose any.
* There is a new terrain feature called ‘open ground’ (a piece of string up to a maximum
of 18 BW long in a loop, and like a Waterway only one can be present in any region).
No other terrain (except a Road) can be placed on top of ‘open ground'.
* The defender places all terrain as per the current placement rules, but must alternate placement,
i.e. first a defender's piece, than an invader's piece, then another defender's, and so on.
* After the first compulsory feature has been placed, any additional terrain that exceeds
the maximum allowed amount or won’t fit is discarded.
* The invader now chooses the base edges, limited by the presence of any Roads.
There you go…both generals are seeking the best terrain that suits their army.
If both choose the maximum large woods, you have Teutoberger Wald, 9 AD.
If both choose the minimum small terrain, you have Gaugamela, 331 BC.
The invader could even choose a BUA City, which belongs to the defender.
And to prevent this, the defender could also choose a BUA (there can’t be
two BUA’s on the table, so both would be discarded).
With this system we might even get to see more of the wimpy armies in tournaments.
It’s fairer, more realistic, balanced and historical.
What’s not to like?
