|
Post by WhitefieldTom on Aug 21, 2023 10:46:11 GMT
Later Achaemenid Persian (I think this was from a limited supply of DBA armies) Indeed I had a choice from the 4 armies in my collection. Thanks to sheffmark my collection is growing and I should be able to bring a much worse army next year.
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Aug 21, 2023 16:14:55 GMT
Paul, is that the loss win ratio or the number of losses compared to the number of games played? And what do the figures in parentheses represent? As you can see I'm no statistician. Cheers, The numbers reflect their wins and losses. The number in parentheses is their win/loss ratio. To use the IV/6 Syrians above as an example, they have won 30 games and lost 64, for a .319 win/loss ratio. These totals do not include "civil war" games, as those results would skew won-loss records towards the median.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 21, 2023 16:22:48 GMT
Pretty sure that our most losing army in our group was Mitch's Early Anglo-Saxons. Damn near all warband and may have had ONE win over a dozen games or more.
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Aug 22, 2023 0:01:18 GMT
Pretty sure that our most losing army in our group was Mitch's Early Anglo-Saxons. Damn near all warband and may have had ONE win over a dozen games or more. What about your Samnites Tony? They must be a contender. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 22, 2023 7:58:22 GMT
Pretty sure that our most losing army in our group was Mitch's Early Anglo-Saxons. Damn near all warband and may have had ONE win over a dozen games or more. What about your Samnites Tony? They must be a contender. Cheers, But surely that is the opposite of what we are talking about. The original aim of this thread is to highlight those armies in history that were no-hopers, but are killers in DBA. The Romans had to fight three major wars against the Samnites before they were crushed, and according to Duncan Head they were the only Italian nation that Rome feared… …not so in DBA. (Shame )
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 22, 2023 8:37:40 GMT
Could Samnites be Bd(F)?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 22, 2023 8:59:44 GMT
That would be nice, and be a better reflection of their historical abilities than useless 4Ax...
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 22, 2023 9:02:24 GMT
Would there be any issues with it? As in 'too good'? It seems to fit well enough at first glance...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 22, 2023 10:32:57 GMT
About the only side-effect I can think of is when the Samnites fight the Gauls. Still, they don’t have to hide on Difficult Hills or in Woods. They can always come out into the open to fight.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Aug 22, 2023 11:10:54 GMT
That would be nice, and be a better reflection of their historical abilities than useless 4Ax... Or change the factors of 4Ax to better represent what they should be 😉 P
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 22, 2023 12:19:42 GMT
Should the Samnites be 4Ax though?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Aug 22, 2023 21:29:50 GMT
I tend to think that the problem is not so much with armies and their relative power, but rather with the fact that people play tournaments. Miniature wargaming is not suited for tournaments, IMHO. Most armies work OK in historical match-ups. Some do not. I agree that Auxilia is a strange troop type. And my Thracians surely have not lived up to their historical reputation as great warriors.
As for armies with a bad fighting record: Yi Korean were not impressive for most of the period; probably too good in DBA.
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Aug 23, 2023 6:29:32 GMT
I tend to think that the problem is not so much with armies and their relative power, but rather with the fact that people play tournaments. Miniature wargaming is not suited for tournaments, IMHO. Most armies work OK in historical match-ups. Some do not. I agree that Auxilia is a strange troop type. And my Thracians surely have not lived up to their historical reputation as great warriors.
As for armies with a bad fighting record: Yi Korean were not impressive for most of the period; probably too good in DBA.
From my point of view this is a fair point. It does not always work. Alexander (Kn) verses Poros (Ele) does not work, Alexander dies quickly, as I found out. Two days before the game I had been reading about the hard fight between them. My stupid fault for not checking the rules. David Constable
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Aug 23, 2023 8:04:51 GMT
But surely that is the opposite of what we are talking about. The original aim of this thread is to highlight those armies in history that were no-hopers, but are killers in DBA. Oh. My bad if I hijacked this thread. Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 23, 2023 9:10:02 GMT
I always find you stats interesting Paul and they do reveal some of the “Good” historical armies that fight badly in DBA.
Most people know that Hannibal’s Later Carthaginian’s are poorer in DBA than IRL - must be commanded by a lesser General! Huns and Kazan presumably falls to the LH curse and others can be explained by excess amounts of Wb or Ax.
However, 2 armies on your list look better in DBA than they are placed on your list. I would have thought III/28 Carolingian Frankish and III/20 Sui and Early T’ang Chinese would both have done better.
What IS upsetting is that I own 7 of the armies on your list. What do I know?
|
|