|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 25, 2016 18:01:51 GMT
Back in 2005 UMIAC published a book by book ranking of Big Battle army assessments for all the armies available in DBA at that time.
Can it be said that these rankings are still relevant under 3.0 or no longer apply due to the extent of the rule changes?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 25, 2016 18:36:39 GMT
Back in 2005 UMIAC published a book by book ranking of Big Battle army assessments for all the armies available in DBA at that time. Can it be said that these rankings are still relevant under 3.0 or no longer apply due to the extent of the rule changes? What is UMIAC an abbreviation of? My mind is generating a host of humorous possibilities, but I think it might be better to ask. 
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 25, 2016 18:45:01 GMT
Found it
At 175 pages long, this may take a while. |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 25, 2016 19:45:37 GMT
It is an impressive assessment and made when DBA 2.0 was in use.
Even the authors had found the revision to 2.2 had changed the ratings somewhat and this was due in part to the deployment changes; 3.0 changes took this even further.
Looking at my own collection and referencing them against this list I would beg to differ on the effectiveness and complexity scores. Then again my reference is based on DBA 3.0 and historical match ups.
Quite a number of armies with bow advantage would change as these became archer (Ps) in 3.0.
I would also be interested to read what other think about this.
www.umiacs.umd.edu/~kuijt/BBDBA/ArmyAssessment.html
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 26, 2016 9:37:56 GMT
I'm not sure what Umiacs stands for but it originates from some DBA gamers in the USA.
I thought the assessments were better known as had often read posts with reference to BBDBA list ratings or some form of ranking for DBA armies but had never seen one.
I have not taken the step into BBDBA as yet but found the ratings interesting anyway as Allied contingents are more accessible in 3.0.
As you say the effectiveness of some armies can be contested but are probably based on their experiences of those armies.
In relevence to 3.0 the ratings will change for the reasons you suggested as many troop types have changed or numbers.
It would be interesting if such a list existed for Dba 3.0 and for BBDBA.😊
Regards
Eddie
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 26, 2016 9:56:22 GMT
...DBA in any version is a set of rules but not the law. Players have to enjay what is happening on the battlefield...try to win the fight...sometime with a few improvisation...
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 27, 2016 9:38:17 GMT
...DBA in any version is a set of rules but not the law. Players have to enjay what is happening on the battlefield...try to win the fight...sometime with a few improvisation... I agree with you Vodnik, there always seemed to be a list refered to of killer armies that gamers found more popular regardless of their complexity or each individuals ability.I always wanted to know which armies they were to taylor tactics to win against them with my own armies. |
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Dec 29, 2016 18:36:45 GMT
Had a flick through the publication, and an interesting read. Rather formulaic, but the authors put a lot in going through all the army lists. They clearly have their own preferences around effectiveness - different people like different challenges in DBA from what I see. Some like me - like to try and find a way to win win with some of the least effective armies, that might be a little more complex, but that is the challenge. As it is with trying to win with an aggressive mono element type army such as the Vikings, against differing opponent combinations in non ideal terrain. There would be no fun if everyone fought with ideal effective armies that looked and felt the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 29, 2016 19:11:09 GMT
Some like me - like to try and find a way to win win with some of the least effective armies, that might be a little more complex, but that is the challenge. As it is with trying to win with an aggressive mono element type army such as the Vikings, against differing opponent combinations in non ideal terrain. There would be no fun if everyone fought with ideal effective armies that looked and felt the same. I'm of the same opinion with regard to the less than effective armies. My Later Moors have never won a match, yet I enjoy using them. Victory will be theirs one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Dec 30, 2016 9:08:43 GMT
Had a flick through the publication, and an interesting read. Rather formulaic, but the authors put a lot in going through all the army lists. They clearly have their own preferences around effectiveness - different people like different challenges in DBA from what I see. Some like me - like to try and find a way to win win with some of the least effective armies, that might be a little more complex, but that is the challenge. As it is with trying to win with an aggressive mono element type army such as the Vikings, against differing opponent combinations in non ideal terrain. There would be no fun if everyone fought with ideal effective armies that looked and felt the same. I agree. They seem to be an interesting generalisation, but match ups and terrain could throw out any individual score. Overall I think the changes to the rules must have changed these ratings, but part of the fun of DBA is using different, maybe not 'ideal' armies, against different opponents. As for the Vikings, don't forget Bd in bad going are just as good as Ax. It's just the Wb they have trouble with! |
|
