|
Post by chris on Jan 31, 2018 12:04:59 GMT
Unfortunately as it is part of an existing convention I have no control over the dates. Assuming it's the same time next year though then it looks like it's not clashing.
Rules used would of course be version 3.
Though I personally would be interested in getting some people together for some version 1 at some point that would be an entirely different sort of event.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 31, 2018 0:27:58 GMT
Whilst Matched Pairs would be my preferred format for all those reasons, as Martin says it could be difficult. If I was in a position to be able to lend out armies it might be different, but to be honest with all the army list changes over the years me and my dad find it difficult to field most of our armies these days, let alone matched pairs of them. Half of them are probably not even tournament legal in version 2 let alone 3...
Simple themes might be best.
Not sure about the venue Martin. I do know it has changed at the last minute. One of my mates is involved in organising it but I don't know a lot about it yet.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 30, 2018 15:14:14 GMT
I guess those kinds of themes are easier to work with and could be fun. Specific conflicts/periods are more difficult.
Confirmation from my contact with Concord - no charge at all for space, people would just need to pay their entry fee to the convention. £5 for one day, £10 for the weekend. So, some form of small charge to cover prizes is all that would be needed really.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 30, 2018 14:18:02 GMT
I like the *idea* of themed events. But they are harder to get armies together for. Unless enough people are willing to bring extras it may be difficult to arrange.
Two matched pairs comps so close together might not be so good, but at least people might already have paired armies sorted they can take to both.
Another possibility, depending on numbers and if it doesn't prove too difficult to source the figures required, is to do a large historical battle with each player taking on a small command.
The discussion I've been having in regards to Concord is them wanting a single day event. They have different things happening on the Saturday and the Sunday, so it's easier for them to mix in a single day event.
Not sure about costing, just sent a text to find out.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 30, 2018 10:49:27 GMT
Concord Gaming Convention runs annually in February. This year the 24th/25th. It's a bit late to organise anything for it now (though they are looking for more events on the Sunday) but I was asked about the possibility of adding a DBA event to the convention for next year. So I guess I'm just looking to gauge interest, and see what kind of event people would like to play.
Possible options could be an Open tournament, a Matched Pairs tournament or perhaps a Campaign Day; unless anyone else has any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 30, 2018 10:42:49 GMT
Thanks Alan for organising the event again, thanks to everyone else for making it an enjoyable tournament and congratulations to Arnaud for his victory! I was surprised my Marian Roman/Bithynian allies army did so well, but then I didn't see many Book IV armies at the event so perhaps that helped! And some lucky dice probably didn't hurt...
|
|
|
Post by chris on Jan 30, 2018 10:36:27 GMT
Can I recommend a quick trip down memory lane to version 1? If you do not own a copy, WRG quite handily have a pdf available on their history page here: www.wrg.me.uk/WRG.net/History/OLDWRG/DBA001.pdfPage 19 is dedicated to exactly this, including ideas on playing games with larger armies, how to break down a historical army into DBA elements and variations in troop quality to better reflect a particular battle. It is very sad that this page did not carry on into later versions, as it is this page that helps to keep DBA a wargame rather than just a tournament game. I also find it preferable to later Big Battle DBA rules because the single PIP dice means smaller armies find it easier to stay cohesive than larger armies when things start to get messy. Anyway, plenty of stuff on that page to help you out.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 19, 2017 9:16:50 GMT
I suspect Mr Barker got sick of the "I have a letter from Phil" days.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 13, 2017 14:57:51 GMT
Creating an imaginary army can be quite a daunting task. So here I present a series of tables for randomly generating armies for ImagiNations and Sword & Sorcery games - both of which I prefer to use DBA 1.0 for instead of HotT.
First step: The Guards Unit
To generate the General's Element throw 1d6.
1. Blade 2. Cavalry 3. Spear 4. Warband 5. Knight 6. Elephant
Second step: Battle Line
What element does the nation use as it's mainstay? Roll 1d6 to find out. There will be 6 of the rolled element in your army.
1. Warband 2. Spear 3. Pike 4. Auxilia 5. Bow 6. Cavalry
Third step: Support
Two elements of supporting troops. Roll 1d6.
1. Roll again on step 1 table 2-4. Roll again on step 2 table 5-6. Roll again on step 4 table
Fourth step: Light Troops
There will be two elements of these. Roll on this table to determine what they are.
1. Psiloi 2. Psiloi 3. Psiloi 4. Auxilia 5. Light Horse 6. Light Horse
Step 5: Wild Card
There will be one specialist element in the army.
1. Elephant 2. Scythed Chariot 3. Blade 4. Camelry 5. Artillery 6. War Wagon
Knight and Cavalry results can be replaced by the appropriate Chariot version if desired.
Example army:
For the first step a 6 is thrown, giving us an Elephant general.
In step two a 4 is thrown granting 6 elements of Auxilia.
In the third step a 1 followed by another 1 is thrown granting 2 elements of Warband.
In the fourth step a 3 is thrown granting 2 units of Psiloi.
In the fifth and final step a 6 is thrown giving the army a War Wagon.
The final army therefore looks like:
1 El (General), 6 3Ax, 2 4Wb, 2 2Ps, 1 WWg
From that you can then extrapolate cultural details. This particular army looks like it might come from an unusually interesting culture!
If you are playing a later version of the rules you will probably need to determine a few other things.
Terrain type will have to depend on the kind of culture you think would result in the army you have ended up with.
Aggression can be determined by throwing on the following table:
1. 0 2. 1 3. 1 4. 2 5. 2 6. 3
If an element could be Solid or Fast, you can roll randomly. On a 1-4 it will be Solid, on a 5-6 it will be fast.
You will notice that blade and knight are quite rare, or at least show up in limited quantities. This is deliberate, not an ommission. Both elements are quite powerful and I prefer to limit their presence in my games. The tables are easy to adjust for your own campaigns.
Random culture name generator:
First element:
1. Rom- 2. Ar- 3. Gal- 4. Sum- 5. Akk- 6. Eg-
Second element:
1. -er- 2. -an- 3. -add- 4. -ypt- 5. -at- 6. -am-
Third element:
1. -ian 2. -an 3. -ish 4. -ic 5. -ii 6. -esh
An example randomly generated 6 player campaign:
Nation 1, Sumamish: 1 3Kn (General), 8 4Pk, 2 2Ps, 1 El
Nation 2, Romatesh: 1 3Cv (General), 4 3Ax, 4 4Sp, 2 2 Ps, 1 WWg
Nation 3, Egaddian: 1 3Cv (General), 6 4Pk, 2 2LH, 2 3Ax, 1 Art
Nation 4, Araman: 1 4Sp (General), 6 4Wb, 2 3Bw, 2 2Ps, 1 4Bd
Nation 5, Galerish: 1 3Cv (General), 6 4Wb, 2 4Ax, 2 2Ps, 1 Sch
Nation 6, Galamii: 1 3Cv (General), 6 3Cv, 2 2LH, 2 2Ps, 1 4Bd
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 13, 2017 11:43:11 GMT
Great stuff Stevie. I look forward to giving it a try. I like the two player mapless campaign ideas at the end as well.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 13, 2017 10:47:26 GMT
On further thought, I don't think those suggestions for Shock infantry really work.
evilgong: There is always academic debate about everything. Do you have a source? I'd be interested in reading it. I haven't seen anyone actually debating the existence of the Triplex Acies, though I have seen people questioning the Quincunx. And the majority of those were sheer disbelief that something mentioned in a primary source would actually work - Kit Marlowe can tell you why that is dangerous - and the erroneous emphasis on the vulnerability of a unit's flank, as well as a misunderstanding about the pace of battle. Which is not to say that I am entirely decided on the Quincunx, only that I have not yet seen a valid argument against it.
lkmjbc: That's true, history after all is a story made up as best we can from fragments. Nonetheless a number of fairly credible primary sources to describe the Triplex Acies and I see no reason to discount them.
I wouldn't say it was a liability. Limited in scope perhaps and a liability against certain opponents absolutely. As you say, it allowed them to project tremendous combat power - pressure - directly forward. And most importantly maintain that pressure long beyond the tiring point of their opponents. It necessitated a narrow frontage but throughout most of it's existence that was not an issue. Their target point would crumble and scatter long before the flanks would achieve anything useful. Until they fought Carthage the system worked. It allowed even a mediocre or unreliable commander to succeed against Rome's usual opponents.
It's important to note that the three battles you mention are all against Carthage. At Bagradas the Romans were unable to cope with the elephants which ultimately led to defeat. And Trebbia and Cannae were against Hannibal - a good commander more than capable of seeing how the Roman system worked and exploiting it when the opposing commander is inflexible and uninspired. It's important to note that exactly the same system was used at Zama, a Roman victory. Scipio was able to use that system and take specific action to counteract it's weaknesses and the Carthaginians strengths, but the Triplex Acies was apparently still the core of that plan.
Later Roman formations were undeniably better and more flexible. But Bagradas, Trebbia and Cannae do not indicate that the formation was a complete liability - only the unpreparedness of it's commanders. Any system can be exploited by someone who knows what they're doing!
I shall have to chase down that article and take a look, it sounds like my cup of tea.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 13, 2017 8:14:42 GMT
I guess it's my fault for mentioning it first, but I feel people are paying too much attention to the Triplex Acies part here. That was just a justification for the rear support and the requirement for deep formations. Essentially the reclassification as Warband is primarily because the description in the DBA 3.0 book for solid Warband seems to describe the manipular legions of Polybius better than the blade description does.
Primuspilus: I agree with you - I believe most troop types should have rear support. The choice between depth and width - concentration of force and battlefield control - is a fundamental one that more armies should have to worry about. I also rather agree with you about Hoplite Warbands. Perhaps a new element type should be considered instead - Shock or Pressure infantry. Representing those troop types who charged and then relied on being able to maintain forward pressure.
+3 vs foot and mounted.
Follow up as per Warband etc.
+1 for rear support vs foot. +1 if they entered combat this bound or followed up and remained in contact vs foot.
Not sure about quick kills. I guess they would be quick killed as per blade. But would have to think further about what they quick killed, if anything.
That way they are rewarded for deep formations and concentrating on forward momentum.
Got to go into work now so will have to finish this later.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 12, 2017 19:33:30 GMT
No, they aren't too complicated - and if I was refighting a historical battle with DBA I would likely use those suggestions. But then, if I was refighting a historical battle I would likely use or write a set of rules that represents the specific battle better than DBA does.
The problem with the blade option is it encourages quite a wide, thin deployment when it should encourage a deeper one with a more limited frontage in comparison to many of their opponents. Besides, if there is one classical troop type that could genuinely be described as relying on wild charges it is certainly the Polybian Roman legion!
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 12, 2017 12:57:46 GMT
primuspilus: A variant army list rather than a house rule. I just couldn't find anywhere else to put it that wouldn't look like I was demanding Mr Barker update the army lists.
You are right, That would all simulate it much better. But I was looking for a simpler change that already works within the structure of the rules. It's easier to persuade someone I'm playing with to accept Warband legions than a bunch of other modifiers.
Plyan Glupak: An element represents 6 to 8 ranks of close order infantry rather than a specific number. So the answer is complicated.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Feb 11, 2017 18:33:50 GMT
Bear with me a moment, for this is going to sound like a rant to begin with; which it is not. DBA covers thousands of years of history, so cannot be expected to portray every conflict in precise accuracy.
It is well known that DBA does not support the Triplex Acies deployment used by the Roman legions during much of the republic. That is to say, whilst you can do it there is no apparent benefit in doing so and you are generally better off deploying in a wider line with a single reserve. This bothers some people - myself included. As a result, despite the Roman republic being the period which primarily interests me I have never bothered to collect it in DBA.
Another thing that gets me about DBA is the Warband element. Described as wild foot that relied primarily on a ferocious charge with the hope of sweeping away their enemy and getting disheartened if they do not. In 3.0 this has changed slightly to include solid foot that are keep a shieldwall and keep fighting after the initial charge. Germanic armies in DBA are primarily made up of this brittle element despite the only real source for this being an account by Gaius Julius Caesar - not known for his historical objectivity. Indeed, other sources point to a more organised, less easily disheartened foe.
This is going somewhere I promise...
Now. There is one military organisation that *was* known for it's ferocious charges. Bearing down at great speed and power in the hope of sweeping it's foe before it. Getting easily disheartened if it didn't achieve this in the initial impact. That historically had difficulty in dealing with cavalry. That liked to operate in deep formations.
See what I'm getting at?
In short, I believe that the Hastati and Principes elements of the Polybian Roman list should be changed from solid Blade to solid Warband. They can be deployed doubled up in a deep formation with the Warband rear support bonus. The Triarii behind acting as reserve (and thanks to flank support no longer needing to double up ahistorically). With the socii Auxilia on the wings to help prevent overlap.
This would not have worked until 3.0 of course. The Triarii need the flank support and in previous versions supporting Warband would have been destroyed along with the element they were supporting - all of which works against the Triplex Acies.
Any thoughts?
|
|