|
Post by Simon on Jun 18, 2019 10:53:55 GMT
Hi all, I invoke the knowledge of the hive mind regarding the Irregular 15mm ranges for Burmese and Khmer. I have never seen or used Irregular miniatures, so I only have access to online commentary on them. Is anyone familiar with these ranges? What's your opinion on the minis? Am I correct in understanding that these are smaller than modern standards (true 15mm or close to it)? Are these multi-pose? Ian Kay is very good at getting back to you if you ask questions about size and stature of the figures. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 17, 2019 12:26:03 GMT
Just a heads up that I am planning to run this on Saturday 12 October 2019. Let me know if I you think there is anything major that will clash!!
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 16, 2019 14:14:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 16, 2019 14:11:34 GMT
What is the playtest process exactly? Simon In a word Simon...repetition. Set-up a fairly well documented historical battle (say Marathon or Cannae for example). 1. Use the standard basic rules...do you get a result that matches the historical accounts? 2. If no, add a rule and try again. 3. If yes, then repeat the battle several times to show that it wasn’t just luck. 4. When the result matches the historical account at least 3 out of 5 times, move on to another historical battle. All the time checking that any new rule does not have any unwanted side effects in this or any other period. Once you can get fairly realistic historical results when recreating historical battles, you can then be more confident that the rules are more or less right, so any one-off what-if hypothetical battle will also be right. But if you get an unrealistic unhistorical result, then something must be wrong, and any one-off what-if hypothetical battle will also be wrong as well, with troops not behaving as the ancient accounts said they did. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Thanks Stevie, I guess playtesting wargames is a bit of a statistician's nightmare - so many variables during the game such as deployment, troop types, interactions between troop types, terrain - and that is before we even throw the die! To compound the problem, there is also the difficulty of defining the historical narrative of how the battle is meant to have gone in terms of troop types, numbers, leadership. morale and terrain. A few questions/thoughts: - Are your test battles formed round 12 element armies or are you making up the armies based on the ratios described in the rules for historical refights - I am guessing the latter.
- At what level of granularity are you comparing what happened on the battlefield to what happens on the tabletop? Is it at the high level army wins/loses level or are you looking at the narrative as it unfolds at the wing/division.sub-group level - where this is known? Eg we might define a suceesful outcome for Ax at Cannae if they survive 3 bounds against Blades and are recoiled.
- Might Step 2 in your process above read "If no, then repeat the battle several times to show that it wasn’t just luck that led to the game not following history. If it keeps on playing to an unrealistic outcome, add a rule and try again.
- As we are playing a game - how realistic do we really want it to be? If it follows history perfectly every time, will we want to play it at all? Where do we draw this line?
I am interested in this because I am proposing to add Joe's "DBA tweaks" as decribed in the latest issue of Slingshot as house rules at the Bakewell Historical Matched Pairs tournament in October. These are for Pike, Bow and Auxiliaries. I am just trying to think through what data/feedback we could get in a 12 element tournament setting without interfering with the primary goals f the event - ie having fun, getting six games in 6 hours and having a competition! There will probably be 60 - 72 separate games during the day assuming 20-24 players.
Kind regards,
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 15, 2019 19:20:47 GMT
I have been pointing this out to the DBA folks for about 8 long years. Sadly most people argue from feelinngs, not statistics and historical records. Once you pair these "hard" methodologies together as Stevie the Great has done, the evidence and argument are overwhelming. And sadly, one or two AARs do NOT constitute any kind of significant stastical data point. One must playtest again and again and again and again ... and again and again... Hey it is a tough, hard job. Thank the Lord above that Stevie had the chops and cojones to Just Do It! 👍 What is the playtest process exactly? Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 12, 2019 8:04:02 GMT
Simon, thanks for organising the tournament, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Is it possible to get a copy of the picture of the competitors that was taken? Thanks I have put the photo in an album on the Yahoo Group. Please add your photos if you have any. Also if anyone PMs me, I will e-mail you a copy. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 12, 2019 7:18:57 GMT
Simon, thanks for organising the tournament, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Is it possible to get a copy of the picture of the competitors that was taken? Thanks You got someone you need to scare off? Don't worry Baldie, I have airbrushed you out!!! Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 10, 2019 20:58:20 GMT
I’m keen Simon, but I do have quick minor question. As well as prizes for those ranked highest, there will also be a prize for the person who does best with a more underpowered army. This will be awarded on the basis of dividing their points earned by the combined combat factors of the elements in their army. Regards Simon What do you class Pikes as...a combat factor of 3 or a combat factor of 6? And the same applies to Warbands, Light Horse, and even side-supported Spears. (Just wondering) Hi Stevie - it would be good to see you oop North! As to your question, I keep it simple and it is just the raw combat factors that count. It is not scientific but is just an attempt to spread the prizes around and have a bit of extra fun. It's all about playing the games and having a grand day out! Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 10, 2019 17:07:31 GMT
.. and I hope we will be trying it out at the Bakewell matched pairs in October. I am thinking of asking players to bring a historical matched pair with one of the armies having at least 4 elements of Ax, and/or 4 elements of Pk and/or 4 elements of Bw so that we can playtest Joe's proposed rules in the May/June 2019 Slingshot. Assuming 20 players, that should give us 60 playtests.
Simnon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 10, 2019 11:29:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 10, 2019 7:48:29 GMT
I don't mind admitting that I pinched the system off Martin Myers so all credit to him! Simon What was the detail of the scoring system? It was 3 pts win, 1 pt draw and 0 pts loss. Ties were first resolved by using sum of opponents scores high to low. Had there still been any ties at that point, they would have been resolved by taking into account total net equivalent elements counting for victory/defeat lost/killed. (ie if you win 4 - 1 you are +3 for that round and your opponent would be -3). Regards, Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 9, 2019 16:15:45 GMT
When I went on the website today it said it is not yet ready with only links to 1 and 2.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 9, 2019 16:02:17 GMT
Great report Martin. I have to admire how you can remember the details of the games.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 9, 2019 12:13:39 GMT
An interesting mix of armies. Two thirds from book 2. No preponderance of knights or elephants. Nothing that could be considered cheesy or devious. Also I am not sure I heard a single (polite, obviously) dispute or disagreement in the course of the entire day. Probably worth saying that the final table was much closer than the list is able to show. If I remember correctly the top eight were all only one extra victory away from the first placed player's points total. Scott Just to reinforce Scott's point about how close things were, the scores before sums of opponens's score were applied, were distributed as follows: 13 pts - 2 people, 12 pts - 2 people, 11 pts - 1 person, 10 pts - 2 people, 9 pts - 4 people, 8 pts - 2 people, 7 pts - 1 person, 6 pts - 2 people, 3 pts - 1 person, 0 pts - 1 person. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 9, 2019 12:03:13 GMT
I thought the scoring system worked well. 3 points for a win, nothing for losing but 1 point for a draw. There should be value in not losing. No points for a draw if you have an army that is overmatched by its opponent tends to create false games. Make the superior army take chances and overstretch itself. Certainly didn’t produce any negative games for myself (quite technical interesting ones if anything), and if you just sit in a corner hiding you end up lower mid table with no chance of winning. Well done for me who came up with the system! Craig I don't mind admitting that I pinched the system off Martin Myers so all credit to him! Simon
|
|