Of course we want to talk about how our games of DBA compares to the history it is meant to model. This is a DIY hobby, and unlike fantasy games, we want to understand what the games model well and what they model not so well. While I might disagree about the writing style I completely agree that the game model is elegant and simple and allows us to spend more time discussing history and less time managing the game. That is a big plus for me.
Right now I am turning over in my mind the 4 element victory condition. It doesn’t seem like enough of the army gets into the fight often enough and it hurts certain armies and eras that are more all out fighters. (Example, slow heavy infantry that never gets into combat before the battle Is decided by the lights. This is not just a DBA problem.) I am thinking about trying out some house rules for extra pips early on in the game or double moves or increasing the number of units required for a win (50%).
For campaign scenarios demonstrating diverse command qualities I used the old WRG label of ‘Cautious, Bold, and Rash’; each would call for a general retreat after losing either 3, 4 or 5 elements in a standard 12 element game. No change was made to the commander’s pip score as the difference in winning/losing a game was enough of an incentive.