|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 29, 2018 22:57:46 GMT
Actually the 12 element "chess" equal armies does not work well in historical battles. The length of battle line is critical in deployment and how armies are managed. Smaller armies have shorter battle lines and must make adjustments. Likewise larger armies must contend with troop control issues and how to exploit larger numbers. Most of history's most interesting battles involved smaller armies trying to to manuver in a manner to negate the advantage of size. Sometimes though (the Swiss) come to mind size and brute force negated nimble smaller armies.
Hence size is vital to recreate the challenges faced by real world generals and is not simulated at all by the 12 element chess match. What is handled well is balance between armies drawn from 3000 years of history. All armies are the same size and all troop types preform the same. It allows nice tournament structure without the need even for points but its not history.
When we ask the 12 element structure to recreate real battles - we ask too much. This doesn't mean (as some contend) that DBX cannot recreate historical battles, the mechanics work fine but history isn't perfectly balanced and often features troops of apparently the same type but with different capabities. DBA by design just wasn't meant to deal with these aspects of historical battles. We put as much "simulation" value as we could into DBA3.0 and much was achieved but we stayed within the limits imposed by the 12 element structure.
I did Verneuil for Great Battles with DBA and with the added period rules and much larger armies feel in produced an excellent simulation of the battle, I would not under any circumstances recommend the 12 element lists given used in DBA 3.0 tournaments for this battle.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jan 29, 2018 22:59:19 GMT
I should mention we play with unbalanced armies all the time and get great results fighting historical battles. The only time I use the 12 element chess armies is at tournaments.
So yes use alternative structures as a matter of course for historical battles.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by mellis1644 on Jan 30, 2018 2:45:11 GMT
DBR had a 100 its version which was quite like DBA in size but had points. I think DBMM had something similar (never played that though). The DBR system was quite a good system and made for some interesting matchup. It avoided the 'all weak skirmisher' type armies being significantly out powered by them having a few more elements. Point systems are not perfect but can help in this type of thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 30, 2018 2:53:45 GMT
Tom, I take issue with that claim. There are many battles that can be very well done with equal elements, and some are easier to do than others. Now you may need to house rule some aspects of the battle. But it is overly simplistic to make such a blanket claim.
Many folks enjoy the puzzle amd challenge of using the small number of elements to model a battle. What you seem to claiming is that you find the 12 element recreation not to your tastes, ie there are things you are not comfortable leaving out.
Some folks wanna paint more elements, and prefer to use element count to model aspects of a battle. Others may prefer to use house rules amd modifiers. To each their own.
I can tell you that Leuctra works better for me as a 12 element game than a BBDBA game, in my opinion, according to my tastes. That big, fat DBE spear general element gives Sparta all manner of headaches.
To me it all depends on what you choose to focus on. Giving rear support, element quality, forcing element choices and deployments, limited bounds, objectives (crossing a river, destroying a village, capturing a general...) . These can all easily be added for historical accuracy in a scenario, with a minimum of fuss.
I believe the ancient accounts are sufficiently vague to warrant using the simplest approach.
Try it. With a bit of work, some ingenuity and creativity, you may be surprised what you can accomplish with the 12 element game.
|
|
|
|
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 stevie on Jan 30, 2018 14:16:16 GMT
Thanks for that link chris. And sorry Tom, but I agree with primuspilus. As an historical gamer, and not a tournament player, I’m only concerned with getting the right historical result on the wargames table…I’m not too bothered about trying to get all the numbers exactly right. It’s the result that counts, not how you generate that result. An if a 12 element-a-side game gives the right realistic result, then that’s good enough for me. Because DBA is an abstract game: is a Roman 4Bd element merely a cohort, or is it a whole legion? The movement rates are abstract, the bow range is abstract, side support for spears to simulate a ‘shield wall’ is abstract (technically, each figure on a base should be in a ‘shield wall’ formation with their immediate neighbouring figure)…so why not admit that element size is also abstract as well? Take that Battle of Pharsalus example that I posted. Caesar’s cavalry were out numbered by Pomey’s horse by 7 to 1…should Pompey have 7 mounted elements to Caesar’s 1? Or does abstracting it by saying that Pompey had more horse do the job. And Caesar’s Bd’s were outnumbered by 2 to 1 by Pompey’s Bd’s. Just giving Pompey twice as many Bd distorts the battle, as any wargamer in their right mind will seek to use their extra numbers to extend their line…unless you apply special rules to prevent Pompey from doing so. But why give Pompey more elements and then tell him he can’t actually use them! If the extra numbers had no influence on the battle, then they are merely ‘decorative’, so show them as such. And it’s the same at Cannae, and at the Battle of Sabis/Sambre (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10770/ ), and at Agincourt, and many other engagements. Of course, if the extra numbers did have an effect on the battle, then that should be taken into account. But even at Gaugamela, the fact that Darius had a longer line than Alex the Great can be simulated in a 12 element game. Alex’s pikes are two deep, and he has an element or two in reserve to protect his camp, so he will have a much shorter line than the Persians, even with 12 elements a side. Anyway, you’d be lucky to find an ancient battle where the actual numbers are known with certainty. So some abstraction is inevitable (especially at Agincourt, where 12 elements are technically facing 36 to 72 enemies!). (Mind you, I’ve always felt that expendable troops, such as elephants and SCh, should be additional to the usual 12 elements, and their loss not count towards victory. Elephants were almost always used in front of the main battleline, where they were expected to be lost early)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file:-fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
