|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 19, 2020 9:14:54 GMT
As the self-appointed chairman of the “Committee Representing Auxiliary Personnel”
(who’s unfortunate acronym spells ‘C.R.A.P.’), my members would like to know how
many Ax & Ps armies with no punch have appeared in tournaments.
Specifically:-
I/47 Illyrians, I/48 Thracians, I/63 Paionians, I/52h & II/5e & II/31j Aitolians, II/6 Bithynians,
II/8ac Bruttians-Lucanians-Apulians, II/13 Samnites, II/39ac Iberians-Lusitanians, and so on.
While we are at it, there is also the LH heavy armies with little or no punch, such as:-
I/43 Skythians, II/38 Hsiung-Nu, II/80d Other Huns, III/30 Magyars, III/47 Pechenegs,
and of course the so-called fearsome IV/38 IV/35 Mongols...
If as I suspect the answer is “few or not at all”, because we all know these armies are useless
and not playbalanced, then isn’t it about time something was done to correct this situation?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 19, 2020 10:08:01 GMT
I bought a Thracian army in March intending to use it at the Valhalla tournament at the end of June and thinking it might also serve for Britcon in August.
Unfortunately,.......
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 19, 2020 10:51:39 GMT
I bought a Thracian army in March intending to use it at the Valhalla tournament at the end of June and thinking it might also serve for Britcon in August. Unfortunately,....... I have used Thracians and like em. |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 19, 2020 10:55:25 GMT
... mostly it is a bad-going-army that can do little against a shieldwall army attacking it frontaly. But then you have to attack from a flank or from behind or somewhere in difficult terrain...
With other words i like auxilia armies most maybe with support of a bit hevier troops and cavalery... |
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Oct 19, 2020 14:27:29 GMT
As the self-appointed chairman of the “Committee Representing Auxiliary Personnel” (whose unfortunate acronym spells ‘C.R.A.P.’), my members would like to know how many Ax & Ps armies with no punch have appeared in tournaments. Mr. Chairman, this doesn't exactly answer your question, but here are the Won-Loss records of those armies in THE COMPENDIVM, a record of all games played in the Greater NAGS Empire since we started in 2002. - I/47 Illyrian, 20-26
- I/48 Thracian, 39-54
- I/52h LHG Aitolian, 2-2
- I/63 Paionian, 2-4
- II/5e LHG Aitolian, 6-2
- II/6 Bithynian, 30-39
- II/8a Bruttian-Lucanian, 16-15
- II/8c Apulian, 15-15
- II/13 Samnite, 28-38
- II/39a AS Celtiberian, 44-34
- II/39c AS Lusitanian, 5-7
- I/43 Skythian, 46-66
- II/38 Hsiung-Nu, 14-22
- II/80d Hunnic Others, 4-12
- III/30 Magyar, 36-36
- III/44 Tribal Mongolian, 18-31
- IV/35 Mongol Conquest, 80-100
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 19, 2020 15:52:55 GMT
Cheers Paul. 👍
Of course, it all depends on who they were fighting, and who it was that placed the terrain.
I myself have had many successes with light wimpy armies fighting other light wimp armies...
...but I wouldn’t dare take them to a tournament, because I know damned well they’ll have to
face up to high powered heavy armies and be massacred! (or, if they are Ax/Ps and I am lucky,
meekly hide in the bad going and just settle for a zero point scoring draw...)
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Oct 19, 2020 16:21:51 GMT
Cheers Paul. 👍 Of course, it all depends on who they were fighting, and who it was that placed the terrain. Oh, I agree. The COMPENDIVM lists out those armies that a given army has defeated and those to whom it lost. But no attempt was made to say which army placed terrain or which version of DBA was used. |
|
|
|
Post by larryr on Oct 19, 2020 16:37:03 GMT
Is it the machinery or the operator?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 19, 2020 18:52:50 GMT
Ha! Nice try Larryr...but it’s the machinery. There’s a old saying that says “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”. Likewise, “don’t bring a wimpy light foot army to a tournament”. Of course, you could always prove me wrong by taking a I/47 Illyrian or a II/13 Samnite army to a competition and let us know how you get on... The problem lies with the rules, which are only intended for ‘set piece battles’, the sort that heavy foot and mounted excel in, and not the ‘guerilla type tactics’ that an all Ax or Ps army were best at historically. Indeed, DBA 3.0 has actually made things even worse than before. 4Ax has lost its speed advantage, and nobody can break-off and disengaged anymore. So instead they have no choice but to fight CF 3 toe-to-toe against CF 5 or 6 in the heavy foot style...a style they are totally unsuited for. Oh, they can hide in bad going...but then the enemy won’t go in after them (especially enemy Pk and mounted), so the best they can hope for is a draw, as the moment they step outside they are pounced on and destroyed. (Note that I’m talking about an ALL Ax/Ps army, with no punch, and not mixed armies
with some heavy troops that can at least hold the enemy front line for a while)So what can be done? Well, some tournament organisers don’t allow dismounting, as it unbalances the game. Some other tournament organisers don’t allow Cities and Forts, for the same reason. But instead of taking stuff away, why not add something...such as a new victory condition:- “Invaders must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before the nightfall time limit of 10 bounds is reached or the defenders are classed as the victors”. This gives invaders two possible objectives, and allows weak wimpy Ax and Ps armies a chance to win a battle by delaying, harassing, and ambushing their heavier or mounted opponents by using ‘guerilla tactics’ in bad going. The defender's could also come out into the open and try to defeat the invaders, so they too have two possible objectives. Tournaments need a time limit anyway, and this does fit in with Phil Barker’s own thoughts, as he says on page 14:- “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory” (see also: vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/4/41/TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20170212182516 )Who knows...perhaps we will get to see more weak wimpy Ax and Ps armies appearing in competitions, instead of splitting the Army Lists into ‘tournament armies’ and ‘useless armies that no-one dare use’.  |
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 19, 2020 20:51:29 GMT
.......... So what can be done? Well, some tournament organisers don’t allow dismounting, as it unbalances the game. Some other tournament organisers don’t allow Cities and Forts, for the same reason. But instead of taking stuff away, why not add something...such as a new victory condition:- “Invaders must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before the nightfall time limit of 10 bounds is reached or the defenders are classed as the victors”. This gives invaders two possible objectives, and allows weak wimpy Ax and Ps armies a chance to win a battle by delaying, harassing, and ambushing their heavier or mounted opponents by using ‘guerilla tactics’ in bad going. The defender's could also come out into the open and try to defeat the invaders, so they too have two possible objectives. Tournaments need a time limit anyway, and this does fit in with Phil Barker’s own thoughts, as he says on page 14:- “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory” (see also: vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/4/41/TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20170212182516 )Who knows...perhaps we will get to see more weak wimpy Ax and Ps armies appearing in competitions, instead of splitting the Army Lists into ‘tournament armies’ and ‘useless armies that no-one dare use’. And if the weak wimpy Ax and Ps army is the invader, they don't even have the option of hiding in the bad going and hoping for a draw. Unless they attack, they will lose by default. I'm not sure that's an improvement - or much of an incentive. |
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Oct 19, 2020 21:20:55 GMT
I don't think there is much scope to change DBA tournament rules and conditions, nor do I believe it is necessary. However I do like the idea of invaders having to defeat defenders and there have been a few ideas put forward for social games that might provide a solution for armies that depend on guerrilla warfare. One (proposed by Stevie: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/742/opinion-wadbag-manoeuvre-ratings) is worth reading, but I'll summarise it here: It would not be difficult to adjust the "Scouting Points" to suit your view of how aggression and terrain should interact. Add in the idea that Attackers must defeat Defenders or lose, and you might have your solution. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 19, 2020 23:48:26 GMT
Wow, that was a good find Chaotic! (and I had far more hair and a smaller belly back then  ). Menacussecundus does make a good point...but fortunately most weak wimpy Ax/Ps armies have low aggression, although some don’t, such as the Illyrians, Paionians, and the Irish. Having some sort of extra ‘Scouting Tactical Roll’ (modified by the light horse and light foot in your army) to determine who actually defends and places the terrain on the day of battle would solve the problem. It sounds complicated, but it is after all just a single one-off die roll at the beginning of a game. Remember, I am just trying to make it more attractive to bring those useless armies to a tournament. It’s either that or shrug our shoulders and simply accept that half the armies in the Army Lists are never or rarely going to be seen in a competition...which would be a shame. I partly blame the rules...but I also blame tournament organisers for blindly following those rules and not encouraging a whole new dimension that has so far been totally ignored by DBA... ...that of ‘Guerilla Warfare’ using light foot. My members of the “Committee Representing Auxiliary Personnel” want to be more gainfully employed... |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 19, 2020 23:48:54 GMT
What about if you took the scouting bonus and just subtracted it from your aggression value?
So a highly aggressive army with lots of scouts can still be the “defender”, but it just means they are picking where the battle takes place more effectively.
The aggression value will change because sometimes you’ll take lots of LH and sometimes you’ll just take Cv.
Later Carthaginians could have 2 LH + 1Ps = 2 Scouting Points = Aggression of 4-2=2.
OR they could have 1 LH + 1Ps = 1 Scouting Point = Aggression of 4-1=3.
OR option b, they could have 0 LH + 1Ps = 0 Scouting Points = Aggression of 1-0=1.
Polybian Romans would have 2Ps = Scouting Point of 1, so Aggression of 4-1=3.
Not sure if we should allow Skythians with Aggression of 4 to have a negative Aggression, but perhaps 0 is the minimum.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Oct 20, 2020 1:57:33 GMT
As the self-appointed chairman of the “Committee Representing Auxiliary Personnel” (who’s unfortunate acronym spells ‘C.R.A.P.’), my members would like to know how many Ax & Ps armies with no punch have appeared in tournaments. Specifically:- I/47 Illyrians, I/48 Thracians, I/63 Paionians, I/52h & II/5e & II/31j Aitolians, II/6 Bithynians, II/8ac Bruttians-Lucanians-Apulians, II/13 Samnites, II/39ac Iberians-Lusitanians, and so on. While we are at it, there is also the LH heavy armies with little or no punch, such as:- I/43 Skythians, II/38 Hsiung-Nu, II/80d Other Huns, III/30 Magyars, III/47 Pechenegs, and of course the so-called fearsome IV/38 IV/35 Mongols... If as I suspect the answer is “few or not at all”, because we all know these armies are useless and not play balanced, then isn’t it about time something was done to correct this situation? For most of the above your estimate is correct Stevie but there is an exception IV/35 Mongols have a significant fan base and have appeared 16 times - chances are you would have seen them in the top 20 that I posted. As for the others I/47 Illyrians - not at all I/48 Thracians - 3 times I/52h, II/5e and II/31j (Aitolians in all their glory) - not at all II/6 Bithynians - not at all II/8ac Bruttians-Lucianians-Apulians - not at all (although their Campagnian brethren did appear the once) II/13 Samnites - 1 time II/39ac Iberian-Lusitanians - not at all I/43 Skytian - the a list has appeared 1 time II/80d Other Huns - 1 time III/30 Magyars - not at all in either sublist III/47 Pechenegs - 2 times. In the discussion over the machinery or the operator - "He who must not be named on this forum (lest it bring back traumatic memories in two of our more stolid DBA3 Dear Leaders)" suggested that with skill and a plan even the Catlan Company - mostly Ax and aggression 4 could win a tournament and stated that he had done so. Admittedly that was only in DBA2.x so I guess the bets may be off now. I did more than passably well with the b list Early Libyans on several occasions - although come DBA3 I did sub out 3 of the Ps and replace them with 2x3Bd and 1xHCh from their Sea People allies - but that is still a High agression mostly Ax/Ps in the rest of the army. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 20, 2020 10:43:38 GMT
Thanks for that analysis Macbeth.👍
All I can say is “I rest my case”.
Yes, armies with a mix of light and heavy troops do stand a more reasonable chance.
But I’m talking about armies consisting almost entirely of Ax/Ps/LH, with no punch.
I blame tournament organisers for not actively encouraging these wimps to appear.
After all, it is the tournament organiser who sets the parameters of a competition.
That they refuse to use this power is down to them and therefore it’s solely their fault.
|
|
).
