|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 21, 2020 7:32:41 GMT
cgothicus used to run two quirkily-themed tournaments a year: any army with a Chariot General; any army with a Wb General; any army whose home terrain was littoral; any army with at least one elephant etc. As I was just starting out in DBA, it usually required me to paint a new army each time.
I am pretty sure there was one where the theme was any army with at least 6 LH elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 21, 2020 16:39:00 GMT
Would echo Baldie's comments about tournaments where you get to play with other armies.
My favourites are Tarrington and Northern Cup. Although you can still sometimes have some match ups which aren't exactly equal, but that's the challenge, (and the ready made excuse for when you lose!)
Wimp wars can be fun as well, but I tend to struggle with matched pairs as I usually find that the armies I take which I think are matched, it quickly becomes obvious they aren't quite and one is definitely better than the other. Usually that's the one my opponent picks!
But any tournament where you get the chance to play with and against different armies not often seen, is usually good fun and, as Martin has said, if you happen to do really well with a 'poor' army it can be particularly memorable.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Mar 26, 2023 21:07:21 GMT
Stevie, in another thread said... "I brought the crappiest DBA army, I/63 Paionians..."
Naturally, this comment has me pawing thru my unpainted Mikes Models* Macedonians to see if I can build and paint a I/63 Paionian army, so I too can have DBA's crappiest army.
* Or, failing that, maybe an excuse to buy a new army. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Mar 27, 2023 5:46:22 GMT
After playing in the Steel Warriors event this weekend I know have more respect for seemingly weak armies.
As to least popular I still cant see myself rushing yo buy Hawaians or Mound Builfers etc.
Popular or Powerful that is the question.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2023 6:33:07 GMT
After playing in the Steel Warriors event this weekend I know have more respect for seemingly weak armies. As to least popular I still cant see myself rushing yo buy Hawaians or Mound Builfers etc. Popular or Powerful that is the question. I have the Eureka Hawaiians and am seriously looking at the Eureka Mound builders!  How can you resist an army with Stinkard units? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 27, 2023 6:34:58 GMT
Stevie, in another thread said... "I brought the crappiest DBA army, I/63 Paionians..."Naturally, this comment has me pawing thru my unpainted Mikes Models* Macedonians to see if I can build and paint a I/63 Paionian army, so I too can have DBA's crappiest army. * Or, failing that, maybe an excuse to buy a new army. :-) The Paionians are on the list as I have some left over Forged in Battle Illyrians so just need some Xyston Paionian cavalry and Agrianians for the better infantry. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Mar 27, 2023 8:15:25 GMT
After playing in the Steel Warriors event this weekend I know have more respect for seemingly weak armies. As to least popular I still cant see myself rushing yo buy Hawaians or Mound Builfers etc. Popular or Powerful that is the question. I have the Eureka Hawaiians and am seriously looking at the Eureka Mound builders! How can you resist an army with Stinkard units? Cheers Jim There are of course oddballs in all society's, granted to be an oddball in a group of oddballs is a special skill indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 27, 2023 9:35:48 GMT
I think it’s worth noting just what it is that makes the I/63 Paionians so bad.
Other armies, such as the II/39c Spanish Lusitanians, the I/48 Thracians, and the
I/52h, the II/5e, and the II/31j Aitolians, can also consist almost entirely of Psiloi
skirmishers with few if any elements that can punch.
No…what makes the Paionians “The Kings of Crap” is their high aggression of 3,
which often leaves them invading a flat open billiard table with nowhere for their
multitude of Psiloi skirmishes to hide in!
(The I/7b Libyans, with their aggression of 4 (!), are close contenders for the title
of “Crap Kings”, but at least they have a couple of Chariots and Warbands to give
them a bit of bite)
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 28, 2023 22:45:23 GMT
I think it’s worth noting just what it is that makes the I/63 Paionians so bad. Other armies, such as the II/39c Spanish Lusitanians, the I/48 Thracians, and the I/52h, the II/5e, and the II/31j Aitolians, can also consist almost entirely of Psiloi skirmishers with few if any elements that can punch. No…what makes the Paionians “The Kings of Crap” is their high aggression of 3, which often leaves them invading a flat open billiard table with nowhere for their multitude of Psiloi skirmishes to hide in! (The I/7b Libyans, with their aggression of 4 (!), are close contenders for the title
of “Crap Kings”, but at least they have a couple of Chariots and Warbands to give
them a bit of bite)This is an example as to why Aggression is not the best method of determining terrain choice.The armies you mention possibly rarely fought outside their native terrain...I can mention a more extreme example of this...The Timurids, Tamerlane was most often the aggressor and often fought in enemy terrain..BUT often chose where his army fought.At Ankora he not only managed to get the Ottermans to "loose" his army, he managed to circle behind the Ottermans to choose his battlefield,poison wells and divert a river before bribing one wing of the Otterman army to change sides mid-battle.So some sort of scouting value would be a better alternative don't you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Mar 29, 2023 7:37:11 GMT
I think it’s worth noting just what it is that makes the I/63 Paionians so bad. Other armies, such as the II/39c Spanish Lusitanians, the I/48 Thracians, and the I/52h, the II/5e, and the II/31j Aitolians, can also consist almost entirely of Psiloi skirmishers with few if any elements that can punch. No…what makes the Paionians “The Kings of Crap” is their high aggression of 3, which often leaves them invading a flat open billiard table with nowhere for their multitude of Psiloi skirmishes to hide in! (The I/7b Libyans, with their aggression of 4 (!), are close contenders for the title
of “Crap Kings”, but at least they have a couple of Chariots and Warbands to give
them a bit of bite)This is an example as to why Aggression is not the best method of determining terrain choice.The armies you mention possibly rarely fought outside their native terrain...I can mention a more extreme example of this...The Timurids, Tamerlane was most often the aggressor and often fought in enemy terrain..BUT often chose where his army fought.At Ankora he not only managed to get the Ottermans to "loose" his army, he managed to circle behind the Ottermans to choose his battlefield,poison wells and divert a river before bribing one wing of the Otterman army to change sides mid-battle.So some sort of scouting value would be a better alternative don't you think? Yes, and one that favors especially light troops! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 29, 2023 10:08:20 GMT
Yes, some sort of scouting system might work, but it needs to be kept simple. After all, why have a complicated mechanism when a simple one does the same job. And the simplest method is to just tweak a few of the aggression factors. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/44387/ ) One of the problems with a scouting system is how can it reflect the Hundred Years War? The English longbowmen always chose the battlefield, so should have the lower aggression, but they have no Cavalry/Light Horse/Auxiliaries/Skirmishers…so what exactly are they using to ‘out scout’ the French? Longbows as scouts?!… This is where the aggression factor needs to be tailored to fit that army’s historical performance. And consider this: you may have a complicated system whereby LH is worth say 2 scouting points, so the Huns regularly ‘out scout’ their opponents, have a lower aggression, and choose the terrain. But just giving them a lower aggression has the same effect…and is much, much simpler. As an alternative to the above I have been experimenting with the following system (although more complex). All troops are divided into two types: useful troops and weak troops. Weak troops are LH, Ax, Ps and Hd. If your army has 6 or more ‘weak troops’, then you have an aggression of zero, no matter what the army list says. For example, the I/4a Zargos Highlanders have an army of 1 x General, 6 x 3Ax or 3Wb, and 5 x Ps. If they take the 3Wb, they’ll only have 5 ‘weak troops’ (the 5 x Ps), so have their usual aggression of 3. But if they take the 3Ax, they’ll have 11 ‘weak troops’ (i.e. 6 or more), so their aggression will become zero. It’s their choice. It won’t sort out the Hundred Years War, which will still need to be individually adjusted. However, it will make weak armies, both foot and mounted, more playable. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Mar 29, 2023 11:49:07 GMT
Yes, some sort of scouting system might work, but it needs to be kept simple. After all, why have a complicated mechanism when a simple one does the same job. And the simplest method is to just tweak a few of the aggression factors. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/44387/ ) One of the problems with a scouting system is how can it reflect the Hundred Years War? The English longbowmen always chose the battlefield, so should have the lower aggression, but they have no Cavalry/Light Horse/Auxiliaries/Skirmishers…so what exactly are they using to ‘out scout’ the French? Longbows as scouts?!… This is where the aggression factor needs to be tailored to fit that army’s historical performance. And consider this: you may have a complicated system whereby LH is worth say 2 scouting points, so the Huns regularly ‘out scout’ their opponents, have a lower aggression, and choose the terrain. But just giving them a lower aggression has the same effect…and is much, much simpler. As an alternative to the above I have been experimenting with the following system (although more complex). All troops are divided into two types: useful troops and weak troops. Weak troops are LH, Ax, Ps and Hd. If your army has 6 or more ‘weak troops’, then you have an aggression of zero, no matter what the army list says. For example, the I/4a Zargos Highlanders have an army of 1 x General, 6 x 3Ax or 3Wb, and 5 x Ps. If they take the 3Wb, they’ll only have 5 ‘weak troops’ (the 5 x Ps), so have their usual aggression of 3. But if they take the 3Ax, they’ll have 11 ‘weak troops’ (i.e. 6 or more), so their aggression will become zero. It’s their choice. It won’t sort out the Hundred Years War, which will still need to be individually adjusted. However, it will make weak armies, both foot and mounted, more playable. One way of resolving the problem would be to change the wording "Aggression" to "Terrain Factor" and work out how many invasions each army performed and how many defensive campaigns each one had the scale them to the same scoring system if 0-4 with each falling into the following category... 0-Armies that performed over 50% defensive campaigns. 1-Armies who performed only 25-49% defensive campaigns. 2-Armies that fought about the same Aggressive and Defensive Campaigns. 3-Armies that fought more than 25%-49% Aggressive campaigns. 4-Armies that fought more than 50% Aggressive campaigns. Don't count civil wars and count Aggressive campaigns being in foreign territory and Defensive as within their own terriory. Unfortunately this could take a lot of working out for all the armies in the Purple Book but it would give a fairer and more accurate score for terrain choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Mar 31, 2023 11:00:30 GMT
Concerning Paionians there is at least one remedy that really helps them: They've got two allies one of which (Macedonian's early successor: Kassandros' army, II/18c) offers 1 Kn and 2 Pk! That's something with a bite, isn't it?  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Mar 31, 2023 12:30:31 GMT
Concerning Paionians there is at least one remedy that really helps them: They've got two allies one of which (Macedonian's early successor: Kassandros' army, II/18c) offers 1 Kn and 2 Pk! That's something with a bite, isn't it? Reminds me of the Wallachians with a Hungarian ally. Big difference! |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Mar 31, 2023 14:59:53 GMT
Bring risk asking another army to come help you cos you don't think your own lads are up to it.
|
|
How can you resist an army with Stinkard units?
