|
|
Post by wyvern on Jan 23, 2019 5:21:37 GMT
Hello all,
I am just inquiring as to how people conduct DBA campaigns with regards to casualties from a battle and fresh troops mustered to replace them?
If one uses the suggested campaigning rules suggested in DBA 2.2 (I have the republished version), one tends to find that after an initial battle, in a second or third battle within a campaigning turn sequence, there are potentially relatively few elements left to game with. Is it practical in campaigning, as in refighting historical battles, therefore to not be bound by the twelve element rule within the context of a campaign? Also, if one faction within the game has more territory, it would be logical that it could recruit a larger army than a smaller less powerful one. A good example might be a Persian army against the Greeks. I know one could simply play Big Battle, but is it legitimate for one side for example, to recruit 16 elements and another 20 based on how many cities or nodes they might have in order to recruit their armies? Or would this affect the mechanics of the game in some way?
Hope this makes sense.
Thanks, Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 23, 2019 12:14:03 GMT
Well Paul, I just like to treat a campaign as an excuse for having a battle. And in reality, many (but not all) historical campaigns only had one major engagement within a single year. To quote from the “Map-Less Wars Campaign System”  (which can be found in the appendix at the end of this document fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf ):- “ Routed Armies: if an army is defeated, its composition (without allies) in the next year’s battle is decided by their opponent. Once composition is revealed, the owner of the previously routed army may choose to use allies, if allowed by their army list. Armies that avoid being routed choose their own composition in the following year as normal. (This represents the scraping together of demoralised remnants and raising low quality troops in order to rebuild the army.
For example, after being defeated by Alexander at the River Granicus in 334 BC, the Persians raised a larger but lower quality
army in 333 BC at Issus, and did so again in 331 BC at Gaugamela. Likewise the Romans, after their defeat by Hannibal at the
River Trebia in 218 BC, raised another full but lower quality army in 217 BC to be ambushed at Lake Trasimene, and then an
even larger low quality army in 216 BC at Cannae. In none of these battles was the defeated army smaller or fewer than before.)” It’s an abstract but very simple way of deciding on the composition of a re-built army... ...and it's a lot easier than trying to work out which elements were destroyed, which survived, which deserted and simply went home, which had a drop in morale due to half-trained new recruits, and which were lost during the victor’s vigorous pursuit. But it’s entirely up to the individual players of course... 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
|
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Jan 23, 2019 21:22:56 GMT
Thanks Stevie!
Yes, I was surprised when researching ancient wars how few set piece battles would actually take place in wars which lasted for many years with one battle a year or every couple of years! It seemed that way in the Napoleonic wars too where the generals were looking for that one decisive battle rather than a series of engagements which didn't win anything strategically. So with that in mind one could easily play with a twelve element army that would have been reinforced between battles with whatever troops were available.
Cheers for the help, Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 24, 2019 0:26:36 GMT
This is a very interesting subject Paul, and I’d like to share a few more thoughts and observations. One reason for why most ancient campaigns only had a single major engagement in a year is perhaps the following:- Winning a battle does not win any territoryI know it sounds daft, but bear with me. Conquering part of the enemy’s land is a two-stage process. Stage 1: Invade a region, manoeuvre to find an advantageous battlefield, attack the enemy, and defeat them. Only once that is done can invaders can get down to the real purpose of that year’s campaign... Stage 2: With no enemy army in the area, you are free to besiege, storm, and capture his cities and forts. And you cannot move on to invade an adjacent region until you have secured this current region. You need it as a supply base, and somewhere to house your men for when they go into winter quarters. All the above takes about a year, from spring to the end of autumn. Next year in the new spring you can move on into the next region, and face the new poor quality army your opponent has raised. Pyrrhic VictoriesOf course, to complete stage 2 above you’ll need enough men to be able to storm those cities, and to garrison them. Lose too many men, even though you were victorious in battle, and you won’t be able to secure the region. And trying to go into winter quarters without secure supplies and a nice comfortable city to rest in would lead to disaster. In other words, you could win the battle, but still have to leave the region as you fall back to an area you do control... ...just like what happened to Pyrrhus himself when fighting the Romans. Quality matters more than size (!)As I mentioned earlier, Granicus 334 BC ---> Issus 333 BC ---> Gaugamela 331 BC And for the Romans, Trebia in 218 BC ---> Trasimene 217 BC ---> Cannae 216 BC ...it wasn’t that the defeated armies were smaller, in fact they were larger, but they got lower and lower in quality. Take for example for the Persians, using DBA Army List II/7. I would expect the following:- At Granicus 334 BC: 1 x 3Kn (General), 1 x 3Kn, 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 4 x Sp (mercenary hoplites), 2 x Ps
At Issus 333 BC: 1 x LCh (Darius), 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 1 x Sp (hoplites), 1 x 4Ax (Kardakes), 3 x 3Ax (takabara), 1 x 7Hd, 1 x Ps
At Gaugamela 331 BC: 1 x LCh (Darius), 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 1 x SCh, 1 x 4Ax (Kardakes), 3 x 3Ax (takabara), 1 x 7Hd, 1 x PsIf you leave it up to the defeated player, they’ll probably keep giving themselves Kn and Sp as replacements (I would). What is needed is some system that keeps the armies at the full 12 elements (each 1/12th the size of the army), but they are poorer. After all, rebuilding a destroyed army isn’t like shopping at the local supermarket, just picking what you like from each shelf. No, in reality is more like finding there are no Kn or Sp available, so you’ll just have to make do with all those useless 3/4Ax troops. At least, until you can survive a year without being routed... (This is where Fabius Maximus ‘The Delayer’ strategy comes in...you don’t have to win a battle, just avoid being routed, and next year
you’ll be able to choose your army’s composition as normal because the shelves in the supermarket have had time to be restocked) This is why I like to let the opponent choose the composition of a routed army. He will make sure only poor quality troops get used! You could get the same effect with elaborate complicated charts and die rolls, but the effect will be the same. The defeated general will have little or no control over what he gets...the decisions will be taken out of his hands. 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
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jan 24, 2019 1:27:29 GMT
This has been a great thread to follow, thanks guys!
|
|
|
|
Post by mark leslie on Jan 25, 2019 4:09:38 GMT
Long ago, while I was attempting to paint a group of historical opponents (Babylonians, Assyrians, Elamites, Egyptians), some of my musings while painting turned to campaigning and losses.
I don't recall where the idea came from but one thought to keep sides at twelve elements (if that's actually desirable) for every battle was to allow all losses during the season to be made up with horde. No idea if this is fair, but seemed like it could be a bit of Assyrian style fun since all the armies have at least one knight chariot, usually a general. At least in whatever version of the rules I had at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Jan 25, 2019 7:47:33 GMT
I tend to play map based campaigns with the map movement taking place between provinces. I allow each province to produce only specific troop types of which stay in the province and cannot move unless “commanded” by a General or sub-General. Generals can command 12 units max and sub-Generals 3 and provinces can only hold a max of 3 units not in command. Successfully besiege a province and all the uncommanded Defending troops therein die or defect depending whether the province is core or just allied.
This means that a defeated General has to refuse battle and fallback on its supply lines to raise more troops or fight with fewer than 12. It also means that strategic areas that produce high value units like Elephants or mounted are valued and protected while more unproductive provinces that produce lower quality units are not. Even victorious armies need to think about slowing their advance and sending sub-Generals back to move reinforcements to the front to ensure their fighting army stays at 12 good quality elements. In emergency provinces can “conscript” militia which are lower quality troops (Ax, Hd or Ps) but at the risk of a province rebelling and/or no recruitment of better quality units in the following year. Of course this doesn’t matter if the province in question only produces Ax or Ps. However, it starts to focus players attention on supply lines and where their next Elephant is coming from.
The concept of core provinces that have a high chance of rebelling back to their original factions if left ungarisoned or taxed heavily while others just rebel and become independent adds more interest to the Campaign and make players keep in looking over their shoulders.
|
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Jan 31, 2019 5:27:17 GMT
Thanks again for the input to all of you!very interesting stuff!😀
|
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Jan 31, 2019 5:36:05 GMT
This is a very interesting subject Paul, and I’d like to share a few more thoughts and observations. One reason for why most ancient campaigns only had a single major engagement in a year is perhaps the following:- Winning a battle does not win any territoryI know it sounds daft, but bear with me. Conquering part of the enemy’s land is a two-stage process. Stage 1: Invade a region, manoeuvre to find an advantageous battlefield, attack the enemy, and defeat them. Only once that is done can invaders can get down to the real purpose of that year’s campaign... Stage 2: With no enemy army in the area, you are free to besiege, storm, and capture his cities and forts. And you cannot move on to invade an adjacent region until you have secured this current region. You need it as a supply base, and somewhere to house your men for when they go into winter quarters. All the above takes about a year, from spring to the end of autumn. Next year in the new spring you can move on into the next region, and face the new poor quality army your opponent has raised. Pyrrhic VictoriesOf course, to complete stage 2 above you’ll need enough men to be able to storm those cities, and to garrison them. Lose too many men, even though you were victorious in battle, and you won’t be able to secure the region. And trying to go into winter quarters without secure supplies and a nice comfortable city to rest in would lead to disaster. In other words, you could win the battle, but still have to leave the region as you fall back to an area you do control... ...just like what happened to Pyrrhus himself when fighting the Romans. Quality matters more than size (!)As I mentioned earlier, Granicus 334 BC ---> Issus 333 BC ---> Gaugamela 331 BC And for the Romans, Trebia in 218 BC ---> Trasimene 217 BC ---> Cannae 216 BC ...it wasn’t that the defeated armies were smaller, in fact they were larger, but they got lower and lower in quality. Take for example for the Persians, using DBA Army List II/7. I would expect the following:- At Granicus 334 BC: 1 x 3Kn (General), 1 x 3Kn, 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 4 x Sp (mercenary hoplites), 2 x Ps
At Issus 333 BC: 1 x LCh (Darius), 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 1 x Sp (hoplites), 1 x 4Ax (Kardakes), 3 x 3Ax (takabara), 1 x 7Hd, 1 x Ps
At Gaugamela 331 BC: 1 x LCh (Darius), 2 x Cv, 2 x LH, 1 x SCh, 1 x 4Ax (Kardakes), 3 x 3Ax (takabara), 1 x 7Hd, 1 x PsIf you leave it up to the defeated player, they’ll probably keep giving themselves Kn and Sp as replacements (I would). What is needed is some system that keeps the armies at the full 12 elements (each 1/12th the size of the army), but they are poorer. After all, rebuilding a destroyed army isn’t like shopping at the local supermarket, just picking what you like from each shelf. No, in reality is more like finding there are no Kn or Sp available, so you’ll just have to make do with all those useless 3/4Ax troops. At least, until you can survive a year without being routed... (This is where Fabius Maximus ‘The Delayer’ strategy comes in...you don’t have to win a battle, just avoid being routed, and next year
you’ll be able to choose your army’s composition as normal because the shelves in the supermarket have had time to be restocked) This is why I like to let the opponent choose the composition of a routed army. He will make sure only poor quality troops get used! You could get the same effect with elaborate complicated charts and die rolls, but the effect will be the same. The defeated general will have little or no control over what he gets...the decisions will be taken out of his hands. I think you made some great points Stevie. I really think the issue of manpower is an important one, especially in a pre industrial age where there just would have been less people around. Your ideas also reflect the time needed to train quality troops. For example, how long would it take to train knights compared to levy? I suspect a comparitively long time.Its very interesting stuff! Cheers, Paul. 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
|
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Jan 31, 2019 22:00:06 GMT
Sorry this ended up mixed in with the last post.
I think you made some great points Stevie. I really think the issue of manpower is an important one, especially in a pre-industrial age where there just would have been less people around. Your ideas also reflect the time needed to train quality troops. For example, how long would it take to train knights compared to levy? I suspect a comparitively long time.Its very interesting stuff!
Cheers, Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 31, 2019 23:15:18 GMT
...and another thing:-  Some generals, notably Hannibal, never had the luxury of a siege train (probably because it would have slowed him down). These commanders could only storm small walled towns and not major cities. They had to rely on ‘hearts-and-minds’ to make gains. For example, after the victory at Cannae, Capua deserted Rome...but Tarentum only changed hands due to internal treachery. Other more reluctant cities could sometimes be ‘persuaded’ (or bullied) into opening their gate by direct threats or bribes. The Byzantine general Belisarius also didn’t have a siege train on his African campaign against the Vandals in 533 AD. But he was greatly helped by the native population hating their Vandal overlords, mainly due to religious differences. (Question: would the Persian empire have been conquered so quickly had the Persian cities remained loyal to Persia?
Only Miletus, Halicarnassus, Tyre, and Gaza resisted...and the whole of Egypt welcomed Alexander as a 'liberator')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
|
|
|
|
Post by wyvern on Feb 2, 2019 17:24:24 GMT
...and another thing:- Some generals, notably Hannibal, never had the luxury of a siege train (probably because it would have slowed him down). These commanders could only storm small walled towns and not major cities. They had to rely on ‘hearts-and-minds’ to make gains. For example, after the victory at Cannae, Capua deserted Rome...but Tarentum only changed hands due to internal treachery. Other more reluctant cities could sometimes be ‘persuaded’ (or bullied) into opening their gate by direct threats or bribes. The Byzantine general Belisarius also didn’t have a siege train on his African campaign against the Vandals in 533 AD. But he was greatly helped by the native population hating their Vandal overlords, mainly due to religious differences. (Question: would the Persian empire have been conquered so quickly had the Persian cities remained loyal to Persia?
Only Miletus, Halicarnassus, Tyre, and Gaza resisted...and the whole of Egypt welcomed Alexander as a 'liberator')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
Ha ha! Subject of siege and attrition is also a worthy topic when it comes to campaigning. I have been looking at the SOA book on Simple Campaigning. There are some great campaign ideas in there. Was looking at the Angivan campaign and one turn represents five years, so a battle is just the pinnacle of that specific campaign. So with that time scale, things like recruitment are abstracted so one doesn't have to worry about it.So perhaps simple is the way to go rather than getting bogged down with micromanagement. That said I think wars were won as much by the management of resources ie food, water and equipment and so perhaps some bookkeeping is necessary. Hannibal, and his Italian campaign is a good example of how supplies would influence strategic decision making. He had no real lines of communication but whils this meant he had the freedom to move around swiftly, it also meant that he couldn't stay long in one place because he would only be able to forage so much food from that particular area. He was therefore unprepared for a lengthy siege and the only towns that fell were through betayal. I believe none of the Latin cities were ever taken. To get to the point I think that a baggage train and uninterrupted supply lines should be a factor in campaigning to some extent and the lack of supplies should be offset with rules for attrition. Anyway, it's interesting stuff!😀 As to the question of the Persian cities, I am a little perplexed as to why so many deserted the Persian cause since I thought Persian rule emphasized an altruistic handling of conquered people's. Cheers Paul. |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 3, 2019 12:32:30 GMT
One caveat on letting the opponent select replacement elements after a defeat, is that with an empire extending over a large area Higher quality troops may not nave been included in the original army as they were too far away to make it in time for the campaign (or were not summoned due to the importance of their posting and threats there).
At east for a state that is defending - presumably an invader would bring all of their best.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2019 23:42:35 GMT
Of course one problem with the approach is if you don't have a big element choice to begin with. In other words, it was never PB's intention that a DBA player needed 38 elements to make a 12 element Thracian Army due to all the options.
So suppose I decide to take on Stevie with just 12 Gallic elements. Now Stevie being the super great brilliant guy he is, his Marians, with a Julius Caesar 4Bd General utterly rout me. Well, Stevie has limited choices. But if you paint up and base a bunch of Ps (not Hd: Hd are a very specific troop type, and are actually rare, but almost everyone had Ps of some sort!), well (a) that is, say 12-16 generic Ps-ish figures, and (b) they go in the general terrain box for possible recruitment.
Now to Stevie's point, a Ps-heavy army isn't always crap (good! you want your campaign players to hold out some small hope of an upset victory) but they do represent to me the shutting down of tactical options.
Think about it, if you just got thumped, you switch to being a more harassing/annoying/evading army, at least till you can recruit some heavy hitters again! It can also represent a smaller army deploying in looser order, and relying more on missiles, to make up for a lack of depth and numbers?
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 23, 2019 4:33:17 GMT
Just to add to that, consider if the opponent already has a very Ps-heavy army. In this case, I imagine that army being a sort of hit-and-run guerilla force if being invaded by a less Ps-heavy army. In this case, it is in my view appropriate that giving them a whomping just results in them running back into the hills, and being just as elusive as evadey as they were before! So in a campaign setting, Ps-heavy armies are easy to defeat, perhaps, but it is a real slog to conquer their lands! Sounds about right - like Alexander's campaigns in the North.
As a campaign special rule, you could have Scythians take a couple free LH replacements! NOW i see why Cyrus chickened out at invading Scythia! They are hard to bring to battle and decisively defeat! Gotta go take their capital!
|
|
(which can be found in the appendix at the end of this document
