|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 27, 2019 16:43:02 GMT
This game up during the tourney this past weekend.
I found myself, not thinking of the elements as blocks of troops, but instead as playing pieces, and my main strategy was this:
"How can I force my opponent to expend more PIPs, or pull his resources away, so that I can get more overlaps against his main force?"
as well as
"How can I use my threatzones to stop his heavy troops from contacting mine?"
Mr. Barker states that it's better to think of elements as blocks of troops and NOT playing pieces, but I must admit, I was thinking in very game terms, almost automatically.
Perhaps it was commanding El, so that I always had to worry about using 2 PIPs everytime I wanted to move them.
That, and I must admit the threat zoning became crucial because my Ps were key to preventing heavy troops from overwhelming my forces.
So my question is this:
How do people avoid thinking of this as glorified chess, and more like a full on battle? I want to play the history, not the rules, but the classic criticism of DBA being a game of geometry seemed to hold true in this case.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 27, 2019 17:13:49 GMT
I think when playing in a tournament, it would be hard to not think of the elements as playing pieces, since the focus in a tournament is on getting as many points as possible.
When I play in any non-tournament setting, I certainly do want to still win, but nowhere near as important, and I find I stare at the elements as blocks of troops.
Also, reading many many posts of other forum members of their strategies and experiences playing DBA, I am amazed at how it fits into Barker's idea of the elements as blocks of troops. Quite stunning and reinforces for me how good a game system DBA is.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 27, 2019 18:59:55 GMT
I think when playing in a tournament, it would be hard to not think of the elements as playing pieces, since the focus in a tournament is on getting as many points as possible. When I play in any non-tournament setting, I certainly do want to still win, but nowhere near as important, and I find I stare at the elements as blocks of troops. Also, reading many many posts of other forum members of their strategies and experiences playing DBA, I am amazed at how it fits into Barker's idea of the elements as blocks of troops. Quite stunning and reinforces for me how good a game system DBA is. See I think that way when discussing with you guys. But perhaps you’re right; the tournament format lends itself to thinking a more chess gamey way. |
|
jeff
Munifex
Painting II/12 Alexandrian Macedonians
Posts: 26
|
Post by jeff on Mar 27, 2019 20:40:27 GMT
I'm mostly a Euro style board gamer, so I tend to almost always see units as playing pieces. But I love seeing a battle come together in a way that makes sense. Pike blocks holding the center while the flanks jockey for position to strike, or the rush to crush an enemy's weak spots before he can react. Stepping back as contact begins between units, that's when they take the character of troops instead of pieces.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Mar 28, 2019 8:00:54 GMT
I have never played in a tournament. I also very largely play solo so I have never had this problem. I always see the elements as representing blocks of troops and envisage the game playing out as a battle.
The strange thing is many many years ago as a child when my Father taught me Chess he explained the playing pieces as troop types! The King leading the army, Queen a powerful general, Bishops were warrior monks, knights as it said on the tin and their strange move was due to their horse, Rook or castle a siege engine and the pawns humble spearmen or foot soldiers. Funny thing is when I play chess I still have that image.
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Mar 28, 2019 12:52:15 GMT
I mostly always treated DBX (and pretty much any other wargame) as an abstract exercise.
My 3.0 games often don't look like anything like a real battle, just too much "lateral" shifting (and clipping), and match-up optimisation going on. In that respect, 2.2, with its slower moves felt more like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Mar 28, 2019 13:06:07 GMT
All games have this issue due to abstraction. DBA is fast enough it doesn’t have the ‘lulls’ to admire the troops that other games have. And everybody you are playing with has at least a passing interest in history and are often very knowledgeable about their army.
Two suggestions:
1- In the tournament setting, don’t overthink it. Even if you group all the stands in one big group to avoid pip issues early in the game, think of your troops in 3 battles with a reserve, or 4 stands as a flank attack group. Sometimes I think of a historical battle and minor that set up.
2- take pictures after the set up, at the end and a couple of times during the game; admire the figures; discuss historical battles with opponents. (Sometimes we will talk about the abstractions leading to some unusual situations.)
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 28, 2019 17:24:54 GMT
All games have this issue due to abstraction. DBA is fast enough it doesn’t have the ‘lulls’ to admire the troops that other games have. And everybody you are playing with has at least a passing interest in history and are often very knowledgeable about their army. Two suggestions: 1- In the tournament setting, don’t overthink it. Even if you group all the stands in one big group to avoid pip issues early in the game, think of your troops in 3 battles with a reserve, or 4 stands as a flank attack group. Sometimes I think of a historical battle and minor that set up. 2- take pictures after the set up, at the end and a couple of times during the game; admire the figures; discuss historical battles with opponents. (Sometimes we will talk about the abstractions leading to some unusual situations.) Bill It would also help to play in a themed tourney against historical opponents. My Later Carths faced Samurai last Sunday! (we totally won against the warrior monks 4-3. No Big Deal. Take THAT Fast Blade!) |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 28, 2019 17:46:29 GMT
I have never played in a tournament. I also very largely play solo so I have never had this problem. I always see the elements as representing blocks of troops and envisage the game playing out as a battle. The strange thing is many many years ago as a child when my Father taught me Chess he explained the playing pieces as troop types! The King leading the army, Queen a powerful general, Bishops were warrior monks, knights as it said on the tin and their strange move was due to their horse, Rook or castle a siege engine and the pawns humble spearmen or foot soldiers. Funny thing is when I play chess I still have that image. I had a great book teaching me chess as a kid with great pictures of all the chess pieces as actual knights, etc. The Rook was definitely a guy pushing a huge tower with wheels on it  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 28, 2019 17:47:42 GMT
I mostly always treated DBX (and pretty much any other wargame) as an abstract exercise. My 3.0 games often don't look like anything like a real battle, just too much "lateral" shifting (and clipping), and match-up optimisation going on. In that respect, 2.2, with its slower moves felt more like it. I will say I was able to pull off a lateral shift of 2 elephants to line up against my opponent's knights in one game, but that's only because I rolled 5 PIPS (had to spend 4 for the shift) AND I didn't do much of anything else that turn. So I don't mind that too much. Troops get into combat very quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 28, 2019 18:39:00 GMT
I mostly always treated DBX (and pretty much any other wargame) as an abstract exercise. My 3.0 games often don't look like anything like a real battle, just too much "lateral" shifting (and clipping), and match-up optimisation going on. In that respect, 2.2, with its slower moves felt more like it. Didn't know you'd actually seen a real ancient battle, Arnopov. I am now officially impressed!  Seriously though, these are the facts: Fact: We do NOT know what ancient battles "looked" like. Fact: We have a good idea of what Napoleonic warfare looked like - the combatants drew us awesome sit-maps all the time! Fact: Given that much of Napoleonic warfare was conducted at ridiculously close ranges as compared to today, we tend to "bolt on" our Napoleonic views onto ancient battles. If you do that, and zoom out to an eagle's eye view, or what you would see were you to fly over the battlefield in a Fiesler-Storch at 10,000 ft altitude, DBA "looks" pretty close to what we would have seen IF we adopt the view that Napoleonic lines and wheels were a thing back then... By the way, reread Herodotus if you want to see how much shifting around went on in the Greek hoplites Spear line, as they faced the Persians lower down the slopes of Kithaeron at Plataea... Theucydides also indicates this happening a great deal at battles like Mantinaea, was it? |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Mar 29, 2019 9:49:22 GMT
I mostly always treated DBX (and pretty much any other wargame) as an abstract exercise. My 3.0 games often don't look like anything like a real battle, just too much "lateral" shifting (and clipping), and match-up optimisation going on. In that respect, 2.2, with its slower moves felt more like it. Didn't know you'd actually seen a real ancient battle, Arnopov. I am now officially impressed! Seriously though, these are the facts: Fact: We do NOT know what ancient battles "looked" like. Fact: We have a good idea of what Napoleonic warfare looked like - the combatants drew us awesome sit-maps all the time! Fact: Given that much of Napoleonic warfare was conducted at ridiculously close ranges as compared to today, we tend to "bolt on" our Napoleonic views onto ancient battles. If you do that, and zoom out to an eagle's eye view, or what you would see were you to fly over the battlefield in a Fiesler-Storch at 10,000 ft altitude, DBA "looks" pretty close to what we would have seen IF we adopt the view that Napoleonic lines and wheels were a thing back then... By the way, reread Herodotus if you want to see how much shifting around went on in the Greek hoplites Spear line, as they faced the Persians lower down the slopes of Kithaeron at Plataea... Theucydides also indicates this happening a great deal at battles like Mantinaea, was it? I have a pretty good idea what an ancient battle is like! I once had to police a football match between, I believe Millwall and Cambridge United, we even had cavalry on our side! But their missile troops certainly out classed us! |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 29, 2019 10:12:16 GMT
I hope you were well armoured with large shield to withstand the missiles!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 29, 2019 11:36:51 GMT
I have a pretty good idea what an ancient battle is like! I once had to police a football match between, I believe Millwall and Cambridge United, we even had cavalry on our side! But their missile troops certainly out classed us! Ahhh Millwall, my old manor in New Cross down the Old Kent Road. ‘F Troop’, the hardcore Millwall fans, are now all well over 60 years old. I too have never been in an ancient battle... ...but after attending several political demonstrations in the 1980’s, I know what it’s like to be in loose order using peltast tactics to evade heavy infantry charges! (something that cannot happen in the distorted version of reality known as DBA). 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 Cromwell on Mar 30, 2019 9:12:55 GMT
I hope you were well armoured with large shield to withstand the missiles! Jim <iframe width="21.800000000000068" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 21.800000000000068px; height: 3.5600000000000023px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_88308936" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="21.800000000000068" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 21.8px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1032px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_90037537" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="21.800000000000068" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 21.8px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 118px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_12950302" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="21.800000000000068" height="3.5600000000000023" style="position: absolute; width: 21.8px; height: 3.56px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1032px; top: 118px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_85291637" scrolling="no"></iframe> No shield, just a pointy hat, whistle on a small length of chain and a 12" length of cedar wood. (Which I kept in my pocket as otherwise i would have had to make out a report)! Only time I was issued a shield was at a riot training exercise, we stood in a line with shields encouraged by an Inspector standing behind whilst some of our colleagues yelled insults and threw bricks at us. I saw this brick hurtling down towards me, rather than use the shield I ducked. there was then a howl of pain as our beloved leader the inspector caught it full in the face. I had free drinks from my mates for days after that! |
|
