The last thread that I started on the original Fanaticus board was about the Battlemaker campaign system, It might be useful to mention it on the current Fanaticus board.
I have been trying Jim Wright's 'Battlemaker Campaign System', and can recommend it for solo play. It is a simple system intended for 2 armies, whereby armies advance or are pushed back along a track of 5 locations. When one army pushes the other off its end of the track, the campaign is won.
The date of last update on the document is 24th December, 1999, so it was written during the 1.2 amendment sheet to v1.1 era. It also gives support to those who favour a rectangular board 32" by 24" (which I understand was an idea that has been largely dropped in favour of 30" square boards).
I feel sure that it can be readily adapted to whatever version of DBA that you prefer. I have been using it with version 1.1 (which was the version that I started DBA with, some years ago), but using version 2 armies. The armies that I am using it for are I/14d Early Northern Barbarians Europe 1400-701 BC and I/33b Villanovan Italian 799-587 BC.
I find that running a simple campaign (which has been going on for a few days, on and off) gives a bit more focus to the games than individual, unconnected games would have.
'The Battlemaker Campaign System' was available on the resources side of original Fanaticus, but is now on swammeyjoe's new archive of the Fanaticus documents:
Post by Piyan Glupak on Sept 14, 2016 15:47:54 GMT
Looks interesting. I tried a 4 by 4 map (assuming 6" squares) and got 7/16 open ground.
I might have a tinker with a non-computerised dice-run terrain generator sometime soon. For 2' by 2' (600mm by 600mm) boards I would be trying to put most of the bad-going near the edges to help reduce the 'edge of the world' syndrome. On the other hand, I have prepared a new 800mm by 600mm board (about 32" by 24") which I might start using.
For family reasons, I don't expect to be doing anything significant for the next 2-3 weeks.
EDIT: I was trying to use it to generate a DBA battleground, which might not be what it was designed for. I have a feeling that it would be vastly more useful for doing a small campaign map. Some terrain squares could be considered impassible (such as mountain). The 'Open Ground' squares could have a small number of terrain features, whereas other types of square would have greater numbers of terrain features, the majority of which would be of the type indicated by the terrain type. For example 'Heavy Woods' might have 4 or 5 area terrain features, at least 3 of which cowould be woods.