|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jan 8, 2020 15:13:27 GMT
I want to run some games at the upcoming CanGames in May:
CanGames
I am designing the event for four players using DBA 3.0 rules with some house rule tweaking, and the battles focussed during and after the reign of Ashurbanipal.
I had originally planned on running three rounds of two one-on-one battles, within four hours.
I want the first round battles to be during Ashurbanipal's early reign, the second round during the middle years, and the final round to be after his death.
That being said, I started thinking about what would the players want?
Would they prefer playing a battle with two players per side or having battles with only one player per side?
In the end I just want the participants to have a fun time.
What are your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 8, 2020 15:52:48 GMT
Big battle or historical battle games with multiple players are great!
I like them so much that I produced a book (along with many others here) containing them.
That being said... three commands per side with three commanders each works well. It will play quickly even with inexperienced players.
I would look at making each command have its own Pip dice... and change that victory conditions to where all commands must be broken.
For two players per side with then you can use the standard Big Battle rules. One commander takes the largest comand... they second takes the other two...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jan 8, 2020 16:49:06 GMT
Thanks Joe.
I have been leaning towards doing two players per side.
I did not clue in until about two weeks ago, that since I have been focussed on painting up all the enemies (in addition to making a Civil War Assyrian army), for the I/51 Later Sargonid Assyrians, that I now have a lot of stands that can be put on the table.
Is it important that both sides have nearly identical army compositions?
The reason that I ask this, is that I am thinking of doing 30 stands per side battles, since that seems to be the number I can adequately field with the stands that I have painted up for all the armies.
For example, one of the battles I would like to do, is in Ashurbanipal's early reign, that of the Battle of Til-Tuba:
link
The army compositions are as follows (of what I can pop on the board due to what I have pained up):
30 stands per side
Elamites --------- 7x HCh 2x Cv 2x LH 2x Mtd-Bw 3x Ps 1x 3Ax 1x Sp 12x 3Bw
Assyrians ----------- 3x HCh 2x LCh 2x Cv 6x Sp 4x 4Bw 6x 4Ax 1x 7Hd 5x Ps
These armies certainly have different compositions, but I do want some balance. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jan 8, 2020 18:52:16 GMT
It looks like a 2 command game would work nicely here... something similar to Timurilank’s Double DBA games recently aired here 👍
P
|
|
|
|
Post by diades on Jan 8, 2020 21:36:53 GMT
Check out my BBDBA thread from Sep 15, 2018 at 10:48pm in House Rules.
Two commands of 16 elements each using d6+1 for PIPs and breaking at 6 elements destroyed could work well.
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jan 8, 2020 21:38:59 GMT
It looks like a 2 command game would work nicely here... something similar to Timurilank’s Double DBA games recently aired here 👍 P It was Timurilank's blog posts that got me thinking outside of the 12 element box 
A few weeks ago I started doing 15 stands per side battles using the core army and allies, and then continued on without allies and expanded the core 12 to include three optional elements, if able to within the army list choices.
From then, 30 stands per side looks exciting.
If I manage to paint up my Kushites, then I should have some interesting matchups for the event.
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jan 8, 2020 21:40:45 GMT
Check out my BBDBA thread from Sep 15, 2018 at 10:48pm in House Rules. Two commands of 16 elements each using d6+1 for PIPs and breaking at 6 elements destroyed could work well. I certainly will diades, thanks! |
|
