I decided to stay within the timeline and move our game for tonight to the frontier of Egypt of the 5th century AD. The game will address plunder and its transport back home. Nobades forces were organized by clans and these will have similar characteristics as the “allied contingent” in the rule book.
Outcome of the campaign and evaluation should appear tomorrow or Friday.
Improving the Campaign system – Nobades incursion.
I have posted a brief history of the campaign game that took place last Wednesday. This was quite an exciting match-up with eight months of campaign, three battles and reaching a conclusion in 2 ½ hours.
Moving forward in the timeline, the next campaign will focus on events in Hispania during the years of 409 to 429 AD. From a scenario perspective, the period can be viewed as two parts, the Vandal domination of Hispania followed by the resurgence of the Suevi. This is particularly interesting as the Alan still play a minor role in the events as do the attempts by Rome to regain control of the peninsula.
The game will have players take the Vandal or Suevi tribes and the participation of the Alan and Rome becoming a non-player function with their activation taking place during the card game exchange. This will mean both players will serve a dual role on the game board.
The immediate problem is how best to compress ten years of conflict into an evening or two as the alternative (ten evenings for each year) is not appealing. This will most likely move through a process of trial and error, but finalized it will become a nice option for the campaign rule set opening its use for longer conflicts.
Those features developed during the previous campaign will be use here; inter-tribal rivalry for both Suevi and Vandal, marauding parties, and plunder. There are a few situations that will need some attention, such as the armed resistance by the inhabitants and piratical raids.
Improving the Campaign System - using different size armies.
In a recent posting I presented the Battle of Cannae with an option to spread the requirement for demoralization over a smaller number of groups.
The objective would simulate the gradual deterioration of an army’s strength as it happened historically.
I toyed with this idea when I began the Severan Project and other Fanatici had mentioned having experimented with a similar ideal.
In essence this would allow players an even chance of victory while using armies of disproportionate size; history records many such confrontations such as large barbarian armies fighting smaller Roman forces.
Regarding barbarian armies, these were historically a confederation of sub-tribes and this was no different for the Alamanni, Marcomanni, Early Vandals or Goths.
To bring this in a DBA perspective, a standard 12 element German force is divided in two groups of equal size.
Each sub-tribe of six elements requires two casualties to become demoralised resulting in the following bound the expenditure of pips for single elements or groups to hold their ground or flee.
Using such a system will allow players to field larger armies to fight a standard size army of 12 elements. In a recent series of tests, I used three groups of Early Germans (18 elements) to fight a standard size Middle Imperial Roman army of 12.
One die was used by each side which meant for the Germans a limited capacity to manoeuvre and therefore fought as large groups.
Three test battles were fought and their results will be posted tomorrow at the blog an assessment will follow shortly.
Improving the Campaign System – fighting against odds.
Using the standard DBA 12 element per side game some battles fall short of the image we have of large armies facing smaller disciplined forces. The Battle of Gaugamela comes to mind as we expect vast numbers of Persians should be fighting smaller Macedonian army.
In the recent campaigns set in the 4th and 5th century AD I had an opportunity to experiment with disproportionate size armies without resorting to vast numbers of figures.