PDA

View Full Version : Why not a straight translation of DBMM for DBA 3.0 army lists?


Rich Gause
01-31-2011, 05:22 PM
I would love to see Phil just use a formula to translate the DBMM army lists directly into the DBA 3.0 lists. As in every 4 elements(or whatever) in DBMM = a DBA element. If the DBMM lists are supposed to be the best they can make them then why not? Sure it would give a lot more options to a lot of armies but how is that bad? This is a perfect example of changes from DBMM I would love to see reflected in DBA.

Tony Aguilar
01-31-2011, 05:32 PM
I would love to see Phil just use a formula to translate the DBMM army lists directly into the DBA 3.0 lists. As in every 4 elements(or whatever) in DBMM = a DBA element. If the DBMM lists are supposed to be the best they can make them then why not? Sure it would give a lot more options to a lot of armies but how is that bad? This is a perfect example of changes from DBMM I would love to see reflected in DBA.

You mean of course the way the DBA-RRR lists are, with a core force and some optional forces.

I am afraid that will have to wait until DBA 2.3. :)

john meunier
01-31-2011, 05:49 PM
Can you post a sample DBMM list for a common DBA army so we can see what that would look like?

Andreas Johansson
01-31-2011, 05:49 PM
There are a number of problems with this idea:

The divisor would have to be set individually for different armies, as DBMM armies vary wildly in element count. Sometimes you'd even need different proportionalities for different versions of the same list.

Unless Phil changes the troop scale in 3.0, you'd also need different divisors for different element types, as an element of blades has about twice as many men as one of psiloi in DBA, but the same number in DBMM.

How do you treat characteristic troops in small numbers, eg. standard wagons?


None of which is insurmountable, but it makes the exercise decidedly nontrivial.

Foge
01-31-2011, 05:50 PM
That would be awesome!

There should be a reasonable conversion factor, say 4 or 6 DBMM elements equals one DBA element. It would also make army selection in BB much more interesting.

I'm all for it! :)

Tony Aguilar
01-31-2011, 05:55 PM
None of which is insurmountable, but it makes the exercise decidedly nontrivial.

But it is, IMO, much better than incessant arguing about adding this or reducing that. After all the troop quantities are set by Phil in the army list books, they wouldn't be grabbed out of anywhere else or from the research/opinion of other authors. It would also eliminate the lobby for someone's "pet" army.

El' Jocko
01-31-2011, 06:17 PM
Bernd Lehnhoff did a conversion of the DBM lists to DBA several years ago. I seem to recall that he used a formula of some form (possibly augmented by some heuristics and common sense). The results are still available (translation by Mike Stelzer):

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/vararmies.html

There may be a thread someplace explaining his technique, but I wasn't able to find it yet.
- Jack

Rich Gause
01-31-2011, 06:50 PM
Bernd Lehnhoff did a conversion of the DBM lists to DBA several years ago. I seem to recall that he used a formula of some form (possibly augmented by some heuristics and common sense). The results are still available (translation by Mike Stelzer):

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/armies/vararmies.html

There may be a thread someplace explaining his technique, but I wasn't able to find it yet.
- Jack

These are outdated, and don't have very many optional elements, which misses the main advantage of converting the DBMM lists for use in DBA IMO.

john meunier
01-31-2011, 09:59 PM
These are outdated, and don't have very many optional elements, which misses the main advantage of converting the DBMM lists for use in DBA IMO.

Having played WRG and DBM (but not DBMM), I don't find lots of options a selling point. It tends to lead to all kinds of min-maxing and devising lists that have very little connection to their historical namesake.

I'm also not a fan of DBA army lists being derived from some other source by using a mathematical formula. Adds complexity for no good reason and would make the job of tournament organizers a pain as they would have to start checking lists to make sure they were valid.

With the DBA lists any player can check the legality of his opponent's army with a quick flip to the right page.

Rich Gause
01-31-2011, 10:41 PM
I don't have the DBMM lists but using for example the DBM list for I/22 New Kingdom Egyptian with a straight divide by 4 round down for compulsorary elements and divide by 4 round up for optionals would give something like:
1550-1279 BC
LCh(Gen), 1LCh, 2 Bd, 2 Bow plus 6 from: 4 LCh, 1 LH, 3 Bd, 2 Bow, 3 Aux, 2 Wb, 6 Psi.

1279-1070 BC
LCh(Gen), 1LCh, 2 Sp, 2 Bow plus 6 from: 4 LCh, 1 LH, 3 Sp, 2 Bd, 2 Bow, 2 Aux, 2 Wb, 6 Psi.

You could still play NKE with a 2.2 DBA army list but you could also do a lot of variations. I understand not wanting to have to change a current army and I wouldn't care if any legal 2.2 army were written into the lists even if it didn't match up exactly with the DBMM lists. The number you divide by could be tweaked a bit for chariots and other elements if the scale is different also but that is the general idea.

john meunier
01-31-2011, 11:16 PM
LCh(Gen), 1LCh, 2 Bd, 2 Bow plus 6 from: 4 LCh, 1 LH, 3 Bd, 2 Bow, 3 Aux, 2 Wb, 6 Psi.


Here is the corresponding DBA army:

4 LCh, 3 Bd, 4 Bw, 1 Ps

Yet, under the proposal, I could field an army of

2 LCh, 5 Bd, 2 Bw, 2 Wb, 1 Ps

or

2 LCh, 2 Bd, 2 Bw, 6 Ps

or

6 LCh, 1 LH, 2 Bd, 3 Bw

The point being these are all vastly different and have only passing feel for the DBA version of the army.

It seems to me that this proposal moves away from part of the core elegance of DBA.

Rich Gause
01-31-2011, 11:40 PM
Here is the corresponding DBA army:

4 LCh, 3 Bd, 4 Bw, 1 Ps

Yet, under the proposal, I could field an army of

2 LCh, 5 Bd, 2 Bw, 2 Wb, 1 Ps

or

2 LCh, 2 Bd, 2 Bw, 6 Ps

or

6 LCh, 1 LH, 2 Bd, 3 Bw

The point being these are all vastly different and have only passing feel for the DBA version of the army.

It seems to me that this proposal moves away from part of the core elegance of DBA.

You could also with the example field an army of 4 LCh, 3Bd, 4Bw, and 1 Ps...
If the DBMM lists allow a lot more variety with element choices I don't see why that shouldn't be reflected in DBA. Yes, this does allow armies that don't look a lot like the more limited current DBA lists but I don't see how if the same proportions of elements are kept as in the DBMM lists that there would be anything wrong with that. If the DBMM lists aren't historically plausible armies that would be a problem but I haven't heard that. If I want to play an army with all sorts of different compositions I can and do already do it with DBA just by collecting lots of different armies. Following the DBMM army lists would allow players to get some of that same variety with fewer armies. I also think it couldn't hurt getting new players who don't have as many DBA armies as some of us more interested in DBA if they could have more variety with fewer armies and be more likely to use elements that they have for a particular army for some other set of rules.

Tony Aguilar
02-01-2011, 12:01 AM
The point being these are all vastly different and have only passing feel for the DBA version of the army.

It seems to me that this proposal moves away from part of the core elegance of DBA.

Yet some armies are allowed choices and others don't have them. Why? For example - some armies can dismount in DBA and others can't even though they might be able to DBM/DBMM they both can. Taking the human factor out seems like the most balanced way to translate it from one to the other. It isn't like you are using a different author's opinion about an army, or differences from say Armati or FOG of how an army is constructed...it is the same person.

Redwilde
02-01-2011, 12:08 AM
Overall, I prefer the DBA army lists as, mostly, they reflect typical historical assortments for an army. When every obscure option is allowed, that becomes the typical on the game table.

What I do like to use as a house rule is allowing a player to swap in 1 stand allowed in the DBM list which isn't included in the DBA list. But I wouldn't want to see an open ended formula.

john meunier
02-01-2011, 08:45 AM
If the DBMM lists allow a lot more variety with element choices I don't see why that shouldn't be reflected in DBA.

I think we are starting from different places.

I'm not convinced the DBA armies need to be more like DBMM armies. I don't see what that adds to the game. It does make the game more like DBMM, but I don't see that as a goal of DBA.

I guess I do not buy the premise of the thread's opening question, "Why not a straight translation of DBMM for DBA 3.0 army lists?"

My questions is "why is that a good idea?" Of all the complaints about DBA over the years, I do not recall "the army lists are too inflexible" being one of them.

john meunier
02-01-2011, 08:50 AM
Yet some armies are allowed choices and others don't have them. Why? For example - some armies can dismount in DBA and others can't even though they might be able to DBM/DBMM they both can.

Well, dismounting is one of the places I'd like to see DBA go back to its earlier version that requires dismounting at deployment. (But that is another thread.)

My memory of DBM was that under certain circumstances virtually all mounted elements could dismount, so I would not want to allow that in DBA.

If you are saying there is historical reason to review whether more armies should have Kn//Bd options, then by all means that should be considered in DBA 3.0. But that is not the same thing as saying DBMM lists should be the source of DBA lists.

Tony Aguilar
02-01-2011, 08:59 AM
Well, dismounting is one of the places I'd like to see DBA go back to its earlier version that requires dismounting at deployment. (But that is another thread.)

I agree with you on that.


My memory of DBM was that under certain circumstances virtually all mounted elements could dismount, so I would not want to allow that in DBA.


Not at all, there are just a few more than those available in the army lists. Normans, Mongols and Tibetans come to mind. I haven't gone through all of the lists.


If you are saying there is historical reason to review whether more armies should have Kn//Bd options, then by all means that should be considered in DBA 3.0. But that is not the same thing as saying DBMM lists should be the source of DBA lists.

Well, they don't all necessarily dismount from Kn to Bd. What I am saying is that the DBA lists should reflect the DBM (or in the case of 3.0 the DBMM lists.) They should be consistent...it is not like a different author wrote them.

john meunier
02-01-2011, 10:37 AM
Well, they don't all necessarily dismount from Kn to Bd. What I am saying is that the DBA lists should reflect the DBM (or in the case of 3.0 the DBMM lists.) They should be consistent...it is not like a different author wrote them.

I don't have a problem with your point here as it relates to things such as dismounting. If there is a good historical reason for it in DBMM, then I would understand it in DBA - assuming scale issues are not a confounding factor.

If only two elements in a DBMM army can dismount, then I would not see a case for allowing DBA to do that.

But this is different than turning the DBA army lists into some sort of reflection of the DBMM lists. Scale, game mechanics and design, and other factors argue against that for me at least.

On a previous point, I thought in DBM mounted defending or assaulting fortifications could always dismount.

Foge
02-01-2011, 10:44 AM
There are a handful of cases that troops could dismount in DBM even if it isn't specified in the army list. You could dismount when attacking or defending fortifications, a mounted General could dismount when commanding a command entirely of infantry, and when attacking war wagons on a hill. One could make arguments for including them in DBA, but I think it adds unnecessary complication.

Regarding the original intent of this post, I think you should be able to use the DBMM lists for BBDBA. It makes army selection there MUCH more interesting, especially for armies that don't have much choice in the standard DBA lists.

Tony Aguilar
02-01-2011, 10:58 AM
On a previous point, I thought in DBM mounted defending or assaulting fortifications could always dismount.

Not sure about that, John. It might just be army list specific, such as the II/69 Sassanid Persians (text from DBM):

Sassanid cavalry relieving a mountain fortress besieged by the Byzantines in 583 dismounted to shoot. Accordingly, Cv (S) and (O) can always dismount within 300p of enemy-occupied steep slopes.

That is pretty specific and in very particular circumstances. Giving the Sassanid Persians dismounting abilitily would not be a situation I would endorse.

Let me show you two cases where dismounting was not given in DBA.

The IV/35 Mongol Conquest list specifies dismounting a large group of its army with no restrictions as to use:

Mongol cavalry, including generals and guards, and auxiliary light horse can always dismount to fight on foot.

Then take the notes from the III/51 Norman list:

Norman Kn can always dismount, as Irr Sp (O).

Wow, that is pretty much across the board, yet none are allowed to dismount in DBA.

Tony Aguilar
02-01-2011, 11:02 AM
There are a handful of cases that troops could dismount in DBM even if it isn't specified in the army list. You could dismount when attacking or defending fortifications, a mounted General could dismount when commanding a command entirely of infantry, and when attacking war wagons on a hill. One could make arguments for including them in DBA, but I think it adds unnecessary complication.

I think it is too much and too specific to certain circumstances.

david kuijt
02-01-2011, 11:41 AM
What I am saying is that the DBA lists should reflect the DBM (or in the case of 3.0 the DBMM lists.) They should be consistent...it is not like a different author wrote them.

They should be consistent, yes.

But actually, it IS like a different author wrote them. If you look at the DBM lists, then the DBA lists, it is clear that the translation methods used were not consistent. Further, my take on it is that the translation methods were more consistent within interest-sphere, which leads me to the inference that several different people participated, each working within their own interest sphere.

All of which is one of the reasons why an automated translation will not work. Andreas has mentioned others.

Rich Gause
02-01-2011, 11:57 AM
I don't see why an automated translation wouldn't work assuming the right formula could be found as long as it was applied consistently to all the armies...............

Redwilde
02-01-2011, 12:09 PM
Of all the complaints about DBA over the years, I do not recall "the army lists are too inflexible" being one of them.

Overall, there is a nice amount of flexibility. A very few of the armies have been too inflexible -- among the ones I play, Republican Romans have been way too constrained, but that appears to be getting fixed in the current lists.

winterbadger
02-01-2011, 02:56 PM
I don't see why an automated translation wouldn't work assuming the right formula could be found as long as it was applied consistently to all the armies...............

Because all DBM army lists were not created to the same scale or by the same system or even--as DK just pointed out--by the same people.

Because DBM(M) armies are more than just DBA armies*X, and DBA armies are more than just DBM(M) armies/Y.

Andreas Johansson
02-01-2011, 02:58 PM
I don't see why an automated translation wouldn't work assuming the right formula could be found as long as it was applied consistently to all the armies...............

The right formula presumably being the one that makes automated translation work, that's a bit tautological. The relevant questions are, can such a formula indeed be found, and if so, would it be worth the effort?

Anyway, currently the translation is done by hand, and the possessor of said hand hasn't even answered whether consistency is a design goal.

Andreas Johansson
02-01-2011, 03:02 PM
Because all DBM army lists were not created to the same scale or by the same system or even--as DK just pointed out--by the same people.
Actually, I believe DK was speaking of the DBA lists.


Which reminds me - Sue indicated a while ago that someone else had taken over updating the Bk I lists. Said person hasn't been asking for input on the Yahoo list, nor anywhere else that I'm aware of.

David Constable
02-01-2011, 03:03 PM
They should be consistent, yes.

But actually, it IS like a different author wrote them. If you look at the DBM lists, then the DBA lists, it is clear that the translation methods used were not consistent. Further, my take on it is that the translation methods were more consistent within interest-sphere, which leads me to the inference that several different people participated, each working within their own interest sphere.

All of which is one of the reasons why an automated translation will not work. Andreas has mentioned others.

I might well be very wrong, however my understanding is that there were multiple people doing the conversions, but (and a big but) they were not playing from the same hymn sheet.

Translation ~ multiple people, multiple methods of doing army lists.

David Constable

Rich Gause
02-01-2011, 03:04 PM
The right formula presumably being the one that makes automated translation work, that's a bit tautological. The relevant questions are, can such a formula indeed be found, and if so, would it be worth the effort?

Anyway, currently the translation is done by hand, and the possessor of said hand hasn't even answered whether consistency is a design goal.

I think the results have answered that it is not because otherwise there would be more consistency.

winterbadger
02-01-2011, 03:11 PM
Actually, I believe DK was speaking of the DBA lists.

On re-reading his post, I believe you are right.

My impression, in any event, is that multiple people have been involved in both DBA and DBM(M) lists, over the years. And that whatever relationship has existed between the old WRG lists, DBA lists, and various versions of DBM(M) lists, there has never been any indication that one was derived from another by a simple mathematical process.

Tony Aguilar
02-01-2011, 03:13 PM
The translation can be done (I did all of the DBA-RRR lists in this manner) but they have to be done by hand not just entering a set formula into a spreadsheet/converting. Yes, it does take a while, but less time than it takes for me to paint up one DBA army. However, I don't delude myself to think that something like this will be included in 3.0.

El' Jocko
02-01-2011, 03:49 PM
...there has never been any indication that one was derived from another by a simple mathematical process.

It seems like it would be difficult to come up with good army lists based on a simple mathematical process. But it's also suboptimal to come up with army lists based on an ad-hoc, opaque process implemented by several different people, each with their own priorities and interests.

And the current process strikes me as completely nonsensical. There are a number of problems with it, but the largest is that you can't build army lists for a set of rules that doesn't exist yet. It also doesn't seem like it's being taken very seriously--it certainly isn't receiving the same careful attention that the DBMM lists received.

- Jack

winterbadger
02-01-2011, 04:13 PM
And the current process strikes me as completely nonsensical. There are a number of problems with it, but the largest is that you can't build army lists for a set of rules that doesn't exist yet. It also doesn't seem like it's being taken very seriously--it certainly isn't receiving the same careful attention that the DBMM lists received.

Well, it may be that this is a hint that Phil is quite serious about changing very little about the rules, other than things that will affect all elements equally, like cutting away at geometrical ploys. And it may be that he feels that the DBMM lists are very good and he (and/or Sue, and/or whoever else is involved) can use them as the basis of DBA lists and do a non-mathematical reduction of them without much difficulty.

Just speculation on my part.

Rich Gause
02-01-2011, 04:14 PM
It seems like it would be difficult to come up with good army lists based on a simple mathematical process. But it's also suboptimal to come up with army lists based on an ad-hoc, opaque process implemented by several different people, each with their own priorities and interests.

And the current process strikes me as completely nonsensical. There are a number of problems with it, but the largest is that you can't build army lists for a set of rules that doesn't exist yet. It also doesn't seem like it's being taken very seriously--it certainly isn't receiving the same careful attention that the DBMM lists received.

- Jack

I wondered if I was the only one who had that thought. Why on Earth are they concerned with doing anything with the army lists when the rules aren't done yet? Or maybe the rules are pretty much done just we haven't seen them................

Rich Gause
02-01-2011, 04:16 PM
The translation can be done (I did all of the DBA-RRR lists in this manner) but they have to be done by hand not just entering a set formula into a spreadsheet/converting. Yes, it does take a while, but less time than it takes for me to paint up one DBA army. However, I don't delude myself to think that something like this will be included in 3.0.

It was how much I liked this kind of army list for RRR that made me think that I would like to see something similiar for DBA.

ferrency
02-01-2011, 04:39 PM
I wondered if I was the only one who had that thought. Why on Earth are they concerned with doing anything with the army lists when the rules aren't done yet? Or maybe the rules are pretty much done just we haven't seen them................

Time? What time do you think we have?

The hour is later than you think. Phil's forces are already moving.

You did not seriously think a few forum posters could contend with the will of Phil? There are none who can.

Against the power of Barkerese there can be no victory. We must join with him. We must join with Phil. It would be wise, my friend.

Alan

Andreas Johansson
02-01-2011, 05:20 PM
Well, it may be that this is a hint that Phil is quite serious about changing very little about the rules, other than things that will affect all elements equally, like cutting away at geometrical ploys.
To late for that methinks: one of the few putative changes he's floated publically is movement by base-widths, which is distinctly major.

Anyway, what more, ruleswise, need to be fixed to do the list work beyond the set of element types and the number of elements in an army? It's not like the DBA lists have ever been concerned with balance. I guess a case could be made for having troops like Pk in pairs, but even that wasnt done too thoughtfully in 2.2 (cf IV/13d - to get an even number of Pk you can't use the Kn general).

winterbadger
02-01-2011, 05:29 PM
To late for that methinks: one of the few putative changes he's floated publicly is movement by base-widths, which is distinctly major.

I didn't say only minor, I said only things that would affect all units equally. Now, depending on how the shift to BWs (which is a great idea, IMO) is done, that might change the balance among element types. Or not.

Anyway, what more, ruleswise, need to be fixed to do the list work beyond the set of element types and the number of elements in an army?

Well, if you're changing the way one or more elements work on a fundamental level, or adding element types, that significantly impacts the lists. It's not a question of balancing one list against another. It's an issue of whether an army's composition accurately reflects the author's understanding of it if he changes the element types. Wb changed significantly between 1.x and 2.x; some army lists that had been heavily Wb also changed, I assume because the author's opinion of how best to represent them changed as his opinion of what Wb meant changed.

Rich Gause
02-01-2011, 05:49 PM
I can see a case to be made for measuring everything(moves and board size) in base widths as long as the proportions between different element moves and the board size are kept relatively similiar. So if a blade element still needed about 12 moves to cover the entire board vs 8 for a Kn or Psi, 6 for Cav, just under 5 for light horse that should be fine. Anything else is going to be a huge change for the game that needs to be heavily playtested to see what the effect is going to be. Depending on board size chosen and the Basewidth movement rates given that could make huge differences in the relative maneuverability of different elements and the abilities of what players can do with different types of armie. If the relative board size were increased relative to the new movement rates that could open up more room for maneuver by Cav and LH armies. If the relative speed of heavy foot were increased and the board size remained the same it might be like playing DBA 2.2 on a 18" board. Whether that would be good or bad would depend on what you were looking for in a DBA game I suppose.

David Schlanger
02-01-2011, 06:08 PM
Well, if you're changing the way one or more elements work on a fundamental level, or adding element types, that significantly impacts the lists. It's not a question of balancing one list against another. It's an issue of whether an army's composition accurately reflects the author's understanding of it if he changes the element types. Wb changed significantly between 1.x and 2.x; some army lists that had been heavily Wb also changed, I assume because the author's opinion of how best to represent them changed as his opinion of what Wb meant changed.

There was a long to-do about Warband as it was modified as new versions of the rules came out... much of it actually appeared to be driven by play balance (particularly the removal of penalty for Wb in bad going).

We have many examples of the author making significant changes to the rules where it clearly had nothing to do with his opinion of how best to represent the troop type.

DS

winterbadger
02-01-2011, 06:15 PM
There was a long to-do about Warband as it was modified as new versions of the rules came out... much of it actually appeared to be driven by play balance (particularly the removal of penalty for Wb in bad going).

We have many examples of the author making significant changes to the rules where it clearly had nothing to do with his opinion of how best to represent the troop type.

While I don't doubt that for a moment, it doesn't take away (I don't think) from the point I was making that there are good reasons to wait until the rules are set before completing the new lists.

Not that I'm saying that Phil will necessarily take those good reasons under advisement, just responding to Andreas's question about "why would you wait?"

david kuijt
02-01-2011, 06:16 PM
Time? What time do you think we have?

The hour is later than you think. Phil's forces are already moving.

You did not seriously think a few forum posters could contend with the will of Phil? There are none who can.

Against the power of Barkerese there can be no victory. We must join with him. We must join with Phil. It would be wise, my friend.



You just made me Fresca Ex Naso Iacere.

David Schlanger
02-01-2011, 06:19 PM
While I don't doubt that for a moment, it doesn't take away (I don't think) from the point I was making that there are good reasons to wait until the rules are set before completing the new lists.

Not that I'm saying that Phil will necessarily take those good reasons under advisement, just responding to Andreas's question about "why would you wait?"

I am not sure I am seeing the good reasons, unless Phil is planning to modify the characteristics of his troop types.

If not, then the two processes are disconnected. Or at least enough to be developed in parallel.

DS

winterbadger
02-01-2011, 06:34 PM
I am not sure I am seeing the good reasons, unless Phil is planning to modify the characteristics of his troop types.

That was exactly the circumstance I was suggesting would make it impractical. I don't know that he is planning on doing so, but I also don't know that he isn't. He has certainly changed the rules for elements in the past (for whatever reason--*why* he changed them is not the point).

Rich and Jack expressed surprise that the lists would be done before the rules were finished. I agreed. Perhaps everyone but the three of us already knows what all the changes are that Phil is planning on making in the rules. That would certainly explain why we are the only people who think this is a strange idea...

David Schlanger
02-01-2011, 06:38 PM
Rich and Jack expressed surprise that the lists would be done before the rules were finished. I agreed. Perhaps everyone but the three of us already knows what all the changes are that Phil is planning on making in the rules. That would certainly explain why we are the only people who think this is a strange idea...

You are not the only people who think this is a strange idea... I think the WHOLE thing is strange! DBA 2.2 was already almost a perfect game. All we needed was a DBA 2.3 with small fixes.

DS

ferrency
02-01-2011, 07:53 PM
You just made me Fresca Ex Naso Iacere.

Sometimes I have that effect on people...

Tony Aguilar
02-01-2011, 08:23 PM
You are not the only people who think this is a strange idea... I think the WHOLE thing is strange! DBA 2.2 was already almost a perfect game. All we needed was a DBA 2.3 with small fixes.

DS

Amen, brother!

Lobotomy
02-01-2011, 10:28 PM
Time? What time do you think we have?

The hour is later than you think. Phil's forces are already moving.

You did not seriously think a few forum posters could contend with the will of Phil? There are none who can.

Against the power of Barkerese there can be no victory. We must join with him. We must join with Phil. It would be wise, my friend.

Alan

Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated. :sick

ferrency
02-02-2011, 01:05 AM
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. :sick

I thought that was "Resistance is feudal"?
:D

Martyn
02-02-2011, 04:58 AM
I thought that was "Resistance is feudal"?
:D

Or is it "The Renaissance was Feudal" :D

john meunier
02-02-2011, 08:26 AM
I did not know Saruman was a borg.

Andreas Johansson
02-04-2011, 04:21 PM
Another reason that direct conversion is a questionable idea is that some DBMMlists are hideously complicated. The Medieval German list can, among other things, be all 6Kn, or 3Sp monotype, or heavy on Bd or Pk or Cb or Ps. All basic element types but El and Cm are represented. The comparatively simple Khazar list can be all Cv, or have hordes of various combinations of LH, Kn, Hd, and Ax. My attempt at distilling the flavour of the DBMM list into a DBA list for Sue ended up like this:

1x(Kn or Cv or WWg (Gen)), 2x(Kn or 2xCv), (4xLH + 2xHd + 1xPs) or (4xCv + 2x(Ax or LH) + 1x (Kn or LH)), 1x (Art or LH)

And that's still significantly simplified compared to any direct translation.

Edit: And obvuously the activity rots the brain because that adds up to only 11 elements ...

Rich Gause
02-04-2011, 04:32 PM
Another reason that direct conversion is a questionable idea is that some DBMMlists are hideously complicated. The Medieval German list can, among other things, be all 6Kn, or 3Sp monotype, or heavy on Bd or Pk or Cb or Ps. All basic element types but El and Cm are represented. The comparatively simple Khazar list can be all Cv, or have hordes of various combinations of LH, Kn, Hd, and Ax. My attempt at distilling the flavour of the DBMM list into a DBA list for Sue ended up like this:

1x(Kn or Cv or WWg (Gen)), 2x(Kn or 2xCv), (4xLH + 2xHd + 1xPs) or (4xCv + 2x(Ax or LH) + 1x (Kn or LH)), 1x (Art or LH)

And that's still significantly simplified compared to any direct translation.

You are making it more complicated than it needs to be by trying to closely model the old style DBA lists. If you simply take the DBM(M) list give the compulsorary elements and then give how many optional elements and a max number of each element it is simpler at least based on the DBM lists I have.

winterbadger
02-04-2011, 04:42 PM
You are making it more complicated than it needs to be by trying to closely model the old style DBA lists. If you simply take the DBM(M) list give the compulsorary elements and then give how many optional elements and a max number of each element it is simpler at least based on the DBM lists I have.

But it's not that simple. Sometimes options are tied to each other because they are expressing a particular tribe, region, or army. You can't just turn that into a list of "pick 5 from the following types" without losing a good deal of the value of the DBMM list.

Rich Gause
02-04-2011, 04:52 PM
But it's not that simple. Sometimes options are tied to each other because they are expressing a particular tribe, region, or army. You can't just turn that into a list of "pick 5 from the following types" without losing a good deal of the value of the DBMM list.

Yes but all the work goes into the army list rather than what the end user sees. Tonys work on the DBA RRR lists shows a good idea of what the final result would be like.

Rich Gause
02-04-2011, 04:55 PM
But it's not that simple. Sometimes options are tied to each other because they are expressing a particular tribe, region, or army. You can't just turn that into a list of "pick 5 from the following types" without losing a good deal of the value of the DBMM list.

If somebody wants to send me either in an email or PM or just as a post to this thread the most hideously godawful complicated DBMM army list there is I will take a crack at it and if it is too complex I will publicly admit it is a bad idea.

Andreas Johansson
02-04-2011, 05:02 PM
You are making it more complicated than it needs to be by trying to closely model the old style DBA lists. If you simply take the DBM(M) list give the compulsorary elements and then give how many optional elements and a max number of each element it is simpler at least based on the DBM lists I have.

Apart from the issues winterbadger raises, the Medieval German list would end up somehting like this:

1x(Kn//Bd or Sp or Pk) (Gen)
+ 11 element chosen from:
0-11 Kn//Bd
0-2 Cv
0-2 LH
0-10 Sp
0-8 Pk
0-8 Bd
0-6 Bw
0-8 Ps
0-4 Hd
0-1 Art
0-3 WWg

... which is plain silly and allows compositions radically different from anything in the DBMM list.

winterbadger
02-04-2011, 05:28 PM
If somebody wants to send me either in an email or PM or just as a post to this thread the most hideously godawful complicated DBMM army list there is I will take a crack at it and if it is too complex I will publicly admit it is a bad idea.

I think the problem with that idea is that you will end up with something that you think is fine but that many of the rest of us think is not. What you've said suggests you'd be just fine with something vastly simplified and missing most of the nuance of the DBMM lists, while some of the rest of us would like to preserve at least some of that subtlety.

Tony Aguilar
02-04-2011, 05:48 PM
Apart from the issues winterbadger raises, the Medieval German list would end up somehting like this:

1x(Kn//Bd or Sp or Pk) (Gen)
+ 11 element chosen from:
0-11 Kn//Bd
0-2 Cv
0-2 LH
0-10 Sp
0-8 Pk
0-8 Bd
0-6 Bw
0-8 Ps
0-4 Hd
0-1 Art
0-3 WWg


So there are no troop types that have a minimum of at least 4 in this DBMM list?

Rich Gause
02-04-2011, 08:20 PM
Apart from the issues winterbadger raises, the Medieval German list would end up somehting like this:

1x(Kn//Bd or Sp or Pk) (Gen)
+ 11 element chosen from:
0-11 Kn//Bd
0-2 Cv
0-2 LH
0-10 Sp
0-8 Pk
0-8 Bd
0-6 Bw
0-8 Ps
0-4 Hd
0-1 Art
0-3 WWg

... which is plain silly and allows compositions radically different from anything in the DBMM list.

What I get from the DBM book would be a base army of(from 1106-1296):
Kn(g), 2 Kn, 2BW, 1 Sp or Pk, and 2 AX with 4 choices from:
1106-1150: 4KN, 4Bw, 2 Sp or Pk, 2Sp, 4Ax, 2 Bd, 2 Hd, 4Psi
1150-1296 the above choices and 1 WW, 2LH.

From 1296-1519 there would be some more year breakpoints with some changes to the base army and choices. Granted this is from the DBM list, not the DBMM list but if the DBMM list was used with the same methodology you could not possibly wind up with anything that you could not wind up with in DBMM. The methodology I used is the first 1-4 elements compulsorary or optional gives you 1 DBA element for the max number of compulsorary or optional divide the DBM number by 4 round down(up to the maximum choces you have after compulsorary elements, after that you can stop counting optionals).

michael guth
02-04-2011, 11:19 PM
1. Because then you'd be letting a set of rules which s++k infiltrate and inflict damage on a set of rules which work perfectly well.

2. Because the ancient military manuals distinguish between heavy infantry, light infantry, light horse and cavalry; and not troops who fought with 14 foot pikes in close formation versus 13 foot pikes used more for cutting than for thrusting except on Fridays in a single artistic source that we don't know was actually depicting troops but might have been depicting gods engaged in carnal acts; the list having been changed after someone lost 10 straight games through bad tactics and then wrote an article based on previously unknown sources in a Burmese dialect spoken only by the author in Slingshot to justify making his army better with a new troop type.

3. But seriously, I'm even getting worried about SLB's latest 'lists' because I'm afraid that for the sake of some notion of 'historical accuracy' we are going to see half the armies getting 3 or 4 hordes while half get some kind of blade superior so that there will be less balance between armies, either in book or out of book.

And that's how I see it....

Mike

winterbadger
02-04-2011, 11:54 PM
1. Because then you'd be letting a set of rules which s++k infiltrate and inflict damage on a set of rules which work perfectly well.

Both of them written by the same person(s). Kinda think you're painting with an overbroad (tar)brush there.

2. Because the ancient military manuals distinguish ...

That's some pretty impressive hysterical hyperbole there. See #1.

3. But seriously, I'm even getting worried about SLB's latest 'lists' because I'm afraid that for the sake of some notion of 'historical accuracy' we are going to see half the armies getting 3 or 4 hordes while half get some kind of blade superior so that there will be less balance between armies, either in book or out of book.

Gosh, I just hate how that darn history comes along and spoils a perfectly good perfectly balanced, evenly matched, 1000 point a side game. I mean Alexander and Daryavaush sent their carefully printed Army Builder lists in to the judges a week ahead of the Intercontinental Finals at Gaugamela so that they could be checked for balance.

This is not a Games Workshop, Flames of War, Field of Glory, everyone gets equal forces game where "balance" is some sort of multi-armed god we burn incense in front of. Some lists are stronger than others. Some lists are really, really weak. Either accept that, move on to some more min-max game, or prepare to be eternally frustrated.

As for 13 versus 14 foot pike or some superior super blade--Mike, where have you seen *any* suggestion that the new edition of DBA is going to include subtypes? Rich didn't suggest that--no one has. He was talking about the same sort of translation that went on between WRG 7 and DBA and between DBM and later editions of DBA. More detailed games' army lists have always driven DBA. But no one is talking about bringing those element subtypes into DBA. Have you seriously not noticed the debate that's been raging all week about how the element types are getting TOO GENERIC for some people?

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 03:02 AM
So there are no troop types that have a minimum of at least 4 in this DBMM list?

We-ell, that's somewhat definitional. It's got lots of conditional minima, such that if you take A, you have to take X or more B, were X frequently is four or more. But the only thing that you have to have in every version of the list is the CinC, and he can be a number of different element types. It's possible to field an army from this list that is Kn only, and equally one that has no Kn at all.

Oh, and I forgot 0-1 Ax from the list. (But I misspoke when I said it had all troop types but El and Cm - it also lacks Wb and SCh.)

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 03:21 AM
What I get from the DBM book would be a base army of(from 1106-1296):
Kn(g), 2 Kn, 2BW, 1 Sp or Pk, and 2 AX with 4 choices from:
1106-1150: 4KN, 4Bw, 2 Sp or Pk, 2Sp, 4Ax, 2 Bd, 2 Hd, 4Psi
1150-1296 the above choices and 1 WW, 2LH.

From 1296-1519 there would be some more year breakpoints with some changes to the base army and choices.
There's about seventeen year breakpoints in the DBMM list. A straight translation would require ~18 sublists or some algorithm for determining which of the breakpoints are important.
Granted this is from the DBM list, not the DBMM list but if the DBMM list was used with the same methodology you could not possibly wind up with anything that you could not wind up with in DBMM. The methodology I used is the first 1-4 elements compulsorary or optional gives you 1 DBA element for the max number of compulsorary or optional divide the DBM number by 4 round down(up to the maximum choces you have after compulsorary elements, after that you can stop counting optionals).
That methodology is going to throw up odd results already because, frex, a 6Kn-heavy DBMM army is going to be much smaller than a 3Sp-heavy one.

More importantly, it does in no way that I can see handle all the various interdependencies in the DBMM list. How do you reflect the fact that Kn are obligatory if and only you've got a "Territorial" general? That if you have a Sp general you have to have huge wodge of Sp and Ps in a certain proportion to the Sp? That taking any LH reduces the numbers of Bd you can have? That WWg, if taken, must be in the proportion of 1 to 4 other foot? That if you have more than a certain number of Cv you have to have a Territorial general (not necessarily the CinC) and Kn minima therefore kick in?

Hauptmann
02-05-2011, 07:21 AM
Introducing the masses of choice in the DBMM list breaks the design philosophy I think. The DBA expression of an army of 12 elements, written in one line with maybe a couple of authentic choices, is a thing of beauty that should not be lightly tampered with.

Having said that I often check a DBA army against its one-sixth size DBMM equivalent and I suspect this is going through others minds as they submit comments on draft DBA army list revisions, via the Yahoo group or elsewhere.

michael guth
02-05-2011, 09:17 AM
That's some pretty impressive hysterical hyperbole there. See #1.

Actuaclly Mr. Badger, that's a quote from Phil Barker himself, he's used it on several occassions. Surprised you didn't recognize it. Funny how Command and Colors Ancients comes up with a simulation and game fairly comparable to DBA with only those troop types.

Gosh, I just hate how that darn history comes along and spoils a perfectly good perfectly balanced, evenly matched, 1000 point a side game. I mean Alexander and Daryavaush sent their carefully printed Army Builder lists in to the judges a week ahead of the Intercontinental Finals at Gaugamela so that they could be checked for balance.

Ostentatious spelling of Daryavaush. Yes, that darn history, take a quote or a picture, declare that it proves such and such and therefore we need a new troop type for my favorite army....Historically rock beat paper at the following battles, but paper beat scissors at....

This is not a Games Workshop, Flames of War, Field of Glory, everyone gets equal forces game where "balance" is some sort of multi-armed god we burn incense in front of. Some lists are stronger than others. Some lists are really, really weak. Either accept that, move on to some more min-max game, or prepare to be eternally frustrated.

I would think that you don't play any of the above games. You can't make a winning army out of the Necron codex, the Chaos 40k Codex or the Chaos Daemon Codex and now the Eldar Codex which means that one third of the army lists in 40k are gimped. There may be a FOW tournament someday, someplace where the winning army doesn't have 3 Tiger Tanks, which seem to be restricted to Germans, and FOG falls right in line with the long tradition of WRG games where point values fail to produce 'balanced' games because points cannot predict synergy between units, or the importance of having 2 units against one at the end of the battle line. Right now DBA mechanics make a very large number of armies playable. Yeah, I guess there are early Libyans.


The main point though is that you are absolutely wrong. DBA is an equal force game, everyone gets 12 elements. The forces are equal by front and game mechanics, not points or combat factors. Yeah, I guess there are early Libyans. This is where Lost Battles loses customers, because it starts with the assumption that an army of primarily levy infantry could never defeat Alexander the Great no matter how much quality cavalry they brought with them. As for 13 versus 14 foot pike or some superior super blade--Mike, where have you seen *any* suggestion that the new edition of DBA is going to include subtypes? Rich didn't suggest that--no one has. He was talking about the same sort of translation that went on between WRG 7 and DBA and between DBM and later editions of DBA. More detailed games' army lists have always driven DBA. But no one is talking about bringing those element subtypes into DBA. Have you seriously not noticed the debate that's been raging all week about how the element types are getting TOO GENERIC for some people?[/QUOTE]

Contradictory statement above. "Unit types are getting too generic for some people." "Have you seen any suggestion that the new edition of DBA is going to include subtypes.". Yes, you are making the suggestion that the rules should include new types yourself. And, you are also one who likes the idea of by creating a new type of unit, 4-3moving as auxillia.

Finally, your comment about not worshiping at the temple of balance. Balanced game=fun. Game with one or two top tier armies=garbage bin. That's just opinion of course.

Tony Aguilar
02-05-2011, 10:05 AM
There's about seventeen year breakpoints in the DBMM list. A straight translation would require ~18 sublists or some algorithm for determining which of the breakpoints are important.


Reminds me of the I/1 Italian Condotta lists in DBA-RRR (which have sublists a-i) and the III/3 Maghrebi (has 16 sublists, a-p). Yes, DBA-RRR has sublists galore which doesn't work to be included in the DBA rulebook with Phil's requirement of a minimal page count.


More importantly, it does in no way that I can see handle all the various interdependencies in the DBMM list. How do you reflect the fact that Kn are obligatory if and only you've got a "Territorial" general? That if you have a Sp general you have to have huge wodge of Sp and Ps in a certain proportion to the Sp? That taking any LH reduces the numbers of Bd you can have? That WWg, if taken, must be in the proportion of 1 to 4 other foot? That if you have more than a certain number of Cv you have to have a Territorial general (not necessarily the CinC) and Kn minima therefore kick in?

This situation happened several times in DBA-RRR and was overcome. I'm not going to say that the formula works perfectly every time, but at least you are given the choices that are available instead of making the lists arbitrary. Just look at which armies have choices for Artillery in DBM and then only which ones in DBA are given them? The much beloved, yet maligned Carthos would get an option for one. A cursory glance through Book IV finds that Art should be included as an option for Lithuanians, Serbians, Teutonic Kinghts, Indonesians/Malay, Mamluks, Yuan Chinese, Order of St. John, Medieval Spanish/Portuguese and Timurids. Why not?

It may not be what you or others like, but it can be done. I have refrained from taking on something like this (even though several peopple have pressed me), because honestly don't know where DBA 3.0 will end up.

david kuijt
02-05-2011, 11:41 AM
Finally, your comment about not worshiping at the temple of balance. Balanced game=fun. Game with one or two top tier armies=garbage bin. That's just opinion of course.

There are 581 army lists, Mike. Your horror of unbalance is overblown. Perhaps you are having flashbacks of other game systems.

There are army lists in DBA 2.0/2.2 that are not competitive in open tournaments, sure, but balance is far better on the bulk of historical armies in historical matchups than you fear. Certainly far far better than it was in v1.1, where 30% of the armies in open tournaments were one of four types.

david kuijt
02-05-2011, 11:53 AM
It may not be what you or others like, but it can be done.

It certainly can be done -- the point I think is important is that it cannot be done well MECHANICALLY.

winterbadger
02-05-2011, 12:06 PM
...Games Workshop, Flames of War, Field of Glory, everyone gets equal forces games... I would think that you don't play any of the above games.

Well, I certainly don't play them any more. Because I got fed up with the players who were so fixated on jimmying their lists to get a killer army or figuring out which was the best codex so they could build from that one that they totally lost the thread of how this is supposed to be a fun hobby. In my experience, players who are obsessed with balance, with points, with "perfect" army lists are boring, small-minded pedants who suck all the joy out of gaming.

I'm sure they think people like me who are always wasting time worrying about "history" and "fun" are boring, small-minded pedants too. So I try to promote universal happiness by not inflicting my company on them.

"Have you seen any suggestion that the new edition of DBA is going to include subtypes.". Yes, you are making the suggestion that the rules should include new types yourself.

Please point out to me where I said that.

And, you are also one who likes the idea of by creating a new type of unit, 4-3moving as auxillia.

I like that as a house rule for a specific historical campaign; I never said anything about making it part of a new edition of DBA.

Finally, your comment about not worshiping at the temple of balance. Balanced game=fun. Game with one or two top tier armies=garbage bin. That's just opinion of course.

And where is anyone suggesting anything that is going to turn DBA into a game with one or two top-tier armies? :rolleyes

david kuijt
02-05-2011, 12:33 PM
In my experience, players who are obsessed with balance, with points, with "perfect" army lists are boring, small-minded pedants who suck all the joy out of gaming.


Not only that, but their obsession with min-maxing army lists besmirches the good name of pedantry.

Rich Gause
02-05-2011, 12:41 PM
It certainly can be done -- the point I think is important is that it cannot be done well MECHANICALLY.

Fair enough. I see the difficulty, especially in how DBMM changes the army over time vs DBA, BUT, I think a much closer translation with a lot less interpreting what belongs in a DBA list could be done by adopting some consistent standards of at least including the option for elements that exist in the DBMM list but not in DBA. I also fail to see how having a base of 4-8 elements with a lot more freedom to choose the other elements in the army does not provide for a lot more variety and flexibility and a more interesting gaming experience. Of course the exact methodology used would have to be adjusted to the rules, IMO trying to get the army lists set before the rules is a bit backwards.

david kuijt
02-05-2011, 01:04 PM
Fair enough. I see the difficulty, especially in how DBMM changes the army over time vs DBA, BUT, I think a much closer translation with a lot less interpreting what belongs in a DBA list could be done by adopting some consistent standards of at least including the option for elements that exist in the DBMM list but not in DBA. I also fail to see how having a base of 4-8 elements with a lot more freedom to choose the other elements in the army does not provide for a lot more variety and flexibility and a more interesting gaming experience. Of course the exact methodology used would have to be adjusted to the rules, IMO trying to get the army lists set before the rules is a bit backwards.

I identify three separate points in the above:

1) I agree that consistent (more consistent) standards in the translation would be good. My own reading, as mentioned elsewhere, is that some of the translations in 2.2 have not been consistent -- WWg or Art in one DBA army and not in another; dismounting in one army and not in another; etc. when the DBM army lists do not seem to support treating the parallel armies any differently.

2) Like Andreas, I think that too many options (supporting "a lot more freedom" in your words) is a bad thing. Sure, some armies might need a few more options -- but going as far as you seem to be advocating is opening the door to min-maxers and discarding history. When I want total army flexibility, I play HotT. DBA is an historical game -- I want my army lists to be based in an historical 'best guess' with reasonable flexibility, not a min-maxer's paradise.

3) I agree -- working on the army lists before the rules are finalized is putting the cart before the horse.

Rich Gause
02-05-2011, 01:28 PM
I identify three separate points in the above:

1) I agree that consistent (more consistent) standards in the translation would be good. My own reading, as mentioned elsewhere, is that some of the translations in 2.2 have not been consistent -- WWg or Art in one DBA army and not in another; dismounting in one army and not in another; etc. when the DBM army lists do not seem to support treating the parallel armies any differently.

2) Like Andreas, I think that too many options (supporting "a lot more freedom" in your words) is a bad thing. Sure, some armies might need a few more options -- but going as far as you seem to be advocating is opening the door to min-maxers and discarding history. When I want total army flexibility, I play HotT. DBA is an historical game -- I want my army lists to be based in an historical 'best guess' with reasonable flexibility, not a min-maxer's paradise.

3) I agree -- working on the army lists before the rules are finalized is putting the cart before the horse.

I agree with all three points. I guess it comes down to what "reasonable flexibility" is. If you look at the DBA-RRR lists that is sorta what I would like to see for DBA.

Redwilde
02-05-2011, 02:20 PM
I agree with all three points. I guess it comes down to what "reasonable flexibility" is. If you look at the DBA-RRR lists that is sorta what I would like to see for DBA.

I think that every list ought to have a few options, and definitely at l least some options that reflect significant campaigns. Like Caesar in Gaul for example.

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 02:44 PM
A cursory glance through Book IV finds that Art should be included as an option for Lithuanians, Serbians, Teutonic Kinghts, Indonesians/Malay, Mamluks, Yuan Chinese, Order of St. John, Medieval Spanish/Portuguese and Timurids. Why not?
Because, I suppose, sufficiently small numbers of artillery, esp. when restricted to a particular time period (as in eg. Teutonic Orders) or condition (Early Byzzies can only field Art if defending with a BUA), are deemed not to justify the impact of a DBA Art element.

But as David points out, no consistent criteria seem to have been used to decide such cases for the 2.2 lists. In my feedback to Sue I've been suggested Art added to lists whose DBMM equivalents get 4 or more. It's arbitrary, certainly, (and I may have missed some instances), but at least it's more consistent than now.

It may not be what you or others like, but it can be done.

I'm not questioning whether it can be done. I'm suggesting it 'd be an awful lot of work, and doubting that the results would repay the effort. If we're looking at sublists to avoid ahistorical (or at least aDBMMical) troop combinations, we're, for the more complex lists, looking at lots of sublist. Looking at Medieval German again*, it would not merely have to be split into a large number of time periods, but also into a number of different factional compositions (eg., wholly feudal, feudal with city allies, feudal with cantonal allies, feudal with city and cantonal allies, feudal with city and cantonal allies and Hungarian mercenaries**, etc etc). How much shorter than the original is the DBA destillation likely to be? Are players who like DBA for the simplicity likely to retain their hair when seeing it?

Anyway, I'm the wrong person to try and convince. Sue is doing the conversions (of Bks II-III at least), and she doesn't seem to like even the smaller amount of complexity and DBMM fidelity represented by my suggested Khazar list (she's adopted a far number of my suggestions in the revised Bk II lists on the webpage, but mostly rejected the more complex ones). I'm therefore skeptical she'd like the approach you and Rich are suggesting, but trying isn't likely to hurt.


* I keep mentioning them because (i) they're among the most complex DBMM lists and (ii) I own them and therefore has studied the list a lot.

** The Hungarian mercenaries matter, believe it or not, because taking them prevents you from taking all the Heerbann as Bd. Which reminds me - how do you handle regrades in DBA-RRR? They're plentiful in the DBMM lists (altho far from all would be relevant to DBA conversions), and often coupled to other options.

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 02:49 PM
I think that every list ought to have a few options
I can't resist pointing out that the DBMM Maori list has no DBA-relevant options. :p

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 03:02 PM
Anyway, I'm the wrong person to try and convince. Sue is doing the conversions (of Bks II-III at least), and she doesn't seem to like even the smaller amount of complexity and DBMM fidelity represented by my suggested Khazar list (she's adopted a far number of my suggestions in the revised Bk II lists on the webpage, but mostly rejected the more complex ones). I'm therefore skeptical she'd like the approach you and Rich are suggesting, but trying isn't likely to hurt.

Evidently the gods like to mock me - I just saw this on the DBA Yahoo list:

Please, no more comments on section 2. I've a lot to cover in the next few weeks and I must press on.

Thank you for the comments already sent. I've noted them and will discuss them with Phil.

Hopefully the final version of section 2 will appear on my website soon.

Tony Aguilar
02-05-2011, 03:13 PM
Because, I suppose, sufficiently small numbers of artillery, esp. when restricted to a particular time period (as in eg. Teutonic Orders) or condition (Early Byzzies can only field Art if defending with a BUA), are deemed not to justify the impact of a DBA Art element.

Yet certain things like the siege engines of Demetrios at ONE siege are included.


But as David points out, no consistent criteria seem to have been used to decide such cases for the 2.2 lists. In my feedback to Sue I've been suggested Art added to lists whose DBMM equivalents get 4 or more. It's arbitrary, certainly, (and I may have missed some instances), but at least it's more consistent than now.

And that would be fine with me. Of course that means that the 100 years English wouldn't get them (at least in DBMM they can only field 0-1) and I'd be very surprised if that were to happen.


Anyway, I'm the wrong person to try and convince. Sue is doing the conversions (of Bks II-III at least), and she doesn't seem to like even the smaller amount of complexity and DBMM fidelity represented by my suggested Khazar list (she's adopted a far number of my suggestions in the revised Bk II lists on the webpage, but mostly rejected the more complex ones). I'm therefore skeptical she'd like the approach you and Rich are suggesting, but trying isn't likely to hurt.

This would be a complete waste of time. I can't even get something as obvious such as why the Carthaginians considered Littoral (with only 0-2 Galleys and no battle fought near a waterway) answered or incorrect enemies corrected. I am afraid giving all persons an equal voice, regardless of their involvement in DBA, has caused the noise of the many to drown out the reason of the few.

I had been pressed by at least 4 players about the doing DBA Variable army list conversions for our group. I hadn't committed to doing them, if at all. It is just very frustrating that the current method is not very transparent or consistent.


Which reminds me - how do you handle regrades in DBA-RRR?

I am not understanding "regrades." What do you mean?

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 03:43 PM
This would be a complete waste of time.
Unlike this conversation?

I am not understanding "regrades." What do you mean?
The DBMM lists often have things like this:

Forum posters, Irr Ax (O) @ 3AP - some to lots
Upgrade forum posters to Irr Wb (S) @ 5AP as particularly persistent - 0 to half

... sometimes with further complications like that the general has to be an imperator and the moon has to be gibbous.

Tony Aguilar
02-05-2011, 03:47 PM
Unlike this conversation?

Then stop quoting my posts. I had dropped the matter.

winterbadger
02-05-2011, 04:23 PM
I am afraid giving all persons an equal voice, regardless of their involvement in DBA, has caused the noise of the many to drown out the reason of the few.

I think that's assuming a lot more than any of us know.

david kuijt
02-05-2011, 04:45 PM
I can't even get something as obvious such as why the Carthaginians considered Littoral (with only 0-2 Galleys and no battle fought near a waterway) answered or incorrect enemies corrected. I am afraid giving all persons an equal voice, regardless of their involvement in DBA, has caused the noise of the many to drown out the reason of the few.



With no responses forthcoming from ANY feedback, there is no way to know whether volume, wit/reason, political affiliation, coinflip, or phase of the moon is responsible for any changes that appear.

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 04:47 PM
Then stop quoting my posts. I had dropped the matter.

I'm not the one saying anything is a waste of time. I'm just puzzled you evidently thought it more worthwhile trying to convince me than trying to convince Sue.

Rich Gause
02-05-2011, 05:25 PM
I'm not the one saying anything is a waste of time. I'm just puzzled you evidently thought it more worthwhile trying to convince me than trying to convince Sue.

You at least communicate back and give a reason why you disagree............

Doug
02-10-2011, 10:34 PM
I identify three separate points in the above:

1) I agree that consistent (more consistent) standards in the translation would be good. My own reading, as mentioned elsewhere, is that some of the translations in 2.2 have not been consistent -- WWg or Art in one DBA army and not in another; dismounting in one army and not in another; etc. when the DBM army lists do not seem to support treating the parallel armies any differently.

Completely agree. However there has been a degree of editorialising in the conversion of the older DBM lists to DBA, which I think is intended to reflect the overall 'character' of an army.

2) Like Andreas, I think that too many options (supporting "a lot more freedom" in your words) is a bad thing. Sure, some armies might need a few more options -- but going as far as you seem to be advocating is opening the door to min-maxers and discarding history. When I want total army flexibility, I play HotT. DBA is an historical game -- I want my army lists to be based in an historical 'best guess' with reasonable flexibility, not a min-maxer's paradise.

Completely agree, with 12 elements any significant degree of choice can result in an army that bears little resemblance to the historical prototype. If two elements are allowed to change that is a very significant variation, 3, is a quarter of the army!

3) I agree -- working on the army lists before the rules are finalized is putting the cart before the horse.

At the risk of sounding like an echo, this is absolutely correct. For example, there are the Pk(F) in DBMM that have no direct correlating element in DBA. If the rules were to change the effect of any troop type, this affects the 'translation' from DBMM list -> DBA - Ax, Sp or Pk? If there are no characteristic changes in DBA 3.0 then we come down to an opinion of the author whether these Pk(F) were intended to stand in the open or operate in bad going.. etc. Any troop classification is a compromise, so for example the choice in Central Asian City States... Kn or Cv? It comes down to a matter of opinion derived from the evidence presented. And it becomes even more difficult when we know that a single troop type could act as one or the other DBA types.