PDA

View Full Version : Army lists.


Rich Gause
05-13-2011, 12:22 AM
I am eventually going to make an alternate set of army lists based on a more closely translated version of the DBMM army lists. If those lists are the best available then I am not very satisfied with the idea that DBA armies should be more generic or typical and not have some of the choices available in DBMM. I am also not a big fan of making 2.2 lists obsolete when in some cases it seems decisions of what elements and time periods are included are somewhat arbitrary. I am leaning towards not counting generals toward minimums or maximums, dividing minimums by 4 round down, maximums by 4 round up for the first element, down for elements after one, reducing minimums further to allow choices that would not be available otherwise and also including choices to grandfather in the possibilities of the 2.2 lists. The biggest problem with some of the lists I have looked at is that DBMM lists are point based and especially with low cost elements the minimums of some of the low cost elements can translate into overly monotype armies compared to the DBMM lists when converting into a 12 element list. The other big question is what to do about dismounting but I am not too worried about that. I would welcome any helpful ideas along these lines. I have seen how this type of a list works for the DBA RRR variant and it seems to be a big improvement in practice IMO.

ferrency
05-13-2011, 01:04 AM
I posted a few ideas in another thread when this came up in the past, but in short:

If you don't normalize the element count based on DBMM point value, you'll end up with too many low-point troops in most armies.

A mechanical conversion between DBMM lists and DBA lists obviously can't be perfect, but I understand the goals you're working towards.

One way to help prevent having too many low-point-value troops in a converted list would be to first convert the DBMM list to points, and then translate those point values to DBA.

For example: I don't have the DBMM lists, so I'll consider a portion of the DBM's Lombards.

Only before 775 AD (The Italo-Lombard kingdom and duchies):
Followers - Irr Kn (I) @ 8AP 10-27
Archers - lrr Bw (O) @ 4AP or Irr Ps (O) @ 2AP 6-20


With a direct conversion dividing by 4 and rounding down, this results in 2-6 x Kn, 1-5 x Ps in DBA.

To normalize the list by points, you need to convert each option into DBMM points before converting that to DBA elements.

If you multiply each element by its DBM point value, the DBM list becomes 80-216 points of Knights and 12-40 points of Psiloi. Obviously you can no longer divide by 4. If you divide by 32, which is 4 times the highest point value, you'll get 2-6 x Kn, 0-1 x Ps (or, 1xPs since it's a required minimum).

This is a much more likely ratio of Kn to Ps in DBA, which considers Ps and Kn to have the same point value.

Alan

Rich Gause
05-13-2011, 01:18 AM
I posted a few ideas in another thread when this came up in the past, but in short:

If you don't normalize the element count based on DBMM point value, you'll end up with too many low-point troops in most armies.

A mechanical conversion between DBMM lists and DBA lists obviously can't be perfect, but I understand the goals you're working towards.

One way to help prevent having too many low-point-value troops in a converted list would be to first convert the DBMM list to points, and then translate those point values to DBA.

For example: I don't have the DBMM lists, so I'll consider a portion of the DBM's Lombards.



With a direct conversion dividing by 4 and rounding down, this results in 2-6 x Kn, 1-5 x Ps in DBA.

To normalize the list by points, you need to convert each option into DBMM points before converting that to DBA elements.

If you multiply each element by its DBM point value, the DBM list becomes 80-216 points of Knights and 12-40 points of Psiloi. Obviously you can no longer divide by 4. If you divide by 32, which is 4 times the highest point value, you'll get 2-6 x Kn, 0-1 x Ps (or, 1xPs since it's a required minimum).

This is a much more likely ratio of Kn to Ps in DBA, which considers Ps and Kn to have the same point value.

Alan

That is exactly the type of response I was looking for. Thanks much. I think that approach might be better applied to minimums rather than maximums; If somebody wants to have an army full of what would be cheap junk in DBMM they should be allowed, but not forced, to do so IMO. Already did some looking at points costs and was amazed at the army sizes you could come up with for DBA 100 with some of the low cost elements.

Redwilde
05-13-2011, 01:23 AM
Sometimes I look to DBM lists when I want to tweak a DBA list for house/scenario rules. I find it helpful to eyeball the overall proportions within minimums and within maximums.

Take a list that's very heavy on one troop type like Scots Common. Looking at just the core troops, without the various time/geographical options. The core minimum would be a general and 11 pike. The maximums give a proportion of 106:16 for pikes:other. So the DBA 2.2 list with a maximum of 10 pike is overall a good reflection of this.

It's the reflection of the optional troops that often get lost in the translation. I've adjusted for this with a house rule that lets players swap out any 1 element in the DBA list for any 1 in the DBM list which was omitted from DBA. (this is really my Ancient Spanish Flaming Ox Wagon rule -- but works quite well for everyone.)

For a much larger change though, I've been looking at how I would redo an Aramean army (Early Bedouin I/6b). The current DBA proportion of Ax:Ps bears no particular resemblance to the min or max numbers in DBM. And personally, I'd boost the camels higher for the best visual entertainment and to make the army that much more distinct from it's opponents. From the DBM list, the proportion of Ax:Ps should range from about 4:1 all min to 2:1 all max, but those numbers can get flipped around in the mid ranges. Allowing a Cm Gen and 1-2 other Cm seems a reasonable interpretation of the list. 1 more camel definitely seems in order, 2 more is a stretch, but makes the army more interesting without making it a killer. So I'm leaning towards 1 Ax or LCh or Cm (G), 2 Cm or Ax, 4 Ax, 3 Ax or Ps, 2 Ps

Rich Gause
05-13-2011, 02:19 AM
So III/21 Italian Lombard with the points normalizing suggested above for the minimums for just 584-649(before the Sp come in) would be:

Kn(G), 7xKn, 1x(Bw or Ps), 3x(Kn or Bw or Ps).

The other question would it be better to keep the same year breakpoints as 2.2 and just incorporate the additional elements as options or break the years down as DBMM? The Lombards would have seven lists in a straight DBMM translation as opposed to 2 in DBA.

A list for 584-774 Would have:

Kn(G), 4xKN, 1x(Bw or Ps), 3x(KN or Bw or Ps), 2x(Kn or Sp), 1x(Kn or Sp or Cv or LH).

Rich Gause
05-13-2011, 02:35 AM
Sometimes I look to DBM lists when I want to tweak a DBA list for house/scenario rules. I find it helpful to eyeball the overall proportions within minimums and within maximums.

Take a list that's very heavy on one troop type like Scots Common. Looking at just the core troops, without the various time/geographical options. The core minimum would be a general and 11 pike. The maximums give a proportion of 106:16 for pikes:other. So the DBA 2.2 list with a maximum of 10 pike is overall a good reflection of this.

It's the reflection of the optional troops that often get lost in the translation. I've adjusted for this with a house rule that lets players swap out any 1 element in the DBA list for any 1 in the DBM list which was omitted from DBA. (this is really my Ancient Spanish Flaming Ox Wagon rule -- but works quite well for everyone.)

For a much larger change though, I've been looking at how I would redo an Aramean army (Early Bedouin I/6b). The current DBA proportion of Ax:Ps bears no particular resemblance to the min or max numbers in DBM. And personally, I'd boost the camels higher for the best visual entertainment and to make the army that much more distinct from it's opponents. From the DBM list, the proportion of Ax:Ps should range from about 4:1 all min to 2:1 all max, but those numbers can get flipped around in the mid ranges. Allowing a Cm Gen and 1-2 other Cm seems a reasonable interpretation of the list. 1 more camel definitely seems in order, 2 more is a stretch, but makes the army more interesting without making it a killer. So I'm leaning towards 1 Ax or LCh or Cm (G), 2 Cm or Ax, 4 Ax, 3 Ax or Ps, 2 Ps

I have just discovered my DBMM Book 1 army list book is missing pages 7-10, Armies 5-8. So I can't really comment on those armies at this time.

For the Scots there should be options in various years for Bd, Art, Cv, Hd, and from 1429-1437 to replace any of the pikemen with Bw.

David Constable
05-13-2011, 04:54 AM
I was wondering if a better translation than points was to use manpower.

Multiply the DBMM elements by the number of men they represent, then divide by the number of men the element represents in DBA, this gives the number of DBA elements.

Just a thought.

David Constable

Tony Aguilar
05-13-2011, 05:15 AM
I was wondering if a better translation than points was to use manpower.

Multiply the DBMM elements by the number of men they represent, then divide by the number of men the element represents in DBA, this gives the number of DBA elements.

Just a thought.

David Constable

That is where the "magic" number of 4 comes from. At least in DBM (can't comment on DBMM yet) each element is about 4 times smaller than in DBA.

David Constable
05-13-2011, 06:59 AM
That is where the "magic" number of 4 comes from. At least in DBM (can't comment on DBMM yet) each element is about 4 times smaller than in DBA.

Interesting, and simple.

David Constable

Tony Aguilar
05-13-2011, 07:15 AM
Interesting, and simple.

David Constable

Actually it is. It was the number suggested by the people who pioneered the Pike & Shot extension.

ferrency
05-13-2011, 09:19 AM
Already did some looking at points costs and was amazed at the army sizes you could come up with for DBA 100 with some of the low cost elements.

Yeah, at 2 points a pop for psiloi, Early Libyans get closer to 50 psiloi than 12 after accounting for the general. I'm not sure whether that's good or bad with DBA's single PIP die, however.

The other question would it be better to keep the same year breakpoints as 2.2 and just incorporate the additional elements as options or break the years down as DBMM? The Lombards would have seven lists in a straight DBMM translation as opposed to 2 in DBA.

I'd say "it depends."

If grouping multiple year ranges together ends up allowing combinations that were never possible historically, then the date ranges may be better separate. If grouping the year ranges would lose the difference between different troop types in the list, it may be better to keep those distinctions.

The main benefit of grouping is saving space. Clearly there are different opinions on how important that is :)

Alan

ferrency
05-13-2011, 09:24 AM
I was wondering if a better translation than points was to use manpower.

Multiply the DBMM elements by the number of men they represent, then divide by the number of men the element represents in DBA, this gives the number of DBA elements.

The "equal manpower" conversion method assumes that all individual soldiers were equally useful on the battlefield. DBMM's point system reflects the fact that all individual soldiers were not equally effective on the battlefield: inferior and superior element types have the same headcount but different game effects and point costs.

This is why I think it's valuable to consider the DBMM points values when converting lists like this.

Alan

Andreas Johansson
05-13-2011, 12:08 PM
That is where the "magic" number of 4 comes from. At least in DBM (can't comment on DBMM yet) each element is about 4 times smaller than in DBA.

Not the case in DBMM: all foot elements (except Hd) represent about 200-250 men regardless of troop type and figure count. Thus a DBA 2Ps is 2-3 'MM elements, but a DBA 4Bd is 4-6 'MM ones. And similarly for mounted.

Tony Aguilar
05-13-2011, 12:14 PM
Not the case in DBMM: all foot elements (except Hd) represent about 200-250 men regardless of troop type and figure count. Thus a DBA 2Ps is 2-3 'MM elements, but a DBA 4Bd is 4-6 'MM ones. And similarly for mounted.

Interesting...