PDA

View Full Version : Army List Design


Mark Davies
12-26-2011, 06:43 PM
From what I've seen of the army lists done so far, they don't appear to have any obvious method of creating a list from the DBMM one. Rather there are sporadic changes to lists and the addition of a little commentary. This is not a problem new to DBA 3.0, though, as some of the 2.2 ones seem pretty idiosyncratic.

For example, the Scots Isles and Highlands list (III/78) is unchanged from DBA 2.2. It has no Irish mercenaries or highland skirmishers, though they seem to be in sufficient numbers in the DBM list (I don't have the DBMM list) to warrant them.

I could go on. The Samanids (III/43c) have lost their elephant, though they seem to have enough in DBMM to warrant one. There doesn't seem to be any obvious consistency from one list to another.

Sue took my suggestion to change the Marian Romans (II/49) to have the option of a foot general without losing the option of two mounted elements. Whether this makes it into the final print is another matter. However, unaddressed is the more general issue of whether such a choice of a foot general should reduce the total number of mounted many lists can field; I could point out the Syracusans and Gauls as two that are like the Marians, but have not been changed.

El' Jocko
12-26-2011, 11:31 PM
From what I've seen of the army lists done so far, they don't appear to have any obvious method of creating a list from the DBMM one. Rather there are sporadic changes to lists and the addition of a little commentary. This is not a problem new to DBA 3.0, though, as some of the 2.2 ones seem pretty idiosyncratic.


I agree that there didn't seem to be much of a pattern to the army lists that SLB created for DBA 3.0. But I wouldn't get too worked up about any particular changes. It appears that PB is reworking the lists to match his own expectatons. You'll have to wait and see what he comes up with to know if you like the product.

- Jack

Bobgnar
12-27-2011, 03:16 PM
Feel free to discuss this but keep in mind that Phil is heavily into modifying the original draft lists. The few I have seen there are quite a few changes.

platypus01
12-27-2011, 05:30 PM
It's difficult to do a DBA list by simply scaling down the element numbers. There are a number of issues involved which are

A) points
B) gradings
C) reg/irr

Because these aren't in DBA, scaling the element numbers can produce some very unintended consequences. For example the Inca list. In the DBMM list the civil-war period has two options, hordes(O) and pike(F). But when I put the list to Sue, I only asked for 2 or 3 horde, and not the pike option.

This is because in the DBMM list you can upgrade (?) the mita and have up to 72 elements of either Hd(O) or Pk(F). This will be the bulk of the army. But in DBA there is no army with more that 3 Hd, so you can't scale it up to 6 say. And a civil-war army with 6 pike would be way too effective. Pk(F) in DBMM is not a good troop type, but in DBA they would be the equivalent of landscheckts.

So when designing a list I tended to over-emphasize the more common troop types (Ax and Ps), and only add an element or two of the extras. And I critically examined them to see if the changes to grading, etc, would radically change the nature of the troop.

Cheers,
JohnG

Rich Gause
12-27-2011, 05:53 PM
It's difficult to do a DBA list by simply scaling down the element numbers. There are a number of issues involved which are

A) points
B) gradings
C) reg/irr

Because these aren't in DBA, scaling the element numbers can produce some very unintended consequences. For example the Inca list. In the DBMM list the civil-war period has two options, hordes(O) and pike(F). But when I put the list to Sue, I only asked for 2 or 3 horde, and not the pike option.

This is because in the DBMM list you can upgrade (?) the mita and have up to 72 elements of either Hd(O) or Pk(F). This will be the bulk of the army. But in DBA there is no army with more that 3 Hd, so you can't scale it up to 6 say. And a civil-war army with 6 pike would be way too effective. Pk(F) in DBMM is not a good troop type, but in DBA they would be the equivalent of landscheckts.

So when designing a list I tended to over-emphasize the more common troop types (Ax and Ps), and only add an element or two of the extras. And I critically examined them to see if the changes to grading, etc, would radically change the nature of the troop.

Cheers,
JohnG

Pk(F) is Sp in DBA 2.2..............
The main issue with converting the DBM/MM lists to DBA is that they are lists made for a point system and if you simply divide by whatever a lot of the lists wind up being overwhelmed with very low cost troops that are there in such numbers mostly because they are very low cost. You have to take into account that the lists numbers are partially based on how many of them you might want to buy in a DBMM points game. Phil says in DBMM that DBMM 120 is the equivilant of DBA and says for 100-120 point game you should divide the numbers by 4. So the first step is to convert the list to a DBMM 120 list, then find the total point value of the minimum number of a particular troop type and divide that by the point value of the most expensive troop type the result is what the minimum number of that element should be for a DBA army. For the maximums just take the normal list maximum divided by 4 round up. It is easy to do once you get the hang of it.

Bob Santamaria
01-04-2012, 07:03 PM
I could go on. The Samanids (III/43c) have lost their elephant, though they seem to have enough in DBMM to warrant one. There doesn't seem to be any obvious consistency from one list to another.

.

I hope the elephant makes it back. I have a pro painted Samanid army, with an elephant.

kontos
01-04-2012, 09:17 PM
I hope the elephant makes it back. I have a pro painted Samanid army, with an elephant.

I have an amateur painted Samanid army with an elephant. :D
Same issue though. I didn't paint it and I couldn't match the color palette. :o