PDA

View Full Version : Scale of things


David Brown
01-12-2012, 07:27 PM
One thing I find surprising with v3 is the section on Army Size and Troop Representation (p2).

I can see the benefit of including the nominal troop scale in the back of the rules with the Giant DBA items to give players a hand when recreating a historical battle.

However I never saw my 12-element DBA army as 10,000 men but instead a full army of whatever size represented in a highly stylistic way.

I see my element of cav representing several actual units, perhaps deployed in several lines.

If PB really is wedded to our 12-element armies being 10,000 strong, army lists should be far less restrictive with much more internal choice. After all 10,000 is just a ‘brigade’ in my EAP army.

Regards

David Brown

Wm.E.Reseigh
01-12-2012, 10:54 PM
In order to use simplified rules and accommodate disparate armies, such as out of period opponents, the game has to have nominal ground, time, and figure scales. The proportions in the army lists are made to represent typical armies. Specific armies will differ some in their proportions. This is one of the compromises made to simplify DBA as opposed to DBM/M, and the earlier WRG Wargames Rules editions. I suppose you could play DBA and build armies with the DBMM points values; but you would have to get DBMM for the chart.

Respectfully, WER

Sea Weathered Aketons
01-13-2012, 02:00 AM
Most of my armies are historically small. In the case of my recently completed Scots Ises (Galloglaich) I'm representing an army of less than 500 probably around 150-250....which is what an Arthurian army should be also. Ditto for the Knights of St John. That's what I like about DBA, the 12 element armies are the right size and feel for these scales.

SWA

khr
01-13-2012, 07:29 AM
Actually, you do not need a scale to pitch armies against each other in ahistorical encounters.

The ground scale is needed to define shooting ranges (across the whole table in a skirmish game, a few inches in a game representing a large battle), and how much space troops occupy relative to terrain (this applies mostly to historical battles).

Movement distances and time scales also come into this, but they are an especially tricky topic for land battles, so the first two points are the important ones.

The DBA scales are a reasonable compromise size, i.e. a small ancient battle or a large medieval one.

The problem with ancient wargaming is that first, (in pretty much any rule set above skirmish level) players and rulewriters always want to call their minis "The army" rather than "a small subunit", whether we are talking about Persians and Chinese or a Viking raiding party. And second, that they want to play any opponent, whether historical or not, on even terms.

These two requirements - well-defined scale for historical rules consistency and free "Army" lists, do not go together.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

larryessick
01-13-2012, 01:18 PM
These two requirements - well-defined scale for historical rules consistency and free "Army" lists, do not go together.

I think it is more appropriate to say that they do not go well together or that they are difficult to coordinate.

I also think that it is important to recognize that the onus is not on the rules writers in this case but on the players. The rules may in fact take variation in army size into account -- at least those less abstract than DBA -- but it is up to the players to use the rules for primarily historical or near-historical battles.

Although the rules may allow non-historical games and players may in fact, to some degree, prefer non-historical games that does not mean that the issue is with the rules. We still see many examples of restricted events that are theme, region or era based. In part this is a player imposed solution to this dichotomy.

Bobgnar
01-13-2012, 03:04 PM
Army scale is not new except for close foot. Except for doing giant scenario games I never thought much about this. It never effected any games I played.
3.0
"The number of men represented by a single element varies according to the size of army simulated, but at the nominal ground scale would be 500-1,200 for close formed foot, 250-300 for horsemen or light troops. Elements consisting of a single model represent up to 25 elephants or 50 chariots, war wagons or artillery pieces. "

2
"The number of men represented by an element varies according to the size of army simulated, but at a nominal ground scale would be 1,000-1,200 if it consists of 25mm/15mm figures mounted 4 to a base, 750-900 if 3, 5 or 6 to a base, 500-600 if 2 to a base. Elements consisting of a single model represent up to 25 elephants or 50 chariots, war wagons or artillery pieces."

Tony Aguilar
01-13-2012, 03:55 PM
Army scale is not new except for close foot. Except for doing giant scenario games I never thought much about this. It never effected any games I played.
3.0
"The number of men represented by a single element varies according to the size of army simulated, but at the nominal ground scale would be 500-1,200 for close formed foot, 250-300 for horsemen or light troops. Elements consisting of a single model represent up to 25 elephants or 50 chariots, war wagons or artillery pieces. "

2
"The number of men represented by an element varies according to the size of army simulated, but at a nominal ground scale would be 1,000-1,200 if it consists of 25mm/15mm figures mounted 4 to a base, 750-900 if 3, 5 or 6 to a base, 500-600 if 2 to a base. Elements consisting of a single model represent up to 25 elephants or 50 chariots, war wagons or artillery pieces."

I always found it odd that in 2.2 each chariot was equivalent to 15-18 horsemen in combat.

Bobgnar
01-14-2012, 01:24 PM
I always found it odd that in 2.2 each chariot was equivalent to 15-18 horsemen in combat.

Now you can fix that.