PDA

View Full Version : 12-Element DBA Army Assessments


Andrew Richardson
05-02-2005, 06:32 AM
Most of us have seen the excellent Big Battle DBA Army Assessments put together by The Two Davids.

A while ago on the Yahoo Group I offered to co-ordinate a similar document for 12-Element DBA and got a positive response.

As a less than skilled general I'm not competent to do this without input, so this is to ask whether anyone else would be willing to help
by providing inputs in due course when I've got the format sorted, and/or suggestions as to where it could be hosted?

Also, I am grateful for David Kuijt for allowing me to use the same format he has used for the BBDBA document.

Andrew

Tony Aguilar
05-02-2005, 01:24 PM
Andrew,

I am also an "inexperienced" DBA player, but would like to help out maybe reviewing the lists putting them together etc. The BBDBA assesment is excellent and would be nice to have a similar tool for DBA.

Martian
05-02-2005, 02:37 PM
Talk about a near impossible task!

Are you planing to rate each army as a candidate in an OPEN event as well as the rating for each army within its own NASAMW Theme group?

Good luck!

Martin

David Kuijt
05-02-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Martian:
Talk about a near impossible task!

Are you planing to rate each army as a candidate in an OPEN event as well as the rating for each army within its own NASAMW Theme group?
Worse than that, Marty -0- it might also be interesting to consider the rating of each army within its own circle of enemies (a much tighter group than a single Theme).

Note, however, that some armies cross Theme boundaries and participate in two or three of the six Themes. Just to add a little more complication in there! :rolleyes:

John Meunier
05-02-2005, 05:52 PM
How about some public discussion here on the process, starting with a small group of mutual foes as DK has brought up.

Let's say I want to rate II/10 Camillan Romans and their enemies.

I/36 Italian Hill Tribes
I/55d Latin
I/55e Umbrian
I/57b Etruscan
II/5g Italiot
II/8a Bruttian
II/8b Campanian
II/8c Apulian
II/11 Gallic
II/13 Samnite
II/27b Pyrrhic
II/28b Armenian

Okay, how do we rate these within this little group? Who gets an A,B,C,D and F?

John Meunier
05-03-2005, 07:06 PM
Okay, let me start by showing my bad thinking so smarter people, in correcting me, will demonstrate clear thinking.

I was thinking the first thing to do would be to classify these into groups as a stating pass.

Camillan -- Ps-supported spear with some Bd. Ag. 1

Italian Hill tribes -- Warband (or Aux). Monotype. Ag 3.

Latin -- Camillan with more Ps.

Umbrian -- Bad going army, some spear and Cv. Ag. 2

Etruscan -- Camillan -1 Sp +1 Bd with Ag. 3

Italiot -- Sp with limited Ps. LH Ag. 2

Bruttian -- Aux army Ag. 1

Campaninan -- Sp and Aux army Ag. 1

Apulian -- Aux with strong Cv. Ag. 1

Gallic -- Warband with up to 3 Cv. Ag. 3

Samnite -- Aux monotype. Ag. 1

Pyrrhic -- Multi-tasker with Pk. Ag. 4

Armenian -- Kn, LH, Aux Ag. 1

So a couple observations.

First, in this grouping, the relative value of Ps-supported spear is not as great as it would be in an open setting -- only two armies with Kn of any kind.

Second, there are some match ups that seem set for draw situations based on terrain. The Camillan Roman would not be wise, for instance, to go into the woods to chase the Samnites. Can anyone say Caudine Forks?

Even at Ag. 3, I'm inclined to see Gallic as a strong army in this group. Most enemies have something that fears Wb and the Gauls have enough Cv to offset most opposing mounted. Armenian or Pyrrhic would hurt, though.

Hill tribes as Wb are a less flexible Gaul-type.

Etruscan, Latin, and Camillan are all variations on a theme, but with significant differences.

Likewise, Umbrian, Bruttian, Campanian and Samnite are different flavors of Aux armies.

Italiot is an interesting Sp army with that LH contingent. The heavy infantry is going to not like all the Wb and Bd running around in this group though.

So here's my take on the grades:

A -- Pyrrhic
B -- Gallic, Etruscan, Camillan, Armenian
C -- Campanian, Apulian, Latin
D -- Italiot, Hill Tribes, Bruttian, Samnite, Umbrian

imported_adsarf
05-04-2005, 08:04 AM
Good post John. I think what this shows is that this may be a time-consuming exercise to do via Fanaticus, but if someone is up for the challenge of marshalling enough threads and recording the outcomes, we might get somewhere. At least it could be fun to try.

I think you over-rate the strength of warband against Ps-supported Sp and Bd. Both Gallic and Hill Tribes are therefore, to my mind, over-rated.

I don't really understand your reasoning in rating the Italiots so poorly. That doesn't seem to be justified by the commentary which reports one strength and one weakness. Speaking personally, I'd be fairly confident in taking on hill tribes or Samnites with an army like that.

Andrew

Pthomas
05-04-2005, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by John Meunier:

So here's my take on the grades:

A -- Pyrrhic
B -- Gallic, Etruscan, Camillan, Armenian
C -- Campanian, Apulian, Latin
D -- Italiot, Hill Tribes, Bruttian, Samnite, Umbrian Normally, a successor combined arms army would be an A army, but we are judging within this group. The weakness of Pike armies are the flanks. With an aggression of 4 the Pyrrhic army is most likely not going to set terrain. Therefore it must face many enemies with far superior bad going troops on their terrain. The flanks will not hold. Pyrrhic might be downgraded to a B, for this reason.

The Camillan with an Agg of 1 seems to be slightly ahead of the Etruscans and Gauls with Aggressions of 3 and therefor more likely to fight on the Camillan's choice of field of battle.
I would consider bumping them up a grade. The Armenians could make an arguement with their low aggression and best of both mounted and bad going troops that they would be an A in this group, but I think I would leave them at B.

The rest I more or less agree with, with the exception of the monotype bad going and aggression 3 Italian Hill Tribes. While at first glance having 10 Wb in a group with a lot of spear seems to be an advantage. There are also a number of Aux armies and they are going to kick Wb butt in bad going, especially with Psi support. In the open the Wb are going to be victimized by the Kn, Cv, and even LH and Ps can be very disconcerting for an all Wb army. If they choose all Aux then they will face Sp, Bd, mounted, and other Aux in the open. I would downgrade them to an F.

So my (decidedly subjective)recommendations for this would be:

A -- Camillan, (Armenian)
B -- Pyrrhic, Gallic, Etruscan,(Armenian)
C -- Campanian, Apulian, Latin
D -- Italiot, Bruttian, Samnite
F -- Hill Tribes

[ May 04, 2005, 09:55: Message edited by: Pthomas ]

David Kuijt
05-04-2005, 02:23 PM
The problem with any closed system is the rock-scissors-paper phenomenon. The Camillans can probably beat Armenians most of the time; the Armenians will do well against Gauls; the Gauls can beat Camillans (well, OK, go 50/50 against Camillans). There is also the issue of where the system begins and ends -- the Armenians only fight like one army in this group (Camillans) -- should they really be included?

Pthomas -- when you say that Aux are going to kick Wb butt in bad going, are you thinking of v2.0? Wb is no longer -2 in BGo.

I'd be putting the armies sorta like this:

A: Camillan, Pyrrhic, Armenian
B: Gallic, Etruscan, Campanian (is that the army with the significant Cav component? I haven't got my book with me)
C: everything else except Aux-choice Hill Tribes
D: Aux-choice Hill Tribes

With that said, though, Pyrrhos will have lots of trouble if they lose terrain against anything but Camillans and Etruscans and the spear armies.

So I'm not sure that I wouldn't just have three buckets, and lump A and B together. So the only "dog" army is the Auxilia-only Hill Tribes. The other monotype armies go in "C", and any non-monotype army in this group is a "B". I don't see Camillans as having enough of an advantage (especially against Gauls, Pyrrhos, Armenians) to upgrade them higher than the other guys.

Bill Sumruld
05-04-2005, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
B: Gallic, Etruscan, Campanian (is that the army with the significant Cav component? I haven't got my book with me)
David,

I think it was a great analysis but the Italian army with 3Cv elements is the Apulians, the Campanians only have 2Cv. The Campanians have 2Cv (Gen), 4Sp, 4Ax, and 2Ps. The Apulians have 3Cv (Gen), 7Ax, and 2Ps.

Bill

imported_adsarf
05-04-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
I'd be putting the armies sorta like this:

A: Camillan, Pyrrhic, Armenian
B: Gallic, Etruscan, Campanian (is that the army with the significant Cav component? I haven't got my book with me)
C: everything else except Aux-choice Hill Tribes
D: Aux-choice Hill Tribes

With that said, though, Pyrrhos will have lots of trouble if they lose terrain against anything but Camillans and Etruscans and the spear armies.

So I'm not sure that I wouldn't just have three buckets, and lump A and B together. So the only "dog" army is the Auxilia-only Hill Tribes. The other monotype armies go in "C", and any non-monotype army in this group is a "B". I don't see Camillans as having enough of an advantage (especially against Gauls, Pyrrhos, Armenians) to upgrade them higher than the other guys. OK David, some very fair comments here. I wanted to downgrade the gauls and upgrade the Italiots. You've upgraded the Italiots and, in effect, downgraded the Gauls by allowing more 'A' rated armies, so that makes sense to me, but why are the all-Ax hill tribes a whole category worse than all-Ax Samnites?

Keen to hear more

Andrew

David Kuijt
05-04-2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by adsarf:
OK David, some very fair comments here. I wanted to downgrade the gauls and upgrade the Italiots. You've upgraded the Italiots and, in effect, downgraded the Gauls by allowing more 'A' rated armies, so that makes sense to me, but why are the all-Ax hill tribes a whole category worse than all-Ax Samnites?
Because I was working from memory and forgot the Samnites were all-Ax?

If the Samnites are Agg3, like the Hill Tribes, then they should also be basement-dwellers. If the Samnites are Agg1, they could very well live in the middle rank. Wait -- do they have any psiloi or mounted? Even one of each? Anyway, if they are Agg3 or 2 they should be basement; if they are Agg1 they become mid-range because they will be very competitive if they win terrain.

David Kuijt
05-04-2005, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Bill Sumruld:

I think it was a great analysis but the Italian army with 3Cv elements is the Apulians, the Campanians only have 2Cv. The Campanians have 2Cv (Gen), 4Sp, 4Ax, and 2Ps. The Apulians have 3Cv (Gen), 7Ax, and 2Ps.
Both of those are cool armies -- the Campanians are a cool combined-arms army, which most of the armies in this era (Pyrrhos excepted) are NOT. If I was playing in a campaign in this period, I'd go Campanians first. They've got better chances overall against Gauls and Pyrrhos, for example, than the Camillans do. And they are much faster than the heavy-foot armies (Etruscans and Camillans and Italiots).

Are the Apulians and the Campanians Agg1, like most of their enemies (notably the Camillans, if I recall correctly?)

Etruscans might deserve an upgrade to the same rating as Camillans, if their aggression is similar (1/1 or 1/2). Someone posted that they are identical, except Cammies have one more blade and one less spear?

David Kuijt
05-04-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
If I was playing in a campaign in this period, I'd go Campanians first.I lied. Campanians are a cool army in this period, and I love them, but I'd go Pyrrhic first because Pyrrhos is sooooo cool.

Bill Sumruld
05-04-2005, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Are the Apulians and the Campanians Agg1, like most of their enemies (notably the Camillans, if I recall correctly?)

Etruscans might deserve an upgrade to the same rating as Camillans, if their aggression is similar (1/1 or 1/2). Someone posted that they are identical, except Cammies have one more blade and one less spear?

Bill Sumruld
05-04-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Bill Sumruld:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Are the Apulians and the Campanians Agg1, like most of their enemies (notably the Camillans, if I recall correctly?)

Etruscans might deserve an upgrade to the same rating as Camillans, if their aggression is similar (1/1 or 1/2). Someone posted that they are identical, except Cammies have one more blade and one less spear? </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry about that. I happen to be without my book also, grading papers you know but now on a break. I believe the Ag 1 is right. But you have got the cammies and etruscan league a little backward. The Camillans are 2Cv (Gen), 3Bd, 5Sp, and 2Ps. The Etruscan League has 2Cv (Gen), 4Bd, 4Sp, 1Hd or Ps, and 1Ps if I remember right. So I would give the edge to the Etruscans probably in a head to head, all else being equal.

Bill

David Kuijt
05-04-2005, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Bill Sumruld:
But you have got the cammies and etruscan league a little backward. The Camillans are 2Cv (Gen), 3Bd, 5Sp, and 2Ps. The Etruscan League has 2Cv (Gen), 4Bd, 4Sp, 1Hd or Ps, and 1Ps if I remember right.Maybe I should just shut up until I get to my book...

... naw. :D

Even with higher aggression, then, I'd make the Cammies the same as the Gauls, and put the Etruscans at the same level as them both (I think the Etruscans are higher aggression, which is why I wouldn't put them in a higher class still, plus the one blade advantage is fairly marginal).

Pthomas
05-04-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:

Pthomas -- when you say that Aux are going to kick Wb butt in bad going, are you thinking of v2.0? Wb is no longer -2 in BGo.

No, Wb are not -2 any more, but they also do not get a second rank +1, Aux gets +1 for rear Ps support in bad going and are faster. Aux (especially with Ps support) will beat Wb 9 out of 10 times.

David Kuijt
05-04-2005, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by Pthomas:
No, Wb are not -2 any more, but they also do not get a second rank +1, Aux gets +1 for rear Ps support in bad going and are faster. Aux (especially with Ps support) will beat Wb 9 out of 10 times. Warband still get a second rank +1. And Warband's double-move can be very (VERY) effective as a sudden psycho move on the flank, making them (with some luck and pip burden) even faster than Auxilia on some occasions.

I would say that Auxilia without psiloi support are at a disadvantage to Warband; with psiloi support I would put Auxilia only at a slight advantage -- say winning 6 times out of 10; about the same advantage as Etruscans having an extra blade over Camillans.

John Meunier
05-04-2005, 06:11 PM
The question about whether the Armenians should be in this group is a good one. I just picked Cammies and all its enemies. The Armenians are maybe an outlier in this group.

I see that overall the Ag. 3 Etruscans will be disadvantaged in pairings that are terrain-dependent compared to the Cammies.

If the ratings are based on how well each army can force a win, then I see the case against Etruscans.

In a head-to-head with the Cammies, though, I would think getting to set up second and having an extra blade would make them better than a 6/10 favorite.

Someone asked about my ratings for Italiots. To me, it seemed they were nearly a spear monotype. A good LH commander will get lots of good out of those elements, though. Maybe they should be stronger.

I knew this would be a good conversation.

Pthomas
05-04-2005, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Warband still get a second rank +1. In bad going they don't. And even in good going a single Ps supports 3 Aux while Wb needs to double up every WB to get a +1, so the advantage still goes to the Aux. Which is why all those low aggression Aux armies will be better then a high aggression Wb army.

Agreed on the second pip move by Wb being an advantage, but again if the Aux army has sucked you into a battle of attrition in bad going, you need to find those extra pips. Still give them victory 7.5 out of 10 times :)

[ May 04, 2005, 15:13: Message edited by: Pthomas ]

John Meunier
05-04-2005, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Pthomas:

... if the Aux army has sucked you into a battle of attrition in bad going, you need to find those extra pips. Still give them victory 7.5 out of 10 times :) What we need here is a set of battles between Samnites and Italian Hill Tribes.

Samnites. Ag. 1
1x2Cv(Gen), 11x4Aux

Italian Hill Tribes. Ag. 3
1x3Cv(Gen), 10x3Wb, 1x2Ps

Of course, those Sammies don't have that Ps support.

Pthomas
05-04-2005, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by John Meunier:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pthomas:

... if the Aux army has sucked you into a battle of attrition in bad going, you need to find those extra pips. Still give them victory 7.5 out of 10 times :) What we need here is a set of battles between Samnites and Italian Hill Tribes.

Samnites. Ag. 1
1x2Cv(Gen), 11x4Aux

Italian Hill Tribes. Ag. 3
1x3Cv(Gen), 10x3Wb, 1x2Ps

Of course, those Sammies don't have that Ps support. </font>[/QUOTE]Ugh, the Samnites don't even have a single Ps? Even with an Agg of 1 they may need to slide down to an F rating.

xeswop
05-04-2005, 07:23 PM
This would be a great restricted tournament at a con. Each player brings Samnites and Italian Hill Tribes. In each round the players switch between the two pairs so you end with 8 players doing 4 game each for a total of 32 games. That would give you good results.

Actually you could morph each army so only need 11 stands of 3 scruffy types, 1 element of 3Cv and 1 ps. You just have to remember if you are using Wb or Ax.

David Kuijt
05-04-2005, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Warband still get a second rank +1. Originally posted by Pthomas:
In bad going they don't. And even in good going a single Ps supports 3 Aux while Wb needs to double up every WB to get a +1, so the advantage still goes to the Aux. Which is why all those low aggression Aux armies will be better then a high aggression Wb army.

Agreed on the second pip move by Wb being an advantage, but again if the Aux army has sucked you into a battle of attrition in bad going, you need to find those extra pips. Still give them victory 7.5 out of 10 times :) Nope. The Wb can spread wide to find a flank and cup the Ps-supported Auxilia.

Your assessment above is based upon the Wb player rushing to attack a set Ps position. Who says they need to? If the Auxilia player sets up little psiloi-support formations in BGo, it doesn't take much work for the Wb player to just form a good formation opposite them, maybe ZOCing them, with only a single Wb each. Maybe even a cup formation to oppose the 3-1 formation of the Auxilia. Then the Wb player can move his troops wide to find the extra board width the Auxilia player had to leave open with four elements facing three. Suddenly the Auxilia player is forced to advance on HIS bound, not on the Wb player's bound. That means six pips to advance his whole psiloi-supported auxilia formation in bad going -- if he rolls 2 pips he can't even advance a single triad of psiloi-supported auxilia (giving up overlaps on both ends!). And you never want to attack a nice line of impetuous troops on THEIR bound if you can avoid it -- the double overlap combats that result are a disaster for the player who initiates the combat unless you can reliably roll well. Worse still, the advantage of impetuous troops is that they don't NEED pips to stay in contact. So the line of Warband will need fewer pips to stay in contact and make the line up than the auxilia they are facing -- leaving more pips for the flanking moves on the edge of this line that the Auxilia attacker is ignoring while spending all his pips moving a broad line through bad going.

So if I had psiloi-supported auxilia against warband I would NOT fight him in bad going unless I knew he was a battle-hungry fool who would charge into my formation. If there was any chance he would just ignore my carefully placed formation and attack elsewhere, I'd never try it.

I've fought Gauls with Ancient Spanish several times -- Mark P once handed me my head using Gauls against my Psiloi-supported Auxilia. In a broken-up battle in bad going, psiloi support is not nearly as useful as you seem to think. And Warband can crush Auxilia nowadays as often as not.

Pthomas
05-04-2005, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Nope. The Wb can spread wide to find a flank and cup the Ps-supported Auxilia.

Your assessment above is based upon the Wb player rushing to attack a set Ps position. Okay, since we are dangerously off topic. I will agree to disagree on the value of supported Aux v Wb.

Whether Ax would win 6 out of 10 times or 9 out of 10 or 7.5 out of 10 times begins to seem like it is only important to David and I. I just can't imagine why!? ;)

[ May 04, 2005, 18:12: Message edited by: Pthomas ]

El' Jocko
05-05-2005, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Nope. The Wb can spread wide to find a flank and cup the Ps-supported Auxilia.
I won't disagree with your analysis except to add that it only applies in a scads of warband vs. scads of auxilia situation. Granted, that's what you have with Hill Tribes vs. Samnites.

But in the more general case with combined arms type armies, I'd be quite happy to have psiloi backed auxilia protecting my flank. A couple of elements of warband aren't likely to make a dent in the auxilia, and may even manage to get themselves killed.

- Jack

David Kuijt
05-05-2005, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Nope. The Wb can spread wide to find a flank and cup the Ps-supported Auxilia.
Originally posted by El' Jocko:
I won't disagree with your analysis except to add that it only applies in a scads of warband vs. scads of auxilia situation. Granted, that's what you have with Hill Tribes vs. Samnites.

But in the more general case with combined arms type armies, I'd be quite happy to have psiloi backed auxilia protecting my flank. A couple of elements of warband aren't likely to make a dent in the auxilia, and may even manage to get themselves killed.

- Jack Sure. I was talking about warband answers to a central static psiloi-backed auxilia line in bad going, not the parity of warband vs. psiloi-backed auxilia on the flank of a combined-arms force. In the first case we have an issue of pip assignment; in the second case we have a sidelight to the main battle. I would like to point out, though, even in the flank situation you describe, that if numbers are even (two Wb vs. one Aux and one Ps) the Ps is going to have to stay back and protect the flank of the Aux rather than stand up in psiloi support of it. To do otherwise is to invite the Warband player to do a psycho-doublemove and turn the flank.

Stelzone
05-05-2005, 12:16 PM
I have always thought a rating guide would be of value to beginners. So I attempted to work out a rating system when playing BDAOL, it becme a headache since every time I thought I had an army pegged, I would see a way to use it effectively or it could be destroyed.

In BBDBA an armies weak points can became strong ones and vice versa. That is the way with Pk, in normal DBA most armies don't have enough Pk to be effective, in BBDBA they do. One elephant in DBA is a tank, three or more in BBDBA is a liability; unless the dice smile on you.

The Variables are greater in normal DBA making it harder to rate them as to effectiveness. I would suggest using a fairly broad method (terrain,light terrain, v. heavy foot,v. Light foot, v.H. Mounted,v L. Mounted,v. Combined) or very narrow ( v. historical , v. open)

I sometimes wish we published the tournament lists the way they do in DBM, not so we could all pick killer armies though. Because I think we would see a much greater spread in the winning and competitive armies available to us.

David Kuijt
05-05-2005, 01:19 PM
I agree with everything Mike said, especially the stuff about the differences between BB and regular DBA, and the greater variables in regular DBA.

In his last paragraph, Mike said:

Originally posted by Stelzone:

I sometimes wish we published the tournament lists the way they do in DBM, not so we could all pick killer armies though. Because I think we would see a much greater spread in the winning and competitive armies available to us. I think there is already a very wide spread in the winning and competitive armies available. In the East Coast conventions I really only think there are four or five players who regularly bring what are seen as "killer" armies (dismounting knights in particular). The name "killer" is overused, too -- you don't often see those "killer" armies going much farther in tournaments than any other army type. The best players have multiple armies and don't bring Medieval Germans, Anglo-Normans, Burgundian Ordonnance, or Free Company any more often than they do their other armies. The only generalization I would care to make is that players are less likely to do well with LH or Cav armies (because of the 24" boards that are common in most tournaments) or with Auxilia armies (because of the time limit that is really quite necessary on tournaments). Neither of these are "loser" armies -- you often see someone going 2-1 or 3-1 with them -- but to win a 16-player tournament you need to win all your games, and an unfinished game will usually take you out of the running.

Martian
05-05-2005, 02:12 PM
In the East Coast conventions I really only think there are four or five players who regularly bring what are seen as "killer" armies (dismounting knights in particular).


tongue.gif Come on DK, name names!


The best players have multiple armies and don't bring Medieval Germans, Anglo-Normans, Burgundian Ordonnance, or Free Company any more often than they do their other armies.

Or Hussites for that matter! tongue.gif

Marty

[ May 05, 2005, 11:14: Message edited by: Martian ]

David Kuijt
05-05-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Martian:
Come on DK, name names!
Nope. For one thing, it might be the only army they own -- there is nothing morally wrong with that choice if it is no choice. Or suppose they own four armies, two of which are dismountains -- if half the time you see them they play dismountains, that means they are spreading their play over their armies without regard to fine-tuning a choice for tournies.

But mostly I think we have a good community here, and public criticism naming names (even on a relatively mild topic like this) doesn't promote good feeling.

So if you want to talk gossip, you'll have to ask me in private :D


Or Hussites for that matter! tongue.gif
I haven't seen Hussites since 2.1 came out and they went down from Elephant factors to Pike factors. Nobody has brought them.

Plus the 80mm deep complication (discussed at great length over the last two years) and the fact that the ZOC, firing, and close-combat rules are mildly broken when dealing with 80mm deep elements. I'd love to rebase my Hussites and bring them out -- I've never got to play them in a tournament, because they were too much of a power army in 1.1 (and therefore lame) and then too complicated now (with 80mm bases)

(And everyone who would normally now interject some comment about square bases -- please save it. Post that comment somewhere else, rather than hijacking this thread for that oft-debated topic!)

Pthomas
05-05-2005, 03:37 PM
Speaking of the subject of this thread, perhaps the BBDBA assessment system the the Davids use is not as relevant to regular DBA. Perhaps classing historical opponents as Paper, Scissor, or Rock and maybe two other classes such as Superior (which would beat a paper or a scissor or a rock army) and Inferior (which would likely lose to a paper or a scissor or a rock army) would be more relevant.

My reasoning is that looking at the Army choices for these historical opponents I would probably push the Pyrrhic to B, because the low agression bad going armies will probably beat them, but the Pyrrhic is likely to defeat the Camillans and other spear/Bd armies. So this really sets up better for Pyrrhic being Rock, Camillan Etruscan, Armenian, Gauls being Scissors and the other Aux armies being Paper (able to defeat Pyrrhic, but likely to be defeated by the Scissor armies). Of course the Italian Hill Tribes and Samnites likely remain 'Inferior' armies.

So you get something like:

Superior -- None
Rock -- Pyrrhic
Scissor -- Camillan,Gallic, Etruscan,(Armenian)
Paper -- Campanian, Apulian, Latin, Italiot, Bruttian
Inferior -- Samnite, Hill Tribes

[ May 05, 2005, 12:42: Message edited by: Pthomas ]

David Kuijt
05-05-2005, 04:43 PM
That's a clever concept, Pthomas. It might need a bit of refinement, but it is a clever concept.

Possible problems (requiring refinement):

1) a three-valued circuit (rock, scissors, paper) isn't always going to work -- in some cases there may be four or more positions on the circuit, or even a network of links (blade kills psiloi-supported spear; either kills bow; pike fights blade even and had advantage against blade but is neutral or poor against bow; knights are great against blade, poor against the other three; Elephants are good against most of the above except pike, neutral against psiloi-supported blade, and slaughter knights, etc. etc.)

With that said, I bet that most historical groupings (like the Camillan Group JM brought up) will fit within a 3-value or 4-value cycle.

2) I think a slot for "combined arms" would be a good model enhancement. Combined arms meaning, in this case, a sufficiently muddled mixture to be able to respond to any given monotype with at least some of its troops, so neither having advantage nor disadvantage in troop matchups and therefore not participating in the cycle.

So in this group under debate (and apologies in advance -- once again I don't have my book with me here at work) we could have something like this:

Rock: Camillan, Etruscan, Gallic
Scissors: Italiot, anything else Sp or Sp/Aux mix
Paper: not really anything here in this group (if there was a Knight army, it would go here)

Combined Arms: Pyrrhic

Superior: nothing in this group has a huge advantage

Inferior: Samnite, Hill Tribes

I like that! It encapsulates my feeling for how the troop types in this set will interact.

John Meunier
05-05-2005, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:

Rock: Camillan, Etruscan, Gallic
Scissors: Italiot, anything else Sp or Sp/Aux mix
Paper: not really anything here in this group (if there was a Knight army, it would go here)

Combined Arms: Pyrrhic

Superior: nothing in this group has a huge advantage

Inferior: Samnite, Hill Tribes

So here we are moving from an ordinal system (a,b,c,d) to a more qualitative system. But in this case not trying to force the armies into a hierarchy may be more useful.

I'm unclear on what superior would be, though. Is it something that will force a win against all opponents? Rock, paper, scissors, and combined arms all go down to superior?

And inferior is an army that can't force a win against any category?

I use "force a win" rather than "win" because the important attribute seems to be the ability to come to winning resolution in a time-limited game even if your opponent is particularly helpful.

In this reckoning, then some of the rock, paper, scissors might actually not be good choices against an inferior army. A spear army might be hard set to force a win against Samnites hiding in the woods.

But neither would the inferiors be good choices against anyone else. Unless you help them out by fighting on their turf, they will be hard pressed to force a win.

One other note: I love the idea of rock-paper-scissors because those terms are sometimes used as a disparaging characterization of the game system. Shades of Yankee Doodle.

Pthomas
05-06-2005, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by David Kuijt:


2) I think a slot for "combined arms" would be a good model enhancement. Yes, I like the addition. It gives six classifications for armies within a historical or some other fixed period:

Superior: Indentifying armies that are likely to defeat all other armies in the group

Combined Arms: Indentifies armies that are likely the equal or competitive with all Rock/Scissor/Paper armies, but likely to lose to superior and defeat inferior classed armies.

Rock: likely to defeat armies classed as scissor, but lose to armies classed as paper

Scissor: Armies likely to defeat paper classed armies, but be defeated by rock classed armies

Paper: Armies likely to defeat rock classed armies, but be defeated by scissor classed armies.

Inferior: Armies so poor that they are likely to lose to every other army in the group.

I think this offers a wide enough classification system to work for the diversity of armies in DBA, but still be useful to individual generals in selecting armies to buy or take to tournaments.

The question becomes what does Andrew, our original volunteer for this massive project think of it?

[ May 06, 2005, 16:09: Message edited by: Pthomas ]

John Meunier
05-07-2005, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Pthomas:

The question becomes what does Andrew, our original volunteer for this massive project think of it? I think a more useful application might be an article with an example of how to use these categories to help your thinking process.

Sorting all the armies in the DBA book into these six categories is a very large undertaking. For one, not all rock armies would be equally good against all scissors types.

More power to anyone who wants to tackle it.

Redwilde
05-07-2005, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by John Meunier:

Sorting all the armies in the DBA book into these six categories is a very large undertaking. For one, not all rock armies would be equally good against all scissors types.Well, yes it is a huge task, but I think the developing idea here is to only categorise armies within historical groupings, not to categorise the whole kaboodle for open tournament play. So what types of armies fall each category would vary by grouping. So a spear heavy army might be a rock in some groupings and paper in another.

Of course, I like thinking of the categories as: Nuclear Bomb -- Foot -- Cockroach. Bomb kills foot; foot kills cockroach; cockroach survives bomb :D

Andrew Richardson
05-08-2005, 02:10 PM
Well, this thread has certainly generated more interest than I expected - I've been away for a few days so haven't seen moas tof the comments until now.

My original thought was to produce a 12-element 'mirror' of what the two Davids did for 36-emenent. I'm a bit dubious of sorting armies into themes because of the added complication - it would be nice, but I think the extra work would be toom much. Also, I was thinking about open tourneys when I volunteered to collate this. Maybe for a second revision?!...

Sorting them into army types and then saying in the preamble or an annex what sort of armies each type is strong and weak against may be an easily doable and useful addition.

(post edited for error)

[ May 08, 2005, 13:19: Message edited by: Andrew Richardson ]