Hybrid DBA Campaign/Big Battle

[Chris Brantley]

Just had an idea I was hoping the Fanatici could help me flesh out.

The basic concept is to merge elements of a DBA campaign with Big Battle DBA for a viable convention game that could be played by multiple players in a 4 hour convention timeslot.

You'd start off the event with a series of players making campaign-style map moves and some mechanism for politics. Then the game would move off the map onto a Big Battle game to determine the final outcome.

One possibility...a Fall of Rome-period campaign setting where the Romans and Huns are on opposite sides, and the various Franks and Germans have to pick sides leading up to a great battle (e.g. Chalons).

The politics would involve providing mechanisms to encourage people to choose sides. Romans, for example, could offer foederati status or other inducements. In other words, set individual player objectives that can be achieved by both political and military means.

This is still a very raw idea...but I'd appreciate any feedback.

[Jeff Caruso]

Chris,

How about a big board setup that would make for grand tactical movement instead of stragegic map board movement.Every ones' armies are on board and ready to move so it would have everybody involved from the start.Each player's homeland could be 32" or 36" sq.

Roads would be important for grand tactical movement especially.Just some ideas.

Jeff

[John Meunier]

If I understand your thinking, Chris, I find the idea interesting.

I see the set-up for the game being essentially something like a situation in which two major powers are clearly going to fight. Everyone knows it. All that remains to decide is when and how, and which side each minor power will line up with.

It seems to me that such a set up would work very well in a medieval campaign, too.

I could almost see a game that works kind of like Machiavelli or Diplomacy (the Avalon Hill board games). Essentially for several turns movement and "battle" would be determined by simple preponderance of force. No battles would be used. But at some point in the game you take the two leading powers and have them play a game for all the marbles. Each minor power would hop on one side or the other so all the players get a hand in the battle.

[gwrfelling]

I've been wanting to experiment with something very similar to this. My initial idea was to have six players interact on a 4'x6' table, each 2'x2' section being an individual homeland. Each player would then be allowed a force approximately 1.5-2 times the size of the army list and a single smallish BUA. Players could vie to be the all-conquering force or (my preference) to fulfill unique/secret victory conditions. Such a set-up could be historical, quasi-historical, or utterly fanciful. Hmm...perhaps a 6'x6' set up with four players in the corner homelands and a non-player entity (perhaps a burning capital in chaos, like Luoyang just before the dissolving of the coalition against Dong Zhuo) in the center homeland would also be interesting... ;) More than a campaign proper, this would be big-battle-esque scenario, really. Perhaps one could generate some sort of engine for the passage of time (in abstract) and the arrival of new conscripts...

Another possibility might be the need for sub-generals to command contingents operating on different frontiers. Just another thought... smile.gif

Originally posted by Jeff Caruso:
Chris,

How about a big board setup that would make for grand tactical movement instead of stragegic map board movement.Every ones' armies are on board and ready to move so it would have everybody involved from the start.Each player's homeland could be 32" or 36" sq.

Roads would be important for grand tactical movement especially.Just some ideas.

Jeff

[ March 10, 2005, 15:01: Message edited by: gwrfelling ]

[Duncan Martelock]

Our club (OMG in Ottawa, Canada) ran a tournament with 16 armies from the same period (Post Alexander Greece and Middle East). The people that you defeated became your subgenerals. The first round was 8 regular DBA game, the second round was 4 games with 2 commands on each side. The third round was 2 with 4 commands on each side. The last round was one game with 8 commands on each side. Match ups were based on geography. The last round was a little tricky but quite enjoyable.

[xeswop]

This is great fun. I have known of it for years as a Pyramid Tournament, invented by Don Miller. I wrote about it in my Couier article on Tournament Formats in 1995.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dbatourn/DBAtourn.html

Doing 16 armies is fantastic! I have done only 8. I first had the loser of each game join the player that beat him but then players were too easy on each other. So, we had the losers of neighbor brackets join the winner of the other backet -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend. I should note that losses in each game do not come back. Thus in the last round of 4 vs 4; some players have lost 8 elements. We did 1 vs 1, then 2 vs. 2 on a double board, and then 4 vs 4 on a double board

Originally posted by Duncan Martelock:
Our club (OMG in Ottawa, Canada) ran a tournament with 16 armies from the same period (Post Alexander Greece and Middle East). The people that you defeated became your subgenerals. The first round was 8 regular DBA game, the second round was 4 games with 2 commands on each side. The third round was 2 with 4 commands on each side. The last round was one game with 8 commands on each side. Match ups were based on geography. The last round was a little tricky but quite enjoyable.

[Timurilank]

Chris wrote:
Just had an idea I was hoping the Fanatici could help me flesh out.

The basic concept is to merge elements of a DBA campaign with Big Battle DBA for a viable convention game that could be played by multiple players in a 4 hour convention timeslot.

You'd start off the event with a series of players making campaign-style map moves and some mechanism for politics. Then the game would move off the map onto a Big Battle game to determine the final outcome. We tried something similar but had one or two players dedicated to the strategic game and others on the team sole engage in battles. This quickly moved the campaign along and provided the visitors gamers who were willing to explain the activity occurring elsewhere in the room. We also had two umpires that controlled the smaller kingdoms. As several armies approach the same node, the number of armies on the table increased. This of course increased the game length for that particular battle.

cheers,