Competition Army Lists

[Chris Brantley]

In the Sept. issue of Slingshot (#230), Matthew Bennett asks why DBA competitors whose army lists contains options are typically forced to elect only one fixed list of 12 elements for use throughout a competition. He suggests this rule discriminates against players who select certain armies (e.g. Italian Condotta) that offer several optional troop types, which would enable a player to optimize his army against different types of opponents during each tournament battle.

Over the years, I've heard two rationales offered in support of this limitation on tournament armies:

First of all, allowing you to switch your army composition to improve the match-up against each opponent would encourage competitive players to favor certain armies (such as the Condotta) that provide that flexibility. Having such an army gives a decided edge to that particular player in that tourney, which affects the overall "competitiveness" and enjoyability of the tournament for all players. Perhaps more importantly, however, over time, entrants would migrate towards an increasingly small set of optimal "killer" tournament armies, which defeats the purpose of having hundreds of available lists to choose from.

The history buffs offer the second rationale, noting that DBA lists are a compression of the more complex DBM lists, and frequently use options to differentiate the composition of different armies at different periods and/or under different leaders but within the same list. Certain types of elements would not have been fielded with other elements in the actual historical context. For example, the Romans would not have used Spanish scutarii as auxiliaries in Egypt. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to allow these non-historical army compositions to occur in the DBA/tournament context.

Any others?

All that said, from a purely gaming point of view, it would be interesting to see an open tournament that allowed players to adjust their army list (from the available options) from game to game. As long as everyone knew that was the rule going in, no one is put at a competitive disadvantage except by personal choice. At the same time, you add the strategic challenge of selecting the most flexible army list, and also adapting it to each opponent during the tournament. Lots more decisions to make and second guess over the post-mortem beer. I wouldn't advocate it all the time, but suggest that an occasional "any options" tournament might add a refreshing twist to competitive DBA play.

[omnisjdi]

Hi Chris.

Wouldn't having a flexible army list limit the effectiveness of the "killer armies." Quite a few of the list armies would be vulnerable to a flexible army. Romans and Vikings for example.

Slainte
Jeff I.

PS. Just an observation from a rookie/newbie

[imported_adsarf]

I've not played DBA competitively but I'm never without an opinion, so here it is.

Army design and choice is an important element of DBM (and some other games). Its present to a limited extent in BBDBA but its largely absent or trivial in DBA. The decisions required therefore don't add all that much interest to the game.

At the same time, the more flexible armies (Later Medieval French is probably the ultimate) are vastly more flexible than the inflexible armies - only the General's element and two crossbows in IV/64b are fixed (and even the general dismounts) - so the advantage offered this small group of lists is very great.

Therefore its best in themes. You could have a high-flexibility theme (Condotta, Medieval French, etc.) where there would be enough flexibility to add real interest or a low-flexibility theme (most other lists actually) where it wouldn't make much difference, but in an open tournament it would give a significant advantage to a small group of (already quite strong) lists, which would be a shame

Andrew

[GAZMAN]

The trick wil be when the choice must be made and with what information.
If two generals face each ohter with multi optioned armies and thier only information is the name of the enemy army, then some interesting battles could ensue.
But, if the choosing general knows the terrain, the composition of the opposing army, where the camp is and what side he is starting from, then you're gonna see a white wash.
I think options add flavour and enjoyment (and another excuse if you lose - oh I just selected X when I shoudl have had Y) and an excuse to collect and paint more miniatures, so shoudl be allowed in comps.
BUT the selection of elements for the battle should be made with knowledge only of the opposing armies name and not nature.
Si2

[RonG]

Having played in a few tournaments, I do believe that the flexibility of changing army composition should be allowed in themed events. It would probably attract others who believe "they" have the singular greatest army on the table. tongue.gif
However, for the NICT it should remain as it has been. Pick an army and its composition and general away! ;) Terrain usually evens out the odds. Even when there are 5 large hills or one tiny shredded gentle hill. :rolleyes: By the way, I've heard felt does not taste very good, MMM, maybe some garlic? :D

[nick hux]

Hi All,

I think the "historical" aspect makes changing the forces between battles seem wrong. After all, a Roman general (for instance) would not stroll up to a battle field and then decide on the basis of his opponent and the approximate lay out of the battlefield (hilly, loads of forest or whatever) which of his "extra" troops he would leave out of the battle ;) . He used all that he had, and that would depend upon the year he was in more than who he was to fight.

Still, I've not taken part in competitions, so what do I know :D .

Nick

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by nick h:
I think the "historical" aspect makes changing the forces between battles seem wrong. After all, a Roman general (for instance) would not stroll up to a battle field and then decide on the basis of his opponent and the approximate lay out of the battlefield (hilly, loads of forest or whatever) which of his "extra" troops he would leave out of the battle ;) . He used all that he had, and that would depend upon the year he was in more than who he was to fight. Actually at times, Caesar did tailor his army for specific battles. When he wanted to hit the Gauls quickly, he sent out a force comprised of all his cavalry and light troops on a march to take them by surprise and left all his legions in the camp. Not a blade unit to be seen near the battlefield.

[xeswop]

This issue as been with us since the first edition. I last raised it in Feb 03. David Kuijt gave such a good rebuttal I have put the issue to rest, keeping to the rules as Phil has written them. Just so David does not have to rewrite his comments, I present them here. I was sad to see the SOA tournament is departing from this tried and true format. All those people who talk about the "spirit" of the game should be strongly in favor of David's comments. Those who want to willy nilly switch components are now taking the gamesmanship side of the debate.

________________________________________________
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003, BOB wrote:

> Has anyone thought about allowing players in a Tournament to change army
> composition as they go from round to round. Not to different armies but
> just different elements from those allowed. Once players know what army
> the enemy has, before terrain selection, they pick their specific elements
> they think would best match up with that enemy. Write on a card and reveal
> when setting up. Maybe after terrain selection. Consider that each game
> is a new campaign, the generals would draw on their best army to fight the
> enemy. They would pick the best army for the terrain they would be
> entering.
=================
No they wouldn't.

-- real world Generals would bring all the troops they could muster --
they would never say: "Gee, either I can bring the Dailami company, or I
can bring another company of Ashravan Cavalry" -- if they could bring
either, they would bring both.

-- real world Generals wouldn't know the terrain they're going to be
fighting the battle in when they muster their army -- the army is mustered
months, sometimes years in advance.

-- real world Generals don't always know the ENEMY they're facing when
they muster their army. Alliances could shift and change between muster
time and battle time.


If you want to allow players to switch armies from battle to battle, then
just do that. Why not let them switch years, too, or switch from NKE to
WoTR English from battle to battle. But don't pretend it is historical --
Generals in history took all the troops they could get, they didn't look
at their troops and say "sorry, guys, I can only take 12 companies -- the
rest of you follow along behind, and maybe I'll use you in the next battle
as part of my 12 if it gives me an advantage".

What do you do about armies that have an "all-X" or "all-Y" option like
the Central-Asian City States? Those aren't different troops -- they are
the same troops, and the troop classification can be as one type or the
other based upon different theories of how the army fought. There is
certainly no way in history that the whole mounted wing of the army would
totally retrain itself, abandon its previous way of fighting and learn a
new one, and then reverse itself and go back, every time a new opponent
came up. II/48 Mithradatic army gets the option of 5 Blades or 1 SCh and
4 Pk. These blades represent Mithradates totally retraining his foot and
re-equipping them on the Roman model, based upon bad experiences fighting
Rome. If you allow Mithradates to choose which option to use from battle
to battle, that makes as much sense as allowing a Roman player to switch
between using the Middle Imperial Roman army list and the Late Imperial
Roman army list, because that's what Constantine did -- he retrained his
troops, resulting in the list change from MIR to LIR.

Some times the army list is the way it is because of a real-world time
constraint. For example, the army of Tamerlane had no access to Elephants
before it fought the Battle of Delhi. If you take no Elephants in the
first battle, and then take Elephants in the second, and then take none
again in the third battle, is it really historical to be apparently
turning time forward and backward at your will?

Another example is the French Ordonnance which can use Swiss 4Pk. Those
aren't French troops. Are they following the army on retainer but not
getting involved, and getting paid extra to come out for a particular
battle? It makes no sense.

This topic comes up every once in a while, but I really think it is a
result of improper understanding of what the army lists represent in the
real world.

David Kuijt

[ September 19, 2003, 13:39: Message edited by: xes*** ]

[xeswop]

Another David also had good comments back in Feb 03-----------------------------------
From:* "David & Robin" <gpfarm@s...>
Date:* Fri*Feb*28,*2003* 7:21 pm
Subject:* Re: [DBA] Tournament element selection

It seems a very short step from "Pick one army for the tournament, but you can
freely choose any options or sublists between games for each new opponent" to
"Pick any 12 elements you like for each game" Not even Warhammer tournaments
allow that much lattitude in army selection. The army you build is the one you
use.

An "all options" tournament would greatly benefit from narrowing the scope in
some other way. Combine it with a theme of some sort, geographic, temporal, all
Roman, etc

If you allow free choice of army composition from round to round (or even just
choice of options from one's favorite army list) why not allow Klingons in DBA?
After all DBA is already a highly abstracted game, if we abstract it further
by allowing army composition to shift from round to round in a tournament why
should it matter what miniatures are placed on our elements? The end result
would be a sort of HotT with free choice army composition.

David K's last point about giving an advantage to those with deeper pockets is
also well taken. To buy the most flexible armies will cost significantly more
than the 12 elements of a carefully selected single choice.

I also worry that allowing restructuring of the armies between rounds would
shift too many points in the tournament's outcome to army choice and design
rather than skilled play on the table top. I have more respect for the
champion who does well against all comers with teh same army than I do for one
who wins because his chosen army list has the flexibility to yield the right
Quick Kill combaination fo rthe prinmary troop types of each of his enemies and
never leaves him stuck with the wrong combo.


I do think the idea has some merit and could be interesting, but I would not
want to see it become the default tournament style.

[Stelzone]

I disagree with the last two posts to some degree.

First some nations did tailor their armies to their enemies. Rome, China, Byzantium and to some degree the Mongols all did. Does that mean that they took them all to every battle, no. They sent out the army needed to beat the enemy they were facing.

Most ancient and for that matter Medieval armies fought one or two battles a year. Not four in a night. To compare what we do to ancient nations is not a good idea. Many Generals tried to match their army to the opponents if he were lacking troop types by hiring the right ones or retraining existing ones. So did armies adapt to changing enemies, yes.

Some gernerals were good enough to take any army of soldiers and make it work against any enemy, Alexander is one. Others lost miserably when they didn't change tactics or army structure, Crassus should have used more arab and Armenian troops to help combat the Parthians.

I feel the arguements for or against this style of tournament are pretty equal. But there is not a "Historical" reason for not doing it. There is a strong gamesmanship reason not to. The game is designed to give each their strengths and weaknesses, some armies gain more this way. But dismounting types give you this as well.

I would like to try some tournaments where the list could change against a set of opponents. But provisions would need to be added for this. The lists would have to be written before placement of any units on board. Attacker would have to much of an advantage if he could choose after defender set up. You could limit it to two variations of a list and both in a game would have to know which each were allowed and declare before set up.

There are fair ways these could be run and totally unequal ones.

There are a few historical examples for not doing it, but many more examples for doing it.

Mike S.

PS. Bob, some of the variations in the DBM lists are from the same time period and were against different enemies. ???

[Jonathan Jackson]

I have to agree with the last post. I once saw a tournament where a single army first faced New Kingdom Egyptians, then Early Imperial Roman, and finally Medieval French. Given the two thousand years between battles, I would say that they had time to retrain...

I also agree that the amount of variations allowed in an army list should be limited. Perhaps three army lists to choose from and limited information before choosing which to use. I would say only whether the army is attacking or defending and the name of the enemy or something like that.

On the other hand, in a themed tournament (which I greatly prefer) most of the arguments against being able to change army lists hold more force. I would probably be happier in such a tournament if no changes were allowed...

Like so many things with this game, there is no simple and always correct answer to this question...

Jonathan

[omnisjdi]

How many armies list completely change composition? The Itallian Condatta army has a core composition of the 6 Kns. What changes is the support for the Kns.. Why shouldn't you be able to change part of it? This would simulate leaving garrisons after battle, receiving reinforcements, and/or replacements.

Slainte
Jeff I.

[Ed Dillon]

Another thought to add to this are the simple mechanics of adding this extra level of complexity to the tournaments. We already have time issues in some cases. How many minutes of each round would be alotted to tailoring one's army list and jotting it down? If a player had entered only 8 elements when time was called in the prep phase of a round, would he be compelled to play with only 8 elements, or would he be allowed to take game time to finish up? If a player is facing a tough, heavy foot army, he could steal away precious minutes that his opponent needs to drive his pike or blade elements towards the enemy's baseline. I would much rather spend my time playing than fiddling around, or even worse, waiting while my opponent tries to work out the perfect army list. I think that the good nature of most DBA tourneys is due in part to the quick nature of setting up and taking down. This allows us to concentrate on more important things. In my opinion, this may well rate as a bigger reason to stick to one army configuration per tournament than historical accuracy.

[ September 21, 2003, 07:17: Message edited by: Ed Dillon ]

[omnisjdi]

How about this then. If a player is bringing an army with options how about having them list a couple of sets (2-3armies) before the tourney begins. After each game. The player gets to choose from that list for the next game. This gives the player a bit of flexibility and doesn't take up a lot of time.

Sliante
Jeff

[Ed Dillon]

Two lists would certainly be better than tailoring as you go, but I still like the elegance of playing a single list all of the way through the tourney. I suppose that we all have our preferences. In the end, it is up to the tournament organisers to make the call.

BTW, I hope that Isabel didn't cause too much trouble for the Fanaticus faithful. Hopefully the WADBAG'ers, their families and friends, and their toys, all came through in good order.
Ed

[GAZMAN]

I am in favour of allowing the DBA general to tailor his elements according to the suggested DBAlists. I feel it adds a little extra interes and fun to the game. Taking the comments levied into account, some responses...

-- real world Generals would bring all the troops they could muster --
i.e. the whole list, not just a small general selected 12 element selection.

they would never say: "Gee, either I can bring the Dailami company, or I
can bring another company of Ashravan Cavalry" -- if they could bring
either, they would bring both.

And you can if the whole list is accesible.

-- real world Generals wouldn't know the terrain they're going to be
fighting the battle in when they muster their army --

If the element choice is made when the SOA are suggesting - before any dice rolls - you don't even know if you're defending or attacking, let alone the terrain.

-- real world Generals don't always know the ENEMY they're facing when
they muster their army. Alliances could shift and change between muster
time and battle time.

Again, if the choice is made when the SOA are suggesting you don't know what the composition of the enemy is, unless they are a 12 element army.

I don't think the suggestion is for 'willy nilly' changes to armies, but to better reflect what happened historically. SOme army lists cover huge tracts of time, it is perfectly possible in a open competition that they could face enemies from either end of the time frame, should they be forced to use the same composition?
I am looking forward to the competition and to see how it all pans out - it could be a right nightmare!!
Best regards
GAZMAN

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by omnisjdi:
How about this then. If a player is bringing an army with options how about having them list a couple of sets (2-3armies) before the tourney begins. After each game. The player gets to choose from that list for the next game. This gives the player a bit of flexibility and doesn't take up a lot of time.
But what is the logic behind this idea? Looking at it casually, it seems no more than this: my army has multiple options listed, so I want to use them to my advantage. And if you look at that logic more closely, it falls apart -- WHY does your army have more options? Because of changes across time? Because of changes across geography? Because of the availability of allies or mercenaries; because of the political situation? Because historical research indicates that everyone in the army fought either as auxilia or as warband, but we aren't sure which one? None of these are under the control of the commanding general in history, not really.

So if there is no historical reason supporting this idea, then why do it? Just because you've got the figures?

In tournament-gaming terms, what you are talking about is making some armies more effective (tougher) than other armies. Some armies will be able to switch from an anti-Elephant mode with lots of Auxilia to an anti-Foot mode with lots of warband. Other armies won't. Why give one set of armies an advantage that other armies don't have? (and don't say "but dismounting knights do that already" -- that is not a justification for making things worse).

Most DBA tournaments test ability as a general against unpredictable opponents. What you are talking about will not focus success based upon that criteria alone, but will also enhance success of people who choose multiple-option armies over those who choose few-option armies, and will test ability to fine-tune your army list based upon your options even before the battle begins.

In other words, it sounds like gamesmanship, not generalship.

[omnisjdi]

Its a way to cut down on time for tournements. In earlier posts the objection about the time involved for allowing a player to modify his armies was brought up. I can see your point about allowing a player to modify his list for each individual battle. I'm suggesting that a player with options get to use some of those options during a tournement. If I bring an army with multiple options I would have to provide 2 or 3 lists to the judges at the start of the tournement. I would be stuck with those options during the tournement. I could tailor my army for use against a Cav, Inf, or Combined arms army, but not for any specific army in those subcatagories.
It would give a little more flexibility with out fore knowledge.

Slainte
Jeff

[omnisjdi]

Hi Chris.

Here's an example. Say I use the Italian Condatta
My list would look something like this:
Opt 1: 5x3Kn, 2x2Lh, 2x2Ps, 2x4Pk, 1xArt.
Opt 2: 5x3Kn, 1x2Lh, 2x4Pk, 2x8CB, 1x4CB, 1xArt.
Opt 3: 5xKn, 1x2Lh, 2x4Pk, 1x4Cb, 3x2Ps.

After finding out who my openent is I could choose one of those three armies only. I wouldn't be able to go back and switch out any stands to tailor the army to any given oppenent.

Slainte
Jeff I.

[DBXinMass]

How about this...

Generic Italian:
Opt 1: 2xCv, 10xAx, 1xPs (Italian Hill Tribes)
Opt 2: 1xCv, 1xLH, 8xBd, 2xPs (Marian Roman)
Opt 3: 5xKn, 1xLH, 2xCb, 2xSp, 1xAx, 1xPs (Italian Condatta)

Makes about as much sense as the most of the stuff in this thread...

Rich

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by omnisjdi:
If I bring an army with multiple options I would have to provide 2 or 3 lists to the judges at the start of the tournement. I would be stuck with those options during the tournement.OK, but that doesn't answer my two basic questions: what is the historical logic behind this, and why give an advantage to more varied lists (Central Asian City-States, anyone? Ghaznavids?) over lists without variations (Polybian Romans, for example)?

To the casual glance, this seems like a blind copy of the way some people run DBM tournaments. I'm not sure why some DBM tournaments are run that way, but I certainly don't see any compelling need to copy it. Especially since the most restrictive DBM lists still allow for a lot of variation compared to the more restrictive DBA lists. In DBM many armies can go from mounted-heavy to foot-heavy; that power is quite rare in DBA lists.

[RonG]

If you are looking for change, well, check the lists again. There are a few armies with dismounting mounted units available. Free Company, Med. French, Anglo Norman to name a few. There are even dismounting chariots in there. Choose one of those.When in competition, the rule is , and I believe a good one, once the army hits the table, thats the one throughout the tournament. :D My 2 cents.

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
[QB] [QUOTE] I'm not sure why some DBM tournaments are run that way, but I certainly don't see any compelling need to copy it. [qb]Some DBM tournaments allow two lists, some allow one. The ones that allow two lists almost always insist upon a couple of things:

1) the lists must be drawn from the same year
2) if troops types are ALL allowed to be say Aux or Wb (depending on historical interpretation), this can't change between lists.

These two restrictions would rule out a large number of the DBA options. The "problem" with DBA is that one can't tell just by looking at the lists if options would truly *be* options in the same army (historically speaking).

Plus, it's much more interesting to play with an army that has weaknesses. What's the fun in being able to alter your army each game to get the most favorable match-ups?

Mark

[ September 23, 2003, 20:36: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Pozanias:

Plus, it's much more interesting to play with an army that has weaknesses. What's the fun in being able to alter your army each game to get the most favorable match-ups?
Yes, exactly. Well said. And why should some army lists gain that power, and other army lists not?

[omnisjdi]

Hi.

Lets take a different angle on this (remember I haven't played in a DBA tournement yet). Lets look a Julius Caesar. He fought two primary oppenents, then prepared for a third (Gallic, Marian Roman, and Parthian). The armies he used against the Gauls and in the Civil Wars were fairly similar (I know I'm oversimplifing, but its only an example). He remembered what happened to Crassus, and changed his army accordingly.
If this were a DBA tournement he couldn't do this.

How much time would pass between each battle in a DBA tournement. If these battles are all part of the same campaign, then a army should not be able to change composition after each battle. If these battles are parts of different campaigns then maybe a army should get to change a little bit after each battle.

Slainte
Jeff I

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by omnisjdi:
He remembered what happened to Crassus, and changed his army accordingly.Can you be more specific? What new troops did he invent or train or hire?

Also, you have an imbedded assumption that goes something like this: the DBA army lists represent a reasonable approximation of the army-change variety available to individual generals when deciding upon what troops to bring against a certain opponent.

That assumption is simply incorrect -- as several people have pointed out during the discussion, army-change variety within a list may be for other reasons entirely (different regions, different decades, different historical interpretations of how the army fought), and your logic supporting army change (if accepted) also applies to armies that have little or no variety in the DBA army lists (Polybian Romans, for example).

I suggest that you abandon the idea of linking DBA army list variety to choices allowed to tournament generals. It isn't historical and it isn't fair. If you want to run tournaments and allow some sort of "fine-tuning" to particular opponents, you could try and find some fair way to do that -- for example, allow everyone to have a 13-element list (with the extra element being any one of their allowed elements) and then they choose 12 of those elements to fight any given opponent. That system has several problems also (would you allow "rare" elements to be the "reserve"? plus issues of making the army lists less historical) but at least it is more fair than just blindly using the army lists as an indicator of what tournament variety is allowed.

[David Crowell]

I still see alowing tournament variation in army lists as sliding down the slippery slope of simply allowing the choice of any 12 elements for your army, and potentially even changing them every round.

In an open tournament the differnces in levels of element choice become very significant. Many armies have no choices at all. The top end are Medieval French with choice from 29 elements available for all options. Anyone care to guess which 12 of those 29 options I will be fielding? Now who wants to let me pick them after I know which army list you are using? Think about it, especially if you are using one of the "fixed" army lists.

[Stelzone]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
It isn't historical and it isn't fair. [/QB]D,

I'll disagree strongly with the first part of the statment and agree somewhat with the second part. With at least three lists available there are multiple types of armies fielded within a small time period. The Han Chinese (and other Chinese dynasties ) field a different type army on the fronier to the west than those to the south, and a third type within to combat rebelions. The Romans during the late republic and EIR period relied on allies and hired troops to change the army to meet specific enemies. This is seen again in the LIR and early Byzantine period. The training of Legion type troops by the Seleucids and others is an indication of change to meet an opponent. So there is a historical basis for "tailoring" armies, and I am sure there are other examples within the lists. If a general had the chance to use specific troops to match his enemy he did so. After the the first round in the Persian Wars, the Persians started hiring Greeks to fight for them. Some examples are seperated by a long period of time but many others are not. This is another case of historical arguement that the evidence can be used to support both sides.

As to use of multiple lists in tournaments, I feel that is up to the person putting on the tournament. If someone would like to put together a multiple list tournament then I would probably try it. In the long run it would be no more unfair than to have your Early Libyans thrown up against the Burgundians in a tournament. You have a chance but a very unequal one. The top players can take any army and win; the beginners any and lose; if the dice are equal. smile.gif But the general feeling in my area is that dismaounting armies have a great advantage over ones that can't, and really how different are the dismounters from a list change that is from the same time period.

I like the standard tournament format, love themed events even more. A multiple list tourney would add another flavor to the game so to speak.

And from the historical stand point absolute statements like some made on this thread are hard to do in the broad span of history covered by the game. The abstract nature of the game and the long period of time covered means you can use it to prove or disprove pretty much what you want.

Mike S.

[xeswop]

If there is to be games-man-ship armies used in a tournament, then why not just let a player pick any 12 elements he wants for each game. What is an army in DBA except a 12 element representation of a collection of troop types that existed at a single point in time at a specific geographical place. The dates and sometimes places noted in the lists make the major delineations of time and place. Often, as has been mentioned, variations with in a list represent finer breakdowns of differences derived from the DBM lists for times and places.

A tournament represents to some degree a campaign. The army from one time and place fights in sequence other such armies. It is not a true representation of a campaign because losses are made up after each game. Perhaps, they should not be. Each side must play the next game with whatever losses are incurred. The buttocks of death is not so useful then, as you lose for all games your sacrificial element.

There are all sorts of varieties of games people can play derived (emphasis on DERIVED) from the rules. I am sure they can be as much fun as the standard version. I am very sure Phil will not change the requirement for a fixed set of 12 elements as the standard. Indeed, he left that out of a near final version of 2.0. I asked if he meant to do so and he said NO, and it was back in the next version.

I am convinced by many of the arguements that a single fixed army list for all games in a tournament is the appropriate way to do large public events. Not mentioned much is the cost factor too. I do not want to disadvantage a person who can afford but a single 12 element army.

Allowing multiple troop type options does lead to some organizational problems for an event. When does one make the element selection for the game, for example. According to the rules, the invader need show his army only when he is deploying. Thus he could wait to see his opponent and then choose what to use. To say that this rule can be changed to allow the other rule change is possible, but now you are changing 2 rules. Where to stop?
Better to play the game as written unless there is some major problem that impacts an event in a procedural way, say with time limits.

[GAZMAN]

Bob
Where does it stipulate in the rule book that a DBA player must use the same 12 elements during a tournament. This is not meant a snide aside, just a curious question.
It is good to see some debate on this subject - it is obvious some people are fixed in their views though. I am open minded on the subject although I am tempted to favour the selector approach at this point in time. I am looking forward to playing the 'selector' system in Farnborough in October to see how it works.
The view that a 12 element army list is fixed in one point in time and location seems to favour the selector approach because of the time line of enemies usually found in a DBA tourney.
I am totally in agreement with those who want fixed armies if the tourney is themed and those armies fight the armies they were historically likely to fight. But, I can see no sense in using any sort of historical argument for limiting a Numidian army in its choice of options if it is fighting a Wars of the Roses English army.
As for the cost implications - is there anyone who seriously believes that there are wargamers who regularly enter competitions that can only afford to field twelve elements?
The point that selecting elements can add organisation headaches to a tourney is well taken - Organisers should be thanked for the task and what ever rules, options or exclusions they wish to incorporate should be adhered to.

GAZMAN

[Jimmy Holloway]

I havn't been playing for long, but as a student, being poor all the time means its ofen very hard to put armies together. I don't see why the Armys should be allowed to be changed mid-tournament, whoever wins the tournament should be a good player, not one who has an army tailored to fight each opponent he plays. Anyways, I think the rule is a good one,

Jimmy

[nick hux]

Another argument against allowing variation is the rather arbitrary nature of some of the army definitions. If Rome had been less dominant I don't think there would have been separate lists for Early, Mid and Late Imperial on the basis of the changes in make up involved. So why not allow changes from 1 of the lists to another?

If you want to do as well as possible in a competition you will choose an army that will cope with a mix of opponents. This will involve compromises. Choosing from options within a list should work in the same way (IMHO ;) ).

Nick

[omnisjdi]

Hi David.

Here's a clairification of my Caesar example.
The Marian army list allows 1x3Cv or 1x4Bd (Gen), 1x3Cv or 2LH, 8x4Bd,, 1x3/4Ax or 2Ps, 1x2ps.
Given this list Caesar's army may have looked like this when he invaded Gaul: 9x4Bd (Gen), 1x3Cv,1x4Ax, and 1x2Ps. The army would have been basically the same during the Civil Wars. When he got ready to invade Parthia he shifted the army to 2xCv [or 1x3Cv(gen) and 1x2LH], 8x4Bd, 2x2Ps. That list is in game terms only. He made that shift knowing what happened to Crassus.

What Chris and a few others have asked in this debate is why not allow the same for a player in a tournement. I agree with Chris and Bob that it would be interesting to have a little more flexibility, not completly changing armies. If I were to take the Romans to a tourney I would use 2x3Cv, 8x4Bd, 2x2ps.

Slainte
Jeff I.

[Stelzone]

Originally posted by xes***:
I Where to stop?
Better to play the game as written unless there is some major problem that impacts an event in a procedural way, say with time limits. Bob,

Where are the rules for tournaments? The scoring for tournaments? Most that I have seen are what was developed at the eastern cons, and by you of course. As you have said before; tournaments are the province of the director. In small events the rules we use at H'con don't always fit. DBA is becomng one of the big draws at cons here in the HMGS-GL area, do we or should we allow experimenal tournaments, YES. It took Chess centuries to turn into the competitive game it is, we are twelve years old and still working on both the rules and format for competition. Nothing is worthless or not worth trying at least once.

Yes, it is easier to run a single list event. Yes, it would be a major headache to run a multi-list event. BUT; Yes, it is worth trying if someone wants to.

And Bob this is not the same as : bring 144 elements and pick the twelve you want to use. The easiest is to say two variations from the same list or sub-list. Basically what it comes down to is one anti-foot list and one anti-mounted list. Combined arms lists would still have some advantage, in the hands of better players.

Mike

And folks we should encourage open thinking here and never try to crush ideas that we personally don't like. I have yet to play in a tournament whose format I didn't both enjoy and learn from. When I run a tournament I ask for input as to what I can do better, doesn't mean I have to use it if I don't agree, but they don't have to play if they didn't enjoy it either. The third "Emperor of Great Lakes" should be better than the first two, and the fourth better yet. Straight open formats are fun and challenging, but are also very frustrating for beginners. Variations of the open or other types of tournaments allows us to teach as well as play competitivly, and should be encouraged.

IMHO!! ;)

[ September 24, 2003, 15:21: Message edited by: Stelzone ]

[xeswop]

Originally posted by GAZMAN:
Bob
Where does it stipulate in the rule book that a DBA player must use the same 12 elements during a tournament. This is not meant a snide aside, just a curious question.
GAZMANA good question considering the discussion. See page 20, next to last paragraph.
"A single slash between numbers means that either number of figures per element can be used. The word "or" between type codes means either kind of element can be used, but that chosen must be used for the whole of a one-off game or all games of a competition or campaign."

No one seems to be arguing to change elements during a game. " I picked a Psiloi but I really would now like to have an Artillery element in bound 5"

[xeswop]

Originally posted by Stelzone:
Where are the rules for tournaments? The scoring for tournaments? Most that I have seen are what was developed at the eastern cons, and by you of course. As you have said before; tournaments are the province of the director. In small events the rules we use at H'con don't always fit. DBA is becoming one of the big draws at cons here in the HMGS-GL area, do we or should we allow experimental tournaments,
IMHO!! ;) Lots of good thoughts from Mike. See my comment below for where the rule for the same 12 elements comes from.

It seems to me that you are getting some pretty big events in the GL area. We should cooperate to create rules that fit both, all, venues. My concern is only that all players who show up to an event are all operating on the same set of assumptions. Changing army composition rules, board size, numbers of elements, terrain types etc, from event to event does not give players much predictability. To some extend the game permits flexibility. In a duplicate or fixed battlefield event, the changes are the same for everyone and thus the changes should not matter. If a player shows up for an event with just his preferred 12 elements and is faced with players who are changing from game to game, I think he will harbor bad feelings. It's like going to a softball tournament with just 12 players thinking there are no subs allowed and the other teams have 18 players and sub freely.

Is DBA to become a game that people take seriously or one that is played with variation at each event so no serious practice is possible. Will be be like "Roller Ball" (the good one with James Caan) where the rules are always changing.

On the one hand I like to see odd ball variations and innovations. I would love to see a complete open where a player can use any 12 elements he wants. No Numidians vs War of the Roses. It's Stelzonians vs the Army of Beattiea. Is this the true test of the DBA player, making the killer army and playing with it? I would like to see an event were casualties are carried over from game to game. How about a points system to pick an army from the DBM lists. I think an event allowing the Defender to pick from the full army list but restrict the Invader to a the same game to game army would be fun. The player has a standard 12 element army that must be used when playing as Invader but any of the allowed types could be deployed by the Defender, representing a larger pool to draw on at home.

On the other hand, I'd like to be sure there is some consistency to allow those who want to be proficient to play the same game from convention to convention. Wouldn't it be good for the game if every con that had more than one event had a "standard" play by the rules as written event. I think it is too bad the UK Nationals cannot be that standard event.

Innovation and experimentation should not be stifled. Some events can foster a different approach but there should be as many standard events as possible.

The standards for a tournament are in the rule book. Scoring has been modified because pure won-lost records are not sufficient for a 3-4 round event. If we went to 5-6 or more games, then ties can be broken and elimination rounds can be held. I would love to have an event where everyone played everyone else and the ties were settled with a playoff. Maybe this is how we should do the National Championship DBA to be held in Nov 04 in Columbus. 10 players, 9 rounds. 9 hours.

[David Crowell]

Does anyone know of a wargames tournament for any game other than DBA that allows changing the composition of the army fielded between games in the same tournament?

I guess that is a large part of what seems strange to me, the very concept of being allowed to change what I put on the field from game to game. Every tournament I've seen has required the use of a fixed army composition, often submitted to the judges in advance so it can be checked for legality or scored for "theme" points.

It feels a bit like having a chess match but allowing the players to decide which 16 pieces they would like their set to have before each game of the match.

An "all options, change the ones you use freely between games" DBA tournament would be interesting, but I think the select a single army list and set of options and stick with it for the duration, same 12 elements for all games is a better tournament model.

I agree with Bob that if multiple events are available then freestyle events are great. But if only one event is being run there should be a "standard". I would like to know that if I go out the Great Lakes, or across to the UK they will play the same game I do.

[ September 24, 2003, 21:00: Message edited by: David Crowell ]

[omnisjdi]

Thanks for clarifing what I've been trying to say Mike.
The veteran players should consider this. Would they prefer to see somebody bring another Selucid, or Roman army to a Tournement; or would they prefer to see something new?
I believe that on "options tournement" would field a lot of new armies because players could tailor them to inf, cav, or combined arms oppenents. If I played in a fixed ancients tournement I'd either take a Selucid army or a Marian Roman army. If I had the ability use some of the options between games I'd probably leave the Selucids and Romans home.
I want to point out that I'm not advocating completly changeing armies during a tournement(although that would make for an interesting tournement as well). Just looking for a little more flexibilty within a given army.
I also think that a dyo army tournement would also be interesting as well.
I do agree that there should be strict limitations, and consistancy of rules for National and International events (if just for consistancy), but why not experiment at the local level a bit?

Slainte
Jeff I.

[GAZMAN]

I love the idea of the any 12 element competition - I know it's taking DBA to ahistoric extremes, but it would be a mighty interesting competition to play in or read about.
What composition would the grand masters use? What would win?? 12 blades, 12 knights or combined arms and how would you do the Agg thing??
May be just have two matches per army match up; X sets terrain in game 1 and Y in game 2.
As an experiment I think it would be an afternoon well spent.
GAZMAN

[GAZMAN]

I have tried to view this thread with an open mind, although I was pretty in favour of the willy nilly approach to start.
I find the organisers arguments compelling, but the historical ones don't seem to hold water.
What's to stop someone choosing a 12 element mix from a list, for the whole competition, that is not historic?
I also wondered if people have the full all options army when they say they have an army - or just the 12 core, choice elements??
GAZMAN

[omnisjdi]

Hi Gazman.

I've sensed quite a bit of confusion over the options bit. Would you like another example to help clarify the situation?

Slainte
Jeff I.

[<Rob Brennan>]

Originally posted by xes***:
The standards for a tournament are in the rule book. Scoring has been modified because pure won-lost records are not sufficient for a 3-4 round event. As a technical aside, WDL scoring is perfectly fine for a 3-4 round event as long as you only have 8-16 players. The problems wargamers encounter are due to trying to sort more players than the number of rounds is capable of handling. The ideal solution in this case is to split the competition into multiple pools/themes of 8-16 players each.

Of course a tie-break may still be needed occasionally.

rgds
rob

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by omnisjdi:
Hi David.

Here's a clairification of my Caesar example.
The Marian army list allows 1x3Cv or 1x4Bd (Gen), 1x3Cv or 2LH, 8x4Bd,, 1x3/4Ax or 2Ps, 1x2ps.
Given this list Caesar's army may have looked like this when he invaded Gaul: 9x4Bd (Gen), 1x3Cv,1x4Ax, and 1x2Ps. The army would have been basically the same during the Civil Wars. When he got ready to invade Parthia he shifted the army to 2xCv [or 1x3Cv(gen) and 1x2LH], 8x4Bd, 2x2Ps. That list is in game terms only. He made that shift knowing what happened to Crassus.When I asked you to be more specific, what I mean was this: "you seem to be claiming historical basis for army shift based upon Caesar -- please cite your sources for that claim."

For example, your army-list-variation above claims (in essence) that Caesar hired or trained a bunch of psiloi when preparing for Parthia, doubling the numbers he had available, at the same time as deliberately releasing the auxilia that had served him well throughout his Gallic campaigns and civil wars, plus mustering more cavalry and/or hiring a bunch of Numidian light horse, and so on.

If you meant "it's historical because he could have done that" then I misunderstood your original statement; I thought you were saying "it's historical because he DID do that." (a claim of fact, not of theoretical possibility). If you are claiming that Caesar actually did take actions that could reasonably interpreted in DBA as you describe, please cite your sources for those claims.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Stelzone:

And folks we should encourage open thinking here and never try to crush ideas that we personally don't like.Very true.

But "encouraging open thinking" doesn't mean "be silent when someone brings up a new idea", either. New ideas are always good things to have -- they trigger discussion and thought, if nothing else. But that doesn't mean new ideas are always good ideas, or that discussion that doesn't support new ideas is a bad thing ("crushing ideas we don't like"). Open discussion should allow consideration of ideas based upon their own merits, not preconceptions. But open discussion should also allow pointing out problems with new ideas -- consider each idea based upon its merits, and be honest when considering its demerits as well.

[Stelzone]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
Very true.

But "encouraging open thinking" doesn't mean "be silent when someone brings up a new idea", either. New ideas are always good things to have -- they trigger discussion and thought, if nothing else. But that doesn't mean new ideas are always good ideas, or that discussion that doesn't support new ideas is a bad thing ("crushing ideas we don't like"). Open discussion should allow consideration of ideas based upon their own merits, not preconceptions. But open discussion should also allow pointing out problems with new ideas -- consider each idea based upon its merits, and be honest when considering its demerits as well. [/QB]D.

It is not any specific person here that I was getting on. Some (and I do include you. me , Bob and some others) tend to get on a soapbox about our pet ideas or seeming attacks against them.

I do agree that the open tournaments at this point should be fairly well set in their ways. And I think are. We do need a universally accepted scoring system for tournaments with more than 16 players. To many variations at this point. And we really need a BBDBA system for this.

But I feel that some evidence on both sides is needed here, even though the evidence for single lists is much easier to come by, 1066 being the first to come to mind. But I believe in China in 85-86 BC there is evidence for three very different Chinese armies being used, one internally, one to the south and another against nomads to the west. And the big point I was making is there is no clear historical evidence either way, so both are valid in their own ways.

And David don't try and tell me that you aren't as good as I am at jumpng on that soapbox and preaching the word according to David , or I am according to Mike. I have reread some of our threads and we are good at it, occasionally. :D But I do hope no toes are sore at this point. smile.gif

Mike

[ September 25, 2003, 15:55: Message edited by: Stelzone ]

[omnisjdi]

Hi David.

My example for Caesar has come from modern analysis of the period. Though if I remember right Plutarch and Seutonius talk about Caesar recruiting what he thought were sufficient cav. and light troops for an invasion of Parthia.

Slainte
Jeff I.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by omnisjdi:

My example for Caesar has come from modern analysis of the period.Whose modern analysis? I'm sorry to pick at you, here, but I'm an academic -- unsubstantiated statements of authority are worthless in an academic environment. ("Proof by Inaccessible Authority" is the basis of much humour in the academic world). Additionally, as I'm sure you're aware, there are lots of people writing analysis -- some very insightful, and some idiots. I'd like to be able to read it and judge myself. Further, "modern" analysis is only good for a couple of decades in some fields of history and archaeology -- for example, Oman and Delbru"ck count as "modern" in some people's eyes, but their work is badly dated and their approaches and conclusions (even though seminal, and cutting-edge at the time) are now superseded by more recent scholarship.

Can you be more specific on where in Plutarch or Suetonius you might have seen a reference?

[John Meunier]

What does a tournament model? (For the sake of argument assume it models something.)

Is it one general fighting a succession of battles in close temporal proximity?

Or, is it the armies of one "nation" (Rome, China) at a given period fighting a succession of foes?

I think each of these models suggests different takes on the ability to change troop mix between battles.

I personally am a big fan of the 1-list tournament. I think 2-list tournaments create all kinds of silliness in DBM/Warrior, etc. Even more than that, I support local experiments and wacky ideas.

But if we are going to argue from history, perhaps we have a shared model to start from.

John

[omnisjdi]

Hi David.

No problem. If I remember right (its been quite a while since reading them) Delbruck and Warry discuss this issue. John Warry has a discuourse on the Crassus' problems in his invasion of of Parthia, and Caesar's solutions when he prepared to invade Parthia. I believe Plutarch and Seutonis also talk about Caesar gathering cav. and lt. troops in "sufficient numbers" for the invasion.

Slainte
Jeff I.

[omnisjdi]

Hi.

John I agree it would help to define the issue we're debating. Could part of the problem be that we are debating from different possitions?

I can agree with only one list if a tournement is simulating a single campaign.

Slainte
Jeff I.

[xeswop]

Crushing opinions and setting standards

ON THE SOAPBOX
I admit to often standing on a soapbox to present my opinions on something but that is not "crushing" someone else's opinion, is it? Is to argue strongly for something, to "crush" someone else? I try very hard to avoid personal comments.

I will admit that I will always attempt to CRUSH any one who makes serious disparaging personal attacks on Phil. This group is for discussing the rules, not the man.

I welcome and encourage anyone who will make serious critiques of the rules even though I may argue against them. No one ever need to apologize to me for disagreeing or for being harsh, I never take any comments on my hobby personally.
OFF THE SOAPBOX

My personal goal regarding the rules is to come up with one set of universally agreed to understandings for all the rules. From there we can develop house rules and odd stuff and whatever turns us on. But we can always go back to the standard when we cannot agree how to play something.

If we all agree that the "standard" rule for tournaments is the one list as presented on page 20, then all the discussion is just about how we can make variants from that. We are not arguing over the standard. A tournament organizer need not apply the standard if the variant is well published and all players know about it.

What I worry about is a player taking time to attend a convention to play in a DBA tournament that was not always advertised as non-standard and finds things he did not expect. Perhaps he wants to use a BUA but is told, "oh, we don't use BUA's here, everybody knows that." He should be allowed to use a BUA.

Likewise, if players attend a tournament that has no variants listed but discover that the local players always use multiple army lists, then the visitors should be able to require a single list in games they play.

So in conclusion, I am not against multiple lists, I am only for a standard that can have variations published in advance.

Are there people who do not agree that the standard is one list as presented on page 20? If so, what is the standard? Let's discuss that.

If there is agreement to that then we can get on with suggestions for variants but then perhaps we need not have strong "proof" for our idea because we are not arguing against the standard, just for a pet idea.

[omnisjdi]

Bob.

No Sweat :D . If I thought things were getting too ugly I'd just stop posting. I also realised very early that I would be stepping on very entrenched ideas. Besides the stuff here is tame compared to what I have to put up with here in Austin for not being a Longhorn fan. I recently had someone steal a backpack that had 3 Diodorus Loeb editions, a copy of the DBA rules, and John Warry's "Warfare in the Classical World" in it because of some smack talk concerning the Longhorns :mad: . I wish I had that copy of Warry with me. It would sure help in this debate :rolleyes: .

I believe that a player has as much responsibility to find out as much as they can about a tournement, as a tournement orginizer does for posting it.

I guess we have been talking about tournement variations more than standard tournements with out being clear about it :eek: .

David I believe the Plutarch reference would be in the life of Caesar. I'm not sure where the refrence in Seutonius would be :confused: . The real problem with this isssue is that Caesar got assasinated before he could carry out his invasion :eek: . I believe the army would have been looked like the one that Marc Antony with him to Parthia.

Slainte
Jeff I.

[Redwilde]

A good historical example of an army modifying its composition at the will of the commander, although not at all possible by DBA army lists, are the Saxons (Anglo-Danish). Godwinson chose to rush from Stamford to meet William the Bastard rather than take the time to call up the Greater Fyrd.

Historically, this should result in an army mix with a greater proportion of blades (Carls) to spears (fyrd). This flexibility is not at all available in the DBA list. In DBM, this would also be reflected by a greater proportion of Sp(O) (Select Fyrd) than Sp(I) (Greater Fyrd). In the course of a fairly short period of time, the Saxon commander historically had a variety of troops to call on. However, he chose maximum speed of deployment rather than delaying even a week or two to call up more troops.

Philosophically from a design standpoint, I'd rather see more troop options in most DBA armies. DBM tourneys frequently allow players to bring two lists for their army. If this was adopted for DBA, it would even out the advantage of dismounting armies. (A historically dubious advantage anyway since Phil's mechanism isn't the best historical recreation of many of these armies anyway).

[DBAse]

One corrolory for changing armies duringa tournament is the game, Magic the Gathering (MTG).

Admittedly MTG is a non-historical card game it allows players a "side board" with which to change the composistion of their "deck" (re: army) between games.

This seems to promote more balanced "decks" (re: armies), that are not extremely vulnerable to a simple but rarely met strategy.

The problem applying this to DBA is that in DBA there is a strong correlation with army strength and army list flexibility e.g. medieval French, so it does not have the same effect of helping the weak and increasing army variety.

It may well hve the reverse effect.

DBAse

[Redwald]

Didn't Harold also get his Huscarls to leave off their armour and use spears to fight the welsh on even terms (would this make them Ax?).

[Wanax]

Originally posted by Xanthippus:
If you are looking for change, well, check the lists again. There are a few armies with dismounting mounted units available. Free Company, Med. French, Anglo Norman to name a few. There are even dismounting chariots in there. Choose one of those.When in competition, the rule is , and I believe a good one, once the army hits the table, thats the one throughout the tournament. :D My 2 cents. My current tournament army is later Achian with dismounting chariots. I was at first reluctant to ahear to the one list concept, but I am firmly in favor since I have this army ;)

Wanax