Winning with Mongols? LH nightmare.

[VingThorr]

I'm a 14 and 15c western european history buff! :D
My DBA nemesis however is a central asian history buff.
What this means for our DBA battles is that my Knights, Spearmen, Blades, Bows, and artillery stomp his LH-heavy Mongols into the dust time and time again. Even playing with the 30" board isn't helping. Is there any good advice from players who like to play, and often win with LH-heavy armies? How do you account for the fact that an army with such exceptional historical success, performs so terribly in DBA?

Obviously for starters, we should pit the Mongols against historical opponents.
But does anyone have any other advice?

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Well...another factor to consider might be force ratios. I think the Mongols might have had the numbers advantage in many of their battles....

You might need to look at playing BBDBA or Giant DBA per the rules and then adjusting your orders of battle to get the proper force ratios.

Another option....but not an easier one.....is to look at DBMM. It allows for stratagems by the general that could emulate historical tactics better than DBA ever will allow (such as feigned flight).

Robert

[John Meunier]

Bows and Arty are going to make life very hard for any LH army.

Yes, historical opponents will help.

Playing on a board with little or no terrain will help, too. (Some advocate the central bad going strategy instead.)

He needs to use his zippy LH multi-moves to get your slow troops wrong-footed. He wants you spending pips where he is not so he can spend pips getting good match ups against whatever you have that he can kill - including your camp and anything he can overlap.

The Sp, Kn, Bw, Arty all die if they lose to LH.

[Mike Porter]

In DBA, one of the other things you can do is use multiple Lh to team up on superior pieces. You need to hit a flank. You have the movement to engage to the front and on a flank, turning a beaten result to destroyed. Don't be too scared about overlaps, since Lh. usually flee. Like John said, lots of things die when beaten by Lh or mounted.

As John said, go for key matchups. I used Mongols vs Later Polish once and sent my Lh straight at my opponent's general (Kn). The game ended on the first round of combat.

That being said, Lh armies are tough to use in DBA for the reasons mentioned.

[Polynikes]

The Mongols almost always fought with inferior numbers and almost always chose the ground on which they fought. The latter because of their superior scouting ability. It was believed that they had superior numbers because they had an almost total cavalry army and were always on the move. They also used deceptions such as mounting mannequins on spare ponies to artificially inflate their manpower.
They used signal flags and whistling arrows, along with messengers, to communicate with various commands. These systems were far better than their opponents so they were more in command and control of the battle.
Since LH have no ranged bow fire in DBA, IMHO the best way to simulate the majority of Mongol battles is to switch to BBDBA, let the Mongols choose the map, and give them a greater number of generals.
It doesn't seem fair I know and I would not want to face them in the hands of a skilled commander. But the Mongols weren't interested in fairness, just the rule of one Kha-Khan under The Eternal Blue Sky

Jim

[Stephen Webb]

Use a bigger board with very little terrain.

Use the multi move ability to split the opponents army by threatening both flanks and then combine against the weaker one.

Always try to hit the end element with at least three LH. Try to make it turn to face and put one LH so it ends on the attacked elements flank.

Or always try to attack elements that LH quick kill and can't be killed by.

Avoid the bow...

[VingThorr]

I hate to admit it, but I think we've been forgetting about the fact that LH can multi-move!

I also really like the idea of attacking the elements on the extreme left and right flanks, turning them to face, and then triple teaming them!

Using sparse terrain, of course, depends on the generosity of the defender! With an aggression 4, I don't think our poor Mongols have gotten to set up the poor battlefield but once. :(

I'm afraid we don't have enough miniatures to try the Mongols in a BBDBA fight, but we could add +1 pip to the Mongols each turn as well. Doesn't DBM work like that? classify commanders and allow brilliant generals to add +1? I suppose you could incorporate that into DBA, but I think your victory wouldn't feel as grand if you won.

Thanks for all the advice though, I'm eagerly awaiting our next war!

[Rock]

I agree with many of the comments. Mongols should select terrain, and I've seen a variant on Fanaticus that enables Mongols to re-position terrain based on a quantifiable difference in the collective speed of the armies. Also, the CT Gaming Club has used a variant which permits LH to fire bow (at 2/4) when within 100 paces of the enemy if the LH has not made a multiple move that turn. This can totally reverse the inherent anti-Mongol bias. Otherwise, maneuver & outflank, divide & conquer.

[Mike Porter]

You could also ditch the Lh QK on Sp & Pk and give them a +3/+3 combat factor and see how that plays out.

[The Last Conformist]

You could also ditch the Lh QK on Sp & Pk and give them a +3/+3 combat factor and see how that plays out.
That would make the LH commoners flat out better than the Cv nobles.

[Zekestrom]

Mongols should select terrain, and I've seen a variant on Fanaticus that enables Mongols to re-position terrain based on a quantifiable difference in the collective speed of the armies.
I've toyed with trying out a "Scouting Bonus" on the terrain roll. (I think the idea came up here some time back, but I haven't heard it for some time.)

Take the total number of LH and Ps in an army, divide by 4, round up. The General has the option of subtracting that number from his Aggression factor before the terrain roll.

This would represent the greater intelligence that fast troops and deployed skirmishers, which should afford them a greater ability to choose the terrain even when aggressive.

You could vary it several ways ... divide by 3 and round down, if you want to separate out those armies with only 1-2 Psiloi. Or you could treat the rolls as normal, allowing the generals to subtract after seeing the initial roll - if this changes the attacker to the defender, then the new defender sets up as normal but must use the terrain type of the opponent.

Just a suggestion. Might be worth trying in a series of historical or scenario-based games.

[Mike Porter]

That would make the LH commoners flat out better than the Cv nobles.

hmm...forgot about the Cv.

[Xavi]

The Mongols almost always fought with inferior numbers and almost always chose the ground on which they fought. The latter because of their superior scouting ability.

And this kind of statements (to which I wholeheartedly agree) si what has made me believe that thwe agression system in DBA is wretched and that should be reviewed by more than half the armies. It is calculated in terms of STRA>TEGIC agressiveness, while DBA is a TACTICAL game. Mixing the 2 makes for a poor agressivity system IMO.

But I am ranting now.

With LH armies, try columns of 3 LH in each flank and try to turn 1 of them with a rush. Even if it does not succeed, the enemy is likely to look aprehensively at those LH columns, and try to reacto to them, opening options for your forces either in the flank or centre to rush badly placed elements. Or that is the theiory at least ;) Remember to roll high PIPs with this army!! :)

Cheers,

Xavi

[David Kuijt]

And this kind of statements (to which I wholeheartedly agree) si what has made me believe that thwe agression system in DBA is wretched and that should be reviewed by more than half the armies. It is calculated in terms of STRA>TEGIC agressiveness, while DBA is a TACTICAL game. Mixing the 2 makes for a poor agressivity system IMO.

But I am ranting now.


The underlying problem is really pretty simple. The current system conflates two issues: where the battle is fought (strategic topography) and who decides the tactical battlefield layout. Those two issues are historically NOT linked.

Examples:

The Mongols almost always fought their battles on enemy topography (i.e., they invaded a lot, and were rarely invaded on their home turf of Steppe). But the Mongols often out-scouted their opponents and could usually force the enemy to battle on a battlefield of their own choosing (i.e., they got to choose terrain even when they were in Europe, Persia, China, or even Burma).
The HYW English fought most of their battles in the HYW in France. (Some few were fought in English possessions in France, which would count as English; I'm ignoring battles fought against the Scots or Spanish or others). So the home topography of most of their battles should in fact be whatever the French had. But nearly every single battle pitting the French against English during the 120 years or so of the HYW involves the English deciding terrain. Crecy, Poitier, Agincourt, and most of the less famous ones.
Hannibal fought every battle for a decade in Italy, and rarely lost the terrain roll.There are other examples of the strategic invader being the tactical defender, but the three above suffice.

Now much of the time, the strategic invader didn't get control of the terrain. Alexander the Great was no fool, but he didn't pick terrain in a single one of his great victories, and he was the invader every time.

For some battles it is unclear who should count as the strategic invader anyway. For Manzikert, sure it was on Byzantine territory -- but the Byzantine army had marched much farther to reach that battlefield than Alp Arslan did, and the Byzantines of that period had a policy of entrapment -- let the enemy come loot, and then catch them leaving with their loot and attack them. As such, the Byzantines were in a stern chase, which means they probably fought on ground of Alp Arslan's choosing.

Solution? Without introducing a second roll, there is no good solution. If you make the Mongols Aggression 0, their battles against Burmese, Korean, Chinese, Teutonic Order, Polish, Khwarizmian will all be fought on Steppe, which is incorrect.

Easiest thing is to introduce two factors:
Aggression (who is Invader) as now, and Scouting (or call it Battlefield Choice, or whatever). Both 0-4. Aggression determines whose terrain is used; Scouting determines who sets up the battlefield and deploys first.

If you use the Scouting stat, then here are some initial guesses at appropriate values:

Mongols are Scouting 0 (best possible)
HYW English are Scouting 1
Medieval French are Scouting 4 (they would habitually attack prepared positions without second thought, and didn't win a terrain roll for a century).
Most Medieval European armies should be Scouting 3 (the whole concept of Generalship was largely lost on them. Blind King John of Bohemia is a prime example of their leadership style.)
Hussites should be high Aggression (maybe 3?) and low Scouting (maybe 1?)
Vikings should have Scouting lower (more effective) than their Aggression
Byzantines should have Scouting higher (for most of their armies) than their Aggression
Darius (LAP) should have really good Scouting (he won the terrain for every major battle he fought)
Greek armies should have Scouting lower (more effective) than their Aggression (the physical constraints of their topography made it possible for them to get lots of success choosing terrain against their external foes)
Hannibal should have Scouting much lower (more effective) than the Later Cartho Aggression

[peachy]

of a split strategic/tactical mechanism. It strikes me that the current aggression rating is somewhat similar to the use of BUAs - we have two quite distinct operational levels being mixed on the field, which adds confusion rather than complexity.

[Stephen Webb]

I like DK's idea of the a seperate aggression and scouting ability. It seems to be more historical.

Now all we need is to determine the scouting ability for all 300+ armies and get Phil to include it in the next version of DBA.

Or we can use it as a house rule.

[VingThorr]

I think you're all on to something, this really does make too much sense. someone contact Phil, I smell v2.3! is he on fanaticus?

[Zekestrom]

I like DK's idea of the a seperate aggression and scouting ability. It seems to be more historical.
I agree wholeheartedly. This is really how the situation should be handled in the game, and it would go a long way toward helping such armies. However ...

Now all we need is to determine the scouting ability for all 300+ armies and get Phil to include it in the next version of DBA.

Therein lies the fundamental problem. Mainly determining the scouting ability for all the armies (and all variations of those armies.) Thus why I was suggesting the generic system somehow based on number of Ps and LH.

[adsarf]

I hate to admit it, but I think we've been forgetting about the fact that LH can multi-move!


I predict that your LH are just about to get a lot more effective.

Having said that, effective use of LH multiple moves can sometimes be tricky. I often used to use a good first pip roll to place a group of LH on the flank of my opponents' deployment on bound 1 (it helps to play 25mm, so they cannot deploy as close to the edge). That used to spook people quite badly, but now my regular opponents realise that they are still just LH, don't panic, and try to kill the flankers before the rest of the army arrive.

The more sophisticated use is a bit less aggressive - wait until your opponent has committed him/herself to one or more lines of advance, and then switch the focus of your attack completely. For instance if there is a large centyral piece of BGo, you can set up with half your LH either side of it. If your opponent deploys on just one side, you can sack the camp at leisure. If he deploys on both sides, then with good dice at a critical moment you can concentrate all your army against half of his and leave the other half stranded.

These kinds of tactics won't work if you roll poor pips - but then no army can survive a well-timed string of ones.

You might also want to consider IV/47 Golden HOrde rather than the pure Mongol Conquest. You can have a couple of Bw, who are useful BGo troops, and still have access to some European medieval opponents if you prefer to avoid fantasy match ups.

Andrew

[David Kuijt]

Therein lies the fundamental problem. Mainly determining the scouting ability for all the armies (and all variations of those armies.) Thus why I was suggesting the generic system somehow based on number of Ps and LH.
As you say, determining the scouting factors for all 581 armies would be really difficult.

The PS/LH generic system would improve some armies in a historical direction, but it would have quite a bit of alpha error and beta error (armies improved in the wrong direction, and armies not-improved that should have been). For example, the Early Libyans would suddenly become as sly as Weasels facing the NKE -- when there is no evidence to support it. And the army of Tamerlane would get out-scouted by the Nomadic Mongols, when it is clear they had no such advantage. The Numidians would out-general Hannibal any time they met, and the Later Swiss would become one of the most terrain-wise of the Medieval European armies, when historically during that period they were arrogant about their ability to win and did not bother to take any precautions. Further, the HYW English (who have already been identified as ill-served under the current system) would not be improved enough.

But it sure would be a lot of work to get appropriate new numbers for all 581 army lists.

[John Loy]

Well, then; you'd better get busy. Just make sure you publish them sequentially so we have plenty of opportunities to criticize your choices :rolleyes:

John

[Zekestrom]

Well, then; you'd better get busy. Just make sure you publish them sequentially so we have plenty of opportunities to criticize your choices :rolleyes:
The exercise is left to the reader :).

but it would have quite a bit of alpha error and beta error
Admittedly true. This might make it an ideal concept for historical campaigns, or period tournaments, etc. where you could custom modify the factor calculation based on the armies presented, or just start with a restricted list to figure factors for.

Just throwing out ideas. I think it would be interesting to see in action. Even with all this, LH armies are still going to have a tough time against the majority of opponents.

[Pavane]

I like the idea of a separate "scouting" ability/die roll. The problem with quantifying a scouting ability though is that it wasn't always attributable to a given race/army, but rather to individual generals. Do the Later Carthaginians receive an average scounting ability until Hannibal in on the scene? What about contemporary Later Carthaginian armies in another theatre, where Hannibal wasn't present? There is little incentive in DBA to choose the weaker ability if it is variable like Aggression sometimes does. How many post 201BC Polybian Roman armies do you see, unless in a campaign?

You could use a more moderate LH/Ps adjustment so that your Scouting die roll was only improved by one so that an Early Libyan army would scout at 3 instead of 0 against NKE.

[JamesLDIII]

As you say, determining the scouting factors for all 581 armies would be really difficult.

The PS/LH generic system would improve some armies in a historical direction, but it would have quite a bit of alpha error and beta error (armies improved in the wrong direction, and armies not-improved that should have been). For example, the Early Libyans would suddenly become as sly as Weasels facing the NKE -- when there is no evidence to support it. And the army of Tamerlane would get out-scouted by the Nomadic Mongols, when it is clear they had no such advantage. The Numidians would out-general Hannibal any time they met, and the Later Swiss would become one of the most terrain-wise of the Medieval European armies, when historically during that period they were arrogant about their ability to win and did not bother to take any precautions. Further, the HYW English (who have already been identified as ill-served under the current system) would not be improved enough.

But it sure would be a lot of work to get appropriate new numbers for all 581 army lists.

A great problem which I did not make note of when designing my heretical rules compendium, which includes a separate invader and attacker die rolls.

My rules variant can be found here:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/files/DBA%20Variant%20Rules%20and%20Lists/

The rules (unformated here) go something like this:

Determine who the invader is
Roll and add aggression. Higher score is invader.

Determine the attacker and the type of battle

Roll and add modifiers
Modifiers
.................+1 Remained in area
.................+1 2x More scouts
.................+2 4x More scouts
.................-1 if army is out of supply
.................+1 If “friendly” area (i.e. the invadee)
.................+1 if better genera/general with more prestige

Result is equal = Encounter.

One side higher = Set Piece. Higher scorer chooses to be attacker or defender. High scorer may employ ambush elements. Defender may employ linear obstacles. Defender sets up terrain.


One side 2x higher = Set Piece. Higher scorer chooses to be attacker or defender. Higher scorer may employ ambush (if defender) or flank march (if attacker). Defender sets up terrain. Higher rolling defender may employ linear obstacles (TF).


One side 3x higher = Ambush. Higher scorer is Ambusher and sets up terrain.



Element Type Scout Value
Light Horse............3 (1 if Forest/Tropical)
Cavalry.................2 (1 if Forest/Tropical)
Psiloi....................2
Auxilia..................1
per 6 elements.......1 (Optional)

[VingThorr]

[QUOTE=adsarf]I predict that your LH are just about to get a lot more effective.

Oh and they did! We just fought another battle on a 30" board against the Early Polish III/62.b and using the new scouting rules. The battle was fought in Poland, but with the Mongols setting up the battlefield, the Poles did not end up with the side they wanted either (poor Poles, always getting the short end of the stick, look at my wife, she married me!). We wound up with a DIFFICULT river right smack down the middle of the battlefield :( , and only 6 elements of Light Horse ever managed to make it across the river. Still they danced and they pranced and they scooted and they multi-moved all over the Polish side of the river, 2 of them getting killed in the process, but managing to kill off a unit of Knights and the Polish Light Horse, when all of a sudden, in a grand charge, it appeared the Poles were about to sweep them away, until the noble Polish general and his retinue of knights were cut down by the Mongols. It was beautiful! er, I mean, terrible (I was the Polish commander). It was a loooong battle, and the Mongols won by acting Mongolish, it looked true to history.

Someone find Phil, put him to work with this scouting stuff!

[Subotai]

As the other half of that battle, it was quite gratifying to finally win with that army! Now to be able to do it consistently... The ability to multi-move definately made a win possible, as well as playing on a 30" board. I think the scouting rule changes would help but I am interested in seeing how my Mongols would fare against an army that had the terrain advantage. LH mobility IMHO is the key to winning because it allows the army to gain and maintain the initiative. I much prefer my opponent to be reacting to my moves or possible moves:)

[JohnValiant]

I find the idea of two rolls really neat! It would mitigate another problem - the occurence of predominantly low aggresion armies on the top af most tournaments (well, those ive been to anyways). We have something of a consensus in our extended group that low-agg armies benefits a bit to much from the terrain rules on tournaments.

A system like the one DK lined out would have support from many over here (in stockholm) i belive.

[Sarduri II]

While I agree that the concept of a scouting roll, or a separate attacker/defender roll, would help armies such as the Mongols and others noted, I do not believe that it would address the fundamental difficulty which the existing terrain system has; 100% control selection and placement by one side.

The "type" (arable/steppe/hilly) of terrain has only a minor impact against the ability to choose the terrain used and where it sits.

While Steppe and Arable do limit the maximum number of pieces of bad going, they do not inhibit its use in maximum size, and central to the battlefield, and symetrical placement.

Similarly (though with greater justification) one can fight in Tropical/Hilly/Woods and still have virtually insignificant terrain presence (smallest possible pieces placed in corners).

That a good general (or at least one with better scouting/intelligence/local knowledge), whether invading or not, should strive to fight on ground of his own choosing is irrefutable. A more or less open battlefield, abundant concealment or its absence, terrain to secure a flank (or flanks), these are all reasonable choices to allow the side with the perceived terrain advantage.

But these are far removed from, "two maximum sized steep hills, precisely mirroring one another and just exactly under 2 elements width apart" which is available to the player and which can be seen in the terrain "deployment" advice sometimes seen on these pages.

A scouting roll for the Mongols can only be a good thing (likewise HYW English, Hannibal...), but giving them 100% control only changes the basis of the problem.

A more complete solution might be to adopt either a more random, or a shared selection process, which the "advantaged" side can influence.

[Xavi]

Then, maybe what should be done is that the attacker can remove one of the pieces of the defender and swap it for a piece of his liking and configuration (size, location and type).

LH armies would practically remove a piece, ehile BGo armies that happen to be attacking are likely to place a BIGGER BGo piece, for example.

Cheers,

Xavi

[nixon1411]

Try DBMM100. The Mongol Lh are classified as Superior, and can go toe to toe with lesser Cv with relative ease. The improved Lh combat factor against foot (+3) also makes a big difference

Regards
Bob Mcleish

[Mike Porter]

Try DBMM100. The Mongol Lh are classified as Superior, and can go toe to toe with lesser Cv with relative ease. The improved Lh combat factor against foot (+3) also makes a big difference

Regards
Bob Mcleish

You also get a solution to the "edge-of-the-world" flank issue.

[David Kuijt]

Then, maybe what should be done is that the attacker can remove one of the pieces of the defender and swap it for a piece of his liking and configuration (size, location and type).

LH armies would practically remove a piece, ehile BGo armies that happen to be attacking are likely to place a BIGGER BGo piece, for example.


We tried that for Wrath of Khan (Mongol Theme tourney) at Fall In 2006. It wasn't a disaster, but it was not as simple and useful as it sounds on paper.

Making a meta-game of the terrain placement adds complexity. The main benefit is that it is "different from the current system", which I don't find compelling by itself. For me, I don't want to adopt an alteration to the terrain placement system unless it is some combination of:

fast and simple, so it doesn't slow down tournaments. We're talking about tournament-use, after all -- for home games and historical reenactments, the terrain system can be anything you want anyway, and there is no time constraint.
not subject to being a game of itself (where placement is a strategy to inhibit the enemy placement/modification ability with the final objective being to maximize a particular result). I'm here to play DBA, not to play a terrain-placement game. When terrain placement becomes subject to game-theory analysis, it has gone too far. Even though random systems are usually slower, I would favor them over something where I put out too much terrain, trying to convince the enemy general to take out pieces I want him to, etc. etc.
reduces or inhibits symmetric placement.

[The Last Conformist]

Has anyone adapted the DBMM terrain placement rules for DBA? From just reading them they seem a nice mix of simplicity, randomness, and choice.

[John Loy]

I haven't read the DBMM rules yet, but the DBM rules address it a little by requiring the defender to choose his terrain items, then rolling for placement. Attacker gets some terrain chioces both before and after the defender places.

Interesting thing for the defender placement is that if the roll is for the same area as already rolled; that item will most likely not fit and be discarded; so theoretically there could be only 1 terrain feature.

assuming we've been doing it right, it is in Barkerese:eek:


John

[Mike Porter]

Here is a summary of the DBMM terrain placement w/out getting into what FE means:

Roll for invader according to aggression.

Invader chooses 0-2 permitted terrain features except BUA. Defender chooses 2-4 permitted terrain features (must include any compulsory features).

Battlefield edges are numbered 1-4 clockwise from defender's left. Defender additionally numbers one edge "5", Invader now numbers an edge "6" (can be same edge).

Each feature is placed by its chooser. DBMM then gives an ordered list of features.

Terrain is place by dicing twice: 1st dice is board edge, second dice is element base widths. For the first piece on any given edge the 2nd dice is the max distance between the feature and the board edge. Any pieces after that is the minimum base widths between it and another feature.

[nixon1411]

Mike has given a comprehensive overview of the DBMM terrain rules as they apply to the full sized game.
When playing the DBMM100 variant, the equivalent of DBA, things are slightly different:
Determine Invader & defender in the normal way. The Defender then places, where he wishes, up to 1 road and 2-3 area features, no greater than 400 paces (20cm at 15mm) across, chosen from his list, which must include any compulsory features. (home topography is included for each army in the relevant DBMM/DBA army list)
The Invader can then rotate the board through 90 or 180 degrees. The Defender deploys his army first, followed by the Invader who takes the 1st bound.

cheers
Bob Mcleish

[John Loy]

So the attacker gets to pick his edge - always?

John

[The Last Conformist]

I was refering to the "full" DBMM terrain rules - the DBMM 100 ones are essentially the same as DBA's. :)

[Pavane]

So the attacker gets to pick his edge - always?

John

Yes, always.

[Pavane]

I was refering to the "full" DBMM terrain rules - the DBMM 100 ones are essentially the same as DBA's. :)
Not so, DBMM100 is far less restrictive: up to 1 road, 2-3 area features from the deferder's, but including any compulsary ones. I just noticed that they are Area features, so no Water features (and no littoral landings) until you move to DBMM200. I can't believe that he didn't disallow BUA's.

Mike P. and I are going to give it a try in Cleveland on Saturday.

[The Last Conformist]

Not so, DBMM100 is far less restrictive: up to 1 road, 2-3 area features from the deferder's, but including any compulsary ones. I just noticed that they are Area features, so no Water features (and no littoral landings) until you move to DBMM200. I can't believe that he didn't disallow BUA's.
I did not say they were identical. They're essentially the same in that the defender choses all terrain and places it freely - contrast the full DBMM rules where the attacker choses some of the terrain and placement is influenced by both players and by the dice.

[El' Jocko]

I'm a 14 and 15c western european history buff! :D
My DBA nemesis however is a central asian history buff.
What this means for our DBA battles is that my Knights, Spearmen, Blades, Bows, and artillery stomp his LH-heavy Mongols into the dust time and time again. Even playing with the 30" board isn't helping. Is there any good advice from players who like to play, and often win with LH-heavy armies? How do you account for the fact that an army with such exceptional historical success, performs so terribly in DBA?

Obviously for starters, we should pit the Mongols against historical opponents.
But does anyone have any other advice?

Mongols are a tough army to play in DBA. I'd chalk this up to three things:

First, it's not just that they have a lot of light horse, but that they don't have much else. At its heart, DBA is a rock-paper-scissors kind of game. And if you only have scissors, you're going to get clobbered by a lot of rocks.
Second, playing a light horse monotype army is a lot harder than playing a knight or a blade monotype army. Using light horse effectively requires a lot of finesse and timing. These are things you pick up by playing lots of DBA.
Third, a light horse army is always going to be at the mercy of your PIP rolls. Taking advantage of multiple moves and fancy redeployment takes lots of PIPs. And if you're rolling 1's and 2's for your PIPs, you run out of options fast.


So given all that, if I'm playing Mongols, what would I do to make them effective? The details will depend on the opponent and the terrain, but I can offer up some general ideas. The main advantage that you have over your adversary is mobility. So you have to make good use of that. Starting to use the LH multiple move capability will help a lot there.

You'll also want to take advantage of the rule that lets you form a single element wide column for 1 PIP. For example, say you have three LH in a line, facing some enemy elements. We'll also assume that you're just far enough enough away so that you don't have ZOC problems (that's part of the timing thing). For 1 PIP, you can wheel the end LH 90 degrees, and then move it forward (i.e., to it's original side). The other two LH can fall in behind. (The geometry is such that the last LH in line constrains the move for the others--the last LH moves 500 paces, the other LH move less.) Make it a multiple move (assuming you have the PIPs) and the LH can disappear from one part of the battlefield and reappear on the other.

Finally, I'll add that timing the overall battle is crucial. The ideal is to wait patiently, use feints to hide your real intentions, and then act decisively once the enemy commits. That's really key--you have to allow a slower enemy to commit in one direction, and then strike at a weaker, harder to support part of the his force. It takes practice to get this right, and a certain amount of luck. If you roll a 1 for PIPs on the turn you need to make your big move, then you're likely to be in trouble. But if things break right, you can pull off a nice win, and leave your opponent muttering to himself. :)

- Jack

[Zekestrom]

Third, a light horse army is always going to be at the mercy of your PIP rolls. Taking advantage of multiple moves and fancy redeployment takes lots of PIPs. And if you're rolling 1's and 2's for your PIPs, you run out of options fast.


... AND your combat rolls. When your combat factors start out at +4 (or even +3) you've got a little time to recover if your early combat rolls are "a little less lucky" than your opponent. But with low CF armies starting at 2, even a little bad luck at the beginning can spell disaster fast.

I still maintain, to win with the Mongols, you need:

to be a little luckier than your opponent at the outset OR
to be a LOT luckier than your opponent in the thick of it OR
to have a MIRACLE bestowed upon you toward the end

You still need to be a sharp general, but I've found it's much harder to recover from bad combat (or PIP) rolls with light troop armies.

[Dhingis Khan]

I've been playing with a Hun army of 11 LH and a Cav General. It's hard.

Yes to the mobility. A couple games I've managed to win have seen an enemy flank curled back and then work on the joint and the flank.

We also so far like a house rule. LH have a distant fire factor of 1, with no quick kill. Just being able to harass without reply changes things. Sometimes at the beginning you can put three LH on one enemy psiloi and get +1 to zero, a decent chance of an early kill.

[Victor]

...But with low CF armies starting at 2, even a little bad luck at the beginning can spell disaster fast.

This post is spot on. I found the same experience when using Ottomans, which are a low CF army aswell. They are far far more sensitive to bad dice rolling then armies with +4 and +5 CF elements. Often, when the army loses, it is not because it was outplayed by the opponent.

Some may claim that not many elements can destroy LH, and LH gets some quick kill, but you do need good luck to get your QKs to work, and the LH will run into elements that can get them at various stages in a game, eg vs Ps or Cv, or they can get stuck fighting spears & so on. At these times again, one bad dice throw can spell disaster.

[Victor]

I am chiming in a little late on the "scouting" roll discussion, but it seems to me that there are two competing philosophies when it comes to the reasoning behind this additional roll:

1. Historical, eg the Mongols chose the battlefield they fought on. Applying a global fix to light armies, though right for the mongols, can create ahistoric problems elsewhere and therefore scouting rolls should be army specific based on history, and

2. Game balance, all light armies are heavily disadvantaged if they do not get a reasonable chance to choose terrain. A global fix is therefore the only solution.

Looking through the resource section, the issue is big enough to inspire a lot of articles, eg:

- Horse Nomads
- Army Mobility and Terrain Placement
- Light Troops and Terrain
- Mongol Scouting
- Scouting For Deployment

The bulk of articles show players are more concerned with the game balance aspect, rather than the historical, and seek to have a global fix to light armies.

Personally, I would sway to the game balance side aswell. For instance, in a "historic" game, the Early Achaemenid Persians should allow the Early Hoplite Greeks to choose terrain. IMO this makes for a boring one sided game, even if it attempts to model history. A better game would be to give the Persians a better chance to set terrain. It is a game after all.

Surely there should be a simple formula where there are deployment bonuses of some sort for armies with lots of light troops, and penalties for those with lots of heavy troops. Otherwise, we will forever be consigned to playing in competitions with low aggression heavy/power armies dominating.

In the absence of any clear solution, it would be good to see the aggression factor scrapped and use a HOTT style unmodified die roll instead.

[David Brown]

hi there,

>>>>>>>>>
In the absence of any clear solution, it would be good to see the aggression factor scrapped and use a HOTT style unmodified die roll instead.
__________________
Victor

>>>>>>>

Maybe aggression factors should be used only against those armies listed as historical enemies, outside these does it mean anything?

regards

david b

[David Kuijt]

For instance, in a "historic" game, the Early Achaemenid Persians should allow the Early Hoplite Greeks to choose terrain. IMO this makes for a boring one sided game, even if it attempts to model history. A better game would be to give the Persians a better chance to set terrain. It is a game after all.


I'm never quite sure what people mean when they say "It is a game, after all." It would still be a game if the rules were changed.

Regarding the EAP and Hoppy Greeks, you make your case too strongly. The EAP are Agg3; Hoppy Greeks Agg2. That means that the Greeks get a slight advantage in frequency of defending, but not a dominating one. Further, this frequency is a reasonable representation of history -- the Greeks got terrain at Thermopylae and Marathon; the EAP got terrain at Plataea. And that ignores the smaller battles between the EAP and the Ionian Greeks, where honors seem to have been about even. So the defending roll for EAP/Greek battles seems to be pretty good overall.


Surely there should be a simple formula where there are deployment bonuses of some sort for armies with lots of light troops, and penalties for those with lots of heavy troops. Otherwise, we will forever be consigned to playing in competitions with low aggression heavy/power armies dominating.


That is a common perception, but not accurate. From my observations (in person and seeing announced results on this forum) in most areas where a lot of DBA is played, low aggression armies do not particularly dominate open competitions. Many tournaments are won by high aggression armies, and honors are about even. Terrain-dependent monotype armies do not do well, and terrain-dependent monotype armies with high aggression are clearly weak, but that isn't much of a surprise.


In the absence of any clear solution, it would be good to see the aggression factor scrapped and use a HOTT style unmodified die roll instead.

That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. The aggression dice roll works well enough for at least 80% of the army lists, and only really fails (goes the wrong direction) for maybe 5%. There are 581 army lists, if I recall correctly -- after the Mongols and HYW English (the poster children for this movement) I was hard put to think of a lot of other cases where strategic aggression combined with winning the tactical defense consistently. Even with Hannibal and Carthage the result isn't clear unless you make the "Hannibal in Italy" a separate army list, because the Later Carthos didn't have a record of winning terrain against the Romans except for the big H.

I played lots of DBA v1.1, where they had exactly the dice roll you propose, and I can tell you that aggression ratings, although not perfect, are a vast improvement on the look, feel, and also historicity of things. Sure, they need some fixing for some notable cases where strategic aggression combined with regularly gaining tactical defense -- but they work for most armies, most times.

[John Meunier]

I agree with David on almost all points.

Just to emphasize one. I suck at deploying defensive terrain, but quite enjoy attacking. I much prefer high aggression armies. Even when I lose, I feel much more like I am making choices about what to do and where.

Now, my won/loss record may not help advance the point about High Agg not being bad ... but I still don't agree that low aggression armies are more attractive or better options. I do even worse in tournies with low aggression armies than I do with high aggression ones.

[Stephen Webb]

We seem to be mixing up the two different cases. One relates to historical feel. The other the competitiveness in an open competition.

Probably 90% or more of the games I have played in open competitions are not between historical opponents. Therefore the battle was not historical in the least. So why should we justify trying to make it more historical, rather than just more balanced.

So lets try and keep these two thoughts seperate.

Also unless playing in a competition, you can tinker with any method you like to balance two armies, especially if you aren't trying to play a historical pair.

[John Meunier]

We seem to be mixing up the two different cases. One relates to historical feel. The other the competitiveness in an open competition.

I was not confused in the least. While few of the tournament games I play are exactly historical match ups, the bracket system that GLADBAG uses means you are usually playing armies that are similar to the kind you would face in a historical fight - knights tend to play with knights, for instance.


So lets try and keep these two thoughts seperate.


No thanks.

[Stephen Webb]

the bracket system that GLADBAG uses means you are usually playing armies that are similar to the kind you would face in a historical fight

In Australia this is not done. Any army can fight any other army in our open competitions.

This may explain why you have different results to Australia as to which are the usual winning armies.

[Victor]

I don't dispute the use of aggression ratings from a historical point of view, as it aids in providing a historic result between two matched pairs. I do question it though, from a game balance/open competition point of view.


Regarding the EAP and Hoppy Greeks, you make your case too strongly. The EAP are Agg3; Hoppy Greeks Agg2. That means that the Greeks get a slight advantage in frequency of defending, but not a dominating one. Further, this frequency is a reasonable representation of history -- the Greeks got terrain at Thermopylae and Marathon; the EAP got terrain at Plataea. And that ignores the smaller battles between the EAP and the Ionian Greeks, where honors seem to have been about even. So the defending roll for EAP/Greek battles seems to be pretty good overall.


I made that analogy as it highlights the problem of using historical based deployments. Every time I have played this pair, the Persians have been hammered. In the EAP/Hoplite case, the game would be more competitive if the Persians were allowed to set terrain.


That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. The aggression dice roll works well enough for at least 80% of the army lists, and only really fails (goes the wrong direction) for maybe 5%.

I'm not sure of the amount of lists where aggression doesn't work, but below are some examples taken from book 1 only, with an idea of the element mix given. Note the comments for each are lifted from the "Big Battle Army Assessment" website, and are not mine:

I/27 Early Hebrew Ag 3 (6 Ax, 2 Wb, 4 Ps)
"Far too high an aggression and no foot capable of standing against cavalry or knights in the open."

I/36 Italian Hill Tribes Ag 3 (1 Cv, 10Ax, 1 Ps)
"Much too high an aggression for an all auxilia or all warband force -- either way you're likely to be screwed against any enemy."

I/39a Urartian Ag 3 (1 LCh, 1 Cv, 9 Ax, 1 Ps)
"Way too high an aggression for an auxilia army."

I/43a Skythian Ag 4 (depending on options, could be 12 LH)
"Aggression 4 with 8 elements of light horse? Grim."

I/47 Illyrian Ag 3 (1 LH, 9 Ax, 2 Ps)
"Aggression 3, with 11 elements of bad-going troops. Certain to bring you to glory. Short-lived glory."

I/63 Paionian Ag 3 (all 2 LH, 10 Ps)
"Aggression 3 doesn't work well for bad-going armies."

The theme seems to be, purely from an open competition point of view, that the current use of aggression ratings is unbalancing to the game.

[John Meunier]

The theme seems to be, purely from an open competition point of view, that the current use of aggression ratings is unbalancing to the game.

Well, the fact that these are all monotype armies that have to win terrain to be competitive is an important factor in your examples. Even if you threw out the aggression factors these armies would all be dogs anytime they lost terrain.

Chucking aggression would not make these competitive in the open tournaments. The only chance terrain monotypes have in an open is when they have very low aggression. So, if you chuck aggression, you doom all armies like these to irrelevance.

[David Kuijt]

I don't dispute the use of aggression ratings from a historical point of view, as it aids in providing a historic result between two matched pairs. I do question it though, from a game balance/open competition point of view.

As John says, taking away the aggression ratings (making everyone the same aggression) doesn't make any terrain-dependent army competitive. It just makes them all suck the same.

The way it works now in open competitions is that you can take a terrain-resistant army regardless of its aggression, and you can take a terrain-dependent army only if it is low aggression. With your solution (everyone's aggression is the same) it will be worse, not better -- no terrain dependent army will be competitive, not even those which currently have low aggression.


I'm not sure of the amount of lists where aggression doesn't work, but below are some examples taken from book 1 only, with an idea of the element mix given. Note the comments for each are lifted from the "Big Battle Army Assessment" website, and are not mine:

You can't believe everything you read, especially if I wrote it. Which I did. (Well, DS and I together).


The theme seems to be, purely from an open competition point of view, that the current use of aggression ratings is unbalancing to the game.

It doesn't say that -- it says (in essence) that the current aggression ratings are cruel to that army. It is a big leap of faith from that to "unbalancing to the game." Some armies are are ill-served by their aggression ratings. True enough. Some armies are ill-served by their force distribution! The existance of Early Libyans does not mean that the game is unbalanced and we must go to allowing every army to have every element type! If we do that, we aren't playing Early Libyans, and every army will be the same. Back to the point -- there are some armies ill-served by their aggressions. Sarmatians, Skythians, Mongols, Illyrians -- all terrain-dependent armies with high aggression, who are going to get their butts handed to them if they lose terrain to an enemy with the reverse of their terrain preference, or one that can play in any terrain.

To prove your thesis you need to prove two additional points. First, that "some armies" is a large enough proportion of the total number to have a major impact on the game; and second, that discarding the current aggression ratings would be an improvement. Neither of those points is proven, nor likely to be. The second one (that discarding Agg is an improvement) is (in my opinion) impossible to prove, because I've played lots of v1.1 with no Aggression ratings, and the addition of Aggression ratings was a big improvement.

[Victor]

To prove your thesis you need to prove two additional points. First, that "some armies" is a large enough proportion of the total number to have a major impact on the game; and second, that discarding the current aggression ratings would be an improvement. Neither of those points is proven, nor likely to be. The second one (that discarding Agg is an improvement) is (in my opinion) impossible to prove, because I've played lots of v1.1 with no Aggression ratings, and the addition of Aggression ratings was a big improvement.

I'll give it a go on the first part as to the impact on the game;

1st - what constitutes a failure of the current aggression ratings? I''ll say it is a majority light army (eg LH, Ps, Aux) with an aggression rating of 3 or more which is disadvantaged by the aggression rating system. This view is supported by the comments on the BBDBA ratings website where you did say aggression ratings are "cruel" to those particular armies. We could expand the definition of the "error" to include Ag 2 armies, or even the converse, such as well balanced armies (who are terrain nuetral) with a high aggression such as I/45 Neo Assyrians who arguably get an unfair advantage with a high aggression. But I'll leave it as majority light with Ag 3 or more.

2nd is the sample population - rather than go through every list, we can use book one lists as a representative sample. There are 63 army lists in book one.

3rd is which armies fall into the "error" range. These are the six I previously mentioned plus we can add in I/4 Zagros and Anatolian Highlanders and I/6 Early Bedouin. This gives a total of 8 armies.

4th is the failure rate. We have 8 out of 63 armies disadvantaged which gives us a failure rate of 13%, about 1 in 8 armies.

5th - what is a material failure rate? Without any other guidance, lets turn to the exciting world of accounting standards, which state that generally a material level is one which is greater than 10%, and maybe if between 5%-10%. So 13% percent is a material failure rate, which is reasonable, imagine if the postal service lost 1 in every 8 letters, or 1 in every 8 figures we bought were damaged and unusable. It is a material amount.

So, in relation to your first criteria, I woulds say yes, aggression ratings do have a materially adverse impact on army lists and therefore the game.

As to the second point, if you are getting rid of something that has an adverse impact on the game, doesn't this then improve the game? I've never played 1.1, though I do play HOTT, and I have never had a problem with it, and certainly, there isn't a clamour of people wanting to impose aggression ratings in HOTT, eg Orcs are always aggressors in novels so they are a 4 etc.

Your contention is that aggression ratings are a "big improvement" from DBA 1.1, so how can this be quantified or justified?

[Victor]

Well, the fact that these are all monotype armies that have to win terrain to be competitive is an important factor in your examples. Even if you threw out the aggression factors these armies would all be dogs anytime they lost terrain.

Chucking aggression would not make these competitive in the open tournaments. The only chance terrain monotypes have in an open is when they have very low aggression. So, if you chuck aggression, you doom all armies like these to irrelevance.

By saying later in your post that giving a "very low" aggression rating to these armies improves their chances, then by definitition, any lowering is an improvement, so by dispensing with aggression ratings all together, the monotype armies are in fact helped.

Though my original post is not about getting rid of aggression ratings, I was more so wanting the aggression ratings not to be based on historic strategic aggression, but rather based on element mix as a method to better balance games. The aggression factors could be improved, but if it never will be, it is better to get rid of a flawed system then to persist with it.

[David Kuijt]

1st - what constitutes a failure of the current aggression ratings? I''ll say it is a majority light army (eg LH, Ps, Aux) with an aggression rating of 3 or more which is disadvantaged by the aggression rating system.


Aggression ratings were designed to reflect historical activity. Your failure definition is purely based upon open tournaments with no historical interaction. In other words, your definition is a misrepresentation at best.

If you want an accurate definition of "what constitutes a failure of the current aggression ratings," that's easy -- an aggression rating that does not allow vaguely historical probabilities of choosing terrain between two historical enemies. I gave you some examples of that before -- HYW English, Mongols, Hannibal-in-Italy.



This view is supported by the comments on the BBDBA ratings website where you did say aggression ratings are "cruel" to those particular armies.
As the author, I can assure you I was not supporting your viewpoint when I wrote that (or edited DS writing that, as the case may have been for any given paragraph).

Aggression ratings were established for historical matchups. NOT TO PLAY BALANCE OPEN TOURNAMENTS. So a particular army having a "cruel" aggression rating does not constitute a failure of the aggression system (and even more does not represent my personal indictment of the aggression system). If the army in question is Illyrians, who invaded and attacked everything around them, having aggression 3 is correct and commendable. If the army in question is Catalan Company, who seem to have chosen terrain exactly once in dozens of battles, aggression 4 is the right number.

We could expand the definition of the "error" to include Ag 2 armies, or even the converse, such as well balanced armies (who are terrain nuetral) with a high aggression such as I/45 Neo Assyrians who arguably get an unfair advantage with a high aggression. But I'll leave it as majority light with Ag 3 or more.

It sounds like you want aggression factor to be an open-tournament modifier directly related to terrain vulnerability. So every army with a mix of Auxilia and Psiloi and a few light mounted will have an identical aggression factor. Catalan Company, Thracians, Paionians, Lykians, and Ancient Spanish will all be Agg0. So will the Huns, Skythians, Tibet, Parthian all-mounted version, and Mongol Conquest.

Oy.


We have 8 out of 63 armies disadvantaged which gives us a failure rate of 13%, about 1 in 8 armies.

5th - what is a material failure rate? Without any other guidance, lets turn to the exciting world of accounting standards, which state that generally a material level is one which is greater than 10%, and maybe if between 5%-10%. So 13% percent is a material failure rate, which is reasonable, imagine if the postal service lost 1 in every 8 letters, or 1 in every 8 figures we bought were damaged and unusable. It is a material amount.

As Mark Twain once said, there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

So you purport that 1 in 8 armies in Book I are disadvantaged by Aggression Ratings, and therefore the Aggression system must be discarded. For that to be true, discarding the aggression system must not only fix those 8 out of 63, but also NOT HURT most of the 63 that aren't currently broken.

Discarding the Aggression system will give a significant disadvantage to the following Book I armies (using your own parameters reversed: terrain-dependent armies with Ag1 or lower):8ac, 14c, 21ab, 33ab, 34abc, 35ab, 37ab, 41, 48, 54, 62
That's 11 armies (or 18 if you count sublists).

In other words, your proposed alteration would help 8 armies (out of 63), and would hurt 11 armies (out of 63). That's a net -3 armies helped. Convince me that this is an improvement?


As to the second point, if you are getting rid of something that has an adverse impact on the game, doesn't this then improve the game?
Yup. In the same way as amputating a limb helps, if you have gangrene. But your logic is this: "amputating a limb helps if that limb has gangrene. So lets amputate our limbs, and we will have eliminated the threat of gangrene." Exactly the reason why one of the principal precepts of medical school is "First, Do No Harm."

Your change will help all the armies who are terrain-dependent and high aggression. It will also hurt all the armies who are terrain-dependent and low aggression. So your change will not help (on average), even if we ignore the issue of losing any historical relevance (having the stay-at-home defend-a-lot Ancient Spanish be the same Aggression as the furious-attack-invade-everyone Catalan Company).

I've never played 1.1, though I do play HOTT, and I have never had a problem with it, and certainly, there isn't a clamour of people wanting to impose aggression ratings in HOTT, eg Orcs are always aggressors in novels so they are a 4 etc.

HotT has a point system. HotT represents everything from Star Wars to Middle Earth to Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Where exactly would this mythical ground-swell of support for "historical accuracy" in HotT come from? The absence of that movement is irrelevant. When the Mars Attacks army fights Killer Clowns from Outer Space, who should have terrain advantage?

[David Kuijt]

By saying later in your post that giving a "very low" aggression rating to these armies improves their chances, then by definitition, any lowering is an improvement, so by dispensing with aggression ratings all together, the monotype armies are in fact helped.


You missed an important point. If the average aggression is currently around 2, then giving everyone the same aggression (0) hurts all the armies that are terrain dependent and currently below aggression 2.

Aggression 0 armies win terrain (against agg 2) 26/32 of the time, or 81.25%. In your system every Agg0 army wins terrain 50% of the time. That hurts them all.

Agg 1 armies win terrain (against agg 2) 21/31 of the time, or a bit more than 67%. In your system current Agg1 armies win 50% of the time. That hurts them all.

[Snowcat]

It might also be worth noting that any comments in Big Battle Army Assessment refer to BBDBA armies, not DBA ones. The multiplying of minima and maxima across 3 commands (with the option of grouping like-types and including allied commands, etc) can result in outcomes that transform the original DBA army into something very different.

[John Meunier]

Me, too, on everything DK said.


I was more so wanting the aggression ratings not to be based on historic strategic aggression, but rather based on element mix as a method to better balance games.

It sounds to me like you want to create a new rating, not modify aggression ratings. Phil Barker is the person to whom you need to address such a request.

Aggression ratings were invented precisely to be "historic strategic aggression" by the author of the rules. He put them in for the same reason he tried to limit army element choice to the types of elements that would have been historically available to the generals of the day. (In an earlier version of the rules he explained the idea behind aggression factors more fully. It looks like he dropped it in or before version 2.2. Or I just can't find it in my book.)

That said, when you run a tournament, you can modify the rules however you like, BUT I would not discount the arguments of deeply experienced and skilled players such as DK. I am not nearly as much an expert, but I also have played DBA since it first came out. I find aggression ratings an improvement to the game - and I like to play Hannibal.


If you want to quantify whether aggression factors are better or not, perhaps Chris will run a poll that asks how many players would remove them.

[Victor]

Aggression ratings were established for historical matchups. NOT TO PLAY BALANCE OPEN TOURNAMENTS. So a particular army having a "cruel" aggression rating does not constitute a failure of the aggression system (and even more does not represent my personal indictment of the aggression system). If the army in question is Illyrians, who invaded and attacked everything around them, having aggression 3 is correct and commendable. If the army in question is Catalan Company, who seem to have chosen terrain exactly once in dozens of battles, aggression 4 is the right number.

This highlights that we are coming in from two different view points, historical accuracy vs army balance. DBA is like a peice of art (in a strange sort of way), and its beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We both have different wants from the aggression system.


It sounds like you want aggression factor to be an open-tournament modifier directly related to terrain vulnerability. So every army with a mix of Auxilia and Psiloi and a few light mounted will have an identical aggression factor. Catalan Company, Thracians, Paionians, Lykians, and Ancient Spanish will all be Agg0. So will the Huns, Skythians, Tibet, Parthian all-mounted version, and Mongol Conquest.

Exactly. There seems to be some support for this viewpoint, judging by the articles in the resources page and some recent posts. A balancing system (IMO) would give a lower agg rating to armies that at least 50% (6+ elements) composed of light troops, and give higher ratings to armies that are mostly heavy troops (eg blades, spear, pike kn etc).


Discarding the Aggression system will give a significant disadvantage to the following Book I armies (using your own parameters reversed: terrain-dependent armies with Ag1 or lower): 8ac, 14c, 21ab, 33ab, 34abc, 35ab, 37ab, 41, 48, 54, 62. That's 11 armies (or 18 if you count sublists).

In other words, your proposed alteration would help 8 armies (out of 63), and would hurt 11 armies (out of 63). That's a net -3 armies helped. Convince me that this is an improvement?

Fair enough, but if historical aggression factors are replaced by an "army balancing/open competition" type factor, those armies you mentioned would still have a low "aggression", so there would be no disadvantage.


HotT has a point system. HotT represents everything from Star Wars to Middle Earth to Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Where exactly would this mythical ground-swell of support for "historical accuracy" in HotT come from? The absence of that movement is irrelevant. When the Mars Attacks army fights Killer Clowns from Outer Space, who should have terrain advantage?

The fact that HOTT has a points system is critical. DBA does not, and as such, the game needs other balancing factors (such as deployment assistance) to help out terrain dependent armies.

However, at a guess I would say that both the Mars Attacks and Killer Clown armies would have an aggression of 4 :)

[Victor]

That said, when you run a tournament, you can modify the rules however you like, BUT I would not discount the arguments of deeply experienced and skilled players such as DK. I am not nearly as much an expert, but I also have played DBA since it first came out. I find aggression ratings an improvement to the game - and I like to play Hannibal.

If you want to quantify whether aggression factors are better or not, perhaps Chris will run a poll that asks how many players would remove them.
Fair enough, I respect all opinions. I also do not have anywhere near the experience of DK and many other posters on this forum.

A poll would be good, but maybe on whether aggression ratings should be used to represent historical aggression or changed help to balance armies perhaps?

[John Meunier]

A balancing system (IMO) would give a lower agg rating to armies that at least 50% (6+ elements) composed of light troops, and give higher ratings to armies that are mostly heavy troops (eg blades, spear, pike kn etc).


If there is a poll, it should include this kind of specific proposal. That way it is a real comparison. I would be interested in more specifics on how you would assign higher and lower ratings.

Does an army with 10 light elements (Ax, Ps, LH) get a lower rating than an army with 6? Is the rating based on the army or is it determined by the element choices the player makes for a particular battle?

Are Wb light troops? They are certainly terrain sensitive troops.

My Middle Imperial Romans have 3 Ax, 1 Ps, 2 LH, so they would qualify as a "light army" in this variant of yours?

Are you still rolling dice to determine the terrain?

[David Kuijt]

A balancing system (IMO) would give a lower agg rating to armies that at least 50% (6+ elements) composed of light troops, and give higher ratings to armies that are mostly heavy troops (eg blades, spear, pike kn etc).


Like John, I'd be interested in seeing a specific proposal. Your underlying interest is to play-balance terrain-dependent armies by giving them a greater chance to deploy favorable terrain than other (terrain-resistant) armies. The issue is complicated -- your Light/Heavy split doesn't do the job. An army like Early Armenians (half BGo, half GGo) or Numidians (half BGo, half GGo) is "light", but can fight in heavy terrain or in the open -- it is much less terrain-dependent than Later Sarmatians or Later Vandals (up to 10-12 Knights), who are not "light" but are crippled if they lose terrain. Some elements are terrain-dependent on BGo (Ps, Aux); some are terrain-dependent on GGo (LH, Cv, Kn); some are situationally dependent (Bd or Sp can fight in BGo against armies with Bw or mounted, but never if they have Wb, and the Sp can't fight in BGo against Aux); some are situationally independent (Wb can fight in GGo unless facing El or Kn), and some are situationally very advantaged (LCm, 3Cm).


Fair enough, but if historical aggression factors are replaced by an "army balancing/open competition" type factor, those armies you mentioned would still have a low "aggression", so there would be no disadvantage.


True, but at the time of that comment you were advocating discarding the aggression system, not replacing it with a terrain-dependence vulnerability-offset number.


The fact that HOTT has a points system is critical. DBA does not, and as such, the game needs other balancing factors (such as deployment assistance) to help out terrain dependent armies.


Why?

Why do you think that Early Libyans have a "right" to be aggression 0? History tells us they invaded a lot (and lost terrain a lot); history tells us their army composition. It seems to me you are advocating discarding one historical observation (how often they won terrain) and keeping another (what their force distribution was). Why?

There are lots of other armies with low aggression and similar forces -- if it is important to you to play an Aux/Ps army with a few LH, and the history of that army is irrelevant to you, don't complain about Catalan Company -- just take Thracians or Ancient Spanish. That's a much simpler fix for your problem than convincing all the other players in the world of the merit of your change. And if you only play in Open tournaments, and you could care less about historical matchups, what's the difference?


However, at a guess I would say that both the Mars Attacks and Killer Clown armies would have an aggression of 4 :)

My Killer Snowmen army should be aggression 0, because they rarely invade Hawaii due to their difficulty with warm weather.

Another point about HotT -- defender sets terrain, but the terrain rules require some BGo near the center (much more than in DBA), and the person who sets terrain has to put out a Stronghold (instant loss if it is taken) and there is no camp for the attacker. So again, not relevant.

[John Loy]

If they invaded a lot and lost terrain a lot; did they lose a lot?

Or are they a case where the 12 element limit does not reflect their situation?

Just curious:o

John

[adsarf]

If they invaded a lot and lost terrain a lot; did they lose a lot?


Hint: what is the name of the Egyptian army list that replaces NKE?

[John Loy]

Well, then they must be poorly served by the 12 units in the DBA list?

John

[David Kuijt]

If they invaded a lot and lost terrain a lot; did they lose a lot?

Or are they a case where the 12 element limit does not reflect their situation?


They were defeated most of the time.

But it was impossible for Egypt to keep them pacified for the usual reason -- same as China with the Tarim basin, it took too much resources to maintain military forces out where there was no civilized structure.

Eventually Egypt was weak and divided and employed a lot of mercenaries, many of which were Libyan. After a while these mercenaries became the tail that wagged the dog.

This is a very common story. Late Rome is the same thing. Just call the Vandals/Goths/Franks "Libyans", and Rome "Egypt."

And like the vast majority of such transitions, the military effectiveness of the armies in exactly equal engagements has almost nothing to do with who conquers whom in the long run. That is almost always defined by social, economic, and logistic factors. Why did the English lose the later HYW? Because Burgundy switched sides (the French were no longer divided), and because the English nation was bankrupt and the French were very (very) well funded, and because the French simply refused to fight any set-piece battles. Total victory for the French, which had absolutely nothing to do with their ability to win dba battles.

[Snowcat]

Didn't the French also smash the English with relatively manouverable field cannons?

Yup, thought so:

http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/hyw_fp.htm

[Victor]

Like John, I'd be interested in seeing a specific proposal. Your underlying interest is to play-balance terrain-dependent armies by giving them a greater chance to deploy favorable terrain than other (terrain-resistant) armies. The issue is complicated -- your Light/Heavy split doesn't do the job. An army like Early Armenians (half BGo, half GGo) or Numidians (half BGo, half GGo) is "light", but can fight in heavy terrain or in the open -- it is much less terrain-dependent than Later Sarmatians or Later Vandals (up to 10-12 Knights), who are not "light" but are crippled if they lose terrain. Some elements are terrain-dependent on BGo (Ps, Aux); some are terrain-dependent on GGo (LH, Cv, Kn); some are situationally dependent (Bd or Sp can fight in BGo against armies with Bw or mounted, but never if they have Wb, and the Sp can't fight in BGo against Aux); some are situationally independent (Wb can fight in GGo unless facing El or Kn), and some are situationally very advantaged (LCm, 3Cm).

Unfortunately, I do not have a specific proposal, there are others more qualified then myself who could flesh this out. It would not be complicated though. Expanding upon the issue of light/heavy armies, Phil Barker himself in DBMM defines light troops to be LH, Aux and Ps. Heavy troops are not defined, presumably they will be everything else except perhaps Wb, Bw, Cv and Cm.

The average agg score is 2. If it is accepted that there is an issue with high agg predominately light armies, accordingly those armies that are say at least 50% (arbitrarily) composed of light troops should have something lower then 2, those with mostly heavy troops would have something greater then 2.

Looking some of your specific examples, lets say theoretically an army of 12 elements of knights fights an army of 12 elements of psiloi. Both are terrain dependent, with the kn preferring open terrain and the Ps preferring bad going. Who should have precedence? If the battle is fought in the open, the kn can hunt down and qk the Ps. If it is fought in closed terrain, the battle would only be decided if the kn go into the bg or the psiloi go into the open, either way, closed terrain will provide a closer result than open terrain. Accordingly it works in this situation that the kn are classed as heavy and the ps as light, as the ps should have a better chance to get terrain. As the current aggression ratings stand, the predominantly kn heavy armies such as Sarmations, Later Vandals, Eastern Franks have a high Agg anyway, so there is essentially no change with the modified agg ratings, but at least the light army has a reduced chance to becoming a door mat.

What about 12 Ps vs 12 LH? They are both light and would have the same agg rating. In the open, neither side is disadvantaged as ps vs Lh is an equal fight. In closed terrain, it will be similar to the ps vs kn, in that a result will only be achieved if he ps come out into the open. Therefore both armies having the same agg rating is of no disadvantage to either.

How would the armies apparently dudded even under the historic aggression rating system fare under a "terrain balanced" agg rating? Mongols clearly are predominantly light so would have a low agg rating, therefore the problem is fixed. HYW english only have 3 compulsory heavy troops, so would be agg 2, maybe higher depending on options. The med french have more than 6 compulsory heavies, so would be have an agg of 3 or higher. Again this is fixed. With Carthage vs Rome, the Carthaginians would be a 2, though they can have 6 light troops, so could be lower. The Romans have a predominantly heavy army, so would be greater than 2. Again, this current problem is now resolved.

As to later Roman armies re John's post, the MIR's with up to 50% lights would be in a similar situation to the Carthaginians above, with an agg rating of 2 or 1. Interestingly, this tracks exactly with the MIR list, which currently has those aggression ratings, so there is no detrimental effect. So a formulaic approach would automatically track with the Roman army progression from a monotype heavy force to a combined arms balanced force.

Other impacts would be that low agg mediaeval armies will become high agg, eg med french, med german, & low countries as examples. High agg wb armies like ancient germans will be lowered etc.


There are lots of other armies with low aggression and similar forces -- if it is important to you to play an Aux/Ps army with a few LH, and the history of that army is irrelevant to you, don't complain about Catalan Company -- just take Thracians or Ancient Spanish. That's a much simpler fix for your problem than convincing all the other players in the world of the merit of your change. And if you only play in Open tournaments, and you could care less about historical matchups, what's the difference?

I am not trying to convince the "players of the world" here, though you do raise a very interesting point. That is by having assigned various aggression ratings, you get a greater variation in army choice, as the aggression rating is a form of uniqueness. Under the current system, like you wrote, if you want an aggressive Aux/Ps army, run the Catalans, if you want a low agg army, use the Ancient Spanish. Under a "terrain balanced" system, yes, all Aux/Ps armies will have the same or similar agg ratings, so some of the variation is eliminated. I suppose this increased choice in the current agg ratings that helps to create the environment where army lists are chosen as if from a restaurant menu, is the realm under which the "power" competition gamers thrive.

[David Kuijt]

Under the current system, like you wrote, if you want an aggressive Aux/Ps army, run the Catalans, if you want a low agg army, use the Ancient Spanish. Under a "terrain balanced" system, yes, all Aux/Ps armies will have the same or similar agg ratings, so some of the variation is eliminated. I suppose this increased choice in the current agg ratings that helps to create the environment where army lists are chosen as if from a restaurant menu, is the realm under which the "power" competition gamers thrive.
You have it exactly backwards. Your whole system is predicated upon pandering to the "power" competition gamers. Competition gamers who play in open tournaments and care nothing for historical accuracy are the only ones who would be interested in your non-historical army-element-based aggression rating designed specifically for open tournaments.

Players who are interested in historical army behavior (even if we argue about it) and who enjoy themed tournaments and historical matchups will eschew your system, because it completely tosses out history in favor of an arbitrary terrain-vulnerability number. And the players who are interested in history are exactly NOT the "power" competition gamers.

The most I could say for your system is that it would move around the armies that the "power" gamers choose, as would any system that alters aggression factors. The implication that your system would even partially solve the issue of players who just play to win open-tournament games is frankly rather silly. And if you were to succeed in throwing out aggression factors and introducing a points system to make all armies equal and discard any historical interest, all you will have done is to make everyone a power gamer, because no matchup will have any interest except that of who wins in an open tournament.

[John Meunier]

This system - to the extent that it puts more terrain dependent armies in play - would up the problem of games that do not end because the pip requirements of fighting in terrain.

[Stephen Webb]

No matter what we use to even up two armies, they will never be equal. Unless we start with two armies with exactly the same elements, terrain and aggression. But we already have a game like that. Isn't it called Chess?

So in an open competition, some armies will be much harder to win with. Competitive players will avoid them. Others may not.

Only two suggestions so far may help to reduce the un-eveness with regards to some examples.

The first is increasing the board size. This may help armies with light horse, auxilia, psiloi etc. But it will still depend on what terrain is placed.

The second is the concept of scouting for attacker/defender. This again may help some armies that have a high aggression.

However, just as in history, some armies are better against some others.

All rule sets will have this problem. Over the past thirty years, each set of rules or versions has favoured some armies over others.

Accept it and move on...

Play the armies that you enjoy. Or if super competitive, those that help you win.

[Paul Collins]

Even a change to the aggression rating system will not balance DBA armies. It will simply alter the balance. Armies will still have more of troop x or be limited by having less of troop y.
Even in Stephen's example of chess (one of the most balanced of games), experienced players gain a tremendous advantage from being white and therefore moving first. Wargames (including chess) are about seeking and exploiting advantage. Altering the balance will not alter this equation.
Finally DBA (and most other rules sets) is designed for historical play. It is the players who want to run open tourneys. Altering the army aggression model would limit historical battles. The next step would then be to complain that the DBA lists do not accurately reflect historical battles.

[Andrechin]

Players who are interested in historical army behavior (even if we argue about it) and who enjoy themed tournaments and historical matchups will eschew your system, because it completely tosses out history in favor of an arbitrary terrain-vulnerability number. And the players who are interested in history are exactly NOT the "power" competition gamers.


Strangely enough, in Italy tournement organizers had to face the problem of themed tournements exactly in the opposed way...

We often have themed tournments with a very restricted army selection (10-20). On such a small list, usually there are two or three armies that are definetly better than any others. In such a situation the organizers want to encourage players to bring also the other armies, to add variety.

Currently, the normal way of doing that is to change the aggression factor, so that weak armies get the low aggression factor and the strong ones a high aggression.

Clearly this is done on case by case bases, because a certain army can be the strongest in a certain theme and the weakest in another one. So, no general recipes about how the army composition affect the aggression factor.

Also this is not a problem in open tournement, because players have so many armies to choose that enough variety is guaranteed.

Attilio

(who took Huns at a "Fall of Rome" theme just because they had aggression 0)

[David Kuijt]

Strangely enough, in Italy tournement organizers had to face the problem of themed tournements exactly in the opposed way...

We often have themed tournments with a very restricted army selection (10-20). On such a small list, usually there are two or three armies that are definetly better than any others. In such a situation the organizers want to encourage players to bring also the other armies, to add variety.

Currently, the normal way of doing that is to change the aggression factor, so that weak armies get the low aggression factor and the strong ones a high aggression.

Clearly this is done on case by case bases, because a certain army can be the strongest in a certain theme and the weakest in another one. So, no general recipes about how the army composition affect the aggression factor.


That's interesting. Can you give a specific example? We run themed tournies of that size all the time, but I rarely think that two or three armies are "definitely better," and we don't have the problem of players not creating sufficient variety. I've run dozens of themed tournaments in the last eight years, and I can't remember one where I saw two or three armies being dominant frequency-wise, so we've rarely perceived any need for non-historical messing with aggression.

The exceptions are fairly rare -- the only one I can think of is the "Wrath of Khan" tournament we ran Fall In 2006, where we changed up the terrain rules a bit to fix the perceived misbalance in Mongol Conquest and Timurid aggression. Not to "playbalance", though -- we did it to historical-balance (as discussed earlier, aggression is strategic-invasion based, and some heavy-invading armies won terrain a lot even on foreign soil; Mongol Conquest and Timurid are two of them).

Now one possibility is that you are still using 24" boards? On 24" boards low-mobility high-power armies with Knights and Elephants and Heavy Foot tend to dominate, and mobile armies with Cv and LH tend to be crushed. While high-power armies are still stronger on 30" boards, themes with armies like Crusaders vs. Saracens are much more interesting on the 30" boards, and a good player can be competitive with a Cv/LH army.

I've observed in the past that different regions have different opinions about which armies are "dominant" -- perhaps that's part of what is going on also.

[Andrechin]

That's interesting. Can you give a specific example?

An example is a "Fall of Rome" tournement, which was held for several years with standard aggression. After a few editions people started to concentrate on just two main combined arm armies: patrician romans and later visigotich.

Last year they played tuning a bit the aggression and a couple of huns armies appeared :)

Another example, on a tournement about the late roman republic, the organizers were worried there would have been no Marian Roman player, since hellenistic army list of the period were usually more competitive. So they chosed to give Romans an advantage on aggression. Hellenistic armies were still more played (between mithridatic and ptolemaic, they were 8 from 16), but there were two roman players and scored well.

Final example: theme on teh punic war. Without any aggression change, Roman with teh possibility to choose aggression 1 (before 202 BC) would have been preferable to most of the contemporary opponents, with similar aggression. Therefore they were forced to have aggression 4.

As a result, they wree still competive (they won the tournement), but there was a high rate of Numidian and Gauls (besides the expected chartaginians). Myself, I would have not played with celtiberians, if I could face roman with agg. 1 or I had the same aggression factor than Gauls (both would have played with 0 with standard rules).

You can see the army lists with modified aggression at http://www.dba-italia.org/tornei/2008/01-castegnato.pdf

Examples when it was not done: a theme on the ottoman empire: 30 players, only one ottoman (and most players having just two armies: Italian Condotta and Serbian Empire).


Now one possibility is that you are still using 24" boards?

Yes.


I've observed in the past that different regions have different opinions about which armies are "dominant" -- perhaps that's part of what is going on also.

Definetly. In different regions there are different playing styles, attitudes and preferences for certain armies or historical periods (as you have seen I gave you 3 examples about Rome ;) ).

By the way, I do not like in general changing the aggression, and will not defend this choice. I was just reporting a fact. I would prefer to have a more general mechanism to provide a better balance between defender and invader. To me, on average, being teh defender is a small advantage, similar to have white in chess, but in some cases it can be the game winner.

Attilio

[David Kuijt]

An example is a "Fall of Rome" tournement, which was held for several years with standard aggression. After a few editions people started to concentrate on just two main combined arm armies: patrician romans and later visigotich.


What armies in that group? Gepids and Early Ostrogoths are cool armies in that set; LPIA Nomad also. DS has won several tournaments with LPIA Nomad.



Last year they played tuning a bit the aggression and a couple of huns armies appeared :)


Tell them to put the battles on 30" boards instead of messing with aggression. Makes Alan and Atilla much more interesting.


Another example, on a tournement about the late roman republic, the organizers were worried there would have been no Marian Roman player, since hellenistic army list of the period were usually more competitive.

Marians are a very competitive army in that set, I don't understand.

Also, the Mithradatic and Ptolemaic vs. Marian matchup is not terrain-dependent. The Marians can't cripple their foes by choosing terrain-heavy or terrain-light; ditto in reverse. So the fix (lowering Roman aggression) doesn't do anything except pander to players who are Aggression-wimpy.


Final example: theme on teh punic war. Without any aggression change, Roman with teh possibility to choose aggression 1 (before 202 BC) would have been preferable to most of the contemporary opponents, with similar aggression. Therefore they were forced to have aggression 4.

As a result, they wree still competive (they won the tournement), but there was a high rate of Numidian and Gauls (besides the expected chartaginians). Myself, I would have not played with celtiberians, if I could face roman with agg. 1 or I had the same aggression factor than Gauls (both would have played with 0 with standard rules).


That's an interesting period. If I was running that as a Theme I would make historical modifications to aggression factor -- Hannibal in Italy (with no Elephants, since essentially none made it to Italy) is Agg 2; Romans Agg 4; Regular Carthage Agg 3. But I wouldn't do it for playbalance reasons -- those numbers are a better formulation of who won terrain in historical battles in that period.


Examples when it was not done: a theme on the ottoman empire: 30 players, only one ottoman (and most players having just two armies: Italian Condotta and Serbian Empire).

On 24" boards? No surprise there.

What about Later Hungarian? That army should romp against Italian Condotta or Serbian Empire.

[Victor]

Tell them to put the battles on 30" boards instead of messing with aggression. Makes Alan and Atilla much more interesting.

No comp in Australia uses 30" boards for 15mm that I know of. Perhaps a comp organiser in Oz can take up that batten and give it a try??

[Victor]

No matter what we use to even up two armies, they will never be equal. Unless we start with two armies with exactly the same elements, terrain and aggression. But we already have a game like that. Isn't it called Chess?.

DBA could never be like chess as it uses dice. Since last MOAB, my impression of the game is that it is a contest of dice throwing, elements are simply used as a basis to record who is winning and to improve the odds on dice throws.

I had a game last friday of Gauls vs Ancient Germans, 2 wb armies with virtually the same composition. Game ended on the first contact when one Cv general double the other Cv general on a dice throw.

[Pavane]

...Since last MOAB, my impression of the game is that it is a contest of dice throwing, elements are simply used as a basis to record who is winning and to improve the odds on dice throws...

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Luck may be one aspect of winning in DBA, but generalship can often compensate for bad luck in my experience. The frequency of wins by a handful of players in the eastern U.S. tournaments cannot be statistically attributed to luck.

[Victor]

I'm afraid that you are mistaken. Luck may be one aspect of winning in DBA, but generalship can often compensate for bad luck in my experience. The frequency of wins by a handful of players in the eastern U.S. tournaments cannot be statistically attributed to luck.

The comment was tongue in cheek.:) Maybe I should use more smileys. Though the "use of elements to improve the dice odds" is where the skill/generalship comes into it.

[Stephen Webb]

No comp in Australia uses 30" boards for 15mm that I know of. Perhaps a comp organiser in Oz can take up that batten and give it a try??

I would love to use 3' boards.

Ian and I have been trying them out.

Would there be much support for using them at MOAB or at a historical competition?

[David Kuijt]

I would love to use 3' boards.

Ian and I have been trying them out.


36" is too big. If you go that large you have to change the terrain rules, and camps are way too far away from the center of the board. If you change the terrain rules as well as the size of the board, you are just increasing the amount of resistance to the rules change.

A normal 24" board is 4 square feet of area. 30" board is 6.25 square feet, half again as much, but since it was possible to put out too much terrain with max-size pieces on a 24" board, the terrain density is still OK. 36" board is 9 square feet -- more than twice as much.

[Richard Lee]

36" is too big.

30" also happens to fit on a lot of club tables more easily than 36".:D

[Stephen Webb]

For 3' boards we have been using the big battle terrain rules. They are based on 8 square feet, so 9 square feet is a little bit larger.

Maybe in Australia we have bigger tables, as we can easily fit the 3' boards on our tables. Or at least at the competitions that I organise, such as MOAB. If you can't make the tables bigger, can you use smaller figures instead? Shift to 10mm or 6mm and base them on smaller bases...

What about those who play in 25mm? They must use 3' boards as well, so in the USA what do they do? Or don't you use 25mm at all?

What board size do you use for your Star Wars HOTT games?

As to resistence to rule changes. Whenever Phil release a new edition, most of us change over to it. Especially in competitions. Therefore, I ask what resistence? Phil's or the players?

Sometimes there is support on the forum for canvassing Phil to make changes, yet in this case some seem to be against it...

[David Kuijt]

What about those who play in 25mm? They must use 3' boards as well, so in the USA what do they do? Or don't you use 25mm at all?

Something like 95% of the tournaments at Historicon, Cold Wars, and Fall In are 15mm. In the only notable 25mm tournament, the Open at Historicon, in the past Bob Beattie often supplied at least half the armies as loaners, and the numbers playing that scale are still quite small -- maybe as few as 4-6 players with their own 25mm armies.

In other words, very little 25mm.

From your question, it seems like that isn't the case in Oz.


What board size do you use for your Star Wars HOTT games?


4' square. The Star Wars HotT basing is double-15mm scale (80mm bases).


As to resistence to rule changes. Whenever Phil release a new edition, most of us change over to it. Especially in competitions. Therefore, I ask what resistence? Phil's or the players?


The 30" board is not a change made by Phil. (And your 36" board likewise). So how well players accept changes made by Phil is entirely beside the point.

[Stephen Webb]

How does the 4' board for HOTT fit on a table that can only fit a 2' board? Or are HOTT tables bigger than DBA tables? If they are just use HOTT tables at your competitions. At MOAB we use tables that have 6' x 4' boards on them for the other games, so they can have either two 2' or 3' boards per table.

Most Australian competitions are for 15mm, but my historical competitions allow players to use 25mm. Or even 10mm or 6mm, based anyway they desire...

I am aware that 30" boards are not allowed in the rules. That may be why we don't use them, here in Australia. Nor was I suggesting that we have major rule differences in different countries, based on the whim's of the players or organisers. That would lead to anarchy... Or maybe a better version of DBA?

However, we do already have thsi situation. Some competitions in the USA use 30" boards. Most in Australia restrict dismounting. Etc...

I would however, suggest that we could canvass Phil to change the board size in the next version of DBA. As it currently disadvantages some armies...

If we did what size should be suggested?

I would suggest 3' square, based on my testing with Ian. USA players may suggest 30" x 24". There may even be others who may want another size?

But if we don't ask, as I recall DK saying previously, we won't get...

[John Loy]

The normally available tables are only slightly wider than the 24". We normally use "extenders" for the 30" boards.

The 25mm tourney I play in at Cold Wars uses the 36" boards and we push 2 tables together.

DK: Time for you to start painting up some 25's:cool:


John

[Chris Brantley]

How does the 4' board for HOTT fit on a table that can only fit a 2' board? Or are HOTT tables bigger than DBA tables?

At the eastern U.S. cons, all DBx/HOTT gaming is done on folding tables that are 72 x 30 inches. That just accomodates the 30 inch square DBA large boards (which were scaled down from 32 inches to fit the tablesize) and the 5x2 Big Battle DBA Boards.

For games requiring larger boards (e.g. 25mm DBA and HOTT), we put two tables together, giving you a 72 x 60 inch rectangle on which to place your 4x4 board.

[Stephen Webb]

For games requiring larger boards (e.g. 25mm DBA and HOTT), we put two tables together, giving you a 72 x 60 inch rectangle on which to place your 4x4 board.

Therefore the restriction to use 30" boards instead of 36" boards was based on the use of one table instead of two, not on not having bigger tables sizes available.

I did wonder why you couldn't just put two together to make a larger one.

Still it is an interesting method of choosing a board size. Though it might be similar to Phil's original method of choosing 2' boards.

[Victor]

It is interesting that the use of playing boards in the U.S. that are larger than those stipulated in the rules may be why gamers who participate in those comps do not percieve their to be a problem with aggression ratings that is experienced in other parts of the world, or where the standard size is used.

I can see that using larger boards would significantly alter play balance between armies, far more so then modifying aggression ratings, especially for LH armies, maybe not as much for Aux/Ps armies.

[Stephen Webb]

I can see that using larger boards would significantly alter play balance between armies, especially for LH armies.

That has been the the experience of Ian and myself wtih 3' boards.

It allows mobile armies to avoid having to attack frontally, if that is not to their advantage.

[John Meunier]

Someone in GLADBAG will have to step in and correct me, but I am pretty certain we use standard boards here in the Midwest of the USA.

The disagreement with your proposals is not because of board size.

No one is arguing that Mongols don't have a tough challenge in an open tournament. That doesn't mean the rules need to be changed.

[El' Jocko]

Therefore the restriction to use 30" boards instead of 36" boards was based on the use of one table instead of two, not on not having bigger tables sizes available.


Not a big deal, but the sequence was a little bit different:

We tried 36" boards first, but after playtesting we rejected them as too large. We then moved to 32" boards and found they worked well. But 32" boards were just a little too big for the convention tables. Finally, we tried 30" boards and found there was no noticable difference relative to the 32" boards. So we adopted 30" boards as our preferred size.

So the 36" boards weren't rejected because of the table size, but because we found them too large for our taste. And we considered the 32" and 30" boards to play pretty much the same. That made the decision easy.

- Jack

[El' Jocko]

No one is arguing that Mongols don't have a tough challenge in an open tournament. That doesn't mean the rules need to be changed.

I would even go so far as to say that there is no change in board size or aggression that is going to make the Mongols competitive in an open tournament.

I'd wager that if you put the Mongols on a 48" board with no terrain, even then, they'd lose to most armies most of the time. And that's just DBA.

- Jack

[Victor]

I would even go so far as to say that there is no change in board size or aggression that is going to make the Mongols competitive in an open tournament.

I'd wager that if you put the Mongols on a 48" board with no terrain, even then, they'd lose to most armies most of the time. And that's just DBA.

- Jack

I don't think anyone would argue that winning with Mongols is tough in DBA.

But an increase in board size is, at its most basic level, an army/game balancing device. Otherwise, why would it ever be adopted?

On a 24" board, (as has happened to me) a player with a lot of heavy troops can effectively form one line from end to end, especially if they have terrain on the flanks, and start pushing LC towards their original deployment area, and give little or no opportunity for the LC to flank attack. This changes on a larger board - the LC have a deeper area to flee into and they may start getting into some exposed flanks. Those that use these non standard tables for comp games therefore have a diminished need to play around with aggression ratings.

[John Loy]

That was most of the drive behind using larger boards; although not limited to Lh, but all mounted.

In the midwest we still primarily use the 24". Some are very "vehement" about it. I just try to pick an army to fit the situation, if possible:rolleyes:


John

[David Kuijt]

But an increase in board size is, at its most basic level, an army/game balancing device. Otherwise, why would it ever be adopted?

Although game balancing and army balancing is not always the same thing.

Taking away the tactic of having completely secure flanks every game and requiring use of terrain, refused flanks, reserves, or whatever makes for more historical feeling play, independent of which armies are under discussion.

Naturally enough, that ends up being a net benefit for some armies (those who have no chance in frontal assault and historically attempted to win by maneuver), and a net reduction for others (those who have little response to maneuver, and who now must learn to use historical methods to defend their now-at-risk flanks), but the change is worthwhile on its own merit.


On a 24" board, (as has happened to me) a player with a lot of heavy troops can effectively form one line from end to end, especially if they have terrain on the flanks, and start pushing LC towards their original deployment area, and give little or no opportunity for the LC to flank attack. This changes on a larger board - the LC have a deeper area to flee into and they may start getting into some exposed flanks.
Exactly so. Which is why the 30" board has gained gradual support during the six or more years we've been using it along the east coast of the US. For two reasons -- because it isn't a major change (not so scary to conservatives), and because it makes for a better game.

[David Kuijt]

The 25mm tourney I play in at Cold Wars uses the 36" boards and we push 2 tables together.

DK: Time for you to start painting up some 25's:cool:


I've got lots of them -- Moria Goblins, Elves of Lothlorien, Skeletons (triple army), Baruk Khazad (Dwarves), Gondor, Last Alliance of Elves and Men, Mordor Orcs...

Plus lots in process -- Ice Barbarians, Greek Myth, Snowmen of the Apocalypse, ... :D

[John Meunier]

As long as we are talking about 25mm troops and board size, the idea of increasing the board size of a 15mm board was originally argued with reference to the 25mm game board.

It was pointed out that the element frontage to board width ratio in a 25mm game was much different than the ratio in 15mm. At that time, DBA had 48 inch boards for 25mm trooops.

The wider 25mm board relative to troop frontage was clearly a better game. So, some folks argued that the 15mm board should be made larger to keep the frontage to board width ratio the same between the two scales.

Phil - God bless his little soul - solved the problem by shrinking the 25mm board. This is not the solution that anyone was advocating and most agree it reduced rather than increased the quality of the game as written.

Aggression factors were another innovation Phil gave us. I do not know if anyone was calling for them after playing the game without them. But most players agree they improved the game from the standpoint of adding historical feel to a simple game.

I think the crux of this disagreement has to do with how important "balancing" the game for Open Tournaments is. Some of us feel rather strongly that there is no need or virtue in making the game better suited for Open Tournament settings.

So, even as you make the case that changes to improve the game have been made in the past - and appear to feel that makes your argument stronger - I (and some others) do not agree with your premise that making the game more "balanced" for Open Tournaments is an improvement.

There are lots of games that are built for Open Tournament style play. I don't think DBA is or should be one of them. I may still play in Opens from time to time (fewer times each year it seems), but that does not mean I want the game fundamentally built for such environments.

You may come at it from a different point of view.

[JamesLDIII]

It is interesting that the use of playing boards in the U.S. that are larger than those stipulated in the rules may be why gamers who participate in those comps do not percieve their to be a problem with aggression ratings that is experienced in other parts of the world, or where the standard size is used.

I can see that using larger boards would significantly alter play balance between armies, far more so then modifying aggression ratings, especially for LH armies, maybe not as much for Aux/Ps armies.

Victor, if you have not already done so, I suggest you read the extended thread on 30" boards here:

http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=353&highlight=board

As DK mentioned, a larger board facilitates historical maneuvering--perhaps that changes the play balance of armies, but I see allowing troops to manuever as they would as a good and desireable change. The fact that you can increase the size of the DBA board out to 36 or 48 inches or more (assuming a consistent terrain density) without breaking the game shows that the system is a good one. Try it with GW games and it immediately becomes apparent that one of the major, if not the primary play balancing mechanisms is the board size. (edit: I suppose I should mention I have not played any of the GW historical rules, only Fantasy and 40K. Perhaps they are different.)

Given your previous statements in the current thread, I am not surprised you have interpreted board size in terms of aggression...

[VingThorr]

So I re-fought the Mongols last night, and it's now clear that the 30" board and remembering to multi-move (we're both new to DBA) makes all the difference for Light Horse armies.

The mongols had the first turn against my Medieval Germans (c), and my opponent rolled a "4" for his pips. 10 seconds later, I haven't even had a turn yet, and there was a column of 3 elements of light horse 40mm away from my camp. (I'll make sure to start some Cb in my camp next time!) On the mongols next turn, 3 more elements in column zipped around my other flank and ended up 40mm away from my general. As my cavalry and knights were retaking my camp, my general was triple-teamed, and since Light Horse quick kill Knights, that was the end of that. Stinkin' sneaky back-stabbin' Mongols! :mad:

[John Meunier]

So I re-fought the Mongols last night, and it's now clear that the 30" board and remembering to multi-move (we're both new to DBA) makes all the difference for Light Horse armies.

The mongols had the first turn against my Medieval Germans (c), and my opponent rolled a "4" for his pips. 10 seconds later, I haven't even had a turn yet, and there was a column of 3 elements of light horse 40mm away from my camp. (I'll make sure to start some Cb in my camp next time!) On the mongols next turn, 3 more elements in column zipped around my other flank and ended up 40mm away from my general. As my cavalry and knights were retaking my camp, my general was triple-teamed, and since Light Horse quick kill Knights, that was the end of that. Stinkin' sneaky back-stabbin' Mongols! :mad:

There you go! That is as solid a testimony for the bigger boards as I have ever read.

[JamesLDIII]

So I re-fought the Mongols last night, and it's now clear that the 30" board and remembering to multi-move (we're both new to DBA) makes all the difference for Light Horse armies.

The mongols had the first turn against my Medieval Germans (c), and my opponent rolled a "4" for his pips. 10 seconds later, I haven't even had a turn yet, and there was a column of 3 elements of light horse 40mm away from my camp. (I'll make sure to start some Cb in my camp next time!) On the mongols next turn, 3 more elements in column zipped around my other flank and ended up 40mm away from my general. As my cavalry and knights were retaking my camp, my general was triple-teamed, and since Light Horse quick kill Knights, that was the end of that. Stinkin' sneaky back-stabbin' Mongols! :mad:

So as the Medieval Germans, what would you do differently?

[VingThorr]

1. some crossbows in the camp.

2. instead of a long intimidating line, I'll chop my elements up into 3 battles. The big heavy stuff that I know he'll never approach in the middle. and battle groups of crossbows & knights on the flanks, to deal with his outflanking LH. or maybe I should keep my knights in the center, to tempt him to attack there?

3. definately won't send the general riding around solo to save the day.

4. wait for him to come to me. then focus on killing his outflankers.

give me your advice . . . I'm all ears, and spears.

I hope I can do the tournament thing someday!

[ShopKeepJon]

I love the challenge of fighting light horse on a 30" board.

One of the main things to remember is that light horse, when forced to flee, will move over seven inches (from the point of contact with your element, 30mm recoil, 30mm turn to face original rear, 125mm flee move). This is a long way even on a 30" battlefield.

The 30" board allows them more room to maneuver, but the edge of the world is still significant.

Also, with a cautious and relentless approach to the battle, it is possible to drive light horse up against bad terrain or the edge of the world.

Cover your open flank with a strong reserve and wait for the light horse army to roll bad pips a couple times. Your should be able to introduce them to your spear points quite successfully. (Just ask my wife's Skythians...)

shopKeepJon

[JamesLDIII]

1. some crossbows in the camp.

2. instead of a long intimidating line, I'll chop my elements up into 3 battles. The big heavy stuff that I know he'll never approach in the middle. and battle groups of crossbows & knights on the flanks, to deal with his outflanking LH. or maybe I should keep my knights in the center, to tempt him to attack there?

3. definately won't send the general riding around solo to save the day.

4. wait for him to come to me. then focus on killing his outflankers.

give me your advice . . . I'm all ears, and spears.

I hope I can do the tournament thing someday!

There are a couple options with guerrilla type armies that don't like a stand up fight.

1) let him come to you. The problem with this tactic is you can cede the initiative. Since LH are faster than you, it is less likely you will be able to recover from any "surprise"

2) bait him. A tough trick to accomplish, but the idea is you appear to offer up a target the LH can gobble up, but you orient yourself in a way to take advantage of their manuevers toward the target. A camp is a good example of a tempting target-perhaps you don't want to put a Cb element in the camp so you can entice the LH to attack, but a portion of your force to kill the LH would include Bw troops.

3) Make him defend. Guerrilla troops like to run away and fight another day, so you have to find a target that they must defend. In DBA, this can often be the enemy camp. Threatening the concombatants, logistics, etc., can be a good move. It offers you the chance of siezing the initiative, and siezing it means you only need two more kills to finish the battle. Of course the camp is all the way across the battlefield, so you need to find a way to resolutely progress forward in spite of the flanking threats to your own troops and camp. But hey, the Romans tried this a few times: you may note the object of their campaigns was a settled area (ie BUA or camp).

[peachy]

So as the Medieval Germans, what would you do differently?

Is "hire the White Company" an acceptable reply?