PDA

View Full Version : Historical Match-Ups


Chris Brantley
02-12-2008, 12:42 AM
What's your attitude toward fighting historically matched armies in DBA?

Andy Swingle
02-12-2008, 01:58 AM
the opens are fun enough.. as long as their are enough players for 2 brackets.. books 1 & 2 in the first and 3 & 4 for the second. If less.. its all for fun.. I dont get upset either way. but i do prefer that.. to do 2 brackets.. you really need like 12 people playing.. Then sometimes you end up with dark age armies in book 1 and 2 bracket or a classical army in a book 3 & 4 bracket.. But what can you do?:D

Baldrick
02-12-2008, 06:30 AM
Not really fussed, most of the competitions in Australia are completely open and we still manage to have a very wide variety of armies fielded.

Personally I've never been too worried about non-historical match ups (whether I'm playing DBA, BBDBA, DBM or DBMM) and have always thought it adds a bit of spice to the game.

Itchysama
02-12-2008, 07:30 AM
I've played (and still play) in opens, but really appreciate theme/historical opponents. And one of the beautiful parts about DBA, is that it doesn't cost and arm and a leg to make an army for the most part. :)

But then I like BBDBA so there goes that argument!! :D

Dave Crowell
02-12-2008, 08:44 AM
Chris,

You forgot the poll options for: "Those who play even one non-historical match-up, just to try it, are thoroughly evil and in the pay of Satan. They should have their figures melted down for fishing weights."

And: "Those who play only historically matched pairs are sad cases who need to unbend their stiff necks and really should get out of their parents' basements once in a while."


Let's give the Fanatici a chance to say how they really feel. ;)

JamesLDIII
02-12-2008, 10:24 AM
I collect armies in campaign groups so all my non-tournament play is with historically matched or plausible enemies. But I don't mind my Nubians fighting early northern european barbarians or Burgundian Ordonnance in tournament play. I doubt other ancients rule sets in tournament play have more historical matchups than DBA, unless the game rewards similar power armies (like bunches of later medieval armies).

Noble
02-12-2008, 10:52 AM
Historical match-ups if in any way possible, non-historical if everything else fails ;)

drathul
02-12-2008, 05:05 PM
The only time I will play non-historical match ups is in comps.
At any other time I only play historical match ups.

As is probably obvious (and I believe I've mentioned it a number of times)
I really really don't like non-historical match ups.

John Loy
02-12-2008, 06:55 PM
I like any match. I pick an army based on how I think it will fight..
I will grant that historical match ups can make a weak army competitive.
Matched pairs has allowed me to bring armies to tournies that I would never bring to an open.

John

Macbeth
02-12-2008, 06:59 PM
Like James I make up campaign sets (of 13 armies generally) so I have a wide range of historical opponents.

Most of my non tournament games are in campaign form.

However I have no problem with (and regularly organise) open tournaments. I have done well with the Sung Chinese (so NOT a power army).

There are three (albeit minor) problems with matched pairs in a tournament setting that need careful consideration
1) Some people are a little touchy about having their nicely painted figures handled by less careful gamers - this may stop them from entering, or at least from bringing their favourites.
2) If both sides bring a matched pair to the competition then there will possibly be some inequity about whose figures are used - I played an 8 round comp once and used my armies only twice. (Stephen Webb worked very hard to address this in later comps). At the other extreme I saw a comp that tried to be fair by having each match consist of 4 battles - one each with each side of the matched pairs.
3) Some players have a style of play suited to a specific mix of troops (see the earlier poll). In a matched pairs battle one player will possibly be disadvantaged simply because the army they have drawn is not from their style. (What is this you say - a really good wargamer should be equally comfortable with all troop mixes, a fair point but why - are you only a good cricket or baseball player if you can play in all the positions on the team?)

Given that the armies are defined by a mix of 16 element types then sometimes we are talking about only a cosmetic difference - what is the difference between EHG Argives and Melanesians ? The latter's Sp are on deeper bases ;). There are plenty of monotype armies that are identical in performance after all.

Cheers

Blackadder
02-13-2008, 01:09 AM
I voted "will only fight historical enemies." (Or reasonably likely hypothetical matches, like Alexander vs. Carthage.) I don't play in tournaments and I feel it's my perogative. I don't understand the point of wildly unhistorical matches, really, but to each his own. For my part, I'm a history buff first and a gamer second.

Pthomas
02-13-2008, 11:14 AM
I voted "will only fight historical enemies." (Or reasonably likely hypothetical matches, like Alexander vs. Carthage.) I don't play in tournaments and I feel it's my perogative. I don't understand the point of wildly unhistorical matches, really, but to each his own. For my part, I'm a history buff first and a gamer second.

As a tournament/Campaign organizer with the desire to involve as many folks as possible, could I ask the historical only (or historical preferred) folks a question. I ran, recently, a Crusades Pyramid campaign at Battle at the Crossroads 08 with armies from both the first and second crusades. Now, I tried to include mostly armies that were both historical opponents and allies of each other, but did expand that list some to allow a wider range of armies to be able to be played (so that players could use the armies they have bought and painted). Would historical only folks play in such a tournament/campaign? Why or why not and what would be your line in the sand? Thanks for your input.

Mike Johnson
02-13-2008, 11:38 AM
What's your attitude toward fighting historically matched armies in DBA?



Im all for historical match ups with 350 or so lists its totally reasonable to do a historical match up

The Last Conformist
02-13-2008, 12:00 PM
I'm not sure how I should vote. Most of the time I prefer historical matchups, but sometimes I like to throw something totally out there like Incans vs. Urartians just for the hell of it.

Blackadder
02-13-2008, 03:57 PM
As a tournament/Campaign organizer with the desire to involve as many folks as possible, could I ask the historical only (or historical preferred) folks a question. I ran, recently, a Crusades Pyramid campaign at Battle at the Crossroads 08 with armies from both the first and second crusades. Now, I tried to include mostly armies that were both historical opponents and allies of each other, but did expand that list some to allow a wider range of armies to be able to be played (so that players could use the armies they have bought and painted). Would historical only folks play in such a tournament/campaign? Why or why not and what would be your line in the sand? Thanks for your input.

I don't mind hypothetical matches between opponents who existed at the same time and might theoretically have reached one another to fight. So I wouldn't object to Alexander vs. Carthage/Syracuse/Rome, Hannibal vs. Macedon or the Seleucids (assuming Carthage won the 2nd Punic War), or Cimbri vs. Late Hellenistic Greeks (because the Romans failed to stop them). I would even be amenable to more unlikely (but still possible) matches like Alexander vs. Warring States Chinese or Vikings vs. Mound Builders. I draw the line at matches like Aztecs vs. New Kingdom Egyptians or Sumerians vs. Medieval French. So if your tournament were limited to armies that existed in the Middle East (or thereabouts) during the same time period, I wouldn't object to it. If Mayan armies (for example) were allowed, I would. I couldn't participate because I only paint armies from the Bronze Age to about 500 AD, but your tournament sounds reasonable to me.

I should add I for one don't care much about the enemies/allies lists in the rules, because they seem arbitrary in places and wrong in others. If someone made a halfway reasonable case that two armies could have fought, I would consider that an acceptable match no matter what the DBA rules say.

Dave Crowell
02-13-2008, 04:16 PM
I am in agreement with what Blackadder said in the post just above this one.

Reasonable hypothetical match-ups, but not too wierd.

Gregory
02-13-2008, 05:14 PM
I prefer historical match-ups, but am happy to play a game with any 2 armies.

I do want to play with miniatures that I have painted, but, since I only have 2 armies so far, it is often difficult to play historical opponents.

Frizzenspark
02-15-2008, 08:56 AM
I do prefer historic opponents but I'm not so set in my way that I won't mix it up. I guess I would consider myself to be social first, a historian second and a gamer third. We get together to play because we're social beings; DBA is a great vehicle for this...its a wargaming version of speed dating....meeting new and interesting people and wiping out their armies.

Economics being what they are, you fight with and against what's available. I am a historian though, and of course prefer historic opponents; I'm collecting book III/IV armies from the Iberian penninsula, so that's my way of keeping it historical.

Pthomas
02-15-2008, 09:42 AM
DBA is a great vehicle for this...its a wargaming version of speed dating....meeting new and interesting people and wiping out their armies.



I love this, I'm stealing it for my tagline!

Frizzenspark
02-15-2008, 09:47 AM
Originally Posted by Frizzenspark
DBA is a great vehicle for this...its a wargaming version of speed dating....meeting new and interesting people and wiping out their armies.

I love this, I'm stealing it for my tagline!

I have no problems...go for it.

Tony Aguilar
02-15-2008, 10:33 AM
I'm collecting book III/IV armies from the Iberian penninsula, so that's my way of keeping it historical.

Check out my take on the Feudal Spanish and Almoravid armies on my blogsite. ;)

Frizzenspark
02-15-2008, 11:51 AM
Check out my take on the Feudal Spanish and Almoravid armies on my blogsite. ;)


Oddly enough, I have checked out your site before...there are some inspiring photos within.

Mike Demana
02-15-2008, 02:18 PM
I prefer contemporary opponents, but realize that there is an appeal among players for an Open competition. Who doesn't want to play with his newest toys...? That is why I started doing matchups by "army date" a few years back. I would have each player choose a year for their army (within the range published for that list). Then I would list them from earliest to latest, matching up 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, etc. In Round 2, the winner of 1/2 would play the winner of 3/4, and so on.

That way, armies fight contemporary opponents as much as possible within a winner vs. winner, loser vs. loser pairing system...

Tony Aguilar
02-15-2008, 02:53 PM
Who doesn't want to play with his newest toys...?

Exactly Mike. This is what dries us painters. We need to get that next army done for the next tourney. That is the one thing I don't care for in Matched Pairs is that you are not guaranteed to play your "new darling".

David Kuijt
02-15-2008, 02:57 PM
That is the one thing I don't care for in Matched Pairs is that you are not guaranteed to play your "new darling".

Hmmm... that, plus other people get to touch my figures. Some players are a little brusque with them. Other paint-geeks I can trust, but I've seen some players who inspire me to sharpen the pins I replace my Alexandrian pikes with (just to give the figures a chance for self-defence).

Tony Aguilar
02-15-2008, 03:02 PM
Other paint-geeks I can trust, but I've seen some players who inspire me to sharpen the pins I replace my Alexandrian pikes with (just to give the figures a chance for self-defence).

...or coat the tips with Poison Dart Frog drippings. :)

Bob. (and his dog)
02-15-2008, 04:26 PM
Exactly Mike. This is what dries us painters. We need to get that next army done for the next tourney. That is the one thing I don't care for in Matched Pairs is that you are not guaranteed to play your "new darling".

Paint your new darlings as an enemy of an army you have, and you have a matched pair. In the matched pair game you get to play with or against the darlings 1/2 the time.

For those who fear abuse to the darlings, just put them on an extra thick base for the matched event, and slap the hand of an opponent who touches the figs instead of the base.

Strange, I have seen some players readily offer up armies for scenario tournaments, but then not want to for one on one events.

For Historicon, I will have a partial solution. I will provide all the armies for the matched pairs pairs event. Just trying to decide if it should be theme, Rome vs enemies, or just random pairs.

Ecdicius
02-17-2008, 07:21 PM
Chris,

You forgot the poll options for: "Those who play even one non-historical match-up, just to try it, are thoroughly evil and in the pay of Satan. They should have their figures melted down for fishing weights."

And: "Those who play only historically matched pairs are sad cases who need to unbend their stiff necks and really should get out of their parents' basements once in a while."


Let's give the Fanatici a chance to say how they really feel. ;)
As usual an excellent variety of opinion. (though we seem to be trailing off into a 'how to protect your painted darlings...' forum)
In response to Dave's outliers I would add a sub-vote for option b.
I have a definite wish not to empower a power-gamer - the one that only fields, say, Hussites or NKEs, because they have the best stats. A tournament that pits armies from the same campaign region and general period is my preference. If I'm interested in the struggle for North-West Europe in the C9, I would not mind if Vikings fought Magyars, but I would mind if Arthur suddenly took the field.

Leadhead
02-18-2008, 04:38 AM
It seems that most prefer a historical match.
...But, as DBA is a really a scissors, paper, rock affair (to put a fine point on it), so if you had a game with an army of 2 x 3 Kn, 2 x Cv, 8 x Wb vs. a 2 x 3Cv, 4 x Bl, 2 x Lh, 3 x Ax, 1 x Art, would you know what armies are fighting?? If not, but the game was a good one, would it really matter? To misquote Shakespeare, "a blade, by any other name, is but a blade"

Don't get me wrong, I AM a historical gamer. Period. But I still have fun with a Aztec vs Norman affair, as I acknowledge that both armies are HIGHLY stylized without any thought to armor, morale or method of tactics. I prefer the comfort in a battle which could be fought in history but in a tourney...what the heck...my stone chiseled weapons are as good against Norman steel mail armor as against historical feathers and flesh is it not?

Xavi
02-18-2008, 04:56 AM
I have3 conflicting emotions on this one.

1. I have several armies, but few of my games are historical at all. Other people also have several armies, but our collections are not as wide as those of other fanatici (at least not yet). At most, our games are between armies that belong to the same book (book 2 usually, even if there is a move to book 4 lately)

2. I *think* I would like historical matchups, but I am not completley sure about that. I think I prefer interesting GAMES over historical battles. A good challenge makes more fun than a roll over a historical opponent by a grossly overbearing historical army. A lot of the historical opponents are not very balanced. Gauls vs marians would end with the marians as victors most of the time, for example, regardless of the QK ability.

So, I voted for "Prefer match-ups with armies at least from the same army book.". Quite a tough call, though.

Cheers,

Xavi

David Kuijt
02-18-2008, 08:38 AM
A good challenge makes more fun than a roll over a historical opponent by a grossly overbearing historical army. A lot of the historical opponents are not very balanced. Gauls vs marians would end with the marians as victors most of the time, for example, regardless of the QK ability.


There are some examples of historical imbalance, but not nearly as many as you would think. Gauls vs. Marians, for example -- I definitely would NOT call that imbalanced, and I'm surprised you think it is so. At Agg0 vs. Agg3, Gauls are going to get terrain most of the time, and can easily put out enough terrain to put the Marians in a very difficult situation. On a 24" map (which I think you guys use?) with good players on both sides, I would expect honours to be about even. With the Ancient Brits (Gauls with more mounted, basically) I'd put the Romans at a disadvantage.

Xavi
02-18-2008, 10:17 AM
Maybe it is a question of statistics, but our (mine, actually) gauls end up being the attackers more often than not :P With ancient brits vs EIR (an other typical matchup) the result tends to be 50/50 split in attack/defence. The fact that we had not notriced that they were Ag:1 instead of Ag:3 after certain year would explain a part of that as well ;) :P

My gauls have been more successful than not, but I think that the romans should have the initiative. Most of the victories have been close calls here! If the blades avoid the BGo, they end up with favourable matchups more often than not, regardless of the QK

And yes, we use 24" boards. I would like to try the 30" boards, but there is a blatant resistance about doing that around here. Pitty

Xavi

David Kuijt
02-18-2008, 11:41 AM
Maybe it is a question of statistics, but our (mine, actually) gauls end up being the attackers more often than not :P With ancient brits vs EIR (an other typical matchup) the result tends to be 50/50 split in attack/defence. The fact that we had not notriced that they were Ag:1 instead of Ag:3 after certain year would explain a part of that as well ;) :P


Ag:0, Xavi -- even more so.

(If you didn't notice that Gauls were Ag:0 when facing Marians, I'm not surprised that the Gauls didn't do as well as they might have!)


My gauls have been more successful than not, but I think that the romans should have the initiative. Most of the victories have been close calls here! If the blades avoid the BGo, they end up with favourable matchups more often than not, regardless of the QK
With the Gallic Warband double-move, it is usually possible to wrong-foot a Marian Roman player who just lines up and waits. Sometimes it doesn't work, of course.

And yes, we use 24" boards. I would like to try the 30" boards, but there is a blatant resistance about doing that around here. Pitty
Xavi

Just run a tournament on 30" boards, in a theme tourney. It is pretty difficult to get players to like it when they haven't tried it -- strangely, most wargamers are a conservative bunch.

Xavi
02-18-2008, 12:53 PM
Dunno you, but I always roll 1 or 2 PIPs in the turn that I want to double move my line AND get 1 unit to act independently to flank the enemy et al... ;) been foiled quite a few times by the "Wb double move, so no biggie with them moving 200". It meant a few spectacular defeats for me, in some cases!! :p

This is why I am including the psiloi option with my gauls lately. This little bugger has saved my arse in flanking movements quite a few times now, closing the door where Wb couldn't.

Cheers,

Xavi

Paul L. Harrison
02-18-2008, 09:36 PM
Ag:0, Xavi -- even more so.



Just run a tournament on 30" boards, in a theme tourney. It is pretty difficult to get players to like it when they haven't tried it -- strangely, most wargamers are a conservative bunch.

The tournaments and most one-off games I have played on have been on the 24" boards. I would prefer the 30" boards; the world has less of an artificial edge and the rules penalize you with pips for spreading out too far; as does DBM.

Frizzenspark
02-20-2008, 12:09 AM
I noticed on the top of the list "New Kingdom Egyptians vs. Wood Elves of Haven okay by me. " I will stick my neck out in an assumption that this would be a HoTT game so it would actually be "Wood Elves of Haven vs. New Kingdom Egyptians" instead of the other way around in that ...would we accept historical miniatures in a Fantasy game?

The magic of these DBx/HoTT games is that they are flexible in that they do give a rigid format and guideline that simplifies strict historical gaming in that allies and enemies are listed for virtually every army; I collect my miniatures mostly based on what fights with and against what I have.

Again, a DBA player can convert his army into the "Hott point system" for a tournament. Quite a few DBx/HoTT players are artistic and creative, the fantasy version lets them do something creative, quite apart from the norm.

The DBx/HoTT has also been converted for other historical periods; I have seen excellent versions for the AWI, WWII for free on the internet as well as commercial versions for the Civil War. Many are very playable and allow us to use stockpiled lead in a more playable format.

I suppose we all get and give what we want from the system, such as do we play on 2' x 2' boards or larger, to each his/her own. The DBx/HoTT is as adaptable as we want it to be; it's user friendly, that's why there are so many of us, it is a game that can adapt and still stay the same.

Dave Crowell
02-20-2008, 09:56 AM
Wood Elves vs NKE may have been intended as a HotT game scenario, but I am doing an Asiatic Steppe Nomad morph using DBA army lists and Splintered Light Goblin figures. If I have the correct DBA size bases, with the correct numbers and types of figures, and organize them according to a DBA army list, are they a fantasy army or a funny looking historical one?

What if I paint my historical fgures in fantasy heraldry? Say a Norman army in the black and silver with the white tree of Gondor?

Or Romans with bright green orc skin?

Or what about vikings with hot pink shields and orange tunics?

None of the above have any impact on game play, unlike the phantom camp folloers that have become so popular.

Xavi
02-20-2008, 11:01 AM
I think that the above examples would not be kosher in my games. Why? Because they attack something of my understandingof the game: they attackl my notion of suspension fo disbelief because I *know* that historically those dudes were not green or dessed like hawaian dancers with skirts and flower collars. I might not even know if vikings used the colors you are suggesting, but I would certainly doubt that they were UNIFORMED in such silly color combinations.

So, to me those would be HOTT style armies.

Now, I would have no problems fighting against them in a DBA game, but I would consider it to be a fantasy engagement played using DBA rules. I have no problems doing that, since I regularly face LIR armies equiped like EIR soldiers on a regular basis, or thessalians painted like the comic 300. To me those are great looking fantasy armies used according to a certain list in the DBA book to make for a legal game. Not historical, but for a chess style game they are OK

Cheers,

Xavi

David Kuijt
02-20-2008, 11:40 AM
What if I paint my historical fgures in fantasy heraldry? Say a Norman army in the black and silver with the white tree of Gondor?

Or Romans with bright green orc skin?

Or what about vikings with hot pink shields and orange tunics?

None of the above have any impact on game play, unlike the phantom camp folloers that have become so popular.

It doesn't have any impact on the game to play with unpainted figures, either. Or no figures at all, just the bases.

But so what? Impact on game play is not the only virtue. By and large, people who play DBA do it for multiple reasons. For many players, those reasons include things like interest in history, interest in simulating battles, interest in having nice-looking armies, interest in having historically-accurate armies. Plus the one virtue you mention -- interest in playing the game itself (which doesn't recognize any difference between NKE 3Bd, Viking 3Bd, and Maori 3Bd).

It is facile to say that these other interests don't matter. If they didn't matter, we (the DBA playing community) would see lots of space dwarves with laser beams on their heads being used as Classical Indian blade; we would see lots of unpainted figures being used in tournaments. In about a decade of playing and running DBA tournaments on the east coast of the US I've never seen an unpainted army in use; I can only remember one time where someone used dwarves for Classical Indian blade (and it was not a mainstream member of the community). I have seen other (non-fantasy) substitutions sometimes when players forgot some part of their army at home or something, but not commonly.

Dave Crowell
02-20-2008, 12:46 PM
I agree with you both. For implausible matchups between historical armies strain disbelief just as much.

I was partially playing Devil's Advocate. I have no problem accepting Historical figures in a Fantasy game. Indeed it can be great fun to pit historical armies against fantasy ones, with or without prior knowledge of teh combatants.

It is of course a slippery slope. How much are the asthetics a part of the game, how accurate do the figures need to be, how plausible should the matchups be?

For me all of these are very important to my enjoyment of the game. I play a lot more historical games than fantasy. I attribute this to a deeper interest in historical background, and to the deeper richness of history compared to fantasy.

I certainly would never bring any of my "silly army" suggestions above to a tournament. It would be against the spirit of the thing. I might bring the Steppe Goblins to a "Midnite Madness" or other light hearted event, but I would bring along a "real" army as well.

Mike Johnson
02-20-2008, 01:04 PM
i totally argee with the Daves!

For me as someone who enjoys painting, the visuals are the whole point. And for me the cardinal rule is "Does it look good". At risk of sounding like an A-hole I cant stand proxies or unpainted figures ok so we all paint at different levels BIG DEAL get em done! I kind of evny the guys who dont paint so well but have TONS of painted armies meanwhile im chipping away on one but for me its art as for proxies ie fantasy figures I would flat out refuse to play against them. If I took the time and money ( and you certianly cant say DBA armies are expensive!!!) to get a proper army then Mr. Proxie can do the same, oh and just bases or blocks THATS WORLDS COLLIDING! LOL!

BUT that said we all approach our DBA in a different way and if at the end of the day you can say you did something you enjoy then you have done something worthwhile no matter how stuck up Ol Man Johnson is LOL!

So keep it historical and keep it fun!

Xavi
02-20-2008, 01:17 PM
(quoted from La Armada, a Spanish forum)

Here comes an example of a an army I have been facing lately.

amazingly cool converted army to look like Frank Miller's "300" graphic novel. No relation to history. It has been used as a THESSALIAN army in our DBA league.

The owner/painter is perfectly knowledgeable ablout its total lack of historical accuracy, but enjoyed the comic and movie and decided to go for it. I cannot say that I appreciate the fact that it is not historical, but I can't say that I dislike playing against it at all. It shows the effort of the guy (I have seen this army evolve from game to game, and it is the first DBA army of the player!) and he is well aware about its ahistoricity.

If he wasn't going to do this, I doubt he would have played DBA at all, so I think it is well worth it, and ti is a pleasant-looking army to play against IMO, even if not historical.


FOTO DE FAMILIA (includes thessalian allies top be able to play with several lists. Recycling)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/Armyfront.jpg

Camp:

THE HOT GATES!!

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/Hotgates.jpg

And now a few Macro shots to show the freakiness of the whole thing: conversions!

LEÓNIDAS (¡¡Come and get them!!; Sp version)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/LeonidasSp.jpg

LEÓNIDAS (Pk version)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/GenPk.jpg

Xavi
02-20-2008, 01:18 PM
(quoted from La Armada, a Spanish forum)

DILIOS (Better known as "the dude that lacks an eye")

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/Dilios.jpg

DAXOS (Acadians: Brave ammateurs....)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/Daxos.jpg

EPHIALTES (May you live forever...)

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/Ephialtes.jpg

And to finish...

DEFENCE OF TERMOPYLAE

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g221/CalicoKaqua/Hotgates-leonidas.jpg

[/quote]

David Kuijt
02-20-2008, 01:31 PM
Here comes an example of a an army I have been facing lately.

amazingly cool converted army to look like Frank Miller's "300" graphic novel. No relation to history. It has been used as a THESSALIAN army in our DBA league.

The owner/painter is perfectly knowledgeable ablout its total lack of historical accuracy, but enjoyed the comic and movie and decided to go for it.

Nice looking army.

That's testing the definition of fantasy, though. Sure, the owner was thinking of Frank Miller's 300 comic book when painting it up. On the other hand, there is almost nothing in the army as shown that counts as "fantasy" in most people's eyes. The only people that might have a cow are ones that say "No, wait -- those can't be Thessalians, because they've got the Lambda on their shields!" The thought-patterns of the owner when painting them are irrelevant -- none of us are psychic.

So in other words, the only people that might object would be the same people that object to incorrect Heraldry and similar.

Now if someone asks me my opinion on a Heraldry-geek matter I'll give it, but I don't require that everyone should be as knowledgeable as I am -- and I'm not the be-all and end-all of Heraldry-geekiness either, there are lots of others who are even more knowledgeable (Darren Buxbaum, for one).

What am I saying? This "300" army looks more like a regular historical Thessalian army than lots of Marian armies with Camillan figs, or Marian armies with EIR figs, or MIR armies from 330 AD using EIR figs when they should be using Late Roman figs, and so on.

So I'm saying that if I see those figs and the owner says "Thessalians", I'll play against them quite happily. My "fantasy" quotient would be more tweaked if they were facing Rus or Romans or Ming Chinese than it would be if they were facing historically painted Thessalians or Thracians or Athenians.

Dave Crowell
02-20-2008, 04:19 PM
Once again I agree with David. I might gasp "But they should be...Spartans", but I would happily play against them as Thessalians.

They look suitably historical (albeit historical fiction), a lot of effort clearly went into the painting and conversions, and the Hot Gates camp is just good thematic fun.

This also clearly is meant to be used as a historical army. Like many armies out there it may stumble on some of the details, but clearly it is trying.

My Steppe Goblins are not intended in any serious way to be taken as an historical army, but rather are because I like the figures and they remind me of Asiatic Steppe nomads.

Vikings in hot pink would just be wrong, but on samurai it might work.

JamesLDIII
02-20-2008, 05:46 PM
2. I *think* I would like historical matchups, but I am not completley sure about that. I think I prefer interesting GAMES over historical battles. A good challenge makes more fun than a roll over a historical opponent by a grossly overbearing historical army. A lot of the historical opponents are not very balanced. Gauls vs marians would end with the marians as victors most of the time, for example, regardless of the QK ability.

Cheers,

Xavi


One idea you can try if you think some matchups are imbalanced (though I rather agree with DK about the Gaul Marian matchup) is to do scenario games or handicap a side. If you think the Gauls are mismatched, start giving them additional Wb. Give a player an additional Wb each game until he wins. Then switch sides and do the same thing. See who can win with the least additional Wb. That player gets honors for the night.

Macbeth
02-20-2008, 06:08 PM
Nice looking army.
..... than lots of Marian armies with Camillan figs, or Marian armies with EIR figs, or MIR armies from 330 AD using EIR figs when they should be using Late Roman figs, and so on.


You have an uphill struggle here David, when even the History Channel did a series on great battles of Rome (some years ago when I still had Foxtel) that showed CGI Romans fighting in battles from Cannae to Adrianople and always looking like EIR. :D :p ;)

Cheers

RonG
02-20-2008, 07:28 PM
David, I bought a mid-Imperial Roman army, they have EIR shields. That was early army pack version of MIR . :(

jdesmond
02-21-2008, 06:08 AM
Salutations, gentlefolk,

I went to a fancy high school and studied Latin and Classical Greek, and was a history major in college. But on non-historical matchups in DBA:

1 - All the armies in the DBA book are armed with big knives, sharp sticks, slings, arrows (and outrageous fortune ;-) ), with the occasional monstrous beastie, contraption that throws stones or big arrows, or things that goes 'BOOM'. We're not playing F-111's vs Sopwith Camels or even minie-balls vs Brown Bess's.

2 - Someone just starting out or passing thru or 'just moved into town' can get a game in at the club. If he likes War of the Roses and everyone in town plays the Classical era, no need to sit around while more toys get painted up.

3 - A manufacturer can sculpt and cast a new line, even if this nation is so far inferior or superior to its historical enemies - or so lacking in historical enemies - to interest 'strictly historical' players.

Having said my piece, may I conclude with,
"De gustibus non disputandum" and
"If you play DBA, you're my friend"

Yours, John Desmond
(veteran of the Carthaginian invasion of Hawai'i)

Spanikopites
02-21-2008, 12:39 PM
[snip]

Having said my piece, may I conclude with,
"De gustibus non disputandum" and
"If you play DBA, you're my friend"
[snip]

quoted for truth!!
-Sean
(who remembers the burning Quinqueremes off the coast of Oahu)

Stephen Webb
02-23-2008, 11:15 PM
I prefer to play historical opponents and run two historical competitions a year for those of a like mind. Almost all of my club games and games against Ian are historical.

However, I do play in open competitions and I also run one each year, as I know others prefer them.

Richard Lee
02-24-2008, 07:02 AM
Must admit, I will sometimes go outside the official list of enemies if I think there is a reasonable chance that fighting might have taken place or potentially could have. For instance, I am quite happy to pit I/14c Early Northern Barbarians (Europe 2000-1401 BC) against I/18 Minoan & Early Mycenaeans.

Frizzenspark
02-25-2008, 02:57 PM
At the risk of sounding a little Panglossian....DBA is the best of all possible worlds. I was given the link to the WADBAG guide and checked it out with some skepticism; after reviewing a few pages I saw the inherit brilliance of the design of the rules....simplicity, playability, affordability, and gosh durn-it the world is fairly well populated with DBA players. I've always had a passing interest in the "PRESTAGS*" period but have not found the correct "gateway" system for me invest in the period; with DBA I've found a useful entry into ancient warfare.

I'm sure many others reading this have suffered, if they're not still suffering, from investments in miniatures and rules for systems that are only deficient in that it is hard for a player to get others involved. I have found excellent rules for the American War of Independence and the Mex-Am War, bought rules and miniatures; painted them, and then....nothing.

Since I have returned to Central Ohio, I have found an active group of players that give me reason enough to invest, time, money, and energy into DBA without having to worry about my investment; there is always very friendly opposition as well as support. With Fanaticus and the attached forum and supporting websites, a player does not have to go it alone. I have received excellent support from these sites as well as direct support from the members.

I understand the disdain for non-historical opponents, it makes sense; this is a historical game after all, it should be…historical. I disagree with the strict historical rant, in that with 350 armies in the system…not everyone can agree with a given period, leave alone a theatre of operation. I applaud efforts by many to host themed events; that’s one way to encourage historical play. I get the historical value from the game by researching my armies, and learning from my opponent what they know about theirs. I usually pick my armies strictly on what interests me historically, so with open gaming I don’t need to worry about what everyone else is bringing. I can purchase whatever army I want and not force my opponents to bow to my whims. I can invest my time and energies learning the histories of my armies and leave others to do the same for theirs.

I suspect the majority of the readers of this forum Do play in open tournaments (with less grumbling than they actually profess). Ideally since they are historians, as I picture myself, I hope they’ll share what they know of their army as I’m willing to do with mine; at the end of the day if everyone learns a bit and has a good time that adds up to a day well spent.

*Yes, I do have a copy of the old SPI game by the same name. :)

Jeff Franz
02-27-2008, 08:26 AM
I am not going to turn down a game of DBA becasue my opponent does not have an army that is from the same period of history as mine. I enjoy the game to much for that. However, I am a history major and it causes me a slite twitch to see something that is just wrong.