Historical vs non-historical matchups for novice players

[ZenBoy]

Hello all!

My friend and I, both novices, recently played a few games of DBA. We are both in the process of painting several armies, but currently only had 1 finished army each. Naturally we decided to pit them against each other, as a match between 2 painted armies is more pleasing than one between empty bases representing elements.

My army was II/5 a (Spartans) vs his II/45 c (Italian slave revolt - "I'm Spartacus" "No, I'M Spartacus!)

Our first game was a tremendous loss for myself (0-4) - my spears were quickly destroyed by his warband supported warbands, and my lack of pips forced me to choose between my cavalry's mad dash for his camp, or trying to hold my line together. Ultimately, my deploying spearmen vs his warbands was my undoing.

The scond game I tried to learn from my mistakes and I was able to sucessfully use my Auxilliaries and Psiloi to pull his warbands away from his main lines and matched my greater number of spearmen against his line of blades. This game resulted in another loss for me, but far closer (3 with general - 4)

My question is should novice players stick to historical matchups to equalize things, or since they are from the same book, it is not that big of a deal? My friend and I are roughly the same skill level in most of our gaming experiences, and have almost the same amount of experience in DBA, so that is as equal as it gets. I know that a SKILLED player should be able to outplay his opponent, but we both are still learning the ropes and made several tactical errors, not to mention rule interpretation mistakes.

Thanks for your time!

[David Kuijt]

My question is should novice players stick to historical matchups to equalize things, or since they are from the same book, it is not that big of a deal?

It isn't that big of a deal, for a couple of reasons.


Some historical matchups are quite uneven.
Many non-historical matchups are quite even.
Until you get more experience, telling one from the other isn't easy.
The best thing novice players can do is to play more games, to get that experience.As it turns out, the battle you describe (Spartacus vs. Sparta -- the name similarity is hilarious) is pretty uneven. Spear vs. Blades and Warband is very hard on the Spear.

[Tony Aguilar]

The other thing you can do is switch sides. That way you can take turns seeing how each side plays differently.

[ZenBoy]

As it turns out, the battle you describe (Spartacus vs. Sparta -- the name similarity is hilarious) is pretty uneven. Spear vs. Blades and Warband is very hard on the Spear.

Yes, I was fairly pleased with my performance in game 2 with 3 kills, I just couldn't seal the deal on the flank.

The other thing you can do is switch sides. That way you can take turns seeing how each side plays differently.

That is something that Jason and I discussed, we just didn't have enough time for more than 2 games as we had other games that we played that evening.

We are both currently in the process of painting opponents to go with our existing armies and plan on swapping sides at our next meeting.

[codekeyguy]

As a novice myself, I generally lose no matter what, but I'm getting better with practice. While we usually try historical matchups, we sometimes go for "close", and when I get new armies, which have no opponent in his stuff, we just go at it. Remember, this is fun. (AS an aside, chess is "evenly matched" but I never win playing chess!!:silly )

[Tony Aguilar]

As a novice myself, I generally lose no matter what, but I'm getting better with practice.

The absolute best thing you can do to improve your game is to teach someone new how to play. Just having to explain things and verbalize your thoughts and giving them a reason for why things are a certain way in the game really helps to sink things in for yourself.

[Spanikopites]

Some years back when I was starting up DBA play in Calgary with a few guys (from which sprang the Calgary Camp Followers) we had a maxim that the best way to get new players was to play non-historical match-ups publicly*.

Bill and I would be playing Han Chinese vs Welsh** at the Sentry Box on a Saturday morning and sure enough we'd draw a small crowd debating the wisdom of our match up. For every disgruntled pedant (know a pedant that isn't?) we'd pique the interest of a couple others who would show up next month with either Normans or Hsiung-Nu. And so it was the CCF was forged.

Or at least that's the story I stick to. :)

-Sean


* normally we tried to keep things close if not legit, but let's face it most people who are drawn to DBA are quasi-obsessive info-vores with wide ranging interests. This can result in very interesting match-ups.

** Very good games, the Cymric colonies in China persisted for some time. Resulting in a string a very nice pubs in Xianjiang.

[ZenBoy]

Bill and I would be playing Han Chinese vs Welsh** at the Sentry Box on a Saturday morning and sure enough we'd draw a small crowd debating the wisdom of our match up. For every disgruntled pedant (know a pedant that isn't?) we'd pique the interest of a couple others who would show up next month with either Normans or Hsiung-Nu. And so it was the CCF was forged.

-Sean



Sean, you do bring up a good point. As much as I am interested in this time period, having 2 Greek Hoplite armies go head to head, doesn't seem nearly as interesting as playing against a Chinese army. I think having the different looking figures on the table is very appealing. No doubt my match-up wasn't 'fair' to me because I did the bulk (ALL) of the losing!

[Spanikopites]

ZenBoy,

Agreed, but don't deny the joy of a Hoplite vs Hoplite scrap. It's a lot like watching a heavy weight boxing match.

(My biggest gripe is the time factor in painting those 4Sp armies.)

If you try to do 'matched pairs' the trick is loving being the anti-hero guy to your buddies fave army. Hence my Early Saxons and Early Northern Barbarians both chumps, but I love them.

-S

ps- paint Libyans and be admired by all.

[TWR]

One of the real drawcards of DBA for me is I can fight historical opponents against each other without investing my life building two armies which can sometimes be very similar.

I really have enjoyed out hoplite Greek clashes for that reason.

[Richard Lee]

One of the real drawcards of DBA for me is I can fight historical opponents against each other without investing my life building two armies which can sometimes be very similar.

Yes, me too. If I don't already have an enemy for a new army I usually do an enemy as well.

[ZenBoy]

Yes, me too. If I don't already have an enemy for a new army I usually do an enemy as well.

Yeah, I agree. When I first decided to get into DBA, I wanted to buy a matched pair, so I got II/7 (LAP) to match my II/5a (Spartans), and I eventually got enough figures for II/12 (Alexandrian Macedonian) who all happen to be historical enemies. I intend to get a 4th for the group, but there are only 2 other armies that are historic enemies with the other three: II/5b (Athenian), who I think would be fun to paint, but I hesitate getting another spear army, and II/6 (Bithynian), which is a VERY different make up form the other armies, with all those 3Ax...

[Spanikopites]

ZenBoy, you seriously have to make Bithynian army.

Join the few, the proud, the perpetual losers. :) If you check out the NAGS/CCF Top Dogs and Total Wankers list, you would not inspired by the record.

But speaking for myself and the rest of the pro-Bithynian lobby, go for it!

[Xavi]

Actually the bythinians can put quite a fight vs those historical opponents if they win agressiveness. Againsrt ahistorical opponents they are dead, but in that environment they can rock the boat pretty hard :) Go bithynians!

[ferrency]

Yeah, I agree. When I first decided to get into DBA, I wanted to buy a matched pair, so I got II/7 (LAP) to match my II/5a (Spartans), and I eventually got enough figures for II/12 (Alexandrian Macedonian) who all happen to be historical enemies.

That sounds very familiar.

My first army sets were II/5a (Spartans) and I/43a (Skythians) which I bought on sale rather than because I particularly wanted them. Then I got II/7 and II/12 as common enemies of both of those.

After an extended break of 5+ years, those are now finally all painted. I'm moving on to II/2 (Mountain Indian) and II/4a (Ch'in Chinese), as well as painting enough figures to morph II/12 into II/15 (Alexander Imperial) and a few of the early successors.

Alan

[ZenBoy]

Actually the bythinians can put quite a fight vs those historical opponents if they win agressiveness. Againsrt ahistorical opponents they are dead, but in that environment they can rock the boat pretty hard :) Go bithynians!

With that 1 aggressiveness vs. a 3 (Sparta) and 4 (Macedonia), I don't know if it would be wise for me to count on that. Or do you mean being the defender and laying the terrain??

[Xavi]

Err... to "win" the Ag roll means being the defender. At least around here ;)

And then, precisely because the opponents are higher Ag than you you cxan end up being the defender, which in the vcaee of the bythinians is a must if they plan to win consistently. They can take on the spartans in the open and still hope to end up on top, but vs the Macs they are quite screwed.

Cheers,
Xavi

[TWR]

Yeah, I agree. When I first decided to get into DBA, I wanted to buy a matched pair, so I got II/7 (LAP) to match my II/5a (Spartans), and I eventually got enough figures for II/12 (Alexandrian Macedonian) who all happen to be historical enemies. I intend to get a 4th for the group, but there are only 2 other armies that are historic enemies with the other three: II/5b (Athenian), who I think would be fun to paint, but I hesitate getting another spear army, and II/6 (Bithynian), which is a VERY different make up form the other armies, with all those 3Ax...

An Athenian or Theban army could be a useful addition. While certainly there are similiar to your Spartans hoplite battles in DBA, in my view, are actually very enjoyable.

The campaign aspect of hoplite warfare, as well as Macedonians and Persians, could be very interesting. For our recent hoplite campaign have a look here:
http://thewargamesroom.blogspot.com/2009/09/war-in-peloponnese-363bc-to-362bc.html

[Spanikopites]

Xavi says:

And then, precisely because the opponents are higher Ag than you you cxan end up being the defender, which in the vcaee of the bythinians is a must if they plan to win consistently. They can take on the spartans in the open and still hope to end up on top, but vs the Macs they are quite screwed.


Agreed, in my experience.

I've won against the Galatians (unsurprisingly and resoundingly) and the Sparties (hardfought). I've lost consistently against the Alex's, LAP, Kappadokians, and Mithradatics. I won't go too far into the ahistorical matchups, but in my DBA-verse Bithynia chafed under the heavy rule of the Ku****e kings of Meroe for sometime.

Frankly I think it's some sort of mojo-workin' issue with the army itself.

The Bithynians are essentially Thracians with day jobs and seafront property. And seems to take all the fight out of them. You can use the Bithynian list as a Thracian list, build two more LH units and you have a nifty full-on morph (I won't get into different brand names of Thracians and how they look, Getic, Hellenistic, old schoolly fox-caps, whatever, I'll leave that to you)

HOWEVER, when I play my Bithynians as Thracians they win. And it's not just the Hilly turf, I'm often the attacker. It's like the little lead devils think that somehow Bithynians = Lame and Thracians = Badass.

I might advise you to build a 'Thracian' army and play it as a 'Bithynian' and that way your miniatures will not get the wrong ideas.

But I really want you build the Biths and to join the club. You can pick your own title too! (Strategos is taken so watch it...)

-Spanikopites, Strategos of the Resurgent Micro-nation of Neo-Bithynia

[ZenBoy]

But I really want you build the Biths and to join the club. You can pick your own title too! (Strategos is taken so watch it...)

-Spanikopites, Strategos of the Resurgent Micro-nation of Neo-Bithynia

Well, the Bithynians are 10 figures less than than the Athenians with all options, and with my rate of painting, that might be the best bet to getting another army into action.

Of course, nothing says that I have to buy and build one army at a time...

[David Constable]

Hello

Entering this discussion late, however I thought I would add a comment (or two).

When Scott Russell is trying out an army for the English Open I take along my box with four sets of armies from the same section. I get Scott to ask first for the box (which he cannot see) then the army number (one to seven etc), in this way he has no idea of the army he has chosen.

Now this helps Scott as it gives him a good test, and helps me because I have to think on my feet. Most of the time we play historical when we can, I prefer that, but in section is good.

If you feel that armies are not a fair match, why not try swapping after the first game, keeping the attacker/defender the same. Base result on both games.

Just enjoy yourselves.

David Constable

[ZenBoy]

Most of the time we play historical when we can, I prefer that, but in section is good.




David, when you say in-section, do you mean the same book, geographic region, time preiod, or what?

[David Constable]

By section I refer to the army listings, i.e. section one is the chariot period. Some people (myself on occasions) use the term book, however the rules call them sections.

David Constable

[Stephen Webb]

The term "book" refers to the DBM lists which were four books.

As the DBA army lists are based on these and the numbering is the same, the term is probably relevant.

[David Constable]

Hello Steve

The problem with using book comes when a player does not know/use DBM or DBMM, just DBA, so it is safer to use section. Accepted that book would be consistent, interesting which people on this site would prefer, time for a pole?

David Constable

[aidanbz]

Personally I like "book", that's how I think of them, even in the DBA context.

[David Constable]

Agree Steve, but if you only play DBA what then.

[Stephen Webb]

Agree Steve, but if you only play DBA what then.

I still call them books, as I have all four of the DBM ones, anyway.

Even though I don't play DBM or DBMM. they are useful as reference material.

You may call them sections, if you prefer.

[Rich Gause]

I still call them books, as I have all four of the DBM ones, anyway.

Even though I don't play DBM or DBMM. they are useful as reference material.

You may call them sections, if you prefer.

I have them also they are very helpful in figuring out what figures to use to model my DBA armies even though I haven't played and don't plan to play DBM.

[David Constable]

I still use my old army list books, I can understand HI, pila, shield instead of blades, at least when looking at figure. DBM and DBMM lists are very useful in DBA as you say.

David Constable