Hordes are not expendable.

[Skeptical Gamer]

[rant mode: on]

Arrrggghhh...

I've just read the newest version of 3.0 (on the theory that I would try out the latest incarnation), and I discovered that hordes no longer count toward loss conditions.

This doesn't fit historically and leads to ahistorical game play.

Historically, it's one thing for an army to ignore the loss of some scythed chariots (they're supposed to be lost, that's what they're made to do!), but it's another thing entirely to expect an army to ignore the panicked flight or horrible deaths of hundreds (or even thousands) of soldiers from their own army!

It doesn't matter that they're not very good fighters; they are people, they're part of your army, and they're dying!

In game play, removing the penalty for losing hordes leads to horribly ahistorical usage of those hordes!

We've tried this variant. So have a lot of other people (many of whom post on this forum). Hordes are sent off on suicide missions, they're used to spearhead attacks, they do all sorts of things that a historical commander wouldn't have dreamed of having them do.

Yes, it does make hordes fun to use if you don't care about history, but DBA is supposed to be a historical game!

This is a request, a plea, for those people who have any influence over the 3.0 development, please lobby for a better solution to the "horde problem"!

[rant mode: off]

[Macbeth]

Believe me I tried SG

I pushed for the 5Hd to go back to be re-classified as Wb so that they could be mad fanatics rushing forwards whilst 7Hd should be tucked in behind and give rear support (to all elements_)

We had a fun 2.2 tournament with this rule modification (Universal Soldier) and it didn't unbalance the game because in order to get the rear support from Hd powerful elements became very slow.

Sadly it was considered but rejected

Cheers

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by Macbeth

Believe me I tried SG

I pushed for the 5Hd to go back to be re-classified as Wb so that they could be mad fanatics rushing forwards whilst 7Hd should be tucked in behind and give rear support (to all elements_)

We had a fun 2.2 tournament with this rule modification (Universal Soldier) and it didn't unbalance the game because in order to get the rear support from Hd powerful elements became very slow.

Sadly it was considered but rejected

Cheers

Those are interesting suggestions.

[dervel]

King Edward:"Archers."
Officer:"I beg your pardon sire. Won't we hit our own troops?"
King Edward:"Yes... but they will hit theirs as well. We have reserves."


It seems like this would make all hordes into completely expendable fodder…

Which might be true in some cases, but certainly not universal.

[lkmjbc]

Riddle me this as a Horde Idea.

Hordes count as 1/2 an element lost...
For ever Horde in an army, you get 2 elements...

Thoughts?

Joe Collins

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by lkmjbc

Riddle me this as a Horde Idea.

Hordes count as 1/2 an element lost...
For ever Horde in an army, you get 2 elements...

Phil is unlikely to buy in to any idea that will require completely reworking the army lists yet again, before he finishes them the first time.

[Bobgnar]

Things change. I suggested that Hordes not count toward losing, in 2.0, but Phil disagreed.

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 08:57:11 +0100
From: PhilBarker
(BOB wrote

> Hordes for DBA!! This is something many players have wanted to round of
> certain armies. ... Pretty weak element. What is its saving grace? No recoil is
> good, but keep in mind that, like War Wagons, it cannot be destroyed if
> just beaten and flanked (except by the types you mention). You now say
> that an element has to "recoil" if flanked to be destroyed. In 1.1 you
> said element had to "lose" if flanked to be destroyed. Maybe not count it
> towards losing, like a SCh. Who cares how many Hd are lost!

Phil
That doesn't work. People would shove their hordes in front instead of at the
back. The livelier DBM hordes such as Hd (S) and (F) are still Wb.

> My Hd general
> element has a peasant mounted on an ox with banner.
>
===============

I then suggested this, for 2.0, but it did not make it to the final version
"WINNING AND LOSING
The first side that at the end of any bound has lost either its general or 4 elements not including Scythed Chariots, camp followers or denizens, and counting Hordes as only 1/2 element and has also lost more such elements than the enemy, loses the battle. A camp or BUA currently controlled by the enemy counts as 2 elements lost extra to that of any troops garrisoning it. Elements that recoil or flee across a battlefield edge or surrender count as lost, but reappear in the next turn of a campaign."

[Lobotomy]

Originally Posted by Bob and his dog

Things change. I suggested that Hordes not count toward losing, in 2.0, but Phil disagreed.

Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 08:57:11 +0100
From: PhilBarker
(BOB wrote

> Hordes for DBA!! This is something many players have wanted to round of
> certain armies. ... Pretty weak element. What is its saving grace? No recoil is
> good, but keep in mind that, like War Wagons, it cannot be destroyed if
> just beaten and flanked (except by the types you mention). You now say
> that an element has to "recoil" if flanked to be destroyed. In 1.1 you
> said element had to "lose" if flanked to be destroyed. Maybe not count it
> towards losing, like a SCh. Who cares how many Hd are lost!

Phil
That doesn't work. People would shove their hordes in front instead of at the
back. The livelier DBM hordes such as Hd (S) and (F) are still Wb.

> My Hd general
> element has a peasant mounted on an ox with banner.
>
===============

I then suggested this, for 2.0, but it did not make it to the final version
"WINNING AND LOSING
The first side that at the end of any bound has lost either its general or 4 elements not including Scythed Chariots, camp followers or denizens, and counting Hordes as only 1/2 element and has also lost more such elements than the enemy, loses the battle. A camp or BUA currently controlled by the enemy counts as 2 elements lost extra to that of any troops garrisoning it. Elements that recoil or flee across a battlefield edge or surrender count as lost, but reappear in the next turn of a campaign."

So, as I read this, it will take Phil 12 years to incorporate your suggestions for 3.0?

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by Lobotomy

So, as I read this, it will take Phil 12 years to incorporate your suggestions for 3.0?

Lobotomy:
The problem is that he had it right twelve years ago...

Bob (and his dog):
Thanks for the insight into DBA's history.
I'm always interested in how such ideas change over time.
Also, the 1/2 element value wasn't such a bad idea.

Joe Collins (lkmjbc)
I'd be OK with the idea of each Hd listed in an army list giving you two elements on the battlefield (each worth 1/2 element if lost). Apparently the idea of having more than twelve elements on the battlefield isn't as tough a sell as I thought (witness "sallying troops"). Though with them being QK'd by all mounted now, I'm not sure that even this would be enough...

[Thomas J. Thomas]

I think the answer to Hordes is to have them count less toward breaking an army.

I can only speak from a medieval perspective but peasant hordes were considered expendable and did not offer much overt support for an army.

Their loss would not greatly influence the morale of most nobliity or professional retinue soliders. They were rarely used aggressively due to disdain and command control difficulties.

Having them count less toward breaking an army is, I think, a far more historical approach them having them provide support.

Counting as 1/2 an element toward losses seems about right - not expendable (unless you have only 1) but not catasprohic either.

(I would consider having them count only +2 CF and Recoil (?) but abolish the QK v. Bow).

TomT