Double Sized DBA with 3 Commands

[Mike Demana]

I took New Kingdom Egyptian to Ptom's playtest of the alternative 24 element BBDBA rules. I also feel that it worked well, and did provide some of the command challenges that you get in triples sized DBA but not in Double sized. In particular, three commands (high, medium, low) require a different level of tactical thinking, as opposed to merely a high and low pip one in standard 24-element BBDBA. Also, Ptom used the NASAMW deployment of Defender deploys two commands, Attacker all three, then Defender deploys final command. This is another level of thinking. So, I did like that aspect of the playtest.

And honestly, with the smaller break points in commands that Ptom alluded to, it seemed to go faster than our standard 24-element BBDBA. That alone, is a good thing. One problem I've noticed in our previous 24-element BBDBA Tournies is that there is a wide range of finish times. You will have folks who finish a game in the same time it takes to a 12-element DBA game. Then you will have folks you're nudging, pushing and breathing on to get to finish within the 1.5 hour time limit. So, perhaps this will actually speed things along...? I'm sure it requires more playtest, as all four of the playtesters were relatively speedy players.

The d4...I personally had zero problems with it (other than I had to dig to find my old role playing bag of dice to locate mine). Allen took War-wagons and put them in his medium pip command. He felt tactically stymied by this, at time. However, I would think that they are a relatively plodding troop type, so forming in a single battleline is probably fairly accurate, and the d4 definitely would force you to do that.

So, I give Ptom's playtest two thumbs up, and suggest we expand our next playtest to a larger venue with more players. Hmm...maybe Battle at the Cross Roads in early 2009? Would our GLADBAG Pittsburgh chums be interested in doing this? We could even run *two* tournies...do a standard, open style one before or after the experimental 24-3 tourney...

Waddya'll think...?

[John Loy]

Was Tom winning?


John

[Pthomas]

Originally Posted by John Loy

Was Tom winning?


John

Heck NO! After going 1-5 at ATC, I was 1-1 in the playtest. I am totally stinking up the place, lately. If Mike doesn't spin it, it is because Mike's winning!

[John Meunier]

The reports are all encouraging.

I've heard Yuan Chinese, NKE, and something with War Wagons. What was the fourth army type at the playtest?

If I can get to a GLADBAG event, I'd be more than happy to play 2x3 rather than the standard GLADBAG double-sized event. Count that as one vote for experimental rules, but likely to be an absentee vote.

[Pthomas]

Originally Posted by John Meunier

The reports are all encouraging.

I've heard Yuan Chinese, NKE, and something with War Wagons. What was the fourth army type at the playtest?

One of the Byzantines, I can't remember which.

[Pthomas]

Originally Posted by Mike Demana

Hmm...maybe Battle at the Cross Roads in early 2009? Would our GLADBAG Pittsburgh chums be interested in doing this? We could even run *two* tournies...do a standard, open style one before or after the experimental 24-3 tourney...

Waddya'll think...?

Well, just to promote Battle at the Cross Roads we are doing a Dark Age Pyramid event this year, so it wouldn't hurt to add a playtest event of the 2x3 DBA or 24-3 DBA or as I've come to call it: Little Battle DBA (LBDBA) to the event list, if the convention organizer is okay with it.

[John Meunier]

Talking about "the ally issue" is probably premature, but until I get a chance to talk my on into playing a Camillan Roman v. Gaul game this weekend to test Wb in 2x3, my mind has nothing else to waste energy on.

Why use "allied armies" at all. How about "allied contigents" similar to campaign DBA?

An ally army can send 4-6 elements from its army - one of which is a general. The main army must then "bench" an equal number of elements (player's choice) and splits his remaining troops into 2 commands.

The choice of getting to select the ally contigent could be problematic at times, but having to split the main army of 18-20 elements into two commands each of which gets a d4 for movement should offset that some.

It is simpler than all the algorithms, but perhaps prone to abuse.

Just an idea.

[Pthomas]

Originally Posted by John Meunier

Talking about "the ally issue" is probably premature, but until I get a chance to talk my on into playing a Camillan Roman v. Gaul game this weekend to test Wb in 2x3, my mind has nothing else to waste energy on.

Why use "allied armies" at all. How about "allied contigents" similar to campaign DBA?

An ally army can send 4-6 elements from its army - one of which is a general. The main army must then "bench" an equal number of elements (player's choice) and splits his remaining troops into 2 commands.

The choice of getting to select the ally contigent could be problematic at times, but having to split the main army of 18-20 elements into two commands each of which gets a d4 for movement should offset that some.

It is simpler than all the algorithms, but perhaps prone to abuse.

Just an idea.

If you get to play this weekend, try a game with your choice method and another with the algorithm that I posted earlier:

12 becomes 8
10-11 become 7
8-9 become 5-6
6-7 become 4-5
4-5 becomes 2-4*
3 becomes 2
2 becomes 1
1 becomes 0-1

* A departure from a pure algorithm, but necessary for armies with Pk, Wb, or Sp

Using it for the ally and also for the main army, which after being reduced to 8 elements is then doubled. Let us know your thoughts on each.

[John Meunier]

Oh boy, homework!

Originally Posted by Pthomas

If you get to play this weekend, try a game with your choice method and another with the algorithm that I posted earlier:

12 becomes 8
10-11 become 7
8-9 become 5-6
6-7 become 4-5
4-5 becomes 2-4*
3 becomes 2
2 becomes 1
1 becomes 0-1

So let's see, Polybian Romans with Gallic allies would be:

Polybians: 1x3Cv(gen), 5x4Bd, 1x4Sp, 1x2Ps (flex: drop 4Bd add 3Cv) then doubled to 16 elements.

Gallic allies: 1x3Wb(gen), 1x3Cv, 5x3Wb, 1x2Ps (flex: could drop Ps and add Wb)

Total army
Romans: 1x3Cv(cnc), 1x3Cv, 10x4Bd, 2x4Sp, 2x2Ps (or 3x3Cv, 8x4Bd)
Gauls: 1x3Wb, 1x3Cv, 5x3Wb, 1x2Ps

[Pthomas]

Originally Posted by John Meunier

Oh boy, homework!



So let's see, Polybian Romans with Gallic allies would be:

Polybians: 1x3Cv(gen), 5x4Bd, 1x4Sp, 1x2Ps (flex: drop 4Bd add 3Cv) then doubled to 16 elements.

Gallic allies: 1x3Wb(gen), 1x3Cv, 5x3Wb, 1x2Ps (flex: could drop Ps and add Wb)

Total army
Romans: 1x3Cv(cnc), 1x3Cv, 10x4Bd, 2x4Sp, 2x2Ps (or 3x3Cv, 8x4Bd)
Gauls: 1x3Wb, 1x3Cv, 5x3Wb, 1x2Ps

I like the way the way it worked for these two armies anyway. They stayed very true to their 12 element originals. So how did your playtest go?