Roman-Sassanid thriller.

Gary Pomeroy and I enjoyed a real gem of a game last night at our NAGs DBA Game Night. Early on, we knew it seemed destined to be a classic.

Gary's LIR-East (Essex) vs. my Sassanid Persians (Mikes Models), played in 15mm on a 2-foot square board. Hills and woods at the edges, but a wide open plain in the center.

On the 3rd bound, Persian LH captured the Roman Fort camp. Alas, they couldn't reap a +2 Camp bonus when big bad Roman knights came knocking and re-claimed their camp.

Sassanid Cv dispatched the two Roman LH. By mid-game, the score was 3-1 Persians, but when the King of Kings was doubled up, the Persians became nearly immobile: They rolled 1s for PIPs on 3 of their last 4 bounds. Soon, the score was 3-all. Essentially, sudden death now.

On the one bound my Sassanids could make a single move, a Cv element found a Roman Ps in good going, but failed to run it down. (Arghhh.) The end came when Roman Ax finally toppled the Persian jumbo. Gary's Romans win 4G-3.

DBA sure is fun. We agreed this one was DBA at its best.

[ June 24, 2004, 06:23: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

Yes, a good DBA game is a fun thing.

Did you think that the terrain placement contributed in any way to the quality of the game? Was it a deliberate choice to do it that way? I have come to the notion that most battlefields should be open in the center with terrain around the edges, as opposed to the golf courses that seem to be the norm for DBA battlefields.

Eric

or was it the roll of the dice....

Wait until you pick Thracians and your opponent picks Early Rox Sarmations....gets terrain choice AND picks an open battlefield.

This happened to me one time at DBAOL......

I've also played Marian Roman vs Thracians face-to-face......with the Thracians placing a lot of BGo.....I found a way to deal with the terrain disadvantage and won.

Lee Shackelford

I'd say the dice had quite a bit to do with it. Paul set up the terrain, and with his Sassinids' lack of light troops an open field of battle was nearly required.

At one point I was down two LH and a Kn to one of his LH. Also my right was being 'held' by a lone Ax, in the open facing his Cv.

That his General died, that he could only move on one of the next 4 bounds and that my Psiloi withstood a cavalry charge in open ground speak more to the hand of fate than to any strategy of mine.

That said, it was one of the most enjoyable games of DBA that I have played. It is also one of my favorite match ups. Before this game, the Sassanids and LIR had met 6 times in a NAGs game and each had 3 wins. I think I played in 4 of those games.

Gary

Originally posted by bigalwams:
or was it the roll of the dice....

I have come to the notion that most battlefields should be open in the center with terrain around the edges, as opposed to the golf courses that seem to be the norm for DBA battlefields.

posted by Ares.

I came to this conclusion myself a while ago, and have gradually been working through the sources I have to hand (mostly the WRG books) to see where terrain gets a historical mention.

While there is always an example of a battle being fought in almost any situation you can imagine, the great majority of ancient battles, seem to either have no terrain (big open field - often chosen as a battlefield because it was a big open field ), or any terrain had no discernable impact worth a mention, or was behind one (or both!)army/ securing one flank/ hindered the rout.....
Even where the action takes place in geographically very rugged areas, the battles seem far more prevelant in the few open spaces.

I should be very interested to hear the thoughts of other fanatici on this topic, and particularly on their experience with more or less terrain in play.

While this is almost undoubtedly true of big set-piece battles, quite a lot of the armies listed in DBA would have done pretty much anything to avoid such battles! I believe that the DBA terrain rules are meant to take this into account as well - hence the busy battlefields that you can get .

Nick

Originally posted by Sarduri II:
While there is always an example of a battle being fought in almost any situation you can imagine, the great majority of ancient battles, seem to either have no terrain (big open field - often chosen as a battlefield because it was a big open field ), or any terrain had no discernable impact worth a mention, or was behind one (or both!)army/ securing one flank/ hindered the rout.....
Even where the action takes place in geographically very rugged areas, the battles seem far more prevelant in the few open spaces.
[/QB]

Most ancient battles were fought in mostly open terrain for a very good reason - you need flattish ground to deploy thousands of men in formation not mentioning cavalry or elephants. Yes you may have terrain around the edges of the battlefield proper to stop the enemy outflanking you or to anchor your line but the main fighting area needs to be good underfoot and open visibility. You can be uphill of course although usually on a gentle slope with not too much rough stuff. Actually open battlefields are required right up to near modern times as long as close formation and line-of-sight generalship are involved. Waterloo has a lot of terrain but most of the battlefield is good going.

Originally posted by Ares:
I have come to the notion that most battlefields should be open in the center with terrain around the edges, as opposed to the golf courses that seem to be the norm for DBA battlefields.

Here's where the abstract nature of DBA comes to the rescue, in my mind, at least. When Big Al and Later Ach. Persians have at it on open ground, I can easily see an epic battle between two massed armies. (Arabela, etc.)

But when Big Al is fighting some squirrely hill tribe (Ariarathid Kappadokians, etc.) in the middle of some big rock pile, I rationalize that that might be a relatively small detachment of the main army that is off dealing with an equally small number of ragamuffins, who naturally seek to use the cluttered terrain to their advantage.

This rationalization isn't perfect, I know, but it helps me explain away some of truly bolluxed terrains. And, hey, DBA is a game of generalship: The really good ones (not I) find a way to make the best of the worst situations.

Originally posted by Chris Jones:
Most ancient battles were fought in mostly open terrain for a very good reason - you need flattish ground to deploy thousands of men in formation not mentioning cavalry or elephants. Yes you may have terrain around the edges of the battlefield proper to stop the enemy outflanking you or to anchor your line but the main fighting area needs to be good underfoot and open visibility. You can be uphill of course although usually on a gentle slope with not too much rough stuff. Actually open battlefields are required right up to near modern times as long as close formation and line-of-sight generalship are involved. Waterloo has a lot of terrain but most of the battlefield is good going.

For the most part, this is certainly true. But from time to time there were exceptions, like that minor ambush of Roman legions that had Augustus wandering around the palace for days muttering "Varus, give me back my legions or that little set to in the American Civil War known as the Wilderness campaign. I agree, most of the battles were fought in the open but there were always notable exceptions, actually guite a few of them.