Game: De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA)

Thread: Re: Boxed Version?

Orcoteuthis — 2008-08-01T07:25:53+00:00

If you're willing to do some DIY work, you may want to check out the various pages with printout counters for DBA (eg. mine).

Thread: Re: Boxed Version?

kentreuber — 2008-08-01T02:49:19+00:00

You might look into the Vae Victis series "Champs de Bataille". Essentially, it's a version of DBM for boardgames.

]]>

Thread: Re: Boxed Version?

GamePlayer — 2008-08-01T02:20:04+00:00

Yes. I would be interested in a game like this.

Thread: Boxed Version?

biggdork — 2008-08-01T01:35:15+00:00

I have always thought this game would succeed as a board game. I envision the armies being one sheet of heavy card stock that had all possible elements for the army included, pre-cut and all nice linen feeling-like. Think Fantasy Flight components. The units would be represented similarly to the Battleground cards, top down, with a few text/icon notations (Blade, etc.).

Could have tiles with terrain printed on them, but modular a-la Manoeuvre, and available in terrain packs.

Seems like it would work, and I would love to see the rules cleaned up a bit, some ambiguities erased, or clarified, and see it happen!

A problem I foresee would be the pieces being a little bit too light, and not 'stuck' to the board enough so a little bump, etc. might jack up your game.

I think it, or a different game with a similar set of rules, etc. (like the Mongoose version of DBA) would work.

Thoughts?

Thread: Re: which game for a Beginner?

RichardC — 2008-07-31T22:03:08+00:00

I went ahead and committed myself to Impetus, bought the book ($50.00) and two ready built armies from Mirilton (Teutonic Knights and Alex Nevsky's Russians, plus a few add on packs for bigger units($150.00+)plus Litko bases($40.00) as you can see, I seem to be made of money and like throwing it away, hopefully I can get the armies painted and a few games in before I get bored and sell it on Ebay.

Thread: Re: which game for a Beginner?

pigasuspig — 2008-07-31T19:07:24+00:00

I've always been a DBA fan and have lately been looking to simplify the game. One possible simplificaion is to cut the size in half: 6 elements, and instead of a die roll, always 3 activations (seems to work well, though I suppose you could use 1D4 perhaps). This is a quick but still tactically interesting game. It also requires far fewer pieces, and may be a good way to try DBA without much commitment.

Thread: Three brief reports

Orcoteuthis — 2008-07-31T12:58:32+00:00

I got in three games y'dy.

The first, and by far the longest, was Teutonic Orders v. Early Hungarians (b). The Hungarians deployed LH on their left, psiloi and a column of spear in a swamp in the left centre, bow in their right centre, and sundry mounted incl the general on the right. Opposing this, the Germans had knights and LH on the right, the crossbowmen, spearmen and more light horse, then more knights incl the general, and finally the auxilia and the psiloi skulking in a wood on the left. The initial German attack went badly, with one Kn on the right being QK'd by the LH of the Hungarian left and another doubled in the centre by the Sp column which had marched out of the swamp, the only German success being a lucky doubling of the Hungarian psiloi by a crossbow element.

Poor pip rolls, however, prevented the Hungarians from pressing their advantage, allowing the Germans to pull back and regroup. The Hungarian spear pressed forward to attack the German crossbowmen, but instead found themselves going down one by one to the German LH (the crossbows providing overlaps), while the Hungarian LH, being out of command range, couldn't capitalize on their success for lack of pips. The Hungarian archers kept shooting at the German knights and spear but just couldn't get a kill in before the Germans eventually withdrew, while the Hungarian mounted on the right never got into combat, not daring to go too close to the German foot in the forest and not willing to sliding in before the archers to take on the German knights. Thus the battle ended 4-2 with the last Hungarian spear in the centre going down completely surrounded by German crossbows and light horse.

The second game, Teutonic Orders v. Early Burgundians, was pathetically brief. Charles the Bold detached three Kn to attack the German left; unfortunately the dice gods hate him and the first was 6-1'd by an auxilia and the second being QK'd by a LH, leaving Charles himself surrounded and killed in the next bound. 3G-0 in less than fifteen minutes.

Last game was Prussians v. Lithuanians. The Lithuanians had Cv in the centre, then LH, and Ax/Ps on the flanks, the Prussians also Cv in the centre, then seven Wb on their left, and some Ax and Ps on their right. In the first clash between the battlelines the Lithuanians lost a LH (doubled by Ps) whereas the Prussians were unlucky enough to lose their Cv general (doubled by Cv). The now leaderless Prussians held out for a remarkably long time before finally losing 2G-1 after one of the Lithuanian Ps succeeded in doubling a Prussian one. It's worth noting that the Lithuanian LH failed completely to get any kills on the Wb, despite many 2-1 and 2-0 fights thanks to overlaps.

Thread: Re: which game for a Beginner?

badinfo — 2008-07-11T06:38:27+00:00

I've played DBA for years, and have over a dozen armies for it. I recently downloaded Basic Impetus and have as of the 2 games tonight played 6 games of it. I'm nearly ready to rebase all my DBA figs on Basic Impetus bases and order the full version. I like it that much.

It is not a tournament ready game. There are parts of the rules that a "tournament" player could break, especially the terrain set up rules which are very basic and open to abuse.

That said, Basic Impetus is much clearer to understand than DBA, plays at about the same pace but without as much geometric fiddling, seems to have plenty of tactical decision making, and just feels better to me and the guys I have been playing it with.

DBA has been around a lot longer, and will be easier to find players most likely. But since DBA is only $16 and Basic Impetus is free, and you can use figures based for DBA to play BI, why not try both?

Basic Impetus armies require roughly 2 equivalent DBA armies since the base sizes are double that of DBA, but it still is very affordable compared to say FOG or DBM/M. Full Impetus seems to be aimed at similar sized armies to FOG and DBM/M.

Thread: Re: which game or a Beginner?

kentreuber — 2008-07-10T13:55:07+00:00

If you're interested in tournaments, I'd say DBA. If you're interested in face-to-face games, I'd say Impetus.

Thread: which game for a Beginner?

RichardC — 2008-07-10T13:40:16+00:00

I'm looking to get into historical miniatures wargaming,but I'm trying to decide the best system to get into, I'll be playing a Teutonic Knights army, because I like the miniatures and background history of the Teutonic knights, I'm trying to decide between DBA or Impetus, I want a rules system that is easy to learn and fun to play,I'm basically looking for advice from the "veterans" of historical miniatures gaming.Thanks in advance

Thread: Re: "Go to Hellas" - DBA tournament report

muzfish4 — 2008-06-17T06:14:23+00:00

I really do like DBA as a fun little minatures game which isn't (or at least shouldn't be) too serious.

Fanaticus (www.fanaticus.org) is a pretty good site and there are some DBA on you tube links here:

http://fanaticus.org/DBA/index.html

Not sure how good they are.

I hope that helps.

Thread: Re: "Go to Hellas" - DBA tournament report

verdigast — 2008-06-17T05:03:42+00:00

Sounds like fun. I would love to see a video of a typical DBA game. I don't know quite how it works.

Thread: "Go to Hellas" - DBA tournament report

muzfish4 — 2008-06-17T00:52:53+00:00

On Sunday, 25 May 2008 the Canberra Kriegspilers ran their annual “DBA with a twist tournament”. This year’s twist for the one-day tournament was that it was Greek themed. The event was restricted initially to Greek and Greek-speaking armies, but the entry criteria were later widened to accommodate forces which occupied Greece or Cyprus. It attracted 21 entrants from Canberra, Sydney and regional NSW ranging in age from seven to septuagenarian. The tournament was appropriately named "Go to Hellas".

I took along my Epirot Byzantines for what I suspect will be their last hurrah in DBA for the next little while. My force was comprised of 3 cavalry (including the general), 3 light horse, 2 knights, 2 bow, 1 spear and a psiloi. Here’s a picture of them:

]]>

My first game was against a Serbian Empire force which had six knights, four bow and a couple of light troops. The game consisted of on the left his bow taking a hill and engaging in desultory skirmishing against my spear and psiloi while on the right my bow fought his light troops in a wood and a single light horse element blocked the way around the flank from a couple of his knights. The battle was decided in the centre where the flower of Serbian chivalry, such as they were, gradually pushed back the Despot's cavalry. Luckily, I managed to sneak a light horse through the forest element pass the main line of knights and then they started attacking the rear of the knights so that if they lost they were destroyed. This tactic paid dividends and in the last turn I had the Serbian king double wrapped and, after four previous attempts, managed to roll high and destroy him. To add insult to injury, the first and only shot from my bow against the flanking column of knights was a 6-1 so the game finished with a handy 4-0 win including bagging an enemy general.

Coming off this good win I then faced Patrician Romans - a very strong little army with troops for all seasons. He won the terrain and placed a "Bermuda Triangle of restrictive woods that scuppered my cavalry flanking efforts. This game was nothing less than a disaster as I was out-manoeuvred at every turn and ended with the destruction of both of my bow elements and the loss of my camp. 0-4 to the Romans.

The next game was against one of the two Commagene contingents, they featured knights, pikes, bows and some light troops (including light horse). Now, I knew this game was always going to be tough. I lucked out early killing a light horse in bad going (by following the key DBA tenant of rolling high). After that it was a struggle for my right flank to take down his heavy cavalry while holding off his bows on my left. We traded element-for-element for a while but cavalry and light horse is no match-up for bows and I ended up going down 4-3.

After two humblings on the trot I was finally facing my first Greek opponent. He was fielding a Spartan army with lots of bronze and red hoplites as well as a few light troops. The battle developed firstly on my right flank where I managed to get the upper hand and knock off three of his lights for the loss of a psiloi. This desperate situation draw the phalanx forward where it lost the protection of the woods that had secured its flanks from my cavalry and light horse. After one of my Frankish mercenary knights quick killed the end element of the phalanx (with a little help from a light horse) it was all over with a 4-1 win to the Despot.

The last game I played was against one of the better players on the DBA tournament circuit. Now, I was not expecting to face hi at this stage of the competition as he is usually battling for a spot in the top three by the later stages of any DBA or BBDBA competition, but this poor chap was having a shocker of a day. Having taken delivery of a beautifully painted Ptolemaic force that very morning it seemed that nothing else was going his way. Our battle was an interesting one in that a couple of key rolls went my way except, maddingly, anytime I had his elephant flanked - then I rolled down and was quick-killed. The game ended up when one of his isolated knights was wrapped by Byzantine cavalry and light horse. A 4-3 win to me and a finish of 3-2 for the day.

I actually did a bit better than I expected overall and finished equal 5th - and just missed the "Magister Militum" trophy on count back.

It was some small consolation that the two players who defeated me both finished in the top four and another Ptolemaic army won the day, with the two Commagenes taking silver and bronze.

Overall, “Go to Hellas” was good day out for good silly DBA fun. The “DBA with a twist” concept proved that it has legs and every year attracts players from far and wide. One wonders what the twist will be next year?

I look forward to the ACT/NSW championships in June.

Thread: Re: Teutonic Orders v. Later Swiss

muzfish4 — 2008-06-16T07:14:32+00:00

Hi mate,

Thanks for your very helpful and informative reply.

I do like the Mirliton Teutons - it is taking me a while to finish painting them up, but I'll get there eventually.

Your point about historical match-ups is a good one. I wonder how the Teutons would go against the nevsky Russians? Kn vs Cav seems to only end one way...

The advice about a LH reserve does seem sound. It also stop me galloping them off and then running out of PIPs when they're too far away. I ave only ever taken an enemy camp once with LH, but have tried more than a few times.

I am currently preparing for the New South Wales/Austrlain Capital terrtory championships to be held next weeknd and will probably take a Pyrrhic army (with elephant, 4 pikes and 2 spears).

Thread: Re: Teutonic Orders v. Later Swiss

Orcoteuthis — 2008-06-13T20:51:53+00:00

muzfish4 wrote:
Nice Report.Thanks.
What miniatures are you using?

I have recently (ish) purchased the Mirliton Teutonic Knight boxed set and hope to use them for a comp at some stage in the future.
I'm, as it happens, using the Teutonic Knights from the Mirliton boxed set. I'm not sure what line the Swiss are from, might be Mirliton too - at least they were similar in size and style.
I'd be more than appreciative to hear any tips you have for getting the most out of this army.

The classical medieval triangle is knights beat heavy foot* beats bow beats knights. The Teutonics don't have a lot of heavy foot, so their chief problem fighting other medievals is dealing the enemy Bw/Lb/Cb (and Art, which unhelpfully just eats your LH and Cb from a great distance). Aside from that Sp element, your best bow-eater is the Cv, but be very vary of overlaps, because even with a quickkill 2-4 combats don't pay (on average).

Against Estonians or Prussians, mock them for the cowardice of hiding in the woods. You just don't have anything that's worth sending into the DGo against Wb - they don't have anything that'd like to meet Kn in the open. While historical, these matchups don't tend to be much fun.

I often deploy the LH behind the rest of the army as a kind of reserve - this protects them from enemy shooters and they're fast enough to plug any gaps that are punched in your line or exploit an opportunity on the flanks. Sending them away on their own to attack the enemy camp or the like usually backfires in my experience. Using them against Pk or Sp is fun but you need an overlap advantage to have a decent chance of getting those quickkills in. Just holding up ranked Pk or Ps-supported Sp may be quite worthwhile however.

Also, when in doubt - charge! You may not win but it's the Teutonic thing to do.

* Ranked Pk will of course fend off Kn easily enough, but they'll have a narrow frontage and don't take being shot at well.

Image

muzfish4 — 2008-06-10T14:55:58+00:00

Early Imperial Romans vs. Parthians

Image

muzfish4 — 2008-06-10T14:52:46+00:00

Epirot Byzantine army 9with camp) for DBA

Image

muzfish4 — 2008-06-10T14:50:14+00:00

Medieval Germans vs. Persians

Image

muzfish4 — 2008-06-10T14:02:49+00:00

100 year War English (Black Prince) vs. French. Note "Lucy Falames of war" dice in foreground

Image

muzfish4 — 2008-06-10T14:00:17+00:00

Epirot Byzantines vs. Teutonic Knights

Thread: Re: Teutonic Orders v. Later Swiss

muzfish4 — 2008-06-06T03:36:44+00:00

Nice Report.

What miniatures are you using?

I have recently (ish) purchased the Mirliton Teutonic Knight boxed set and hope to use them for a comp at some stage in the future.

I'd be more than appreciative to hear any tips you have for getting the most out of this army.

Pike do seem pretty tough to use well in DBA. Anything more than 4 pikes is quite difficult to use as they are usually pretty easy to outflank.

I once took Alexandrian Macedonians to a comp and the pikes only got in contact about half the time - usually when I lost!

I am considering getting a scythe chariot and some camels to turn my Alexandrian Macedonians into Selucids which could be interesting.

Anyway, keep up the good work,

MF4

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-05T20:41:25+00:00

Bespoke 15mm pyramid.

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-05T20:39:04+00:00

15mm Hand built pyramid scenery element.

Image

z1ggystardust — 2008-05-27T13:34:18+00:00

Carthague VS Rome (25 units battle @ 170 points using points variant)

Image

z1ggystardust — 2008-05-27T13:33:47+00:00

Carthague VS Rome (25 units battle @ 170 points using points variant)

Image

z1ggystardust — 2008-05-27T13:32:45+00:00

All the scenery options

Thread: Teutonic Orders v. Later Swiss

Orcoteuthis — 2008-05-22T20:29:21+00:00

A friend's painted up a Later Swiss army (less the optional 6Kn element), and today the time came for its first foray into the battlefield. I opposed them with my Teutonic knights.

The only terrain to be of importance was a medium-sized wood on each army's right flank. The Teutonics, for once defending, set up with crossbowmen and cavalry in the centre, knights on the flanks (the right flank being forced towards the centre of the table by the wood), and the light horse behind the right flank. The plan was simple enough: contain the push of pike in the centre and go berserk on the flanks. The psiloi and auxilia were placed with the knights on the flanks, in the vague hope they'd find something useful to do, and the spearmen placed in front of one of the knight elements, ready to be redeployed to face the Swiss cannon.

The Swiss, recognizing the German plan from a mile away, put shallow pike formations in the centre, with deeper ones outside these, and then on their right flank the psiloi continuing into the woods, on the left blade, the cannon (roughly in front of the German Sp, which therefore wasn't redeployed), and farthest out more pike.

The Swiss, despite being the nominal attackers, held back with their right anchored on the wood. The Germans advanced, the mounted on the right expanding out as they cleared the wood in their deployment zone. The knights on the left, drawing close to the other wood, found themseves staring at the Swiss psiloi - the knights wouldn't go in, the psiloi wouldn't go out.

After some ineffectual long-range shooting, the first real fighting was on the other flank, the German light horse attacking the pikemen of the extreme Swiss flank. They were sent fleeing back in short order. Then one of the these Pk moved in before the cannon, fending off the approaching German spearmen. The light horse zoomed in again and eliminated the other Pk, leaving the Swiss flank entirely open.

Things looked better for their comrades in the centre, where some good PIPs had allowed them to get a deep pike block in front of the Teutonic general, who only narrowly avoided being killed in the resulting 7-3 combat (being overlapped on one flank), while the Swiss halberdiers (6Bd) eliminated a crossbow element and other pike drove back the surviving crossbowmen and cavalry. Pressing on, the Swiss pikemen also took out a knight element that was caught without a recoil by the German psiloi hurrying towards the collapsing centre.

Meanwhile, the Swiss flank continued to unravel as the German light horse closed the door on the Pk in front of the Art, which went down after a spirited resistance, shortly followed by the Art.

Back in the centre, the German general, outside the Swiss ZOC thanks to the intervening psiloi, was able to move sideways and charge the halberdiers, who promptly went down (4-3 combat with QK). 4-2 to the Teutonic Order!

This was only the second time I faced a Pk-heavy army with the Teutonics - the first being a game against Alexandrian Macedonian where most of the Pk never got into combat - , so it was almost as much of a learning experience for me as for the Swiss commander. Pike have bad reputation locally, but I have a lot of respect for anything that can have a factor of +7 against a third of my army!

Losing a knight from recoiling into a misaligned psiloi was kind of stupid. I really did need it going there, but there was no reason not to rotate it a few degrees to allow the knights to recoil through it in case the Swiss decided to detach a Pk to attack it, which they for course did. They even had the spare pip to move in another to overlap it, to add insult to injury.

On the whole, the battle went approximately to plan. I pretty much had to abandon any attack on the left went the Swiss hung back anchored on the wood, but the right flank worked well enough. The centre being smashed was expected - the job of the crossbow and cav was not to die too fast.

Thread: Sea Peoples v. Later Carthaginians

Orcoteuthis — 2008-04-21T13:28:04+00:00

This was the first outing for my Sea People army, who used the chariot general option and took all the lights as psiloi. The Carths used maximum warband, one El, and one extra Cv in addition to the general.

Terrain was, from the Sea People's PoV, a WW on the right with two adjoining marshes, and a large forest on the left. Defending, they reserved two Bd and one Ps for a naval landing, and put down the rest of the army in a symmetrical formation with the LCh general in the centre and a three-Bd-with-supporting-Ps formation on each side. The Carths put their supported Sp in the centre, auxilia on their left (towards the WW), and massed the Wb and all the mounted on the right flank. The Sea People elected not to exchange any elements in response.

The Carths, naturally, rushed forward with the mounted while the Wb formed column and headed into the woods. The Sp wheeled forward to anchor their right flank on the woods, then hung back to await the enemy, their other flank covered by auxilia in the marsh and a LH who zoomed over from the other wing.

The Sea People put down their naval landing force to threaten the Carthaginian left flank, but consistently poor PIPs in the first half of the game meant they couldn't press the attack on this side, because the other wing had to redeploy piecemeal to try and fend of the Carthaginian mounted. In the end that didn't work either, with a Carthaginian Cv getting around the flank of the blade line, preventing recoils. The Gauls ZOC'ing the Sea People general from the woods did not help.

Finally, having detached a Bd from the landing force to neutralize the Carths' auxilia, the rest of the landing force and the Sea People right flank managed to converge on the Sp line and sure enough began to smash it asunder, but it was all too late as their left wing disintegrated at about the same time, the blade falling to frontal attacks by the Carth general and elephant while the Cv blocked recoils, and the Sea People general was recoiled into his own camp and destroyed. 4G-1 to Carthage.

The battle might have gone differently if the Sea People had managed to roll higher than 2 for PIPs during the first several bounds, allowing them to redeploy the left wing in one go and/or press the attack on the right sooner. In retrospect I should've deployed the left wing further left and angled to prevent getting easily flanked, forcing the Carths to attack me head-on (or put the mounted in the centre of the board and attack me head-on there). As it was, the Carthaginians got a golden opportunity and exploited it with brutal efficiency.

Thread: Re: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

Orcoteuthis — 2008-04-02T16:07:43+00:00

I also disagree that Wb are overpowered. They lose against almost any mounted in the open, and despite the QK are at a disadvantage against ranked Pk or supported Bd. They're good in bad going, but not as good as Ax unless your opponent is obliging enough to send in Bd/Pk/Sp/Hd there.

Thread: Re: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

Orcoteuthis — 2008-04-02T15:43:46+00:00

That's quite a thesis. Some brief points:

i) Ps-supported Ax v. El without overlaps is 4/36 odds of Ax+Ps dying and 10/36 of the El dying. In other words, statistically you kill more elephants than you lose Ax/Ps. If you have the Ps not behind the Ax actually fighting the El, the math is even more favourable. As a regular elephant commander, I fear supported Ax more than Ps, and of course try and avoid fighting either.

ii) Ps-support, unlike Wb or Pk, applies in bad going, and a single Ps can support up to three Ax. This means that with support, Ax have an advantage in bad going because of a higher effective factor, while in good going they'll either have a better factor or a wider line. Plus, the Wb die two at a go while the Ax/Ps statistically lose 1+1/3 elements.

iii) Wb follow up is a double-edged sword. Against Ax, who are not quickkilled by Wb, it often leads to double overlaps in the Ax's bound, which is very deadly for the Wb. Between this and (ii) my money is on the Ax in fight between, say, Thracians and Early Germans, regardless of the amount of bad going on the field.

iv) I disagree that bad going fights are usually indecisive or unimportant. Because of the low factors involved kills are often more frequent than in open terrain clashes, and I've won or lost plenty of battles in the bad going even with armies whose main strength is in Kn or Pk. See eg. my Teutonic Orders v. New Kingdom Egyptian session report.

v) Ps or Bw holding out indefinitely against Ax simply doesn't mesh with my experience. Even assuming they manage to avoid overlaps entirely, it rarely takes many bounds before that 1/6 risk of death kicks in, and once the Ax have a numerical advantage avoiding getting flanked is often impossible. Several bow elements in open bad going change the odds a bit (particularly in the case of 3 v. 3), but usually still lose as I said above.

Thread: Re: Interested in DBA and curious if there are any players in or around Victoria BC in Canada.

AEF&Papa — 2008-04-02T06:13:15+00:00

One of the 'go to' guys for DBA in North America lives in Seattle (Paul Hannah) where a big DBA convention happens in May (see www.nhmgs.org )

Years ago I got to play a few rounds with Paul, who also was very interested in a WWII aviation minatures game. He is a remarkable individual that truly is one of those folks you will remember all your life. I had a blast, learned a lot, and would love to pick up the airplanes - one more time! While Victoria is closer to me by two hours than seattle -- well ok an hour when you factor in the ferry -- Paul is a great guy!

Now...DBA...I loved that one...kids are older...hmh...hmh...

Thread: Re: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

flapjackmachine — 2008-04-01T23:31:16+00:00

In general you're right, if I have to use Aux I try to use them in bad going or in camp, but generally manoever them to avoid getting killed. I differ if Aux is the best 'auxiliary' to an army of core heavier troop types (Cv, Kn, El, Bd, Sp, Wb) rather than Bw or Ps.
The battle described above shows just how much Wb can be useful. As you wrote 'long live the Wb double move'. As an old DBA'er I remember when Wb was the absolute dreg unit of DBA (slow, terrible in bad going).

A discussion of the usefullness of Aux revolves around the factor of bad going in DBA games and if Aux has any usefullness in the open compared to other types. Some of the following factors are pretty well known to DBA players but a spotlight on small details show up why over large numbers of games where the luck factor evens out Aux have a tough haul.

Aux is worse than Ps against El in the open since Ps cannot be killed by El while both get the quick kill vs El. Against any mounted (ie. Cm or El) Ps and Aux are both factor 2. Having rear support against mounted, particularly Kn, generally results in having two units destroyed rather than one, not a good tactic, one based saved for emergency. Aux and Wb can both get rear support against each other with the advantage going to the Wb with the follow up and 'charge' double move ability. Rear support of course not available in bad going.

Is Aux truly the most useful element in bad going? Assuming Aux is not as useful as Ps (march,flee,support and interpenetration ability) and Bw (distant fire, somewhat mounted bane) in the open, can Bw and Ps (or Sp) hold out against Aux effectively in bad going? Bd are equal to Aux in bad going and Wb slightly superior with follow up/double move. the plus 100 pace movement advantage to the Aux is negligible. It's a fair assumption that Bd and Wb elements are simply better than Aux in open going, now that in the current DBA version the Wb have the double move 'charge' ability.

A 3 vs 2 factor battle (Aux vs Bw/Ps/Sp) is only 1 in 6 chance of the '3' factor getting a quick kill and 7 in 12 (say 50%) chance of a recoil. The '3' factor recoils from the '2' factor 5 in 18 times (say 25%), not a negligible factor. A 1 in 6 quick kill is not much of a game winner. The result of such actions is a slow engagement that ultimately will result in the 3 factor unit victorious in 3.5 average turns (quite possibly never). Because movement in bad going is by individual elements overlaps are less of a factor than in the open. By spacing out the 2 factor units (not connected in line) overlaps can be avoided in recoils. Ps don't have to conform in bad going to enemy lines, like they do in the open, instead the attacking Aux have to split up (ie. move to conform) to fight separated elements. Waiting for a 1 in 6 quick kill (ie. 3.5 turns) takes a lot of time in DBA (and a lot of PIP allocation) and generally results in a big PIP sink for the aggressive Aux player as the Aux has no automatic follow up. Most generals don't have the PIP's to waste or spend on non-critical fights. Basically a slow push me, chase me action. Bw and Ps can delay Aux quite long enough for the other elements to decide the game on the open field.

The '2' factor units are not definitely NOT brittle in bad going.

Movement in bad going is by individual elements which makes combat an individual element operation and slows combat by being a PIP sink. I find bad going combat almost never a decisive factor in DBA games. Winning or losing depends on what is happening on the majority of the gameboard (ie. open ground). Bad going just shrinks the battle frontage, more so if the 'bad going' elements can ZOC the open elements into battle (from bad going). This pinning factor can be stopped by forcing a confrontation between 'bad going' elements, that is elements that have a base factor 2 or better in bad going. Bw and Ps can effectively hold out against Aux in bad going while having superior open going advantages. The result of such bad going confrontations is generally a statemate. Against all mounted opponents placing lots of bad going is a easy decision but against any other opponent the decision isn't so clear cut, in fact pretty tricky. Shrinking the 'combat' area frontage may not be in the favour of the Aux army.

So which is better, an army of heavy troops with a few Aux or an army with heavy troops and a few Ps, Bw, Wb? The Ps, Bw, Wb have open ground advantages the Aux don't and can quite easily hold their own and virtual endlessly delay in bad going the Aux while the battle is decided elsewhere, which is the point of light troops. The open ground advantages of Bw/Ps/Wb can quite well decide such games.

In a game between a Wb army (7 or more elements) vs a Aux army (7 or more elements, such as Thracians) the game favours the Wb army because of the PIP advantage in the follow up. The 100 pace movement advantage the Aux have over the Wb is negated by the 'charge' double move the Wb can do (in group in the open, and by individual element in bad going) which sets the combat timing advantage to the Wb player.

My personal opinion is that Wb is too strong in DBA versions 2.0 and later editions and Aux too weak. Certainly Wb proved their worth in the described battle above. Wb have now 'charge' double move, no penalty in bad going, and rear support options while Aux has basically stayed the same since DBA first came out 18 years ago. Plus many Wb armies in earlier editions are now less Wb heavy and have more options. The weakness of Aux isn't much but it is a factor that becomes apparent over many games.

I don't think march moves, including Wb double move, should be allowed in bad going, which is the case right now. Nothing is more annoying than watching a enemy Light horse column march right through (abet at 200 paces per march) a patch of bad going in one turn.

Of course in DBA the players don't get much of a choice as whether to take Aux elements or not since the army lists are pretty fixed. But when a player does I'd suggest avoiding the Aux.

All of the above is just so much after game pub discussion usually ended when some wonk points out the 6/1 dice action than killed 4 units in one blow and decided the game.

Thread: Re: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

Orcoteuthis — 2008-04-01T11:01:40+00:00

Auxilia-based armies are weak because they just can't stand up to heavier types in the open.

However, I find them quite useful in, well, an auxiliary rôle in an army based on a core of heavy foot or mounted. Their natural target is anything but blade that's sitting in bad going, and even blade are at 3-3. Against anything else you've got a better factor (assuming Ps support against Wb, Cm, or El).

Bow are good in "open" bad going (marsh, rough, etc), but in woods they're just slow and brittle psiloi. And even in marsh they, in my experience, usually lose against equal numbers of Ax.

Thread: Re: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

flapjackmachine — 2008-03-30T05:38:17+00:00

A tactic I use with Wb facing Bw is to move up directly behind some better troops vs Bw fire, say a element of Blade in front, in column. Then once within movement 'range' do a double move, moving out behind then into contact. The Bw can never target the Wb with killer ranged fire. My tactic using Aztecs vs Bw armies like the Tarascan (IV/19), works quite well. The Wb double move has really helped Wb in Ver 2.2, now the barbarian line can always rush engage the Roman legionaries first, which wasn't always the case when DBA first came out.

When facing Kn armies in the open with Cv/Lh, I try to engage the Kn with the Cv and later flank with Lh. Assuming some element wide manoeuvre room. The Cv will get recoiled but rarely destroyed right off (well at least not many) but the Kn by following up gets stuck in and vulnerable to flank contact (and thus quick kill) on later turns. One on one Lh vs Kn is equal in quick kill but not my first choice for group to group contact, I leave that to the Cv. That's my tactic for Mongols vs Italian Condottieri, and has worked pretty well when the Condottieri player makes the mistake of taking little bad going.

I agree Kn aren't broken (or EL) as I stated, I was just pointing out that some gamers I meet in conventions seem to think they are overpowered compared to other troop types. Kn armies seem to dominate the DBM convention circuit.

Our DBA group has noticed over the years that Aux heavy armies like Bithynians (list II/6) and others have a terrible win/loss record against all opponents. Even worse than Ps based Early Libyans (I/7c,d). Aux has no real advantages over other troop types, it just doesn't have a logical 'target'. It's Ps without the flee or march. Bw makes a better bad going troop type in general. Aux is basically 1" faster Wb but without the 'Quick kill' advantages. Bd is just as good in bad going, better in the open, pretty much the same with Sp. Of course Hd (Horde) is the worst, but no army is based around it. After hundreds of games I find Aux armies the most difficult to win with.

Most of our games are with historical opponents, but not all.

All in all, DBA is a surprisingly subtle game.

May you always roll six to your opponent's one.

Thread: Re: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

Orcoteuthis — 2008-03-30T02:35:17+00:00

I don't think Kn are "broken". I do think they're an element type that the Later Carthaginian list happens to have some difficulties handling without elephants.

I disagree about auxilia being a bad troop type, and in any case them being eliminated in this battle is certainly not indicative of it - few elements survive rolling a one when being shoot at by artillery rolling a four. The only element types that would not be destroyed in that situation are blade, spear, psiloi, and artillery!

What I mean by my opponent making mistakes? For a start, (re)deploying only one knight to right flank and that not far out enough to engage the warbands in time. Further, moving up that bow element where a) it was nigh certain to be engaged by warband at 3-1 or 3-2, and b) too far away to be supported by any friendly elements except possibly the LH, which was restricted in what it could do by the presence of my LH. Not doing anything on the other flank to force me to spend PIPs there, despite having surplus PIPs at several instances including his second-to-last bound. I would not count moving out the psiloi like that - it was a calculated risk, and might very well have paid off.

I also disagree that the Carthaginians had any particular mobility advantage. My mounted is faster, but I've got less of it, the warband double move only applies when moving into contact, and the Italians long-range firepower (crossbows and artillery), while nominally slow, can dominate a large area much like faster troops. To be safe from bow attack, you have to be 400p away - same as for cavalry.

Thread: Re: Interested in DBA and curious if there are any players in or around Victoria BC in Canada.

flapjackmachine — 2008-03-28T23:42:19+00:00

I know one player in Victoria that plays DBA but he heads over to the Mainland once a month to play at the Trumpeters Club. The clubs website is www.trumpeterclub.com ,one of the oldest organized wargaming group in the world (over 50 years). Anything, not just wargames is played at the meets. I played a lot of DBA and DBM at the trumpeters but not sure how much is being played this year since I moved east. Trumpeters have about 100+ players out each meet so I'm sure some will play DBA.

There is a very active DBA group in Seattle (and Calgary). Check out 'THE' DBA website and I'm sure you'll get a response: www.fanaticus.org/DBA. One of the 'go to' guys for DBA in North America lives in Seattle (Paul Hannah) where a big DBA convention happens in May (see www.nhmgs.org )

The closest DBA only club would be the Northwest Ancient Gamers in Seattle, meets once a week.

Thread: Re: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

flapjackmachine — 2008-03-28T13:47:52+00:00

Nice report. I haven't found Kn or El the broken killers in DBA some players contend. LH is on par with Kn on 1:1 terms when it comes to instant kill plus the LH moves faster and doesn't auto follow up (which I find to be a disadvantage). I know you didn't use EL but then you didn't have to spend the +1 pip to move them either. EL can be a big PIP drain to a LH/Cv maneuvering army.

I've found bad or good maneuvering PIP rolls to be a bigger win/lose factor than the odd bad combat roll over many games. Nothing says frown than 1 PIP rolls many times in a row while an opponent maneuvers around for the kill.

The Wb double move (plus the better bad going situation) has really helped Wb in the latest DBA rules. Double moving Wb helped my Aztec army wipe out a all Kn Vandal army at a recent convention (useful for flanking). Sounds like you found the double move factor... I noticed that your Aux got eliminated right off, par for the course as I've found Aux to be the weakest troop type right now in DBA 2.2., even worse than Ps (which has its uses).

DBA is all about using your stronger troops against the opponents weaker elements while avoiding the same in reverse. What is stronger or weaker depends on the army matchup. Massed Bw is bad against Wb but one Bw element isn't. I'm not sure what you meant by your opponent making mistakes as it sounded like he tried the right matchups although getting his Ps run over by your Cv was certainly a error. Your army certainly has the better maneuverability over the Italians.

DBA = a fast playing ancient/medieval wargame on a 2'x2' board
LH = Light Horse (fast but weak in melee)
EL = Elephant (strong in melee, doesn't work well with others)
Kn = Knights (slowest horse, strong in combat)
Cv = Cavalry
Aux = Auxilia (a skirmishing troop type)
Ps = Psiloi (a faster skirmishing troop type)
BW = Bow (of any type ie. crossbow)
Art = Artillery (slow firing, almost stationary)
PIP = One dot on a six sided die which can move one element or group, one die per turn determining army movement.

Thread: Interested in DBA and curious if there are any players in or around Victoria BC in Canada.

mbourgeois — 2008-03-27T23:30:12+00:00

The header pretty much says it all. I've been following DBA for a little while and it sounds like a lot of fun. I'm wondering if it'd be worthwhile getting into it so can anyone tell me if there is anyone with armies who plays in Victoria, BC or the surrounding areas? I'd be willing to drive on occasion if it meant a couple of hours of fun.

Let me know via reply or Geekmail.

thanks.

Thread: Later Carthaginians v. Condottieri

Orcoteuthis — 2008-03-27T21:46:14+00:00

On of my regular opponents challenged me today to take on his habitually victorious Italian Condotta with my Later Carthaginians and without elephants. Let's see, that's four elements in my army that aren't quickkilled by knights (of which the Italians have five elements) and those are cav and light horse? Yes it is. To make things grimmer still, the Italians won terrain (unsurprising at Aggression zero vs the Carthaginians' three) and promptly set up an open plain with nowhere for my lighter troops to hide.

As I set up, I was putting what faith I had in my supported Sp, who deployed on the right facing the biggest concentration of Italian knights. One round of bad combat dice and they'd be history, but 5-3 is decent chance of doubling the knights. The warband went on the left, where a small steep hill offered some prospect of useful employment after the inevitable redeployment of knights to counter them. The cav went in the centre (facing more knights) and the light horse on the flanks.

As the battlelines drew near, first blood went to the Italians as the artillery elimated my auxilia on the first bound of shooting. On my right a stand-off developed as neither side was willing to close, a mixture of Italian knights and spear facing my cav, supported spear, and a light horse element.

On the extreme left, my other light horse was making an annoyance of itself, zooming around threatening the Italian flank and even closing to try and eliminate the Art after the Italian light horse at the end of their line had retreated to avoid being catched in the flank. It attempt failed but the element survived the retaliatory shooting (at 1-4 since a crossbow element was supporting) and its continuing gyrations provoked the Italians to send their crossbowmen ahead of the line to chase it off.

This proved a mistake as two of my warbands darted out (long live warband double movement!) and attacked it at 3-1. The dice came up 1-1 meaning the crossbowmen were doubled and eliminated. The warbands next shrugged off some cannon-fire and psycho-moved again in my next bound to take on the artillery at 2-1, promptly eliminating that too.

In retaliation, the Italians attacked one of the warbands with their light horse, moving up a psiloi element to block the recoil, while onrushing knights ZOC'd the other. My luck held, and the combat was a draw. In my bound, my light horse moved in taking his in the flank while my cav general charged out of the battline engaging the Italian psiloi. At 4-2 and 2-1 with the enemy elements destroyed if beaten, I unsurprisingly got both elements for a 4-1 victory. Not one of those scary knights got into combat.

Obviously, I had some good luck - in particular my PIPs, while not all that high, where always enough for what I needed to do - and my opponent made mistakes. Yet the undisputable heroes of the battle were the warbands, who threw the whole right flank of the Italians into complete disarray and did most of the job in routing it.

Thread: Later Carthaginians v. Medieval Scandinavians

Orcoteuthis — 2008-03-09T22:01:52+00:00

The Medieval Scandinavians were painted up in the livery of the Scanian noble family Tott, once big players in Scandinavian politics. Unfortunately I didn't have a historical enemy at hand, so I opposed them with my Later Carthaginians, who unsurprisingly became the invaders.

Terrain was to play little part in the battle, the only real influence being a difficult hill on the Scandinavians' left flank that they anchored that flank on. The Scandinavians set up with their Kn in the centre, psiloi-supported blade on the wings, and an element of Cv behind the left wing. Across the field, the Carths' put two elephants and the Cv general in the centre, warband and auxilia on the left, and psiloi-supported spear on the right, with the light horse on the extreme right flank.

The Carths advanced as quickly as possibly with their whole line, the elephants aimed squarely at the enemy Kn general in the centre. The Scandinavians, naturally, had other ideas and held back their left wing, pressed forward with the right, and had their Kn pass behind the later to eventually threaten and outflank the Carthaginian left.

The first contact was on said flank, with the Scandinavian blade crashing into the Carthaginians' warband and auxilia. The later fell back, but the Scandinavians just couldn't roll high enough to get a double. Instead, a Wb eventually got lucky and quickkilled a blade even with the psiloi support.

Next the Carthaginian elephants, general, and spear crashed into the Scandinavian blade of the other wing, who, despite having their line extended by the cavalry, were overlapped on both flanks. Still their higher factor against spear told and both sides suffered recoils. In their bound however they could do little more than partially redressing their ranks, and in the following Carthaginian bound they found themselves attacked in both flanks which, combined with some poor die rolls, saw no less than five of their elements elements eliminated.

6-0 to Carthage. The Scandinavian Kn were one bound from falling the Wb in the flank.

With El costing 2 PIPs to move, there was precious little I could do about the redeployment of the Scandinavian knights except try and win somewhere else before they got to my warbands. It worked, but it was a much closer thing than the 6-0 result would suggest. In retrospect I should've put the LH on that flank; not that it could stand up to two Kn, of course, but it could probably have held them up for a couple bounds more if I'd needed it, and it didn't do any good where it was.

I should also say lucky was definitely on my side. I think I got fewer PIPs overall, but I got them when I needed them, and in combat the Wb preformed better than you have a right to expect against Bd, and the Bd and Cv on the other flank very obligingly died in the last round. They were pretty much doomed, with a Sp in one flank and an El in the other, but they could easily have lasted longer than they did, perhaps enough to allow the Kn to kill off the Wb and Ax on my left.

Thread: Teutonic Orders v. New Kingdom Egyptian

Orcoteuthis — 2008-02-14T21:56:21+00:00

I guess it was one of those embarassing AD/BC mistakes: facing one another was the forces of the Egyptian New Kingdom (I/22b) and those of the Teutonic Order (IV/30, hordeless option).

The Egyptians, defending, set down the obligatory WW, a medium-sized marsh towards the middle of each of the adjacent board-edges, and a small wood towards the middle of the opposite one. The Germans nominated the last-mentioned edge, and got it.

Faced with the woodlet in the middle of their deployment zone, the Germans put their spear, auxilia, and psiloi in it, two knights on each side of this, and on the flanks the crossbowmen on the left and the cavalry and light horse on the right. The reader may not be entirely surprised to learn they would eventually regret this deployment.

The Egyptians, meanwhile, put their chariotry in the centre and their centre-left, the blade (with supporting psiloi) in the centre-right, two bow on the left flank, and the remainin bow and the warband on the right flank (facing the Teutonic crossbowmen).

The Egyptians rushed into the marshes with their bow and warband while holding back with the chariots and blades in the centre. The Germans, naturally, were not thrilled at the prospect of having the Egyptian lights falling them in the flanks if they were to try and charge at those juicy blades and chariots, so the early part of the battle came to centre at their attempts at defeating or neutralizing said lights of at least one flank, allowing an oblique attack at the Egyptian centre.

What with Cv and LH not being much good against Bw in bad going, the first attempt was naturally on the left, with the crossbowmen having a go at the Egyptian warband and bow. This backfired as the warband killed one of the Cb and the other was chased straight out of the marsh.

This was where the German commander decided he had messed up deployment, and spent a few bounds of good PIPs at a) shuffling the infantry from the centre left, b) getting the knights on the left right of these, and c) zooming one of the light horse behind the entire German army, round the marsh, and into the Egyptians' rear. Obviously, redeploying like this is risky, but the Egyptians, having suddenly to deal with the horsemen in their backfield and understandably unwilling to attack knights with blade in the open, proved unable to exploit the opportunity.

The light horse was killed swiftly enough by a chariot element backing out of the Egyptian line (6-1 in first combat), but at about the same time the onrushing German infantry killed the Egyptian bow in the (German) left marsh and chased back the warband, allowing the knights to chase home safe from attack from that flank. Since the Egyptian bow skulking in the other marsh were unengaged, the German cavalry found themselves in the unenviable position of functioning as a living shield for that flank. They were eventually killed, but too late for allowing the Egyptian bowmen to interfer in the main battle.

Said battle turned into a lengthy affair, with the Egyptian chariots falling back but refusing to die despite repeated 4-2 combats. Back in the left marsh where an Egyptian blade rushed in reinforce the warband. The remaining blades, having moved back to allow the chariots that killed the German light horse, found themselves unable to do anything except glaring balefully at the psiloi facing them.

Finally the German knight general managed to double one of the chariots while another was pushed so close to the waterway that another recoil would destroy it. Evidently feeling it the time for desperate measures, the Egyptians backed their psiloi element in behind the knight fighting it, so that should the Kn recoil they'd both die. With three German elements (Cb, LH, Cv) and only two Egyptian elements (Bw, LCh) down, such a result would mean an Egyptian victory.

At this point, however, a lucky 6-1 split on shooting allowed the German crossbow to eliminate the warband, and the Egyptian blade element in the marsh found itself facing the German Sp, Ax, Cb alone.

Came their bound the German found themselves with five PIPs and three meaningful options: i) ganging up on this blade (3 PIPs to attack and 1 to move the psiloi out of the way), (ii) attacking the chariot at the waterway (1 PIP) at 3-2 but facing mutual destruction of Kn and the abovementioned Ps in the case of losing the combat, and (iii) attacking the Egyptian general with a single Kn and moving the German general to block the recoil (2 PIPs). After some soul-searching I chose to do (i) and (ii), which began poorly when the Kn-Ps mutual annihilation, inevitably, chose to happen, but ended well as the auxilia doubled the double-overlapped blade. 5-4 for the Teutonic Orders. Phew!

I suppose I deserved to lose after deploying like that - thinking two Cb could secure a marsh for me was excessively optimistic, and I should have sent most or all of the infantry to do it straight away. As for the wood, I should have put mounted in it and accepted the possible psiloi rush or put nothing at all and closed my line after moving past it. I got away with the redeployment because of good PIPs (the Egyptian player rolled even better PIPs for those rounds, but no matter how many PIPs you have elements can only move so many paces per bound), and because the Egyptians had been playing defensively (which, given the army compositions, was not so much a mistake as a necessity).

I also had a very opportune stroke of good luck in killing that Wb just before the end. Having been shot at for most of the battle, it had it coming, so to speak, but I'd quite likely lost had it chosen to stay around for only a bound more!

Thread: Re: New years tournament report

Kreufeldt — 2008-01-10T08:51:31+00:00

Here are some random pictures from the event!

Thread: Re: New years tournament report

frankinla — 2008-01-09T17:48:24+00:00

Great report. Makes me want to try DBA. Knights dismounting! War elephants! Egyptians! Woo hoo! Bring a camera next year, please.

Thread: New years tournament report

Kreufeldt — 2008-01-09T08:53:36+00:00

This saturday, we had a tournament in Stockholm with 14 participants. A little low compared to last years 25, but still a really good number for a DBA tournament in Sweden. Each player played five games, and here is a report from my games. My army was II/83(a) Patrician Romans (west)

Game I, Hundred year war English
An army that is a little scary to face, with dismounting knights, and lots and lots of bows. Luckily, I became defender and quickly snatched the three largest pieces of terrain I could find. These pieces I carried with me for the entire tournament...
After deployment, I realised that my right flank was where I could do some real damage, where my Auxilia faced his bows in a forrest. In the center he had his knights, and I had my warbands, of course in a forrest too. I hoped he would come in there after he dismounted. On the left my knights had a standoff against some bows, and none of us made any real moves there.

I advanced on my left, and after a couple of turns there was fighting in the woods. He had not managed to form a line with his bows, so I had two Ax against two Bw, and luckily i doubled one of them. This made the situation in the woods look really bad for my opponent, and to add to it, he rolled a one for his pips. This meant that i could kill another Bw, and then he rolled another one for pips. Killing my third Bw all I had to do now was chase after the fourth one, and it could not escape, since my Ax and and Ps are were faster. My plan worked perfectly, and it got a little help from my opponents die rolls.
Result 4-0

Game II, New Kingdom Egyptian
Bd, Bw and LCh. Looks like a match up that I like. And initially I did. I won the terrain, but did not really manage to get the fight where I wanted it. But it still looked good. Until I killed on of his blades. Then everything went really bad. I had situations with 4-2 advantage and a closed door on his general but could not manage to kill it. I think I averaged 1.8 pips for the second half of the game. I hate dice... But still it was a tight match, and as the dust cleared I had lost 2-4.

Game III Anglo-Irish
Worst kind of opposition. My own army, but with a couple of bows. And with a very good player on the other side. After a lot of manouvering and bad pips at the wrong time I ended up loosing 2-4. Not a bad game, but I could have done much better. Don't really know how though... My opponent ended up winning the tournament, so I'm not too disappointed.

Game IV Classical Indians
Three elephants and lots of bows. I got the terrain (luckily, since we both have ag0). This meant that I could fight her bows inside forrest rather then on the open field. In the end I managed to win 4-0 without really risking any losses.

Game V Medeival French
I like dimounting knights. At least when I get to place the terrain. I began with a move up a road with my warbands, making three of his knights useless (costing 2 pips to move, could only back away from my warbands in the forrest, and dismounting them would have been a death sentence). One of the knights managed to slip through though, but my general, with support from an Ax could kill it after a while. Then my attenition turned to the center, where my Bd and Wbcould cut down som Bows. All in all I lost one element, and my blade was the man of the match (normally it ends up doing absolutely nothing, since it is the slowest element in the army). Win 4-1.

And as it all summed up, I managed to get into second place. I had not really expected that, especially since I only won one of the first three games. Having played this army for a while npw, I'm getting a little tired of it. But it still is a good army to play, unless the opponent gets to place the terrain (which normally means no terrain...).

Next tournament will be a themed one (based around the Hittite empire) so that means no romans. Instead it will be Mitanni (I/19, and no, I'm not taking it too serious...). Now all I have to do is paint it...

Thread: Re: Where can I buy the rules online?

kayl — 2007-12-31T03:00:06+00:00

I got mine direct: http://stores.ebay.co.uk/The-Keep-and-WRG

DBA and HotT plus shipping $35.12

Thread: Italian Condotta v. Medieval Scandinavians

Orcoteuthis — 2007-12-07T23:40:27+00:00

The Italians invaded with a WW on their left flank and a big wood bang in the middle of each deployment zone. This was to lead to considerable command and control problems for both armies.

The Scandinavians deployed their two knight elements (incl general) and two blade on the left flank, three bow elements in column in the woods, and the cavalry element and two blades to the right. The last two blades were reserved for a naval landing.

The Italians put the general and two other knight elements on their right (opposite the Scandinavian general), the artillery, two more knights, and a crossbow element on their left, and reserved for a naval landing two spear, one psiloi, and one light horse. The last element was a psiloi deployed in the woods that for lack of PIPs would play no part in the battle.

The Italians began by rolling the first of what would be a great many ones for PIPs, and defiantly put their naval landers right on the Scandinavian right flank. The Scandinavians retaliated by putting their own landers right next to them, effectively pinning the light horse element in place with their ZOC. With the Italian general out of range and the Scandinavian beyond the woods further manoeuvring on this part of the battlefield was extremely slow, with the only combat being an ineffectual clash between the Scandinavian cavalry and the psiloi-supported spear (neither even theoretically able to kill the other).

Meanwhile the rest of the Italians crossed the field to help out their comrades. On the (Italian) right flank luck was not with them, with one knight element charging a blade only to be doubled and another, engaging a Scandinavian knight frontally, being flanked and killed by the other Scandinavian blade of that flank. The Italian general however managed to extricate himself from combat and fell back across the centre of the field towards the Italian crossbow and artillery.

On the other flank an Italian knight made contact with an enemy blade trying to get to grips with the spear of the landing force and promptly eliminated it. It was then recoiled into the woods by the other Scandinavian blade of that flank, but when the blade followed up to finish it off the Italians managed to win the 1-3 combat and eliminated that element also.

The artillery eventually moved up sufficiently to fire at the Scandinavian archers milling out of the woods, swiftly sending them back in.

At this point, the Scandinavian player decided to, rather than going for the camp that the Italian general's retreat had left exposed, to try and settle matters personally with the condottiere, whose retreat had taken him dangerously close to the woods - two recoils and he'd be dead. The Italian crossbowmen had formed up on his right flank, but his left was exposed. The Scandinavians moved their general into contact, with a blade moving up to the right ZOC'ing the crossbow and the other knights moving up on the left ready to flank the enemy commander should he win the combat. However, the dice gods intervened and the combat die between the generals came up 1-5 - just enough to double and eliminate the overlapped Scandinavian commander.

Live by the die die by the die ... this battle saw some hefty swings of fortune. Both armies deployed in ways guarranteeing PIP troubles - had either side put its general toward the WW it would have had a big advantage.

Thread: Big Battle: Carthaginians and allies v. Romans and Gauls

Orcoteuthis — 2007-10-21T10:26:38+00:00

Armies: Later Carthaginians with Campanian and Syracusan allies (technically those are either-or, but we were short on troops) against Polybian Romans with Gallic allies. I took max elephants and warband for the Carths and max spear for the Syracusans: the Roman player took max chariots for the Gauls and put all Roman cavalry in one command, all spear in another, and split the blades and psiloi evenly between them.

Terrain: From the Carthaginian perspective, there was a WW with associated marshes on the left short table age, then a huge flat expanse in the middle, and finally two elongated woods on the right, one running parallel to the Roman deployment zone and just outside it, the other approximately orthogonal to the first, running from near its left end towards the Carthaginian long table edge. This second wood would prove to largely cut off the corresponding flanks from the rest of the battle.

Deployment: Deploying first, I put down a long thin line Syracusan spear in the centre, with supporting artillery and psiloi. Left of these, the Carthaginian spear continued the line, and then elephants and the Carthaginian and Syracusan horse towards the waterway. The Carth warband and light horse were held offtable for a naval landing. To the right, the Syracusans' line was continued by Campanian auxilia through the wood, then Campanian spear, and finally more auxilia and the campanian cavalry on the extreme right flank.

The Romans put the Gauls behind the wood on their left (my right) flank, with the chariotry behind to race out and round the wood. In the middle all the blade was concentrated in a two elements deep formation aimed squarely at the middle of the Syracusans, and other flank opposite the Carths were the Roman horse and spear.

In the middle, the legionaries trundled across the board and once having reached the Syracusans swiftly killed off the artillery and three spear, thus demoralizing them. However, the lost two elements on their left due to Campanian auxilia falling them in the flank, which, combined with two spears lost against the elephants out on the flank meant one of their commands too was demoralized, which kept them from overrunning the Syracusans utterly. However, they also took out two Carthaginian spear units, very nearly demoralizing my C-in-C command.

On my left, the warband landed in a marsh where they would spend the entire battle save one dash out against the Roman cavalry, which saw them recoiling back into the swamp in short order. The Carthagino-Syracusan horse rushing forward got the better of their Roman counterparts, but when the Syracusans became demoralized were unable to press home their advantage. One of the elephants were lost in a suicidal charge on the Roman C-in-C, but the other stomped two (later also a third) Roman spear units flat, demoralizing one Roman command as mentioned above.

On my right flank, the Gauls struggled with too few pips to get through the woods in formation, and were eventually caught by the Campanian psiloi-supported spear on good going but with their second rank still in the woods, thus giving no combat support. With Campanian auxilia providing overlaps the Gauls fought at 2-5 and were slaughtered. Pressing their advantage, the Campanians charged into the woods and killed of most of the remaing demoralized warband elements, whereas the Gaulish chariotry were wiped out by the Campanian horse. With ten Gaulish elements out, the Roman losses totalled 21, and the legionaries hunting the remaining Syracusan and Carthaginian spearmen in the centre unexpectly found themselves surrendering.

Well, the right flank essentially became a regular DBA battle (11 Campanian elements fought 12 Gallic ones, with no other elements involved), and my victory there was almost embarassingly complete. In the centre, the Romans were kinda robbed of their victory over the Syracusans when half their troops were demoralized - putting all of the blade in one command might have been better. OTOH, if the spear had been in the C-in-C's command, he would have been demoralized when the spears got elephanted.

Thread: Early Achaemenid Persians v. New Kingdom Egyptian

Orcoteuthis — 2007-09-20T20:05:46+00:00

By some strange quirk of fate, Cambyses's army is thrown 500 years backwards in time ...

The Egyptians find themselves defending with their backs on the Nile. Other terrain is light: a steep hill along the right edge of the board and a forest in the far left corner, behind which the Asiatic invaders set up camp. The Egyptian camp is in the center, at the river's edge.

The Egyptians set up symmetrically, with blade/psiloi in the centre, bow on both sides, and a chariot element at each extreme flank. The remaining chariots, incl the Pharaoh, form a reserve behind the centre.

The Perians put their spear and horde in the centre, with a right flank of three elements of bowmen (2x8Bw+1x3Bw) anchored on the forest. The left flank amasses two more elements of bow, all the mounted, and on the extreme flank the auxilia and psiloi. In response, the Egyptians shift two of their blade elements for two of the bow of their left flank.

Predictably, the Persians surge forth on their left, leaving their right flank behind. The Egyptian bow advance against the oncoming horsemen, but before they achieve more than a couple recoils they are fallen upon in the flank by Persian light troops having run over the hill. Two elements go down before the chariotry manage to scatter the Persian psiloi, while a third Egyptian bow element is destroyed by the sparabara rushing up in support of the cavalry, and the Persian light horse rounds the Egyptian flank and makes for the riverside camp.

The situation looks dire for the Egyptians, but Pharaoh will not give up that easily. The chariot reserve makes a dash for the sparabara of the Persian left, the blade redouble their efforts to come to grips with the bowmen before them, and the chariots of the extreme left make a dash for the Persian camp.

'Twas close. The chariotry in the middle manage to bring down one element of sparabara and narrowly fail to eliminate the spear, and that of the left is only with difficulty kept from the camp by the Persian archers shooting from the forest. The blade, their formation broken by the rain of arrows, nonetheless drive back the Persian archery towards the table edge, only the horde standing immovable before their onslaight.

The end comes in the centre, where the Persian cavalry fills the hole in the line that Pharaoh's charge has punched, and the remaining sparabara falls in the flank of his charioteers, preventing their retreat. 4-2 to Persia.

The Persians oblique attack worked ... but only just. I was convinced it was all over when the third Egyptian bow element went down (3-0), but the Egyptians very nearly managed to turn the situation around, turning the last few bounds to a nail-biter.

Thread: DBA Review From Someone New to Miniatures

Embark — 2007-09-12T00:27:19+00:00

This is my first review here on the geek so please be gentle.

I will start off by saying that I am pretty new to the miniatures hobby. I have managed to collect a little bit of most of the latest and greatest fantasy lines (things like Confrontation, WarMachine, Warhammer Fantasy) but never really got further than painting up a few of them before the costs involved in building and army set in and the realization that I didn't have a solid opponent made me lose interest.

I recently moved back to the Ohio area and was talking with some of the local hobby store owners. I seen that one store in particular carried some 15mm historical miniatures. The owner said that there was a group of guys who played DBA at least once a month at the store. One thing led to another and after a post on The Miniatures Page, Mike Porter contacted me.

I had always been interested in Historical Miniatures. I come from a boardgame wargaming background and the fantasy stuff I had been looking at was visually appealing but the groups that played fantasy were typically a younger crowd and no one I ever talked to had any interest in history.

After talking with Mike off and on, this last Sunday I managed to get in a few games. With that said, I am going to cover the initial impression from a complete newbie to the genre.

The first thing I noticed about DBA was the fact that it required you to purchase your own miniatures and bases seperately. This is a bit different than most of the fantasy games that are out there. However, I understand that this is obviously a much more niche market and luckily there are many manufacturers that have DBA box sets available for purchase. I picked up an Essex Alexander Macedonian set at the Gamers Haven in Cleveland.

After that, the thing that struck me most was the verbage in the rulebook. The rules are purposely concise and the Unofficial Guide to DBA is almost a prerequisite if you do not have veteren players on hand to introduce you to the game. Luckily for me, I had plenty of people offer to show me the system. If you don't have that luxury, it will probably take you a few play throughs to work out all the intricasies of the rules.

I was impressed with the overall simplicity of the game. Once you understand the basic elements of an Army and how they should be used against enemy forces, it really becomes a slightly more complicated version of paper, scissors, rock. There is a high level of abstraction needed to be able to insure that every force is comprised of 12 elements (stands of miniatures). There is no set ground scale or specific number of troops each miniature represents. Some people say that the game feels like chess at times. I can see where the comparison comes from but that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The game generalizes troop types by what type of weapon they used. Therefore every unit that used spears is for all intents and purposes exactly the same. The rules make the assumption that a spear is a spear and doesn't specifically account for better troop quality or training. This may come as a shock to veteran wargamers. However the end effect is actually one that works pretty well. There are basically a set number of different troop types. Spears, Blades, Pikes, Knights, etc etc. Each type does better against another type of troop but has limitations on effectiveness in certain terrain types.

In the rulebook there is a huge list (I think 250+) of different Armies that are available for play. With each Army is a list of historical opponents. The game is best balanced when you pit these forces against each other. Otherwise some of the barbarian type lists don't have much of a chance against ahistorical opponents.

The mechanics of the game have been covered before, so I won't bore everyone with the intricate details. The gist of things are that each turn plays out in "bounds". A six sided die is rolled and the number rolled is the amount of "pips" that the active player has to move elements. If the elements are in group contact, it's possible to move all of them using only one pip. Things get slightly more complicated when doing manuevers like wheeling or column but the end effect is pretty much the same.

When elements are not grouped, you are forced to move them individually. The obviously requires more pips and sometimes you don't have the number of moves that you need to complete the planned manuever. This leads to some tough choices. At times a simple manuever properly executed leads to better results than a complex manuever that doesn't get completed in time.

Close Combat is simple and most results are one side being pushed back one base depth or killed outright.

I never got into artillery or long range weapons so I can't comment on those.

The real question everyone wants to know is whether the game is enjoyable. I absolutely think so. The game is simply enough to pick up in a session and quick enough to play in under an hour. Perfect for those of us who don't have 6 hours to play out some of the larger miniatures games. The rules and an army will often cost you less than 50 dollars.

For anyone on the fence about DBA, I would encourage you to give it a shot. 50 bucks isn't much in the world of miniatures and if it turns out not to be your flavor, you can alway use the miniatures for another ancient battles system.

Ben

Thread: DBN

Ammianus — 2007-09-01T11:58:03+00:00

Mates,
If you enjoy DBA, may I recommend you take a look at KISR's De Bellum Napoleonica, a standalone set of rules for the Napoleonic era based upon the mechanics of DBA but with added period chrome. KISR also produces similar rules for the American Civil War and for WWII.
Cheers,
A

See also:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/31583

Thread: Teutonic Orders v. WotR English

Orcoteuthis — 2007-08-30T20:19:49+00:00

To the surprise of absolutely no-one, the English became the defenders. More surprising was the terrain they chose to place: two smallish woods in the centre of the board, and a road along what became their right table edge.

The English deployed three blade and two bow on their left, and two knights, more bow, and the artillery on the right. One bow element was left to guard the camp. The Germans massed all their knights and light horse on their extreme right, the crossbow, auxilia, and psiloi in the centre, with the cavalry and spear forming a refused left flank.

Predictably, the battle began with the mounted on the respective right flanks rushing forward, the Englishmen sped along by the road. The light infantry of the German centre went into the central woods, as did the bow of the English right. The English artillery, laboriously dragged around the wood closer to the English deployment zone only ever managed to inflict a couple inconsequential recoils on the German auxilia. The English foot of the left formed an oblique line to receive the inevitable charge of the German knights,

The German spear and cavalry staying stubbornly close to their camp whereas the English left had wheeled forward, the German knights reached their target before the English ones, despite the laters' advantage of moving along a road. The German's charge was a mixed success, with two elements of English billmen (blades) eliminated, but one element of knights and one of light horse lost the the English bow.

However, with their general far away beyond the woods, the remaining elements of the English left failed to mount an effective counterattack, and in the following German bound the Teutonic knights surrounded and eliminated an element of bow, while a lucky attack by the German auxilia killed one of the English bow elements in the woods. 4-2 to the Teutonic Order. The English mounted never got into combat.

The unusual terrain set-up was potentially quite troublesome for the Teutonic Order, but the English player failed to capitalize on it. The Germans took a grave risk in leaving so little to keep the English knights from the German camp, but the Englishmen very obligingly put their blade out in the open for the German knights to ride down, and to boot sent half their bow into the woods as a column, which was beaten back by a single element of auxilia.

Thread: Teutonic Orders v. Italian Condotta

Orcoteuthis — 2007-08-26T16:59:39+00:00

The Italians, unsurprisingly, became defenders, and placed a WW on what became their home table edge, a steep hill in the left part of their deployment zone, and a small forest towards the opposite corner.

The Italians deployed their knights and artillery in the centre, with two elements of spear on the right flank (opposite the forest and the German camp), light horse behind as a mobile reserve, and crossbow and psiloi on the left, anchoring the line on the hill. The Germans put a mixture of knights and crossbow in the middle, auxilia and psiloi continuing the line to the left into the forest, and with cavaly, spear, and light horse on the right flank. Just like the Italians, they also kept a light horse element in reserve behind the centre.

The Germans advanced across the field, with the left wing progressively falling behind to remain anchored on the forest. One of the crossbow elements were destroyed by artilley fire; the light horse moved up to fill the gap.

The Italian crossbowmen left the hill to attack the light horse on the German extreme flank, unwisely as it turned out, since the horsemen were merely recoiled, and the counterattack by German cavalry and spearmen destroyed a psiloi element. These forces would keep battling with the remaining shooters and an element of Italian knights for the rest of the battle.

Further to the (German) left, Teutonic Knight Brethren of the right-centre twice charged into the Italian artillery with surrounding knights, first being repulsed but the second time destroying the artillery and a knight elements, so blowing a big hole in the Italian battleline.

The Italian Condottiere, determined to go down in glory if go down he must, charged along with his remaining knights into the Order Master and the uncommited Knight Brethren of the German centre-left, driving them back, but was then, despite the best attempts of the Italian light horse, surrounded by German knights and light horse rushing in from (their) right and cut down.

4-1 to the Teutonic Order. The battle was cut short by the Italian general's near-suicidal final charge, but then it is hard to see what better coption the Italians had than to hope for a lucky kill in the German general; their left was bogged down in indecisive fighting, and the spearmen of the right too far away to do anything useful.

Thread: Re: Early Imperial Roman v. Teutonic Orders

Orcoteuthis — 2007-08-24T12:39:42+00:00

caradoc wrote:
Have you got any good pics of your armies and set up?
If you look at the DBA gallery, among the more recent additions are a picture of the Teutonic Order army as well as a couple shots from the abovementioned HYW English v. EI Roman battle.

Thread: Re: Early Imperial Roman v. Teutonic Orders

caradoc — 2007-08-24T11:37:33+00:00

I agree - good to see a great session report for DBA - I love Hordes too.

I sometimes play with the rule that the 'C-in-C' rolls a D4 +2 for command pips. But generally the game runs quickly enough for it not to really be a big issue I think. What are your thoughts?

Cheers.

Giles.

(Have you got any good pics of your armies and set up?)

Thread: Re: Refighting Quatre Bras using DBA

Ammianus — 2007-08-23T23:31:36+00:00

Mates,
try DBN instead
Cheers!

http://mysite.orange.co.uk/alexanderhotel/game/index.htm

Thread: Re: Early Imperial Roman v. Teutonic Orders

jrtracy — 2007-08-23T22:30:26+00:00

There is a pretty good online implementation called, oddly enough, 'DBA Online' - I think it's shareware. Ah - found it: http://www.sharewareconnection.com/dba-online.htm

JR

Thread: Re: Early Imperial Roman v. Teutonic Orders

Orcoteuthis — 2007-08-23T21:01:22+00:00

If miniatures is all they fear, they should go here and help themselves to my printout cardboard armies. However, I fear that what is really keeping them away is the measuring stick.

Thread: Re: Early Imperial Roman v. Teutonic Orders

denverarch — 2007-08-23T20:44:33+00:00

Good to see DBA reports here with so many otehr DBA venues out there. Most boardgamers would love DBA if they get over their fear of miniature games.
we made a 1776 and DBN variant that is really fun, that my friend and I switched to.

Thread: Early Imperial Roman v. Teutonic Orders

Orcoteuthis — 2007-08-23T20:19:03+00:00

A most ahistorical clash, of course.

The Romans got to place terrain, and unsurprisingly opted to put as much bad going as possible on the table, with a big forest in the middle of what became their deployment zone, a huge steep hill along their lefthand table edge, and a second big forest in the far righthand corner. A road ran straight across the field parallel to the long axis of the hill, but was to play no rôle in the battle.

The Romans deployed with two cavalry (incl. general) astride the road, three auxilia and two blade in column to their left, poised to climb the hill, artillery and two blade in open ground on the left flank, with the remaining auxilia and blade plus an element of bow in the woods in the middle.

The Teutonic knights deployed three knights, both light horse and the cavalry in the centre, with the last knight, one crossbow, the spear, and the psiloi behind the hill, and the auxilia and second crossbow in the woods on the other flank.

Both sides began cautiously, with the Roman auxilia occupying the hill, chasing off the enemy auxilia, and the Order mounted drawing up in the open ground in the centre of the field. A good deal of indecisive manoeuvring occured on and around the hill, as the Romans did not dare leave the protection of the bad going (auxilia v. knights in good going is not pretty!), and the Order troops refusing to enter, contenting themselves in loosing volley after volley of crossbow bolts at them. Towards the centre, the Order master and the Roman legate locked gazes, but the one refused to go into the confine between the hill and the wood (with the Roman bow in it), and the other to leave it.

The decisive movement came when one element of Order knights broke away from the centre and, followed by the light horse and the Order auxiliaries having slogged the way up from the woods of the Order deployment zone, charged the legionaries and artillery on the Roman right: two Roman elements went down immediately. In the next bound an auxilia bravely counterattacking from the woods was also wiped out by the knights, whereas across the field on the hill crossbow shooting recoiled an auxilia into another. 4-0 to the Teutonic Order.

A blade/aux army against knights is always going to be tough, and when as here on the last, crucial, couple of bounds the Roman player fails to roll anything higher than a two on the die the result can only be one. I think the Roman player played well and had he been favoured by even average luck the game would have been a much more closer affair, if probably still a Roman defeat.

It may be noted that later in the evening this Roman army defeated HYW English by 6-1'ing its knight general with the artillery.

Thread: Re: Easy BUA Rule

wheelnut — 2007-03-18T20:05:02+00:00

yes we ignore BUAs...

I cam recommend fanticus website as per last post.

Lastly we like Big DBA. A bigger game in about 1-2 hours with a very quick resolution for one side or the other.