Army Lists

dougm · Post by **dougm** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:34 pm

Can you please ensure that where army lists are developed that the same or similar standards are adopted for classification across multiple reviewers/writers. One of my pet peeves with DBx used to be that some lists contained pure speculation - notably things like Roman armoured chariots, experimental phalanxes, whereas other didn't get attested troop types (Sassanian heavy infantry). In other issues soem authors appeared to take a very restrictive (prescriptive) view, in using proportions to define troop numbers, whereas other simply listed x-y. In other cases, where no conclusive decision on classification was made, some authors would select their 'preferred' class, while others gave options for either (notably Chin Chinese).

I would suggest that where 'experts' are asked to write lists, that very clear guidelines be provided, to avoid the situation where the only Welsh armies were the 'Fantasy Welsh' with a French ally, while armies that actually had a French Ally, (eg Scots Common) are very much more restricted in numbers and type. This also pertains specifically to classifications as Regular/Irregular and Ally or Sub-General, so that the only Portugese armies we see are dated 1385 thanks to a fortuitous troop combination in that specific year.

regards

Doug M.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:52 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with the principle of Doug's post but not the specific examples (I can argue them somewhere else if needed).

Lists should have upgrades etc. done by proportion not absolute numbers. Allied contingents are an interesting one but do add flavour to armies.

What would be a pity would be for every early Roman army to have 75% of it's troops as legionaries for example.

I am not sure about the scale thing as limiting lists to ones where armies were only 10,000 men or stronger cuts out some of the more colourful armies in other sets of rules.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:20 pm

We will certainly aim to be consistent.

As for certain armies only being fielded in certain years, I see little solution to this. If there was a limited period in time when some troop type was available, and there is no downside to chosing this period, players are always going to choose the date that gives them the most options.

However, this is only an issue for competition games as in club or campaign games, players can decide whether they want to avoid these dates and play with the more commonly fielded army in reality.

Only a small % of wargamers will ever play in a competition and these rules are not being designed specifically to target them. We see the hobby being split into 4 main groups:
Competition Gamers
Casual Gamers
Modellers
Historians
Our aim is to provide something for everyone. We want to produce a fast flowing set of rules that anyone can pick up and play. We don't want people to be using the rules as a weapon! We're also working hard to ensure that we capture the flavour of pre gun powder warfare accurately. We're going to provide detailed army lists based on the latest historical evidence. Last but not least, we want the game to be fun! Not an easy task but we think we are getting there!

You can get an idea of how much time and effort has gone in to this from the number of posts in the design forum - over 1300 so far and rising daily.

dougm · Post by **dougm** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:54 am

This is not my experience over the last 12-15 years, the bulk of Ancients players in Oz do play in competition. Perhaps due to the geographically dispersed nature of Australia, it is very common. Roughly 80-90% of Australian Ancients players play occasionally or frequently in competitions.

If you don't take the competition players into account, you will end up with a set that has little traction and has loopholes the size of a Mack truck, just ask Nik etc what is happening with the development of DBMM

regards

Doug M.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:17 am

We are of course taking competition players in to acount. I am a world champion at DBM.

But you will find that the vast majority of wargamers have never gone to a competition, don't even play in a club and you will never hear from them. They are the silent majority. You only have to look at the sales fiigures for rules and the number of entrants at competitions. This tells us around 1-10% of the people who buy the rules ever go to a competition.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:30 am

The current UK DBM rankings have 425 players listed. DBM has sold a LOT more copies than that. Granted the competition players are by far the most active but in terms of a market they are only a tiny proportion.

sagji · Post by **sagji** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:28 am

iainmcneil wrote:We will certainly aim to be consistent.

As for certain armies only being fielded in certain years, I see little solution to this. If there was a limited period in time when some troop type was available, and there is no downside to chosing this period, players are always going to choose the date that gives them the most options.

However, this is only an issue for competition games as in club or campaign games, players can decide whether they want to avoid these dates and play with the more commonly fielded army in reality.

I think part of the problem is todo with some troups being more cost effective than others. This is something that is very hard to do well as it infulenced by how cost effective troups are thought to be and the fact that a competition with a theme alters the cost effectivness.
One of the problems DBx has is that the unit costs are small (one unit of average light infantry costs 3 points) - which means any change to one units effectivly means you have to change everything and there is very little fine control (poor light infantry has to cost 2 poor skirmishers then have to cost 1)

dougm · Post by **dougm** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:59 am

I was talking about my experience here. Where I am on the Australian Ancients Wargames Committee, as well as the IWF Interps Committee for DBM.

Ther UK experience is quite different.

regards

Doug M

gregm · Post by **gregm** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:13 am

Another thing to maybe avoid from dbm is putting the point costs in army lists. When updates of the rules are published it is possible to revise point costs without completely redoing the army lists. This can also be useful as a way of balancing costs of troops or abilities in light of playing experince.

The downside is, of course, that more mistakes are likely in compiling lists.

greg

jdm · Post by **jdm** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:55 pm

We have been giving a lot of thought to this point. Not reached a conclusion yet. One idea was to leave a space/box for players to write the value in. Taken from a seperate list in the main rules. Any update then applied only to this one page

Its a tricky one

Regards
JDM

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:34 am

I agree to an extent that providing proportions instead of fixed numbers of upgrades would be better and allow the lists to scale in a more regular way.

Regarding 1385 and Portugal it makes all the sense that the army is "special" in that date! Do your research but don't ask a Spaniard about it. The only thing essentially wrong with the Med Port list is allowing French and English knights to be in the same army which never happened: it was either one or the other.

honvedseg · Post by **honvedseg** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 5:10 pm

One of the most difficult units to get "right" in a game system is the mixed bow/spear combination. Many of the Biblical era armies used massed archery, but placed a rank or two of spearmen in front, not only to give the formation a hard "crust" in case of a frontal charge, but also to provide shield protection for the following ranks. In many cases, the ranks of archers were armed with melee weapons as well.

Many of the systems define units as ranged or melee, making you alternate them in a lineup in order to get a "fair" representation of certain armies (Babylonian, Assyrian, etc.), which results in the line fragmenting in melee, or by artificially "staggering" the units to force the melee units into contact first. Few systems allow for fire through another unit, and most penalize all ranged units heavily in both melee strength and morale, making a historically accurate (and highly formidable) formation totally unworkable in the game.

It would also be helpful to limit the "uber" army combinations, where a Roman Legion ends up with Cataphracts, Elephants, massed archers, and elite cavalry all in one army, where each of these was often a unique situation which probably never overlapped with the others.

ashur_dan · Post by **ashur_dan** » Mon Sep 04, 2006 10:45 pm

Hi All

What is the range of lists envisaged? Will they be as comprehensive as the DBM lists (ie range of nationalities and sub groups)

regards

Stephen

ashur_dan · Post by **ashur_dan** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:36 am

ashur_dan wrote:Hi All

What is the range of lists envisaged? Will they be as comprehensive as the DBM lists (ie range of nationalities and sub groups)

regards

Stephen

Any idea?

regards

Stephen

jdm · Post by **jdm** » Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:24 am

The army lists will be extensive. We are working on these at present

Regards
JDM

ashur_dan · Post by **ashur_dan** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:47 am

Hi

Excellent, I always thought one of the strengths of DBM was the extensive army lists.

regards

Stephen

dithyrambos · Post by **dithyrambos** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:52 pm

jdm wrote:The army lists will be extensive. We are working on these at present

Regards
JDM

I would like to make a few friendly suggestions, which, IMHO, could help this game to improve upon DBM (at least, these would be improvement in my opinion, I'm not sure how many other's would even notice these). The two things I am referring to at the moment, are from the 4th Book of DBM Army Lists, which spans from 1071 - 1500.

My first example is the Trapezuntite Byzantine army list. In the historical information beneath the list, there are some quotes from a Muslim writer who describes the Trapezuntites as "warlike men and fearless", and "although few in number and ill-equipped, they are however heroes, like terrible lions who never let their prey escape". This gives the impression that Trapezuntites are fierce warriors. Yet their infantry are classed and (I)-inferior- and most of their cavalry as (O)-ordinary-, with only their Light Horse being (S)-superior-. I felt that this did not accurately reflect the descriptions. They were "ill-equipped", yes, but they were also fearless and warlike, so I felt that they should be considered at least (O).

Whatever equivalent you use to this system, it is my opinion that Trapezuntite soldiers should be given better ratings, so as to more accurately reflect their descriptions.

My second example is that the last Byzantine list, Palaiologid Byzantine, only goes through 1384. There is no list (that I am aware of) which covers the armies of Konstantinos Dragases. I was rather disappointed when I saw that he was not included, and I ask that you take him into consideration. His armies did afterall, retake many islands and even some of the Grecian mainland before 1453, at least, according to this site http://members.fortunecity.com/fstav1/e ... aleo.html#. I would love to play as the army of Konstantinos XI Dragases.

Sincerely, dithy

PS, I am not intending to attack DBM in any way, and if this post is misunderstood as an attack, I apologize. I am a big DBM fan, and I was only pointing out two minor details about the army lists which bothered me, and in which I hoped you guys could improve upon.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:09 am

OK, not relevant to AoW but I suspect that the army you are looking for is covered by the DBM Morean Byzantine list - the one on the page after the Pally Byzantine.

montezuma · Post by **montezuma** » Mon Oct 09, 2006 7:34 pm

There may be 425 people on the DBM list of ratings, but that doesn't even cover all the people who play in competitions. I do, and as far as I am aware I am not on this list.

It has to be said though, that the people who will have the most to say about the way the rules work and list contents etc will be the competition gamers, because they get together at these events and talk about such things.

regards
Paul

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:32 am

montezuma wrote:There may be 425 people on the DBM list of ratings, but that doesn't even cover all the people who play in competitions. I do, and as far as I am aware I am not on this list.

It has to be said though, that the people who will have the most to say about the way the rules work and list contents etc will be the competition gamers, because they get together at these events and talk about such things.

regards
Paul

Paul, at present the BHGS rankings include virtually every DBM competition played in the UK. The only event I am aware of that does not get included is the Burton doubles because the results seem to be kept a dark secret from the DBM community at large.

I compile the rankings so unless there are competitions I am unaware of if you have played in the last 12 months you are in the rankings.

Check the website www.bhgs.co.uk

Yours

James "Hammy" Hamilton

Army Lists

Army Lists

% of waragmers who play in competition

Numbers