Historically successful armies

[kreoseus]

Hi Guys,

Have read the description of the rules and am definitely interested. However, one peeve I have wit some rule sets ( dbm in particular) is that the claim to be historically accurate, yet armies that won victory after victory, and have made their mark on history suck under their rules. Anyone who fields Marian/caeserian romans against gauls in dbm is going to get pasted fairly often, not exactly accurate. Huns and mongols also suck under several "historical" rulesets, or are invincle under others. A ruleset not based on rock/paper/scisrors would be most welcome, where equal points armies have a fair chance of beating each other rather than an uphill struggle for one side would be a nice change. Also. I like the idea of the generals actually being involved, rather than just a source of pip dice.

Kreoseus

[IainMcNeil]

We'll be trying to model the behaviour of specific troop types and then categorise the armies realistically. This shoudl mean an open battle without special case events will play out well. In reality many battles are far from this though, with one side tired, out of supply, ambushed, outnumbered, unreliable etc. These special cases are probably best dealt with separately to the core rules.

[arnimlueck]

as long as we do not mix fighting a war, speak economy, politics, logistics with fighting a battle I am with you. I view any kind of army point system to care for the abstraction of the war itself. Thus two equal points armies should show roughly equal performance over a series of games - not neccessarily in one sepcific pairing.
Trying to give each possible pairing of equal points armies 50% chances of winning however is definitely a wrong approach.

For me a ruleset is about right if it provides a subjective correct feeling of the strength and weaknesses of many popular armies of the past. In other words they should win situations they are reported to master in history.

Arnim

[sum1won]

Hi Guys,

Have read the description of the rules and am definitely interested. However, one peeve I have wit some rule sets ( dbm in particular) is that the claim to be historically accurate, yet armies that won victory after victory, and have made their mark on history suck under their rules. Anyone who fields Marian/caeserian romans against gauls in dbm is going to get pasted fairly often, not exactly accurate. Huns and mongols also suck under several "historical" rulesets, or are invincle under others. A ruleset not based on rock/paper/scisrors would be most welcome, where equal points armies have a fair chance of beating each other rather than an uphill struggle for one side would be a nice change. Also. I like the idea of the generals actually being involved, rather than just a source of pip dice.

Kreoseus

Not really. The gauls pasted the romans a fair number of times, the difference was that as soon as the romans defeated one gaelic army, that tribe would collapse and the romans would get more land, and when the gauls beat another roman army, they would have to fight a dozen more before they made any real headway.

[montezuma]

This is a common problem with a lot of ancient rules. Historically successful armies are not very useful against the historical opponents they defeated. Examples of this in 6th edition would be Middle Imperial Romans against Palmyrans. The Romans find it very tough against the cataphracts, but historically they beat them soundly.

I am sure there are similar examples in DBM, and I believe Romans of any period against warbands is one of them.

If the design team can overcome this issue it will be a real coup.

regards
Paul

[kreoseus]

Hi,

my point wasnt that Romans should always beat Gauls, but that equal points armies should have a reasonable chance of beating each other, rather than an uphill struggle for army which was often successful against that same opponent in history. If one side starts at a marked disadvantage given equal points, something is wrong . I do not mean simply that x points of greek hoplites will be disadvantaged by their lack of cavalry if faced with x points of Huns or some similar ahistoric match-up, this would be inherant in a heavy foot army facing an all mounted ( or nearly all mounted ) force. I mean that if some function of the rules disadvantaged one side unhistorically , like the blade vs warband conbat for DBM.

[IainMcNeil]

It is certainly our intention to balance the rules and the points system to ensure that armies of equal points are equally good, though in any single game, the army match up and terrain will probably give some advantage to one side or the other.

E.g. A bow heavy army like Early Persian will probably fare better against a mounted army such as Mongols, than against a heavy foot army like Romans.

[sagji]

Hi,

my point wasnt that Romans should always beat Gauls, but that equal points armies should have a reasonable chance of beating each other, rather than an uphill struggle for army which was often successful against that same opponent in history. If one side starts at a marked disadvantage given equal points, something is wrong . I do not mean simply that x points of greek hoplites will be disadvantaged by their lack of cavalry if faced with x points of Huns or some similar ahistoric match-up, this would be inherant in a heavy foot army facing an all mounted ( or nearly all mounted ) force. I mean that if some function of the rules disadvantaged one side unhistorically , like the blade vs warband conbat for DBM.

This is difficult to achieve as it involves balancing two contradictory things.
Historical accuracy - generally the Romans won mainly because they fought with a significant points advantage. So in an equal point game the Romans should be at a distinct disadvantage.
Playability - Players find it easier to play equal point games, and Gauls and Romans are popular choices.

I think it is better to encourage players to play unequal point games, than to break the rules by trying to make equal points work for specific armies when historically it didn't.

One way to do this is in each army list to provide a short list of historical enemies, and reccomended points for a balanced game.

[kreoseus]

The problem with wanting to play uneven points games is that is it usually dependant on scenarios, and both players having historically matched armies. This will limit its playablility within clubs and make competition play very difficult. A game where x points of anything can take on x points of anything will give the most open approach for people to take up the game with existing armies. If people can only historical match-ups, this will be a turn-off for many.

Obviously, historical match-ups are ideal, and if I am fielding my Lydians, I would prefer to face persians or similar, but if peolpe only have the time or money for one army, historical only match-ups would be a huge minus point. Thus would be especially true for people just new to the hobby, to be told that they have to pick their first army so that it can play against everyone elses, regardless of what time period/region intersts them

Phil

[sergeis64]

Well, this is the usual lamentations out of some gamers. IMHO, it is an absolute nonsence. Historically successful armies , well crafted and under good generalship are absolutely deadly in gaming. Even against a bow heavy army , Light horse army could be very successful, if used well. I have seen Marians rolling over warband based armies time and time again, and Huns win National tournaments. Personally I am not that good of a player to field such armies, but a friend of mine ( US Open champion) playing Marians is very good with them.
On the other hand game designers have to take in account that if made too overwhelmingly successful armies whould be the only ones on battlefield- case and point- WAB. All you see are "killer kniggets" and some whacky Sassanid contraption with a pile of elephants and uber cavalry that shoots while charging home, strike first due to contos and is armoured to the the gills. I have never seen in WAB a Sumerian army, or the generally beloved Greeks actually win a battle.
On the other hand with all its downfalls DBM allows players to field armies like early Elamites and Tupi and be successful with them.
So dont blame the army, blame the general. Just like in real history, BTW, Mongols lost and Goliath Springs, Huns at Catalonian fields, and Marian Romans lost on numerous occasions to Warband based armies.
Sergei

[kreoseus]

"Well, this is the usual lamentations out of some gamers. IMHO, it is an absolute nonsence" How in gods name can you say that ? That is the typical, condescending snootiness that drives people from wargaming, it isnt " nonsense", its called an opinion. The fact that you dont agree with it doesnt make it wrong ! Perhaps you should review the meaning of humble before you post insulting drivel about the opinions of someone you have never met.

My point, which although clearly stated, you seem to miss. My point was that for many of these armies, victory is an uphill struggle, rather than a match of even armies at an even points level.

[honvedseg]

You are always going to have some sort of "rock/paper/scissors" effect, where one troop type fares well against another, but is at a disadvantage against a third type. The varying makeup of the different armies insures that there will ALWAYS be some mismatch, unless you make every army exactly identical. The thing to avoid is having one of the troop types too powerful or too weak, leading to a situation where everyone takes the same type of army if they want to win. I trust that the design team is trying very hard through beta testing to prevent that situation.

A large part of the success of certain armies (Romans, Alexandrian Macedonians) was due to their attention to logistics and supply. The Romans built roads with a line of fortifications along the way, and were often able to outlast their opponents in the field, fighting only when conditions best suited them. Alexander built bridges, settled towns, made treaties and alliances for supplies, and conducted huge engineering and seige projects in order to accomplish many of his military achievements. Many of the opponents whom they defeated were undisputedly superior in numbers or tactical position at first, but the Romans and Macedonians were usually able to either wait them out, out-maneuver them, engineer a situation which made the opposing position untenable, or attack them before they had fully gathered, since most adversaries were unable to control or feed those huge armies for any length of time. This is something which is far beyond the scope of a tactical game, so a relatively "balanced" point system is about as "realistic" as you are likely to get without giving certain armies a point advantage to represent their superior logistics or strategy.

[sergeis64]

Absolutely agree with Honvedseg here! One cannot avoid "rock/paper/scissors" effect- just like in real life...
And it would be nice if AoW designers can avoid repeating WAB mistakes and steer clear from "Special rules" galore.
In a balanced rule set each army should have strong and weak points, hence a player can try to exploit strong points and hide weak ones- be that an army comp, use of troops or terrain. This way gamers can get an army that they like- not the army that will have the best winning record.
To Kreoseus- sorry that you feel offended, but I stand by my words here. Case and point- WAB- where some armies just not allowed at tournaments! Try to bring Samurai army- too much of a buzzsaw for others. An example of how rule designers went a bit too far in their love of Kurosawa's movies. Other example- a couple years ago "soup di jour" in WAB was a viking army from Isle of Man ??? Was that because they killed Boru after loosing at Clontarf?
We have a couple of fellas here in NE that are waiting for DBMM as some sort of heavenly mannae that will solve their "problems" with Macedonians and Mongols. Well, they might be waiting for quite a bit...
Sergei

[SMK-at-work]

You should never confuse wargaming with history.

If you want to know why some armies "always" won then you ned to be playing re-fights of the battles concerned.

In good rules such refights should closely resemble their phistorical prototypes.

Beyond that there is nothing but supposition and fantasy.......albeit interesting supposition and fantasy!

there is nothing about an "equal points pick-up game" on (probably) artificially generated terrain that resembles history.