Total Maxima

[rbodleyscott]

The next issue to discuss with regard to army lists is the (minimum) total maxima that lists should have in any sub-period.

This should be enough to provide the largest normal army sizes with some leeway for list variation.

Assuming that doubles games may end up at 1000 points (which is a bit larger than DBM 500 points), what is the minimum total maxima that a list should allow in all sub-periods?

If we say 1100 points plus generals, then this means effectively 250 points of optional variation for 1000 point armies.

Is this enough?

Bear in mind that almost all lists can get additional variation by bringing allied contingents.

[plewis66]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. What's a minimum total maxima? And what is it of?

[lawrenceg]

Sorry, I don't understand the question. What's a minimum total maxima? And what is it of?

We are talking about army lists.

Maximum is the most bases you are allowed (by the army list) to have of a particular troop type. e.g. in the Scots Irish list, I am allowed 0-4 bases of slingers, so 4 is the maximum.

Maxima is the plural of maximum

Total maxima is the sum of the maxima of all troop types, i.e. the biggest army allowed if you had infinite points.

The minimum total maxima is the lowest value of total maxima that players would find acceptable.

In this topic, the issue under discussion is the points value of the total maximum.

[plewis66]

I think that's why I couldn't get my head round it: Why should there be a maximum army size?

It seems a shame to me to state absolute maxima and minima, based on a narrow assumed range of army sizes. Sure, competitions (in 15mm) are always probably going to be in the 800-1000pt range, but if you want to open wargaming up to a wider market, then many of the newcomers will probably not play competitions. These people will want the flexibility to play games fitted to the time available.

I know that most people are now playing 800pt games in around three hours, but most of the people playing are very experienced DBM players. When I played at Leeds last week, even I managed to finish all my games in three hours, when playing with experienced opponents. But in all the games Graham and I have played, the only game we've played to completion took 7 hours, and all of the others we finished at about 4 hours played, usually with only 4-8 APs gained by either side.

I think for people learning the game who have little or no experience of other historical gaming, 800 points is way too big. I would suggest that absolute beginners should be looking to play 400 pts, may 500 at a push, for their first few games. Most people picking up the rules from an Osprey rack probably wouldn't bother to put in the effort to continue with a game that takes a full working day to finish, but with 400pts, then 8APs probably gives a result.

On the other hand, when Graham and I get the hang of the rules fully, and can play 800 points in 3 hours, we will probably want to still play games that last 7, 8, 10, 12 hours, just as when we play many 000's of points of Warhammer.

One of the nice things about Warhammer, is that minima and maxima are related to to army size. This allows games to be played from 500 to about 7000 points, straight from the lists. If you want to go bigger than that, then you have to start taking more than one army, smaller, and you need to play a variation of the rules (though i don't think smaller is too much a problem - 500pts makes a nice lunch-time game.

[rbodleyscott]

I think that's why I couldn't get my head round it: Why should there be a maximum army size?

To avoid players having too much choice of troops above the compulsory minima when using absolute nmumbers of bases rather than %ages.

%ages are really a non starter for the army lists - they are too user unfriendly. Every time you adjust one part of your army you have to recheck the %ages of all the other troop types in the army with a calculator to make sure that they are still within the required range.

You can therefore assume that the lists will use absolute numbers of bases rather than %ages. (It's a design decision, and it has already been decided.)

Within the context of absolute numbers of bases, it is essential to have maxima otherwise your Roman army could consist of the minimum number of legionaries and auxiliaries and the rest all Equites Catafractarii, which wouldn't be very realistic.

Of course the army lists intro will say something along the lines of "These army lists are intended for armies of 600 to 1000 points. If you wish to play smaller or larger battles, you can choose to scale the minima and maxima accordingly."

This is what people do when they play DBM200 and DBM100 - 200point or 100points games - the DBM lists being designed for 300-500 point games.

[plewis66]

Yeah, I can see percentages is a non-starter. I can also se that designing army lists is a huge job, so I'll not go on about it anymore.

I also now understand the original question.

Sorry, I've rather messed up the thread. If someone wants to delete my previous posts, I won't be offended!

FWIW, I understand you to be saying, that you are suggesting that, if one were to take the maximum possible number of troops, from a single period in a list, the resulting points values of the troops would be 1100, to which would typically be added 150 points of generals. Given a 1000pt game, this then effectively gives 250pts over the 100, effectively therefore giving 250pts of variablity between different 1000pt armies from the same list, in the same period.

My next question (and hopefully this one is a little more sensible) would be: Is that effective figure of 250 really correct, as it includes the points spent on generals. The absolute minimum spend on generals (from army lists 1.09) seems to be 50 pts for a single FC. This reduces the absulote maximum variation range to 200. In reality, it seems unlikely that many people will use just a single FC, so this eats into the amount of variability again.

If someone takes an IC and two TCs, or an FC and three TCs (which seem popular options), this will effectively mean that they are probably only choosing two to four battlegroups to drop from the full complement of troops in the list. Assuming no allies, of course.

If I'm still talking nonse, maybe you could ask an admin to clear this thread, start again, and I'll keep quiet

[rbodleyscott]

If the total available points of troops is 1100 and you need 850 plus generals to make an army then you have 250 points of variability.

Agreed if you only spent 50 points on general it would only be 150 but that would be your choice, and possibly/probably an unwise one because your army would be numerous but not very controllable. Of course, if you splashed out 25 points for an allied TC you could get much more variability anyway.

Moreover, we are talking minimum total maxima. Many lists will have much larger total maxima in reality. Some historical armies were more variable than others, and we need to try to ensure that all demonstrable historical compositions can be represented. Also, not all troops in a list are available at all dates, so we do need to be sure that a 1000 point army can be made at those dates with some leeway for variation. This will often result in the army having a lot more variability at other dates.

[jfnavarro]

Of course the army lists intro will say something along the lines of "These army lists are intended for armies of 600 to 1000 points. If you wish to play smaller or larger battles, you can choose to scale the minima and maxima accordingly."

If what is looked is to do of AoW an attractive rule for the beginners, I believe that it would be suitable to establish a few procedure that allow to play with a small number of bases.

Maybe it is sufficient to establish a few variations :

Fix a maximum of 400/500 points for small battles.
Reduce to the half the minimal number of compulsory bases.
Establish a maximum of two generals.
Reduce the dimensions of the table to 120 x 90 cm
Reduce to the half the number of terrain features.

I believe that small very interesting games might be played with these changes.