Need opinion

[Skanvak]

I am am designing a kind of fictionnal campaign for three player about the fall of an Empire. For this one we want to experiment with uneven battle.

Our test seem to imply that 200 vs 300 battle are always won by the 300 army. We wanting small army, but 200 semms a bit too small.

We need a 200 point difference. At which level do you consider this is interesting to play. Considering we give a victory condition at 50% break point of bigger army for 100 BPV difference and 25% for 200 BPV difference.

ie does a 200 points army have a chance again a 300 points army according to your experience?

300 vs 400?
300 vs 500?
400 vs 500?
400 vs 600?
500 vs 600?
550 vs 700?
700 vs 800? but this shoudl be too big for DAG battle.

[stockwellpete]

does a 200 points army have a chance again a 300 points army according to your experience?

300 vs 400?
300 vs 500?
400 vs 500?
400 vs 600?
500 vs 600?
550 vs 700?
700 vs 800? but this shoudl be too big for DAG battle.

Yes, if the 200pt army is defending terrain - but almost certainly not if fighting in the open. The thing to remember is that a 300pt army is 50% bigger than a 200pt army whereas a 500pt army is only 25% bigger than a 400pt army - so you will definitely get much better games at 500v400 or 600v500. The DAG will cope with 800v700 quite comfortably too.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, why not reduce the size differential to 50's instead of 100's ?

Also the dag alows you to lead armies where you havent spent your full AP allowance so you really could have any size vs any other size 362 vs 415 etc. It does rely on trust between players but with only 3 or so and an umpire (as your campaign appears to be) really shouldnt be a problem.

[Blathergut]

The Gaul campaigns showed that 75pts is a big difference, esp. 400 vs 475...almost unsurmountable.

[deeter]

I'll second that!

Deeter

[Blathergut]

It was a good idea, but on the TT 75pts amounts to an extra BG or so; on the PC it amounts to 10+ extra BGs.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, i am wondering if a better aproach might be (at least for a small campaign) is to base armies on the # of BG's (break points) vs aps's . It would require a little more paperwork from an umpire of course and likly would require a player to annouce or "set" his order of battle. In a campaign setting , whatever an armies BP's would end up costing ap wise could still be used to determine what a player can afford, deduct from a treasury etc. If an army takes losses in a battle but still fit for another, just deduct based on BG's > Example, have 40 BG army and it wins a battle but suffers "heavy" losses, the rules might state that army loses 25% so just emove 10 units dropping the army to 30 BP's Might be a problem w some lists in with a lot of minima/maxima troop types , but likly only on the smaller end.

[Blathergut]

Ya, maybe. Set the maximum BG you can have and the amount of points you can spend. Would have to play with a few armies to see what's possible. I'll maybe try the Romans and Gauls.

[TheGrayMouser]

Ya, maybe. Set the maximum BG you can have and the amount of points you can spend. Would have to play with a few armies to see what's possible. I'll maybe try the Romans and Gauls.

Well, I think it would only make sence in the context of a campaign where an army occupies an area on an actual map and its compostion is "fixed" , of course you could reinforce the army or add units per any campaign rules. Wouldnt really make sence for an abstract campaign or a leugue type competition.

[Blathergut]

Ya, the idea has potential. Will think on it. Maybe for the Gallic campaign Beta #2!

[Blathergut]

For the Gauls, if the campaign included a zoomed in area where you can gain control of move villages or areas, you could gain a few BG.

[Blathergut]

Or winning a battle = loot = a few more BG. But again, someone keeps winning and outpaces the others.