Steve wanted to play some ECW this week. He really wanted to refight Cropredy, but we've done that before and it's a messy battle that requires some preparation. Chris K had received a set of ECW modifications for DBA and was keen to try them. My enthusiasm for this idea was a bit lacking - I like DBA as DBA, but I find the desire to turn it into a set of rules for every period a bit irritating at times. Leave it be, say I, and let it be used for what it is good at.
Anyhow I thought it only fair to give it a go, so I sat down and had a look, made a few further mods and set up a game.
With four players in one game I needed more than just a 12 element army a side, so I went for a version of the large army rules, with three armies a side. This has the benefit of at least giving the players three PIP dice to roll, so there's a good chance they'll have stuff to do in each turn. My figures are on 30mm frontages, so I had to do new BW measure sticks and downsize the table depth. I also introduced a tercio rule, which makes it advantageous to keep pike and shot together.
Chris and Phil took the Royalists to the right, and Steve and Tim had the Parliamentarians to the left.
Steve and Chris had a big cavalry set to from the outset. Because of the way the rules work despite getting his dragoons to line the wood Steve wasn't able to shoot. Hold on. We've played that wrong. The cavalry couldn't move through the Threat Zone. Or have I remembered the game sequence incorrectly. Did they deploy afterwards? Damn. I'm all confused now.
Both sides had a couple of artillery pieces. Some nifty shooting by Steve & Tim meant they killed both the Royalist guns quite early on. That's two elements dead in as many turns. We might need to look at artillery quick killing each other if we persist with this.
Chris made inroads into Steve's cavalry initially, but he held the line and turned the tide by throwing some musketeers into the flank of the melee. To the left of the picture you can see that Steve was getting the worst out of the firefight. Chris has brought up his dragoons to secure his flank. They're facing the wood and haven't dismounted yet.
The Royalist central "army" has lost four elements and is demoralised. Tim is under some pressure on the left as Phil sends in a cavalry charge supported by his infantry. BTW we were experimenting with Generals as detachable command stands you could swap between elements.
The battle meets its crisis point. Tim's left hand army hits the four element loss point and is demoralised too, but in the same turn Chris loses his fourth element on the Royalist left. With two commands out of three demoralised that's game over.
I would think we'll revisit this as an idea in the future, as the rule system sits in everyone's comfort zone.
Next week we're off to the Sudan.
Las imágenes se ven muy bien, aunque nunca jugué DBA, es un sistema con mucha aceptación.
ReplyDeleteComo Español, soy muy fan de los Tercios y la era pica y mosquete.
Muchas gracias por compartirlo.
MM
DBA is fun if you don't take it too seriously. It is good that you can build up nice looking armies for not very much money. I, to, like Tercios and I have quite a lot of 28mm Spanish Army of Flanders figures that I haven't got out for ages.
DeleteTrebian -
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering if you have ever tried DBR. That rule set had a bit of eclat in this part of the world in the late 1990s. The designers tried to 'chapter' the army lists at least into period or geographic genres, of course ignored if not complained about by 'competition'-minded players. Although the basic design was admirable, in my view the thing was still wanting in development - or maybe it tried to be all things to all people interested in war gaming the Renaissance period.
For those with limited means, the rule set included a 'condensed' version - which might in a dim light be seen as a link between DBA and DBR 'proper'.
If you like the DBA system, I'd still recommend giving DBR a shot, with perhaps the view to adapting the thing to your own set up.
Cheers,
Ion
Ion,
DeleteI never much cared for DBM so I never looked at DBR. I like DBA because it gives a fun game playable in under an hour to a definite conclusion with affordable, manageable armies on a small area. It's pretty much a perfect game system for what it is. I don't much care otherwise for PIP systems. I can take the abstraction and frustration in DBA as it is all part of a piece, but otherwise it's an irritating system that often stops you moving your troops. However it might be worth giving DBR a look if it has a simplified version in it.
Graham
There are bits of DBA that I could see working well for the 17th Century and bits that I don't. If you stick to the BCW or at least Western European armies then the simplistic rock paper scissors aspect works as troop types are limited. I don't think you need the added complications of DBM or DBMM to model the tactics in play. I'd be tempted to use DAv rather than D6 for PIPS to keep things moving and perhaps give an automatic +1 to the PIP roll for the very best generals of the period. Categories of units could be slimmed right down to shock cavalry, shooting cavalry and light cavalry with pike, shot and skirmishing foot. All artillery should be pretty much useless and static. I'd simply handle light guns attached to brigades as a dice modifier to infantry fights and shot attached to cavalry in the same way for cavalry fights. I will be interested to see what you come up with in due course.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts. Cavalry under the version we played could shoot, and as some of them were weaker than their opponents this was probably a good option to see if you could disrupt them before combat and maybe get an overlap here or there.
Delete