I'm sure it'll be worth the wait ;o)

I suppose that the bit I'm really looking forward to is a revision of the
tactical engine though, which is the bit of De Bellis Solitarius that is most
conspicuously 'broke'!

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the soloDBAdevelopment
group.

   File        : /Dale's DBAS/SelectionsForGenerals-v1.xls
   Uploaded by : dale_hurtt <dale_hurtt@...>
   Description : Excel spreadsheet showing all army lists with selection options
for their General.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/soloDBAdevelopment/files/Dale%27s%20DBAS/Select\
ionsForGenerals-v1.xls

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/groups/files

Regards,

dale_hurtt <dale_hurtt@...>

I have finally completed the Excel spreadsheet documenting the army lists with
options for selecting a General, the choice I would make, and why. The Caveats
column is a bit terse, but this will be detailed in version 4 of DBAS. Consider
these the "working notes".

I would love to hear your comments on where you disagree - and why! - with my
choice of selection for a General. I have been persuaded by a number of things
so far, so this is no different.

Dale

--- In soloDBAdevelopment@..., Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> "I suppose that the bit I'm really looking forward to is a revision of the
tactical engine"
>
> It is on its way, although it may need a few goes at.

Yes, I reckon there are a lot of complex issues wrapped up in a rather short
piece of writing as it currently stands. There's tremendous potential there
though, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you and Dale come up with!

Keep up the good work guys,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

All,

I am hoping even the non-DBA gamers might be able to chime in on this one.

What would be the best way to document how to go about placing terrain? We can
set aside for the moment how many pieces, what type, etc. as these issues will
be dictated by whatever rule set the soloist is using. But, how does one go
about determining if, say, a hill should be placed 6" from the right edge or 4"?
Why one versus the other?

I know that competitive players, when they are faced with these choices, don't
simply plop pieces down and say "that looks good!" (Players that are into
aesthetics, however, often do. But we will ignore them because they are going to
chuck the terrain selection and placement rules anyway.)

Back to an earlier post I wrote (that no one responded to) about "meeting in the
middle": if that what you, as the defending player, anticipate? Meeting in the
middle somewhere? Do you then place terrain around that area in order to get a
set piece battle that you imagine in your mind?

Do you use multiple pieces of terrain symmetrically so that if you get the
baseline you don't expect, you still end up with the same set piece terrain (or
a mirror image) when coming from another direction?

Do you use terrain pieces to encourage or discourage your opponent from favoring
a particular baseline, especially Waterways or Rivers. Do you use a BUA to
lessen the odds that your opponent will be able to pick a favored side? Do you
setup terrain to your advantage if you do end up with the BUA on your side?

Do you separate terrain specific distances so that your army will fit between
the two pieces "just right"? Do you find this occurs more frequently when you
play Spear, Pike, or Warband armies, which can benefit from double-ranking (and
thus like anchored flanks)?

I know one common method is to divide the board into thirds, quarters, or
sections and then dice, but I find that:

A. It still does not tell you precisely where to place or orient the terrain
piece within an 8" square.

B. Terrain usually ends up as a hindrance to both sides (i.e. neither side can
take advantage), which I find inherently ahistorical.

I've just started on the terrain selection process and I am already thinking
ahead to the terrain placement process. In DBAS, I am working on the theory that
complementary terrain should be selected whenever possible. What those
complements are, specifically, is still being worked out. Unfortunately, most of
the examples I can think of involve BUAs, Waterways, and Rivers.

Dale

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the soloDBAdevelopment
group.

   File        : /Richard's Solo DBA/Solo DBA-v3.doc
   Uploaded by : richard.lee42 <richard.lee42@...>
   Description : Version 3, which includes update of the tactical engine
07/02/2010

You can access this file at the URL:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/soloDBAdevelopment/files/Richard%27s%20Solo%20D\
BA/Solo%20DBA-v3.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/groups/files

Regards,

richard.lee42 <richard.lee42@...>

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> I have just uploaded version 3 of 'Solo DBA'.  Still quite a lot to
> do, but it is taking shape.  Will need to playtest it a bit more.
> I would certainly welcome feedback from anyone else attempting to
> use it.

Here is my feedback on reading through the document (no playtesting yet).

Selection of General

* -1 Elephant general when YOU have a total of four or more psiloi, auxilia, or
light horse, or at least one artillery;

----

Use the phrase "Terrain Placement" instead of "Terrain Placing".

----

Road Placement: Roads MUST not cross no more than two battlefield quarters,
rather than "should only".

----

Selection of Base Edge if NPG is Attacker

* +3 Deployment zone on that edge is clear of rivers and bad going;

This doesn't sound right. If the edge is "clear" of rivers, then the river is
parallel of your proposed baseline. If the intent is to make sure that a river
is not running parallel through the deployment zone, change the phrase "edge" to
"deployment zone". It also makes more sense with Bad Going.

Further, is the part about Bad Going a good thing if the NPG army Favors Bad
Going?

This section needs to state explicitly that the roll is to determine the
"preferred" side. You already have the statement that you still roll to see
which baseline the attacker gets.

----

Deployment Engine

2. Deploy in non-bad going troops in column if they are in, or will soon enter
bad going.  Otherwise deploy in line if space permits.

Why are only non-Bad Going troops deployed in column? Shouldn't Bad Going troops
be in column too? Deploying in line that quickly - unless this is where you
choose to stand and fight - turns the light troops into PIP hogs, doesn't it?

----

3. Deploy warband in 2 ranks, if there are 6 or more elements to be deployed in
that position.  If the warband is to be deployed in 2 ranks throw a d6.  On a
score of 4 or more then only have the warband 1 element deep on the flanks;

This can be re-written a little simpler as:

3. If the NPG army has six or more Warband elements, throw a D6: on a 1-3 deploy
the elements in two ranks; otherwise deploy one Warband element on each flank of
the group (one rank deep) with the remaining in two ranks;

Let me know if I changed the intent.

----

4. Deploy spear in 2 ranks if there are more than 6 elements in that position
and there are a total of more 5 or more spears in YOUR army. If the spear is to
be deployed in 2 ranks throw a d6.  On a score of 4 or more then only have the
spear 1 element deep on the flanks;

This can be re-written a little simpler as:

4. If YOUR army has five or more Spear elements and the NPG army has six or more
Spear elements, throw a D6: on a 1-3 deploy the elements in two ranks; otherwise
deploy one Spear element on each flank of the group (one rank deep) with the
remaining in two ranks;

Let me know if I changed the intent.

----

5. The fastest elements are placed on the outer extremities of a position except
when that will mean mounted troop facing or being deployed in bad going.  ...

You never explicitly state what to do when mounted troops ARE facing or being
deployed in Bad Going.

----

Bad Match Ups

* Psiloi faced by cavalry, camelry or knights;

This is only a bad match-up if the Psiloi is in the open.

* Hordes faced by elephants, knights, scythed chariots or warband;

Bows and Artillery shooting at Hordes QK them.

* War wagons faced by elephants

Artillery shooting at War Wagons QK them.

----

Determine Aggression Level

* +1 NPG has an army which all moves at least 300 paces in good going;

I would recommend changing that to "ten or more elements, all which move at
least 300 paces in Goog Going". A Mongol Conquest army, for example, can have a
single Artillery element, but the rest is mounted.

> The most important changes have been to the tactical engine.

I'll have to try the Tactical Engine before I comment more.

> By the way,  'Solo DBA' seems to be on 10 pages.  Is it getting too
> long?  Should I attempt to shorten it?

Good Lord. I will be lucky to keep mine under 40! :D

Keep it coming. I've working on terrain placement right now.

Dale

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> I have a strong feeling that I do not always put terrain down to my
> best advantage.  Sometimes what I think would look good or be
> interesting plays some part in my choice.

I know I am still learning, in that regard. I just did a playtest for the
upcoming DBAS version 4 and the point was driven home that not all Bad Going is
created equally. That is one of the things I use solo gaming for: to sharpen the
point on my tactical play for when I do game face-to-face.

That's also why I tend to NOT use random factors when gaming solo; I usually
want to create a specific tactical situation to test out. That is why I have no
problem with lists of rules that I can discard as inconvenient, when I need to,
or use when I am just "jonesing" for a game.

> However:
>
>  * I sometimes use an optional waterway to reduce the usable
> area of the battlefield and protect a flank if I have a force rich
> in heavy foot.

See my thread on Fanaticus about using Waterways. It seems weighted (the last
time I looked) towards most people using it to narrow the width of the board and
anchor a flank. The rest talk about reducing the depth of the board so that
heavy infantry armies can get to the opposition quicker.

The Fanaticus thread is interesting in that it came from preparing for my test
game. I was trying to work out the rules for terrain selection and in the back
of my mind I was under the impression that "somewhere" I read about having a
Waterway to your back was bad. As I started thinking it through, I could not see
a disadvantage (as outlined in that thread).

In fact, I can see a lot of possibilities from that discussion.

>  (Perhaps this should be done with caution if the opposition has
> littoral terrain!)

Definitely. As the (non-Littoral) defender, unless the Waterway is behind the
(Littoral) attacker, it would force you to deploy your troops such that you
could defend a landing BEFORE seeing if the attacker commits troops to a
landing.

A non-Littoral attacker against a Littoral defender definitely has it better
than a non-Littoral defender against a Littoral attacker.

>  * Frequently I prefer a battlefield that isn't too cluttered
> with bad going.

If you have a Favors Bad Going army versus a Heavy Infantry army - say Ancient
Spanish versus Polybian Roman - why would you not, as the Spanish, put out as
much Bad Going as possible?

This was actually my test game last night, with the Spanish as the NPG. They
were slaughtered (4-0), but primarily because their PIP rolls were 1-2-3 versus
the Romans 6-5-5 for the first three turns. I don't care how good a General you
are, overcoming those kinds of PIP rolls is really hard. (It also doesn't help
when the first Psiloi combat has the Spanish getting doubled.)

But, I learned a lot...

> Sometimes put the bad going out of the way in corners. However, I
> don't do this if facing a mounted or mixed army with bad-going
> troops.

Why would you do that with a Bad Going army (facing anything)?

>  * Tend to avoid rivers because I don't like them.  You are
> never sure whether they will slow a game to a stalemate or whether
> what you thought would help protect your flank doesn't.

I hear you there. I usually only use rivers in a campaign game when I am the
underdog. I might place one in a friendly game, where you have the time. But, I
would never place one in a tournament unless I had artillery and the tournament
rules gave a full victory to whomever scored the most VP when time was called.
(Which is a poor tournament format, by the way.)

Dale

When I played my test game last night, I was mainly focused on terrain
placement, which is the section of DBAS I am trying to update. However, in order
to actually game it out, I needed to, at least partially, address an army's
Strategic Stance (what was called the Tactical Engine in the original DBS).

As I said in an earlier post, I think the Strategic Stance - how aggressive the
army is that turn - should be strongly based on the current PIP roll. One thing
I have noticed in face-to-face play is that almost every player becomes more
aggressive with a higher PIP roll. It is only natural; the more PIPs you have,
the more you can do. Further, you start to see combination moves. For example:

* With one PIP you might be able to push a group forward into an even (+0)
combat or possibly even an uneven (-1) combat, but with two PIPs you could flank
the end of the line, possibly starting a cascade effect of rolling up the line.
With three PIPs you might be able to flank both ends.

* With one PIP you might be able to move your Light Horse (Psiloi on the first
turn, anything on a road) up, but the position is not overly favorable. With two
PIPs you could double move and gain a favorable position.

* Your opponent is doing the PIP dance and in the process of shifting elements
around the battle line. With one PIP your Warband elements cannot contact - or
even ZOC - the opponent. But with an extra PIP you can contact the enemy,
freezing the movement and potentially catching a disadvantaged element before it
can be shifted away. (Besides, it is the barbarian thing to do. Yarg!)

All this is a long-winded way of saying that perhaps the primary determinant for
your Strategic Stance (Attack, Maneuver, Cohesion) should not be a separate die
roll with modifiers, but rather your PIP roll modified by modifiers (i.e. the
PIP roll itself does double duty: it tells you how many PIPs you have to use;
and, with modifiers, it sets your Strategic Stance).

I was thinking for DBAS something like the "morale clock" from the old Chipco
game, "Le Petite Emperor", where you start with a specific value and as you lose
elements, the number goes down. This value, modified by the current PIP roll,
should determine your aggression level. So, with a high PIP roll, you can still
be somewhat aggressive with heavy casualties and with a low PIP roll, more
cautious.

I think this area is where the DBS Tactical Engine breaks down. Although it
tells you to roll the Tactical Engine die with the PIP die, it never ties the
two together. Your aggression is completely independent of your PIP roll, which
is completely opposite of how people tend to play.

For my test game, which as I said was focusing on terrain placement, not this
concept, I used the formula "PIP roll minus the number of lost elements" as the
number of NEW combats I could initiate. Throwing in an element into an overlap
or flanking position did not count as a new combat, but moving into the ZOC of
an enemy did, even if I did not end up in contact (I was committing to an
attack). It seemed to work out well and there was no occasion in which I felt
like the system didn't let me do what I needed to do (i.e. where I needed to
initiate more combats than the Stance let me do, even though I had the PIPs).
Again, my test was a little skewed in that the Spanish could not get the PIPs
until it was basically too late.

The Tactical Engine - the mechanism to actually determine which elements receive
the PIPs and what they should do with it, remains to be pondered, in my mind.

Comments welcome, as always.

Dale

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> One of the uses of an army whose infantry is auxilia and psiloi is
> to out-maneuver other infantry armies and go after their flanks.

True. Given neither side's movement rate doesn't change in Bad Going, I don't
see your point yet.

> This is difficult to do if you are short of pips because of too
> much bad going,

Big assumption there. You stated previously that the heavy infantry should enter
Bad Going in columns. The rationale for that is that a column is the only type
of group move that can be done in Bad Going, thus saving PIPs. That applies
equally to Auxilia and Psiloi as it does to heavy infantry.

Besides, if Bad Going creates PIP hogs equally for both sides, and penalizes the
heavy infantry for combat factors, I still do not see how Auxilia and Psiloi
come out losing.

> or you need extra pips for a flank because there is a wood or steep
> hill blocking line of sight and your general is over 600 paces away.

Exactly. The assumption you are making is that the General is not or cannot
maintain that distance, thus increasing the PIP drain.

Not only that, but maneuvering around LOS-blocking terrain to threaten an army
from the flank or rear often dislodges stubborn heavy infantry from their set
positions away from your Bad Going. I do this with Light Horse all of the time.
(Of course, everything else is in slow motion compared with them.)

> Also, if you are too obvious with having lots of bad going in
> prominent positions it can alarm your opponent and make them too
> cautious.

When my opponent starts reacting with alarm to my terrain setup, much less my
army, I have already beaten him psychologically.

I will give you that when you throw in woods and other LOS-blocking Bad Going,
you need to be much more careful with your command than normally. But, it can go
to your advantage just as easily.

For example, recoiling deeper into a woods or over the crest of a hill can
sometimes draw an opponent into a false sense of victory. I once watched as my
opponents' Blades went after my Auxilia and Psiloi that all recoiled or fled
over a crest. He happily tromped after them, sensing the hunt was on. When I
counter-attacked and he needed the PIPs to recover, I pointed out that he had
advanced right out of command range of his General.

I know, you can't count on your opponent making such a mistake, but the
objections you raise are essentially the same thing. You assume the player will
not take these into account if they use "too much" Bad Going.

Personally, I find that Bad Going gives light troops avenues of approach and
maneuver without the danger of being overrun by marauding mounted troops or
heavy infantry.

To each their own.

Dale

> Dale wrote:
>
> For my test game, ... I used the formula "PIP roll minus the number of lost
elements" as the number of NEW combats I could initiate.

CORRECTION: PIP Roll - Number of NPG Elements Lost + Number of Enemy Elements
Lost. Of course, the number cannot be greater than the PIP roll itself. So,
killing the enemy offsets the losses you take.

I played another test game tonight and am finishing a third tomorrow morning
(lots of free time on my hands - the wife is writing a paper for school) and I
have found that this limits the NPG move maybe twice per game, so maybe it is
not string enough.

Dale

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> However, for the moment I will continue with the 2 dice method
> because I feel that it is easier to adjust factors.

I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned that. I stopped just before the
Tactical Engine section.

I noticed the modifiers are +0/+1/+2 for 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 PIPs, respectively.
Any reason you did not make it -1/+0/+1? Not implying I think it is wrong, just
curious.

> Not quite convinced that players always act aggressively when they
> get lots of pips and get cautious or defensive when pips are few.

Nor am I saying "always". More PIPs equates to being able to do more. Doing more
could mean attacking more, setting up more, etc.

> Sometimes an attack only needs one pip (e.g. the Polybian Roman
> infantry line attacking the Later Carthaginian infantry line).

I am well aware of that, but I don't get your point. Do you equate lining up and
moving a six element group into an attack with another six elements as an
aggressive move? I do not.

> Sometimes being defensive needs a lot of pips to prepare for a
> threat.

True, but people typically "do the PIP dance" because they are out-matched
element for element and are trying to rearrange the order before the lines hit.
Whether they get three PIPs or five, they are still going to do the dance until
the line hits. They rarely setup the defense, then go on the offensive.

You bring up a good point - probably not the one you were trying to make - but
some player-army combinations will always be defensive. It is a rare person that
can go on the offensive with, say, the Early Libyans with their 11 Psiloi and 1
Light Chariot. (I did meet her though.)

> Perhaps the tactical engine/strategic stance generator ought to be
> considering threats and opportunities as factors to determine how
> aggressively the NPG plays?  That leads to the question how do you
> define a threat or an opportunity?

Yeah, that is the million dollar question, isn't it.

> It would be fairly easy to consider any NPG elements at risk of an
> attack favourable to the human player in their next bound but how
> many bounds ahead should the tactical engine/strategic stance
> generator look?

It would be incredible to look past the immediate turn. I'm not a Deep Blue
programmer.

Good stuff! Keep it coming.

Dale

Fascinating discussion guys! I'm planning to run a test game of Richard's latest
ruleset this evening. It'll be my first solo DBA game in a little while,
inspired by the ideas you two are batting around on here, so thanks for that!

One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of grouping all
like elements together very limiting, and not particularly representative of the
way I tend to play. In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to
intersperse bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the
composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any easy way to
represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG set-up, but maybe this is one
to consider adding into the mix at a later stage? So far my only thoughts on
this are to revert on occasion to my previous practice of sketching 3 or more
initial deployments for the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy
composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm sure there
must be a more elegant solution than that!

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

> Jay wrote:
>
> One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of
> grouping all like elements together very limiting, and not
> particularly representative of the way I tend to play.

I agree. I haven't written the troop deployment rules for DBAS, but I already
know I am going to use "quads" as has been discussed on Fanaticus and the Yahoo
DBA forum.

> In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to intersperse
> bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the
> composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any
> easy way to represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG
> set-up, but maybe this is one to consider adding into the mix at a
> later stage?

That is one of the reasons for creating classifications for an army type. It
helps you to start to create rules about "why" you would "mix it up". For
example, if you are facing a Mounted army, you might break up your Romans into
packs of 3 Blades and 1 Psiloi and deploy them in a T formation so the Psiloi
provides rear support to the 3 Blades. (Same concept if you have Auxilia or
Spears.) Another is to band 2 Bows with 2 other infantry when facing Knights, so
you can form a Teacup formation just before the lines hit.

I think this whole concept of elements and formations has yet to be explored
fully. I have started by writing up a bunch of index cards and drawing out
formations and how I would arrange the elements. I usually have about three
variations per "army composition class".

An army composition class (ACC) is a unique mixture of element types that,
unsurprisingly, repeats throughout the army lists. For example, ACC #01 consists
of:

     6 x Double-Ranked Infantry, 2 x Mounted (one is the General), 2 x
Single-Ranked Infantry, and 2 x Light Infantry

Looking down the lists you can find a wide variety of army lists that match that
description or are pretty close : Early Sumerian, Philistine, Macedonian Early
Successor - Keraunos, Low Countries. Once you realize the similarity of those
armies you start to realize that you would basically set them up the same way,
given the same opponent (or same opposing ACC).

Don't get me wrong; going this way is a tough row to hoe because there are a lot
of combinations. I believe this problem is like terrain placement, however, in
that you want to focus primarily on your army's strengths and weaknesses and
less on your opponent's. You still want to take your opponent's army into
consideration, of course, but I believe you should focus on playing your game,
not reacting to your opponent's game. That is why I believe the defender holds
the advantage in DBA. (But, that is another discussion.)

> So far my only thoughts on this are to revert on occasion to my
> previous practice of sketching 3 or more initial deployments for
> the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy
> composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm
> sure there must be a more elegant solution than that!

Funny you should mention that... I am developing drawings of game boards with
the terrain placed, deployment zones marked, etc. and showing what it looks like
from all four directions. Here is my Photobucket album of variations for armies
that Favor Bad Going:
http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx202/dhurtt/DBA-Solo/Gameboards/FavorsBadGoi\
ng/

Some of these will change over time as I test them. (I am going over the Turtle
board from all four directions using the Polybian Romans versus the Ancient
Spanish as NPG. The Spanish are 1-1 and my third game is 3-2 in favor of the
Spanish.) The Waterway Turtle board is wrong, I think, so will probably change.
I still need to provide commentary for the boards as to why the terrain is why
it is and how the NPG battle plan should utilize the setup.

I think this is the way I am going. A catalog of terrain boards that is based
upon the defending NPG's army classifications. This leads to a general battle
plan, which leads to how to break up the army into formations to place on that
board, etc.

I just need to glue all of these ideas together, throw in a couple of dice rolls
for those that like that sort of thing, and publish it up. I had been writing up
ideas of late and doing to gaming ... I mean, serious testing and analysis :)
... so I am taking a break from writing a new version of DBAS at the moment.

Dale

Wow, that IS going to be a mammoth task. OTOH, I guess that researching and
gradually compiling the data and resources (plans of game boards and so on) is
going to be a fascinating project to immerse yourself in...

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

--- In soloDBAdevelopment@..., "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...> wrote:
>
> > Jay wrote:
> >
> > One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of
> > grouping all like elements together very limiting, and not
> > particularly representative of the way I tend to play.
>
> I agree. I haven't written the troop deployment rules for DBAS, but I already
know I am going to use "quads" as has been discussed on Fanaticus and the Yahoo
DBA forum.
>
> > In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to intersperse
> > bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the
> > composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any
> > easy way to represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG
> > set-up, but maybe this is one to consider adding into the mix at a
> > later stage?
>
> That is one of the reasons for creating classifications for an army type. It
helps you to start to create rules about "why" you would "mix it up". For
example, if you are facing a Mounted army, you might break up your Romans into
packs of 3 Blades and 1 Psiloi and deploy them in a T formation so the Psiloi
provides rear support to the 3 Blades. (Same concept if you have Auxilia or
Spears.) Another is to band 2 Bows with 2 other infantry when facing Knights, so
you can form a Teacup formation just before the lines hit.
>
> I think this whole concept of elements and formations has yet to be explored
fully. I have started by writing up a bunch of index cards and drawing out
formations and how I would arrange the elements. I usually have about three
variations per "army composition class".
>
> An army composition class (ACC) is a unique mixture of element types that,
unsurprisingly, repeats throughout the army lists. For example, ACC #01 consists
of:
>
>     6 x Double-Ranked Infantry, 2 x Mounted (one is the General), 2 x
Single-Ranked Infantry, and 2 x Light Infantry
>
> Looking down the lists you can find a wide variety of army lists that match
that description or are pretty close : Early Sumerian, Philistine, Macedonian
Early Successor - Keraunos, Low Countries. Once you realize the similarity of
those armies you start to realize that you would basically set them up the same
way, given the same opponent (or same opposing ACC).
>
> Don't get me wrong; going this way is a tough row to hoe because there are a
lot of combinations. I believe this problem is like terrain placement, however,
in that you want to focus primarily on your army's strengths and weaknesses and
less on your opponent's. You still want to take your opponent's army into
consideration, of course, but I believe you should focus on playing your game,
not reacting to your opponent's game. That is why I believe the defender holds
the advantage in DBA. (But, that is another discussion.)
>
> > So far my only thoughts on this are to revert on occasion to my
> > previous practice of sketching 3 or more initial deployments for
> > the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy
> > composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm
> > sure there must be a more elegant solution than that!
>
> Funny you should mention that... I am developing drawings of game boards with
the terrain placed, deployment zones marked, etc. and showing what it looks like
from all four directions. Here is my Photobucket album of variations for armies
that Favor Bad Going:
http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx202/dhurtt/DBA-Solo/Gameboards/FavorsBadGoi\
ng/
>
> Some of these will change over time as I test them. (I am going over the
Turtle board from all four directions using the Polybian Romans versus the
Ancient Spanish as NPG. The Spanish are 1-1 and my third game is 3-2 in favor of
the Spanish.) The Waterway Turtle board is wrong, I think, so will probably
change. I still need to provide commentary for the boards as to why the terrain
is why it is and how the NPG battle plan should utilize the setup.
>
> I think this is the way I am going. A catalog of terrain boards that is based
upon the defending NPG's army classifications. This leads to a general battle
plan, which leads to how to break up the army into formations to place on that
board, etc.
>
> I just need to glue all of these ideas together, throw in a couple of dice
rolls for those that like that sort of thing, and publish it up. I had been
writing up ideas of late and doing to gaming ... I mean, serious testing and
analysis :) ... so I am taking a break from writing a new version of DBAS at the
moment.
>
> Dale
>

> Jay wrote:
>
> Wow, that IS going to be a mammoth task.

A lifetime project, I suspect. :)

> OTOH, I guess that researching and gradually compiling the data
> and resources (plans of game boards and so on) is going to be a
> fascinating project to immerse yourself in...

I can always use Richard's method when I want a pickup game that is completely
different! :)

For me, it is about honing my skill and understanding what makes for a better
player, for any given game system. I know not everyone is like that. This
project has already helped me refine my thinking regarding terrain selection and
placement by challenging some of my own assumptions (or mis-reading of the
rules) and then testing it out on the game table.

For example, I always thought Dunes were Hills made of sand (in DBA), but they
are not. They do not block LOS, but they do interfere with a General's command
distance. (Don't ask me how...) Also, roads can largely nullify your attempts at
Bad Going terrain placement, if you are not careful. (General rule I've learned
is that faster armies should not place roads. It is counter-productive in almost
every case.)

So, the maps I've created are probably going to change from what I've learned.
Or maybe I will just add maps and make notes about why the old ones are
tactically challenging. Maybe my goal of trying to make a "tactically perfect"
programmed opponent is too far-reaching. :D

Dale