Wollongong
Wollongong Easter 2006 DBMM results
410AP – open book – all but three games concluded within the 3.75 to 4hours
allowed.
G Stewart – M Byzantine / Condotta Italian / Hussite – 105
C Burg – Armagnac – 90
K Hamlyn – L Carthage – 85 (4)
P Barratt – LIMP Rome / Sub-Roman Brits - 83
S Blanch – Serbian – 60
D Turner – Mound builder - 79
I Nicoll – Med Danes - 50
T Sleigh – Med Germs – 43
J Garvey – Amazonian – 41 (4)
G Plachetta – Med French LIMP Rome – 38 (4)
R Cornwall – Mongol – 30 (2)
R Wechner – L Carthage – 15 (1)
C Rivers – Timurid – 7 (2)
Umpire – EAP.
Numbers in brackets are games played if fewer than 6. The number of timed
out games was pretty low – but they usually are at Wollongong anyway. I
suspect that fewer bounds were played than DBM, players who kept notes may
comment.
I understand some players will post reports – I’ll post a more detailed one
in a separate post.
Here is the survey I gave out at the comp – have a go at it yourself.
David B
.............................
Wollongong Easter DBMM feedback
What do you think about army organisation / AP / Command structure / troop
type definitions?
What do you think about game set-up – terrain / pre-battle organisation /
invader defender stuff?
What do you think about command and control / PIPs / pip averaging / types
of generals / command distance / types of moves etc?
What do you think about stratagems?
What do you think about shooting / close combat factors / mechanisms ?
What do you think about combat outcomes / post-combat actions?
What do you think about army state (rooted/stuffed/f*cked ie the
Australian-language edition version of disheartened demoralised shattered)
and end of game mechanisms / scoring.
What about anything else? (write over the back of the page as well)
Battle Report By Richard Cornwel
I went down to Wollongong for the day to play in Dave Brown's DBMM
play test tournament. I thought I'd test out Mongol Conquest, to try
out brilliant generals and feigned flight.
My list was (in order of dice)
Brilliant Reg Cv(S) CinC, 7 Reg Cv(S), 4 Reg LH(S), 2 Reg Art(O)
Reg Kn(F) Sub, 4 Reg Kn(F), 3 Reg Cv(O), 4 LH(F)
Reg LH(S) Sub, 5 Reg LH(S), 8 Irr Hd(I)
Reg LH(S) Sub, 4 Reg LH(S)
I had no baggage and a feigned flight stratagem.
My first game was against Iain' Medieval Danish. He invaded the
Mongol steppes, but did manage to get a steep hill to rest his right
flank on, with another on my side of the table on the same side. I
put down some gentle hills, which ended up nowhere of consequence. I
had to deploy first and deployed the two small commands on the left
with the CinC and Khitan on the right, with the heavy troops in
column. Iain deployed tow long lines of double ranked, supported Bd
(I) between the hill and the board edge, with a German ally with a
couple of knight wedges behind.
He used a delayed start. As he had no knights on the board I
expected a flank march or delayed command, and a delayed knight and
cavalry command turned up fairly quickly. My artillery pinged away
at his infantry and started chalking up a few kills. I sent Ghenghis
and his Cv(S) to attack the knight command, and they ended up
beating them fairly handily. I risked the Khitans charging in to one
of the blade commands and they got shredded. The knights fleeing on
losing meant that any survivors got wrapped and killed very easily.
I redeployed one of the small commands around to the extreme right
flank and then used a brilliant stroke to change orders to give it a
better dice to send it after the camp, whch may have been enough to
take out his army. Due to losing the Khitans I had to be cautious as
my army was near breaking. We ran out of time there. My losses were
worse so 15-10 to Iain. If I hadn't committed the Khitans then I
think I'd have won this one.
My second game was against John's Amazonians. Masses and masses of
bow. I invaded and put down open fields, only later realising that
rain makes them muddy, having invaded in spring! The fields did keep
the left half of the battlefield open. Fortunately the dice bailed
me out and we had fine weather. I did double him (2 to 1) and still
had to set up first. I sent the Khitans on a flank march, deployed
the CinC on the left and the two small commands screening the rest
of the board.
John set up one big bow command, mostly triple and quadruple ranked
Bw(I) between a wood and the board edge, and two others in a line
down to his waterway. He had a command missing, which turned out to
be a delayed command.
Basically, I ended up sending Ghengis and the Cav(S) at the left
most command. The Khitans came on and fell in behind the Cav(S).
Extreme depth is the way to go in this system. While the attack got
set up my artillery started pinging away and causing mass execution
on the bow (15/36 chance of killing a Bow(I)).
The bows killed a cavalry and a LH on the way in. A brilliant stroke
was useful in getting the disordered cavalry into contact. A couple
of Khitan Kn(F) also made it in. A grinding struggle ensued with the
bow dying slowly but surely. I was disconcerted to find the Kn(F)
fleeing when beaten, leaving holes in my line. The Khitan Cav(O) was
more useful. His delayed command arrived just as this command was
breaking. His big command melted away quickly once it was shattered
and I was able to reorganise and destroy the delayed command and
sack his baggage taking his army. My artillery and a small LH(S)
command were inflicting heavy casualties on the CinC command. His
army broke, 20-5 to me.
Comments on the rules,
Generally they flowed not too badly, but I'm sure we played a few
things incorrectly. It would be very hard to play this system and
DBM 3.1.
Terrain seemed reasonable. Weather can still decide a game. One game
was decided by dazzle conditions.
With only one element dying at a time combat is a grind.
Artillery(O) is very powerful shooting each bound.
The brilliant general seemed reasonable value. Not too powerful, but
useful.
Delayed commands were very popular. It is a way of getting heavy
troops deployed outside the central zone. Combined with delayed
start it is a very low risk option. Not sure about this. Maybe they
have to come on in the deployment zone? It becomes very risky to try
and attack an exposed flank when a command can turn up on your flank.
Knights are useless against foot. The flee if beaten is murderous.
Any unfortunates that win or stick will have hanging flanks and get
wrapped and die. At 2ME each you can't lose many before the command
has problems. General comments that wrapping is too easy, with
partial contact that aren't legal in DBM counting.
Cavalry were pretty much invulnerable to bow. Not sure this feels
right.
Some comments about the fragility of blades against spear. Holes
appear and they get wrapped.
My small, low dice commands were surprisingly useful with the
general's PIP.
The Kn(O) v Cv(S) fight was lethal.
Broken commands disappear very quickly (often together with their
dice). In both games I could reorganise and roll up another command.
Generally I thought the rules worked OK, although there are many
differences to DBM. Is it a significant improvement? Not sure yet.
It could be, but still needs more stress testing.
Thanks to Dave Brown for organising.
Richard Cornwell
Battle Report by Peter Barrett
Well, folks, I was one of the people who attended the Easter DBMM
competition in Wollongong. First up, I'd like to thank David Brown for
organising the event (and for not collecting any payment for it!), and
secondly I'd like to thank my fellow players for being pleasant
opponents in such a difficult situation - everyone was on a steep
learning curve. I also need to thank my wife for her willingness to give
up a friend's 2nd birthday party to accompany me over the weekend. As it
was, she probably enjoyed the shopping more than I enjoyed the
wargaming.
I decided to bring two armies to the competition to try out a few
different aspects of the rules. One army was a western Late Imperial
Roman army with an inert general (Barbatio), which I used in the first
three games, while the second was my old favourite, the Sub-Roman
British, with a brilliant "Arthur" in charge (and as a result copped a
ribbing from opponents for my use of a fantasy army!).
Anyway, the quick stuff first, to give you an overview. Those interested
in more detail can read something more detailed later.
Game 1 v Medieval Scandinavian. He was the invader. I deployed first. He
moved first. No weather effects. I broke his army on about my 7th bound.
The score was 18-7 to me.
Game 2 v Serbian Empire. I was the invader. He deployed first. He moved
first. No weather effects. He broke my army in his 5th bound. Roughly
2-23.
Game 3 v Medieval German. I was the invader. He deployed first. He moved
first. No weather effects. I broke his army in my 6th bound. Roughly
18-7.
Game 4 v Armagnac. He was the invader. He deployed first. He moved
first. No weather effects. I broke his army in my 4th bound. Roughly
23-2.
Game 5 v Hussite. He was the invader. I deployed first. I moved first. I
used the Changing Deployment stratagem. No weather effects. He broke my
army in his 9th bound. Roughly 7-18.
Game 6 v Late Imperial Roman. He was the invader. I deployed first. I
moved first. I used the Changing Deployment stratagem. No weather
effects. The game was timed out after my 10th bound. I had one command
shattered and one disheartened, and he had one command shattered, and
one broken. The score was 15-10 to me.
So 3 wins, 2 losses and a draw. As I was convinced there'd be draws
everywhere, especially on the first day, I have to give credit to my
opponents who were so willing to push their games to a result, win or
lose.
What I liked about the rules.
- Metric used throughout. Makes it a lot easier to measure
everything.
- Inert and brilliant generals. Provides a bit of variety outside
player skill.
- Stratagems. Add a little fog of war to the game.
- Movement rules. The ability of a group of regulars or light
troops or Cv to do 180 degree turns is realistic and useful. The rules
for turning a line into a column or vice versa make more sense now.
- Broken commands. These seem to work better now - they either
stand or run fast. No more mobile obstacles to delay opponents.
- Points scoring. Rewards the losing player for both inflicting
casualties and breaking commands, rather than just for breaking
commands.
What I didn't like about the rules.
- Blades quick-killing spears and warband. I lost a lot of both to
sword-wielding maniacs.
- The imperviousness of War Wagons.
- The ability of the player setting up second to guarantee perfect
match-ups.
- Uncertainty over some aspects of the spontaneous movement rules.
- The ability of a range of troops to avoid being overlapped.
- The variety of quick kills, rear support pluses and minuses, and
combat results, which add far more to the game's complexity than to its
accuracy.
- The complexity of the baggage rules.
- The lack of clarity in the pursuit rules.
- The confusion engendered by the 2ME rule for commands adjacent
to broken commands.
Peter Barrett
|