"The way we build an army" Topic

Which one do you prefer?

1)DBA style: A historical armylist is given, you have some options to change the army a little bit but not much.

2)Warhammer Point style: Use a total points limitation and percentage.

3)Free style: I can put whatever i like.

1. It's the best way to get some sort of verisimilitude.

1) as closely as possible if playing an historical scenario

3) I prefer this, but obviously with prior discussion and agreement, and a dose of (not-so-common) good sense

I don't really like points-based games. I've always found them artificial (or artificially balanced). Having said that, if I ever get round to painting my Infinity gear … well, we'll have to see :)

personally, i like No.3. but i'm working on a historical game and i know No.3 is boloney

I build an army based on my personal prejudices (;-)). So it has to look good and as realistic as possible, while not in any way damages the visual appearance (;-)). After that I look for rules that fit this aremy, never the other way around.
Is this 3 or 4 ?

1 for historical games. I much prefer to play with what was available at the time. To me points based forces bear no relation to the period that they are supposed to represent and are too easily manipulated to produce historically unrealistic "super armies".

We base it on available data. Depending on the scenario and the terrain what we pick will vary. Points systems only work (if at all) on sterile terrain. Try fielding tanks in a Bog (the points system is dead QED). To achive the relevant balance of forces some units can be fielded as they were with less than there full TOE and if limited cases perhaps a shade more.

Occationaly we have drifted into (3) but again you need to know what the terrain is like beforehand or else it becomes uninteresting for both sides.

1) plus some 2), to adjust "historical" lists that propagate decades-old research, and which embody the selectivity, idiosyncrasies and biases of the list author(s)…

Depends. I research and try to follow Orders Of Battle for conflicts when they are available. With other conflicts that have little solid information, such as the Medieval period, I go for a points system to try to get a balanced game.

3. I can put in whatever I like.

But then I do Imagi-Nations exclusively.

Studied history all my life. Have several advanced degrees in it including PhD. Fascinating stuff. Read and continue to study it and do reviews in professional journals, eat, breathe, and sleep it.

For games however--

[insert here guttural term for sexual intercourse] it!!

Never let history get in the way of fun. I may not like what you put in but I don't have to play, nor do you have to play in mine.

The "sides" in my game for example are almost strictly equal. Infantry is Infantry no matter what army it is in, Heavy Cavalry is heavy cavalry in the same manner. Differences are made by substituting units, but never more than 25%.

There are no "All French are +3" rules in my game.

4. research an OOB or TO&E and build to support it

1 and (thanks Saber6) 4.

4.) It depends.

For Flames of War, I use the points as a rough guide when I develop my historical scenarios, and I use their army lists. Same for Lord of the Rings.

For Napoleonics I build to the OOB of a specific battle.

For ACW I have large "generic" armies so I just put out what I need for that battle, whether by arm list, points or OOB.

Since I almost always provide both sides, 3 and they get what they get.

1 & 2 are guides to keep you sensible they should not be taken as the be all but should constrict you to being sensible in you're application of 3.

x42

I'm not a competition gamer so since I mostly do scenarios based on history I have to go with 3.

4. Research OOBs and whatever other sources are available to produce a historically representative army.

+1 x42

1 and 2 can be identical. In our system we have historical armies lists that list troops by percentage spreads, but the armies are created with a points total. You have to stay within the allowed percentage of troop types and not go over the allowed army point size.

What do you mean by building an army? Deciding which units those in a game, or deciding which units to buy and paint? I think the answers can be quite different.

1. for me.

You know, a few years ago, I realized things were getting completely out of hand, so I settled on:
1. Armies of large (28mm and up) individually mounted figures are more or less OHW format--4 core units, and 2 each of three support types
2. 15mm and under, armies from 1700 forward are CS Grant style--16 to 20 units, to work with most of his scenarios
3. 15mm and under prior to 1700 are DBX style==constant frontages, and 12 to 48 bases.
Stray units either get assimilated to bring armies up to strength, or get sold. I should be done next year.

Hmph. In answer to Timbo, that's "buy and paint," but it's designed around canned scenarios which specify rosters--or, sometimes points.

4. Model the armies on historical OOBs.
1&2 can be used in support of 4 giving a good game with a particular set of rules.

Other:

Step 1 – Which figure to I have the least of?
Step 2 – Divide by desired forces to get man:figure ratio.
Step 3 – Apply ratio to other figures.
Step 4 – Rounding is fine. Nobody ever went to war with exactly 10,000 troops.
Step 5 – Estimate if this is going to play right.

OK buy and paint, let's see

For various periods, ancients, dark age, medieval, I tried to put together a 'typical' force containing the main unit types of the era eg legionaries, auxilia, cavalry and few bits and bobs like scorpios, then painted enough opposition to fight them.

My plan with medievals was to do a dual use DbA / skirmish force using some sabot base type thing, but as usual it got out of hand.

Fantasy started as adventurers and dungeon monsters and just grew.

For Napoleonic started painting a historical formation, but line division not guard, then added cav and arty in proportion, then the elites. Then started again but with some ebay backup for the French. Now thinking about bathtubbed Borodino :-)

For ECW started with a few units I could find flags and coat colours for and continued from there, working towards being able to do the main historical battles, and taking into account what my gaming friends had painted

For WW2 tried to make a force that could be played on different levels, eg company at 1 to 1, battalion at about 1 to 5, brigade at 1 to 15, as well as painting far too many tanks on both sides. Basically tried to build historically viable formations though.

ACW I mostly inherited and the plan is to get them to brigade level. Gettysburg, which isn't too far off.

Of course the current cunning plan does not necessarily persist very long…..

@Saber6:
4. research an OOB or TO&E and build to support it

sorry i'm a non english speaker, what is the full name of OOB and TOE?

Thank you!

@Timbo W:

I mean compose an army and put into the game. :)

OOB: Order of Battle

TOE: Table of Organization and Equipment

@Whirlwind

thank you!

I have used all 3. It depends on the game and rules you are using.

Hmm, compose an army and put it in to the game. I guess this means scenario design?

So either-
Restricted design eg DbA, played as per the book
Figures led design – what do we have and how much of it can fit on the table, balance usually fairly approximately
Scenario either typical or direct adaptation of historical battle

As JMcC says no need to restrict to one, often the scenario takes more time to design so if time is short try a restricted design. One neat trick is to steal scenarios from different historical period eg try Edgehill with Napoleonics etc

Depends who I'm playing. If it is a DBA game then DBA lists if it's a campaign I try to create a historical pool of troops with campaign rules to prevent super armies. So in a Dark Age Britain gain local Anglo Saxon commanders can call on their Hearth Troop at any time. But there are only a handful of them. He can call out the Fyrd but it takes time to assemble them and the quality and equipment vary. In an emergency he calls out all the closest fighting men and goes with what he has. That's how I see it happening in practice.

In all other cases I go with the flow and follow the preference of the guys whose rules I'm playing.

For my set of battalion level, whole army rules for Napoleonic wargames I encourage the players to collect a historic OOB first. After they have that they can adjust it up or down in size by adding or taking away formations. This way, they have at base an OOB rooted in a historic structure. I'm completely against trying to equalize armies based on points in historical games. The fun is seeing if you can do better than the historical counterpart.

What I do, is have the players agree on a basic troop strength for each army based purely on numbers (every battalion counte as 500 men, reduced to 5 for simplicities sake). So they may agree on a base troop strength of 135,000 men per army, for instance. They take their baseline OOB and add, chop and adjust it until it meets the 135,000 mark. Before the game some of the troops may be moved off board and must enter as reserves.

But then, in my game there is very little difference between troops; My rules are more concerned with generalship than with force-on-force encounters. I think that the difference in troop quality is somewhat overstated in most H&M games.