"BBDBA pip assignment rationale" Topic

I don't understand why in BBDBA, pips are distributed with the high, middle, and low rolls always going to certain commanders. I'm not opposed to it, but I'm missing the nuance. Would someone explain the rationale? Thanks.

The game rationale is quite simple. This is a way of creating scarcity of command attention. This quite nicely models more complex systems (order writing, command chits, etc.) of command without the fuss.

The historical rational is somewhat more complex. The scarcity of command imitative for certain commands tends to model some historical battles where more motivated or better lead forces demonstrated more agency in the outcome of the conflict. Again, this is done without complication.

Now, this doesn't perfectly model history. For a better model you need Historical Battle DBA. Battle scenarios there often start with the BBDBA premise, but modify it to meet the historical context. Great commander for instance may be able to change the commands receiving the order of dice awards mid-battle. They may be able to add more pips to certain commands. Poor commanders may be forced to randomly roll for each command. giving more unpredictable results. Finally in HBDBA, you may have more (say 4) or less commands (2 or even one in some cases) depending on the battle.

In short, the BBDBA pip allocation is an abstract mechanism to model the real world in a simple way. While not covering all possibilities, it provides a very good game that generates a decent, believable narrative in just a few hours of play.

To cover the peculiarities of certain battles or armies, you really need to play Historical Battle DBA.

I hope this helps.

Joe Collins

Aww, it's so cute watching people trying to argue that anything DBA related reflects historical accuracy.
It's fine as a game, but "historical"? Surely you jest.

John, what activation system is more historical? Sending written commands in a time, where some generals couldnt read? Or no activation system, where everyone does, what you want?

Thanks for the answers!

No, I'm not jesting. I've written award winning articles and even a book on the subject.

I am planning a second book, though it must perhaps wait for retirement. I also hope to personally visit most of the battlefields (at least the purported sites) as part of the research, though Cunaxa may remain out of reach.

So far I am quite pleased with DBA recreating Cunaxa, Chaeronea, Hastings, Stamford Bridge, Fulford Gate, Stirling and Muret.

In the works are Agincourt, Pydna, and several battles from the crusades.

Joe Collins

I usually found the Pip system worked fine for historical battles. I created a few variants that stretched that pretty hard too. The Humberside variant was what got me hooked on 18th and 19th Century battles using it. Worked well for those.

Thanks.

John

Fixed PIP dice in BB-DBA was a bad idea.

It's been suggested that PB introduced it (and into MM) because he and Sue fought a pairs game where tyro players on the other side dithered and took forever to allocate dice in a DBm event.

It's a bad idea because having your high-dice command defeat an enemy in front of it means you are left with two weaker commands to deal with the rest of the enemy and push for victory in a reasonable time.

If you lose your high-dice command getting back into a game faces similar problems.

In such an abstract game as DBA, I think allocating dice can reflect the c-in-c focusing his attention to where the action is hottest in a battle.

The game also needs universal multi-moves (one or two extra would do), but that's another topic.

In such an abstract game as DBA…

Which ratifies my point above about "realism".
Heck, "WRG Ancients", in all its editions and amendments was much more historically accurate than DBA or DBM.

Well said OFM.

I disagree. I find the most realistic ancients game to be Phil Sabin's "Lost Battles" system. DBA is a close second (with DBM, MM, and DBF (ahem!) being part of this). DBX produces a better game, though Sabin's rules aren't bad for the "game aspect".

No others that I have tried have come close.

I just don't find that abstraction is at odds with realism. This of course depends on what we want to experience and what we are trying to accomplish.

I find "Empire" in all its versions to be completely unrealistic. I find Volley & Bayonet to be the most realistic Horse & Musket game I have ever played. This holds for all periods from WSS to FPW.

The same holds for Moderns. I find Spearhead and Modern Spearhead to be superior to just about any other modern rules and I have recreated historical battles with them with surprisingly realistic result.

Joe Collins