Totally visual DBA battle report

[dwkay57]

If it is a battle report then it really needs to rules neutral (including descriptions of troops e.g. 4,000 legionaires not 2 bases of Blades(I)) and talk describe how the battle went and what decisions were made when and why. If the luck of the rules did play a part then they need to be incorporated somehow (e.g. the plan was too complex for the troops not precisely a roll of 1 on the dice).
And of course it would be great to have the post-match panel of experts commenting on why it all went wrong!

As editor Justin it is your privilege to experiment with different styles of articles. You are doing a great job so a risk on one article is worth it.

[Chris]

Agree. David's first comment reminds me of the media-saavy reports manufactured by Madaxeman, as these will typically have "talking heads" summing up and analyzing the good and bad of the game and decisions.

With regard to David's second comment, agree as well, but wonder if the general idea might be expanded so that general or specific situations on the tabletop might be explored with various sets of rules. For example: how are warbands charging into Roman legionaries treated with this set and that set and then this set? How are cataphracts treated with or in these five rule books when they are fighting enemy light cavalry or heavy foot? I am guessing that these "briefs" could be completed in 2 or 3 pages, including stunning diagrams and or colour photos . . .

Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

Perhaps we should keep some of these streams separate?  A comparative review of how different rules cope with different situations, or armies, or troop types is different to a battle report, IMO.  It is certainly harder to do, as it will need expertise in various rule sets, and several runs of the game.  Not a bad thing to have, but not what Justin set out to do.

I'm wondering if we need to separate too the idea of a game report and a battle report.  Justin's is a game report, showing the movement of every element and the result of every dice throw.  It sort of reminds me of an IKEA instruction sheet - great if you want to build a Billy bookcase but not what you'd want in a lifestyle or interior design magazine. 

A battle report, as has been said, would probably focus more on the game as a representation of period warfare, of plans and their success and failure, points where the rules had a particular impact and so forth.  If it represented a particular battle, how the features of that battle were reflected in the refight.

[RichT]

Having seen the Knockdoe report in print I'm not sure the tints of colours to identify the unit types are clear enough - would symbols (like the familiar cross for infantry, diagonal for cavalry etc) work better?

[Dave Knight]

Kudos for all the work that went into this and great for those who like it.

Not my thing though so for me much better on the forum than in the pages of slingshot

[Nick Harbud]

IMHO it would work better as an animated PowerPoint.  In other words, as a Forum addendum to a Slingshot printed article.

Incidentally, not sure how many players record their battles in such detail outside of set pieces like Mick's Knockdoe or Chris Hahn's various pieces.

[Erpingham]

Perhaps with spoken commentary as opposed to text?  I like the idea of an online extras bit of Slingshot in general (and Justin has experimented here with putting clickable links from article references on the website before) but I don't know how easy it would be.  Certainly Justin has the technical capability (and more) but I'd not want to put additional burdens on him.

[Justin Swanton]

Perhaps with spoken commentary as opposed to text?  I like the idea of an online extras bit of Slingshot in general (and Justin has experimented here with putting clickable links from article references on the website before) but I don't know how easy it would be.  Certainly Justin has the technical capability (and more) but I'd not want to put additional burdens on him.

I had thought quite a bit about tying Slingshot with the Society's YouTube channel (adding animated battle reports or other relevant videos to the current issue) but that would really be too much work.

[simonw]

Justin,
I like the maps. They are quite clear and could easily be scaled up for bigger Tactica 2 and other battles. They do show some aspects that could do with explanation but that could easily be added with a few notes referenced to the plans by number/Turn.

One thing that strikes me is the open flank of the blue infantry line which in our Tactica 2 games would have attracted the red force's cavalry to flank it within a couple of turns. A small unit of psiloi on the hill would not have encouraged me to advance into the open plain with my open left flank exposed like that.                   
Cheers
Simon

[simonw]

Justin,
The maps are good and clear. It's easy to see the game unfold. A little explanation of various moves could easily be added as notes referenced to the maps by Turn/No.

Incidentally, blue's advance with an open (left) flank of his infantry line seems a strange thing to do. It's not the sort of move I would do in our Tactica 2 games. Also, the way the battle lines break up with the various 'twists and turns' is not the kind of game that I particularly like. I think that red force's elite cavalry would have been around the flank of the blue infantry line 'like a shot' in our Tactica 2 games and the red infantry line as a whole would have advance to engage the blue infantry line from the front whilst the red cavalry 'cleaned up' the blue forces from behind.
I don't think that the 'turn about' of the blue cavalry force from behinf d the hill would have arrived in anything like enough time.

In sum, it seems that the DBA rules and the Tactica 2 rules produce radically differing 'styles' of game. In Tactica 2, the blue force would have stood very little chance of victory with these deployments and the advance of the infantry line.

Cheers
Simon