In my article on TV Wargaming in the previous Lone Warrior (130), I mentioned, indeed I enthused over, the DBA Resource Web Page at http://fanaticus.jiffynet.net/DBA/. This internet web site has many sections devoted to the DBA rules and games with those rules. However I want to recommend that you visit this web site if you can, even if you do not play or even like DBA, because it contains invaluable ideas and links to other pages which are appropriate to other types of wargaming. For example, a page on painting plastic figures, so that the paint does not flake off, or how to paint horses in realistic colours.
However the section of this web site that I most want to bring to your attention is the section on campaigns. Many of the campaign ideas presented here are ancients specific though not DBA specific, such as the "Fall of Rome" campaign and Magna Greca (Carthage, Rome, Pyrhus and Syracuse in Sicily). Do not let this put you off, for there are some really excellent campaign ideas and rules in this section that can be used or adapted for any other period and ruleset.
My first trial of a campaign idea from the site was "First Man In Rome", where up to five Roman Generals fight each of 5 traditional enemies of Rome (Gauls, Numideans, Spanish, Pontics & Macedonians). The results of each of these games is considered for both the Roman General and the "Enemy". Producing two league tables one for each "side". This generates a "First Man in Rome" for the best Roman General and a "First Enemy of Rome" for the "Enemy" that does best against all the generals. For a fuller explanation see the Web Site. In my campaign with three Roman Generals (Marius, Sulla and Lucullus), each with a different army composition, Sulla came out on top as "First Man in Rome" and the Gauls became the first enemy of Rome. Try it for yourself. This campaign format can be adapted to other periods. How about finding the best Napoleonic Marshall, pitting Ney, Soult, Davout, Grouchy etc. against Austrians, Prussians, Russians, Spanish & British? Or for colonial periods have Generals Roberts, Kitchener & Gordon against Boers, Zulus, Mahdists, Pathans and Dervishes? Maybe you could have Marshals Paulus, Kesselring, Rommel etc. against Polish, French, British, Russian, and American forces?
Another campaign idea from the Web Site is the conquest campaign, where a conqueror pits his army against a succession of three defenders, needing to overcome all three in turn to win. This is obviously heavily weighted against the attacker and should only be used where the attacker has a superiority over the defending forces. The would-be conqueror carries forward his losses from battle to battle, but may incorporate some elements of his defeated opponents' forces into his army for the next battle. An example given on the web site is Alexander the Great who must conquer Persians, Scythians, and Indians to win. Similarly, William the Conqueror must defeat Anglo/Danes, Welsh, and Vikings to complete his conquests. In later periods Napoleon must defeat Austrians, Prussians, and Russians to win. In the renaissance King Charles I must defeat Essex, Fairfax, and Cromwell to succeed. Whilst Frederick the Great must defeat Austrians, French, and Russians to conquer all.
I hope you can see the possibilities of this kind of campaign and recommend that you look up the details for yourself. I can't give you all the details as these are not my ideas and the copyright belongs to their originators.
Finally, one of the options is for a linear campaign. This type of campaign suits games with larger numbers of troops well, because it only requires two armies, and therefore less expenditure on figures. This pits two historical opponents against each other over 5 predetermined battlegrounds. The first battle is a meeting engagement or set piece battle on the middle battleground in a linear run of five battle sites. The loser retreats from the battlefield onto the next site behind, and becomes the defender in the next engagement, whilst the winner becomes the attacker. If the defender loses again, he retreats to the last battlefield of the series and continues as the defender, but is now allowed to "dig himself in". If a defender is pushed back off the final battle site then he has lost the campaign and his opponent has won. The net effect of this to and fro style of campaign is rather like a bout of arm-wrestling. In this campaign the casualties carry forward from battle to battle to make it more interesting, but with some provision for reinforcements.
I hope this article has shown how a web site devoted to one type of game can be useful to any gamer no matter what period they game in. Go and see for your self.
Back to Table of Contents -- Lone Warrior #131
Back to Lone Warrior List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Solo Wargamers Association.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com