Big Battle Army Assessment

By David Kuijt and David Schlanger

Updated: February 14, 2005

Preamble

          While discussing Big Battle DBA strategy and tactics online we have had occasion to assess which Big Battle (BB) armies are more effective, and which are less so. The use of allies, and the different mechanics of Big Battle DBA, means that the effective armies can be quite different from those that are effective in regular DBA. There are a great variety of effective armies in Big Battle. The II/28 Bosporans combined 0 aggression, Knights, and Auxilia; II/15 Alexander Imperial with II/3 Classical Indian ally may be one of the premier combined-arms forces in Big Battle DBA; I/22(b) New Kingdom Egyptian has an excellent mix of Blade and Bow with a mobile chariot arm; II/42(b) Tamil Indian takes brute force to a new level with Elephants and Blades; and so on. This effectiveness assessment is based entirely upon our experience in open tournaments -- in theme tournaments or against historical enemies, most armies with low ratings will perform better. The larger army size in Big Battle makes it more difficult to support themed tournaments and restrict battles to historical matchups, such that all the Big Battle DBA tournaments we have participated in since the publication of DBA 2.0 have been open tournaments. This assessment also includes the tactical complexity of each army listed in the rulebook.

          The Big Battle DBA rules amplify the complexity of the game, as each army consists of three times as many elements. The ability to separate specific elements into commands, allows for more interesting troop interactions, as well as mission specific goals. We consider the tactical skill that each army requires in a variety of situations. Some armies are just plain more challenging to play well than others. We consider II/22(d) Characene with II/23(a) Arab Nomad and II/37 Parthian allies to be one of the best "trick" armies out there -- Aggression 0 Dry, with lots of Camels, and a great mix of troops. But it is also a very difficult army to play well, and will likely be very frustrating for less advanced players. On the other hand, triple II/33 Polybian Roman is a very good heavy-foot army that will be rewarding even for relatively new players if they understand a few basic principles about Big Battle DBA.

          In the discussion that follows we examine a broad spectrum of notable Big Battle armies, giving each an effectiveness rating of A-F, a complexity rating of 1-5, and a commentary regarding our reasoning behind the ratings. An effectiveness A army offers crushing potential in the hands of many players, while an effectiveness F one may be doomed from the start regardless of the level of player. A complexity 1 army offers little tactical complexity and challenge (it may not be easy to win, but is easy to play), while a complexity 5 army includes multiple troop types with complex troop interaction (difficult to play). An approximation of complexity levels is as follows:

1 - Very simple armies; monotype armies without complication

2 - Simple armies. More complicated monotype armies (LH monotype, bad-going monotype armies), or armies based around two troop types that work well together.

3 - Average complexity. Easy combined-arms armies; armies with two common troop types that don't work easily with each other.

4 - Complex. Combined-arms armies without very difficult element types

5 - Very complex. Armies that combine lots of Pikes, Elephants, War-wagons, Artillery, and trapeze artists.

Note that some troop types have inherent complexity - they are difficult to get to do what you wish to do with them. Any troop type that takes an extra pip to move falls in that category, as do Pikes. LH are that way as a primary troop type, but are actually easier to use in small numbers. The same is true for auxilia and psiloi.

          A marker acknowledges that a particular army would be an extremely gutsy entry in any open BBDBA event because of glaring weakness in one or more areas. We do not assign these ratings lightly; just because an army has low effectiveness does not make it a wheelbarrow army - it must also have aspects of funkitude and glory.

          Note that this is of necessity a very brief assessment. If you are choosing a Big Battle army based upon this article you should consider other factors as well, as we ignore some very important issues. Some players will be better at gaining advantages through terrain-placement than others; they would do well to seek out lower aggression armies. Other players might be very adept at getting a deployment advantage, and very flexible -- they should seek out a high-aggression combined-arms army like Later Carthage or Alexander Imperial. Some element types, like Pike, Light Horse, Elephants, or Artillery, are difficult to master and may not be for all players. Similarly for massed Bow -- they can be competitive against almost anything but massed blade, but you can't just line them up and hope if you're facing enemy heavy spear. Some players will play better with a very mobile army; or with a stolid heavy foot army. And of course, there is no substitute for playing an army that you love!

          One more aside -- the Big Battle DBA board as listed is very cramped. This makes maneuver armies with lots of Cav and LH fight at a significant disadvantage compared to regular DBA (and they had a big disadvantage on a 24" square map too!). We recommend you try playing on a 5x2 board; We think it improves the game.

          Finally, with the release of DBA 2.2 we see changes to the deployment rules for Big Battle DBA that prove to be detrimental to the game's delicate balance. All of the ratings below are based on our special rules for BBDBA that can be found here - Official NASAMW Big Battle Rules. These special rules take the best of DBA 2.0 and 2.1, without the problems rampant in 2.2 - the changes are slight but quite significant in effect. If you wish to use the published DBA 2.2 deployment rules without modification, you should modify our ratings for effectiveness slightly. As a rule of thumb, combined-arms armies with high aggression will tend to do slightly better with the 2.2 deployment against non-monotype armies; and non-monotype armies with high aggression will tend to do slightly better against low-aggression combined-arms armies.

Book I Armies

I/1 Early Sumerian:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 3000-2800BC	D	2
(b) 2799-2500BC	B	2
(c) 2500-2334BC	B	3
(d) 2250BC	C	4

Effectiveness: Each list can be improved one rating by adding an ally. The (a) list is a slow-as-dirt bow army, improved slightly with Zagros or Bedouin allies. The (b) list and (c) list have a fairly nice troop distribution -- a strong pike wall with supporting Kn and Bd is pretty good. They are helped significantly by adding an ally, and all their allies are all nice additions. The (d) list weakens somewhat but their ally, although also slow, is quite interesting.
Complexity: The (a) list bow wall is probably the easiest Early Sumerian list to use as a monotype army, however bow is not the most simple troop type to use effectively, and staying alive against heavy foot will require subtle play. Adding the Zagros or Bedouin ally provides some added mobility and terrain use. The (b) and (c) list both offer some challenge due to the high number of pike, although (c) offers more combined arms complexity. List (d) is the most difficult to use, as a plan is needed to fight with only 10 elements or else find something useful for the Horde despite their vulnerability and extra PIP needs.

I/2 Early Egyptian:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 3000-1640BC	C	3
(b) 1639-1543BC	B	3

Effectiveness: The (b) list gets a higher rating because of its greater proportion of blade and the addition of a few chariots for mobility. Blade and bow is a nice combination, but these guys need some sort of mobility component.
Complexity: Both lists have some complexity, in that they require bow/blade interaction. Both lists have the benefit of psiloi supported blade, and suffer from the strain of three elements of Horde. The a list choice of a Lit general command stand presents even more complexity. This army should be played with a Lit C-in-C, just because.

I/3 Nubian:	Effectiveness	Complexity
3000BC-1480BC	C	2

Effectiveness: A bow army with a bit of Wb to threaten heavy foot. Not too bad, but you gotta like bow.
Complexity: A mostly-simple army with a little added complexity from the Warband double move and support options. Using more psiloi presents a more complex plan development with potential first bound ambush and more potential for terrain advantage.

I/4 Zagros and Anatolian Highlanders:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) Any 3000-2251BC	D	2
(b) Guti 2250-2112BC	D	2
(c) Hurrians, Kassites, Nairi 1780-950BC	D	2
(d) Gasgans 1650-950BC	D	2

Effectiveness: Aggression 3 is very rough for Ax/Ps armies or Wb/Ps armies. The Guti have some nice allies, though, all of which are a big help. One ally would raise their grade to C, both allies B. If you take both the Elamites and Melukhans as allies, you have a nice combined arms force that is only slightly lacking in mobility.
Complexity: All four of these lists are fairly simple to play, although adequate use of terrain is needed to succeed in all cases. Adding the ally or allies to the Guti list bumps up their complexity to 3, as it becomes a combined arms effort.

I/5 Early Susiana and Elam:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 3000-2601BC	C	2
(b) 2600-2101BC	C	2
(c) 2100-1401BC	C	2
(d) 1400-800BC	C	2

Effectiveness: The (c) list with Melukhan allies get a rating increase to B. The (c) list has some nice allies, of which the best are the Melukhans who give them a bit of heavy-foot stiffening. Massed bow armies don't mind having high aggression.
Complexity: These are simple straight forward bow monotype armies. The (a) and (c) list ally possibilities add some complexity, but not much.

I/6 Early Bedouin:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) Any 3000-1500BC	D	2
(b) 1499-1000BC	D	2
(c) 999-312BC	C	3

Effectiveness: High aggression and Ax/Ps again. The (c) list is interesting with some camels to provide mobility and stand off enemy Cavalry and Knights, and taking the Assyrian ally gives some more variety and a pinch of heavy foot.
Complexity: Lists (a) and (b) are simple except for the need to play in terrain. The (c) list is much more complex in its mix of the camel troop type with light infantry. All of the allies listed add some complexity to the (a) list. The (a) list should increase to a rating of 3 and the (c) list 4 with the use of their allies - the Assyrian ally being both the most challenging and exciting to play.

I/7 Early Libyan:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 3000-1251BC	D	2
(b) 1250-660BC	C	3
(c) 659-200BC	D	2
(d) 200BC-70AD	D	2

Effectiveness: The (b) list with Sea People ally gets bumped up to a C rating, perhaps a B rating for experienced players. Very high aggression for the first two lists, although the Wb/Bw mix give the (b) list something interesting and matches well with their Sea People ally, but it is still an awful lot of psiloi for a high aggression army. The second two lists are zero-aggression psiloi armies. Without zero aggression we would give them an F rating! Even with zero aggression they probably can't win.
Complexity: Lists (a), (c), and (d) all present similar complexity, and all rely on advantageous terrain despite a high aggression. Probably the only thing keeping lists (c) and (d) from earning a 1 complexity is the challenge of trying to find something useful for 33 elements of psiloi to do, besides die. List (b) is the only Early Libyan list to call for complex troop interaction, and multifaceted planning. Adding the Sea People ally to this list even goes a step further, notching a 4 rating.

I/8 Makkan, Dilmun, Saba, Etc.:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 2800-1301BC	C	2
(b) Makkan 1300-312BC	C	4
(c) Others 1300-312BC	C	3

Effectiveness: Nice little Ax army for (a), and Wb army for (b), but not a killer by any means. The (c) list is essentially a low-aggression Early Bedouin army with a few blade -- nice! With the Bedouin ally or the Kassite Ally this is a pretty nice little list. The Makkan might rate a C+ or even a B if you like Warband -- the Camels and Bow give the normal good-going enemies of Warband (Knights, Elephants) some pause, and the Warband give similar good support for the enemies of Camels and Bow (i.e., Heavy foot).
Complexity: The (b) list offers a fairly unusual mix of troop types. The combination of Warband, Camelry, Bow and Psiloi presents an interesting interactive challenge.

I/9 Early Syrian:	Effectiveness	Complexity
2700-2200BC	D	2

Effectiveness: Aggression a little too high; too many Ax/Ps; not enough troops that fight in the open and too slow. The Sumerian ally is a nice addition, and raises their rating to C.
Complexity: Adding some pike here actually gives some stability and a good going center to a bad-going army; that doesn't really increase the complexity of the army much, and in some ways it simplifies things.

I/10 Melukhkhan and Pre-Vedic Indian:	Effectiveness	Complexity
2700-1500BC	B	2

Effectiveness: A very nice combination of psiloi-supported spear and bow. The only thing that stops this from being an A-quality army is its lack of mobility.
Complexity: An easy army to play. No significant speed differences; no bad-going issues.

I/11 Akkadian and 3rd Dynasty of Ur:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 2334-2193BC	B	3
(b) 2112-2004BC	B	3

Effectiveness: A nice heavy foot army. The (b) version is slightly better. The Elamite ally is a nice addition. A bit too many psiloi, and not enough mounted, but a nice mix of pike and bad-going flank support otherwise.
Complexity: Supporting pikes with bad-going troops isn't always easy, and that's what you need to do here, but there aren't a lot of different troop types to complicate the basic task.

I/12 Sumerian Successor States:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 2028-1460BC	C	3

Effectiveness: Another fair heavy foot army. The Elamite ally is nice, but the Later Amorite ally is probably more useful, and garners an improved B rating. Like all armies from this period, too slow.
Complexity: Drop this down to a 2 complexity rating if no pike are taken.

I/13 Hsia and Shang Chinese:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 2000-1300BC	B	3
(b) 1299-1017BC	B	3

Effectiveness: Blade and bow is a nice combination. Slow, of course. The Chinese Border Tribe ally is a fun addition. For the later list, the Chou ally is quite powerful. Whether or not you take allies, the auxilia are a good choice.
Complexity: Drop this down to a 2 complexity if you don't take any auxilia.

I/14 Early Northern Barbarian:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) Chinese border tribes 2000-401BC	F	3
(b) Chinese border tribes 400-315BC	D	4
(c) Europe 2000-1401BC	D	4
(d) Europe 1400-701BC	C	4
(e) Europe 700-315BC	D	4

Effectiveness: Aggression too high; slow monochrome armies. The (d) list has some nice foot and a blade-spear mix isn't bad. The (a) list should definitely go with the Chou ally, which brings it up to a C rating.
Complexity: As mostly-monochrome armies these are all fairly easy to run, with only a few mounted to integrate into the overall battle plan.

I/15 Later Amorite:	Effectiveness	Complexity
1894BC-1595BC	C	3

Effectiveness: Psiloi-supported blade is a nice basic troop type. Slow.
Complexity: With auxilia, blade, psiloi, and some mounted or bow, this is a fairly well-rounded (and therefore moderately complex) foot army.

I/16 Hittite Old/Middle Kingdom:	Effectiveness	Complexity
1680BC-1380BC	B	3

Effectiveness: Psiloi-supported spear with a bit of mobility. Not bad. It will have some trouble against armies with bad-going troops and low aggression, though.
Complexity: Nice and easy, by and large.

I/17 Hyksos:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 1645-1591BC	C	3
(b) 1590-1537BC	B	4

Effectiveness: The (b) list with more mobility is better; the (a) list has too much Bgo troops for its aggression. With the addition of the Early Egyptian ally this is a nice little army, probably even deserving of an A rating.
Complexity: The (a) list needs to integrate auxilia with psiloi-supported blade; the (b) list needs to integrate light chariots with the same troops. Different problems, but about the same complexity.

I/18 Minoan and Early Mycenean:	Effectiveness	Complexity
1600BC-1250BC	A	3

Effectiveness: A good sized pike block and a bunch of mixed chariots with some Bgo troops. A nice army.
Complexity: Moderate. The list has the usual problem - supporting the flanks of the pike block, and integrating the strike of the mounted troops with the push of pikes.

I/19 Mitanni:	Effectiveness	Complexity
1595BC-1274BC	C	3

Effectiveness: Not much punch, but a good maneuver army. It won't do poorly in any situation, whether heavy terrain or light, but it hasn't got much kick. We may be a bit harsh; it might deserve a B rating. Certainly a very good army played against historical opponents.
Complexity: Moderate - how to give appropriate bad-going support to a mass of light chariots.

I/20 Syro-Canaanite or Ugaritic:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) Ugarit 1274-1176BC	B	3
(b) Others	C	4

Effectiveness: A bit too high-aggression for the number of Bgo troops. The Ugarit list with HCh punch is better; with the addition of the Hittite ally (giving it a good line of psiloi-supported spear for the open) it should be quite effective and maybe a rating of A.
Complexity: The typical problem of Book I armies - a main battle line of fairly light troops, and integrating a bad-going attack with chariots.

I/21 Kassite and Later Babylonian:	Effectiveness	Complexity
(a) 1595-890BC	B	3
(b) 889-747BC	B	4

Effectiveness: A fairly nice Bgo army. The allies don't really fix the only problem with this army, which is that it doesn't have any heavy foot. Aggression 0 would have been nice, too.
Complexity: More of the same - integrating bad-going troops with mounted or chariots.