|
Post by primuspilus on May 31, 2018 2:46:36 GMT
The addition of the TZ shooting rule was a last minute, incredibly badly thought-through addition to DBA v3 for no really good reason, as far as I could tell. For 25-odd years it was not a part of DBA. Then suddenly, there it was. When I saw it, I thought "WTF?"....
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 31, 2018 7:21:20 GMT
The addition of the TZ shooting rule was a last minute, incredibly badly thought-through addition to DBA v3 for no really good reason, as far as I could tell. For 25-odd years it was not a part of DBA. Then suddenly, there it was. When I saw it, I thought "WTF?".... Reminds me of the BUA debate back in 2.0! I heard it was because Mr. Barker has a city model that he REALLY wanted to use But Stevie mentioned that taking the TZ rule away completely would make things too powerful, and thus only keep it for mounted. Stevie, why is this? I'm assuming it's something to do with Medieval armies? It probably won't affect EAP vs Hoplites foot sloggers.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on May 31, 2018 8:13:56 GMT
As to your question from the 29th Greedo, in the II/4 Warring States army list notes it states that the early Chinese infantry are depicted as having the ji halberd armed infantry forward with the archers behind shooting over (notes don't state whether that continued as crossbows became dominant).
Would imagine that this was not an exception. Although I recall reading (Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome?) that an advantage of sling armed troops was that they were more effective when rear ranks were shooting over the heads of intervening ranks in melee (likely the reason PS were a rear support element in earlier versions of DBA).
I am sixes on the TZ suggestion - the point that archers are unlikely to ignore the enemy directly in front has some merit. Adding a +1 modifier against infantry within in the TZ seems a bit better.
Although in reality bows lose less effect at range than firearms. Due to their lower velocity and greater sectional density arrows suffer much less from air resistance. At longer ranges they actually regain most of the vertical component of their velocity once they pass the high point of the arc (as do bullets, but bullets continue to lose total velocity due to air resistance). You then also get a plunging effect with arrows (and shot) coming down over shields.
I am also a bit skeptical at the idea that at close range the archers will be dropping the entire front rank of attacking infantry equipped with plate armor or good shields (scutums?). Agincourt when I last read of it was a case of exhausted men-at-arms being overwhelmed when they got to the English line. Carrhae was hours of close range archery from mobile archers the Romans could not close with. And as I recall a major portion of the damage was inflicted by cataphracts on a demoralized, thirsty, exhausted army.
At Marathon the Greeks waited to attack until the Persian cavalry was loaded on the transports, although at least some later Greeks added aprons to their shields to stop arrows aimed at their legs...
Of course as I have been posting on the various early Indian, Chinese, and the Nubian armies I have built (and am building), making BW more effective in the game won't bother me in the least...
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 31, 2018 10:22:26 GMT
I think you make some good points about archery here goragrad.
I also think that there are grounds for imagining that shorter range mass overhead archery might have been less effective then one might think. If you consider a target about 30 metres away, and with an uninterrupted line of fire (LOF), then you can just pull that bow string right back and let fly over a fairly flat trajectory. And, of course, that will have more effect than shooting at an uninterrupted LOF target say 60 metres away. If, however, the LOF to the target is obstructed by people in front of you, you will have to shoot over their heads and so aim higher. Does this not mean that to avoid shooting far too high, you would have to either reduce the distance you pull back the bow string or aim really high (perhaps nearly vertically) and shoot at full strength, in which case the arrow would be basically falling to earth by gravity with not that much force? For targets further away, you would still be able to shoot over the heads of those in front at full strength without going too high.
Now where did i put my son's old bow and arrow set?
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on May 31, 2018 11:52:33 GMT
Thanks Simon - you have elucidated along the line I was thinking.
And the nieces and nephew have some bows as well...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 31, 2018 12:35:42 GMT
A very nice summery Goragrad. But you forgot the main reason why long range shooting is less effective than close range shooting, be it when shooting a battleship, an aircraft, a tank, a rifle, a musket, a bow, a sling, or me throwing darts down the pub... ...at long range the target appears smaller, so is more difficult to hit. I think this demonstrates the principle quite nicely: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXypyrutq_M Oh and Simon, I don’t remember ever reading about how the English lost the battles of Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt because their overhead fire was so ineffectual. As I said before, the men back then had to live, fight, and die using these weapons and formations, and they knew far more than we today will ever know about ancient and medieval warfare... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 31, 2018 13:04:03 GMT
But Stevie mentioned that taking the TZ rule away completely would make things too powerful, and thus only keep it for mounted. Stevie, why is this? I'm assuming it's something to do with Medieval armies? It probably won't affect EAP vs Hoplites foot sloggers. Well Greebo, the effect of allowing concentrated fire on mounted at close range is far too great. At long range, with say 3 bows shooting at a single mounted element, the bows have 15 chances out of 36 of a kill. Allowing that at close range as well seems too excessive (4 v 3-2 = 4 v 1...ouch!). Keeping the present threat zone shooting priority for mounted at close range means that a single bow has only 4 chances of a kill. Anyway, according to combat outcomes, mounted are the greatest threat to bows, so bows would probably target them first. An Alternative ProposalNow I also would like close range bows to only be able to shoot at an enemy in their threat zone. It sounds logical. But not if it buggers up the whole shooting system, and causes ‘safe areas’ and close range shooting to be inferior to long range. However, there is an alternative:- Keep the present threat zone shooting priorities exactly as they are at present. But apply an extra -1 to foot (other than Ps) when they are shot at close range by bows and war wagons.Why -1 to the target and not +1 for the shooter?...because of the quirks of the two-dice combat system (-1 has more effect than +1). And why have Ps and mounted exempted?...because the effect would be too great (see the charts below). Need a justification for these exemptions?...Ps and LH are in open formation, and half the arrows will be landing in empty space. As for other mounted, they zip about a lot, and it’s hard to hit a fast moving target. I’ve made a little chart to show the effects, with the new proposal in blue (the numbers are chances out of 36):- (Remember we should double all these numbers, as the bows will shoot twice...once in their opponents bound, and once in their own) present close 3 bows at -1 if shot at range system:- long range:- close range Kills Recoils Kills Recoils Kills RecoilsBow v Sp/Bd (2 v 4) 0 6 4 11 1 9Bow v Wb/Ax/Pk (2 v 3) 1 9 9 12 4 11Bow v Ps (2 v 2) 4 11 15 11 9 12 (too high, so don’t apply the -1)Bow v mounted (4 v 3) 4 17 15 15 9 17 (too high, so don’t apply the -1)Bow v LH (4 v 2) 9 17 21 12 15 15 (too high, so don’t apply the -1)Notes: the middle long range column appears much more deadly, but remember this requires 3 bow elements. We need to divide this by 3 to get a average for each shooting element, so all three columns show the single element effects. And the -1 at close range gives too high an effect against Ps, LH, and other mounted, so don’t apply it against these troops. Here is another chart showing just single element effects with the adjustments mentioned above in place to make things clearer:- present close average of 3 bows -1 if shot at range system:- at long range:- close range Kills Recoils Kills Recoils Kills RecoilsBow v Sp/Bd (2 v 4) 0 6 1 4 1 9Bow v Wb/Ax/Pk (2 v 3) 1 9 3 4 4 11Bow v Ps (2 v 2) 4 11 5 4 4 11 (the -1 doesn’t count)Bow v mounted (4 v 3) 4 17 5 5 4 17 (the -1 doesn’t count)Bow v LH (4 v 2) 9 17 7 4 9 17 (the -1 doesn’t count)Now compare the blue proposed effects to the long range effects and the present close range effects. Close range shooting is no longer inferior to long range shooting, but actually better... No more ‘safe areas’ when 1 BW from bows... More recoils at close range, causing the enemy to ‘veer away’ (or at least recoil) from the shooters more often... The effects of bowfire are improved, at least when shooting... And, as an added bonus, we keep the present threat zone shooting priorities. SummeryRemember, all that is needed for all of the above is a new Tactical Factor:- -1 if foot other than Ps is shot at by Bows and War Wagons at close 1 BW range.That’s all. However, I am also a realist, and I know damn well this will never be accepted. “Too radical!” they all will cry. Still, it does show that there are possible solutions to current problems... ...but only if you are prepared to face reality and accept that there are problems in the first place. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 1, 2018 2:23:56 GMT
I might chirp in here.
My own view would be to use Stevies idea, namely;
-1 if foot other than Ps is shot at by Bows and War Wagons at close 1 BW range.
but throw in an additional idea of;
Lb QKing enemy foot (other than Lb) in close combat on a DRAW.
By Lb here I might add that I'm referring to later Lb (so Book IV variety only). This needs to be playtested but would make English HYW armies a little better (tho' maybe not enough !) than they currently are.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 1, 2018 8:40:10 GMT
Just spent some time trying to get my head around this thread. Now I have a headache! Here are my random thoughts:
1) Play balance is important. Recreating history can be boring given the success rate of some armies. Yes, there should be a bias to the more successful army but not to the point where the enemies are unplayable.
2) stevie's last idea makes fast Wb/Bl/Pike better than solid against Bow as they can stop 2.000001 base widths away and thus avoid being shot at within a TZ as the Bow cannot advance more than 1BW and shoot. Afterwards they can advance to contact.
3) It seems as though the historical examples use Sparabara or medieval longbow and crossbow. As DBA does address them as unique elements in some rules (8Bw/Lb/Cb) then maybe proposed rules changes can be limited to them? Is there clear historical evidence regarding ordinary 4Bw clearing out heavily armed foot?
4) Joe's Pike idea has been starved of oxygen.
Thankfully, I've got some playtesting time coming up. So I'm going to aim at testing the following:
a) EAP v Greeks - 8Bw get side support from other 8Bw or Spear b) Polybian Romans v Later/Macs or Seleucids - Pike can be chosen as 4Pk or 8Pk
I'll report back to the group
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Jun 1, 2018 8:56:54 GMT
Well, Stevie, one more quibble - at range whether long bow or other missile weapon (even firearm) the target is the mass rather than an individual. Not necessarily then harder to hit. And again, at closer ranges the flatter trajectory makes the shield a bigger factor - shooting at those Republican Romans toes or crests...
Still the minus 1 does look to be the best of the discussed options.
Not sure Barritus that the English longbow would be better against infantry say than the various Chinese infantry armed with both crossbows and a halberd.
Or than Roman archers in scale and helmet with bucklers and axes or swords.
Or that they would be more effective against infantry who weren't exhausted French knights with several pounds of mud adhering to each foot.
Of course my opinion might be colored by the fact that to date I have several Chinese armies and the only longbow I can currently field are Welsh for the Anglo-Normans...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 1, 2018 10:58:55 GMT
Just some random thoughts about Jim’s random thoughts 1) “Play balance...” I agree Jim, but a rule system based upon history should be reproducing historical realistic effects. At the moment there IS a bias...and it’s in the favour of the advancing blades and spears, who can get into a mythical ‘safe zone’ (for which there is no contemporary historical evidence for) by being 1 BW from the bows, forcing them to shoot individually and cause no attrition casualties. Making single bow elements cause roughly as many attrition casualties when they are shooting individually at close range as they do when concentrating their fire at long range takes away this unwarranted unjustified advantage from the advancing heavy foot. 2) “Fast foot would be better...” They already are...at least, under the present system they are. As mentioned above, they can use their speed to get into this mythical ‘safety zone’, etc, etc. Anyway, if they want to stop 2 BW+1mm from the bows in the hope of avoiding close range fire, fine. Let them. Then the bows can use concentrated fire against ‘em instead of each bow shooting individually. And if each bow element is causing roughly the same amount of attrition casualties at both close and long range, it won’t really matter. 3) “Ordinary 4Bw v heavy foot...” Actually, historically, no bows, not even longbows and crossbows, seems to have wiped-out an entire enemy unit. They instead seem to have caused attrition across many enemy units, until the accumulation of these losses became too great. But DBA has no way of recording attrition, so it has to be an entire element or nothing. In a perfect world you’d place ‘attrition markers’ on each element, affecting their combat factors and ability to fight. But who wants to cover their battlefield with lots of little markers? (However, if you’re interested, see this: fanaticus.boards.net/post/10629/ ) 4) “Joe’s Pike idea...” Good point. But it is such a good idea that it really needs no further discussion, just playtesting and eventual acceptance. In fact the only dissenting voice has been mine (naturally!), as it would cause 4Ax to be weaker and no better than 3Ax when facing Pk. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 1, 2018 11:55:33 GMT
Just some random thoughts about Jim’s random thoughts 1) “Play balance...” I agree Jim, but a rule system based upon history should be reproducing historical realistic effects. At the moment there IS a bias...and it’s in the favour of the advancing blades and spears, who can get into a mythical ‘safe zone’ (for which there is no contemporary historical evidence for) by being 1 BW from the bows, forcing them to shoot individually and cause no attrition casualties. Making single bow elements cause roughly as many attrition casualties when they are shooting individually at close range as they do when concentrating their fire at long range takes away this unwarranted unjustified advantage from the advancing heavy foot. 2) “Fast foot would be better...” They already are...at least, under the present system they are. As mentioned above, they can use their speed to get into this mythical ‘safety zone’, etc, etc. Anyway, if they want to stop 2 BW+1mm from the bows in the hope of avoiding close range fire, fine. Let them. Then the bows can use concentrated fire against ‘em instead of each bow shooting individually. And if each bow element is causing roughly the same amount of attrition casualties at both close and long range, it won’t really matter. 3) “Ordinary 4Bw v heavy foot...” Actually, historically, no bows, not even longbows and crossbows, seems to have wiped-out an entire enemy unit. They instead seem to have caused attrition across many enemy units, until the accumulation of these losses became too great. But DBA has no way of recording attrition, so it has to be an entire element or nothing. In a perfect world you’d place ‘attrition markers’ on each element, affecting their combat factors and ability to fight. But who wants to cover their battlefield with lots of little markers? (However, if you’re interested, see this: fanaticus.boards.net/post/10629/ ) 4) “Joe’s Pike idea...” Good point. But it is such a good idea that it really needs no further discussion, just playtesting and eventual acceptance. In fact the only dissenting voice has been mine (naturally!), as it would cause 4Ax to be weaker and no better than 3Ax when facing Pk. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients, and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
1) Is the overall effect wrong? This is a open question. That there are unusual interactions from the DBA mechanics is accepted but are the historically weaker armies winning? Trying to model history beyond an overall effect with such a small number of elements and wide variety of troops and ages is nigh on impossible. Personally, trying to model shying and funnelling is going to be too big a stretch except for period specific house rules. 2) It's the IF that worries me. We'll need to see it in action to be comfortable. TEST, TEST, TEST! 3) OK. So did ordinary 4Bow troops cause enough attrition to be abstracted as a loss of 15-25% of an army's heavy foot? 4) I will look at this after I try the 8Pk experiment. 5) When will you start the "Ax" debate? Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Jun 1, 2018 13:24:52 GMT
interesting discussion! so Stevie, it mean that at close range, one bow unit can do the same damage to a Ax, Pk, Wb than to a Ps? humm... and why not add this : -1 to solid foot only? (troop more dense, with less mouvement, could not avoid arrows easier than light ones no?) so to 4Wb, 4Ax, 4Pk, 4Bd and Sp only. (my 2 cents )
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 1, 2018 14:12:16 GMT
I do like the "TEST, TEST, TEST" part. Preliminary results from the last week show the pike change good...and the Bow change overpowered.
Greek vs Macedonians becomes a good fight. It was in favor of the Greeks previously. Though this needs to be verified.
Shooting change moves HYW English vs Scots to hopeless for the Scots. English vs French is a better match...3 to 2 games for the French. English should of course underperform slightly due to lack of troop classification (Lb as Superior...which they were).
EAP vs Greeks saw just one game with the EAP winning 4-2. Two dead spear from shooting. The spear couldn't close.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 1, 2018 14:18:45 GMT
I should say that I am content with the change in Ax. I have playtested that one quite a bit.
The others need lots of test games!
Swiss vs Burgundians and Macedonians vs Greeks and Romans please!
Joe Collins
|
|