|
Post by barritus on Jun 3, 2018 9:48:03 GMT
The other simpler thing to do is as Greedo prefers, and just allow shooters to concentrate their fire at any range, the way DBA has been played for the last 28 years since it’s first inception way back in 1990. (I’m not against change, and I love the new innovations - especially side support - that DBA has introduced into the latest version. But the old phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” springs to mind. And that is exactly what has happened with regards to shooting...DBA 3.0 introduced the new concept of threat zone priority which has buggered up the shooting system and caused anomalies such as these ‘safe areas’ and long range fire being superior and better than close range fire)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
Agree Stevie although I might chip in my tuppence worth.
Namely a couple of other thoughts for house rules in addition to the above change for playtesting.
1. For later (Book 4) Longbows - allow them a QK vs Foot (other than Lb) on a DRAW. Note this gives supported solid Lb (+3 vs foot) a 4 in 36 chance of destroying enemy Blade (or supported Sp) and 3 in 36 chance of same with unsupported Lb (+2 vs foot). So not earth shattering but helpful for Lb.
2. Allow 8Bw and 8Cb to gain flank support from either Blade, Spear (?), 8Bw or 8Cb (one occurrence only).
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 3, 2018 12:53:25 GMT
That’s an interesting proposition Barritus. You are of course talking about close combat, and not distant shooting. Now I’m not against it...but I think we should look at the wider picture. The tournament crowd will be up in arms against it (and quite rightly so) if it only applied to Longbows. After all, why turn up at a tournament with low quality ordinary Persian Bows when you can have high quality super Longbows? Perhaps it should apply to all bows (or at least all solid bows), and not just medieval longbows. Yes, the longbow was the very peek of bow development and evolution, but medieval foot, even ordinary retinue troops, had better armour than their Hoplite and Legionary ancestors, so maybe we should let all bows in all periods be equal and relative to each other. 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 3, 2018 15:23:14 GMT
That’s an interesting proposition Barritus. You are of course talking about close combat, and not distant shooting. Now I’m not against it...but I think we should look at the wider picture. The tournament crowd will be up in arms against it (and quite rightly so) if it only applied to Longbows. After all, why turn up at a tournament with low quality ordinary Persian Bows when you can have high quality super Longbows? Perhaps it should apply to all bows (or at least all solid bows), and not just medieval longbows. Yes, the longbow was the very peek of bow development and evolution, but medieval foot, even ordinary retinue troops, had better armour than their Hoplite and Legionary ancestors, so maybe we should let all bows in all periods be equal and relative to each other. 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
Hmmmm....Lb have a historical record to allow for some strengthening. Persian strength was more based in Sparabara (8Bw). They should get side-support from spear to link in with mercenary hoplites. Not sure there is a historical argument for all solid bows to be given the bonus. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 4, 2018 2:37:55 GMT
That’s an interesting proposition Barritus. You are of course talking about close combat, and not distant shooting. Now I’m not against it...but I think we should look at the wider picture. The tournament crowd will be up in arms against it (and quite rightly so) if it only applied to Longbows. After all, why turn up at a tournament with low quality ordinary Persian Bows when you can have high quality super Longbows? Perhaps it should apply to all bows (or at least all solid bows), and not just medieval longbows. Yes, the longbow was the very peek of bow development and evolution, but medieval foot, even ordinary retinue troops, had better armour than their Hoplite and Legionary ancestors, so maybe we should let all bows in all periods be equal and relative to each other. 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
Hmmmm....Lb have a historical record to allow for some strengthening. Persian strength was more based in Sparabara (8Bw). They should get side-support from spear to link in with mercenary hoplites. Not sure there is a historical argument for all solid bows to be given the bonus. Cheers Jim Stevie there is as you say an issue with play balance - but then there already is with Lb & Cb getting a freebie QK against Kn & Cm on a draw whilst lesser Bw don't. But from an historical view is that wrong - probably not and I'm not sure tournament players have gone AWOL over it. It probably depends on whether the proposed changes would make the Book IV Lb armies (I have never owned or used those armies by the way) in question tournament tigers. Playtesting would determine that I suspect.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 4, 2018 6:50:55 GMT
Actually, both Barritus and Jim could have demolished me with the following counterargument:- This is only intended as a House Rule, so tournament play is irrelevant. Very well, I’ve done some number crunching, and here are the results:- (The numbers are chances out of 36) (8Bw with base & side support):-
| Chances of the Bow being Killed | Current Bow Kill Chances | Proposed Lb Kill Chances | CF 4 v CF 6 (supported Pk) | 4 | 0 | 4 | CF 4 v CF 5 (Bd or supported Sp) | 2 | 0 | 5 | CF 4 v CF 4 (supported Wb) | 1 | 1 | 7 | CF 4 v CF 3 (Ax or unsupported Wb) | 0 | 4 | 9 | CF 4 v CF 2 (Ps)
| 0 | 9 | 13 | (4Bw with side support):- |
|
|
| CF 3 v CF 6 (supported Pk) | 9 | 0 | 3 | CF 3 v CF 5 (Bd or supported Sp) | 6 | 0 | 4 | CF 3 v CF 4 (supported Wb) | 4 | 0 | 5 | CF 3 v CF 3 (Ax or unsupported Wb) | 2 | 2 | 8 | CF 3 v CF 2 (Ps) | 1 | 6 | 11 |
|
|
|
| (3/4Bw with no support):- |
|
|
| CF 2 v CF 6 (supported Pk)
| 15 | 0 | 2 | CF 2 v CF 5 (Bd or supported Sp)
| 12 | 0 | 3 | CF 2 v CF 4 (supported Wb)
| 9 | 0 | 4 | CF 2 v CF 3 (Ax or unsupported Wb)
| 6 | 1 | 6 | CF 2 v CF 2 (Ps)
| 4 | 4 | 10 |
This ignores overlaps, which you can work out for yourselves. (i.e. 4Bw with side support v overlapped Bd would be CF 3 v CF 4). Doesn’t look too bad. Ps comes off worst, but then who expects Ps in close combat with Lb to do well? And the CF 2 v CF 3 line shows that unsupported Lb v Ax each has the same chance of killing each other (but Lb do recoil more). But the important one is the CF 4 v CF 5 line, which I’ve highlighted in red. This shows that 8Lb with double-base and side support actually has more chances of killing Bd than being killed themselves. Still, this is an extremely rare element (only in the IV/85 Burgundian Ordonnance list), and the 8Lb still has twice as many chances of recoiling than the Bd (19 chances to the Bd’s 10), so the CF 3 v CF 5 line will be more common. And the CF 3 v CF 5 and the CF 3 v CF 4 lines give the Lb and Bd roughly equal chances of killing each other, with the Lb again recoiling far more often, exposing neighbouring friendly elements to potential overlaps themselves. So give it some playtesting and let us know how it turns out. 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 Cromwell on Jun 4, 2018 7:43:48 GMT
I have deleted a pot which in my opinion was insulting and below the expected standard of this forum. I have also locked the thread. The member involved has been advised by myself and warned that any further posts of such a nature would lead to them being banned.
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jun 8, 2018 7:25:29 GMT
I have re-opened the thread so everyone can enjoy the discussion again. Please let me know if you see any more problems.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 8, 2018 17:44:00 GMT
Thanks for the unlock - lets all stay friends playing with toy soldiers.
First I feel the TZ restriction is justified and reflects the focus (perhaps unwanted by the commander) of troops faced with nearby advancing adversaries (a Warhorse can cover 50 yards in about 10 seconds - it tends to attract attention). Perhaps spending a PIP to waive target priorities could be considered (I may put it in as a K&K optional rule).
Long range shooting for arrows is not ineffective due to increase in velocity of plunging arrows which often strike behind shield wall (this is covered by some modern tests in The Great Warbow - essentially reading). Close range shooting can help v. some heavy armor due to the angle of impact but the rain of long range arrows has a inflicts a lot of blunt force trauma on even armored targets and considerable fatigue.
The mud at Agincourt was not decisive though a nuisance to both sides. The English advanced three time further through the same muddy fields and found it to be annoying but no more. The difference was the arrow storms the French had to wade through. Most of the damage was caused by long range shooting. The French were never able to close and in the end the English archers had to charge over the states to attack the retreating French (the archers were never that shy about hand to hand combat). A very similar result occurred at Verneuil where the English flanks were open, the ground very hard (perhaps too hard to drive in stakes) but again the archers cleared the flanks and then charged into to rescue the hard pressed men at arms. (At Agincourt the French men at arms drove back the English men at arms killed the Duke of York and knocked off a part of Henry's crown before the flanking archers intervened hardly the work of exhausted men. In any case the archers inflicting heavy loses on the advancing French is well attested in the sources - available in Curry's compilation.)
Giving the "longbowmen" a +3 v. Foot solves the HYW problem in the simplest most elegant way (helps fix crossbow also but that takes an adjustment). This makes LB +4 with "Retinue" support from Bills or Men at Arms - quite tough (though they should always be outnumbered). I have playtested this many many times (including just last weekend at NashCon). We don't need to change any DBX rule - Shooters are already in HOTT (also in DBMM Bow is generally +3 v. Foot). You should also keep in mind re the "extra" PIP to close that Phil thinks just the opposite - he feels troops being shot by bow should advance without PIPs - its his Press Forward rule thats in DBMM - but I dissuaded him from it in DBA (he did want Bow to shoot at +3 v. Foot but several old time DBAers - who left anyway - would not have it).
Now the Persians - I had hoped that giving them Shieldwall would be sufficient. But am pondering second rank Bow in general and have grown suspicious of the value of Double Elements.
The solution and its important for Pike is that they cost less (otherwise Scotts get masaccered v. +3 Longbow - which of course they did but we don't want to go to far). The effect of ties should be limited to close combat advantages - such as swords v. pikes for instance. We don't want to over use this abstraction which should be limited to situations where one side is disadvantaged by "close" fighting. Pikes aren't good at close fighting because opponents get "inside" the pikes - they need to roll forward like a bulldozer.
And of course none of this directly applies to DBA 3.0 which is Phil Barker's game and his game only. At least in the US where I have some say tournaments will be run using DBA 3.0 rules and not my personal version of the rules (or any one else's). Prior US tournament directors did not feel this way and ran even the national championship using their own version of the rules (not approved by Phil). I pledged to stop doing this and so you'll have to replace me to get alternative rules introduced in DBA tournaments.
But I'm as always wide open for Knight and Knave suggestions as this is a deliberate attempt to advance DBX science and compete with the French game (while disturbing DBA traditionalists as little as possible).
TomT
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jun 8, 2018 20:50:19 GMT
I've never understood why Bw should be the same combat factor against foot as Psiloi... surely they should be +3, as with Ax? Bd and Sp will eventually do them over, as they should do in cc, but at least they have some reasonable staying power in the meantime and not just be speed bumps.
P.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 8, 2018 21:35:07 GMT
Phil want Aux better than Bows - but your correct +2 that can't flee are terrible in Close.
English archers tended to fight as "Aux w/Bows". Same may be said of other archers (crossbowmen often had lots of armor).
Since we allow in K&K Medium Foot w/Swords (+4 v. Foot; +2 v. Mounted), we can accomodate "Aux" with better Close Combat than "Heavy Bow" (Medium Foot w/Longbow +3 v. Foot; +4 v. Mounted as opposed to Medium Foot w/Bow +2 v. Foot; +4 v. Mounted).
TomT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 9, 2018 15:05:00 GMT
What we need playtested it seems is a line of 5's vs 4's, and compare that with 4's against 3's.
My suspicion is that 5 vs 4 lasts longer, with the 4's gradually, "on average" giving ground to the 5's. This will get you a Cannae type situation.
I suspect 4 vs 3 is a much shorter, sharper fight, as a double overlap 4 vs 1 yields more doubles than a double overlap 5 vs 2 say.
Marathon is all but impossible in the DBA and BBDBA framework, without making Sparabara into Spears that shoot like Bw. Then you'd need rear support for Hoplites as well as side support. All adding to give the centre Persian line the 5 to the Greeks' 4 in the centre. Oh and you need pursuit by the 8Bw, otherwise when the hoplites fall back, why would I as the EAP not just sit back and shoot? So Marathon cannot be done in anything resembling DBA, in my view.
Which is fine! DBA as is does an 85% accurate job on about 85% of battles, in my view. And for its size, that is pretty damned impressive!
However, I maintain that the 8Bw model of the EAP Sparabara, as presented in DBA, is radically different from the Medieval pavisier crossbowmen, in ultimate, overall combat outcomes.
It seems 8Bw works more or less fine for Medieval. It sucks in my view for EAP vs Greece.
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Jun 10, 2018 9:57:16 GMT
I do not see the need for these for any game balance. Rules work for me as is. I agree.
I number Persian and Greek armies amongst my large collection so have no particular bias or axe to grind. DBA takes a broad strokes approach to its subject matter, pitting weapon systems against opposing weapon systems, and makes no attempt to simulate in detail any particular battle or campaign. This makes it vulnerable to criticism from smart people who can knock it for not being able to exactly simulate and recreate even well known battles such as Marathon and is the basis for much of the proposed amendments and rewriting of the rules, almost all of it untested and subject to criticism itself. This thread is a perfect example of this process as it started out as a 'house rule' [in the wrong section of the forum, it must be said] for two 'radical ideas' that were quickly shot down in flames but led to many diverse counter proposals: give EAP side support and of course English Longbows need a special rule, but then Spear would need side and rear support, let archers ignore TZ target priorities, make archers +3 against infantry, +4 against cavalry and/or -1 for units shot at close range, then there's Ax and Artillery and War Wagons and solid foot ... DBA3 is a relatively simple, entry level game and if some players find it too limiting and unrealistic then I respectfully suggest that they switch to a more complex set of rules such as DBMM or old WRG 6th that might be more to their taste. Alternatively, there is also the option to write your own set of rules entirely (Triumph Too), or discuss house rules in the house rules section only. Finally, with a little lateral thought it is possible to rationalise how well DBA3 can simulate a battle that we're told can't be recreated without special rules or rewriting the system. For example, a thin Greek centre at Marathon is easily simulated by an unsupported single spear element opposed by double overlapping EAP archers, making it an even fight that could see the Persians beating the Greek centre.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 10, 2018 12:20:44 GMT
Phil want Aux better than Bows - but your correct +2 that can't flee are terrible in Close. English archers tended to fight as "Aux w/Bows". Same may be said of other archers (crossbowmen often had lots of armor). Since we allow in K&K Medium Foot w/Swords (+4 v. Foot; +2 v. Mounted), we can accomodate "Aux" with better Close Combat than "Heavy Bow" (Medium Foot w/Longbow +3 v. Foot; +4 v. Mounted as opposed to Medium Foot w/Bow +2 v. Foot; +4 v. Mounted). TomT Maybe he should have made Ax a +4/+3 in CC and Bw a +3/+4 then? But then he would have had them too effective against Ps?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 10, 2018 17:03:05 GMT
In general, I think the issue we keep running into is the calibration of combat factors. In an ideal DBA setting, all we'd need would be combat factors, tactical factors, and the combat results table of beaten and destroyed. However the relative lack of granularity of the d6 combat system is both a blessing and a curse. It's what makes DBA great, but also has insurmountable limitations. Ratio-based d6 combat outcomes are interesting, and work well across the majority of cases. In cases where we believe the combat model can be adjusted to give better overall outcomes, that should and can be attempted. Tom, I like your approach, however that is, as far as I can tell, for a different system that is not anywhere near as widely played as DBA. I think it is likely a far better historical model, and I think it has great potential, but until it combines ancients and medieval in a single system, it may struggle? It'll get there though, of that I am convinced In vanilla DBA, I believe that the representation of Bw as +2/+4 is inadequate, as we have plenty of cases historically where archers put up a stiff and enduring fight against enemy heavy foot. DBA is above all an evidenced-based game. And the evidence it seeks to focus on is battlefield behaviour of the troops, and ultimate outcomes - big picture. Not the minutiae of weapons systems and formation changes. Bows as represented in DBA do not adequately reflect the outcomes described in historical accounts. I think the shooting model works (except the last minute, totally non-DBA targeting requirement that was added into DBA v3 at the last minute, for ZERO appropriate reasons other than "it seemed like a good idea at the time"). It was definitely not fully play tested in Bows-versus-foot settings. Removing the requirement to shoot at foot targets in a TZ will improve the Bows-versus-foot. It isn't enough, but it is better. Removing ALL shooting requirements in the TZ, and putting the close combat factors of Bows to +3/+2 or +1 (and simultaneously dropping all Bow vs mounted QK results), and shooting as +2/+4, may have yielded interesting, and simpler, results...?
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 13, 2018 15:50:19 GMT
DBX is capable of producing historical results with much simpler mechanics than those of DBMM or even the French game. But not within the context of the 12 element DBA model. I agree with all the posters that we should stop trying to monkey around with the DBA 3.0 mechanics - first its Phil's game and I know his ideas are quite different than those proposed, its almost impossible to do anything that will not effect play balance between element types and your always stuck with the 12 elements (only) no "points" balance problem.
I'e already done a game intended to solve these problems (which are very real) by using simpler methods than those proposed here. (By the way the solution to the "Ps" v. "Heavy Aux" is to base "Fleeing" on movement allowance - so Fast Ps (3BW) can still Flee slower 2BW "Heavy" Aux. But this requires comprehensive rethinking about how we use the very excellent DBX mechanics. Most problems cannot be solved by bandaiding over them - but you can explode complexity - see DBMM.)
The Longbow and Pike problems are largely solved (even D3H2 pretty much solves them) - the Persians v. Greeks appears a bit tougher so that's what we should concentrate on. I still hope the Persians's getting Shield Wall will work. Though I think double elements may be the heart of the problem.
So play DBA 3.0 for what its worth - and just have fun wit it. But we do need a version of DBX to compete with the French game (and games yet to appear) so pondering who to do things better is still quite worth our while.
TomT
|
|