|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 5, 2018 20:09:29 GMT
Stevie, I personally just find it better to scroll past personal nonsense.
Interestingly, have you noticed how Persian Takabara (peltasts) are modelled with bows by most figure manufacturers? Sone manufacturers show Kardakes similarly armed, and some show them as almost hoplites, minus the Corinthian helm.
Alexander's battle plan at Granicus required his HI to advance and close rapidly with the Persians to avoid being shot down by bowfire. I modelled such Persian foot as having shooting at +2/+3. It works quite well, and would align with Tom's ideas for DBx. If they are +4 shooting against mounted, the Companions get too much gunfire incoming.
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jul 6, 2018 7:26:07 GMT
Once again I have had to step into this discussion due to the comments of a contributor who has been recently warned about similar behaviour. He has now been banned.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 6, 2018 9:07:22 GMT
Trying to keep up with this thread is challenging however following on from my last post a few comments/observations. 1. I note someone on the thread has mentioned unsourced comments. For my quote in an earlier post on this thread on the belief that archers are 'the most necessary thing in the world for an army' but needed in large numbers (small being useless). This is from AMA vol 1 (WRG) pg 53. It is by Commynes (Philip de Comines) who fought with Charles the Bold at two battles, Montl'hery (1465) and Brusthem (1467) - so we can assume he knew (at least for longbow) what he was talking about. 2. It has been proposed here that archers need to be better in melee. I agree but only for Longbow - as there is plenty of historical evidence for this. I should also say that for the HYW and such that this increase is as much justified by the effectiveness of point blank shooting as by the archers hand-to-hand combat ability. My own personal view as mentioned previously is to give Lb the capacity to kill opposing foot on a draw (see my previous comment for exact proposal). I should note that for Bows other than Lb I have not to date seen any evidence presented to show that they should be better in close combat than they already are. This may seem a bit harsh but empirically this is I think correct. If there is empirical evidence (of battlefield performance) to counter this then I am happy to see it presented. Unfortunately evidence in most periods of archers (excluding later longbows) in close combat is lacking and the only cases I have found so far (besides Greeks vs Persians etc) indicate archers vulnerability vs medium/heavy infantry. Namely legionaries vs Mithradites archers, Arminius' Germans vs 'Roman' archers, Thracians vs 'Roman' archers and Dio commenting that Roman archers in Britain were vulnerable to charging Britons. These examples are all mentioned in 'The Roman Army at War 100BC-200AD' by Adrian Goldsworthy (pg 188-189). 3. Sparabara (8Bw and such) are a bit of a problem as much because the first loss costs 2 elements as anything else. One option might be to not count their loss as two elements (so just one) but to NOT allow them to move and shoot in same bound (pavises and such would indicate they are stationary shooters) - indeed this could well apply to all other such (eg 8Cb, 8Lb etc). It would leave them stil vulnerable to heavier infantry (the rmoval of the TZ issue would help a tad) but I'm not sure they were that successful against them historivally (again evidence to contaray welcome). 4. Previously I also mentioned the idea of Bw shooting and not shot at to have a +3 (as agaisnt currently a +2) factor vs foot. It seems that some (Stevie) think this is a non-starter - I'm not so sure and still think it viable (and more importantly historical - archers were given respect at range by their opponents which is why they would try to close with said archers as quickly as possible). A somewhat watered down alternative would be to use the above rule proposal only when the target shot at is Fast foot - as an example Galwegians [Wb(F)] certainly found English archery unpleasant at Northallerton (1138) and no doubt many other lightly armoured foot found the same. It would certainly balance up a bit the advantage that Fast foot currently have of being able to rapidly contact Bw. 4. For 44Ax I agree that something should be done vs heavier foot (along lines of what primuspilus has suggested). Now I just have to wait for Stevies reply cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 6, 2018 10:56:24 GMT
...and you won’t have to wait for long Barritus. I agree with Primuspilus about Alexander facing at least some arrow shooting Persians. Here are a few quotes from the ancient historians. Arrian’s description of the battle of Issus:- “But when they came within range of darts, Alexander himself and those around him being posted on the right wing, advanced first into the river with a run, in order to alarm the Persians by the rapidity of their onset, and by coming sooner to close conflict to receive little damage from the archers.” (See www.gutenberg.org/files/46976/46976-h/46976-h.htm#Page_99 Book II, Chapter X, paragraph 100)While Diodorus somewhat flamboyantly says of the battle of Issus:- “When the armies were within missile range, the Persians launched at Alexander such a shower of missiles that they collided with one another in the air, so thickly did they fly, and weakened the force of their impact.” (See penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/17B*.html#30 Book XVII, section 33, p211)But rather than make a new Persian troop type, I’d be happy with simply adjusting the II/7 Late Persian army list to:- 3 x kardakes (4Ax) or takabara (3Ax or 3Bw) or mercenary hoplites (Sp) or [in 329 BC] Saka horse archers (LH) As for the Athenian victory at Marathon, yes, the hoplites did defeat the Persian bowmen...but what about the earlier battles? After being under Persian dominion for some 40 years, the Ionian Greeks in western coastal Anatolia rebelled in 499 BC and were supported by an Athenian contingent. At first successful, these Ionian and allied hoplites were decisively defeated by the Persians at the battle of Ephesus in 498 BC, and the whole of Ionia reconquered. Had the Persians been totally useless, then they wouldn’t have been able to reconquer Ionia, and Marathon would never have taken place. Also, it is interesting to note that at Marathon the Athenians waited for some five days before opening the battle. The same thing happened at Plataea in 479 BC. This time the allied hoplite army waited for 10 days, and it was the Persians that finally attacked when the Greeks began to fall back to secure a better supply line. So why the hesitation? With a DBA CF of 5 against a CF 2 it will be a walkover. Or could it be that the Greeks knew something that we don’t, and that they themselves were not as convinced as DBA is that it would be so easy? It is because of this questioning of just how superior the hoplites were compared to Persian bowmen that many players think that bows, and not just Persian bows, are a little too weak in close combat (the same also applies to the weakness of Hannibal’s Ax when facing the Roman Bd at Cannae...something that many players have noted and complained about for decades...and that is only CF 3 v CF 5, let alone the bows CF 2 v CF 5!). So it is in this light that Joe Collins has come up with the interesting idea, that of +1 PIP to contact bows, in an attempt to redress this weakness. Before you dismiss it out of hand, do please at least give it a try, and see exactly how it operates before passing judgement. If you try it and don’t like it then fine. But how can you say it won’t work if you won’t even give it a go? 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 martin on Jul 6, 2018 12:36:26 GMT
Once again I have had to step into this discussion due to the comments of a contributor who has been recently warned about similar behaviour. He has now been banned. Hi Cromwell Thanks for taking the reins of Forum admin, as recently announced, and for moderating. I don’t recall the post or poster which caused you to have to ban the said contributor, but I do hope that this done as a ‘last resort’. (I may not have spotted the particular post, and you seem a very balanced sort of guy, so I can’t imagine it was done without due thought and process). A thought - Some of the relentless “we could completely change DBA into DBMM” commentary that has been prevalent recently could conceivably have riled someone, who then used unsuitable words when blood pressure got the better of them . Might it perhaps be an idea that a thread like this one be moved to the HOUSERULES section, so we are all instantly aware that it’s not some ‘sanctioned by Mr Barker’ rewrite of 3.0 which may later be forced upon us, rather than being in actuality for players seeking ideas for changes in a house rule setting?? Glad to see players trying things out as it suits them. Less pleased when there is an inference that some of us ‘don’t know what’s good for us’, and have ‘the wrong view of history’. Hoping this won’t get me banned, as I’ve tried to word it as openly and honestly as I can. Kind regards Martin standing by for the reaction.............!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 6, 2018 13:18:47 GMT
And I entirely agree with you Martin (bet you didn’t see that coming! ). Yes, perhaps it would be better to move this thread to the House Rule section. That way we can segregate those people who would like change from those that resist any changes whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 6, 2018 15:52:04 GMT
And I entirely agree with you Martin (bet you didn’t see that coming! ). Yes, perhaps it would be better to move this thread to the House Rule section. That way we can segregate those people who would like change from those that resist any changes whatsoever. I don't object to change, but unless and until there is a revised new edition, any changes we may come up with are house rules. Not that there is anything wrong with house rules either, but one needs to remember that not everyone will want to adopt them.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 6, 2018 16:48:33 GMT
Once again I have had to step into this discussion due to the comments of a contributor who has been recently warned about similar behaviour. He has now been banned. Hi Cromwell Thanks for taking the reins of Forum admin, as recently announced, and for moderating. I don’t recall the post or poster which caused you to have to ban the said contributor, but I do hope that this done as a ‘last resort’. (I may not have spotted the particular post, and you seem a very balanced sort of guy, so I can’t imagine it was done without due thought and process). A thought - Some of the relentless “we could completely change DBA into DBMM” commentary that has been prevalent recently could conceivably have riled someone, who then used unsuitable words when blood pressure got the better of them . Might it perhaps be an idea that a thread like this one be moved to the HOUSERULES section, so we are all instantly aware that it’s not some ‘sanctioned by Mr Barker’ rewrite of 3.0 which may later be forced upon us, rather than being in actuality for players seeking ideas for changes in a house rule setting?? Glad to see players trying things out as it suits them. Less pleased when there is an inference that some of us ‘don’t know what’s good for us’, and have ‘the wrong view of history’. Hoping this won’t get me banned, as I’ve tried to word it as openly and honestly as I can. Kind regards Martin standing by for the reaction.............!!!!!!
I am not opposed either... however....
I want to be clear.
The initial post of this thread... was to try rule changes that will perhaps be official in 3.1...
A 3.1 that will be fully endorsed by WRG.
It has of course grown beyond my initial scope... (which is fine... a lot of good discussion has occurred).
I also want to be clear that I don't oppose Tom's ideas... In fact I support them completely. He is looking more forward than I am... towards "Knights & Knaves" or perhaps DBA 4.0...
I am looking toward an interim publication... that fine-tunes 3.0 without making large changes.
So, if moved... I may make a new thread to further my topic (no doubt only to be derailed... but hey... that is part of the fun).
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 6, 2018 18:35:05 GMT
Well, Joe, the thread has diverged completely from your original post, and seems to have become a place to propose changes to the rules which may OR MAY NOT be closer to historical results.
There is a danger that some may see their view of battle 2000+ years ago as more accurate than the views of others of our community, and be inclined to force their views upon the rest, by sheer weight of verbiage if necessary. This is despite the rules having been written by a man with a considerably deeper level of knowledge than the vast majority of us. The arguments and counterarguments about the effect of massed bowfire highlight that it is perfectly possible and reasonable to support both change and no change to the rules. Whose opinion among us is more ‘accurate’? Which historical examples do we pick to back our arguments, and which do we choose to ignore?
Every minor change in DBA causes knock-on effects which ripple through the system. It’s very finely balanced, as you are well aware, and intentionally a ‘broad-brush’ approach to warfare. Any minor tweak to ‘more accurately replicate’ a particular epoch will cause an inconsistency for a different part of the 4500 years covered. That, perhaps, is why DBMM exists, for those who wish to fine tune the minor local effects, and subsequently play it in a 2 to 3 hours plus game. Barbed comments that some of us “resist any changes whatsoever” do not take into account that some of us may feel the proposed changes may not produce any more historical a game than we already have.
I guess it may come down to whether your philosophy is one of “change at any cost” or “only change if unavoidable”.
Apologies if my views disagree with those of some others, but so it goes. I’d rather speak out than be shouted down, even if my opinion may run contrary to that of some other Fanaticus members.
Regards
Martin
Standing by for further reaction....light blue touchpaper and retire......
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 6, 2018 20:01:10 GMT
Which historical examples do we pick to back our arguments, and which do we choose to ignore? I can answer your rhetorical question Martin with a simple one word answer...Cannae. For decades players have noticed and complained that the 4Ax class is too weak to stand up to Bd to reproduce this battle. But every version of DBA has so far ignored this, one of the most famous ancient battles of all time. It's as if Cannae has been airbrushed out of DBA history, and pretended that this well documented engagement never happened. As wargamers all we want are rules that make our little metal soldiers behave as the ancient historians said they did. In most cases they do...but in some cases they don’t. Now we can ignore this weakness and play on (and assume that Polybius was lying...after all, DBA can’t be wrong can it?). Or we can accept that some things in DBA are not quite right, and still play on (and just helplessly shrug our shoulders). Or perhaps we can do something about it (but only if the fix is clean, simple, and with no destabilizing knock-on effects). I know this thread is not about the 4Ax weakness, and I only mention it as an example to show that some things (fortunately few) are still not quite right in DBA 3.0.
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Jul 6, 2018 21:24:33 GMT
I can answer your rhetorical question Martin with a simple one word answer...Cannae. Terrible Example. Cannae is notoriously difficult to simulate, by most systems. It's one of these outliers that requires special rules, as having the spanish/gallic line recoil without collapsing just doesn't happen very often (the most oft touted solution for DBM was to to rate the Spanish/gauls as Inferior Bd: high factors lead to long protracted fights. I think that Warhammer historicals had a "fall back in good order" special rules, probably better). It would be interseting to see if Triumph fares better.
This being said, 4Ax are absolutely pants in 3.0 and something should be done. Side support probably the more elegant and natural option.
|
|