|
Post by stevie on Jun 23, 2018 8:32:44 GMT
Otherwise we would be being very judgemental and tantamount to saying that we consider HYW longbows and Persian sparabara as being special and important and need the fix, but as for those Shang Chinese/Palmyran/Ghaznavid 4Bw, who cares, let them die with their pathetic CF 2 when they face blades CF 5.
I am happy to admit that I have absolutely no idea how the Shang Chinese/Palmyran/Ghaznavid archers performed against heavy infantry. Do they need a boost? Jim Ha! Nor do I Jim, nor do I. But if one 4Bw is deemed to be weak, then they all are, because DBA is blind and as far as the the rules are concerned a 4Bw is just a 4Bw and an 8Bw is just an 8Bw. Or do we only apply the fix to our favourite armies and sod the rest? 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 23, 2018 15:59:38 GMT
But not all 4Bw are the same are they? Why are there rules specifically for Lb and Cb if they are all the same? Seems to me that the designer realised that some are different, otherwise the Lb/Cb distinction would be unwarranted. There are fudges in DBA and I don't begrudge it. Most Vikings fought with Spear and could form a shieldwall and yet they are Bd in DBA. To make fixes that suit our favourite armies without considering the knock-on effect is also a form of sodding.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 23, 2018 16:06:00 GMT
I am happy with changes that effect all 8Bw, Lb and Cb because I believe that PB would've given serious thought to categorising these troops with these labels with significant weight the historical prototype such as English longbow and Persian Sparabara. I am as yet unconvinced by historical examples of 4Bw being underpowered.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 23, 2018 17:37:26 GMT
I don't know, Jim, EAP are 4/8 Bw. DBA schtick is that there is supposed to be no real mini-maxing with elements. (Not strictly true, but that IS the intent).
So I should be able to take 4Bw or 8Bw in EAP and not totally crap the bed. Is that the case?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 23, 2018 18:18:33 GMT
I've never quite known what the 4Bw were supposed to represent as the Royal army was invariably sparabara. Maybe early days of empire? Maybe satrapal forces without trained infantry? A quick look at the enemies list and 4Bw would be OK against non-Sp heavy enemies. Against Lydians and Greeks they would've been sparabara I think. But you have more experience playing EAP. What are your thoughts?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 24, 2018 5:55:39 GMT
I think Phil has been being very flexible with peoples' views of what ancient armies were. With Thracians, for instance, there is a view you can have as to whether they'd be solid or fast.
For EAP Phil is channeling the fact that the research is very inconclusive as to how many Sparabara there were, were they that common, some reliefs show them, some don't. He is giving the player the final say over their army, based on theie view of the research.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 25, 2018 20:22:26 GMT
For historical armies you need both Bow (+2/+4) and Longbow/Heavy Bow (+3/+4). Phil wanted to make all Bow +3 v. Foot when shooting (as in DBMM) but backed down in face of traditional DBA playtesters (who quit anyway - but Phil tried to molifiy them) dissent. But I think we need the lesser Bows.
Its a solved problem - just use D3H2 and leave tournament rules for tournaments. No amount of scalpel surgery is going to get the 12 element game work as history. Army sizes and abilities varied too much. We just spent years on DBA 3.0 with plenty of dissent regarding even these modest improvements - we did all we could.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 25, 2018 22:26:55 GMT
For historical armies you need both Bow (+2/+4) and Longbow/Heavy Bow (+3/+4). Phil wanted to make all Bow +3 v. Foot when shooting (as in DBMM) but backed down in face of traditional DBA playtesters (who quit anyway - but Phil tried to molifiy them) dissent. But I think we need the lesser Bows. Its a solved problem - just use D3H2 and leave tournament rules for tournaments. No amount of scalpel surgery is going to get the 12 element game work as history. Army sizes and abilities varied too much. We just spent years on DBA 3.0 with plenty of dissent regarding even these modest improvements - we did all we could. TomT TomT, does that mean we have: - "Light" 4Bw (+2/+4) in shooting and cc
- "Heavy" 4Bw (+3/+4) shooting, (+2/+4) cc
- Longbow/Crossbow (same as Heavy 4Bw with extra QK abilities)
- Pavisiers 8Bw (+3/+4) shooting, (+3/+4) cc
Do I have that right? Just trying to keep my head right. I'd remove the 1BW support limit, and be good. But of course, need to test... Chris
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 26, 2018 10:28:40 GMT
For historical armies you need both Bow (+2/+4) and Longbow/Heavy Bow (+3/+4). Phil wanted to make all Bow +3 v. Foot when shooting (as in DBMM) but backed down in face of traditional DBA playtesters (who quit anyway - but Phil tried to molifiy them) dissent. But I think we need the lesser Bows. Its a solved problem - just use D3H2 and leave tournament rules for tournaments. No amount of scalpel surgery is going to get the 12 element game work as history. Army sizes and abilities varied too much. We just spent years on DBA 3.0 with plenty of dissent regarding even these modest improvements - we did all we could. TomT TomT, does that mean we have: - "Light" 4Bw (+2/+4) in shooting and cc
- "Heavy" 4Bw (+3/+4) shooting, (+2/+4) cc
- Longbow/Crossbow (same as Heavy 4Bw with extra QK abilities)
- Pavisiers 8Bw (+3/+4) shooting, (+3/+4) cc
Do I have that right? Just trying to keep my head right. I'd remove the 1BW support limit, and be good. But of course, need to test... I think he means: 1. Fast (light) bow: +2/+4 2. Solid bow: +3/+4 But then Pavisiers become +4 against foot in CC. This is going to make Ps and 3Ax really, really crappy against 4/8Bw, unfortunately. This is why I proposed more of a targeted set of results. Focus n what needs adjustment, and adjust only that.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 26, 2018 16:17:04 GMT
In D3H2 its: Bow (+2/+4) can be Fast (optional) (DBA 3.0 Bow).
AND
Longbow/Crossbow (+3/+4) can be Fast (optional) (if not Fast Cry Havoc v. Knights) (HOTT Shooters).
In Knights and Knaves its: Medium Foot (+3) with Bow (-1 v. Foot; +1 v. Mounted); w/Longbow (+1 v. Mounted); w/Crossbow (+1 v. Mounted shoot only in own Bound). If you give them Stakes or Caltrops any Bow gains Cry Havoc v. Knights. Bow & Longbow can be Fast (but can't take Stakes).
As to killing Ps, they should Flee v. Destroyed result from shooting. As to Aux in D3H2 I recommend using Fast Spear as "heavy" Aux.
In Knights and Knaves you can get Medium Foot w/Sword (+1 v. Foot -1 v. Mounted) to get tougher Aux.
We need to get this topic back to 8BW counted as Spear for side support. Might put this in D3H2 despite pledge not to change Phil rules. Is it a net plus?
Thanks for all the feedback so far...
TomT
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 26, 2018 16:34:18 GMT
Also overhead shooting. Alternative concept: we get rid of 8BW and instead just have general overhead shooting rule (-1CF to shoot overhead except v. opposing shooters). Front rank element just fights as normal (Spear etc.) in CC. Must be lined up adjacent etc. to shoot over friend.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 26, 2018 16:43:00 GMT
Ok, so we've got: Fast Bw and Regular Bw at +2/+4. Fast bow is beaten on ties by solid foot in cc. I can dig that, although not sure which army would get it. For the 8Bw, has side support been tested? So they would be +2 +1(side support) +1(deep against foot) = +4/+3 in cc in a battleline. So many ideas, I'm starting to lose track
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 26, 2018 16:45:14 GMT
Also overhead shooting. Alternative concept: we get rid of 8BW and instead just have general overhead shooting rule (-1CF to shoot overhead except v. opposing shooters). Front rank element just fights as normal (Spear etc.) in CC. Must be lined up adjacent etc. to shoot over friend. TomT Actually I quite like this. For Persian Spears, to differentiate them from Greek Hoplites, could you have Fast Spear? No side support, and lose on ties, but +4/+4 so inferior but not so much? For Bw behind extend their range to be 3 from the front of the front unit, and keep them at +2/+4. A new concept for DBA, but a good one, although it would decrease the number of Persian units. Instead of a single 8Bw, they now have 2 units like 4Pk that basically HAVE to be behind each other reducing the frontage.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 27, 2018 6:31:39 GMT
So although Triumph is a different game, it borrows heavily from dba. It ranks pavisiers as 3/4 in both shooting and cc. Just happened to read that.
I wonder if the extra 1 in shooting could disrupt enemies as they come in enough to win sometimes? Then again I don’t know if Triumph has side support for spears so maybe 8bw also needs side support? I did a play test again with no new rules except no 1bw support range and the 8bw still survived longer than expected...
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 27, 2018 15:24:15 GMT
Overhead shooting is just for K&K where I can do anything I (we) want - its too exotic for even D3H2 which must stick with Phil rules (though I reshuffle a bit). K&K breaks everything down to the core and remakes it so its a great place to look at new ideas and ways to get rid of double bases.
You do need something for medieval battles to cover Crossbow/Pavisers but the +3/+4 Crossbow works without having to create a new troop type (its why the troop types are such a bad idea to add any nuance you have to create a whole new troop type (how does it interact with terrian, what's the CF, what Quick Kills it; what does it Quick Kill, Movement Allowance etc. - all need answers).
TomT
|
|