|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 27, 2018 17:22:33 GMT
So against a proposed +3/+4 for bows in shooting AND close combat, poor Croesus with his 4Ax proto-hoplites is utterly effed aginst Cyrus. Call Cyrus and tell him he doesn't need to bother with Camels. We have heavy machine guns...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 27, 2018 20:09:58 GMT
So against a proposed +3/+4 for bows in shooting AND close combat, poor Croesus with his 4Ax proto-hoplites is utterly effed aginst Cyrus. Call Cyrus and tell him he doesn't need to bother with Camels. We have heavy machine guns... Fair points: Ok, as far as I understand it, the challenge is: 1) Improve 8Bw against a battleline of 4Sp 2) Improve 4Bw against ( 3) Prevent improvements to 8Bw/4Bw from screwing over 4Ax (or indeed non Sp elements) Suggestions (some independant of each other, some not): 1) Side Support for 8Bw to other 8Bw 2) +3/+4 for Bw shooting and cc 3) +2/+4 for Bw shooting, +3/+4 for cc 4) +1 PIP to charge Bw 5) Fast 4Bw in addition to Solid 4Bw 6) Remove 1BW supporting fire distance 7) Overhead shooting of Bw over front elements Primus, on an army basis, would making Cyrus' Bw Fast mitigate against the +3/+4? Definitely aware we don't want to make changes that simply cause ANOTHER problem with another element
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 27, 2018 20:40:49 GMT
I agree with Primuspilus. Tom, aren’t you becoming a victim of your own fears?:- Quote: “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 terrain, what's the CF, what Quick Kills it; what does it Quick Kill, Movement Allowance etc. - all need answers).” By making Crossbows/Longbows +3/+4, you are increasing their effect when shooting at foot, and when in close combat with Ps, Ax, Wb, Hd, and when in bad going (none of which anybody asked for), when all that is wanted is a simple +1 against Sp/Pk/Bd. But to be fair to Tom, he is proposing leaving ‘ordinary’ bows as +2/+4...which of course fixes nothing, and still leaves bows too weak in close combat with Sp/Pk/Bd, and is what started this whole debate in the first place. So rather than leave bows as weak as they are, and turning Cb/Lb into some sort of ‘super shooters’ (with all the associated unwanted side effects), why not have a more precise and more surgical fix as Primuspilus suggested:- +1 to solid Ax and solid Bw when in close combat with Bd, supported Pk, or Sp (except in bad going, or when defending or assaulting a City, Fort, or Camp).
Just fix the bit that needs fixing, with no side-effects, no knock-on effects, and it applies to all bows in all armies in all periods. All this from one simple extra tactical factor, which can be in the ‘Advanced Historical Rules’ so it would have no effect on the basic ‘Tournament Rules’ (and it doesn’t require players to re-base their existing 8Bw elements either). 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 greedo on Jun 27, 2018 23:25:30 GMT
I agree with Primuspilus. Tom, aren’t you becoming a victim of your own fears?:- Quote: “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 terrain, what's the CF, what Quick Kills it; what does it Quick Kill, Movement Allowance etc. - all need answers).” By making Crossbows/Longbows +3/+4, you are increasing their effect when shooting at foot, and when in close combat with Ps, Ax, Wb, Hd, and when in bad going (none of which anybody asked for), when all that is wanted is a simple +1 against Sp/Pk/Bd. But to be fair to Tom, he is proposing leaving ‘ordinary’ bows as +2/+4...which of course fixes nothing, and still leaves bows too weak in close combat with Sp/Pk/Bd, and is what started this whole debate in the first place. So rather than leave bows as weak as they are, and turning Cb/Lb into some sort of ‘super shooters’ (with all the associated unwanted side effects), why not have a more precise and more surgical fix as Primuspilus suggested:- +1 to solid Ax and solid Bw when in close combat with Bd, supported Pk, or Sp (except in bad going, or when defending or assaulting a City, Fort, or Camp).
Just fix the bit that needs fixing, with no side-effects, no knock-on effects, and it applies to all bows in all armies in all periods. All this from one simple extra tactical factor, which can be in the ‘Advanced Historical Rules’ so it would have no effect on the basic ‘Tournament Rules’ (and it doesn’t require players to re-base their existing 8Bw elements either). 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
I agree with this in principle, and perhaps mechanically it would yield more realistic results. But it just seems odd that bows get more powerful when confronted by a more powerful enemy. Perhaps I need to be thinking of it from a historical enemies perspective, in which Bw facing Sp are a very specific army matchup, whereas Bw facing Ax is also very specific. It really does sound like another element is being invented (to PrimusPilus' and Stevie's point) that is Bw, except is +3/+4, and is available to armies that tend to face heavy infantry. So perhaps 8Bw becomes 8Pa, effectively a new element that is very much like bow, but is +3/+4, and is only available to those armies that would take 8Bw.... This leaves the 4Bw heavy armies alone. Either that, or a CRAZY idea. You add a 3rd CF: So 3/4/8Bw, instead of +2/+4 for foot/mounted you have +2/+3/+4 for light foot/heavy foot/mounted, making the Combat Factor table slightly more complicated. But have to be careful we don't fall down a rabbit hole of light foot/heavy foot/medium foot/light mounted/heavy mounted type insanity! Chris
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 28, 2018 2:38:44 GMT
Some years ago I came up with an idea to improve all Bows vs foot (as I think they are too weak in that regard);
Namely change the shooting factors vs foot as follows
a) Bows shooting and neither shot at or shot back at. +3 b) Bows in other circumstances. +2
It did I think work quite well - certainly encourages foot to try to get at Bows but is not too deadly. Bows usually need to gang up on a target to have a real chance to kill it. This is historically inline with a (Burgundian ?) comment that said bows are essential for an army but useless in small numbers.
Recently I also added in Stevies idea of removing the TZ target restrictions (as in former versions of DBA).
I then tried out a couple of 4x8Bw vs 4xSp tests. PIPs I gave a base of 2 to each side with a +1 PIP if they rolled an even PIP dice (so max of 3 all up). This was to balance the fact that PIPs in a 12 element a side game would also be needed elsewhere. First side to kill 2 elements won.
Results 1 win to each side. So I'd say that wasn't a bad result (for the 8Bw). The 8Bw win took longer than the Sp win and was trickier to obtain - but I'd say that was fair - the Sp really should have a better than 50:50 chance of beating Persian bows .
Oh and did I tell you about improving 4Ax.....an another story.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 28, 2018 5:40:39 GMT
barritus, this seems to hit the right notes for me... Makes Bw better at what they do, i.e. shoot from a distance and disrupt enemy.. Combined Bw even close has a good chance of killing (haven't calculated it, but Stevie will ) And doesn't make Bw into better Ax since their cc is still worse, so you're not tempted to put the archers into the front rank to fight. AND, 8Bw is still better in cc with CF3 vs foot, but now has the distance power to disrupt the hoplites more before they make contact. So: 1) No more 1BW minimum Bw support range 2) +3 distance fire if unopposed 3) Still +2cc base And we have a test that seems decent. I tested once (same as barritus'). 8Bw lost after recoiling a central 1x4Sp, so costing an extra 2 PIPs to make contact. 8Bw got killed, but those extra PIPs could have been costly on the flanks. I like it. And it's a dang simple change that seems to sit right with the rules as Phil wrote them. How does this sit with the Medieval gang? 4Ax can be another thread, but I still do like the optional 1BW recoil for them... Chris
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 28, 2018 10:03:47 GMT
Some years ago I came up with an idea to improve all Bows vs foot (as I think they are too weak in that regard); a) Bows shooting and neither shot at or shot back at. +3 b) Bows in other circumstances. +2 Nice idea Barritus...but it addresses the wrong thing, makes a change no-one is asking for, and doesn’t fit the historical accounts. At the moment, three CF 2 shooters targeting a CF 3 foot element (such as Ax, Pk, Wb) has 9 chances out of 36 of doubling them. Make that three shooters with CF 3 targeting a CF 3 foot element and it would become 12 chances out of 36 of doubling them. And still the CF 2 bows/Cb/Lb will be slaughtered in close combat by Bd/Sp, with 12 chances of being doubled (18 if overlapped...and they will be because of all the CF 2 recoils...good grief, the CF 2 element only has 6 chances out of 36 of avoiding being recoiled or destroyed!) That doesn’t fit with the medieval accounts of their battlefield performance at Poitiers and Agincourt does it. They need to be a bit better in close combat, not distance shooting. Tom knows this, which is why he suggests a CF of 3 against foot (but that has unwanted knock-on effects against Ps/Ax/Wb/Hd). Joe knows this, which is why he is trying to make it harder to actually contact bows (with his +1 PIP to contact them). Primuspilus’ idea goes right to the heart of the matter (if they are weak in close combat against Bd/Sp/Pk, then make them better). Phil Barker knows this as well, which is why he added side-support for shooters (but that is still not quite enough on it’s own). Interestingly, the cure used in DBMM eliminates this weakness. And do you know the cure that was used? He made Bd have a CF of 4 in close combat, and the Pk CF is 3 +1 for the 2nd and 3rd ranks, so a CF of 5. That’s right...instead of increasing the bow CF by 1, he reduced the heavy foot by 1. Perhaps he was planning on doing the same with DBA to fix these issues and bring DBA more in line with DBMM, but he never did because of all the resistance put up by the old guard players, who didn’t want any changes to DBA, so we are stuck with it. 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 Jun 28, 2018 10:08:11 GMT
I agree with Primuspilus. Rather than leave bows as weak as they are, and turning Cb/Lb into some sort of ‘super shooters’ (with all the associated unwanted side effects), why not have a more precise and more surgical fix as Primuspilus suggested:- +1 to solid Ax and solid Bw when in close combat with Bd, supported Pk, or Sp (except in bad going, or when defending or assaulting a City, Fort, or Camp).
Just fix the bit that needs fixing, with no side-effects, no knock-on effects, and it applies to all bows in all armies in all periods. All this from one simple extra tactical factor, which can be in the ‘Advanced Historical Rules’ so it would have no effect on the basic ‘Tournament Rules’ (and it doesn’t require players to re-base their existing 8Bw elements either).
I agree with this in principle, and perhaps mechanically it would yield more realistic results. But it just seems odd that bows get more powerful when confronted by a more powerful enemy. But Greedo, DBA is littered with illogical things that have been added purely to make the system work and give the right behaviour. Here is a small sample:- Bows getting side-support: why? Bows don’t form shield walls! (ah, although it’s illogical, it’s an excuse to give an extra +1 where needed, and it encourages historical battlefield behaviour, at least in the medieval period). Spears getting side-support: wouldn’t each individual within an element lock shields with their neighbour, and not just when another friendly body of the right type touches the end of their line? (again, although it’s illogical, it’s an excuse to give an extra +1 where needed, and it encourages historical battlefield behaviour). Pikes pursuing: of all the troops types that need to keep an orderly formation and not become disordered it’s pikes! So why do they wildly pursue like a bunch of barbarians in a warband? (ah, although it’s illogical, it’s an excuse to give -1’s due to overlaps, otherwise they would would just push each other about with no decisive result). I could go on: fast foot moving at the same speed as heavy mounted (!), X-ray threat zones (!), Knights being no more effective than Psiloi when they charge an enemy flank (!), undisciplined barbarian Cavalry such as the Gauls and Germans after going through all the trouble of routing the opposing element just sit there and watch as the enemy run away instead of pursuing them (!), shooters must target an enemy in their threat zone but Artillery does not (!), shooting being fully effective if you are in range and ceasing suddenly to nothing if you’re 1mm beyond that range instead of decreasing steadily with distance (!), camps that are far too small to actually contain an army (!), area terrain pieces that must be at least a base width from each other (!), and so on. All these things make no sense to our 21st century thinking, but are there so that our little metal soldiers act like the ancient historians said they did, or sometimes purely for play balance. Because that is what an historical wargame is all about, simulating real life behaviour, even if the rule itself makes no logical sense. And believe it or not, there is a higher authority than DBA, an even higher authority than even Phil Barker himself... ...and that higher authority is the writings of the ancient historians. If our 21st century logic gives a result on our wargames table that matches the ancient historians, there’s a chance it may be right. If our 21st century logic gives a result that is contrary to what the ancient historians said happened, it is most definitely wrong! This is why I dislike using 21st century logic...I just go by what the ancient historians say. They knew far more about ancient warfare than we today, no matter how clever we think we are, will ever know. So, getting back to Primuspilus’ simple suggestion for a new tactical factor:- +1 if solid Ax or solid bows are in close combat with Bd, supported Pk, or Sp (except when in bad going, etc, etc)You want a justification? Here’s one for the solid 4Ax; they, unlike undisciplined irregular native 3Ax, have been trained to form-up into close formation when facing heavy opponents like Bd/Pk/Sp. As for the solid 4Bw and 8Bw; they carry heavier close combat weapons, which are not as effective if their lighter opponents keep dodging away. Still not convinced?...don’t worry about it. It’s just another illogical rule that is necessary to give the right realistic battlefield behaviour and combat outcomes, like all those other illogical rules that are already in DBA that I mentioned above. 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 primuspilus on Jun 28, 2018 11:16:32 GMT
And with that post, Stevie smashes the grand slam outta the park. My good sir, you have just won the internet.
You just summarised the ENTIRE design thought process on DBA ... in ONE slam-dunk post.
Joe, please, please, please, ... THIS post goes into the designer's motivation section of the next edition of DBA.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 28, 2018 15:37:32 GMT
All good points. I guess what I'm getting at is trying to systematize the various rules so that we don't end up with more and more and more edge cases. So, ok 4Ax (not 3Ax?) and Bw get +1 cc against heavy foot. Maybe there is a case for separate combat factors for foot/heavy foot/mounted, instead of just foot/mounted? It gets tricky because now Bw have 6 different CF, 3 for cc, and 3 for shooting. - Sp/Bd/Pk are heavy foot, everybody else is foot.
- Foot and mounted can recoil 1BW, Heavy foot 1/2BW.
- Heavy foot and Wb are impetuous and auto advance on a win.
etc. etc. It might make the combat outcomes table less confusing? Wb would now QK heavy foot instead of just blade? There will still be corner cases, bow vs knights QK, and El fleeing from Ps etc., but this could reduce that somewhat? My goal here is to avoid a case where I have to look up a table for every troop type because I can't remember how it performs versus the particular troop type that is currently facing. I hear you Stevie, I recognize that that's what DBA does, but the fewer of these "if and this and this but not this or this or this or this", the simpler we can make things.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 28, 2018 16:27:41 GMT
Ok, with regards to Poitiers and Agincourt, are there other ways of modeling this? I know there was an idea of having bad going ploughed fields in between the battlelines for Agincourt? This would reduce those incoming Bd to CF3 vs the Bw. We don't have rules for exhaustion of the French as they approach the English, but I'm sure there are way to model it within the DBA existing framework. Also, a silly idea: What about in the english armies, having 8Lb instead of 4Lb? This doesn't represent pavisiers, but does represent Longbowmen with stakes, and a bunch of close combat infantry right behind them intermingled. This means we don't have to try to figure out shooting overhead, or other rules that don't exist yet, and it's modelled as a single element. The 8Lb would get +3/+4cc, but still be +2/+4 for shooting, and still gets the win on ties against mounted knights? This way, we don't change the rules, just the specific scenario and/or armylist, and it still achieves what we were trying to do for bowmen in cc? Another advantage of this is that it allows us to focus our alternate rules suggestions on just the 8BW/8Lb elements, and leave all the 4Bw that are is lots of lists alone.
Although while I'm thinking of it, if the Lb have Bd side support, does this help their effort or hinder it? i.e Does LbBdLbBdLbBd or BdLbLbBdLbLbBd not work well? Why not?
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 29, 2018 16:33:56 GMT
First I'm not proposing any changes to DBA 3.0 (which is for all practical purposes impossible). In any case without adding complexity you can not fix the problems under discussion in the 12 element "point-less" version of DBX.
I use both Bow (+2/+4) and "longbow" (+3/+4) because these types of troops model known historical troop types. Points are used to balance them for non-historical tournament style matchups. You cannot model HYW outcomes by creating new terrain types beyond rough nore exhaustion rules (partially because at Agincourt the English moved about three times as far though "rough" terrain as the French and so would be "super" exhausted. You'd also have Vernuil to consider with no terrain at all - yet the same basic result).
Yes we do use some abstractions in DBX but the idea is to reduce abstractions not add more (and even weider) abstractions. As to those mentioned, I've already covered "Retinue" side support Blade/Bow - we could consider getting rid of it in K&K where you can get proper +3 longbowmen but it does have its uses. As to Shieldwall it does cover a very real world effect of tight shieldwall that until it broke provided extra security. (My original concept was that Spear would get +1 UNLESS overlapped so that you could form a one element shield wall - it got morphed into what we have - which has some nice "real world" feel to it). Pike Pursue due to their relentless forward pressure - which 'pike' types on the development team insisted was correct. They don't run forward they just keep going as a bulldozer. Its not intended as an abstract concept (but if wrong should be removed). Fast foot move at the same rate as heavy mounted because their overall effective movement rate (not charge rate) is about the same - the need to keep a tight formation for heavy horse limits their tactical move. You need of course to add Fast Knights (but again we have done this in D3H2) to account for looser order heavy mounted. In short we have been moving away from odd abstractions toward more real world oriented rules in DBA 3.0, more so in D3H2 and esp. in K&K. (Stevie is correct that X-Ray TZs make little sense - though I've retained them but with a small but critical exception. Likewise the flank attack rules in DBX are a mess - its one of the few mechanical changes I made in K&K to fix this annoying problem. But again these are solutions not additions to the odd abstract rule stuff that DBX sometimes drifts into.)
(As to the DBMM stuff - Bow shoot at +3 in DBMM so this suggestion has been tried and Phil wanted this for DBA 3.0 but got shouted down by now departed playtesters. I've played DBMM and have the headache to prove it. It has many complex rules that in the end make Bow a +3 v. Foot most of the time).
Both Aux and Ps cost less than "Shooters" in D3H2 and this solves the problem of "balance" between +3 Bow and +3 Aux much better than weird abstract +1 because we need it style rules. Its an elegant and "reality" based solution. In K&K you can get "heavier" types of loose orders troops a more comprehensive solution. Some troops are just less capable than others. You balance this with points not distorting the troop types.
Greedo has actually produced the post of the year. He asks why do we have all these complex troop type interactions? Why don't "Warband" (ie Fanatics) have QK (ie Shock) v. Heavy Foot instead of us trying to back read charts to determine what "Warband" can Destroy on More. Its because the whole "troop types" system is a cumbersome mess and the DBX system has outgrown its usefulness (the orginal concept was just Gaul Warband v. Romane Blade and Aux).
TomT
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 29, 2018 21:16:09 GMT
I think we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think most people on this site seem to enjoy DBA and its mechanisms. It's not perfect but there is no "perfect" ruleset. ADLG and Triumph amongst others seem to be going forward with their basis squarely in DBA. I think that most of the time DBA is mostly plausible. There are quirks that seem unusual/inflexible/implausible (e.g. Waterway/Road deployment) but they don't break the rules as far as I'm concerned. But House rule your way around that issue that bugs you personally and show us the outcomes after testing the change. Even limited tests (with concise results) are a help. We don't want to make untested rules on the fly. I admit that I am guilty of this myself. Great information to know. This deserves serious playtesting given that it came from the creator of the rules. It would be nice to have a list of PB's ideas that didn't make the cut. I'll be interested to see how the departed playtester's ruleset correlates with their opinions during DBA testing. I don't find it that difficult with the armies that I play regularly and stevie and I made the hint cards mainly as I wanted some help playing new armies. I'm not sure there is any benefit to the game in making it simpler. Once you get the hang of PB's style (which is what it is), the rules are simple and yet rich and subtle. Actually, this thread was about 8Bw, in particular Sparabara/Hoplite interaction. The current +3/+5 doesn't seem to give the results written in the history books and also doesn't give as fun and tense a game. A +4/+5 seems to improve this situation. Side-support provides this as does a solid Bow +3 in close combat (and improves Persian 4Bw). A +3 shooting as promoted by PB may also have some promise for both 8Bw and 4Bw. So for my neck of the Ancients woods, I will test these solutions and report back, maybe with some more fluff (Thessalian rhomboid as 4Cv on a 40x40mm base is just too tempting!).
But let us remember how much we love a ruleset that can generally give you a good game and also let you create dozens of armies for the same cost in time and money that others require to field just one matched pair.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 30, 2018 7:15:07 GMT
I use both Bow (+2/+4) and "longbow" (+3/+4) because these types of troops model known historical troop types. (As to the DBMM stuff - Bow shoot at +3 in DBMM so this suggestion has been tried and Phil wanted this for DBA 3.0 but got shouted down by now departed playtesters. I've played DBMM and have the headache to prove it. It has many complex rules that in the end make Bow a +3 v. Foot most of the time). TomT Very well Tom, let us adopt the DBMM shooting system... but the target priority as well, not just the shooting factor against foot. Otherwise concentrated CF 3 fire at long range becomes too deadly, especially against CF 3 targets such as Pk/Ax/Wb. DBMM says: “...can only shoot at the target most directly in front of their shooting edge (i.e. closest to a line perpendicular to the centre of that (shooting) edge).” In other words, must target the nearest enemy. So abandoning Pimuspilus’ suggestion (which I thought was simple and precise), here is the new proposal in full:- Solid Bows: CF 3 against foot, but fast 3Bw stays at CF 2 (4/8Bw are the ‘heavy’ bowmen, heavy due to their dense formation). Target Priority: must prioritize shooting at the nearest target (this helps prevent solid shooters from freely concentrating their new powerful CF 3...and helps make close range shooting equal instead of being weaker than long range shooting). Knock-on Effects: CF 3 makes good Psiloi killers, so Ps flee if doubled by close combat bows (this helps to prevent bows from charging into melee with Ps, and is similar to Tom’s excellent suggestion that LH should flee if doubled by bows). Veering Away: no need for Joe’s +1 PIP to contact shooters (CF 3 causes more recoils, especially if support shooters can also target the nearest enemy at close range, making it harder and more PIP costly to contact shooters). Therefore, getting back to Jim’s original 8Bw testing, doubled based 8Bw should not get side-support (CF 3, +1 for double base, and +1 for side-support, would be CF 5...equal to supported Sp/Bd in close combat, and far too high. CF 4 should be the limit). That just leaves us with the 4Ax problem: how can we give 4Ax a +1 without knock-on effects against Ps/Ax/Wb/Hd/Bw? I know...a new tactical factor. +1 to 4Ax when in close combat with Sp, Pk, or Bd, (unless in bad going, etc)... ...because unlike irregular native 3Ax, the 4Ax are disciplined regulars trained to close-up into a tight close formation when facing heavy foot. Not abstract, not illogical, but perfectly in keeping with 21st century logic (unless you believe 4Ax troops would stay in a loose formation and want to be defeated and killed). (I don’t really care about which method is used... ..I just want my little metal soldiers to behave as the ancient historians said they did. At the moment, some of them don't...)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 30, 2018 7:59:23 GMT
...because unlike irregular native 3Ax, the 4Ax are disciplined regulars trained to close-up into a tight close formation when facing heavy foot. (I don’t really care about which method is used... ..I just want my little metal soldiers to behave as the ancient historians said they did. At the moment, some of them don't...)
I don't mind this solution but I'm not sure my Thracians were never described by the historians as "disciplined, regulars". More as "scary, hairy with big sword/scythe thing". But that is not the fault of the rule per se. 4Ax, given its weaknesses, was unfortunate for the Thracians. I'm leaning more towards 3Wb for my house rules. Cheers Jim
|
|