|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 30, 2016 15:30:24 GMT
I have noticed over the years that DBA is a subtle game that too many people try to interpret sometimes far too literally.
For instance, often times people will dabte whether this or that effect or phenomenon is captured adequately in the game, and if not, frequently things are proposed.
I for one am a big fan of tweaks or house rules, but I expect that any such proposals would fundamentally produce the right results over the long term, and at the right level.
Those are key concepts, and I'll clarify what I mean. First, at the right level means that whatever effect we think is missing must historically have had the kind of results that are observable at the time and space scale that DBA gives. I submit humbly to the forum that many times an effect I have read about, and have attempted to houserule, would simply not matter at the scale of DBA, and the effects of the houserule were to drastically magnify the impact of this effect. For the sake of argument, the difference in performance between say slings and bows would be very subtle and slight at this scale. They could be reflected, but something like a +1 would grossly overstate the effect at this scale.
Over the long term, would an effect in the game add up to again magnify the win/loss effects. A good example here is the drastically underpowered 4Ax in the context of Zama, say. In this case, a +1 may be appropriate to reflect semi-formed foot that were able to give ground slowly under increasing pressure. Allowing such to recoil 1BW also contributes to this effect, as they may then break contact from prsuing Bd. Over time, you find the balance is right, but there is no guarantee that this rule would apply across the entire 4Ax class. Again, we need to consider if the effect was significant (I believe in this case yes) at our scale, and then whether we are justified in making this a permanent house rule for our games (this is a much deeper question).
In this sprirt, I consider the outcomes for ties. These are material enough that the rule is relevant (like the 1 for the first PIP roll affecting plough) and over the long term the effects are right. It is tempting to think "but how can a tie be worse than a loss in a combat"? but you are assuming then that the die roll outcomes were designed to be monotonic, rather than simply a clever mechanism to generate an effect.
So going forward, I have been asking myself these two fundamental questions whenever I consider something needs to be captured, and then I again consider carefully whether the proposal matches in an appropriate way.
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jul 30, 2016 21:05:23 GMT
The big problem with DBA and rules of smaller sizes is the size and number of years they cover.
You have to consider cause and effect, can 4Bd be the same for Assyrians, Romans and the Wars of the Roses?
How much do we really know about armies, battles, weapons and tactics over the length of the DBA rules.
So making a change needs to be for a competition, yourself, or generally if covering a grey area, or unexpected consequence.
Be careful and never assume.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 1, 2016 18:05:35 GMT
Two excellent posts. Especially well taken is David's question concerning how much we really know.
I am currently considering 3 rule changes. Please note that there will be no new version of DBA in the near future. These are simply rules changes that I think should possibly be proposed in the future when circumstances warrant.
The first is allowing Ax and Ps to recoil either their base depth or width. This is a subtle change that helps Ax primarily in close combat vs Bd and Pk. It can be rationalized in multiple ways. It can help recreate the both the Punic Wars (Cannae of course) and also helps some with Irish vs Viking fights. Of all the ideas for a future version of DBA... this is the one I like best.
The second is allowing 4Bw rear either rear or side support. These are exclusive. My prompting for this is seeing the Agincourt diorama with the archers in the center deployed in front of the men at arms. The problem with this rule however is that we don't know that this was really the deployment. I am unsure that this is needed in DBA. Still, I think it worth considering.
The third change, and the one I have least considered, is to reduce the movement of "Fast" Bd. Two BW in bad or rough going would help balance this troop type vs other bad going troops. Much more thinking and play testing needs to be done with this one.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 1, 2016 20:53:53 GMT
I tend to be very nervous of rule amendments and I'm of the school that wholesale changes are unwise. My view is that individuals often have a belief that there particular amendment is better than the rules designers and soon this results in a number of changes that actually undo what can be a balanced and sometimes subtle mechanism.
David, your point on 4Bd is particularly well made. I am of the school that it is difficult to model the period and rather prefer to play games between generally historical or near historical opponents. I believe for example Romans have a different fighting style than Wars of the Roses billmen. As DBA is generic I can mentally manipulate the results into a context I can accept in period but stretch the time period too much and I personally struggle.
Despite playing many games of DBA, and a great number of of DBA 3.0, I am still finding subtle but interesting rule results. I therefore remain unwilling to try a range of house rules. However, I accept that some scenario specific rules can be useful.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 2, 2016 11:28:40 GMT
However (as in the case of Ax and Ps being allowed to recoil a BW, and by the way, I'd add Bw to the list for similar reasons) I am all for house rules that better reflect the two principles I mentioned earlier.
You will find for example that under v3, on the regulation board, EAP are thoroughly whipped. Something about the first 8Bw costing 2 elements toward defeat, plus the loss of the supporting 3Bw, oh and the requirement to shoot at a target in the TZ, which suddenly renders the Persian battleline thoroughly vulnerable to all manner of riff-raff..
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 2, 2016 16:46:33 GMT
However (as in the case of Ax and Ps being allowed to recoil a BW, and by the way, I'd add Bw to the list for similar reasons) I am all for house rules that better reflect the two principles I mentioned earlier. You will find for example that under v3, on the regulation board, EAP are thoroughly whipped. Something about the first 8Bw costing 2 elements toward defeat, plus the loss of the supporting 3Bw, oh and the requirement to shoot at a target in the TZ, which suddenly renders the Persian battleline thoroughly vulnerable to all manner of riff-raff.. My Achaemenid Persians have a perfect 50% win-lose record. (of course all six games now have been Persian vs Persian... so I guess that doesn't count!). Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 2, 2016 21:57:27 GMT
Periodic specific modifiers/rules are a great idea outside of a tournament setting (unless your doing a specific period event). DBA covers 3000 years of history and its impossible within a reasonable set of rules to cover all the specifics (see HFG for problems with too many period specific rules).
I use them all the time - but they are play tested by apply them to historical battles to determine what effect they have.
Late medieval warfare is a bit different than BCE battles due to technology and different levels of governmental organization. A body of billmen is a bit different than a body of Roman legionares. But not enough to invalidate DBX mechanics. Its nice though to get some period flavor by vary crossbows and halbreds from their generic types. The glory of DBX mechanics is that you can do this with relative ease within the systems basic mechanisms.
As DBA has no point system any change may produce balance issues. I try to give each variant a bonus and a drawback (Heavy crossbows count +3 v. Foot but shot only in their own bound for instance). For Game of Fire and Ice, because it must cover fantasy worlds as well as historical, I stripped DBX back to the basics (Heavy Foot, Medium Foot, Medium Mounted etc.) and let weapons vary the factors so game masters could essentially build their own types based on favorite fantasy world or their interp of history.
So experiment away but check your results by refighting historical battles - if you need some examples to try get a copy of Great Battles for DBA.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 5, 2016 10:22:25 GMT
Joe, I too agree with what Keith stated in his post regarding rule changes. I am especially surprised that after a long period of play testing (3 years?) there should be a need for any rule changes at all.
Considering your last rule suggestion I would like to make the following comment. “The third change, and the one I have least considered, is to reduce the movement of "Fast" Bd. Two BW in bad or rough going would help balance this troop type vs. other bad going troops. Much more thinking and play testing needs to be done with this one”.
The Celtiberians were known for their rapid attacks, surprise movement and retreats, a strategy that worked best in terrain that hindered an enemy’s mobility. The Romans named this style of combat, “concursare”. Titles of Dr. F. Queseda-Sanz papers can be found in the selected bibliography of Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, new edition 2016 will shed more light on the fighting methods of the Iberians and Celtiberians.
The current movement rate through bad or rough going best reflects this.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 5, 2016 18:21:52 GMT
I think this brings up the subtle point whether period specific rules should change an existing rule or just add a rule. I like additions more than changes but the difference can be a bit hard to distingush.
It also reinforces my point that any addition/changes need to be playtested against battle results. As we did indeed just spend 3 years trying to upgrade DBAs simulation value (and made great progress), we don't want to do a DBM 3.0 and suddenly put the bus into reverse.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Aug 7, 2016 7:50:43 GMT
I have been thinking how to write this for Fanaticus (decided a book would be easier).
The problem of interactions is made worse the longer the period, and bigger the area.
If you start with a convenient loosely fixed point, say the first Roman (Roman Roman) army: You work out its troop types, descriptions, values and terrain. You work out the same for its opponents. From this you arrive at a set of information for a very limited period.
The next stage is opponents of the opponents, then the opponents opponents etc.
You then go to the next Roman army and repeat the process.
However this will not cover India, China etc.
You get the idea I hope.
All this bearing in mind that even with Romans at least 50% is guesswork.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 8, 2016 16:37:36 GMT
Joe, I too agree with what Keith stated in his post regarding rule changes. I am especially surprised that after a long period of play testing (3 years?) there should be a need for any rule changes at all.
Considering your last rule suggestion I would like to make the following comment. “The third change, and the one I have least considered, is to reduce the movement of "Fast" Bd. Two BW in bad or rough going would help balance this troop type vs. other bad going troops. Much more thinking and play testing needs to be done with this one”.
The Celtiberians were known for their rapid attacks, surprise movement and retreats, a strategy that worked best in terrain that hindered an enemy’s mobility. The Romans named this style of combat, “concursare”. Titles of Dr. F. Queseda-Sanz papers can be found in the selected bibliography of Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars, new edition 2016 will shed more light on the fighting methods of the Iberians and Celtiberians.
The current movement rate through bad or rough going best reflects this.
Robert: A point well taken... as I did mention that this idea had been considered the least. I do however wonder as to the viability of the 4Ax troop type vs 3Bd. Viking vs Irish seems very lopsided...even in bad going. Of course the first change mentioned (allowing a full base width recoil... thus breaking contact) for Ax may have bearing on that conflict. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 8, 2016 16:39:15 GMT
All this bearing in mind that even with Romans at least 50% is guesswork. David Constable And you are being optimistic! I am beginning to wonder if we really know much of anything about how the Republican Romans actually fought. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by wombatdazzler on Aug 9, 2016 7:05:55 GMT
Isn't a full base still in ZOC? 40mm.
Cheers
Daz
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Aug 9, 2016 7:09:16 GMT
Very optimistic Joe.
Many years ago I used to introduce a military lecture for the lecturer, using a man and curvy young lady.
The lecture was about not making assumptions. So I used an archaeological context, about a find with a mans skeleton, the remnants were parts of a rifle, helmet and boots, and a nylon camouflage bikini. A separate find was part of a page from a picture book of girls and guns. People where asked for what they would say about uniforms and equipment, the bikini always confused people, we knew men did not wear them. The man would then take a paper bag out of a pocket with a receipt and nylon bikini.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 9, 2016 7:52:01 GMT
Isn't a full base still in ZOC? 40mm. Yes it is.
|
|