|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 4, 2019 13:56:51 GMT
Played a game this weekend, with the change to targeting priority.
Loved it!
Found the 3Bw of the Elamites were able to often break up the line of Assyrian Sp and 4Ax, and even took out a Sp and 4Ax as well.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 4, 2019 15:43:11 GMT
It is not actually a new rule at all. It was how DBA was played for about 20 years before the stupid, completely untested targeting rule was slipped in on someone's whim. By the way, it wouldn't be bad to use some restriction on firing on mounted (archers were supposedly terrified of horsemen, and they already get a +4 against mounted), but I'd be willing to let that slide in the name of simplicity, and cutting down rule verbiage. I'd happily trade the targeting rule for the non-HI solid foot rule.
As Stevie and I have demonstrated (I hope): we don't go in for opinion as far as rule changes are concerned. We target ('scuse the pun) historical facts (i.e. outcomes) against stats analysis, and long term game results. I have played these rules for years, against a variety of players and styles.
3Bw are really useful - until they get into battle against any HI. Which given that they have to deploy in the centre, seems to happen to me quite a bit. They also often get vapourised even by 4Ax! 3 vs 0 (double overlap) is a sad fight. But because the 4Ax guys aren't quite as formation-y and armoured up-ery as HI, they get hurt by arrowfire on the way in... Sometimes you just need a nice wood or difficult hill to get you into strike range...
Sp definitely have to watch bowfire on the way in. As history said they had to. Pk just hate archery. As they did historically. But again, if they make contact with the Bw, look out Bw.
Now the truly interesting question is: how to 4Ax fare against 3Ax and 3Bw combined? My Illyrians are a mixed bag against my Thracians (who haven't a 3Bw). Maybe I'll give them some Persian allied contingent, and test out a what-if if the Persians had expanded West to take on Illyria after Thrace and Macedon...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 4, 2019 16:36:47 GMT
Played a game this weekend, with the change to targeting priority. Loved it! Found the 3Bw of the Elamites were able to often break up the line of Assyrian Sp and 4Ax, and even took out a Sp and 4Ax as well. Excellent Nangwaya...that’s what we want, actual play-test results. Of course, as Primuspilus says, removing the page 10 paragraph 4 Shooting Priority limitation... (“Bows and War Wagons must shoot at a target in their TZ”) ...is not actually adding anything or making shooting any stronger. Bows and WWg can already gang-up and concentrate their shooting at 3 BW, at 2 BW, even at 1⅛ BW. It’s just taking away the unrealistic and illogical notion that somehow close range shooting is worse. Those troops attacking shooters will find that instead of being at 1 BW or less is a relatively ‘safe haven’, it now becomes (as it should be) a very dangerous place to linger... ...if not more dangerous than when being at long range, then at least as dangerous. It should be somewhere to avoid, and not actively sort after. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 4, 2019 16:37:54 GMT
Played a game this weekend, with the change to targeting priority. Loved it! Found the 3Bw of the Elamites were able to often break up the line of Assyrian Sp and 4Ax, and even took out a Sp and 4Ax as well. Nangwaya, what’s your period of choice? Sounds biblical! This thread has mostly been Roman’s and Greeks/Persians with HYW chucked in sometimes so nice to have a different era!
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 4, 2019 16:56:42 GMT
Played a game this weekend, with the change to targeting priority. Loved it! Found the 3Bw of the Elamites were able to often break up the line of Assyrian Sp and 4Ax, and even took out a Sp and 4Ax as well. Nangwaya, what’s your period of choice? Sounds biblical! This thread has mostly been Roman’s and Greeks/Persians with HYW chucked in sometimes so nice to have a different era! Hey greedo;
I have been fascinated with Assyrians ever since I was a kid (long time ago now), and to finally be able to play Biblical battles is an absolute joy!
I am trying to paint up every single enemy listed against the Later Sargonid Assyrians (I/51), and that will take a while, since lots of people hated them
My first armies though were 1/72 scale Persians and Athenians. I can remember reading posts back then (a little over a year ago), of people thinking that Persians had a really hard time against Greek spear in DBA, but I did not find that at all, until I found out there is no group moves for backing up Then I clued in!
I find a lot of Biblical armies have 4Ax in their lists, so I have also been really interested of the +1Cf for 4Ax against HI, as well.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 4, 2019 17:02:40 GMT
It is not actually a new rule at all. It was how DBA was played for about 20 years before the stupid, completely untested targeting rule was slipped in on someone's whim. By the way, it wouldn't be bad to use some restriction on firing on mounted (archers were supposedly terrified of horsemen, and they already get a +4 against mounted), but I'd be willing to let that slide in the name of simplicity, and cutting down rule verbiage. I'd happily trade the targeting rule for the non-HI solid foot rule. As Stevie and I have demonstrated (I hope): we don't go in for opinion as far as rule changes are concerned. We target ('scuse the pun) historical facts (i.e. outcomes) against stats analysis, and long term game results. I have played these rules for years, against a variety of players and styles. 3Bw are really useful - until they get into battle against any HI. Which given that they have to deploy in the centre, seems to happen to me quite a bit. They also often get vapourised even by 4Ax! 3 vs 0 (double overlap) is a sad fight. But because the 4Ax guys aren't quite as formation-y and armoured up-ery as HI, they get hurt by arrowfire on the way in... Sometimes you just need a nice wood or difficult hill to get you into strike range... Sp definitely have to watch bowfire on the way in. As history said they had to. Pk just hate archery. As they did historically. But again, if they make contact with the Bw, look out Bw. Now the truly interesting question is: how to 4Ax fare against 3Ax and 3Bw combined? My Illyrians are a mixed bag against my Thracians (who haven't a 3Bw). Maybe I'll give them some Persian allied contingent, and test out a what-if if the Persians had expanded West to take on Illyria after Thrace and Macedon... It's funny, I always thought of 3Bw as like "heavy Ps", sitting in terrain, taking pot shots at elements to distract/annoy them, and occasionally teaming up by streaming out of the forest to cut down the enemy with concentrated shooting. Perhaps in addition to the new "heavy" 4Ax, and "heavy" 4Bw, we allow 3Ax, 2Ps and 3Bw to deploy out on the wings, but 4Ax and 4Bw have to stick to the central section to make up for their ability to fight toe to toe with heavier troops...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 4, 2019 17:07:42 GMT
I have been fascinated with Assyrians ever since I was a kid (long time ago now), and to finally be able to play Biblical battles is an absolute joy!
I am trying to paint up every single enemy listed against the Later Sargonid Assyrians (I/51), and that will take a while, since lots of people hated them
My first armies though were 1/72 scale Persians and Athenians. I can remember reading posts back then (a little over a year ago), of people thinking that Persians had a really hard time against Greek spear in DBA, but I did not find that at all, until I found out there is no group moves for backing up Then I clued in!
I find a lot of Biblical armies have 4Ax in their lists, so I have also been really interested of the +1Cf for 4Ax against HI, as well.
Nice! Looking forward to more datapoints outside of the Classical Period!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 4, 2019 17:14:38 GMT
By the way, it wouldn't be bad to use some restriction on firing on mounted (archers were supposedly terrified of horsemen, and they already get a +4 against mounted), but I'd be willing to let that slide in the name of simplicity, and cutting down rule verbiage. You could just add the word “mounted” into the page 10 paragraph 4 Shooting Priority, so it reads:- “Bows and War Wagons must shoot at a mounted target in their TZ.” There you go...adding one single solitary word will cure the problem of the 1 BW shooting ‘safe zone’. Most people will probably target the mounted out of choice anyway, because of the high CF 4 against them. And three concentrated shooters at long range have 15 chances out 36 (42%) of scoring a double, while those same three bows shooting individually at three mounted enemies at close 1 BW range will have 4 chances out of 36 (11%) each, or 12 chances (33%) in total, of getting a double...plus a lot more chances of merely recoiling the mounted to break-up their formation resulting is a much higher PIP cost to get them all into contact together without any overlaps (even more effective than Joe Collins' '+1 PIP to contact Bows' suggestion). Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 14, 2019 15:23:34 GMT
Work on the “Lessons From History” booklet, listing some extra advanced historical rules that the basic tournament rules left out, is nearing completion. But here is a snippet relating to Bows in close combat. (See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2046/double-based-elements?page=2 ) 3. Historical solid Bow close combat improvementsLike the 4Ax, many players over the years have complained that Bows are underpowered, not play-balanced, are too easy to kill, and they are not behaving as the ancient writers said they did, thus distorting their actual real-life behaviour in close combat and their true performance in battle. To correct these discrepancies, again apply the following rule suggested by Primuspilus:- New Tactical Factor (repeated from Section: 2 "Solid Auxiliaries in Close Combat")+1 to “Solid” Auxiliaries and “Solid” Bows when in close combat with any Blades, Spears, or supported Pikes (unless they are in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a city, fort or camp) |
(to be placed in the page 11 paragraph 3 Tactical Factors, between the “+1 if a general” and “+1 if uphill”)(...and add the number “4” to the Flank Support factors, page 11 paragraph 2 , so that it reads as:-)“Solid” 4Bows add +1 if supported by “Solid” Blades. |
Historical justificationAgain the justifications are secondary; it’s the effect that is important. But here are some if you need them. Solid Bows (who do not evade, so can concentrate on shooting more) have greater effect at very close range against relatively slow pondering heavy foot that are trying to maintain formation. And when they are fighting hand-to-hand, spears/swords/axes are far more effective killing devices than mere arrows...but only if your opponent is standing still and not dodging and weaving about like Psiloi, Auxiliaries and Warband warriors. And the reason why 8Bw loses side-support is because they already have close fighters in their front rank, plus giving them a combat factor of 2, with +1 for being doubled-based, +1 for fighting heavy foot, and +1 for having side-support, would give a total CF of 5 (the same as Blades), which is not borne-out by the historical records. The effect of this new ruleStrange as it may seem, the historical accounts say that those poorly armoured English longbowmen, with their tiny buckler shields, and armed only with swords, axes and mallets, could stand up to those French dismounted men-at-arms in their full plate armour. Likewise, those Persian 8Bw Sparabara, with their flimsy wicker shields, with no helmets, no armour, no greaves on their legs, armed only with short spears, could stand up to Greek Hoplites ...at least for a time. These are the “Lessons from History”. Remember, in DBA the first sentence on page 3 says “Troops are defined by battlefield behaviour instead of weapons or armour”, and unfortunately the basic rules do not reflect their true historical performance. Here is a chart showing the full effects of this extra +1 when solid Bows are in close combat with heavy foot:- | Basic Rules Combat Factor | Historical Combat Factor |
| 3Bw, not allowed side-support | CF 2 | CF 2 | (but can ‘evade’...see Section 1 on page 4) | 4Bw, with no side-support | CF 2 | CF 3 |
| 4Bw, with side-support | CF 3 | CF 4 |
| 8Bw, with no side-support | CF 3 | CF 4 | |
8Bw, if allowed side-support | CF 4 | CF 5 | (too high, so lose side-support) |
As you can see, all solid bows become a little bit stronger and more robust, so that they can finally behave and perform as the ancients said they did, and actually stand up to heavy infantry...at least for a short while. Even 8Bw benefits as well, as they will no longer be dependent upon adjacent friends for their combat factor (and the Persians don’t have any Blades, so under the basic rules their 8Bw can never be CF 4 in close combat, unless they are uphill or defending a riverbank). Historical examples and links to the sources:- Battle Ephesus 498 BC, where the Persian Sparabara stood up to the hoplites for quite some time:- “The rebelling Ionian Greeks of Ephesus, with Athenian allies, were pinned by the Persian Sparabara while the Persian cavalry broke through the light troops on the Greek right wing and enveloped the hoplite battleline.” (Source: “Land battles in 5th century Greece” by Fred Eugene Ray, pages 33 to 36:- books.google.co.uk/books?id=NECnIjWtIMEC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=herodotus+sparabara&source=bl&ots=g4Sh9__8jy&sig=ACfU3U1NZasqqe78_TpDLHKjuNuCJHpVGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz7e-tz9zgAhWo1uAKHdf9Cu8Q6AEwC3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Cayster&f=false )
Battle of Marathon 490 BC, where again the Persian Sparabara stood up to the Athenians for quite some time:- “The fight at Marathon went on for a long time, and in the center the barbarians won, where the Persian (Sparabara) themselves and the Sacae were stationed. At this point they won, and broke the Greeks, and pursued them inland. But on each wing the Athenians and the Plataeans were victorious, and, as they conquered, they let flee the part of the barbarian army they had routed, and, joining their two wings together, they fought the Persians who had broken their center; and then the Athenians won the day. As the Persians fled, the Greeks followed them, hacking at them, until they came to the sea. Then the Greeks called for fire and laid hold of the ships.” (Source: www.historyguide.org/ancient/marathon.html , by Herodotus, section 113)
Battle of Platea 479 BC, where yet again the Persian Sparabara stood up to the Spartans for quite some time:- “As he offered his prayer, the Tegeans, advancing before the rest, rushed forward against the enemy; and the Lacedaemonians, who had obtained favourable omens the moment that Pausanias prayed, at length, after their long delay, advanced to the attack; while the Persians, on their side, left shooting, and prepared to meet them. And first the combat was at the wicker shields. Afterwards, when these were swept down, a fierce contest took place by the side of the temple of Ceres, which lasted long, and ended in a hand-to-hand struggle. The barbarians many times seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers, untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer and now more in number, they dashed upon the Spartan ranks, and so perished.” (Source: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Herodotus/Herodotus9.html , section [9.62])
Battle of Agincourt 1415 AD, during the Hundred Year’s War:- “The surviving French men-at-arms reached the front of the English line and pushed it back, with the longbowmen on the flanks continuing to shoot at point-blank range. When the archers ran out of arrows, they dropped their bows and using hatchets, swords and the mallets they had used to drive their stakes in, attacked the now disordered, fatigued and wounded French men-at-arms massed in front of them. The French could not cope with the thousands of lightly armoured longbowmen assailants (who were much less hindered by the mud and weight of their armour) combined with the English men-at-arms.” (Sources: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt . The Battle of Agincourt is well documented by at least seven contemporary accounts, with three of them being actual eyewitnesses. Two of the most frequently cited accounts come from Burgundian sources, one from Jean Le Fèvre de Saint-Remy who was present , and the other from Enguerrand de Monstrelet. The English eyewitness account comes from the anonymous Gesta Henrici Quinti, believed to be written by a chaplain in the King's household who would have been in the baggage train at the battle.)Does any of this sound like combat factor 3 troops being slaughtered like helpless sheep by combat factor 5? No, it sounds more like a combat factor of 4 fighting against a combat factor of 5... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 14, 2019 15:55:03 GMT
I have been pointing this out to the DBA folks for about 8 long years. Sadly most people argue from feelinngs, not statistics and historical records. Once you pair these "hard" methodologies together as Stevie the Great has done, the evidence and argument are overwhelming.
And sadly, one or two AARs do NOT constitute any kind of significant stastical data point. One must playtest again and again and again and again ... and again and again...
Hey it is a tough, hard job. Thank the Lord above that Stevie had the chops and cojones to Just Do It!
👍
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 15, 2019 19:20:47 GMT
I have been pointing this out to the DBA folks for about 8 long years. Sadly most people argue from feelinngs, not statistics and historical records. Once you pair these "hard" methodologies together as Stevie the Great has done, the evidence and argument are overwhelming. And sadly, one or two AARs do NOT constitute any kind of significant stastical data point. One must playtest again and again and again and again ... and again and again... Hey it is a tough, hard job. Thank the Lord above that Stevie had the chops and cojones to Just Do It! 👍 What is the playtest process exactly? Simon
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 16, 2019 0:09:27 GMT
One must playtest again and again and again and again ... and again and again... What is the playtest process exactly? Simon In a word Simon...repetition. Set-up a fairly well documented historical battle (say Marathon or Cannae for example). 1. Use the standard basic rules...do you get a result that matches the historical accounts? 2. If no, add a rule and try again. 3. If yes, then repeat the battle several times to show that it wasn’t just luck. 4. When the result matches the historical account at least 3 out of 5 times, move on to another historical battle. All the time checking that any new rule does not have any unwanted side effects in this or any other period. Once you can get fairly realistic historical results when recreating historical battles, you can then be more confident that the rules are more or less right, so any one-off what-if hypothetical battle will also be right. But if you get an unrealistic unhistorical result, then something must be wrong, and any one-off what-if hypothetical battle will also be wrong as well, with troops not behaving as the ancient accounts said they did. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 16, 2019 3:18:52 GMT
I did exactly this with the EAPs and EHGs during playtesting of 3.0. I submitted my results and comments. Not sure where they ended up. Seemed no one was playing the Persian Fire battles at all. It seemed to me that 3.0 testing was dominated by Medieval and Dark Ages gamers more than classical.
By the way, as the army lists had not been released, our (admittedly small) group was testing EAPs on the 2.2 army list.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 16, 2019 14:11:34 GMT
What is the playtest process exactly? Simon In a word Simon...repetition. Set-up a fairly well documented historical battle (say Marathon or Cannae for example). 1. Use the standard basic rules...do you get a result that matches the historical accounts? 2. If no, add a rule and try again. 3. If yes, then repeat the battle several times to show that it wasn’t just luck. 4. When the result matches the historical account at least 3 out of 5 times, move on to another historical battle. All the time checking that any new rule does not have any unwanted side effects in this or any other period. Once you can get fairly realistic historical results when recreating historical battles, you can then be more confident that the rules are more or less right, so any one-off what-if hypothetical battle will also be right. But if you get an unrealistic unhistorical result, then something must be wrong, and any one-off what-if hypothetical battle will also be wrong as well, with troops not behaving as the ancient accounts said they did. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Thanks Stevie, I guess playtesting wargames is a bit of a statistician's nightmare - so many variables during the game such as deployment, troop types, interactions between troop types, terrain - and that is before we even throw the die! To compound the problem, there is also the difficulty of defining the historical narrative of how the battle is meant to have gone in terms of troop types, numbers, leadership. morale and terrain. A few questions/thoughts: - Are your test battles formed round 12 element armies or are you making up the armies based on the ratios described in the rules for historical refights - I am guessing the latter.
- At what level of granularity are you comparing what happened on the battlefield to what happens on the tabletop? Is it at the high level army wins/loses level or are you looking at the narrative as it unfolds at the wing/division.sub-group level - where this is known? Eg we might define a suceesful outcome for Ax at Cannae if they survive 3 bounds against Blades and are recoiled.
- Might Step 2 in your process above read "If no, then repeat the battle several times to show that it wasn’t just luck that led to the game not following history. If it keeps on playing to an unrealistic outcome, add a rule and try again.
- As we are playing a game - how realistic do we really want it to be? If it follows history perfectly every time, will we want to play it at all? Where do we draw this line?
I am interested in this because I am proposing to add Joe's "DBA tweaks" as decribed in the latest issue of Slingshot as house rules at the Bakewell Historical Matched Pairs tournament in October. These are for Pike, Bow and Auxiliaries. I am just trying to think through what data/feedback we could get in a 12 element tournament setting without interfering with the primary goals f the event - ie having fun, getting six games in 6 hours and having a competition! There will probably be 60 - 72 separate games during the day assuming 20-24 players.
Kind regards,
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 16, 2019 14:14:05 GMT
|
|