Post by stevie on Jun 16, 2019 21:40:18 GMT
Oooo...I love the link Simon, thanks for that (I still solo play the PC version of “Magic the Gathering”).
However, recreating historical outcomes when recreating historical battles is somewhat different.
We already know what the historical outcome should be, and it’s up to the rules to reproduce that outcome...
...if all the conditions (i.e. the positions, combat factors, and troop types) are right.
But we have to use dice to simulate all the myriad tiny events that could, or actually did, influence things.
So if an ancient scholar said that ‘unit X’ did something in a battle, then it should at least be mathematically
possible on our wargames table.
(See fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf and
make your own judgements about what is, and what isn’t, mathematically possible in DBA)
My approach when recreating an historical battle is to read the ancients accounts to find out how one side
or the other won, then try to recreate those events so that the historical result is the most likely outcome.
For example, the salient events at Marathon were that the Persian 8Bw Sparabara broke through the weak
Athenian centre, but the hoplites on each Greek wing were victorious. Well, we can simulate this weak centre
by placing a piece of rough going in the middle of the battlefield (so no side-support for the Spears).
Will that be enough?...no, it will not.
The 8Bw will have a combat factor of 3 (2+1 for being double-based) against a combat factor of 4...
...so only 10 chances out of 36 of even recoiling the Spears, and no chance of scoring a double.
You’d have to re-fight this battle half a dozen times before the Persians get lucky enough to have a double overlap!
The historical outcome is the least likely result...not the most likely.
And this is because the 8Bw are not behaving as should in close combat, as shown by Ephesus and Platea as well.
And it’s the same with that old favourite of mine, Cannae (because it shows that 4Ax are so wrong in DBA).
The salient events here was a Carthaginian holding action in the centre while they enveloped the wings.
Well, try that with CF 3 v CF 5 and see how long you hold when double overlapped! (with 50% chance of being doubled!).
Again the historical outcome is the least likely result...not the most likely.
And this is because 4Ax are not behaving as the ancient historians said they did when in close combat with heavy foot.
As to your other questions, I hope you’ll forgive me for resorting to replying in red in order to be brief:-
(Ha! You know what I’m like...otherwise I could be writing for days! Ha, ha, ha! )
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
Tell you what Simon, why not do a comparison test?
"Lessons from History" will be out soon (Primuspilus is currently doing the final proofreading as we speak).
Pick an historical battle and try out both Joe Collins' ideas and ours side-by-side...
...and decide for yourself which more closely matches the ancient historical accounts.
However, recreating historical outcomes when recreating historical battles is somewhat different.
We already know what the historical outcome should be, and it’s up to the rules to reproduce that outcome...
...if all the conditions (i.e. the positions, combat factors, and troop types) are right.
But we have to use dice to simulate all the myriad tiny events that could, or actually did, influence things.
So if an ancient scholar said that ‘unit X’ did something in a battle, then it should at least be mathematically
possible on our wargames table.
(See fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf and
make your own judgements about what is, and what isn’t, mathematically possible in DBA)
My approach when recreating an historical battle is to read the ancients accounts to find out how one side
or the other won, then try to recreate those events so that the historical result is the most likely outcome.
For example, the salient events at Marathon were that the Persian 8Bw Sparabara broke through the weak
Athenian centre, but the hoplites on each Greek wing were victorious. Well, we can simulate this weak centre
by placing a piece of rough going in the middle of the battlefield (so no side-support for the Spears).
Will that be enough?...no, it will not.
The 8Bw will have a combat factor of 3 (2+1 for being double-based) against a combat factor of 4...
...so only 10 chances out of 36 of even recoiling the Spears, and no chance of scoring a double.
You’d have to re-fight this battle half a dozen times before the Persians get lucky enough to have a double overlap!
The historical outcome is the least likely result...not the most likely.
And this is because the 8Bw are not behaving as should in close combat, as shown by Ephesus and Platea as well.
And it’s the same with that old favourite of mine, Cannae (because it shows that 4Ax are so wrong in DBA).
The salient events here was a Carthaginian holding action in the centre while they enveloped the wings.
Well, try that with CF 3 v CF 5 and see how long you hold when double overlapped! (with 50% chance of being doubled!).
Again the historical outcome is the least likely result...not the most likely.
And this is because 4Ax are not behaving as the ancient historians said they did when in close combat with heavy foot.
As to your other questions, I hope you’ll forgive me for resorting to replying in red in order to be brief:-
(Ha! You know what I’m like...otherwise I could be writing for days! Ha, ha, ha! )
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.
- Actually, they are all 12 elements a side...we just don't have the information about exact numbers, but we do know that every army can be split into 12 parts, no matter how many they did or didn't have. Unless extra numbers actually had a decisive effect on a particular battle, why bother with them? Ancient generals rarely seemed to have been bothered by mere numbers. Like Caesar at Pharsalus they simply thinned their battleline to match that of their opponents (Alexander at Gaugamela being an obvious exception of course).
- 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.
- As mentioned above...break a battle down to its salient points, then reproduce each point based on the ancient accounts. So yes, "wing/division/sub-group level". Get the right troops in the right positions with the right rules, and the battle should unfold as those old scholars said it did (unless excessive luck distorts things).
- 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.
- Fair enough...most of the rules in DBA are good, and only a few tweaks here and there are required to make it a bit more historical.
- 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?
- If you're playing as say Hannibal or Alex the Great, and you manage to get all the right troops in the right positions with the right rules, then why shouldn't you be allowed to have the same successes that they had? Or were all battles all down to pure luck? (and in a one-off what-if hypothetical battle, it's up to your opponent to use their skills to prevent this...if they can).
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
Tell you what Simon, why not do a comparison test?
"Lessons from History" will be out soon (Primuspilus is currently doing the final proofreading as we speak).
Pick an historical battle and try out both Joe Collins' ideas and ours side-by-side...
...and decide for yourself which more closely matches the ancient historical accounts.