|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 20, 2019 18:50:25 GMT
Stevie, I started playing around with similar ideas a few years ago. I agree doubling is not needed, BUT if Phil was using his original one-page DBA knockabout rules, the difference meant that Bd vs Bd is EXACTLY the same kind of fight as Ps vs Ps. Not sure I'd agree.
However, the difference is interesting. What can then happen is we can get rid of the silly "-2" in bad going, and instead see the historical effects of bad going: as a battle slow-diwn mechnism. ALL elements would be less effective but more resilient in bad going. But the terrain itself becomes a problem, as elements and units get lost, broken up, etc.
If you adopt that approach, then an outnumbered hoplite element will seek shelter in bad going, which is EXACTLY what the Psartans did at Sphacteria!
But as you say, that is DBSMI ... De Bellis Stevius Maximus Imperatorius
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 21, 2019 4:31:04 GMT
Interesting idea. Have to check out the math, but it sounds promising.
I’m assuming quick kill is still “just beat them”? So they the combat values don’t have to be mucked around with too much? I’m also quite interested in the lowering of the top end cv to make combat get a bit faster but I suppose that was the point.
One problem is that as has been pointed out Bd on Bd and and Ps on Ps are the same whereas part of the hoplites combat was as far as I understand a pushing and shoving match and then finally one side would break, run and get slaughtered. So that might not happen as much. Lowering heavies cv by 1 would still speed up the combat though I’m not sure by how much..
Great thoughts Stevie, and I don’t think it gets too far away from DBA.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 21, 2019 8:14:28 GMT
(I shouldn’t be commenting on this, as my “DBS” is still being experimented on, and even when fully perfected won’t ever be published in case it causes another “DBA 2.2+” type split. It’s just for me and my immediate mates. Nonetheless, I would like to add the following)About Bd v Bd compared to Ps v Ps outcomes:-I’ll be honest...I have absolutely no idea what the kill rate of these fighting their own kind would be in reality. Was it a 5% chance per bound? Or 10%? Or even 15% or more? I don’t know...and nor does anybody else. Oh, Bd v Bd or Sp v Sp fights ‘could’ (?) last longer because of all the armour they wore. On the other hand, the same could be said for Ps v Ps, because although they had less armour, they would be spread-out in skirmish open order, and half of the missiles they are chucking at each other would fall into the empty spaces. As I said, I don’t know...and any set of rules that claims that it does know is telling porkies. But there is one thing I DO know...heavy foot having a high combat factor means they just push and shove each other for little or no effect, making breakthroughs in the centre rare, thus causing all the action to occur on the wings (which doesn’t match the historical accounts). Let me put it another way:-It’s much harder to score a double when CF 5 fights CF 5 than it is when CF 2 fights CF 2. Is this based on reality? Or is it nothing more than merely a side effect caused by the DBA two-dice doubling system? Therefore, not knowing what the actual kill rate was per bound in reality, make ‘em the same. And I await anyone to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 21, 2019 17:59:47 GMT
Hang on, Duncan Head produced a 2016 edition of his book? I thought the last edition was like the 80s? What changed in the update?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 21, 2019 19:44:07 GMT
Quick question about the dropping of CV (perhaps this should be a separate thread). The proposal is this:
1) Pk get +2 when rear support vs +3 2) Bd are 4,3 3) Spear retrain side support, but are 3,4 4) Would elephants also drop 1?
Basically anybody who has a foot CV of 4 or higher gets dinged -1. Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 21, 2019 20:27:47 GMT
I would say no change to Elephants Greedo. They only use their CF of 5 against foot...who in return use their CF against mounted. So no change is necessary (the aim is to make Ax and Bows better against heavy foot). Just Bd, Sp and Pk need reduction.
By the way, here are a few other effects:- Spears become 3 against foot, with a +1 for side-support, which applies to shooting as well. (So Spears are 4 when shot at, like Blades, just as they are now...if in a ‘shield wall’ that is) And Cities and Forts become a little bit easier to attack, instead of Blade garrisons being immune to CF 3 troops, even if three of them are assaulting.
(As for Duncan Head’s updated version of “Macedonian and Punic Wars”, the only real changes are in the preface and introduction. It’s printed on smaller paper, needing a lot more pages...but all the information and drawings are the same as in the old version. Still worth it though, as my old 1982 copy is falling apart! Much like myself!)
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 21, 2019 21:25:10 GMT
I would say no change to Elephants Greedo. They only use their CF of 5 against foot...who in return use their CF against mounted. So no change is necessary (the aim is to make Ax and Bows better against heavy foot). Just Bd, Sp and Pk need reduction. By the way, here are a few other effects:- Spears become 3 against foot, with a +1 for side-support, which applies to shooting as well. (So Spears are 4 when shot at, like Blades, just as they are now...if in a ‘shield wall’ that is) And Cities and Forts become a little bit easier to attack, instead of Blade garrisons being immune to CF 3 troops, even if three of them are assaulting. (As for Duncan Head’s updated version of “Macedonian and Punic Wars”, the only real changes are in the preface and introduction. It’s printed on smaller paper, needing a lot more pages...but all the information and drawings are the same as in the old version. Still worth it though, as my old 1982 copy is falling apart! Much like myself!)Would rear support for Wb go away? Otherwise Wb would be easier to get a QK against Bd..
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 21, 2019 22:47:12 GMT
In a word...yep:- But in order to make this work a few other things will need altering:- The bad going penalty will need to be reduced to -1. Solid 8Bows will still need to lose side-support, or they’d be a good as Bd. And Wb will have to lose rear-support or they’d be too powerful. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/25978/ for the full details.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 21, 2019 22:59:02 GMT
Hmm, a shame. I always liked the idea of deep warbands, but perhaps that's just me reading too many other rules sets that take it for granted.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 21, 2019 23:09:20 GMT
Also wb losing rear support, doubles a wb battle line wide. Would people be ok with this? Actually, platesting showed that having Wb in column (even without the rear support) is still a good thing. Wb are still easily killed (what with the inevitable overlaps), so having a second rank is worth it to prevent hard-flanking...and it's also a PIP saver if the enemy likes to pursue. (Besides, Wb look better when they are in a column. 3Wb on their own look like skirmishers!)
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 0:21:34 GMT
In a word...yep:- But in order to make this work a few other things will need altering:- The bad going penalty will need to be reduced to -1. Solid 8Bows will still need to lose side-support, or they’d be a good as Bd. And Wb will have to lose rear-support or they’d be too powerful. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/25978/ for the full details. So it seems like this depowering, will: a) Remove some rules that will no longer be needed b) Simply some rules that were there because they had to be c) Provide a framework for the newly suggested tweaks, and removes the need for some d) Speed up combat resolution on the higher CV end (for better or worse) e) Achieves these things without adding any unnecessary rules, so DBA keeps the simple flavor, and nobody has to collect new elements for their already built armies Well testing is of course necessary, but it's looking good so far.. Would all bows lose side support from Bd or just 8Bw? Not sure about other armies, but the Persians won't be too worried about that
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2019 8:32:32 GMT
That is a very good summing-up Greedo. And you know what?...you’ve convinced me that perhaps reducing the Bd/Sp/Pk combat factors is not ‘far too radical’ after all (at least, not to those who have an open mind and want to improve the playbalance and historical realism of DBA). So yes, I will take up your suggestion and propose this as a House Rule in its own thread... ...but give me a bit more time to check it out against all situations first, just in case I find something. (Anyway, there is another new House Rule on a totally different subject that I want to post first)P.S. Just 8Bow needs to lose side-support (or they'd be too powerful, and they already have close fighters in their front rank). 4Bow actually needs side-support, so that English Longbowmen can be CF 2 against foot, with +1 for side-support, when they fight the French dismounted men-at-arms Blade CF of 4.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 16:11:24 GMT
Thinking of a couple of unintended consequences: 1) Bowfire is now more powerful. You can give sp side support, and bd remain the same but pk will be slightly weaker 2) On the same note, ps will be more powerful. An extra 1/6 chance of a recoil against heavier troops. I quite like this although taking away the no over lap for ps rules might have to be modified without removing it entirely, unless people are cool with it (I am) Still interested to see how this plays out. EAP vs Greeks will be more interesting
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Oct 22, 2019 16:15:36 GMT
I dont know, if these rules would stand a hard playtesting. But they really avoid all the things, i didnt like about the other house rules, especially the many special cases. So it is a change, i could find acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 16:24:30 GMT
I dont know, if these rules would stand a hard playtesting. But they really avoid all the things, i didnt like about the other house rules, especially the many special cases. So it is a change, i could find acceptable. There are certainly a lot of dynamics which would change, so I think it's pretty radical, but on the flipside, it would streamline a LOT of things, if we can get it right. Another thing I thought of. If the main battleline is now going to resolve a bit quicker, would the increased speed of the wings still be ok? stevie mentioned that those battlelines tend to be a bit of a grind, so hopefully this will speed that up without making the battleline fall apart TOO quickly.
|
|