|
Post by Vic on Sept 27, 2018 13:45:36 GMT
And the (b) case for flank support (Bows) would be removed (as superseded by the tactical factor). Oh, a slight disagreement there Vic. I want English Longbowmen to have a CF of 4 against dismounted French men-at-arms blades. So they need the side-support (CF 2, +1 for the new Tactical Factor, and +1 for side-support). I just don't think 8Bw should be the same as Bd (CF 2, +1 for the new Tactical Factor, +1 for double base, AND +1 for side-support is too much). So 8Bw alone should lose side-support. 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
Ah, understood; in that case, would we need to remove side-support for solid Bw at all? I'll check with the Purple Book when I'm home, but I don't think Persians have a suitable 4Bd to provide side support to 8Bw sparabara; it'd be a question of checking if other armies with 8Bw/Cb/Lb (of which there are not many) combine them with 4Bd (Chinese armies come to mind as a possible case). If not, then the exception is unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 27, 2018 15:12:19 GMT
Ha! It was you Greedo that persuaded me into thinking that 4Ax should not be allowed the 1 BW recoil (see page 2 of this thread) It just doesn’t seem right to have Imperial Roman Auxilia ‘evading’ a heavy foot charge, and there’s no evidence that they ever did. Sooo...only 4Ax (and 4Bw/8Bw) get Primuspilus’ new +1 Tactical Factor, and only 3Ax (and 3Bw/Ps) get Joe Collin’s ‘evade’ 1 BW. The former has a slight boost in close combat, while the latter has the option to recoil further. 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
Good point. 1BW recoil for 3Bw, 3Aux, & 2Ps. +1 for 4Ax against heavy infantry. I'm in, as long as it could be added without too much complication.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 27, 2018 16:49:31 GMT
Well I'm glad to see everyone is coming around to the need for "+1" Bow & Aux (really Medium Foot). The solution suggest is unnecessarily complex but the concept is good.
Side support is meant to represent shield wall for Spears but in the case of Bows a mixing of men-at-arms and bowmen at the point of contact. So its two different things with the same name -a bit confusing (so call it Shieldwall and Retinue). Its not meant to be abstract. Adding abstract band aid fixes is not a good idea. Comprehensive solutions often not only solve the immediate problem but other problems as well. Just add +3 "Shooters" from HOTT and give 8BW Shield wall. You need a Medium Foot w/Blade to cover "fighting aux" the trade off would be losing the power to run down Ps (unless Fast).
TomT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 27, 2018 18:10:18 GMT
Oh, a slight disagreement there Vic. I want English Longbowmen to have a CF of 4 against dismounted French men-at-arms blades. So they need the side-support (CF 2, +1 for the new Tactical Factor, and +1 for side-support). I just don't think 8Bw should be the same as Bd (CF 2, +1 for the new Tactical Factor, +1 for double base, AND +1 for side-support is too much). So 8Bw alone should lose side-support. 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
Ah, understood; in that case, would we need to remove side-support for solid Bw at all? I'll check with the Purple Book when I'm home, but I don't think Persians have a suitable 4Bd to provide side support to 8Bw sparabara; it'd be a question of checking if other armies with 8Bw/Cb/Lb (of which there are not many) combine them with 4Bd (Chinese armies come to mind as a possible case). If not, then the exception is unnecessary. Well Vic, I’ve been through the entire army lists, and here are the only 8Bw armies:- 8Bw with no 4Bd support (so currently has a close combat factor of 3):- I/44b Neo-Babylonians, I/60 Early Persians, II/41a Western Han, III/7b Pre-Samurai, III/20c T’ang Chinese, III/76 Konstantinian Byzantines, IV/51b Morean Byzantines, IV/61 Italian Condotta, IV/66 Later Polish, IV/68c Aragonese,
8Bw with 4Bd support (so currently has a close combat factor of 4):- III/65 Nikephorian Byzantines, III/73b Communal Italians (has CWg), IV/5c Sicilians (has allied 4Bd), IV/48 Yuan Chinese, IV/85 Burgundian Ordonnace,
Now on to the results. I’ve divided all the bows into 5 groups:- Here is the current The effect of an extra +1 in close DBA situation:- close combat against Bd/Sp/Pk:- 3Bw not allowed side-support CF 2 CF 2 4Bw with no 4Bd side-support CF 2 CF 3 4Bw with 4Bd side-support CF 3 CF 4 8Bw with no 4Bd side-support CF 3 CF 4 8Bw with 4Bd side-support CF 4 CF 4 (lose side-support, or it will be CF 5)As you can see, all solid bows (and this includes Cb and Lb) becomes a bit better in close combat against heavy foot. And Tom... ...the problem with a 'blanket' fix CF of 3 is the knock-on effects this has against other troops (such as Wb, Ps, Ax, and others). Even then, it needs to be limited to just solid Bw in close combat and not shooting, and 8Bw would become a CF 5...the same as Bd! Anyway, if side-support represents the mixing of men-at-arms and bows at the point of contact, why do 8Bw get side-support? 8Bw already have a front rank of close combat fighters! For this reason alone they should be exempted (and limited to a maximum CF of 4 in close combat). Basically, there seems to be two different approaches:- a) Nice elegant rules (and it’s a shame they don’t give the right results in all situations). b) Precise rules that do give the right results (and it’s a shame they are not quite so elegant). Which is more important? 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 Vic on Sept 28, 2018 8:47:46 GMT
So, case (b) of the "Side support" paragraph should simply receive a
"Solid" Bows (except double elements)
qualifier. It's clear enough I think.
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Sept 28, 2018 9:12:55 GMT
Stevie
I suspect (but have not checked) that there were very few if any armies in Europe at least that used the number of foot archers in the way the Persian did, probably a virtually 100% army of bow forming a battle line. After that nobody did. The pavise is a lighter more moveable adaption, but not really the same (a non-moving city wall on the battlefield), or for that matter in the same numbers. So it makes sense if it is a one of, and very good against horse archers.
If an invader, you force the people you have invaded to fight or give ground, eventually they have to fight, usually on ground of your choosing.
If it was done properly then it would not make a good game, unless you tweaked it a bit.
Unfortunately DBA is not for historical games, pity, because it would be nice to see a Greek player win at Marathon for the correct reasons.
The nearest you can do in DBA (I think) is to give it a plus as if a camp, and allow it as a fixed line of defence in front of the bow.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 28, 2018 10:08:31 GMT
But then stevie why then should spear get side support from 'solid' blade (actually, I have been wondering that since I first saw it)?
And on a further note, why do Chinese 8BW who have a front rank of halberders not get a +1 bonus against horse as well as foot? At least the long ji halberds were anti-cavalry.
And then the T'ang 4CB that are a mix of crossbow and halberd that could have their distant combat reduced and their close combat increased.
Or then we could play DBMM...
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Sept 28, 2018 10:51:50 GMT
But then stevie why then should spear get side support from 'solid' blade (actually, I have been wondering that since I first saw it)? The first time I saw this, I immediately thought of a particular army that this rule seemed to be designed for. One of the things DBA 3.0 clearly deals with much better than earlier versions is European Dark Ages armies, and this rule allows Anglo-Danish shieldwalls to integrate fyrd and huscarles without penalisation. I'm sure the scope is larger than that, but I'd be willing to bet that this one was one of the main examples considered.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 28, 2018 10:59:14 GMT
Makes sense, hadn't thought of that particular case.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 28, 2018 15:17:46 GMT
But then stevie why then should spear get side support from 'solid' blade (actually, I have been wondering that since I first saw it)? The first time I saw this, I immediately thought of a particular army that this rule seemed to be designed for. One of the things DBA 3.0 clearly deals with much better than earlier versions is European Dark Ages armies, and this rule allows Anglo-Danish shieldwalls to integrate fyrd and huscarles without penalisation. I'm sure the scope is larger than that, but I'd be willing to bet that this one was one of the main examples considered. There is also the case of the Republican Roman spear armed Triarii. Without some sort of +1, these dependable veterans would end up weaker than the legionaries. Perhaps (and I’m only guessing here) spears need someone with a large shield to ensure their flank is safe, and only solid blades and other spearmen fit the bill. Anyway, it’s the effect that matters...justifications are secondary and unimportant providing the effect is right. 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 pawsbill on Sept 28, 2018 18:20:54 GMT
Except that isn't how most of the troops represented by 4Ax operated. In may cases they were the heavy infantry, or at lease line-of-battle infantry, not "light" or skirmishing infantry. In a lot of cases, one nation's 3Bd and another's 4Ax are almost identical. 4Ax should be able to stand up to Bd, maybe giving way slowly to the heaviest enemy, but at factor +3 against a blade's +5, they are too vulnerable (and just giving them a longer recoil won't stop that). I entirely agree with you Pawsbill about Ax being too weak to stand up to heavy foot. <snip> However, I very much disagree with the notion that 4Ax were just another type of poor quality of close combat troops.
That isn't actually what I'm saying.
I'm saying that 4Ax were good quality close combat troops, just a little weaker in that respect than the troops currently classed as Sp or Bd. You could say that "Solid" Auxilia were just not quite as solid as Blade or Psiloi, but otherwise, they were expected to be good melee troops with a degree of flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 29, 2018 5:13:22 GMT
I entirely agree with you Pawsbill about Ax being too weak to stand up to heavy foot. <snip> However, I very much disagree with the notion that 4Ax were just another type of poor quality of close combat troops.
That isn't actually what I'm saying.
I'm saying that 4Ax were good quality close combat troops, just a little weaker in that respect than the troops currently classed as Sp or Bd. You could say that "Solid" Auxilia were just not quite as solid as Blade or Psiloi, but otherwise, they were expected to be good melee troops with a degree of flexibility.
I'm still kicking around the idea that some 4Ax could be considered Fast Sp (3Sp), so 4,4, but no side support, and move a bit quicker...?
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Sept 29, 2018 8:11:19 GMT
The Triarii were the last line of defence, which was why they usually held the camp, if they were better as Sp than the rest of the army as Bd is probably in question. Triarii fighting in the line with the Bd tends to be unusual, and mostly in a group of their own type.
The Roman system is another thing that does not work in DBA, it did not in the old WRG rules.
Flank support like overlapping, might be rules that might be very wrong in some cases, but not in others. To add flank support to solve problems is merely a fudge.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 29, 2018 11:42:17 GMT
Lots of replies required! Pawsbill:-And I entirely agree with you. 4Ax should be slightly less effective than Bd and Sp, but not devastatingly so as they are now. Giving them a +1 in certain situations would help...but by what mechanism do we use to to apply this extra +1? That is the question... Interestingly, the 4Ax weakness is not by design, but merely a quirk of the DBA combat system. Wb (CF 3, with +1 for rear support) quick kill Bd, so the Bd need a high factor (CF 5) to stand against them. And if Bd are CF 5, then Sp need to be CF 5 as well so they can stand against both Bd and Wb. And so that Ax don't overpower Wb, they have the same CF 3 as the barbarians. This works fine...until the poor old 4Ax, with no quick kill and only a CF of 3, has to face Bd and Sp! There have been many improvements to DBA over the years to boost weak elements:- In the early days of DBA 1.0 it was realised that Wb were too weak, so they were given rear-support in later versions... Sp having rear-support made their battleline too short, so they now have side-support instead... Bows were deemed to be too weak (and still are), so they too were given side-support in certain situations... LH were also considered to be too weak, so they now have rear-support to boost them a bit... ...isn’t it a shame that after all these improvements over a span of some 20 years, nothing has been done about the Ax weakness? Greedo:-Using ‘fast Sp’ is the same as giving 4Ax a blanket fix of +1...both will have a CF of 4 in close combat with foot. This will make them more powerful against ALL foot such as Wb/Ps/Bw/WWg and the rest. And what happens to this ‘fast Sp’ in bad going? Are they to be weaker in such terrain than Ax are currently, and inferior to Bd? Or should ‘fast Sp’ keep their CF 4 in bad going, and really devastate all other elements in such terrain? David:-Yes, you are quite right...side-support IS a fudge, and just an excuse to give an extra +1 to weak elements that need it. But it works. It gives the right effects, makes our little metal soldiers act as the ancients said they did, and encourages historical behaviour. What’s not to like? I think the side-support rule is a work of genius, and a vast improvement over earlier versions of DBA. Of course, having said that, they may be other ways of ‘fudging’ the rules to improve the 4Ax and 4Bd weakness. One alternative is instead of giving the 4Ax/4Bw a +1 against heavy foot, we give the heavy foot a -1 against Ax/Bw/Ps. Need a justification?...well, it’s hard to come to grips with someone chucking missiles at you from a distance, especially when they keep evading away (and already have a 20 to 30 pace head start) if you don’t move faster than they do. So I’m still open to suggestions about what mechanism we should use to improve Ax and Bw. So far Primuspilus’ suggestion of an extra +1 Tactical Factor for 4Ax and 4Bw when fighting Bd/Sp/Pk seems the best. It’s simple...it gives the right effects...and it causes no knock-on problems against other foot. Can anyone think of anything better? P.S. Sorry to hear about your flu jabs David. You know, you can always tell someone's social standing by what disease they get:- The Royal Family get 'pneumonia'... Middle management and anyone in a suit gets 'the flu'... The working classes get 'a cold'... ...well, I've had colds all my life and I'm proud of 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 davidjconstable on Sept 29, 2018 13:48:50 GMT
Hello Stevie
It is not the flu as such, but the flu jab itself, the Doc came to visit and went over the road for Paracetamol for me.
Fudges to a degree cannot be avoided, when I started working on my own latest version ancient rules recently (first started 1982) I wanted to be able to do battles without fudges, however I realise the amount of time it is going to take means it will never be done, so from January I will be going back to WW2 using 3mm.
David Constable
|
|