|
Post by judebecker on Dec 6, 2018 15:25:12 GMT
I have a version dated November 2009 called DBA RRR 1.04 but with a footer that reads 1.05 Aug. 2010. It states DBA 2.2 is needed to play. Is this the most recent version of DBA-RRR?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 6, 2018 17:24:24 GMT
The last version is v. 1.21 and is available in the files section of the DBA Facebook page. It consist of three files (rules, army lists and playsheet) www.facebook.com/groups/382414395294162/files/You still need a copy of DBA 2.2 to play. A DBA 3.0 compatible version is currently not in development (yet.)
|
|
|
Post by dogfather on Dec 13, 2018 11:27:16 GMT
As I only have DBA3.0 does that mean the RRR rules wont work with them?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 13, 2018 12:29:02 GMT
As I only have DBA3.0 does that mean the RRR rules wont work with them? Correct. DBA-RRR was developed in 2009-2011 which pre-dates DBA 3.0.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 12, 2020 15:11:09 GMT
I have started working on the preliminary stages on a new Renaissance Period adaptation. Hard to say when this will be out as it will draw from several sources along with some new stuff.
It will also not be called DBA-RRR or RRR anything to avoid confusion.
|
|
|
Post by judebecker on May 12, 2020 16:32:04 GMT
Great news Tony, something to do to get one's mind off of the void in lieu of Historicon.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 12, 2020 16:58:36 GMT
Great news Tony, something to do to get one's mind off of the void in lieu of Historicon. Yes, especially now. I had already decided to start on it when Recon was canned. Historicon going bye-bye is just more of a reason to focus on this.
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 12, 2020 19:55:14 GMT
I am hoping that Tony will take this opportunity to break away from the 12 element stranglehold of DBA. What we need are 3 element infantry units. A three deep pike unit, the Swiss keil-hell in hand to hand combat. And, Swiss pike could all be fast, as was characteristic of their battlefield behavior. Then we have the early Spanish Tercio-one shot and two pikes, using firepower to cause attrition prior to combat. Finally, we have the ECW and later TYW where we have one pike for two shot. Pure shot units can exist, but are very vulnerable to cavalry. Blade units were used with some success by the Spanish against Pike at Ravenna, but with much less success in the open in an earlier battle-I would have to look it up. Certainly good against pike disordered by ground.. Pure shot units exist, and can stop Swiss IF they have the advantage of a wall or ditch or other cover. Otherwise, are likely to flee or be effectively if pike are allowed to close. At Breitenfeld, shot supporting the Swedish horse took very heavy losses according to The Swedish Intelligencer.
By the French WOR, mid 16th century, the French Captain Monluc explained it thus. Battles would begin with skirmishing between the shot. The side losing the skirmish would be compelled to attack or face gradual destruction by unanswered fire.
Units might pass through each other on the charge-one of the most fun things from Gush's WRG rules. On a tie, mounted might be allowed or required to interpenetrate either foot or horse and wind up facing rear to rear to an enemy formation. This can add some spice to combat outcomes.
Just some thoughts...
Mike Guth
|
|
|
Post by judebecker on May 12, 2020 20:16:05 GMT
I am hoping that Tony will take this opportunity to break away from the 12 element stranglehold of DBA. What we need are 3 element infantry units. A three deep pike unit, the Swiss keil-hell in hand to hand combat. And, Swiss pike could all be fast, as was characteristic of their battlefield behavior. Then we have the early Spanish Tercio-one shot and two pikes, using firepower to cause attrition prior to combat. Finally, we have the ECW and later TYW where we have one pike for two shot. Pure shot units can exist, but are very vulnerable to cavalry. Blade units were used with some success by the Spanish against Pike at Ravenna, but with much less success in the open in an earlier battle-I would have to look it up. Certainly good against pike disordered by ground.. Pure shot units exist, and can stop Swiss IF they have the advantage of a wall or ditch or other cover. Otherwise, are likely to flee or be effectively if pike are allowed to close. At Breitenfeld, shot supporting the Swedish horse took very heavy losses according to The Swedish Intelligencer. By the French WOR, mid 16th century, the French Captain Monluc explained it thus. Battles would begin with skirmishing between the shot. The side losing the skirmish would be compelled to attack or face gradual destruction by unanswered fire. Units might pass through each other on the charge-one of the most fun things from Gush's WRG rules. On a tie, mounted might be allowed or required to interpenetrate either foot or horse and wind up facing rear to rear to an enemy formation. This can add some spice to combat outcomes. Just some thoughts... Mike Guth Good stuff this, to it I would add the experimentation of the "Dutch System" or "early linear system" by Maurits of Nassau at the siege of Julich in 1610. This means the rules need to reflect both the deep Spanish Tercio system in use before then and even after then as well as the Dutch "little checkerboard" of small combined units that are very flexible and able to outmaneuver the larger Spanish units.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 12, 2020 20:28:13 GMT
I am hoping that Tony will take this opportunity to break away from the 12 element stranglehold of DBA. What we need are 3 element infantry units. A three deep pike unit, the Swiss keil-hell in hand to hand combat. And, Swiss pike could all be fast, as was characteristic of their battlefield behavior. Then we have the early Spanish Tercio-one shot and two pikes, using firepower to cause attrition prior to combat. Finally, we have the ECW and later TYW where we have one pike for two shot. Pure shot units can exist, but are very vulnerable to cavalry. Blade units were used with some success by the Spanish against Pike at Ravenna, but with much less success in the open in an earlier battle-I would have to look it up. Certainly good against pike disordered by ground.. Pure shot units exist, and can stop Swiss IF they have the advantage of a wall or ditch or other cover. Otherwise, are likely to flee or be effectively if pike are allowed to close. At Breitenfeld, shot supporting the Swedish horse took very heavy losses according to The Swedish Intelligencer. By the French WOR, mid 16th century, the French Captain Monluc explained it thus. Battles would begin with skirmishing between the shot. The side losing the skirmish would be compelled to attack or face gradual destruction by unanswered fire. Units might pass through each other on the charge-one of the most fun things from Gush's WRG rules. On a tie, mounted might be allowed or required to interpenetrate either foot or horse and wind up facing rear to rear to an enemy formation. This can add some spice to combat outcomes. Just some thoughts... Mike Guth Way to early to tell what will be considered. It is super early so hopefully will not be pulled into too many directions at once. It will be a DBA sized game - not 24 elements etc. Right now we are focused on work out mechanisms. Purchasing DBA 3.0 (or any other version for that matter) will not be necessary for this. And as always this will be FREE. I was hesitant to announce this but I feel I needed some good news after the Recon/Historicon debacle. This is a long process so be patient.
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on May 12, 2020 21:37:47 GMT
This is a long process so be patient. I will gladly wait patiently. I'm sure it will be worth it.
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on May 12, 2020 23:17:46 GMT
Tony, I would like to add my gentle encouragement.
Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 13, 2020 3:03:38 GMT
I have started working on the preliminary stages on a new Renaissance Period adaptation. Hard to say when this will be out as it will draw from several sources along with some new stuff. It will also not be called DBA-RRR or RRR anything to avoid confusion. Great! Another period to game in. And I thought I could see the top of the lead mountain! Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 13, 2020 4:21:54 GMT
At the hot zone right now. Not much time to respond. There are sort of two threads now overlapping, this, and the new player doing DBR thread.
When I played DBA-RRR, the first thing to do was to find an army with the fewest pike. Having a pike element in the line with a factor of 3 against shooting was a weak point which would get hammered by shot at 4-3 with two assisting elements making a 4-1. Do this for 2 bounds and there is now a hole in the enemy line. With 12 elements a side, a hole in your line is usually certain death due to overlap/door closing.
The shooting against mounted was powerful enough with 1 or two elements assisting to get from a 2vs3 against knights, down to a 2 vs 1. This has a high chance of killing a knight, and a good chance of disrupting a pistoleer attack.
(The shooting factor against foot ignores the fact that by the early 1600's pike are in thinner formations with larger intervals unless they are closing up to charge or receive a charge. The larger intervals provide a potential place for shot to shelter, as occurred as late as Marston Moor.)
I forget the author for Exercise of Arms. This book discusses the difference between the Maurice-reformed Dutch infantry and the Spanish Tercio. First, the intervals between Dutch units were 'not large'. The purpose of the second checkerboard line of Dutch units was that they could advance and put a wad of pikemen into the spaces occupied by the shot if needed to stop an attack by cavalry or pike. The overall effect was to get more shot firing relative to the unit frontage than would be presented by a Spanish 'tercio' (a possible misnomer).
The Imperial General Montecucolli also discuses this. He is reprinted in 'The Military Intellectual and Battle.' Tilly's infantry formations at Breitenfeld were rapidly appreciated to be obsolete. Imperial formations by Lutzen are similar to Swedish formations, although without the small battalion guns. The Swedish T brigade also rapidly disappeared. Its use is described in English by an English officer in Gustavus' army. Again, the purpose was to get more firepower out of the unit. I'll post that tomorrow.
At the DBA scale, it is difficult to recreate the checkerboard small unit tactics. But a couple of things I'd like to see reflected in the game are that a. Pike support was necessary for shot against pike well into the 1500's b. Pike was necessary to protect shot from cavalry certainly up to Marston Moor and the Jacobite rebellions;(Actual battlefield casualties caused by all that shooting were actually small in the ECW, and hard to reconcile with casualty returns from battles like Lutzen in the TYW.) c. Shot could support cavalry. However, I disagree with DBR- I don't think the mounted did a good job of protecting the shot, ex. Breitenfeld, Marston Moor. By the TYW some shot was often happy to close with the enemy; sometimes after a concentrated volley (Breitenfeld; Reid-Gunpowder Triumphant, Montrose Scots). d. It should be more difficult to close the door in this period because units may actually represent intrinsic checkerboard formations which were designed to plug gaps, smoke interfered with command control, units performing rotational firing could not be easily directed to cease fire and charge into a gap-unless trained to do so (Montrose, Swedish GNW, TYW Scots). Its hard to charge into a gap when you are a musketeer peering through the smoke, marching to the rear after firing, unloaded and trying not to set your friend's powder off as you move about.
DBA becomes quite the dice off when there are so many shooting elements on the board. I had proposed the multi element infantry units to be able to show the evolution of combat from pike, to pike and shot, to shot and pike by showing three distinct infantry types. The multi element unit allows for gradual attrition before a weak point appears in a battle line mitigating the 1-6, gap in line, hard flank, game over effect.
I look forward to seeing what Tony comes up with.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by judebecker on May 13, 2020 15:12:19 GMT
Tony, for what it's worth, if you need any help play testing or hunting up primary source docs (I have many in multiple languages as I work closely with Brent Nosworthy who is on the verge of publishing more on pike and shot period) just let me know.
Also to those who don't like 12 elements I would say this:
My frustration once extended to the concept of 12 elements in that I thought there should be room as in DBM/MM or DBR to have differing army sizes. But then I realized after reading one Slingshot issue I think, that 12 elements means that the army is divided into twelfths and to view each element as not a specific number of men ( I know this concept is troubled by the stated 500 men per element) but a relevant portion of the army in a sort of ephemeral way. And furthermore, this is what the DBX mechanism was originally intended to be, a minimized, abstract method of wargaming that would be fast to play while not lacking as sort of erudite depth or sophistication.
A Renaissance version of DBA 3 should not just be "DBA 3 with modifiers" but a DBA 3 inspired game meant for the renaissance. DBA 3 is the most evolved set of rules by far from the DBx family IMO.
Any set Tony devises as a development of PB's original (now community supported) work will keep this in mind I know as well as offer us gamers who do want to refine and expand for our own scenarios or dreams a solid platform that we can then do a "big battles" version if we want more elements as well as help us fix the bugs in DBR if we want a more literal simulation feel to the game.
I'm very much looking forward.
|
|