|
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 6:18:49 GMT
But i dont like the ideas discussed in this thread. And that is, because they bring something different, complex and foreign to the rule system of DBA. Having a bonus against some trooptypes, but not against other troops IMO is absolutely alien to the DBA combat system. Hey Decebalus! I was definitely on-board with flexible side supported 4Ax, and I felt the same way about this weird +1 vs Heavy Foot idea. It really did not seem like a core DBA parameter. Then again, side support, and Ps ignoring overlaps wasn't either, but now they are rules. At any rate, this debate had me wondering, so I ran another mini-test.
Test 2: 4Ax Side Support from almost all other foot
5x4Ax vs 5x4Sp, straight up fight with no flanking units to worry about. Starting in contact, 4Ax go first.
Result:
Surprisingly the 4Sp were beaten. An early kill of the Spear in the center of the line really made things hard for the Spear to recover. Every time they got pushed back in certain areas, they would lose their +1 side support. In addition to this, the center 4Ax was free to flank one of the Spears, and a slightly luckier than 50% shot later, killed him too. So it's not even, but the 4Ax side supported are not out of the game, and the rolls didn't seem to favor one side or the other too much.
Discussion:
I don't know what happens when you put 4Bd or even rear supported 4Pk against them.
Have to test this, since the combination of impetuous blades, AND a constant CV5 might prove too much for the 4Ax who will only get a CV4 when there is support. The problem with side support is that it makes units really brittle. Punch 1-2 small holes in a line, and now everybody's CV has dropped by at least 2 (-1 for the loss of side support, -1 for an overlap or 2), and as Stevie and Primus have pointed out, doubled overlapped 4Ax die, although I'm not necessarily opposed to that. Double overlapped anything should die. That's the point of an overlap! The side support magnifies this effect. So I think where 4Ax are a supporting unit (say 1x4Ax in a Macedonian army), then they would make a great flank support to the Pikes, since they would be supported by the pike, and wouldn't get knocked out TOO quickly. Where things get tricky is where they are a larger line (like in my test, of 4Ax heavy armies like Thracians, or even Later Carthaginians). The line falls apart pretty quickly when it starts to fall. Stevie will of course bring up Cannae where the 4Ax backed up gradually instead, and side supported 4Ax I don't think will work as well. Again I have to test 4Bd against the 4Ax, and I have mixed feelings about trying to fix Cannae which to my limited knowledge is the only occurrence of a specific setup of 4Ax in the middle, with that specific result, or being pushed gradually back. I do think there are other solutions to the Cannae problem than just +1 vs HI, but I think, side supported 4Ax, isn't it. And I like it's elegance, quite frankly.
My biggest problem with the +1 solution is that I've found 4Ax hardly EVER die (granted in only 4 tests). They ALWAYS just backup like a bunch of spears, and so the battle rages on, and will be decided on the wings. Fixing Cannae might mean that Cannae happens every time. Is that what we want?
Final Conclusion:
Not to go all 2.2+ on you guys, but does there need to be another troop type?
Are Peltasts and whatever we think these heavy Aux are supposed to be TOO far removed from each other to be classed the same?
Should we have a heavy 2Ps that acts and smells the same as 3Ax, and then have just 4Ax which are 4,3 accepting the fact that they will now be more powerful against Wb and 3Ax, and Ps? It would certainly be simpler..
What if we took away this new 4Ax's bad terrain abilities (no -2 in bad going, and doesn't slow down) and made them in effect medium infantry? This leaves 3Ax to be the bad going bad dudes that they are..
Should there be 2 different versions of 4Ax? The "crap" troops with current 4Ax, and the "ninja" troops who can fight toe toe with heavies.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 14, 2019 8:37:57 GMT
Greedo - are you suggesting 4Ps, 6Ax and 8Ax troop types?
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 14, 2019 11:32:22 GMT
Greedo - was that 5-4AX vs 4-SP as written of 4 each as stated as being even up with no flanking?
Interesting analysis, but I am still in stevie's camp on this.
Just saw that the club I belonged to is doing HOTT and La Arte de Guerre (shudder - not about to rebase or spring for another ruleset) at Westwars in May, so not sure when I can suggest playtesting the proposed changes there. Perhaps I will get to back Denver in the interim to have a go with some of the DBA 3 playtesters at the club.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 14, 2019 13:02:59 GMT
Greedo, you know the odds of killing a 4Sp with a 4Ax getting +1 are just 1/36 right? You got pretty lucky! I like it! Go 4Ax!
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 15:02:20 GMT
Greedo - are you suggesting 4Ps, 6Ax and 8Ax troop types? Paddy, that’s crazy talk! But now that you bring it up, the effect would be the same, except I haven’t heard of deep units of Ax. My main suggestion was to have 3Ax be cv 3 3, and 4Ax be cv 4 3 but the 4Ax lose the rough/bad ground abilities. Or perhaps 4Ax only is at -1 in rough.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 15:03:56 GMT
Greedo - was that 5-4AX vs 4-SP as written of 4 each as stated as being even up with no flanking? Good call. Have changed edited the post to be 5 on each side.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 15:08:03 GMT
Greedo, you know the odds of killing a 4Sp with a 4Ax getting +1 are just 1/36 right? You got pretty lucky! I like it! Go 4Ax! That particular one was indeed lucky, and it tipped the odds a bit in the Ax favor early on.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 17:29:55 GMT
Just saw that the club I belonged to is doing HOTT and La Arte de Guerre (shudder - not about to rebase or spring for another ruleset) at Westwars in May, so not sure when I can suggest playtesting the proposed changes there. Perhaps I will get to back Denver in the interim to have a go with some of the DBA 3 playtesters at the club. A tournament that tested this would really help to figure out if people like it or not (and could write in suggestions afterwards).
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Mar 14, 2019 19:20:27 GMT
So Decebalus, since “you don’t like having a bonus against some troop types and not others”, can I assume that you also disapprove of having the following in DBA 3.0?:- Lb, Cb and Bd can kill Kn and Cm on an equal score...and only Kn and Cm... 3Kn can recoil 4Kn on an equal score...and only 4Kn on an equal score... WWg that score less against El and shooting Art are destroyed...and not by anyone else if they score less... Supported Pk get +1 against Kn, El, and SCh...but not against Cv, LH, or Cm... Supported Wb get +1 against foot in close combat...but not against mounted or Ps... Side support gives +1 against close combat foot...but not close combat mounted... ...or are these all ‘different’ somehow? Yes, i think these are all "different" examples. Qick Kill and Support dont give you a bonus against a special troop type. And BTW your idea counters everything the combat value in DBA represents. A higher value in DBA means a better fighting troop! A supported warband doesnt get +1 against cavalry because it didnt fight better against cavalry. But you want Peltasts to fight better against legionaires or hoplites. Thats may fix a problem, but it isnt right in the logic of DBA IMO. You have made some good arguments. But you are only concentrating on the problem of Aux against blades etc. I have a problem that solid aux arent better against fast aux and you dont fix that. Persian Kadakes should be better than persian Takabara, but they arent.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 14, 2019 20:05:08 GMT
So Decebalus, since “you don’t like having a bonus against some troop types and not others”, can I assume that you also disapprove of having the following in DBA 3.0?:- Lb, Cb and Bd can kill Kn and Cm on an equal score...and only Kn and Cm... 3Kn can recoil 4Kn on an equal score...and only 4Kn on an equal score... WWg that score less against El and shooting Art are destroyed...and not by anyone else if they score less... Supported Pk get +1 against Kn, El, and SCh...but not against Cv, LH, or Cm... Supported Wb get +1 against foot in close combat...but not against mounted or Ps... Side support gives +1 against close combat foot...but not close combat mounted... ...or are these all ‘different’ somehow? Yes, i think these are all "different" examples. Qick Kill and Support dont give you a bonus against a special troop type. And BTW your idea counters everything the combat value in DBA represents. A higher value in DBA means a better fighting troop! A supported warband doesnt get +1 against cavalry because it didnt fight better against cavalry. But you want Peltasts to fight better against legionaires or hoplites. Thats may fix a problem, but it isnt right in the logic of DBA IMO. You have made some good arguments. But you are only concentrating on the problem of Aux against blades etc. I have a problem that solid aux arent better against fast aux and you dont fix that. Persian Kadakes should be better than persian Takabara, but they arent. Mmmmm decebalus, I am not sure I agree with your contention that "higher combat factor = better troops". For example, 4Sp have 4 CF against mounted; Kn have 3. Does that mean Spears are "better than" Kn in close combat? Hardly. The QK shows this. I think you need to review the odds calculations of each troop interaction. The combat outcomes are what actually matter. DBA is a game about high level battle behaviour. Ps are a 2 not because they are "worse" than Bd, but because they tended to run back from an advancing infantry line, after "getting in their face" just a bit. They way you do that in the DBA system is to make their combat factor lower, but allow them to flee if doubled by HI. The fact of DBA is that because everyone has the same number of elements, all elements are supposed to be equal. The combination of movement rates, particular combat results, tactical factors (troop type based, I am afraid, as in Ps and SCh ignoring corner-to-corner overlap penalties, Wb having QK against Bd, Wb not getting the +1 for rear support against Ps, etc...) and movement (also troop-type based: 2 different rates for each Bw, Bd, Pk, Ax and Wb) is how we get not to "superiority" but "behaviour". DBA3 is funny that way. Like the tie allowing Bd (a troop type) to kill Kn (another troop type), while if the Kn "lose" the combat, they merely recoil. By the way, how many battles have you fought between, say, Thracian (mostly 3Ax and Ps) and Illyrian (mostly 4Ax)? I ask since I am curious to know if in say 30 games, the 4Ax win 15, or do they win 20-25? What do your results say? In my games (admittedly we only got in about 20 with these opponents), the Thracians had a rougher time of it. Maybe I had too many Ps (I had 4 for Thrace, vs 2 for Illyria).
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Mar 14, 2019 20:16:14 GMT
I agree completely with Decebalus: a specific (and nonsensical) modifier against a certain troop type is both complex and gamey and not a good DBX solution. Examples of troops having specific modifiers are situation based not we just want to make 4Aux play differently against certain troop types.
These problems can be solved by far simpler and better DBX methods.
First if you want +4 Loose Order Medium Foot then just create it. Call it 4Aux. It has CF of +4 ignores Bad/Rough but moves only 2BW and so cannot run down Ps (only "disperse it"). Or use Fast Spear.
The boost against certain troop types for no historical reason and just to help one of the clumsy troop types takes us back to 2.2 thining which we just spend 3 years of development and playtesting to get rid of.
Adding complexity and gamey based rules is not the answer.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 14, 2019 21:04:10 GMT
Well, Tom, we will have to agree to disagree. The fact that Ps is immune to suffering the +1 for rear support from Wb and Pk is already an element specific and gamey modifier.
The DBA engine is just not up to the job of fixing this. Sorry, it just isn't. Better people than you and I have tried to make this work. It cannot. This fix works. The other suggestions do not.
I will not play DBA as written, when I want to play specific campaigns. You won't use Stevie's Time of Day or my +1 modifier. That's fine.
I am not going to invent a new element, and risk all manner of unintended knock on effects. I am going to target a specific issue, and surgically fix it.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Play games the way you want. For those that wish to use historical tweaks that render armies in specific periods more likely to behave more like their historical counterparts, then these rules may give you some vehicle forn etting there. And they will do that with minimal knock on effects.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 21:40:06 GMT
Greedo - are you suggesting 4Ps, 6Ax and 8Ax troop types? Now that I'm thinking about it, would 8Ax make sense? It doesn't affect 3Ax, would only be available to certain armies (that we know have ninja 4Ax), and are offset by the 2xelements lost when killed. A Cannae recreation for example, would have 3x8Ax. Losing all of them loses the game (2 + + 1 losses), so the Carth player needs to make sure his/her Cav have chased off the Roman Cav before that happens. It also fits with existing player's notions of DBA mechanisms, and requires no additional combat factors. Only 2 problems that I can think of (open to others): 1) This unit will be more powerful against light troops (Ps, Ax, Wb) as well as heavy infantry. Is this a problem? 2) I have no historical "justification" of a deep Ax other than to bolster their survivability.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 14, 2019 22:28:42 GMT
What? Paint up an 8Ax? Nah, I'll just use the 4Ax and my existing mod. Same effect. Half the painting
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 22:50:00 GMT
What? Paint up an 8Ax? Nah, I'll just use the 4Ax and my existing mod. Same effect. Half the painting Fair point. So another idea: 4Ax +1 on a loss I crunched the numbers (could be error prone!): 4Ax double overlapped by 4Bd regular rules: 4Ax die 50% of the time, recoil 42%, draw 6% If 4Ax double overlapped by 4Bd, but adds 1 on a loss: 4Ax die 29% of the time, recoil 44%, draw 12% If 4Ax double overlapped by 4Bd, but adds 1 vs HI: 4Ax die 33% of the time, recoil 50%, draw 8% I recognize that this is borrowing mechanics from the Superior/Inferior of DBMM (or some DBx game) But it does seem to give about the same stats as +1 vs HI, at least on the losing side, and it means that 4Ax double overlapped by 4Bd won't die INSTANTLY as they do now. Also, if we are talking about "ninja 4Ax", then Superior 4Ax would be appropriate, without wrecking existing 4Ax Again, would only be applicable to some armies so hopefully won't screw up the army lists, which is a concern because of the time/effort to re-jig them. Potential Side Effects:1) Still has unintended consequences against light infantry (Ps, Wb, Ax) when they lose 2) Adds another mechanism, but at least it's applicable across the board, and isn't opponent specific. So *relatively* simple. 3) People are generally against DBMM lite, but then again, we didn't have Fast elements before, and now we do, so not a huge leap to another rating of the same element
|
|