|
Post by Simon on Feb 18, 2019 10:42:37 GMT
This looks an interesting option. I am thinking of trying the rules out at one of the Bakewell Tournaments.
Regards,
Simon
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 18, 2019 10:56:30 GMT
I’ve kind of lost track of the justifications for these amendments. Can somebody summarise what the suggested new wording would be and the brief historical justification for the change.
My one initial thought is that if 3Ax are to recoillike Cav then shouldn’t Psloi also?
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Feb 18, 2019 11:59:38 GMT
I’ve kind of lost track of the justifications for these amendments. Can somebody summarise what the suggested new wording would be and the brief historical justification for the change. My one initial thought is that if 3Ax are to recoillike Cav Feb 16, 2019 at 3:50pmthen shouldn’t Psloi also? I think Stevie's post a few messages back does this well. (Feb 16, 2019 at 3:50pm) Simon
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 18, 2019 13:05:28 GMT
I’ve kind of lost track of the justifications for these amendments. Can somebody summarise what the suggested new wording would be and the brief historical justification for the change. My one initial thought is that if 3Ax are to recoillike Cav then shouldn’t Psloi also? I thought I had already made it clear Paddy, but here is a brief summery:- 4Ax should get a +1 Tactical Factor against Blades, Spears, or rear-supported Pikes, unless in bad going (to simulate closing ranks). 3Ax should recoil either their base depth or a full base width, like mounted (to simulate Peltast ‘evading’ tactics). Ps don’t need this 1 BW recoil, because they are not pursued by foot and so already have a ‘break-off from combat’ mechanism. For decades players have complained that Ax troops are too weak to perform as the ancient historians said they did. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19311/ ) Basically, the present combat factor of 3 cannot stand up to a combat factor of 5...they die too easily when overlapped. (See fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf ) Joe Collins is aware of this and proposed that having Ax recoil 1 BW will help to keep them alive for longer...but it doesn’t work. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/18722/ ) Some time ago Primuspilus suggested giving 4Ax a +1 when facing heavy foot...and this does work. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/6445/ ) In short, DBA has the capabilities of the Ax class wrong, at least according to the research done by Fernando Quesada, Duncan Head, and the historical accounts of many of the ancient writers such as Polybius, Livy, and Josephus. This is not the first time DBA has got things wrong that later needed to be fixed in the next version of DBA. Many elements have been tweaked and improved in DBA 3.0 to make them both more realistic and better play balanced. Spears with rear-support weren’t working properly in version 2.2, so now they have side-support instead. Likewise 4Bw now get side-support from 4Bd to make them stronger in the Hundred Years War to stand up to Blades. Eventually it was realised that Light Horse were too weak to fulfil their historical function, so they now get rear-support. Blades, Longbows, and Crossbows can now kill Knights and Camelry on an equal score in close combat. Elephants have now had their combat factors against foot and mounted swapped over, to give more historical results. Psiloi and Scythed Chariots now ignore corner-to-corner overlaps to encourage their use in front of the main battlelines. And many other innovations and adjustments. But the faults with the Ax class have been completely ignored, and has no improvements when fighting against foot. They were weak 20 years ago, and are still weak in DBA 3.0 today, and unable to perform their true historical role in battle. Tournament players know Ax are weak and not play balanced, which is why you rarely see Ax heavy armies in competitions. Historical players know Ax are weak, because it’s mathematically impossible for them to do what the ancient writers said they did. Improving the Ax class will benefit everybody.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 18, 2019 13:47:59 GMT
Thanks Stevie - I wasn’t being bone just hadn’t connected Joe’s suggestions from other threads.
This looks really good. Basically what this creates is a troop type that varies it’s fighting style according to the enemy it is facing as well as the terrain it is in.
However, to play the Devil’s Advocate. So why doesn’t this apply to all “solid” foot? I suppose because Ax don’t close ranks vs Bow or Art for very good reasons like not getting shot. But the justification vs single ranked Pike is less clear.....wouldn’t 4Ax close ranks against them? Also does this applies to all and and Pk, including 3Bd and 3Pk? Is there historical justification in these circumstances?
My other concern is that this further disadvantages Pk, which already suffer from narrow frontages and QK when the door is shut.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 18, 2019 15:40:53 GMT
I’ve kind of lost track of the justifications for these amendments. Can somebody summarise what the suggested new wording would be and the brief historical justification for the change. My one initial thought is that if 3Ax are to recoillike Cav then shouldn’t Psloi also? I thought I had already made it clear Paddy, but here is a brief summery:- 4Ax should get a +1 Tactical Factor against Blades, Spears, or rear-supported Pikes, unless in bad going (to simulate closing ranks). 3Ax should recoil either their base depth or a full base width, like mounted (to simulate Peltast ‘evading’ tactics). Ps don’t need this 1 BW recoil, because they are not pursued by foot and so already have a ‘break-off from combat’ mechanism. For decades players have complained that Ax troops are too weak to perform as the ancient historians said they did. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19311/ ) Basically, the present combat factor of 3 cannot stand up to a combat factor of 5...they die too easily when overlapped. (See fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf ) Joe Collins is aware of this and proposed that having Ax recoil 1 BW will help to keep them alive for longer...but it doesn’t work. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/18722/ ) Some time ago Primuspilus suggested giving 4Ax a +1 when facing heavy foot...and this does work. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/6445/ ) In short, DBA has the capabilities of the Ax class wrong, at least according to the research done by Fernando Quesada, Duncan Head, and the historical accounts of many of the ancient writers such as Polybius, Livy, and Josephus. This is not the first time DBA has got things wrong that later needed to be fixed in the next version of DBA. Many elements have been tweaked and improved in DBA 3.0 to make them both more realistic and better play balanced. Spears with rear-support weren’t working properly in version 2.2, so now they have side-support instead. Likewise 4Bw now get side-support from 4Bd to make them stronger in the Hundred Years War to stand up to Blades. Eventually it was realised that Light Horse were too weak to fulfil their historical function, so they now get rear-support. Blades, Longbows, and Crossbows can now kill Knights and Camelry on an equal score in close combat. Elephants have now had their combat factors against foot and mounted swapped over, to give more historical results. Psiloi and Scythed Chariots now ignore corner-to-corner overlaps to encourage their use in front of the main battlelines. And many other innovations and adjustments. But the faults with the Ax class have been completely ignored, and has no improvements when fighting against foot. They were weak 20 years ago, and are still weak in DBA 3.0 today, and unable to perform their true historical role in battle. Tournament players know Ax are weak and not play balanced, which is why you rarely see Ax heavy armies in competitions. Historical players know Ax are weak, because it’s mathematically impossible for them to do what the ancient writers said they did. Improving the Ax class will benefit everybody.
Errr... My idea for 1 BW recoil doesn't work. I've got two victories at Cannae now that says it works. More testing will be forth coming. I suggest folks try it. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 18, 2019 15:51:15 GMT
Thanks Stevie - I wasn’t being bone just hadn’t connected Joe’s suggestions from other threads. This looks really good. Basically what this creates is a troop type that varies it’s fighting style according to the enemy it is facing as well as the terrain it is in. However, to play the Devil’s Advocate. So why doesn’t this apply to all “solid” foot? I suppose because Ax don’t close ranks vs Bow or Art for very good reasons like not getting shot. But the justification vs single ranked Pike is less clear.....wouldn’t 4Ax close ranks against them? Also does this applies to all and and Pk, including 3Bd and 3Pk? Is there historical justification in these circumstances? My other concern is that this further disadvantages Pk, which already suffer from narrow frontages and QK when the door is shut. Good questions Paddy. I’ll be honest with you...it’s a fix to give 4Ax a bit of a boost when it’s weak CF 3 faces CF 5 or more... ...just like 4Bow getting a bit of a boost when side-supported by 4Bd (why not give 4Bow a +1 for being side-supported by Sp as well? You’ll have to ask Phil Barker about that one). From a play balance point of view: the CF 3 interactions for 4Ax in bad going and against Ps/Wb/Bow/etc is fine as it is now. We just want and need to make 4Ax a bit more survivable and be able to last longer against all Bd, Sp, and Pk overlaps. So to avoid knock-on effects against other element types, making 4Ax too powerful, the +1 only applies when fighting heavy foot. From a historical justification point of view: 4Ax represents trained drilled regulars or naturally stubborn natives, both of which have the sense to temporarily change from their usual loose-order formation to a close-order formation when facing heavy foot. Forming up in close-order against a fierce Wb charge would make them as brittle as Bd/Sp/Pk (and be destroyed if they have to recoil), so they stay in loose-formation to stay flexible and ‘roll-with-the-punch’ as it were. Against Ps and other 3/4Ax they need to stay in loose-formation in order to make sudden dashes to be able to catch such nimble evading opponents...and being in close-order against bows makes them more vulnerable to arrow-shot (in a loose-formation half the arrows will fall in the empty spaces between the men). At least this is a plausible justification. DBA gives no justification whatsoever as to why 4Bow get a +1 when side-supported by 4Bd. Bows don’t form shield walls!As for why it should not apply to unsupported Pk, I refer you to Primuspilus’ explanation here:- The whole idea of not having the +1 against single ranked Pk was to allow the Pk player to still have some of the historical flexibility of Alexander's army. I didn't want to have to force Pk to go double ranked against 4Ax. This was developed in research and extensive playtesting against the Illyrians, trying to recreate Alexander's campaigning in the North. Giving the +1 against single Pk will basically nerf Alex in the Illyrian campaign. The way you reflect this campaign, BTW is you make the DEFENDER be required to win, so the Illyrian has to engage the Pk, and not hide out in his difficult hills. While not strictly accurate, it is the only clean way to represent the ability of Alex's army to still successfully campaign in difficult country, without introducing a whole raft of complications. Oh, one last thing.... ....having Pk ‘hard flanked’ by this new improved 4Ax is not as bad as it may seem. CF3+1 v CF 6-1 means 10 chances in 36 (28%) of recoiling and destroying the whole Pike column... ...which is less than the chances rolling a ‘5’ or ‘6’ on a single die (at the moment it’s 6 chances in 36 (17%), the same a rolling a ‘6’). Anyway, anyone who lets their Pike columns be ‘hard flanked’ by 4Ax deserves to be destroyed! (See the diagrams in fanaticus.boards.net/post/17660/ for how to use echelons to protect Pikes from flank attacks)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 18, 2019 16:00:13 GMT
Errr... My idea for 1 BW recoil doesn't work. I've got two victories at Cannae now that says it works. More testing will be forth coming. I suggest folks try it. Joe Collins I have tried it Joe...several times. Recoiling 1 BW looks good for peltast 3Ax, but not 4Ax. No matter how far an Ax runs away, it leaves its neighbouring Ax to single or even worse double overlaps (50% chance of destruction). I say again: overlaps-kill-auxiliaries!. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19157/The maths don’t lie...
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 18, 2019 16:32:01 GMT
Thanks Stevie. I’ll play test those proposals at the next opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 18, 2019 18:12:57 GMT
Errr... My idea for 1 BW recoil doesn't work. I've got two victories at Cannae now that says it works. More testing will be forth coming. I suggest folks try it. Joe Collins I have tried it Joe...several times. Recoiling 1 BW looks good for peltast 3Ax, but not 4Ax. No matter how far an Ax runs away, it leaves its neighbouring Ax to single or even worse double overlaps (50% chance of destruction). I say again: overlaps-kill-auxiliaries!. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19157/The maths don’t lie... My experience is at odds with yours. I would suggest much more play testing. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 18, 2019 19:49:17 GMT
I have tried it Joe...several times. Recoiling 1 BW looks good for peltast 3Ax, but not 4Ax. No matter how far an Ax runs away, it leaves its neighbouring Ax to single or even worse double overlaps (50% chance of destruction). I say again: overlaps-kill-auxiliaries!. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19157/The maths don’t lie... My experience is at odds with yours. I would suggest much more play testing. Joe Collins Joe we played about 30 games with the 1BW recoil for 4Ax. Sorry mate, in around 25 of the games, a 4Ax died quick and hard on the overlap at 5 (or 6) vs 2. The 4Ax line simply can't stand against HI at all. And that is NOT what the accounts say happened with them is the real world. By the way, this cuts both ways and helps the Romans against a line of Pictish spears as well, no?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 18, 2019 19:55:10 GMT
By the way, in response to an earlier question, this +1 also works with solid Bw, IF you also give 3Bw the breakoff 1BW. But not 3Bd! They are strong enough as is!
Doing this makes 8Bw worth the double element hit for first loss, makes 4Bw a viable choice for EAP, and still makes it a real toss up between 3Bw and 4Bw. Also, now the Greek Hoplites need to work a bit harder to break an EAP infantry line. Again, that squares with the historical accounts.
As it stands now, if given a choice, and your army isn't 50% Bd, why on EARTH would you take 4Bw? They suck in CC, shoot no better than 3Bw and can barely move in BGo/RGo...
But I realise most people don't want this, so it is our house rule. Try it though, it works!
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 18, 2019 20:32:49 GMT
Tournament players know Ax are weak and not play balanced, which is why you rarely see Ax heavy armies in competitions.
I'm broadly sympathetic to your aims, but how do you know the above is true, and not just another big dollop of hyperbole? This forum is absolutely riddled with unsubstantiated, if often (because of?) very enthusiastic, statements.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 18, 2019 21:37:28 GMT
My experience is at odds with yours. I would suggest much more play testing. Joe Collins Joe we played about 30 games with the 1BW recoil for 4Ax. Sorry mate, in around 25 of the games, a 4Ax died quick and hard on the overlap at 5 (or 6) vs 2. The 4Ax line simply can't stand against HI at all. And that is NOT what the accounts say happened with them is the real world. By the way, this cuts both ways and helps the Romans against a line of Pictish spears as well, no? Well, I am only 4 games in with Cannae and the outcome is 2 to 2. Perhaps that will change, but it certainly isn't a wipeout like it was previously. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 19, 2019 2:09:21 GMT
I have tried it Joe...several times. Recoiling 1 BW looks good for peltast 3Ax, but not 4Ax. No matter how far an Ax runs away, it leaves its neighbouring Ax to single or even worse double overlaps (50% chance of destruction). I say again: overlaps-kill-auxiliaries!. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/19157/The maths don’t lie... Just a thought stevie regarding 3Ax recoil. As you say, Psiloi don't need this because there is no pursuit. Could the same effect not happen with limiting pursuit against 3Ax (as this would only be a minor change that involves relatively similar troop types) rather than making an unusual rule where mounted plus one specific infantry type move in a certain way? It would still separate the lines. It would also address paddy649's concerns about further weakening Pike. Cheers Jim
|
|