|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2019 20:50:55 GMT
Were Viking 3Bd really that hard to move into contact with enemy?
In my view, it is the speed and ambush capability that makes DBA 3 so exciting. Do we really want across-the-board reductions in movement? Same reason I don't support 1/2 BW move increments. Tried that a while back (along with all moves are in 3/4 BW increments). Nothing beats the 1234 system for ease and flexibility.
In our extensive play testing, tweaking the combats seem the easiest and least impactful overall.
That said we also tested applying +1PIP to any move into contact that was greater than 2BW. It allowed the running Cv and Ps battles to develop, but apart from that, it really fell flat. A LOTof ported overhead...
3Bd and 3Pk seem weird to me. I guess PB didn't want fast Sp having side support, but massed, deep Pictish phalanx? And why not make Vikings 4Wb? That is an INTERESTING battle against Sp. And Bd.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 23, 2019 5:00:54 GMT
> > And why not make Vikings 4Wb? That is an INTERESTING battle against Sp. And Bd. In the first edition(s) of DBA, Vikings were classified as Wb, IIRC.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Feb 24, 2019 5:46:47 GMT
Republican Indian still has a swordsmen/clubmen 3/4BD option.
I haven't done enough with 3BD to have an informed opinion on how overpowering they are, definitely not in favor of non-integer movements though.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Feb 26, 2019 8:13:23 GMT
3 BW is definitely too speedy, and 2 BW doesn't quite differentiate with 4Bd. What exactly is wrong with 2.5 BW (beside an irrational preference for integers)? Arnopov - an irrational fear of integers is better than a integer fear of irrationals. Let’s allow them to move 2BW +/- 2iBW and really mix things up.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Feb 26, 2019 10:12:36 GMT
Arnopov - an irrational fear of integers is better than a integer fear of irrationals. Let’s allow them to move 2BW +/- 2iBW and really mix things up. Ooooooh! Chaos theory. I like it! Jim
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 6, 2019 8:46:40 GMT
What to do to reduce the effectiveness of 3 Bd? A number of options discussed:
Remove the QK vs Kn on ties would appear to me a minor adjustment but one that would justify 3Bd’s looser formations and more flexible fighting style which would prevent the close melee that was so dangerous to Knights from forming.
+1 PIP for 3Bd that move more than 2 BW and end in contact with enemy (or preferred move more than 2 BW with any part of the move being within an enemy TZ) and I agree that there is possibly justification in extending this to 3Pk or 3Bw as well.
Would that be enough? Is that sensible? Thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Mar 6, 2019 15:56:39 GMT
My main reservation is that I think any house rules should be simple and clear in their application - too many restrictions or conditions make it muddy.
I'd rather tinker with a more general modification that requires thoughtful balance across the game than with a small adjustment that only applies in very few occasions but that requires you to check for several conditions. One of the strengths of DBA in my opinion is that it keeps exceptions to a minimum.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 6, 2019 17:49:31 GMT
My main reservation is that I think any house rules should be simple and clear in their application - too many restrictions or conditions make it muddy. I'd rather tinker with a more general modification that requires thoughtful balance across the game than with a small adjustment that only applies in very few occasions but that requires you to check for several conditions. One of the strengths of DBA in my opinion is that it keeps exceptions to a minimum. To this point Vic, do you mean applying some "broad strokes" rule changes to Fast troops in general? That would have other effects beyond 3Bd obviously, but would that work? Personally, I'm still in favor of a Fast Spear element. Random thought. What if we substituted fast Spear for Fast Blade. i.e. 3Sp instead of 3Bd. Yes, I know that Samurai aren't really spearman, but the main point is dropping the CV down to 4, and getting 4CV against mounted to compensate. This might be going in the wrong direction however.
|
|
|
Post by Vic on Mar 7, 2019 10:32:16 GMT
My main reservation is that I think any house rules should be simple and clear in their application - too many restrictions or conditions make it muddy. I'd rather tinker with a more general modification that requires thoughtful balance across the game than with a small adjustment that only applies in very few occasions but that requires you to check for several conditions. One of the strengths of DBA in my opinion is that it keeps exceptions to a minimum. To this point Vic, do you mean applying some "broad strokes" rule changes to Fast troops in general? That would have other effects beyond 3Bd obviously, but would that work? Personally, I'm still in favor of a Fast Spear element. Random thought. What if we substituted fast Spear for Fast Blade. i.e. 3Sp instead of 3Bd. Yes, I know that Samurai aren't really spearman, but the main point is dropping the CV down to 4, and getting 4CV against mounted to compensate. This might be going in the wrong direction however. I mean for instance that I'd rather have a Fast Spear type added as you say, with a clear behaviour, than introducing PIP costs that depend on how much a 3Bd element has moved, or using different combat results for the "Fast" and "Solid" version of the same type, or differentiation by quality built into the army lists, or other modifications that probably impact specific situations the right way but require you to be on the lookout for specific situations or combinations of circumstances. I'm happy with modifications for specific scenarios (and I appreciate a lot the effort people put in researching and designing exceptions for specific battles), but I think the base game works best with as few exceptions as possible.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 7, 2019 16:12:32 GMT
I mean for instance that I'd rather have a Fast Spear type added as you say, with a clear behaviour, than introducing PIP costs that depend on how much a 3Bd element has moved, or using different combat results for the "Fast" and "Solid" version of the same type, or differentiation by quality built into the army lists, or other modifications that probably impact specific situations the right way but require you to be on the lookout for specific situations or combinations of circumstances. I'm happy with modifications for specific scenarios (and I appreciate a lot the effort people put in researching and designing exceptions for specific battles), but I think the base game works best with as few exceptions as possible. Totally agree with this. Other games (Impetus springs to mind) tend to lump clusters of troops into categories. "Heavy", and "Light" infantry, Heavy and Light Mounted, etc. and there are specific rules for each category, rather than for each specific element. The Fast/Solid distinction is nice because there are specific rules for fast troops, and it applies to all fast troops. The same could be done for heavy infantry (they all get -2 in bad going, and move at 2BW in GG). But either way, the specific situational changes, can, I see, add up to become very confusing as to what to apply when.
|
|