Yes, Bob... I agree. I would argue that DBA 3 most resembles DBR... The ground scale, element scale, side support, etc... point more to DBR than DBMM.
Having just started with DBR 2.0, I agree with Joe and certainly see a lot of common ground between DBA and DBR and found it quite quick to pick the DBR rules up. We are, as yet, not bothering with the weather/time of day add-ons.
Late to this, I have to say that I agree with stevie's points in this and the original discussion.
I also disagree with primuspilus' point on the fact that it would be weaker or junior types at the rear ranks would suddenly find themselves as the front line - for the Greeks and Macedonians explicitly and I am pretty sure for most other pike or spear formations/phalanxes, the rear man is the the No. 2 of the file. You want an experienced man (junior NCO grade at least) to keep the file in order (and to keep those 'greenies' from trickling away in a crunch). Might not be quite as strong a formation when in reverse order, but still close.
Insofar as 8BW, many of those are archers fronted by spears or halberds - relatively straightforward to have the front ranks pass back thorough while the archers merely turn to face. Or in some cases the soldier merely turns and switches weapons as he is equipped with both a missile and a projectile weapon.
I take your point, goragorad, but in hoplite amd phalangite armies, that was how it was done. That said, you may note that that loint was the ONLY allowance I'd be orepared to make justifiying some kind of penalty on a Pike block for being hit from behind while not simultaneously engaged elsewhere.
My preference is for unrestricted "snap about face" for double pike if contacted to rear without being pinned frontally.
Declaring a War on Terror in response to 9/11 is like declaring a War on Torpedo Bombing in response to Pearl Harbour...
Elimination of Lh... HoTT does fine with just Knights and Riders
I thought the lack of LH was one of the biggest weaknesses of HOTT. I could stomach it only because it was fantasy and so in my book “not a real wargame.” (How can you test the historical accuracy of rules not based on history?)
very interesting thoughts on what is and what could have been.
I have played 3.0 only for the past 15 months or so and reckon must have clocked up around 200 games. What I have not experienced much are double based elements, maybe only 1 game. Do players think they are not worth the risk? I really like the idea of pikes being double based but really dislike the penalty of losing 2 element equivalents. Cannot see why certain troops are penalised in this way. After all if this is how Communal Italian crossbows or Byzantine cavalry fought then why then penalise them? There is after all no points system and some armies are just “better” than others.
So in effect would it be better to lose the notion of double based and just say pikes in 2 ranks on a 30mm (or 40mm) 8Bw on 40mm and so on?
In DBA, all elements are considered equally useful (at least in theory), with various advantages and disadvantages. Double-based elements fight a bit better (an advantage), but the 1st lost is worth 2 elements (a disadvantage).
If 8Sp and 8Bw has an advantage but no corresponding disadvantage, why would anybody use 4Sp and 4Bw? And if they had no advantage, why trouble buying and painting them? (apart from the fact they look nice).
Hi Stevie I get the play balance bit but losing 50% of your demoralisation quota in 1 hit for a +1 against some troop types? Seems harsh to me, but so does losing a Ps for 25%..... I really ike the idea of DBA being aesthetically pleasing. Eye candy call it what you like, and these troop types definitely enhance the look of the game but nobody appears to use them much purely because the risk is too big. Maybe the answer would be to have the double based element as the only choice, give it the small advantage but only counting as one if lost. As I said earlier some armies are just naturally better under DBM and I don’t feel this would break the rules too much Rant over and I’ll get back to the Communal Italians and Maurikians..... Craig