|
|
Post by dpd on Jul 30, 2022 14:48:57 GMT
The rules usually assign chariots based on weight to either KN or LH.
4-horse heavy chariots (HCH or 4CH according to your rule set) are assigned to KN class as pure shock troops, and 2-horse light chariots (LCH or 2CH) are treated as LH.
However, even the heaviest chariots came equipped with missile weapons (bows and javelins), and weren't strictly used for shock impact - a tactic dangerous to a team of horses. Their tactics more resembled those used by CV.
And even light chariots were capable of running over an enemy, though they primarily used shoot and scoot tactics.
In fact the only pure impact chariot would the scythed chariot (SCH)
So I propose that chariots form their own troop category analogous to CV with the troop types arranged as follows:
Fast - 2CH/LCH
Standard - 4CH/HCH
Extreme - SCH
Combat strengths, movement, special rules - I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Thoughts or comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 30, 2022 18:08:40 GMT
First thought is….LCh are already Cavalry, but on a square base. Not LH as suggested.
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Jul 31, 2022 14:52:03 GMT
The only house rule I use for chariots, is that they are restricted to movement in good going.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 3, 2022 20:13:04 GMT
For at home historical games just give them Abilities that concede with historical function.
If primarily missile armed and dash off when bested then give them Evade (convert Destroyed Result into Flee Result if they have a higher Movement Allowance in the Terrain occupied negated in Close by Bow).
If primarily Shock then give Shock (convert Recoil Result of opponents in Good Going into Destroyed) with Pursue
If having large crews in protected vehicles than give them Heavy Armor (+1 if Doubled by opponent).
If they primary used missiles at close range and charged only weekend opponents then give them Lethal (+1 on a winning Close Combat score).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 3, 2022 20:27:56 GMT
If they primary used missiles at close range and charged only weekend opponents then give them Lethal (+1 on a winning Close Combat score). TomT What about if you are playing on a Monday, or any other weekday?  |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 3, 2022 22:11:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 4, 2022 9:13:31 GMT
...again and again new players, at least new forum participants, try to change the rules of DBA, either with chariots like now, or with Nike shoes. But I prefer new shoes , I don't think it's about changing the rules generally, but more about refining them. As DBA (at least to a certain degree) wants to be a kind of historical simulation, I think it's quite right to add rules that fill at least some of the blank spaces that Sue & Phil Barker's Rules left open. Cheers! (A new forum participant.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 4, 2022 9:30:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Aug 5, 2022 10:28:37 GMT
I don't think it's about changing the rules generally, but more about refining them. As DBA (at least to a certain degree) wants to be a kind of historical simulation, I think it's quite right to add rules that fill at least some of the blank spaces that Sue & Phil Barker's Rules left open. Hi Brian But presumably if you want to refine the rules that will involve changing them? The problem is then that everyone has different ideas about what rules need to be changed and how they should be changed. Yes there are many things 'wrong or missing' from DBA; horse archer armies can't shoot, Elephants don't run amok when injured, a 4th element destroyed out of sight from the rest of the army suddenly causes everyone to run away, every element has the same morale class etc, etc, etc. But there are already many different rules sets that exist for playing ancient battles and many of them deal with these issues. Some of them, e.g. DBMM, have sub divisions of troop types of, not only fast and solid (or ordinary in DBMM), but also inferior, superior and exceptional, which allows some sort of reflection of the difference between, say, Alexandrian Macedonian Hypaspists and Early Libyan warriors with throwing sticks, (both Ax). Of course DBMM games are more complicated and generally take longer to play, although there is a DBMM 100 which is an alternative to DBA. The danger with tinkering with a generally accepted set of rules, like DBA, is that you risk fracturing the playing community, as happened in the change from 2.2 to 3.0. Smaller groups each playing their own preferred rule set means reduced viability for tournaments and so less opportunity to meet up and play others from other parts of the country, or indeed the world. Personally having played both DBM and DBA I am willing to accept the slightly more simplistic nature of DBA for the other benefits it brings, one of them being that whereas the old DBM competition had a few very serious, overly competitive rule lawyer types who sucked the fun out of the game, the vast majority of DBA players I've met so far are great fun to play. |
|
|
|
Post by hoffmannsama on Aug 5, 2022 19:59:01 GMT
...again and again new players, at least new forum participants, try to change the rules of DBA, either with chariots like now, or with Nike shoes. But I prefer new shoes I doubt he is messaging Phil barker and trying to “change” the rules. Let him have his fun, he’s obviously new to DBA and is having fun with the rules. Sometimes I can see why this hobby isn’t doing that great. And really some of the sentences in this book are so poorly worded, you could be playing the game wrong without noticing it, so Nike shoes, alternative chariot rules, who really cares, let people have their fun. |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 5, 2022 20:37:13 GMT
...I've played a lot of exciting games with chariot armies, so there's no need for any additional rules. I'm more bothered by the lists that correspond to the facts...
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 6, 2022 15:22:03 GMT
I don't think it's about changing the rules generally, but more about refining them. As DBA (at least to a certain degree) wants to be a kind of historical simulation, I think it's quite right to add rules that fill at least some of the blank spaces that Sue & Phil Barker's Rules left open. Hi Brian But presumably if you want to refine the rules that will involve changing them? The problem is then that everyone has different ideas about what rules need to be changed and how they should be changed. Yes there are many things 'wrong or missing' from DBA; horse archer armies can't shoot, Elephants don't run amok when injured, a 4th element destroyed out of sight from the rest of the army suddenly causes everyone to run away, every element has the same morale class etc, etc, etc. But there are already many different rules sets that exist for playing ancient battles and many of them deal with these issues. Some of them, e.g. DBMM, have sub divisions of troop types of, not only fast and solid (or ordinary in DBMM), but also inferior, superior and exceptional, which allows some sort of reflection of the difference between, say, Alexandrian Macedonian Hypaspists and Early Libyan warriors with throwing sticks, (both Ax). Of course DBMM games are more complicated and generally take longer to play, although there is a DBMM 100 which is an alternative to DBA. The danger with tinkering with a generally accepted set of rules, like DBA, is that you risk fracturing the playing community, as happened in the change from 2.2 to 3.0. Smaller groups each playing their own preferred rule set means reduced viability for tournaments and so less opportunity to meet up and play others from other parts of the country, or indeed the world. Personally having played both DBM and DBA I am willing to accept the slightly more simplistic nature of DBA for the other benefits it brings, one of them being that whereas the old DBM competition had a few very serious, overly competitive rule lawyer types who sucked the fun out of the game, the vast majority of DBA players I've met so far are great fun to play. Hi sheffmark,
you're absolutely right and I agree with everything you said.
The thing is: I thought I was in the thread House Rules.
And I think all those things dpd, martin, nangwaya and especially medievalthomas said here before concerning LH are fine additions to normal gameplay.
And I certainly would use them or others in circumstance when all players agree.
But I want to repeat, as I already stated above in my first post in this thread:
I don't want to change the rules of DBA 3! And never would.
Because I think they are fine (although written in some kind of esoteric language, almost like german  ) and quite neatly balanced like chess. And though they are simple I see that they lead in gameplay to complex, convincing, dynamic, sometimes even surprising results and create a lot of fun in a very short time.
And what more could you expect from such a war game and kind of historical simulation?
Cheers,
Brian |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 11, 2022 21:22:07 GMT
Refining the rules is one of the purposes of this forum. I review very carefully all suggestions and esp. comments about historical armies. The base mechanics of DBA 3.0 are by far the best in the DBX universe so it does no good to say go and play DBMM - its widely over complicated and not what we are trying to do refining DBA base mechanics.
The base mechanics are incredibly powerful and we are just scratching the surface with basic DBA 3.0 - we can get lots more out of them with a minimum of additional rules/complexity. We are already doing that.
The 12 Element chess game of DBA 3.0 will not go away or change. Tournament rules are set and as tournament players seem very tied to the "Phil" way and he can no longer participate in rule refining the tournament rules will never change. (I also work on the FAQ committee and we try as best we can to create a standard set of interpretations.)
But DBX can grow and expand in capability thanks to the wonderful base mechanics Phil gave us (and we developers) in DBA 3.0.
To attract new players and compete against the many other systems out there "refined" DBX must continue. I've got a great group of players but if I announced we are playing strict DBA 3.0 tournament rules - I would be doing it solitaire. It would be ADLG here we come - even though all of them agree the base DBA 3.0 mechanics are superior just not the constrictions of the 12 element chess game version.
So keep ideas coming. We just released A Game of Knights & Knaves 2nd Edition which combines "refined" with less exotic language and presentation for the express purposes of bring new and historical players over to DBA style gaming (and many will probably want to learn to do tournaments in the strict 12 element version).
Yes we do need a common set of concepts but we have already done that (its in K&K). As K&K only covers medievals, next up is ancients and thus we are very interested in Chariot ideas. But bear in mind the concept is to use DBX style mechanics to produce the simplest solution to all simulation issues.
But of course you want to clarify with opponents if its strict tournament rules or are we going for historical simulation versions - prior to dice dropping...
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
)
) and quite neatly balanced like chess.