|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 22, 2023 6:57:23 GMT
Stay tuned to this channel. Joe Collins Now you have me wondering... Jim
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jul 22, 2023 7:02:54 GMT
Stay tuned to this channel. Joe Collins Now you have me wondering... Jim Exciting times just around the corner đ P
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 22, 2023 7:09:18 GMT
That links to DBA 2.2+ not DBA 2.2. It think it incorporates the unofficial amendments from that group before they developed Triumph. I suspect Light Spears is one of those amendments. Jim I thought the same thing too, Jim. Then I checked my copy of the 2.2 rules and found that 3Sp was a thing, although I don't think they functioned any differently from 4Sp. Most seem to have been re-badged as 3Pk in v3.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 22, 2023 7:39:12 GMT
That links to DBA 2.2+ not DBA 2.2. It think it incorporates the unofficial amendments from that group before they developed Triumph. I suspect Light Spears is one of those amendments. Jim I thought the same thing too, Jim. Then I checked my copy of the 2.2 rules and found that 3Sp was a thing, although I don't think they functioned any differently from 4Sp. Most seem to have been re-badged as 3Pk in v3. Maybe that's it. You could base Spears 3 or 4 but they functioned the same. Whereas it seems that 2.2+ had different rules for 3Sp and 4Sp, at least that's what is written on page 5 of that guide. I never played 2.2+. I can't remember where my DBA 2.2 rules are, it's been so long! Jim
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Jul 22, 2023 15:00:00 GMT
Not to mention that 3sp is listed 50 times in the old DBM army lists. i.4pcdn.org/tg/1439553935980.pdfSo yes, in large parts of the DBx world, 3sp is definitely a thing. P.S. What I find really annoying is that spear units are almost always designated in rule books as "sp" but never "4sp" - as if there was a choice in the number of figures we can use to designate a spear unit.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 22, 2023 15:39:08 GMT
P.S. What I find really annoying is that spear units are almost always designated in rule books as "sp" but never "4sp" - as if there was a choice in the number of figures we can use to designate a spear unit. In v3, Sp always have 4 figures, so 4Sp would be tautological. Similarly, the rules don't specify 2Ps, 2LH, 1El or 1LCh (etc., etc.)
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jul 31, 2023 3:02:14 GMT
P.S. What I find really annoying is that spear units are almost always designated in rule books as "sp" but never "4sp" - as if there was a choice in the number of figures we can use to designate a spear unit. In v3, Sp always have 4 figures, so 4Sp would be tautological. Similarly, the rules don't specify 2Ps, 2LH, 1El or 1LCh (etc., etc.) Except for the Sp that are 8Sp My memory of 3Sp in DBA of the past was that they appeared in DBA2 as the equivalent of the Ax(X) of the original DBM - exception Auxilia were the worst of the worst in DBM and their invention and the decision to make the Pre Feudal Scots spearmen Ax(X) was the straw that stopped me playing DBM. They were treated as either superior or ordinary Ax against mounted and Inferior Ax against foot (bear in mind that at that time Ax was only +2 vs mounted) - so they counted as the best sort of Ax in the worst situation and the worst type of Ax in the best situation. As for the Fast and Solid in DBA3 - I remember the line that "Naturally Roman Auxilia should fight differently to barbarian hill tribes" when the concept was introduced - I believe the inference was that the Romans should be superior so the win on a tie modification was seen to be a bonus (and little attention was paid to the slowing down of the solid types). The three vs four to a base goes all the way back to the old WRG 6th Edition when the line between regular and irregular Light Medium Infantry or Light Heavy Infantry was drawn by allowing the regulars to be 4 to a base (giving them more oomph per frountage in a game where it was figures fighting not elements). Medium and Heavy infantry were always 4 to a base but on the shallower depth that we all know and love. After a time and moving in to DBM that was the difference between Reg and Irr Ax was 3 vs 4 to a base, but then the lists blurred the line more by making most if not all Superior Ax (Thracian Peltasts/Catlan Almughvars) 4 to a base but with the Fast classification becoming the preserve of only the 3 to a base group - which further led to the need for Reg(F) types to be created (Egyptian Bd I'm talking about you). Whilst much of this was designed to minimise the rebasing especially for the transition from DBM (and later DBMM) to DBA there was a certain amount of switching on the fringes and there was always a certain amount of historical fact taped onto the changes. These are the things we need wine rather than coffee for - and in the end our game of soldiers is just fine for it all. Who wants to play a game that is so accurate that it takes 7 hours to play to a pre determined result (ie in the end the Mongols and Romans at their height Always Win). We go into the games knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the rules and the troops and play accordingly. <Lord grant me coffee for the things I can change and wine for the things that I can't change> Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jul 31, 2023 4:24:26 GMT
What? Play the game? I thought this hobby was just about adding to this forum! Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jul 31, 2023 6:11:44 GMT
What? Play the game? I thought this hobby was just about adding to this forum! Cheers Jim Jim perhaps it is given my post count Cheers
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 31, 2023 7:13:04 GMT
What? Play the game? I thought this hobby was just about adding to this forum! Cheers Jim Happy to give you a game or two next time you're in town, jim1973.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jul 31, 2023 8:50:06 GMT
These are the things we need wine rather than coffee for - and in the end our game of soldiers is just fine for it all. Who wants to play a game that is so accurate that it takes 7 hours to play to a pre determined result (ie in the end the Mongols and Romans at their height Always Win). We go into the games knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the rules and the troops and play accordingly. Conversely, the Mongols (and their like) probably shouldn't be bunnies in the same set of rules either.
|
|
|
Post by Brian BorĂș on Jul 31, 2023 12:32:50 GMT
Following on from my previous comment, where I said:- âThe âSolidâ and âFastâ classification has made a bad situation even worse, not betterâ⊠âŠlet us now look at the other ramifications. 4Ax, being âSolidâ, only move 2 BWâŠmaking the 4Ax class less useful. And many players consider that 3Bd, being âFastâ, moving 3 BW is far too powerful. Now donât get me wrongâŠyes, there should be a difference between 3 and 4 figure bases. But burdening an already weak troop class with yet another disadvantage is not the way. Give the weak 3Ax some sort of historical advantage to compensate for their weakness, thereby making them more useful and not a troop class to be avoided. Joe Collins own suggestion to have 3Ax recoil a base depth OR a full base width, just like mounted, is a start, simulating the historical âevading an enemy chargeâ. And let 4Ax move 3 BW, but they get a +1 when fighting against heavy foot. Then the totally artificial ârecoil on an equal scoreâ concept can be discarded. (But keep it for mounted vs heavy heavy foot) In the software testing industry, which I have now retired from, there is an old maxim:- âThe best software testers are the general public, as they will eventually find all the faults and flaws in a computer programâ.Well, after many thousands of hours of playing DBA 3.0 by wargamers, we are beginning to see all the faults and flaws in the current rules, that even the playtesters missed. Of course, the first step in fixing things is to first admit that something is wrong⊠Yep, as I found out yesterday in some wonderful battles with yorkist: 4Ax in its present form is crap. The Imperial Ax of the Western Roman Army for example move around like in slow motion (if at all), like 4Bd, but merely for show. In 2.2 they at least had been slightly better, but deteriorated heavily due to the profound changes in recoil/follow up rules when upgrading to DBA 3. [And LH heavy armies are really heavy to hhandle. As a house rule I will therefore try out this change concerning Second Moves: (a) Light Horse or mounted foot and making a 2nd or 3rd move for free (0 PIP costs).]
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Jul 31, 2023 12:37:13 GMT
Yep, as I found out yesterday in some wonderful battles with yorkist: 4Ax in its present form is crap. The Imperial Ax of the Western Roman Army for example move around like in slow motion (if at all), like 4Bd, but merely for show. In 2.2 they at least had been slightly better, but deteriorated heavily due to the profound changes in recoil/follow up rules when upgrading to DBA 3. [And LH heavy armies are really heavy to hhandle. As a house rule I will therefore try out this change concerning Second Moves: (a) Light Horse or mounted foot and making a 2nd or 3rd move for free (0 PIP costs).] Um, re that idea you just put forward...it's very similar to my idea from a year or so ago giving 'LH a free subsequent move'. It proved to be flawed. It allowed them to move in firework displays which was deemed too much.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Brian BorĂș on Jul 31, 2023 12:54:06 GMT
Yep, as I found out yesterday in some wonderful battles with yorkist: 4Ax in its present form is crap. The Imperial Ax of the Western Roman Army for example move around like in slow motion (if at all), like 4Bd, but merely for show. In 2.2 they at least had been slightly better, but deteriorated heavily due to the profound changes in recoil/follow up rules when upgrading to DBA 3. [And LH heavy armies are really heavy to hhandle. As a house rule I will therefore try out this change concerning Second Moves: (a) Light Horse or mounted foot and making a 2nd or 3rd move for free (0 PIP costs).] Um, re that idea you just put forward...it's very similar to my idea from a year or so ago giving 'LH a free subsequent move'. It proved to be flawed. It allowed them to move in firework displays which was deemed too much.
Cheers
Okay snowcat, thanks fof your advice, then I may leave that and try some other ideas, like evading (instead of recoiling) for 1, 2, 3 or 4 BW...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 31, 2023 14:17:23 GMT
Okay snowcat, thanks fof your advice, then I may leave that and try some other ideas, like evading (instead of recoiling) for 1, 2, 3 or 4 BW... I quite like your suggestion Brian. Simple and straightforward. When LH recoil from Kn, they can âevadeâ to fall back out of the Knâs 1 BW pursuit move, and out of their TZ, thereby drawing them into dangerous exposed isolated positions. (Simulating âfalse flightââŠa common historical tactic ignored by the DBA rules)
|
|