Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 3:19:22 GMT
This just came up on pg 12 of the Improving LH thread, and I thought it worthy enough to be considered separately.
With all the talk around the development of DBF, and how the playtesting of that new system could also benefit a future edition of DBA in the longer term...
Here are some ideas to consider to add more nuanced depth to the troop types, but hopefully without diving down a rabbit hole or opening Pandora's box:
Firstly, some background, copied from Pg 12 of the Improving LH thread:
Aug 17, 2023 2:35:06 GMT 10 Brian Ború said:
Well, another thought (that might be seen as a kind of heresy) is this:
DBA provides rules that try to model some thousands of years of
warfare all around the world.
So a Psiloi is a Psiloi is a Psiloi, no matter of time or place, no matter
if it is hebrew, lithuanian or chinese.
O.k., we may say this is the special kind of scale, distance or zoom of
the game. But concerning LH and some special armies (Mongols, the
Golden Horde, etc. and many more) we see, that this abstraction doesn't
fit always.
My idea now is this: we could open up many paths of refined, special and
additional rules or rule exceptions, to convey the special feeling of different
historical units or classes.
The mongol Light Horse was historically something special? O.k., then make
them unique with some special attributes of the kind we discuss here.
And let Thebans and Numidians and English Longbow have other special
features (described in the respective army lists). So, when I lead my worthy
Norse Irish against those marauding viking bastards I can say: "Look, these
are mostly Ax, but their CF against heavy foot is +4 and the 3Ax may recoil
1½ BW."
In this way the next version of DBA would be able to open up whole new
dimensions of wargaming (and by the way could somehow even solve the
old problem of crap armies).
What do you think?
Well, another thought (that might be seen as a kind of heresy) is this:
DBA provides rules that try to model some thousands of years of
warfare all around the world.
So a Psiloi is a Psiloi is a Psiloi, no matter of time or place, no matter
if it is hebrew, lithuanian or chinese.
O.k., we may say this is the special kind of scale, distance or zoom of
the game. But concerning LH and some special armies (Mongols, the
Golden Horde, etc. and many more) we see, that this abstraction doesn't
fit always.
My idea now is this: we could open up many paths of refined, special and
additional rules or rule exceptions, to convey the special feeling of different
historical units or classes.
The mongol Light Horse was historically something special? O.k., then make
them unique with some special attributes of the kind we discuss here.
And let Thebans and Numidians and English Longbow have other special
features (described in the respective army lists). So, when I lead my worthy
Norse Irish against those marauding viking bastards I can say: "Look, these
are mostly Ax, but their CF against heavy foot is +4 and the 3Ax may recoil
1½ BW."
In this way the next version of DBA would be able to open up whole new
dimensions of wargaming (and by the way could somehow even solve the
old problem of crap armies).
What do you think?
...
Aug 17, 2023 6:03:28 GMT 10 skb777 said:
I agree with Brian there, I've always thought trying to cram 4,000+ years of armed warfare into the same rules was a bit ambitious. You don't get the feel for a particular period and you get rules fudges to suit one period that then have to be applied too all.
I agree with Brian there, I've always thought trying to cram 4,000+ years of armed warfare into the same rules was a bit ambitious. You don't get the feel for a particular period and you get rules fudges to suit one period that then have to be applied too all.
...
Aug 17, 2023 6:41:27 GMT 10 hodsopa said:
I broadly agree with Brian's idea but we have to be wary of the fact that most of the modifications we are tempted to introduce are pluses. Nobody is on here arguing that Athenian hoplites are overvalued relative to Spartans and should go down to CF 3 against foot. Or that Lithuanian artillery was mostly used against BUAs and should lose a CF against troops in the open. If we go down Brian's road we should empower someone to hold the thankless role of identifying armies whose special rules would make them worse.
I broadly agree with Brian's idea but we have to be wary of the fact that most of the modifications we are tempted to introduce are pluses. Nobody is on here arguing that Athenian hoplites are overvalued relative to Spartans and should go down to CF 3 against foot. Or that Lithuanian artillery was mostly used against BUAs and should lose a CF against troops in the open. If we go down Brian's road we should empower someone to hold the thankless role of identifying armies whose special rules would make them worse.
...
Aug 17, 2023 10:02:41 GMT 10 snowcat said:
I think once you go beyond broad, catch-all classifications, you run into trouble. The niche variations would be endless. As would the debates.
However, you could possibly re-introduce 'superior' vs 'inferior' (from other DBx systems) as they are just 2 extra classifications that serve as a catch-all for much more numerous niche variations.
It has worked before, in the larger DBx games, and legacy WRG rules, and should be able to fit alongside the 'solid' vs 'fast' variants DBA3 has now.
That would certainly make DBA 'richer' and provide a better period feel for specific armies. Far less generic, but without going overboard (too far the other way).
However, you could possibly re-introduce 'superior' vs 'inferior' (from other DBx systems) as they are just 2 extra classifications that serve as a catch-all for much more numerous niche variations.
It has worked before, in the larger DBx games, and legacy WRG rules, and should be able to fit alongside the 'solid' vs 'fast' variants DBA3 has now.
That would certainly make DBA 'richer' and provide a better period feel for specific armies. Far less generic, but without going overboard (too far the other way).
...
Aug 17, 2023 12:49:56 GMT 10 jim1973 said:
Certainly Superior/Inferior would be relatively easy to implement as we already cope with Solid/Fast. The concern is whether the bonus/penalty, which would apply to all troop types, allows the troops to behave as they would historically or would promote ahistorical strategies, eg lightly armed troops suddenly charging heavy infantry or knights, contrary to their historical counterparts because they now have a bonus in close combat. As always, the devil is in the detail.
Cheers
Jim
Cheers
Jim
...