|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 16, 2023 15:05:18 GMT
There are def weaker armies than others, however given massive variation of armies taken to tourneys there are at least many that can contend.
I like points based games to give balance to a game.
Given that I usually play £5 to play six games I really dont mind if my crud force gets drubbed, to be fair at least one non drubbing is nice though.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 16, 2023 16:12:53 GMT
...Playing DBM there was a next version wth fast Ax and fast Bd. But in DBA2 it was just the difference of regular and irregular troops to keep it simple. In my eyes version3 is one to much...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2023 16:30:38 GMT
I must admit that I quite like the 12 element-a-side format.
It’s abstract yes, but also nice and simple. And all armies,
no matter what their actual size, can be split into 12 parts.
However, I also realise that trying to make all element types
of equal value is practically impossible…the rigid and limited
DBA two-dice combat system just hasn’t got the variety.
So a points system is a way out, but it itself is not perfect.
Take Camels for example. What should their point value be?
The Camel combat factor of 3 against both foot and mounted
makes them equal to Auxiliaries and Cavalry…
But they have a ‘quick kill’ against Knights, so should cost more…
And they’re ‘quick killed’ on an equal score by Blades, so should cost less…
Then add on their terrain advantages, which only really applies when defending…
Now I’m not saying that a point system won’t work, but it’s not as
easy a fix as many people seem to think.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 16, 2023 17:02:15 GMT
...Triumph is something like a DBA version that could work. It is simple but with no other armylists than online as well as with destructive battle card rules that are changing the rules again but for sertain armies only. And there is no big battle DBA option...
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 16, 2023 19:31:12 GMT
I must admit that I quite like the 12 element-a-side format. It’s abstract yes, but also nice and simple. And all armies, no matter what their actual size, can be split into 12 parts. However, I also realise that trying to make all element types of equal value is practically impossible…the rigid and limited DBA two-dice combat system just hasn’t got the variety. So a points system is a way out, but it itself is not perfect. Take Camels for example. What should their point value be? The Camel combat factor of 3 against both foot and mounted makes them equal to Auxiliaries and Cavalry… But they have a ‘quick kill’ against Knights, so should cost more… And they’re ‘quick killed’ on an equal score by Blades, so should cost less… Then add on their terrain advantages, which only really applies when defending… Now I’m not saying that a point system won’t work, but it’s not as easy a fix as many people seem to think. Don’t get me wrong. The 12 element game is sheer genius - or at least it was in 1990! It’s just that over 30 years us players have got more discerning and now understand that if it’s just 12 elements then they need to be balanced….so either balance them or introduce a points system (that will invariably break the 12 element principle) to do the balancing for you. For me “rock, paper, scissors” is balanced. So is (for the geeks amongst us) “rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock.” So why can’t we balance Sp, Wb, Ps, Ax, Bw…….” It is a war-game…War=history, game=playable contest! So the closer we get to all units being considered equally valuable on the table-top the better war-game we have. Plus it IS historically justified - do you think Samnites thought they had zero chance vs Romans because they were Aux and the Romans Bd? Plus it’ll rectify historical anomalies such as LH armies being “pants” under DBA. |
|
|
|
Post by elviro on Oct 16, 2023 21:30:01 GMT
I guess some (many? most?) players consider the current situation the most balanced possible - balancing the different views on how to balance unit types, that is. I for example wouldn't like +1 for Ax vs Spear... would make them superior on the whole I recon. Overbalanced I'd fear. And it would create a new troop type (fast spear?), not being Ax anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 16, 2023 21:56:29 GMT
...PB did promise to change all the double elements in single elements. But they are still there. But it did also change a lot of American native armies...
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 17, 2023 2:33:34 GMT
I must admit that I quite like the 12 element-a-side format. It’s abstract yes, but also nice and simple. And all armies, no matter what their actual size, can be split into 12 parts. However, I also realise that trying to make all element types of equal value is practically impossible…the rigid and limited DBA two-dice combat system just hasn’t got the variety. So a points system is a way out, but it itself is not perfect. Take Camels for example. What should their point value be? The Camel combat factor of 3 against both foot and mounted makes them equal to Auxiliaries and Cavalry… But they have a ‘quick kill’ against Knights, so should cost more… And they’re ‘quick killed’ on an equal score by Blades, so should cost less… Then add on their terrain advantages, which only really applies when defending… Now I’m not saying that a point system won’t work, but it’s not as easy a fix as many people seem to think. Don’t get me wrong. The 12 element game is sheer genius - or at least it was in 1990! It’s just that over 30 years us players have got more discerning and now understand that if it’s just 12 elements then they need to be balanced….so either balance them or introduce a points system (that will invariably break the 12 element principle) to do the balancing for you. For me “rock, paper, scissors” is balanced. So is (for the geeks amongst us) “rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock.” So why can’t we balance Sp, Wb, Ps, Ax, Bw…….” It is a war-game…War=history, game=playable contest! So the closer we get to all units being considered equally valuable on the table-top the better war-game we have. Plus it IS historically justified - do you think Samnites thought they had zero chance vs Romans because they were Aux and the Romans Bd? Plus it’ll rectify historical anomalies such as LH armies being “pants” under DBA. I'm also a big fan of the 12 element game. Most of my reading seems to show battelines expand/contract to roughly equal length most of the time so the 12 elements work well. Not sure I want a points based game with significant differences in element numbers, as flank attacks are so devastating in DBA3 regardless of what element is on your flank. Probably works better in bigger battles but I like having lots of different armies rather than painting more of what I've got. But agree that 4Ax, Pk and LH (Horse Archer) need work to get closer to history and better game balance. I don't need perfectly balanced but not less than 60/40, otherwise it loses the fun factor. Cheers Jim PS One important historical battle where it seems the main battlelines were unequal was Leuctra, but in DBA3 the Theban double elements allow for both to be equal! Go figure? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 17, 2023 3:27:31 GMT
One important historical battle where it seems the main battlelines were unequal was Leuctra, but in DBA3 the Theban double elements allow for both to be equal! Go figure? I can go one better than that Jim…Gaugamela. But you’re right: most ancient armies tried to match the frontage of their enemies, one way or another, if they could (and no, that doesn’t mean Pikes, as enemies were just as deep because of their reserves). But I’m not against having a points system. It’s just that weak troops also need some way of being individually boosted and balanced as well. It seems that the old adage that “quantity has a quality of it’s own” didn’t apply to ancient armies. After all, merely having lots more weak troops isn’t enough... ...as the Persians found out when they faced Alexander! |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 17, 2023 6:56:47 GMT
...why are Greek battles so often used to prove the superiority of certain types of troops? In China the fighting was completely different. Europe was regularly conquered by Asian hordes. Didn't these people care about Greek tactics?  |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 17, 2023 7:56:27 GMT
...why are Greek battles so often used to prove the superiority of certain types of troops? In China the fighting was completely different. Europe was regularly conquered by Asian hordes. Didn't these people care about Greek tactics? I was pointing out a rules anomaly given the Thebans have 2x8Sp in DBA3, a well known fact to most DBA3 players. But people will always find fault when they look for it. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 17, 2023 8:24:10 GMT
...why are Greek battles so often used to prove the superiority of certain types of troops? In China the fighting was completely different. Europe was regularly conquered by Asian hordes. Didn't these people care about Greek tactics? Yeah, and China was also regularly conquered by Asian hordes… mounted ones.(But not in DBA)Besides, the writings of the ancient European historians are readily available. Not so for the ancient Chinese battles... |
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Oct 17, 2023 10:56:39 GMT
I must admit that I quite like the 12 element-a-side format. It’s abstract yes, but also nice and simple. And all armies, no matter what their actual size, can be split into 12 parts. However, I also realise that trying to make all element types of equal value is practically impossible…the rigid and limited DBA two-dice combat system just hasn’t got the variety. So a points system is a way out, but it itself is not perfect. Take Camels for example. What should their point value be? The Camel combat factor of 3 against both foot and mounted makes them equal to Auxiliaries and Cavalry… But they have a ‘quick kill’ against Knights, so should cost more… And they’re ‘quick killed’ on an equal score by Blades, so should cost less… Then add on their terrain advantages, which only really applies when defending… Now I’m not saying that a point system won’t work, but it’s not as easy a fix as many people seem to think. |
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Oct 17, 2023 11:00:02 GMT
Whoops, I meant to reply not just repost. I agree about the 12 element game, it is one of the things that is unique about DBA.
Setting that aside, if your points system is going to be granular then I think Cm=Cv is reasonably. Cm's terrain advantage is offset by the lower move than Cv. Among other things this makes it harder to charge down Bw.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 17, 2023 14:07:25 GMT
Actually Hodsopa, I think that Camels should cost 1 point more than Cavalry. Their slower speed isn’t a disadvantage if they cover the table with Dunes! Here is a list of Dry or Littoral armies with lots of Camels and low Aggression (leaving out LCm, which are almost all just 1 x LCm only):- III/70 Tuaregs 11 x Cm Dry, Aggression 1 III/54b Qaramita 8 x Cm Dry, Aggression 1 III/12 Christian Nubians 2 x Cm Dry, Aggression 1 I/8bc Makkan 2 x Cm Littoral, Aggression 1 II/22 Arabo-Aramaeans 1 x Cm Dry, Aggression 0 With their low aggression, they’re likely to be the defenders, and smother the table with Dunes & Oasis (a big advantage). ============================================== On a separate but related issue, since we are talking about army points, I suggested the following to the DBF Team (but they haven’t accepted it). All armies have an automatic aggression of ‘2’, which costs nothing.
If their aggression is ‘3’, pay say five Army Points, and if ‘4’ then pay say ten Army points.
Likewise, an aggression of ‘1’ pays five Army Points, and if ‘0’ pay ten Army Points.
That way if players are desperate to be the defender (and place the terrain), they’re gonna have to pay for it.
And if they are desperate to be the attacking-invader (and deploy second), they too must pay for the privilege.
Of course, they may find they have wasted their money if their opponent goes to extremes anyway.
Being Littoral is also a big advantage, so that should cost players something as well.
(Paying 5 Army Points if the aggression is shifted by one is only a suggestion…
…make it more or less Army Points if you wish)And of course there is also this: fanaticus.boards.net/post/49930/ |
|
