|
Post by hodsopa on Oct 17, 2023 18:11:20 GMT
Hi Stevie, I speak from what I know! I have taken Tuareg to the last three tournaments I've been to (alone, then as one out of five, then as one out of two armies). It is true that when they get the terrain they are awesome. But they have got it less than half the time, and have won less than half their games (also a reflection, of course, on me as their general). If they were Ag 0 (rather than 1) it would be a different story I think - but the whole Tuareg image is about them pouring out of the dunes onto the edge of the fertile land, so Ag 0 would be too low.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Oct 17, 2023 18:12:22 GMT
As for your proposal to have the higher Ag army win ties in the terrain dice roll, I agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 17, 2023 19:13:45 GMT
Oh it all came about because in DBF they have a points system (with 4 points for average elements, the weaker ones less and the powerful ones more). This will allow players to design their own armies. But that got me thinking…what’s to stop players from creating their own armies, then deciding they’ll be Littoral with aggression zero? Why not, it free, and will be a big advantage. Without some sort of control or limitation, ALL home designed armies will be Littoral with aggression zero!
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 17, 2023 21:20:49 GMT
Oh it all came about because in DBF they have a points system (with 4 points for average elements, the weaker ones less and the powerful ones more). This will allow players to design their own armies. But that got me thinking…what’s to stop players from creating their own armies, then deciding they’ll be Littoral with aggression zero? Why not, it free, and will be a big advantage. Without some sort of control or limitation, ALL home designed armies will be Littoral with aggression zero! There are Army Lists in DBF. You can design your own armies for home play but when strangers meet we strongly recommend sticking to the Army lists. We have by the way finally solved the Solid Aux problem which should spread into the rest of DBX. TomT
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 18, 2023 7:07:54 GMT
Re the improvement to 4Ax - are we allowed to talk about it here yet?
(I'm liking the improvements to Wb BTW - one of my wishes appears to have been granted!)
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 18, 2023 7:43:36 GMT
...as 4Ax is a construction splitting a troop type in a fast and a slow part. In native american warfare it is a bit stupid. But using an older version og DBA there are no problems...
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 18, 2023 7:49:10 GMT
Which native American armies would this 'stupid' apply to?
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 18, 2023 8:44:17 GMT
...4/53, 4/81...
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 18, 2023 9:37:43 GMT
I like the idea of a simple points based system, it mirrors discussions om here so you can upgrade some troops at the expense of others. It has some nuance to it and outside of the hardcore DBAers you have to consider that a fixed 12 element system may not be what some who have turned away from DBA want or indeed others you are trying to attract. DBA v3 and previous versions will still be there for those who want to stick to it. But I think those who are developing DBF are doing the right thing, whilst accepting that they will probably do some things I like and others I don't. There are a couple of clubs near me I attend and with the advances in 3D printing etc the tables look fantastic - terrain, gaming mat's etc - and there's another in Rainham that only play rules from the 1970's and use felt bases for terrain, are stuck in a time warp and you don't want DBA to become that. I'm not that fussed by fantasy gaming, though I do love to read it, but it is a big market and I can't deny that
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 18, 2023 9:57:59 GMT
I can assure people that we’re not advocating moving to a points based system for DBA - Phil’s legacy of a 12 element game will be protected there 😎
P
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Oct 18, 2023 10:43:00 GMT
I can assure people that we’re not advocating moving to a points based system for DBA - Phil’s legacy of a 12 element game will be protected there 😎 P Isn't HOTT points based ?
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 18, 2023 10:55:23 GMT
I can assure people that we’re not advocating moving to a points based system for DBA - Phil’s legacy of a 12 element game will be protected there 😎 P Isn't HOTT points based ? Yes, it is. P
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Oct 18, 2023 11:54:58 GMT
I can assure people that we’re not advocating moving to a points based system for DBA - Phil’s legacy of a 12 element game will be protected there 😎 P Who was it said that it was? Pretty sure I read it on here.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 26, 2023 21:25:48 GMT
Forgetting history for a moment and just looking at DBA as a game - Each side chooses 12 playing pieces each with variable powers to win a battle. However, the problem is 12! Unlike HOTT you can’t elect to have 8 super-powerful pieces or 16 weak pieces. It’s 12 and that’s it. However, because of the history the various options for playing pieces have not been balanced…..at least not deliberately. Elephants, Artillery and Horde are balanced by costing 2 PIPs to move, while the “rock, paper, scissors” effect balanced Bow, Heavy Inf, Knights and Cavalry and Ps are balanced with the no corner-to-corner overlaps. However, 4Ax, LH and Pk remain unbalanced and so regardless of history a player given free-reign to choose these pieces probably wouldn’t because they are poor choices. So if DBA was a board game I’d suggest more play-testing! Given this we have 2 options for 4Ax - either strengthen 4Ax (+1 vs foot, no corner-to-corner overlaps, +1 vs solid in GG etc) OR weaken everything else! So how about -1 for fighting in Rough going with the usual exceptions for Ps, Aux etc. Alternatively Aux win all draws in RG and/or QK in BG. That said haven’t we already mostly “solved” the 4Ax issue with the following existing house rules: +1 to 4Ax in the open vs Sp or Bd, Aux recoil like mounted (either BD or BW). Add to this no corner-to-corner overlaps for Ax in RG or BG or the -1 in RG (above) and we have pretty much balanced them out. We have been playtesting Aux(s) getting a +1 v. Foot extensively. It seems to be sufficient without a lot of additional rules. It gives DBX a much need Medium Foot type. As you mention points also help. Aux in general are cheaper than blades/Spears/Knights. But I feel even in the 12 element game this will be sufficient without overwhelming what is meant to be a simple game with extra rules (ironically the 12 Element format is one of the most difficult to design for unless you just accept that all Element types will not be equal). TomT
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 26, 2023 21:27:23 GMT
...as 4Ax is a construction splitting a troop type in a fast and a slow part. In native american warfare it is a bit stupid. But using an older version og DBA there are no problems... How can limiting options possibly make the game better. You have both types Fast and Solid and you can use either to best model performance. TomT
|
|