|
|
Post by phippsy on Oct 21, 2016 15:18:59 GMT
I was interested to ascertain if any who play DBA also include various troop modifications like those in DBM. For example when two Psiloi elements meet in combat they have the same +2 factors against each other with all other influences similar or one not upslope of another. The combat factors and outcomes are regardless of whether or not one Ps is a Persian levy and the other a high quality Cretan archer say.....do players modify to reflect that one may be a 'superior' type and the other 'inferior'.....or is the point of DBA to avoid such additional intricacies? Thanks Phippsy.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Oct 21, 2016 15:51:38 GMT
I was interested to ascertain if any who play DBA also include various troop modifications like those in DBM. For example when two Psiloi elements meet in combat they have the same +2 factors against each other with all other influences similar or one not upslope of another. The combat factors and outcomes are regardless of whether or not one Ps is a Persian levy and the other a high quality Cretan archer say.....do players modify to reflect that one may be a 'superior' type and the other 'inferior'.....or is the point of DBA to avoid such additional intricacies? Thanks Phippsy. DBM does offer an option to reduce the game to a condensed version similar to DBA. Rather than micro-manage the quality of twelve elements I have experimented with the next level up – the commander; even the best troops under poor command can perform badly. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 21, 2016 17:00:16 GMT
I was interested to ascertain if any who play DBA also include various troop modifications like those in DBM. For example when two Psiloi elements meet in combat they have the same +2 factors against each other with all other influences similar or one not upslope of another. The combat factors and outcomes are regardless of whether or not one Ps is a Persian levy and the other a high quality Cretan archer say.....do players modify to reflect that one may be a 'superior' type and the other 'inferior'.....or is the point of DBA to avoid such additional intricacies? Thanks Phippsy. Yes, quite a bit for Big Battle and Historical Battle. Here is the best system we have used... Purchase 2x blank 12 sided dice. They should be readily available in most game stores. Mark the "Inferior Die" in black ink with the following... 1,1,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,6,6 Mark the "Superior Die" in green ink with the following. 1,1,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,5,6,6 Inferior elements use the "Inferior Die" in all combats. Superior use the "Superior" Die. This works quite well. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 21, 2016 17:17:00 GMT
There are lots of methods, here are a few:
Use DBM 2.0: Superior +1 on a losing score; Inferior -1 on a losing score. Superior Bows +1 on a winning score. (I don't recommend the DBM 3.0 method.)
Multi-dice: Superior roll 2d6 take the best; Inferior roll 2d6 take the worst.
Weapon/Armor: Better Armor +1 on a loss; Better Weapon +1 on a winning score. (Both "better" cancels modifiers.)
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 21, 2016 18:26:34 GMT
In the original version of DBA, Phil took this situation into account. Is there anything he hasn't thought of? :-) I have use this system in a number of situations and it works quite well.
"VARIATION IN TROOP QUALITY Organisers of full scale campaigns may wish to introduce some differences between troops of the same nominal type. If so, when two elements of the same nominal type fight each other, that judged to be worse counts a single extra -1 tactical factor. This will be that which has the largest total of the following disadvantage points:
1 dp if same troop type, but appreciably worse armour.
1 dp if same troop type, but worse, fewer or shorter ranged weapons.
1 dp if same troop type, but inferior morale class and/or less figures per base. (Bob: Almost a precursor to the solid versus fast dichotomy in DBA3)
2 dp if any type and fatigued by forced marching, weather or shortage of food or water.
3 dp if any type and own army has acquired less than half as many prestige points as its opponents.
The varying ability of generals in campaign or solo games can be simulated by an addition of +1 to, or deduction of-1 from, movement die scores."
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Oct 22, 2016 8:28:00 GMT
I think if you want to do it for yourself for a battle or campaign that is fine.
However, if you wanted to do it for DBA in general, then I think you need to think DBMM
The DBMM rules should give you what you want, plus it is a tried and tested system. That is an all encompassing statement, I know, and I have no doubt DBMM players could shoot me down, but I still think DBMM is the better start point.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Oct 22, 2016 9:21:46 GMT
In the original version of DBA, Phil took this situation into account. Is there anything he hasn't thought of? :-) I have use this system in a number of situations and it works quite well. "VARIATION IN TROOP QUALITY Organisers of full scale campaigns may wish to introduce some differences between troops of the same nominal type. If so, when two elements of the same nominal type fight each other, that judged to be worse counts a single extra -1 tactical factor. This will be that which has the largest total of the following disadvantage points: 1 dp if same troop type, but appreciably worse armour. 1 dp if same troop type, but worse, fewer or shorter ranged weapons. 1 dp if same troop type, but inferior morale class and/or less figures per base. (Bob: Almost a precursor to the solid versus fast dichotomy in DBA3) 2 dp if any type and fatigued by forced marching, weather or shortage of food or water. 3 dp if any type and own army has acquired less than half as many prestige points as its opponents. The varying ability of generals in campaign or solo games can be simulated by an addition of +1 to, or deduction of-1 from, movement die scores." This is all well and good but to avoid unbalancing the game you'll need to introduce a points system so that a player with inferior troops gets more of them. Similarly a superior general with command control and other advantages would have to play with fewer troops. An eliminated inferior might only be worth ½VP, a superior 1½. Then some people would produce DBA3+, not unlike DBA 2.2+, leading to schism and the closing of the website. If you don't want to go down that road then stop this nonsense now! |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 22, 2016 19:02:39 GMT
Some players allow veterans to reroll any '2' and inferior must reroll a '5'. We like having each player nominate one veteran and one levy. Maintains balance, and adds flavour.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 22, 2016 20:38:13 GMT
In the original version of DBA, Phil took this situation into account. Is there anything he hasn't thought of? :-) I have use this system in a number of situations and it works quite well. xxx cut xxx This is all well and good but to avoid unbalancing the game you'll need to introduce a points system so that a player with inferior troops gets more of them. Similarly a superior general with command control and other advantages would have to play with fewer troops. An eliminated inferior might only be worth ½VP, a superior 1½. Then some people would produce DBA3+, not unlike DBA 2.2+, leading to schism and the closing of the website. If you don't want to go down that road then stop this nonsense now! zygul, do not get bent out of shape  We are all discussing home rules or special rules for one off campaign, not a new game that takes the place the real DBA. The points idea is good. Everyone, keep the ideas ("nonsense") coming. |
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Oct 22, 2016 23:25:14 GMT
This is all well and good but to avoid unbalancing the game you'll need to introduce a points system so that a player with inferior troops gets more of them. Similarly a superior general with command control and other advantages would have to play with fewer troops. An eliminated inferior might only be worth ½VP, a superior 1½. Then some people would produce DBA3+, not unlike DBA 2.2+, leading to schism and the closing of the website. If you don't want to go down that road then stop this nonsense now! zygul, do not get bent out of shape We are all discussing home rules or special rules for one off campaign, not a new game that takes the place the real DBA. The points idea is good. Everyone, keep the ideas ("nonsense") coming. Well please discuss it in the House Rules section of the forum and leave this section to DBA3 in its pure, unmodified, state. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 25, 2016 19:01:18 GMT
No one is suggesting introducing a grading system into open tournaments. These should all be played using standard DBA3.0 rules (perhaps with a bit of FAQ input). Grading systems represent an enhancement to the rules not a change. Dave & Dave's 2.2+ rules changed the basic system and were offered as an alternative set for running tournaments - thats very different from adding some historical flavor to Agincourt.
Grading systems and similar inovations should be limited to campaigns, historic battles or alternative history and considered additions not changes. Most of the progress made in DBX mechanics comes from inovators trying new ideas in non-tournament settings.
So we can all live in harmony using straight DBA 3.0 for tournaments and whatever enhancements game masters feel would help with a campaign or specific battle.
Using DBMM is overkill if all you want is to add troop type variations. A bit like asking Father Christmas for a pet monkey and him bringing King Kong.
It just happened the thread started here rather in than in House Rules.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 25, 2016 21:14:21 GMT
... and I took the original question to mean "is there some mechanism in the rules I do not understand yet that accounts for troop quality....". As opposed to a defacto introduction to house rules.
I do believe that the element mix between armies can definitely represent troop quality, (for instance Solid vs Fast, or Kn vs Cv, can be interpreted in some cases in this way I suppose) however, due to the complex different interactions, quality is not a static thing, and sometimes your superiority in one situation turns out to be a hindrance in another. For instance an army of Kn, Bd and Cv vs an army of Ps and Ax can be considered as differing quality in open ground, with terrain as the great equaliser.
That said, it is quite common for players to use a few house rues for historical games or campaigns, in order to focus more on the aspects that interest them. You can even run a themed tournament with such rules, which allows otherwise uncompetitive armies to perform more historically, and be viable, for example. For instance, although not in any way necessary to the game, allowing solid Auxilia to survive against Bd a bit better can give one a slightly improved Punic Wars battle...
|
|
We are all discussing home rules or special rules for one off campaign, not a new game that takes the place the real DBA. The points idea is good. Everyone, keep the ideas ("nonsense") coming.