|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 7, 2017 18:31:51 GMT
Towards DBA 3.1
Gents...DBA has been out almost 3 years. Thousands of games have been completed. Hundreds of tournaments have be run successfully. I think it time to explore some thinking
toward the next version. This version like many of the previous minor versions should consist of fixing errors, clarifying rules, and perhaps tidying up the army lists. I
will leave those topics for other discussions (and in fact many of those have already been discussed).
I do however think we can discuss a small fine tuning of the rules themselves. For sake of discussion, here is what I propose.
Elephants should be lowered to +4 vs shooting.
The change here would be (under "RESOLVING SHOOTING OR CLOSE COMBAT")...
ELEPHANTS in close combat 5 4
BLADES in close combat 5 3
SPEARS, ARTILLERY unless in a city or fort, BLADES or Elephants if shot at 4 4
Blades are too powerful vs Knights... Fast Blades are too powerful in general...
The change here would be (under "If its total is equal to that of its opponent") ...
Knights or Camelry Destroyed in close combat by any Bows that are Lb or Cb, or by "Solid" Blades whose dice score is even, recoiled in close combat by
other “Solid” foot. 4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn. Otherwise no effect.
Auxilia still aren't quite correct.
The change here would be (under "RECOILING OR BEING PUSHED BACK")...
A recoiling foot element except Ps and Ax always moves its own base depth or ½ BW if this is less than its base depth.
A recoiling mounted element and Ps and Ax can choose either to move 1 BW or to move its own base depth if this is less than 1 BW.
I would be interested in folks playing games with these changes and providing feedback.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 7, 2017 20:29:26 GMT
What would be the criteria for agreeing that these proposals are an improvement?
Regards
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 7, 2017 21:11:42 GMT
What would be the criteria for agreeing that these proposals are an improvement? Regards Simon Err... your opinion. I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't think any objective criteria are possible. I am looking for feedback on these proposals... as they may be part of my input for DBA 3.1... Or did I miss your point? Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 7, 2017 21:38:27 GMT
Excellent. Some of the rules need tydiying up and clarification, so DBA 3.1 would be great.
I would think that not only Fast Blades are too powerful, but Fast troops in general.
Some kind of fix that would either make Solid elements more attractive or Fast ones less so would be good.
Maybe Fast elements could be recoiled by Solid elements on equal results? (But I fear that is not enough).
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 7, 2017 22:59:06 GMT
Towards DBA 3.1 Auxilia still aren't quite correct. The change here would be (under "RECOILING OR BEING PUSHED BACK")...
A recoiling foot element except Ps and Ax always moves its own base depth or ½ BW if this is less than its base depth.
A recoiling mounted element and Ps and Ax can choose either to move 1 BW or to move its own base depth if this is less than 1 BW.I would be interested in folks playing games with these changes and providing feedback. Joe Collins I am only one small voice amongst many, but I do like the idea that Ps and Ax can recoil like mounted, i.e.they have the choice of ‘recoiling’ their base depth or ‘evading’ (to use an old WRG 7th edition term) a full BW. One of the problems with Ax is they have no ‘special ability’. They are not the best in bad going (Wb and Bd have the same combat factor), they are not the fastest in harsh terrain (Wb and 3Bd are also un-slowed), and Ax get slaughtered in good going by Sp, Pk, Bd, and Kn. They get slaughtered because DBA makes them fight toe-to-toe like heavy infantry…but they were not heavy infantry. They were lighter foot, to quote from the Great Purple Book; “javelin-armed foot able to fight hand-to-hand but emphasising agility and flexibility”. Allowing Ax to ‘evade’ 1 BW instead of recoiling gives them a ‘special ability’ due to their agility, an ability that other foot (apart from Ps) do not have. It is also a more realistic appreciation of their historical capability. Ancient Spanish, Samnites, Lucanians, Bruttians, Apulians, Illyrians, Thracians, Paionians, Aetolians, Cappadocians, and many others, were all noted for their ability to fight at a distance with javelins and evade a heavy infantry charge, as well as being able to fight hand-to-hand. This is what peltasts were famed for. And why the DBA Greeks ever swapped from hoplites with their combat factor of 4 +1 for side support to useless 4Ax thureophoroi with their combat factor 3 is a mystery…unless these 4Ax had some special use. So I think this would be an excellent addition.  (Mind you, they will still be slaughtered by heavy infantry overlaps…but they might at least last a bit longer if they can recoil out of contact) However, I disagree with changing the elephant combat factors against shooting. The thing about ancient elephants was they were hard to kill, often being captured after a battle. With bows having a combat factor of 4 against mounted, and the elephants having a combat factor of 5 against foot, plus a -2 because of support shooting, the current factors already seem about right (artillery, even without support shooting, has 10 chances out 36 of quick killing them…which is more than enough). As for the Bd vs. Kn, I need to do some number crunching... Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jun 7, 2017 23:21:51 GMT
Towards DBA 3.1 Gents...DBA has been out almost 3 years. Thousands of games have been completed. Hundreds of tournaments have be run successfully. I think it time to explore some thinking toward the next version. This version like many of the previous minor versions should consist of fixing errors, clarifying rules, and perhaps tidying up the army lists. I will leave those topics for other discussions (and in fact many of those have already been discussed). I do however think we can discuss a small fine tuning of the rules themselves. For sake of discussion, here is what I propose. Elephants should be lowered to +4 vs shooting. The change here would be (under "RESOLVING SHOOTING OR CLOSE COMBAT")... ELEPHANTS in close combat 5 4
BLADES in close combat 5 3
SPEARS, ARTILLERY unless in a city or fort, BLADES or Elephants if shot at 4 4Blades are too powerful vs Knights... Fast Blades are too powerful in general... The change here would be (under "If its total is equal to that of its opponent") ...
Knights or Camelry Destroyed in close combat by any Bows that are Lb or Cb, or by "Solid" Blades whose dice score is even, recoiled in close combat by
other “Solid” foot. 4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn. Otherwise no effect.Auxilia still aren't quite correct. The change here would be (under "RECOILING OR BEING PUSHED BACK")...
A recoiling foot element except Ps and Ax always moves its own base depth or ½ BW if this is less than its base depth.
A recoiling mounted element and Ps and Ax can choose either to move 1 BW or to move its own base depth if this is less than 1 BW.I would be interested in folks playing games with these changes and providing feedback. Joe Collins
Interesting concepts - but can you clarify Joe,
are you proposing that the Bd quick kill on Kn be limited only to "Solid" Bd and then only when the dice score is 2, 4 or 6?
I am not convinced that this is a step forward for several reasons 1) It is hard enough remembering the current conditional combat conditions: overlap on non bounding player when within 1BW of the edge, recoil on a tie for Fast vs Solid, +1 vs foot for Double Base elements without adding a further conditional modifier. Otherwise the post match conversations will remain replete with remarks that "it was only 4 bounds later that I remembered I should have counted the <insert appropriate new conditional modifier> and I would have won the game, but by then it was too late to go back". 2) There are some players that insist on using the same dice as their opponent, and there may be some tournaments that stipulate this. Remembering the score of the first roll may slip the mind of the players 3) I remember the addition of this kill to the rules because prior to that "Kn were too powerful against Bd" - or in fact Kn were just too powerful was a mantra. DBA3 has taken away the quick kill by bows against Kn, given Bd a lower chance at a quick kill but left the Kn quick kill on Bd intact, and now the Kn quick kill on Bows is worth a shot because only Bw and Cb have the quick kill and then only on a tie.
When DBA3 was first published I ran my 1066 campaign - so there was plenty of Bd vs Kn action as the Normans and Flemish (two III/51 armies) matched up against the Vikings, Scots Isles, Norse Irish and Anglo Danes. In these contests there were some points where the Kn were cut down by Bd on a tie, but more often the line of Kn crashed through the line of Bd and usually did enough casualties that the reserves could do nothing but witness the defeat. This happened with the Anglo Danish Sp line as well.
As for cutting down the El shooting factor, as a long time fan of Sung China and the use of massed artillery - I am all for it, bringing the Art vs El long distance contest back to an even footing so that I can all but end the game before it starts with a quick kill on the El general. Had you taken this into account when determining the change to El factors? It is just my luck that as I am about to embark on building an Elephant army that I would want to use in tournaments that the Elly is being wound back  .
I understand the logic of cutting back fast troops, and fast Bd do seem to have all the advantages - but if you remove the quick kill on Kn for fast Bd you are removing it from the Palestinian Clubmen who were specialised Kn killers.
I would like to see side support extended to cover at least Sp when fighting Kn - that would give the Anglo Danes a fighting chance against the Normans.
But above all I would prefer that a 3.1 devoted more time to clarifying and improving the rules text - such as getting better definitions of "within meaning at or within" for side vs front TZ interaction and shooting range; or determining what sort of contact by a group requires a single element to conform (we are currently having a doozy of a discussion here in Oz about that - it revolves around how much contact the group has to make and there is a body of opinion that suggests that the group need not make legal contact since the individual element must conform and therefore the contact becomes legal) - long before we consider tweaking the combat factors and results to even out the various elements.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 8, 2017 2:04:47 GMT
Hey joe,
Are you going to write your own rules like Tom did? I certainly don't see any need for these particular rules and will not be trying them. Let us know how these work out with your local group. I believe that DBA represents Phil Barker's model of ancient warfare. It's his view of how things were, turned into a set of rules. Everyone has their view of what history was like, But I believe in accepting rules in their entirety and not changing little pieces here and there. Maybe just clarifying issues that people don't understand. Moreover I like the idea of standardization across the world for the game. The last time somebody thought they had a better idea than Phil turned into a disaster.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 8, 2017 2:13:22 GMT
Excellent. Some of the rules need tydiying up and clarification, so DBA 3.1 would be great. I would think that not only Fast Blades are too powerful, but Fast troops in general. Some kind of fix that would either make Solid elements more attractive or Fast ones less so would be good. Maybe Fast elements could be recoiled by Solid elements on equal results? (But I fear that is not enough). Felixs, I don't understand your last comment. Are you suggesting a rule like this, If results are equal
“Fast” foot Recoiled by “Solid” foot in close combat with it or shooting at it,. . .
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 8, 2017 4:00:10 GMT
Hey joe, Are you going to write your own rules like Tom did? I certainly don't see any need for these particular rules and will not be trying them. Let us know how these work out with your local group. I believe that DBA represents Phil Barker's model of ancient warfare. It's his view of how things were, turned into a set of rules. Everyone has their view of what history was like, But I believe in accepting rules in their entirety and not changing little pieces here and there. Maybe just clarifying issues that people don't understand. Moreover I like the idea of standardization across the world for the game. The last time somebody thought they had a better idea than Phil turned into a disaster. No, I plan to write them with Phil (if he is able), Sue and hopefully others. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 8, 2017 4:08:56 GMT
Interesting concepts - but can you clarify Joe,
are you proposing that the Bd quick kill on Kn be limited only to "Solid" Bd and then only when the dice score is 2, 4 or 6? Yes...
I am not convinced that this is a step forward for several reasons 1) It is hard enough remembering the current conditional combat conditions: overlap on non bounding player when within 1BW of the edge, recoil on a tie for Fast vs Solid, +1 vs foot for Double Base elements without adding a further conditional modifier. Otherwise the post match conversations will remain replete with remarks that "it was only 4 bounds later that I remembered I should have counted the <insert appropriate new conditional modifier> and I would have won the game, but by then it was too late to go back". A valid concern that I share as well.
2) There are some players that insist on using the same dice as their opponent, and there may be some tournaments that stipulate this. Remembering the score of the first roll may slip the mind of the players Less of a concern, but news to me.
3) I remember the addition of this kill to the rules because prior to that "Kn were too powerful against Bd" - or in fact Kn were just too powerful was a mantra. DBA3 has taken away the quick kill by bows against Kn, given Bd a lower chance at a quick kill but left the Kn quick kill on Bd intact, and now the Kn quick kill on Bows is worth a shot because only Bw and Cb have the quick kill and then only on a tie. This idea still preserves some of the deadliness of blades vs knights. I will go into the factors later. It also leaves them "different" from spear.
When DBA3 was first published I ran my 1066 campaign - so there was plenty of Bd vs Kn action as the Normans and Flemish (two III/51 armies) matched up against the Vikings, Scots Isles, Norse Irish and Anglo Danes. In these contests there were some points where the Kn were cut down by Bd on a tie, but more often the line of Kn crashed through the line of Bd and usually did enough casualties that the reserves could do nothing but witness the defeat. This happened with the Anglo Danish Sp line as well.
As for cutting down the El shooting factor, as a long time fan of Sung China and the use of massed artillery - I am all for it, bringing the Art vs El long distance contest back to an even footing so that I can all but end the game before it starts with a quick kill on the El general. Had you taken this into account when determining the change to El factors? It is just my luck that as I am about to embark on building an Elephant army that I would want to use in tournaments that the Elly is being wound back . Yes I did take that into account... tough just building the new army... LOL... I just built a ton of elephants myself. The change doesn't pinch them back much... just a little.
I understand the logic of cutting back fast troops, and fast Bd do seem to have all the advantages - but if you remove the quick kill on Kn for fast Bd you are removing it from the Palestinian Clubmen who were specialised Kn killers. I'm not concerned with this at all.
I would like to see side support extended to cover at least Sp when fighting Kn - that would give the Anglo Danes a fighting chance against the Normans. Interesting.
But above all I would prefer that a 3.1 devoted more time to clarifying and improving the rules text - such as getting better definitions of "within meaning at or within" for side vs front TZ interaction and shooting range; or determining what sort of contact by a group requires a single element to conform (we are currently having a doozy of a discussion here in Oz about that - it revolves around how much contact the group has to make and there is a body of opinion that suggests that the group need not make legal contact since the individual element must conform and therefore the contact becomes legal) - long before we consider tweaking the combat factors and results to even out the various elements. This will certainly be done as well.
Cheers
Thanks MacBeth... good input. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jun 8, 2017 4:28:34 GMT
Joe,
I'm glad you appreciate the input but I would like to re-iterate that I am concerned that DBA3 has made Kn more powerful than they previously were in DBA2 and the only additional balance that was put on them was the kill on a tie given to Bd and Cm. As far as the Kn vs Bd dynamic - that was discussed in great depth when it was proposed with historical examples thrown about. Kn were given a boost when the quick kill vs Bows was removed - if you further dilute the counter to Kn that comes from Bd you give the Kn an even greater advantage.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Jun 8, 2017 6:25:26 GMT
Your changes seem to be game motivated, rather than history motivated.
For example, your change to auxilia recoil seems to have no basis whatsoever in history. So perhaps you need to reclassify Roman auxiliary as blade if you want to make that change.
Similarly, what's your history behind the death of knights and camels to bow in close combat? This is a really weird idea, from the perspective of history.
Note that the approach you are using is to balance the army lists by only changing the rules. It might be easier to do that, but there may be issues in the army lists?
Lastly, while you may have a process to update the rules, there is no process to update the lists - and some of them are terrible from. the perspective of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jun 8, 2017 8:16:36 GMT
What would be the criteria for agreeing that these proposals are an improvement? Regards Simon Err... your opinion. I'm not sure I understand your question. I don't think any objective criteria are possible. I am looking for feedback on these proposals... as they may be part of my input for DBA 3.1... Or did I miss your point? Joe Collins Thanks Joe. I guess I was just thinking about what we were hoping to achieve in launching a new version and what the problem is we are trying to fix. Then this needs to be weighed against potential downsides of launching into a new version. These downsides could , for example, include distraction or even splitting of the DBA community, getting used to a new set of rules, rebuilding armies and diverting wargame funds into a new set of rules. So, before getting into what 3.1 might look like, should we think about whether a 3.1 is wanted and worth the effort? 1. What are we hoping to achieve?
2. Could that be achieved in ways other than having a 3.1?
3. Overall, do the pros outweigh the cons?
Regards,
Simon.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 8, 2017 9:43:50 GMT
Excellent. Some of the rules need tydiying up and clarification, so DBA 3.1 would be great. I would think that not only Fast Blades are too powerful, but Fast troops in general. Some kind of fix that would either make Solid elements more attractive or Fast ones less so would be good. Maybe Fast elements could be recoiled by Solid elements on equal results? (But I fear that is not enough). Felixs, I don't understand your last comment. Are you suggesting a rule like this, If results are equal
“Fast” foot Recoiled by “Solid” foot in close combat with it or shooting at it,. . .
Bob, you are quite right. That comment makes no sense, since such a rule already exists. I was a victim of my own stream-of-consciousness editing. Sorry for the confusion I caused. My original idea was, that Fast foot should be destroyed in all such cases, but that then seemed to harsh, so I changed it. Coming up with the rule as it is |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 8, 2017 13:53:52 GMT
Thanks Joe. I guess I was just thinking about what we were hoping to achieve in launching a new version and what the problem is we are trying to fix. Then this needs to be weighed against potential downsides of launching into a new version. These downsides could , for example, include distraction or even splitting of the DBA community, getting used to a new set of rules, rebuilding armies and diverting wargame funds into a new set of rules.
So, before getting into what 3.1 might look like, should we think about whether a 3.1 is wanted and worth the effort?
1. What are we hoping to achieve?
I see three goals which I will list with no meaning to the order. The first would be to clarify the rules. The second to cleanup the army lists. The third would be to improve the narrative the game generates. I am concentrating on the last here.
2. Could that be achieved in ways other than having a 3.1?
Probably not. Phil and Sue have appointed Tom the official rules person for the US. But the changes and clarifications needed probably warrant a 3.1. I don't see an amendment sheet working. I am at a loss as to other ideas to even propose.
3. Overall, do the pros outweigh the cons?
Somewhat moot I think. We are after all on DBA 3. Another version is I think part of the natural flow of our hobby... as certain as rain on the hillside in the summer. If Phil, Sue, and the other partners want to keep the DBA franchise alive, then new versions are needed.
Regards,
Simon.
Joe Collins
|
|
.