|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 10, 2016 13:56:01 GMT
Note if the defender places a road, that does restrict the attacker's choice. So does a waterway, so that you need to think of that when you play on a 30" board for instance. It is possible on a 30" board to have a sector that is jammed with terrain, and if the attacker forces the defender to deploy in the rough, for instance, you are in a world of hurt of you have cavalry, artillery, etc.... Happened to me in a couple of games on the big boards with Classical Indians, and trying to manoeuvre elephants through the jungle is no fun. After that, when I have terrain-sensitive troops, I add a road as the defender, so that the attacker can't channel me as easily.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 8, 2016 16:41:54 GMT
Of course as a Persian General, I would infinitely prefer a 32" board against your Greek 4Sp army ...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 2, 2016 23:17:18 GMT
Rough going may not. Rough terrain sure does (as bad going). They are the same for movement in v3 with respect to the "closing the door" thing.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 1, 2016 19:39:23 GMT
Actually the inability to close the door for Solid foot (other than Ax/Wb) in BGo/RGo is a pretty fundamental change, and has the effect of slowing down the pace of decision for infantry combat in terrain. One more subtlety to ponder in the new game.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 22, 2016 11:22:26 GMT
I think that seals the point.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 21, 2016 14:17:15 GMT
Hi, an element in 'rear support' is part of the frontal combat. It can be contacted on its flank and that contact is treated as being a flank contact on the front element. Combat is taking place between elements in opposite position. Imagine rear support as one big melee (think of it as the 'plus' for your Combat Factor!) Cheers, Ronald. Hmm, that's not what the rules imply. Seems under the Close Combat paragraphs, only the elements touching each other are deemed to be "fighting" (whatever that means). All others merely provide tactical factors. So it seems to imply that you can use bowfire to chase away a supporting pike element. Longbow can really smash up a pike phalanx ..
|
|
|
Psiloi
Sept 5, 2016 15:54:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by primuspilus on Sept 5, 2016 15:54:10 GMT
I find Ps in the Classical era neither better nor worse, just different. Of course if your goal is open competition, then you are mini-maxing off the element list. It's a pretty tall data ask to expect every possible army choice to be fully competitive. If on the other hand, you are attempting to create a broad brush-stroke representation of historical battles, you may want Ps in there to get the right feel.
Try using Early Spartans with 11 Sp and 1 solid Hd. You get the distinct impression that a Ps would be nice to have...
For example, if you are gaming Classical Indians vs Alexandrian Imperial (a pretty "main stream" match up) then both sides will likely want to deploy Ps. Alexander needs them against El, and Porus needs them against Art.
|
|
|
Psiloi
Sept 3, 2016 15:45:53 GMT
via mobile
Post by primuspilus on Sept 3, 2016 15:45:53 GMT
They are very abstract units. I have lost them too many times to archery, etc. Bill Note Ps flee if doubled by shooting. As such they make a great screen against Lb... Also they are useful for harassing artillery as well. I always have at least one, since they can sometimes ZoC artillery from an awkward angle if isolated, rendering them useless. Also they are great against SCh and El. Plus a single Ps in rough or bad can sometimes delay an enemy flank move by Ax or fast Bw, due to their ability to avoid frontal overlaps.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 22, 2016 12:09:32 GMT
Tony, you are right about DBA 3 and speed. We have not found games significantly shorter on average. We have found that in certain cases, games can be over very fast, but I recall 2.2 games that could also end just as quickly. We found increasing movement rates changed the way we position ourselves, due to the inherent dangers of fast warband, for instance! And in many cases, moving the maximum amount is definitely the sub-optimal move.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 22, 2016 12:06:15 GMT
I read on TMP on a thread that Texas is mostly 2.2+. Is that the case?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 22, 2016 12:04:38 GMT
My girlfriend (here in North America) is Bulgarian! Small world indeed, guys. Now if I can get her playing DBA, and we can swing a trip back home soon, we may have a mini tournament lol...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 22, 2016 12:01:36 GMT
The BBDBA rules are different in several respects, not merely "further clarified". The 1BW limit for waterway deployment is one of them. The rules are pretty clear about how a Littoral Landing is to work in the base game. About fleeing, it does seem odd that a flee result from within a river is not as severe as one that starts near, and ends in a river, however again you look for the aggregate effect of the rules over the length of a game, and not individual instances that seem out of place.
DBA is a game where the rules must always be considered in the overall, average, and long term effects they have. Absent this thinking, some of the outcomes for ties, for instance, appear to make no sense. Fleeing into/out of a river I sub,it is one of these cases, if it can indeed be shown that Phil intended these to be different. Recall, a stubborn problem in older versiosn of DBA was the D-Day landings required to cross a river. If you make flee results that begin in a river to turn out fatal, you will radically strengthen river defences. Is that desirable?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Aug 2, 2016 11:28:40 GMT
However (as in the case of Ax and Ps being allowed to recoil a BW, and by the way, I'd add Bw to the list for similar reasons) I am all for house rules that better reflect the two principles I mentioned earlier.
You will find for example that under v3, on the regulation board, EAP are thoroughly whipped. Something about the first 8Bw costing 2 elements toward defeat, plus the loss of the supporting 3Bw, oh and the requirement to shoot at a target in the TZ, which suddenly renders the Persian battleline thoroughly vulnerable to all manner of riff-raff..
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 30, 2016 15:30:24 GMT
I have noticed over the years that DBA is a subtle game that too many people try to interpret sometimes far too literally.
For instance, often times people will dabte whether this or that effect or phenomenon is captured adequately in the game, and if not, frequently things are proposed.
I for one am a big fan of tweaks or house rules, but I expect that any such proposals would fundamentally produce the right results over the long term, and at the right level.
Those are key concepts, and I'll clarify what I mean. First, at the right level means that whatever effect we think is missing must historically have had the kind of results that are observable at the time and space scale that DBA gives. I submit humbly to the forum that many times an effect I have read about, and have attempted to houserule, would simply not matter at the scale of DBA, and the effects of the houserule were to drastically magnify the impact of this effect. For the sake of argument, the difference in performance between say slings and bows would be very subtle and slight at this scale. They could be reflected, but something like a +1 would grossly overstate the effect at this scale.
Over the long term, would an effect in the game add up to again magnify the win/loss effects. A good example here is the drastically underpowered 4Ax in the context of Zama, say. In this case, a +1 may be appropriate to reflect semi-formed foot that were able to give ground slowly under increasing pressure. Allowing such to recoil 1BW also contributes to this effect, as they may then break contact from prsuing Bd. Over time, you find the balance is right, but there is no guarantee that this rule would apply across the entire 4Ax class. Again, we need to consider if the effect was significant (I believe in this case yes) at our scale, and then whether we are justified in making this a permanent house rule for our games (this is a much deeper question).
In this sprirt, I consider the outcomes for ties. These are material enough that the rule is relevant (like the 1 for the first PIP roll affecting plough) and over the long term the effects are right. It is tempting to think "but how can a tie be worse than a loss in a combat"? but you are assuming then that the die roll outcomes were designed to be monotonic, rather than simply a clever mechanism to generate an effect.
So going forward, I have been asking myself these two fundamental questions whenever I consider something needs to be captured, and then I again consider carefully whether the proposal matches in an appropriate way.
|
|
|
Camps
Jul 25, 2016 13:27:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by primuspilus on Jul 25, 2016 13:27:19 GMT
Ergo, since camp is not an element of any kind but it is a structure, it goes anywhere along the back edge including in the corner. The central deployment area is for the deployment of troop types not for structures. The city or Fort or edifice or Hamlet is not an element either, but but they can go anywhere along the back edge too. All restrictions for the deployment area are for "troops." I am having difficulty following your reasoning, Bob. The "deployement area" has been defined already. It is 3BW from the centre line, and 4BW from a side edge, no? With an exception specifically stated for LH, Cv, Ax and Ps only. So it goes in the already pre-defined deployment area, no?
|
|