|
Post by stevie on Oct 25, 2023 16:45:27 GMT
I agree with everything that has been said so far.
But remember, if ON a road a subsequent cannot used to leave it, and if you move ONTO a road, then a subsequent move is available to you.
(“I didn’t write the rules…”)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2023 12:42:52 GMT
Fundamentally the overlap mechanic of DBA means you have a strong incentive to extend your line as wide as possible and there is not a counterbalancing incentive to retain reserves. In fact, since the battle is decided when the first four elements are destroyed, you have even less reason to keep anyone back, since the battle may well be over before reserves can be thrown in. And that Kaiphranos is the fundamental flaw in DBA…not pikes being outflanked. I’m an historical rather than just a game player, and I hate it when I see opponents using their Romans in one long line with no reserves, as if they fought the same as Greek Hoplites…especially when they even have their Triarii in the one long line. As far as I’m concerned any army in one long line with no reserves deserves to have their line punched through and rolled up. This to me is realistic. But if the rules favour having one long line, then game players will do so. I said earlier that we should look at the wider picture, so let’s do so here by taking an extreme example. Imagine 12 x 8Pk against 12 x 4Bd. Neither side has the longer line, so no outflanking. But the Pike CF of 6 easily drives the Bd back, and two overlaps on Bd has 9 chances out of 36 of scoring a double. So Bd are going to need some reserves to plug the gaps… …even the Trarii would do, and indeed this is how the Romans actually fought. Thus it is now the Blades that have the shorter battleline (as they’ll need reserves), or they will have one long brittle line that’ll be punched through and rolled-up. Having 8Pk super elements just shifts the flanking problem onto the Romans! Making Pikes a bit stronger would make their centre breakthroughs even more likely, and encourage the Blades to shorten their line as they’ll need to have reserves. This is the approach favoured in DBF, where Pikes recoil enemy on an equal roll. It encourages historical formations.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2023 10:59:22 GMT
Here is another thing we need to consider and take into account:-
If Pikes are 8Pk, so that they match the enemy line, how on earth can the Romans defeat them, as they always did?
Far better to force the enemies of the Pk to have reserves (i.e. 16 ranks of Pk facing 8 ranks of Hastati backed by 8 ranks of Principes… …the battleline is more or less the same length).
Instead of whinging about Pikes, take the blinkers off and look at the wider picture…
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2023 10:39:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 21, 2023 12:09:03 GMT
Don’t forget that having Bd and Pk pursuing in DBA 3.0 is largely an artificial mechanical adjustment, caused by the limitations of having a two-dice combat system. Wb destroy by just recoiling heavy foot (known as having a ‘quick kill’ against them). So Bd need to have a high combat factor in order to match and defeat the Wb. This makes Bd vs Bd a pointless pushing back exercise. Ah, but if Bd pursue, it helps to weaken them by drawing ‘em into dangerous situations. And the same applies to the even more powerful rear-supported Pk. This approach works, and gives reasonably realistic effects on our wargames table. However, we now have people treating this ‘pursuit’ as historical fact, and desperately trying to find justifications for it. There are many more of these ‘artificial mechanical adjustments’ present in DBA… …side-support for Sp, side-support from solid Bd for solid Bows, rear support for Wb, rear-support for LH, fast 3Ax and Skirmishers moving at the same speed as Kn, and so on. All these have no real-life equivalents, and are needed merely to give the right effects. (Having said that, have a look at this → fanaticus.boards.net/post/10089/ )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 20, 2023 0:26:47 GMT
Not all players participate in tournaments. Indeed, I would say that tournament players are a minor (if vocal) part of the DBA community.
Nonetheless, I enjoy tournaments, even though it is an artificial environment, where such things such as historical opponents, dismounting, rivers, and even Cities and Forts, are often discouraged. It all depends on whether you want to recreate history, or just have a good game.
|
|
|
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 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/
|
|
|
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 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 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 stevie on Oct 15, 2023 22:45:24 GMT
Nothing wrong with “standing on the shoulders of giants”… …which is a metaphor which means "using the understanding gained by major thinkers who have gone before in order to make intellectual progress".
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 15, 2023 13:22:54 GMT
Ha! Only because they have no other troops! The same goes for the Spanish Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians, etc. Now look at Roman formations, and Macedonian Pike formations…
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 15, 2023 11:37:18 GMT
Ah but there are unwanted side-effects with this approach, as my play testing has shown. Rough GoingThere is no side (or rear) support in this type of terrain. This means that Blades, and even Spears, will happily seek out such terrain in order to rob the 4Ax of their bonus…meanwhile 4Ax will try to avoid it, the opposite of reality. FormationsSide-support works best when they have a friendly unit of the appropriate type on either side. That way if one friend recoils, they’ll still have the other to provide them with the bonus. This results in the 4Ax often being placed in the centre of the battleline, and not on the ends. Again, the opposite of reality. See “Auxiliary Improvements” in here: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index?page=1
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 14, 2023 18:30:23 GMT
In a word…”No”.
|
|