|
Post by stevie on Oct 13, 2023 11:41:40 GMT
Groups in Multiple TZ’s: what happens to a Group that starts in multiple TZ’s, like this:- ▄ ▄ The red group is in two TZ’s. Can it move as a complete group to contact the blue group, or must the end red unit be forced to split? ▌ ▀ ▀ ▀
Now I’ve always maintained that there is a hidden unwritten rule in DBA that goes like this:- “Groups can only be forced to split-up by turning-to-face, or as a result of a combat outcome, or if conforming exceeds or breaks any movement rules, or if the owner of the group wishes it.” (otherwise, DBA 3.0 Figures 13c & 13d would look very different)
Thus a Group is more than a loose collection of individual units…it’s more like a giant oversized element. And just as a single element starting in two TZ’s can pick its target without splitting, so can a Group. (Because if being in a TZ forces a split, then DBA Figures 13c & 13d would be impossible)
In other words, a Group in DBA already acts as a monster unit.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 13, 2023 10:32:13 GMT
A couple of thoughts. ① Make Pikes Stronger.This would force the enemy to have reserves, thereby shortening their line, instead of trying to stretch the Pikes to match the opposition. This can be done by having all troops recoiling from Pikes on an equal score, unless they too are Pikes (this is the method used in the current DBF). (I would go even further, and have Pikes as CF 3, +3 for rear support, and +1 for side-support from an adjacent friendly Pike column. CF 7 vs Blade/Spear CF 5…they’ll punch through, so enemy are gonna need reserves! And indeed, this is how the Romans, with their reserve Triarii Spears, actually fought)② Make Auxiliaries Stronger.Then they could extend the battleline and stand up to enemy, at least for a while. Again, this is a method used in the current beta version of DBF. (At the moment in DBA, Auxiliaries are soooo weak and useless they are no use at all)There you go…no need for ‘8Pk’…and it’ll encourage historical formations.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 12, 2023 7:55:21 GMT
Great. Auto-pursuit feels right for hard charging knights, less so for solid Pk and Bd, etc...(or at least the negative effects of it upon the latter). This was once called 'to become impetuous' which could happen to any troops with the right dice roll. Ha!…see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10089/
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 10, 2023 10:58:35 GMT
I'm still not sure I get why a defender would have to deploy first, why would an invader know where you stuff is? it's not really realistic is it. Well…it’s like why the defender gets to move first. Somebody has too! Having the defender placing terrain, deploying first, and moving first, while the invader picks base-edges, deploys second, and moves second, is a nice game balancer.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 9, 2023 9:55:36 GMT
It still happens Skb777…well…in effect.
If you are defending, you deploy first, and your opponents can put their Elephants where they like. (Of course, the difference is the invader KNOWS where your stuff is, and doesn't have to guess)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 8, 2023 10:02:13 GMT
Hmmm…there is a very easier way of balancing this, without the need to roll two dice each.
“The higher aggression factor defends if the final aggression scores are the same” (So the only re-roll is when both sides have the same aggression and have the same die roll)
At present, comparing the two aggression factors before dice are rolled, we have the following:- A +1 aggression has 21 chances out of 36 of invading, 10 chances of defending, and 5 re-rolls. (2 to 1) A +2 aggression has 26 chances out of 36 of invading, 6 chances of defending, and 4 re-rolls. (4 to 1) A +3 aggression has 30 chances out of 36 of invading, 3 chances of defending, and 3 re-rolls. (12 to 1)
Under the new system this would become:- A +1 aggression has 21 chances out of 36 of invading, 15 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (1½ to 1) A +2 aggression has 26 chances out of 36 of invading, 10 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (2½ to 1) A +3 aggression has 30 chances out of 36 of invading, 6 chances of defending, and no re-rolls. (6 to 1)
As you can see, the chances of the higher aggression defending is increased, but not excessively so, plus it reduces aggression re-rolls.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 6, 2023 7:56:54 GMT
Another example is the Second Battle of St. Albans in 1461. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_St_Albans#Battle But such things are best done as a ‘special scenario’, with special terrain. (After all, DBA only allows one element in a City or Fort/Castle)Later EditDpd has got me thinking... ...how about having not one but multiple small BUA Hamlets on the table, each representing several blocks of buildings, with the 1 BW gap between them representing the town roads, all based on the map supplied in that Wikipedia link above. It'll look lovely... Actually, The First Battle of St. Albans in 1455 would be even better. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_St_Albans#Battle(There's even a couple of pubs: The Chequers and The Crossed Keys... 🍺 )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 5, 2023 11:21:03 GMT
Well spotted Baldie. Yes, there are a few more Brian. Recoiling ObstaclesRecoiling or pushed back elements halt if they meet any of the following:- Troops they cannot pass through, push back, or trample. Terrain they cannot pass through, a table edge, or a City/Fort/Camp. Troops forced to move back are destroyed if already in contact with any of these. Pushed back troops cannot push back others... ...so the front element of a three deep column cannot move at all, and is brown bread.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 5, 2023 8:10:36 GMT
Combat outcome front base-to-base against a group. Pretty sure there is one, though I can't find it? Could you be thinking of DBA 2.2 and HoTT 2.1?… …where doubling a front rank element also destroys the rear supporting troops? This is not the case in DBA 3.0.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2023 14:42:33 GMT
Yup, I was thinking you'd say something like that. But alas, the whole idea of LH distant shooting currently - and for the perceivable future at least - has no traction other than in our homes. So where does that leave us? Don't say, 'In our homes.' It leaves us with a broken set of Horse Archer rules, that can’t simulate their real-life behaviour and perform as they did in history, leading to hopelessly weak and wimpy HA armies, that almost never get taken to tournaments, because players KNOW they are weak, wimpy and broken, even if they won’t admit it. (Except, as you say, at home… )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2023 14:13:21 GMT
Naaa…the move for Heavy foot is 2 BW or 80mm. 1½ BW is 60mm, add on the recoil of 15 or 20mm, and they can still reach the HA. Better to have the recoiled Heavy foot out of range, otherwise there isn’t much point in the HA recoiling ‘em. (Although it'll cost them extra PIP’s to move, as their Group will be broken-up).Right, so then you're just left with justifying LH shooting from approx 120 metres (131 yards) . That's pushing it. Ah, I've thought of that. It's for the same reason that Horse Archers can shoot while Skirmishers with Bows can't... ...the Horse Archers, being highly nimble, can dash forwards to shoot and then fall back again. But . . . OK if it 'works' as a mechanic. It works for me.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2023 13:47:25 GMT
Would it still work at 1-1/2 BW? Or does it require the minimum of 2 BW? 2 BW = approx 120 metres (131 yards) (Pushing it but OK I guess.) Naaa…the move for Heavy foot is 2 BW or 80mm. 1½ BW is 60mm, add on the recoil of 15 or 20mm, and they can still reach the HA. Better to have the recoiled Heavy foot out of range, otherwise there isn’t much point in the HA recoiling ‘em. (Although it'll cost them extra PIP’s to move, as their Group will be broken-up).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2023 13:33:01 GMT
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing”
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2023 13:21:35 GMT
Yes, but with no consequences for the HA, as they’re shooting at a distance. (Try that in ‘close combat’!)
And this is why having a range of 2 BW is important… …2 BW + a recoil means that Blade can’t reach the HA. The Heavy foot will have to spend a bound re-dressing their line, or charge in and suffer a few overlaps (advantage to the HA).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 4, 2023 13:04:45 GMT
Yes, but only shooting from beyond 1 BW (Threat Zone), (i.e. 1-1/2 BW or 2 BW, etc.). Then you compare the odds: one LH shooter + 2 supports shooting beyond 1 BW = one enemy target at -2, vs 3 LH shooting at 1 BW (Threat Zone) = 3 enemy targets at -0. So you have 1 improved chance vs 3 lesser chances. I tried it with LH shooting vs HI (CF 4). The 2 'sets of combat resolutions' tended to even out. Not sure how this measures up statistically; just recalling what happened throwing lots of dice. Oh I don’t know Snowcat… …a single CF of 2 against Blade CF of 4 has 6 chances out of 36 of recoiling them (and no chance of a kill). Three CF 2 against a single CF 4 has 11 chances out of 36 of a recoil plus 4 chances of a kill. It all depends on what you want the shooting Horse Archers to achieve…breaking-up the enemy formation, or having a chance of killing some of them. If the Heavy Infantry don’t like it, then they’ll have to advance and be drawn out of position, and the Horse Archers, being a form of Light Horse, will just flee if doubled. (All the above combat outcomes are derived from my old trusty “Combat Effects Chart” →HERE )
|
|