|
Post by stevie on Apr 3, 2021 19:36:23 GMT
I am personally waiting to back Stevies kickstarter "Massively over complicated DBA" They have already beat me to it...it’s called DBMM. ------------------------------- And fear not Jeffreythandcock...I am working on it (mainly for my own use). You’re right: much of the complexity in DBA 3.0 comes from the ‘free measuring’ style of play, which requires rules for groups moving sideways when in a Threat Zone, rules to limit contacting an enemy flank, rules for making legal contact, rules for ending a move phase in legal positions, free sideways slides when making frontal contact, rules for who turns when charging an enemy column, and much more. Much of this would be unnecessary when playing on 1 BW squares. (I have already written an article about playing on a grid, but the focus of that relied on bending over backwards in order to eliminate any distortions, so it’s not simple:-static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/9/9e/Playing_DBA_and_HoTT_on_a_Grid_%28v1%29.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20200327194301 This time the aim is different, and to just focus on simplicity)And I do agree with you about wheeling...see fanaticus.boards.net/post/29812 One of the things that puts people off of playing on a grid is the visual appearance. So I am working on a fix for that, which I call ‘ a virtual grid’, played on a normal board. Basically, all elements must be lined-up frontally to each other and the table edges, and all measurements must be made in whole 1 BW units, with no fractions. In other words, you either move a whole BW or not at all. (I’m currently simplifying the details of this with playtesting) Another thing that ‘ a virtual grid’ has shown is the overly-complicated plethora of base depths. 15mm deep bases, 20mm deep, 30mm deep, 40mm deep, 60mm deep, and sometimes more. Why are we still using this old fashioned and unnecessary system? Is it because it’s more realistic? Is it because it’s more expedient? No...the only reason we still use it is because of something that was thought up in the old WRG days, over 50 years ago (!), that has no relevance nowadays, but people don’t like re-basing. I plan to have just two base depths: 20mm deep for most foot and 40mm for all the rest. (You could have 80mm deep bases for double-based mounted, but the simplified version won’t be using double-bases). Two 20mm deep bases is a column that fills a 1 BW square. And no need to re-base either...just place a thin green piece of card under your existing bases, held in place with double-sided sticky tape. That way you can remove these grid bases when you want to play in tournaments. Last of all the sections in these simplified rules will be designed to be modular... ...so players can use the simple version of that section, or replace that particular section with the full normal DBA 3.0 rules, or even replace that section with a House Rule that they like. This way everyone can have the amount of complexity that they feel comfortable with. Obviously, if they replace every simple section with the full rules, then they’d end up playing by the full DBA 3.0 rules...and if they replace every section with a House Rule then they’d be playing a completely different game altogether. All I can say is “leave it with me”. LATER UPDATE For those of you interested in a serious simplified version of DBA, see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3154/new-simple-ancient-battle-rules
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 1, 2021 5:37:12 GMT
DBA is a great set of wargaming rules, in many people’s opinion one of the best, being quick to play, requiring few actual figures and models and thus less cost and painting time, and it is relatively easy to learn. However, some people have noticed that each new version of DBA is slightly more complex than its predecessor. This is inevitable as more play-balance and realism is added to the rules as they evolve and improve over time. Nonetheless, some players still yearn for and would prefer something with a little less complexity. So here is a simplified version, with obscure scattered rules, fiddly bits, and the hard to remember stuff removed. But it still gives broadly the same overall effects and battle outcomes as the full normal rules do...it’s just simpler. And it can be found here:- ibb.co/Mks6Xng(scroll down and click on "Load Full Resolution - 5.2 MB" to resolve the blurred picture)Enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 30, 2021 9:03:29 GMT
A backhanded compliment from stevie? Should I be insulted or feel special? (A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source. ) Actually, I was referring to myself:- “A good idea is still a good idea, even if Stevie thought of it and Phil Barker didn’t”Nonetheless, since it was you that inspired me, it is you who should get the credit. 👍 ----------------------------------------------- But returning to Timurilank’s original proposal, “Conforming DBA with DBMM”, how do players feel about using or at least adapting the DBMM Army Lists for use in DBA? (purely as a ‘House Rule’ of course). As he has pointed out, DBA army IV/13cd Medieval Germans says you must have 2 x 6Kn, but DBMM allows these to be ordinary 3Kn if you wish. Other examples are:- III/62ab Sung Chinese...DBMM allows them to have WWg, but DBA 3.0 does not. II/12 Alexandrians...DBMM allows some Pk to be replaced by Ax, but DBA 3.0 does not. II/7 Later Achaemenid Persians...DBMM allows some 3Bows, but DBA 3.0 does not. (And some historical accounts say that Alexander faced an arrow storm at Issus in 333 BC) Plus there are many, many, other examples. Now I know that DBA 3.0 is a dumbed-down version of DBMM (or DBMM is an over-complicated version of DBA...depending on your own personal point of view), but if these troops were used historically, as indicated by the DBMM Army Lists, and if DBMM is allowed to have this extra historical accuracy, then why are they being denied to us DBA players? Are we considered not to be clever enough? Yes, DBA is simplified...but we are all grown-ups, and should be allowed to choose the amount of complexity we feel comfortable with. After all, they would just be options in the DBA Army Lists, so players can choose not to use them if they wish.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 22:01:00 GMT
I like Warbands, and think that players often underrate them (sometimes to their cost).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 21:12:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 20:57:31 GMT
...and on reflection, letting the army with the most LH choose and place the terrain would also make a nice ‘House Rule’ to further improve wimpy LH armies. Think about it:- A LH army wins the aggression roll, but having more LH than the enemy, they get to choose the terrain, so decide to give their defending Arable opponent a compulsory large or small Hamlet, City, or 2 Plough. There is Jeffreythancock’s “LH army strategically threatening homes and crops” in a nutshell... ...the defender is sending an army to protect their civilians and assets. (A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source. )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 18:30:29 GMT
Did Central Asian nomad light horse win campaigns strategically? Harass enemy on march, prevent foraging, cut off resupply, out scout, and choose location and time of battle? Outnumber enemy, threaten homes and crops, etc.? Did Ottoman Akinji win tactical battles, or provide a strategic advantage? Then give them some of these advantages on the wargames table. * Harass enemy on march, prevent foraging, cutting off resupply... (Reduce the enemy combat factor due to fatigue caused by a lack of food?, which is what ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps does) * Out scout, and choose location and time of battle... (The army with the most LH gets to choose and place the terrain?) * Outnumber the enemy, threaten homes and crops... (Every two LH in the army lists becomes three LH on the table?)...cos the present system of making ‘em like poor quality Cv, and forcing them to fight ‘toe-to-toe’ as if they were Cv, ain’t working. If skirmishing Ps, armed with missiles weapons, who like to keep their distance and avoid hand-to-hand combat can ignore overlaps, then why can’t skirmishing LH, also armed with missiles weapons, who also like to keep their distance and avoid hand-to-hand combat, do the same? (especially as they move quicker). (By the way...ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps does not make them more powerful. It just makes them survive longer...just what you would expect from skirmishing LH)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 15:54:58 GMT
Why is this not being discussed in the house rule section ? You are quite right. It’s all my fault I’m afraid. (I’m a naughty Stevie )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 28, 2021 0:55:20 GMT
I think Menacusseundus raises a good point.
Yes, allowing LH to ignore corner-to-corner overlaps will change their battlefield behaviour. But surely that is the whole point. LH are currently too weak and under powered, from both an historical and a play-balance point of view.
If I were writing a set of ancient rules (heaven forbid!), then I would base it upon their historical success.
Now it is true that the Huns didn’t conquer the Western Roman Empire... ...but they were a formidable force, that only fell apart when Attila died. As for the Mongols, they DID form the largest continuous empire in history, that lasted long after its founders death.
If in DBA Light Horse armies can’t win battles, then how did they ever form these vast empires?
(I think that Phil Barker would have included LH ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps, if someone in the development team had mentioned it, as it’s blatantly obvious... ...but no one did)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 27, 2021 15:46:14 GMT
...if Mr Barker wants me to have my 3Kn wedges on 1 BW deep bases, where they’re likely to be destroyed when recoiling from a flank attack, then give me an advantage for doing so, not penalize me with a disadvantage! Otherwise I’ll just have my 3Kn on 30mm deep bases thank you very much. Phil Barker’s rules...but my choice. And what about Light Horse also ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps just like Psiloi do? Can anyone give me a good historical or game play-balance reason why they shouldn’t? (And no...simply saying “because Phil Barker never thought of it” is not good enough)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 27, 2021 10:47:20 GMT
I like Martin’s thinking. Just place a thin 40mm x 20mm piece of card under your existing bases, fill in the extra 5mm depth with Milliput or putty, then paint and flock the extra bit as normal. Wallah!...a 15mm deep base has been converted to 20mm deep. I’ve done this to all my foot elements, as 20mm deep has sooo many advantages:- * no more figure overhanging, preventing bases from making flush contact... * all foot will recoil the same distance, ½ a BW, negating enemy overlaps... * it reduces the effects of ‘X-Ray Threat Zones’... * and it even helps them to stay upright on steep slopes... What’s not to like?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 27, 2021 0:41:30 GMT
Shouldn’t Alexander and his companions just be classified as 6Kn? Ah, but then Alex the Great’s Companions won’t be able to ‘shut the door’ and ‘hard flank’ the enemy... ...as their 1½ BW deep bases won’t be able to turn to fit into a 1 BW gap. That doesn’t sound much like Alexander’s battle accounts. If people don’t like the idea of 3Kn wedges ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps, then I’m fine with that. But I certainly ain’t gonna have ‘em on 1 BW deep bases and give myself a disadvantage for no benefit. I’d sooner have my 3Kn on 30mm deep bases, where they CAN recoil when making flank attacks. It may not look as nice, but they’ll survive a recoil instead of being destroyed...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 26, 2021 12:01:10 GMT
That’s a good bit of research Timurilank. 👍 There we have it then...following on from what both you and Snowcat have mentioned:- “An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any enemy element (except Psiloi, Scythed Chariots, Light Horse, and 3Kn on 1 BW deep bases) overlaps this;” (See figure 16c) 6Kn and 6Cv don’t get this advantage, as they already have a +1 against foot, which is much more powerful anyway. And if players wish to depict their Germans as a 3Kn wedge on a 1 BW square stand, which won’t get the +1 against foot as it’s not a double-base, but will get to ignore corner-to-corner overlaps like Macedonian Companion 3Kn wedges, then let them. After all, I’m the one that wants to use 3Bd to represent Alexander’s Hypaspists, and to have the choice of placing Difficult Hills as Rough Hills instead of Bad Going... ...so I can hardly complain can I. (Plus in HoTT I have my H.G.Wells/Jeff Wayne "War of the Worlds" style Martian Tripods as Blades on 1 BW square stands, as they are simply far tooooo large to fit on 20mm deep bases, let alone on 15mm deep ones!)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 26, 2021 7:15:42 GMT
All right then Snowcat... ...let’s just stop at 3Kn wedges and LH can also ignore corner-to-corner overlaps. ( It was you that brought up Byzantine 6Kn Kataphraktoi )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 26, 2021 6:04:50 GMT
What about the big Byzantine kataphraktoi wedges? Also, the Avars were said to have used wedges, but I've not been able to confirm it with great certainty. That is a good point Snowcat. I must confess that I’m not looking at this from an historical perspective, but merely from a ‘game-play-balance’ point of view... ...if Mr Barker wants me to have my 3Kn wedges on 1 BW deep bases, where they’re likely to be destroyed when recoiling from a flank attack, then give me an advantage for doing so, not penalize me with a disadvantage! Otherwise I’ll just have my 3Kn on 30mm deep bases thank you very much. Double-based troops only gain their +1 when in close combat with foot. So 6Kn and 6Cv gain nothing when fighting mounted, but their extra deep bases means they often can’t ‘shut-the-door’ and ‘hard-flank’ an opponent simply because there isn’t enough room for them to do so (a disadvantage). Perhaps Page 10 paragraph 8 should say:- “An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any enemy element (except Psiloi, Scythed Chariots, Light Horse, 6Cv, 6Kn, and 3Kn on 1 BW deep bases) overlaps this;” (See figure 16c)
As for LH...well, we all know they are weak and underpowered. Even Mr Barker knows this, which is why he gave them rear-support. And it strikes me as being absurd to have skirmishing Psiloi armed with javelins and bows ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps, yet skirmishing Light Horse armed with the very same weapons won’t use them until they can reach out and physically touch their enemies! Having LH acting like Ps, in addition to gaining rear-support, might just make the Huns, Mongols, Numidians and the like more of a threat rather than being the poor quality Cavalry wimps they are at the moment. (Come to think of it, the same could be said of the 3Ax and 4Ax Peltasts. They too were armed with javelins, and liked to keep their distance. Indeed, the Thracians were noted for inventing 'pelt-the-enemy-from-a-distance' tactics, which proved to be so effective that the Greeks adopted it and even gave up using their old 'toe-to-toe' fighting Hoplites. So did many others. Perhaps ALL 3Ax and 4Ax troops should also ignore corner-to-corner overlaps. It might make them survive a bit longer when fighting heavy foot... ...instead of being slaughtered like helpless sheep as they are at present.)
|
|