|
Post by stevie on Mar 25, 2021 21:15:41 GMT
I don’t see why it should only be limited to Knight wedges fighting foot. After all, in DBA 3.0 the SCh and Ps elements aren’t limited in this way. (And adding rules with exceptions just complicates things)By the way, I’ve expanded this idea to also include LH ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps, for the same reason that Ps do... ...they are lobbing missiles (javelins or arrows) from a distance, and want to avoid standing toe-to-toe with their enemies. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30985/ )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 24, 2021 10:31:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 19, 2021 8:06:25 GMT
I must confess that I agree entirely with Hammurabi70. I get the impression that ancient and medieval battles were all about deploying your troops correctly. Especially as the commanders in those distant times didn’t have our modern communications equipment, nor our wargamers ability to fly over the battlefield and see all.
Indeed, would the Persians had deployed as they did at Marthon if they could see the Athenian deployment? Wouldn’t Darius have moved his men about at Gaugamela to counter Alexander the Great’s echelon attack? Would the Romans had deployed as they did at Cannae if they knew what Hannibal was up to? And wouldn’t Hannibal have used his elephants to extend his battleline at Zama to counter the Roman horsemen? Just how do you ‘out-general’ your opponent if everybody can move their stuff around during deployment?
Like Paulisper a trick I sometimes use as a defender is to deploy all my elements in one long line with no reserves. This usually causes my opponent to do the same out of fear of being outflanked. Then I shorten my line by forming columns and shifting my weight onto one wing while delaying on the other. It keeps the buggers from guessing as to what I’m actually up to!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2021 23:21:22 GMT
How do you handle rivers in there Oh, Rivers are mentioned in several different places...but in a surprisingly non-controversial way. (you’ll have to wait a fortnight to find out how )But getting back to dpd’s original proposal, here's a few other ways the troop classes could be reduced:- SCh = make these the same as Knights (as their ‘quick kills’ are awfully similar). Cm = apart from their ‘quick-kill’ against Kn, and their vulnerability against Bd, they’re the same as Cv. LH = with rear support, these are also the same as Cv. WWg = CF of 3 v foot and 4 v mounted...they’re the same as HoTT Shooters (except they don’t recoil). However, just reducing the number of element classes is only a minor way of reducing complexity. Here is a list of some of the other rules that seem...well...unnecessary:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/8552/ ...and here is another one:- fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2789/why-pk-allowed-recoil-bdOn the other hand, the main cause of complexity in DBA concerns movement and conforming. Could this be simplified?...yes, I think it can. Getting rid of ‘waiting-to-turn-to-face’ would be a start...make ‘em turn instantly on contact. Then there’s who can recoil through who...make it so that all can or nobody can (except Ps). Lastly there is movement itself...a simple 1 BW grid with no wheeling would be far less complex, and negates the need for any ‘free-sideways-frontal-sliding’, as 1 square aligns with an adjacent square. So I think that dpd’s original idea has a lot of potential (although I’ve chosen to go down a different route).The old WRG rules became far too unwieldy, so DBA came into existence and has proved to be quite popular. Perhaps it’s time for DBA to also go on a diet and shed a little excess weight.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2021 15:24:01 GMT
Well Paul, the III/64b Later Ghaznavids (1002-1186 AD) can have the III/10b Rajputs (with 1 x Cm) or the III/11b Other Turks (1 x Camel Mtd-3Bw) as allies.
That’ll get at least one element of camels deployed on the table...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2021 8:23:14 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus dpd. Actually, without knowing it, you have inadvertently preempted a little project I’m currently working on...although I’ve used a completely different approach. (This is being playtested and should be ready for posting in about two weeks)Here is a sample of the front cover:- (The picture is an altered scene taken from the 2006 BBC six part series“Ancient Rome: The rise and fall of an empire”, and it shows Caesar’s outnumbered veterans facing Pompey’s newly raised legionaries at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC)Although your idea is not related in any way to mine, apart from the name, I do think your suggestion is still well worth pursuing. It has several similarities with HoTT 2.1, which also groups Sp & Pk together, groups Cv & LH together, and as HoTT has no Ax type troops, I like to use a modified version of Wb for these. See the first page of this for details:- static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/3/33/DETAILED_CRIB_SHEETS_for_HOTT_2.1.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190123092614
“Great minds think alike” as they say...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 16, 2021 10:28:22 GMT
I was waiting to see if anyone else would answer your queries Chris... ...but since they haven’t, I’ll have a go. Here is what the rules say about your first question. Recoil distances on page 12 (see also figure 19a). “A recoiling foot element always moves its own base depth (or ½ BW if this is less than its base depth). A recoiling mounted element can choose either to move 1 BW or to move its own base depth if this is less than 1 BW.” And Interpenetration on page 9 says:- “ If making a tactical move or fleeing, a mounted element can pass through friendly Psiloi, or Psiloi pass through any friends, but in both cases only if there is sufficient clear space beyond (see figure 6b) and enough move to occupy it, and either:- (a) it starts partly directly in front (even if unaligned or facing a different direction – see figure 6a) and ends the move lined-up behind, (b) or starts lined-up behind and ends lined-up in front.” “ Recoilers can pass through friends facing in exactly the same direction (see figure 6b) to a clear space immediately (lined-up) behind the first element met (see figure 19d), but only if they are of the right type (a, b, c and d).” From the above we see that recoiling elements MUST move their full recoil distance, if they can. If they meet friends they can pass through them (if allowed or if they wish), which means they will exceed their normal recoil distance, OR, they may push them back (again, if allowed). If they cannot pass through or push back, then they have met an obstacle, and will halt. If already in contact with an obstacle, so they cannot move at all, they will be destroyed. Your second question is a bit more tricky, as it exposes a contradiction in the rules. Page 12 says “Recoiling or pushed back elements move straight back without turning”, and “ (A fleeing element) turns 180° then moves straight forward without turning”. However, Interpenetration on page 9 says “they must end up lined-up in front or behind”. So which is it? How can those fleeing and those leaving a TZ line-up if they must move in a straight line? There are two possibilities:- 1) Troops leaving a TZ and those fleeing must move in a straight line, so they cannot interpenetrate if facing in a different direction, because they cannot deviate from this straight line in order to line-up? ---OR--- 2) Those fleeing can still pass through and line-up, as lining-up is an involuntary outcome of interpenetration? (Personally, I’d go with option 2, as those fleeing are more concerned with staying alive rather than following the calm disciplined niceties of who is facing in exactly the same direction. Anyway, if fleeing troops cannot deviate to line-up, then some players (like me) could exploit this by having friends facing ever so slightly in a different direction behind the fleeing troops to prevent them from fleeing too far...such as fleeing right off a table base-edge and being lost)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 15, 2021 22:19:57 GMT
Ah...I must confess that I still haven’t finished the “Event Card Booklet”. I got distracted by other projects (but I might give it another go later this year). Its purpose is to cover those historical events that actually happened, but DBA doesn’t cover. Some of these events are absolutely essential for re-creating certain historical battles, and these battles can’t be re-fought properly without these particular events. The idea is to use the right appropriate “Event Card” if re-creating a specific historical battle. If fighting a ‘what-if-battle’, then on an aggression roll of ‘3’ you can randomly choose a “Event Card”. And if fighting the best-of-three battles or a mini campaign, each player randomly chooses a card at the beginning, and they can only be used once (any aggression rolls of ‘3’ during the campaign means they can draw another “Event Card”, but can never have more than one of them, so if two are currently in hand one will need to be discarded). They will cover the other historical events, such as scouting and reconnaissance, weather, feigned-flight, impetuous attacks, high or low morale, dissension and confusion, extra troops, anti-mounted ditches, ambushes, wide off-table outflanking marches, and wild mounted chases that were fairly frequent in ancient battles but were left out of the basic DBA 3.0 rules. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/13226/ for a few more details.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 15, 2021 21:22:26 GMT
OK... I am out on this "snakebite" thing... Guinness Stout and Apple Cider? (or Pear? which I believe is the thing in the UK?) Most ciders in the US are 2.5%-3.5% Ha! I would use that to bathe in, not for drinking. (My wicked-strength ciders are at least 5%, minimum) A ‘Snakebite’ is one of those pub myths that is supposed to get you drunk quicker, but it doesn’t. Like ”drinking through a straw gets you drunk quicker”. Again, I’ve tried it, and it doesn’t (shame).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 14, 2021 0:29:26 GMT
Belated Birthday wishes Stevie, sorry I missed your big day but I don't read every thread... mine was on the 24th. Haardrada, I hope Stevie wished you Happy Birthday. Good point! ‘appy (belated) burf-day Haardrada. So, you just missed the Aquarius star sign. (Aquarius = the water-bearer...which might explain my addiction to wicked-strength cider... 🍺🤪 )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 13, 2021 9:07:38 GMT
But I'd appreciate a better sense of how to best reflect Henri's compact squadrons of charging cuirassiers. If 'Pistols' is the short and simple answer, then the only question that remains would be the one re rear support: is a formation 5-7 ranks deep represented in DBA-RRR by one or two elements? I'm presuming the latter. From your description they sound like a mounted double-base, say 6Kn or 6Cv, but with the extra +1 combat factor only applying against enemy mounted. As we all know, in DBA all double-bases (be they 6Kn, 6Cv, 6Bd, 8Sp, or 8Bow) only apply their extra +1 when engaging enemy foot, not mounted. DBA doesn’t have any double-base troops with advantages against mounted... ...perhaps in DBR they should.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 12, 2021 17:58:39 GMT
I’ve always thought that it would be hilariously funny if on those Neanderthal or bog people reconstructions they turned the clay head to face the camera and it had a giant penis for a nose...”Yes, that’s what we think the person looked like”. (“You need therapy Stevie” )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 12, 2021 9:38:49 GMT
I did once post something about ‘fatigue’ (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10629/ ), which basically was about fresh troops who haven’t fought or been shot at before gaining a +1 (indicated by a ‘fresh flowers’ marker), those that have been in combat becoming tired (no marker, which is the current default DBA state), and those that recoil being -1 for fatigue (indicated by a ‘dropped shield’ marker - the reverse side of the ‘fresh flowers’ marker above)... ...but I don’t think this is what Simon is referring to, as this was meant for DBA and not DBR or DBN, although it could be adapted for them. He seems to be referring to troops becoming broken/routed/destroyed after they have been recoiled a certain number of times (say 3 times perhaps?). The problem with this is it would make weak troops with a combat factor of 3 or less even weaker than they already are...they are easily recoiled by more powerful troops, who would get an extra way of killing them, by doubling their score and by multiple recoils. I suppose you could arrange things so that certain weak troops merely recoil (or flee?) when doubled, and are only routed/destroyed once they have recoiled a certain number of times... ...but it still means having on-table markers or fiddly paperwork to record their status.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 7, 2021 15:40:51 GMT
What if there was a pub at the top of the hill? Ha! Then I’d run up (...and roll down it later). 🍺🤪 One of the main issues I have with Difficult Hills is they are toooo hindering. The fact is Difficult Hills are so hindering that no opponent in their right mind is going to plunge their mounted/Sp/Pk into them, as it would be suicide. This makes Difficult Hills less useful to Hilly Ax/Ps armies, as their opponent will usually just avoid them. However, they might try attacking a Rough Going Hill... Rough going hills would also benefit shooters...they could still shoot at full range from the top of the hills, but the enemy’s advance will often be slowed to only 1 BW, giving the shooters more shots before contact. And having Rough Hills instead of Difficult ones might also benefit those Hilly armies with 3Pk elements...which they can’t actually use but must still have ‘em. So I’m going to try and persuade my lot to allow Rough Hills instead of Difficult ones:- A Gentle Hill = is a slight good going hill. A Steep Hill = is a rough going hill. A Difficult Hill = is a rocky or wooded hill. ...and let players choose whether to place either a Difficult Hill (which they know is unlikely to be attacked by mounted and most heavy foot) or a Rough Hill (which still gives a combat advantage and leaves open the possibility of the enemy attacking it).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 7, 2021 11:22:18 GMT
All hills have a ‘ridge line’ that blocks visibility (although my group likes to use ‘peak points’ instead... ...see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3006/hills ). And there are only two types of hill in DBA, either Gentle Hills (which are good going) and Difficult Hills (which are bad going). But why not have a new type of hill between these two extremes...i.e. a Rough Going hill? Such a hill would have the same effects as ordinary Rough Going, but with an uphill advantage, just as a Difficult Hill is the same as bad going but with an uphill advantage. Indeed, one could reasonably argue that Gentle Hills should be good going when moving down-slope, but they should be treated as rough going when moving up-slope. (I find climbing even a gentle hill to be a bit of a slog, requiring several breaks to get my breath back... ...I’m not as fit as I once was. )
|
|