|
Post by felixs on May 19, 2017 8:52:45 GMT
But presently, there is no mechanism whereby the lists can ever be improved, even if glaring historical problems are pointed out. I would think there is: Write your own list and use that. Outside of tournaments, I see zero problem. And tournaments need fixed and stable rules and lists. The experience with frequent rules changes and even more frequent list changes in other rules are quite agonizing. I have quit playing a game that I liked a lot because of increasingly unwieldy errata.
|
|
|
Horde
May 19, 2017 8:46:19 GMT
Post by felixs on May 19, 2017 8:46:19 GMT
when he did attack the horde threw him back along the line repeatedly! Plus, they follow-up... Not only are they fun, they are also sticky.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 16, 2017 6:11:08 GMT
Nothing wrong with aesthetics. But I look forward to the day when I lay down some rocky ground for an Arable army in a tournament, and wait for someone to complain it's not legal And I still reckon that enclosures have the *possibility* of straight edges. Straight edges are still optional for plough and BUA, which are the other two man-made area terrain features. As you say, variety is good, and a rough terrain that differs from the other is certainly variety. Do you think that could happen at a tournament? If so, one more reason not to play tournaments... Of course enclosures could come in all forms. That is especially true for rice paddies. But given the abstract nature of DBA, this does not really matter: A terrain feature would not represent a single field or a single rice paddy anyway. (Still no need for rounded edges though...)
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 15, 2017 20:32:39 GMT
Aside from simple look, what's the difference between Scrub, Rocky, Boggy and Enclosures? They are all rough, all rounded and none of them have any specific rules applying to them (that I've found). So why does Arable terrain go to great lengths to tell me I can have Scrub, Boggy or Enclosures but not Rocks? Maybe Phil Barker wants to tell us what he thinks are the appropriate types of terrain. Like different types of 3Kn with separate list entries because they should be modelled differently.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 11, 2017 6:23:54 GMT
The corrections are great and very educating to read. The DBA army lists are a great asset. There is no easier way to build (more or less) historical armies anywhere. The foes and allies lists are great, but obviously partly guesswork (whether this is guesswork by rules authors or guesswork by historians who are not rules authors). That is especially true for the earlier times and for the non-Western regions of the world (arguably even for the non-English speaking regions...).
The lists give workable approximations and that is fine. If one wants something with more alignment with the sources, one needs to do a lot of research and design armies for specific battles or campaigns.
In practice, there are few problems with the lists. And the corrections here do a great job of sorting out those problems.
What is important, however, is: The RULES are good. And they work.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 10, 2017 21:14:04 GMT
Those Mayas look beautiful. I like the effect of the feathers a lot. And the shield designs look great. Please post a picture when they are finished.
|
|
|
Horde
May 10, 2017 8:39:53 GMT
Post by felixs on May 10, 2017 8:39:53 GMT
Had a game yesterday in which we used two Hordes for the Teutonic Order against the Georgians. (Of course, the list only allows for one Hd and they should be 7Hd, instead we used 5Hd - fanatical mobs).
A single Horde killed one element of Bows, kept another element of Bows busy for much of the game and also another one for two bounds. It helped that the Horde was in a paltry river, which protected its flank due to some lucky accidental angles which made making contact very difficult (but legally possible). The Horde was incredibly lucky. But the fact that it does not recoil, but does pursue was very useful. The extra PIP, however, hurts.
All in all, I think I want a Hordes heavy army now... ^^
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 8, 2017 10:31:46 GMT
I have finished my Corvus Bellis Ancient Spanish, which will be pressed into service as Iberian as well as Celtiberian. Need to touch up the basing a bit and they will be good to go.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 8, 2017 10:30:25 GMT
In DBR the arquebus armed ashigaru are all graded as Sh(O). In DBR ashigaru are either Sh(O), Bw(I) or Bd(F). The Bd(F) is a compromise to model shallower yari formations and those with the naginata. If they were rated as pike they would be deployed as pike and shot units due to the DBR equivalent of flank support. Unlike DBA there is no 3Pk. In DBR Pk(F) are four to a base and are found in support of salvo firing musket pike & shot formations. In DBR the bow is in decline it just can't withstand the power of musket armed troops. Arquebus armed ashigaru can break up enemy foot but can fall apart when charged by mounted Samurai. There are some really interesting transitions being modelled in DBR. Thank you very much for this digest. Again, most useful. So in DBR Sh is superior to Bw. That sounds reasonable. Having the staying power against infantry and cavalry reversed in comparison to Bw is something that I would need to test. Maybe I should get a copy of the DBR rules and try that out.. It is to be stated then, that DBR works quite differently from what one would get if one would just use DBA and treat Shot as Bow. Whether this is necessary for regions outside Europe, I am not so sure. As for the case of Japan, I would agree with Vodnik that they should not normally play a decisive role as shock cavalry. The DBA 6Cv with a mixed formation of foot and mounted seems to simulate this quite well. Supported 6Cv will easily kill Bw in close combat, but supported shooting is very dangerous. DBA 3 generally seems to have made shooting a bit more effective, so Bw are not bad against infantry too. Whether they are good enough is another question though.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 7, 2017 12:34:48 GMT
Thank you! That is very useful information.
What type are the arquebus armed ashigaru? (I would believe that the Bd(F) are the naginata etc. armed ones? What about ashigaru with long spears?)
Is the interaction between those arquebus armed infantry units markedly different from what you would get in DBA using Bw, Cv and Kn?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 5, 2017 6:09:39 GMT
I'm not sure I agree with rating musket or arquebus troops as Bw is wise. The introduction of arquebus into Japanese warfare had a notable impact. However, at least initially, it was combined with fixed obstacles. In Korea the information I have seen indicates the advantages of the arquebus was considered critical and soon effectively replaced the bow. Warfare in Europe was heavily impacted by the introduction of arquebus and musket. I'm not sure it was less in Japan, though other factors will have certainly impacted tactics and adoption. Thank you for your reply Of course these weapons had an impact. What I am suggesting is that this impact is more or less comparable to the impact of crossbows. And that effect is about that of longbow. The real attraction with muskets is that they are so much easier to use. Also, the real trouble for the Korean army in the Imjin war were not the Japanese muskets. It was corruption of the bureaucracy and an ensuing organizational disaster that left Chosôn Korea more or less without an army in the 1590s. The other problem that the sources often mention was the skill of the Japanese at close figthing - namely Japanese sword techniques. In DBA terms, the problem was the Japanese Blades (which makes one wonder whether the idea of Japanese foot as Pikes has it all wrong...). This is not to downplay the importance of muskets, but rather to try and balance it a bit. The beautiful thing about DBA is that it is not (primarily) about weaponry, but about the way troops fought and about the interaction of troops. In Korea, bows were kept at least until the early 1800s, but that was not only due to a conscious choice in favour of bows, but also due to shortages of musket supply. Plus there are a lot of records on the shoddy production quality and the bad storage conditions of muskets, which, however, was also true for bows. The main change in tactics in China and Korea seems to be the change to organizational patterns inspired by the military manuals of Qi Jiguang - even thought it is unclear how effective these changes ever were. I wonder what the difference in game terms should be, especially as the mixed units suggested by Qi Jiguang are hard to simulate in DBA anyway (and this also is a problem for earlier Chinese armies and for Japanese cavalry supported by retainers). I have never found the evidence for pike-and-shot tactics in Japan convincing - please tell me if I am missing anything important. Mixed units of muskets and melee weapons would probably be best simulated by double based Bw (which lacks staying power, but that is also true for Persians etc. in DBA). Arguably the Dsungar wars of the early and mid 1700s represent a serious change in warfare in China (strangely enough, there is little to nothing on this in Korean records). However, this change seems to have been mostly logistical and not so much in tactics. There are more guns though, but two Art elements should represent that in DBA terms. One could argue that artillery became much more effective and that this should be represented. While I tend to agree, I also think that DBA is so abstract and that the different types of artillery lumped into that category already, there is little harm in stretching it a bit further. Any opinion on what DBR or any of the DBA derivates does better for non-European warfare would be much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 4, 2017 8:38:34 GMT
I think you’re right felixs…army IV/59b Samurai of the 1465-1542 AD period are too early to cover the Imjin War of 1592- 1598 AD.
That conflict goes beyond the end date of DBA 3.0 and belongs to the DBR ruleset.
Nonetheless, army IV/59b Samurai (1465 - 1542 AD) should still probably be a mutual enemy of IV/78 Yi Dynasty Koreans (1392 - 1598 AD) if only to cover the ‘Sampo Waeran/Three Ports Japanese Riots’ of 1510 (although this was more of a large skirmish involving some 4 or 5 thousand Japanese, there was a Japanese fleet providing military support, and the Korean government of Jungjong Joseon had to send an army lead by generals Yu Dam-nyeon and Hwang Hyeong to suppress the rioters).
The nature of the Samp'o waeran would not fit under DBA at all (but neither do early Viking raids... so, whatever ) and would surely be quite different from what the "Samurai" list is supposed to represent. Again: House rules and army lists for specific scenarios are in order. Of course, that is also true for the various rebellions of the Chosôn period: Armies would look quite different from what the list allows for. I am all for including both Japanese armies of that period as enemies. Also to cover the pirate raids (Vikings again...), which sometimes were quite large. The most important enemy of the early Chosôn has not even got a list: The Jurchen tribes of Manchuria, who were engaged in mutual raids and open warfare with Chosôn for more than a century (so much for "peaceful" Chosôn...). I never understood why DBA stops before the Imjin War, as I see no problem playing that war using DBA. But I have opened a separate thread in the pike and shot section for that.
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 4, 2017 7:56:43 GMT
Dear all,
Thinking about Nagashino (1575), the Hideyoshi invasion (1592-98) and the fact that Japanses lists end 1542 in DBA, I had some (probably not so heretic) thoughts. I am not sure about this, but it seems to me that DBA is good for much later than the 1500s. That is: Outside of Europe. In Europe, we have the change to pike and shot formations and the accompanying new tactics, which is quite different from what we have earlier and hard to simulate with DBA. Of course, there is a need for the likes of DBR, DBA-RRR and all the other permutations of the DBx rules.
(As a side note: I think that the approach of treating Pike and Shot as separate elements is not a good one. Something like triple-based pike with shooting capabilitay is probably in order. This rather fundamental problem keeps me from trying DBR.)
However: Outside of Europe, there are many regions where there is no change that could not be simulated under DBA rules. Gunpowder (before the introduction of repeating rifles) did change warfare, but not more so than stirrup cavalry, crossbows or pikes. In fact, DBA allows for that fact by including at least 300 years of gunpowder use (starting in the late 1200s). No problem there. True, gunpowder weapons might be a bit more effective against armoured troops (even though not necessarily much so) and they would have changed the nature of warfare. The introduction of gunpowder weapons could have decisive effects locally, but it did not change the pattern of warfare much. It radically changed the pattern of siege warfare, but that is not what DBA is about. The biggest change probably is that muskets are very easy to use as compared with bows or even crossbows. They do not require much strength, are relatively robust and require little training. So, fielding a lot of musketeers is a question of finding enough muskets really. If that is possible, fielding firearms troops is not a big problem. So, in DBA terms, we still have Bw, but they are now armed with firearms. No need for different rules, except for maybe make them Lb. Up to the introduction of repeating rifles, cavalry was still very effective. Cavalry might use pistols, sometimes even muskets, but fire was generally not very effective and would be at short range. Absolutely zero need for change here (at least if we assume that the portrayal of non-shooting LH in DBA is acceptable.) Some cavalry would dismount for shooting - Cv//Bw or Kn//Bw should take care of this. Most such cases would be better represented by Cv or LH anyway.
Of course: There are things that are hard to squeeze into the DBA pattern, but that is just as true for the period before 1500.
For most of Asia, the Americas, Africa and the Middle East (that is: for everywhere where there is no pike and shot), DBA should work until the introduction of repeating rifles.
Is this generally accepted wisdom, or am I much wrong somewhere?
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 4, 2017 7:35:57 GMT
DBA3 have handguns used solely by skirmishers (Ps). Using the Bw factors for the matchlock armed Ashigaru would work; these might be better represented as ‘solid’ to reflect their fire drill.
Exactly what I meant: Just use firearms-armed miniatures and treat them as Bw. In fact, Solid Lb would probably be best, as it could represent the improved lethality against shock attacks best. Takeda cavalry should probably be Kn anyway, at least at Nagashino. (And if one really wants to play Nagashino, house ruling is necessary anyway, as with most (all?) historical battles).
|
|
|
Post by felixs on May 4, 2017 6:08:45 GMT
Very impressive work. Thank you! IV/78 Yi Dynasty Korean (1392 AD - 1598 AD) add IV/59a Post-Mongol Samurai (1300 AD – 1464 AD) (Army IV/59a lists IV/78 as an enemy, but IV/78 doesn’t mention IV/59a, only IV/59b)
These are listed as mutual enemies in the old version. The major conflict of 1592 – 98 is covered by IV/59b but the expedition to Tsushima Island would involve the earlier IV/59a sub-list. Action: Add IV/59a Post-Mongol Samurai (1300 AD – 1464 AD) to IV/78 Yi Dynasty Korean (1392 AD - 1598 AD).
IV/59b is supposed to stop in 1542, the reason obviously being the introduction of (modern style) firearms and the adoption of fire drill and even something like pike-and-shot tactics. Nagashino (1575) is the most cited example for this, but I think the firearms are much less of a factor here, instead we should look at the effect of prepared positions. So I have my doubts on the post 1542 change and I would happily use IV/59b for the Imjin war (Hideyoshi invasion, if you prefer), just replacing bows by firearms. There would have been change, but probably not enough to portray in DBA. However: The way the list is meant, I doubt that IV/59b covers 1592-1598.
|
|