|
Post by sicadi on Nov 12, 2019 20:32:06 GMT
Hi
Anyone within a hour or so of Worcester, England interested in DBA or HoTT ?
I love the games, but without the occasional challange, having only 3 DBA comps per year within a 2 hour drive will definitely dampen my enthusiasm.
Pete
Hi Pete A group of us meet and play DBA in Alvechurch most Monday evenings and a recent addition to our number does indeed travel up from Worcester. Alvechurch Sports and Social club the venue. 7pm start time. New members welcome Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Nov 12, 2019 17:28:03 GMT
A dramatic scene from Tarrington. Surely this would make a great televised spectacle for the Olympics. ibb.co/Dz0cCL0Wow! I didn’t even realise we had an audience! There was more terrain on that table than open space 😀 Thanks Martin for a smoothly run day, and all my opponents and fellow competitors and helpers. Tarrington is definitely for the thinker! Some nasty armies with some desperate combinations, but I probably had the best of the match ups in most of my games. Lots of camels 🐪🐪🐪🐪 cheers everyone Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Oct 12, 2019 17:44:07 GMT
Well done first of all Simon. You have it cracked on how to get 6 games done efficiently in the day. Lots of fun and laughs as always. Well done Pete for winning and finally well done Premier Inn for having so much beer which I will endeavour to relieve you of shortly! 😀 Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Oct 10, 2019 10:59:01 GMT
England v France World Cup Rugby now cancelled due to typhoon so no distractions..... Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Oct 1, 2019 9:12:39 GMT
Good to see some consensus and agreement DBA always needs “simple yet elegant” fixes and this maybe the one. 👍
Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 27, 2019 18:15:25 GMT
Apologies Paddy. I just like the keep it simple approach and this did it for me And yes despite being more engaged myself agree they are still dogs! The -1 to the opponent instead of a +1 in combat is quite subtle but may have some mileage Onto some matched pairs practice for Bakewell where both armies will have exactly the same number of LH - 0! 🙁. But I chose and painted them earlier this year and would happily take Attila and Pat Roms as it gives an enjoyable and balanced game even RAW Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 27, 2019 14:11:31 GMT
Hi all
I have spent the morning and early afternoon testing solo. Attila (8 LH, 2 Wb, Kn & Ps) v Eastern Patricians (3 Kn, 3 Bd, 2 Ax, 2 LH & 2 Ps) 3 games that kept the same terrain (hamlet in sector 1 close to halfway and within 40 mm of side edge and a medium sized difficult hill in sector 3 placed fairly centrally. Woods and rocky also selected but failed to place as in sector 1 with BUA) Romans defended. Also kept same deployment for both armies.
Set out to play both armies aggressively. No sitting back bunkering up.
Game 1 played RAW. 4-2 Huns. Wb and Kn took out the 3 legions and LH ganged up on Roman Kn filling the gap. Both Wb died. So not really LH doing damage and had the Roman Kn survived the Huns were looking vulnerable next turn.
Game 2 played with Snowcats suggested “free” successive move. 4-3 to the Romans. Wbs & Kn letting the side down again but did notice what Stevie has just suggested. Moving in any formation initially gives large groups of LH plenty of latitude to reorganise with lots of “free” single element moves and I did like that. However I also noticed when the fighting started a bad pip roll stuffs you. No initial move so no subsequent move either. So same as everyone else and maybe it should be... Got to find a way to make them better in combat
Game 3 I played again with Snowcats suggestion, but attempted a combat tweak. A supporting rank of LH now did not add +1, but instead gave a -1 to the enemy. No difference in the initial CF differential, but it does give lower starting factors which marginally improves the chances of doubling something, but retains the double jeopardy factor with flees compromised. Romans won again 4-3. Combat tweak no effect, but I did note in game 2 that had I been using it, a Bd would have been killed and not recoiled.
So sorry Paddy didn’t test your suggested idea. Preferred the simpler, more generic outlook. LH are LH are LH.....
These are only house rules after all, and essentially it’s what works and gives what we feel is a better game than RAW for the individual. But I have to say my perception of LH in DBA has changed for the better, but I still wouldn’t use them in open competition.
And I have to say Attila v Pat Roms gives a great game.
Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 26, 2019 19:03:08 GMT
Thanks for that Paddy.
Can see the point of trying to make LH heavy armies more interesting if not world beaters, and from now on will approach this subject from that point of view. Will try some play tests myself tomorrow (solo so not ideal - my solo opponent thinks he’s a genius!) . Will go with Hunnic, either the full 12 LH version or Attila against Pat Roms I think. Will let you know my thoughts. Has anyone considered that the larger board option is potentially counter productive for LH? More room to move yes but also more room for the defender to scatter maximum terrain as well.
Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 26, 2019 17:02:26 GMT
I love my Scots Common yeoman. Nylon pikes that bend but always return to straight, don’t draw blood or ping off annoyingly and require fixing. And yes bendy weapons are a poor show in my book as well 🙂 Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 26, 2019 16:53:58 GMT
I love this thread and 9 pages and still going strong!
So if I am understanding this now essentially - LH / groups entirely of LH can move initially in any bound up to 8 BW for 1 pip, and then make 1 subsequent 4 BW move for an additional pip, both of which must not start, pass or end within 1 BW or the enemy?
That’s a very simple and elegant way of making LH more mobile if I am interpreting it correctly.
So alone does it make me want to take LH over Cv if it’s an either or choice or even a LH heavy (8+ for arguments sake) army? No really as yet.
I am a firm believer that manoeuvre wins any wargame, get the right troops in the right place at the right time. No sure LH are that “right troop” though. They need a little extra help still so come on guys nearly there! Something simple and elegant that gives them a chance in combat please ....
Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 25, 2019 14:30:46 GMT
Great minds and all that Snowcat 🤪 Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 25, 2019 13:56:15 GMT
Hi all
This thread has intrigued me. How to fix LH ? Why would you want it if you could have Cv instead? Sounds simple so my initial thoughts were get rid of the troop type and combine with Cv as in HotT (Riders). Make them fast Cv retaining the March move ability, keep the enhanced command radius and hey how. I tested this and it didn’t not work but why now take regular Cv when you can have fast. Bad idea so it’s filed as such😕
So back to the drawing board. Problems identified seem to be 1 A potential lack of movement due to poor pips. Would they really stand around in front of the enemy waiting to get bogged down in a frontal foot slog? 2 The powderpuff CF of 2. This won’t get it done believe me. So rear support gives you +1. It also contracts frontage and “pins” the rear element not to mention taking away the possible flee reaction and replacing it with death. This doesn’t sound like sound like a swirling mass of horse archers surrounding it’s poor foe and attempting to pick off in detail does it?
Solutions? Free pips initially just didn’t sit well with me. DBA has a wonderful way of generating command and control. Stops us doing just exactly what we want from our front row seat high above the battlefield. Just giving “free” pips for x amount of LH seemed a little clumsy. And you don’t need that many pips to get close to the enemy in the first place. It’s when LH get close they need the help. I would like to propose the following: Any group containing 3 or more LH that has any enemy within 4 base widths automatically generates an (splitting hairs I know but don’t like the phrase free pips) autonomous pip to be used by any LH element(s) within the group. This can be any part of a march move sequence. And yes I don’t see why you couldn’t have a line of say 7 LH within 4BW of the enemy and spend 1 pip from the die pulling out the centre element leaving 2 groups of 3 generating an autonomous pip each. A chance for the LH general to get creative a make the boys a bit more zippy if you like. Extra pips when it matters most used by the very troops that generate them. Lower level commanders using their initiative. I chose groups of 3+ to help armies that aren’t LH heavy. Only having 3 LH is still 25% of the army so qualifies as significant for me.
Combat solution I tried really hard to come up with an answer but couldn’t, then realised it’s already in the game. Flank support, a very elegant but simple rule and they’re usually the best. So I would like to propose the following Any element of LH that has friendly LH in mutual side edge and mutual front corner contact and in going they count as good adds +1 to its CF Gone is the rear support factor. This automatically extends the line. Instead of being locked down in rear support they now give the +1 from the side with obvious possibility this could also provide an overlap bring the enemy down -1. Also helps retain that flee option. Sounds a bit more like LH to me.
I have run several games of a 12 LH Hunnic v Eastern Patricians. The Huns didn’t turn into a killing machine (both won and lost equally) and I found the effects subtle. They didn’t obviously break anything and in conjunction with each other I thought they made me consider quite carefully how I employed them for best use.
One very obvious problem with a high aggression predominantly mounted army is your probably gonna find more terrain than you care for. So came up with the following
First the definition Cv / Lh heavy - any army containing 8 or more Cv and/or Lh elements in it’s starting 12 elements.
Cv/ Lh heavy armies that are the attacker can after all terrain placement has finished, choose to remove completely up to 1 non-compulsory terrain feature and up to 2 roads. The first removal reason I hope is obvious. The choice to remove a road(s) as well may not be that pertinent but does stop the defender forcing you to attack in a certain direction. We’re all on horses mate so we’ll choose where we come from!
And finally and sorry if it’s getting boring - Enhanced Deployment I think Stevie has already adequately demonstrated that any form of “forward or widened” deployment zone is dead in the water and not worth pursuing. I do however love a Littoral landing. Great fun and as likely to go t**s up as be devastating. So my initial thought was give Steppe terrain armies the ability to flank march, but Meroitic Kushites are Steppe and mostly heavy infantry as well. Not really the right candidate to flank march. So thought better to give Cv / Lh heavy armies the ability instead rather than the terrain type.
Works exactly the same as a Littoral landing. So at deployment reserve 2-3 Cv or Lh elements and place them beside the edge you want them to arrive on (not a WW unless you are Littoral Cv heavy if there is one) Deploy them as a group with at least 1 corner touching the side edge. Risky but may make your opponent more defensive initially giving you time to cruise up and pick your spot? As a package I think these make LH more viable and fun to play with, without making them must have, breaking the game or making it horribly complicated
Be nice if someone could maybe give ‘em a go. Try and break them and let me know what you feel.
Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 24, 2019 17:28:41 GMT
Hi all I’m gonna row backwards on this one waving a white flag. And apologies if any of my previous posts have offended anyone 😔 Still a little reticent with “free” pips but the overall idea is growing on me. Can somebody please sum up the latest proposals. It’s become a little confusing with so many ideas bouncing around Yours head bowed in shame Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 22, 2019 18:37:12 GMT
No I haven’t play tested my ideas Stevie and I don’t think you and 2 or 3 others playing a handful of games in an afternoon constitutes proper playtesting either..... Snowcat probably hit the nail on the head. Blue Sky approach needed Craig That's a good point Craig...and is precisely why we need more people playtesting, not less. And allowing LH armies to zip about more (either by giving them extra PIPs or by making them cheaper to move) IS a 'Blue Sky approach'. Identify why LH armies are wimps...find ways of correcting that deficiency...and give players a reason for taking 4 x LH instead of 4 x Cv.
Not sure who “we” are Stevie and best not to forget these are house rule suggestions, and as such don’t need a playtest - just use whatever you feel gives you an enjoyable game, tweak along the way if necessary. DBA is an easy game to fiddle with 😲. However for “pick up” and competition games the community needs a set standard to play to and that’s the Purple Book. My idea came from reading a recent email attachment for the upcoming Bakewell matched pairs competition, which is playtesting Joe Collins suggestions from his recent excellent Slingshot article. My intention is to go and try and “break” one of the suggestions, and in doing so give it a proper test. Odds are I will fail, and I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I digress... Joe mentions different factions with separate philosophies one of which was to simplify - streamline and amalgamate Cav and LH as in HotT. Can’t help thinking the “wrong pony” may have been backed, and I have no proof and maybe putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but think the problematic LH CF of 2 was fudged somewhat by giving it a +1 for rear support. This gives a contracted frontage, leaving the very troop whose prime tactic was to surround the enemy vulnerable themselves to such a fate, not to mention compromising their flee moves. All in all LH don’t really work in DBA 3.0 for me and the low starting CF would seem to be the issue. That’s why I’m suggesting them as fast Cav. Hoping somewhat, but maybe in vain, that there’s something brewing and we might get a slight tweak to the rules sometime soon, but not holding breath. Incidentally Stevie are you the Stevie on the list of entrants for Bakewell? If you are then I look forward to meeting you Craig
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 22, 2019 9:39:14 GMT
No I haven’t play tested my ideas Stevie and I don’t think you and 2 or 3 others playing a handful of games in an afternoon constitutes proper playtesting either..... Snowcat probably hit the nail on the head. Blue Sky approach needed Craig
|
|