|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 4, 2016 9:02:39 GMT
Together with a group of a dozen play testers, the DBA-HX was revised to 3.0 standard. We split that project into three time periods as I knew others were working on DBA-RRR that would bring their revision with 3.0 to the year 1700.
Our first project therefore, covered the time period 1700 to 1850 and that can be found at the Wiki page here.
I spent several months working on the second part to end the revision at 1900, but fell into a dilemma as to representing larger formations on the battlefield. We devised a map to game board system on which multiple divisions and corps could manoeuvre and all engagements were to be moved to the game board. These engagements generally brought division level formations (10 - 12 elements/regiments) to the table and in 20 minutes you reached a conclusion.
Returning to the map, the battle raged on until nightfall after a number of clashes had taken place. This gave a sense of a large battle taking place as the attacks shifted from one part of the battlefield to another.
Three scenarios are documented at my blog and you will find these at the bottom of the link. Further below is a corps vs. corps test that best illustrates the map system at work.
18thcenturysojourn.blogspot.nl/2009/07/index-of-topics-18th-century-sojourn.html
These may provide some ideas.
These is incredibly interesting and something I may very well try for next time. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 4, 2016 9:01:42 GMT
Looks awesome! Did you use the attrition system?
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 4, 2016 5:37:10 GMT
I wish I had taken pictures for a full battle report, but my friend and I had a DBN game this afternoon with a Union Corps and a Confederate Corps facing off. Each stand was a regiment, and a number of regiments were grouped into Divisional Commands which we kept at roughly 10+ elements each. We did a 36 point game and included my ideas for Vets and Green troops (Vets re-roll 1s, Green re-roll 6). In all it took only 2.5 hours to fully complete the game. We used the demoralized command rules instead of the traditional 1/3 across the board.
A largely Green union division broke due to the hard efforts of a Veteran filled Confederate division smashing into them. Otherwise there was a good rate of attrition (we did use this combat mechanism) and close fighting. After a few bounds when everyone has been hit or shaken, the stands seem to really vanish. 2 of the Three confederate Divisions Broke causing a very narrow defeat. The Green Union Division broke early, and another division on my right flank was only 1 stand short of breaking. Had that happened it would have been a draw.
Thoughts
We both liked it, but firing became harder to figure out after the combat developed with new groups and some at an angle due to wheeling. That was the hardest part honestly.
Things were moving too slow for a big battle. We allowed more pip expenditure options to open up more decisions and promote maneuver.
Artillery needs some work, at least for this. Counter battery Fire was unbelievable. We both sat astonished at how easy it is to destroy cannon from range. Not sure just yet, but this will really require a rewrite which I imagine will transfer over to the Napoleonic period as well.
I am a little stumped on how I feel about attrition combat rules; they slow the early combat period down for one. It seems critical to include something like this for games like the ACW where there were almost exclusively +4 v Foot elements on the table. Without it, a lot of pushing would happen that would not have gone places anytime fast I imagine. Plus this did look and feel better. I do wish there was more recoiling though to represent those fall backs for regrouping and to provide more decisions to be made with CAPs. My thinking is, based on a DBA-ACW set I read a while ago (can't remember the name!), that for a better than but not double result the infantry should have the choice of taking a hit to stand, or voluntarily recoiling. If doubled take 1 hit and recoil. That is an idea we may use next time.
Oddly enough, not a single death from recoil. I am sure the lack of recoiling was part of this.
Cheers
Addition: Figures were based on 1"x 1"3/4 bases for the infantry as Regimental Fire and Fury requires. DBx is great as you can really play most base sizes, without any changes, as long as the frontages for both sides are the same.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 2, 2016 21:11:36 GMT
Good idea, thanks Thomas!
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 2, 2016 21:09:15 GMT
In a campaign game I am playing, we used google draw, insert a map, then draw the nodes (and arrows if you want) with the shape tool. Once done we highlight it all and click the button that locks it into one image. That way we can make separate symbols of our armies and move them around live as drive allows more than one person to be looking at the document at the same time. It is going along very well and I will use it again in the future.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 2, 2016 21:01:38 GMT
Awesome. I appreciate the details. I want to do this in 15mm sometime soon. I am sure I will be more encouraged when I begin the book series soon. I view the show as fantastic fan fiction in a way I guess.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 2, 2016 4:23:55 GMT
Awesome! I am in love with this show. What figures do you use for the varying factions? I think most historical lines could work.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on Jun 2, 2016 4:19:27 GMT
Reminds me of the Little Boy at school who tells his teacher "My brother don't like football, like what I do" The teacher replies "Where is your Grammer?" Boy thought for a moment and said "At the cinema with me Grampa!"
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 31, 2016 17:29:41 GMT
Part of the issue I think that a lot of players have with Barkarese is the fact that, as an American student of history (1st degree around the corner!), he seems to not use proper grammar. In his serials for example, he does not use commas. This is the one major issue I have. If he refuses to use a table he should at least use commas in a serial as it is much easier to take in. Even the Oxford comma (darn Brits! this threw me off at first with Robert Service). Also, when there are several "and"s in the same sentence... Tiny rant over.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 31, 2016 17:24:09 GMT
Heya, Ok, I guess I don't really want to be going over old ground. So maybe I should be directed to the previous conversation? I accept historical interest and accuracy, though Dba is more of a game than many ancients rule-sets, and the 12 element rule (instead of points) means that basically there has to be some balance in the troop types (to make it interesting), just like in chess if you could choose your own 15 optional pieces I know which I'd choose (15 queens thanks), and in 3.0 PS have been given some useful (tricky) advantages... which seem to enhance their role in the battles, but honestly from my perspective they needed help, and I'd have to be feeling pretty brave or crazy to take 12 (unlike nearly every other troop type). "An element directly in contact with a recoiling Ps recoil as well, except Ps." is this actually in the text? or is it a rewording of Interpenetration.para2.(d) and para3 and the last line of the recoiling_push-back section? Not that I mind a good re-wording, just checking, because I can't find it. If it is a re-wording then doesn't it then also have to be true that Interpenetration.para2.a) follows the same rule? 'Mounted troops recoiling into any friends except Pikes, Hordes or Elephants'. Just for clarification, that would also mean mounted would be destroyed recoiling (or not) into PK, HD, or EL. As it is identically worded. Thoughts? thanks, Alex. I think you are correct with the Mounted Troops recoil. As far as I can see at least. 3.0 is clearer, but, as always, still difficult to understand.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 27, 2016 23:16:27 GMT
I know there were commanded shot, but could the recoil represent one of the wings being pushed away from the formation during the melee? Or a symbol of a disrupted formation. I have read something of the sort somewhere that formation breakups in DBx systems simulate more of a breakup of the formation rather than a true separation. Huh. This is why my first forces (Big battle once I am done painting) are the Ottomans and the Polish for the fascinating eastern renaissance.
I am always trying to figure out, in any system, the balance between the aesthetics, history, and my imagination.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 27, 2016 23:11:14 GMT
That is a great game! I just got into it myself.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 27, 2016 23:09:20 GMT
As with most all of my games that require storage bins — Plano! Lined with strips of magnet on the bottom, magnets on the bottom of bases. Love the carrying cases that let me swap out loads for which armies I bring to the club for the theme of the month. Do you magnetize everything?
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 27, 2016 17:21:08 GMT
So in games like DBR, and DBA-RRR, you do have elements of a pike and shot formation with (non DBA terms) pikes and shooters. IIRC, in DBA-RRR Pikes give side support to shooting elements. I like this rule as it promotes Pike and Shot formations. However, I have always been confused on how element based games handle said formations. Is it accurate that a wing may recoil away from the main body of the formation? The pikes? I am familiar with rules like FOG and Pike and Shot that have the whole formation available to damage, but it's base cohesion never lost.
So this is more of a history question.
|
|
|
Post by crazycaptain560 on May 27, 2016 8:33:53 GMT
It worked for me. When I clicked on the link, Firefox opened a new tab with the PDF in. Excellent! Wiki has been updated.
|
|