|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 13, 2024 18:58:53 GMT
That game was an expansion on DBM... and is now I think out of print. It was put out by a company that worked closely with WRG. Our product is more DBA based and is a completely different product.
I hope this helps.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 8, 2024 23:46:14 GMT
Kinda looks like Duckworth. Too much hair to be Baldie (or me).
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 8, 2024 23:44:43 GMT
Cunaxa is a great fight!
I do a version with 3+ Persian Armies on one side against 2 Persian and one Greek. The Persian side starts with everything on board. The rebels start with the Greeks and the Center Persian army deployed. The final rebel command enters turn 1.
It works very well.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 29, 2024 17:21:06 GMT
Better as a teen.
I reread these several years ago and found my nostalgia overran the reality.
Though, I did purchase his latest "Elric" novel. It was ok.
I don't regret the purchase and time investment. It just wasn't what it was 40 years ago.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Spam
Jan 26, 2024 20:22:37 GMT
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 26, 2024 20:22:37 GMT
Hey, don't knock Spam.
It is pork shoulder and ham!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 3, 2024 15:23:55 GMT
Strange:
I am "one". I some how don't feel that way.
The perceived errors from previous editions were perceived by many. They needed correction. The narrative created by DBA 3 is superior to previous versions with very little addition of complexity.
The stupid geometric ploys allowed by earlier editions have been eliminated. No new ones have arisen... and this is with direct challenges to detractors... for 10 years.
The argument you advance is one that is rather old and failed. We went round and round with it in 2012-2014. It has been settled I think decisively.
As far as a back door to 7th edition or DBM? I'm scratching my head. One could argue that it has a few concepts from DBMM... but it really doesn't resemble DBMM. I have played DBMM...though not much. I see little resemblance. Thank goodness for that.
One could argue that DBA 3 has similarities with DBR. I agree with this.
The only real disappointment with DBA 3 comes from the death of the tournament scene at major conventions in the US. This was caused by personality issues with the folks that ran the circuit.
The tournament scene in England and elsewhere remains strong and vibrant after 10 years of play.
The proof in in the pudding...
Oh, and as to no system being perfect...
Watch this space!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 28, 2023 16:05:46 GMT
Horse, Foot, & Guns is great for SYW and ACW. I don't like it for Napoleonics or post-Napoleonics. The distortion of unit and ground scale for artillery and the blandness of system don't appeal to me for the Napoleonic period. The combat results and outcomes don't work for me when used for FPW.
SYW and ACW work surprisingly well for a variety of reasons...
The game however is more akin to DBMM than DBA. It can be quite complex at times.
More simple alternatives such as DBN and DBACW may be in order.
I'm not particularly fond of either, but I will play them if offered.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 10, 2023 15:30:05 GMT
We have actually taken another path in DBF... for a variety of reasons. If we are ever allowed to do an update to HoTT... these would be strongly considered.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 10, 2023 15:26:11 GMT
DBA actually works quite well. Limitations do exist due its design decisions. Mongols, English Longbowmen, Swiss pike and such will always underperform.
They should.
This is/was a design decision by Phil.
Conversely, armies with vast number of inferior troops will overperform. There are less of these... for reasons that I will not argue here (it is an interesting discussion though).
The above are "edge cases" that DBA doesn't address... though DBM and DBMM certainly did so...opinions vary are to their success.
This does not mean however that DBA mechanics cannot be improved. We certainly did improve them in DBA 3.. (and it was really the first major rules revision since the very early years).
The Blades vs Spear issue now works quite well. The Blade vs Warband is also improved I think. Light troops are given their due... and armies are better represented.
The changes to Pike work less well. We did not understand the ramifications that changes to movement rates/game tempo would have on Pike armies. We also only partially addressed Auxilia. Their lot was complicated by the addition of Fast/Solid. One aspect was certainly fixed. Other aspects were not.
There quite simply is still work to be done. There are structural changes that can be made to improve the narrative generated by the game.
Who knows?... folks may see some things soon.
Stranger things have occurred.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 9, 2023 18:46:35 GMT
The names of the troop types were...
Phalanx for the double based spear...
and
Monstrous Warband or Brutes for the double based warband.
There was further talk of a "foot" based paladin that was impetuous... Berserker
I found all of the above useful and fun.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 27, 2023 18:01:20 GMT
BTW... All the photos of the lion monument misrepresent it.
It is huge!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 27, 2023 17:57:28 GMT
Chaeronea for example plays much differently (Tease/Hint... you may just see this scenario one day). Pydna does as well. Very interested to see if it's Phillip's feigned flight and counterattack to defeat the Athenians or Alexander turning the Theban flank with a cavalry charge that wins the day in your scenario. Maybe you've even goth the Hypaspists as somewhat more useful than 4Ax! Cheers Jim Yes, the Hypaspists will be more useful for certain.
The battle was fought west of Chaeronea in the open. There simply isn't enough room further down the valley for the armies to deploy. The Haemon stream references are a joke. I actually had difficulty finding it... I can pee more water than it puts out. The spring in Chaeronea itself is more important I think as well as the streams further up the valley. Please note the the Kifisos (river?... err more like a stream) still limits the battlefield... it isn't deep, but there was probably (and still is) significant growth to present a barrier.
I find it a mistake to take the Lion Monument as a marker for the battlefield. It is on the outskirts of the town... on the road coming from Boeotia. A logical place for a monument/gravesight...both today and two thousand years ago.
The tumulus is where most were buried after the battle. It is further down the valley, but was probably placed there to protect the town from contamination. I would use Phil Sabin's Lost Battles map as a good guide.
In any regards, placing the battle there solves the frontage problem without resorting to oddly angles lines as some historians have done. You still don't have the "rise" where Philip retreated... but that is another story.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 24, 2023 23:51:43 GMT
I don't buy the narrative that Pikes were that different in the periods. It doesn't stand up to a wider reading of the battles in both periods.
Yes, pike were crap in 2.2. Just as with the other awful problems with 2.2, you could easily stop them with geometric ploys. Those ploys are now thankfully gone, though I did use them to win multiple major tournaments in the US. But I am old and that was many years ago.
One could of course put them aside in fighting historical battles, which I often did, but then you run into the problem of pike being ineffective and not well modeled.
Phil recognized both issues. In the development of DBA he set about solving them. I was heartened by the changes to moving into contact with enemy. This prevented most of the stupid ploys usable in 2.2. The longer movement distances were also a positive development as they eased issue of moving Pike into contact. The making of pike to be impetuous was a bit of a mixed bag for me.
and yes... 8 Pk was debated... Phil thought it would require too many changes to the army lists.
What we didn't see however was how the greater move distances and the increased tempo of the game would cancel the positive changes outlined above. The problem for pike is one of time. It takes time for the higher combat factors to play out as effective. Most pike armies won't have that time under 3.0.
The question then is, "How do we fix it?"
My answer, and the one we have taken in DBF is up the combat power of pike and make the pursuit optional. They now recoil all non-pike on equal scores. Pursuit is as I have stated... optional. These may seem small changes, but they do seem to produce a much better outcome.
Chaeronea for example plays much differently (Tease/Hint... you may just see this scenario one day). Pydna does as well.
Medieval battles featuring the Swiss are also better, though I argue in other places that we will never be able (and shouldn't be able) to accurately model the Swiss without a quality grading factor.
For more on the above check out my article for Slingshot. It also was be translated into French for those so blessed.
BTW... I would bet money that Tom is older than you Vodnik. Tom is older than me and I am old!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 24, 2023 20:22:51 GMT
It is a forthcoming fantasy rules set from WRG. It is based on DBA, but will feature larger sized battles with a point purchase system for armies... You standard battle will be about 36 elements per side. Smaller and larger games are of course possible.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 13, 2023 21:32:51 GMT
The issue here isn't with Pike.... it is with the movement of other elements.
In version 2 I won most of the US major tournaments with Alex.
Version 3 is a complete change. While Pikes now pursue- a good thing... everything thing else is much faster. This allows Pikes to be easily flanked and destroyed.
DBF addresses this three ways...
1st. Pike may now pick whether to pursue or not. 2nd. Pike wins all ties vs non-Pike. 3rd. Pike is slightly less expensive (DBF is a point buy game)
Try Chaeronea with the above. You will get a much different game.
Joe Collins
|
|