|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 8, 2018 18:48:41 GMT
... a single element that is pathetically weak, counts as two elements lost if destroyed, but that does at least provide a +1 in a critical sector of the front.
As I have explained (and you seem to be having trouble grasping) the location of the general is a force multiplier, in a representative location, due to a general deciding so. Period. It represents nothing more. It would help to understand this concept if you play Lost Battles, by Phil Sabin, with two critical concepts in play : attack bonus spend, and key zone.
Curious, since you are so keen to get the history right, why aren't you requiring the Polybian Roman player to deploy and fight as the Romans did. No maneuvering allowed. No closing the door. Just straight ahead bash and smash in the centre, just like the less imaginative Romans used to do. Come to think of it, how many battles can you find where the opponent closed the door mid-centre on the opposing battle line? A handful? Should we therefore forbid it? Or is it just an abstract mechanism we accept, so as to be free of having to track hit points, or have complex card-driven mechanics?
What my suggestion does is (a) not straight jacket the player as history has done, (b) provide some of the downside risk that discourages placement of a general in the vicinity of an Elephant element.
By the way, nothing right now stops me from parking a Cv general in the front line between or aligned with Elephants! Why don't we do it? Generally it is a bad idea. There may be a case where it is not. DBA allows us (clearly) to bend the historical rules, and experiment - with ahistorical tactics and deployments. To me that is a great thing. What is the point in building a game to perfectly replay battles as they originally happened, regardless of player intervention and experimenting?
I merely gave you a suggestion that is (a) DBA-esque, (b) fits an historical rationale (I didn't say its the best, but the first thing you learn in military college is what is the art of the possible) and (c) has a reasonable chance of being at least occasionally used by folks other than Stevie and his mates, and one or two others. Up to you though. Do whatever rolls your cubes!
At the end of the day, it's what you can convince folks to actually play, Stevie...
|
|
|
|
Post by hammurabi70 on Feb 8, 2018 21:18:52 GMT
In our campaigns about 20 years ago, we simply had a command flag to represent the general, which could be moved between elements and any element specific special attribute went with him to whichever element he wanted to join. The main point being to add his +1 in combat where he was considered to be needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 9, 2018 2:32:27 GMT
That is a nice idea - one we did something similar with in 2.2 and HotT a few years back. It was a 3 PIP move (if I remember right) to redeploy the flag. Could only be done once per game. Elegant, simple, etc... I think there was a 1 or 2 PIP reduction as well, to reflect the fact that he and his entourage are harder to find to ask for orders. Easy to commit the general to another element. Harder to get him back.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 9, 2018 12:28:44 GMT
I also agree with Hammurabi70, and that is the sort of effect I am trying to achieve… …although I’d like to ‘encourage’ players to have their general free roaming (by giving them a +1 PIP if they are not attached) to emphasize their concentrating on commanding the battle, and ‘discourage’ them (by having a -1 PIP) from attaching themselves too much and becoming distracted from their primary duty. There are other ways this can be achieved of course. DBA is a great abstract gaming system…but I’m greedy, and I’d like it to be a great historical simulation as well. And the best way to test if an abstract game is a good historical simulation is to use it to re-create actual real life battles. If you get the right historical outcome (like the Battle of the Hellespont in 321 BC), then that’s great. If you get the wrong historical outcome (as at Trebia or Cannae), then either history is wrong or the rules are. And if the rules give the wrong outcome when re-creating an historical battle, which you can check for yourselves by simply reading the history books, then it’s likely it’s going to give wrong unhistorical outcomes in our hypothetical battles as well. Phil Barker knows this, that is why he introduced the abstract concept of side-support into DBA 3.0. The old DBA 2.2 system was not giving the right historical outcomes when Anglo-Saxons were fighting Vikings. And it’s the same with LH, who were not strong enough so were given rear-support, and many other minor changes. But there is still a bit more that can be done to make DBA a better more historical simulation. Anyway, this ‘Roaming General’ suggestion is only a House Rule, and shown here as “a place to propose and critique House Rules or variations to the DBA rules designed to enhance or extend game play”. As with all House Rules, players are free to use, abuse, or ignore it as they see fit. I promise I won’t be offended.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 9, 2018 13:27:16 GMT
Stevie, we need you to collect all these ideas in a gigantic compendium of DBA goodness. I like the House Rules section, but if you are someone who wants to trawl the pages for great ideas, the site is a bit fragmented.
I think we should keep a running tally of the House Rules that at least have generated enough interest that they are getting heavily discussed, sort of like the FAQs? Each House Rule in the compendium could also have a section that allows player to write up what the effects were, to feed enhancements and refinements.
I think that does two things: 1. it encourages us to actually get out and use them, and really think about them and 2. provides a really nice collection in one place for possible future edition of DBA.
What say you?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 9, 2018 16:17:37 GMT
Actually, Barritus made a similar suggestion via a private message to me some weeks ago. Perhaps a sort of ‘House Rule Index’ thread with links would suffice, maybe something like this:- ---(Contents now moved to fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index )--- |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 9, 2018 17:13:12 GMT
However, I’ll let you into a little secret of mine. Now that the “Army List Corrections” project has finished, my next big target is a “Historical House Rule” booklet. This will contain all the things that I think are needed to play real-life battles using just 12 elements. Now I don’t want people to think that this is yet another DBA 2.2+ type split (heavens forbid!). Perhaps I can best explain it by posting the first page introduction here:- “DBA 3.0 is a great set of rules, in my opinion the best, because of its simplicity, speed of play, cheapness, and it is relatively realistic (for no rules are completely realistic). But to achieve these goals certain sacrifices had to be made. Sadly, to make the rules simple and quick to play some bits of historical realism had to be left out. And the bits left out were those that would have affected tournament play. Take breaking-off from combat, a part of DBA 2.2 for nearly 20 years, left out because it made games too long for competitions. And it’s the same with other historical events, such as off-table outflanking marches, ambushes, temporary field fortifications, wild mounted pursuits that dashed off into the distance and took hours before they could come back and rejoin the main action, feigned flight, random terrain, guerilla warfare, night-time ending the battle, roaming instead of fixed generals, and the like. All of these events are frequent and common in the history books, but all are left out for the sake of tournament play. It’s a shame that DBA 3.0 was not organised along these lines:- At the front of the book could have been the basic rules, for tournaments. At the back of the book could have been 4 or 5 pages devoted to advanced rules, for historical re-enactments. And in between could have been some sort of simple one page campaign rules, because what is written on page 14 is of no use to anyone. So this booklet contains those extra advanced rules that were left out but I think are necessary for recreating historical battles. Note that actual rule changes have not been included, no matter how good or more realistic they would be. There is only the advanced rules, that are in addition to but do not alter the basic tournament rules. Consider them as an optional extra layer to be placed on top of the basic rules, or ignored altogether if you wish. ContentsPage xxx HHR (Historical House Rules), 1 to X, that can be applied to any battle. Page xxx ECR (Event Card Rules), 1 to X, that can only be used when the conditions are right. Page xxx Actual Historical Battle Scenarios, with maps, that do not need any advanced rules. Page xxx Actual Historical Battle Scenarios, with maps, that do need advanced rules to be historically correct. Page xxx Some suggested Army List alterations, for making a few armies more historical. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Still work in progress at the moment, but you get the idea) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 9, 2018 18:50:35 GMT
New elements:
Wardogs (play as Wb(F) but 1. cannot make group moves, and 2. have command span as if LH (these guys do have handlers, but they are off doing their own thing)
Stampede (play as SCh, but 1. cannot make group moves, and 2. not destroyed on a tie.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 10, 2018 20:39:25 GMT
Primuspilus, will you be starting a new “House Rule Index” thread to put all this in, or would you prefer me to do it? Anyway, here are some more ideas that were scattered throughout various other threads:- ---(Contents now moved to fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index )---
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 10, 2018 23:54:27 GMT
Hi Stevie, I am going to chuck you under the bus on this one. And to boot, I'll flip you a campaign concept to look over as well! Because I love to watch you working, mate!
But seriously, time is my nemesis. That said, if you want some help reviewing/collapsing broadly similar concepts, ideas, etc, let me know...
I know there was also discussion of rolling burning logs for Spartacus, I think folks were debating whether they were SCh or Ps. Can't recall where it went...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 11, 2018 10:42:09 GMT
Very well. Leave it with me. Actually, I’m finding it very useful in finding all the ideas that are floating about in various threads. (And I suppose it is only appropriate that I do it…after all, many of the suggestions were prompted by me. )Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by hammurabi70 on Feb 11, 2018 21:53:30 GMT
…although I’d like to ‘encourage’ players to have their general free roaming (by giving them a +1 PIP if they are not attached) to emphasize their concentrating on commanding the battle, and ‘discourage’ them (by having a -1 PIP) from attaching themselves too much and becoming distracted from their primary duty. There are other ways this can be achieved of course. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
I thought there was already some such penalty or am I thinking of DBM or DBAv1 or .... who knows, so many rules systems to get confused by. Better to stick to a single set!  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 7, 2018 19:29:27 GMT
However, I’ll let you into a little secret of mine. Now that the “Army List Corrections” project has finished, my next big target is a “Historical House Rule” booklet. This will contain all the things that I think are needed to play real-life battles using just 12 elements. Now I don’t want people to think that this is yet another DBA 2.2+ type split (heavens forbid!). Perhaps I can best explain it by posting the first page introduction here:- “DBA 3.0 is a great set of rules, in my opinion the best, because of its simplicity, speed of play, cheapness, and it is relatively realistic (for no rules are completely realistic). But to achieve these goals certain sacrifices had to be made. Sadly, to make the rules simple and quick to play some bits of historical realism had to be left out. And the bits left out were those that would have affected tournament play. Take breaking-off from combat, a part of DBA 2.2 for nearly 20 years, left out because it made games too long for competitions. And it’s the same with other historical events, such as off-table outflanking marches, ambushes, temporary field fortifications, wild mounted pursuits that dashed off into the distance and took hours before they could come back and rejoin the main action, feigned flight, random terrain, guerilla warfare, night-time ending the battle, roaming instead of fixed generals, and the like. All of these events are frequent and common in the history books, but all are left out for the sake of tournament play. It’s a shame that DBA 3.0 was not organised along these lines:- At the front of the book could have been the basic rules, for tournaments. At the back of the book could have been 4 or 5 pages devoted to advanced rules, for historical re-enactments. And in between could have been some sort of simple one page campaign rules, because what is written on page 14 is of no use to anyone. So this booklet contains those extra advanced rules that were left out but I think are necessary for recreating historical battles. Note that actual rule changes have not been included, no matter how good or more realistic they would be. There is only the advanced rules, that are in addition to but do not alter the basic tournament rules. Consider them as an optional extra layer to be placed on top of the basic rules, or ignored altogether if you wish. ContentsPage xxx HHR (Historical House Rules), 1 to X, that can be applied to any battle. Page xxx ECR (Event Card Rules), 1 to X, that can only be used when the conditions are right. Page xxx Actual Historical Battle Scenarios, with maps, that do not need any advanced rules. Page xxx Actual Historical Battle Scenarios, with maps, that do need advanced rules to be historically correct. Page xxx Some suggested Army List alterations, for making a few armies more historical. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Still work in progress at the moment, but you get the idea) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Stevie, Love this. Would it be a pdf or would you put it on the wiki for people to test out new sections? Chris |
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on May 7, 2018 19:41:50 GMT
Back to the generals, I have played a couple of Renaissance battles recently. I settled on DBR for the rules but picked up from Maximilian! the idea of roaming generals. An attached (non-space-consuming) general can *either* reduce by 1 PIP the cost of moving the group he is with *or* move himself separately from that group. I didn't use it for Flodden, when the leaders seemed pretty fixed to their units, but it worked well in game terms, on a bigger battlefield, for Pinkie. For example the English cavalry split, with the lancers defending the baggage and the light horse supporting the attack on the main Scottish lines. Lord Grey could decide which to lead.
Paul H
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 7, 2018 20:20:36 GMT
Re Roaming Generals: Not sure if this has been mentioned before, but what about this? 1) As a final move of the bound, 1 PIP and you can move the general to any viable element within 4BW. So you can't pay 1 PIP, move, then move the newly attached element and fight +1. It's setting you up for the next bound. 2) "Viable" elements are any element that in the army *could* have a general. So in the Roman army, the general could only attach to a Cv or a Bd element. BUT, they can at least join any Cv or Bd. That way, they can't just leap to Elephants randomly. 3) If the element that the general is attached to is destroyed, he's dead, just like normal. No escaping or random "generals only" elements. So limited use, but still allows the general to leap a bit  Chris |
|
