hdan
Munifex
Posts: 35 
|
Post by hdan on Apr 18, 2018 2:55:23 GMT
While I am still working on my EAP 8Bw troops and haven't had the chance to play them as written yet, I've been toying with the idea of allowing them the side-support bonus in close combat that other bow types get from adjacent blade or pike. Making them "Spear who shoot like 4Bw" is a neat idea too, simulating their vast numbers compared to a Greek phalanx, but somehow that feels like going too far.
That would put them up to +4 against hoplites in contact - disadvantaged against a solid line of Greeks, but still "fighting bravely" until their line gets broken up. But maybe their existing +1 for being double-deep is good enough in practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 18, 2018 20:30:27 GMT
It sounds like we .... and this might be heresy, require a new troop type: "Pavisier", representing these deep formations of slow moving Spears, and bows behind them.
Instead of trying to jam them into the existing definitions. I don't want to talk about introducing all kinds of new elements, since the Combat Results table comes just a big mess of Paper/Rock/Scissors, but perhaps it's worth it with the middle, not-light, not-heavy troops...
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 19, 2018 6:33:07 GMT
That has been tried before. Phil did not like it. There really is no "we", these are Phil Barker's rules. People are always welcome to have their own home rules. I enjoy reading these ideas, and do some myself. Or make up their own new commercial set  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 19, 2018 16:48:58 GMT
That has been tried before. Phil did not like it. There really is no "we", these are Phil Barker's rules. People are always welcome to have their own home rules. I enjoy reading these ideas, and do some myself. Or make up their own new commercial set Hi Bob, Yeah sorry about the "we". I work in Design & Tech, and so it's all about teams and "we" even if I'm talking about me... And all my comments are just ideas floating around in my head. The rules are really very good as is. With regards to my own commercial set, I've seen a lot of "DBA" copy rules out there, and they never quite do it. Always get too complicated. BBDBA is where my heart is... It was my first historical set afterall! Chris |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 19, 2018 18:33:52 GMT
A few comments:
Great thinking by all concerned.
But let me reiterate Bob's point: the rules to DBA 3.0 are not going to change. Just had some communication with Sue, she was complementing me on the use of columns to improve readability in my designs but also pointed out Phil will not change anything even typos/formating in DBA 3.0, remains in charge and given his health we should not bug him about this stuff. In any case we need to let tournament players alone so that they can play a stable game - I sometimes regret having disturbed their tranquil 2.2 world in the first place, let alone dragging them along in a dynamic rule process again.
But as to advancing DBX - that's a worthy cause. I just spent a year getting a medieval specific system working - so I know DBX can handle more than the beautiful but limited 12 element chess game of DBA. Greedo (who did not shoot first) you're entirely correct that complexity is not the answer as dead end DBMM shows. I do lots of demo/playtest games at a game store that requires we accept walk up players, so I often get new players who need to learn the concepts and mechanics at the table. So I'm (by necessity) committed to easy to learn (if not to master) mechanics and trying to convey as much information with the figures themselves as possible.
I'm pondering an Ancient expansion and this brings up to Prmuspilus and his poor Persians. In fixing Spear with Shieldwall, we seem to have sprung a leak in Persia.
Primuspilus would this work for Persians: Medium Foot +3CF, with the Heavy Bow Ability (Ranged Combat 3BW, +1 v. Mounted), Spear (giving them Shieldwall).
So they would be +3 v. Foot for Ranged and IF in line with fellows +4 in Close v. Foot. (And we of course dispose of the 2 element first death rule - not one of our better ideas in any case). The match up in Shieldwall would still be +5 Greek v. +4 Persian but the Shooting (which the Greeks would fear a bit more) would at least distort the Greek line enough to even the fight. But did Persians fight in any kind of a Shieldwall? Could we consider limiting this "rear rank" Shooting to 2BW range?
Help us help you.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 19, 2018 20:32:54 GMT
A few comments: Great thinking by all concerned. But let me reiterate Bob's point: the rules to DBA 3.0 are not going to change. Just had some communication with Sue, she was complementing me on the use of columns to improve readability in my designs but also pointed out Phil will not change anything even typos/formating in DBA 3.0, remains in charge and given his health we should not bug him about this stuff. In any case we need to let tournament players alone so that they can play a stable game - I sometimes regret having disturbed their tranquil 2.2 world in the first place, let alone dragging them along in a dynamic rule process again. But as to advancing DBX - that's a worthy cause. I just spent a year getting a medieval specific system working - so I know DBX can handle more than the beautiful but limited 12 element chess game of DBA. Greedo (who did not shoot first) you're entirely correct that complexity is not the answer as dead end DBMM shows. I do lots of demo/playtest games at a game store that requires we accept walk up players, so I often get new players who need to learn the concepts and mechanics at the table. So I'm (by necessity) committed to easy to learn (if not to master) mechanics and trying to convey as much information with the figures themselves as possible. I'm pondering an Ancient expansion and this brings up to Prmuspilus and his poor Persians. In fixing Spear with Shieldwall, we seem to have sprung a leak in Persia. Primuspilus would this work for Persians: Medium Foot +3CF, with the Heavy Bow Ability (Ranged Combat 3BW, +1 v. Mounted), Spear (giving them Shieldwall). So they would be +3 v. Foot for Ranged and IF in line with fellows +4 in Close v. Foot. (And we of course dispose of the 2 element first death rule - not one of our better ideas in any case). The match up in Shieldwall would still be +5 Greek v. +4 Persian but the Shooting (which the Greeks would fear a bit more) would at least distort the Greek line enough to even the fight. But did Persians fight in any kind of a Shieldwall? Could we consider limiting this "rear rank" Shooting to 2BW range? Help us help you. Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games Tom, please DO add in an ancients version of the DBX work. I have often thought about "giving" the heavy bow ability to more troops - in particular, all Persian Ax and I like the idea of differentiating the Persian foot. I think consider them Heavy Infantry, but without side support? So +4/+4, and with Bow shooting ability. Also adding a point system to the Ancients version of DBX will do a better job of getting balance in historical campaigns and scenarios... |
|
matt
Munifex
Posts: 3
|
Post by matt on Apr 20, 2018 1:16:36 GMT
Hi there! I've been away from DBA and Fanaticus for awhile. Getting my old DBA armies out and trying 3.0 out, which so far like.
I don't have years of experience playing DBA, although i did first play with one of the 1.x versions. On the 8Bd and 4Ax issue, which i would agree seem too weak, what about adding them to the side support list?
could be:
Solid Ax get side support from any other solid element.
8 Bd get side support from other 8 Bd elements
Uses existing mechanics, strengthens both troop types, but i would think doesn't break them, and encourages historical behavior.
Matt
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 27, 2018 21:22:07 GMT
Primuspilus:
You can probably get enough out of one of the Knight and Knave Basic Game + Expansions to start an Ancients version. Medieval history is my wheel house though some I've been hesitant about doing Ancients. I'm pondering going with an Open Source Model for Knights & Knaves - letting anyone designer use the Basic Game but develop periord specific Expansions (you would still need to get the Basic Game from me but the Expansions would be the work of the individual designers). I mentioned considering expanding my New World lists beyound the Alterntive History Aztecs & Allies that I put in the Fire and Ice Expansion and I got waves of fantastic research proposed lists and extra mechanics for DBX players who want a better representation of the New World. I'm considering just tourning the power of the DBX community loose to create (within my guidelines) period speicfic Expansions.
|
|
