|
|
Post by martin on Apr 20, 2018 8:51:19 GMT
I'm against the change if for no other reason to not fracture any more people from playing DBA 3.0. Absolutely.....we've already gone through the 2.2/2.2+/v3 trauma, and don't need that again. The Hott shooter/Wb fix was pretty much universally agreed by all players, and is now condoned/sanctioned/agreed with by the rules authors in the latest version. Different scenario to the "I think type 'x' is too weak/strong/fast" comments we regularly see on the forum. None of these is universally agreed. Shall we make it VERY clear that any proposed changes are HOUSE RULES, and not formal diktat?? M |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 20, 2018 9:37:27 GMT
But Martin, how do we know if something is universally agreed or condemned unless we discus it? And that is all Joe Collins is doing…he is putting up a suggestion to see what people think. I’m pretty sure that there were some die-hard HOTT players that were against the shooter/Wb fix. But it was a good idea, with much support, and is now part of the official cannon. Suggestions made today may one day become tomorrows rules…if enough people support it. If no-one supports a suggestion, then drop it. If some like it and some don’t, make it a House Rule. If most people like it, then who knows… Of course, players can’t make a decision either way if they’ve never even heard of it. Basically, I agree with Felixs:- I'm against the change if for no other reason to not fracture any more people from playing DBA 3.0. Very good point, which I agree with. Nevertheless, discussing these things as house rules or scenario rules can't hurt. After all, not everyone is a tournament player. Some of us play DBA to re-create historical battles, which requires a bit more realism. 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 martin on Apr 20, 2018 10:27:08 GMT
But Martin, how do we know if something is universally agreed or condemned unless we discus it? [/font][/quote] Yep, it's being discussed, and is not universally agreed. M |
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 20, 2018 12:09:14 GMT
After all, not everyone is a tournament player. Some of us play DBA to re-create historical battles, which requires a bit more realism. I loathe tournaments. I really, really hate the idea of tournaments. (Might still play, if that was the only way to play, but would prefer anything else). Still, I find it very useful to have a common rules set, about which we can discuss and share ideas on a common basis. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 20, 2018 12:40:05 GMT
Yep, it's being discussed, and is not universally agreed. Ha! Good point Martin.  However, few of the new innovations currently incorporated into DBA 3.0 were ‘universally accepted’ at first. Some were worried about the new movement, some were unsure about side-support, some didn’t like the new El factors. Nonetheless, most of those that persisted and tried these new ideas have now come to accept and even like them. If a 100% ‘universal acceptance’ were required before hand, DBA 3.0 would never have come into existence! The HOTT shooting/Wb fix shows us three important things: a): the rules, as originally drafted by the author, are not always the best way of doing things, b): occasionally, players can come up with a better way, that the author never thought of, c): if the suggestion is a good one, and many people like it and use it, the author may accept it as well. Rejecting a suggestion because of historical or game balance reasons is one thing. Rejecting a suggestion just because Phil Barker didn’t think of it is a poor argument. But I do agree that letting something as trivial as reducing the 3Bd speed to 2 BW is not worth causing a another big split. So I suggest that Joe Collins confine his idea to the House Rule section. Then, in a couple of years time, if it turns out to be quite popular it may become the norm. After all, that’s how the HOTT shooter/Wb fix came about. It started off as somebody’s House Rule, many (but not all) people liked it started to adopt it, and then it became almost ‘universally accepted’ and finally incorporated into the official ruleset. 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 Tony Aguilar on Apr 20, 2018 12:55:07 GMT
After all, not everyone is a tournament player. Some of us play DBA to re-create historical battles, which requires a bit more realism. I loathe tournaments. I really, really hate the idea of tournaments. (Might still play, if that was the only way to play, but would prefer anything else). Still, I find it very useful to have a common rules set, about which we can discuss and share ideas on a common basis. Funny, my experience has been the opposite. DBA is the first tournament based game I have ever played ever. I hate Big Battle Games that remind me of every game system other than DBA including unfinished games, players that are bored and painting figures for other to use and then having to worry about them breaking them. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 20, 2018 13:46:59 GMT
I agree. They would be in fact twice as fast in rough or bad going... I can't find any evidence that archetypal "Fast" Blades were in any fact 2"Faster" than heavier troops. They certainly were better in bad and rough going... Viking Raiders were able to take on Irish in the Bogs...though evidence is scant. Romans did lighten their Legionnaires in order to pursue into bad going. The early Swiss certainly faster in the operational sense... but I can't find any evidence they were faster on the battlefield except on steep hills or perhaps through forest. I'm not sure anyone can comment on "book 1" armies as the evidence is so thin. Here are some ideas to try. Move "Fast" Blade down to 2BW/2BW. This puts them on par with "Solid" Ax. Change their combat factor vs Shooting to +3 Again, this puts them on par with Ax... I just re-read Oman's passage concerning the English mercenary company in the 14th century that marauded through Swiss territory. The Swiss evidently had great problems dealing with the bowmen. This shows this nicely. Joe Collins There is plenty of evidence of the Swiss forming up in bad going prior to the Battles of Grandson,Murten and Nancy and they were capable of advancing at "storm pace" even in Pike formation as late as the Battle of Dornatch. As for Omans version of the English Company raiding Swiss territory successfully I would check out alternative testimonies by earlier authors (Froissart)and Hans Delbrucks' account which describe the English aborting their attempts and the leader when questioned about this campaign at a latter date denied ever going to Switzerland. I am pro-fast troop types moving fast,they gain speed over more solid types but suffer the push back on draws against solid foot and mounted who do not destroy them...to me that is a fair trade and matches them being faster but more brittle than solid types. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 20, 2018 16:07:55 GMT
Yes, the Swiss were certainly able to form and maneuver well in bad and rough going. They also were able to move operationally at a very quick pace. I however see little evidence of them moving tactically any faster than other infantry.
I find the same for early Viking raiders.
The English mercenaries in the Swiss cantons certainly requires more research. Though I will pass on Delbruck. I am not a fan.
Can anyone think of other Fast Blade matchups vs bow?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 20, 2018 16:43:17 GMT
Again the rules for DBA 3.0 are not going to change (even where they should). The HOTT switch is a very rare exception and even today some HOTT players won't adopt all the improved 3.0 mechanisms demonstrating the power of player inertia v. the rare MA switch.
But to the topic of advancing DBX mechanics:
Some evidence suggests that Fast trade off (+1BW move; Recoil on Equals v. non-Fast) too much favors the Fast. Blades being popular and powerful magnify the perceived problem. Joe suggests a less powerful version of close fighting but more lightly armored troops and here it is: Medium Foot +3CF base w/Sword (+1 v. Foot in Close; -1 v. Mounted), Loose Order (no penalty in Rough/Difficult). So: +4 v. Foot in Close; +3 (base) v. Shooting & +2 v. Mounted. They come in both a Fast (+1BW; Recoil on Equals) and non-Fast version. They cost 3 points (equal to CF). You can also have Heavy Foot Base +4 CF w/Sword (+1 v. Foot; -1 v. Mounted; +4 (base) v. Shooting) which come in a Fast (terrain effects only CF) and non-Fast version but this costs 4 points (equal to CF). This still assumes Fast is a points wash. Fast losing Cry Havoc v. Knights (Destroy on Equals) is a possible compensation. This should provide enough variety of troop abilities to solve this and many other square peg in a round hole problems.
I really enjoy tournaments, campaigns, historical battles and made up big battles between pick up teams. I enjoy the latter 3 types more but still have a great time at the former. DBX can be the Swiss Army Knife of game mechanics. Able to do many things if you use the right attachment. DBA 3.0 is the tournament game attachment (with historical flavor). Trying to use it for historical battles is like trying to use the cork screw attachment as a screw driver. I play the latter three types of games using DBX all the time - but I don't use DBA 3.0 for this. I play in tournaments where I do use DBA 3.0. I encourage cross over between the two modes of games. Lots of tournament type players play in my Knights and Knaves games and I periodically recruit new people and try and get them to give tournaments a chance (not as scary as they appear). Everyone should make an effort to participate in both. I work on perfecting the tournament rules for DBA 3.0 all the time, likewise I just got a massive bunch of info from a tournament player about how to interpret Aztecs (et al) in Knights and Knaves. But bear in mind they are different attachments with different purposes.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 20, 2018 17:10:06 GMT
I loathe tournaments. I really, really hate the idea of tournaments. (Might still play, if that was the only way to play, but would prefer anything else). Still, I find it very useful to have a common rules set, about which we can discuss and share ideas on a common basis. Funny, my experience has been the opposite. DBA is the first tournament based game I have ever played ever. I hate Big Battle Games that remind me of every game system other than DBA including unfinished games, players that are bored and painting figures for other to use and then having to worry about them breaking them. I agree about Big Battle games. I too dislike the idea of having DBA take longer than it does in the basic format, which is perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 20, 2018 20:19:15 GMT
Yes, the Swiss were certainly able to form and maneuver well in bad and rough going. They also were able to move operationally at a very quick pace. I however see little evidence of them moving tactically any faster than other infantry. I find the same for early Viking raiders. The English mercenaries in the Swiss cantons certainly requires more research. Though I will pass on Delbruck. I am not a fan. Can anyone think of other Fast Blade matchups vs bow? Joe Collins Not wanting to stray to far off topic but to answer reply...Delbruck is sometimes difficult to read but well worth the time.Robert Vaughans' Charles the Bold is a good modern work. I am surprised by your statement that you can not find evidence of Swiss moving faster tactically than their opponnents where ample evidence exists of Early and later Swiss armies tactically suprising their opposition time and again. In the Early period the Swiss were mostly fighting on the defensive and often relief armies would form rapidly and force march/or flank against besieging armies.In the later period even they managed to conceal their approach achieving tactical suprise...at Hericourt one account even claims the Swiss caught the Burgundian army it was persuing back to its camp! The Swiss could not maintain armies in the field over prolonged periods and needed to end campaigns quickly and decisively. P.S.There was a large contingent of English longbowmen in Charles the Bolds' Burgundian armies which failed to show any effectiveness in several battles.😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Apr 21, 2018 1:12:09 GMT
My experience with the Sea Peoples over the past 2 years is that their BdF are quite powerful when the dice roll your way. CanCon 2017, 5-1 in games with 5 quick kills against Kn (2 of whom were generals).
But when the dice don't roll you way, its rather grim. CanCon 2018, 2-4 in games with no quick kills against Kn. Man I was hammered.
In social games the Sea Peoples are 2-1. I am not seeing a great advantage, but that just might be my ability as a general and dice rolling.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 21, 2018 1:36:22 GMT
Oosh...This thread has born fruit! I will check out Vaughn! It helps that I have a direct "in" with MTSU's library! They gave a great military history department.
I see the Swiss movement as being operational rather than tactical.
Burgundian fights are against Pike...not Blade.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Apr 21, 2018 3:04:32 GMT
Forgive me if this is not a well considered post.
1. Regarding Bd(F) vs Kn as Spizicles mentions when dice don't roll your way Kn are likely to run you over. True but the issue here (besides bad dice hurting) is that exactly the same can be said for Bd(O) - ie Bd(F) are as good vs Kn as Bd(O) which is historically inaccurate I would say. As mentioned previously historically foot would adopt very close order to resist mounted attacks (outside our period we have Napoleonic squares and ECW pikes in period shieldwalls and so forth). The whole aim for th efoot was to avoid a break in by the mounted where the foot could be literally bowled over. So Bd(F) are definitely overrated in that matchup.
Re Later Swiss - they are rated as Pk(O) so the speed factor doesn't come into it. I'm still chary tho of whether many Pk(F) types really had the ability to charge fast on a battlefield whilst retaining cohesion eg Picts, Arkaddians and so forth - Pk(F) to me looks a very artificial creation.
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 21, 2018 5:27:41 GMT
Oosh...This thread has born fruit! I will check out Vaughn! It helps that I have a direct "in" with MTSU's library! They gave a great military history department. I see the Swiss movement as being operational rather than tactical. Burgundian fights are against Pike...not Blade. Joe Collins I sorry if I am showing a bias towards the Swiss but I have studied them for years as even had a 6th edition army, but I am equally aware of their tactical failings and vulnerability. The Swiss that fought in the Burgundian wars were a mix of Pike and halberd.The first recorded use of large numbers of pike was in 1425, but was only as much as 25% by St Jacob-en-birs 1444. The proportion of pike in Swiss kiels increased to as much as 2/3rds by the end of the 15th Century.The Keils still retaining a central core and rear ranks of halbards.This was encouraged in the 6th edition rules by replacing a halberdier figure in the pike element to represent their presence...but had no benefit to combat factors. In Dba terms there are no mixed pike/halberd troop type so thats why Phil classified them as Pike.He did however,get the proportions of pike right for each of the Late Swiss army options. The Battles of Murten and Nancy both demonstrated a rapid and efficient tactical execution of the Burgundian armies. |
|
