|
Post by lkmjbc on May 23, 2018 17:08:45 GMT
Ok... I am exposed. The post showed up eventually and wasn't that brilliant.
My points still stand!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 23, 2018 17:27:06 GMT
Joe, were Pikes primarily a juggernaut breakthrough weapon, or were they meant to be the anvil (i.e. a pinning force) on which the mounted hammer would strike...?
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 23, 2018 19:00:37 GMT
Joe, were Pikes primarily a juggernaut breakthrough weapon, or were they meant to be the anvil (i.e. a pinning force) on which the mounted hammer would strike...? Good question...which is of course why you asked it. My answer would be both. Certainly in Alexander's time they were part of a combined arms operation. Afterwards they were more the steamroller...with bad consequences versus the Romans. The Scots definitely saw them as a steam roller...though Robert was able to do more of a combined arms fight...and win! The Low Countries we're more of an anvil... though they had no hammer...they were forced to wait for the French to bash their own heads against...which on several occasions the French did. The Swiss were both...Nancy being a prime example. One element was the anvil... another the hammer... We need to account for both. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 24, 2018 11:05:22 GMT
Joe, I’ve been doing some more playtesting, and I would like to share my observations and conclusions. Note that there are no alternative suggestions or ideas in this post, just an assessment of the situation. Your goal of seeking some sort of ‘shy away’ mechanism in DBA is an admirable one, that I as an historical player fully support. But let’s for the moment leave aside the actual nuts and bolts of how this mechanism will operate. Let’s just concentrate instead on just what the requirements are for such a mechanism, and what it’s meant to achieve. It seems to me that there are two necessary requirements:- Firstly: it must encourage a rapid advance when being shot at. And this is true for every period... ...be it the Greeks at Marathon or Cunaxa, the French foot at Poitiers or Agincourt, or the Swiss. Secondly: it must encourage the ‘shying away’ from shooters effect for HYW battles. Well I’m sorry to say that your “+1 PIP to contact Bow” suggestion fails the first requirement. Far from encouraging a rapid advance when facing bows, it actually does the complete opposite.As I mentioned in an earlier post, it merely encourages waiting at close 1 BW range for that high PIP score to advance en-mass. And the shooting rules themselves also encourages this unhistorical behaviour, as a single shooter cannot destroy Sp or Bd. So there’s nothing to encourage a rapid advance, but they are safe to just wait for that high PIP roll, at least at close range. Until this fundamental flaw is corrected, there is little hope of making the ‘shy away’ mechanism work correctly. What is needed is some way of making it dangerous for heavy foot to linger at short 1 BW range. Then they will be encouraged to advance rapidly, even if it means going forwards piecemeal, and being overlapped in combat. Now on to the second requirement. Apart from dismounted men-at-arms at Poitiers and Agincourt, I find no evidence for ‘shying away’ from bows in ancient battles. It certainly is not mentioned as being a feature at Marathon or Cunaxa, nor does it seem to affect the Swiss. So let’s not beat about the bush and let’s be honest with ourselves...we only want it to affect Blades facing Longbows. What is needed is for Longbows to have a sort of ‘special ability’ to make Blades ‘shy away’ more often. And it would not affect the Greek Spears at Marathon or Cunaxa, nor would it affect the Swiss Pikemen. This may seem to be a bit era specific, but there is already a precedent for this in the current version of DBA... ...Lb and Cb destroy Kn on an equal score. This is already era specific; other shooters like Persian, Palmyran, and Kushite bows do not receive this advantage. No, it was added purely to make HYW engagements more historical. So why not do the same? And as a last thought, let us remember...it is the effect that counts, not how you generate that effect. 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 lkmjbc on May 24, 2018 18:51:15 GMT
Stevie: I have evidently not clearly and fully communicated my requirements for the new ideas concerning Bow.
1. The rule should encourage a quick closing against Bow armies that present a homogeneous bow front... Greek vs EAP for instance. 2. The rule should encourage a shying away from Bow and hitting the non-Bow elements of a non-homogeneous enemy... ie... English longbow. Please note the "encourage" part. The Greeks could certainly dither in front of the EAP and get continually shot while their cav is defeated by the superior and more numerous Persian Cav. It doesn't give much payback however... their is nothing else for the infantry to spend pips upon other than closing... and the faster they close... the better. Against English Longbow armies, you have significant numbers of Blades that can be contacted. One must make the choice to contact these at less pip cost, or to try and sort things out under constant bow fire. The constant 2vs2 and even 2vs3 attacks will eventually produce a kill. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 24, 2018 21:38:35 GMT
Test
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 24, 2018 21:39:33 GMT
Joe shrewdly points out two of DBA 3.0s weakness re recreating medieval battles. The weakness of Bow v. Foot and Pike’s limitations.
Both are important – indeed critical points regarding getting DBX into better simulation shape. Though I agree with Bob regarding not further changing/complicating the 12 element tournament game as we have done enough to drive tournament players crazy with changes and in any case the 12 element format will never produce a great simulation (though its still lots of fun).
Since I spend lots of otherwise useful time trying to mold the DBX mechanics into a simulation while preserving their basic simplicity, I’d already taken the opportunity to address this stuff in D3H2. Happily there are much simpler solutions which don’t require changing the rules (so if you use D3H2 you won’t have to unlearn anything to play in tournaments). The Shooters of HOTT almost perfectly represent the armored bowmen of the middle ages (yes you do need bit more work to get crossbow correct) while the point system allows you to cost Pike at “1.5” points (rather than the normal HOTT 2), so you get more of them. This gives a much more historical solution with much less complex rules.
Some background:
The French and Scotts certainly made every effort to come to grips with the English archers and had little choice since they often occupied most of the English line. The French in particular hated the English archers and planned to remove two fingers from the shooting hand of any they could catch. They often assigned dedicated forces to the task of attacking the archers. (Ransoms were generally taken as the battle devolved into a rout and played little role during the course of the contested fighting.)
The problem was not will but capability. Eventually the French simply refused to fight the English in the open field while they pondered the problem of the archers (the reason Charles V is known as the “Wise”).
Generally the English archers would break the French wings by inflicting unacceptable loses so that for large portions of the battle only one side was taking casualties and then set upon the staggered and often retreating foe with sword and buckler (English yeoman’s second favorite sport). This often left survivors opposite the English Men at Arms but though often initially successful had their flanks exposed and them fallen on by the victorious archers (not at all shy about engaging in hand to hand combat).
So you need a mechanism to allow at least medieval Bow to inflict loses and be able to at least survive in hand to hand fighting and win if advantaged. Shooters do this quite well.
The Swiss are not a special exception. First they enjoyed great numerical superiority over the Burgundians at Nancy for instance thee Swiss and allies mustered 20K troops (including 3-4K mounted more than the Burgundians had) against 4-8K Burgundians These are worse odd than the English faced and the Burgundians had a much lower ratio of archers than the English. Because of the huge difference in numbers you just can’t do these battles with the 12 element game.
Nevertheless the Swiss were never stupid enough to march pike straight into archers (they had no desire to do Agincourt – the Sequel). They had had enough of this at Morat were a small body of 2K archers and handgunners left behind by a distracted Charles held the Swiss army of 25K up all day perhaps inflicting 3K casualties before being overwhelmed.
At Nancy with Charles’s full force assembled, the Swiss took the bulk of their force around on a long 2 hour flank march through wooded steep hills. Terrible terrain for pike but still better than a frontal attack against archers.
Scottish attempts to frontal assault English archers with Spear/pike resulted in repeated disasters.
Which brings us round to Pike. The Swiss had lots and lots of them so we must find some way to make them cheaper so that the double stacks needed to do anything don’t cripple frontage. Since Pike are cheaper than Shooters and Blades in D3H2 this helps solve this problem.
D3H2 has solutions to these problems and without elaborate rule changes (Knights and Knaves has slightly better solutions combined with an increase in ease of play – and solutions to the “Aux” problem etc. – D3H2 is limited to existing rules K&K can use a much larger array of DBX solutions.)
I’d like to solver (or at least reduce) these problems too but not by making rules that are incompatible with the tournament game – so that historical and tournament players can use the same common core of rules.
Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 25, 2018 2:24:40 GMT
I must respectfully disagree... It wasn't capability the kept the foot from attacking bow... it was the will. The Scottish and French foot rarely were able to muster the will the close with the bowmen. Advancing blind behind a shield through 200 yards of an arrow storm or worse... advancing through it with just plate armor and no shield had to be difficult thing to suffer. Charging a horse over the same area exposes you for perhaps 20-30 seconds...slogging away with 500 other guys while being beaten with the equivalent of a sledgehammer for several minutes while people are knocked down constantly and you try to keep your line would be insane.
Only training, discipline, and/or doctrine could keep the troops in order (and moving)... which they didn't have. No wonder the foot hit the English men-at-arms while the rest tended to follow the path of least resistance.
The Greeks were able to do this... of course their equipment, doctrine and psychology were all ideal to do this... they also resolved themselves to do so... and wrote about it... they were also fighting a different enemy.
I think the extra cost for movement shows this well. You shoot enough times at 1/9 or even 1/36 and you will get kills.
I also disagree that this complicates the game.
The changes I put forward are two simple changes to the combat outcomes... and one to the pip cost to movement.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 26, 2018 0:00:03 GMT
If the goal is to make bw more dangerous, why not remove the rule that that have to shoot at the closest threat? Then they could gang up on individual units and possibly kill them. They might only get one round of shooting before the infantry close but that one round could do some damage, and if you just sit there in front of them, you’re going to take damage.
I don’t know medieval but might also help balance EAP va hoplites too?
What was the closest threat intended to represent? Was it fix for cheese?
Chris
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 26, 2018 6:52:10 GMT
If the goal is to make bw more dangerous, why not remove the rule that that have to shoot at the closest threat? Then they could gang up on individual units and possibly kill them. They might only get one round of shooting before the infantry close but that one round could do some damage, and if you just sit there in front of them, you’re going to take damage. Chris That is one way Chris of boosting bow and making it dangerous to linger at close 1 BW range, and it’s one that I favour. All it requires is the addition of just a single word in the existing page 10 paragraph 4 rules:- “Bows and War Wagons must shoot at a mounted target in their TZ...” (the word “mounted” is necessary to prevent bows ganging-up and concentrating their fire on these at close range. That is too deadly, and can be justified by mounted being the greatest threat, at least according to the Combat Outcomes) But there are other ways this could be achieved. Using that 1 in 36 Combat Effects Chart that I made (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/9701/ ), here are some alternatives. You could instead keep the 1 BW Threat Zone shooting priority as it is now, but give foot a -2 for being shot at close range. This gives a single bow with CF 2 v blade CF 4 a possibility of 4 chances out of 36 (11%) of a kill, instead of none as at present. That would also make it dangerous for foot to linger at close range, and make short range as good or better than long range shooting. (But it would need limiting...catching a single enemy on their own and subjecting them to -2 for close range and -2 for support shooting is too much. It needs to be one or the other. And it doesn’t apply to mounted because they zip about faster, so the bows get off fewer volleys against them) A third even simpler idea is to again keep the 1 BW Threat Zone shooting priority as it is now. But allow bows to count equal scores as a kill when shooting at foot at close 1 BW range. This also gives a single bow with CF 2 v blade CF 4 a possibility of 4 chances out of 36 (11%) of a kill, instead of none as now. (Once again it would only apply to foot as they hesitate under an intense arrow storm, while mounted are zipping about) Applying any of these three alternatives in addition to Joes’ “+1 PIP to contact Bow” would give the desired effect. Advancing foot might want to hang around at close range, where only a single bow can shoot them, waiting for that high PIP roll. But they risk being shot to death if they wait too long. So it encourages them to advance quickly, piecemeal, in small groups if they don’t have the PIP’s, even if overlapped in combat. In other words, the 1 BW area in front of Bows should be a death zone, and not a safe zone as it is now. 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 zygul on May 26, 2018 8:01:47 GMT
The reason why the 1 BW area in front of bows is a 'safe zone' rather than a 'death zone' is because the bowmen are understandably nervous about being charged and getting a spear or blade in the gut. Presumably, those that are not firing off quick, ineffectual shots are switching to their melee weapon. Viewed from this perspective the current rules make perfect sense!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 26, 2018 8:35:58 GMT
Hmmm...so by that logic Zygul, Second World War anti-tank guns should be less effective at close range. Sorry, but I don’t see it that way. Physics, ballistics, and simple common sense says that missile fire, even arrows, should be more effective at close range than at long range. What you’re proposing sounds like bending reality to fit the DBA rules. Shouldn’t we be bending the DBA rules to fit reality instead? 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 zygul on May 26, 2018 11:26:31 GMT
LOL! Good joke, Stevie, but only a superhero would fancy his chances 40 paces away from a charging tank. Now, back to 'reality', at close range an archer has to make a direct aimed shot which means that only the first rank or so of a dense body of archers is able to shoot at the enemy (as opposed to the entire body making indirect overhead 'arcing' shots at long range). This reduces the effectiveness of a unit of 1000 archers by about 85% as only about 150 can fire due to the direct LOS of the rear ranks being blocked by the front ranks (who'd end up getting shot in the back by friendly fire). Even in the highly unlikely event that every archer who fired scored a hit at least 90% of those would be deflected/absorbed by the target's armour. So in 'reality' 1000 archers score a grand total of 15 casualties and even fewer fatalities so I'd say that DBA has got it right by making archery less effective at close range. That's why, given the choice, I'd prefer to be a hoplite charging at close range at Marathon than a defending archer making a token shot. Oh, and in case you argue that every archer in a dense body can shoot at close range by firing high into the sky at an acute angle, by the time the arrows come back to earth the target will have already charged into contact and will be happily gutting the archers who fired high into the air.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 26, 2018 13:43:27 GMT
Ha! All good 21st century armchair logic Zygul...shame there is not one jot of historical evidence for this mythical ‘safety zone’. You show me one, just one, example of it in any historical battle, and I’ll admit I’m wrong. When it comes to a choice between what the ancient writers said happened, and what DBA wants us to believe, then I’ll go with the ancient historians every time. Anyway, there is a flaw in your logic. If the heavy foot are standing stationary at close range, then the overhead fire from the rear rank bows will be hitting their target. It’s only if the heavy foot move will the arrows be more likely to miss. So that reinforces my argument...lingering at close range is dangerous, and pressing forwards avoids this. Therefore, heavy foot should be punished if they don’t advance while in close range of the shooters, and not rewarded with immunity. 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 May 26, 2018 13:48:34 GMT
Sorry zygul. Your ideas sound nice in theory. However, I think you have managed to miss the entire point about what DBA is trying to achieve with archery, and indeed with everything else in the game.
DBA bases its rules on outcomes. To do that, it DELIBERATELY sets out to ignore armour, troop quality, firing angles and the like, and it focuses its attention on the COW principle of wargame design: "comes out in the wash".
Unlike most ancients minis games today (and if they are not DBx or Armati-like, then to one degree or another they are all pretty much the same game) DBX takes the view of a general. Not an individual soldier calculating angles, figuring armour, etc. Be VERY wary of concluding things about the game by the way the rules read. What may sound like a perfectly "sensible" rule frequently turns out to be utter rubbish in repeated playtesting.
"Why is that?" you may ask. Because DBA focuses on outcomes, as described in the historical records! I don't gibe a rat's backside how any individual rule looks or sounds. Heck bow range approximately 20% of the entire battlefield is pretry rubbish. But the purpose of the design is events. Does the game have a reasonable chance or reproducing the Battle of Plataea, say. As seen from the DBx vantage point. Which is from 2000' up in a helicopter or a hot air baloon.
Your claims regarding archery, while appealing on the surface, are simply unsubstantiated by ANY of the historical accounts. What the historical accounts DO show is the great respect that foot troops had for enemy archery, and how willing and able archers were to not only stand their ground against advancing foot, but in many cases to eagerly engage in offensive hand to hand combat.
And as the front rank closes, the hit rate for arrows approaches 100%. Ever had an arrow through one of your limbs? I have. It sucks.
|
|