|
Post by lkmjbc on May 29, 2018 2:18:42 GMT
Mmmm zygul, you seem to have first hand knowledge of what it is like to fight as a member of a hoplite phalanx. Do tell. As for Stevie and I (and Tom, and Joe, and countless others) we will prefer to use the same historical resources the designers of DBA v3 used. And since Phil is aging and in poor health, the design stewardship is being passed on to, well, the likes of us. The "indirect" fire you speak of in this context, well, ... isn't. Do you actually have first hand artillery experience? Because you would know that ALL fire in an ancient setting is "direct fire". You are confusing observer-called fire (aka indirect) with the parabolic trajectories that ALL missiles take when fired in a gravitational field. Which is where we live of course. So the greater the range to the target, the more your fire arcs. But your claim that close range fire is less deadly than long range due to some arcing effects is, pardon the expression here, total bollocks. I have yet to meet an artilleryman who wouldn't prefer direct fire on his opponent over indirect fire. Especially if his opponent is not similarly armed as he is. Arcing is a function of range, not line of sight. I assume here that you have spent precious boozing time instead firing actual artillery (heck right now I'll take .50 cal or .303 Vickers even) and so you already know this. You would also know that in an ancients setting, regardless of how deep a formation is, it is the front rank of the enemy with which you must contend. A sudden and complete collapse of the front rank would, in most cases, prove catastrophic. Second and third ranks even would have a tough time stepping over/through panicked and fallen veterans in front of them, and not getting themselves injured by incoming arrows with greater kinetic energy and on flatter trajectories. This is ballistics 101. But heck, don't believe me. Do as Stevie says and go straight to the raw sources. Stevie, left calf, mate, just underneath the knee. Didn't hurt much till I stood up to see why my leg suddenly was twitching. Almost crapped meself... Ouch! It scares me to think what we did as kids... with guns... though last year I shot my old .22... was at my mom's house still... She uses it to chase off squirrels.
She still had the old ammo my dad let me have when I as a kid... Shooting it now... I'm not sure it would break the skin...
LOL...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 29, 2018 7:46:34 GMT
A Slingshot issue I do have is 199 in which there is an article by David Edwards called " Bows and arrows." He quotes the following form the The Memoirs of Baron de Marbot Vol 2, Ch 38. Marbot was a veteran of the Napoleonic Wars and his light cavalry unit was attacked by irregular Russian horse archers at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813. He wrote: "The loss these arrows caused was slight, for the Bashkirs are undrilled and have no more notion of drill than a flock of sheep. Thus they cannot shoot horizontally in front to of them without hitting their own comrades and are obliged to fire their arrows perpendicularly into the air , with more or less elevation according to the distance at which they judge the enemy to be. As this method does not allow of accurate aiming, nine tenths of the arrows are lost, while the few that hit are pretty well spent, and only fall with the force of their own weight, which is inconsiderable; so that the wounds they cause are usually trifling." A large number of these Bashkirs only caused one fatality and a few light injuries. Marbot himself was hit in the thigh by an arrow but didn't notice at first! Interesting I think. Simon Yes Simon, that is very interesting...but it didn’t seem to bother the Parthian Horse Archers at the battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, when they wiped-out Crassus’ 8 legions did it. When we start thinking too deeply about ancient warfare, all sorts of weird questions arise, such as:- Just how did the rear ranks of an 8 rank deep body of solid non-skirmishing bows ever hit their targets? Only the first 2 ranks can actually see the enemy...the rear 6 ranks have no choice but to use arcing overhead shots. I can’t believe that this formation was used for some 3,000 years and no-one ever said “hang on, the blokes behind ain’t doing anything”. Then there are those troops, like the Early Persians, that carried both a spear and a bow. What did they do with the spear when they were shooting? They could have just stuck them into the ground next to themselves I suppose. And it’s the same with those later heavy horsemen on partly armoured horses that also carried a lance and a bow. Did they shoot from a stationary position with their lance stuck in the ground next to them, or did they shoot on the move with the lance trapped under their right leg along the length of the horse? As for pike formations, why are they always 16 or more ranks deep? I can’t believe that only the first few ranks did all the fighting in a 3 or 4 hour battle while the bods behind them just stood there chatting about the weather and where they would be going on their next holiday. The front ranks would be exhausted. No, somehow the rear ranks must have been rotated into the front line as men became tired...even though the ancients never mention this and we are not sure how they did so exactly. (I have my own pet theory about pike formations: pikes are over twice as long as a spear, so therefore twice as heavy, so the men using them will become fatigued twice as quickly, so you need twice as many ranks in order to stop the whole formation becoming exhausted)This is why I don’t like to speculate too much on how things actually worked in ancient battles. If the ancient historians say they did something, then that is good enough for me...even if I don’t know exactly how they did it. After all, the men back then had to live, fight, and die using these weapons and formations, and they knew far more about ancient warfare than we today will ever know. Fortunately, Phil Barker chose the correct approach to this when he wrote his rules. DBA doesn’t bother with minute details about how superior a man with a helmet is to a man with a bare head, of if a mail tunic that reaches to the wrist or elbow is better than one that stops at the shoulder, or if a man is wearing bronze greaves on his legs or not, or who has the longest spear. Such petty details, and the exact way certain formations were used, didn’t bother the ancient warriors and historians. And it shouldn’t bother us wargamers either...providing our little metal soldiers behave as the ancient historians said they did. P.S. By the way, I don't think that Phil Barker ever intended there to be a 'safe immunity zone' in front of bows at 1 BW range. It is just an unfortunate side effect from the logical assumption that bows would shoot at the closest target... ...and the consequences of this decision were not fully realised when combined with the DBA shooting system.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 Simon on May 29, 2018 11:14:28 GMT
Yes indeed Stevie - the Parthian horse archers weren't too worried by the tired and thirsty Romans, especially when aided by their mates in tin cans. Although, of course, the Romans got their own back at Antigoneia in 51BC, had a narrow victory with heavy losses at Urumia in 36 BC and pretty much a draw at Nisibis in 217AD.
My point in referencing the Napoleonic horse archer episode was not to get lost in details but, rather to flag the fact that there seem to be a wide variety of views on how effective massed archery was in ancient times against armoured heavy infantry.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 29, 2018 13:47:27 GMT
That is true Simon. Yes, there is some doubt about the effectiveness of rear overhead shooting - at least amongst some modern people; the ancient and medieval historians never seem to question it. But there is one thing that is universally accepted and reinforced by physics, ballistics, historical records, personal experience, and...dare I say it...common sense, and that is that close range shooting is more effective than long range shooting, not worse. (...except in DBA...) 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 medievalthomas on May 29, 2018 21:38:34 GMT
We are spending a great deal of time and pixels on a problem that is essentially solved. Making Longbow/Crossbow a +3 v. Foot at all ranges will recreate the Hundred Years War. I've been using it for years and it works. I said many times during playtest fore DBA3.0 (and DBMM where it did eventually get fixed) that unless Longbow type archers go to +3 v. foot (as Aux w/bows) you can't simulate the HYW with DBA 3.0. But because we had to represent 3000 years of archery and lump crossbows, ancient bows, peasant archers etc. into one category we had to stick to +2. So we have the result we have. (At least we got longer range.) As to the rest archers did not dance so limiting movement made sense. Archers focus on the immediate threat (and the front rank needs to grab sword and buckler as foes approach) so the Threat Zone limitation made sense. Abstractions aside this is how missile troops worked. Archers much preferred to arrow storm targets at long range than be faced by foes closing within a few yards (and able to run the short distance it took to close). Telling troops to ignore people about to kill them and shoot to help some favored nearby friends does not work (or at least should require a PIP to break priority).
The Scotts and the French certainly had the will to close - they hated the English with a racial passion - esp the yeoman archers. The French had better equipment than the ancients to endure the armor storm. The ancients may have faced different tuypes of archers but the will and equipment if anything favor the Scots and French.
We need to not lose faith in our system. Recoils break lines - requiring PIPs to repair. Doubles represent a sharp break in the enemy will to advance (not out right dead people). Broken troops that refuse to further advance are in our system - in the dead pile since we don't do "rally" (rarely successful anyway) and attrition. The system works fine with out additional rules, the problem is that Longbowmen are too weak to force Recoils and occasional kills on Heavy Foot - because they are only +2 v. Foot.
The reason Heavy Foot stand around in front of archers is because they don't fear them enough (if it requires more PIPS to close they will just stand around more soaking up shooting). Systems work as wholes - if you get more long range kills when the Foot line approaches some gaps will appear and those archers will NOT have foes bearing down on them which allows them to pour in flanking shooting to help friends. More Recoils mean more PIP expenditure without any special rule. This is how the English won battles by shooting into flanks because of position in the line or more often because they had cleared off those facing them by arrow storms.
(If you really like historical rules try this: a Shooting Stand may declare an Arrow Storm granting a +1 to shooting (or -1 to opponent?). Thereafter that Stand shoots at -1 but you may resupply by spending a PIP provided the Stand is within 5BW of an unlooted friendly Camp.)
Again the archer problem is NOT a flaw in the DBX basic system merely a flaw in the screwed up troop classification system.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 29, 2018 22:12:30 GMT
I guess my questions about this revolve around 3 things:
1) Did ancient/medieval archers fire volleys over the heads of their fellows (think of a Bd in front of a Bw element) to hit enemies on the OTHER side of the friendly troops? Or did they rely on nearby friends to help them? (i.e Bd side supporting Bw) 2) What was the difference between how Ancient archer units fired vs Medieval archers? Lb and Cb are a different thing but still... 3) Was archer units intended to simply disrupt enemy units (like long range Ps)? OR were they intending to actually DESTROY an enemy unit? This might answer the 1BW question. 4) Add to 3 above, did multiple archer units have to gang up to get the require arrow density to actually kill an enemy? i.e. In DBA, how important is it that you have multiple Bw firing at a single target? Is a single 4Bw much like a single 4Pk unit in that it really needs help from other like-elements?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 30, 2018 9:12:12 GMT
Those are very good questions Greebo. In fact, they are fundamental to this discussion. I have never been in an ancient battle, so I don’t know exactly how ancient/medieval bow-fire worked. Nobody does. And I’m not going to speculate while I sit in my 21st century Lazy-Boy armchair (the deluxe version, fully electrically operated, with the miniature fridge under the left armrest that holds six cans of beer...if they last that long!). I’ll I can do is tell you how DBA handles the situation, which you probably know already. In DBA, when bows shoot at blades or spears, you have to concentrate the fire from three shooters in order to get 4 chances out of 36 of a ‘kill’ (this represents attrition casualties). But at close 1 BW range, you are denied the ability to concentrate your fire, so each bow has to shoot individually, resulting in zero kills and zero attrition casualties. Now one would have thought that if 3 bows shooting at long range have 4 chances out of 36 of causing attrition casualties, then the same 3 bows shooting at close range would also have 4 chances out of 36 of causing attrition casualties (or more as it is close range), all be it spread out over three different separate targets. And if you had six times as many shooters, so that say 18 bows were all shooting at individual targets at close range, then you would have expected to cause six times the attrition that just 3 bows would cause. But no, instead you cause zero attrition, no matter how long your line of shooters is or how many elements are shooting. So in DBA long range shooting is better and superior to close range shooting...something that is unique to DBA and DBA alone. And I agree with Tom that a +1 combat factor would certainly help, and probably make Joe’s “+1 PIP to contact bows” unnecessary (as the increased number of recoils would break-up groups and cause more PIP expenditure anyway), and that bows would shoot at their closest threat. But I disagree with the notion that at close range bows would inflict less attrition casualties than they would at long range, and that there was some sort of ‘safe zone’ in front of bows where the enemy could not be hurt. Talk of “the front rank needing to grab sword and buckler as foes approached” to justify this anomaly in the shooting system is nothing more than an excuse to bend history to fit the rules. This ‘safe zone’ is nothing more than an artificial construct and a consequence of a poorly thought out shooting mechanism. It has no basis whatsoever in reality. Show me the contemporary accounts that mentions this ‘safe zone’. From what I have read of ancient and medieval shooting, the real situation was very different to the way DBA portrays it. Come to think about it, even the notion of concentrating fire at long range is nothing more than a DBA artificial artefact, and only added to generate attrition casualties when using the two-dice combat system. How did three units of bows coordinate this concentration of fire in an actual battle? Did the officers and tribal leaders have a conference to decide which enemy unit they would all shoot at? Or was it done by seniority, with one of the leaders dictating to the others where to shoot? And how did they communicate with each other. There were no radios in those days. What did they do, use telepathy? (Sorry to gone off into a bit of a rant at the end there, but It really irritates me when people treat the DBA combat system as HISTORICAL FACT, and then start distorting reality to fit the DBA rules) Joe suggests changing the PIP costs in order to get more historical effects... Tom suggests changing the combat factors in order to get more historical effects... But both of these suggestion are just putting a band-aid on a rickety flawed shooting system, while ignoring the real ‘elephant in the room’. So if we are going to make changes, why not go the whole hog and take the opportunity to completely overhaul the whole shooting system into something more realistic? 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 30, 2018 14:47:38 GMT
Your last question is easy to answer... Tom has introduced a more thorough change in the shooting system and I have not.
That is because our goals are different. Tom is striving for a future version of DBX. This is a worthy goal.
I am striving for DBA 3.1... not a new version.
The question I am asking is, "what is the minimum change we can make to DBA 3 to improve the historical outcome of the game?"
Tom is less constrained by his goal.
Both are worthy I think.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 30, 2018 17:48:03 GMT
Your last question is easy to answer... Tom has introduced a more thorough change in the shooting system and I have not. That is because our goals are different. Tom is striving for a future version of DBX. This is a worthy goal. I am striving for DBA 3.1... not a new version. The question I am asking is, "what is the minimum change we can make to DBA 3 to improve the historical outcome of the game?" Tom is less constrained by his goal. Both are worthy I think. Joe Collins I am glad you are aiming for minimum change for any possible future version of 3.0. We have a very healthy and growing interest in the UK with a very active tournament scene and it would be a great shame if this were put at risk. Regards, Simon
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 30, 2018 18:38:57 GMT
The question I am asking is, "what is the minimum change we can make to DBA 3 to improve the historical outcome of the game?" Very well Joe...here is the minimum change you can make to DBA 3 to improve the historical outcome of the game. Add just one word to the rules. That’s all, just a single solitary word. Page 10 paragraph 4:- “Bows and War Wagons must shoot at a mounted target in their Threat Zone.” No more ‘safe area’ in front of bows at 1 BW... Attrition casualties even at close range... Long range shooting is no longer better and superior than close range shooting... More chance of recoiling key enemy elements, causing group disruption, more PIP expenditure, and the veering away from shooters... All leading to an overall improvement in the effects of bowfire. I rest my case. 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 May 30, 2018 18:44:46 GMT
Your last question is easy to answer... Tom has introduced a more thorough change in the shooting system and I have not. That is because our goals are different. Tom is striving for a future version of DBX. This is a worthy goal. I am striving for DBA 3.1... not a new version. The question I am asking is, "what is the minimum change we can make to DBA 3 to improve the historical outcome of the game?" Tom is less constrained by his goal. Both are worthy I think. Joe Collins I am glad you are aiming for minimum change for any possible future version of 3.0. We have a very healthy and growing interest in the UK with a very active tournament scene and it would be a great shame if this were put at risk. Regards, Simon Absolutely, Simon. And with respect to ‘improving historical outcomes’ we must always be aware that we have no first hand knowledge of the realities of historical conflict, and are in danger of twisting a perfectly servicable set of rules to suit our own (2000 years later) points of view. T’aint seriously broke....don’t ‘fix’ it. We’ve gone through this trauma with the 2.2/3.0 shambles....shame to see that reoccur. Martin
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 30, 2018 19:12:24 GMT
... and are in danger of twisting a perfectly servicable set of rules to suit our own (2000 years later) points of view. T’aint seriously broke....don’t ‘fix’ it. Martin What, you mean that 2,000 year later view that DBA wants us to believe, that long range shooting is better and superior than close range shooting? I’m pretty sure that the ancients knew full well that this is utter rubbish. But it might explain why I am so bad at darts...according to DBA I should stand further away from the dartboard, then I would be more accurate. (And all this time I’ve been blaming it on the beer )So Martin, when you say “T’aint seriously broke...don’t ‘fix’ it”. What you really mean is “It is broke...but let’s carry on using it anyway”. 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 30, 2018 20:47:43 GMT
I can assure you Martin that I am quite familiar with the recent past unpleasantness.
I also am reasonably optimistic that the past will not reoccur.
I am also optimistic that we can improve the game with a few simple adjustments that are informed by the large amount of it being played.
What we must not do, is to allow the past bad experiences to sour our outlook on the future. Some have taken this path. I find that sad.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 30, 2018 23:02:44 GMT
I am with Stevie on this one. When I was play testing a bunch of EAP vs Athens and Sparta games, I was not aware of, or was not correctly playing the shooting rule. So I was allowing "ganging up" even at 1/2 BW range. It did work quite well. Now we still have the problem of EAPs melting at the first touch of a hoplite, and the fanatici will find side support is at least a BIT of a mitigating factor (allowing solid Bw and Sp to get side support from 8Bw) but at least they get some shooting in.
I think side support for 8Bw is highly consistent with the definition of a shield wall. That said, a single 8Bw is now still extremely vulnerable, so those medievals that used them might not be helped much by this rule?
The advantage of adjusting the close-range shooting rule is that it helps 8Bw who are neither Lb nor Cb and is actually in some sense simpler. It is rarer for mounted to charge a line of Bow due to the 4 CF machine gun ranged fire capability! Tom's '+1' focus is medieval, so his rule is ineffective at assisting our classical battles, and furthermore will thoroughly nerf Alexander against Porus.
Also, side support is already a rule that has been shown to be highly successful. So not a massive change or update there at all.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 30, 2018 23:27:31 GMT
Your last question is easy to answer... Tom has introduced a more thorough change in the shooting system and I have not. That is because our goals are different. Tom is striving for a future version of DBX. This is a worthy goal. I am striving for DBA 3.1... not a new version. The question I am asking is, "what is the minimum change we can make to DBA 3 to improve the historical outcome of the game?" Tom is less constrained by his goal. Both are worthy I think. Joe Collins Could I ask again why removing the Threat zone shooting rule is overpowering? It's a small tweak but could have unforeseen consequences...
|
|