|
Post by stevie on Jun 1, 2018 14:54:28 GMT
so Stevie, it mean that at close range, one bow unit can do the same damage to a Ax, Pk, Wb than to a Ps? humm... and why not add this : -1 to solid foot only? (troop more dense, with less mouvement, could not avoid arrows easier than light ones no?) so to 4Wb, 4Ax, 4Pk, 4Bd and Sp only. But Bluestone, that would mean that fast troops would have an advantage, and could reach that fantasy 1 BW ‘safe zone’ (which never existed) to rest, get their breath back, reorganise their line, and have a cup of tea, all in relatively safety from bowfire just a few dozen paces from the enemy. Now I’ll be honest and admit that I don’t know what the correct effectiveness of ancient and medieval bowfire was. I have never been in an ancient battle. No-one today has. And if I make the attrition casualties too high (and by that I mean significantly higher than what DBA says they would be at long range), people will cry “It Doesn’t Work!” and instantly reject the idea out of hand. All I’m saying is that if DBA says that three bows should cause three times X casualties at long range, then each bow shooting on it’s own should cause at least one times X casualties at close range. (Unless you believe the topsy-turvy world of DBA, where the further away a target is the easier it is to hit) Soooo...applying my own version of 21st century armchair logic, as so many other people do in the face of common sense and historical accounts, I assume that about half the arrows landing on spread-out open formation skirmishers standing two paces apart will land in empty space. And as a skirmisher element only has two figures, and represents less men, the attrition casualty effect would be roughly the same. (Anyway, Ps are not killed by shooting bows, they flee 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 stevie on Jun 1, 2018 15:01:22 GMT
3) OK. So did ordinary 4Bow troops cause enough attrition to be abstracted as a loss of 15-25% of an army's heavy foot? Well, it all depends on how many 4Bw are shooting, and how long for, and at what range. After all, them arrows must be landing somewhere... 5) When will you start the "Ax" debate? Ha! I could list links to dozens of posts about the weakness of Ax... ...and that’s just on this site, let alone other sites. One battle at a time Jim, one battle at a time... (Anyway, Joe says he's already cracked it...and so does Tom...)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 stevie on Jun 2, 2018 1:46:22 GMT
Oh...a few other things to think about. For those of you who are still convinced that the current anomalies in the DBA shooting system are deliberate and by design, and not just an unfortunate side effect, and that DBA represents a true description of how bowfire worked in ancient and medieval battles, please consider the following. If the reason for long range shooting being superior to close range shooting is due to the ineffectiveness of overhead fire, answer me this. Why are War Wagons also affected? They’re not 8 ranks deep, with only the first 2 ranks able to actually able to see the enemy, and the rest forced to use overhead fire. No, they are in a single line, or maybe at most in two lines in a checker-board formation, with everybody using direct fire. So why can they hit an enemy at long range with ease, but are unable to hit a close range opponent effectively? Ah you might say...it’s not because of overhead fire being inefficient, it’s because the enemy is nearby and about to charge them. Possibly true if the enemy is moving, but what if the enemy is not moving, but is stationary by choice or due to a lack of PIPs? Are you saying that a small target way off in the distance is easier to hit than a stationary target just a few dozen paces away? And what about Artillery? Why is it that several hundred bowmen are so worried about the several hundred enemy advancing towards them that they would choose them as the most immediate threat, but that handful of brave plucky men manning the Scorpion/Ballista/Bombard are totally unfazed and can shoot at any target they like? One would have thought that if anybody has to shoot at an enemy in their threat zone, it should be the crew of an artillery piece! As I said in my previous post, if DBA says that 3 shooters targeting a enemy at long range will cause three times X casualties, then one shooter a close range should cause one times X casualties. Unless you believe, as DBA does, that 1+1+1 = 9! (A single bow shooting at Pk/Wb/Ax has 1 chance in 36 of causing a kill, but three shooting at the same target has not 3 but 9 chances of a kill. Now I’ve heard of ‘fuzzy logic’, but DBA has no logic whatsoever!)Hmmm...seems to me that the DBA shooting system is in desperate need of a serious overhaul... 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 greedo on Jun 2, 2018 5:52:51 GMT
All valid arguments Stevie, but I think I’d still just house rule that bw don’t have to shoot at just their TZ and be done with it. Add to that the Ax 1bw retreat, Field test the 8Bw side support....
As for the argument about units getting attrition points, dba specifically avoids that. “Generals are given that information and that information only”. The recoil system should provide enough command friction within a battle line to simulate casualties I believe.
I just got back here so don’t want to be bashing current dba since it seems a great improvement over 2.2. Did 2.2+ ever gain traction or did it fizzle when 3.0 proved popular?
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 2, 2018 7:03:46 GMT
Well, Stevie, one more quibble - at range whether long bow or other missile weapon (even firearm) the target is the mass rather than an individual. Not necessarily then harder to hit. And again, at closer ranges the flatter trajectory makes the shield a bigger factor - shooting at those Republican Romans toes or crests... Still the minus 1 does look to be the best of the discussed options. Not sure Barritus that the English longbow would be better against infantry say than the various Chinese infantry armed with both crossbows and a halberd. Or than Roman archers in scale and helmet with bucklers and axes or swords. Or that they would be more effective against infantry who weren't exhausted French knights with several pounds of mud adhering to each foot. Of course my opinion might be colored by the fact that to date I have several Chinese armies and the only longbow I can currently field are Welsh for the Anglo-Normans... FYI Gorgorad the reason I didn't include crossbows is because currently I'm unsure about their effectiveness against infantry. Perhaps I might clarify a bit more - I only included Lb (and basically Later Lb so English and their copyists) because we have good evidence from the HYW and the Anglo-Scots Wars of the brutal effectiveness of these in action (against both mounted and foot). Also because their lack of effectiveness in DBA has distorted things - take the English HYW lists IV/62 - from a DBA perspective I'd guess the best variant is IV/62a which has the least number of Lb compared to the other variants. Similarly I think most players would rate the French list for Agincourt (IV/64c) as being better than the English list (IV/62c) yet history showed otherwise. There's probably no real evidence I suspect to show English HYW armies declined in effectiveness over time (at least from the point of view of any decline being due to the increasing proportion of Lb's in said armies). So it seems DBA is rating English Lb wrongly. Of course this doesn't stop other types of Bows being better but I'm not sure that their is an empirical case for them to be so - but others may know better
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jun 2, 2018 8:03:21 GMT
Did 2.2+ ever gain traction or did it fizzle when 3.0 proved popular? Greedo, The advocates of DBA2.2+ introduced their own rules set, called "Triumph" or something very similar, which I presume is very similar to 2.2+ I think they have deliberately avoided targeting the DBA 3.0 group for prospective converts, largely because of the bad feeling which the split produced. It is quite expensive to access and as far as I know there is no other way of finding out about it. Most of us have not pursued it further as we are unlikely to play it. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jun 2, 2018 8:09:35 GMT
Ohhat 3 shooters targeting a enemy at long range will cause three times X casualties, then one shooter a close range should cause one times X casualties. Unless you believe, as DBA does, that 1+1+1 = 9! (A single bow shooting at Pk/Wb/Ax has 1 chance in 36 of causing a kill, but three shooting at the same target has not 3 but 9 chances of a kill. Now I’ve heard of ‘fuzzy logic’, but DBA has no logic whatsoever!)Hmmm...seems to me that the DBA shooting system is in desperate need of a serious overhaul... 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, While I agree with your basic premise, for which you argue very eloquently, that the shooting rules need an overhaul, I would take issue with you on the point above. A"kill" essentially represents a unit sustaining so many casualties that it breaks in rout. Various factors affect this break point, but it is not linearly related to the number of casualties caused. Scott
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 2, 2018 8:21:09 GMT
All valid arguments Stevie, but I think I’d still just house rule that bw don’t have to shoot at just their TZ and be done with it. Fair enough Greedo. After all, that is how DBA 2.2 worked for a couple of decades, and nobody complained then. Remember that this all came about because Joe originally suggested adjusting the PIP costs. But the patient is sick, and needs more than just a band-aid and a few aspirins... ...it needs major surgery. So if we are contemplating on making any changes at all to shooting, let’s do the thing properly. Make close range shooting at least as effective as long range shooting, and not inferior. 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 goragrad on Jun 2, 2018 8:44:43 GMT
Barritus - again a quibble - in looking to Agincourt we have a field soaked by rain (English rolled a 1 on their first pip die) making it 'rough' going under DBA 3 (and based on the battle account even more 'bad' going which reduces their combat factor by 2). If nothing else the English get a lot of shooting in as the French slog towards them.
As to other HYW battles, there were some significant tactical errors in them on the French part and as I recall some defensive terrain that had major impacts on their courses that may be more significant than the longbow on the outcomes. It has been a while since I read the detailed accounts so I may be slighting the longbows a bit.
As to the Scots, as I recall the bulk of their forces were less well armored and were sot to pieces at range. Again it has been a while.
I will note that with the stakes, perhaps the English longbows just need to have a higher close combat factor - +3/4?
Of course for all of this Devil's Advocacy on archery in DBA in my part, when playing hundreds of hours of the Total War series my battlelines (particularly in the Shogun and Medieval series) were always close order infantry backed by archers firing overhead with heavy or medium cavalry to flank or exploit breaks and lights for pursuit.
And now back to painting...
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 2, 2018 9:47:20 GMT
With much trepedation stevie, I'm going to play devil's advocate. Now I haven't been involved in an ancient battle either. Closest I've come to missile combat is standing 22 yards away from an angry young man armed with a cricket ball! But there must be a point, in terms of proximity, where archers staring at advancing heavy infantry start to question their career choice and the enemy to their front influences all their decisions (shoot, swords, run). This may decrease their missle effectiveness. Maybe it's not the rule but the size of the TZ? Maybe 1/2 BW for infantry and 1BW for cavalry? Just a thought as I sit in an airport lounge. Now to board a 17 hour direct flight from Perth to London!
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 2, 2018 10:47:24 GMT
Ha, ha, ha, Zygul...good response. Don’t bother addressing the issues, just throw personal insults. That’ll win the argument. Why do I care about DBA? Because it’s a great gaming system...but it isn’t perfect. I think the difference between you and myself is that I don’t see DBA 3.0 as some sort of Holy Book that must be followed blindly, placed on an alter and worshipped, and never questioned. Question DBA? Heresy! Burn the heretic! No, I see it as no more than a tool to simulate, all be it abstractly, ancient warfare with little metal soldiers. And like most tools, it needs a bit of sharpening in some areas. Oh, and if you don’t like my posts, then don’t read them. You will be much happier. I promise I won’t be upset, and the world will carry on spinning... 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 Jun 2, 2018 12:26:00 GMT
Hi zygul. You have contributed no discernible value to the DBA hobby, this forum, or this discussion. Just do us all a favour, and scram already. Thanks kindly.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 2, 2018 13:20:39 GMT
Ha, ha, ha, Zygul...good response. Don’t bother addressing the issues, just throw personal insults. That’ll win the argument. Why do I care about DBA? Because it’s a great gaming system...but it isn’t perfect. I think the difference between you and myself is that I don’t see DBA 3.0 as some sort of Holy Book that must be followed blindly, placed on an alter and worshipped, and never questioned. Question DBA? Heresy! Burn the heretic! No, I see it as no more than a tool to simulate, all be it abstractly, ancient warfare with little metal soldiers. And like most tools, it needs a bit of sharpening in some areas. Oh, and if you don’t like my posts, then don’t read them. You will be much happier. I promise I won’t be upset, and the world will carry on spinning... 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
Funny, Stevie, I experimented (tested extensively) a shooting system with all light missiles having a CF of 2 against defence of 3 for foot and 2 for mounted. I concluded that CF 3 vs foot and 4 vs mounted (Tom's/HotT approach) is more stable, since lower CFs all round increase the rate of observed doubles. That said, I also have seen several systems that do not distinguish between light and heavy foot. Heavy foot while armoured, are also more densely packed, and slower maneuvering, so more arrows are striking exposed flesh, weighing down shields etc. Light troops may be unarmoured, but are perhaps more fleet of foot (you can see arrows coming) and able to evade. Interesting idea. Again, most discussions around arrows devolve into arguments about HYW. We cannot neglect the highly effective archery of the Achaemenid Persian Empire either. While not Lb with bodkin, their opponents weren't exactly wearing medieval plate either. The bows used by the Persians would be unlikely to have differed materially from those used by Skythian foot, Thracians, Athenians, etc... Heck the Persians based their domestic infantry around archery for almost 700 years. They can't have been THAT bad...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 2, 2018 22:01:05 GMT
Primuspilus, I think you are being a little harsh against Zygul. After all, he is allowed to voice his opinions just as much as I am. You and I have had our disagreements in the past, and no doubt will do so again in the future. Of course, the big difference is that you and I debate our different opinions, with a little friendly humour, without the need for personal insults such as accusing each other of SPREADING LIES, BEING LIKE DONALD TRUMP, AND BEING A NAZI (I’m not sure which is worse ). And long may we continue to do so. Still, back to your combat factor experiments. Using that “1 in 36 Combat Effects Chart” of mine (which I won’t post the link to here, as you should all know it by now), I find that there are just two patterns of ‘kills’, by which I mean the chances of being doubled in the two-dice combat system. There is the ‘even’ pattern, such as CF 2, that gives, 0, 1, 4, 9, 15, etc chances of being ‘killed’ as more -1’s are applied to the opponent. And then the ‘odd’ pattern, such as CF 3, which gives 0, 2, 6, 12, 18, etc chances with each application of another -1 to the opponent. A combat factor starting at CF 4 gives the same ‘even’ patten as CF 2, starting at 1 instead of zero. A combat factor starting at CF 5 gives the same ‘odd’ patten as CF 3, starting at 2 instead of zero. A combat factor starting at CF 6 gives the same ‘even’ patten as CF 2 once more, but starting at 4 this time. And so these patterns alternatively repeat as one goes both up and down depending upon your initial starting CF. (Recoil chances vary more wildly)So that only leaves us with two alternatives. Either choose the ‘even’ pattern, such as CF 2, CF 4, or CF 6 as your initial starting factor, or choose the ‘odd’ pattern, starting with CF 1, CF 3, CF 5 as the starting factor. The other simpler thing to do is as Greedo prefers, and just allow shooters to concentrate their fire at any range, the way DBA has been played for the last 28 years since it’s first inception way back in 1990. (I’m not against change, and I love the new innovations - especially side support - that DBA has introduced into the latest version. But the old phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” springs to mind. And that is exactly what has happened with regards to shooting...DBA 3.0 introduced the new concept of threat zone priority which has buggered up the shooting system and caused anomalies such as these ‘safe areas’ and long range fire being superior and better than close range fire)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 greedo on Jun 3, 2018 5:42:51 GMT
Did 2.2+ ever gain traction or did it fizzle when 3.0 proved popular? Greedo, The advocates of DBA2.2+ introduced their own rules set, called "Triumph" or something very similar, which I presume is very similar to 2.2+ I think they have deliberately avoided targeting the DBA 3.0 group for prospective converts, largely because of the bad feeling which the split produced. It is quite expensive to access and as far as I know there is no other way of finding out about it. Most of us have not pursued it further as we are unlikely to play it. Scott Thanks Scottrussell! So THAT'S what happened.... I was wondering. Triumph seemed to have come out of nowhere, but it was the evolution of 2.2+ Ok things are clicking into place.
|
|