|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 13, 2018 19:32:18 GMT
Hi Tom, left an idea on this in a previous thread. I agree 100% - we need something simpler, and more historical. Trouble I can see running into is how to balance the different "abilities" against the army lists i.e books I-II.
As Stevie has shown again and again in specific cases, you CAN do the 12 element game and produce historical results. But them as you point out, complexity goes up. My challenge is that a game that basically has hardflanking as a critical battlefield tactic (an elegant way, BTW of dispensing with an attrition system!) will suffer if the frontage of the two armies is radically different in most cases. In certain cases, perhaps it can work. 15 against 13 seems still OK. 28 against 11 is getting ridiculous, unless you have bad quality in the bigger army, and they have to double rank to compete. But then you are almost at effectively 14 vs 11, so back to my previous example!
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 13, 2018 21:39:49 GMT
I was fortunate enough to play a few games with stevie on Sunday. (More of his fabulous hospitality and the gracious welcome from the North London Wargames Club another day). We had the opportunity to bounce ideas about in the car. One thought that came to me was that Phil Barker may have the solution that we were looking for. Phil's HFG rules provide a generic black powder game. But he envisioned period specific supplements. Unfortunately they haven't materialised yet (always hope) but maybe there is something there for Ancients. Could a future DBA have the current purple book, unchanged with all lists, as Section A and then period specific sections for those inclined in Section B? These may be based on the Army list "Books" or be further narrowed. They could include army list changes and specific rules for that period only. If you want the broad sweep rules you have them. If you want more period feel then they are there as well. Tournament organisers could even choose to use one or the other. Maybe we can have our cake and eat it too?
I'm not sure about playing around with the number of elements, largely because of the deadliness of hard flanking. Though many battles had disproportionate numbers, the reports seem to indicate that the ancient and medieval generals were either able to match the width by adjusting depth or anchoring flanks. I'm not sure how this can be achieved with DBA without hanging a flank in the breeze. I'll have to open up the PDF and read medievalthomas' rules.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 14, 2018 8:29:18 GMT
I think that Jim1973’s proposal is the best suggestion even made. Have the current unchanged basic tournament rules at the front (with the FAQ clarifications included), and some 3 or 4 pages of “Advanced” or “Period” rules at the back (which players can use or ignore as they see fit). No need for any DBA 2.2+ v DBA 3.0 type split, just let players choose for themselves what type of DBA they want to play. A lot of information can be crammed into just four A4 sized pieces of paper... ...after all, the actual playing rules themselves (pages 6 to 13) are only four A4 sized pieces of paper... 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 Jul 2, 2018 13:09:25 GMT
A small number of players have been championing archery lately, mentioning 'sources' that they don't actually quote or reference. Regardless of these 'sources' I say they're wrong. To start with there are three well known examples of renowned leaders being subjected to a barrage of missiles and surviving that is indicative of the actual ineffectiveness of ranged weapons throughout the period. Alexander the Great leaped into Multan virtually by himself and survived a ferocious missile storm for some time until rescued by his men. He was able to fight on despite being severely wounded in the chest. While exhorting his army at Munda, Caesar, an isolated target, was pelted with at least 200 missiles but survived unscathed. At Hastings Harald was struck in the eye by an arrow but survived, fighting on until hacked to death in close combat. Regarding the Sparaba, the Persian Empire received such a mauling from the Greeks that it abandoned the bow, hired Greek mercenaries instead and was in the process of training its own close combat troops, the Cardaces, when it was overrun by a new weapon, the pike. DBA3 is correct, then, in making AX superior in close combat to Sparaba because if it had not been so the Sparaba would have been retained rather than being disbanded altogether. Why some players are championing the Sparaba when its own Empire dispensed with them is strange. Shock troops clearly dominated missile troops in the Greek and Persian Wars which justifies the current combat factors. If it had been otherwise then the Greeks would presumably have been conquered and then have abandoned the spear and adopted the bow. After all, the Greeks eventually dropped the spear in favour of the pike when the latter proved to be the superior weapon and the Successors started to develop imitation legionary swordsmen after the latter bested pikemen. Indian longbows were just as ineffective against shock troops as the Sparaba to such an extent that there were at least 4 successful invasions of India (Alexander, Seleucus, Bactrian kings and Antiochus the Great). Had the Indian archers been a fearsome and formidable foe then, presumably, the Successors would not have invaded it so frequently. After all, the complete disaster of Xerxes' invasion of Greece ensured that the Persians were too fearful to try it again and the Romans were similarly reluctant to invade Africa or Germany again after severe defeats. Now, regarding English victories in the 100 Years war, there were actually very few of them (one major battle every generation or so) but they were less to do with the longbow and more because of much better English leadership, tactics and training: even the poor Sparaba would have beaten the French at Agincourt, what with knights charging uphill over boggy ground into fieldworks flanked on both sides by woods!
In conclusion, archery is fine as it is in DBA3.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 2, 2018 14:34:07 GMT
In conclusion, archery is fine as it is in DBA3. ...which is true if you just want to play games. Not true if you want to re-create history. Remember that we are all slaves to the DBA two-dice combat system. A CF of 2 gives reasonably historical results (at least at long range), but not in close combat against heavy foot (at least not according to the ancient historians). Yes, bows should be defeated by heavy foot in close combat...but by how much? Are they 50% worse, a 100% worse, 200% worse, more...we don’t know. Just because the DBA combat system says they melt like butter under a hot knife doesn’t make it true. English longbows put up a fairly stiff resistance in the later stages of the Hundred Years War, even when they didn’t have advantageous terrain in front of them. The same goes for Persians facing the Athenians at Marathon. Yes, they were defeated...but by how much...easily or with a bit of a hard fight? (the ancient historians say a bit of a hard fight). I would much sooner go by what the ancient and medieval historians said than treat the DBA combat system as ‘historical fact’.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 Jul 2, 2018 17:20:40 GMT
A small number of players have been championing archery lately, mentioning 'sources' that they don't actually quote or reference. Regardless of these 'sources' I say they're wrong. Huge Snip To start with there are three well known examples of renowned leaders being subjected to a barrage of missiles and surviving that is indicative of the actual ineffectiveness of ranged we do with the longbow and more because of much better English leadership, tactics and training: even the poor Sparaba would have beaten the French at Agincourt, what with knights charging uphill over boggy ground into fieldworks flanked on both sides by woods! In conclusion, archery is fine as it is in DBA3. Some good points Zygul. I disagree on some, would argue nuances on others, but still your arguments have weight. I do disagree with your conclusion. Archery is much better under 3.0 than 2.2. That is certainly true. I still think it could be better. Addition of grading factors definitely improve the model...as one would expect. I still however think the model is missing something important. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 2, 2018 21:01:09 GMT
Zygul if you wish sources regarding the effectiveness of archery in the HYW, I could quote many for you but it might be more useful if you got a copies of Clifford Roger's, Richard Barber's and Ann Curry's respective collection of source material for Edward III, the Black Prince and Agincourt. You will find plenty of source material to support the effectiveness of medieval archery (ancient archery is another question and the +2/+4 Bow may be adequate). Besides the three battles you mentioned (and only Agincourt had any mud issues) you may also wish to look at: Dupplin Muir (1332), Halidon Hill (1333), Morlaix (1342), Auberoche (1345), St. Pol de Leon (1346), Neville Cross (1346 (King David wounded by archery and captured)), Mauron (1352), Auray (1364), Najera (1367), Aljubarrota (1385), Homildon Hill (1402, Earl of Douglas wounded by archery and captured), Shrewsbury (1403, Prince Hal wounded and Hotspur killed by archery), Cravant (1423) and Verneuil (1424). (Also their are modern tests regarding effectiveness, see Soar and Stickland & Hardy.) If folks are still worried bout De Vries see Clifford Rogers article specifically refuting De Vries in War in History, 1998 5 (2) 233-42.
On a positive note we had a big pseudo-Hundred Years War campaign battle over the weekend. Henry V allied with Owain Glyn Dwr's Welsh v. Joan of Arc lead French and the Flemings under the Count of Flanders (its a campaign with random events so don't worry about the time line). Massive Flemish Pike, Welsh Medium Foot w/Spear & Fast Longbow, lots of Medium Foot w/Longbow for the English etc. The garrison of Paris turned out with a mighty spearwall and so forth. So a great test for K&K - all went well though we managed to win with the continental coalition over the sons of Albion. A great day for DBX with lots of observers at the game store. Put up pictures on the DBA/HOTT Facebook page. (Since it was pure historical day Gln Dwr did not get to use his Mage Ability much to my son's regret).
Looked historical; felt historical (except the English didn't win...) Archery issues solved - still a tad worried about Pike.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 2, 2018 21:09:25 GMT
Ah, the wonderful power of ... facts.
|
|
|
Post by mustrum on Jul 2, 2018 21:50:56 GMT
Very few English victories during the Hundred Years War? Really?
Must have just been a coincidence that English armies gradually started to contain a great number of longbowmen over other armed troops.
|
|
|
Post by zygul on Jul 3, 2018 10:21:16 GMT
Stevie, I hate to break it to you but the Persians were crushed at Marathon so continually referring to that as an example of Sparaba prowess is odd to say the least. Just as a matter of interest (to help me understand where you're coming from), do you also consider Gaugamela to be a good example of Persian martial prowess? As for quantifying how superior the spear was vs the bow let's just say that it was very, very significant indeed, which is adequately reflected in the current DBA combat factors. It was so significant that the Persians disbanded the Sparaba and switched to the spear and you're going to have to stop ignoring that fact and deal with it. The other bad news that I have for you is that DBA3 is an entry level game and does not attempt to be a detailed simulation. Yes, I know that I've mentioned it before but I'll just have to keep saying it until you acknowledge it. Primuspulis, you too are going to have to accept the wonderful and powerful fact that the Persians lost so badly against the Greeks that they stopped using the bow: the Sparaba were totally ineffective against shock troops that charged them without hesitation. The Persians accepted it and transformed their army into a shock force so you ought to as well. TomT, I respect that you've written your own rules and have the wisdom not to tinker too much with DBA3. I regard Agincourt as a great example of why the longbow was not a battle winning super weapon because, despite the overwhelmingly adverse conditions, the French were still able to reach the English line, regardless of the archers. The English won by outflanking the French in close combat, so it was superior tactics and not archery. There's been an English longbow lobby in the hobby for decades trying to pressurise Mr Barker into strengthening the longbow but he has always resisted for good reason. mustrum, here's a quick list of battles in the 100 Years War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hundred_Years%27_War_battlesI think you'll find that if you ignore naval battles, sieges and battles in Spain and Burgundy, in which the English and French had little or no involvement, the French beat the English more often than they lost (but even if you include them the French still nudge it). Is it a coincidence that the English increased their archers and lost the war? I don't think it is. In conclusion, archery is fine as it is in DBA3.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 3, 2018 11:52:03 GMT
Yes, at Marathon the Persians were so patheitc they practically stove in the Greek centre, and had the battle lasted an hour longer, would have been able to sack Athens and occupy all of Boeetia and Attica as they did, but 10 years sooner.
And if Marathon was such a disaster, why did the Persians not drop their HI system right then and there?
The facts are as follows:
Persia maintained archery as the backbone of their infantry arm at least until Granicus. In addition to Sparabara, ancient sources also refer to Persian infantry ALL having shields and armour. It is hard to know just how they fought. Marathon was a double encirclement. If Persian HI were so poor, why did the Persian line not simply collapse at first contact?
Both Miltiades and Alexander fought in battles in which the neutralisation of Persian archery was THE primary fact of the battle plan. And both felt that doing so gave their infantey a chance at being EQUAL to the Persian foot, whilst they concentrated on winning the battle ELSEWHERE.
Sorry, DBA as a model for EAP sucks as written. Those unfortunately are the facts.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 3, 2018 11:56:36 GMT
It's funny how despite losing two world wars decisively, wargamers always pump up the capability of German units in wargames. Despite being decisively crushed in the Napoleonic Wars (did the French even win a battle post-1813?) the French are pumped up as veritable superstars.
But despite conquering half the known world, and despite clear written evidence to the contrary by their Greek opponents, wargamers just have to nerf the Persians.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 3, 2018 15:07:20 GMT
Stevie, I hate to break it to you but the Persians were crushed at Marathon so continually referring to that as an example of Sparaba prowess is odd to say the least. Just as a matter of interest (to help me understand where you're coming from), do you also consider Gaugamela to be a good example of Persian martial prowess? As for quantifying how superior the spear was vs the bow let's just say that it was very, very significant indeed, which is adequately reflected in the current DBA combat factors. It was so significant that the Persians disbanded the Sparaba and switched to the spear and you're going to have to stop ignoring that fact and deal with it. The other bad news that I have for you is that DBA3 is an entry level game and does not attempt to be a detailed simulation. Yes, I know that I've mentioned it before but I'll just have to keep saying it until you acknowledge it. Primuspulis, you too are going to have to accept the wonderful and powerful fact that the Persians lost so badly against the Greeks that they stopped using the bow: the Sparaba were totally ineffective against shock troops that charged them without hesitation. The Persians accepted it and transformed their army into a shock force so you ought to as well. TomT, I respect that you've written your own rules and have the wisdom not to tinker too much with DBA3. I regard Agincourt as a great example of why the longbow was not a battle winning super weapon because, despite the overwhelmingly adverse conditions, the French were still able to reach the English line, regardless of the archers. The English won by outflanking the French in close combat, so it was superior tactics and not archery. There's been an English longbow lobby in the hobby for decades trying to pressurise Mr Barker into strengthening the longbow but he has always resisted for good reason. mustrum, here's a quick list of battles in the 100 Years War. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hundred_Years%27_War_battlesI think you'll find that if you ignore naval battles, sieges and battles in Spain and Burgundy, in which the English and French had little or no involvement, the French beat the English more often than they lost (but even if you include them the French still nudge it). Is it a coincidence that the English increased their archers and lost the war? I don't think it is. In conclusion, archery is fine as it is in DBA3.
Zygul:
Once again... your arguments here do bear great weight... though I ultimately disagree with your conclusions.
My issue with bow is that I have come to believe that it shaped the battles...in ways not represented in DBA. While grading factors can mitigate this to some extent...they still don't seem to produce the narrative that we see in history. This narrative is not just from one war or campaign... but is comprised of multiple time periods. Upping combat factors leads to DBA 4 (or indeed Knights and Knaves). This isn't a bad thing...in fact I fully support Tom is his endeavors...
but it is not what I am attempting.
So, bow is not perfectly represented either in the Greek/Persian wars, nor in the HYW, nor the WOR. To be quite frank, I don't think it does well with early Italian wars either.
My solution is not to up the combat power of bow... but rather to "think outside the box" and give the bow a different influence on the battlefield.
Once again I suggest play testing my idea. I find it works well for EAP and English Longbow. Recent tests have found interesting effects for Italian Condotta vs Swiss.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 5, 2018 11:09:24 GMT
Oh dear oh dear oh dear Zygul...back to throwing personal insults again already? So what are your feelings on Jim1973’s clever suggestion about an extra supplement at the back of the rules containing “Advanced” or “Period” rules for more historical players:- I think that Jim1973’s proposal is the best suggestion even made. Have the current unchanged basic tournament rules at the front (with the FAQ clarifications included), and some 3 or 4 pages of “Advanced” or “Period” rules at the back (which players can use or ignore as they see fit). No need for any DBA 2.2+ v DBA 3.0 type split, just let players choose for themselves what type of DBA they want to play. A lot of information can be crammed into just four A4 sized pieces of paper... ...after all, the actual playing rules themselves (pages 6 to 13) are only four A4 sized pieces of paper...
Those that think the current basic tournament rules are fine just as they are can have what they want... Those historical players that want a bit more realism based on the writings of the ancient historians can have what they want... ...everyone gets what they want... ...and everyone is a winner. How about it? 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 mustrum on Jul 5, 2018 16:00:22 GMT
Using wikipedia as a source. Fair play.
|
|