|
Post by stevie on Jun 21, 2018 12:46:35 GMT
Fair enough Goragrad... 4 out of 5 ain’t bad! Tom’s HoTT style points system (to balance some armies)... Primusplius new tactical factor (to boost solid Bow & Ax where needed, but means 8Bw will lose side-support)... Joe’s Pike recoil rule (to give opponents an incentive to keep a reserve and shorten their battleline when facing Pikes)... Joe’s evade rule (to give light troops the feeling they are fighting at a distance, peltast style)... As for Joe’s questionable +1 PIP idea (to simulate veering away from bows in the HYW), I too am not quite 100% sure. But he has done a lot more playesting of this than myself, and seems to think that it works, and I’m inclined to believe him. Perhaps we should direct any concerns we have directly in his fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1339/play-testing-outcomes where he is more likely to respond rather than here. 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 21, 2018 13:07:28 GMT
Fair enough as to directing comments.
I will note that I have seen his playtest comments and he appears to be getting the result he aimed for. I just feel that it is an ahistorical game mechanic that as Tom notes is the opposite of reality used to achieve that result.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 21, 2018 14:03:47 GMT
What you say is certainly true...but that is inevitable in an abstract gaming system like DBA (or any rules system for that matter). After all, can anyone tell me why 4Bw get ‘side-support’ from 4Bd? Bows don’t form shield walls! In fact, the whole concept of side-support is abstract and artificial. Wouldn’t the individual spearmen within a single element lock shields together? Apparently they will only form a shield wall when another body of the right sort is touching the end of their line. Ah, but these give the right effect in that they encourage historical behaviour, as well as being an excuse to give an extra +1 where needed. And it is the effect, not how you generate that effect, that is important in a wargame. Mind you, there may well be other ways of generating Joe’s ‘veering away from bows in the HYW’ other an a +1 PIP... ...allowing bows to concentrate their fire even at close range would help (at least key targets would recoil more often, breaking up groups, and thus cause the extra PIP drain by another method...and it would fix the ridiculous notion that long range fire is superior, more accurate, and more deadly than close range fire, something that only occurs in DBA and not in reality, as my dart throwing ability proves! ). 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 paulisper on Jun 21, 2018 21:44:26 GMT
Sorry Steve - for what it is worth I agree with Tom and Phil that the Joe's +1 pip doesn't fit the historical reality. Solid AX and BW need a boost in their combat factors vs foot per primuspilus's solution. In reality every list where the BW are rated as solid (that I have seen) does so because the BW were armed with close combat weaponry and often were armored as well. Solid AX were better armed and armored than the Fast version as well. And some, such as Roman auxilia had slings or other missile weapons with which to take on lighter troops. As I noted previously, I have and will be building more, armies with significant numbers of archers. Whatever is decided will be a benefit, but I would prefer a fix that fits with what I have read of the historical battles. Absolutely with you on this one P.
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 21, 2018 21:54:51 GMT
First Stevie thank you very much for the excellent review of the D3H2 point system. I've decided to adopt almost all the point suggestions (and suppress my desire to make Light Horse 1.5).
The intent of the system is not vary too far from the 12 element match ups but to add a bit of nuance - even 1 or 2 extra (or 1 or 2 less) makes a big difference in a small 12 element game. The second use is for historical battles with uneven numbers - you can point out both sides to help determine who needs some help with victory conditions.
As to Canne and Aux costing less - yes it can make a difference as cheaper Aux entend Hannibal's line allowing the Spear to outflank the Roman Blade (somewho the Spear go to the flanks of the Romans). In D3H2 you can't have +4/+2 "Sword" Aux as you can in K&K but if using D3H2 you can take Fast Spear - these make excellent pseudo-strong Aux (they count +4 but don't get Shieldwall and Recoil on Equals - so will lose to Roman Blades but slowly and mainly by falling back). So even if players don't want to take the full plunge in K&K with its radical reconfiguration of DBX, D3H2 still gives access to many very useful troop types for historical battles.
As mentioned I remain opposed to bandaid solutions as they add complexity and don't solve all problems - leading to more bandaids and more complexity (see DBMM). The essence of the 12 element game (DBA) is simpliciy - though not in presentation - a different issue.
Pike have problems - they are too weak against Knights and too expensive against Foot (since you have to stack 2). D3H2 make them cheaper and that helps - K&K reworks them.
People have inquired about how to keep up with D3H2 evolutions - an excellent question. K&K is on WargameVault and everytime I do a new edition all the old license holders get a notice and access to a free copy. This works great and I'm exploring how to just put D3H2 out on the Vault for free so we can use the same system.
But again I can not thank Stevie enough for the analysis of and practical suggestion stemming from the D3H2 point system. I've spent most of my time on the K&K point system (it has to be simple enough for players to create armies at cons but balanced enough to not unhinge the game) and glad you have refocused me on improving D3H2's version.
Now if we could just solve that pesky Persian v. Greek match up....
Thomas J. Thomas Fame & Glory Games
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 21, 2018 21:56:43 GMT
I much prefer precise surgical fixes...
Wow stevie! That's a strange definition of surgical. A points system. Every army with solid Bow. Every army with solid Aux. Every army with a Ps. Every enemy of these armies. That's very radical surgery and I'm not sure that the patient requires it. Personally, I think that your work indicates that there is not enough evidence of a benefit for a points system to justify it. I think 12 elements works well and certainly seems similar to the stylised maps the experts use to explain battles to us. However, I would be interested in the thoughts of people that play DBA derivatives (e.g. HOTT, HOTE) where there can be a signifcant difference in elements to see how it works . I don't think all Bow need a bonus. For example, army I/1a Early Sumerian 3000-2800 BC with 8x4Bw becomes quite a different beast. So far, we have seen historical examples of 8Bw (Greco-Persian Wars) and 4Lb (Hundred Years War) as a balance issue. As these are specifically separated in DBA then surgical fixes for these elements are possible. I'm of the opinion that Sparabara at +4 works well enough against Hoplites at +5 at the clash of battlelines. Side-support makes them brittle, which is historical, but perhaps too brittle. Only playtesting will work it out (oh for 28 hour days!) The +1 PIP to advance to contact with Bows doesn't seem right to me. If anything, heavy infantry should impetuously advance under fire in most circumstances over the 4500 years covered. At least that would stop your camping in front of Bows concerns. But if there has to be a change for all Bows then let them assist shooting up close. I like the concept of the evade idea but if solid Aux get +1 in CC against heavy foot then they shouldn't also be able to break off. Maybe all fast can evade all solid? It's sort of intuitive by the description. It gives a thought to the player when there is a "3/4" choice (Thracians, Gauls). As I'm typing I'm picturing Romans v Gauls and fighting a 3Wb or 4Wb line and trying to see how things would work. With pursuing and QKs things would get messy, which may not be a bad thing. Anyway, that's my 2 cents/pence worth. It would be nice to test these ideas in very strict match ups to see how they work. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 21, 2018 22:09:18 GMT
I agree that we must use some abstraction in game design - but not that we must use it as our first option.
As an example: Destroyed on Equals (or Cry Havoc). It appears abstract but is really trying to simulate the rare situation where two lines clash and neither backs down. This is often a miss-reading of the situation by one side and can work to the others dramatic advantage. Close fighting Blades spring to mind or Knights too impetuous to break off from a bad situation. So its not as abstract as it seems. I'n not in favor of just making this an abstract concept - Pikes should not get advantages on Equals as they are quite bad at close fighting (esp v. Swords).
But what about Retinue (or Side Support from Blades to Bow)? OK its a bit abstract and a last minute rule change to try and fix the "Bow" problem in Close (really the not all Bow in Close are created equal as others have astutely pointed out problem). I've pondered getting rid of it in K&K since players have access to +3 Long/cross Bow but kept it as it had become popular (and really helps if you run Agincourt or Verniul with proper numbers). I conceive it as mixed bodies of Men at Arms and "front" rank archers meeting the foe at least at the edge of contact - some blurring of the strict element lines.
But in short I would like to reduce abstractions not increase them. I'd like Bow to hold up enemy advances by Recoiling them and breaking the line or even occasionally blowing a hole in the line - our classic DBX mechanism. To do so at least the better archers just need a bigger number to shoot with not more abstract rules.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 22, 2018 11:12:13 GMT
I much prefer precise surgical fixes... I don't think all Bow need a bonus. For example, army I/1a Early Sumerian 3000-2800 BC with 8x4Bw becomes quite a different beast. Jim Enemies of the I/1a 4Bw Sumerians:- I/1a Themselves (only the general is a blade...all the rest are not Bd/Pk/Sp) I/4a Anatolians (only the general could be a blade...all the rest are not Bd/Pk/Sp) I/5a Early Elamites (no Bd/Pk/Sp in this army) I/6a Early Bedouin (no Bd/Pk/Sp in this army) ...so how does giving 4Bw a +1 against Bd/Pk/Sp in close combat make the I/1a Early Sumerians “a different beast?” The 4BW would have CF of 3 instead of 2 against the 3Bd CF of 5...still the kiss of death for the 4Bw, with 6 chances in 36 of being killed (12 chances if the 4BW are overlapped, and 18 chances if double overlapped), and no chance of the 3Bd being killed. In fact even if the 4Bw double overlapped the 3Bd, it would be CF 3 v CF 3, with both having just 2 chances in 36 of a kill. But I do appreciate that you only meant to use the I/1a Sumerians as an example...but it’s not a very good example is it. Now I know that you would like “Period Specific” rules (and that idea does have merit), but if a simple +1 to solid Bow in close combat against Bd/Pk/Sp works for all periods, then why not use it to beef-up the bows in all periods? Only if it breaks something in other periods should we be forced to make it “Period Specific”. Now let’s look at solid ‘medium infantry’ getting the same +1 in close combat against Bd/Pk/Sp and getting to recoil a full base width as well (by the way, I’m not going to use the word “auxiliaries” as that carries too much mental baggage with it). What Are ‘Medium Infantry’?Well, ancient troops came in three types:- Close fighters who liked to get stuck-in such as Bd, Pk, Sp, Wb, and also their mounted equivalent the Kn. Then there were the skirmishers who fought at a distance such as Ps and their mounted equivalent, javelin or bow armed LH. Last of all there were the medium troops, who could do both, and their mounted equivalent, the javelin or bow armed Cv & Cm. (There were also the dedicated shooters, such as Bw, WWg, and Art, who were also reluctant to get into close combat) Now these medium troops were not as good as the close fighters in a melee, nor as good at shooting as the skirmishers/dedicated shooters, but they were a sort of ‘jack-of-all-trades’, capable and adaptable depending upon the situation. Examples are the Ancient Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, Hellenistic Peltasts and Thureophori, Thracians, and many others, all of whom would throw javelins at a distance, but were prepared to charge in on a disorganised or disrupted enemy, just like Cv, and would often ‘evade’ a heavy foot charge to keep their distance until they saw an advantage. (Source: the many ancient historians and Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”)Does DBA 3.0 Reflect This Medium Infantry ‘Peltast’ Style Of Fighting?No, it does not. Instead of being beefed-up skirmishers, capable of distant and close combat, they are relegated to be nothing more than poor quality heavy infantry, forced to fight toe-to-toe, a fight in which their weak CF of 3 has no chance against a CF of 5...and they can’t evade an enemy charge like they did in reality either. Allowing them to recoil or ‘evade’ a full base width restores some of their real capabilities the ancient historians said they had. Should solid medium infantry get a +1 against Bd/Pk/Sp?...yes they should. Cannae and the fact that these troops were used in Successor pike armies to extend the battleline shows that they were capable of standing up to heavy foot, at least for a while, and not melt away like butter under a hot knife the way DBA portrays them. But should solid medium infantry also be allowed to ‘evade’ a full base width as well?...yes they should. It’s how the Ancient Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, Hellenistic Peltasts and Thureophori, Thracians, and so on fought and stayed alive. (Again, read the ancient historians and Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”)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 22, 2018 11:14:11 GMT
Let me take this opportunity to sum-up the situation. Primusplius’ tactical factor (I like it, it boosts solid Bow/Ax where needed against Bd/Pk/Sp, without disrupting other interactions)... Tom’s point system...some like it and some don’t (I don’t mind, as it’s effects are usually just an element of two here and there)... Joe’s evade rule...some like it and some don’t (I like it, it gives the feeling they are fighting peltast style, and helps keep them alive)... Joe’s Pike recoil rule...some like it and some don’t (I like it, it encourages keeping reserves when facing Pk)... As for Joe’s +1 PIP idea...most appear to dislike it (I’m not sure, as I think the same effect can be achieved by other means)... About the only thing we agree on is that some elements are too weak, and need a bit of a boost... ...but wait, there are many other players, mostly tournament players, who don’t think there is any problem at all! Seems we have as many different opinions as there are DBA players! Please note that none of these suggestions are mine...they are all other players ideas. I have stated which ideas I like, and have given my reasons for why I think it’s a good idea. So if you have a problem with any of them, then may I suggest you take it up with the originator, not me. I don’t see why I should be pushed into a corner to defend Joe’s +1 PIP idea when I don’t fully believe in it. But at least I have TRIED it, and have given it a playtest...can you all say the same? As it goes I found a flaw, a loophole, an exploit with the concept, that of resting in some mythical shooting ‘safe zone’ awaiting a high PIP roll. But I had to give it a playtest before I noticed this flaw. So please do the decent thing and at least TRY these ideas before you pass judgement on them. It might inspire you to come up with even better ideas... 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 22, 2018 11:25:23 GMT
To be clear Stevie, I had suggested the benefit only against SUPPORTED Pk, i.e. claiming the Phalangite +3. Against unsupported Pk, 4Ax are just fine, and Bw can already shoot the HELL out of any approaching Pike Phalanx!
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 22, 2018 14:34:41 GMT
Let me take this opportunity to sum-up the situation. Primusplius’ tactical factor (I like it, it boosts solid Bow/Ax where needed against Bd/Pk/Sp, without disrupting other interactions)... Tom’s point system...some like it and some don’t (I don’t mind, as it’s effects are usually just an element of two here and there)... Joe’s evade rule...some like it and some don’t (I like it, it gives the feeling they are fighting peltast style, and helps keep them alive)... Joe’s Pike recoil rule...some like it and some don’t (I like it, it encourages keeping reserves when facing Pk)... As for Joe’s +1 PIP idea...most appear to dislike it (I’m not sure, as I think the same effect can be achieved by other means)... About the only thing we agree on is that some elements are too weak, and need a bit of a boost... ...but wait, there are many other players, mostly tournament players, who don’t think there is any problem at all! Seems we have as many different opinions as there are DBA players! Please note that none of these suggestions are mine...they are all other players ideas. I have stated which ideas I like, and have given my reasons for why I think it’s a good idea. So if you have a problem with any of them, then may I suggest you take it up with the originator, not me. I don’t see why I should be pushed into a corner to defend Joe’s +1 PIP idea when I don’t fully believe in it. But at least I have TRIED it, and have given it a playtest...can you all say the same? As it goes I found a flaw, a loophole, an exploit with the concept, that of resting in some mythical shooting ‘safe zone’ awaiting a high PIP roll. But I had to give it a playtest before I noticed this flaw. So please do the decent thing and at least TRY these ideas before you pass judgement on them. It might inspire you to come up with even better ideas... 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
I think we have left out the moving Elephants to +4 vs Shooting.
I concur with the need for play testing. For my bow suggestions... play full games... it doesn't do to the game what you think. It does much more.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 17:19:54 GMT
Enemies of the I/1a 4Bw Sumerians:- I/1a Themselves (only the general is a blade...all the rest are not Bd/Pk/Sp) I/4a Anatolians (only the general could be a blade...all the rest are not Bd/Pk/Sp) I/5a Early Elamites (no Bd/Pk/Sp in this army) I/6a Early Bedouin (no Bd/Pk/Sp in this army) ...so how does giving 4Bw a +1 against Bd/Pk/Sp in close combat make the I/1a Early Sumerians “a different beast?” Not everybody plays only historical match ups. This has to be considered. We don't want to fracture the community again. Obviously it will beef up all Bows in all periods. But is there evidence for this in all periods or is it based on specific historical examples (i.e. period specific )? Playing within period, or over a limited time span, during development, can at least allow comparison to historical results. Trying to determine the effect over all the army lists is daunting. This becomes exponentially more daunting by making 4-5 changes. That risks developing a continuous cycle of development. Duncan's book is great, I agree. It's what my Classical armies are based on. He also differentiates javelin-armed and rhomphaia-armed Thracians. Iphikrates tried hard to utilise terrain to aid his troops. Roman "Medium Infantry" don't seem to have retired as often as other nationalities, such as the javelin-armed Thracians. Ancient authors (sadly) weren't thinking about modern wargamers, often interchanging terms or lumping into groups (all lights are "Psiloi" etc) because their intended audience knew what they were getting at as they had lived it. My thinking, and it's just my musings, that the ancient medium infantry troops "set up" differently if they were going to hold the line versus when they were to be more mobile (Alexander rearming his troops for the tribes in modern Afghanistan is an example of adapting to an enemy).
Anyway, I am still in agreement that tweaks are required to DBA 3. But I'm more a slowly, slowly approach (don't be fooled by my mad rush of Gauls during our gaming the other day!). But differences of opinion are what make the world interesting.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 22, 2018 17:20:04 GMT
Stevie:
Your helping to organize the discussion and no one should blame you for presenting ideas for consideration.
But none of these ideas are going to be part of DBA 3.0 - its Phil's game, beloved by tournament players as is and I don't think he's going to agree to a bunch of changes - several of which are pretty complex for DBA.
The point system is for D3H2 not DBA 3.0 where most of the problems (underpowered Bows, weak Pike) are solved by different means in any case. (Aux is kinda solved by Fast Spears and fully solved in K&K where any troop type can be give Evade and you can get close fighting Medium Foot). Both D3H2 and K&K are are at least partially a response to competitive games (Triumph makes a big issue of having a point system, flexible sized armies and a fully compatible fantasy system - they are doing a big Tolkien based battle at Historicon a great marketing demo for them - and of course the French game). But we have both a point system and a full compatible fantasy system for DBX too something new players need to know lest we get swamped by the alternatives.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 22, 2018 22:13:18 GMT
Jim, your wild Gallic rushes in our mapless campaign were entirely historical, and may have worked had it not been for your atrocious luck. You did defeat my Polybian Romans in the second battle in 149 BC by 4-3...a pyrrhic victory perhaps, but a victory nonetheless. But getting back to the subject of a +1 to 4Bw, we must remember that DBA is blind....it doesn’t know or care that we are applying the 4Bd class to 15th century AD dismounted men-at-arms or to 15th century BC New Kingdom Egyptian Axemen. As far as the rules are concerned, a 4Bd is a 4Bd and a 4Bw is a 4Bw, no matter the period. So if we deem one 4Bw as being weak, then all 4Bw are weak, in all periods. Otherwise we would be being very judgemental and tantamount to saying that we consider HYW longbows and Persian sparabara as being special and important and need the fix, but as for those Shang Chinese/Palmyran/Ghaznavid 4Bw, who cares, let them die with their pathetic CF 2 when they face blades CF 5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And thanks for those comments Tom, but even if these amendments never make it into the official tournament rule book, why can’t they exist as a free downloadable unofficial attachment for the discerning historical DBA player to either use or ignore as they see fit? Also, that analysis of the effects of a HoTT points system on the DBA army lists has revealed to me another interesting observation. Taking very extreme examples:- 10 x 4Bd/Sp + 1 Ps would be worth 21 AP and have 42 figures. 14 x 3Ax Spanish would be worth 21 AP and have 42 figures. 21 x Ps Aetolians would be worth 21 AP and have 42 figures. So unless the Aetolians/Paionians were always outnumbered in every battle they fought by almost 2:1, the points system could be used to at least make the manpower of their army match that of their opponents. I see it as another tool for the discerning historical player to use if they wish. 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 jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 22:45:18 GMT
Otherwise we would be being very judgemental and tantamount to saying that we consider HYW longbows and Persian sparabara as being special and important and need the fix, but as for those Shang Chinese/Palmyran/Ghaznavid 4Bw, who cares, let them die with their pathetic CF 2 when they face blades CF 5.
I am happy to admit that I have absolutely no idea how the Shang Chinese/Palmyran/Ghaznavid archers performed against heavy infantry. Do they need a boost? Jim PS Check the "Any hints on playing Gauls?" thread for some interest in your mapless campaign rules.
|
|