|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 1, 2019 8:04:04 GMT
Very well then...which bits of Herodotus do you want to keep, and which bits should we discard? And while we are at it, which bits of Thucydides should we keep, and which bits should we discard? Remember why Thurcydides was critical of Herodotus. He never contradicted Herodotus account of the Persian War, but he was critical of the way Herodotus ‘romanticized’ it (just as Livy ‘romanticized’ Polybius account of the Punic Wars). Herodotus views history as a source of moral lessons, with conflicts and wars as misfortunes flowing from initial acts of injustice perpetuated through cycles of revenge. In contrast, Thucydides see wars as a political struggle (which is true for the Peloponnesian War), and claims to confine himself to factual reports of contemporary political and military events, based on unambiguous, first-hand, eye-witness accounts...although, unlike Herodotus, Thucydides does not reveal his sources, so we don't know if his account is entirely true and not distorted by his love of Sparta and hatred of Athens. He was also critical of the way Herodotus recorded in his Histories not only the events of the Persian Wars, but also geographical information and stories of strange creatures and local customs, as well as the fables related to him during his extensive travels. Typically, Herodotus passes no definitive judgment on what he has heard. In the case of conflicting or unlikely accounts, he presents both sides, says what he believes, and then invites readers to decide for themselves. Thucydides on the other hand views life exclusively as political life, and history in terms of political history. Conventional moral considerations play no role in his analysis of political events while geographic information and local customs are omitted or, at best, of secondary importance. I think we need both writers if we want to get even a glimmer of the real truth. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Thucydides was a general in his conflict and lived through it. Herodotus wrote four decades after his conflict, when it had reached mythological significance. We do need both writers. But we need to critically appraise their work. Saying that he wrote it so that's good enough without at least considering the text is unhelpful as there are contradictions. For example: We don't know the Athenian order of battle at Marathon. But if the line was divided roughly in three then the weakened centre would have contained 2000 hoplites arranged 4 deep at a frontage of 500 shields. This seems right as it had to face both the native Persian troops and the Saka. If it collapsed and the Persians broke through then how are there only 192 casualties in total, including those lost during the pursuit and at the ships (and surely there were casualties on the wings)? It seems dogma in ancient battles that a broken force is usually butchered. Doesn't this seem contradictory? Now I want your little painted men to win their fair share of battles. And I want those"dumb" Greek generals to have something to think about. But if all the changes recommended bring it to 50/50, commonly with holes blown in the hoplite line rather than outflanked by superior cavalry then IMHO we've gone too far. I'm not sure who will get the final word in any future edition but I think that PB would agree. cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 1, 2019 22:53:50 GMT
We don't know the Athenian order of battle at Marathon. But if the line was divided roughly in three then the weakened centre would have contained 2000 hoplites arranged 4 deep at a frontage of 500 shields. This seems right as it had to face both the native Persian troops and the Saka. If it collapsed and the Persians broke through then how are there only 192 casualties in total, including those lost during the pursuit and at the ships (and surely there were casualties on the wings)? It seems dogma in ancient battles that a broken force is usually butchered. Doesn't this seem contradictory? Now I want your little painted men to win their fair share of battles. And I want those"dumb" Greek generals to have something to think about. But if all the changes recommended bring it to 50/50, commonly with holes blown in the hoplite line rather than outflanked by superior cavalry then IMHO we've gone too far. I'm not sure who will get the final word in any future edition but I think that PB would agree. cheers Jim Correction: there was not 192 Greek ‘casualties’...there were 192 Greeks killed. How many more were wounded?...5 times as many?...10 times?... And who says the Athenian centre was 'thinned-out' and 'weak'? Modern day historians desperately seeking excuses for why their god-like warriors, those Hoplite supermen, were bested? But let us for the moment clear our minds of all modern prejudices, and just look at what Herodotus actually wrote:- 113. The fight at Marathon went on for a long time, and in the center the barbarians won, where the Persians themselves and the Sacae were stationed. At this point they won, and broke the Greeks, and pursued them inland. But on each wing the Athenians and the Plataeans were victorious, and, as they conquered, they let flee the part of the barbarian army they had routed, and, joining their two wings together, they fought the Persians who had broken their center; and then the Athenians won the day. As the Persians fled, the Greeks followed them, hacking at them, until they came to the sea. Then the Greeks called for fire and laid hold of the ships. (Source: www.historyguide.org/ancient/marathon.html )And this was written by a Greek historian, an historian who was fully behind the moral righteousness of the Greek cause, who should be praising the Greek achievements and denigrating the Persians...or was he simply telling the truth, warts and all? Still, what did this bloke Herodotus know. He only lived in the 440’s BC, and as a Greek coming from a wealthy family that paid for his education so that he could read and write he like all Greek citizens practised to fight as a Hoplite, and he lived in Ionia, which was closely associated with Persian rule so he was familiar with the Persian style of fighting, and he had access to records that we today have not. Naaa...he knew nothing. Modern Greek loving historians, sitting in their comfy armchairs, speculating on events from 2,500 years ago, know far more about ancient battles than he ever could... Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 2, 2019 1:33:56 GMT
On a side note, let's pretend that Persian and Greek armies WERE perfectly matched with victory/defeat hinging on luck, generalship, and a tactical innovation here and there.
If you flip a perfectly fair coin 12 times, you rarely get exactly 6 heads. So even a Persian loss rate of 60% or 65% is still fully mathematically consistent with a 50% actual likely win rate.
Remember the empirical data represent ONE possible sequence of outcomes.
My point is even perfectly matched armies can have success rates different from 50/50 quite easily and in fact most often will.
The classic example is a flip a coin 3 times. You see a single head and two tails. You conclude the coin is biased because you scored heads only 33% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 2, 2019 8:54:33 GMT
Looks like I was wrong...the Athenian centre was thinly held and only a few ranks deep...Herodotus says so himself. Nonetheless, the Greek centre at Marthon was broken...and it should be possible on our wargames table as well. As I can’t read Greek (or Latin), I am dependent on English translations, which can sometimes differ. So here is another better translation of Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Marathon:- 111. “As the Athenians were marshalled at Marathon, it happened that their line of battle was as long as the line of the Medes. The center, where the line was weakest, was only a few ranks deep, but each wing was strong in numbers.” 113. “They fought a long time at Marathon. In the center of the line the foreigners prevailed, where the Persians and Sacae were arrayed. The foreigners prevailed there and broke through in pursuit inland, but on each wing the Athenians and Plataeans prevailed. In victory they let the routed foreigners flee, and brought the wings together to fight those who had broken through the center. The Athenians prevailed, then followed the fleeing Persians and struck them down. When they reached the sea they demanded fire and laid hold of the Persian ships.” (Source: www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0016,001:6 )...and just so that we can compare different translations, here is another one:- 111. “But now, when the Athenians were arriving at Marathon, it so fell out that their line being equal in length to the Median, the middle part of it was but a few ranks deep, and here the line was weakest, each wing being strong in numbers.” 113. “For a long time they fought at Marathon; and the foreigners overcame the middle part of the line, against which the Persians themselves and the Sacae were arrayed; here the foreigners prevailed and broke the Greeks, pursuing them inland. But on either wing the Athenians and Plataeans were victorious; and being so, they suffered the routed of their enemies to fly, and drew their wings together to fight against those that had broken the middle of their line; and here the Athenians had the victory, and followed after the Persians in their flight, hewing them down, till they came to the sea. There they called for fire and laid hands on the ships.” (Source: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Herodotus/6C*.html )So here are the basic facts:- “They fought for a long time at Marathon.” (i.e. it was not a quick walk-over, the Persians held for quite a while). “In the center of the line the Persians were victorious” “The Persians broke through the centre and pursued inland.” “...(The Greeks) brought their wings together to fight those who had broken through the center.” The battle lasted a long time, and the Athenian centre was broken and pursued. And it’s a big jump going from Herodotus’ account to now saying that a Hoplite line can never be broken by the Persians, Now try to reproduce that with a combat factor of 3 against a combat factor of 5 on the wargames table. It can’t be done (unless the Persian roll three '6's' and the Greeks roll three '1's' in a row...about a 1 in 46,000 chance). Ah, but it is at least possible with a CF of 4 against a CF of 5...if the Persians can somehow arrange to get a double-overlap... So yes Jim, I do think that a cleverly led Persian army can beat a Greek one...and sometimes, rarely, even break their line. And I would hardly call 10 chances in 36 of getting a single recoil (less than 2 in 6), and then getting another 10 chances in 36 of getting another recoil on the opposite flank (again 2 chances out of 6, making a double-overlap less than 1 chance in 6), and even then, with a perfect double-overlap, only having 9 chances in 36 of actually getting a kill, as ‘ common’. But, although extremely rare, it would be possible... I want to re-create battles as the ancient historians said they happened. And I don't give a toss if the Athenian centre was weak, or if they had a bad-hair-day, or they rolled nothing but '1's' on their dice... ...their centre was broken, Herodotus says so, and I want to be able to do the same. Not only in this particular engagement, but in any one-off hypothetical what-if battle. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 2, 2019 11:54:06 GMT
Looks like I was wrong...the Athenian centre was thinly held and only a few ranks deep...Herodotus says so himself. Nonetheless, the Greek centre at Marthon was broken...and it should be possible on our wargames table as well. As I can’t read Greek (or Latin), I am dependent on English translations, which can sometimes differ. So here is another better translation of Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Marathon:- 111. “As the Athenians were marshalled at Marathon, it happened that their line of battle was as long as the line of the Medes. The center, where the line was weakest, was only a few ranks deep, but each wing was strong in numbers.” 113. “They fought a long time at Marathon. In the center of the line the foreigners prevailed, where the Persians and Sacae were arrayed. The foreigners prevailed there and broke through in pursuit inland, but on each wing the Athenians and Plataeans prevailed. In victory they let the routed foreigners flee, and brought the wings together to fight those who had broken through the center. The Athenians prevailed, then followed the fleeing Persians and struck them down. When they reached the sea they demanded fire and laid hold of the Persian ships.” (Source: www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0016,001:6 )...and just so that we can compare different translations, here is another one:- 111. “But now, when the Athenians were arriving at Marathon, it so fell out that their line being equal in length to the Median, the middle part of it was but a few ranks deep, and here the line was weakest, each wing being strong in numbers.” 113. “For a long time they fought at Marathon; and the foreigners overcame the middle part of the line, against which the Persians themselves and the Sacae were arrayed; here the foreigners prevailed and broke the Greeks, pursuing them inland. But on either wing the Athenians and Plataeans were victorious; and being so, they suffered the routed of their enemies to fly, and drew their wings together to fight against those that had broken the middle of their line; and here the Athenians had the victory, and followed after the Persians in their flight, hewing them down, till they came to the sea. There they called for fire and laid hands on the ships.” (Source: penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Herodotus/6C*.html )So here are the basic facts:- “They fought for a long time at Marathon.” (i.e. it was not a quick walk-over, the Persians held for quite a while). “In the center of the line the Persians were victorious” “The Persians broke through the centre and pursued inland.” “...(The Greeks) brought their wings together to fight those who had broken through the center.” The battle lasted a long time, and the Athenian centre was broken and pursued. And it’s a big jump going from Herodotus’ account to now saying that a Hoplite line can never be broken by the Persians, Now try to reproduce that with a combat factor of 3 against a combat factor of 5 on the wargames table. It can’t be done (unless the Persian roll three '6's' and the Greeks roll three '1's' in a row...about a 1 in 46,000 chance). Ah, but it is at least possible with a CF of 4 against a CF of 5...if the Persians can somehow arrange to get a double-overlap... So yes Jim, I do think that a cleverly led Persian army can beat a Greek one...and sometimes, rarely, even break their line. And I would hardly call 10 chances in 36 of getting a single recoil (less than 2 in 6), and then getting another 10 chances in 36 of getting another recoil on the opposite flank (again 2 chances out of 6, making a double-overlap less than 1 chance in 6), and even then, with a perfect double-overlap, only having 9 chances in 36 of actually getting a kill, as ‘ common’. But, although extremely rare, it would be possible... I want to re-create battles as the ancient historians said they happened. And I don't give a toss if the Athenian centre was weak, or if they had a bad-hair-day, or they rolled nothing but '1's' on their dice... ...their centre was broken, Herodotus says so, and I want to be able to do the same. Not only in this particular engagement, but in any one-off hypothetical what-if battle. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Firstly, I'm impressed that you admitted that you were wrong. More people should have your attitude stevie. Secondly, please show me how DBA models a "thinned" line of spears. It doesn't because it can't. It's an anomaly that cannot be represented within the constructs of DBA. Reading PB's thoughts in Slingshot many years ago regarding battles like Cannae, it seems that he wasn't trying to get a comprehensive model of the anomalies. Just to represent the more common/likely interaction. To say that you want to change the rules for the enitire game covering 4500 years because of a situation that can't be modelled in 1 battle is overreach. As House rules, I have no problem. As formal changes to DBA then I cannot agree. Happily, I am not in a position to agree or disagree with any formal changes to DBA. I can see the problem in the Hoplite v Sparabara situation and I am keen for an improvement. But DBA 3 is the best version so far with a playing group that is now very united. I don't want to change things unless there is overwhelming support. Cheers Jim PS. Provided the Persians let the Greeks come at them, they get 2 chances at 1-in-9 of a kill with bowfire. That's an overall chance of 17 out 81 (or 20%) to add to your chances with close combat. All based on 1 instance where a weakened section of line was "broken" (but not mauled, slaughtered or massacred). By the way, any wound that pierced the deep fascia of the chest or abdomen or damaged a major blood vessel would likely be fatal in the 5th Century BC, likewise any infected wound. Any incapacitating wound would be a serious threat to life. Modern views of 5-10 x deaths as "wounded" cannot be translated to ancient battle.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 2, 2019 11:58:22 GMT
On a side note, let's pretend that Persian and Greek armies WERE perfectly matched with victory/defeat hinging on luck, generalship, and a tactical innovation here and there. If you flip a perfectly fair coin 12 times, you rarely get exactly 6 heads. So even a Persian loss rate of 60% or 65% is still fully mathematically consistent with a 50% actual likely win rate. Remember the empirical data represent ONE possible sequence of outcomes. My point is even perfectly matched armies can have success rates different from 50/50 quite easily and in fact most often will. The classic example is a flip a coin 3 times. You see a single head and two tails. You conclude the coin is biased because you scored heads only 33% of the time. Taking this line of thought ad absurdum then virtually all match ups should be at 50/50, based on the low number of battles recorded. I doubt any results would reach "statistical significance". But then again there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 2, 2019 14:46:42 GMT
Looks like I was wrong...the Athenian centre was thinly held and only a few ranks deep...Herodotus says so himself. Nonetheless, the Greek centre at Marthon was broken...and it should be possible on our wargames table as well. I want to re-create battles as the ancient historians said they happened. And I don't give a toss if the Athenian centre was weak, or if they had a bad-hair-day, or they rolled nothing but '1's' on their dice... ...their centre was broken, Herodotus says so, and I want to be able to do the same. Not only in this particular engagement, but in any one-off hypothetical what-if battle. Firstly, I'm impressed that you admitted that you were wrong. More people should have your attitude stevie. Ha! I can’t be both good looking and right all the time. Secondly, please show me how DBA models a "thinned" line of spears. It doesn't because it can't. Oh yes it can (it's Pantomime season again)...see below.It's an anomaly that cannot be represented within the constructs of DBA. Reading PB's thoughts in Slingshot many years ago regarding battles like Cannae, it seems that he wasn't trying to get a comprehensive model of the anomalies. Just to represent the more common/likely interaction. To say that you want to change the rules for the enitire game covering 4500 years because of a situation that can't be modelled in 1 battle is overreach. Rubbish...if you can't even get ONE battle right, how can you get ANY other battles to be right!As House rules, I have no problem. As formal changes to DBA then I cannot agree. Happily, I am not in a position to agree or disagree with any formal changes to DBA. I can see the problem in the Hoplite v Sparabara situation and I am keen for an improvement. But DBA 3 is the best version so far with a playing group that is now very united. I don't want to change things unless there is overwhelming support. Cheers Jim PS. Provided the Persians let the Greeks come at them, they get 2 chances at 1-in-9 of a kill with bowfire. That's an overall chance of 17 out 81 (or 20%) to add to your chances with close combat. All based on 1 instance where a weakened section of line was "broken" (but not mauled, slaughtered or massacred). By the way, any wound that pierced the deep fascia of the chest or abdomen or damaged a major blood vessel would likely be fatal in the 5th Century BC, likewise any infected wound. Any incapacitating wound would be a serious threat to life. Modern views of 5-10 x deaths as "wounded" cannot be translated to ancient battle. Oh yes it can (still Pantomime season)...see below. On Casualties and WoundsFeet, arms, thighs, and other bits were not all protected by shields and armour. Alexander the Great was wounded in just about every battle and siege he was involved in. Eight times in fact: see thesecondachilles.com/2013/10/25/alexanders-injuries-part-1/At Platea, 479 BC, as the Spartans made their religious sacrifices:- “The victims, however, for some time were not favourable; and, during the delay, many fell on the Spartan side, and a still greater number were wounded. For the Persians had made a rampart of their wicker shields, and shot from behind them such clouds of arrows, that the Spartans were sorely distressed.” (Source: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Herodotus/Herodotus9.html section [9.61], Herodotus) On Re-Creating BattlesWhen re-creating an historical battle using DBA, three things are required:- The right rules, the right elements, and those elements need to be in the right positions. Get these three things right and the historical outcome should be the most likely result, the result that comes up the most often, and not some freaky 1 in an x chance lucky dice rolling accident. And when you re-fight that same historical battle say 6 times, and the historical result comes up most often, say about 4 out of 6 games, only then can you be more confident that the rules are correct and the same outcome will also be the most likely to occur in any other non-historical one-off hypothetical what-if game... if the conditions are the same. (Because I simply refuse to believe that Marathon, Cannae, or even Agincourt for that matter, were totally unique events that can never ever happen again in a million years)In other words, you test if the rules are right by reproducing historical battles. I you can...fine. If you can’t...then something is wrong, and the rules are not correctly simulating the real world. At Marathon in 490 BC the Athenian centre was thinned-out and weak, and in less than the usual 8 or 12 ranks. Well, we can simulate that by having some rough going in the centre, so no side-support for the Hoplites. Will this be enough? No. It helps yes, but CF 3 v CF 4 still makes a Persian breakthrough an unlikely outcome and not the most likely. Giving the Persians a +1, so its CF 4 v CF 4, makes them equal and so a breakthrough is more likely. At Ephesus in 498 BC the Persian Sparabara held the Hoplites for a long while until the Persian cavalry outflanked them. Can this be done with CF 3 v CF 5.?...no. Giving the Persians a +1, so its CF 4 v CF 5, makes them hold out for longer, and the historical outcome more likely. At Platea in 479 BC, the Persian Sparabara stood up to the Spartans for quite some time:- “As he offered his prayer, the Tegeans, advancing before the rest, rushed forward against the enemy; and the Lacedaemonians, who had obtained favourable omens the moment that Pausanias prayed, at length, after their long delay, advanced to the attack; while the Persians, on their side, left shooting, and prepared to meet them. And first the combat was at the wicker shields. Afterwards, when these were swept down, a fierce contest took place by the side of the temple of Ceres, which lasted long, and ended in a hand-to-hand struggle. The barbarians many times seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were not a whit inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers, untrained, and far below the enemy in respect of skill in arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer and now more in number, they dashed upon the Spartan ranks, and so perished.” (Source: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Herodotus/Herodotus9.html section [9.62], Herodotus) Does this sound like CF 3 troops being slaughtered like helpless sheep by CF 5?...no. It sounds more like CF 4 v CF 5. There is a definite pattern to all of the above. CF 5 v CF 5 is too strong, and makes 8Bw and Sp equal (actually, with their Cv and shooting, the 8Bw would be superior). CF 3 v CF 5 is too weak, and the 8Bw are not currently able to stand up to Sp, and are massacred too easily. CF 4 v CF 5 is...as Goldilocks would say...just right. Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 2, 2019 19:05:05 GMT
CF 5 v CF 5 is too strong, and makes 8Bw and Sp equal (actually, with their Cv and shooting, the 8Bw would be superior). CF 3 v CF 5 is too weak, and the 8Bw are not currently able to stand up to Sp, and are massacred too easily. CF 4 v CF 5 is...as Goldilocks would say...just right.
No doubt that increases the staying power of the 8Bw But add the effect of the proposed change to targeting priority (seems to have more ground support). You will have more bowfire kills, particularly as there will be more recoils creating shots. And add the effect of the proposed 2 PIPs to contact solid Bw (to fix 100YW from memory?). More recoils makes it harder to form the line. Now Goldilocks has found the cinnamon and almond flakes to add to her porridge! Jim
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 2, 2019 21:21:45 GMT
CF 5 v CF 5 is too strong, and makes 8Bw and Sp equal (actually, with their Cv and shooting, the 8Bw would be superior). CF 3 v CF 5 is too weak, and the 8Bw are not currently able to stand up to Sp, and are massacred too easily. CF 4 v CF 5 is...as Goldilocks would say...just right.
No doubt that increases the staying power of the 8Bw But add the effect of the proposed change to targeting priority (seems to have more ground support). You will have more bowfire kills, particularly as there will be more recoils creating shots. And add the effect of the proposed 2 PIPs to contact solid Bw (to fix 100YW from memory?). More recoils makes it harder to form the line. Now Goldilocks has found the cinnamon and almond flakes to add to her porridge! Jim Jim, these are all proposed changes that affect the mechanics in slightly different ways. You are right that the combined changes might prove too powerful, I suppose the testing that *must* happen is to determine which combination of changes will yield the right balance of historical plausibility and playability.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 2, 2019 21:32:24 GMT
On a side note, let's pretend that Persian and Greek armies WERE perfectly matched with victory/defeat hinging on luck, generalship, and a tactical innovation here and there. If you flip a perfectly fair coin 12 times, you rarely get exactly 6 heads. So even a Persian loss rate of 60% or 65% is still fully mathematically consistent with a 50% actual likely win rate. Remember the empirical data represent ONE possible sequence of outcomes. My point is even perfectly matched armies can have success rates different from 50/50 quite easily and in fact most often will. The classic example is a flip a coin 3 times. You see a single head and two tails. You conclude the coin is biased because you scored heads only 33% of the time. Taking this line of thought ad absurdum then virtually all match ups should be at 50/50, based on the low number of battles recorded. I doubt any results would reach "statistical significance". But then again there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Jim But I didn't take that line of thought to those ridiculous comclusions, Jim. You did. Come on Jim,that is sloppy scholarship. I know you're better than that. And ancient scholarship agrees: Plataea, Marathon, Ephesus were ALL really close and hung in the balance for a long time. I have never advocated for a +1 PIP based on combat situation. But in playtest after playtest, my system works. What are you so afraid of? It is easy to use, targets the right outcomes, and as I have said before, without history, and game data, all one is doing is spit-balling. The tests so far from serious players seem to suggest that my experience is not an anomaly. Despite even a 50/50 split not guaranteeing anything other than a range of possible win/loss records (that is elementary statistics and data science), my rule gets about a 60-40 split. Under RAW, the split was 95-5 or so.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 2, 2019 22:07:46 GMT
Primus, what does RAW stand for?
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Mar 2, 2019 23:19:33 GMT
If I remember correctly, I think someone mentioned previously that it is Rules As Written.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 2, 2019 23:51:35 GMT
If I remember correctly, I think someone mentioned previously that it is Rules As Written. That makes sense. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 3, 2019 9:52:20 GMT
No doubt that increases the staying power of the 8Bw But add the effect of the proposed change to targeting priority (seems to have more ground support). You will have more bowfire kills, particularly as there will be more recoils creating shots. And add the effect of the proposed 2 PIPs to contact solid Bw (to fix 100YW from memory?). More recoils makes it harder to form the line. Now Goldilocks has found the cinnamon and almond flakes to add to her porridge! Jim Jim, these are all proposed changes that affect the mechanics in slightly different ways. You are right that the combined changes might prove too powerful, I suppose the testing that *must* happen is to determine which combination of changes will yield the right balance of historical plausibility and playability. Thanks greedo. Glad somebody can see where I'm coming from. Cheers Jim PS. Not quite sure why the replies to this discussion started having a personal edge. Certainly food for thought if there is ever an "official" review group for DBA *.*. Not sure I'd be interested in that. But it won't be because I'm afraid of anything.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 3, 2019 16:24:24 GMT
Mmmmm.... here is what we keep hearing on the other side of the debate, Jim. "maybe, could, might, perhaps ... maybe too much, perhaps too strong, ..." What we're not getting? Game data. Test results, please. We need to know if it is my and my group's playing style that is wrong, and you guys have a way to consistently recreate the historical accounts of the battles using Persian 8Bw with RAW, or if either of these two things is true: 1. My proposed modification does in fact correct this issue, is widely stable, elegant, playable, and produces historical results more often than not, or 2. My proposed modification is in fact too strong, and I just suck as the Persians with my 40/60 odd win/loss record, and the balance has completely and entirely shifted the other way, and there is now a 90/10 split in favour of the Persians! All the rest is opinion and spit-balling. And we know what my hero Clint Eastwood says about opinions, guys.
|
|