|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2019 1:31:57 GMT
Greedo, the amount of overhead vs just a single line item just doesn't seem worth it. A single Modifier is hardly complex. And it encompasses a whole gamut of effects with one modifier. Dare I call it brilliant? 😜
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 22, 2019 2:32:36 GMT
Greedo, the amount of overhead vs just a single line item just doesn't seem worth it. A single Modifier is hardly complex. And it encompasses a whole gamut of effects with one modifier. Dare I call it brilliant? 😜 Yes Primuspilus...in this case you may dare. I agree entirely with him on this issue. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/13938/ (The items in bold at the bottom of this post are the relevant bits) But I also wish to agree with him about the totally idiotic ‘must shoot at a target in your Threat Zone’ rule. This was not asked for, has no historical basis, and appears to be along the lines of “Oh, wouldn’t it be a good idea if...”, with absolutely no play-testing and a complete disregard for the detrimental effects it has on all shooting in DBA 3.0. And what are these detrimental effects? Well I’ll tell you...it means that shooting at long range is far more deadly than shooting at close range. Now who thinks that it’s better to shoot at a target a long, long way away than it is to shoot at a nearby target?! It flies in the face of logic, physics, ballistics, and simple common sense. Where in the Great Purple Book does it say “you must switch-off your brain when using these rules”. Anyway, isn’t it just a matter of scale?Imagine you are an eagle flying 100 meters up over an ancient battlefield. When you look down, you may well see bows at a certain close range (DBA says a completely arbitrary and made-up range of ‘1 base width’) cease to concentrate their fire and start targeting the nearest enemy in front of them. Fair enough. Now imagine you are that same eagle, but instead of being 100 meters up you are 1,000 meters above the battlefield. Now when you look down you can no longer see the gap between the bowmen and their target. They are so close it looks to you as if they are almost touching each other. That’s when the ‘must shoot at a nearby threat’ comes into play...in DBA terms, when the elements are in close combat. Just as Psiloi archers and slingers are not necessarily standing toe-to-toe with their enemies, but are shooting at close range. It’s the same with 3/4Bows...the enemy is so close that they cannot concentrate their fire but must shoot the nearest threat. DBA is a top down army level set of rules, not a set of small scale skirmish rules with a few cohorts and a few dozen horsemen. It represents an Army! And just as an army general would not be bothered about how far his skirmishers were from their target, but just concern himself with whether they are skirmishing and engaging the enemy or not, so he wouldn’t be bothered about how close his bowmen are, just the fact that they are doing their job and actually shooting. Scrapping the unwanted and broken Threat Zone shooting rule is actually more historical and fixes the shooting mechanism, thus making for a much better simulation of ancient warfare. 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 Feb 22, 2019 5:12:48 GMT
Stevie, .... ad I'll call your ToD display equally brilliant... You took warming up to, mate, but there's no flies on you!!! Though I maintain in my games the onus is on the defender to "press the fight" and not the attacker, because he can always just be walled up, Alesia-style (or Syracuse-style), and the invader can just go around and sack all his wine cellars!
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 22, 2019 9:31:55 GMT
There is a lot to like in that "+1 vs HI". Basically a mechanism to lengthen the duration of a losing fight. I'll try to run some simulations next week to quantify that time extension.
A minor concern is that there exit a few armies that have both 8Bw and Bd. A lot of +1 for the 8Bw, but not critical I think (there are worse combos out there)
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Feb 22, 2019 9:48:11 GMT
Could we consider extending it to Wb and Pk (probably including the Fast versions, not sure)? But remove the 2nd rank +1 for Wb vs HI, and drop it to +2 for the Pk? in DBM, Wb and Pk were always used in files of at least 2 (which were cheaper than a single Bd), and therefore had higher factors than currently in DBA. Promising.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 22, 2019 11:34:36 GMT
There is a lot to like in that "+1 vs HI". Basically a mechanism to lengthen the duration of a losing fight. I'll try to run some simulations next week to quantify that time extension. A minor concern is that there exit a few armies that have both 8Bw and Bd. A lot of +1 for the 8Bw, but not critical I think (there are worse combos out there) Remember Arnopov that 8Bw won’t be losing much...they’ll even be gaining something. When in close combat:- At the moment: 8Bw has CF of 2, +1 for being double based, +1 for side-support from 4Bd. The proposal: 8Bw has CF of 2, +1 for being double based, +1 in close combat with heavy foot (no need for any side-support). (Note that Persia has no Blades, so no side-support, and only a max CF of 3...under the proposal, their 8Bw will have a CF of 4)The big winners will be those that need it...the Hundred Years War English 4Lb v French 4Bd:- At the moment: 4Bw has CF of 2, +1 for side-support from 4Bd. The proposal: 4Bw has CF of 2, +1 for side-support from 4Bd, and +1 in close combat with heavy foot. As for all the 8Bw armies in the lists both with and without any Blades, see fanaticus.boards.net/post/15918/
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2019 16:27:02 GMT
Frankly, I have endured the Bd supertroop for so long, I am looking forward to seeing then sweat a bit against supported 8Bw... "Hahaha hahaha die, evil turkeys, die!!!! "
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 22, 2019 17:52:58 GMT
There is a lot to like in that "+1 vs HI". Basically a mechanism to lengthen the duration of a losing fight. I'll try to run some simulations next week to quantify that time extension. A minor concern is that there exit a few armies that have both 8Bw and Bd. A lot of +1 for the 8Bw, but not critical I think (there are worse combos out there) Remember Arnopov that 8Bw won’t be losing much...they’ll even be gaining something. When in close combat:- At the moment: 8Bw has CF of 2, +1 for being double based, +1 for side-support from 4Bd. The proposal: 8Bw has CF of 2, +1 for being double based, +1 in close combat with heavy foot (no need for any side-support). (Note that Persia has no Blades, so no side-support, and only a max CF of 3...under the proposal, their 8Bw will have a CF of 4)The big winners will be those that need it...the Hundred Years War English 4Lb v French 4Bd:- At the moment: 4Bw has CF of 2, +1 for side-support from 4Bd. The proposal: 4Bw has CF of 2, +1 for side-support from 4Bd, and +1 in close combat with heavy foot. As for all the 8Bw armies in the lists both with and without any Blades, see fanaticus.boards.net/post/15918/ I understand these arguments from a game balance standpoint, but it does strike me as odd that we've made bows into effectively light spears. CV 2 to 4 in one easy lesson. At this point, proposed changes are for everyone except Ps and Hd to have a CV of 4 so as not to get run over by heavy troops. Is this just a side effect of the math? Not necessarily against this, but just wondering where it's all headed.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 22, 2019 19:46:07 GMT
I understand these arguments from a game balance standpoint, but it does strike me as odd that we've made bows into effectively light spears. CV 2 to 4 in one easy lesson. At this point, proposed changes are for everyone except Ps and Hd to have a CV of 4 so as not to get run over by heavy troops. Is this just a side effect of the math? Not necessarily against this, but just wondering where it's all headed. Everyone?...how does that old joke go...oh yes, “I’ve told you a hundred billion times not to exaggerate”. Welcome to the limited world of the two dice combat system. If you want weak elements with a combat factor of 3 to be better, then you have to give them a higher combat factor. I didn’t invent mathematics. Remember, a number 4 is just a number 4...it is you that is giving it personal characteristics by calling it ‘light Spear’. Anyway, I don’t hear you complaining about the present system... ...where WWg, Ax, Wb, Hd, SCh, HCh, Kn, Cm, Cv, LCh have all been turned into Pk because they all have a CF of 3! Still, it’s a legitimate question, so let’s examine it in detail (items in red are the proposed changes):- Present CF v Foot Proposed CF v Foot CP/Lit/CWg 5 5 4Bd 5 5 3Bd 5 5 6Bd 5 +1 DB 5 +1 DB 8Sp 4 +1 support , +1 DB 4 +1 support, +1 DB Sp 4 +1 support 4 +1 support CP/Lit/CWg (shot) 4 4 4Bd (shot at) 4 4 3Bd (shot at) 4 4 6Bd (shot at) 4 4 Field Art 4 4 4Pk 3 +3 support 3 +3 support 3Pk 3 +3 support 3 +3 support 4Ax 3 3 +1 v hvy foot 3Ax 3 3 4Wb 3 +1 support 3 +1 support 3Wb 3 +1 support 3 +1 support 7Hd 3 3 5Hd 3 3 WWg 3 3 8Bw 2 +1 support, +1 DB 2 +1 DB, +1 v hvy foot (but loses side-support) 4Bw 2 +1 support 2 +1 support, +1 v hvy foot 3Bw 2 2 Ps 2 2 Civilians 2 2 Garrison Art 2 2 (all mounted troops are unchanged) Now I would hardly call three lines out of 26 ‘everyone’...
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 22, 2019 21:04:21 GMT
What I mean is, all battleline troops. Light troops etc. are exempt since they wouldn't be facing off against the heavy infantry.
Wb you are generally going to double rank them to up the chances of a QK, so CV4. 4Ax is proposed to be CV4 3Ax is skulking in the rough, but also backs up 1BW to escape, so they have a backup plan for their CV3 and probably like I said are rough terrain skulking anyway or looking for flanks. Pk is also normally going to be double ranked to get CV 6
So my point is that main battleline troops if they don't have a flee option like Ps or are expected to die like Hd/SCh, then it seems like they HAVE to have CV4 to not just be speed bumps to the heavies.
Bw used (2.2) to be CV2, and Sp used to be CV4 with no side support. With 3.0, 8Bw get a +1 which seems significant if as you point out, we are only going to be doing 1d6. But now we're giving 4/8Bw a +2 vs heavies. It's just a big jump, is all I'm saying. If the math works out to make things play well in game, I have no problems.
So my main point (not complaining, merely pointing out) is that seems to be a bit of CV creep going on to ensure that 4Bd doesn't immediately walk all over everyone.
Another alternative (practically joking) is to reduce the heavies by 1 point. Spears 3 with +1 side, Bd are 4, supported Pk are 5. I cannot image what kind of game problems this would produce however..
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 22, 2019 21:52:04 GMT
With all due respect and courtesy, Greedo, until you play a bunch of games with them, it's all just chewing the fat! Test them. Your concerns are unfounded. What people don't get is how hard it is for CF 4 8Bw to defeat a hoplite line. As it should be. But at least now the Persians have credible alternatives ... like winning elsewhere (as they tried at Plataea). And by the way, this has ZERO impact overall with Medes and Neo Babylonians, since their enemies generally are NOT Bd, Pk and Sp except in isolated elements here and there.
Also, until one's played a boatload of games with 8Bw, one doesn't realise just how bad the first loss of an 8Bw (at 2 elements) really hits you.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 22, 2019 23:53:43 GMT
Another alternative (practically joking) is to reduce the heavies by 1 point. Spears 3 with +1 side, Bd are 4, supported Pk are 5. I cannot image what kind of game problems this would produce however... Not an entirely daft idea, as can be seen here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/18838/However, when suggested, you didn’t like it: fanaticus.boards.net/post/18840/It would work quite well, and makes breakthroughs in the centre more likely instead of all the action being on the wings. But far too radical I fear (shame). Look at the trouble we are having at the moment just trying to get players to accept a minor additional Tactical Factor, let alone changing all the heavy foot combat factors...especially as people won’t even play-test it to see how it works.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 23, 2019 0:59:00 GMT
As I stated earlier: opinions count for little with me. Show me historical accounts, and show me game test outcomes. Otherwise it's just noise.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 23, 2019 7:12:36 GMT
Good points. Tested Late Athenians vs EAP (1) last night. They both looked like Carthaginians since I don't have Greeks or EAP, but plan to buy them soon.
Not the best DBA player. No terrain. Just a straight up slogfest. I did not put the Ps in the front, will do next time.
Rule Tests: I ignored the single target rule for shooting. Also had +1 vs heavy troops.
The greeks rolled really badly in PIPs and in combat. They lost Ps to the Persian Cv, but on the other flank took out of the Persian Ps. The persians ganged up shooting on one of the spears, and recoiled him, breaking the Hoplite line in 2. The Greeks reformed into a straight line, but didn't have enough PIPS to advance. The Persians shot again during the Greek turn and KILLED one of the Spears.
Finally the Greeks charge and lose another spear.
Will play again tomorrow, but it was indeed close, and the Greeks lost. With better rolling they should win, but I'm on board with the maths.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Feb 23, 2019 7:29:11 GMT
Another alternative (practically joking) is to reduce the heavies by 1 point. Spears 3 with +1 side, Bd are 4, supported Pk are 5. I cannot image what kind of game problems this would produce however... Not an entirely daft idea, as can be seen here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/18838/However, when suggested, you didn’t like it: fanaticus.boards.net/post/18840/It would work quite well, and makes breakthroughs in the centre more likely instead of all the action being on the wings. But far too radical I fear (shame). Look at the trouble we are having at the moment just trying to get players to accept a minor additional Tactical Factor, let alone changing all the heavy foot combat factors...especially as people won’t even play-test it to see how it works. This thread has been going on so long I don’t even remember! Like I said, just joking.
|
|