|
Post by greedo on Mar 5, 2019 1:42:11 GMT
On kind of a side note: There are a couple of army lists that have the option of either 4Ax or Sp. (I/35c Phoenician and I/50 Lydian, for example). With the house rule of +1cf for 4Ax against HI not in non-bad going, make 4Ax more attractive of an option (for at least some of it since you can mix and match), or would you just stick with the Sp? 4Ax would still get to move through bad going with no penalty and would only get the -2 when fighting heavies so would still be on equal terms with them I think (better when fighting spears since they lose side support) So hopefully they’d still be that funny “hinge” unit.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 5, 2019 7:51:33 GMT
On kind of a side note: There are a couple of army lists that have the option of either 4Ax or Sp. (I/35c Phoenician and I/50 Lydian, for example). With the house rule of +1cf for 4Ax against HI not in non-bad going, make 4Ax more attractive of an option (for at least some of it since you can mix and match), or would you just stick with the Sp? 4Ax would still get to move through bad going with no penalty and would only get the -2 when fighting heavies so would still be on equal terms with them I think (better when fighting spears since they lose side support) So hopefully they’d still be that funny “hinge” unit. Er...I’m a bit confused by what you said Greedo about who gets the -2:- In Bad Going: 4Ax would have a CF 3 (no +1 v HI in bad going) v Sp CF 2 (4, -2 for bad going) = so the 4Ax are superior. In Rough: 4Ax would have a CF 4 (3, with +1 v HI) v Sp CF of 4 (no side support in rough) = so they are equal. In Good Going: 4Ax would have a CF 4 (3, with +1 v HI) v Sp CF of 5 (with +1 for side support) = so the Sp are superior. (and remember that if the 4Ax were uphill or defending a riverbank off-road they would also get another +1 as well)But Nangwaya does make a good point...Sp are still the better choice for good going, but 4Ax has become more useful. As for facing Cavalry and Light Horse:- Sp have a CF of 4 v mounted, but a double score will only make Cv and LH flee, it won’t kill them. Ax have a CF of 3 v mounted, but a double score will actually kill Cv. So which is better when facing Cv...with a single overlap, 9 chances in 36 of making the Cv temporarily run away for a bit? ...or with a single overlap, 6 chances in 36 of actually killing the Cv once and for all? 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 greedo on Mar 5, 2019 8:15:14 GMT
Yes Stevie you are correct on all counts. I typed it fast and meant to say that heavies get a -2 in bad but 4Ax would not, but wouldn’t get the +1 against the heavies. So equal against blades and Better than spears. Which leads to a great tactical choice for picking your army. How much terrain is on the map will determine the mix
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 5, 2019 18:17:14 GMT
That choice has always been there, between besting HI in bad going, and getting instantly vapourised in GGo.
With 4Ax/8/4Bw now at least able to be at least a yield sign as opposed to a speed bump, perhaps Ax armies become a bit more viable. Note, you still have to win out wide, you are not going to reliably withstand Bd, Sp and Pk for long. But if it now takes 3-4 bounds to break your Ax line instead of 1 or 2, that buys you more time to win elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 5, 2019 18:34:34 GMT
That choice has always been there, between besting HI in bad going, and getting instantly vapourised in GGo. With 4Ax/8/4Bw now at least able to be at least a yield sign as opposed to a speed bump, perhaps Ax armies become a bit more viable. Note, you still have to win out wide, you are not going to reliably withstand Bd, Sp and Pk for long. But if it now takes 3-4 bounds to break your Ax line instead of 1 or 2, that buys you more time to win elsewhere. So I have a sneaking suspicion that everybody on this thread is convinced (or near convinced) for these few elements. Happily we don't have to create any new elements. So my next question is: What do we do to get more people on-board, in a collaborative, "this will make things even better for everyone and not break anything" way? I'm sure there'll be lots of other suggestions as to how to accomplish similar results, or even find game problems that we hadn't thought of, but that's the great thing about larger scale play testing. Is Joe Collins the *ahem* spearpoint here?
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 5, 2019 19:15:27 GMT
That choice has always been there, between besting HI in bad going, and getting instantly vapourised in GGo. With 4Ax/8/4Bw now at least able to be at least a yield sign as opposed to a speed bump, perhaps Ax armies become a bit more viable. Note, you still have to win out wide, you are not going to reliably withstand Bd, Sp and Pk for long. But if it now takes 3-4 bounds to break your Ax line instead of 1 or 2, that buys you more time to win elsewhere. So I have a sneaking suspicion that everybody on this thread is convinced (or near convinced) for these few elements. Happily we don't have to create any new elements. So my next question is: What do we do to get more people on-board, in a collaborative, "this will make things even better for everyone and not break anything" way? I'm sure there'll be lots of other suggestions as to how to accomplish similar results, or even find game problems that we hadn't thought of, but that's the great thing about larger scale play testing. Is Joe Collins the *ahem* spearpoint here? Actually no. Not because I don't like the ideas, but because they don't really fit into a DBA 3.1. They will fit perhaps into a DBA 4.0. I am preparing presently for a 3.1, which is probably several years away. Don't however let this throw cold water on everyone discussing further ideas. The day for DBA 4 will come. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Mar 5, 2019 21:23:32 GMT
I'm not convinced by many of the suggested changes for Auxilia or Bows, but I do like the idea of amending the last sentence of the Flank support factors rule as follows: Spears and "Solid" Auxilia add +1 if supported by Spears, "Solid" Auxilia or “Solid” Blades and Bows add +1 if supported by “Solid” Blades. Maybe this could be considered for the proposed 3.1?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 5, 2019 21:58:27 GMT
I'm not convinced by many of the suggested changes for Auxilia or Bows, but I do like the idea of amending the last sentence of the Flank support factors rule as follows: Spears and "Solid" Auxilia add +1 if supported by Spears, "Solid" Auxilia or “Solid” Blades and Bows add +1 if supported by “Solid” Blades. Maybe this could be considered for the proposed 3.1? Hey Chaotic, This was definitely thought about, although I must admit I have not tested it (that can be my next nightly test!) The goals for the 4Ax and 4/8Bw changes were to make them survive longer than 1-2 bounds. With their current CV3 vs heavy infantry, they tend to get wiped out so fast, that flanking Cav and light forces won't be able to able to have any effect. If they can survive for 3-4 bounds, then there is the balance that the flanks move around the heavy infantry, and it now becomes a more equal fight, with the heavies trying to crush the center before they get enveloped. Stevie and Primus will undoubtedly quote historical precedent and math showing this. The side support for 4Ax is definitely a simple fix, although the question would be, after a number of play tests, does it allow 4Ax/4Bw/8Bw to survive to the point that we want them to from a game standpoint? The side support will make them more brittle, magnifying the formed line, and the side support rule already exists, making it perhaps more palatable to current players. And if 3.1, let alone 4.0 is YEARS away as Joe says, perhaps a small fix like this would be a good tie-over before bigger changes.. I also must admit that I was of your view earlier, feeling that the +1 vs HI made them too strong, but it really does seem to yield good results based on my few playtests. Would you have the time to test the side support of 4Ax vs 4Sp/4Bd, and tells us what happened? More data is always good data Chris
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 5, 2019 22:49:00 GMT
So I have a sneaking suspicion that everybody on this thread is convinced (or near convinced) for these few elements. Happily we don't have to create any new elements. So my next question is: What do we do to get more people on-board, in a collaborative, "this will make things even better for everyone and not break anything" way? I'm sure there'll be lots of other suggestions as to how to accomplish similar results, or even find game problems that we hadn't thought of, but that's the great thing about larger scale play testing. Is Joe Collins the *ahem* spearpoint here? Actually no. Not because I don't like the ideas, but because they don't really fit into a DBA 3.1. They will fit perhaps into a DBA 4.0. I am preparing presently for a 3.1, which is probably several years away. Don't however let this throw cold water on everyone discussing further ideas. The day for DBA 4 will come. Joe Collins Incidentally Joe (and everybody else), what happened between 2.0 and 2.1? Or 2.1 and 2.2? Were they the scale of changes you are envisioning? There's certainly a large sheet with army list corrections that can worked in, and with the Lulu connection to avoid the hassle of printing, hopefully it'll be easier to make changes
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 5, 2019 23:53:50 GMT
I'm not convinced by many of the suggested changes for Auxilia or Bows, but I do like the idea of amending the last sentence of the Flank support factors rule as follows: Spears and "Solid" Auxilia add +1 if supported by Spears, "Solid" Auxilia or “Solid” Blades and Bows add +1 if supported by “Solid” Blades. Maybe this could be considered for the proposed 3.1? Not trying to be mean here, but do you have game data/historical analysis that suggests otherwise?; I mean you really have to playtest these to see it. A fair bit. Because absent these things, it is just spitballing and opinion ... As Stevie and I keep pointing out...
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 6, 2019 2:42:10 GMT
And to Greedo: unfortunately the opportunity for me to play DBA over the next 4 months will be rather limited. I'll be spending that time walking battlefields in England, Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Italy, among other things. Very jealous! I'd love to hear any insights or inspirations you gather on your walks. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 6, 2019 7:59:23 GMT
Welcome to the debate Chaotic. It’s always good to hear other player’s point of view. I compared your ”+1 to Solid Auxilia if side-supported by Spears, Solid Auxilia, or Solid Blades” idea with Primuspilus’ “+1 to Solid Auxilia and Solid Bow when fighting Sp/Bd/supported Pk, unless in bad going” suggestion. Unfortunately, and I hope you’ll forgive me, I spotted several flaws with your proposal:- 1) Your suggestion means 4Ax have a CF of 4 against all foot, so are more powerful against Ps, Wb, Bows, WWg, Hordes. The “+1 for 4Ax when fighting HI” does not have these unwanted knock-on effects. 2) There is no side-support in rough going, so 4Ax will avoid such terrain while Blades will actively seek it out because it gives them a larger CF advantage against 4Ax...the exact opposite of what one would expect in reality. 3) It is still easy for CF 5 troops to get a double-overlap on a CF 4 element (19 chances in 36 to recoil them with another 2 chances of being destroyed, making 21 out of 36 in total), and once double-overlapped the fight will be CF 5 v CF 1 (with 18 chances out of 36 or 50% chance of being destroyed). The “+1 for 4Ax when fighting HI”, which is not dependent upon adjacent friends for the extra +1, would be CF 5 v CF 2 when double-overlapped (and only 12 chances out of 36 or 33% chance of being destroyed). 4) 4Ax would be forced to fight in battlelines, dependent upon adjacent friends, and vulnerable when used individually or in echelon formation. They would also be a poor choice to place on the wings, where the last one in the line would only have a single supporting nearby friend, so they would often end up in the centre instead of being on the wings extending the battleline...again, the exact opposite of their actual use in reality. I have posted before that there are three steps when it comes to fixing a problem:- First, admit that a problem exists. Second, find out what is causing the problem. Lastly, find ways to fix the causes. Well... The problem is that 4Ax (and Solid Bows) are not behaving as the historical accounts said they did... The cause for this lack of behaviour is that a CF of 3 cannot stand up to a CF of 5... The way to fix the cause is to increase the CF to 4 against CF 5...but to do so with no knock-on effects. Primuspilus’ “+1 to Solid Auxilia and Solid Bow when fighting Sp/Bd/supported Pk, unless in bad going” is a precise surgical fix, that directly targets the immediate cause, and has no knock-on effects against other elements or other situations. Play-testing it has proven this to be true, and it gives us just the right historical effects that we are after. 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 martin on Mar 6, 2019 8:07:46 GMT
I'm not convinced by many of the suggested changes for Auxilia or Bows, but I do like the idea of amending the last sentence of the Flank support factors rule as follows: Spears and "Solid" Auxilia add +1 if supported by Spears, "Solid" Auxilia or “Solid” Blades and Bows add +1 if supported by “Solid” Blades. Maybe this could be considered for the proposed 3.1? Likewise....I also am not thoroughly convinced. The recent suggestion that there might be a ‘consensus’ for all proposed changes ignores the fact that only a very few people were engaged in and by the argument. One point, frequently ignored or overlooked during this process, is that the classification of many troops in our multitudinous lists as 4Ax seems to have been a ‘go to’ choice when a list author can’t find a more dynamic category to put them in. Under eg DBM/DBMM they might, for example, have been assigned to Sp(I), ‘inferior spears’. To grant significantly greater powers to Spanish 4Ax in order to replicate Cannae would therefore go alongside granting toughened status to dross Classical Indian troops or Thracian/Illyrian hillmen or whichever was ‘by default’ made a 4Ax during the list compiling process. As suggested ages ago on this thread, I feel there is scope for opening a rare ol’ can of worms here. Anyone fancy going through every instance of 4Ax in our lists to see whether they fit in with the argument? Should be a thesis in there somewhere...... There is a danger of us trying to write DBMM lite here. Has happened before, all through the history of DBA. ‘Big Picture’ rules by design have to some extent to ignore ‘Bottom Up’ thinking processes.
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 6, 2019 8:29:43 GMT
One thought....and please don’t get me wrong - I like the +1 for 4Ax (closed ranks) vs HI so this is more of a “Devils Advocate” comment.
In DBA 4 VP gives you a win. Conversely most Ancient battles were won or lost when the Heavy Infantry Core at the center of the army broke. BUT one of the effects of the +1 for 4Ax (closed ranks) vs HI rule (and indeed the +1 for side supported Sp or +1 for supported 5Bw) is to confine the centre of the battlefield to a frustratingly slow brawl akin to the “push of pike” in later years. This will leave the battle to be won with relatively meaningless slaughter of low quality support troops on the flanks. So my question is are we in danger of ratcheting up the CFs of Inf until they become less important in battle than they actually were? Would combining the +1 for 4Ax (closed ranks) vs HI rule with 0VP for first Ps (or LH) destroyed act to counterbalance this? Although for me this would have to read 0VP for first (if not only) Ps or LH destroyed I sure we could get some quality Barkerese out of that.
I also think we need to nerf down the power of 3Bd as well.....but that’s another thread.
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Mar 6, 2019 9:24:09 GMT
Welcome to the debate Chaotic. It’s always good to hear other player’s point of view. I compared your ”+1 to Solid Auxilia if side-supported by Spears, Solid Auxilia, or Solid Blades” idea with Primuspilus’ “+1 to Solid Auxilia and Solid Bow when fighting Sp/Bd/supported Pk, unless in bad going” suggestion. Unfortunately, and I hope you’ll forgive me, I spotted several flaws with your proposal:- 1) Your suggestion means 4Ax have a CF of 4 against all foot, so are more powerful against Ps, Wb, Bows, WWg, Hordes. The “+1 for 4Ax when fighting HI” does not have these unwanted knock-on effects. 2) There is no side-support in rough going, so 4Ax will avoid such terrain while Blades will actively seek it out because it gives them a larger CF advantage against 4Ax...the exact opposite of what one would expect in reality. 3) It is still easy for CF 5 troops to get a double-overlap on a CF 4 element (19 chances in 36 to recoil them with another 2 chances of being destroyed, making 21 out of 36 in total), and once double-overlapped the fight will be CF 5 v CF 1 (with 18 chances out of 36 or 50% chance of being destroyed). The “+1 for 4Ax when fighting HI”, which is not dependent upon adjacent friends for the extra +1, would be CF 5 v CF 2 when double-overlapped (and only 12 chances out of 36 or 33% chance of being destroyed). 4) 4Ax would be forced to fight in battlelines, dependent upon adjacent friends, and vulnerable when used individually or in echelon formation. They would also be a poor choice to place on the wings, where the last one in the line would only have a single supporting nearby friend, so they would often end up in the centre instead of being on the wings extending the battleline...again, the exact opposite of their actual use in reality. I have posted before that there are three steps when it comes to fixing a problem:- First, admit that a problem exists. Second, find out what is causing the problem. Lastly, find ways to fix the causes. Well... The problem is that 4Ax (and Solid Bows) are not behaving as the historical accounts said they did... The cause for this lack of behaviour is that a CF of 3 cannot stand up to a CF of 5... The way to fix the cause is to increase the CF to 4 against CF 5...but to do so with no knock-on effects. Primuspilus’ “+1 to Solid Auxilia and Solid Bow when fighting Sp/Bd/supported Pk, unless in bad going” is a precise surgical fix, that directly targets the immediate cause, and has no knock-on effects against other elements or other situations. Play-testing it has proven this to be true, and it gives us just the right historical effects that we are after. 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
Thanks stevie. I appreciate your considered post and as an aside, I very much enjoyed your earlier contributions. I'd like to pay you the compliment of responding to your 4 points, not by way of argument because each of your points have merit, but more to try to contribute to the debate in a positive way. 1. There are certainly knock-on effects when granting 4Ax flank support against all foot in open terrain. My personal view is that troops armed with long spear, javelins and large shield, who were expected to hold their place in the battle line, is that they *should* have an advantage over more lightly armed skirmishers, such as peltasts and psiloi. I also assume that their large shield, and in some cases armour, were adopted to give better protection against both missile fire and melee opponents. Therefore my position is that these are not "undesirable" knock-on effects, rather they better represent the behaviour of these troops fighting in the open. 2. I agree that my proposal gives no advantage to 4Ax in rough terrain, however I don't agree that this will encourage players to send their Solid Blades into rough terrain, at least, any more than they already do. If it really is a big problem I would concede defeat on this point, but in my experience it isn't. It seems to me that the expediency and likely acceptability of a minor amendment to an existing rule (side support) outweighed the insertion of an additional rule, especially when advocating inclusion of the change into the proposed DBA 3.1. 3. In this I agree completely. I think heavy foot that specialise in close quarters combat should have a distinct advantage over troops such as Thorakitai and Theurophori. In this respect, I think the problem is with troop classification. There are clearly some elite troops whose training and equipment permitted them to behave as both Solid Blades and Fast Auxilia with great success. Macedonian Hypaspists spring to mind. For those troops, I would advocate a mixed classification such as Sp/3Bd, however this is a different discussion and not part my Flank Support proposal. 4. I would respectfully re-phrase your assertion to "4Ax would have the option to fight in battle lines"; an option they currently do not have for the reasons you stated in point 3 above. However IMHO they should be dependent upon adjacent friends, whether in the battle line or holding a flank. I think an isolated Ax unit would be much more likely to retreat than hold its ground against heavier opposition. Summary There seems to be a reasonable consensus here that 4Ax have unrealistic disadvantages from a historical perspective. I don't think there is consensus on the extent of the problem, or the best way to address it. I'm not persuaded that bows suffer the same disadvantages, but I'll leave that for another time. I agree with martin that the discussion needs to be much broader and I'm interested to hear what others have to say.
|
|