|
Post by stevie on Mar 6, 2019 9:38:19 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. But Martin, that is precisely the point. All 4Ax troops are underpowered...Cannae is just one well documented example of this...it’s merely the tip of the iceberg. Again I quote from Duncan Head’s “Macedonian and Punic Wars” (as he has already done all the research for us):- The Spanish “were regarded as good soldiers, fierce and determined if ill-disciplined”. “Their initial charge was often powerful enough to break through even a Roman line; if it was held, the Spaniards were still formidable with swords, but Roman discipline and armour would usually beat them.” The Samnites “Romans believed the first Samnite attack was the most dangerous, and after a while they would run out of missiles and their spirits would flag”. “Their infantry would usually charge fiercely and fight at close quarters; the Romans seem to have had a slight edge in such a contest, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once.” The Illyrians “The good order and the willingness to hold firm and fight hand to hand, displayed by the Dardanoi in 200 BC, is seen as early as 358 BC...”. “The Dardanoi in 200 BC are described as much steadier warriors - these troops do not leave their ranks impulsively but keep close order in both combat and withdrawl”.“The contrast between 5th century Illyrians fighting individually in no order and their 3rd century counterparts in formed speirai suggests a marked improvement in battlefield organisation”. Thureophoroi “these and similar troops, such as Thracians and Illyrians, might also be deployed in battle to protect the vulnerable flanks of a phalanx...”. “Asklepiodotos bases their organisation on files of eight, and this was probably their typical depth in battle. It seems likely they would skirmish in open order but close up to pyknosis (close order) for close combat”. (The Jewish Maccabees, and many others, were also armed and fought as Hellenistic thureophoroi). None of the above is possible with a combat factor of 3 against a combat factor of 5...but a combat factor of 4 can. If players want crap auxiliaries, that are massacred by heavy infantry, then fine, take 3Ax. But all the historical writings indicate that 4Ax were better, and could stand up to Bd/Sp/Pk...at least for a while. Anyway, it’s not as if DBA has not got things wrong before. That’s why DBA 3.0 now has spears and solid bows getting side-support, light horse getting rear support, Lb/Cb/Bd can kill Kn/Cm on an equal score, blades and pikes now pursue, new elephant combat factors, and many other things changed from what they were in previous versions of the rules. Is it really so inconceivable to think that the current version of DBA has also got the 4Ax behaviour wrong, as its performance doesn’t match that of the historical records?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 6, 2019 10:08:19 GMT
1) Your suggestion means 4Ax have a CF of 4 against all foot, so are more powerful against ... Wb...
Hi stevie.I like the 4Ax+1 adjustment but I have one nagging doubt and I wanted your (and anybody else's) thoughts. We are told that the Romans developed Auxilia to match Warband. So 4Ax will get the Solid v Fast bonus on even rolls against 3Wb but 3Wb can get rear support +1. Do you think this gives the right balance? Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 6, 2019 10:11:02 GMT
Just some quick replies (in red) Chaotic, as I’ve already been accused of making my posts tooo looong (which is true ):- 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.
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. Roman Imperial Auxilia, Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, Thracians, and many other 4Ax do not have "long spears". Remember, the first sentence on page 3 of the rules says that battlefield behaviour, not weapons, define a troop class. Anyway, if you're not bothered by knock-on effects, then keep it simple...just give 4Ax a blanket CF of 4 against foot.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. Ah, but the 4Ax will themselves have to avoid rough going...which is contrary to their historical behaviour...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. Heavy foot will have an advantage over 4Ax...CF 5 v CF 4...but not such an advantage that the 4Ax get slaughtered...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. Bd become the best troops to put at the end of a battleline, as they don't need friends to generate their CF of 5. 4Ax would need both flanks protected by friends, in case one of these friends recoils. Thus, every Roman deployment ends up looking like Cannae, with the 4Ax in the centre and the heavy foot on the wings...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.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 6, 2019 10:18:05 GMT
1) Your suggestion means 4Ax have a CF of 4 against all foot, so are more powerful against ... Wb...
Hi stevie.I like the 4Ax+1 adjustment but I have one nagging doubt and I wanted your (and anybody elses) thoughts. We are told that the Romans developed Auxilia to match Warband. So 4Ax will get the Solid v Fast bonus against 3Wb but 3Wb can get rear support +1. Do you think this gives the right balance? Cheers Jim At the moment Jim, some people (but not myself) think that Warbands are already too weak. Yes, they get +1 for rear-support...but at the cost of shortening their battleline. I don't see any calls for making Wb even weaker. The current situation, with both 4Ax and Wb having and keeping a CF of 3 each, seems about 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 6, 2019 10:25:21 GMT
Hi stevie.I like the 4Ax+1 adjustment but I have one nagging doubt and I wanted your (and anybody elses) thoughts. We are told that the Romans developed Auxilia to match Warband. So 4Ax will get the Solid v Fast bonus against 3Wb but 3Wb can get rear support +1. Do you think this gives the right balance? Cheers Jim At the moment Jim, some people (but not myself) think that Warbands are already too weak. Yes, they get +1 for rear-support...but at the cost of shortening their battleline. I don't see any calls for making Wb even weaker. The current situation, with both 4Ax and Wb having and keeping a CF of 3 each, seems about 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
Thanks stevie.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 6, 2019 12:41:48 GMT
“All 4Ax are underpowered”..........(?)
Stevie, as usual, you have picked sections of my reply and ignored others.
My fundamental disagreement with your position is that while SOME 4Ax categorised troops MAY have historical accounts which MAY at times suggest they are underpowered, MANY (possibly the vast majority) of the troops listed in the v3.0 as ‘4Ax’ have NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that they were other than dross foot, and were thus hard to classify by the list writer(s). In the case of a very great number of these foot we know only vaguely what they LOOKED like, with not a hint at how they fought.
eg Dilmun ‘warriors’ I/8c Amorite javelinmen I/15 Hittite ‘spearmen’ I/16 Mycenaean ‘Pylians’ I/18 Mitanni ‘spearmen’ I/19 Assyrian ‘hupshu’ I/25ab Early Hebrew ‘picked men’ I/27 Geometric Greek ‘warriors’ I/30c Cypriots I/30 abcd Indian ‘javelinmen’ I/2 and /3
(Lost the will to delve further at that point, but I assume you can see the point here?? The list really does go on and on.).
You’re running the risk of fixing Cannae but breaking the lists.
I await a good ol’ fashioned, no nonsense shouting down, as per........
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 6, 2019 16:07:20 GMT
Working along the lines of "come to every meeting with a prototype", I did a limited test last night: The line up: EAP vs Greek Spear: 7Hd_8Bw_8Bw_8Bw_8Bw_7Hd 4Sp_4Sp_4Sp_4Sp_4Sp_4Sp Assumptions: 1) This was EAP, but assumed that bowfire did nothing (it usually disrupts the spears a little bit), and both lines have now crashed into each other 2) Only dealing with the center battleline. Assume the wings are occupied and play not part. In reality, the Persian Cav would hopefully be flanking the spears on either flank and give them a tactical advantage/QK. 3) Assume not other wing based troops die, so it's ok to go for the full 4 units lost. 4) I did this test on graph paper, so didn't get to push any lead, but I was able to do it in bed The Test: Find out how long these Poor Bloody Infantry (the Persian Line) would last against a line of Spear Rule changes: 1) +1 Side Support for 8Bw, although this would work just as well with 4Ax Result: 1) There was some unlucky dice rolling from the Persians, but they fell apart pretty quickly. Even the 7Hd didn't anchor any flanks as I had hoped. The Spears just picked alternating elements, recoiled them, and double overlapped the other guys, killing them. 2) By Bound 2, both 7Hd had died (0 elements lost though!), and 1 8Bw had died 3) By Bound 4, we were down to 2 8Bw, and things would probably finish in the next bound Conclusions: 1) Hopefully it allows the 4Ax/8Bw to last long enough for their superior flanks to do some business, but the Persians would have to be pretty lucky, and if they are even a little unlucky, they'll get murdered. 2) Lasting 4-5 Bounds was kind of the goal, so in that respect, it worked, but only because 7Hd didn't count when they were lost. The first 8Bw getting lost was counting as x2, so that probably made up for it.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 6, 2019 16:20:07 GMT
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. To be fair Martin, the 3-4 people originally on this thread had reached some kind of "agreement", but then the plan was to expand out to the larger community (which seems to have happened organically!) with a bunch of testing already done to show that it does indeed work. But, to my main point. As a huge fan of BBDBA, I'm also a big fan of the Inferior/Superior grading of troops. We've got Fast, why not I/S? Sp(I), or Ax(S) for those Ninja Spanish Iberians... But either way, I really would like grading. That's a controversial point, and people will say "why don't you go and play DBMM then?" but it really is impossible to read for a layman. Perhaps I should have another go. To your point, we probably don't want to have DBMM(Inferior) instead of good ol' DBA, but I wouldn't mind some extra optional rules to spice things up in bigger games. In the meantime, a "Fast Spear" element wouldn't complicate things (except perhaps the Army Lists), unless that element doesn't exist at all in DBMM.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 6, 2019 16:35:42 GMT
One idea that might simplify matters in opposition to the +1 vs HI. The idea is based on the assumption that 4Ax can form up when they need to in the battleline, and then spread out when are in rough terrain. The best of both worlds in a sense. But I think our assumption rests on the idea that 4Ax would able to do this DURING the battle, and so far I haven't heard any evidence of 4Ax doing this in a real battle. They are either in the battleline, or they are in terrain. To people's points that perhaps just Spanish Iberians should be classed as something else, the argument of 4Ax/3Bd makes a bit more sense. The 4Ax/3Bd aren't DIFFERENT troops, they are the SAME troops that are preparing to fight in a different way for that battle (a bit like dismounting cavalry). Of course, everybody's going to take 3Bd over 4Ax, so the nerfing of 3Bd might be required, and this leads to a more gamey "army building" point: If 4Ax isn't any good, then given the option, everybody will always take a different unit (even 3Ax for example). But if that's the case, then what's the point of having 4Ax? Does there need to be something that makes them worth having and not just sticking in the back to guard the camp? And what of the 3/4Ax heavy armies (Thracians etc. Martin started a list) who have to rely on 3/4Ax to see them through? If we want people to play these armies and have ANY hope of winning, then their troops have to have some advantage, either in terrain placement, or in troop abilities or they'll just sit there, in the cigar box, hoping someone will take them to a tournament
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 6, 2019 16:56:34 GMT
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. > > 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. To be fair Martin, the 3-4 people originally on this thread had reached some kind of "agreement", but then the plan was to expand out to the larger community (which seems to have happened organically!) with a bunch of testing already done to show that it does indeed work. But, to my main point. As a huge fan of BBDBA, I'm also a big fan of the Inferior/Superior grading of troops. We've got Fast, why not I/S? Sp(I), or Ax(S) for those Ninja Spanish Iberians... But either way, I really would like grading. That's a controversial point, and people will say "why don't you go and play DBMM then?" but it really is impossible to read for a layman. Perhaps I should have another go. To your point, we probably don't want to have DBMM(Inferior) instead of good ol' DBA, but I wouldn't mind some extra optional rules to spice things up in bigger games. In the meantime, a "Fast Spear" element wouldn't complicate things (except perhaps the Army Lists), unless that element doesn't exist at all in DBMM (will have to check) in which case, this would the only thing to justify it. I think you may have answered your own question..... Players who are fans of extra complication might love gradings and all the variations that go with it. However, those who I play at tournaments are already struggling with the changes which v3 brought:- what destroys what on a draw, what foot or mounted recoils from what in shooting or close combat, etc. Fluid play is extremely important if you are (as we are) playing six games in a day, sometimes with an assortment of armies. It’s a ‘top down’/ Big Picture rule set. The clue is on the cover...”Quick play wargames rules...”. Time spent trawling through the rules to redefine some obscure variation for a certain type in a certain situation is gaming time lost. Extra complication should indeed be the remit for those who want to play eg DBMM with two games a day, or 2 and a 1/2 to 3 hours per game. We really don’t want DBA to become “impossible to read for a layman”, as you put it, which is where the relentless tinkering is likely to lead us. Barker and Co wrote a set which works, warts and all. Minor changes have major knock-on effects. From my personal perspective, play house rules to your heart’s content, but please, please don’t assume that the community want complications added.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 6, 2019 17:44:22 GMT
Players who are fans of extra complication might love gradings and all the variations that go with it. However, those who I play at tournaments are already struggling with the changes which v3 brought:- what destroys what on a draw, what foot or mounted recoils from what in shooting or close combat, etc. Fluid play is extremely important if you are (as we are) playing six games in a day, sometimes with an assortment of armies. What this debate was lacking was a tournament perspective, so glad we have it Martin! It did not occur to me that tournament players were struggling with the newer rules. Is it the "What kills what" table? Where does the most confusion lie? But from your experience in tournaments, do players play the 3/4Ax or the 8Bw heavy armies? If they do, how do they be competitive? If they don't, why not? Are they being gamey or do the battles look roughly historical? Given that you can/have packed in TONS of games against a variety of players/armies, what short comings do you find tournament players complain about the most often? This might stray into a different thread, but it'd be interesting nonetheless. My perspective is to be able to easily teach this game to my dad, who's 70, and doesn't have time to figure out fiddly rules, but gives a result that seems historical. The ability to fight within a hour is certainly a major plus, so your points around superior/inferior are well taken.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 6, 2019 18:12:27 GMT
Sorry Martin. I didn’t ignore your other concerns, it’s just that (believe it or not) I am trying to keep my posts as short and to the point as possible. But you now have my complete and undivided attention. “All 4Ax are underpowered”..........(?) Stevie, as usual, you have picked sections of my reply and ignored others. My fundamental disagreement with your position is that while SOME 4Ax categorised troops MAY have historical accounts which MAY at times suggest they are underpowered, MANY (possibly the vast majority) of the troops listed in the v3.0 as ‘4Ax’ have NO evidence whatsoever to suggest that they were other than dross foot, and were thus hard to classify by the list writer(s). In the case of a very great number of these foot we know only vaguely what they LOOKED like, with not a hint at how they fought. eg Dilmun ‘warriors’ I/8c Amorite javelinmen I/15 Hittite ‘spearmen’ I/16 Mycenaean ‘Pylians’ I/18 Mitanni ‘spearmen’ I/19 Assyrian ‘hupshu’ I/25ab Early Hebrew ‘picked men’ I/27 Geometric Greek ‘warriors’ I/30c Cypriots I/30 abcd Indian ‘javelinmen’ I/2 and /3 (Lost the will to delve further at that point, but I assume you can see the point here?? The list really does go on and on.). You’re running the risk of fixing Cannae but breaking the lists. I await a good ol’ fashioned, no nonsense shouting down, as per........ If MANY of those troops in DBA 3.0 classed as 4Ax have NO evidence and not a hint of how they fought... ...then how do you know that DBA is currently portraying them correctly? Forgive me, but I am reminded of this:- www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHWF50pXkEw SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE...not if’s, but’s, may’s or maybe’s. All we do know is the following:- (a) Mr Barker decided that the Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, later Thracians, Thureophoroi, Roman Auxilia, etc, should all be classed as ‘4Ax’. (b) I have shown that all the above (and many others) mentioned in (a) are underpowered, and not capable of performing as their real-life historical counterparts did, according to the writings of the ancient historians. (c) Mr Barker also decided that some of the more undocumented troops, such as the 1/15 Amorite Javelinmen, the I/16 Hittite Spearmen, the I/18 Mycenaean Pylians, etc, should all be equivalent to the 4Ax in (a) above. It therefore follows that if those in (a) are underpowered, then those in (c) will be underpowered as well. And should players have some sort of unsubstantiated vague ‘gut feeling’, based on no facts, no data, and no proof, that those mentioned in (c) above were indeed ‘crap’, then may I suggest they take it up with Phil Barker himself and ask him personally why he chose to make them 4Ax like those mentioned in (a) instead of making them all 3Ax. I have repeatedly given ample evidence from modern scholars such as Duncan Head and Fernando Quesada, also mathematical proof from the “Combat Effects Chart”, and even copious links to the actual writings of the ancient historians themselves, to show that something is wrong with the current 4Ax class. The only thing that those who refuse to believe this evidence have to give is nothing more than a blind faith in the DBA combat system. And adding one new Tactical Factor, which says: +1 if Solid Auxiliaries or Solid Bows in close combat with Blades, Spears, or supported Pikes (unless in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a city or fort)...is hardly complicated is it. (It’s certainly simpler than trying to work out who is and who isn’t affected by the mind numbingly over complex ‘Phantom Table-Edge Overlap’ rule...)
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 6, 2019 19:43:27 GMT
Sorry Martin. I didn’t ignore your other concerns, it’s just that (believe it or not) I am trying to keep my posts as short and to the point as possible. But you now have my complete and undivided attention. If MANY of those troops in DBA 3.0 classed as 4Ax have NO evidence and not a hint of how they fought... ...then how do you know that DBA is currently portraying them correctly? Forgive me, but I am reminded of this:- www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHWF50pXkEw SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE...not if’s, but’s, may’s or maybe’s. All we do know is the following:- (a) Mr Barker decided that the Spanish, Samnites, Illyrians, later Thracians, Thureophoroi, Roman Auxilia, etc, should all be classed as ‘4Ax’. (b) I have shown that all the above (and many others) mentioned in (a) are underpowered, and not capable of performing as their real-life historical counterparts did, according to the writings of the ancient historians. (c) Mr Barker also decided that some of the more undocumented troops, such as the 1/15 Amorite Javelinmen, the I/16 Hittite Spearmen, the I/18 Mycenaean Pylians, etc, should all be equivalent to the 4Ax in (a) above. It therefore follows that if those in (a) are underpowered, then those in (c) will be underpowered as well. And should players have some sort of unsubstantiated vague ‘gut feeling’, based on no facts, no data, and no proof, that those mentioned in (c) above were indeed ‘crap’, then may I suggest they take it up with Phil Barker himself and ask him personally why he chose to make them 4Ax like those mentioned in (a) instead of making them all 3Ax. I have repeatedly given ample evidence from modern scholars such as Duncan Head and Fernando Quesada, also mathematical proof from the “Combat Effects Chart”, and even copious links to the actual writings of the ancient historians themselves, to show that something is wrong with the current 4Ax class. The only thing that those who refuse to believe this evidence have to give is nothing more than a blind faith in the DBA combat system. And adding one new Tactical Factor, which says: +1 if Solid Auxiliaries or Solid Bows in close combat with Blades, Spears, or supported Pikes (unless in bad going, or when assaulting or defending a city or fort)...is hardly complicated is it. (It’s certainly simpler than trying to work out who is and who isn’t affected by the mind numbingly over complex ‘Phantom Table-Edge Overlap’ rule...)From experience...many players know the Phantom Corner Overlap rule. However, even more forget to apply it (me for certain). Q. " If MANY of those troops in DBA 3.0 classed as 4Ax have NO evidence and not a hint of how they fought... ...then how do you know that DBA is currently portraying them correctly?" A. I don't, you don't, nobody does (unless they have a time machine). We also don't know that DBA is portraying them incorrectly, despite the references to historians mentioned. Q. "SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE" A. Show me the time machine. and as for the (a), (b), (c) argument - though nicely worded, it still ignores my previous statement that rule writers have frequently used 4Ax in many lists as a generic 'also ran' troop type, and allocation of any troops (eg Assyrian hupsu) to that 4Ax class does not in any way suggest that Mr Barker and other list compilers (possibly including Duncan Head, by the way...others may be able to verify) consider them to have been capable of holding off eg Roman 4Bd in a set piece battle. Still trying to fix Cannae at the expense of the rest of the lists....... ps....the rule change mentioned seems reasonable. Not complicated. pps.....when are you going to show up at a tournament ? There's enough of them out there...... Then you might see the fun that minor rule differences can cause....
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 6, 2019 21:18:30 GMT
Actually, martin, my presumption in reading the troop classifications and then the army lists, was that the 5 and 7HD were the 'dross' troops.
Insofar as the classic examples of what Mr. Barker and other list developers classed as 3/4AX - Roman auxilia, Iberians, Thracians, hypaspists, etc. - go, these are all far from 'dross.' They are also woefully shortchanged in DBA as it currently stands based on their historical performance.
Now I have only played in a few tournaments here in the Denver, CO area where the armies tend (for some reason) to be either KN or BD heavy and those tourneys were half day affairs with 3 rounds. Therefore I am not up to speed on the tournament scene in areas that have a greater DBA presence and don't know how much of a negative effect that the proposed changes upgrading solid AX and BW would have on tournament play.
The proposed changes do, however, appear to give results more consistent with historical accounts and I really doubt that in tournaments you will see a shift away from the KN and BD heavy armies regardless.
I suppose that the question then becomes whether one looks at DBA as a simple quick play game or as a simple quick play game that also gives a reasonable approximation of historical results?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 6, 2019 22:56:00 GMT
Me again Martin (I do enjoy these sort of discussions). And please forgive me for only quoting a snippet of your post, as I just want to concentrate on the salient points. Q. " If MANY of those troops in DBA 3.0 classed as 4Ax have NO evidence and not a hint of how they fought... ...then how do you know that DBA is currently portraying them correctly?" A. I don't, you don't, nobody does (unless they have a time machine). We also don't know that DBA is portraying them incorrectly, despite the references to historians mentioned. Does it make any sense to penalize, cripple, and castrate those 4Ax that we DO have well documented historical evidence for, just because the other half are unknown and completely made up? Or are we saying that because we don’t know exactly how every 4Ax fought, then let’s deliberately make even the ones we do have historical evidence for wrong. P.S. Yes, my New Year’s Resolution this year is to play in as many UK tournaments as my old car can get to. Although, like all my Resolutions (such as stopping smoking and cutting back drinking), I have slipped a bit. Nonetheless, prepare to meet the old Cockney Casanova in the very near future... (But I won’t be using an army with Auxiliaries in it, and I promise not to laugh at those that do...but I might smile)
|
|