|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 7, 2019 9:20:47 GMT
One unexpected outcome is that my planned Illyrian army will cost double as I'll need 3Ax and 4Ax options!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 7, 2019 9:41:20 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? All good points, and well made, gorograd. My choice of words was a little slack. I suppose a slightly more relevant description of many (possibly the majority) of those troops placed in 4Ax category by the list writers might be ‘run of the mill, uninspiring, relatively low grade line troops, of relatively mediocre fighting ability’ (rather than dross....yes, that probably conjures up Hd). Whether or not they SHOULD have been thus categorised is a matter for conjecture, and that is one of the main points of my ‘argument’ about uprating the troop type - greedo may have mentioned the supposed ‘ninja 4Ax’ Spanish, who appear to have performed better than the classification might allow/suggest. The root of my disagreement with proposed upgrading is that it would drag along lots of other armies’ low grade troops with no historical support. Bring on that well known, world beating, all conquering army, the Cypriot/Phoenicians with 50% 4Ax, some HCh and Littoral, aggression 0.... 4Ax because.....(?) Tournament armies - yes, Kn +Bd is a fave, but try El +3Bd (Tamil) or Kn+3Bw, all successful at times on the UK circuit. The Welsh Open winner was Kassandros army, with 4 x4Pk and 4 x 3Ax plus supports....in good hands they were deadly. Players around here often turn up with whatever fits the theme, or they feel like running out, or they’ve just painted. Sometimes it’s as a challenge, to see how they can do with a sub-optimal army. Various ideas. Negative effects? Hard to know until it happens.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Mar 7, 2019 9:49:28 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) Not saying that we should penalise the few recorded instances of gloriously successful 4Ax, but that we shouldn’t ignore the majority of instances of 4Ax in the lists as unknown/sub-optimal grunts. Assyrians, meso-Americans, Cypriots, Assyrians, Classical Indians, etc etc It would involve a significant lists rewrite, by persons with far deeper knowledge than I /us. Even the list writers don’t know how most troops fought (which is why we see them frequently reclassified in subsequent versions of the DBA/DBM/DBMM lists, sometimes apparently with minimal historical basis).
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 7, 2019 11:57:13 GMT
Understood Martin.
But there are two types of 4Ax:- Those that have documented ancient writings describing their real-life behaviour and performance, And those that are undocumented and are just fictitious and entirely made-up.
Surely it would be better to get the documented 4Ax correct, as no-one really knows how the others performed. Isn’t it better to be half right and the other half unknown...rather than half definitely wrong and the others unknown?
We are only talking about a +1 to 4Ax, and only when they face Bd/Sp/supported Pk, and only in rough or good going. They will still be inferior to heavy foot, and certainly not battle-winners, just a little more robust and take longer to kill. And, if their historical opponents don’t have any heavy foot (and most Book I armies don’t), then it will have no effect.
Of course, in tournaments players do not necessarily fight against historical opponents...they could be facing anyone. But both players are using the same rules in tournaments, so it’s not as if one player suddenly has an advantage. And it might even encourage some of those avoided armies to actually be used.
In fact I’m surprised that it isn’t the tournament players that are not the ones demanding and shouting for change. The basic idea in DBA is that all elements are (at least theoretically) equal with each other, with various advantages and disadvantages. But the auxiliary class is clearly a poor choice, with more disadvantages and very few advantages. The tournament players should want them to be more play-balanced and of more use. The historical players want them to behave and perform as the ancient writers said they did. Rather than opposing, both types of player really want the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 7, 2019 16:06:35 GMT
So, to Martin and Stevie's tournament points: What are the biggest or most common concerns/questions/suggestions from Tournament players regarding the game rules and/or army lists? Perhaps this should be it's own thread. A bit of a "biggest Pain Points in DBA 3.0" as a bigger question than just changing 4Ax.
On the surface, I can see that +1 vs Heavy Infantry isn't a huge change, but I'm also not trying to play a tournament of 4 games in a row with rules that I'm still learning. So that rule exception could be added to the list of rule exceptions that create confusion. There are the new players at tournaments, and there are the older gentlemen who may get confused with previous versions. Completely guessing as I haven't attended a DBA tourney yet (although I've played in wargame tournaments before).
Chris
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 7, 2019 19:08:50 GMT
One unexpected outcome is that my planned Illyrian army will cost double as I'll need 3Ax and 4Ax options! Jim Just curious, Jim. Why do you need 4Ax and 3Ax across the board? I always interpreted the choice to mean that PB was allowing players to field the army as they believe they actually fought? So Lydians are 4Sp or 4Ax for solid foot, but I didn't imagine he meant they would cycle back and forth between being 4Ax and 4Sp hoplites? Otherwise I gotta have something like 38 elements just to field a "complete" 12-element Thracian army? Ouch! Do most players build every possible choice? My Illyrians are I think 2 x Ps, 9 x 4Ax, and LH general, if I recall. I subscribed to the view of them carrying large shields, and fighting closer order. My Early Thracians are mostly Ps and 3Ax. Makes for an interesting fight!
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Mar 7, 2019 20:31:00 GMT
One unexpected outcome is that my planned Illyrian army will cost double as I'll need 3Ax and 4Ax options! Jim Do most players build every possible choice? Not most I think, and certainly not me. But I know at least one such enthusiast in Canberra who hosts regular 6-8+ person campaigns and provides all the troop elements, terrain, camps and playing surfaces. Each player just has to turn up to play. Great work Macbeth and long may it continue!
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 7, 2019 23:36:08 GMT
One unexpected outcome is that my planned Illyrian army will cost double as I'll need 3Ax and 4Ax options! Jim Just curious, Jim. Why do you need 4Ax and 3Ax across the board? I always interpreted the choice to mean that PB was allowing players to field the army as they believe they actually fought? So Lydians are 4Sp or 4Ax for solid foot, but I didn't imagine he meant they would cycle back and forth between being 4Ax and 4Sp hoplites? Otherwise I gotta have something like 38 elements just to field a "complete" 12-element Thracian army? Ouch! Do most players build every possible choice? My Illyrians are I think 2 x Ps, 9 x 4Ax, and LH general, if I recall. I subscribed to the view of them carrying large shields, and fighting closer order. My Early Thracians are mostly Ps and 3Ax. Makes for an interesting fight! I'm not quite sure about the point of this question. The simple answer is that I like toy soldiers! That's all the reason that I need. I don't think PB has any interest in the armies I build. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 8, 2019 0:14:22 GMT
Not most I think, and certainly not me. But I know at least one such enthusiast in Canberra who hosts regular 6-8+ person campaigns and provides all the troop elements, terrain, camps and playing surfaces. Each player just has to turn up to play. Great work Macbeth and long may it continue! Sounds like fun! I must get up to Canberra for an event one day! Yes lot's of options is great for campaigns. For example stevie's mapless campaign rules work a lot better if there are actual "weaker" units available to choose from. I also like randomizing the make up of armies for scratch matches. Gives a good tactical challenge for tried and tested match ups and roughly simulates a general fighting with what's at hand rather than carefully crafting their force. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 8, 2019 13:36:12 GMT
Thanks for those kind words Martin.
As to having all options - 3/4AX, 3/4BW, etc. - for an army, I am trying to work toward that with my armies. For now, for example, my various Indians borrow the other option from their fellows as my initial aim was to field as many of the army lists as possible so one army runs 3Bw and the next the 4BW option (or vice versa).
For some lists that span a significant time period this will actually lead to the use of different figures for the elements in addition to the different numbers - particularly for Book IV armies where costume and equipment changed significantly over centuries.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 8, 2019 14:59:49 GMT
One unexpected outcome is that my planned Illyrian army will cost double as I'll need 3Ax and 4Ax options! Jim Just curious, Jim. Why do you need 4Ax and 3Ax across the board? I always interpreted the choice to mean that PB was allowing players to field the army as they believe they actually fought? So Lydians are 4Sp or 4Ax for solid foot, but I didn't imagine he meant they would cycle back and forth between being 4Ax and 4Sp hoplites? Otherwise I gotta have something like 38 elements just to field a "complete" 12-element Thracian army? Ouch! Do most players build every possible choice? My Illyrians are I think 2 x Ps, 9 x 4Ax, and LH general, if I recall. I subscribed to the view of them carrying large shields, and fighting closer order. My Early Thracians are mostly Ps and 3Ax. Makes for an interesting fight! Hmmm...I’ve been thinking about this. Isn’t it just a matter of perception? After all, we don’t complain about the I/59 Tullian Romans (looking like hoplites), the II/10 Camillan Romans (looking like Triarii), and the II/33 Polybian Romans (looking like hastati & principes), and say “oh dear, I’ve now got to go and buy three different armies to represent them all”. And why don’t we complain?...because they are in three different army lists. Well, just because the I/48 Thracian army list has 3 different Thracian armies from 3 different periods squeezed into one, with the Ps the early Thracians, the 3Ax representing the middle Thracians, and 4Ax the later thureos shielded Thracians, isn’t it just the same as the Romans above? It may say “Illyrians” at the top of army I/47, but there are two different armies from two different periods fighting in two different styles in there...and it’s the same with the I/48 Thracians, the II/39 Spanish, and the II/11 Gauls...etc. 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 8, 2019 23:21:35 GMT
After all, we don’t complain about the I/59 Tullian Romans (looking like hoplites), the II/10 Camillan Romans (looking like Triarii), and the II/33 Polybian Romans (looking like hastati & principes), and say “oh dear, I’ve now got to go and buy three different armies to represent them all”. And why don’t we complain?...because they are in three different army lists. Well, just because the I/48 Thracian army list has 3 different Thracian armies from 3 different periods squeezed into one, with the Ps the early Thracians, the 3Ax representing the middle Thracians, and 4Ax the later thureos shielded Thracians, isn’t it just the same as the Romans above? It may say “Illyrians” at the top of army I/47, but there are two different armies from two different periods fighting in two different styles in there...and it’s the same with the I/48 Thracians, the II/39 Spanish, and the II/11 Gauls...etc. 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
Wow! My initial post was just a tongue in cheek comment that with 4Ax+1, Illyrians will be more attractive. I didn't think it would raise a serious discussion. But let's look at the Thracians. stevie, your saying they are three different armies. But PB writes in his DBMM army lists that Hill Tribe Thracians can have a rhomphaia throughout the period covered. Indeed he cites non other than Thucydides, who states that the best fighters were independent swordsmen who cam down from the Rhodope Mountains. He goes on to explain that these swordsmen may have been rhomphaia-men, the earliest excavated rhomphaia dating from the late 4th century BC. He also states that they may also have had long spears. Now how do "swordsmen" (according to Thucydides) fit into a Ps or 3Ax model? We simply don't know how all the different Thracian tribes fought at different times. I think PB is acknowledging this lack of knowledge and is being quite flexible in his approach. Your approach to your armies is absolutely fine. But I would hope that if a player fielded an army circa 600BC with 9 elements of 4Ax then nobody would look down their glasses at them. Afterall, it is a legal army. I truly hope we don't go down the path of trying to micromanage players model collections. If wanted someone to look over my shoulder and comment on the colour I painted the metal fastener then I would do Napoleonics! Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Mar 9, 2019 0:05:30 GMT
Do most players build every possible choice? Not most I think, and certainly not me. But I know at least one such enthusiast in Canberra who hosts regular 6-8+ person campaigns and provides all the troop elements, terrain, camps and playing surfaces. Each player just has to turn up to play. Great work Macbeth and long may it continue! If I collect an army I’ll certainly try to provide myself all the options so that I can play it to the fullest. I mean it is only collecting and painting toy soldiers and that is kind of what I like doing. Besides you never know when you may need those extra elements. However, I’ve never yet gone to the extent of collecting both 3Ax and 4Ax versions of the same army as generally I’ll avoid Ax heavy armies for all the reasons Stevie points out at the start of this thread!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 9, 2019 0:27:05 GMT
But I would hope that if a player fielded an (Thracian) army circa 600BC with 9 elements of 4Ax then nobody would look down their glasses at them. After all, it is a legal army. I truly hope we don't go down the path of trying to micromanage players model collections. If wanted someone to look over my shoulder and comment on the colour I painted the metal fastener then I would do Napoleonics! Cheers Jim Ha! Whether the Ps, 3Ax, and 4Ax represents three different time periods, or they represent three different tribes, they are still three separate armies fighting in their own distinct styles...and as different as chalk is from cheese. So if you want all three types of Thracians Jim, then ya gonna ‘ave ta pay for ‘em (you cheapskate ). (And what about tight-wads like me that plonk 4Ax on the table and say “oh, those are acting as 3Ax for this 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 greedo on Mar 9, 2019 1:46:43 GMT
So steering us back to the topic at hand, but related:
If I have the choice of playing 12x3Ax or 12x4Ax, from purely a game perspective, and avoiding argument about what they historically represent, would anybody take the 4Ax considering how much I lose?
4Ax are ok in bad going but 3Ax are great in it, and 4Ax are not going to be able to stand up in the battle line. The only thing you gain is a tie against solid foot.
So, given that, is there something that can be done in a non-complex way to improve 4Ax to encourage people who have a choice to take them over their more Peltast brothers?
|
|