|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 15, 2019 0:31:15 GMT
Design it. Test it. Assess against history.
You will find that with 4Ax now with an (outside) chance to kill a Sp or an overlapped Bd:
1. your mindset when facing a bunch of 4Ax is a teeny bit more defensive. You start thinking about a reserve, and whether you commit early or not. And that is even when YOU are the defender and chose a billiard table!
2. Now you see why someone like Iphicrates concluded that lighter-armed troops should replace his hoplites.
I fail to see why people who have barely played this at all are so resistant to it. Seems weird to me. I bet to these very same people, BW movement would have been a terrible heresy. And yet here we are using it with no issues whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 15, 2019 1:59:21 GMT
Design it. Test it. Assess against history. You will find that with 4Ax now with an (outside) chance to kill a Sp or an overlapped Bd: 1. your mindset when facing a bunch of 4Ax is a teeny bit more defensive. You start thinking about a reserve, and whether you commit early or not. And that is even when YOU are the defender and chose a billiard table! 2. Now you see why someone like Iphicrates concluded that lighter-armed troops should replace his hoplites. I fail to see why people who have barely played this at all are so resistant to it. Seems weird to me. I bet to these very same people, BW movement would have been a terrible heresy. And yet here we are using it with no issues whatsoever. Well it's designed, and I looked at the double overlap %s and seem ok. Will run a test in a day or two against 4Bd. The original requirements for the 4Ax change were to stop them from being a speed bump against CV 4/5/6 Heavy Infantry. So the +1 on loss will solve this. That said, if you want 4Ax to be able to take down Double Overlapped Heavy Infantry, then I think you are right, this is a more defensive solution, and the more general +1 will give them an offensive edge. I depends I think on if 4Ax defeated Spears/Blades in battle or not. My history is flaky so open to quotations. I'm trying to find the right balance between the math, and what people accept as what DBA "is" in it's current form. As you guys have pointed out, there are already all kinds of exceptions and element specific rules in DBA (QK against certain elements but not others, +1 supported vs certain elements but not others). So a couple of responses to that: 1) The element specific stuff is for QK, and supported units only (for now). We've never (to my knowledge) had a situation where a regular element spontaneously changes CV based on the element it's facing. The obvious exception to this is foot vs mounted, so what you're suggesting is to give all elements a third CV value: CV against Light Foot, CV against Heavy Foot, CV against Mounted. This change is surgical in that it only affects a single element, but where will it stop come DBA 3.2, 3.3 etc? If we make a change like that, it should be systematic, rather than micro-specific, and that leads me to... 2) DBA is hard to read (see the current Rants and Raves topic). You guys have played hundreds of games of DBA, but for people who haven't (giant boney finger pointed at my own head), the rules are very hard to parse, especially in a high intensity tournament setting. So I can understand the natural reluctance of members of the community to further complicate the rules, however small a change, if it'll be yet another combat factor that we have to remember. 3) I left before the fight over 2.2+ and 3.0 got nasty, but before I left, I remember Fanaticus changed from a really fun and welcoming place for new players, to a place where 1-2 people would respond to every comment with a bit of an "I know better than you, so shut up" attitude to any suggestions other than theirs. It was off putting. Those people have gone, but I saw the fallout at Historicon with 2 rival versions of DBA being played 20 yards from each other and nobody seeming particularly happy about it. It was really sad to see, especially with so many other games around being played where people were having a great time. 4) This is a community, and made up of diverse players, with different experience levels, ages, backgrounds, expectations, and dare I say it, interest in history. Perhaps we could continue the debate with a bit more "building on what you said", rather "my idea is the best. Everybody just get on board"? That way the community can get behind something, instead of fighting itself (again)
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 15, 2019 2:40:10 GMT
Hi Greedo,
I take your points but what I find strange is that Stevie and I are gathering and categorising a nice collection of historical tweaks that give the discerning gamer a mechanism to more accurately get inside mindset of an ancient general (or king or consul! đ) using a set of targeted items that happen to work well together. I am not trying to change peoples' minds beyond the following: if people say this or that won't work, and say so on a mere handful of games, when extensive playtesting seems to suggest they work in precisely the way we intended, then it's hard not to defend one's experience with it.
I recall when Commands and Colors came out - and people would say "Just finished reading the rules, I noticed the game doesn't having flanking rules, and I haven't played the game yet, but here are the flanking rules that I have written that the designer clearly forgot to put in!" (The game is actually brilliant, and flanking is really bad if it happens to you - a 2 or 3 on 1 combat will smash most Roman units! And no rules were needed to explicitly make it happen!)
And that is why I keep suggesting people play them and see for themselves. I am genuinely interested in how multiple games by other players using other tactics turn out. I suspect these not only steer towards more historical outcomes for other players also, but they render armies that are currently quite uninteresting, boring, and dare I say useless, suddenly rather interesting.
That said, think of them as a compendium of well-tested, fun ideas, that are merely one (quite effective I might add) way of getting DBA working better, that you can pick and choose from, if you find them fun and compelling.
Without having to recall which thread and which post that great idea was in 6 months ago, that you really wanted to try out, now that you finally painted up an Illyrian army!
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 15, 2019 6:13:28 GMT
Hi Primus, Ok this is making much more sense now. I think I was conflating you and Stevieâs, and Joeâs objectives which was to make improvement suggestions to DBA 3.1 (eventually) vs what you and Stevie are actually trying to do.
3.2 Changes like that require lots of more general testing and buy in. However, if the plan all along has been to publish the historical add on that would probabaly fit well with Joeâs Historical scenarios book, then that sounds great!
DBA is simple enough to be a bit like Minecraft that my nephew is into. A simple Vanilla engine that can modded without ruining the integrity of the main system.
Hope my rant didnât put anybody off...
Chris
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 15, 2019 6:59:00 GMT
No worries, Greedo, butnhere's the thing: in HotT, people found that swapping the movement rates of shooters and warbands worked really well. It began as a house rule. Players liked it so much once they got used to it that it became an eventual official rule. It is not inconceivable that down the road, rules that players like, and work well, could end up in some later version of DBA. But that's not my call.
Meantime, I really do encourage as much experimenting and playing as possible. You never know: you may be about discover something yourself that everybody likes, and works well!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 15, 2019 9:28:31 GMT
I agree completely with Decebalus: a specific (and nonsensical) modifier against a certain troop type is both complex and gamey and not a good DBX solution. Examples of troops having specific modifiers are situation based not we just want to make 4Aux play differently against certain troop types. These problems can be solved by far simpler and better DBX methods. First if you want +4 Loose Order Medium Foot then just create it. Call it 4Aux. It has CF of +4 ignores Bad/Rough but moves only 2BW and so cannot run down Ps (only "disperse it"). Or use Fast Spear. The boost against certain troop types for no historical reason and just to help one of the clumsy troop types takes us back to 2.2 thining which we just spend 3 years of development and playtesting to get rid of. Adding complexity and gamey based rules is not the answer. TomT Really Tom?! Support Factor: âPikes add +1 when in frontal close combat against Knights, Elephants or Scythed Chariotsâ, if in good going. Tactical Factor: â4Ax add +1 when in frontal close combat against Spears, Blades or supported Pikesâ, unless in bad going. And you think the second one is âa specific nonsensical modifier that is both complex and gameyâ...but the first one isnât. Strange...they both look pretty similar to me. Giving 4Ax a combat factor of 4 against foot leads to loads of knock-on effects against Ps/Wb/Bows/WWg/Hd and bad going. And a so-called âfixâ that causes more problems than it fixes is not much of a fix at all is it. Still, if people want a CF 4 against all foot, or think that side-support is the answer, then do it, and ignore the consequences. Look people, ask yourself this fundamental question:-Do you want your little metal soldiers to behave as the ancient historians said they did? | Yes or No |
Which then leads to the second fundamental question:-Do you want nice looking elegant rules? (and itâs a shame they donât produce the right historical behaviour) | Or do you want rules that do produce the right historical behaviour (and itâs a shame there're not quite so elegant) |
Make up your minds which is more important: elegance or historical behaviour. ... because you canât have it both ways...the DBA combat system wonât allow it. If elegant rules is all that matters to you, then fine, carry on using the basic tournament rules and enjoy yourselves. If historical behaviour is your priority, then fine, wait until the âLesson from Historyâ is available and also enjoy yourselves. And many of the extra historical rules in that booklet are nothing more than simple one or two word additions or omissions. Thatâs right...just adding an extra word or two here and there is all it takes (wait till itâs ready and then see for yourselves). Iâm a great believer in personal freedom, and I hate it when people say âYou have to play DBA THIS WAY or not at allâ. Whatâs wrong with letting players choose for themselves what kind of game they want?
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Mar 15, 2019 12:18:21 GMT
Well stevie, while agreeing with your response to tom that the +1 modifier is no more complex or gamier than a number of the modifiers already written into the rules, I actually wouldn't mind a straightforward 4 CV 4AX.
As long as hypaspists and Roman auxilia and Auxilia Palatina (another elite?), among others, are graded as 4AX they should be better all round.
This might well not be true for the general run of troops currently graded as 4AX however so the proposed modifier against solid troops is a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by decebalus on Mar 15, 2019 14:12:00 GMT
stevie and primuspilusI really appreciate your ideas, your involvement and your enthusiasmus to make DBA better. For me coming late to the party, i really have no excuse. I read the thread before, didnt saw the need to interfere. My english isnt good enough to argue strongly. But i have now started to think about solid aux. And you are right, that didnt come from playing excessively with aux troops. It came, when i noticed, that everytime, i had the option to take 3Aux or 4Aux, i would take the 3Aux variant. I am building a late persian army at the moment (because for our next campaign nobody want to do it), and i took Takabara, not Kardakes. (BTW I have the same problem with 3Wb against 4Wb, but here the difference isnt trying to reflect the event of better troops.) I think i have a good understanding of rule design (you wont think that, thats fair). And that Greedo and MedievalThomas agree with my problem shows, that it isnt the solely opinion of a grumbler. Greedo has put my problem with your solution in better words, than i could have. "We've never (to my knowledge) had a situation where a regular element spontaneously changes CV based on the element it's facing. The obvious exception to this is foot vs mounted, so what you're suggesting is to give all elements a third CV value: CV against Light Foot, CV against Heavy Foot, CV against Mounted. This change is surgical in that it only affects a single element, but where will it stop come DBA 3.2, 3.3 etc? If we make a change like that, it should be systematic, rather than micro-specific,..." And your comparison with changing to BW movement or the new side support doesnt work IMO, because these changes were fundamental game design changes, not one-shot solutions to a very special problem. Stevie: "Make up your minds which is more important: elegance or historical behaviour. ...because you canât have it both ways...the DBA combat system wonât allow it." It is an interesting statement, because first of all you are agreeing, that the solution isnt elegant. And we could still have hope, to find an elegant solution. Stevie: "Whatâs wrong with letting players choose for themselves what kind of game they want?" - I am really a big fan of house rules. But i thought, that this thread is about discussing the quality of some house rules about the Ausx problem.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 15, 2019 16:26:19 GMT
Thanks for the reply Decebalus. Many players have been complaining about the weakness of auxiliaries for decades, so itâs not exactly new. And one would have thought that if there were a simple âelegantâ solution, it would have been found by now. Still, we can keep looking...but the best suggestion so far, that gives 4Ax a boost where they need it, with no unwanted destabilizing knock-on effects, is Primuspilusâ +1 when facing heavy foot. Hell...itâs taken us 20 years to get even this far! Iâm not prepared to wait another 20 years. And is changing from a loose formation to close formation really that difficult for troops that have practised it? At least we give a plausible explanation for why 4Ax gets this extra +1 against heavy foot:- âNative disordered and untrained 3Ax fight in loose order, which is why they are unaffected by hindering terrain. But trained and drilled regular 4Ax, plus those native troops who were just naturally stubborn, would have the sense to temporarily form-up into close formation when facing heavy enemy foot. Against all other kinds of foot they stay in loose formation, because close order against Warbands would make them as brittle as Blades and Spears (and not able to âroll-with-the-punchâ to avoid being âquick-killedâ), they would also be more vulnerable to Bows (all arrows would hit someone instead of half of them falling in the empty spaces between the men), and they need a loose formation to be able to make sudden short dashes to catch slippery evading Auxiliaries, Psiloi, and Fast Bows.â
What explanation does DBA give for solid Bows receiving a +1 when side-supported by solid Blades? ---None whatsoever...nothing...not a thing--- Bows donât form shield walls! So why do they get a +1 from solid Blades? Iâll tell you why...itâs just âa specific nonsensical modifier that is both complex and gameyâ as Tom would say. Nothing more than an excuse to give a weak troop type a much needed boost in close combat. Much like rear-supported Pikes, âwhere a regular element spontaneously changes itâs CF based on the element itâs facingâ as you would say (against Kn, El and SCh in the case of Pikes). I donât hear you questioning that. And you are right, I did imply that the +1 to 4Ax when facing heavy foot is not elegant. So what?...nothing in DBA is elegant! This elegant business is a shame, a fantasy, it doesnât exist. Are the following DBA rules âelegant?:- Some Bows (Lb and Cb) and Blades kill some mounted (Kn and Cm) on an equal score (elegant?)... Ps and SCh ignore corner-to-corner overlaps, but no one else does (why?)... Pikes, who need to maintain formation more than most, pursue like a disordered impetuous Warband (why?)... Blades, who have a combat factor of 5 against foot, âspontaneously changeâ to CF 4 when shot at (why?)... As for that Phantom Table Edge Overlap rule, page 10 paragraph 8...(elegant?) But, and this is a big but, I do understand why these rules are necessary...they are there to simulate historical behaviour. It does astound me that players blindly accept all the above âspecific nonsensical modifiers that are both complex and gameyâ, however when a new one is proposed to fix the long standing weakness of 4Ax, oh no, that is going a step too far. By the way, you didn't answer my previous question:- "Which is more important, this non-existent 'elegance' or historical behaviour"
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 15, 2019 19:24:03 GMT
At least we give a plausible explanation for why 4Ax gets this extra +1 against heavy foot:- âNative disordered and untrained 3Ax fight in loose order, which is why they are unaffected by hindering terrain. But trained and drilled regular 4Ax, plus those native troops who were just naturally stubborn, would have the sense to temporarily form-up into close formation when facing heavy enemy foot. Against all other kinds of foot they stay in loose formation, because close order against Warbands would make them as brittle as Blades and Spears (and not able to âroll-with-the-punchâ to avoid being âquick-killedâ), they would also be more vulnerable to Bows (all arrows would hit someone instead of half of them falling in the empty spaces between the men), and they need a loose formation to be able to make sudden short dashes to catch slippery evading Auxiliaries, Psiloi, and Fast Bows.âHey Stevie. Where is this quote from? It's a fascinating quote. Is it Head? Barker?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 15, 2019 19:32:19 GMT
It does astound me that players blindly accept all the above âspecific nonsensical modifiers that are both complex and gameyâ, however when a new one is proposed to fix the long standing weakness of 4Ax, oh no, that is going a step too far. By the way, you didn't answer my previous question:- "Which is more important, this non-existent 'elegance' or historical behaviour" Stevie, I think perhaps it's not that players think the rules are currently elegant. The BASIC rules are elegant, and with only a few modifiers, it can remain elegant. But, all the various, as you point out, sometimes random looking modifiers, can be hard to remember, precisely because they do, at first blush appear random, even if they are enacting proper historical behavior. So I think it's more that players WANT the rules to be elegant, or at least as elegant as is possible. Rules like Quick Killing, and Deep Units (8Xx) are pretty generally applicable, so people "get them", but the problems arise with the endless "this unit, NOT this unit, UNLESS only in this specific situation.." type language. In this, those Summary Cards are GREAT, because they have all the exceptions on them for newbies, so you know immediately what that unit can and cannot do, and who it should try to avoid. I guess the limitations of the DBA system are that it's an x/36 chance of recoiling, and killing an enemy, but all elements are in a bit of a paper rock scissors rotation, which makes more general rules hard to implement.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 15, 2019 21:41:42 GMT
At least we give a plausible explanation for why 4Ax gets this extra +1 against heavy foot:- âNative disordered and untrained 3Ax fight in loose order, which is why they are unaffected by hindering terrain. But trained and drilled regular 4Ax, plus those native troops who were just naturally stubborn, would have the sense to temporarily form-up into close formation when facing heavy enemy foot. Against all other kinds of foot they stay in loose formation, because close order against Warbands would make them as brittle as Blades and Spears (and not able to âroll-with-the-punchâ to avoid being âquick-killedâ), they would also be more vulnerable to Bows (all arrows would hit someone instead of half of them falling in the empty spaces between the men), and they need a loose formation to be able to make sudden short dashes to catch slippery evading Auxiliaries, Psiloi, and Fast Bows.âHey Stevie. Where is this quote from? It's a fascinating quote. Is it Head? Barker? Itâs by some bloke called Stevie, taken from the âLessons from Historyâ, March 2019.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 16, 2019 16:13:58 GMT
New Test: 4Ax vs 4Bd, 5 on 5
House Rule to Test: 4Ax +1 on a loss
Results: There was luck on both sides, and the 4Ax probably should have died sooner, however they held on for about 5 bounds before finally crumpling. A lot of being pushed back (which seems to work for Cannae), and the +1 saved several 4Ax from immediate destruction, which seems good. Several double overlapped 4Ax survived because the Bd rolled a 1. They really shoulda died. The new 3.0 Impetuous Blade really makes a difference. They rolled 1 PIP almost every round, even thought it didn't make a difference! Either way, timing wise, it seemed to work out. The goal was to have the 4Ax survive and slowed backup for 4-5 bounds.
Discussion: A decent first test. I think I like this a bit better than +1 vs HI, as it makes more intuitive sense to be, but it is also a new DBA mechanism (even if it's borrowed from DBMM), so might be widely accepted. Also, it can be applied to other elements if we decide that certain elements are ... yes I will say it. Superior. Will require more testing because the luck factor was at play in this test. But the math seems to work out well, or at least comparable with the +1 vs HI. Also, as Primus points out, this is purely a defensive rule, so won't help 4Ax to actually DEFEAT Bd or Sp. But given the nature of the change that was needed, I'm ok with that. Either way, this could certainly be applicable in a historical scenario that included "Ninja" 4Ax. Wouldn't have to apply to all 4Ax, so hopefully wouldn't mess with the existing army lists too much.
Next Steps: More tests of course! Also, I don't know what the compliment would be. i.e. What does Inferior look like? Is it -1 on a loss so more likely to die in combat immediately? Or is it -1 on a win so (I) troops won't die as easily but just won't win as much?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 16, 2019 16:14:41 GMT
Itâs by some bloke called Stevie, taken from the âLessons from Historyâ, March 2019. Ah, an ancient text then
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 16, 2019 16:19:44 GMT
New Test: 4Ax vs 4Bd, 5 on 5 House Rule to Test: 4Ax +1 on a loss Results: There was luck on both sides, and the 4Ax probably should have died sooner, however they held on for about 5 bounds before finally crumpling. A lot of being pushed back (which seems to work for Cannae), and the +1 saved several 4Ax from immediate destruction, which seems good. Several double overlapped 4Ax survived because the Bd rolled a 1. They really shoulda died. The new 3.0 Impetuous Blade really makes a difference. They rolled 1 PIP almost every round, even thought it didn't make a difference! Either way, timing wise, it seemed to work out. The goal was to have the 4Ax survive and slowed backup for 4-5 bounds. Discussion: A decent first test. I think I like this a bit better than +1 vs HI, as it makes more intuitive sense to be, but it is also a new DBA mechanism (even if it's borrowed from DBMM), so might be widely accepted. Also, it can be applied to other elements if we decide that certain elements are ... yes I will say it. Superior. Will require more testing because the luck factor was at play in this test. But the math seems to work out well, or at least comparable with the +1 vs HI. Also, as Primus points out, this is purely a defensive rule, so won't help 4Ax to actually DEFEAT Bd or Sp. But given the nature of the change that was needed, I'm ok with that. Either way, this could certainly be applicable in a historical scenario that included "Ninja" 4Ax. Wouldn't have to apply to all 4Ax, so hopefully wouldn't mess with the existing army lists too much. Next Steps: More tests of course! Also, I don't know what the compliment would be. i.e. What does Inferior look like? Is it -1 on a loss so more likely to die in combat immediately? Or is it -1 on a win so (I) troops won't die as easily but just won't win as much? Just be careful: once you open up the inferior/suoerior road to travel on, good luck balancing the army lists. DBMM seems to have this problem in spades. The +1 on 4Ax works well either way, however woth an outside chance 1/36 of killing an isolated Sp, you find that 4Ax+3Ax armies suddenly become very, very interesting and fun to play. Illyrian vs Corinthian is fun as all heck!
|
|