|
Post by Spitzicles on Mar 25, 2019 5:02:20 GMT
TomT, this shock victory = pursue rule is one worth testing. Add it to the list. It could be explained in the rules by changing the combat results into a table with a Pursuit column (Y/N).
I too think that Tom’s suggestion has merit... ...but I’d like it to only apply to destroyed opponents (which is what a ‘quick-kill’ is).
Stevie,
You are of course correct, my writing of "shock victory = pursuit" should read "shock quick kill = pursuit"
Poor writing on my part. Thanks for correcting.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 25, 2019 9:02:32 GMT
One could of course argue that the Cv are in fact the better, more disciplined, experienced troops, which is why they don't have to walk along with the usual mob of whirling dervishes. I remain unconvinced that the Cv were simply Wb who got lucky and found some horses and saddled up (i.e. Dothraki screamers). I suspect you will find the the Cv arm in ancient armies was materially different in outlook, tactics, station, and training. You seem to be suggesting here that if a Wb army has mounted troops on horseback, then those troops are just Wb with horses. Not sure I buy that. Well, since none of us today have ever been on horseback in an ancient battle, all we have is the writings of the ancient historians to guide us...so what do they say? 115 1. The advanced guards were the first to come into action, and at first when only the light infantry were engaged neither side had the advantage; but when the Spanish and Celtic horse on the left wing came into collision with the Roman cavalry, the struggle that ensued was truly barbaric; 3. for there were none of the normal wheeling evolutions, but having once met they dismounted and fought man to man. 4. The Carthaginians finally got the upper hand, killed most of the enemy in the mellay, all the Romans fighting with desperate bravery, and began to drive the rest along the river, cutting them down mercilessly, and it was now that the heavy infantry on each side took the place of the light-armed troops and met.
116 5. The Numidians meanwhile on the right wing, attacking the cavalry opposite them on the Roman left, neither gained any great advantage nor suffered any serious loss owing to their peculiar mode of fighting, but they kept the enemy's cavalry out of action by drawing them off and attacking them from all sides at once. 6. Hasdrubal, having by this time cut up very nearly all the enemy's cavalry by the river, came up from the left to help the Numidians, and now the Roman allied horse, seeing that they were going to be charged by him, broke and fled. Hasdrubal at this juncture appears to have acted with great skill and prudence; for in view of the fact that the Numidians were very numerous and most efficient and formidable when in pursuit of a flying foe he left them to deal with the Roman cavalry and led his squadrons on to where the infantry were engaged with the object of supporting the Africans. Attacking the Roman legions in the rear and delivering repeated charges at various points all at once, he raised the spirits of the Africans and cowed and dismayed the Romans. (Source: www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html )“...began to drive the rest along the river, cutting them down mercilessly...” “...Numidians were most efficient and formidable when in pursuit of a flying foe...” Does this sound like a Cavalry and Light Horse element just sitting there watching after they have broken their opponent? Or does it sound more like a Cavalry/Light Horse pursuit slaughtering survivors as they run for their lives? Oh, and here is another historical example:- 12 5. It was at this moment that Laelius (in command of the Roman left wing cavalry), availing himself of the disturbance created by the elephants, charged the Carthaginian cavalry 6. and forced them to headlong flight. He pressed the pursuit closely, as likewise did Massanissa (commanding the Numidian light horse on the Roman right wing). (Source: www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources8.html )Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 25, 2019 12:56:58 GMT
Careful now, Stevie. We've changed our argument midstream. Now you are arguing that ALL Cv and LH should pursue.
Well, while we are at it, why not Sp as well? As they did at Marathon, where they chased the Persians all the way back to their ships?
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Mar 25, 2019 15:23:28 GMT
Actually, Book VIII, General Instructins and Maxims (Strategikon) covers the pursuit of routed troops. The text cautions against pursuit as such troops may become ambushed. Presumably this was based on experience fighting the ‘Scythians’, Avars, Turks and Slavs.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 25, 2019 16:34:42 GMT
Careful now, Stevie. We've changed our argument midstream. Now you are arguing that ALL Cv and LH should pursue. Well, while we are at it, why not Sp as well? As they did at Marathon, where they chased the Persians all the way back to their ships? Ha! I’m just following the evidence. As for Spears pursuing:- Mantinea 418 BC: “the elite Argive Thousand (hoplites) entered the gap and routed the Brasidean (hoplites) and the Sciritae and pursued them for a long distance” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mantinea_%28418_BC%29 )
Haliartus 395 BC: “In heated fighting under the walls of Haliartus, Lysander's (Spartan) force was routed and he himself was killed. The Thebans, however, pursued the defeated troops too far, and as they entered rough and steep terrain, the fleeing soldiers turned and drove the Thebans back with heavy losses.” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Haliartus )
Nemea 394 BC: “The Spartans then turned from their defeat of the Athenians to face the soldiers from the allied right wing who were returning from their pursuit of the Spartans' allies.” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nemea )
Coronea 394 BC: “The mercenaries near Agesilaus assumed the battle was over and offered him a garland to commemorate his victory. Just then news came that on the other flank, the Thebans had broken through the Orchomenians and were already at the baggage train, ransacking the loot taken from Asia. Agesilaus immediately wheeled his phalanx around and headed for the Thebans. At that moment, the Thebans noticed that their allies had fled to Mount Helicon. They formed up with the desperate design of breaking through Agesilaus's lines to rejoin the rest of their army.” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronea_(394_BC) )
Lechaeum 391 BC: “the Athenian hoplites drew up a little outside Corinth, while the peltasts went after the Spartan force in pursuit, flinging javelins at the Spartan hoplites. To stop this, the Spartan commander ordered some of his men to charge the Athenians, but the peltasts fell back, easily outrunning the hoplites, and then, when the Spartans turned to return to the regiment, the peltasts fell upon them, flinging spears at them as they fled, and inflicted casualties. This process was repeated several times, with similar results.” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechaeum )
Chaironeia 338 BC: “Philip’s wing withdrew, slowly and in good order, but the rash and inexperienced Athenians assumed this was a genuine retreat and followed up exuberantly.” (Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(338_BC) )...I can’t help it if history and DBA gives different outcomes. 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 stevie on Mar 25, 2019 16:55:57 GMT
Actually, Book VIII, General Instructins and Maxims (Strategikon) covers the pursuit of routed troops. The text cautions against pursuit as such troops may become ambushed. Presumably this was based on experience fighting the ‘Scythians’, Avars, Turks and Slavs. And how many cavalrymen read the Stratigikon of Maurice before he wrote it in the late 6th century AD? Come to think of it...how many Gallic and Germanic horsemen could even read! 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 jeffreythancock on Mar 26, 2019 0:42:38 GMT
Why can't the documented pursuit be as commanded using PIPs in the next bound? Does the text say they pursued impetuosly out of control and command? Was it pursuit of a "recoiling", "fleeing", or"destroyed" enemy? DBA remians an abstract game and less-than-perfect simulation or model of "reality" allowing combat against achronistic opponents. Adapt it as you please for historical battles using house rules, but don't expect it to match every battle over 3,500-years of history as written! Even Mr. Barker recognized this, so he developed DBM/DBMM. Careful now, Stevie. We've changed our argument midstream. Now you are arguing that ALL Cv and LH should pursue. Well, while we are at it, why not Sp as well? As they did at Marathon, where they chased the Persians all the way back to their ships?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 26, 2019 7:58:44 GMT
Yes, I agree Jeffrey, “DBA remains an abstract game and less-than-perfect simulation or model of ‘reality’...” And it will always remain a less-than-perfect simulation if it never improves. Surely an abstract set of historical rules that gives historical outcomes is better than an abstract set that does not. Just because it’s abstract doesn’t mean it can’t at least try to simulate reality...although it’ll never be ‘perfect’. Or are you saying “we don’t want historically realistic outcomes in DBA”? Do you object to the new historical reality that has already been incorporated into the current version? Things like side-support for Sp and Bows, rear-support for LH, Bd and Lb/Cb killing Kn and Cm on an equal score, the new Elephant combat factors, Bd and Pk now pursuing, and a host of other improvements. If so, then perhaps we should all go back to playing DBA 2.2...or back to playing DBA 1.0! DBA 1.0, 1990 DBA 1.1, March 1995 DBA 1.2, 1998 (Issued as a set of amendments) DBA 1.22, 1999 (Issued as a set of amendments) DBA 2.0, February 2001 DBA 2.1, 2003 (Issued as a set of amendments) DBA 2.2, January 2004 DBA 3.0, November 2014 ...each one an improvement on the previous version, and a step closer to being more historically realistic. I don’t see DBA 3.0 as being the end of the line, the final version, that can never be improved. No, I see it for what it is...merely the current version, to one day be superseded by a newer better version. A newer better version that is even more historically accurate and more realistic... ...one that even if still not ‘perfect’, is at least a step closer. 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 attilathenun on Apr 2, 2019 18:38:31 GMT
Stevie, please bear in mind that the move from 2.2 to 3 caused the DBA community a not-insignificant loss of players who were not in a position to learn new rules, as well as a fair bit of frustration for continuing players who were told to expect "unchanged" army lists. The rules can be considered adequate, and if they aren't then at least there are other rulesets out there.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 2, 2019 20:22:01 GMT
Well Attilathenun, I do understand the fear of change. But you can’t move forward and progress by standing still. With that attitude we would still be playing DBA 1.0! Will we still be using DBA 3.0 twenty or thirty years from now? As for the current rules being adequate, yes they are...if people don’t care about history and just want to play games. Those happy with the current rules already have all their needs met. But what about the historical players, who want more realism...what about their needs? Fortunately there is a very simple solution to satisfy both types of player ...”House Rules”. Those that are happy with current rules, then fine, they can carry on using them and enjoy themselves. Those that want more realism and their little metal soldiers to act and behave as the ancient historians said they did, then fine, they can use “House Rules” and also enjoy themselves. And who knows...maybe a few of those "House Rules" will become popular, and be incorporated into a future version of DBA. I’m a great believer in personal freedom, and I hate it when people say “DBA can only be played THIS WAY or not at all”. What’s wrong with letting players choose for themselves what kind of game they want? 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 Apr 2, 2019 20:32:21 GMT
Well Attilathenun, I do understand the fear of change. But you can’t move forward and progress by standing still. With that attitude we would still be playing DBA 1.0! Will we still be using DBA 3.0 twenty or thirty years from now? As for the current rules being adequate, yes they are...if people don’t care about history and just want to play games. Those happy with the current rules already have all their needs met. But what about the historical players, who want more realism...what about their needs? Fortunately there is a very simple solution to satisfy both types of player ...”House Rules”. Those that are happy with current rules, then fine, they can carry on using them and enjoy themselves. Those that want more realism and their little metal soldiers to act and behave as the ancient historians said they did, then fine, they can use “House Rules” and also enjoy themselves. And who knows...maybe a few of those "House Rules" will become popular, and be incorporated into a future version of DBA. I’m a great believer in personal freedom, and I hate it when people say “DBA can only be played THIS WAY or not at all”. What’s wrong with letting players choose for themselves what kind of game they want? 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
This is fair Stevie, but to Attila's point, it gets very confusing when players less familiar with the rules are looking up stuff on the Forum's 3.0 board, and the House Rules and regular rules start getting mixed up. It's hard to distinguish what's house, and what's current official rules. However, I do agree with you that rules need to evolve, and those that don't will eventually die. I'm wholy in favor of continuous improvement of the rules. But it should be clear who is doing it. It looks like it'll be Joe, if Mr. Barker will be forging ahead with DBMM only. I really think many of your house rules should make it in Part of the problem of players being hesitant to change lies I think with players who have accumulated a large number of armies simply because it's so easy to build new armies ('cause it's DBA!), and then a new version comes out, and suddenly you have to redo all your forces. It's like playing 40k, taking time to build and paint your armies, and then a new army book comes out and nerfs your forces! Kind of a major bummer. The other problem, as has been stated, spreads from the 2.2 civil war that broke out, and caused players like me to flee from all the aggressive sounding talk on forums like this. We're coming back, but it will take time to rebuilt the trust, and it's cool that new players are rejoining.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 3, 2019 8:22:46 GMT
Well Attilathenun, I do understand the fear of change. But you can’t move forward and progress by standing still. With that attitude we would still be playing DBA 1.0! Will we still be using DBA 3.0 twenty or thirty years from now? As for the current rules being adequate, yes they are...if people don’t care about history and just want to play games. Those happy with the current rules already have all their needs met. But what about the historical players, who want more realism...what about their needs? Fortunately there is a very simple solution to satisfy both types of player ...”House Rules”. Those that are happy with current rules, then fine, they can carry on using them and enjoy themselves. Those that want more realism and their little metal soldiers to act and behave as the ancient historians said they did, then fine, they can use “House Rules” and also enjoy themselves. And who knows...maybe a few of those "House Rules" will become popular, and be incorporated into a future version of DBA. I’m a great believer in personal freedom, and I hate it when people say “DBA can only be played THIS WAY or not at all”. What’s wrong with letting players choose for themselves what kind of game they want? 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
Fear of change? I think you’re confusing things here, stevie, and with intent to twist things to your own way of thinking.... What we ‘fear’ is making DBA an unnecessarily complicated ruleset, by grinding away with relentless rule tweaks in the name of so called ‘historical accuracy’, and which do NOT enhance the rules as a quick play rule set. Most of the changes you propose would have an adverse affect on game speed for minimal benefit in historical accuracy, and once again cause me to comment that this rule set is ‘Top Down’, not bottom up. If you think these changes are vital to your enjoyment of the game, may I recommend a set by the same author called ‘DBMM’, which incorporates many of the +/- tweaking you seem to so wholeheartedly desire (and which most active players of DBA are more than happy to dispense with). If you really want to spend three hours fighting a battle, go for it. I, and many, many players out there would rather get three or four games in, in the same time frame. As I’ve posted before, pleeeeeeeease try coming to a few tournaments to see how successful this set of rules actually is, rather than slag off all the bits you don’t like (...and there are a few I’m not keen on, but that doesn’t make me want to change it all to suit me. I’t not ‘all about me’, it’s about an active and inclusive community of DBA loving gamers). You are your own worst enemy on this forum. Relentlessly screaming to the world “you’re all wrong” does nothing to further your cause (whatever that may actually be). And yes, as Greedo mentioned, you do run the risk of confusing forum visitors between ‘real’ and ‘house’ rules. Rant over.... see you at a tournament soon (Aldershot, perhaps?). What part of the Sceptred Isle is home territory?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 3, 2019 10:08:23 GMT
Well Martin, all I can do is repeat myself:- Those that are happy with current rules, then fine, they can carry on using them and enjoy themselves. Those that want more realism and their little metal soldiers to act and behave as the ancient historians said they did, then fine, they can use “House Rules” and also enjoy themselves. What’s wrong with letting players choose for themselves what kind of game they want?
Do you object to “House Rules”?...if so, then don’t use them. It’s your choice. If people want to use “House Rules”...they should be allowed to. That’s their choice. Or do you believe people shouldn’t even have a choice? “DBA can only be played OUR WAY or not at all!” Oh, and little tweaks here and there do not increase game playing time. Of course you’d know that if you bothered to try them instead of making unsubstantiated sweeping statements. Nonetheless I’ll ask Cromwell to move this thread to the “House Rules” section so that it doesn’t offend tournament players.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 3, 2019 10:49:24 GMT
"...all I can do is repeat myself".
Nail on the head 😊
Your view of my view of the world is significantly different to my view of my view of the world. Didn't see you during the 2.2 - v3 split.......
And if repetition is the only way to converse, I'll also repeat myself -"come to some tournaments, see that it works, as is".
A move to the House Rules section would be a good idea.
Cromwell, could you possibly facititate this, please?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 3, 2019 12:28:51 GMT
Your view of my view of the world is significantly different to my view of my view of the world. Didn't see you during the 2.2 - v 3 split... And I agree. You like playing games...I like re-creating history...and we can both enjoy DBA in our own way. My friends and I gave up playing DBA 2.2 well over a decade ago. Far too unrealistic and ‘gamey’ for our tastes. DBA 3.0 is a great step in the right direction...but we shouldn’t give up walking... 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
|
|