Double based elements

I play and enjoy both DBA 3.0 and Triumph!, but the problem with simply creating more buckets is that you will never have enough.

For instance, despite having three element types for bow-armed troops, Triumph still falls short of representing bowmen well: Archers are good, regular, effective long-range shooters, and Bow Levy are barely trained, ineffective fodder armed with bows instead of sticks that can't shoot beyond their front edge, but that leaves lots and lots of historical troops out, which are simply forced into either the "useless rabble with bows they can barely use" bucket or the "deadly archers shooting in volleys" bucket. For instance, the well-trained, highly motivated bowmen that comprised the majority of many North and South American armies are downgraded to Bow Levy, as their fighting style is incompatible with the Archers prototype that is designed to fit late medieval English longbowmen; so the small bands of excellent and flexible marksmen that were so feared by European conquerors become masses of useless idiots carrying a bow around. Similarly, many armies from the Old World who had regular but unspectacular troops trained in the use of bows see them either degraded to the quality of hastily raised fodder or upgraded to the quality of guards or specialist mercenaries.

So, logically, the solution would be to add an intermediate bow-armed infantry type to Triumph; something like Bowmen, less clumsy and useless than Bow Levy, but not as professional or deadly as Archers. But then surely there are historical troops that aren't well represented by that type, so you can start again... until you've recreated the complexity of the DBM/DBMM system with troop types.

Which is why it's reasonable to avoid creating new types unless strictly necessary.

Indeed, 3Bw not only get to shoot, but also have the speed to nobble flanks, and race through BG/RG, as Colin the Hittite has demonstrated to my cost on frequent occasions 😵

Arnopov:
I would kindly ask you not to discuss the alternate rule set here. It looks as if you find it superior. That is fine. They have their own forum where you can discuss it freely.
Unfortunately for many of us it is still a source of ill-feeling.

I would rather not restart the battles of the past.
All the arguments you put forth were hashed through years ago...many of them during the actual development of DBA 3.
I see nothing positive to be gained from reopening them.

The other rules have their own following and have gone their own way. If you prefer them... then play them.
I don't think comparisons are wise at this point.

Joe Collins

The problem with extra troop types is that they are a complexity multiplier. DBA in its original form was essentially a matrix system - each troop type interacted differently with another type so Knights "Quick Killed" Spears, Blades (and some others) in Good but Quick Killed Bow in any but did not Quick Kill other types (but instead Recoiled them). So you need a list of each type and how it works against every other type and when you add a troop type you increase the size of the matrix. Likewise each type has its own rules for movement allowance, how terrain interacts with the element, combat factors against Foot, Mounted and shooting, all of which you need to memorize besides of course knowing what Recoils the new type what Quick Kills it and vice versa. Big head ache.

By contrast consider the Fast Rule (which we don't have of course but could): A Fast version of any element increases its MA by +1BW, but is Recoiled in Combat from any non-Fast element. It's MA is not reduced by Bad Going. This is not a special rule but a universal rule applying in all situations - you learn one rule and you add another potential variant to each type -FAR FAR simpler than creating entire new element types.

As another example by creating variations on Bow elements you save a lot of rule headaches. The rules for Bow are the same (as to what Quick Kills it, Recoils it, its MA, how it behaves in terrain, etc.) Then you list only the small differences (Longbows are +3 v. Foot, Crossbows shoot only in own bound etc.) for each variant. Far less hassle then creating all new element types as per Triumph.

Its just game design 101: start with a universal rule that applies as much as possible (More = Recoil, Double = Destroyed for instance) and then list the exceptions. Don't create a game that is just a long list of exceptions with no general rules. And that essentially is what creating new troop types does.

TomT