|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 16, 2019 16:53:46 GMT
That’s a bit harsh Snowcat.  But I find myself agreeing with Paddy. Psiloi are already quite useful, and are hard to kill, providing they are not facing mounted in good going or find themselves fighting Auxiliaries. I think that Psiloi heavy armies do poorly because DBA only concentrates on ‘set-piece’ battles, the sort that mounted and heavy foot excel at, and not the ‘guerilla’ type tactics that Psiloi and Auxiliaries were best at historically. So rather than trying to get Psiloi to win battles in the open (which they cannot do unless you beef them up so much that they are no longer Psiloi any more), a better solution would be to alter the victory conditions, so that Ps can win without having to rout the enemy. This is the approach taken in the “Lessons from History” booklet:- ---The invader must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before nightfall or the defender wins---
This gives the invader an incentive to attack with two possible objectives, and also allows light weak Ax and Ps
armies to actually win a battle by using ‘guerrilla’ type tactics in bad going to ambush, harass, and delay their
mounted or heavier opponents from reaching their camp before night-time ends the engagement.
(Remember that a common tactic throughout history when faced with an entrenched enemy is to go around
them and cut their lines of supply, forcing them to either retreat and give up territory or eventually starve.
Destroying the defender’s camp simulates this)
Note that all this is entirely in keeping with Phil Barker’s own thoughts, as he says near the bottom of page 14:-
“A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory.”
All the above adds a whole new dimension to DBA that has so far been ignored, that of ‘guerilla warfare’.
Ax and Ps armies may not be able to win a battle...but by avoiding defeat they can still win a defensive war.
Much like how the 1st century Roman invasion of Germania was ultimately called off as it was too much effort.
And why the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989, was also cancelled and the Russians finally withdrew.
You invade, but can’t crush the defenders, and eventually the cost makes your leaders call the whole thing off.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
.......which is why I really like these discussions because you get solutions like this that are entirely logical and relevant and take the game to a different place. Nothing wrong with Ps just the set piece battles they are forced to fight in. So if we were looking to “ruleify” this (is that a word) then would it be: After rolling for attacker/defender the Attacker can then chose the table size 15BW vs 20BW. After this the defender has the option to put the Time of Day optional rule in force which means that the attacker must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before nightfall or the defender wins. The defender open rolls for terrain and places troops etc. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 16, 2019 18:02:26 GMT
The solutions to LH problems are multi-layered and impossible to implement in the 12 element game. But here's some stuff that works:
1. Points: LH cost 2pts; Cav 3pts; Knights 4pts (so you can swarm).
2. Fast: allow Bow armed LH to be Fast (+1 MA; Recoil on Equals from Bow shooting and non-Fast);
3. Evade: LH convert double destroyed into Flee against any opponent with a lower MA in the terrain either occupies -negated by Bow armed opponents in Close (makes Cav a less one sided fight).
4. No Shock (Destroyed on More) v. Knights - you have to lure them in and Hard Flank them using your Evade ability (makes Cav a trickery opponent because they don't Pursue).
These reforms will give excellent historical results - they have no place in tournament gaming.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 18, 2019 23:34:25 GMT
None of those ideas have any place in tournament gaming - really? Not sure about that. Some look very doable.
"The solutions to LH problems are multi-layered and impossible to implement in the 12 element game." Nope. Not giving up.
And your thoughts on the 1/2 PIP for LH moves?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 19, 2019 0:29:24 GMT
Thought of an alternative to the rear support of LH. What about treating them as skirmishes/Ps and they ignore overlaps? I know it’ll change the dynamic of how they are played but might it mean that skirmishes behave in a similar way?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 19, 2019 1:58:19 GMT
Thought of an alternative to the rear support of LH. What about treating them as skirmishes/Ps and they ignore overlaps? I know it’ll change the dynamic of how they are played but might it mean that skirmishes behave in a similar way? Would there be exceptions? Such as when facing other LH? (or even Cv?) |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 19, 2019 17:09:54 GMT
I’d prefer as few exceptions as possible, otherwise there’s no point. Rear support for LH is pretty simple and I wouldn’t want to replace it with another rule that requires a bunch of exceptions.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 19, 2019 23:42:07 GMT
Well in principle I think it is a way of representing those individual scattered groups of LH operating against the front of the enemy with a healthier degree of impunity (specifically against those who couldn't effectively reach them either in combat or with close range archery).
A simple exception could be: other LH. An alternative would be: other mounted. Or something a bit more comprehensive: 'LH ignore overlaps except against LH, Cv and Bw'.
You need to imagine what overlapping enemy would do *if they were able*.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 20, 2019 8:12:48 GMT
Having LH ignore frontal corner-to-corner overlaps, like Psiloi, is an interesting idea. And it can be justified as well. Why do Psiloi ignore overlaps? Well, being armed with missiles, and not too keen on hand-to-hand combat, they tend to keep their distance...even though in DBA their base’s touch enemy base’s. This can best be visualized by imagining 6mm figures on 40mm bases, with each skirmisher in contact with the rear-edge of their base so there’s a gap between them and the enemy figures. Now you can actually see why a corner-to-corner overlap would not affect them. (SCh are different...it’s probably not a good idea to try to claim that any adjacent
enemy are lapping around their flanks with all those nasty scythe blades pointing
out of the chariot wheels!)However, all this is purely defensive, and merely ensures that LH will fight at CF 2, unless mutual flanks are touching, or they are attacked in the side. It does nothing to give them more ‘punch’. So LH will still need rear support (which could be thought of as a ‘Cantabrian Circle’ or a Renaissance ‘Caracole’ formation... ...see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantabrian_circle ...and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracole ). So all-in-all, I personally think the ½ PIP costs, with rear-support, is better. The LH can protect themselves from overlaps by having adjacent friends in contact. And ½ PIP costs has several other advantages. Currently, if a group of say four LH wishes to back-up out of enemy Threat Zones, each element has to do so individually, costing 4 PIPs. With the reduced PIP costs they could perform the same manoeuvre for just 2 PIPs. 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 Haardrada on Oct 20, 2019 8:48:14 GMT
Is there any case for allowing LH to back up out of a TZ in a group move for 1 Pip or possibly 2 Pips if 1 Pip is too leniant?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 5:16:09 GMT
Is there any case for allowing LH to back up out of a TZ in a group move for 1 Pip or possibly 2 Pips if 1 Pip is too leniant? That was a rule in 2.2. I wonder why it was removed..? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 22, 2019 8:29:01 GMT
It was probably removed for the same reason that ‘breaking-off’ was removed from DBA 3.0... ...it made tournament games longer to play (so nothing to do with historical realism then).  |
|
jeff
Munifex
Painting II/12 Alexandrian Macedonians
Posts: 28
|
Post by jeff on Oct 22, 2019 18:59:12 GMT
Is there any case for allowing LH to back up out of a TZ in a group move for 1 Pip or possibly 2 Pips if 1 Pip is too leniant? That was a rule in 2.2. I wonder why it was removed..? We play 2.2. I don't recall any backing out of TZ in groups. To exit a TZ you must go directly to the rear with no turning allowed. Since you're moving backwards, only individual moves allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 22, 2019 21:06:51 GMT
Oh! I didn't see "Group" move to back out. Thought it was individual element. That was definitely in 2.2.
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Oct 23, 2019 12:34:18 GMT
Just to add my 2 cents in, I think the LH armies are too difficult to use well. Broken is too strong, but close for Mongols armies.
i think paddy649's original idea of more pips for LH armies is a very good answer. I did this for larger historical battles and did it in the form of 'pip coins' that could be spent in a pattern that gives them more manueverability in the early game and less at the end of the game.
I haven't come up with a formula for the 12 element game, but I think as few as 6 additional pips that could be spent in the first 6 turns, 2,2,2,1,1,1 would be worth testing. And you can't go over 6 pips.
I think the pip dice limits are one of the easiest things to change in the game and I am always surprised at the lengths that people go defend it. I like command and control limits in games and it is elegant, but I don't think changing it is all that big a deal to the nature of the game.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2019 18:36:48 GMT
Just to add my 2 cents in, I think the LH armies are too difficult to use well. Broken is too strong, but close for Mongols armies. i think paddy649's original idea of more pips for LH armies is a very good answer. I did this for larger historical battles and did it in the form of 'pip coins' that could be spent in a pattern that gives them more manueverability in the early game and less at the end of the game. I haven't come up with a formula for the 12 element game, but I think as few as 6 additional pips that could be spent in the first 6 turns, 2,2,2,1,1,1 would be worth testing. And you can't go over 6 pips. I think the pip dice limits are one of the easiest things to change in the game and I am always surprised at the lengths that people go defend it. I like command and control limits in games and it is elegant, but I don't think changing it is all that big a deal to the nature of the game. Bill I do like the "coins" idea, although its a bit of new mechanic. Give me flexibility on when I can spend them, and it raises the question: Does everybody's PIP "needs" go up as the battle progresses? I'm guessing yes, although I would say (based on 2 tests) that 1/2 PIP for LH works really well in this respect, without giving too much control to the LH general. But the PIP coin idea could be applied to generals or even better command and control systems. Romans might get a few coins because they have good messengers... Hannibal might get a few coins because he's awesome.. etc. Could also be a decent handicap mechanism for new players. |
|
