|
|
Post by wjhupp on Oct 23, 2019 13:40:18 GMT
I take great comfort in the fact that recent surveys have found satisfaction ratings for historical miniature gaming at 95% satisfied and very satisfied.
DBA for all its issues has been one of those parts of the hobby that has added to that satisfaction rating.
I wonder where we all would put speific rules in a list of things that are important to enjoying our hobby? If the list was History, Miniature figures, Rules, I would put rules 3rd. It is interesting that social aspects of the hobby, including this forum, are involved in all 3 of those items. I am involved in social groups that involve only history and only miniature figures, so rule is pretty far down the list for me, if they do have a lot of practical implications for how I spend my time in the other two areas.
Kind regards,
Bill
|
|
timr
Munifex
Posts: 42
|
Post by timr on Oct 23, 2019 13:51:49 GMT
Still think the bow amendments tip the scales to much when fighting pikes and auxiliaries. Under the rules it’s fairly even but the amendments meant that in my practice games for Bakewell the results tended to go the bows way and on the day the bows won 3 of the 4 games (the other game was a draw). On the other hand against blades and spears they marginally help the bow bringing more balance. (See reports in Bakewell tournament for army details)
Tim
|
|
|
|
Post by chriscoz on Oct 23, 2019 15:05:50 GMT
I would love a version of DBA 3.0 completely rewritten and redesigned. Not advocating for any rule changes (but there are others who are more qualified for those suggestions). But rules that are clear. With diagrams next to the rules, clearly explaining how things work. Larger type, because let's face it, as a group--we are old and don't see so good. I play a lot of Arty Conliffe rules (Armati, Crossfire, Spearhead) and the clarity, compared with DBA is night and day. Same with Sam Mufasta rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by j on Oct 23, 2019 15:19:27 GMT
I would love a version of DBA 3.0 completely rewritten and redesigned. Not advocating for any rule changes (but there are others who are more qualified for those suggestions). But rules that are clear. With diagrams next to the rules, clearly explaining how things work. Larger type, because let's face it, as a group--we are old and don't see so good. I play a lot of Arty Conliffe rules (Armati, Crossfire, Spearhead) and the clarity, compared with DBA is night and day. Same with Sam Mufasta rules. I agree. I wonder whether 1.5 linespace could be used too as I find PB's text dense in more than one sense of the word. I have actually copied out (for my own use, of course) the main body of the rules in a more readily readable format but it took ages, especially to proof-read. Having the diagrams & any other explanatory material in the body of the rules would help too - IMHO. Shout out to Sam Mustafa - his Maurice rules are wonderfully laid out. Regards, j |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 23, 2019 15:28:09 GMT
Still think the bow amendments tip the scales to much when fighting pikes and auxiliaries. Under the rules it’s fairly even but the amendments meant that in my practice games for Bakewell the results tended to go the bows way and on the day the bows won 3 of the 4 games (the other game was a draw). On the other hand against blades and spears they marginally help the bow bringing more balance. (See reports in Bakewell tournament for army details) Tim Is this a bad thing?
I am hard pressed to find where pikes and aux ever defeated massed archers.
The easiest sources are from the English/Scottish wars. The Scots struggled to put it mildly. Enguingate found the rather poor Franc Archers giving a very difficult time to Maximilian...wounding his second-in-command. Only Max's personal leadership defeated the archers.
The Swiss were able to defeat massed bowmen... but they were considered the best troops in the world at the time... and they got stopped on two occasions. One of those occasions was by crossbowmen.
The further one looks back into history, the murkier the picture becomes. Alexander did face some Bow... but the Persians had abandoned it as their main troop type by his time. His opponents in India certainly had massed bowmen... but they were poor levy.
Adding to this is the fact that very few folks play Bow armies in the tournament circuit. Two of the best players in our area do play them and do very well. They however are two of the best players and would probably do well with any army. They do very well, but they don't dominate. Otherwise... almost no one plays longbow armies because of the difficulty winning with them.
I do understand and appreciate your concern.
This is why I asked for playtesting.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Oct 23, 2019 15:47:02 GMT
I also like Stevie's idea of “advanced historical rules” and "tournament basic rules". But if it’s rejected then whatcha gonna do. Easy...use "House Rules".  (If the author, whoever that may be, won't give us what some of us want,
then we will just do it for ourselves. I for one refuse to be a slave, and still
have a mind of my own...)
That's OK if there's only 1 set of house rules to rule them all , it will be a trainwreck if every group has a different version .  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 23, 2019 16:27:50 GMT
Easy...use "House Rules". (If the author, whoever that may be, won't give us what some of us want,
then we will just do it for ourselves. I for one refuse to be a slave, and still
have a mind of my own...)
That's OK if there's only 1 set of house rules to rule them all , it will be a trainwreck if every group has a different version . Well, Primuspilus and myself have made a start... ...see fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:LESSONS_FROM_HISTORY.pdfIt’s all about people ‘voting with their feet’: those they like will begin to become almost standard and be used more widely, those they don’t like they will ignore. I’ve had some small successes already...letting “the invader chose the table size”, “randomly generated terrain”, and having “nightfall ending the battle” have all proved to be quite popular. Of course, new extra rules is pretty subjective. One man’s pint of beer is another man’s pint of lager. So I fully expect there to be “House Rules” to the “House Rules”. 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 Oct 23, 2019 18:12:31 GMT
That's OK if there's only 1 set of house rules to rule them all , it will be a trainwreck if every group has a different version . Well, Primuspilus and myself have made a start... ...see fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:LESSONS_FROM_HISTORY.pdfIt’s all about people ‘voting with their feet’: those they like will begin to become almost standard and be used more widely, those they don’t like they will ignore. I’ve had some small successes already...letting “the invader chose the table size”, “randomly generated terrain”, and having “nightfall ending the battle” have all proved to be quite popular. Of course, new extra rules is pretty subjective. One man’s pint of beer is another man’s pint of lager. So I fully expect there to be “House Rules” to the “House Rules”. 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
Is this how the larger table size, and BUA as optional became things too? They were just really popular house rules. |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 23, 2019 18:37:47 GMT
Three points:
First - I’m not sure Bow need much more help than under RAW. They already have a shot before the Heavy Inf engage and pushing the centre one back means that the Heavy Inf need 3 PIPs to engage already. Making that 6 seems excessive. Also I see lots of Bow used very successfully in Tournaments.
Second - On house rules. Stevie has produced a comprehensive list. Looking at them there are some I really like for example: Attacker chooses base size, 4Ax “close ranks” +1 bs HI, LH pay 1/2 PIP to move and Time of day...... not an exhaustive list! However, take a look at Stevie’s list and choose the ones you like. Let Stevie know and we’ll build a list of the more popular House Rules to use.
Final point is about troop types. Given that DBA is heavily abstracted and lasts for 1000s years I don’t think it is reasonable that any troop type should be dominant. It should be similar to “rock, paper, scissors” where each option is equally good depending on circumstances. So where a troop type is unfairly and unhistorically weaker than others then I think a house rule is in order to correct the imbalance. LH pay 1/2 PIP rebalances for LH heavy armies and “time of day” rebalances in favour of low aggression Ax heavy armies. I still think Pk armies may suffer an imbalance, even if Stevie will say it is all in how they are used. If Pk do need a rebalance then I don’t know how to go about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 23, 2019 20:14:25 GMT
Three points: First - I’m not sure Bow need much more help than under RAW. They already have a shot before the Heavy Inf engage and pushing the centre one back means that the Heavy Inf need 3 PIPs to engage already. Making that 6 seems excessive. Also I see lots of Bow used very successfully in Tournaments. Second - On house rules. Stevie has produced a comprehensive list. Looking at them there are some I really like for example: Attacker chooses base size, 4Ax “close ranks” +1 bs HI, LH pay 1/2 PIP to move and Time of day...... not an exhaustive list! However, take a look at Stevie’s list and choose the ones you like. Let Stevie know and we’ll build a list of the more popular House Rules to use. Final point is about troop types. Given that DBA is heavily abstracted and lasts for 1000s years I don’t think it is reasonable that any troop type should be dominant. It should be similar to “rock, paper, scissors” where each option is equally good depending on circumstances. So where a troop type is unfairly and unhistorically weaker than others then I think a house rule is in order to correct the imbalance. LH pay 1/2 PIP rebalances for LH heavy armies and “time of day” rebalances in favour of low aggression Ax heavy armies. I still think Pk armies may suffer an imbalance, even if Stevie will say it is all in how they are used. If Pk do need a rebalance then I don’t know how to go about it. Interesting.... I have found the following... bow heavy armies are never used. Poor Tom is the only person I know that struggled for years with his HYW armies...
Further, the real impetuous behind my suggested changes to Bow was not tournament play but was my inability to recreate any of the HYW battles and many of the Greek/Persian battles successfully. Not only was I unable to recreate the outcomes, but also I was unable to recreate anything that resembled the existing narratives.
Well, Cunaxa is an exception, though it was too much of a cakewalk...
I would also disagree that certain types of troops weren't dominate over the period. Certainly Roman heavy infantry dominated for over 1000 years. The same could be said regarding Knights...
Heavy infantry bow certainly had their period and were really only unseated when armor technology reached its zenith (at the very end of our period).
In short, if changes produce armies that are dominate... so be it... as long as these armies are the same ones that dominated historically. I want Imperial Romans, Alexander and his Macedonians, the Swiss, and the HYW English to dominate...especially against their historical opponents.
Of course this does leave open the question of dominate Lh armies.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2019 21:36:37 GMT
Of course this does leave open the question of dominate Lh armies.
Joe Collins
So apart from Mongols, who were the dominant LH armies? Should we make a list? If you look at the Mongols as a reason to improve LH, you then having crappier LH benefiting equally as a result. OTOH I suppose you could argue that LH were reasonably similar when compared against their contemporaries, i.e. Book I, II, III, IV.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 23, 2019 22:16:45 GMT
Huns, Seljuq Turks, and Mongols come to mind. All performed well against a myriad of enemies.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 23, 2019 23:40:56 GMT
I love the Huns, but...they lost in China and had to migrate west. They ended up in Europe and dominated other barbarians who couldn't come to grips with their style of warfare. Then the Huns became more dependent on infantry and faced the Patrician Romans and Visigoths and Alans, and had their arses handed to them. We can certainly credit them with dominating the Germanic tribes, some of which were cavalry based, and pulling other steppe tribes under their banner for a time, but I'd put them a fair way behind the Mongols.
Who did the Seljuqs dominate?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 23, 2019 23:47:08 GMT
In short, if changes produce armies that are dominate... so be it... as long as these armies are the same ones that dominated historically.
I want Imperial Romans, Alexander and his Macedonians, the Swiss, and the HYW English to dominate...especially against their historical opponents. I'm of two minds to this. On the one hand, yes, armies that dominated in history, should probably dominate on the tabletop if we are to recreate things accurately. BUT, doesn't that remove the fun of wargaming? Part of why we play is to see "if we can do better" than the historical opponents. And given that DBA is specifically an "even" matchup of 12 elements, and provides hundreds of armies to play, if the few historical armies do dominate on the tabletop, how can we rebalance the victory conditions such that both players have a roughly equal chance of winning? In DBA, there isn't an official one, other than perhaps forcing the better player/army to be the aggressor and have a turn limit. Or perhaps increasing the number of elements the weaker side has to lose in order to lose. Part of this is due to the skill of the player, but if there are armies have next to 0 chance of EVER winning, short of a run of 6-1 rolls, then why are they in the army lists in the first place? So from a games perspective, I'm fine with DBA armies not having identical chance of winning, but at last making it so that everybody gets a roughly decent shot at it, if they play somewhat historically.. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 24, 2019 0:39:51 GMT
In short, if changes produce armies that are dominate... so be it... as long as these armies are the same ones that dominated historically. I want Imperial Romans, Alexander and his Macedonians, the Swiss, and the HYW English to dominate...especially against their historical opponents.
Of course this does leave open the question of dominate Lh armies.
Joe Collins
I'd be less interested in seeing a group of historically successful armies 'dominating' in the DBA game (whether this was especially against their historical opponents or not), or we'll have players trotting out much the same armies, especially in tournaments. However, I'd be happy to see the above armies performing at least 'reasonably well' given the broad DBA troop types and level(ish) playing field (ignoring armies mostly of Ps or LH for the moment). We might just be disagreeing over semantics.
|
|
