|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 24, 2019 7:48:05 GMT
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.
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...
I want Imperial Romans, Alexander and his Macedonians, the Swiss, and the HYW English to dominate...especially against their historical opponents.
Joe - you make some interesting observations there. I've always thought that DBA3.0 did a pretty decent job of recreating HYW battles, especially Agincourt and Crecy. You indicate that this isn't so Which is puzzling. Could throw some more light on your inability to recreate any of the HYW battles and many of the Greek/Persian battles successfully. I may be doing something wrong in the gaming or not understand the history well enough. OK - so what did the Romans ever do for us - apart from acquaducts and dominating warfare for 100s of years? I think my point is that Blades are already fairly dominant in DBA, that when the enemies of Rome shifted from Ax or Wb heavy tribes to faster moving cavalry based armies that the legionaries increasingly got replaced by Heavy Cav and bow and finally that a Roman legionary was pretty different to a Samuari or a Viking. Yes I too want historically dominant armies to (if not dominate) have a reasonable chance of winning against historical opponents. Now what is interesting about the ones you list is that I think the Romans already do. I also think the HYW already do and would love to know why you think otherwise. However poor old Alex and the Swiss are both Pike heavy armies that have a difficult time against historical opponents. I can't get Alex to win over most of the Greeks (especially Thessalians with the Cav option rather than LH) but then pit Alex against LAP or Indians and it is even worse Macedonian mince-meat! The trouble is that under 3.0 pike push spear and don't kill them plus they then get too easily outflanked and then lose big. Regrading Hypaspists as 3Bd helps but even so Alex is usually up against it. However he wasn't under previous versions. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 24, 2019 7:56:41 GMT
This is a really interesting discussion.
Bob's comment is absolutely correct. These rules are based on Phil Barker's view of Ancient and Medieval warfare. I don't think that anyone would think that PB hadn't heard of Cyrus, Alexander, Genghis or Attila. Nor that he ignored Agincourt, Crecy, Poitiers and others. For his own reasons he made the decisions that are in the rules. It is amazing that after three years of development with dozens if not hundreds of playtests, we are still talking about "major omissions". Still, if someone else took on the mantle and revised the rules, we would still have to deal with that author's view on Ancient and Medieval warfare (yes, even if they are based on historical accounts; they didn't write for wargamers).
If there are true weaknesses in armies that were historically successful then perhaps revision is required. But what is more important for me is play balance. It is a game after all. Yes, I would like Alexander and Phillip to be more likely to win against historical opponents. But not to the point that they win 80% of the games! Who would ever spend time and money on building their enemies? If we get play balance right then we have a rich game and we support the figure makers and encourage them to make more ranges. If not, the game will become stale.
I do support experimental rules based on historical accounts to try and improve play balance. If they reach the point that they slightly favour the historically successful army, even better. But I would put forward that there should be "devil's advocate" playtesting. If we improve one troop type, does it tip the balance some where else in the 4500 years covered the wrong way and the historically weaker army becomes superior? You may find that changing troop classifications give a historically better result than changing the rules (Personally, I think too many armies have Sp when they should be 4Ax).
Anyway, people will play what they want to play. The important thing is to live and let live (unless you're hard flanked, of course). stevie's observation that people will vote with their feet is right. Look at shooters/warband in HOTT or BUA in 2.2. As long as we have some fun and a beverage of your choice then all is well.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 24, 2019 8:10:14 GMT
Who did the Seljuqs dominate? Wiki says: Seljuk Turks invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, all the confusistans (OK wiki doesn't say that) and most of Iran and Afghanistan.......so larger than the Seleucid or Sassanid Empires. To expand the net further and look at the Turks more broadly then I'd also point to the Ottomans, who also did rather well plus all those Turkic tribes that stopped Chinese expansion. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 24, 2019 9:47:22 GMT
I think that Greedo, Snowcat, Paddy and Jim all make a valid point. Let’s leave aside for the moment the question of ‘historical performance’ (which is not easy for me!), and just concentrate on DBA purely as a ‘game’. Ideally all elements should be of roughly equal use, with various advantages and disadvantages. Sadly that is not the case, and some troop types have far more disadvantages than others. As Greedo has already mentioned, currently there are armies that have zero chance of winning... ...notably the I/47 Illyrians, I/52h Aitolians, I/63 Panionians, and the II/54 Irish, all with no ‘punch’ and relatively high aggression, so they often find themselves on a billiard table where they get slaughtered. Even low aggression Ax armies such as the II/8 Oscan Italians, the II/13 Samnites and the II/39 Spanish and such like are no better. Oh, they can hide in bad going where they have a combat advantage, but the enemy (unless monumentally stupid!) will simply refuse to go in after them, resulting in a rather unsatisfying stalemate. They still can’t ‘win’ a battle. Wouldn’t it be nice from a ‘game’ point of view if the playbalance could be altered in such a way so that the armies listed above DID at least have a chance of victory? And if re-balancing also leads to more historical realism, then so much the better. Changing combat factors and giving certain weak elements new abilities is just one way this re-balancing could be achieved. There are other methods, such as adjusting victory conditions (so defenders win at nightfall if they are still on the table and still have a camp), altering aggression factors (so that weak Ax/Ps armies get to choose terrain), and having randomly generated terrain (so that ‘billiard tables’ become much rarer) are just some of the other methods available that could be used to ‘re-balance’ certain armies. A Quick Word About TournamentsWe must remember that DBA 3.0 is designed purely for tournament play, and is a simplified version of ancient warfare (which is why things like ‘breaking off’ were left out - they made tournament games last longer). Indeed, some tournament organizers dumb-down the rules even further by not allowing BUA’s or dismounting during a game. A tournament is an artificial environment, that doesn’t even use all the rules. When is the last time you saw a road crossing a river (!) in a competition, or someone turn up with an all Ax or all Ps or all LH army, let alone do well with one! But this is fine...providing everybody plays by the same rules, everyone is happy. But please give a thought to those of us that DO want to play by all the rules, and DO like to use those unpopular armies that rarely if ever get brought to a tournament. We’d like to be able to win games as well you know.  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 lkmjbc on Oct 24, 2019 15:31:49 GMT
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.
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...
I want Imperial Romans, Alexander and his Macedonians, the Swiss, and the HYW English to dominate...especially against their historical opponents.
Joe - you make some interesting observations there. I've always thought that DBA3.0 did a pretty decent job of recreating HYW battles, especially Agincourt and Crecy. You indicate that this isn't so Which is puzzling. Could throw some more light on your inability to recreate any of the HYW battles and many of the Greek/Persian battles successfully. I may be doing something wrong in the gaming or not understand the history well enough. OK - so what did the Romans ever do for us - apart from acquaducts and dominating warfare for 100s of years? I think my point is that Blades are already fairly dominant in DBA, that when the enemies of Rome shifted from Ax or Wb heavy tribes to faster moving cavalry based armies that the legionaries increasingly got replaced by Heavy Cav and bow and finally that a Roman legionary was pretty different to a Samuari or a Viking. Yes I too want historically dominant armies to (if not dominate) have a reasonable chance of winning against historical opponents. Now what is interesting about the ones you list is that I think the Romans already do. I also think the HYW already do and would love to know why you think otherwise. However poor old Alex and the Swiss are both Pike heavy armies that have a difficult time against historical opponents. I can't get Alex to win over most of the Greeks (especially Thessalians with the Cav option rather than LH) but then pit Alex against LAP or Indians and it is even worse Macedonian mince-meat! The trouble is that under 3.0 pike push spear and don't kill them plus they then get too easily outflanked and then lose big. Regrading Hypaspists as 3Bd helps but even so Alex is usually up against it. However he wasn't under previous versions. Paddy...the easiest way to answer is to send you the article. PM me your email address. I address the Pike situation as well... Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 24, 2019 17:20:47 GMT
I think that Greedo, Snowcat, Paddy and Jim all make a valid point. Let’s leave aside for the moment the question of ‘historical performance’ (which is not easy for me!), and just concentrate on DBA purely as a ‘game’. Ideally all elements should be of roughly equal use, with various advantages and disadvantages. Sadly that is not the case, and some troop types have far more disadvantages than others. As Greedo has already mentioned, currently there are armies that have zero chance of winning... ...notably the I/47 Illyrians, I/52h Aitolians, I/63 Panionians, and the II/54 Irish, all with no ‘punch’ and relatively high aggression, so they often find themselves on a billiard table where they get slaughtered. Even low aggression Ax armies such as the II/8 Oscan Italians, the II/13 Samnites and the II/39 Spanish and such like are no better. Oh, they can hide in bad going where they have a combat advantage, but the enemy (unless monumentally stupid!) will simply refuse to go in after them, resulting in a rather unsatisfying stalemate. They still can’t ‘win’ a battle. Wouldn’t it be nice from a ‘game’ point of view if the playbalance could be altered in such a way so that the armies listed above DID at least have a chance of victory? And if re-balancing also leads to more historical realism, then so much the better. Changing combat factors and giving certain weak elements new abilities is just one way this re-balancing could be achieved. There are other methods, such as adjusting victory conditions (so defenders win at nightfall if they are still on the table and still have a camp), altering aggression factors (so that weak Ax/Ps armies get to choose terrain), and having randomly generated terrain (so that ‘billiard tables’ become much rarer) are just some of the other methods available that could be used to ‘re-balance’ certain armies. A Quick Word About TournamentsWe must remember that DBA 3.0 is designed purely for tournament play, and is a simplified version of ancient warfare (which is why things like ‘breaking off’ were left out - they made tournament games last longer). Indeed, some tournament organizers dumb-down the rules even further by not allowing BUA’s or dismounting during a game. A tournament is an artificial environment, that doesn’t even use all the rules. When is the last time you saw a road crossing a river (!) in a competition, or someone turn up with an all Ax or all Ps or all LH army, let alone do well with one! But this is fine...providing everybody plays by the same rules, everyone is happy. But please give a thought to those of us that DO want to play by all the rules, and DO like to use those unpopular armies that rarely if ever get brought to a tournament. We’d like to be able to win games as well you know. 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
Hi Stevie, An interesting ongoing discussion as usual! Just a few comments in response to your ones about tournaments. I haven't personally attended any tournaments where BUAs are banned. Concerning not allowing dismounting, I have done this but this was intended to level a playing field and not have some armies having the advantage of flexibility in composition over other armies. This may or may not have been the right thing to do, but the intention was certainly not to dumb down the game in the interests of speed. As an aside, I often try to pull my units out of contact - much to my opponents' consternation and surprise! Interestingly, this is allowed in HOTT and doesn't seem to slow the game down so I am not sure that this was the reason for not having it in 3.0. Concerning army composition, the various formats such as historical matched pairs (Bakewell, Alton) and pre-set boards with pre-determined armies (Northern Cup) do in fact encourage the "weaker" armies and armies of Ax and Ps are indeed seen on the table. I agree that with an open tournament, you don't want to bring a knife to a gunfight, but there are always a good range of armies with the better players often winning without recourse to killer armies. I agree that a tournament is an artificial environment, but frankly, so is any wargame unless we are standing in a field with a few thousand others and trying to kill each other! I think that I can stick my neck out and say that I have seen all the rules played at some time or other. Look forward to seeing you again at the Bakewell HOTT. PS just looked through your crib sheet for HOTT and liked it! Simon / |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Oct 24, 2019 17:27:13 GMT
Paddy...the easiest way to answer is to send you the article. PM me your email address. I address the Pike situation as well... Joe Collins Joe, Do you think it is worth adding your article to Wiki? I do hope that people aren't judging the rules without understanding the thinking behind them! The Fifth habit of Stephen Covey's “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Oct 24, 2019 19:25:14 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? There is a serious question of whether the Hsiung-nu defeated by the Chinese were the same as the Huns some centuries later. Attila's empire didn't outlive him by much but while it was around was a mighty thing. It created the largest barbarian confederation of all, as far as I can tell. The invasions of the Roman Empire were beaten as much by the logistics of feeding such large armies as by the resistance. The second attack into Italy was largely beaten by disease - or the Pope's good offices, depending on what you choose to believe. The Seljuqs whipped the Byzantines soundly (helped by Byzantine treachery) and dominated all of the more settled Muslim nations and empires of the mid-east. They gave the first Crusade some anxious moments. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 24, 2019 19:44:47 GMT
Paddy...the easiest way to answer is to send you the article. PM me your email address. I address the Pike situation as well... Joe Collins Joe, Do you think it is worth adding your article to Wiki? I do hope that people aren't judging the rules without understanding the thinking behind them! The Fifth habit of Stephen Covey's “The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People”, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”. Simon SOA frowns on that for one year. I understand and appreciate why they do so. It will be available on-line in a month or two...but unfortunately only in French. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 24, 2019 21:48:15 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? There is a serious question of whether the Hsiung-nu defeated by the Chinese were the same as the Huns some centuries later. Attila's empire didn't outlive him by much but while it was around was a mighty thing. It created the largest barbarian confederation of all, as far as I can tell. The invasions of the Roman Empire were beaten as much by the logistics of feeding such large armies as by the resistance. The second attack into Italy was largely beaten by disease - or the Pope's good offices, depending on what you choose to believe. The Seljuqs whipped the Byzantines soundly (helped by Byzantine treachery) and dominated all of the more settled Muslim nations and empires of the mid-east. They gave the first Crusade some anxious moments. The Same Hsuing-nu earlier defeated the Han Empire and forced them to pay tribute long before Attila was a twinkle in his father's eye. I'll add my peneth if it of any worth...DBA is only an abstract game of 12 elements vs 12 elements and does not distinguish between elite and conscript nor a Tactical Genius vs Tactical Inept (only we can introduce the latter.Lol) so to debate rule tweeking leads us up the path some have already noted... It's the the question of the ballance between retrospective elements measuring their individual performance on the table vs other troop types and how accuratly it is reflected by the rules.This is further complicated that some troops classes do not totally reflect the troops original performance...Alexanders Hypaspists being a perfect example of this. Added to this several troop types ie. Ax, LH and Pk do not perform to the level or seem under-powered compared to their historical counter-parts. This means to cut a long story short that the rules as they are do not totally reflect a lot of people's views on Ancient/Medieval warfare.... However, they Do go a long way towards it in their present form. Maybe it isn't the performance of different elements that need examination... maybe the victory conditions of some armies need adjusting to suit the game so an army that is far less powerful than another(even if it was a Historical opponent) has a fair chance of winning... What if say An Oscan army vs A Polybian army only needed 3 victory points to the Romans needing 4... how much would this alter the ballance of the game? If say the CT factor (combat total of an armies fighting elements) could be measured against that of its opponents and a graph of differences be converted into an index to reflect the scores needed by each army to achieve a win.. would that maybe go some way to striking a ballance? Other ways of calculating a winning draw etc. May be needed but are not too difficult to assess. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 25, 2019 2:36:09 GMT
Who did the Seljuqs dominate? Wiki says: Seljuk Turks invaded southwestern Asia in the 11th century and eventually founded an empire that included Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, all the confusistans (OK wiki doesn't say that) and most of Iran and Afghanistan.......so larger than the Seleucid or Sassanid Empires. To expand the net further and look at the Turks more broadly then I'd also point to the Ottomans, who also did rather well plus all those Turkic tribes that stopped Chinese expansion. Interesting. You learn something every day. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 25, 2019 2:42:02 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? There is a serious question of whether the Hsiung-nu defeated by the Chinese were the same as the Huns some centuries later. Attila's empire didn't outlive him by much but while it was around was a mighty thing. It created the largest barbarian confederation of all, as far as I can tell. The invasions of the Roman Empire were beaten as much by the logistics of feeding such large armies as by the resistance. The second attack into Italy was largely beaten by disease - or the Pope's good offices, depending on what you choose to believe. The Seljuqs whipped the Byzantines soundly (helped by Byzantine treachery) and dominated all of the more settled Muslim nations and empires of the mid-east. They gave the first Crusade some anxious moments. Good info there, thanks. From all the reading I did on the Huns years ago (Maenchen-Helfen the best) it did seem pretty likely the Huns were remnants of the Xiong-nu displaced by the Chinese. The travel west through Turkish regions produced the 'Huns' that found their way to Europe.
Those Seljuqs are sounding increasingly interesting...  |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Oct 25, 2019 7:00:00 GMT
Indeed vstaogames, "The Seljuqs whipped the Byzantines soundly (helped by Byzantine treachery)" - take any army and have a wing withdraw and see how your battle progresses. And then in your campaign have that third of the army start a civil war and see how the campaign goes.
AS to the Nuns, a year after Attila's death the Huns were defeated by a coalition of Germanic tribes led by the Gepids - suggesting that it was Attila's leadership more than an innate LH superiority that was responsible for the success of the Huns.
Just looking at the DBA 3 army lists, I note that English armies increased the percentage of other infantry (BD) as time went on indicating a decreased effectiveness. In the later lists LB seem to disappear (aside from the WOTR English - and even there there are more BD) and are replaced by PK while dismounted gendarmes return to their horses.
As to the HYW, Crecy was LB vs KN with a hedge as an obstacle, Poiters had a wet field (rough) with impromptu defenses put in place by the English with the decisive action being a mounted charge against the French main battle, and Agincourt again featured a sodden field (rough) in front of the English line.
Looking at the list of battles that occurred during the HYW, after Agincourt the French won most.
I still think that adding a +1 for solid BW (and AX) vs heavy foot is the best fix.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 25, 2019 8:06:56 GMT
...Looking at the list of battles that occurred during the HYW, after Agincourt the French won most... Funny how you don't hear much about that...  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 25, 2019 9:22:59 GMT
Good points Goragrad (although from my reading I’d have the HTW English deployed on a Gentle Hill at Crecy, in or behind an Enclosed Field (for the hedge) at Poitiers, and behind a Boggy-Muddy rough going field at Agincourt). The main thing is that in all three of these engagements it was the English that chose the battlefield...but in the DBA army lists the English high aggression of ‘3’ compared to the French low aggression of ‘1’ means it’s the French that defends and chooses the terrain. And surprise, surprise...the English don’t perform in DBA as well as they did in reality. Now I wonder why that is? (There’s a bit of historical re-balancing staring at us smack in the face right there!)But getting back to Joe’s proposed “+1 PIP to contact Bows” suggestion. In DBA Bows suffer from not one but two major disadvantages:- * First there is the “must shoot at an enemy in their TZ” rule, which makes long range shooting far more effective and deadly than close range shooting (which goes against common sense), plus it creates a totally artificial and unrealistic “shooting safe zone” in front of the shooters (where enemy foot can stop, rest, and reform, knowing the shooters can’t concentrate their fire to get a doubling die roll). * Second is the fact that Bows are too weak in close combat, and get slaughtered (which is why they were eventually given “side-support” in DBA 3.0 to boost them up a bit, but it’s still not enough). (Please see “Lessons from History” for the full details and the historical examples, which
saves me from having to repeat them all here)Joe, like many of us, is fully aware of weakness of Bows, and wants to improve and ‘re-balance’ them, so that:- * They are still more effective at long range than close range... * They still get slaughtered in close combat by heavy foot... * But make it more PIP costly to actually make contact (thus delaying the inevitable slaughter)... ...unless you just wait in that mythical 'shooting safe zone' till you get a high PIP roll. And alternative approach is as follows:- * Get rid of the “TZ shooting priority” (so close range is at least as effective as long range, and there is no gamey 'shooting safe zone'...being at close range in front of shooters should be somewhere to be avoided, not actively sort after, as shown at Agincourt!) * Give solid Bows a +1 when in close combat with heavy foot (which makes them tougher, but still inferior to Bd/Sp/Pk, and seems to fit the historical accounts better). There is a third alternative:- * have shooters recoil the enemy on an equal score (both in close combat and when shot at) This would make it slightly easier for shooters to break-up and disrupt enemy formations, and gives a similar effect to Joe’s proposal...recoil the centre element of a group and it will cost 3 PIPs to get the whole force moving together. It would also simulate the ‘veering away from the shooters’ effect that occurred at Agincourt (and presumably in other bow encounters as well), thus giving shooters slightly more chance of overlaps in close combat, which also helps them to survive for a bit longer. It’s up to players to try out these ‘re-balancing’ methods for themselves, and see which gives the more realistic historical effect. |
|
