|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 25, 2019 10:56:15 GMT
Hello folks, did anybody of you thought about playing „DBMM 100“, which is s.th. like DBA with all the „historical details“ you are looking for! Please don’t spoil the elegant and simple DBA ... it’s „big brother“ (DBMM) offers you plenty of possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 25, 2019 11:43:45 GMT
Hello there Ronisan...  ...yep, thought about it...tried it...and hated it. Please don’t misunderstand: many of us don’t want to turn DBA into DBMM and make it more complicated. We are just more honest and openly admit that some things in DBA are not play-balanced properly, instead of burying our heads in the sand and trying to pretend that everything is hunky-dory. Of course, keeping the rules simple should be the primary goal...but if this can be done AND have the play-balance/realism improved, why not do so? Or is DBA all about Bd/Sp/Pk/Kn armies, and if you’ve bought an Ax/Ps/LH army, then tough, you’ve just wasted your money. That’s why I advocate improving the wording and clarity of the basic tournament rules, incorporating all the FAQ adjudications and perhaps more diagrams, with extra advanced historical rules as either an appendix or as a separate document. Because people will still make and use their own “House Rules” you know. Indeed, they have to. I sure no-one is going to say “If you want to play campaigns, which DBA 3.0 has no rules for, then too bad...go play another set of rules”. Just as when you want to re-create an historical engagement, but find that DBA 3.0 is unable to reproduce a pivotal event that caused that particular battle to be won, they have no choice but to make a “House Rule” to cover that event. Or is it a case of “If you want history and play-balance, then toddle-off and play something else, because DBA 3.0 is full of flaws, and we like it that way”? If so, then fine...don’t use any of the advanced historical play-balanced house rules. Everyone should be able enjoy the game their own way. |
|
|
|
Post by j on Oct 25, 2019 13:23:01 GMT
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. Attila the Nun? WHere can I get those figures from? Regards, j |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 25, 2019 13:56:07 GMT
I’m definitely in favor if trueing the “win on ties” mechanic to help nudge up elements that need it as opposed to adding more combat modifiers if only for ease of reading and remembering. The only problem that would then need to be solved would be priority. To stevie ‘s idea, if bw win on ties against heavy infantry, what about fast bw against solid heavy infantry? Easy to adjust but wanted to mention. |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Oct 25, 2019 14:14:55 GMT
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. Attila the Nun? WHere can I get those figures from? Regards, j He’s a Fanaticus member, and a good player, too...... Mark...care to comment? 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 25, 2019 15:30:54 GMT
Hello there Ronisan... ...yep, thought about it...tried it...and hated it. Please don’t misunderstand: many of us don’t want to turn DBA into DBMM and make it more complicated. We are just more honest and openly admit that some things in DBA are not play-balanced properly, instead of burying our heads in the sand and trying to pretend that everything is hunky-dory. Of course, keeping the rules simple should be the primary goal...but if this can be done AND have the play-balance/realism improved, why not do so? Or is DBA all about Bd/Sp/Pk/Kn armies, and if you’ve bought an Ax/Ps/LH army, then tough, you’ve just wasted your money. That’s why I advocate improving the wording and clarity of the basic tournament rules, incorporating all the FAQ adjudications and perhaps more diagrams, with extra advanced historical rules as either an appendix or as a separate document. Because people will still make and use their own “House Rules” you know. Indeed, they have to. I sure no-one is going to say “If you want to play campaigns, which DBA 3.0 has no rules for, then too bad...go play another set of rules”. Just as when you want to re-create an historical engagement, but find that DBA 3.0 is unable to reproduce a pivotal event that caused that particular battle to be won, they have no choice but to make a “House Rule” to cover that event. Or is it a case of “If you want history and play-balance, then toddle-off and play something else, because DBA 3.0 is full of flaws, and we like it that way”? If so, then fine...don’t use any of the advanced historical play-balanced house rules. Everyone should be able enjoy the game their own way. Hello Stevie, I agree with you. It's not much fun to play a "12xPs bronze age army" against a "Kn&Pk renaissance army"! But in DBMM it is more balanced to confront a book 1 Ps-army vs. a book 1 Pk-army, because most of those eary pikes are irregular or inferior or even both and it's the challenge of the Ps-General (player), to outmanoeuver the clumsy pikes. I think it's great to have a 'light version' (DBA) and an 'extended version' (DBMM) of the same basic rule mechanics. Cheers, Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 25, 2019 16:19:30 GMT
Lots here to deal with but lets get the easy stuff out of the way:
No one should be compelled to inflict DBMM on themselves - its a mess and object lesson in what not to do re DBX mechanics. It was the main impetus to putting some much effort into fixing DBA since the DBX mechanics were in dire need of an upgrade without the wildly overwrought mechanics of DBMM (truly the mad scientist version of DBX).
As to the HYW: using "Shooters" from HOTT fully and completely fixes this interaction. The solution is therefore simple, already exists and allows for lesser missile troops of earlier periods (represented by standard Bow). Why we continue to spend time on it or offer complex additional rules or mess up the simulation value of the system by changing the shooting priorities remains a mystery.
As to the historical background, I'm always surprised at the amount the misconceptions re this period given the huge historical literature. We have complete source books for both Agincourt and Crecy in print (and paperback for that matter), we have excellent studies of Crecy/Poiters period by Clifford Rogers; brilliant work on Agincourt by Anne Curry and Juliet Baker and a great post Agincourt study by Juliet Baker also. Not to mention Johnathon Sumptions magnificent multi-volume history of the period. To say nothing of in depth specialist studies such as Strickland & Hardy's The Great Warbow. There was no hedge at Crecy only a very gentle hill (the battlefield has been recently relocated), Poiters had a hedge which covered part of the field but the English's basic problem was a lack of archers (less than half the army as there were many Gascons present) and the mud at Agincourt is much exaggerated (another battlefield recently relocated). Nor did the French win most the latter battles but suffered crushing defeats at Cravant (1423) and Verneuil (1424). The English lost due to over extension, lack of resources and the rise of a competent French missile force. Most of the final French victories were the result of a cannon park methodically knocking down previously stout fortified towns/castles. (And we also need to consider the victories over Scots the same period). The main lesson of course was the ability of the English missile troops to confront and defeat heavy infantry armies by using more powerful missile weapons and being able to at least hold their own in close combat. This is what distinguishes them from ancient missile men who were primary a threat to mounted opponents.
As to DBA, the decision was made to use the ancient model for Bow not the medieval but then tape on "side support" to buttress the yeoman with the general hope that only the English HYW army lists would allow this rule to be much exploited. In any case for an historical battle you need to also deal with French (and Scottish for that matter) numbers which should generally exceed the English by nearly 2-1. Its just not something standard 12 element DBA is built to do.
While the HYW problem is pretty easy to solve (and HOTT has already solved it), Pike is much tougher. I'm pondering a slightly revised set of Pike rules now after having another two day playtest session with my current ideas. LH based on armies also present some tricky issues and probably can't be solved within the context of the 12 element chess match of standard DBA. I am convinced that both problems can be solved within the context of DBX mechanics though.
I don't favor further tinkering with Phil Barker's final version of DBA. It would just throw tournament play into confusion as some would and some would not adopt what would have to be unauthorized changes. We had Phil's attention for over two years (some of it wasted by the 2.2+ nonsense) and did manage to get some meaningful changes - we did what we could and all this stuff should have been raised at that time. Unfortunately due to Phil's health issues this was our last shot for DBA. So for tournament play we are done - but for home historical battles there is lots to consider and lots more we can get out of the marvelous DBX mechanics.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by judebecker on Oct 25, 2019 16:57:43 GMT
Interesting discussion. I think people are being too hard on DBMM, yes it has lots of stuff built in, it's intended for that. So, I say keep DBMM and DBA in their own realms where they belong. I really like the restrictive nature of the "only drilled units can wheel" concept brought up in this summers Slingshot. That is a great article. I'm not so sure though about keeping them straight after each turn of combat, now that is really abstract! |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 25, 2019 17:31:43 GMT
... I don't favor further tinkering with Phil Barker's final version of DBA. It would just throw tournament play into confusion as some would and some would not adopt what would have to be unauthorized changes. We had Phil's attention for over two years (some of it wasted by the 2.2+ nonsense) and did manage to get some meaningful changes - we did what we could and all this stuff should have been raised at that time. Unfortunately due to Phil's health issues this was our last shot for DBA. So for tournament play we are done - but for home historical battles there is lots to consider and lots more we can get out of the marvelous DBX mechanics. TomT Bravoooooo TomT :-) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 25, 2019 19:29:25 GMT
I don't favor further tinkering with Phil Barker's final version of DBA. It would just throw tournament play into confusion as some would and some would not adopt what would have to be unauthorized changes. We had Phil's attention for over two years (some of it wasted by the 2.2+ nonsense) and did manage to get some meaningful changes - we did what we could and all this stuff should have been raised at that time. Unfortunately due to Phil's health issues this was our last shot for DBA. So for tournament play we are done - but for home historical battles there is lots to consider and lots more we can get out of the marvelous DBX mechanics. TomT Bravoooooo TomT :-) And I agree entirely (bet you didn’t see that that coming!  ), which is why I said:- That’s why I advocate improving the wording and clarity of the basic tournament rules, incorporating all the FAQ adjudications and perhaps more diagrams, with extra advanced historical rules as either an appendix or as a separate document. But I do find it strange that tournament players are so against new ideas. After all, everybody will still be playing by the same rules. But I’m all for leaving the basic tournament rules just as they are now... ...even though everyone knows damn well that turning up with an all Ax/Ps/LH army is the kiss of death because these types of armies are inherently underpowered and not play-balanced properly. People will still use “House Rules”, and they will start ‘voting-with-their-feet’ and begin adopting those they like, whether we like it or not (but apparently not in tournaments, where the rules are set in stone and will never change... ...at least until the next improved version of DBA becomes the new dogma, just as DBA 2.2 was the unchangeable dogma until DBA 3.0 came along).  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 25, 2019 22:50:00 GMT
Nor did the French win most the latter battles but suffered crushing defeats at Cravant (1423) and Verneuil (1424). The English lost due to over extension, lack of resources and the rise of a competent French missile force. Most of the final French victories were the result of a cannon park methodically knocking down previously stout fortified towns/castles. Post Agincourt, the English won 7 major battles: Siege of Rouen, Fresnay, Siege of Meaux, Cravant, Verneuil, St James, Herrings. Post Agincourt, the French won 11 major battles: Bauge, La Brossiniere, Siege of Orleans, Jargeau, Meaung-sur-Loire, Beaugency, Patay, Gerberoy, Rouen, Formigny, Castillon. (3 of these were small battles: Jargeau, Meaung-sur-Loire, Beaugency.)
Of these 11 victories post Agincourt, the French won the last 8 in a row. At least 5 of the last victories against the English (La Brossiniere, Patay, Gerberoy, Formigny, Castillon) were pitched battles that did not use a 'cannon park methodically knocking down previously stout fortified towns/castles', were won largely with cavalry, and resulted in crushing defeats of the English. Joan of Arc certainly never had access to a 'cannon park'. The most she ever got her hands on when laying siege were a few primitive cannon (bombards) and stone throwers - and when she requested more artillery & ammunition from the King she didn't receive it! Nineteen years after her death, at Formigny, the 2 French culverins (count them: 2!) were captured, and it was a cavalry relief force which won the French the battle. Castillon (1453, the final battle of the HYW) was the first major battle in European history in which cannon played a decisive role. Only at Castillon did the French have an 'artillery park', which they put to good use - in battle against enemy soldiers - but again, it was their cavalry that delivered the coup de grace.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Oct 25, 2019 23:19:40 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.
Joe Collins
The problem is that eventually those armies will dominate the numbers in tournaments - not just the results, but the fields themselves.
I came to DBA from Napoleonics, a period I stopped playing when the field in my local tournament was my Grand Duchy of Warsaw troops, a lone French force, and 5 British forces. A few years later there were 8 British forces playing against each other!
|
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Oct 26, 2019 0:58:52 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. True. The worst defeats they suffered owed a lot to treachery. The reason Romanus went looking for the Turks at Manzikert was because his reign was fragile and he needed a victory, even though the Turks were campaigning against other Muslims at the time and didn't want a fight. As I recall, the army reserve left the field rather than rescue the front units when they got into deep trouble. When the crusaders and Venetians sacked Constantinople they had a claimant to the throne in their baggage who knew the weak spots of the defense. Sounds pretty much like treachery to me. Oh, and a previous emperor had disbanded the navy, deciding to depend on the Venetians for naval support. Add to treachery truly bone-headed decisions. Let's see, earlier the 7th century war against the Persians started when Phocas overthrew Maurice, killing him and his 5 sons. Chosroes (whatever spelling version you prefer) used that as his reason to attack. The Empire finally crawled out of the sewer some 30 years later, badly battered and just in time to lose most of their lucrative eastern provinces to the Muslims. The Persians succumbed to the Arabs first. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 26, 2019 1:22:09 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.
Joe Collins
The problem is that eventually those armies will dominate the numbers in tournaments - not just the results, but the fields themselves.
I came to DBA from Napoleonics, a period I stopped playing when the field in my local tournament was my Grand Duchy of Warsaw troops, a lone French force, and 5 British forces. A few years later there were 8 British forces playing against each other!
What rules set was this Spitzicles? Nappy is a period I’ve never really tried but always wanted to.. |
|
|
|
Post by Spitzicles on Oct 27, 2019 2:01:42 GMT
The problem is that eventually those armies will dominate the numbers in tournaments - not just the results, but the fields themselves.
I came to DBA from Napoleonics, a period I stopped playing when the field in my local tournament was my Grand Duchy of Warsaw troops, a lone French force, and 5 British forces. A few years later there were 8 British forces playing against each other!
What rules set was this Spitzicles? Nappy is a period I’ve never really tried but always wanted to.. These were played with the old WRG Horse & Musket 1685-1845 rules with Australian amendments. At the time of their release (mid 70s ?), they were very different - no written orders, larger figure scale (1 = 50 men), no casualty recording (remove a figure for each 6 rolled), lots of morale tests, etc. You can see their WRG heritage from ancients, and echoes of the mechanics show up in DBX. They were a good set of rules for brigade/divisional level actions, but many want to play as a Corps or army commander and it struggled to simulate the command and control problems at that level. They are showing their age now, and the national characteristics (while entirely understandable) eventually result in only romantics or new players playing with nationalities other than the main nations (British, French, Prussian and Russian- Austrians also tend to struggle). |
|
), which is why I said:-
