|
Post by timurilank on May 27, 2016 8:58:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 29, 2016 20:05:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 30, 2016 14:25:34 GMT
Just fought a 12 element per side Spanish War of Succession battle between Britain and France using the DBA-HX 1700-1850 adaptation. Played really well. These are certainly the rules I will be using for the WSS battles.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 30, 2016 14:48:51 GMT
Just fought a 12 element per side Spanish War of Succession battle between Britain and France using the DBA-HX 1700-1850 adaptation. Played really well. These are certainly the rules I will be using for the WSS battles. Cromwell,
Thank you for the thumbs up. Be careful where you place your generals less they succumb to the mayhem around them.
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on May 30, 2016 18:44:00 GMT
Just fought a 12 element per side Spanish War of Succession battle between Britain and France using the DBA-HX 1700-1850 adaptation. Played really well. These are certainly the rules I will be using for the WSS battles. Cromwell,
Thank you for the thumbs up. Be careful where you place your generals less they succumb to the mayhem around them.
Yeah! Now you tell me! I found that one out the hard way  Old Marlborough nearly cashed in his chips
|
|
|
Post by ilprincipe on Dec 8, 2021 23:20:40 GMT
My good friend and I played our first game with this variant a couple of weeks ago. Napoleonic, circa 1813. Prussians vs French. Twelve elements of side. The game played well and we enjoyed it so needless to say we'll be back for more of the same soon. We did though find that we were left with a few questions. I mentioned this to Robert who suggested that I post them here for everyone's benefit. So here goes with the first one.
DBA-HX 3.0 (1700 - 1850) Rules query #1
On page 3 it states that "For game purposes, all artillery are no longer classed as foot, but form a separate classification – Artillery". However there are no combat factors listed in the Shooting and Close Combat table on p3 that apply when fighting against Artillery, only the usual two columns for versus Foot and versus Mtd. Is this an oversight or are we missing the point?
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 9, 2021 8:20:04 GMT
My good friend and I played our first game with this variant a couple of weeks ago. Napoleonic, circa 1813. Prussians vs French. Twelve elements of side. The game played well and we enjoyed it so needless to say we'll be back for more of the same soon. We did though find that we were left with a few questions. I mentioned this to Robert who suggested that I post them here for everyone's benefit. So here goes with the first one. DBA-HX 3.0 (1700 - 1850) Rules query #1 On page 3 it states that "For game purposes, all artillery are no longer classed as foot, but form a separate classification – Artillery". However there are no combat factors listed in the Shooting and Close Combat table on p3 that apply when fighting against Artillery, only the usual two columns for versus Foot and versus Mtd. Is this an oversight or are we missing the point? The original intent was meant to describe the evolution of artillery from guild to a formal arm of the military, a point not requiring separate combat factors. I understand the confusion. The line beginning with Note, for game purposes, all artillery is no longer classed as foot, but form a separate classification – Artillery. – should be deleted.
|
|
|
Post by ilprincipe on Dec 9, 2021 17:08:53 GMT
Thanks Robert.
|
|
|
Post by ilprincipe on Dec 9, 2021 17:11:38 GMT
DBA-HX 3.0 (1700 - 1850) Rules query #2
Very early in our test game we discovered that Artillery is very fragile, after all bar one of the batteries on the table had been destroyed following a couple of rounds of counter-battery fire during the opening bounds. This was down to the fact that Artillery is destroyed in combat when beaten or doubled, so that there is a 30 in 36 chance that one or other of the contestants in an artillery duel will be destroyed. This seems to make counter-battery fire much more effective than our own, admittedly limited, reading suggests that it was.
We are therefore wondering whether, in future, to change the 'beaten' combat outcome for Artillery from "Destroyed" to "Destroyed if in close combat otherwise silenced if in distant combat and its total is at least 2 less." [Clearly there is a final "otherwise no effect" but this result is always implied in DBx systems.] The outcome "silenced" is borrowed from HFG where it is assigned the following meaning:
"Silenced elements remain so until the end of the immediately following bound. Until then, they cannot shoot in distant combat, support or make a tactical or march move. This represents a temporary unwillingness of troops behind defences to expose themselves, or artillery crew depleted, driven from or repairing guns. If a marker is needed, a small puff of dust coloured cotton wool, a casualty figure or a shell hole are all suitable. Opponents of silenced troops can charge or press forward as if unsuccessfully shot at."
Notwithstanding that idea, we recognise that there is likely to be a solid game reason for the current combat result, which is the reason for raising the question here.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 9, 2021 19:50:07 GMT
Good points.
The distant shooting and combat outcome were retained so players could easily transition from ancients to a gunpowder era game without too many rule changes. Any tactical advancements during the period were worked in the DBA3 framework were feasible; limiting side support, use of squares, horse artillery, etc.
Your question yesterday had me recall the role artillery played from 1700 to 1850; in a nutshell, massed batteries would soften enemy formations to be subjected afterwards by own infantry or cavalry.
During the test phase, the idea to decrease the shooting factor by half to represent long-range keeping the current factors as effective range, was suggested. For some reason, this did not generate a response, so the result is what you now have.
Returning to this, I would suggest the following:
Resolve Shooting or Combat Factors Heavy Artillery shooting distance 10/5 combat factor +2/+4 Light Artillery shooting distance 5/2 combat factor +2/+4
Combat Outcome If its total is less than that of its opponent but more than half: Artillery if shot at long range by artillery, recoil, otherwise destroyed.
Recoiling or pushed back Recoiling artillery element moves back its base depth.
|
|
|
Post by ilprincipe on Dec 9, 2021 22:02:24 GMT
DBA-HX 3.0 (1700 - 1850) Rules query #2 - follow up
Thanks. I'm also keen to avoid anything that departs too far from the underlying principles of DBA3 so very happy to drop the idea of introducing a new outcome type.
For that reason, it might be better to avoid using two different combat factors for each type of Artillery, depending on the range. Instead perhaps keep the combat factors in the table exactly as written and instead add a line to the Tactical Factors table to read: "-2 If Artillery and either located in a city or fort or in other circumstances and shooting at targets beyond 3BW".
This approach also has the virtues that:
(a) the effect of increased range is quite properly a Tactical Factor; (b) it would simplify the text by allowing you to dispense with the note at the top of page 4 which presently reads "Note; Artillery shooting factors and close combat remain (+4), but are reduced (+2) if located in a city or fort"; and (c) it would allow you to simplify your combat outcome text to read "All Artillery - If shot at by enemy all of whom are beyond 3BW, recoil, otherwise destroyed". [Such enemies can only be other artillery.]
The disadvantage is that it applies the same range factor, 3BW, to both light and heavy artillery but I could happily rationalise that by assuming that we're really talking about whether the target is in canister range or not, which is probably similar for both types.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Dec 10, 2021 7:04:13 GMT
DBA-HX 3.0 (1700 - 1850) Rules query #2 - follow up Thanks. I'm also keen to avoid anything that departs too far from the underlying principles of DBA3 so very happy to drop the idea of introducing a new outcome type. For that reason, it might be better to avoid using two different combat factors for each type of Artillery, depending on the range. Instead perhaps keep the combat factors in the table exactly as written and instead add a line to the Tactical Factors table to read: " -2 If Artillery and either located in a city or fort or in other circumstances and shooting at targets beyond 3BW". (snip) An elegant solution. Very nice.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Dec 10, 2021 9:38:38 GMT
DBN discourages counter battery fire (much frowned on by Wellington and others) by only making a double or more result have an effect, in which case the loser is destroyed. There is no effect for beating but not doubling. This applies if an artillery unit hasn't moved and is fired at by another artillery unit. Base combat factors are +3/+3.
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
Post by ilprincipe on Dec 10, 2021 11:15:04 GMT
DBA-HX 3.0 (1700 - 1850) Rules query #2 - follow up
Hi Simon,
HFG takes a similar view about the limited effectiveness of counter-battery fire by applying the following "beaten in distant combat" result to artillery.
"Artillery (if its total is at least 2 less) chooses whether to be silenced or to be repulsed, 200p if in difficult or slow going or a redoubt, 1,200p to 1,600p if Horse Artillery, otherwise 800p." [Where silenced has the meaning given in my earlier post.]
So "only just beaten", ie beaten by 1, becomes a no effect result but but "properly beaten", ie beaten by 2 or more, and "silenced" puts the battery out of action for one bound's worth of shooting, which is rarely disastrous but is inconvenient. In the games we play I find that seems pretty realistic.
Now when all that's said, I'm still with Robert in wanting to avoid departing too far from DBA's familiar systems and terms so for now I'll be happy to leave the beaten result for long range distant combat as a recoil. Especially as that's likely to have the same effect as silenced in many circumstances because the firing lane will almost certainly be obscured unless the next target is luckily placed straight ahead.
Regards,
Chris
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 10, 2021 11:26:02 GMT
...in switzerland we use to play the old version DBA 2.2 & its DBX extension for the period; 1500-1900. But ouer rules are in german & we we like that...
|
|