|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 22, 2019 18:13:42 GMT
snowcat, I'm simply asking the question if the interactions between troops changed between the ancient vs medieval period? I don't know the answer as my historical knowledge is limited. If they didn't, then we can happily use the same troop types in all the armies. But if you change a troop type, it has repercussions into the other books/periods. That is unless you introduce a period specific troop type, such as Lb, Cb, and as Tom suggested, Shooters (Sh?). Those troops can have their own custom rules/interactions within their period, and it won't have any spillover effects to the other periods because none of the ancient armies would have Lb, or Sh.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2019 19:45:29 GMT
I think that Snowcat and Greedo both make good points.
The truth is that DBA is blind...
...as far as the rules are concerned, a blade is a blade, and a bow is a bow, no matter
the period in history.
It is we who add descriptive names and all the mental baggage that brings to these.
Surely nobody really believes that I/22 New Kingdom Egyptian blades were the equal
of the IV/85 Burgundian Ordonnance blades. But the system seems to work.
So here we face the crucial paradox:-
* If Medieval bows in DBA are deemed to be too weak to perform as they did historically,
then do as HoTT does and give bows a CF of 3 when shooting and when in close combat
(but that might make ancient bows too powerful).
* If Ancient bows with a CF of 2 are deemed to be about right, leave things as they are
(but that appears to make Medieval bows too weak).
One possible solution as MedievalThomas suggests is to create a new element class
for the later Middle Ages that is a combination of Auxiliaries and Bows with a CF of 3.
That leaves the Ancient combat interactions unchanged, as this new Longbow-Crossbow
element would not be available to them.
However, it would affect tournaments, as why have just ordinary Ancient bows when
you could have superior super Longbows and Crossbows? (but then again we already
have that issue...Longbows and Crossbows kill Knights and Camelry on an equal score.
Ordinary Bows do not, and Lb/Cb don’t seem to dominate competition games).
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 22, 2019 20:54:26 GMT
So the wrap my head around it. The proposal is to:
1) Create a new element called something like "Shooter"
2) The New element is CV 3,4 in shooting and CC
3) The element shares all other characteristics with Lb (QK vs Knights etc., move of 2BW, who QK it, etc.)
Is that right?
Sounds neat, although this should move to House Rules section methinks.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 22, 2019 22:03:40 GMT
Because creating more period/weapon-specific troop types (like Lb and Cb which we already have within Bw...which I'm not sure was a great idea for DBA because it opens the door for further granularity) is a slippery slope for a broad-brush system like DBA. What you are suggesting to my mind is not a rule for the DBA system; it is a scenario rule for the medieval period in Western Europe. If you go down this path, where do you stop? The granularity door opens ever wider... Shall we then differentiate between a highly trained Roman Legionary Bd with excellent armour, gladius, pilum and shield vs some poorly trained Chinese conscript with a sword and shield? Why not? They're worlds apart. What about some scantily-armoured ancient Greek blokes wielding pointy sticks and mounted (without stirrups) as Cv vs the best Mongol/Timurid guard lancers, with superb armour and weaponry incl composite bows and lances, who *really* know what they're doing, also as Cv? Why not? Again, they're worlds apart. Or Sumerian ass-driven war carts (ha!) vs Assyrian 4-horse heavy chariots - in the same Bk 1 period! Both HCh! Really?! Or shall we differentiate between crossbows and CROSSBOWS - because some of those Chinese ones were really badass! Where do you stop?? Everyone has their favourite pony! This isn't IMPETUS, it's DBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2019 23:06:45 GMT
That’s an interesting point Snowcat. Yes, some people already believe that there are too many troop classes in DBA. I understand that some in the development team wanted to reduce this by following the HoTT lead and combine Cv and LH into one and call them ‘Riders’, and combine Sp and Pk into one rear-supported type. Indeed, the ‘fast’ and ‘solid’ classification is largely an artificial creation, that was only added to DBA 3.0 to give a reason for having 3 figure and 4 figure bases (which in itself is just a leftover from the old WRG rules that players had already based their armies upon). Sooooo...which is best? Bows with a CF of 2, and Medieval warfare is broken? (try re-fighting Poitiers or Agincourt). Or Bows with a CF of 3? (and make them more powerful and possibly break the ancient period). (There is a third alternative...reduce all HI combat factors in close combat in all periods.
But that’s one for the “House Rule” section  ) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 22, 2019 23:13:07 GMT
That’s an interesting point Snowcat. Yes, some people already believe that there are too many troop classes in DBA. I understand that some in the development team wanted to reduce this by following the HoTT lead and combine Cv and LH into one and call them ‘Riders’. Indeed, the ‘fast’ and ‘solid’ classification is largely an artificial creation, that was only added to DBA 3.0 to give a reason for having 3 figure and 4 figure bases (which in itself is just a leftover from the old WRG rules that players had already based their armies upon). Sooooo...which is best? Bows with a CF of 2, and Medieval warfare is broken? (try re-fighting Poitiers or Agincourt). Or Bows with a CF of 3? (and make them more powerful and possibly break the ancient period). (There is a third alternative...reduce ALL HI combat factors in close combat in ALL periods.
But that’s one for the “House Rule” section )Where does Agincourt fail under 3.0 if the French Kn charge the English Lb across mud?
Genuine question. Not being sarcastic.
OK, just read your 'edit' above. Surely the English LB still have a good chance at CF4 QK on ties CF3, allowing for some additional bonus(es) from overlaps resulting from shooting immediately prior to contact? But you're talking more about English Lb and Bd vs French Bd in the centre of the battle?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2019 23:28:06 GMT
Because Agincourt was won by the English longbowmen defeating the dismounted French plate armoured men-at-arms who were moving across mud (and at Poitiers the longbowmen were behind a hedge). Genuine answer. Not being sarcastic.  Whoops...my turn to read your edit. Because Blades have a combat factor of 5, while Longbows have a CF of 2 +1 for side-support. If the Longbows can get a double overlap on the Blades, it will be CF 3 v CF 3, and 2 chances out of 36 of each getting a kill. If the Longbows get overlapped, and they have 20 chances of recoiling in a straight fight with no overlaps...well, they are looking at 12 chances of being doubled if overlapped once, and a whopping 24 chances of being doubled if overlapped twice! (remember, no side support if overlapped twice). Crecy was won by shooting (Bows v Knights). Poitiers and Agincourt were won by Bows v Blades in close combat...not by shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 22, 2019 23:32:46 GMT
Because Agincourt was won by the English longbowmen defeating the dismounted French plate armoured men-at-arms who were moving across mud (and at Poitiers the longbowmen were behind a hedge). Genuine answer. Not being sarcastic. What about the fact that the French dismounted men-at-arms were terribly disordered in the mud? Does that penalty restore the balance? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2019 23:50:01 GMT
After the disaster at Crecy in 1346, the French decided to attack on foot at Poitiers in 1356, and again at Agincourt in 1415. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_AgincourtOh, and Rough Going does not reduce the Blades combat factor in DBA. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 22, 2019 23:53:05 GMT
Yes, sorry. I'm reading about Agincourt again in Ian Heath's book as we type!
But see my last edit in previous post: if you give the French Bd a penalty (-2?) for being disordered in the mud - even as a scenario rule - would that fix things? I think the state of the French disorder (cramped as well) in the mud could be argued as BAD GOING, not just ROUGH. That's where it falls apart for the English Bw I think for this battle under RAW DBA. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 23, 2019 0:00:26 GMT
Yes, well, any changes would improve the chances for the Longbows in close combat. So would reducing the HI combat factor against foot...and so would giving the Lb a CF of 3 like HoTT does... (Forgive me if I don't reply right away, but even the devilishly handsome Stevie
needs his beauty sleep)
 |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 23, 2019 0:04:57 GMT
Yes, well, any changes would improve the chances for the Longbows in close combat. (So would reducing the HI combat factor against foot...and so would giving the Lb a CF of 3 like HoTT does...) Yes BUT reading the account of the battle, it reads to me as if it is the extreme state of disorder and catastrophic cramping of the French lines of dismounted men-at-arms in the mud that enabled the English Bd and Lb to bottle them up and do them in. (it is a battle in which an enemy's very strength became its great weakness, due to circumstances of the actual battlefield deployments + bad terrain for the heavily armoured attacker to advance across, and all this combined into one nightmarish traffic jam in the mud which the attacking forces could not extricate themselves from.)
That's scenario factors more than CF's of troop types for mine.
All those French Bd should get a -2 (and probably QK against them) to simulate the catastrophically dire position they found themselves in. Then you have something a lot closer to what happened at Agincourt. It can't be reproduced with base CF's alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 23, 2019 0:15:26 GMT
But then the English will lose EVERY battle against the Medieval French except Agincourt. (Facing Longbows? Then just dismount your Knights and you're bound to win).See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War for the battles after Agincourt. I know that the English finally lost the Hundred Years War...but it wasn't that easy! (Where is MedievalThomas when you need him)
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 23, 2019 0:23:23 GMT
I've had a couple of outcomes resembling Agincourt with my rule suggestions.
Just saying.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 23, 2019 0:26:57 GMT
I repeat: Reading the account of the battle, it seems to me that it was the extreme state of disorder and catastrophic cramping of the French lines of dismounted men-at-arms in the mud that enabled the English Bd and Lb to bottle them up and do them in. (It is a battle in which an enemy's very strength became its great weakness, due to circumstances of the actual battlefield deployments + bad terrain for the heavily armoured attacker to advance across, and all this combined into one nightmarish traffic jam in the mud which the attacking forces could not extricate themselves from.) That's scenario factors more than CF's of troop types for mine. All those French Bd should get a -2 (and probably QK against them) to simulate the catastrophically dire position they found themselves in. Or play it as BBDBA so you can more easily get the French in successive cramped lines in the mud (still at -2), where their recoils result in destroyed elements by meeting disordered friends, etc. with no normal Bd interpenetration allowed. Then you have something a lot closer to what happened at Agincourt. It can't be reproduced with base CF's alone.
The outcome of Agincourt was contributed to by extraordinary circumstances (not just base troop class definitions). If you change CFs or create new troop types to reproduce this outcome for an ordinary game (standard rules, no scenario or situational modifiers), surely you consequently disrupt the balance of those troops' performance (and the performance of other troops) under less extraordinary circumstances. IOW you tip the scales the other way, because you've tried to claim it was the troops and how they were armed/armoured/trained etc that solely produced that outcome, and was not contributed to by serious situational modifiers on that particular day resulting in the 'French traffic jam in the mud'.
It's like trying to reproduce the result of the French traffic jam in the mud while ignoring the French traffic jam in the mud.
...
Joe, what were your rule suggestions again? |
|
)
