|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 2, 2020 7:01:20 GMT
Maybe it's not just a thread reserection, but a re-opening of discussions in several threads spread over the forum concerning observations and proposed fixes to possible faults in DBA.3.0.
(Insert Yawn for not that again! 🤐).
My aim is to provoke(friendly) discussion in an aim to move towards a consensus of ideas in possible future versions of DBA. 3.0 or providing more universal House rules that the majority may choose to adopt. Forgive me for going over old ground or re-iterating what other players have suggested but here goes....
Fast Blade... some players consider them too powerful, either to fast and/or too potent vs other foot types ie. Ax, Bw, Sp and Wb. Part of the fix suggested here is to slow them down in some way which I myself am not in favour of so maybe a combat modifier is what is needed? The Problem with a combat modifier is making the Fast Blades to weak in the balanced combat system (which I believe most players agree works very well?).
My thoughts on the matter now seem to widen to consider the weekness of Ax, Bw and Wb vs Bd in general,including the optional rules suggested for frontally contacting Bw. My suggestion is to add a +1 modifier to Solid foot (other than Art and WWg) in combat vs Fast foot other than Ps.Alternatively,could giving the Fast Blades a - 1 modifier vs Solid troops be a better alternative? This could all be a no-go as it could be too much of a shift in percentages and maybe make 3Bd too week vs Solid Sp with flank support? What it would do is make Solid Ax, Bw and Wb more potent vs Fast foot other than Ps which goes some way to redressing the weakness of these troop types in the rules. The use of the - 1 modifier for troops contacting Bw frontally may work with this or cause too much of an in-ballance?
I leave this open now to anyone else to expand on if you are not already sick of the subject?
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Apr 2, 2020 7:24:58 GMT
...there are so many sets of rules to play...my experience is with different DBA sets, DBM, DBMM, Armati, ADG & also Triumph. But you need to have an opponent & spare time. But you need also to see what your naighboors are gaming...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Apr 2, 2020 8:35:09 GMT
Apart from the late medieval era I feel my knowledge of military history in as much as how the different troop types interacted and fought is poor. I therefore play DBA 3.0 as is and enjoy it. Ignorance is bliss so they say,
With 100 years War and War of the Roses I do feel the Long Bow could be better represented and indeed the crossbow. Lumping all types of bow together does at times seem to me a little too generic. No account is taken of the firing rate of Crossbow over the Longbow or penetrating power of the composite bow over the short bow. Whilst in the scale of DBA it can be argued that all things equal out in the results. I understand the philosophy is that a commander used the troops he had and did not really look too closely at what they were equipped with. But I am not sure that is completely true.
As to how to represent the different types of bow without upsetting the balance of everything else I am not sure. In DBA 3.0 Blades are +4 instead of +5 when being shoot out. This is some attempt to recognise the power of massed archery, but I feel Bow's against mounted still does not feel right. But again I cannot see how to change this without upsetting everything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 2, 2020 8:49:45 GMT
All fast troops should be cut to 2BW movement in rough and bad going - I find it ridiculous that solid foot have their move cut by 50% when traversing such terrain, but fast troops are completely unhindered by it - really??!! 😱
P
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 2, 2020 8:52:10 GMT
Apart from the late medieval era I feel my knowledge of military history in as much as how the different troop types interacted and fought is poor. I therefore play DBA 3.0 as is and enjoy it. Ignorance is bliss so they say, With 100 years War and War of the Roses I do feel the Long Bow could be better represented and indeed the crossbow. Lumping all types of bow together does at times seem to me a little too generic. No account is taken of the firing rate of Crossbow over the Longbow or penetrating power of the composite bow over the short bow. Whilst in the scale of DBA it can be argued that all things equal out in the results. I understand the philosophy is that a commander used the troops he had and did not really look too closely at what they were equipped with. But I am not sure that is completely true. As to how to represent the different types of bow without upsetting the balance of everything else I am not sure. In DBA 3.0 Blades are +4 instead of +5 when being shoot out. This is some attempt to recognise the power of massed archery, but I feel Bow's against mounted still does not feel right. But again I cannot see how to change this without upsetting everything else. I would advocate Lb and Cb as +1 vs foot in CC and remove the need to shoot at elements in their TZ. If they are supported by solid Bd as well, then they’re on a 4 v 5 and have a good chance of surviving. Recreates 100YW etc more realistically, I feel... P |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 2, 2020 8:54:18 GMT
Finally, upgrade solid Ax by giving them +1 v Sp, Pk and Bd. Makes line troops such as Roman Ax more realistic and less like the cannon fodder they are now...
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 2, 2020 10:00:13 GMT
All fast troops should be cut to 2BW movement in rough and bad going - I find it ridiculous that solid foot have their move cut by 50% when traversing such terrain, but fast troops are completely unhindered by it - really??!! 😱 P I don't think Ps should be slowed down, but you do have a point. In a way the fast troops are Hindered in Bad Going as any group move can only be in column(unless Ps) or only by individual elements which is a pip drain. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 2, 2020 10:02:15 GMT
Ha! How could I not have an opinion on this subject!...  ...although this thread is probably in the wrong place and should be in the “House Rule” section, so as not to offend the purists. The problem with House Rules is they are purely subjective: what one player likes another may not. It seems to me there are three types of DBA players:- a) those that think the current rules are fine as they are, and reject any new ideas... b) those that know that the play-balance is not perfect, but just shrug their shoulders, and never bring an Ax or Ps or LH army to a tournament... c) and there are those that would like to see the rules improved, to be more play-balanced, and even with a bit more historical realism...but not if this over-complicates things. Because believe it or not we players can sometimes come up with fresh new ideas. For years HoTT had Warbands moving 200 paces while Shooters moved 300, and so were better. Then someone came up with a House Rule reversing these move rates. This proved to be so popular and obvious that eventually even the authors themselves finally accepted it and made it official in HoTT 2.1. So here are some of the House Rules I consider to be vital. LH only pays ½ a PIP to move.DBA LH armies, contrary to their historical performance, are mere wimps. Oh, they have the ability to make subsequent moves, but only get to do so if they are lucky enough to roll more PIP’s than their opponent. It’s like having a high powered sports car with no fuel in the tank! Paddy’s suggestion that they pay ½ a PIP to move greatly improves them. Now LH armies are a force to be feared and respected, as they should be, instead of just a bunch of inferior poor quality cavalry. Improving AuxiliariesThere are several ways of doing this:- 1) have a new Tactical Factor that gives 4Ax (and 4Bw) a +1 when in close combat with Bd/Sp/Pk. This is the approach suggested by Primuspilus in “Lessons from History”. (See vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/f/f4/LESSONS_FROM_HISTORY.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190731193058 ) ---OR--- 2) reduce the heavy foot Combat Factors v foot by 1, so Bd is 4 (they already are when shot at and in DBMM), Sp is 3 with +1 for side-support (even if shot at), and Pk stay as they are but with only +2 for rear support. To make this work Wb will need to lose rear-support, and 8Bw lose side-support, or they’d be too powerful. And bad going is only -1 for foot instead of -2. This would also make the pointless pushing and shoving of Bd and Pk a bit more decisive. As for 3Ax (and Ps and 3Bw), allow them to recoil like mounted, a base depth or a full BW, as suggested by Joe Collins. NightfallUse the “Sun Clock” (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/20256/ ) to have an in-game time limit, as every general in history knows that night is approaching, even if wargames don’t!, along with the following victory condition:- The invader must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before nightfall of the defender will win the battle.This will create tension, like in a tournament, and is highly realistic. It will also allow weak wimpy Ax and Ps armies to actually win a battle by delaying, harassing, and ambushing their heavier or mounted opponents from reaching their camp before nightfall (the problem with Ax and Ps is DBA only concentrates on ‘set piece’ battles that heavy foot and mounted excel in, and totally ignores the ‘guerrilla’ type tactics that Ax and Ps armies were best at). It is also in keeping with Phil Barker’s own thoughts, as he says near the bottom of page 14:- “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory” There many, many other suggestions in the “House Rule Index” fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index (which I really must update with all the new stuff), but those above are what I consider to be the most important. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 2, 2020 11:14:49 GMT
Ha! How could I not have an opinion on this subject!... So here are some of the House Rules I consider to be vital. LH only pays ½ a PIP to move.DBA LH armies, contrary to their historical performance, are mere wimps. Oh, they have the ability to make subsequent moves, but only get to do so if they are lucky enough to roll more PIP’s than their opponent. It’s like having a high powered sports car with no fuel in the tank! Paddy’s suggestion that they pay ½ a PIP to move greatly improves them. Now LH armies are a force to be feared and respected, as they should be, instead of just a bunch of inferior poor quality cavalry. Improving AuxiliariesThere are several ways of doing this:- 1) have a new Tactical Factor that gives 4Ax (and 4Bw) a +1 when in close combat with Bd/Sp/Pk. This is the approach suggested by Primuspilus in “Lessons from History”. (See vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/f/f4/LESSONS_FROM_HISTORY.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190731193058 ) ---OR--- 2) reduce the heavy foot Combat Factors v foot by 1, so Bd is 4 (they already are when shot at and in DBMM), Sp is 3 with +1 for side-support (even if shot at), and Pk stay as they are but with only +2 for rear support. To make this work Wb will need to lose rear-support, and 8Bw lose side-support, or they’d be too powerful. And bad going is only -1 for foot instead of -2. This would also make the pointless pushing and shoving of Bd and Pk a bit more decisive. As for 3Ax (and Ps and 3Bw), allow them to recoil like mounted, a base depth or a full BW, as suggested by Joe Collins. NightfallUse the “Sun Clock” (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/20256/ ) to have an in-game time limit, as every general in history knows that night is approaching, even if wargames don’t!, along with the following victory condition:- The invader must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before nightfall of the defender will win the battle.This will create tension, like in a tournament, and is highly realistic. It will also allow weak wimpy Ax and Ps armies to actually win a battle by delaying, harassing, and ambushing their heavier or mounted opponents from reaching their camp before nightfall (the problem with Ax and Ps is DBA only concentrates on ‘set piece’ battles that heavy foot and mounted excel in, and totally ignores the ‘guerrilla’ type tactics that Ax and Ps armies were best at). It is also in keeping with Phil Barker’s own thoughts, as he says near the bottom of page 14:- “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory” There many, many other suggestions in the “House Rule Index” fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index (which I really must update with all the new stuff), but those above are what I consider to be the most important. I like several of those ideas, but I am not keen on seeing foot cv’s downgraded - makes it too much of a crap fest and I feel the game is already quick enough, without making it even more so. I actually like the fact that Bd and Pk is a shoving match, as it fits with my image of ancient warfare involving heavy foot. P |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 2, 2020 11:18:15 GMT
Ha! How could I not have an opinion on this subject!... So here are some of the House Rules I consider to be vital. LH only pays ½ a PIP to move.DBA LH armies, contrary to their historical performance, are mere wimps. Oh, they have the ability to make subsequent moves, but only get to do so if they are lucky enough to roll more PIP’s than their opponent. It’s like having a high powered sports car with no fuel in the tank! Paddy’s suggestion that they pay ½ a PIP to move greatly improves them. Now LH armies are a force to be feared and respected, as they should be, instead of just a bunch of inferior poor quality cavalry. Improving AuxiliariesThere are several ways of doing this:- 1) have a new Tactical Factor that gives 4Ax (and 4Bw) a +1 when in close combat with Bd/Sp/Pk. This is the approach suggested by Primuspilus in “Lessons from History”. (See vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/f/f4/LESSONS_FROM_HISTORY.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190731193058 ) ---OR--- 2) reduce the heavy foot Combat Factors v foot by 1, so Bd is 4 (they already are when shot at and in DBMM), Sp is 3 with +1 for side-support (even if shot at), and Pk stay as they are but with only +2 for rear support. To make this work Wb will need to lose rear-support, and 8Bw lose side-support, or they’d be too powerful. And bad going is only -1 for foot instead of -2. This would also make the pointless pushing and shoving of Bd and Pk a bit more decisive. As for 3Ax (and Ps and 3Bw), allow them to recoil like mounted, a base depth or a full BW, as suggested by Joe Collins. NightfallUse the “Sun Clock” (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/20256/ ) to have an in-game time limit, as every general in history knows that night is approaching, even if wargames don’t!, along with the following victory condition:- The invader must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before nightfall of the defender will win the battle.This will create tension, like in a tournament, and is highly realistic. It will also allow weak wimpy Ax and Ps armies to actually win a battle by delaying, harassing, and ambushing their heavier or mounted opponents from reaching their camp before nightfall (the problem with Ax and Ps is DBA only concentrates on ‘set piece’ battles that heavy foot and mounted excel in, and totally ignores the ‘guerrilla’ type tactics that Ax and Ps armies were best at). It is also in keeping with Phil Barker’s own thoughts, as he says near the bottom of page 14:- “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory” There many, many other suggestions in the “House Rule Index” fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index (which I really must update with all the new stuff), but those above are what I consider to be the most important. I like several of those ideas, but I am not keen on seeing foot cv’s downgraded - makes it too much of a crap fest and I feel the game is already quick enough, without making it even more so. I actually like the fact that Bd and Pk is a shoving match, as it fits with my image of ancient warfare involving heavy foot. P Do you think they got it right with Wb vs Bd or are they under-powered too just like Ax? |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 2, 2020 12:30:49 GMT
I think Wb are modelled about right and don’t feel this needs changing
P
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 2, 2020 13:32:51 GMT
I think Wb are modelled about right and don’t feel this needs changing P I think so too... It's just funny how the relation between Bd and Wb is about right in the rules, as is the relation between Ax and Wb... But Ax vs Bd is not quite right. |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 2, 2020 13:34:13 GMT
All fast troops should be cut to 2BW movement in rough and bad going - I find it ridiculous that solid foot have their move cut by 50% when traversing such terrain, but fast troops are completely unhindered by it - really??!! 😱 P In my house, chariots cannot enter bad going, and all other troop types other than Ps are reduced to 1BW movement, with Ps going down to 2BW.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 2, 2020 16:34:37 GMT
Here are ones I have been using...
Aux recoil 1BW from Bd, Pk
Pike Win ties vs non-Pike
+1 Pip for Foot to contact Bows
Elephants flee from Artillery if beaten
Elephants flee from Bow on a tie
"Solid" Bd QK Kn on a tie
"Fast" Bd QK 4Kn on a tie
Lh First move of first bound is free
Ps "Must" interpenetrate on a recoil
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 2, 2020 16:41:14 GMT
I like several of those ideas, but I am not keen on seeing foot cv’s downgraded - makes it too much of a crap fest and I feel the game is already quick enough, without making it even more so. I actually like the fact that Bd and Pk is a shoving match, as it fits with my image of ancient warfare involving heavy foot. Actually the effect of reducing heavy foot v foot by 1 isn’t that great Paulisper, as I hope to show with the following charts. The numbers show the current chances out of 36 (and those in brackets the new chances):- Bd Bd Equal Bd Bd
Blue Bd v Red Bd Doubled Recoiled Score Recoiled Doubled
Red overlapped twice - (-) 6 (6) 4 (4) 20 (17) 6 (9)*
Red overlapped once - (-) 10 (10) 5 (5) 19 (17) 2 (4)*
No overlaps - (1) 15 (14) 6 (6) 15 (14) - (1)*
Blue overlapped once 2 (4) 19 (17) 5 (5) 10 (10) - (-)
Blue overlapped twice 6 (9) 20 (17) 4 (4) 6 (6) - (-)
*(as you can see, the change is quite small, and is only a max of 3 more chances in 36, or 8%...
...if you can get a double-overlap first that is)
Pk Pk Equal Pk Pk
Blue Pk v Red Pk Doubled Recoiled Score Recoiled Doubled
Red overlapped twice - (-) 6 (6) 4 (4) 22 (20) 4 (6)*
Red overlapped once - (-) 10 (10) 5 (5) 20 (19) 1 (2)*
No overlaps - (-) 15 (15) 6 (6) 15 (15) - (-)
Blue overlapped once 1 (2) 20 (19) 5 (5) 10 (10) - (-)
Blue overlapped twice 4 (6) 22 (20) 4 (4) 6 (6) - (-)
*(Again the change is small, and this time only a max of 2 more chances in 36, or 6%)
Pk Pk Equal Bd Bd
Blue Pk v Red Bd Doubled Recoiled Score Recoiled Doubled
Red overlapped twice - (-) 3 (3) 3 (3) 21 (18) 9 (12)*
Red overlapped once - (-) 6 (6) 4 (4) 22 (20) 4 (6)*
No overlaps - (-) 10 (10) 5 (5) 20 (19) 1 (2)*
Blue overlapped once - (1) 15 (14) 6 (6) 15 (14) - (1)*
Blue overlapped twice 2 (4) 19 (17) 5 (5) 10 (10) - (-)
*(once more the change is 3 more chances out of 36, or 8%, at the most...if double-overlapped)The effects of this change is twofold:- 1) Not all ancient battles were won by outflanking the enemy...if fact this was quite rare. Indeed, most battles were won by the centre being broken through. 2) With slightly higher chances of breaking the centre, reserves become more important. I’d just like to emphasize that last point about reserves. With the current system, where heavy foot has such a high combat factor, the danger of being doubled is quite small, making it fairly safe for the Romans to not bother at all with reserves. Thus they are often in a single line as if they were a bunch of hoplites, which just looks wrong. And being in a long line with no reserves, they easily outflank pike armies...leading people to complain that pikes are broken and need fixing. However, if the chances of being double were slightly higher, then the Romans would need reserves to plug any gaps to prevent hard-flanking. And with more elements in reserve, they wouldn’t be able to outflank the opposition so easily, and pikes wouldn’t need any fixing. In short, this change not only encourages historical formations, it also makes other weaker foot more robust against heavy foot as the heavy foot are not quite so powerful, but still battle winners. It seems to me to be all benefits with no down side. Still, as with all suggestions, I urge people to give it a try for themselves, and see what they think.  |
|
