Thread Reserection

I like the idea of 8Wb for Wb armies because it will look right, and should play well. But...the army lists...

Scrap it all and go for a points based system.
You want knights and blades cool but you may end up facing twice as much Aux in bad going.


Ps you know I dont mean it but it is the only way to get balanced fights, DBA is not meant to give every army an even match up.
Plus change em to round bases.

No...I’m just assuming a level playing field.
Give the bows ideal terrain and they’ll do better. Likewise, give the CF 5 troops their ideal
terrain and they’ll also do better. I’d have thought that was obvious.
So how do you intend to give this ideal terrain to the the Hundred Year War English when
they fight the French if they only have 1 chance in 6 of being the defenders? Seems to me
that fighting on a flat open billiard table is going to be their default position (unless their
French opponent is pretty dumb).
Now try to win with the English.

But I do find it strange that you agree that 4Ax with a CF of 3 is a bit weak against CF 5 troops,
and could do with a bit of a boost, yet 4Bows with a CF of 3 in close combat with CF 5 troops
is all fine and dandy. Bit of a contraction there.
Yes, Bows have the advantage of shooting...but unlike Auxiliaries they’re vulnerable to mounted.
So both have their advantages. And if one finds a CF 3 too weak against CF 5 troops, surely the
other will as well.

Oh, and congratulations on winning the Autumn PAWS tournament with an Early Sui army.
Of course, I have no idea what armies you faced, or the skill of your opponents, or how much
luck you had. Nonetheless, well done sir.    👍

As for playing with bow armies...yes, many many times, especially Agincourt. But try as I might,
no matter what terrain I give the English, I just can’t replicate this battle into an English victory.
Even with a Difficult Hill in front of them (and there wasn’t one in this battle, read the historical
accounts), the best the English can get is CF 2 +1 for side-support while the French inside the
terrain are CF 5 -2, so CF 3 v CF 3...and even that’s only if they can keep their side-support.

Maybe I’m not a very good player...or maybe the English don’t have the right tools to do the job.
Yes, the Bows could actually be on the difficult hill and gain an extra +1 for being uphill, but they’ll
then lose the +1 for side-support. Anyway, the French player if he has any sense will simply refuse
to advance.

Have you tried re-fighting Cannae? That has the same problem. Hannibal just doesn’t have the
right tools to do the job (4Ax are too weak, and he should be the defender, not the Romans).
No wonder players find the Carthaginians underperforming compared to their historical accounts.

Oh, and since you asked:-

Stevie’s Wargaming CV
    Starting playing in the early 1980’s (you’ve met me, and know I’m an old fart...but still remarkably
    good-looking ) using the old WRG 7th edition, and I don’t remember ever finishing a game!
    When DBA 1.1 came out in the mid 1990’s I jumped on it, and followed it through DBA 1.2, 1.22,
    2.0 and 2.1. However, come DBA 2.2 my mates and I gave up on it as being too ‘gamey’, with too
    much ‘positional trickery’, and far too unrealistic. So we moved on to “Shock of Impact”, “Classical
    Hack”, “Warlord”, “Field of Glory” and “Impetus” amongst others. I never played DBA 2.2+/Triumph,
    but have tried DBM/DBMM, which I thought was bloated and unnecessarily complicated (“only +1 if
    there is an ‘r’ in the month, but not before 11:00 am, unless it's a Tuesday, except during a leap year”).
    Then DBA 3.0 came out, and what an improvement it is, and far superior to all those mentioned above.
    Of course, that doesn’t mean that it’s perfect...the are still a few play-balance and historical issues.
    Note noted are the hundreds of boardgames and computer games, as well as the other wargaming
    periods such as “English Civil War”, “American Civil War”, “American War of Independence”, the
    “Napoleonic Wars”, “The Second World War”, as well as “Futuristic Wars” in starships and “Aerial
     Warfare” (oh, and I missed out HoTT).

There, does that qualify me to have an opinion?

I think the difference between us is that you only seem to be interested in playing ‘a game’.
I too like games...but I also like them to be properly play-balanced and based on history.

Anyway, we are only talking about "House Rules" here.
If you don't like 'em, then don't use 'em.