|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 23, 2020 16:41:59 GMT
We can discuss all the rules modifications we like but I do draw the line at round bases!  Yes Roland. Elliptical with a straight front edge is clearly the better choice!  |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 23, 2020 17:53:39 GMT
Boys.... I think we all need to take a deep breath and step back from the edge...
P.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 23, 2020 18:19:17 GMT
Just as a general comment on tone. I think its safe to say we're all struggling to be our best selves under the current circumstances. Its probably not the worst thing in the world to take a moment to remind ourselves that there is community and comaraderie and after all, its a game.  |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 23, 2020 18:36:42 GMT
Just as a general comment on tone. I think its safe to say we're all struggling to be our best selves under the current circumstances. Its probably not the worst thing in the world to take a moment to remind ourselves that there is community and comaraderie and after all, its a game. Indeed...thanks Roland. I will, henceforth, return to ignoring the provocations of a certain member of this forum, despite that member’s ability to touch raw nerves on a regular basis. 🙈 🙉 🙊.....byeeeee |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 23, 2020 20:12:32 GMT
Wise words from Paul and Roland, thanks Gents.
And as we have been reassured that this is all just mere house-rulery and not an attempt to influence the evolution of DBA, I will also disappear.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 23, 2020 23:46:59 GMT
Sooo...
Re removing the shooting into TZ rule, why leave the mounted component in it vs remove the rule entirely? Especially if support shooting is an abstract mechanism to represent the attritional effect of shooting overall.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 24, 2020 2:15:43 GMT
Just thought I'd add how I play Wb in my DBA 3.0 games. All my armies are from the Dark Age period, approx 500 - 1000, and most of the games are solo (or the odd game with family members). I give Wb a CF of 3 and allow for a +1 when double ranked - BUT only on their first contact with the enemy. BTW I've also adjusted Bd, Sp & Pk down 1 CF point. IMO in the real world this is what warband would do, hit the enemy hard in a weak spot and then attempt to exploit the hole and/or envelope the enemy. So what happens when the +1 has been applied but the enemy are still in a fairly cohesive state? Well you keep banging at them, if you loose an element in the first rank then you have another that will follow up and then its a war of attrition or you use the 2nd rank to start feeling around the edges so you can envelope a flank. Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't but its how I imagine a warband attack to be. I think there was a comment in this thread about a similar thing but was negative about accounting for who has applied the +1 on first contact and who hasn't. So lets take II/73 Early Saxons as an example: 11 x 4Wb - if you double ranked to the max thats only 5 pairs that you need to account for, it's pretty easy. I have a similar house rule for Bd. It works for me in my Dark Age world and I'll continue to play accordingly. Andy Saxonred! How many games have you played? Have you found blade heavy vs wb heavy is pretty well balanced or at least not badly imbalanced? I was wondering if anybody had really tested the -1 to heavy infantry. Do you find it too random? Would giving all heavy infantry rear support help? |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Apr 24, 2020 7:40:43 GMT
Glad to see commonsense prevailing. I was watching this thread and beginning to think I was going to have to step in with a reminder or bang some heads together.
DBA is a great game, but a game all the same. One mans meat is another mans poison so they say. If you do not like an adaptation or tweak then do not use it. Explain why you like something or why you do not, that is what fuels debate and discussion. But this is a community and we do not want it descending to the levels some other forums have.
Remember play nicely!
|
|
|
|
Post by saxonred on Apr 24, 2020 11:59:23 GMT
Just thought I'd add how I play Wb in my DBA 3.0 games. All my armies are from the Dark Age period, approx 500 - 1000, and most of the games are solo (or the odd game with family members). I give Wb a CF of 3 and allow for a +1 when double ranked - BUT only on their first contact with the enemy. BTW I've also adjusted Bd, Sp & Pk down 1 CF point. IMO in the real world this is what warband would do, hit the enemy hard in a weak spot and then attempt to exploit the hole and/or envelope the enemy. So what happens when the +1 has been applied but the enemy are still in a fairly cohesive state? Well you keep banging at them, if you loose an element in the first rank then you have another that will follow up and then its a war of attrition or you use the 2nd rank to start feeling around the edges so you can envelope a flank. Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't but its how I imagine a warband attack to be. I think there was a comment in this thread about a similar thing but was negative about accounting for who has applied the +1 on first contact and who hasn't. So lets take II/73 Early Saxons as an example: 11 x 4Wb - if you double ranked to the max thats only 5 pairs that you need to account for, it's pretty easy. I have a similar house rule for Bd. It works for me in my Dark Age world and I'll continue to play accordingly. Andy Saxonred! How many games have you played? Have you found blade heavy vs wb heavy is pretty well balanced or at least not badly imbalanced? I was wondering if anybody had really tested the -1 to heavy infantry. Do you find it too random? Would giving all heavy infantry rear support help? I've played between 12 - 15 games and yes they've been fairly well balanced. A bit more thinking/planning your battle tactic is needed rather than chucking a line of CF5 Bd at some Sp and waiting for the inevitable collapse. In reality i don't believe thats what happened, not even for Vikings. There are a number of accounts where a Viking army (Bd) was defeated by an Anglo Saxon (Sp) (or other) adversary. You do have to work for a victory though, use your HI to hold the assault (the anvil) and then have a plan as to where to strike (the hammer). Having experienced a little bit of re-enactment I can whole heartedly confirm that being faced by a charging mass of Viking types is horrific, however if you can hold that initial impact things become a lot more even. Hence I give Bd a CF5 on first contact, and they have to have moved to contact, but after that turn they reduce to CF4. Similar for double rank bonus for Wb. My guess is that the change in CF for HI probably suits only a few periods of history covered by DBA 3.0 and is a good house rule for those periods. Andy |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 25, 2020 22:41:22 GMT
I do have a question about side support.
Why do spears have side support but not rear support?
I realize the game reason since you get overlapped with a deep formation but I’m guessing that’s too much of a disadvantage?
Is it assumed that spears are already a “deepish” formation at DBA scale?
Just liking the trade off of depth to width that seems to characterize so many ancient battles
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 26, 2020 0:02:21 GMT
A DBA element represents 6-10 ranks of close formed foot.
Hoplites (Sp) typically fought up to 8 ranks deep as the norm, so no rear support.
Exceptions to this with unusually deep formations, such as Thebans at Leuctra, are classed as 8Sp.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 26, 2020 2:38:15 GMT
I do have a question about side support. Why do spears have side support but not rear support? I realize the game reason since you get overlapped with a deep formation but I’m guessing that’s too much of a disadvantage? Is it assumed that spears are already a “deepish” formation at DBA scale? Just liking the trade off of depth to width that seems to characterize so many ancient battles Many of us were quite unhappy in general with the Dark Age period in DBA 2.2. The Viking vs Anglo-Saxon matchup was badly off. This was furthered by weirdness in Greek Hoplite battles. Finally, the Medieval Death Star formation was common for that period as well- especially in tournament situations.
All of this argued for a large change in Spear. We played with a couple of ideas until Phil rolled out the side support rule. This was a riff off the side support in DBR. DBA 3 is in my opinion owes much of its DNA to DBR rather than to DBMM.
Side support helped the issue with Dark Age fights (I remember my first victory over the early Vikings with this!), made Greek Hoplite fights much more fun, and got rid of the Death Star. The addition of 8Sp allowed the deep Thebean proto-phalanx.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 26, 2020 7:17:20 GMT
Yes, side-support is a brilliant innovation, and I for one love it.
It gives Spears the same combat factor as Blades, but by a different mechanism, and it makes
Greek hoplite armies feel right.
However, MedievalThomas’ suggestion that Spears be allowed a +1 if side OR rear supported
(but not both together) does have merit, and is a subtle improvement. It would be simulating
those formations that were 12 ranks deep (more than the usual Roman 8 ranks, but less than
the Macedonian Pikeman’s 16 ranks), as the Spartans were often credited with doing.
It would allow for the Athenian formation at Marathon in 490 BC, where the hoplite battleline
was thinner and less deep in the centre than on the wings. And from a game point of view, it
would also help solve the situation in DBA where heavy foot only has 7 BW of space to deploy
some 10 or 12 Spear elements...leading to some Spears being left behind in reserve as if it
were a Roman and not that of an historical Greek formation.
In effect, it would allow a Spear formation the freedom to adjust its frontage to match that of
the enemy by varying its depth from 12, to 10, to 8, or even to 6 ranks deep, depending on the
needs of the situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 26, 2020 20:00:20 GMT
I like that, there are advantages to each.
Deep formations have reserves if there’s a break through, but could get overlapped.
Wide formations won’t get overlapped but don’t have any reserves.
Isolated spears fall apart more quickly.
Ok cool
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 27, 2020 0:08:48 GMT
Sounds elegant to me too.
|
|
