|
Post by Roland on Apr 28, 2020 15:33:54 GMT
Yes,IMHO, the only way to recreate one of those set piece 'against the odds' battles from the HYW with this rules set is with scenario specific rules. ...and if when playing a friendly random one-off what-if battle I happen to have the same conditions, I’d expect to have the same opportunities as well... I'm not sure what you mean by "opportunities". Play the scenario enough times under the current rules and at least a portion of the time you _may_ get a similar result. If you're expecting Agincourt redux every time (or even most of the time) I'm not sure that is a reasonable expectation in a generic match up.
This is a fundamental philosophical difference you and I have regarding the game. I think that is pretty well established.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 28, 2020 16:37:00 GMT
I like the look of those thoughts/suggestions Greedo. Re the possibility of improving the shooting factor of 4Bw "for Agincourt" we have to remember that 4Bw is also all those other troops that go by the same classification for all Bk I-IV armies & periods too. Cheers But I suppose my point is that we can redefine what 4Bw vs 3Bw actually is. My question, was apart from the Longbow which has it's own sub-element, was bow shooting more effective during the Medieval period than during the ancient/classical period? If so, why? Does it warrant a more powerful bow element as Tim suggested, or do you simulate that with other outside factors (terrain, side support etc.). I was running on the assumption that the massed bow had somehow changed, so that it warranted both a "bow" element, and a "shooter" element. The other thing I was trying to do is also solve for the 4Ax, 4Bw, 8Bw weakness that we'd been discussing earlier, and finding a solution that might solve both. There will be knockon effects (I think Wb is going to be affected), so there might have to be tweaks there. It is a good point though, perhaps all these rules need to be period specific..
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2020 18:39:02 GMT
...and if when playing a friendly random one-off what-if battle I happen to have the same conditions, I’d expect to have the same opportunities as well... I'm not sure what you mean by "opportunities". Play the scenario enough times under the current rules and at least a portion of the time you _may_ get a similar result. If you're expecting Agincourt redux every time (or even most of the time) I'm not sure that is a reasonable expectation in a generic match up.
This is a fundamental philosophical difference you and I have regarding the game. I think that is pretty well established.
By “opportunities” I mean the same “conditions” (i.e. favourable terrain). If when playing a friendly random one-off what-if battle I just happen to have rough ground in front of me with woods on each wing, then I would expect to at least have a chance of winning like the English did...not have it that the English will lose 9 out of 10 times no matter what the terrain is (and with the aggression factors being what they are, the English only have 1 chance in 6 of even getting any terrain!). Or was Agincourt an entirely unique situation, that could never ever happen again in the whole of human history (except that it did, at Poitiers, 60 years earlier, where the “conditions” were similar). Are we saying that the English can only win a HYW battle against dismounted French men-at-arms if we rig things with special one-battle-only scenario rules...or if they are phenomenally lucky? I’m not asking for the English to win every time...I’m just saying that they shouldn’t lose every time. Give a bow army similar conditions to those at Agincourt or Poitiers, and an opponent of mostly blades, then they should at least have a chance...in any period.
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 28, 2020 19:11:45 GMT
Short answer: yes. They were conditional. Variables that made that outcome happen at Halidon Hill, Homildon Hill, Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt, were all reliant on specific conditions including commanders willing to charge a prepared defensive position on ground favorable to the defender.
Snowcat has already pointed out that 4Bw rules would then extend to a whole range of missile troops who never historically enjoyed the success that the English/Welsh did.
I would also look at those engagements that weren't decisively determined by missile fire. Armchair historians like to dismiss WotR missile fire as inferior to that of their grandfather's both in volume and quality. so look at Shrewesbury instead. Clash of arms was required to break the line.
I think what you want is scenario based games to recreate Agincourt ( or perhaps, a different game all together.)
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 28, 2020 23:00:21 GMT
But I suppose my point is that we can redefine what 4Bw vs 3Bw actually is. My question, was apart from the Longbow which has it's own sub-element, was bow shooting more effective during the Medieval period than during the ancient/classical period? If so, why? Does it warrant a more powerful bow element as Tim suggested, or do you simulate that with other outside factors (terrain, side support etc.). I was running on the assumption that the massed bow had somehow changed, so that it warranted both a "bow" element, and a "shooter" element. The other thing I was trying to do is also solve for the 4Ax, 4Bw, 8Bw weakness that we'd been discussing earlier, and finding a solution that might solve both. There will be knockon effects (I think Wb is going to be affected), so there might have to be tweaks there. It is a good point though, perhaps all these rules need to be period specific.. Bows (longbows and crossbows*) were more powerful in the medieval period, but look what they were often up against: fully armoured men-at-arms either on horseback or on foot. In the earlier periods the bows were not as powerful, but equally most opponents (apart from cataphracts, which are treated separately as 4Kn anyway) were not as well protected by armour. e.g. legionaries and hoplites with partial armour and big shields vs normal bows (not longbows). So I see it as relative.
*Crossbows were quite powerful in China during the ancient period.
As Stevie has repeated many times, DBA is blind. Or at least it used to be. DBAv3.0 is less 'blind' than previous versions, hence the arguments for making additional troop types more weapon-tech specific, often based on latest research and individuals' favourite ponies.
I think that the more period-specific rules you introduce to DBA, the more you lose the elegant simplicity of the original system. Something I have repeated ad nauseam is that DBA already represents period weapon-tech (up to a point, but see below!) WHEN YOU FIGHT YOUR BATTLES WITH ARMIES FROM THE SAME PERIOD BOOK. (So if you fight battles using armies from different period books, you are shifting further from history-game towards fantasy-game.) This is fine from a game-perspective, such as open tournaments and general gaming, but is less 'serious' the further apart you go, e.g. a Book I Egyptian 4Bd vs Book 2 Imperial Roman legionary 4Bd, or a Book 2 Macedonian 3Kn vs a Book IV HYW men-at-arms 3Kn. Similarly even *within* each period book, you have the same stretch: early Sumerian ox-driven carts vs later Assyrian chariotry - both classed as HCh. Okay, this is an extreme example, but it shows the 'problem' with attempting to simulate/represent warfare across such a huge time span (Book I alone covers some 2,500 years!).
Simulation vs representation. Is there a distinct difference?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2020 23:22:34 GMT
Short answer: yes. They were conditional. Variables that made that outcome happen at Halidon Hill, Homildon Hill, Crecy, Poiters, Agincourt, Were all reliant on specific conditions including commanders willing to charge a prepared defensive position on ground favorable to the defender. Snowcat has already pointed out that 4Bw rules would then extend to a whole range of missile troops who never historically enjoyed the success that the English/Welsh did. I would also look at those engagements that weren't decisively determined by missile fire. Armchair historians like to dismiss WotR missile fire as inferior to that their grandfather's both in volume and quality. so look at Shrewesbury instead. Clash of arms was required to break the line. I think what you want is scenario based games to recreate Agincourt ( or perhaps, a different game all together.) Well, I’m not the only one who thinks that bows are underpowered in DBA. MedievalThomas, one of the development team, wants at least longbows and crossbow to have a combat factor of 3 against foot (although that would make their shooting more powerful against Pk, Ax, Wb, Ps, and all other foot, not just when facing Bd and Sp). Joe Collins, another one of the development team, wants to have +1 PIP to contact bows (although that mythical ‘shooting safety zone’, caused by not allowing bows to gang-up at short range, means that heavy foot would just sit there knowing they can’t be killed until they get a high PIP score). Primuspilus, not one of the development team, also recognizes the problem, and doesn’t want to alter the PIP costs or the shooting power, but to merely +1 to 4Ax and 4Bows in close combat against heavy foot (on the justification that 4Ax and 4Bows are trained, disciplined or just naturally stubborn enough to have the sense to temporarily close ranks and adopt close order when fighting heavy foot, unlike the untrained and disordered native 3Ax and 3Bow...although people are reluctant to accept this simple fix despite it being easy with no knock-on effects). I myself also recognize the problem, and my possible solution is to reduce the heavy foot (Bd, Sp, Pk) by one combat factor (although the "+1 to 4Ax/4Bow when in melee with heavy infantry" suggestion is cleaner and simpler, being just a new tactical factor that fixes not one but two problems in one go). So yes, the people above, and many others, do want a different game altogether... ...one that is play-balanced and based on historical accounts. DBA could be that game, with a few “House Rules” to tweak it up a bit.
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 29, 2020 0:26:47 GMT
At Poiters the dismounted me-at-arms raised their shields and turned their faces to the side and marched into the 'arrow storm.' Additionally when noting that some of the French horse were well enough protected on their fronts to minimize casualties so that the English had to move to the flank to do serious damage.
Hard to make a blanket change to the rules to account for that.
More of a scenario.
P.s. I do still like the +1 for solid bow and auxillia in CC against heavy foot.
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 29, 2020 0:59:28 GMT
Tom has been passionate about the power of English war bows for a solid 3 decades. I do not expect that to change anytime soon
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 29, 2020 4:09:17 GMT
I don't play either "shooty" armies much (though the imminent arrival of Xerxes' hordes will change that) nor late medieval period. However, I have some spare bases that can act as substitutes and an unusual amount of spare time currently. I've read about Agincourt (haven't we all?) but I'm no expert. So I ask those in the know to give me (and others interested) a battlefield and army set up based on RAW so I can play it out a few times then maybe try the rules tweaks.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 29, 2020 7:14:28 GMT
Not strictly what you asked for Jim, but food for thought...
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 29, 2020 13:02:47 GMT
Not strictly what you asked for Jim, but food for thought...
Thanks for the cool links. This folds neatly into what DBA has come to mean to me over the decades. From my vantage point the DBX series of rules sets represents a sort of tool kit for wargamers. Out of the box DBA is a match play game, but it is readily adaptable for a variety of historical battles with a little scenario building. This is basically the style of wargaming I grew up with ( still keep my army lists on 3x5 cards) and is probably the reason that no matter how far I stray I invariably gravitate back to DBA/DBM eventually.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 30, 2020 3:57:27 GMT
no matter how far I stray I invariably gravitate back to DBA/DBM eventually. I know the feeling. Something about it just pulls you in... like recoiling in front of an impetuous warband
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 2, 2020 0:36:24 GMT
Been thinking more about this, and I suppose the really hard part is that Ancients Wargaming has very different ways of fighting. Each element has a completely different method of fighting than the others. But we are operating in a linear (or close to linear) system to determine who "wins" between two different fighting styles.
Coming to grips about the idea of +1 for 4Ax and 4Bw against heavy infantry. I don't like it, but I'm not sure I see an alternative if I want Ax and Bw to be a bit better. I'm still in favor of just +1 across the board, but the knockon effects seem to be too complex.
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 2, 2020 0:42:01 GMT
Been thinking more about this, and I suppose the really hard part is that Ancients Wargaming has very different ways of fighting. Each element has a completely different method of fighting than the others. But we are operating in a linear (or close to linear) system to determine who "wins" between two different fighting styles. Coming to grips about the idea of +1 for 4Ax and 4Bw against heavy infantry. I don't like it, but I'm not sure I see an alternative if I want Ax and Bw to be a bit better. I'm still in favor of just +1 across the board, but the knockon effects seem to be too complex. I suppose something else to think about is what outcome one is looking for for the game overall. More plus modifiers on a d6 based system like this leads to more inconclusive outcomes per combat resulting in more of a scrum which can draw the game out many more bounds. Negative modifiers can really shift the game play to more dramatic results. The current advantage blades enjoy is that its comparatively challenging to get a destroyed result against them ( even with other blades).
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 2, 2020 4:05:47 GMT
I suppose something else to think about is what outcome one is looking for for the game overall. More plus modifiers on a d6 based system like this leads to more inconclusive outcomes per combat resulting in more of a scrum which can draw the game out many more bounds. Negative modifiers can really shift the game play to more dramatic results. The current advantage blades enjoy is that its comparatively challenging to get a destroyed result against them ( even with other blades). I’m not against the back and forth to a point since that gives the wings a chance to do something. Also, the overlapped and side support rules mean that when a battle line does fall it falls apart quickly which strikes me as feeling right. But to your point, if the game drags because everybody has 4,5, and 6 cv then perhaps the solution is to reduce the highest cvs by 1. I worry things will be too quick but only play testing will show that. Pity wb would have to drop rear support but I’m still gonna push my 8Wb idea so people can have their hairy massed thugs
|
|