|
|
Post by goragrad on May 2, 2020 4:20:33 GMT
From what I have read ancient battle tended in general to be drawn out affairs that ended when one side finally broke.
Reducing the CV to make each combat more decisive seems ahistorical.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 2, 2020 4:27:42 GMT
From what I have read ancient battle tended in general to be drawn out affairs that ended when one side finally broke. Reducing the CV to make each combat more decisive seems ahistorical. Agreed but i suppose the question is is the drawn out combat too drawn out? Reducing the cv will definitely speed it up, as long as it doesn’t speed it up too much to remove that “one side finally breaks” feel then I’m for it, especially if it allows Ax and Bw to be a bit more drawn out. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on May 2, 2020 7:01:29 GMT
From what I have read ancient battle tended in general to be drawn out affairs that ended when one side finally broke. Reducing the CV to make each combat more decisive seems ahistorical. Absolutely with you on this - DBA is a quick enough game as it is... P |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 2, 2020 7:46:20 GMT
You could always increase the number of elements required for victory to 6... (just sayin')  |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 2, 2020 8:22:29 GMT
You could always increase the number of elements required for victory to 6... (just sayin') Wouldn't that lead to more draws in competition games as time is an issue? |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 2, 2020 11:53:55 GMT
Only if increasing the number of elements from 4 to 6 wasn't required due to the games not ending quite as rapidly (from reduced CVs) as some anticipated... And then there's always the number '5' as a compromise.  |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 2, 2020 12:45:05 GMT
If people cant lose 6 elements in half an hour they just ain't trying hard enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 2, 2020 12:52:14 GMT
I know. You'd think getting to the bar would be incentive enough. Some people...
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on May 2, 2020 14:48:58 GMT
Always had the nagging feeling that army auto collapse at 4 stands was a bit mechanical. Would like to play with a rule something like: Army shaken at loss of 4 stands. Commander subtracts 1 from command PiP role. ( Natural "1" being the minima. Commander always gets at least one PiP). Army collapses at 6 stand loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 2, 2020 16:39:48 GMT
Always had the nagging feeling that army auto collapse at 4 stands was a bit mechanical. Would like to play with a rule something like: Army shaken at loss of 4 stands. Commander subtracts 1 from command PiP role. ( Natural "1" being the minima. Commander always gets at least one PiP). Army collapses at 6 stand loss. With a number of historical scenarios, we gave commanders a grading that could add or reduce the final score to declare a win. Using the WRG label of cautious, bold or rash, the break point could be 3, 4, or 5.
T. A. Dodge gives statistics in the appendix of his book “Caesar”. One lists quite a number of battles and casualties (Macedonian, Punic and Republican Roman), none approach 50%. Looking at the list, 33% is generous.
You could consider (historical games) counting light troops, some auxiliaries or allies as zero if lost. The latter reflects a Theodosian view of a 50% loss of Gothic troops at the Battle of Frigidius (394 AD).
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 2, 2020 18:27:39 GMT
One of the house rules I’m a fan of is counting the first Ps lost as 0 casualties. It’s similar to the rule that the first deep unit lost counts as 2 lost.
Modifying the breakpoint would be in my view a good way to handicap a stronger player (A bit like Go) but I wouldn’t use it in regular play.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 3, 2020 5:34:47 GMT
One interesting effect of HI bring -1 is that Ps now would have a 1/6 chance of recoiling Side supported spear so putting ps out front is a real threat and a good reason to put your own ps out front to see them off. What’s more, Ps have a 1/36 chance to KILL an unsupported spear. Not sure how I would explain that but maybe it did happen. This might strike people as not cricket, but I kinda like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 3, 2020 6:35:12 GMT
So apart from the possibility of shortened games - which is easily remedied (see above) - what are the other problems with reducing CV of HI? Anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 3, 2020 7:04:26 GMT
One interesting effect of HI bring -1 is that Ps now would have a 1/6 chance of recoiling Side supported spear so putting ps out front is a real threat and a good reason to put your own ps out front to see them off. What’s more, Ps have a 1/36 chance to KILL an unsupported spear. Not sure how I would explain that but maybe it did happen. This might strike people as not cricket, but I kinda like it. There are two famous examples of light troops defeating Spartan Heavy infantry, first at the Battle of Sphectaria (425 BC) in the Pelopannesian war and latter at the Battle of Lechaeum (391BC) in the Corinthians war (Iphicrates). I'm sure others will find other examples. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 3, 2020 8:29:51 GMT
Admittedly Sphacteria did involve decent circumstantial benefits to the Athenian light missile troops.
|
|
