|
|
Post by Haardrada on May 3, 2020 10:35:24 GMT
Admittedly Sphacteria did involve decent circumstantial benefits to the Athenian light missile troops. Also to note Snowcat is Phil has graded the Greek "Peltasts" in this period as Ps not Ax. đ |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 3, 2020 12:37:22 GMT
Sphacteria is a bit small for DBA. Only 480 Spartans. Demosthenes suffered similarly in Aetolia.
Still trying to get my 28mm Victrix figures painted for Mortal Gods to relive these battles.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 3, 2020 16:31:57 GMT
Sphacteria is a bit small for DBA. Only 480 Spartans. Demosthenes suffered similarly in Aetolia. Still trying to get my 28mm Victrix figures painted for Mortal Gods to relive these battles. Cheers Jim Small for a DBA battle, but a single element perhaps! So perhaps in a 1on1 matchup, Ps SHOULD have a 1/36 (tiny) chance of killing them  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 3, 2020 16:47:21 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? Before I start, I quite like the -1 idea, but want to keep myself honest in my assessment. The negatives for -1 to HI as far as I can tell are these: - Shorter Games since things will die faster (although how much faster, I'm not sure)
- More random games. It is less sure that Hoplites will mow down Persian bow in a battleline. Then there's the HYW arguments...
- A number of little tweaks are needed to make sure the math doesn't fall apart. HI now should only be -1 in rough. No Wb rear support, Sp vs Bow shooting should remain at 4, no more bow side support... etc.
- Light troops are now less of an advantage in rough terrain. Since HI is only -1, it's not such a big drop to go into the woods.
- It's a BIG change. Bd have been CV 5 against foot as long as I've been playing DBA (2001 so not as long as many), and Sp 4, Pk get the +3 rear support like FORVER... It'll take a lot for people to wrap their heads around it, and I doubt Mr. Barker would give it his blessing (as Tom alluded to).
- Any more people can think of?
So because this is big, it'll require a lot of really objective testing. The grognard's "I don't like it because I don't like it" should be put aside, in favor of making sure we answer: - Does it still feel like DBA? Does it match people's interpretation of history (a contentious one)
- Do the various matchups in various terrain still "feel" right or have they been ruined? i.e What happens to Pk armies, mixed armies, Ax armies, Bd armies, Ps armies, LH armies, and their various opponents..
- Would it require so much extra tweaking to make it "work" that we essentially change the game because of all the extra change required?
- Is there any list that has been inadvertently nerfed, or turned into a super army by mistake?
- How much changing of army lists would there have to be? People don't like it when they have to change their army (or collection of many many armies) because the rules changed.
- Does it simplify the rules or complicate them?
Again I do like it from a personal level, but that's based on less than a half dozen games with only a couple of armies, so not an objective assessment by any means.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 3, 2020 18:32:50 GMT
That is a very good assessment Greedo, with just a few minor errors:- The Negative errors:3. Sp v shooting bows will remain CF 4, as it is now, because the Sp +1 for side-support counts when shot at. (pretty obvious...disorder a shield wall, and theyâre not going to be as well protected from missiles) Solid 4Bows WILL still get +1 for side-support, but 8Bows will NOT because theyâd be a good as Bd. (4Bow need a CF of 2 + 1 for side-support so they have a CF of 3 in melee...as they do now)4. âLight troops are now less of an advantage in rough terrainâ: not so. All rough terrain does is prevent side/rear support, and if Hvy Inf have 1 less CF, the light troops are better. In bad going everything remains just as it is now...Bd CF 5 - 2 = CF 3...the new Bd CF 4 - 1 = CF 3...so no change. (Actually, although Sp CF 4 - 2 = CF 2, and the new Sp CF 3 - 1 = CF 2, Pikes would benefit slightly.
The present Pk CF 3 - 2 = CF 1 would become Pk CF 3 - 1 = CF 2, the same as Spears.
This side-effect would help encourage Pikes into entering bad going instead of avoiding it at all costs)But there is one more advantage that has been overlooked...that of reserves. Reducing the heavy foot by 1 would slightly increase their chances of being doubled by 3 chances out of 36. (Youâll need to see this
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/e/e7/COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190204191800...to understand why) But that is a good thing...it means reserves become more important. At the moment, when CF 5 fights CF 3, they have little or no fear of being doubled, even when double-overlapped. So the Romans are free to form-up in one long line, with no reserves, just as if they were a bunch of Greek hoplites. Not historical at all. Ah, but CF 4 fighting CF 3 has 6 chances in 36 of being doubled, if double-overlapped. So some reserves will be needed to plug any gaps that appear in the battleline, and we have the Roman formation. And for the Greeks, MedievalThomasâ excellent suggestion that Sp +1 if side OR rear supported (but not both) nicely covers the situation:- ăăThe Romans have a shorter battleline because they need a few reserves, just in case. ăăThe Greeks have a shorter battleline because they need some spears in columns, just in case. And Wb/Ax will still be easily killed, by double-overlaps, so will also need reserves/columns. This, along with Ax troops being able to stand in the front line (at least for while), means that the Pike armies are not going to be overlapped quite so easily, and there is no need for the often suggested â8Pkâ elements. In short, the higher the combat factor, the less chance of being doubled, so the less need for reserves. Conversely, a slightly lower combat factor has slightly more chance of being doubled, so more need for reserves. HoweverAll the minor changes required to lower heavy foot by 1 is going to be a big pill to swallow...probably too big. And as you said, the grognard's will say "I don't like it because I don't like it". The alternative is Primuspilusâ â+1 to 4Ax and 4Bow when in melee with Bd, Sp, Pk, unless in bad goingâ etc. This is a much simpler and cleaner one line new tactical factor, with no knock-on or unwanted side effects... ...and itâs only flaw is that it does little to rectify the reserve issue. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 3, 2020 21:28:44 GMT
Stevie, I think we are saying the same thing, but I just worded the negatives in a confusing way.
But your comments are sound, as always.
However, one more tweak that might be needed:
- If elements die faster, and reserves become important, then we could bump up the number of elements required to lose the game to 5 or 6?
That way the game will go longer (compensated by the shorted because of the -1 HI actor), and reserves will be really needed to plug holes in the line before the game ends..
Again only playtesting will show this.
Responding to the +1 for Ax, and Bw vs heavy infantry, I'm a bit of grognard on this one. I don't like it 'cause I don't like it, but mainly because it makes the rules more complex, not more simple, by adding another tactical factor.
It could be the packaging of it, but I would have a hard time explaining/reminding beginners of it.
That said, I can't argue with the math. I might just have to make a table to reference: vs light foot and heavy in terrain, vs heavy foot in open, vs shooting, vs mounted.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 4, 2020 0:43:03 GMT
The above breakdowns of +/- by Greedo and Stevie make a compelling case for Primuspilus' suggestion (even though Greedo states he's not a huge fan of it).
The 'reserve issue' can hopefully be handled some other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 4, 2020 13:37:14 GMT
Sphacteria is a bit small for DBA. Only 480 Spartans. Demosthenes suffered similarly in Aetolia. Still trying to get my 28mm Victrix figures painted for Mortal Gods to relive these battles. Cheers Jim Small for a DBA battle, but a single element perhaps! So perhaps in a 1on1 matchup, Ps SHOULD have a 1/36 (tiny) chance of killing them Demosthenes had about 2000 Psiloi (and ?8000 rowers of whatever value). But 2000 Psiloi against 480 Hoplites seems more like 3 Ps elements with a hard flank against 1 Sp element. That's 50% chance of destruction. If you consider the terrain Bad Going then it's 26/36 to destroy the Sp. I just don't see Ps destroying Heavy Infantry in Good Going 1v1 historically. Overwhelming numbers? Yes. Rough Terrain? Yes. But not on an even ground. They would've met so many times over the aeons and the success of the Psiloi so low that it doesn't statistically justify 1/36 chance to destroy the Spears. Just my thoughts. But if it makes the game more fun and makes more armies "playable" then I'm all for it. Maybe we should use D8? D10? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 4, 2020 17:58:28 GMT
Demosthenes had about 2000 Psiloi (and ?8000 rowers of whatever value). But 2000 Psiloi against 480 Hoplites seems more like 3 Ps elements with a hard flank against 1 Sp element. That's 50% chance of destruction. If you consider the terrain Bad Going then it's 26/36 to destroy the Sp. I just don't see Ps destroying Heavy Infantry in Good Going 1v1 historically. Overwhelming numbers? Yes. Rough Terrain? Yes. But not on an even ground. They would've met so many times over the aeons and the success of the Psiloi so low that it doesn't statistically justify 1/36 chance to destroy the Spears. Just my thoughts. But if it makes the game more fun and makes more armies "playable" then I'm all for it. Maybe we should use D8? D10? Cheers Jim Hmm, a good point. Have not read that history, although I've seen other rulesets that use "Deep" Skirmishers, so maybe yet another house rule about Ps getting +1 for rear support However, to your point, fair enough. I'm coming around to the +1 vs HI in GG. I wish there was a more elegant way of naturally doing it, and moving to a d8/d10 type system *might* do it, but I think at that point, we'd be moving toward becoming one of the many DBA clones with extra pieces attached. Not that math is hard, but it's just a bit more mental friction to work around. Adding d6 to 4 is just quicker than adding d12 to 8, especially when +2 ,or -2 for tactical factors. Another one that I've seen is d4 for Ps, d6 for Ax, d8 for Sp, d10 for Bd, and you move up and down the dice type for tactical factors, but this will still mean that Ps could kill Bd if the Bd rolls a 1.. The shifted linear system of DBA prevents that, but you do get that weird thing with CV 3 vs CV 5 that CV 3 does really badly, resulting in giant threads like this one |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 4, 2020 18:04:08 GMT
Oh I think that quibbling over â1-in-36â as opposed to ânone-in-36â is pretty superficial.
1 in 36 IS practically none...itâs once in a blue moon, at the very extremity of good/bad luck,
and youâd have to play lots and lots of Ps v HI before you ever see it happen.
CF 2 v CF 5 = no chance of the CF 5 being doubled (zero%).
CF 2 v CF 4 = no chance of the CF 4 being doubled (zero%).
CF 2 v CF 3 = 1 chance in 36 of the CF 3 being doubled (2.8%).
CF 2 v CF 2 = 4 chances in 36 of the CF 2 being doubled (11%).
CF 2 v CF 1 = 9 chances in 36 of the CF 1 being doubled (25%).
Note that the last case above, where a Spear with a CF 3, with no side-support, and double
overlapped, in melee with CF 2 troops, does look a bit high.
But to achieve this very worst case scenario the CF 2 troops have to actually get those overlaps,
and on both flanks, which is by no means easy.
About adjusting the combat loses for victory.
Playtesting the reduced heavy foot concept has shown that this is entirely unnecessary.
After all, Ax/Wb/Ps/Bows/mounted fighting against Ax/Wb/Ps/Bows/mounted is entirely unaffected,
and plays just the same as it does now...and I donât hear anybody complaining that the present games
are âtoo quickâ.
Reducing HI by 1 may slightly increase their chances of being doubled by 3 in 36 (8.3%), but fights
between Bd/Sp/Pk and other Bd/Sp/Pk will still last longer than those listed above. And the benefits
of having other foot surviving longer, of increasing the importance of reserves, and of making it more
likely of breaking through the enemy centre instead of all the action being on the wings is well worth it.
Having said that, I must admit to being something of a hypocrite
I think the current system does lead to battles being over too quickly.
Take Cannae (yet again!). Once the Romans lose their cavalry on each wing (one of them being the General),
they only need to lose one more element, even a lowly Psiloi will do, to reach that 4 element defeat point.
And this is before the infantry in the centre has even come into contact!
But my solution to this is not to change the 4 element victory, but to use other means of prolonging the battle.
Greedoâs âThe first Ps lost counts as zeroâ is one way. Moving the Generals about (so they are not always with
the mounted element on the wings) is another. And having destroyed Generals count as 1 element lost instead
of 2 is yet another (the increased PIP costs to move is punishment enough).
Of course, in the artificial environment of a tournament it is necessary to have such quick games...
....but that doesnât mean that this is ideal or the most realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 4, 2020 21:53:30 GMT
Do battles need prolonging under RAW + Primuspilus' rule suggestion?
If so, I'd support Greedo's 'first Ps lost counts as zero', and 'destroyed Generals count as 1 element lost instead of 2'.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 5, 2020 0:39:19 GMT
Do battles need prolonging under RAW + Primuspilus' rule suggestion? If so, I'd support Greedo's 'first Ps lost counts as zero', and 'destroyed Generals count as 1 element lost instead of 2'. Well the hypothesis is that is we lower the Heavy Infantry's CV by 1, then games will be quicker, so to compensate for that, is there a way to elongate the game... But based on all this back and forth, even though I like the idea, this might be too many changes all at once to be acceptable, so it might be the +1 vs HI that wins the day. I'll hold off on more comments so as not to dominate the discussion.. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 5, 2020 3:17:54 GMT
I like 'first Ps lost counts as zero', and 'destroyed Generals count as 1 element lost instead of 2' regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 5, 2020 3:53:32 GMT
I like 'first Ps lost counts as zero', and 'destroyed Generals count as 1 element lost instead of 2' regardless. This is the sort of scenario specific tinkering that I like. I always thought that a potential weakness of DBA was that some armies could be defeated by losses of troops that were considered expendable historically. It also opens the opportunity to tinker within a scenario (e.g. Spartans can have two elements as Spartiates; they cause -1 to enemy Sp but count as 2 elements lost; thus giving Epaminondas a target for his uber-phalanx!). But this is only scenario specific unless there is a huge overhaul of the army lists, indicating which elements are core troops and which expendable. DBA does it to a degree with Hordes and Scythed Chariots but some armies would ignore Psiloi too, particularly if they were a small minority of the troops available. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 5, 2020 4:28:38 GMT
Oh I think that quibbling over â1-in-36â as opposed to ânone-in-36â is pretty superficial. 1 in 36 IS practically none...itâs once in a blue moon, at the very extremity of good/bad luck, and youâd have to play lots and lots of Ps v HI before you ever see it happen. CF 2 v CF 5 = no chance of the CF 5 being doubled (zero%). CF 2 v CF 4 = no chance of the CF 4 being doubled (zero%). CF 2 v CF 3 = 1 chance in 36 of the CF 3 being doubled (2.8%). CF 2 v CF 2 = 4 chances in 36 of the CF 2 being doubled (11%). CF 2 v CF 1 = 9 chances in 36 of the CF 1 being doubled (25%). Hmmm... so to support your changes, you are happy with a once in a blue-moon single-element Ps destroying a single-element Sp in Good Going even though the Sp can never destroy the Ps, causing it to flee? Dare I say it but it sounds...ahistorical!   Cheers Jim PS I have no issue with Ps destroying HI when they outnumber them using overlaps and flank attacks. |
|
