|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 2, 2020 20:27:47 GMT
You know Stevie, I think you are onto something. Question, what if now all HI also got +1 for rear support? Or at least double ranked HI win all ties against non-double ranked HI? Now you have to choose: deploy wide (like at Marathon) to try an envelopment? deploy double ranked? or single line with a flexible reserve?
I like it!
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 2, 2020 20:29:06 GMT
Time for Lessons from History v2.0  |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 2, 2020 20:34:18 GMT
Joe, that is an interesting set that I have not seen in its entirety before! Probably missed it somewhere.
What I like about reducing HI is that if we choose the factors right, may allow Ps, Cv and LH to occasionally (once in a Blue Moon, but not "never") pick off a Sp or Pk element. This provides some nagging doubts that a Sp line can hold off LH and Cv for eternity! It also provides a reason for a Hoplite army to not let its Cv and/or LI get driven off?
Just thinking out loud...
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 2, 2020 21:01:59 GMT
I still see downsides... interesting that you leave the Sp analysis out, which I think will be much more swayed towards decisive combats when downgraded to a CV of 3.
Overall, whilst the percentage shift on odds is small for Bd and Pk, the percentage change is significant (eg. 100% more likely to be doubled when overlapped once and 33% more likely when overlapped twice with Bd on Bd) and I think the overall 'feeling' in the game will be more noticeable. Remember, we tend to focus on the dramatic, crucial moments as players, whether PIPs or combat rolls, and I think there will be a significant quickening of the pace of a game and an effect on the overall psychology, with more 'crap, the dice stuffed me there' moments. I agree, it needs play testing to see the changes, though.
I'm not sure I would agree either with your analysis of how most battles were won, but I would counter this by saying that I agree that reserves should be important. I have noticed at tournament play how, in 3.0, more people are using reserves than in 2.2, and I think the rules have started to encourage this, to a certain extent.
For me, the big issue with PK armies is the fact you need to double up elements to get their benefit/real world effect and I'm not sure this should necessarily be the case and would advocate play testing with 8Pk as a single element. Playing the Macedonian and Successor armies with 4/6x 8Pk elements, instead of 4/6x 4Pk, would be interesting and would not lead to a shortening of the flanks, as we see with most Pk armies... their CVs may need adjusting slightly, but it would bring Pk armies back into play.
P.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 2, 2020 21:34:49 GMT
I still see downsides... interesting that you leave the Sp analysis out, which I think will be much more swayed towards decisive combats when downgraded to a CV of 3. Overall, whilst the percentage shift on odds is small for Bd and Pk, the percentage change is significant (eg. 100% more likely to be doubled when overlapped once and 33% more likely when overlapped twice with Bd on Bd) and I think the overall 'feeling' in the game will be more noticeable. Remember, we tend to focus on the dramatic, crucial moments as players, whether PIPs or combat rolls, and I think there will be a significant quickening of the pace of a game and an effect on the overall psychology, with more 'crap, the dice stuffed me there' moments. I agree, it needs play testing to see the changes, though. I'm not sure I would agree either with your analysis of how most battles were won, but I would counter this by saying that I agree that reserves should be important. I have noticed at tournament play how, in 3.0, more people are using reserves than in 2.2, and I think the rules have started to encourage this, to a certain extent. For me, the big issue with PK armies is the fact you need to double up elements to get their benefit/real world effect and I'm not sure this should necessarily be the case and would advocate play testing with 8Pk as a single element. Playing the Macedonian and Successor armies with 4/6x 8Pk elements, instead of 4/6x 4Pk, would be interesting and would not lead to a shortening of the flanks, as we see with most Pk armies... their CVs may need adjusting slightly, but it would bring Pk armies back into play. P. What are your thoughts on 3Pk? Would they become 6Pk or would you get rid of them completely.... Mind a Pict army full of 6Pk would look impressive. š |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 3, 2020 8:57:54 GMT
Here are ones I have been using... Aux recoil 1BW from Bd, Pk Pike Win ties vs non-Pike +1 Pip for Foot to contact Bows Elephants flee from Artillery if beaten Elephants flee from Bow on a tie "Solid" Bd QK Kn on a tie "Fast" Bd QK 4Kn on a tie Lh First move of first bound is free Ps "Must" interpenetrate on a recoil Joe Collins I've often thought under option (c) in threat zones that LH which come into a threat zone... that a Group(not just a single element) entirely of LH should be allowed to retire a full move? |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 3, 2020 9:48:48 GMT
What are your thoughts on 3Pk? Would they become 6Pk or would you get rid of them completely.... Mind a Pict army full of 6Pk would look impressive. š Iāve never been sure about the designation of fast Pike as a troop type and would possibly advocate a change to fast Sp. Would Picts, for instance, be doubling up as pike blocks to act in the same way as a phalanx - not so sure... P |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 3, 2020 10:20:45 GMT
What are your thoughts on 3Pk? Would they become 6Pk or would you get rid of them completely.... Mind a Pict army full of 6Pk would look impressive. š Iāve never been sure about the designation of fast Pike as a troop type and would possibly advocate a change to fast Sp. Would Picts, for instance, be doubling up as pike blocks to act in the same way as a phalanx - not so sure... P I think the Pict Pike blocks only came along with the classification of Pictish infantry as Fast Pike in 3.0 (as they fought with their spears two handed with a small shield), unless its been inherited from DBMM? I don't think the Picts are not actually recorded using a deeper formation but may have by the time of Kenneth MacAlpine? It all depends when the Scots adopted the deep Pike block formations which was certainly before Robert the Bruce as some Films and Documentaries would have us believe. The Scots(Galwegians) are described as attacking in "four lines" at Northallerton in 1138AD but are certainly using Schiltrons before Wallace defeat at Falkirk 1297AD. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 3, 2020 11:48:01 GMT
You know Stevie, I think you are onto something. Question, what if now all HI also got +1 for rear support? Or at least double ranked HI win all ties against non-double ranked HI? Now you have to choose: deploy wide (like at Marathon) to try an envelopment? deploy double ranked? or single line with a flexible reserve? I like it! I do like your idea that a column will recoil an element in a line on an equal score. Very easy to implement...and very justifiable and realistic:- āOn an equal score, the elements in a deeper formation will recoil enemies in a shallower formationā
This even covers one of Joe Collinsā suggestions, that of āPikes win ties against non-Pikesā. As the Pikes are in a column, but the Roman Blades are usually not, itās the Blades that will recoil on an equal score...and apply this to all columns, not just Pikes (a double-base is in a deeper formation, and acts in this case just like a column). It also covers something that Duncan Head frequently mentions in āArmies of the Macedonian and Punic Warsā, that of light foot being used to support cavalry, chariots and even elephants. Having Ps or Ax behind a mounted element turns it into a column, and columns are a little bit better should you get a tie result (representing chariot runners, elephant escorts, and such like). It would also give LH with rear-support a bit more punch: +1 for the rear-support, AND recoil the enemy on a tie, unless the enemy too are in an equally deep column. And when a column two deep scores equal against a column three deep, the two deep will recoil. This will seldom happen as itās governed by āthe-law-of-diminishing-returnsā... ...after all, how often can you afford to have a three deep column just in case you might get a tie? I likes it a lot.  š (Footnote:-
āOn an equal score, the elements in a deeper formation will recoil enemies in a shallower formationā.
So when a Blade in a line scores equal against a Warband column, the Blade is not destroyed, it just
recoils from the Warband column. Only if Bd/Sp/Pk scores less than a Wb are they destroyed) |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 3, 2020 19:45:50 GMT
Solutions:
Have Lb/Cb count +3 v. Foot; Cb shoots only in own bound. You need a point system for balance (see D3H2 or A Game of Knights & Knaves). We have played this way for years literally dozens of games and it represents the late medieval period very well with a minimum rule change.
Medium Foot (or Aux)
Had we started fresh with DBA 3.0 we no doubt would have considered having Aux become +4/+3. But 3.0 was assembled piece meal in starts and stops. Now we know that Spear in Shield wall are going to count +5 (so beat Aux even if at +4 and as most Aux are Fast beat them on ties). Likewise this would have let Lb/Cb go to +3 and still be beaten by Aux in Close (also reflects Aux ability to skirmish v. shooting). But we didn't know this at the start and no systematic appraisal of CF was every conducted. Phil's nature is just not systematic (great for new ideas not so great for implementing).
As to Joe's ideas the one I most like is Skirmish: Ps & Fast Aux may Recoil either a Base Width or a Base Depth.
People keep suggesting complex modifications to the DBX system to fix various on going irritants. None are need. The above simple changes requiring no (well very few) new rules solves these problems in the only way that makes sense for DBX - simply.
I agree that "Fast" Pike should become Fast Spear. In general the Fast concept should be expanded to all troop types where needed to model historical behavior. Pondering Fast Cav for Mongols.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 3, 2020 21:07:57 GMT
Solutions: People keep suggesting complex modifications to the DBX system to fix various on going irritants. None are need. The above simple changes requiring no (well very few) new rules solves these problems in the only way that makes sense for DBX - simply. I agree that "Fast" Pike should become Fast Spear. In general the Fast concept should be expanded to all troop types where needed to model historical behavior. Pondering Fast Cav for Mongols. TomT Tom You talk a lot of sense and I don't think we need complex solutions - most of the required fixes are straight-forward and would make a great game even better... Fast Cv... now that is an interesting concept for Mongols P. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 4, 2020 8:38:20 GMT
I too find myself mostly agreeing with Tom.
Ho kay, letās just keep it simple.
Let Lb & Cb have a combat factor of 3 v foot and 4 v mounted, like in HoTT, but Cb canāt shoot if they move.
Iām just worried about the effect this will have on tournaments...why have an ordinary 3/4Bow army when
you could have an army of super Lb/Cb instead. Then again, Lb/Cb already are super, as they can kill Kn/Cm
on an equal score, and that hasnāt led to a rush of Lb/Cb armies in DBA tournaments.
(Perhaps have ponderous Lb/Cb moving 2 BW, and being more agile ordinary 4Bows move 3 BW in good going
to compensate them, but only fast 3Bow keep their speed in bad going and can āevadeā a full BW like mounted).
However I think that a blanket fix of CF 4 v foot for all Ax could be better.
Treating all Ax as the same is what caused the imbalance in the first place.
If Lb/Cb are to become a ānew class of troopsā, with an improved CF, then why not do the same with Ax?
So I propose the following:-
* Irregular untrained disordered native fast 3Ax stay as CF 3 v foot and CF 3 v mounted,
but they (and Ps and ordinary 3Bows) can āevadeā a full BW like mounted when recoiled.
* Regular trained or naturally stubborn solid 4Ax become CF 4 v foot and CF 3 v mounted,
but they donāt get to 'evade', they just recoil a base depth as they do now.
The first uses itās agility to survive, the other is tougher but slower moving and less agile.
(In effect, DBA 3Ax becomes the DBMM Irr (O) class, while DBA 4Ax becomes the DBMM Reg (S) class.
Splitting the Ax like this is why DBMM doesnāt have the problems with play-balance that DBA has)
So the pecking order of close combat foot would become:-
CF 6 v foot: Pikes with rear-support.
CF 5 v foot: Blades and Spears with side-support.
CF 4 v foot: solid 4Ax, and Spears without support.
CF 3 v foot: all Wb, Lb/Cb, and fast 3Ax (who can āevadeā a full BW like mounted when recoiled).
CF 2 v foot: ordinary 4Bow, and Ps/3Bow (who also can āevadeā a full BW like mounted when recoiled).
(Question: should solid 4Ax be CF 4 when shot at?...or should they stay CF 3 when shot?
And is having solid 4Ax with a CF of 4 in bad going making them toooo powerful?).
With solid 4Ax being tougher, they can at last stand up to heavy foot (at least for a while), and now be
used to extend the battleline so the Pikes wonāt be outflanked so easily.
---------------------------------
Well, thatās the Bows and Aux sorted...but what about the wimpy LH?
Paddyās suggestion that āLH only pays Ā½ a PIP to moveā fixes them.
Remember that subsequent moves cannot start or go with 1 BW of the enemy.
(Hell...if LH have a Command Range of 20 BW, because they are capable of operating independently,
then why does the rest of the army have to stand still when these so-called independent LH troops
want to make a subsequent move?)
But can we please, please, please get rid of the ridiculous idiotic notion that long range shooting
is more effective and more deadly than short range shooting, and that there is some sort of mythical
āsafe zoneā when close to shooters where you cannot be destroyed.
Iām not asking for an increase in shooting power...all Iām asking for is that close range shooting be
as effective as long range shooting already is.
And the fix for this couldnāt be simpler...it just needs the addition of A SINGLE WORD:-
āBows and War Wagons must shoot at a mounted target in their Threat Zone.ā
(And if players want a zone where shooters must target the nearest threat, then fine, they already have it...
...itās called being in close combat)
Other āHouse Rulesā, some of which are very good, are just pizza toppings.
The things mentioned above are what what I consider to be most vital.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 4, 2020 12:59:57 GMT
I agree with most of stevie's suggestions here except the separate 'new class' for LB/CB. I rather see all BW as being underrated against foot. As I noted before, protection evolved over the period covered by DBA and while that Egyptian simple or composite bow may not have had the 'power' of a 14th C crossbow or longbow, it wasn't being used against plate or reinforced mail or gambesons.
Most of their targets were unarmored or had simple shields. A far cry from the protection worn by those being targeted by longbows or crossbows. In fact by the end of the 15th C the Burgundians who had adopted the longbow and were dismounting their knights for combat, had dropped the longbow, increased their pikes, and heavy cavalry were once again charging on horseback.
There is also the fact that, as Snowcat has pointed out, that the oriental composite bow is a fair match for the longbow in power and range (if not superior). In addition to the steppe tribes, the Chinese and Koreans took that composite bow and made their own improvements over time leading to even more powerful bows.
If nothing else all solid bow should have a CF of 3 against foot. Singling out LB and CB because of their increased power starts to get into the the argument that 15th C gendarmes should have a higher combat value than Alexander's Companions. Or that Swiss pike should be better than Macedonian phalangites. DBA is about relative effectiveness against historic opponents. Not about which weapon system or unit was the best during the millenia covered by the DBA ruleset.
I also have to say that timurilank has noted that in his double DBA games that even with only one pip die for twice the number of elements that LH function historically. This has me rethinking my earlier support or the 1/2 pip modification (although I have several LH heavy armies and plan more).
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 4, 2020 13:15:49 GMT
I like the concept of 4Bw, in addition to Cb and Lb, being 3 vs foot and retaining the factor of 2 for 3Bw. The 3Bw would keep their fast movement, operating in a quick, loose, sniper-like fashion, but this supports the idea of solid bow being more resilient and stronger within the main battle line.
Currently, I would take fast bow over solid every time (as with fast over solid Ax), but this would make me think twice about their relative strengths and weaknesses when weighing up choices in the future.
P
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Apr 4, 2020 14:23:17 GMT
This might too much for many, but for my Biblical battles (basically all I do), and in a similar vein to gorograd ideas, this is what I have done with Bw for my games:
4Bw are +4 vs. Mounted and +3 vs. Foot
3Bw are +3 vs. Mounted and +2 vs. Foot
Both get +1 if performing ranged combat on an opponent at or within 1BW (not close combat)... I call it being in the "death zone".
Both types of Bw can support each other for ranged combat.
The thing I like about the +1 when shooting at 1BW, is during close combat and all you do is recoil the Bw on your turn, well, you know odds are you are going to get shot at with a +1 for them next turn.
For me, this seems in keeping with Biblical times, the massive prevalence of archers during that period and the defensive technology.
I also could be completely out to lunch.
|
|
š
