|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 4, 2020 15:01:13 GMT
And I entirely agree with you Goragrad about Lb and Cb.đ Yes, they were powerful...but they faced better armour. Earlier ordinary bows may not have been as powerful...but their targets had poorer armour. Ergo = all bows should have the same combat factor against foot, no matter the period. We know that bows with a CF of 2 against foot is too weak, or we wouldnât be discussing it. Phil Barker knows this too, which is why in DBA 3.0 he lets solid 4Bows get +1 if side-supported, even though there is no historical justification whatsoever for this...bows donât form shield walls! No itâs just an excuse to give a weak DBA troop type a much needed boost...but many players think that this alone just isnât enough. DBA is blind. It doesnât know or care what period we are fighting. And if medieval Lb and Cb are too weak against medieval infantry, so they need a CF of 3 against foot, then New Kingdom Egyptian 4Bows are also too weak against Sea People Bd, and need the same boost. So I would be more than happy to have ALL 4Bows with a combat factor of 3 against foot. But 8Bow, be they bowmen/Lb/Cb, will have to lose side-support, or theyâd be as good as Blades. Anyway, in DBA the 8Bow elements already have a front rank of close fighting figures. Now all we have to do is convince the medieval fanatics, who seem to think that longbows were the best thing since the invention of soft toilet paper (remember those days?), that were able to slice through armour as if it were as thick as a piece of paper. (I do find it strange that people bang on about how great longbows and crossbows were, and how they
alone should have a higher combat factor, yet say nothing at all about New Kingdom Egyptian Blades
being the equal of late medieval dismounted men-at-arms in full plate armour.
Odd that...)As for LH... Well, if the current LH are good enough as they are, why do so many people complain about them being wimps and under-performing? And why donât we see more LH armies used in tournaments? And finally... Iâm just trying to make a start about reaching some sort of consensus, even if I have to compromise. Can I at least assume that most of us agree that:- 3Ax should be allowed to âevadeâ a full BW like mounted when recoiled? 4Ax should have a CF of 4 against foot, but move and recoil as they do now? 4Bows/4Lb/4Cb have a CF of 3 against foot, but all 3Bow stay at CF 2 and can also âevadeâ like mounted? And get rid of that daft 1 BW shooting priority limitation? If you agree, then we are beginning to reach that consensus, and in the words of the Artilleryman from Jeff Wayneâs musical version of âWar of the Worldsâ... â« âWeâre gonna have to build this game anew, and itâs going to have to start with me and you!ââȘ  |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 4, 2020 16:20:32 GMT
Iâm just trying to make a start about reaching some sort of consensus, even if I have to compromise. Can I at least assume that most of us agree that:- 3Ax should be allowed to âevadeâ a full BW like mounted when recoiled? 4Ax should have a CF of 4 against foot, but move and recoil as they do now? 4Bows/4Lb/4Cb have a CF of 3 against foot, but all 3Bw stay at CF 2 and can also âevadeâ like mounted? And get rid of that daft 1 BW shooting priority limitation? I'm nearly there with you, Stevie - the only amendment I'd make there is 4Ax has CF of 4 against CERTAIN foot - I would exclude Wb in this, unless they join Sp,Bd and Pk in being QK'd. Question - Would they destroy Ps when doubled, as they and 3Ax currently do, or should Ps be fleeing here, as they do against other solid foot? I'm leaning towards a flee outcome, if 4Ax are becoming more like the solid line foot that they should be... P. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 4, 2020 16:45:07 GMT
I would leave it at a flee for Ps, they should always be the secretly tough but vulnerable super element they are and should be.đ
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 5, 2020 1:09:47 GMT
I'm liking where this thread is heading...
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 5, 2020 9:30:57 GMT
Iâm just trying to make a start about reaching some sort of consensus, even if I have to compromise. Can I at least assume that most of us agree that:- 3Ax should be allowed to âevadeâ a full BW like mounted when recoiled? 4Ax should have a CF of 4 against foot, but move and recoil as they do now? 4Bows/4Lb/4Cb have a CF of 3 against foot, but all 3Bow stay at CF 2 and can also âevadeâ like mounted? And get rid of that daft 1 BW shooting priority limitation? Wargamers with time on their hands to debate rules. There is a recipe of disaster  As stevie is in the mood to compromise then we should take the opportunity. 3Ax should be allowed to âevadeâ a full BW like mounted when recoiled - Agree. But it would be an anomaly if only 3Ax is allowed. Why not other "fast" troops? This would include 3Bw. 4Ax should have a CF of 4 against foot, but move and recoil as they do now - Agree. Provides clear distinction between 3Ax and 4Ax. Keep CF4 against Wb but should be QK by Wb in open ground. This allows Roman Ax their initial role against Wb. Vulnerable against a concerted charge but able to ferret them out of terrain and bring them to battle. 4Bows/4Lb/4Cb have a CF of 3 against foot - Agree. Seems universal that people think Bows are underwhelming. Massed missiles have existed throughout the history of warfare so they can't have been that bad! And agree that their effect needs to be judged against contemporary troops and not against future incarnations. Now 8Bw needs some tweaking... And get rid of that daft 1 BW shooting priority limitation - This is a difficult one. The logic that humans will target those presenting an imminent threat is inescapable. Self interest cannot be denied (see toilet paper purchasing recently). But stevie will argue that it's the effect that matters and in a game and it does. So how to balance? What about shooting outside the threat zone allows you to gang up but shooting inside a threat zone gives -1 to the target. So outside the TZ Persians can only concentrate fire on 1 hoplite element for 3 shooters and get -2 but inside TZ they can target the entire phalanx with a -1? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 5, 2020 10:29:09 GMT
Iâm just trying to make a start about reaching some sort of consensus, even if I have to compromise. Can I at least assume that most of us agree that:- 3Ax should be allowed to âevadeâ a full BW like mounted when recoiled? 4Ax should have a CF of 4 against foot, but move and recoil as they do now? 4Bows/4Lb/4Cb have a CF of 3 against foot, but all 3Bw stay at CF 2 and can also âevadeâ like mounted? And get rid of that daft 1 BW shooting priority limitation? I'm nearly there with you, Stevie - the only amendment I'd make there is 4Ax has CF of 4 against CERTAIN foot - I would exclude Wb in this, unless they join Sp,Bd and Pk in being QK'd. Question - Would they destroy Ps when doubled, as they and 3Ax currently do, or should Ps be fleeing here, as they do against other solid foot? I'm leaning towards a flee outcome, if 4Ax are becoming more like the solid line foot that they should be... Well, I suppose we could have Ps being destroyed on an equal score with 4Ax, otherwise they flee if doubled, and 4Ax could be destroyed on an equal score with Wb. The justification in both cases being that the troops thought they had a chance in close combat, and mistakenly tried to hold their ground instead of recoiling. But here I go again making things complicated, just to avoid unwanted knock-on effects. You know, the more we look at this 4Ax and 4Bow weakness, the more we are being steered back to Primuspilusâ simple and clean new Tactical Factor:- â+1 to Solid 4Ax and Solid 4/8Bow when in close combat with Bd, Sp, and supported Pk,
unless in bad going or when defending or assaulting a City, Fort or Camp.â
(And 8Bow loses side-support, or they'd be as powerful as Blades) The justification being that 4Ax and Solid Bows are trained or just naturally stubborn enough to have the sense to temporarily close ranks and adopt a denser formation when they face heavy close formation opponents. * This has no unwanted knock-on effects against other foot, as the combat against them remains as it is now... * It gives us our desired goal of making 4Ax and 4Bow tougher in combat against heavy foot, so they survive longer... * It has no unwanted overpowering shooting effects, as it only applies in close combat... * It has no unwanted overpowering effects in bad going, as the bonus does not apply in such terrain... * And it is very simple to implement...just a new single one-line Tactical Factor. * It even sounds plausible too. Every other suggestion has some unwanted effect, requiring more complexity to compensate or correct it. So if we want a consensus on how to fix 4Ax and 4Bow as simply as possible within the limiting constraints of the DBA two-dice combat system, this ticks all the boxes with no downsides (and the only thing stopping the universal acceptance of this new Tactical Factor is our own private prejudices). (Iâll have to come back to debating close range shooting with Jim in another post) |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 5, 2020 20:35:19 GMT
House rule wise, has anyone toyed with giving LH centered armies +1 PiP ( to a maximum total of 6PiPs) on the command die rolls? It seems like it would be a subtle way of showing off the tactical flexibility of nomad armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 6, 2020 10:29:30 GMT
The problem Roland with just adding a single +1 PIP is where the cut-off point should be. ăăShould 12 x LH get a +1 PIP? (i.e. Skythians...yes, they should).ăăShould 9 x LH and 3 x Cv get a +1 PIP? (i.e. Huns and Mongols...also yes).ăăShould 6 x LH and 6 x other elements get a +1 PIP? (i.e. Numidians and Moors...probably yes).ăăShould 5 x LH, 4 x LH, 3 x LH, 2 x LH get a +1 PIP? (ah...now it gets a bit more tricky...).And should armies with an extra PIP find it easier to move their non-LH elements, such as Elephants? Many different methods were tried in this thread: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2238/rebalancing-lh-armies ,and the one that playtested the best was Paddyâs â LH only pays Âœ a PIP to moveâ suggestion. For example, take a 12 x Cv army facing a 6 x Cv plus 6 x LH army, and both roll a 3 for PIPs. The Cv army could move 3 Cv elements/groups, as they do now. The LH army could also move 3 Cv elements/groups, as they do now, but could also move say 2 Cv elements/groups and not one but two LH elements/groups (or one LH element/group twice). The LH army could even not move any Cv but move 6 LH elements/groups (or move 3 LH twice). Result = the LH army is more mobile and agile, as they should be, and the more LH you have in your army, then the more mobile and agile it becomes...without the need to be lucky and roll more PIPs. At the moment, LH are nothing more than inferior poor quality Cv, who can only use their subsequent move ability if they are lucky, or if the rest of the army stands rock still. As I said before, itâs like having a high powered sports car with no fuel in the tank! Were the Huns, the Mongols, and the other LH armies only a threat because they were lucky? LH elements should be able to zip about and dance around their enemies... ...but they canât do so in DBA unless they have fuel in their tanks... |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 6, 2020 21:02:46 GMT
I am always surprised to see so many intelligent players spending so much effort trying to "improve" the best set of Ancients/ medieval rules ever written. I feel lucky to have time to get in a game every so often, let alone spend time ruminating on fixing the game around the edges. I think many players are very happy with the way the game plays as written by Phil. I encourage all experts in the field with their own theories about warfare of the era to write their own rules instead of just standing on the shoulders of Phil to "fix" his game. The game is based on Phil's theory of war in the era, if you make changes then it is not longer Phil's game and no longer DBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 6, 2020 21:34:11 GMT
I am always surprised to see so many intelligent players spending so much effort trying to "improve" the best set of Ancients/ medieval rules ever written. I feel lucky to have time to get in a game every so often, let alone spend time ruminating on fixing the game around the edges. I think many players are very happy with the way the game plays as written by Phil. I encourage all experts in the field with their own theories about warfare of the era to write their own rules instead of just standing on the shoulders of Phil to "fix" his game. Â The game is based on Phil's theory of war in the era, if you make changes then it is not longer Phil's game and no longer DBA. Â With respect Bob I don't think anyone is out to write their own rules here when DBA since its outset IS a fine system which has been changed and improved over the years and you must agree that it is now a far better set of rules used by a greater community than it was originally.?I may be wrong but a lot of ground has been made up since the split at the change from 2.2 and the launch of 3.0 which is becoming more and more popular. Phil himself included a team of players in the development of DBA 3.0 and you were included and the end result was not just how Phil wanted it as there are a string of historical posts in the old Fanaticus and Yahoo attesting to yourself and others trying to persuade Phil round to certain ideas suggested.Like every other set of DBA rules(and WRG Group Rules before it)their is a ground-swell of enthusiastic players willing to contribute fixes to some perceived flaws that occur when a new set of rules is published so why not support their enthusiasm and willingness to improve a rule system that they enjoy? Most of the rule suggestions here will transfer to the house rules section and be used or not from their or could form a basis for development in further issues of the rules. If you like run a pole to see if a majority support the rules as is or would welcome the change rather to support your opinion if you like but it won't change anything. I started the thread as a distraction, a polite way of harmless debate about possible changes as a distraction to events in the world and a relief to boredom and it has received a good response with measured debate with some good ideas from new and old players... shouldn't that be encouraged? |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 6, 2020 21:53:24 GMT
Thanks to all for the kind comments. (And by the way I hope all realize that you can already get about half of what I propose in D3H2 for free and all of it in A Game of Knights & Knaves - the latter enduring until recently weekly playtests by lots of my devious playtesters and so far holding up).
As to Bows: my proposal covers all powerful missile troops with armor and able to fight hand to hand. Lb/Cb is more for color than suggesting "euro-centrism". Bear in mind that archers vary wildly in quality and this is tied to the strength of bow they can use. All armies have some exceptional archers but few had masses of exceptional archers. You also need to consider the ability to at least hang in in close combat either from high morale, competent weapon handling, armor, pavises or a thin rank of spears fronting the unit. It takes all this stuff to get +3 v. Foot. Showering mounted with masses of even less powerful missiles actually works fairly well. But the real test was standing up to heavy foot. I retained both types - Bow/Lb - but this needs a point system to work (again see above).
The reason we did not go with +3 archers v. Foot is Pike - they die too readily and this would become insane if we allowed archers to ignore foes bearing down on them to mass shoot elsewhere (this has nothing to do with "close range" effectiveness). (Yes I know what English shooting did to Scottish Pike.) This can be solved by making Pike cost less per "frontage" but not within the 12 element model.
But if you are seriously proposing to amend the 12 element model (DBA 4.0), it needs to be simple straight forward and not derange play balance (good luck though I'm not in favor of). But fortunate favors the brave so:
Bow +3/+4; Aux +4/+3; Pike +4/+4 but with a universal +2 for second rank; Blades lose "Drive Off" (do not Recoil Mounted on Equals so only Spears/Pikes do this); Bows -1 in CC but keep Retinue (side support from Blades) OR drop Retinue. (Retinue has a nice historical effect of making English deploy in correct historical formations so we kept it even with +3 Bows).
Lb/Cb do not get the -1 in CC BUT Bow Bow get Skirmish (may Recoil 1 BW or Base Depth). Fast Aux get Skirmish (as well as Ps); other Aux get Drive Off.
Maybe Bad Going -1 to Heavy Foot?
No solution for Cb v. Lb - a famous and badly handled match up within 12 element model. But if you want one anyway: Cb +4/+4 but shoot only in own bound and do take the -1 in Close. (or shoot only in enemy bound if you want to make positioning them awkward).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 6, 2020 22:59:28 GMT
I am always surprised to see so many intelligent players spending so much effort trying to "improve" the best set of Ancients/ medieval rules ever written. I feel lucky to have time to get in a game every so often, let alone spend time ruminating on fixing the game around the edges. I think many players are very happy with the way the game plays as written by Phil. I encourage all experts in the field with their own theories about warfare of the era to write their own rules instead of just standing on the shoulders of Phil to "fix" his game. The game is based on Phil's theory of war in the era, if you make changes then it is not longer Phil's game and no longer DBA. Ha! And good for you Bob. If you and many others are happy with DBA 3.0 being just the way it is, then fine, you have what you want already, and can simply ignore every new suggestion, no matter how good it may be (if for no other reason than Phil Barker was held back by the old school players from including it, or didnât get to think of it himself). But believe it or not there are many of us that want to recreate history, and wonder why certain things that those history books describe cannot be reproduced on our wargames table when we use DBA 3.0. We see the rules as being a mere tool to simulate ancient warfare, not something to be worshipped. And like many tools, it needs a bit of sharpening in some areas. Just because I have bought Phil Barkerâs rules, that doesnât mean he owns me. Nowhere does it say:- âYou must switch off your common sense and stop reading history books in order to use these rulesâ. I still have a mind of my own. And Iâll be buggered if after forking out loads of money to buy the armies, spending many hours painting and basing them, and then even more hours making nice realistic scenery, if Iâm then told by Phil Barker tough luck, your Ax/Ps/LH army can never win a battle, because I Phil Barker have said so, and youâve just wasted all your time and effort! (Especially when the history books say otherwise) |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 7, 2020 17:41:06 GMT
Phil's views on ancient/medieval warfare have mutated over the course of his long design history - like most intelligent people is mind is flexible and changes when new information appears either through better historical research or results on the table top. If he were still in the game they would still be mutating.
That said I would like to focus down on 2 ideas as we have a lot of balls in the air - this is just for the (to me frustratingly limited 12 element game):
Bow +2/+4 but gain Joe Collin's Skirmish rule (may Recoil 1 Base Depth OR Width)
"Heavy" Bow (to avoid being called a neo-colonialist) - armored bowmen shooting heavy bows with historical examples of standing up to Heavy Foot (not beating as +3 does not beat +5): +3/+4 standard Recoil rules.
Does this have enough ying for your yang - in other words some very rough element balance to keep both in the 12 element game?
Aux: +4/+3 with Fast gaining Joe C's Skirmish rule (as would Ps) and the rest getting Drive Off v. Mounted.
Agree to fix Pike/LH latter....
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 7, 2020 21:53:28 GMT
I think Tom has highlighted the fundamentals of this debate...there are two main options open to us:-
...ether blanket changes to the combat factors, OR, a more surgical change to certain troops in certain situations.
So Iâd like to look at each proposal in minute detail so that we all know exactly what the effects would be.
3Ax, 3Bow, and Ps recoils like mounted
Joe Collins was the first to suggest this. It nicely gives the feel of âpeltastâ type troops âevadingâ a heavy foot charge.
Why not have all âFastâ troops âevadingâ?...because 3Wb and 3Bd were not known for skirmishing but got stuck in.
Likewise, 4Ax Imperial Roman Auxilia were also not noted for âevadingâ heavy enemy foot charges.
Effect: recoil œ a BW and you are still in range of being hard-flanked by an enemy with a speed of 2 BW.
Recoil a full BW and only enemy with a speed of 3 BW or more will be able to hard-flank the recoilers.
But it also has another effect...it will give 3Ax/3Bow/Ps the ability to break contact from pursuing Wb/Bd/Pk.
(I think most players would agree that this is a wonderful innovation that helps light foot survive a bit longer)
4Ax have a blanket combat factor of 4, OR, a combat factor of 3 with +1 in certain situations
Making 4Ax have a CF of 4 against foot is simple, but has many unwanted knock-on effects:-
ăăThey would be better against Ps/3Ax/Wb/WWg (acceptable?).
ăăThey would be CF 4 in bad going (acceptable?).
ăăThey would be better when shot at (acceptable?).
The alternative is Primuspilusâ +1 to 4Ax when in close combat with Bd/Sp/Pk in good going.
This has no unwanted knock-on effects, and combat against other foot is entirely unaffected.
(For the sake of getting some sort of universal acceptance, I personally would be wiling to compromise
and accept the CF 4 option, but the surgical +1 against certain foes has far fewer unwanted effects)
4Bow have a blanket combat factor of 3, OR, a combat factor of 2 with +1 in certain situations
Making 4Bow have a CF of 3 against foot is simple, but has many unwanted knock-on effects:-
ăăTheir shooting would be far more powerful against Ps/3Bow/3Ax/Wb/Pk/etc (acceptable?).
ăăTheir shooting in bad going would be a CF of 3 (acceptable?)
The alternative is again Primuspilusâ +1 to Solid Bow when in close combat with Bd/Sp/Pk in good going.
This has no unwanted knock-on effects, and shooting is entirely unaffected.
(For the sake of getting some sort of universal acceptance, I personally would be wiling to compromise
and accept the CF 3 option, but the surgical +1 against certain foes has far fewer unwanted effects)
Lastly, why have any changes at all?
Imagine if chess had the white pieces with no queen but a third bishop, but the black pieces had two
extra queens instead of bishops. With three bishops against three queens, Iâm sure people would
notice the imbalance. Yet those that think DBA 3.0 is perfect expect Ax with a combat factor of 3 and
Bows with a combat factor of 2 to stand a chance against Bd and Sp with a combat factor 5.
Well, I wish theyâd put their money where their mouth is and actually turn up at a tournament with
an all Ax/Ps/LH/Bow army, and demonstrate to us how perfect and well-balanced DBA 3.0 really is!
In short, I donât care which âHouse Ruleâ we accept...I just want a better game...
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 7, 2020 23:46:23 GMT
Other than the 4AX not having a plus against 3Ax (I think solid auxilia should be better than fast), I am thinking that the conditional pluses are the better option with as noted less disruption.
The blanket upgrade is simpler though.
|
|
As stevie is in the mood to compromise then we should take the opportunity.
