Both
Roland and
Tom (and I’m sure there are others) are against the “+1 to 4Ax & Solid Bows v heavy infantry”,
but their opposition stems from two entirely different positions.
Roland thinks the rules are fine as they are, and
Tom realizes that 4Ax & 4Bow are underpowered, but dislikes “conditional combat bonuses” (even though these
already exist, and the whole combat outcomes chart is nothing more than a list of “conditional outcomes”...
...Blades have CF of 5 against foot but only a CF of 4 when shot at by Bows/WWg/Art...conditional?
Ah, but that’s ok apparently).
So I’d like to draw our attention to the bigger picture.
The History of DBADBA 3.0 didn’t just pop into existence from out of the blue. No, it evolved gradually over the decades.
Wb in 1.0 didn’t have rear support. This made them underpowered. Now they do, and are more playbalanced.
Ps in 2.2 operated from behind the battleline, like mortars. Now they are out in front, like they should be.
Ps were also given the ability to ignore corner-to-corner overlaps in 3.0, so that they could skirmish effectively.
Sp in 2.2 had rear support, which meant they were easily outflanked. Now they have side support, and are better.
LH were underpowered in 2.2, so were given a boost with rear support in 3.0.
4Bows were underpowered, so were given a boost with a limited ‘conditional’ side support from Bd to help them.
Lb and Cb weren’t reproducing medieval battles correctly, so in DBA 3.0 they can kill Kn and Cm on an equal score.
Bd and Pk never used to pursue, but their high CF meant that they were largely invulnerable. Now they do pursue.
And the ‘positional trickery’ has been largely eliminated, making a battle feel more realistic and not just a game.
All the above were additions to address both playbalance and realismBut for the poor old Ax...nothing. Not a sausage. In fact, in DBA 3.0 they have been made even worse!
Oh, they now have a CF of 3 against mounted, which is nice. But 4Ax has lost one of its main advantages...speed.
And what’s worse, they can no longer break contact and disengage from their heavier more powerful opponents.
Instead they are forced to fight toe-to-toe with heavy infantry...a fight they are quite incapable of surviving.
And no, Ax are not the kings of bad going. Bd fight just as well (if slow), and 3Bd are their equal, and both can fight
in good going. The true kings of bad going are Wb, who decimate heavy foot, and can fight in good going as well,
something that Ax cannot do (anyway, hiding in bad going just leads to stalemates: the Ax cannot come out or
they’ll be jumped on and destroyed, and their mounted or heavier opponents simply refuse to go in, leading to
some loooong pointless games).
If Wb, Ps, Sp, LH, Lb, Cb and 4Bow can have boosts to make them more playbalanced and more realistic, why can’t Ax?
I suppose we could just do what the tournament players do, and simply don’t use Ax, Ps, LH armies, because we all
know they are underpowered and not playbalanced. Perhaps the Army Lists should come with following disclaimer:-
“Warning. You cannot hope to win with many of these armies. We know that certain elements are underpowered.
But we can’t be bothered to fix them, even though it is relatively easy to do. The game is broken is some areas,
and we like it that way.”
Not much help to those that have bought and painted such armies!
I often wonder what other new fresh innovations
Phil Barker would have added to DBA 3.0 had he not been held
back by the old school DBA 2.2 players... the same 2.2 players that were so against side support, were against the
BW movement system, and wanted to keep Ps behind the battlelines, amongst other things.
And for those that say “play by the DBA rules or play something else”...I do hope you are not playing campaigns.
DBA 3.0 has no rules for campaigns, just some vague guidelines on page 14. As DBA 3.0 has no campaign or solo
rules, and we are not allowed to add anything, we will just have to play by some other rules won’t we...
Of course, improving DBA is not just a matter of adding new rules and more complexity.
Some of the existing rules could be streamlined, altered or even discarded if simplicity is the main goal.
Does anyone even use the incomprehensible “Phantom Overlap” rule? And why have two different sallying
rules for Camps and Cities? As for the whole section on “Turning-to-Face”, make it instantaneous on contact.
Much simpler and quicker.
(See
fanaticus.boards.net/post/8552/ for some of the unnecessary rules)
Now for Tom’s ‘blanket fix’ for 4Ax and 4BowA ‘fix’ that adds more problems than it fixes is not much of a fix is it.
No one asked for 4Ax to have more close combat power against Ps, Wb, WWg, Art, or in bad going.
No one asked for Bows to have more distant shooting power against Ps, Wb, Pk, Sp, Bd, WWg, or Art.
We just want 4Ax and 4Bow to survive a bit longer in close combat against heavy foot, both for realistic
reasons (i.e the battles of Agincourt and Cannae) and for playbalance reasons (so they get used more).
An AlternativeIf ‘conditional bonuses’ is not to peoples taste, there is an alternative...reduce the heavy foot CF by 1:-
So Bd becomes CF 4 against foot (they already are when shot at, so this simplifies the rules).
Sp becomes CF 3 against foot, with +1 for side support (and side support applies even when shot at).
Pk stay as CF 3, but only gains +2 for rear support.
Combat against mounted stays just as it is now.
There you go...instead of a ‘blanket’ +1, or a ‘conditional’ +1, reduce the heavy foot by 1.
This is roughly what DBMM does, and it doesn’t have the playbalance or realism problems DBA has.
But to make this work two other adjustments will be required:-
Wb will have to lose rear support, or they’d be too powerful.
And the bad going penalty will need to be reduced from -2 to -1 (at least for foot).
(8Bow will also need to lose side support...but they’ll have to do this anyway with the ‘blanket’ or
‘conditional’ fix, or they’d be as powerful as Bd in close combat).I have extensively playtested this, and it works a treat.
Compromise people, compromise...If you don’t like 4Ax and 4Bow being slaughtered like helpless sheep (and the historical accounts
say they weren’t), you have three choices:
* Have a ‘blanket fix’, which causes more problems than it solves...
* Have a ‘conditional’ fix, which some don’t like, even though it has no knock-on effects...
* Or reduce the heavy foot v foot by 1, also with no unwanted knock-on effects.
The choice is yours.
