|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 11, 2020 1:33:15 GMT
An Alternative..., 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. 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). Hmmm, I think I may like this one. Apart from Ax improvement it has other advantages. Doubles the chance of Pk destroying Bd (1/36 to 1/18) so you have an opportunity to break through before disorder and the short line causes you grief. Does allow for Sp to be destroyed in TZ by Bw (not Bd though) if the shooting priority rule is too much to change. Gets rid of supported Wb (I thought the Romans were always too outnumbered to outflank Celts?) but also makes them a greater challenge for other Heavy Infantry. I'll have to try this one! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 11, 2020 5:35:39 GMT
Some people don't like change to a set of wargames rules unless it's made by the original author or has his approval.
While this point of view can be frustrating to 'improvers' and 'fixers', I can accept it.   Some people don't like a new rule 'solution' (not originating from the author) unless it's their own idea. Similarly, some people don't like other people's ideas, for the same reason.
I tip my hat to Stevie and the efforts of several others here.   |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 11, 2020 8:47:32 GMT
To each their own. We are never going to get DBA 4 (I think it's officially DBA 3 and not DBA 3.0 for a reason) as PB is not going to write it and I suspect obtaining the copyright might be difficult. That's fair enough as the rules are part of the huge legacy of PB.
The best we have is the FAQ committee and they do a great job within the constraints of the rules as written. We all know this and hats off again gentlemen.
But the rules aren't perfect (which ruleset is?) and hats off to people like stevie, primuspilus, Joe Collins, medievalthomas and others who are genuinely motivated to improve the game both as a game and as an abstract plausible simulation of history.
I can only see change evolving slowly over time through player preference. Power to the people! This has happened before. "Nobody" used the BUA rules in 2.2. Players forced the Shooter/Warband changes in HOTT by simply playing it in a way that made more sense and improved the game. So change can become convention but it needs to be promoted. Look at Tony's "Road to Nowhere", "Wimp Wars" and "Collision course" games. They show the versatility of DBA 3 beyond the RAW. I think that videos, battle reports and perhaps tournaments (yes, tournaments stevie!) using these suggestions would help promote them to a wider audience. If everybody plays it a certain way then it will become the default (see HOTT issue above). Maybe even clubs could have a Heresy Day and try out some suggestions but most importantly, report back in detail. But of course, all this will wait until we can get out of our houses!
Cheers and stay safe
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 13, 2020 8:00:40 GMT
I tried 1/2 pips for LH. It works well.
Like the idea of a turn clock with defender winning on ties or time up. Give light armies a chance.
I like 4cv for 4Ax. Base width recoil, and give them -1 in rough.
I’d be cool with them being cv 3 vs bow and maybe they can get qk by wb.
3Ax stays as is but have all fast troops can recoil 1BW.
All heavy fast troops (3Bd, 3Pk) are 2BW move in rough.
Lighter fast troops (3bw, 3wb, 2ps, 3Ax) are unaffected by rough.
Np idea what to do with 4, 8Bw, maybe something like ax:
3bw are cv 2 in cc
4Bw are cv 3 in cc, but are -1 in rough
8Bw are cv 4 in cc, but are -1 in rough or even -2?
I’m ok with compromise and imperfect models as long as the game stays simple and give a decent approximation of ancient warfare.
Haven’t tried to see knock on effects but glad this is being debated.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 13, 2020 13:37:14 GMT
So with 4/3 CF, would 4Ax still kill Ps on a double? Also are they the equal of hoplites or legions under bowfire? Or do you make two more exceptions for them besides -1in BGo? And if your Bw are as stated, do they get any change in bad going? Do you keep side support for Bw, or do they now need an exception as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 13, 2020 15:00:22 GMT
You know, Stevie's CF reduction is becoming more and more interesting to me. Tested it (far from a rigorous set of games so far though) but it has promise. It is perhaps the least "knock-on" heavy of the changes. If anything, things get a little simpler, for example where Wb no longer need rear support, so we actually remove an exception.
My suggestion was for all foot to receive +1 rear support though, so everyone has to choose between doubling up in the centre to break through, or to extend the line.
It is simpler in many ways, and adds the challenge of depth vs width that plagued every ancient general, not just Pk and Wb generals.
I plan to test this more. At least if not everyone getting a rear rank +1, then at least double ranked HI win all ties against single ranked HI.
This may be the conceptually simplest, in that it has a good chance of reducing all the exceptions currently in play, and it eliminates the Bd vs Bd perpetual motion machine in one elegant shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 13, 2020 23:44:55 GMT
Primus, this is an interesting one. Reduce the cvs of heavies but allow rear support for all heavies for a slight increase. Very very simple and not as element specific. Love it
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 14, 2020 23:50:36 GMT
The only thing about rear support, is that it collides a bit with the double ranked elements that have appeared in 3.0.
I recognize that having a unit of 8Bw gives you essentially a better element for free (except the +1 VP for 1st loss).
But I'm wondering if we either have double ranked elements, or rear support for all heavies, and perhaps Bw, and Wb? Should the system have both? I do like a double ranked element, but also like the tension of deciding whether to go deep or go wide, especially with spear/hoplites.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 15, 2020 13:55:37 GMT
You make a great point about the interplay between DBE (like 8Sp) which legitimately represent a unique situation or two, vs the general dilemma of deep vs wide.
Also any increase in the rate at which centre foot elements kill each other reduces the need for maneuvering/assigning resources appropriately, which is what DBA is asking us to master, as players.
To that end I am would suggest still keeping the DBEs (Thebans are a special case, but to be honest that reflects more of a scenario special case than ancient doctrine perhaps? still I like it too!) and going with more elements getting rear support?
So to be at a 5, a Sp needs side as well as rear support. To be at a 5, Bd need rear support.
That being said, I am mindful of still having single ranked be playable, and not hopeless against a double ranked foe?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 16, 2020 16:59:59 GMT
I have seen in other rules sets that Spears are generally a deep unit, but Thebans (and maybe Philip II's Pike) are an exception in that they are EXTRA deep which destows different benefits.
That said, DBA is pretty zoomed out, so perhaps all the spear units could already be considered "deep", so the 8Sp is right.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 16, 2020 17:29:46 GMT
I like the idea of leaving 8Sp as is for Thebans. Otherwise the Spartans will leverage their 20/20 hindsight and simply stack up equivalently opposite them!
Epaminondas really was a revolutionary thinker when it came to hoplite phalanx depth.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 16, 2020 23:01:12 GMT
Agreed 8Sp is a fun example for the Thebans. So they stay at +1 in cc.
Maybe the idea that rear support by all solid heavies (Pk, Sp, Bd, and solid Wb, Ax) provides them to win on ties, in exchange for -1 to all the CVs.
That way there's still advantage to rear support but not too much. Pk is a bit of a problem, so would it be worth introducing 8Pk? or maybe Pk still get the +2 for rear support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 17, 2020 4:32:48 GMT
Agreed 8Sp is a fun example for the Thebans. So they stay at +1 in cc. Maybe the idea that rear support by all solid heavies (Pk, Sp, Bd, and solid Wb, Ax) provides them to win on ties, in exchange for -1 to all the CVs. That way there's still advantage to rear support but not too much. Pk is a bit of a problem, so would it be worth introducing 8Pk? or maybe Pk still get the +2 for rear support. My thoughts on Pk move on 2 ideas but I have not decided which would be the better option or if the ideas hold water? The First idea was to treat them simularly to Bw in that fot would need to expend an extra pip to contact them frontally? The Second option is for Pk not to suffer a -1 overlap factor if contacted on their front edge in the first round of combat? This is to simulate "Pike shock" where opponents could be reluctant to close with Pike blocks frontally.This would not apply to other Solid Pike, Double based elements and Psiloi? This rule sould only also apply to Solid Pike with rear support to encourage the deeper formation.Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 17, 2020 21:48:22 GMT
Agreed 8Sp is a fun example for the Thebans. So they stay at +1 in cc. Maybe the idea that rear support by all solid heavies (Pk, Sp, Bd, and solid Wb, Ax) provides them to win on ties, in exchange for -1 to all the CVs. That way there's still advantage to rear support but not too much. Pk is a bit of a problem, so would it be worth introducing 8Pk? or maybe Pk still get the +2 for rear support. My thoughts on Pk move on 2 ideas but I have not decided which would be the better option or if the ideas hold water? The First idea was to treat them simularly to Bw in that fot would need to expend an extra pip to contact them frontally? The Second option is for Pk not to suffer a -1 overlap factor if contacted on their front edge in the first round of combat? This is to simulate "Pike shock" where opponents could be reluctant to close with Pike blocks frontally.This would not apply to other Solid Pike, Double based elements and Psiloi? This rule sould only also apply to Solid Pike with rear support to encourage the deeper formation.Any thoughts? If you're finding the +1 PIP to make contact with Bw (or at least 8Bw) is working well, maybe that would be a good mechanism to duplicate with Pike. It wouldn't affect the initial crash of two battlelines, as it would only cost 2 PIPS. But as the line gets broken up, it'll cost 2 PIPs to get EACH of your recoiled Pks to rejoin the combat. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 17, 2020 22:41:51 GMT
My thoughts on Pk move on 2 ideas but I have not decided which would be the better option or if the ideas hold water? The First idea was to treat them simularly to Bw in that fot would need to expend an extra pip to contact them frontally? The Second option is for Pk not to suffer a -1 overlap factor if contacted on their front edge in the first round of combat? This is to simulate "Pike shock" where opponents could be reluctant to close with Pike blocks frontally.This would not apply to other Solid Pike, Double based elements and Psiloi? This rule sould only also apply to Solid Pike with rear support to encourage the deeper formation.Any thoughts? If you're finding the +1 PIP to make contact with Bw (or at least 8Bw) is working well, maybe that would be a good mechanism to duplicate with Pike. It wouldn't affect the initial crash of two battlelines, as it would only cost 2 PIPS. But as the line gets broken up, it'll cost 2 PIPs to get EACH of your recoiled Pks to rejoin the combat. Thank you for your response Greedo but would it not be too much of a dis-advantage for the Pike to rejoin the combat? My view was to make it slightly harder to initiate combat with Supported Pike only in the first move into contact with the Pike so the extra pip requirement would be for foot opponents of the Pike unless they themselves were Solid Pike, Double foot elements or Ps. In the current rules Pike are too easily flanked or overlapped and my aim is to find a way to make this more difficult without too much of a change to the rules. Changing the initial combat factors will most probably upset the ballance in the rules and is not really an option. The idea stems from the minus factor foot troops would receive if their opponents were Pike in the first round of combat in the WRG 7th edition rules where Phil was catering for an advantage for Pike in the first round of combat. |
|
