|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 19, 2020 0:12:58 GMT
At the risk of being a shot across any bow ( and it sincerely is not). I would say to those who seek the holy grail and try to make DBA ( or any game) an actual simulation of grand tactical warfare: I question the very possibility of doing so. ( but even if you could, would you really want to? Outcomes would be very often, largely predetermined do to much larger logistical factors and as commanders, we'd probably have even less control of our troops once the point of engagement is reached. Simulation, perhaps, but a lousy evenings entertainment)
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 19, 2020 0:29:46 GMT
Now are we also claiming that of the fields weren't so muddy, then the Bd would still have gotten massacred in the same way? Maybe. But perhaps for Agincourt, you need to deploy rough going everywhere as Boggy just to be sure. Of course then the Bd will avoid it on deployment, since he'll know before he puts his troops down, exactly where the muddy bits are. The French elected not to avoid the mud. Why? Superiority in numbers? Or did the French not realise the full extent of the mud?
If the fields weren't so muddy, then the Bd would NOT have been massacred in the same way.
If the French player is allowed to avoid the muddy terrain before him in the game of DBA Agincourt, then he is no longer recreating Agincourt; rather, he is creating an alternative battle with different tactics and potential outcomes. I'd call that a 'Lesson From History', wouldn't you?
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 19, 2020 6:26:12 GMT
Glad to see someone using my point on certain HYW battles to note that specific conditions and terrain may have had a significant impact on the outcome, Roland.
When using historical battles to take lessons from history, stevie, one has to look at not just the forces involved but the terrain and other conditions as well.
While I agree that solid bow are under-rated in DBA, if the warbow were a potent a some would have it the capital of France would be London.
Plus one for solid bow and ditch the side support rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Apr 19, 2020 7:09:06 GMT
I am sure I have posted something similar at some point but as I am a Yorkshireman I do like to repeat myself so.
Re realities, we play quite a bit of RCW and games set around the time, we have tried loads and couldn't settle on a rule set so ended up merging several. Some rules feel really close to reality, one side gets a couple of MMG in position anc unless they both jam or run out of ammo no one is moving on the entire table all game. Probably highly realistic but boring as heck game.
Re ancients
I love DBA and for me it is close enough, some things like rivers baffle me and some armies like Macedonians / Seleucids dont seem to live up to the hype. I am certainly no history wiz but do wonder how many sure thing battles came down to the right bit of luck at the right time. One Baron had a squabble with another and didn't really try as hard as he may have to support the other. A centurions boot came off at wrong point and he slipped and dies so never got to motivate his lads to hold the line.
Bribes winning wars rather than battles. Huns doing well by avoiding battles and slaughtering your supply and support villages till your army was worn down then slaughtering you on their terms.
I know my Ancient British are destined to win a few lucky games but doomed to end up with Roman masters. I do wish Alex and his chaps got to win more but I know I am not as feared charismatic or lucky as he presumably was.
One or two tweaks to any rules system usually has massive misunderstood effect somewhere down the line.
I doubt my ramblings hold much insight to add to the debate but I do like to get involved and keep my post count up.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 19, 2020 7:58:06 GMT
The French elected not to avoid the mud. Why? Superiority in numbers? Or did the French not realise the full extent of the mud? This is the crux of the problem. No one doubts that those who fought these battles knew a lot more than those of us who paint their miniature replicas. So why did the French advance? Why did Varus enter Teutoberger Vald? etc. I think the trouble is that we have 100% hindsight and no strategic objectives when we play. stevie's countdown clock helps provide some impetus to force a battle. But there was more to it historically. Level of supply, season of the year, weather, politics, ideology and many other factors would have been at play that may have forced a general to push a bad position against his better judgement. DBA3 has none of these. That's why the collision course battles are so interesting. A meeting engagement that can't be planned to within the mm. Baldie is right, an exact simulation would be boring. A close game, regardless of armies, with maybe a little bias to those that won more often than not, would be the ideal. It's when this bias is reversed that people start to question the mechanisms as is so well illustrated in this thread. Well, with my spare time, I think I may start to plan a method to give a strategic situation that can influence game play to some extent. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 19, 2020 8:46:37 GMT
Glad to see someone using my point on certain HYW battles to note that specific conditions and terrain may have had a significant impact on the outcome, Roland. When using historical battles to take lessons from history, stevie, one has to look at not just the forces involved but the terrain and other conditions as well. While I agree that solid bow are under-rated in DBA, if the warbow were a potent a some would have it the capital of France would be London. Plus one for solid bow and ditch the side support rule. Good Lord - someone else who thinks terrain (and specific conditions) may have had a significant impact on the outcome of certain aforementioned HYW battles. What's the world coming to, its senses? Surely not!  |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 19, 2020 9:04:38 GMT
I am sure I have posted something similar at some point but as I am a Yorkshireman I do like to repeat myself so. Re realities, we play quite a bit of RCW and games set around the time, we have tried loads and couldn't settle on a rule set so ended up merging several. Some rules feel really close to reality, one side gets a couple of MMG in position anc unless they both jam or run out of ammo no one is moving on the entire table all game. Probably highly realistic but boring as heck game. Re ancients I love DBA and for me it is close enough, some things like rivers baffle me and some armies like Macedonians / Seleucids dont seem to live up to the hype. I am certainly no history wiz but do wonder how many sure thing battles came down to the right bit of luck at the right time. One Baron had a squabble with another and didn't really try as hard as he may have to support the other. A centurions boot came off at wrong point and he slipped and dies so never got to motivate his lads to hold the line. Bribes winning wars rather than battles. Huns doing well by avoiding battles and slaughtering your supply and support villages till your army was worn down then slaughtering you on their terms. I know my Ancient British are destined to win a few lucky games but doomed to end up with Roman masters. I do wish Alex and his chaps got to win more but I know I am not as feared charismatic or lucky as he presumably was. One or two tweaks to any rules system usually has massive misunderstood effect somewhere down the line. I doubt my ramblings hold much insight to add to the debate but I do like to get involved and keep my post count up. EXTREMELY insightful, matey 👍👍👍👍....you hit the nail on the head, and many, many times. Spot on !! |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 19, 2020 9:06:15 GMT
The boggy ground at Agincourt should confer a -1 CC penalty to the Bd, not just a movement penalty.
(I'd make Rough Going a -1 in CC to all except Ax, Bw, Wb or Ps. Bad Going would still be a -2.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2020 9:37:56 GMT
At the risk of being a shot across any bow ( and it sincerely is not). I would say to those who seek the holy grail and try to make DBA ( or any game) an actual simulation of grand tactical warfare: I question the very possibility of doing so. ( but even if you could, would you really want to? Outcomes would be very often, largely predetermined do to much larger logistical factors and as commanders, we'd probably have even less control of our troops once the point of engagement is reached. Simulation, perhaps, but a lousy evenings entertainment) How will we ever know if we don’t even bother to try? And nobody is asking for logistical/political/financial factors to be added to the game. (Although this is surprisingly easy to do...see “Map-Less Wars” in the appendix at the back of this:-vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/4/41/TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20170212182516 )All we are asking for is that “Solid” Bows and “Solid” Auxiliaries behave as they did in reality, just as Sp/Pk/Bd/Wb/Ps/Art/WWg/LH/Cv/Cm/Kn/El/SCh all have special abilities and rules to make them behave as they did in reality. Why are 4Bows and 4Ax an exception? About TerrainOf course terrain is important...it’s the primary job of a commander to use the the terrain to their advantage. This is so obvious that I didn’t think it needed mentioning. Likewise, luck is equally important, as excessive bad luck can hamper the best defensive terrain or battle-plan, both in reality and in the game. But when playing a friendly one-off what-if random battle, and I just happen to have all the conditions that the English had at Agincourt, then I expect to get a similar outcome. Or are we saying that Agincourt was a one-in-million battle, that could never ever happen again (except that it did, 59 years earlier, at Poitiers). Remembering of course that both these battles were won by close combat, not by shooting. SuggestionsSome have suggested slight changes to DBA terrain, such as heavy foot -1 in rough going. This means changing the rules (and apparently that’s ok). Others have suggested giving 4Bows a close combat boost (and apparently that is not ok). So let’s look at the effects:-
4Bow CF 2 + 1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 = 3 v 5, and the 4Bows get massacred like helpless sheep. 4Bow CF 2 + 1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 - 1 for rough going = 3 v 4, and the 4Bow are at a disadvantage.
4Bow CF 2 + 1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 - 2 for bad going = 3 v 3, and the 4Bows are equal.
4Bow CF 3 + 1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 - 2 for bad going = 4 v 3, and the 4Bows have an advantage.Which of these four options best simulates Poitiers and Agincourt, leading to an historical outcome? And should you be a good commander when playing a friendly one-off what-if random battle, and you cleverly use the terrain to your advantage, should you not also be allowed the same advantages that the Black Prince and Henry V had? Exactly the same applies to “Solid” 4Ax...just try re-fighting Cannae if you don’t believe me. Or did Hannibal win so many battles merely because he was ‘lucky’? |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 19, 2020 9:45:03 GMT
SuggestionsSome have suggested slight changes to DBA terrain, such as heavy foot -1 in rough going. This means changing the rules (and apparently that’s ok). Others have suggested giving 4Bows a close combat boost (and apparently that is not ok). So let’s look at the effects:-
4Bow CF 2 +1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 = 3 v 5, and the 4Bows get massacred like helpless sheep. 4Bow CF 2 + 1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 - 1 for rough going = 3 v 4, and the 4Bow are at a disadvantage.
4Bow CF 2 + 1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 -2 for bad going = 3 v 3, and the 4Bows are equal.
4Bow CF 3 + 1 for side-support v Blades CF 5 -2 for bad going = 4 v 3, and the 4Bows have an advantage.Which of these four options best simulates Poitiers and Agincourt, leading to an historical outcome? And should you be a good commander when playing a friendly one-off what-if random battle, and you cleverly use the terrain to your advantage, should you not also be allowed the same advantages that the Black Prince and Henry V had? Exactly the same applies to “Solid” 4Ax...just try re-fighting Cannae if you don’t believe me. Or did Hannibal win so many battles merely because he was ‘lucky’? And which of those examples do you think best simulates Poitiers and Agincourt, Stevie?
I'm arguing that the current terrain rules do not convey the same advantages to the Black Prince and Henry V that you refer to. But I am now repeating myself. See how it feels?  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2020 9:55:57 GMT
Which example best simulates Poitiers and Agincourt? Why, the one that allows the English to win (cos they did!).  And not the ones that say they should always lose, no matter what the terrain is. That’s why I’m agreeing with you Snowcat...but -1 to heavy foot in rough going just ‘ain’t enough. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 19, 2020 10:15:50 GMT
Which example best simulates Poitiers and Agincourt? Why, the one that allows the English to win (cos they did!). And not the ones that say they should always lose, no matter what the terrain is. That’s why I’m agreeing with you Snowcat...but -1 to heavy foot in rough going just ‘ain’t enough. But it's a bl**dy good start! |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Apr 19, 2020 11:33:30 GMT
And should you be a good commander when playing a friendly one-off what-if random battle, and you cleverly use the terrain to your advantage, should you not also be allowed the same advantages that the Black Prince and Henry V had? But as you have so well argued regarding Rivers, there is nothing to force the French of marching to their doom. This is setting up as another stalemate is it not? Or at best, a battle of attrition on the flanks but not historical. Why would you in a one-off game? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 19, 2020 13:28:43 GMT
At the risk of being a shot across any bow ( and it sincerely is not). I would say to those who seek the holy grail and try to make DBA ( or any game) an actual simulation of grand tactical warfare: I question the very possibility of doing so. ( but even if you could, would you really want to? Outcomes would be very often, largely predetermined do to much larger logistical factors and as commanders, we'd probably have even less control of our troops once the point of engagement is reached. Simulation, perhaps, but a lousy evenings entertainment) How will we ever know if we don’t even bother to try? That is a rainbow I'll leave for others to chase. I've been at this hobby off and on for 40 years now. I'm not even going to try. A game with smooth mechanics, that offers a bit of drama, makes me make difficult decisions, and arrives at plausible outcomes is all I ask for. |
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 19, 2020 13:35:07 GMT
BTW, if folks really are trying to recreate a specific engagement using the DBA rules mechanics, I see absolutely nothing wrong with carefully scripting scenarios replete with situational rules, rather than overhauling the game itself root and branch. To my mind, it simply makes sense.
|
|
