|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 20, 2020 21:57:31 GMT
Warning!...this is going to be a long one.  But stevie, if you won't charge your Spears over a River, why would you charge your French (or Romans) to certain doom? You mean replicating the mindset of the French (and the Romans against Hannibal), by forcing them to attack...because that’s what they did, and this was as much a part of their army characteristics as having lots of Blades? Easy...have an internal game time limit (i.e nightfall), change the aggression factors, and have it so the defender’s will be classed as the winners if they have not been routed and
still have a camp when night falls. Now those armies that made rash attacks in history will also do so on our wargames table. (And not all rash attacks end in disaster...look at Alexander the Great)As you know, I think some tinkering is required. Historically successful armies that fail on the game board need help! But not to the point where you can look at the board before deployment and know the result. Er...isn’t that the situation at the moment? Say you have a bow heavy army with high aggression. Your defending opponent is not going to give you any defensive terrain, and you end up fighting on an open flat billiard table where your bows have no chance of winning against heavy foot. And this is before any terrain has even been placed! Still, as Roland says, it's only a game. But I doubt that chess would have proved to be quite so popular if the black pieces had two extra queens instead of bishops while the white pieces had no queen. Still, I suppose we could just ignore the weak armies and only buy and paint the strong ones. After all, that’s what tournament players do... Have to disagree with you again stevie. At Agincourt the the French were not going to be shot to pieces if they had not either withdrawn or attacked. The men-at-arms ere dismounted and their armor was reasonably proof against arrows at that range. 3 bows shooting at a blade has 4 chances out of 36 of scoring a doubled result. In a game with infinite time, and infinite ammunition, they will eventually cause kills. And if those being shot at don’t like it, they must either attack or retreat off the table. (I didn’t write the rules) Agincourt: Just use difficult hills. Then it wouldn’t be Agincourt or Poitiers would it. There were no difficult hills in these engagements. Would the following be enough to recreate Agincourt: +1 CF to Bows vs Hvy Foot, AND -1 in CC to all but Ax, Bw, Wb and Ps in Rough Going. That would work...Bow CF 3 +1 for side-support v Blade CF 5 -1 for rough going = 4 v 4. (assuming close combat with the Bows outside the rough going and the Blades are in it) But the problem with just giving Bows a ‘blanket fix’ of CF 3 against foot is they will be far more powerful when shooting Pk, Ax, Ps, and every other foot element. I happen to think that their CF 2 when shooting foot is about right. It’s their close combat CF that is too weak and needs a bit of a boost. And Poitiers and Agincourt were won by close combat...not by shooting. Primuspilus has already come up with the best and simplest solution, with no knock-on effects:- “+1 to Solid 4Ax and Soild Bows when in close combat with Blades, Spears, and supported Pikes,
unless in bad going of if defending or assaulting a City, Fort or Camp.”And the justification?...these troops are trained or just naturally stubborn enough to have the sense to close ranks and form up in close order when fighting heavy foot. Anyway, justifications are unimportant: it’s the effect on the wargame table that matters. Can anyone tell me the justification for Solid Bows getting side-support? Bows don’t form shield walls! No, it’s just an excuse to give a weak troop type a much needed boot...but it isn’t enough. Well, consider giving 4Ax and Solid Bows a +1 in close combat v heavy foot as another fudge in order to make them both more playbalanced AND more realistic, so that they can finally behave as the history books said they did. And remember everyone...DBA is blind.It doesn’t know or care what fancy names we give our elements. To it a bow is a bow and a blade is a blade, no matter what period we are fighting. And if English 4Bows are considered to be too weak against French Blades in close combat, then so are New Kingdom Egyptian 4Bows against Sea People Blades. |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 20, 2020 22:30:52 GMT
Agincourt: Just use difficult hills. Then it wouldn’t be Agincourt or Poitiers would it. There were no difficult hills in these engagements.
Agincourt: there was a hill, and there was mud that appears to have been a major contribution to the dismounted MAA's performance; that makes that hill very plausibly difficult, at that moment. And it recreates the situation quite nicely, without having to resort to hare-brained mods (I do quite like Primus's +1 for Aux, but for Bw? no need)
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 20, 2020 22:32:24 GMT
I'm always curious when people mention battles where the French defeated English archers - as no one ever mentions the names of these battle (I know of a few French victories but they never involve frontal attacks on English archers). Let's add an extra degree of specificity. '...never involve frontal attacks on English archers in prepared positions with men-at-arms supporting them'. Caught in the open, changing formations or various looting jackassery and they took it on the chin ala Patay or Formigny.
I suppose it takes some South Germans full of piss and vinegar and long pointy sticks to show folks how to roll English archers in prepared positions up. ( although, undermanned, the archers did give a good accounting of themselves defending the Gruenhag at Murten.)
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 21, 2020 0:21:58 GMT
My take on Agincourt is that it's not so much a need to enhance the English as it is to penalise the French.
The French general disorder is probably worth -2 to their main foot (Bd) in the battle. This disorder comprises various things: their own disarray producing the 'scrum of doom', and the mud combined with decreased visibility, oxygen, weight of armour, etc. Put the French Bd at -2 and see how they fare.
I prefer the more granular approach to terrain modifiers where Rough Going confers -1 instead of 0 CC penalty, and Bad Going confers -2. This assists certain HYW battles as I've already explained, and would seem to add an equivalent touch of realism to other battles.
Removing the solid Bd side support for solid Bw wouldn't hurt, as the rule does seem a band-aid for an 'under-performance' with a previous version of the rules inadequately addressed by more suitable means.
As to conditionally increasing the CC factor of solid Bw to 3, I'm OK with that so long as we're also talking about non-HYW bowmen also being more accurately represented in this way, with historic accounts to back this up. So ancient solid Bw should equally be represented this way. I'm pretty sure Primuspilus and Stevie have already justified this with examples, but in light of the recent HYW diversion it might need another refresher. The suggestion to conditionally increase the CC factor of solid Ax to 4 already has my support.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roland on Apr 21, 2020 0:27:17 GMT
My take on Agincourt is that it's not so much a need to enhance the English as it is to penalise the French. And that's it, right exactly there! All this hair pulling and teeth gnashing should not be about enshrining medieval 4Lb as some sort of mobile uebermensch machinegun nests, but rather recognizing that the folly of the french commanders made those longbows look so good. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 21, 2020 0:27:41 GMT
Then it wouldn’t be Agincourt or Poitiers would it. There were no difficult hills in these engagements.
Agincourt: there was a hill, and there was mud that appears to have been a major contribution to the dismounted MAA's performance; that makes that hill very plausibly difficult, at that moment. And it recreates the situation quite nicely, without having to resort to hare-brained mods (I do quite like Primus's +1 for Aux, but for Bw? no need)
Yes there is: Persian 8Bw don't fight historically as they did. The need an extra TF so they aren't vapourised in a single bound. Plataea and Marathon were both long drawn out affairs. The Persians didn't simply drop their weapons and run at the sight of a hoplite glaring at them. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 21, 2020 0:29:35 GMT
My take on Agincourt is that it's not so much a need to enhance the English as it is to penalise the French. The French general disorder is probably worth -2 to their main foot (Bd) in the battle. This disorder comprises various things: their own disarray producing the 'scrum of doom', and the mud combined with decreased visibility, oxygen, weight of armour, etc. Put the French Bd at -2 and see how they fare. I prefer the more granular approach to terrain modifiers where Rough Going confers -1 instead of 0 CC penalty, and Bad Going confers -2. This assists certain HYW battles as I've already explained, and would seem to add an equivalent touch of realism to other battles. Removing the solid Bd side support for solid Bw wouldn't hurt, as the rule does seem a band-aid for an 'under-performance' with a previous version of the rules inadequately addressed by more suitable means. As to conditionally increasing the CC factor of solid Bw to 3, I'm OK with that so long as we're also talking about non-HYW bowmen also being more accurately represented in this way, with historic accounts to back this up. So ancient solid Bw should equally be represented this way. I'm pretty sure Primuspilus and Stevie have already justified this with examples, but in light of the recent HYW diversion it might need another refresher. The suggestion to conditionally increase the CC factor of solid Ax to 4 already has my support. Snowcat, read Lessons from History to see where the rationale and research are to support the conditional TF for 4/8 Bw and 4Ax. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 21, 2020 1:03:23 GMT
I'll read it again. I've slept since the last time...!  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 21, 2020 9:52:29 GMT
My take on Agincourt is that it's not so much a need to enhance the English as it is to penalise the French. And that's it, right exactly there! All this hair pulling and teeth gnashing should not be about enshrining medieval 4Lb as some sort of mobile uebermensch machinegun nests, but rather recognizing that the folly of the french commanders made those longbows look so good. Oh I hardly think having Bows with a CF of 3 in close combat with heavy foot is quote: - “enshrining medieval 4Lb as some sort of mobile uebermensch machinegun nests”. As I said, DBA is blind.All it knows is that a CF 2 with a +1 for the artificial side-support = CF 3. And a CF of 3 against a CF of 5 = a massacre, especially with the easily achieved double-overlaps. But a CF of 4 against a CF of 5 = a losing fight that lasts longer, and matches the history books... ...for ALL periods, not just medieval. Anyway, it sounds like you’d be quite in favour of tweaking the rules to penalize Blades when in close combat with Bows (in the right circumstances), but not for tweaking the Bows when in close combat with Blades (again, in the right circumstances). So at least we are making some progress...it seems that some tweaking of some sort is required. As for forcing the French, the Romans, and any invaders to make rash attacks, I’ve already covered that. Change the aggression factors, introduce nightfall, and have defenders win if they don’t lose. It stops stalemates, it’s what happened in reality, and it makes a better, quicker, and more intense game. What’s not to like? |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Apr 21, 2020 12:59:24 GMT
And, once again, based on medievalthomas's post (and as I wrote in a prior discussion on the topic), for Agincourt to work in DBA, all that is needed is for the French dismounted knights (BD) to have to attack the English dismounted knights (BD). At which point, per history, the archers (LB) will be able to close the door on them. Even with a CV of +2 they will be in a position to force the kill. And if the French BD are in column (again a per history) this will kill 2 elements (or even 3 with 15mm deep bases).
Whether thru French pride or the effect of the battering from the arrow storm this is what happened historically. No need to modify the CF for the archers needed (although I am actually in favor of the +1 for CC for solid BW and AX).
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 21, 2020 15:03:38 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
Joe,
I like these.
But would like the recoil for 3/4Ax to be an optional choice of ½ or 1BW.
LH first move of first bound is interesting, but LH first move of the game would spring more surprises.
Robert
Thanks Robert...
I am quite pleased with the Pike and Archery rules. They do tend help with historical narratives without being overpowered. I have considered limiting the penalty for moving into contact with Bows to "Solid" Bow. This is more complication, but would prevent 3Bw from being seen as even more overpowered.
I have also considered moving the Ax recoil to the "recoil" section of the rules, thus giving them a choice as with mounted. This gives them a slight amount more of flexibility, but I find the rule more easily remembered if it is a combat outcome.
The change to 3Bd and 6Bd as well is warranted. This troop types, while rare are simply over powered. This simple change allows the existence of 3Bd-Anti cataphract troops, but makes them more vulnerable to 3Kn. This should help better model the early Vikings and the early Swiss.
The new Light Horse ideas are to of course address the weakness of light horse in the standard game. Your idea of granting a free move to the first move is interesting, but may require book-keeping....
The Elephant rules are a struggle. Though on occasion I have teased Arnaud about his incessant use of Elephants... he is one of the top players... and his success with Elephants is greatly due to his skill in play. We haven't seen elephant armies dominate in the US. I am however not satisfied by the way they play. The flee outcome is rare. Their immunity from bow is troubling.
I need to play test this one more...
Finally, the Ps "must interpenetrate" rule is badly needed. I have seen too many situations where the Ps simply backs up the heavy troops behind them producing a silly outcome.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 21, 2020 16:13:34 GMT
Joe,
LH
A free first move for Light Horse might better simulate a feigned retreat than what we currently have, the necessity of a high pip score.
As an example, the free move can bring LH out of a threat zone leaving the attacker, especially mounted, “in the dust”.
And subsequent moves will add an extra level of danger when opposing LH.
I am not sure book-keeping is necessary if a player declares which LH have not moved with an evil grin at the end of his bound.
Psiloi
The Psiloi “must interpenetrate” I like. This is also recorded in the Byzantine tactical manuals.
Elephants.
Scythed Chariots waive the cost of a second pip when moving to contact an enemy. Perhaps this could also include elephants and horde?
Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 21, 2020 17:49:15 GMT
Yes there is: Persian 8Bw don't fight historically as they did. The need an extra TF so they aren't vapourised in a single bound. Plataea and Marathon were both long drawn out affairs. The Persians didn't simply drop their weapons and run at the sight of a hoplite glaring at them. Sure. but Persian 8Bw are not exactly your vanilla, archetypal bows, outliers really. Even in DBM/M which has a richer inbuilt granularity, they had to have a special category, Bw(X), X for exception. Is it really wise thus to use their performance to derive mods for ALL solid Bw? Would it not be more precise to focus on 8Bw only and do something with them? Instead of risking unintended consequences (actually pretty obvious) and "pollute" other periods and theatres?
Bw armies perform pretty well in tournaments, at least in the UK. I shudder to imagine what a Sung army would do with your mod, monstruous.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 21, 2020 18:11:43 GMT
I wonder if we are all becoming far too obsessed with the events of a single historical battle, that of Agincourt, and this is preventing us from seeing the true bigger picture. It’s all my fault for bringing it up in the first place. But I only did so to use it as an illustration and example of bows in close combat, and to show that DBA is not representing this correctly. When a game designer wants to create a set of ancient rules, how do they know if it’s right? Well, there is only one way: compare the results on the wargames table and see if they match with the actual outcomes and events as recorded by the ancient contemporary historians. If they do, then fine, we can be more or less confident that they are approximately right. But if they give completely opposite results, then something is faulty. Either the ancient historians were wrong, or the rules are. You can’t have it both ways. Perhaps more data points and more examples will make things clearer, so here are some:- Battle of Marathon 490 BC, where the Persian Sparabara stood up to the Athenians for quite some time:-
“The fight at Marathon went on for a long time, and in the centre the barbarians won, where the Persian (Sparabara)
themselves and the Sacae were stationed. At this point they won, and broke the Greeks, and pursued them inland.
But on each wing the Athenians and the Plataeans were victorious, and, as they conquered, they let flee the part
of the barbarian army they had routed, and, joining their two wings together, they fought the Persians who had
broken their centre; and then the Athenians won the day. As the Persians fled, the Greeks followed them, hacking
at them, until they came to the sea. Then the Greeks called for fire and laid hold of the ships.”
(Source: www.historyguide.org/ancient/marathon.html , by Herodotus, section 113)
Battle of Platea 479 BC, where yet again the Persian Sparabara stood up to the Spartans for quite some time:-
“As he offered his prayer, the Tegeans, advancing before the rest, rushed forward against the enemy; and the
Lacedaemonians, who had obtained favourable omens the moment that Pausanias prayed, at length, after their
long delay, advanced to the attack; while the Persians, on their side, left shooting, and prepared to meet them.
And first the combat was at the wicker shields. Afterwards, when these were swept down, a fierce contest took
place by the side of the temple of Ceres, which lasted long, and ended in a hand-to-hand struggle. The barbarians
many times seized hold of the Greek spears and brake them; for in boldness and warlike spirit the Persians were
not a whit inferior to the Greeks; but they were without bucklers, untrained, and far below the enemy in respect
of skill in arms. Sometimes singly, sometimes in bodies of ten, now fewer and now more in number, they dashed
upon the Spartan ranks, and so perished.”
(Source: mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Herodotus/Herodotus9.html , section [9.62])Do either of these two examples sound like CF 5 slaughtering CF 3 troops in only one or two bound? No, they sound more like CF 5 troops having a tough but eventually victorious fight against CF 4 troops. Neither of these historical examples can be replicated with 8Bow CF of 2 + 1 for being double based (and no side-support, because the Persians have no 4Bd), but they can if the 8Bow have a CF of 2 + 1 for being double based AND with a +1 when fighting against heavy foot (Hoplite Sp with CF 4 + 1 for side-support in this case). So now we have not one but four examples showing that DBA solid bows are underpowered in close combat... ...that of Agincourt, Poitiers, Marathon and Platea. And if DBA cannot get even one of these well documented historical battles right, how can it possibly get any solid bow close combat fight right in any battle? Now I know what some of you are going to say...”oh the Persian 8Bow Sparabara is a special case”. But this is NOT how DBA works. As I keep repeating, DBA is blind. All it knows is that CF 3 do not stand a chance against CF 5, no matter if it’s the medieval, dark age, Roman or the chariot period. And if one of these has weak unplaybalanced unhistorical combat factors, then they all have. So let’s take the blinkers off, tear ourselves away from looking down the microscope at Agincourt, and look at the bigger picture for a change. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 21, 2020 18:19:06 GMT
Following on from my previous post above, Goragrad makes some interesting points:- And, once again, based on medievalthomas's post (and as I wrote in a prior discussion on the topic), for Agincourt to work in DBA, all that is needed is for the French dismounted knights (BD) to have to attack the English dismounted knights (BD). At which point, per history, the archers (LB) will be able to close the door on them. Even with a CV of +2 they will be in a position to force the kill. And if the French BD are in column (again a per history) this will kill 2 elements (or even 3 with 15mm deep bases). Whether thru French pride or the effect of the battering from the arrow storm this is what happened historically. No need to modify the CF for the archers needed (although I am actually in favor of the +1 for CC for solid BW and AX). This leads me on to part 2 of my argument... get rid of the ridiculous shooting priority against foot. If someone were designing a set of rules, no matter if they were ancient, medieval, Napoleonic or modern, you’d expect them to have shooting at long range being weaker and less effective than shooting at close range. Well not so in the topsy turvy Alice in Wonderland world of DBA, where shooting at a long range small distant target is actually better than shooting at a nice big target nearby. And because close range shooting has been made so infective, it creates a mythical ‘safe zone’ in front of a line of heavy foot where they cannot be killed! Yet the fix for this is mind-numbingly simple... ...just add a single word to the rules, so that page 10 paragraph 4 reads as:- “Bows and War Wagons must shoot at a mounted target in their TZ.” (And if you want a zone where shooters must target the nearest threat, then fine, you’ve already got it...
...it’s called close combat)Now we get the effect that Goragrad mentioned: the Bows can concentrate their fire even at close range to make the enemy heavy foot recoil away from the shooters, making it easier for heavy foot to reach the opposing heavy foot but difficult to reach the bows (and I’m talking about all periods here, NOT JUST AGINCOURT!) I’m not asking for more shooting power...just the same as they already get when shooting at long range. (Close range shooting should be more devastating, but I’ll just settle for it being the same, certainly not less)The Current Situation * Some bow armies have high aggression, so rarely get the terrain they need (even though historically they did).
* The enemy has no reason to attack (the ‘defender-wins-if-they-don’t-lose’ simulates pride and rash attacks).
* Bows are too weak in close combat (as demonstrated by the historical examples).
* And if the above items weren’t enough, let’s also knacker shooters at close range as well...Good grief...how many queens do you have to give the black pieces in chess before you realize it’s unbalanced! From a game point of view, rebalancing makes the game better, and we might see more of those armies used. From an historical point of view, making DBA more realistic gives a truer picture of their real-life performance. Everyone’s a winner. Of course, these are all merely “House Rules”, to be used or ignored as individual players see fit. So if you are happy with the current rules just as they are, then by all means carry on using them. On the other hand, if you wonder why certain armies are wimps, and cannot duplicate the events mentioned in the history books, the reforms talked about in this thread are there to correct things. |
|
But stevie, if you won't charge your Spears over a River, why would you charge your French (or Romans) to certain doom? 
Agincourt: Just use difficult hills. 
Would the following be enough to recreate Agincourt:
