|
Post by dpd on Mar 17, 2021 2:07:09 GMT
Instead of ever expanding and intricate DB rules, why not try for a simpler system?
As sword and polearms are combined into 1 element type called "Blades" why not:
Combine spear and pike into 1 element called "Phalanx"... Combine auxiliary with warband into 1 element called "Irregulars"... Combine psiloi and bow into 1 element called "Missile"... Combine light horse and cavalry into 1 element called "Horsemen" (also incudes light chariot and light camel) Knights stay knights (also includes heavy chariot and heavy camel)
In all cases, the "heavier" element types (axe, pike, warband, bow, cavalry) are represented by deep/double basing.
Other unit types can be ignored.
Artillery, scythed chariots and elephants were rare (Hannibal had only 80 elephants at Zama, Darius had only 200 scythed chariots at Gaugamela, nobody used artillery in field engagements prior to the invention of gunpowder). Camp followers and hordes were unimportant/ineffectual - essentially very inferior irregulars. War wagons and litters are essentially immobile and can be treated as a type of built up area.
So that leaves us with only 6 elements: phalanx, blade, irregular, missile, knight and horsemen.
You could use a set of 6-sided dice to represent an army, each with a second die to represent capabilities (F, S, O, I, X), and "G" for gunpowder to represent pike and shot armies.
Thoughts or comments?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2021 8:23:14 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus dpd. Actually, without knowing it, you have inadvertently preempted a little project I’m currently working on...although I’ve used a completely different approach. (This is being playtested and should be ready for posting in about two weeks)Here is a sample of the front cover:- (The picture is an altered scene taken from the 2006 BBC six part series“Ancient Rome: The rise and fall of an empire”, and it shows Caesar’s outnumbered veterans facing Pompey’s newly raised legionaries at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC)Although your idea is not related in any way to mine, apart from the name, I do think your suggestion is still well worth pursuing. It has several similarities with HoTT 2.1, which also groups Sp & Pk together, groups Cv & LH together, and as HoTT has no Ax type troops, I like to use a modified version of Wb for these. See the first page of this for details:- static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/3/33/DETAILED_CRIB_SHEETS_for_HOTT_2.1.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190123092614
“Great minds think alike” as they say...
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Mar 17, 2021 13:18:35 GMT
“Great minds think alike” as they say... That's why politicians always argue! Jim
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Mar 17, 2021 17:03:59 GMT
“Great minds think alike” as they say... That's why politicians always argue! Jim Bahaha!
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Mar 17, 2021 19:44:33 GMT
Welcome to Fanaticus dpd. Actually, without knowing it, you have inadvertently preempted a little project I’m currently working on...although I’ve used a completely different approach. (This is being playtested and should be ready for posting in about two weeks)Here is a sample of the front cover:- (The picture is an altered scene taken from the 2006 BBC six part series“Ancient Rome: The rise and fall of an empire”, and it shows Caesar’s outnumbered veterans facing Pompey’s newly raised legionaries at the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC)Although your idea is not related in any way to mine, apart from the name, I do think your suggestion is still well worth pursuing. It has several similarities with HoTT 2.1, which also groups Sp & Pk together, groups Cv & LH together, and as HoTT has no Ax type troops, I like to use a modified version of Wb for these. See the first page of this for details:- static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/3/33/DETAILED_CRIB_SHEETS_for_HOTT_2.1.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190123092614
“Great minds think alike” as they say... How you handle rivers in there
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Mar 17, 2021 23:21:22 GMT
How do you handle rivers in there Oh, Rivers are mentioned in several different places...but in a surprisingly non-controversial way. (you’ll have to wait a fortnight to find out how )But getting back to dpd’s original proposal, here's a few other ways the troop classes could be reduced:- SCh = make these the same as Knights (as their ‘quick kills’ are awfully similar). Cm = apart from their ‘quick-kill’ against Kn, and their vulnerability against Bd, they’re the same as Cv. LH = with rear support, these are also the same as Cv. WWg = CF of 3 v foot and 4 v mounted...they’re the same as HoTT Shooters (except they don’t recoil). However, just reducing the number of element classes is only a minor way of reducing complexity. Here is a list of some of the other rules that seem...well...unnecessary:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/8552/ ...and here is another one:- fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2789/why-pk-allowed-recoil-bdOn the other hand, the main cause of complexity in DBA concerns movement and conforming. Could this be simplified?...yes, I think it can. Getting rid of ‘waiting-to-turn-to-face’ would be a start...make ‘em turn instantly on contact. Then there’s who can recoil through who...make it so that all can or nobody can (except Ps). Lastly there is movement itself...a simple 1 BW grid with no wheeling would be far less complex, and negates the need for any ‘free-sideways-frontal-sliding’, as 1 square aligns with an adjacent square. So I think that dpd’s original idea has a lot of potential (although I’ve chosen to go down a different route).The old WRG rules became far too unwieldy, so DBA came into existence and has proved to be quite popular. Perhaps it’s time for DBA to also go on a diet and shed a little excess weight.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 18, 2021 18:41:43 GMT
I like the 1BW grid, and removal of any wheeling short of "closing the door" type moves. Having played "To The Strongest", it seems to work well in that game as well, I don't see why it would have a net positive effect on DBA. I would have done 1/2 BW to allow that slide in combat, but 1BW is certainly simpler!
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Mar 20, 2021 21:06:50 GMT
Here are some tables showing a potential simplification for DBA (with new unit names followed by their original DBA equivalents):
PHALANX ( F ) MILITIA 3SP
( R ) SPEAR 4SP
( X ) PIKE 4PK 3PK
BLADE ( F ) RAIDER 3BD
( R ) SWORD 4BD
( X ) POLEARM 6BD
HEAVY HORSE ( F ) LANCE 3KN 4CH
( R ) KNIGHT 4KN
( X ) KONTOS 6KN 3CM
IRREGULARS ( F ) TRIBAL 3AX CMF
( R ) AUXILIA 4AX
( X ) WARBAND 4WB 3WB 7HD 5HD
MISSILE ( F ) SKIRMISHER 2PS 3BW
( R ) BOW 4BW
( X ) PAVISE 8BW
LIGHT HORSE ( F ) HORSE ARCHER 2LH 2CH
( R ) CAVALRY 3CV
( X ) KATAFRACT 6CV 2CM
Each unit type can be classified as "superior", "ordinary", "inferior" - and "gunpower" for light foot and horse (creating aquebusers, musketeers and pistoliers) for renaissance shot and pike battles.
Making a total of 27 heavy and 36 unit types that can be represented by 6 sided dies.
Again, ignore artillery, elephants, wagons and scythed chariots.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Mar 21, 2021 3:11:14 GMT
This is a very interesting idea. What would the rules be around fast, x, regular, superior etc? DBA only really deals with fast.
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Mar 21, 2021 11:23:00 GMT
The regular (R) would be the standard baseline for reach unit type.
Both Fast (F) and extreme (X) would have trade offs from the baseline.
Fast (F) units would have an increase movement rate of 1 BW but a decrease in combat values by 1 (fast blades are too powerful IMHO being both fast and deadly, if they are going to be fast they will have to lack combat weight)
Extreme (X) units would have the reverse, 1 less movement point but an increase of 1 of the combat values (cavalry moves slower than light horse, pikes move slower than spears, plate armored medieval knights move slower than Alexanders companions, etc. A DBA rule book listed "fast pike" which is physically impossible - a group of men holding very long sticks moving rapidly over rough terrain becomes a tangles mess, so 3PK is just inferior quality pike)
All units can be superior (S), ordinary (O) or inferior (I).
Use six sided die to represent units (6- phalanx, 5 - blade, 4 - irregular, 3 - missile, 2 - heavy horse, 1 - light horse).
Put them on a checker board grid of appropriate dimensions with each square being 1 BW.
If you want to have step losses (3 for S, 2, for O and 1 for I) then stack poker chips under the die - solid color for standard bases line, striped for F or X.
Example, Battle of Hastings:
Saxons 2 each Sword-S (huscarls) 8 each Spear-I (fyrd) 2 each Skirmisher-I
Normans 4 each Bow-O 4-each Spear-O 4 each Knight-S
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Mar 21, 2021 12:13:55 GMT
dpd - interesting ideas.
I'm not sure about where you have the Cm classes grouped. Something's bothering me about Ch too.
And what are some examples of the Katafract 6Cv vs the Kontos 6Kn?
If Norman cabalarii are 4Kn, what are 3Kn? Goths?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Mar 21, 2021 13:00:54 GMT
Naturally some fine tuning is in order, camels and chariots are open to new designations.
Katafracts would be Byzantine heavy cavalry.
Kontos would be armor plated medieval/renaissance knights, Sassanian clibariani, etc.
3KN would be mounted lancers without shield, so yes Goths but also Alexanders companions.
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Mar 22, 2021 18:03:56 GMT
Very interesting ideas. Such simplified rules would be very useful for playing with children or with those who are completely unfamiliar with wargames. It would be great if someone writes a complete modification set.
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Mar 22, 2021 18:12:37 GMT
Very interesting ideas. Such simplified rules would be very useful for playing with children or with those who are completely unfamiliar with wargames. Most of us gamers then!
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 22, 2021 19:18:41 GMT
I'm not sure how this is actually simpler.
I would limit troops to... Knights Riders Spear Blades Warbands Bows Hordes Lt. Infantry
You could add special rules for Phalanx (double deep spear counting as 1.5 elements) and perhaps Elephants.
Some of these ideas were discussed for DBA 3.
Joe Collins
|
|