|
Post by stevie on Dec 4, 2022 11:07:18 GMT
I would like to see Ax (well, at least 4Ax) and Bows (well, at least Solid Bows) being more durable and not be so easily massacred by heavy foot. Then Marathon, Cannae and Agincourt could be fought properly to get an historical result, and 4Ax used in the front line to extend Pike frontage, so they are not outflanked so easily. Primuspilus came up with a good solution:- “Solid 4Ax and Solid Bows +1 when fighting Sp, Pk or Bd, but not in Bad Going, nor when assaulting or defending a City, Fort or Camp”(The rational is that these are trained regulars that have the sense to close ranks when fighting heavy foot, but retain a looser more open formation when fighting other foot in order to match their agility and nimbleness)All that is required is a single one line sentence added to the Tactical Factors, and has no unwanted side-effects against other troop types upsetting play balance. However, side-support will need to be limited to just Sp and 4Bw, not 8Bw, or the latter would end up with a CF of 5, the same as 4Bd, which is too high. (Besides, 8Bw already have a row of close combat troops in their front rank)================================================================= I'm new, but if i had to change one rule, it would be to add something the offensive player has to do in order to not auto lose against the defender. Because offensive and defensive role miss something i think. I definitely agree with you Ainkatsiss…yes, invaders should be encouraged to attack. See static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/4/41/TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20170212182516 and the “Mapless Wars” campaign system at the back in the appendix. (Note that Phil Barker himself in the DBA 3.0 rulebook, on page 14 in the second paragraph from the bottom says:- “A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory”)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 4, 2022 14:38:15 GMT
Oh…one more thing about making invaders attack or the defenders will win. Adjust some of the army list aggression factors.
I’d have the Hundred Years War English with an aggression of 2 and the French with an aggression of 3. After all, it was the English that chose the battlefields, not the French, and it would be the French making rash impetuous attacks at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt (to prevent the English winning by getting a draw).
Likewise, make the Later Carthaginians have an aggression of 2, so it is the Romans that make the rash impetuous attacks at the River Trebia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae, with Hannibal choosing the terrain. (While we are at it, why-oh-why are the Carthaginians classed as ‘Littoral’ after First Punic War? They lost their ships in this conflict, and it was Roman fleets that dominated the western Mediterranean! They should be Arable with an aggression 2 after 241 BC)
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 4, 2022 16:47:02 GMT
Oh…one more thing about making invaders attack or the defenders will win. Adjust some of the army list aggression factors. I’d have the Hundred Years War English with an aggression of 2 and the French with an aggression of 3. After all, it was the English that chose the battlefields, not the French, and it would be the French making rash impetuous attacks at Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt (to prevent the English winning by getting a draw). Likewise, make the Later Carthaginians have an aggression of 2, so it is the Romans that make the rash impetuous attacks at the River Trebia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae, with Hannibal choosing the terrain. (While we are at it, why-oh-why are the Carthaginians classed as ‘Littoral’ after First Punic War? They lost their ships in this conflict, and it was Roman fleets that dominated the western Mediterranean! They should be Arable with an aggression 2 after 241 BC)I think a few players can come up with several suggestions covering several different armies.....maybe this topic deserves a separate post in its own right? 😉
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 4, 2022 17:28:09 GMT
Go for it Haardrada! I promise that I won’t dominate the new thread… (although that is pretty much a politician’s promise )
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Dec 5, 2022 1:48:34 GMT
Go for it Haardrada! I promise that I won’t dominate the new thread… (although that is pretty much a politician’s promise ) I was being polite and leaving it up to you.😁
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 1:56:52 GMT
Likewise, make the Later Carthaginians have an aggression of 2, so it is the Romans that make the rash impetuous attacks at the River Trebia, Lake Trasimene and Cannae, with Hannibal choosing the terrain. (While we are at it, why-oh-why are the Carthaginians classed as ‘Littoral’ after First Punic War? They lost their ships in this conflict, and it was Roman fleets that dominated the western Mediterranean! They should be Arable with an aggression 2 after 241 BC)We ask a lot of the simple die roll to determine invader/defender. It doesn't allow for an invader to have a defensive posture, which is quite well supported historically, nor to outscout/out-think the defender and end up with favourable terrain. This would require a rethink of the rules rather than a tweak. Perhaps one tweak is to allow the defender the option to choose from either army's terrain? Back on point, maybe the "tweak" would be for army II/32a: Aggression 4 (unless Hannibal then aggression 2)? Then it's only a tweak and allows for the first Punic war, the Mercenary war, the Iberian expansion and the battles in Spain during the second Punic war. As for Littoral v Arable, I find this a strange choice in general, as many Littoral nations could and did fight at home but away from the shore. Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 2:03:52 GMT
As for tweaks, true rivers should be treated as waterways on the flank and streams should cross the battlefield.These slow movement as per RAW but simply provide either a +1 for the defender or a -1 to the attacker but otherwise allow combat to occur as per normal. It's the only way for Pikes (and Spears, to some extent) to cross at a reasonable chance of winning.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Dec 5, 2022 6:55:09 GMT
[/quote] I think you misunderstood me. Probably due to my bad english.
I wanted to say that the invader has no obligation to attack in game. I would like him to have kind of an objective, which could "force" him to move. But i also like the idea of a draw, which make some house rules like timed days not really fit in this point of view. I hope it's more understandable like this ^^
[/quote] Thanks for clarifying. I understand now. One thing which I think is missing from the rule book, and which I would love to see in a future edition, is a list of variations to the rules. We do have BBDBA but wouldn't it be a good idea to suggest things like Collision Course, Blind General, and options such as this one about Invaders and Defenders. DBA, perhaps because of its basic simplicity, really lends itself to modification. Stephen.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Dec 5, 2022 8:04:17 GMT
As for tweaks, true rivers should be treated as waterways on the flank and streams should cross the battlefield.These slow movement as per RAW but simply provide either a +1 for the defender or a -1 to the attacker but otherwise allow combat to occur as per normal. It's the only way for Pikes (and Spears, to some extent) to cross at a reasonable chance of winning. Cheers Jim Yes. I think my "one tweak" would be to do something about rivers and I quite like this as an idea. Of course, one doesn't have to select a river when choosing terrain, whereas a Kn v Bd combat may be unavoidable (especially if playing Vikings v Vandals). Just for the record, I'm quite happy to keep the "Kn destroyed on a tie" outcome.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 10:09:56 GMT
As for tweaks, true rivers should be treated as waterways on the flank and streams should cross the battlefield.These slow movement as per RAW but simply provide either a +1 for the defender or a -1 to the attacker but otherwise allow combat to occur as per normal. It's the only way for Pikes (and Spears, to some extent) to cross at a reasonable chance of winning. Cheers Jim Yes. I think my "one tweak" would be to do something about rivers and I quite like this as an idea. Of course, one doesn't have to select a river when choosing terrain, whereas a Kn v Bd combat may be unavoidable (especially if playing Vikings v Vandals). Just for the record, I'm quite happy to keep the "Kn destroyed on a tie" outcome. But I really like my scratch built river and want to use it more! Actually, your words are sadly a great reflection of the reality IMHO. Players simply don't choose rivers if they want a smooth flowing game. But lots of historical battle reports talk about rivers. C'est la guerre! Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Dec 5, 2022 10:43:55 GMT
Absolutment, Jim. Vive le fleuve!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 5, 2022 11:40:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by martin on Dec 5, 2022 14:28:27 GMT
We ask a lot of the simple die roll to determine invader/defender. It doesn't allow for an invader to have a defensive posture, which is quite well supported historically, nor to outscout/out-think the defender and end up with favourable terrain. One ‘advantage’ the invader can employ is his choice of direction of play, giving the possibility of choosing defensive ground/flank protection should he wish to play in a defensive posture, or denying an enemy their favourite side…(unlike in v2.2 where dice were involved).
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Dec 5, 2022 15:09:36 GMT
If I could only tweak one rule? ...seems more like opening a bee hive.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 5, 2022 15:31:44 GMT
We ask a lot of the simple die roll to determine invader/defender. It doesn't allow for an invader to have a defensive posture, which is quite well supported historically, nor to outscout/out-think the defender and end up with favourable terrain. One ‘advantage’ the invader can employ is his choice of direction of play, giving the possibility of choosing defensive ground/flank protection should he wish to play in a defensive posture, or denying an enemy their favourite side…(unlike in v2.2 where dice were involved). True, Martin. But as you know, Roads can limit this advantage for the invader. Cheers Jim
|
|