|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 5, 2022 18:02:46 GMT
Being able to go into combat without having corner to corner contact.
This has been a pet peeve of mine since day one 18 years ago. The next set of rules I play will definitely have this.
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Dec 5, 2022 18:41:23 GMT
Being able to go into combat without having corner to corner contact. This has been a pet peeve of mine since day one 18 years ago. The next set of rules I play will definitely have this. Thinking like that will lead you to games like impetus where you contact at any angle and no lining up. That is just not symmetrical and opens the rift to the chaos worlds
|
|
|
Post by diades on Dec 5, 2022 18:43:47 GMT
Decisions, decisions….
Fast foot except psiloi reduced to 2 BW move in other than good going.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Dec 5, 2022 19:58:41 GMT
Being able to go into combat without having corner to corner contact. This has been a pet peeve of mine since day one 18 years ago. The next set of rules I play will definitely have this. Thinking like that will lead you to games like impetus where you contact at any angle and no lining up. That is just not symmetrical and opens the rift to the chaos worlds Everyone says it can't be solved. I bet it can with the right people writing the rules. Tired of games that are weirdly geometrical and don't leave you feeling like a real commanders experienced.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Dec 5, 2022 20:10:23 GMT
Thinking like that will lead you to games like impetus where you contact at any angle and no lining up. That is just not symmetrical and opens the rift to the chaos worlds Everyone says it can't be solved. I bet it can with the right people writing the rules. Tired of games that are weirdly geometrical and don't leave you feeling like a real commanders experienced. I agree - you can play it like Impetus and Armati, or you can just allow contact to result in combat, with lining up to follow, and not have the daft geometry application that you see… why only a 1BW free slide on front facing contact but not on rear/side? P
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Dec 5, 2022 22:27:27 GMT
I would simply make the clause in the first para of moving into contact "If this is not possible - the move does not happen" the overriding clause as opposed to "The general principle is that troops that would contact in real life do so in the game"
As the first words state - this is a General Principle
This means that weird situations with multiple obstacles (friendly troops/enemy troops/terrain/board edges) mean that contact can't be made THAT BOUND so the move does not happen.
I can already hear the screams of outrage BUT let us consider that unlike real life DBA is a game of IGO UGO stop start alternate bounds. That complex situation where legal contact can't be made in one move can usually be solved over several bounds where the attacker gets into a better position. That to me looks more like the way it should play out - the commander of Unit X really wants to smack into enemy Unit Y (maybe they stole his girl (or cow)) but is blocked by several things such as bad terrain, his own side's Hordes and a tougher enemy unit that he would rather not face - so he leads his troops around to a point where he can fall upon the object of his ire.
Okay - I'll just go over and climb onto that stack of wood, tie myself to the pole and wait until you guys are ready.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 6, 2022 6:16:04 GMT
I'm probably in the minority but I don't mind the general principle as it's written. I've found that the "sticky" front edge of the TZ causes more headaches. I would rather that it was "magnetic" to only the front edge of the enemy element. So you are only in TZ if your front edge is in TZ. I think it's because in my mind's eye the troops are actually a very fine line within the footprint of the element and are usually at the front edge. By making it front edge only you are actually in striking distance and threatening the troops. This would eliminate the silly situation of a flanking element locking down two side by side elements. It would also eliminate the silly situation where a slow moving spear element "threatens" a cavalry element by overlapping its rear corner with its TZ, which gives the cavalry element the one option of escape to move directly to its rear towards the Spears! Surely the cavalry could just gallop away as they are facing? But if you are close enough to overlap the front edge then yes, you are limited in your choices. It would also help define side edge, rear edge, front and rear corners as distinct points/edges and not "front edge".
But I've already had my tweak so I'll have to let this one go before the tweak police catch up with me.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Dec 6, 2022 10:20:46 GMT
agreed with Jim, something around TZ... - maybe Foot could only TZed other foot? and Mounted other mounted and foot units? - Tzed only inside Tz and not on the far side - and no xray TZ too ? oups ok you said only one.. but yes something around making LH more realistic...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 6, 2022 13:32:37 GMT
Being able to go into combat without having corner to corner contact. This has been a pet peeve of mine since day one 18 years ago. The next set of rules I play will definitely have this. Tony: I have been giving this some thought, and think I’ve found a solution, which I call “Centre Dot Conforming”. Rather than post it here, and dominating this thread by going off-topic, I’ve placed these thoughts in a new thread in the House Rule section. See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3662/centre-dot-conforming
|
|
|
Post by Peter Feinler on Dec 7, 2022 2:16:43 GMT
Among other things, I'd like to see littoral landings not being a certainty.
A way of doing this would be to change the littoral landing rule to: "If a waterway has been placed, either side whose last raw deployment dice score (without adding its aggression factor) was at least 3 can reserve 2-3 elements (whose army's home terrain is LITTORAL) to be deployed at the start of its first bound (before PIP dicing) as a single group anywhere along the waterway."
Peter
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Dec 11, 2022 6:38:02 GMT
Thanks everyone. I have found the responses very useful and informative. There were not as many as I thought there might be - which suggests that the game is almost perfect - and no real surprises.
The tweaks I take from it are:
4Ax need to be improved a bit (perhaps 4Bw as well) Rivers rules need to be sorted out Fast troops slowed down a bit Bd v Kn can be left alone Pk improved a bit.
There are some twerks as well. (I assume that a twerk is a rather large tweak)
Invader/defender balance Lining up Aggression.
Could I now request that, at some comp(s) in the future, one or two of these tweaks are tried out? I know this has been done in Bakewell once but it would be useful and interesting to know, after more plastering, which are practical, rather than hypothetical, improvements.
Cheers all
Stephen
|
|
|
Post by bluestone28 on Dec 13, 2022 8:37:34 GMT
"Thanks everyone. I have found the responses very useful and informative. There were not as many as I thought there might be - which suggests that the game is almost perfect - and no real surprises. The tweaks I take from it are: 4Ax need to be improved a bit (perhaps 4Bw as well) Rivers rules need to be sorted out Fast troops slowed down a bit Bd v Kn can be left alone Pk improved a bit. There are some twerks as well. (I assume that a twerk is a rather large tweak) Invader/defender balance Lining up Aggression." so no worries, but no mention of TZ tweaks? and nothing around LH ?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Dec 13, 2022 9:58:54 GMT
Good point about the Light Horse Bluestone28. Yes, these are under-powered and not the formidable force that the ancient historians said they were (such as armies of Huns and Mongols). The problem is not their combat factors (LH are dispersed mounted skirmishers), but the fact they can only use their ‘special subsequent move ability’ if they roll lots of PIP’s, so they need more PIP luck than their opponents. In other words, LH can only win if they are lucky. What they need is more opportunities to actually use their ‘subsequent move ability’. Paddy649 came up with one solution… let LH pay ½ a PIP to move; see:- fanaticus.boards.net/post/25578/If ½ a PIP is a bit awkward, then as an alternative I would go one step further:- LH pay NO PIP’s to move when in the usual 8 BW command range as everybody else, and pay 1 PIP when making a subsequent move or if they are out of sight/command range. Now LH can zoom about and literary dance around their opponents, using their mobility to make flank and rear attacks, as well as protecting adjacent friends from being overlapped.
|
|
|
Post by saxonred on Dec 13, 2022 13:15:04 GMT
I like that Stevie. I've played a couple of solo games with LH needing no pips to move. However they need to spend a pip to break away from combat, take it as there being a slight delay in the whole unit getting the nod to break off. It makes opponents of Pics and ancient Britons pay a bit more attention to what's happening around them
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 13, 2022 19:15:28 GMT
We have rules that allow Lb and Cb to have tweaks amongst Bows. I wonder if we can add the LH tweak for Horse Archers (HA) so that we don't overpower some armies without the historical record of the Mongols, Huns, etc (e.g. Thessalians)?
Cheers
Jim
|
|