|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 8:17:21 GMT
Vodnik said: in 2.2 light horse are dangerous, psiloi can become a hero. Measurement allows auxilia to move into a flank position but not the slow troops. The table size of 60x60cm is an optimum. What you can use from V3 are the army lists...
Okay, can we discuss these advantages in more detail please? As in: how? why?
(This isn't something I'd properly considered.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on May 21, 2023 9:11:36 GMT
And some more: - Psiloi giving rear support helped especially lighter troops (Ax)
- Combat outcome moves did the same. Light troops could exploit recoil outcomes by good use of PIPs
- it created (I think) more chaos, thus favouring the player who was able to use arising chances best
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 9:17:18 GMT
And some more: - Psiloi giving rear support helped especially lighter troops (Ax)
- Combat outcome moves did the same. Light troops could exploit recoil outcomes by good use of PIPs
- it created (I think) more chaos, thus favouring the player who was able to use arising chances best
Do you prefer 3.0? If so, why? |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 21, 2023 9:21:06 GMT
...in v2.2, if 15mm figures were used, they were measured in inches, i.e. 2.5cm. The playing area of 60x60cm was ideal for this. Even heavy troops could reach the enemy camp. Originally, heavy troops from an overlap could not reach an enemy flank in one step. But with: cut the corner it was possible. Psiloi could support 3 front elements from behind. Light cavalry was also really dangerous. Auxiliary troops have been significantly weakened...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 9:29:14 GMT
How was Light Horse really dangerous?
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 21, 2023 9:37:49 GMT
...pikes & spears were destroyed if beaten...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 9:42:24 GMT
So LH could QK a Sp shieldwall but not do the same to Bd?
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 21, 2023 9:54:32 GMT
...i single element shieldwall is weaker, factors are: 4-2...but bd are in armouer...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 9:56:43 GMT
Aren't Sp wearing equivalent armour to Bd?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on May 21, 2023 9:57:07 GMT
And some more: - Psiloi giving rear support helped especially lighter troops (Ax)
- Combat outcome moves did the same. Light troops could exploit recoil outcomes by good use of PIPs
- it created (I think) more chaos, thus favouring the player who was able to use arising chances best
Do you prefer 3.0? If so, why? No, I don't, I admit. I find DBA 2.2 much more like chess and all in all fascinating. I simply bow to the majority.   |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 10:01:58 GMT
This is really interesting for me. Since DBA 3.0 came out, I've practically forgotten most of what I once knew about the older versions.  |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 21, 2023 10:23:04 GMT
...i did try version 3 also in München in a tournament. But the other Swiss are switching to 22+. But in Germany it was still 22. Triumph is now preferred in Switzerland. In addition, I often played 7YW according to DBA rules, or 19th century. Inch fits better there too...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 21, 2023 12:05:36 GMT
This is really interesting for me. Since DBA 3.0 came out, I've practically forgotten most of what I once knew about the older versions. Me too Snowcat, me too. It’s been a couple of decades since giving up DBA 2.2, but from what I remember:- * we disliked all the artificial ‘gamey positional trickery’ preventing contact… * too much unrealistic stuff (unit swapping during deployment, skirmishers behind the battlelines instead of being out in front where they should be). About the last point…if Psiloi skirmishers can give a +1 by rear supporting, presumably due to lobbing javelins overhead, then why can’t javelin armed auxiliaries do the same? So Vodnik is right: auxiliaries are unrealistically weakened in DBA 3.0 when compared to their true historical performances (Cannae for example). I must admit that I quite like the idea of LH ‘quick killing’ Sp, Pk, and even Bd, by shooting them to death at very close range (Carrhae for example), and would very much like to see this re-introduced back into DBA 3.0… …but LH would have to lose their current +1 for rear support, or they’d be far too powerful (i.e. either have a ‘quick kill’, OR a +1, but not both together). I’d also like to see the return of breaking off combat if you have more speed, which I think was only removed in order to make tournaments play faster (not everyone plays tournaments…but everyone wants to simulate history). Having said all that, DBA 3.0 does have lots of new innovated ideas and mechanisms:- * the terrain placement is better… * the BW movement system makes games play faster… * the contact and conforming mechanism is a great improvement… * and the Sp side-support is a touch of genius. All-in-all I’d say that DBA 3.0 is the better more improved version… …but it could still be even better with a little bit more development. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 12:30:34 GMT
What a coincidence!
I've been mulling over ways to 'fix' LH in 3.0, and Carrhae was a prime example of what's needed for me.
Gonna take some of this to the House Rules section.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 21, 2023 13:51:56 GMT
...I think DBA could take some ideas from ADG. Psiloi cannot attack heavy troops, but they can delay them, or even be hidden somewhere. PB has banned the Plannkler shelling. But that way Ps & LH would be more realistic. LH with QC would not be necessary. The Vikings become more realistic under ADG. A shield wall with Db, what's that supposed to mean? In addition, the British are usually better or differently represented than comparable continental troops. The German armies are longer barbarians than necessary, compared to the French, Spanish or English...
|
|
