|
|
Post by stevie on May 26, 2023 21:57:07 GMT
Still, all this is just “House Rules”, which by their very nature are subject to the whims of players - exactly, they are a complete waste of time because it's only you or your immediate gaming chums who use them, providing you can get them to agree to them, but you never know maybe some will be taken on board. For many decades HoTT had Wb moving 200 paces while Shooters moved 300 paces. Then someone said “wouldn’t it be better if the speed of these two were reversed?”. This “House Rule” was so popular that it became practically universal, and eventually the authors conceded that it was such a good idea that it was incorporated into the rules. So who knows…perhaps one day LH will ignore corner-to-corner overlaps like Ps...  |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on May 26, 2023 22:34:48 GMT
Amen to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 27, 2023 0:42:05 GMT
Re side-support for 4Ax. Would it make them stronger? Yes. Does it represent them historically? i.e. heavy infantry in a rigid shieldwall formation gaining defensive support from their friends to the sides in similar or identical shieldwalls. Not really. Otherwise 4Bd and 4Pk (those with shields) could also receive side-support, and you could even extend it to all shielded close order foot. So you need to give them something that isn't immediately inappropriate, that suits them historically. So far the +1 vs heavy foot (which has been around for a few years now) is the simplest 'fix' that goes some way to bridging the gap between 4Ax CF of 3 and a heavy foot CF of 4 (5 with side-support),5 or 6. It is a mathematical band-aid, but I haven't seen anything better yet. Sadly, for the Samnites and a few others graded as 4Ax, they were probably 'superior' within that class and deserving of an appropriate bonus - but DBA only has Close or Fast, and unfortunately, some troops who were really 'inferior' have found themselves rewarded by being rebranded 'Fast'. This +1 vs heavy foot at least gives the Samnites (and a few deserving others, such as Hypaspists assuming 4Ax is right for them in the first place) something closer to their actual abilities. Re the side-support for close order Bw. I suspect that was created to provide a certain Hundred Years War English army an additional benefit (to simulate the support provided to the longbowmen by the men-at-arms/billmen alongside) in addition to the benefits already provided via 4Bw longbowmen and 4Bd QK'ing Kn on ties. That such benefits were extended to 4Bw crossbowmen and benefited a host of other armies is a bonus. Returning to 4Ax again. I think all Ax should move at 3 BW. 4Ax gain the +1 vs heavy foot. 3Ax gain the 1 BW shooting, but recoil on ties vs close order foot.
And if the 1 BW shooting is *not* given to 3Ax, then the above still applies. It will make 4Ax superior to 3Ax. I have no problem with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on May 27, 2023 10:00:08 GMT
Side support doesn't necessarily have to represent a 'shieldwall' as you said bows get it from blade and that isn't a shieldwall and yes it is to simulate I would guess as well, English tactics during the 100 years war and other maybe (not my thing) and as a result everyone gets the same benefit as you say, But when you are trying to cover 4,500 years of warfare you will get this, unless you make 3 or 4 editions covering different periods, which I guess isn't the remit. And yes it would make 4ax stronger for maybe a turn or two until against blade or pike, were as making them a CF 4 would result in them being stronger every turn, perhaps even better as impetuous troops will pursue into an unfavorable position. The Hypaspists (one of antiquities most famous units) are a great example of why they are often classed as different troops types and no one can agree on what exactly they were, is quite possibly because they were all of them. They could form as close infantry, fight in a looser order, probably skirmish, certainly mounted infantry, but one of antiquities elite fighting units only get a CF of 3? It's enough to make you want o cry. As you mentioned the Samnites or the Illyrians, Thracians with their Rhomphia and Iberian Scutarii. Maybe what is needed is a new troops type to cover these in the army lists. And why shouldn't pike get side support? If you want to give anything that could hurl a missile distance shooting then why not give everything that could offer a protected flank to a neighbour side support? Alexander used them 8 deep with no problem (1 single element) It would save having to have them in 2 ranks and constantly trying to place terrain to secure a flank, which you may or may not get. It just wears thin after a while. Ultimately I accept that DBA is a game were each unit type has a super power and it's kryptonite, spears get side support, pike get CF 6 in some cases if 2 deep and both are then made vulnerable to knight, which in reality if they held their ground no horse on earth would charge into. But we can explain it with a dice roll I guess maybe they exposed a flank or a gap appeared in the formation. But AX tend to come out of it as the jack o' all trades. Useful if you have one or two, but not ten as they are super boring DBA is what it is and is great fun, but as has been mentioned who is likely to turn up with a 3/4 ax or LH army? Probably not many, but I am sure lots would and it seems a shame that there are lots of cool armies not being given the time of day. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 27, 2023 10:59:51 GMT
4Bw getting side-support from 4Bd makes little sense, as they don't get side-support from other troops equally capable of providing it. It's a 100 Years War English fudge. It's just fortunate that some other armies also benefit from it, even though it still makes little sense.
So using that as the defence for providing side-support to Ax is a non-starter.
This thread has expanded beyond its original scope enough already. I don't really want to get into the why's and why not's of providing side-support to anything that could have possibly had it. It might be worthy of its own thread for discussion separately.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 27, 2023 11:32:30 GMT
DBA is what it is and is great fun, but as has been mentioned who is likely to turn up with a 3/4Ax or LH army? Probably not many, but I am sure lots would and it seems a shame that there are lots of cool armies not being given the time of day. It’s my turn to say “Amen to that”. So what do we do about it? Do we just shrug our shoulders and plow on regardless, knowing things are flawed? Do we refrain from buying, painting and using weak hopeless unbalanced armies? Do we stop using DBA 3.0 altogether, and go looking for a 'better' set of rules? Or do we try to fix things with "House Rules", even if it's only at home or in our club? =================================================== This thread has expanded beyond its original scope enough already. That’s my fault I’m afraid. I’m a very naughty Stevie.  (Forwarded from the self-appointed chairman of the “Committee Representing Auxiliary Personnel”) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 27, 2023 12:08:56 GMT
I’ve paid for Phil Barkers rules, forked-out loads of money on buying armies, and spent many long hours lovingly painting and basing them. What I now do with them is entirely up to me. I see the DBA 3.0 rules as a guide…not a Bible that must be followed at all times. ♫ “I've paid my dues…Time after time
I've done my sentence…But committed no crime
And bad mistakes…I've made a few
I've had my share of sand kicked in my face…
…But I've come through
We are the champions, my friends
And we'll keep on fighting till the end
We are the champions
We are the champions
No time for losers
'Cause we are the champions…of the World” ♪
 |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 27, 2023 13:56:37 GMT
...this rule fiddling benefits a few house rule geniuses. DBA22 is easy to play as well worth something. By the way, there are a lot of armies that fight like that, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 27, 2023 14:30:51 GMT
By the way, there are a lot of armies that fight like that, right? If you mean weak hopeless unbalanced armies Vodnik, then yes…there probably are. But I don’t see why I should waste my money and time on an army that can’t possibly win. My aim is to simulate history, or at least try to. So when the ancient historians say that the Huns and Mongols were a powerful force, I want to recreate that on my wargames table. And when the ancient Roman historians say that the Samnites were the only Italian nation that Rome feared, I want to recreate that on my wargames table. And when ancient historians say that Hannibal won the battle of Cannae because his 4Ax stood up to the legionaries without being slaughtered like helpless sheep, I want to recreate that on my wargames table. And when the ancient historians say that Alexander the Great’s pikemen fought their way over not one but two rivers, at Granicus and Issus, I want to recreate that on my wargames table. And if the rules do not allow these historical events to happen, then the rules are either wrong or something is missing. If the author is too lazy or stubborn to fix things, then we will just have to do it ourselves. |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on May 27, 2023 15:26:18 GMT
It’s my turn to say “Amen to that”. So what do we do about it? Do we just shrug our shoulders and plow on regardless, knowing things are flawed? Do we refrain from buying, painting and using weak hopeless unbalanced armies? Do we stop using DBA 3.0 altogether, and go looking for a 'better' set of rules? Or do we try to fix things with "House Rules", even if it's only at home or in our club? Probably all of the above,1 BW shooting, exception from from overlaps, 5 BW move and choosing how far you want to flee. It's not much to ask, just enough so that my Huns become unbeatable so they can conquer the world mwahhaha. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 28, 2023 0:57:09 GMT
I recommend trialing the suggested 1 BW skirmish-shooting rules + exception from overlaps, 5 BW move and flee 4-5 BW for LH, and see how it goes. It will make them more dangerous, but shouldn't make them world beaters.
Then, if that is deemed successful, add in one of the other troop types in the list for claiming the 1 BW shooting, and go from there.
Trialing all the 'skirmish-shooting' troop types at once is probably a bit much initially.
And remember, Ps and 3Ax are 'Fast' troops. This had me wondering if for 1 BW shooting purposes, LH, LCh and Cv should also be considered 'Fast'. Otherwise, it's just the 'Fast' foot classes that suffer the 'recoil on ties' vs Solid foot in combat and distant shooting (if the Solid foot is shooting back). I think the answer is perhaps 'no', and to leave well alone on this one, as it really only applies to LH, LCh and Cv skirmish-shooting (1 BW) vs 4Bw, Art and WWg, where the latter's common CF of 4 already highly favours the 4Bw, Art and WWg vs LH, LCh and Cv skirmish-shooting on CF 2 anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 28, 2023 7:19:40 GMT
stevie@; even if we like history, we have different goals. I used to use DBM mostly and a little DBA. I got to know many new peoples. I have also found; that a given army at DBM was not necessarily successful at DBA. If you use other rules, for example ADG, Impetus or Triumph, the successful armies will be even more different.
I don't necessarily have to win a tournament to enjoy it. Contact with new players is just as important. When it comes to Greece, I play Thracians or other mobile empires. In the new world: Mixtecs.
I played my last DBMM tournament with Croatians. That was the most promising army for me. I won against the Franks, but not against the Carthaginians...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 28, 2023 10:23:18 GMT
I recommend trialing the suggested 1 BW skirmish-shooting rules + exception from overlaps, 5 BW move and flee 4-5 BW for LH, and see how it goes. It will make them more dangerous, but shouldn't make them world beaters. Another idea, this time prompted by Joe Collins, is to allow all ‘Skirmish Shooting Foot’ to recoil either their base depth or a full base width, just like mounted can. This would give them more choices and flexibility, and goes some way to simulating ‘evading-an-enemy-charge’. I'd also suggest letting troops break-off from combat if they move faster, like they could in the old DBA 2.2 rules (and nobody complained about it). ============================================= Oh don’t get me wrong Vodnik.I love DBA, for both it’s simplicity and it’s speed of play. And at the “Steel Warriors” tournament, I was the only person who managed to get a win with the weak wimpy I/63 Paionians. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/46565/ ) I just wish DBA followed the ancient historical accounts more closely… (And with a few minor tweaks here and there, it can.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 28, 2023 10:32:24 GMT
Yes, good with those. I forgot the 'break off from combat if faster' one.
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on May 29, 2023 11:51:57 GMT
I recommend trialing the suggested 1 BW skirmish-shooting rules + exception from overlaps, 5 BW move and flee 4-5 BW for LH, and see how it goes. It will make them more dangerous, but shouldn't make them world beaters. Then, if that is deemed successful, add in one of the other troop types in the list for claiming the 1 BW shooting, and go from there. Trialing all the 'skirmish-shooting' troop types at once is probably a bit much initially. And remember, Ps and 3Ax are 'Fast' troops. This had me wondering if for 1 BW shooting purposes, LH, LCh and Cv should also be considered 'Fast'. Otherwise, it's just the 'Fast' foot classes that suffer the 'recoil on ties' vs Solid foot in combat and distant shooting (if the Solid foot is shooting back). I think the answer is perhaps 'no', and to leave well alone on this one, as it really only applies to LH, LCh and Cv skirmish-shooting (1 BW) vs 4Bw, Art and WWg, where the latter's common CF of 4 already highly favours the 4Bw, Art and WWg vs LH, LCh and Cv skirmish-shooting on CF 2 anyway. Maybe, though what I find with these situations is it's is more who's idea it is rather than the idea/ |
|
)