|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 8:35:12 GMT
I'd happily consider the first part [giving all “Solid” troops (except Auxiliary and Ps) -1 if in Rough Going], and the second part [making them Inferior] if this only applied to Solid troops in Rough Going.
I think that's what you mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 17, 2023 9:08:07 GMT
I'd happily consider the first part [giving all “Solid” troops (except Auxiliary and Ps) -1 if in Rough Going], and the second part [making them Inferior] if this only applied to Solid troops in Rough Going. I think that's what you mean? Sorry - I was spitballing - hence the “now here’s a thought” comment. I was not suggesting anything I have tried, play tested and IMHO works to improve the game. I was suggesting an “either / or” not “and” but in essence what I am saying is if you wanted to improve Aux you are probably best doing it by somewhat weakening the main battle line elements in certain circumstances rather than ramping all CFs upwards…..Pike vs Blade at CF 6 vs 5 is historically accurate but very dull push fest for a game. |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 17, 2023 12:05:02 GMT
So I propose this: You could do something similar to how DBN handles it. Rather than adding a blanket +1 to anything, you could reduce a marginal loss or marginal win. Like this... Superior troops: can reduce a loss of -1 by 1, thus producing a tie instead.
Inferior troops: a win result of only +1 receives a -1, thus resulting in a tie instead.(In DBN 'Stoic' troops add +1 to a loss. So this is broader: they get the +1 to any degree of loss. My idea above is more limiting.) Another option from DBN that you could apply here for Inferior: -1 to any loss. So a marginal loss such as a recoil is more likely to turn into a flee or destroyed result.
Applying a stricter DBN approach you'd get something like this:
Superior: +1 to any loss.
Inferior: -1 to any loss.
These could be limited to Close Combat outcomes, or also include results from Distant Shooting. Now I am a big fan of DBN, they keep the DBA philosophy of keeping it simple, yet still be challenging. I love the idea of national characteristics British have superior firing, Russians stoic, Old Guard get +2, etc. They capture the spirit in that sense, agreed it is easier to do when only covering a few decades of warfare.
Yes they have the option of upgrading troops to Elite at +0.5pts or downgrading to militia at - 0.5pts, so unless you wanted to change the concept of a 12 element game (though I really like having a set amount of points and the conundrum of building a workable army from it) then the idea of only being able to upgrade 1 element at the expense of another could be a way of satisfying everyone. Just one thing though, is it not important to make sure that this isn't always at the expense of Ps?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 12:12:25 GMT
There would be lots and lots of armies that would have lots and lots of troops other than Ps worthy of being upgraded or downgraded. I don't think Ps would suffer here.
Not sure if the above idea that I adapted from DBN is better or worse than Stevie's mechanic though.
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 17, 2023 12:16:29 GMT
What I mean is you don't want to have a situation were heavy troops are constantly being upgraded to S at the expense of I Ps that are then just going to hide out of the way. So you could/would/maybe have to have a fix in the army lists that gives you the option of what troops can and can't be used.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 12:29:16 GMT
Yes, that's what I meant. It would be as historical as possible. So there would be lots of occasions where it's Sp or Pk or Wb or Kn or Cv for example being downgraded. And not Ps.
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 17, 2023 12:36:31 GMT
Yes, that's what I meant. It would be as historical as possible. So there would be lots of occasions where it's Sp or Pk or Wb or Kn or Cv for example being downgraded. And not Ps. I'd also suggest a limit on the amount of upgrading allowed, maybe 1-2 units at most just for added flavour
Superior: +1 to any loss.
Inferior: -1 to any loss.
Sorry isn't this more inline with DBM than DBN? in DBN (S) only get a +1 against (O) whilst (M) get a -1 against everyone except other (M) as it just balances out
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 12:45:13 GMT
Too long since I played DBM, sorry. (Can't remember.) There's the other option of: Superior: +1 to any win.
Inferior: -1 to any loss.That one avoids creating 'tie' results (which if they occur cause added complications).
And I was thinking much the same re a cap on Superior. 1-3 elements max I think, for flavour.
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 17, 2023 12:47:00 GMT
Maybe keeping it inline with DBM isn't a bad thing? I think the +1 to any loss makes (S) more resilient and I believe (I) get a -1 on a draw means the are more likely to recoil.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 12:49:28 GMT
The +1 to any loss will conflict with 'tied' results that have their own outcomes from Solid vs Fast.
Although you could always say that Superior vs Inferior overrides Solid vs Fast results (much like Stevie did with his own particular mechanism, see pg 1).
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 17, 2023 13:08:51 GMT
I guess that would all depend on which system was adopted, but my own feeling is that if these adaptions only stay in house rules and aren't adopted into a broader re-writing of DBA it's a great discussion but a bit frustrating otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 13:15:56 GMT
It would mean a lot of work for someone or a team of people to do. It's essentially a re-evaluation of every army list.
Who has the say for something like that? Phil Barker's Inner Circle?
Perhaps once the best mechanism was sorted, a trial tournament/game day (or similar) could be held, with a shortlist of armies (from a limited period and theatre etc) that have these Superior/Inferior options added to their army lists.
Something could possibly grow from that.
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 17, 2023 13:21:14 GMT
Or you could simply say you can only swap like for like to represent veterans over raw recruits/levy etc
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 17, 2023 13:26:28 GMT
Yes, that's a good idea. Would keep things a lot simpler. Less historical perhaps with respect to representing the full flavour of particular armies in a more satisfying way, but definitely simple and immediate to get into play.
|
|
|
|
Post by errico on Sept 21, 2023 16:38:41 GMT
Hi all! Imo if the problem Is to give greater strength to same army, such as mongols, catalan Company ecc, allowing the change of few units from regular to superior or an equivalent number of inferiors does not solve the problem in any way.
|
|
