|
Post by snowcat on Sept 21, 2023 23:35:34 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. Okay Errico...
1. What is the problem as you see it? 2. How would you solve it?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by evilgong on Sept 21, 2023 23:42:12 GMT
I reckon the concept can work in BB, but why try to shoehorn it into the standard game.
My homebrew ideas for this is: (I) troops must re-roll a combat/shooting score of 5 (S) can choose to re-roll a score of 2. (S) can choose after the (I) re-roll and where (S) oppose the active player can choose after the opponent - they roll simultaneously where both so choose.
If you want to stay at 36 elements each, and not cook up a points system, the number of (S) troops must equal the number of (I). But you'd probably want to have the upgrades / downgrades linked to army lists (DBMM as a guide?) to stop power gamers loading up the supporting crew as (I) and the cutting edge as (S) - albeit that strategy could come apart spectacularly if badly organised.
db
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2023 0:27:24 GMT
I reckon the concept can work in BB, but why try to shoehorn it into the standard game. My homebrew ideas for this is: (I) troops must re-roll a combat/shooting score of 5 (S) can choose to re-roll a score of 2. (S) can choose after the (I) re-roll and where (S) oppose the active player can choose after the opponent - they roll simultaneously where both so choose. If you want to stay at 36 elements each, and not cook up a points system, the number of (S) troops must equal the number of (I). But you'd probably want to have the upgrades / downgrades linked to army lists (DBMM as a guide?) to stop power gamers loading up the supporting crew as (I) and the cutting edge as (S) - albeit that strategy could come apart spectacularly if badly organised. db Some interesting homebrew options there.
I agree re the need to stop folks from maximising the strengths of certain 'choice' elements while making the supports (I). Army lists would be the first way to do this.
Can't see this happening other than in private games, unless someone in WRG adapted the DBMM lists (or similar) for DBA for this to happen as a legitimate competition option.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 22, 2023 8:42:06 GMT
….this is another example of reinventing DBM / DBMM , and calling it DBA.
The whole idea of DBA as written by Mr. B. is that it is a fast play rule set, for quick and relatively simple games, based vaguely on history.
The more chrome and faff applied, the less a fast play set it becomes (v3 had enough extras/chrome to keep everyone thumbing through the pages, after v2.2…. If you add even more then it ain’t DBA any more…pure and simple).
This rule set will NEVER be totally historically accurate. No rules are. Some pretend to be.
It’s a GAME…ffs.
Play the game…..😶
(Hornets’ nest soundly kicked…………..🙃).
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2023 8:46:07 GMT
OK Martin. Don't change a thing. It's perfectly fine as-is.
So not much point visiting the House Rules section then.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 22, 2023 9:13:30 GMT
OK Martin. Don't change a thing. It's perfectly fine as-is. So not much point visiting the House Rules section then. I hear ya….🙂. Point still stands.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 22, 2023 10:06:05 GMT
….this is another example of reinventing DBM / DBMM , and calling it DBA. The whole idea of DBA as written by Mr. B. is that it is a fast play rule set, for quick and relatively simple games, based vaguely on history. The more chrome and faff applied, the less a fast play set it becomes (v3 had enough extras/chrome to keep everyone thumbing through the pages, after v2.2…. If you add even more then it ain’t DBA any more…pure and simple). This rule set will NEVER be totally historically accurate. No rules are. Some pretend to be. It’s a GAME…ffs.Play the game…..😶 (Hornets’ nest soundly kicked…………..🙃). Correct, it does sound like at times what folks really want is 100pt DBMM (which is already in existence) DBA can be tweaked (maybe what it needs is a competition set of times and then optional extra rules) but it does appear a lot of the suggestions are already in DBMM
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 22, 2023 10:18:38 GMT
….this is another example of reinventing DBM / DBMM , and calling it DBA. The whole idea of DBA as written by Mr. B. is that it is a fast play rule set, for quick and relatively simple games, based vaguely on history. The more chrome and faff applied, the less a fast play set it becomes (v3 had enough extras/chrome to keep everyone thumbing through the pages, after v2.2…. If you add even more then it ain’t DBA any more…pure and simple). This rule set will NEVER be totally historically accurate. No rules are. Some pretend to be. It’s a GAME…ffs.Play the game…..😶 (Hornets’ nest soundly kicked…………..🙃). Clean, through the uprights for the score!
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 22, 2023 11:20:21 GMT
….this is another example of reinventing DBM / DBMM , and calling it DBA. The whole idea of DBA as written by Mr. B. is that it is a fast play rule set, for quick and relatively simple games, based vaguely on history. The more chrome and faff applied, the less a fast play set it becomes (v3 had enough extras/chrome to keep everyone thumbing through the pages, after v2.2…. If you add even more then it ain’t DBA any more…pure and simple). This rule set will NEVER be totally historically accurate. No rules are. Some pretend to be. It’s a GAME…ffs.Play the game…..😶 (Hornets’ nest soundly kicked…………..🙃). Where I agree with Martin is that I too don’t want to invent 12 unit a side DBM. That undermines PB’s aim to create the simplest set of rules…..and besides the difference between Superior and Inferior is captured when the Superior roll a 6 and the Inferior a 1! You only know they are Superior after the fact! Where I disagree is his use of the word vaguely. In the introduction PB says DBA is a set of rules that can produce a historically and visually realistic game. That doesn’t sound like vaguely to me, neither do his extensive Army Lists. In fact I’m often surprised how good DBA is at capturing the historical realities of warfare. So to kick the hornet’s nest a bit more - shouldn’t we restrict house rules to those situations where historical fact cannot be replicated by the current rules……(like LH armies dominating warfare for multiple centuries but being useless under these rules) i.e. justify the historical need for a new rule before proposing the solution.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2023 12:20:18 GMT
If I wanted to ‘just play a game’, then I would stick to Chess or Risk. I want DBA to at least simulate what I read in the history books. And so does Phil Barker. Why do you think DBA has Blades/Longbows/Crossbows ‘quick killing’ Knights & Camels on an equal score, side-support for Spears, not to mention the deployment limitations, Psiloi fleeing, the trampling effects of Elephants & Scythed Chariots, BUA’s, Littoral Landings, plus much more. Phil Barker (bless him) knows that Bows are too weak, so he ‘invented’ them getting side-support from solid Blades to give them a much needed boost, and did the same for Light Horse getting rear support. These things were added to DBA 3.0 in order to better simulate reality. Unfortunately, they alone are not enough, and a bit more is needed. (Especially to better simulate Light Horse on our wargames table)Otherwise, people will begin to shun DBA for other rule-sets…
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2023 12:48:42 GMT
Please don't lose sight of the fact, folks, that this is the HOUSE RULES board.
It's not the DBA 3.0 board.
So if people want to come up with ideas for house rules in the HOUSE RULES board, they probably shouldn't expect to be told to just play the game as it is.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2023 12:51:55 GMT
The same applies if ideas are generated in the House Rules board for future editions of DBA (e.g. DBA 3+) or DBF, etc.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2023 13:50:43 GMT
And for those who still don't quite understand where they are:
Board
House Rules 'A place to propose and critique House rules or variations to the DBA rules designed to enhance or extend game play.'
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 22, 2023 15:41:12 GMT
If I wanted to ‘just play a game’, then I would stick to Chess or Risk. I want DBA to at least simulate what I read in the history books. And so does Phil Barker. Why do you think DBA has Blades/Longbows/Crossbows ‘quick killing’ Knights & Camels on an equal score, side-support for Spears, not to mention the deployment limitations, Psiloi fleeing, the trampling effects of Elephants & Scythed Chariots, BUA’s, Littoral Landings, plus much more. Phil Barker (bless him) knows that Bows are too weak, so he ‘invented’ them getting side-support from solid Blades to give them a much needed boost, and did the same for Light Horse getting rear support. These things were added to DBA 3.0 in order to better simulate reality. Unfortunately, they alone are not enough, and a bit more is needed. (Especially to better simulate Light Horse on our wargames table)Otherwise, people will begin to shun DBA for other rule-sets… Any system that has a dice to determine an outcome isn't going to create a historically accurate result. It doesn't matter which rules system you use, if you role badly your likely lose.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 22, 2023 16:00:05 GMT
🦵🏼 …..🐝 ……………🐝 …………………….🐝 ……………………………🐝
🙃
|
|