|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 30, 2023 11:43:44 GMT
That's definitely an improvement, with DBF. DBF also uses a points system where Pk elements are cheaper than say, Bd.
But a 12-element army system like DBA that forces an army to reduce its frontage by 25-50% for key elements to get their full CF has a problem. And that's not going away until you remove the need for rear support in the 12-element DBA system.
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Nov 30, 2023 12:03:14 GMT
That's definitely an improvement, with DBF. DBF also uses a points system where Pk elements are cheaper than say, Bd. But a 12-element army system like DBA that forces an army to reduce its frontage by 25-50% for key elements to get their full CF has a problem. And that's not going away until you remove the need for rear support in the 12-element DBA system. Without having any info on what this pts system would be it's impossible to tell. Go through any back issue of Slingshot and player have been complaining about the same issues with DBA/DBM for decades, which no doubt led to the exodus to other rules as nothing was ever done about it.
Don't get me wrong I think DBA is a great game - it's basic and easy to play, I have played far more complicated rules that may be more 'accurate' but you get bogged down in the minutiae
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 30, 2023 12:18:16 GMT
Well, in DBF Pk are still CF 3 vs Foot, +3 for the 2nd rank. All elements (except Pk) vs Pk, recoil on evens. Pikes may pursue enemy foot if they wish to.
In DBF you'll get 3 Pk for 2 Bd or Sp. (Pk cost 4, Bd & Sp cost 6.)
|
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Nov 30, 2023 13:08:23 GMT
And how many points do you get in total?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Nov 30, 2023 14:29:09 GMT
And how many points do you get in total? The recommended is 180 pts for a BBDBA style game, with scope to increase or, if you want a DBA style game, decrease to around 75pts. P |
|
|
|
Post by chrishumphreys on Dec 9, 2023 21:50:02 GMT
Quote" First to summarize (and maybe repeat the obvious) Pikes have to be double ranked to function and this shortens the line leading to Overlaps and Hard Flanks. The simplest example is 12 Blades v. 12 Pike is an easy win for the Blades despite the quite even back and forth battles between these types in antiquity. Its where we get the concept of Pyrrhic victory. So its bad history and worse game balance."
Response "Of course on an open field, that's why you roll for terrain at the beginning of the game and use it."
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Dec 10, 2023 2:35:42 GMT
Gentleman
Whichever way you play it, the truth is simply "frontage, frontage, frontage".
Pike need to be double based, then work your points value and factors accordingly.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Dec 10, 2023 5:53:18 GMT
Gentleman Whichever way you play it, the truth is simply "frontage, frontage, frontage". Pike need to be double based, then work your points value and factors accordingly. David Constable Still not convinced Pikes need to be double based in DBA. It seems that 16 deep was common enough in the Hellenistic period to be considered the norm. The Romans, as we all know, deployed in 3 lines and when each line deployed into battleline it would be about 6-8 men deep. So two lines are 12-16 deep plus space in between. In DBA we have the Hastati and Pricipes mixed together so a line of 8 elements of Polybian Roman blades should be about the same depth as Hellenistic pikes. Now there is no reason that the Romans couldn't march the Principes around the flank of the phalanx but we just don't seem to read that in the reports that have survived, certainly not routinely. On another note, what is a single element of Pikes supposed to represent in DBA3? I just don't see a historical example of thinned pikes. Alexander rearmed his phalangites for rough terrain but surely they would act more as medium infantry (dare I say the dreaded 4Ax?) than pikes? But just my 2c worth of opinion. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Dec 10, 2023 6:38:04 GMT
OK, give Pk elements slightly deeper bases and put some extra figures on them, a bit like Hd but more regular, e.g. 8 figures in 2 ranks. These are then single element Pk (that just resemble double elements). Then adjust their CF accordingly. (That's the tricky bit.)
The frontage problem has been removed. The visual ideal has been retained. The appropriate CF and tactical factors/combat outcomes need to be found.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 10, 2023 7:50:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Dec 10, 2023 9:22:17 GMT
Sorry but DBA does not work.
Pike is just one example.
Counting Macedonian Companions as knight is another, verses Porus the Companions had a hard fight against elephants, try that in DBA.
I first used Macedonians some 50 years ago, they have never worked, and even PB gave them up.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 10, 2023 9:34:42 GMT
...if DBA does not work why there are so many player using the rulers...
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Dec 10, 2023 9:59:19 GMT
...if DBA does not work why there are so many player using the rulers... It is the dichotomy of a wargamer. For such pessimistic people we all have an ever burning flame of optimism inside. |
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Dec 10, 2023 10:45:18 GMT
The reality is that DBA is trying to represent thousands of different unit formations over thousands of years in a small set of element types. DBA isn't necessarily broken, it's just certain periods don't work as well. Making changes to match the units of one period will cause issues to other periods.
We either have to preference particular periods or have house rules that differ depending on the period.
|
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Dec 10, 2023 13:23:47 GMT
Sorry but DBA does not work. Pike is just one example. Counting Macedonian Companions as knight is another, verses Porus the Companions had a hard fight against elephants, try that in DBA. I first used Macedonians some 50 years ago, they have never worked, and even PB gave them up. David Constable David. When you say that DBA doesn't work what exactly do you mean? Are you arguing that DBA does not work to recreate the battle of the Hydaspes, for example? If so would it not be a fairer comment to say something to the effect that "DBA does not work to recreate the battle of the Hydaspes" Many of us would say that DBA works absolutely fine for a multitude of purposes - and that, Vodnik, is why a lot of people play it. It has a few small problems as a game. The fact is, though, that it is a game worth persevering with and that is why the efforts of the DBF team should be recognised and applauded. Cheers Stephen |
|
