|
|
Post by Les1964 on Dec 10, 2023 14:26:05 GMT
I first used Macedonians some 50 years ago, they have never worked, and even PB gave them up. Odd as I did quite well with "Pike" armies in both WRG 6th and DBM .  |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Dec 10, 2023 15:26:11 GMT
DBA actually works quite well. Limitations do exist due its design decisions.
Mongols, English Longbowmen, Swiss pike and such will always underperform.
They should.
This is/was a design decision by Phil.
Conversely, armies with vast number of inferior troops will overperform. There are less of these... for reasons that I will not argue here (it is an interesting discussion though).
The above are "edge cases" that DBA doesn't address... though DBM and DBMM certainly did so...opinions vary are to their success.
This does not mean however that DBA mechanics cannot be improved. We certainly did improve them in DBA 3.. (and it was really the first major rules revision since the very early years).
The Blades vs Spear issue now works quite well. The Blade vs Warband is also improved I think. Light troops are given their due... and armies are better represented.
The changes to Pike work less well. We did not understand the ramifications that changes to movement rates/game tempo would have on Pike armies. We also only partially addressed Auxilia. Their lot was complicated by the addition of Fast/Solid. One aspect was certainly fixed. Other aspects were not.
There quite simply is still work to be done. There are structural changes that can be made to improve the narrative generated by the game.
Who knows?... folks may see some things soon.
Stranger things have occurred.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 11, 2023 8:39:22 GMT
davidjconstable. I first used Macedonians some 50 years ago, they have never worked, and even PB gave them up. |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Dec 11, 2023 9:30:02 GMT
I don't think there is a rule system that is faultless - so DBA doesn't work in some regards, but neither do others. It is universally accepted that Pike don't nd never have worked in DBA. Being outflanked being the main issue - now no self respecting Roman General would sling his legionaries in a long line with no reserve just so he could wrap around you flanks and if your DBA opponent dutifully obliged adn had 3 in the front and 3 behind all would be right with the world, but they don't, so you need to adjust the rule set to counter this pesky problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 11, 2023 9:47:38 GMT
...there are not pikes only fighting 2 elements deep. There is warband too that is much stronger 2 beep...
|
|
|
|
Post by ozarkorc on Dec 12, 2023 3:43:53 GMT
Sorry I missed this, some good points here. Excellent point about perspective above, is it a micro skirmish/tactical game or a strategic model?
I have always thought of it as a "strategic" model, large field battles (Where else would you encounter massed Pikes?), you are pretty much locked into your original deployment. Even Lee at Gettysburg could/did not get his Army (A MUCH better articulated organization than most of the ones we are simulating) organized to launch Picket's Charge until early afternoon. But that is a more general comment on the nature of the game.
And I would like some mechanic people could agree on to make 4Ax more functional in Good Going. Otherwise, why the Hellenistic and Roman armies?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 12, 2023 21:55:53 GMT
...OK, no reaction from the USA. Does it mean that americans may cheat like Joe as he mentioned or are there different types, black or white? In Europe DBA is a strategic game and the rules are from UK... ...well i mentionet my age and you... I generally don't respond to clueless posts but since you persist I will. I started playing DBA with 1.0. I started playing DBM when it was a mimeographed copy from Phil and had not yet been published. I have won multiple national championships in DBM (25mm) and multiple DBA tournaments many using 2.2. I have been a principle playtester and developer for years working closely with Phil (and have actually played against Phil). So you profoundly do not know what you are talking about. I have played Joe in many tournaments and I can assure you he does not cheat. Here in the USA it is rude to call people cheaters particularly when you don't know what you talking about having never played them. If you did not grasp the problems with Pike in the 12 Element game it very much reflects on your lack of understanding of the issue. 3.0 helped as it did for many issues but it has still not made Pike competitive. They were worse, however, in prior editions. I suggest you play a game with 12 Elements of Blades v. 12 Elements of Pike using any version of DBA you prefer. This (I hope) will allow you to grasp the issue. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Dec 12, 2023 22:16:18 GMT
...oh great. Thank you for your answer But that is all i can tell you  as i am a wargamer without earning money with that... |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 12, 2023 22:20:38 GMT
The problem of frontage can be fixed by double bases, but other problems will need factors sorting. It seems to me that the rules are going to change so much they will no longer be DBA. Always remember "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". David Constable We are not a committee but more a three headed monster. Phil used very large playtest and development groups which did have some committee aspects. The rule will definitely by founded on the DBA engine. The essence of which is: Command Control by PIPs with single Element moves consuming many but very flexible while Group moves are PIP efficient but inflexible. Integrated sequence of play with Side A moves, joint missile phase, joint combat phase, Side B moves; joint missile phase, joint combat phase; repeat. Joint combat by opposed dice rolls based on combat factors. Generally Recoil on More, Destroy if Doubled. Two important exceptions: Shock: Destroy opponent on More; Evade: Flee opponent instead of Destroy on Doubled. Overlaps increase lethality if beaten and Hard Flanks ensure it. That is the essence of our (beautiful) system and using these basic concepts to their fullest extent is our goal. As were our marching orders for 3.0 make sure the Henry Vs and Alexander the Greats can beat the rule lawyers. Same philosophy with DBF. As discussed double Elements don't work because it would make Pike invincible at +6 v. Foot and +5 v. Mounted. 12 such Elements could not be beaten barring huge luck. If we make double rank only +1: Pike would be +4 v. Foot +5 v. Mounted and so lose to both Blade and Spear consistently. So the issue is tricky esp. in the 12 Element game. We have largely solved it in DBF because we have points and can make Pike cheaper. Grading factors are likewise tricky as any DBMer can attest. They went through constant change and controversy. From that experience we have learned to give flavor rather than just make better in all situations. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 12, 2023 22:26:30 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." But Alexander Invaded so never got to set up the terrain. There is no historical evidence that Pikes required a restricted battlefield to succeed. Nor is it possible with the DBA terrain system to insure you can consistently get one. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 12, 2023 22:30:11 GMT
I first used Macedonians some 50 years ago, they have never worked, and even PB gave them up. Odd as I did quite well with "Pike" armies in both WRG 6th and DBM . DBM had points so you could afford to rank up. Even so they were not great in DBM - but at least in 25mm usable. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Dec 12, 2023 22:34:38 GMT
Sorry I missed this, some good points here. Excellent point about perspective above, is it a micro skirmish/tactical game or a strategic model? I have always thought of it as a "strategic" model, large field battles (Where else would you encounter massed Pikes?), you are pretty much locked into your original deployment. Even Lee at Gettysburg could/did not get his Army (A MUCH better articulated organization than most of the ones we are simulating) organized to launch Picket's Charge until early afternoon. But that is a more general comment on the nature of the game. And I would like some mechanic people could agree on to make 4Ax more functional in Good Going. Otherwise, why the Hellenistic and Roman armies? Solid Aux was one of our first projects - and we have gotten it to work. DB had needed a Medium Foot since its inception and we have finally devised a way to get one of the rigid Element types to fill that function. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Dec 12, 2023 23:01:06 GMT
Tom, I'm repeating a post I made on pg 3, as you're on a bit of a roll re Pk issues...
"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."
I believe it can be done, especially when a clever 'tactical factor/combat outcome' combination for Pk is found - not just the CF.
The same could also be done for Wb.
|
|
|
|
Post by mwise on Dec 13, 2023 7:58:27 GMT
I don't think there is a rule system that is faultless - so DBA doesn't work in some regards, but neither do others. It is universally accepted that Pike don't nd never have worked in DBA. Being outflanked being the main issue - now no self respecting Roman General would sling his legionaries in a long line with no reserve just so he could wrap around you flanks and if your DBA opponent dutifully obliged adn had 3 in the front and 3 behind all would be right with the world, but they don't, so you need to adjust the rule set to counter this pesky problem. You may have summed up the problems with pike: it may be that they do not get side support, hence outflanking, and this makes them vulnerable, too much emphasis on rear support.
Why does someone test the rules with side support with an additional tactical factor for "Solid" Pike when a friendly element is adjacent.
Mark W.
|
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Dec 13, 2023 10:57:24 GMT
Odd as I did quite well with "Pike" armies in both WRG 6th and DBM . DBM had points so you could afford to rank up. TomT So it was 16 AP for 4 ranks of Pk(O) and 7 AP for the one element of Bd(O) in front of them .  |
|
