rudi
Munifex
Posts: 10
|
Post by rudi on Apr 19, 2024 9:05:37 GMT
Hello.
I have been learning DBA 3.0 with my friends and already gotten my head full of improvement ideas and house rules...  . I have read part of the "Improving LH" -thread by Snowcat, in which people are pondering should we give LH a ranged combat option with a range of 1BW and maybe with a CF of 2. I want to add to this, but expanding this to other ranged armed troops too. That LH thread is so long I can't right now read it to the end and I thought it would be better to start a new one for this topic.
I am wondering if it would work if ranged armed troops could shoot in the following ways:
- Massed bows work exactly like they do now, with a range of 3BW and CF of their own.
- Other bow armed troops shoot with a range of 1BW and a CF of 2. (edit: this includes at least bow armed psiloi, bow armed LH and bow armed CV)
- Javelin armed troops with a range of 1/2 BW, either with their own CF or with CF 2 (which would be better?) (edit: this includes at least javelin armed psiloi, javelin LH and javelin CV)
I understand the design decision that the scale represented is so large that short range shooting is represented as the units practically fighting close combat. However, to me the contrast between for example LH shooting in base contact and bows shooting as far as 3 BW is quite huge. The distinction between javelin and bow troops would indeed increase complexity a bit, but i don't think it would be too much. This would make the bow armed troops to actually shoot, but only from ranges so close to the enemy that he can close the distance and attack if he wants to. With javelins this is even more emphasized, since with a range of 1/2 BW they can shoot practically only once before the enemy closes in, since they have to be firmly inside the enemy TZ to be able to shoot. I think this would represent javelin behaviour quite well.
In the PC version of Field of Glory javelins have to be in base contact to shoot, but can do so without entering close combat. However, I appreciate that in DBA you can read simply from the positions of troops whether they are in close combat, so I don't think it would be good to allow troops to shoot from base contact, which would make it necessary to do some bookkeeping.
What do you think? Would this cause more problems than this would fix? And what about 3 or 4 AX (or... even legionnaires), should they have the ranged option of 1/2 BW?
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Apr 19, 2024 10:51:39 GMT
Hi rudi, I think your ideas are quite nice and surely worth playtesting them! They point into the right direction: strengthening the weaker troop types by moderate changes. To increase historical accuracy. Like all house rules these modifications may be used especially when both players agree about them, because of some reasons like this. I made some similar suggestions here. I think your rules are quite easy to apply because PB took great pains to depict all kinds of troop types very accurate (peltastes with javelins, bows or slings or roman velites etc.). Even if all Ps for example normally behave alike! So we just have to take a short look into the respective army list to know how these LH or Ps behave... I must say, I love it... |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 19, 2024 13:49:30 GMT
Hi rudi
DBA is designed at such a big picture scale that javelin throwing and short range skirmish bow shooting are subsumed into the close combat factors, and are wholly inappropriate to the scale.
All you have to do is tell yourself that when a Ps is face to face with a Spear they’re NOT two paces away poking a hoplite in the eye with a hand-held javelin, they’re getting within eg 30m away and throwing their pointy stick. When the Ps flee it’s cos the hoplite growled too loud or threatened a charge or sent out some runners to scare off the skirmishers.
Once you have that in mind, it’s far easier to cope. Try playing in 2mm, for example, and then the 28mm/15mm figures being only figure height away from each other no longer makes the process seem unreal/abstract.
Otherwise you’re flying in the face of the whole design philosophy, and that makes the game far harder to rationalise.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Apr 19, 2024 16:01:36 GMT
Hi rudi DBA is designed at such a big picture scale that javelin throwing and short range skirmish bow shooting are subsumed into the close combat factors, and are wholly inappropriate to the scale. All you have to do is tell yourself that when a Ps is face to face with a Spear they’re NOT two paces away poking a hoplite in the eye with a hand-held javelin, they’re getting within eg 30m away and throwing their pointy stick. When the Ps flee it’s cos the hoplite growled too loud or threatened a charge or sent out some runners to scare off the skirmishers. Once you have that in mind, it’s far easier to cope. Try playing in 2mm, for example, and then the 28mm/15mm figures being only figure height away from each other no longer makes the process seem unreal/abstract. Otherwise you’re flying in the face of the whole design philosophy, and that makes the game far harder to rationalise. Martin Yep, Martin's right. Keep it simple! (At least at the beginning.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 20, 2024 2:51:50 GMT
I think there was a fairly long winded thread exploring this topic last year expanding upon its predecessor thread a couple of years earlier... *ahem* ...deja vu kicking in... (look for a thread about 'improving LH' if you're not familiar) I have to admit that even I have finally come around to accepting the rules as written on distant shooting for much the same reasons that Martin stated. Playtesting showed that the LH (for example) were better off making contact, especially where flanks could be hit, than engaging in CF 2 distant-shooting 'softening up' exercises to achieve the same ultimate result. (It boiled down to the dynamics of the DBx system vs attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.) A very frustrating conclusion given the amount of effort that went into proving otherwise! But live and learn.  Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Apr 20, 2024 10:33:46 GMT
I hate shooting in DBA
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 20, 2024 13:07:04 GMT
There's always ADLG. |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Apr 20, 2024 13:17:58 GMT
There's always ADLG. I do plan to give that a go at some point along with Triumph, tried Mortem et Gloriam which is quite interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Apr 20, 2024 13:33:50 GMT
|
|
rudi
Munifex
Posts: 10
|
Post by rudi on Apr 20, 2024 16:47:29 GMT
There's always ADLG. Well I would love to try that. Are the rules available (edit. FOR SALE) in PDF anywhere anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Apr 20, 2024 17:06:57 GMT
There's always ADLG. Well I would love to try that. Are the rules available in PDF anywhere anymore? No, I tried to find some, and on the other hand it's illegal. But take a look at the website etc. The big rulebook is extremely beautiful and absolutely worth the money. But it was very hard to find a retailer in Germany or even France. I was very lucky to find one rulebook at this year's Tactica in Hamburg. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Apr 20, 2024 20:14:20 GMT
But back to the topic. I think Rudi's suggestions should be considerated a little bit more. DBA's special beauty lies in the fact that it is a relational game. The (experienced) general can see easily where everything is right and where something goes wrong (e.g. overlaps or flank attacks. Central part of this is certainly the concept of ZOCs, 'contact' and 'conforming'. So you can see at a glance which units fight each other or not, where bows and artillery may shoot, which units are pinned or free to move etc. And still we all now that there are some aspects missing or maybe not so well represented in DBA. Light troops, skirmishers, remain an issue: LH, Ps, Ax etc. We all know that it takes quite a time to use them with some efficiency in battle, and still there remain flaws and blank spaces. For example I don't like it at all that any foot may pin/ZOC LH down. (Ronald once ZOCked 3 (!) of my LH with some Wb running throughthe woods. I needed hours to get them out of that mess.  What a funny battle!) I think LH and Ps and alike should indeed have the special skills of ' skirmishing', ' close range
shooting' and ' evasion'. Skirmishing: units with this special skill may ignore enemy ZOCs of heavier units when they are not in front contact with them. They can only be pinned/ZOCked by other skirmishers. Close range shooting: light units may perform distant attacks in the shooting phase from a distance of 1 BW or less, but certainly not in any contact. The usual rules of distant shooting support apply. Evasion: when slower units try to attack skirmishers in close combat, the skirmishers may choose to break off from this contact by maintaining the same distance or by moving just out of the enemy's ZOC. I admit I have not yet playtested these in combination, but I certainly will. And I imagine that former crap armies suddenly get some more teeth. Surely there are some open questions: What if skirmishers pass the front of enemy archers or skirmishers? Or: Imagine fighting an army of 12 LH. Can it ever be fought in CC or do you have to drive it off the battlefield? Cheers Brian |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Apr 21, 2024 5:11:19 GMT
Little tweaks to the ZOC rules + break-offs for faster units are very achievable - a line here, an exception there. They've been suggested before and are probably worth doing.
Changing the way distant shooting works (to be more inclusive) is a much tougher task. It either seems to achieve very little (contrary to what was expected) when applying caution, or changes the dynamics of the game too far when being more bold.
Cheers
|
|
rudi
Munifex
Posts: 10
|
Post by rudi on Apr 21, 2024 9:36:10 GMT
I think LH and Ps and alike should indeed have the special skills of ' skirmishing', ' close range
shooting' and ' evasion'. Skirmishing: units with this special skill may ignore enemy ZOCs of heavier units when they are not in front contact with them. They can only be pinned/ZOCked by other skirmishers. Close range shooting: light units may perform distant attacks in the shooting phase from a distance of 1 BW or less, but certainly not in any contact. The usual rules of distant shooting support apply. Evasion: when slower units try to attack skirmishers in close combat, the skirmishers may choose to break off from this contact by maintaining the same distance or by moving just out of the enemy's ZOC. I admit I have not yet playtested these in combination, but I certainly will. And I imagine that former crap armies suddenly get some more teeth. Surely there are some open questions: What if skirmishers pass the front of enemy archers or skirmishers? Or: Imagine fighting an army of 12 LH. Can it ever be fought in CC or do you have to drive it off the battlefield? Why not have 1/2 BW range for javelin lights? They would be in greater danger of getting into close combat. Additionally, if the range was short enough, the LH should be in range to be charged by the target in the next turn, so they could be attacked easily.
The argument that the shooting would be so inefficient that it wouldn't be actually practical is a good consideration by Snowcat.
But on a more general note, I really do understand the choise of the scale of the game. But as bows can shoot whole 3 BW, the range of 0 for example bow armed horse or psiloi seems really short. Bows can shoot the depth of 6 fast foot elements, but skirmishers not even one.With a range of 1 BW they still would shoot only one third of massed bows range. With 1/2 BW it would be only sixth. I am not so well read on historical battle records. Did massed bows actually shoot so much farther than for example horse archers?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Apr 21, 2024 10:07:51 GMT
Why not have 1/2 BW range for javelin lights? They would be in greater danger of getting into close combat. Additionally, if the range was short enough, the LH should be in range to be charged by the target in the next turn, so they could be attacked easily.
....................... I don't understand why you feel a ½BW range for javelin-armed Ps would mean they were in greater danger of getting into close combat. Close combat happens when opposing elements come into front edge to front edge contact. Leaving aside the possibility of the Ps being the element which moves into contact - because that would be their choice - javelin-armed Ps with a ½BW range would be in as much danger as bow-armed Ps with a range of 1BW. |
|
. I have read part of the "Improving LH" -thread by Snowcat, in which people are pondering should we give LH a ranged combat option with a range of 1BW and maybe with a CF of 2. I want to add to this, but expanding this to other ranged armed troops too. That LH thread is so long I can't right now read it to the end and I thought it would be better to start a new one for this topic.
)
What a funny battle!)