|
|
Post by Peter Feinler on Sept 16, 2024 2:09:00 GMT
Mention of DBA 4.0 elsewhere has motivated me to put forward a few ideas. To start with: Littoral landings.
Littoral landings are currently a certainty if a player chooses to make one but should probably be chancier. The simplest way of doing this would be with a separate dice roll before deployment that would allow a landing only on a dice score of say 4 or more.
For more variety the following scores could be used:
- if a score of 1 or 2 a littoral landing cannot be made;
- if a score of 3 or 4 a landing if made must be 2 elements;
- if a score of 5 or 6 a landing if made must be 3 elements.
If the classic PB approach of not using a separate dice roll was to be used the rule could be:
If a waterway has been placed, either side whose last raw deployment dice score (ie, before adding the aggression factor) was an odd number can reserve 2-3 elements (whose army's home terrain is LITTORAL) to be deployed at the start of its first bound (before PIP dicing) as a single group anywhere along the waterway.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Feinler on Sept 16, 2024 2:15:34 GMT
Next. In the combat outcome "If its total is less than that of its opponent but more than half:" Cavalry and Light Horse must flee if in bad going. The flee move for both in bad going is only 1 BW which is the same as their maximum recoil move of 1 BW.
I suggest for the sake of simplicity that the rule that they flee in bad going should be deleted.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Feinler on Sept 16, 2024 2:33:54 GMT
The current combat interaction between Psiloi and Elephants or Scythed Chariots strikes me as unsatisfactory because once these elements are in contact (in the absence of intervention from any other elements) the Elephants or Scythed Chariots can do little but await their doom. There is, of course, the possibility that they could eventually recoil the Psiloi off the table but this is unlikely to occur in most games.
I would suggest that these combats would work much better as follows:
- On an equal score: Elephants destroyed by Psiloi (the rules already have Scythed Chariots destroyed by any opponents on an equal score);
- If the Psiloi score more or double: Elephants or Scythed Chariots are destroyed (unchanged from existing rules);
- If the Elephants or Scythed Chariots score more but not double: Psiloi recoil (unchanged from existing rules);
- If the Elephants or Scythed Chariots score double: Psiloi flee (possibly instead recoil in bad going otherwise flee).
It should be noted that if Psiloi fled as a result of these combats they would, because of the pursuit by the Elephants or Scythed Chariots, be able to move back into contact with them in their next turn (if nothing else changed) thus leaving the Elephants and Scythed Chariots in some jeopardy.
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 16, 2024 5:47:26 GMT
Mention of DBA 4.0 elsewhere has motivated me to put forward a few ideas.
Where was this mentioned  ? |
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 16, 2024 7:24:17 GMT
Mention of DBA 4.0 elsewhere has motivated me to put forward a few ideas.
Where was this mentioned ?All over the messgae board for about a year now - though it has been previously referred to DBF |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Sept 16, 2024 8:38:18 GMT
Mention of DBA 4.0 elsewhere has motivated me to put forward a few ideas. To start with: Littoral landings. Littoral landings are currently a certainty if a player chooses to make one but should probably be chancier. The simplest way of doing this would be with a separate dice roll before deployment that would allow a landing only on a dice score of say 4 or more. For more variety the following scores could be used: - if a score of 1 or 2 a littoral landing cannot be made; - if a score of 3 or 4 a landing if made must be 2 elements; - if a score of 5 or 6 a landing if made must be 3 elements. If the classic PB approach of not using a separate dice roll was to be used the rule could be: If a waterway has been placed, either side whose last raw deployment dice score (ie, before adding the aggression factor) was an odd number can reserve 2-3 elements (whose army's home terrain is LITTORAL) to be deployed at the start of its first bound (before PIP dicing) as a single group anywhere along the waterway. Peter Hi Peter, I think your ideas fit quite nicely into the DBA rules and would really be fine as a house rule or as part of a scenario. And yet I don't think they are necessary in any version of DBA. Why? Littoral landings already are a double edged sword. As far as I remember I won most of the battles in which my opponent performed a littoral landing.  Their disadvantages are clear as day: - You have to divide your troops. DIVIDE ET IMPERA, the romans said. They knew why. - They are a constant PIP drain. (And what if your sailor troops are behind a hill or a wood?) ‐ They offer your enemy the possibility to devour your army piecemeal. So, all in all you have to be very clever if you want to perform a littoral landing... |
|
|
|
Post by claudermilk on Sept 16, 2024 14:59:29 GMT
All over the messgae board for about a year now - though it has been previously referred to DBF That was my response, though a little less surprised as it happens the monthly club meet was this weekend and one of the guys who got me into DBA mentioned that 4.0 has been talked about. So this thread is the second time in almost as many days I've heard about it. So...DBA 4.0 = DBF? Which my understanding of DBF is an update of D3H2. Is that correct? |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Sept 16, 2024 15:19:27 GMT
All over the messgae board for about a year now - though it has been previously referred to DBF That was my response, though a little less surprised as it happens the monthly club meet was this weekend and one of the guys who got me into DBA mentioned that 4.0 has been talked about. So this thread is the second time in almost as many days I've heard about it. So...DBA 4.0 = DBF? Which my understanding of DBF is an update of D3H2. Is that correct? Not quite, DBF is a Big Battle Fantasy version of 3.0. with some mods that may, just may, one day see the light of day in a future edition of DBA. This is, however, potentially, a long way off... All relax, boys  P. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 16, 2024 16:59:44 GMT
That was my response, though a little less surprised as it happens the monthly club meet was this weekend and one of the guys who got me into DBA mentioned that 4.0 has been talked about. So this thread is the second time in almost as many days I've heard about it. So...DBA 4.0 = DBF? Which my understanding of DBF is an update of D3H2. Is that correct? Not quite, DBF is a Big Battle Fantasy version of 3.0. with some mods that may, just may, one day see the light of day in a v4 edition of DBA. This is, however, potentially, a long way off... All relax, boys P. Phew! I like my 2x2(ish) boards and 12 element armies. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Sept 16, 2024 17:18:17 GMT
Not quite, DBF is a Big Battle Fantasy version of 3.0. with some mods that may, just may, one day see the light of day in a future edition of DBA. This is, however, potentially, a long way off... All relax, boys P. Phew! I like my 2x2(ish) boards and 12 element armies. Jim And nothing will change that, my friend 😉 P |
|
|
|
Post by malory on Sept 16, 2024 18:39:31 GMT
That was my response, though a little less surprised as it happens the monthly club meet was this weekend and one of the guys who got me into DBA mentioned that 4.0 has been talked about. So this thread is the second time in almost as many days I've heard about it. So...DBA 4.0 = DBF? Which my understanding of DBF is an update of D3H2. Is that correct? Not quite, DBF is a Big Battle Fantasy version of 3.0. with some mods that may, just may, one day see the light of day in a future edition of DBA. This is, however, potentially, a long way off... All relax, boys P.
Yea that was my reaction as well. I tought that DBF 2.0 was meant to be the DBMM 3.0 to HOTT. Is that the case?
With DBA I feel like this is almost a complete game at this point. The only thing I feel it would need is maybe some small adjustments to the lists where new research is avaiable, and maybe a rule where the attacker needs to move closer to the defender each turn if able to, like KISR did with DBN.
It would be also welcomed if the campaign rules would return to the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by claudermilk on Sept 16, 2024 20:34:00 GMT
Aha. Did a search and there's the info buried right in the thread; so DBF is to HOTT as DBMM/DBM is to DBA. Got it. I'll continue the plow ahead getting familiar with the D3H2 I got my hands on.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Sept 16, 2024 20:41:41 GMT
Not quite, DBF is a Big Battle Fantasy version of 3.0. with some mods that may, just may, one day see the light of day in a future edition of DBA. This is, however, potentially, a long way off... All relax, boys P.
Yea that was my reaction as well. I thought that DBF 2.0 was meant to be the DBMM 3.0 to HOTT. Is that the case? DBF is more BBDBA 3.0 to HOTT than DBMM - it certainly doesn't have the layers of complexity that DBMM has... P. |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Sept 18, 2024 7:06:42 GMT
DBA 4. Please NO. I have only just recovered from the ruckus caused by DBA2, 2.2 and 3.
Anymore and I will take up tiddly winks. But then no doubt there would be a never ending discussion as to when to tiddle and when to wink 😜
|
|
Mr.E
Beneficiarii
New comer to DBA
Posts: 80
|
Post by Mr.E on Sept 23, 2024 22:01:00 GMT
Could DB4 can by a normal language writed rules?.... it will already save a lot of issue, i didn't play others DBA before the 3 i like as it is now. Like previously said some army list need adjustement, like the damn Samnite our are wickers than the Latin list....
|
|
