|
Post by scottrussell on Jan 30, 2017 22:22:26 GMT
Pete, Talking of dismounting and esoteric rules more generally, I am inclined to think that you have to deploy all of your Cm// options as mounted in the first instance and then dismount them, rather than deploy them already dismounted. Of course I might be completely wrong.....I was surprised at just how many rules I didn't know (bearing in mind i was involved in writing and testing them!). Regarding Crusade as a whole, I thought the new venue was a great improvement. Being able to park on site was a major plus, as was visible daylight. My impression was that there was no significant drop off in the number of trade stands, or of paying customers compared to last year. Long may it continue. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jan 30, 2017 22:34:11 GMT
Colin, I like the idea of the first dead elephant counting as two elements. Personally I also think that only solid (not fast) blades and longbows or crossbows should destroy knights on evens. Not that it matters what we think, of course, the rules are not going to change! Scott
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Jan 30, 2017 23:29:36 GMT
Pete, Talking of dismounting and esoteric rules more generally, I am inclined to think that you have to deploy all of your Cm// options as mounted in the first instance and then dismount them, rather than deploy them already dismounted. Of course I might be completely wrong.....I was surprised at just how many rules I didn't know (bearing in mind i was involved in writing and testing them!). Regarding Crusade as a whole, I thought the new venue was a great improvement. Being able to park on site was a major plus, as was visible daylight. My impression was that there was no significant drop off in the number of trade stands, or of paying customers compared to last year. Long may it continue. Scott I see what you mean in terms of logic Scott but Page 3 3rd paragraph has "Those listed as / or // can be deployed as either the mounted type or already dismounted as the foot type; those listed as // can also dismount during the game as a complete single element tactical move." Its plain in the second clause that that means each individual element so presumably true in the first clause. As Colin suggested I think Qarmarti are Mounted Infantry at best. Like you I'm astonished that a rule-book of approximately 8 pages has so many surprises after two years regular play. Personally I'm utterly unconvinced of large bodies in the Ancient/Medieval world dismounting once a battle started, other than to attack fortifications etc.
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Jan 30, 2017 23:36:14 GMT
Pete, Talking of dismounting and esoteric rules more generally, I am inclined to think that you have to deploy all of your Cm// options as mounted in the first instance and then dismount them, rather than deploy them already dismounted. Of course I might be completely wrong.....I was surprised at just how many rules I didn't know (bearing in mind i was involved in writing and testing them!). Regarding Crusade as a whole, I thought the new venue was a great improvement. Being able to park on site was a major plus, as was visible daylight. My impression was that there was no significant drop off in the number of trade stands, or of paying customers compared to last year. Long may it continue. Scott I see what you mean in terms of logic Scott but Page 3 3rd paragraph has "Those listed as / or // can be deployed as either the mounted type or already dismounted as the foot type; those listed as // can also dismount during the game as a complete single element tactical move." Its plain in the second clause that that means each individual element so presumably true in the first clause. As Colin suggested I think Qarmarti are Mounted Infantry at best. Like you I'm astonished that a rule-book of approximately 8 pages has so many surprises after two years regular play. Personally I'm utterly unconvinced of large bodies in the Ancient/Medieval world dismounting once a battle started, other than to attack fortifications etc. Only Solid foot to get the quick kill on Knights would be a terrific improvement IMHO. We would still need a fix for the poor Warband - even their fast version seems doomed.
|
|
|
Post by colinthehittite on Jan 31, 2017 11:17:50 GMT
In the early days of DBA 3.0 The Alton Clarifications appeared out of frustration with a number of grey areas of the rules. The need was plain and the clarifications were quickly adopted by other UK organisers and now, although rarely referred to directly, they are in common use.
I have a vague memory of a UK DBA tournament in which I think there was an actual rule change – a Chichester tournament perhaps? Rule changes are possible if those playing agree to them and if making a few careful changes improves the game for everyone, we ought to consider going ahead, after all there is unlikely to be an official update. I think an interesting and useful project would be to come up with a considered list of suggested improvements to the rules. I don’t think it would be a long list but it could be an interesting exercise and might lead to greater enjoyment of our game. Anything that moves the game closer to realism is good in my book and there are a few things in the rules that just don’t seem right – see the above posts as an excellent starting point.
Scott and Pete – why don’t you draw together your thoughts? I think you are nearly there. Bring them along to the Mercian. I for one would be really interested to see what you come up with. No pressure!
Colin
Ps My only concern with improving the lot of warband is that it would make Mark and his Tupi nearly invincible!!
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 31, 2017 16:42:18 GMT
In the early days of DBA 3.0 The Alton Clarifications appeared out of frustration with a number of grey areas of the rules. The need was plain and the clarifications were quickly adopted by other UK organisers and now, although rarely referred to directly, they are in common use. I have a vague memory of a UK DBA tournament in which I think there was an actual rule change – a Chichester tournament perhaps? Rule changes are possible if those playing agree to them and if making a few careful changes improves the game for everyone, we ought to consider going ahead, after all there is unlikely to be an official update. I think an interesting and useful project would be to come up with a considered list of suggested improvements to the rules. I don’t think it would be a long list but it could be an interesting exercise and might lead to greater enjoyment of our game. Anything that moves the game closer to realism is good in my book and there are a few things in the rules that just don’t seem right – see the above posts as an excellent starting point. Scott and Pete – why don’t you draw together your thoughts? I think you are nearly there. Bring them along to the Mercian. I for one would be really interested to see what you come up with. No pressure! Colin Ps My only concern with improving the lot of warband is that it would make Mark and his Tupi nearly invincible!! Colin and Pete... I would love to see your thoughts... After quite a bit of play here are mine in order of importance. 1. Ax and Ps may retreat either a base depth or width. This addresses in a small way the weakness of Ax vs Blades. Now the Ax may break contact during a recoil (if it survives the combat). This helps a player recreate some of the outcome we see at Cannae as well as helping the Irish vs Viking fights. This does have an impact on Ps as well... it tends to make them less vulnerable to heavy infantry. 2. Change Elephants to +4 vs shooting. In some ways I hesitate on this one. With all of my bantzing of Arnaud aside, I simply don't see elephants dominating the scene. Arnaud is a great player and he has not been able to win a major tournament with his elephant panzer divisions... (though I suspect he will- but the reason will be that Arnaud is a great player... not that elephants are too powerful). Elephants have been given a much needed boost in 3.0. Still, the +5 vs shooting seems extreme. 3. Kns are only killed on a tie vs "solid" blades instead of "all" blades. The Kn has really fallen from its lofty perch in 2.2. Though the element can still win games, and is somewhat less vulnerable to bow, it is nothing like 2.2. This would help restore the balance at least against "fast" blade. It also cuts Fast blade down a notch, though I don't see fast blade dominating tournaments. 4. Allow "Solid" Bow back rank support from blade as well as side support. This is capped at +1 total. My view of this comes from playing WOR and HYW battles. With the rules, you have some rather odd deployments. Thinks are better under than under 2.2... but still I think this will make the game fit most folks views of history. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jan 31, 2017 19:03:10 GMT
I see what you mean in terms of logic Scott but Page 3 3rd paragraph has "Those listed as / or // can be deployed as either the mounted type or already dismounted as the foot type; those listed as // can also dismount during the game as a complete single element tactical move." Its plain in the second clause that that means each individual element so presumably true in the first clause. As Colin suggested I think Qarmarti are Mounted Infantry at best. Like you I'm astonished that a rule-book of approximately 8 pages has so many surprises after two years regular play. Personally I'm utterly unconvinced of large bodies in the Ancient/Medieval world dismounting once a battle started, other than to attack fortifications etc. Only Solid foot to get the quick kill on Knights would be a terrific improvement IMHO. We would still need a fix for the poor Warband - even their fast version seems doomed. Pete, You are correct, of course. I was looking at P31 (the start of the army lists) which says something like "elements categorised as // and deployed as mounted... . It was not clear from that that there was a deploy as dismounted option, but it now makes sense. Scott
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jan 31, 2017 19:20:42 GMT
Joe, Not sure I agree that knights are weaker under 3.0. They still have the same quick kill outcomes. Loss of psiloi rear support weakens auxiliary, blades and spears, loss of double ranks against knights weakens spears, pikes only have a +1 rear support, most bows no longer have a quick kill on first contact. Blades, longbows and crossbows now always have some chance of a quick kill (on equal), but I don't see that it compensates. PB's view is that if knights were brought to a halt by a solid group of infantry, then they would lose all of their impetus advantage and be sitting ducks, but I don't see the same disadvantage in coming to a halt amongst dispersed troops where the knights could still manoeuvre. Scott
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 31, 2017 19:51:05 GMT
Joe, Not sure I agree that knights are weaker under 3.0. They still have the same quick kill outcomes. Loss of psiloi rear support weakens auxiliary, blades and spears, loss of double ranks against knights weakens spears, pikes only have a +1 rear support, most bows no longer have a quick kill on first contact. Blades, longbows and crossbows now always have some chance of a quick kill (on equal), but I don't see that it compensates. PB's view is that if knights were brought to a halt by a solid group of infantry, then they would lose all of their impetus advantage and be sitting ducks, but I don't see the same disadvantage in coming to a halt amongst dispersed troops where the knights could still manoeuvre. Scott Tis why I put it third... Though I would argue the following... There there is no loss for Ax who are now +3 vs mounted with no Ps support. Also remember that "Solid" troops recoil Knights on a tie... So, "Solid" Ax are much stronger than in 2.2. Knights are certainly worse vs Bd, dying on ties... Spears are probably a wash, though one could argue width more important than depth. Certainly, the fight is better for knights against Pike and Bow... One must also consider that the increased movement also helps knights to engage...something a good player under 2.2 could make difficult. So, it is a mixed bag. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by diades on Jan 31, 2017 20:59:14 GMT
Knights are still strong, just a slightly riskier proposition. I would not penalise the first elephant lost; they are not SO strong. Just try 6Kn! In fact I am not sure I am in favour of any of the proposals made so far. i think it is fast foot movement that is imbalanced. I would propose fast foot movement is reduced by 1BW in rough or bad going, with the possible exception of Psiloi. I would also make Littoral landings deploy at the same time as the rest of the army before anyone rolls PIPs.
|
|
|
Post by peteduckworth on Feb 1, 2017 11:41:50 GMT
Joe I'm with you on 1-3
I don't see the logic of 4 nor why a player would want to adopt such a formation.
I sense we ARE seeing 3Bd taking a dominant role
I'm 100% with Diades on fast foot movement reduced by 1BW in rough or bad going but would except Psiloi (probably Wb as well but see below) - Psiloi need a boost and being the only quick moving bad terrain troops might be an edge. Also with him on Littoral landings.
None of which fixes the poor warband - give them 3 vs mounted and let the double rank count as well?
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Feb 3, 2017 19:58:23 GMT
Thanks for the feedback (and running a great tournament).
Re Rules and Balance:
We had hoped the new terrain system would make Defender set up less dominant - it seems we did not go far enough. Likewise we made dismounting more difficult - but maybe did not go far enough (2 PIPs to Dismount as Clumsy?)
Blades may well be the best overall element and Fast Blades esp. so. Not sure the cure. My son, as his science project in High School, did a controlled study re Blade balance, playing over a 100 games pitting a six Blade army w/supports against various 6 other type armies with the same supports. Blades won out. So we've been aware of this issue for some time. Fast not killing Knights on ties (we call this ability Cry Havoc) might be one thought.
I was very much in favor of Warband getting the +1 for back rank aganist Mounted. But my lobby efforts (on this point) failed. Would rather lower El factor v. Shooting to +4 than count first death double (may make Art a bit too powerful though).
Alas there is little we can do re DBA 3.0 rules - I think we have to stick to the text - but there is lots I can do in D3H2 and very much encourage feedback. Lots of players whether historical or fantasy just use it as the base rule set for "at home" games.
The Bow recoil system already covers Blade/Bow interactions with side support the better cure to HYW/WOR simulations. Or just make Longbow +3 v. Foot (Crossbow the same but shoot only in own bound).
Keep the great feedback coming....
Thomas J. Thomas
|
|