|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 1, 2017 4:04:47 GMT
So I have to assume that change was never discussed.
What would happen if you added the option of a non terrain piece, if placed it acted like a piece of terrain, no piece being laid upon it, but it was removed before deployment. That way a Parthian or Light Horse army could choose one compulsory piece, two non terrain pieces.
Only interested in these things because I am converting my armies back to DBA2.2, and well into the plan to play a modified version solo.
Thanks for the input.
David Constable
P.S. - No reply please as a rhetorical question only. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 1, 2017 17:49:17 GMT
In 2.2 defenders merely set up symetrical terrain so that whatever edge the attacker choose, they got the same (lossy) terrain.
3.0 is certainly more random as sometimes the attacker gets to pick the sector and sometimes terrain implodes due to landing in the same sector.
Finally the attacker gets to pick at worst which of 2 board edges, so given the more random placement your likely to at least get one "end" that's not "perfect" from the defender's standpoint.
All improvements over 2.2.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 2, 2017 6:27:24 GMT
Hello Tom
I am looking at modifying DBA2.2 rather than starting from scratch.
If I could start from "Wargames" 1962 I might be tempted, but I do not want DBA3 complications, so improving (in my mind at least) DBA2.2 is a good possibility.
Solo with automatic terrain placement allows at least the chance of LH armies having open terrain, and warbands hills and forest, just needs sorting. A building choice allows anything from a marching fort to a full castle, players choice, but same rules.
DBA3 might in theory be better? but is way to complicated for me.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 6, 2017 13:49:39 GMT
Heretical terrain choice thought.
What about adding the die score to the aggression factor, the player with the highest score can choose if they are going to be the attacker or defender (re-role die on even scores), the defender then lays out the terrain using the terrain type of the lowest aggression factor army, if even then either.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 6, 2017 18:37:53 GMT
That is a good idea David…unfortunately it does have one flaw. Poor quality auxiliary armies need bad going terrain or they get massacred by Bd, Sp, Pk and Kn in good going. And if they have a low aggression factor, and their opponent a high factor, the invader will have ‘terrain control’. For example, take the Romans (aggression 3) vs. the Ancient Spanish (aggression 0). The Romans are very likely to win the aggression role, and have the choice of being the attacker or defender. What is there to stop the Romans always choosing to be the defender, having ‘terrain control’, and always laying out the minimum and smallest possible terrain every time? The poor old guerilla style Spanish have just been robbed of the one thing they need to survive… …lots of bad going. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on May 6, 2017 19:23:49 GMT
That is a good idea David…unfortunately it does have one flaw. Poor quality auxiliary armies need bad going terrain or they get massacred by Bd, Sp, Pk and Kn in good going. And if they have a low aggression factor, and their opponent a high factor, the invader will have ‘terrain control’. For example, take the Romans (aggression 3) vs. the Ancient Spanish (aggression 0). The Romans are very likely to win the aggression role, and have the choice of being the attacker or defender. What is there to stop the Romans always choosing to be the defender, having ‘terrain control’, and always laying out the minimum and smallest possible terrain every time? The poor old guerilla style Spanish have just been robbed of the one thing they need to survive… …lots of bad going. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Yes, see what you mean, the reverse of the horse archer situation.
OK, so what if the defender then attacker each place one piece of terrain till a total of six have been placed.
David Constable
P.S. - Sorry. Realised that does not work with the terrain choices available in DBA3. I have been thinking about the option of a piece called Non-terrain. The Non-terrain piece is laid like a normal area terrain piece, same size restriction, for terrain laying nothing except river and road can be laid upon it, it is removed before deployment. It allows a player to restrict the amount of terrain laid, or lay roads. It means at worst horse archers etc. will only meet three pieces of nasty terrain, and an army that relies on nasty terrain will get three pieces, at least two large.
|
|
