|
|
Post by arnopov on May 8, 2017 10:20:47 GMT
That (the attacker can choose to ‘turn’’ his opponent’s flank) does not make sense. It only works against the most incompetent of defenders. Anyone half-decent plans for four-fold symmetry, or brings a road and enjoys the simplicity of two-fold symmetry. Weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by aristogeiton on May 9, 2017 0:06:14 GMT
Why is the 3.0 board worrying about WadBag's anything? Don't they have their own board and rules set?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 9, 2017 6:26:00 GMT
Why is the 3.0 board worrying about WadBag's anything? Don't they have their own board and rules set? Yes, they do have their own boards and rules…and one of their rules is a damn good idea. I don’t see why they are allowed to have good ideas but we DBA 3.0 players should be denied them. A good idea is still a good idea, no matter what the source. 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 aristogeiton on May 9, 2017 22:27:20 GMT
My concern is that the rules are constantly being tweaked, amended and reinterpreted in ways that are not in keeping with the intent of the people who authored them. Every change alters the game in ways that take it further and further from that intent, and over time the changes add up to the point where the game is barely recognizable. Those of us who do not have the luxury of playing routinely with the self-appointed "authorities" on DBA are thus at a decisive disadvantage in tournaments. It's bad enough that WadBag rewrote the 2.2 rules to the point that even those of us who'd been playing them for years were constantly being told that we weren't playing them "correctly." If the same thing is going to happen to 3.0 as well, I'd just as soon switch to another rules set altogether!
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 9, 2017 23:34:01 GMT
My concern is that the rules are constantly being tweaked, amended and reinterpreted in ways that are not in keeping with the intent of the people who authored them. Every change alters the game in ways that take it further and further from that intent, and over time the changes add up to the point where the game is barely recognizable. I play a lot of DBA and we always play the standard rules in both casual and tournament games. Bringing in house rules to tournaments, no matter the best intent, can certainly cause problems. While there is a place for house rules poorly constructed ones can add complexity, confusion and often are problematic. Interestingly, and despite having played hundreds of DBA 3.0 games, I'm still finding subtle new interactions in the standard rules which are proving really interesting. Often bought about not just by troop types but the interaction between elements in an army composition and the enemy modified by terrain. Certainly I'm looking forward to many more games as the rules stand. |
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 9, 2017 23:47:54 GMT
It's an interesting idea, but it does add a whole extra set of numbers to the lists, and requires and extra roll as well. However I do like the idea of the attacker influencing the terrain in some way, even to the level of choosing the battlefield, especially if you have armies that are almost always likely to defend and can place 'fortress terrain' plus a road in order to ensure the same battlefield layout and orientation every time. I was thinking about this on the train and came up with a simple tweak to add *some* variety: (i) Both sides roll a D6 and add aggression to determine the home terrain, attacker and defender (unchanged). (ii) The player who rolled the highest score on the D6 chooses the terrain pieces from the available list. If the scores were the same then the defender chooses. (iii) The defender rolls for an places the selected terrain (unchanged). Basically Step 2 adds in a roughly 50/50 chance that the attacker gets to choose the nature of the battlefield*, even if the defender still always gets to choose how the terrain is placed. Yes, it doesn't take into account the propensity of particular armies to seemingly always choose their battlefields, but it does take away some more control from the defender whilst still working within the existing terrain rules. And there's no extra die-rolling required. *In fact it's probably greater than 50% that the attacker will get to choose, since a higher roll will tend to . I'm sure people with better brains than mine can work the arithmetic, but I do rather like the idea that the attacker at least chooses the nature of the country they are advancing through.  |
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 10, 2017 4:10:08 GMT
*In fact it's probably greater than 50% that the attacker will get to choose, since a higher roll will tend to . I'm sure people with better brains than mine can work the arithmetic, but I do rather like the idea that the attacker at least chooses the nature of the country they are advancing through. Actually if the difference between the Aggression scores is two or more, the system doesn't work very well at all, so I need to rethink it That's what I get for brain-dumping my commuter thoughts without working them through first. |
|
|
|
Post by aristogeiton on May 10, 2017 11:19:12 GMT
However I do like the idea of the attacker influencing the terrain in some way, even to the level of choosing the battlefield, especially if you have armies that are almost always likely to defend and can place 'fortress terrain' plus a road in order to ensure the same battlefield layout and orientation every time. As you observed, this proposed tweak would not have worked well - which is why I'm content to leave things as they are. If it ain't unquestionably broken - don't fix it. I would add that, historically, defenders were generally able to choose their ground. Nothing the Persians could have done was going to make the Greeks fight anywhere but Thermopylae, and nothing the English could have done was going to make Wallace fight anywhere but on the northern bank of the Forth across from Stirling. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 10, 2017 20:12:47 GMT
While I agree that for tournament purposes you have to stick to the base rules, for historical scenrios, campaigns and just at home Big Battle games on a Saturday afternoon amendments and variant rules are great. If I didn't use my medieval specific variant rules at home I'd lose (at least) half the player base.
Since our group (according to them endlessly) playtested 3.0, they were very anxious to move on - particularly with period speicific rules and more Big Battle.
Of course variant rules require lots of thought and playtesting. The rule in question is bad as written by WadBag but the concept is interesting and worth exploring.
Eventually it would be nice to produce a variant like DBM that sprang out of DBA 1.0. A dedicated Big Battle version using the much improved DBA 3.0 engine would be a great addition to DBX (DBMM is much to complex to use as a general Big Battle version - and some of the mechanics are inferior to those derived for DBA 3.0 - which got much better playtesting).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 10, 2017 22:02:35 GMT
My concern is that the rules are constantly being tweaked, amended and reinterpreted in ways that are not in keeping with the intent of the people who authored them. Every change alters the game in ways that take it further and further from that intent, and over time the changes add up to the point where the game is barely recognizable. Those of us who do not have the luxury of playing routinely with the self-appointed "authorities" on DBA are thus at a decisive disadvantage in tournaments. It's bad enough that WadBag rewrote the 2.2 rules to the point that even those of us who'd been playing them for years were constantly being told that we weren't playing them "correctly." If the same thing is going to happen to 3.0 as well, I'd just as soon switch to another rules set altogether! I play a lot of DBA and we always play the standard rules in both casual and tournament games. Bringing in house rules to tournaments, no matter the best intent, can certainly cause problems. While there is a place for house rules poorly constructed ones can add complexity, confusion and often are problematic. Interestingly, and despite having played hundreds of DBA 3.0 games, I'm still finding subtle new interactions in the standard rules which are proving really interesting. Often bought about not just by troop types but the interaction between elements in an army composition and the enemy modified by terrain. Certainly I'm looking forward to many more games as the rules stand.
But aristogiton and twrnz, tournament players have nothing to fear, as this is just a possible House Rule.
And as with all House Rules, players can use it or ignore it as they see fit.
As I said in an earlier post, there are two types of DBA players:-
Those that just want to play games (and there’s nothing wrong in that) already have their needs catered for.
But those that want to simulate history (and there’s nothing wrong in that either) would like a bit more realism.
Surely you are not saying “tough luck mate. Them’s the rules. Live with it, even if they make no sense or don’t match what’s written in all your fancy history books.”
As I said before, I think of it as being little more than an optional extra, somewhat like the choice of table size:-
“Shall we play on a small table as Phil Barker recommends, or shall we use a larger table like many players prefer?”
Likewise, “Shall we just use the aggression factors, or shall we use this new additional ‘tactical’ factor as well?”
The world will continue to spin and civilization will not fall, I can assure you. 
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 stevie on May 10, 2017 22:12:39 GMT
I would add that, historically, defenders were generally able to choose their ground.
Really?
When Carthage invaded Italy during the the 2nd Punic War, it was not the Romans defending their homeland that chose the battlefields at Trebia, Lake Trasimene, Cannae, and Metaurrus, it was the invading Carthaginians.
During the Hundred Years War, it was not the Medieval French defending their homeland that chose the battlefields of Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt, it was the invading English.
When Caesar was invading Gaul, it was not the Nervii defending their homeland that chose the battlefield of Sambre in 57 BC, but the invading Romans.
When the Goths crossed the Danube and invaded Moesia in 251 AD, it was they and not the Romans defending their homeland that chose the battlefield of Abritus, which led to the Emperor Decius being drawn into a swamp where he was defeated and killed…..
Yes, defenders did sometimes choose their ground…but rather than ‘generally’, it was more like ‘half the time’.
Let us not forget how an ancient campaign was actually fought:-
You are defending your homeland against an invader, so you choose a nice battlefield that suits your troops.
But the invader has the choice of invading your land anywhere they like along your long frontier boarder.
What if they decide to go north and threaten one of your cities?
Do you stay in your nice battlefield and let the city fall, or do you move north to protect it?
The enemy has already found a nice little battlefield that suit his troops, and has got there first, waiting for you.
Now it is you who is the attacker, and the invader who is defending on their chosen ground!
But let’s ignore all this historical stuff and just look at the current placement system from a ‘game’ point of view.
If you have high aggression and your opponent has low aggression, you have the most chance of being the invader.
And as the defender, he gets 100% guaranteed, without fail, no questions asked, control of the terrain, every time.
He decides on the amount of terrain, it's type, it’s size and shape, and on it’s position (depending on placement rolls).
So if you’re a high aggression good going army (mounted or pike), you will face a wall of bad going.
And if you’re a high aggression bad going army (auxiliaries or psiloi) you will be on a flat open billiard table.
And there ain’t a damn thing you can do about it; you are the invader, so you have no say whatsoever in the matter.
It’s as if there is only one way into his country…what is he defending, Mordor!?
Still, could say it's your own fault for choosing an army with high aggression. Had you chosen an army with low aggression then you could have exploited the terrain placement rules just as your opponent has. So if you want to avoid being faced with terrain that is unsuitable for your troops, your only choice is to never use an high aggression army.
Of course, as the invader you do have the freedom to choose the deployment areas…oh, but wait, you don’t even get that as the defender has decided he wants a road as well!
Does the defender carry a road around with them to use whenever the region allows it?
“Sir, we have reached your chosen battlefield, and the enemy will arrive tomorrow. Shall we form camp?”
“No, unload the road from the baggage carts first and build it going from east to west, then build the camp.”
I know, I know…armies usually march along roads…and invaders are so law abiding that they would never infringe on a sign that says “Don’t Step On The Grass” or march across that nice farmers field and damage his crops. They would much rather lead their mounted/pike armies onto a battlefield that is totally unsuited for them.
And you say “if it’s not broken don’t fix it”……..
But perhaps it doesn’t have to be this way. Maybe, just maybe, there is a better way of doing things.
But we will never know unless we try, even as just a House Rule. 
(And I think that kaptainkobold may have the answer….
….let the defender choose the amount of terrain, it's type, and it’s size and shape, just as things are now, but let the invader place it. No extra die rolls, no change to all the existing placement rules, no extra ‘tactical factor’. Just that the invader, who would presumably want to fight on a battlefield on that suits his troops even when in enemy territory, gets to place the terrain.
It is getting late now, so I’d like to pursue this novel suggestion some more tomorrow.)
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 twrnz on May 10, 2017 23:26:51 GMT
But aristogiton and twrnz, tournament players have nothing to fear, as this is just a possible House Rule. And as with all House Rules, players can use it or ignore it as they see fit. As I said in an earlier post, there are two types of DBA players:- Those that just want to play games (and there’s nothing wrong in that) already have their needs catered for. But those that want to simulate history (and there’s nothing wrong in that either) would like a bit more realism. Surely you are not saying “tough luck mate. Them’s the rules. Live with it, even if they make no sense or don’t match what’s written in all your fancy history books.” Sorry, my post was focussed on tournament amendments. I am not against adding different house rules for other games. I have a few that I would consider for historical refights or campaigns for example. There is however balance and sometimes the balance of the rules isn't as obvious as it could be. I'm still finding some intriguing balance between troop types and army compositions. Further, people's interpretation of history, and how to model, this can be very different. |
|
|
|
Post by aristogeiton on May 11, 2017 3:01:17 GMT
As I said before, I think of it as being little more than an optional extra, somewhat like the choice of table size:-
“Shall we play on a small table as Phil Barker recommends, or shall we use a larger table like many players prefer?”
Likewise, “Shall we just use the aggression factors, or shall we use this new additional ‘tactical’ factor as well?”
But Stevie, Experience tells us that once the WadBag-ization of a rules set begin, it never ends and somehow becomes "official." You say one can use the board size intended by Phil Barker, et. al., but the larger board became so universal that one never got the option to play on anything else - although this fundamentally altered game balance in favor of "faster" armies. One was obliged to play on the bigger board all the time, because otherwise you'd be unfamiliar with it when playing in tournaments. I've played many different games and rules sets, and for some reason I've never understood, DBA is the only one in which such fundamental revisions are countenanced. The authors designed the rules set in conformity with a theory of how ancient/medieval battles were waged that was based upon decades of research and experimentation. If some folks don't like that vision, they should write a new rules set of their own rather than taking someone else's and altering it beyond all recognition. |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 11, 2017 3:18:24 GMT
What is your opinion of the WADBAG Manoeuvre ratings?
It is an objectively excellent idea, and clearly superior to the DBA 3.0 aggression ratings. The DBA 3.0 aggression ratings conflate two different ideas: * the likelihood of an army fighting at home (terrain) or away (terrain) * the likelihood of an army having the "initiative" and being able to choose the ground, because they are more maneuverable They are very different and to confuse the two produces ahistoric results. A small change, but a big improvement. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 11, 2017 16:36:19 GMT
I don't see the value.
They are a very small change of percentages for a medium amount of complication. They have zero effect on historical refights or house campaigns. Our club games rarely use the aggression rules now. Most play with high die is the attacker... without looking at the factor...
I would prefer to "spend" any further complication on modeling the actual combat.
Joe Collins
|
|
