|
|
Post by victor on May 15, 2017 3:06:04 GMT
In DBA v2.2 with slow movement rates, the idea to split aggression had a lot of merit, particularly as that edition favoured defenders a lot (thus the preponderance of low aggression armies in comps). With DBA3, which has closer deployment and longer movement, I would prefer to have my cavalry deploy second, and maximise the matchups. In short, I don't think aggression in v3 needs fixing.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 15, 2017 5:37:24 GMT
I have mentioned several times in both this thread and others my intense dislike of the ‘shopping basket’ approach to terrain selection, as if the defender were simply walking down the aisle of a supermarket picking exactly the items they want (“Oh look, marshes are on special offer in this region, I’ll definitely pop a couple of those in my shopping trolley!”).
Armies in reality did not have such luxury.
So I created the following “Randomly Generated Terrain Chart”.
I love this chart! It seems, at first glance, to strike the right balance between randomness and choice. One immediate reservation I had, though, was that difficult hills seem quite common in Arable, since they are in the Harsh and Undulating columns. Perhaps Undulating should just be Gentle Hills? I know the player has the choice of Difficult or Gentle there already, but maybe it's a choice too far? One minor extra that could be worth sticking in - a Waterway can have an optional Good Going beach along its length. Should the existence of this be diced for, or is its presence left to the player to decide? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 15, 2017 18:36:53 GMT
I have mentioned several times in both this thread and others my intense dislike of the ‘shopping basket’ approach to terrain selection, as if the defender were simply walking down the aisle of a supermarket picking exactly the items they want (“Oh look, marshes are on special offer in this region, I’ll definitely pop a couple of those in my shopping trolley!”).
Armies in reality did not have such luxury.
So I created the following “Randomly Generated Terrain Chart”.
I love this chart! It seems, at first glance, to strike the right balance between randomness and choice. One immediate reservation I had, though, was that difficult hills seem quite common in Arable, since they are in the Harsh and Undulating columns. Perhaps Undulating should just be Gentle Hills? I know the player has the choice of Difficult or Gentle there already, but maybe it's a choice too far? One minor extra that could be worth sticking in - a Waterway can have an optional Good Going beach along its length. Should the existence of this be diced for, or is its presence left to the player to decide?
Ah, that’s the slight bias towards auxiliary and psiloi armies that I mentioned.
We found that arable bad going armies desperately need as much red terrain as possible, especially as they suffer more than most from random selection. Gentle Hills are no good to them, as the extra +1 for being uphill is not enough when facing blades, side supported spears or pikes. Forcing auxiliaries or psiloi to accept too much terrain that is not bad going would be punishing them unduly.
As I altered a couple of your fine suggestions, now’s your chance to do the same to me, so change it if you want. 
(But you may find that auxiliary and psiloi often won’t have enough bad going to hide in).
As for waterway beaches, we don’t use them, but yes, let the defender deploy a beach if they want.
However, I’d suggest that other terrain can be placed on top of a beach, as they are ‘good going’ (after all, you don’t want a wide 2 BW beach to be used just as an excuse to discard terrain…which would be another way of weakening the auxiliary and psiloi by robbing them of somewhere to hide).
One thing I forgot to mention before is that the defender still has the choice of the size and shape of each randomly generated terrain piece, which leads me to yet another pet hate…
…why oh why is the defender allowed one ‘postage stamp’ sized terrain piece, 1 BW x 1 BW?
What purpose does it have? What it’s function? What is it supposed to represent?
It seems to me to be nothing more than a cheesy way of denying cover to auxiliary and psiloi…as if a good going defender needed more help in creating a totally open and flat billiard table when they can choose the minimum of terrain and make all of it small (1.5 x 3 BW).
We don’t allow it.
Get rid of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 15, 2017 19:36:45 GMT
Further pondering:
Have concluded that exerimental terrian system will have to have a 2 die roll component.
Invader/Defender: use standard method 1d6 + Aggression - high score invades (meaning you use Defender's terrain bucket).
Who sets up Terrian: 1d6 + 2 for most LH & +1 for most Ps (& Aux?). For campaigns using Fire and Ice: +1 for Calculating General; +2 for Trickster General
(In Fire & Ice a Calculating Gen starts with a base of 4 PIPs but still roll PIP Die -1 for a "1"; +1 for a "6". A Trickster Gen can force their opponent to re-roll their PIP roll -your stuck with the second even if higher - sometimes you out smart yourself. Neither Gen type gets the traditional +1 in Combat).
This is as simple as possible but gives some credit for scouting and thinking. If further randomness is desired than number the first four optional types 1-4 while the Mandatory would be 5-6 (you need to adjust for regions with more/less optional/mandatory types).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 15, 2017 20:44:58 GMT
As for waterway beaches, we don’t use them, but yes, let the defender deploy a beach if they want.
However, I’d suggest that other terrain can be placed on top of a beach, as they are ‘good going’ (after all, you don’t want a wide 2 BW beach to be used just as an excuse to discard terrain…which would be another way of weakening the auxiliary and psiloi by robbing them of somewhere to hide).
I assumed that the beach is part of the waterway, so other terrain can't be laid across it, aside from rivers and roads. So, yes, it's a way of ensuring more flat good going. Alan |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 16, 2017 7:04:54 GMT
I also view the ‘beach’ as part of the waterway feature. As I have added two more littoral armies to the collection I will be constructing new waterway of different width. Looking at the ground scale (page 2), 1BW x 1BW would equate to 80 paces x 80 paces. Room enough for a cemetery, an enclosure for sheep, or the derelict remains of an edifice. However, I thought features must have a 2:1 ratio for rough/bad going with gully being the exception. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 16, 2017 11:44:52 GMT
I also view the ‘beach’ as part of the waterway feature. As I have added two more littoral armies to the collection I will be constructing new waterway of different width. Looking at the ground scale (page 2), 1BW x 1BW would equate to 80 paces x 80 paces. Room enough for a cemetery, an enclosure for sheep, or the derelict remains of an edifice. However, I thought features must have a 2:1 ratio for rough/bad going with gully being the exception. The rule is on page 6 paragraph 6, which I’ve marked in red:- AREA TERRAIN FEATURES [6.6]: Includes those listed below as BAD, ROUGH or GOOD GOING and also BUA (see p.7).
Maximum size: Each must fit into a rectangle of which the length plus the width totals no more than 9 BW.
Minimum size : Only 1 feature can have a length (max dimension) of less than 3 BW.
Every feature must have both a length and a width (max dimension at a right angle to its length) of at least 1 BW (see diagram 1b).
Ratios: A Gully’s length must be at least 3 times its width. The length of other features must not exceed twice their width (see diagram 1c).
Shapes: BUA and Plough can have straight edges; otherwise all features must be a natural shape with curved edges.
Decorative hills: A city or fort can be combined as 1 feature with a hill that is also permitted. So 3 BW x 3 BW is allowed, as is 4.5 BW x 4.5 BW, but not 1 BW x 3 BW (except for gullies). And beaches are just another excuse for discarding terrain. After all, if the defender wanted to have a 2 BW good going gap between the waterway and another piece of terrain, well, he is placing the terrain, so why doesn’t he just do so? No…the only real use for a beach is to make the waterway soooo large that another piece cannot be placed in the same quarter, thus forcing terrain to be discarded. 1 BW x 1 BW ‘postage stamp’ terrain and beaches are a cheesy con trick…their only use is to cause discards, making the battlefield even more open, flat, and featureless to further ensure that auxiliary armies have no place to hide in (whether this was by design or just an unforeseen consequence I don’t know…but that’s how they are used). I hate them.  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 timurilank on May 16, 2017 13:38:26 GMT
We certainly have a different game culture here
No one would certainly take the time to construct such a ‘gamey’ small piece
Our game tables are 80 cm. x 80 cm. which is the standard throughout most community centres here, consequently our game boards are the same size.
I can recall one instance of having to discard a terrain piece.
Are all your terrain pieces of maximum size?
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 16, 2017 13:51:33 GMT
I remember an article in Slingshot titled ‘Barmy Armies’ which offered an alternative to using the standard composition of troops. The idea being in real life a commander was given forces that were at hand.
For each army there were six orders of battle with minor variation (10 – 20%) among the troop types.
Placed face down the player picked at random an army and went off to battle.
Could not a similar idea be used for terrain?
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on May 16, 2017 17:52:39 GMT
A couple of comments and I will follow up with them with a bit more detail if I have time.
1- I also do not like the terrain set-up process and find it annoying at best. This is regardless of DBA version. I have tried to like but cannot. It must be because I am a battlefield tramper and I just can't get over a system where you have control over placement.
2- The Triumph! system is not hard to use and I like the way the battlefields look and play better than DBA. I only put that forward here as someone who is not part of the feud and wish all well. Life is too short and I have enjoyed the games and people I have met playing 2.2, 2.2+, 3.0, etc.
3- Sue in her starter book for DBA indicates she thinks terrain boards are superior to other terrain (yes, they look MUCH better, look at the FoW games at the conventions.) I built some terrain boards following most of the rules in designing DBA 3.0 terrain. The tournament using them seemed to go just fine, even though my system for randomizing use of the boards fell apart after round 1.
4- Some of the ideas here are very interesting and this has been a topic in wargming with books and systems going back to the early days with Charles Grant and others.
5- I like some of the ideas like timurlink's last one "For each army there were six orders of battle with minor variation (10 – 20%) among the troop types.
Placed face down the player picked at random an army and went off to battle. " This reminds me of the very clever approach in the historical skirmish books that allows high replay value for variations in forces on historical ground. You could combine this with random terrain boards too and have more than enough variety.
Also, a thank you to all those DBA gamers who have produced inspiring terrain (and that includes some of you on this thread) and documented these terrain ideas on Fanaticus.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 16, 2017 18:12:32 GMT
It seems this thread has developed into a serious complaint about the DBA 3.0 terrain system. We worked hard on this aspect of the game and felt we had greatly improved the system - it seems from this feedback that we did not go far enough. I have no experience with the "Triumph" system but did use the 2.2+ system and found it far inferior to the DBA 3.0 system (the 2.2+ guys had left the DBA 3.0 playtest team prior to our upgrading the terrain system).
I did not like (and still do not) the large range given for potential terrain. I'm in favor of Goldilocks Terrain: Not too big, not too small. But was over-ruled during development (I did not win every arguement). In Fire and Ice, I cut the range of terrain size down (minimum bigger, max smaller) - would this solve the problems people are finding in the 3.0 system?
Would it be better to divide the board into three equal strips numbered 1-2; 3-4; 5-6? (In playtest these evened out the terrain and gave more room so you got fewer discards.) Using this system and after rolling for "sector" would it be better to alternate between Invader - Defender actually placing the terrain piece?
There is nothing we can do about the rules of 3.0 but I can tweek D3H2 and do anything I/we want with Fire and Ice.
I still strongly contend that the DBA 3.0 system of more random placement followed by Defender setting up first and moving first is far superior to the old 2.2 methods.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on May 16, 2017 19:09:28 GMT
Tom,
My problems may be just an ingrained bias that just effects me, so I would consider my views just subjective preferences. I am focused on results and not process.
I put some pictures of the terrain boards I used up on the DBA Facebook page and asked for some feedback. I redirected this thread a bit and I apologize for that as it is already too long.
I will start a new one just on pre-done terrain boards.
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 18, 2017 1:48:39 GMT
It seems this thread has developed into a serious complaint about the DBA 3.0 terrain system. We worked hard on this aspect of the game and felt we had greatly improved the system - it seems from this feedback that we did not go far enough. I have no experience with the "Triumph" system but did use the 2.2+ system and found it far inferior to the DBA 3.0 system (the 2.2+ guys had left the DBA 3.0 playtest team prior to our upgrading the terrain system). I did not like (and still do not) the large range given for potential terrain. I'm in favor of Goldilocks Terrain: Not too big, not too small. But was over-ruled during development (I did not win every arguement). In Fire and Ice, I cut the range of terrain size down (minimum bigger, max smaller) - would this solve the problems people are finding in the 3.0 system? Excellent. I think this all makes a lot of sense! Particularly your comment about the ludicrously wide range of weird terrain that is permissible. 3.0 terrain is an improvement over 2.2. But your choices for improvement were naturally limited by the frame of 2.2 and the author, so your options were limited, and there is still better, I believe. It still seems to me that you can't get consensus on improvements because there is no consensus on objectives. Are you trying to create fairness (balance bad-going infantry armies vs good-going cavalry armies)? Or historical playing areas? Or are you trying to create fairness (balance low agression cumbersome armies vs high aggression manoeuvrable armies)? Really hard to do everything... If you would like this thread to be broadened into a 3.0 terrain complaint thread, it could be broadened into the ongoing silliness which are BUAs? |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 18, 2017 20:35:06 GMT
Bill & Dangun:
I'm always happy (well generally happy) to get different opinions and ideas re anything DBX. The whole point of Fire and Ice is to do DBX mechanics how I want them to be (with input from the community). Since I really like the way DBA 3.0 solved some long standing DBX problems, I do lean heavily on those solutions (in which I participated).
BUA are beloved Phil thing. We at least allowed players to just use Hamlets without all the other BUA drama. When I did D3H2 I got rid of both Camp Followers and Denizens - so you know where I'm coming from re BUA stuff.
I like nice looking terrian and try and provide for tournaments I run. I don't like taking off Fields even if they remain Good Going (by the way I would have preferred they started muddy and dryed out on a "6" PIP roll).
As to terrain balance re armies v. historical terrian I've always tried to do a bit of both. One suggestion is to divide the board into three equal "strips", on a 1-2 terrian goes in right strip, 3-4 left; 5 middle; 6 right or left player choice. This puts less terrian in middle (genearally more like most historical battlefields - there are exceptions of course).
As mentioned I think the best quick and dirty suggestion is to just increase the minimum and decrease the maximum size. (My secreat weapon here is that I only bring terrain that fits in my smaller subset - so if you use my nice looking stuff you self limit).
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame and Glory Games
|
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 19, 2017 0:07:54 GMT
We certainly have a different game culture here No one would certainly take the time to construct such a ‘gamey’ small piece I've just 3D printed a couple of forts to use for DBA (to increase my BUA options) and they're only about 1.5 BW a side. But there's no intent to be cheesey; that's just the size they came out as and, as forts, I wouldn't expect them to be much bigger. (I don't plan to physically populate them with an element; the garrison can be left off-table and assumed to be present, since it's physical position is 'in the fort'). |
|
