|
|
Post by greedo on May 15, 2018 5:41:02 GMT
I also have a problem with how games can end before the heavies get into action. Does a special victory condition rule for Ps in terms of scoring encourage armies to have one or more or hurt armies that don't have one (e.g. Mongols)? For tournaments I can understand the 4 element measure. For other games it might make sense to make the end of the game variable. What if after the 2nd lost element, you rolled, for example, a red die and a white die and that difference either increases or decreases the number of elements needed to win. Red die > white die increase to 5, white die > Red die decrease to 3, dice the same = no change. This could be considered army level morale or any number of non-battlefield related impacts on troops interest in fighting. Bill This would actually be a really neat way to do handicaps. Since everyone has 12 elements, the victory conditions are the same for everyone. The only thing that can be changed is how many "Victory Points" you need to win. So if you're playing a much superior player, you can bump you're morale break point up a bit, by adjusting the dice rolls, much like in the board game Go. You could do this with the regular 4 elements of course, but I do like how you're not quite sure when the army will break, only that it's close. That fits with DBA's philosophy of "Generals didn't often know losses (if ever) until after the battle. We present that information and that information only" (paraphrasing as I don't have the book handy). Another system would be a morale roll after say 3 elements lost. On a roll of 1 you lose. Once you've lost 4 elements, it's 1-3 you lose, 5 elements lost = 1-5 you lose. 6 elements you just lose. You're done. It's over. Half you're army is running away... Go HOME man! |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 15, 2018 5:52:45 GMT
But again, Greedo, unless this rule addresses a major imbalance in some way (and I am not seeing how it does) I am not sure what the purpose is. I’ll try and answer that one (although I did mention it earlier). Cannae, 216 BC: the Romans lose the two Cv on their flanks, one of which is the general, plus an element of Ps. The battle is over. The heavy infantry does not even make contact, and plays no role in the battle. Does that sound like the battle of Cannae as described in the history books? Zama, 202 BC: Carthage loses the two elements of horse on their flanks, one of which is the general, plus an element of Ps. The battle is over. The heavy infantry does not even make contact, and plays no role in the battle. Does that sound like the battle of Zama as described in the history books? If the first element of Ps lost didn’t count (or if Ps were worth ½ an element each), these battles would at least last long enough for the heavy infantry to clash. Of course, there may be other ways of making these battles last longer. But you’re right...people may use their Ps as a ‘suicide squad’ if they know that their loss doesn’t count, or is only worth ½. And that is the paradox; we all know that the loss of a small bunch of lowly skirmishers shouldn’t have the same morale effect as the loss of a high prestige element of noble aristocratic knights or Alexander’s Hypaspists...but on the other hand, the artificial DBA system requires that each element be worth the same as each other in order to work properly and not be exploited. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Definitely a data-centric approach Stevie! I approve. I think to PrimusPilus' (PrimusPilusae?) point, a tournament (or 3) would be a great way to test all these ideas under regular conditions with many different generals, and many different armies all fighting against each other, and you'd immediately find out if Ps Crack Suicide Squads were being used too much (much like the Buttocks of Death from old DBM). I'm sure that's what was done for 3.0, but still, I'm just spit-balling my ideas, and haven't actually tried any of them in anger. Glad the 1st Ps = 0 is gaining some traction tho  Privateer Press uses tournaments and posts modifications of units they feel are under represented as adjustments on their website. The tourneys show what units are never used, which ones are over used, which tactics seem to work too well, and who's under/over powered, without going into too many details. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 5:58:13 GMT
This seems quite a complex discussion and I'm not sure we'll get agreement because of the variability available in DBA 3.
Firstly, the effect needs to be looked at in terms of Ps heavy and Ps light armies. The point that a Ps light army may not be concerned with the loss of these troops is plausable. But for Ps heavy armies those same troops would be equals in their society. Wouldn't the morale/tactical loss be more deeply felt?
Secondly, morale effects are difficult to grasp. They may be tinkerers and cobblers from the back streets, but seeing them butchered by cavalry in the open may remind all about their very real danger in battle. Not to mention the morale boost for the enemy. Also seeing your flank cleared of friends would make you somewhat uneasy.
Thirdly, the overall effect seems to be right. Now I agree with stevie most of the time. But the loss of both flanks and your general in an ancients/medieval battle is likely irreparable. (In fact, either occuring is likely to have doomed the army historically.) The example given of Cannae illustrates that. The bigger question is why didn't the battlelines meet in DBA as they did historically? This would seem unusual with current deployments and speeds but wjhupp indicates that he is seeing it in his games. Is anyone else seeing this?
Finally, there are compromises all through DBA. Would Harold Godwinson really just shrug if the entire Great Fyrd turned tail and ran (4x7Hd)? Can Vikings make a Shieldwall using 4Bd?. But the effect seems to work because otherwise we would not spend so much time discussing, painting, building and playing! Speaking of playing, I'd like to hear more from primuspilus about how this rule worked when used in FtF games. After all, to misquote von Moltke "no wargames rules extend with any certainty beyond the first contact with the players."
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 15, 2018 6:25:30 GMT
Many years ago I ran one of my "DBA With a Twist" tournaments where the breakpoint for armies was variable.
Elements were given a value ranging from 0.5 (Ps/Hd) through to 1.5(Kn/El) with most having a value of 1.
At the end of each bound where players had suffered a loss they had to roll a dice and score HIGHER than the value of their losses to keep fighting.
I can't access my personal wargaming data at work any more so I can't elaborate on when the competition was held, what it was called, the exact lists of values of elements or who rolled first if both sides suffered losses.
This (I think) in some way addresses the Thracian Problem that Primuspilus alluded.
I remember that everyone did enjoy the game
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 15, 2018 12:37:31 GMT
Now I agree with stevie most of the time. But the loss of both flanks and your general in an ancients/medieval battle is likely irreparable. (In fact, either occuring is likely to have doomed the army historically.) The example given of Cannae illustrates that. The bigger question is why didn't the battlelines meet in DBA as they did historically? Cheers Jim
Jim, I think you may be missing the point. At both Cannae and Zama it was the fact that the infantry were fighting while surrounded that led to victory. But according to DBA, Hannibal and Scipio needn’t have bothered... ...just defeat a skirmisher and the cavalry on each flank and the battle is yours. No need to go through all that tedious hassle of actually engaging the enemy heavy foot. But this is not what happened in reality is it. The infantry in these battles actually fought on quite stubbornly, even though the situation was hopeless. So either DBA is wrong about this...or the history books are wrong! (Actually, neither of the losing generals were personally defeated, routed, or killed in these two battles.
It’s just that the army lists insists that these generals are permanently attached to their cavalry element.
And with only 12 elements, few armies can afford the luxury of keeping their general safe behind their front line.)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 13:43:37 GMT
Now I agree with stevie most of the time. But the loss of both flanks and your general in an ancients/medieval battle is likely irreparable. (In fact, either occuring is likely to have doomed the army historically.) The example given of Cannae illustrates that. The bigger question is why didn't the battlelines meet in DBA as they did historically? Cheers Jim
Jim, I think you may be missing the point. At both Cannae and Zama it was the fact that the infantry were fighting while surrounded that led to victory. But according to DBA, Hannibal and Scipio needn’t have bothered... ...just defeat a skirmisher and the cavalry on each flank and the battle is yours. No need to go through all that tedious hassle of actually engaging the enemy heavy foot. But this is not what happened in reality is it. The infantry in these battles actually fought on quite stubbornly, even though the situation was hopeless. So either DBA is wrong about this...or the history books are wrong! (Actually, neither of the losing generals were personally defeated, routed, or killed in these two battles.
It’s just that the army lists insists that these generals are permanently attached to their cavalry element.
And with only 12 elements, few armies can afford the luxury of keeping their general safe behind their front line.)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
Hi stevie.I understand that it's possible in DBA for the heavy infantry battlelines not to meet and the result to be decided on the flanks. But does that actually happen given the deployment and speed rules? I haven't seen it but others have more games under their belts. If it does happen then which mechanism is at fault? Are people advancing their centre as a priority but not reaching the enemy in time? Are the flank combats too bloody? I'm not sure it's the Ps rule that explains it all. And I still think losing both your flanks before breaking the centre should be a game loss but it would be interesting to play it out and see if the legionaries can turn it around on a DBA table. The general has been discussed on a thread before. It would be nice to have some more granularity (the front rank fighter, the mobile tactician, the God-King that flees easily etc). Good house rules and scenario rules fodder there. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 15, 2018 13:45:06 GMT
So Stevie, the weakness in your argument is this:
Because you have seen that happen a bunch of times in your battles, you assume that is the only way to win. As the Roman player at Cannae, I am doing EVERYTHING IN MY POWER to make this an infantry slugfest. Why? Because I got Bd and Hannibal doesn't. If I am Hannibal, I am doing everything I can to NEUTRALISE the Roman advantages.
So what you have just pointed out is that in any given AVERAGE game, there are a variety of ways to win. Sounds like a great thing to me. No two fights exactly the same. BRILLIANT!
DBA army lists are aggregate snapshots across dozens of battles and all manner of engagements, and DO NOT necessarily imply that every fight between Hannibal and Rome is Cannae or Zama. DBA is scale-less on average (one being provided for the pedants who just have to have one, but PB notes it is just "nominally" so... as opposed to "canonically"...). He has stated that if you want to do Zama, or Cannae specifically, you'll need Historical BBDBA. Or you'll need to house-rule it to keep it 12 vs 12. In which case the victory conditions can be steered by you as you see fit. So what's the issue?
DBA is a tremendously variable game. v3 fixed a ton of what was wrong with 2.2, and 2.2+ I might add. You will see the actual effects of this rule when you start to play hundreds of games with it. I confess I don't even like the Hd and SCh not counting toward winning and losing in the base game, and the DBEs counting for more than one. Heck I don't even think the General should count as an extra element, since the additional PIP costs generated (in which with 1 PIP you can't really do anything without a road) are pretty severe already.
I think the 4-element win/loss was sufficiently flexible to allow a variety of games, and a variety of ways to win across the majority of battles.
This is the essence that is the heart of the game. And again, I take issue with your claim that "obviously a few Ps riff-raff killed off will have no effect on the army morale, but loss of steady Bd will be serious". Sorry, you haven't convinced me. This will have to remain a religious proposition for us. Because you have assumed all manner of things about the Ps and the Bd that may or may not be true in the current instantiation of the battlefield.
There could be all manner of reasons for morale effects that have been outlined above, and this is also the challenge with point systems.
But go ahead, test the heck out of it. I think you'll find it doesn't do what you claim it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 13:50:53 GMT
Many years ago I ran one of my "DBA With a Twist" tournaments where the breakpoint for armies was variable. Elements were given a value ranging from 0.5 (Ps/Hd) through to 1.5(Kn/El) with most having a value of 1. At the end of each bound where players had suffered a loss they had to roll a dice and score HIGHER than the value of their losses to keep fighting. I can't access my personal wargaming data at work any more so I can't elaborate on when the competition was held, what it was called, the exact lists of values of elements or who rolled first if both sides suffered losses. This (I think) in some way addresses the Thracian Problem that Primuspilus alluded. I remember that everyone did enjoy the game Cheers Victory conditions tinkering is quite interesting. Variable break points is very interesting and can be used to stiffen historically tough armies (e.g. Spartans). An easy way is to roll equal to or greater than the total elements lost (probably starting at 3; wouldn't want to give up after losing a single Ps!  ). I've mentioned core v non-core troops before. Core troops could be worth 1 and non-core worth 0.5. SCh always worth 0. But, like with many of these ideas, they need playtesting, playtesting, playtesting, especially if there is ever a serious push for DBA 3.1. But maybe we could use the power of the digital age have a way to record effects of House rules? Anybody know of an appropriate platform? Then we could have "Official Fanaticus Unofficial House Rules"! Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 15, 2018 13:59:37 GMT
Jim, against just about all their historical opponents, EHG Spartans are already quite a formidable force... They don't need a lot of help...
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 15, 2018 15:20:19 GMT
Victory conditions tinkering is quite interesting. Variable break points is very interesting and can be used to stiffen historically tough armies (e.g. Spartans). An easy way is to roll equal to or greater than the total elements lost (probably starting at 3; wouldn't want to give up after losing a single Ps! ). I've mentioned core v non-core troops before. Core troops could be worth 1 and non-core worth 0.5. SCh always worth 0. But, like with many of these ideas, they need playtesting, playtesting, playtesting, especially if there is ever a serious push for DBA 3.1. But maybe we could use the power of the digital age have a way to record effects of House rules? Anybody know of an appropriate platform? Then we could have "Official Fanaticus Unofficial House Rules"! Cheers Jim I'll put in a plug for the wiki here. A good place to summarize any house rules and/or play testing of the house rules to show the results. fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/DBA_Rules_VariantsAlso, hopefully easier to search and organize than on the forum... |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 15, 2018 17:15:39 GMT
Out side of tournaments we always go with a Army/battle breaks when it does not have more elements on the table than in the "dead pile". No one has a problem w/Skirmishers counting 1/2 but everyone dislikes first element killed counting 2 stuff.
Picking off three weak elements and maybe one front line element is about tournament balance the 12 element limit etc. It has nothing to do with historical outcomes (or the goals of historical armies).
Again leave the tournament game alone. But lets get on with historical DBX.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 15, 2018 18:18:15 GMT
So Stevie, the weakness in your argument is this: Because you have seen that happen a bunch of times in your battles, you assume that is the only way to win. As the Roman player at Cannae, I am doing EVERYTHING IN MY POWER to make this an infantry slugfest. Why? Because I got Bd and Hannibal doesn't. If I am Hannibal, I am doing everything I can to NEUTRALISE the Roman advantages. So what you have just pointed out is that in any given AVERAGE game, there are a variety of ways to win. Sounds like a great thing to me. No two fights exactly the same. BRILLIANT! ...you are still misunderstanding me. Following on from what Tom just posted, my argument is not about wining...it’s about re-creating historical battles. DBA is an historically based wargaming system. And the only way to test if it is historically accurate is to put it to the test. If it can’t give historical results when re-creating an historical battle, how can we be sure it’s giving the correct realistic results when fighting an hypothetical battle? Oh, it may still be a fun and exciting game, but let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything more than that, just a game. Both you and I agree that the 12 element system can be used to re-create actual battles. So let’s put it to the test. At Cannae (and I’m only using Cannae as an example), the cavalry on both Roman flanks were routed. Did this end the battle?...no, the legionaries fought on even though they were surrounded. But DBA says the loss of 4 elements (2 Cv, 1 general, and one other, could be a skirmisher) is enough for defeat. At Zama (and I’m only using Zama as an example), the horsemen on both Carthaginian flanks were routed. Did this end the battle?...no, the Carthaginian infantry fought on even though they were surrounded. But DBA says the loss of 4 elements (2 Cv, 1 general, and one other, could be a skirmisher) is enough for defeat. So here we have two well documented examples where history is saying one thing, but DBA is saying another. Which is right, DBA or history? The cause of the problem is twofold:- Firstly, all elements being worth the same, and secondly, forcing the general to be on the flank. If the first Ps lost didn’t count (or were worth ½), and the general were somewhere else (but that’s a subject for another thread), then the two battles above would give more historical results. Defeating the enemy’s 2 horsemen would not be enough, you’ll still have to kill two more elements to secure victory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But we have (because of me!) strayed off topic, so let’s get back to the original discussion. As you pointed out, having the first Ps lost not count (or worth ½) may cause players to use it as a suicide squad. But conversely, having a Ps worth the same as any other element can also have detrimental effects. If a Ps is as valuable as a Kn, players will be reluctant to put them in harms way, and may try to keep their skirmishers safely tucked behind their front line instead of out in front where they should be. That isn’t very realistic either is it. Still, as Tom says, the tournament rules are the tournament rules, and the current DBA system makes a very good game. It’s only us historical players that are having problems. Still, this thread is about possible future versions of DBA, so things like Ps value are worth considering. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on May 15, 2018 18:20:00 GMT
Lets not forget the poor Ps themselves in all this.
Who's asking them if they don't mind laying down their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 15, 2018 23:39:40 GMT
Many years ago I ran one of my "DBA With a Twist" tournaments where the breakpoint for armies was variable. Elements were given a value ranging from 0.5 (Ps/Hd) through to 1.5(Kn/El) with most having a value of 1. At the end of each bound where players had suffered a loss they had to roll a dice and score HIGHER than the value of their losses to keep fighting. I can't access my personal wargaming data at work any more so I can't elaborate on when the competition was held, what it was called, the exact lists of values of elements or who rolled first if both sides suffered losses. This (I think) in some way addresses the Thracian Problem that Primuspilus alluded. I remember that everyone did enjoy the game Cheers Victory conditions tinkering is quite interesting. Variable break points is very interesting and can be used to stiffen historically tough armies (e.g. Spartans). An easy way is to roll equal to or greater than the total elements lost (probably starting at 3; wouldn't want to give up after losing a single Ps! ). I've mentioned core v non-core troops before. Core troops could be worth 1 and non-core worth 0.5. SCh always worth 0. But, like with many of these ideas, they need playtesting, playtesting, playtesting, especially if there is ever a serious push for DBA 3.1. But maybe we could use the power of the digital age have a way to record effects of House rules? Anybody know of an appropriate platform? Then we could have "Official Fanaticus Unofficial House Rules"! Cheers Jim Thanks Jim, I did make the non core troops only worth 0.5 so it was impossible to lose the game if a single Ps was lost, but did make certain tough troops worth 1.5 (I think generals were included). Every year in May we hold a "DBA With A Twist" tournament where the rules are given a tweak - some of them include 'The LKL bloodbath' (where like kills like) - a fight between identical elements (eg 4Bd vs 4Bd but NOT 3Bd vs 4Bd) the loser was destroyed 'Collision Course' - where the Deployment rules were modified to simulate the accidental encounter between marching columns 'About Face' - where elements that would have exceeded their movement rate to turn to face (it was in 2.2 - so 6Bd/8Bw,Art/WWg) would suffer a -1 'The Reactor' (new elements created) where I added Relics (Rc) and Pavisiers (Pv) - Pv was my own attempt to create a better representation of 8Bw whilst Relics were a representation of Sacred Standards and God Kings in Litters who gave +1 support to any friendly element in contact I also trialled allowing Hd to give +1 rear support in the way that Ps did in 2.2 and very nearly got this carried into DBA3 (I have forgotten what I called the tournament) 'In Depth' where I restricted command range - not cutting it down but just changing the rule so that The Whole Group had to be within the 8BW, otherwise the extra PIP was spent - this includes a group where the General is part of the line (on one end) but the group is longer than 8 elements. And coming up in two weeks "Common Ground" - where the dicing for terrain is shared - see the thread in tournaments for more details Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 15, 2018 23:59:11 GMT
Great twists! That certainly helps keep the interest. As I usually game solo and I try to collect all the options for each army, I like to create the battlefield and THEN use a dice to randomly choose the elements that will fight, within the limits of the army list. Gives some unorthodox but plausable armies and plenty of tactical decisions to make.
Solutions involving army lists or victory conditions rather than the actual mechanics are more attractive to me.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
). I've mentioned core v non-core troops before. Core troops could be worth 1 and non-core worth 0.5. SCh always worth 0. But, like with many of these ideas, they need playtesting, playtesting, playtesting, especially if there is ever a serious push for DBA 3.1. But maybe we could use the power of the digital age have a way to record effects of House rules? Anybody know of an appropriate platform? Then we could have "Official Fanaticus Unofficial House Rules"!
