|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 16, 2018 0:11:32 GMT
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
I don't think you need to keep them out of harm's way. Ps aren't that easy to kill unless they're out in the open around cavalry, which is entirely historical. They can approach heavy foot with relative impunity (no overlap and merely fleeing), counter Elephants and slug it out with other light troops. Probably easier just to use PIPs to get the heavies into contact! Now Auxilia on the otherhand... Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 16, 2018 0:52:59 GMT
I don't think you need to keep them out of harm's way. Ps aren't that easy to kill unless they're out in the open around cavalry, which is entirely historical. They can approach heavy foot with relative impunity (no overlap and merely fleeing), counter Elephants and slug it out with other light troops. Probably easier just to use PIPs to get the heavies into contact! Now Auxilia on the otherhand... Cheers Jim Having not playtested the "1st Ps = 0 elements lost" idea, I wonder about that Ps flee a lot and so require more PIPs to "rally" but don't actually DIE. Throwing your Ps away against mounted seems like you should get penalized for it since that was never done... Not intentionally anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 16, 2018 0:54:10 GMT
Given that this is 15 pages long and there's been lots of debate. Do we have a current standing of possible rules suggestions for a 3.1 (if that happens)?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 16, 2018 21:50:20 GMT
As mentioned: a army breaks when it has as many Destroyed Elements as still on table.
This: allows 1/2 element equivalents (Ps) to count - if you have 1/2 an element more your still un-Broken.
makes sure you have gotten into the core of the army before breaks
more closely resemble actual outcomes (such as Poiters)
allow unequal size armies (since break points vary on size)
This solves all the above problems and is much simpler than other proposals (you need only compare size of dead pile to elements on table).
Its a workable solution which have been playtesting for at least a year.
Pondering command control ranges. But won't it be the type of messenger/signal sent out from the General rather than the type of troop receiving which should determine range?
Generally agree that shorter would be better.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 16, 2018 21:57:28 GMT
Macbeth:
Interesting innovations. The Knights and Knaves version of Scared Standard: element ignores Recoil Results unless the oppoent rolled an unmodified "6". Sometimes we rule that Recoiling causes loss of the standard.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 17, 2018 15:01:29 GMT
As mentioned: a army breaks when it has as many Destroyed Elements as still on table. This: allows 1/2 element equivalents (Ps) to count - if you have 1/2 an element more your still un-Broken. makes sure you have gotten into the core of the army before breaks more closely resemble actual outcomes (such as Poiters) allow unequal size armies (since break points vary on size) This solves all the above problems and is much simpler than other proposals (you need only compare size of dead pile to elements on table). Its a workable solution which have been playtesting for at least a year. Pondering command control ranges. But won't it be the type of messenger/signal sent out from the General rather than the type of troop receiving which should determine range? Generally agree that shorter would be better. TomT TomT, would this new breakpoint still have things like Scythed Chariots = 0, 1st Doubled based = 2, etc.? Or would this eliminate these rules since about 1/2 your army has to be eliminated anyway? There is something though to just looking at your dead pile compared to the board and going "oh, I'm at X... game over!" The 1st Ps lost = 0 idea really is effectively counting Ps as 1/2 since most armies only have 1-2 Ps anyway. Still quite like a variable break point with dice starting at 3. Would have to playtest that one. It might have to start at 4 since I'd be super pissed if I'd only lost 3 and then the game ends. Especially with my 1 rolling super power... |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 17, 2018 17:19:34 GMT
We count elements as 1/2 (Horde types, Skirmish types etc.) or 1 (the rest).
Its a medieval game so we don't have Scythed Chariots (but I guess they'd be 1/2). Don't use double elements. If we did they would be 1 1/2.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on May 17, 2018 18:12:20 GMT
With different victory conditions, are we still looking at 30 -45 minute games? Ideal for tournaments.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 18, 2018 5:14:58 GMT
With different victory conditions, are we still looking at 30 -45 minute games? Ideal for tournaments. Simon My tournament ran quite well back in the day - I will take a look at the results when I get home and see whether there was a higher proportion of draws but I doubt that happened just based on memory cheers |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 18, 2018 15:55:22 GMT
I've been remiss during this entire discussion not to have mentioned D3H2. It incorporates the best features of DBA3.0 & HOTT 2.0. As most will know in HOTT an Army breaks when it losses 1/2 its point value. All most all who have played both games agree that the HOTT vitory system works better (ironically esp. for historical battles as Stevie has so patiently and clearly illustrated the problems with the 4 element method).
I added all the DBA 3.0 elements and incorporated them into the simple HOTT point system (including Sch Chariots etc.) So you can get weighted values and also access to many extra types such as Shooters and Fast Knights which are very helpful for recreating historical battles. So if you want to demo DBX for historical battles (or just play some at home), I can't recommend D3H2 highly enough - we need to put our best DBX foot forward esp for recruiting historial players.
So even if you don't want to use the more experimental Knights and Knaves, you can still get good historical victory conditions while staying within the arc of "normal" DBA rules.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 18, 2018 16:24:49 GMT
TomT, is D3H2 in the DBA Variants of the wiki? Is it on the yahoo group? Interested to download it, and check it out.
Although I'm a little concerned by so many 3rd Party "DBA rewrites" and "DBA-like" games floating around: D3H2, K&K, Triumph!, DBA2.2+, There's a Samurai one floating around...
Perhaps it's testament to how easily Mr. Barker's system can be modified and tweaked.
Great that there's enthusiasm for DBx, but doesn't it dilute the player base? Having said that, Piquet has done this quite well with a core rules set and period flavor variations.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 18, 2018 22:17:46 GMT
TomT, is D3H2 in the DBA Variants of the wiki? Is it on the yahoo group? Interested to download it, and check it out. Although I'm a little concerned by so many 3rd Party "DBA rewrites" and "DBA-like" games floating around: D3H2, K&K, Triumph!, DBA2.2+, There's a Samurai one floating around... Perhaps it's testament to how easily Mr. Barker's system can be modified and tweaked. Great that there's enthusiasm for DBx, but doesn't it dilute the player base? Having said that, Piquet has done this quite well with a core rules set and period flavor variations. Chris Never mind, I just read ChuckAmok's blog, discussing D3H2, and well received! Apparently it's sanctioned by Mr. Barker himself! So Quite happy to read the rules. Are they available for download on WargameVault? I would chip in money to take a look  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on May 21, 2018 23:38:17 GMT
|
|
