|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 8, 2017 14:05:29 GMT
Jun 8, 2017 1:25:26 GMT -5 Dangun said:
Your changes seem to be game motivated, rather than history motivated.
My changes are motivated by both game and historical factors. This is a game, and that must be considered.
For example, your change to auxilia recoil seems to have no basis whatsoever in history. So perhaps you need to reclassify Roman auxiliary as blade if you want to make that change.
You are incorrect here. They have a direct basis from my attempts to refight Punic and Macedonian war battles... and to a lesser extent Irish vs Viking invasion.
Similarly, what's your history behind the death of knights and camels to bow in close combat? This is a really weird idea, from the perspective of history.
I was against it. I strongly argued for it to be eliminated. It was, except for Lb and Cb on ties.
Note that the approach you are using is to balance the army lists by only changing the rules. It might be easier to do that, but there may be issues in the army lists?
Yes, a change in several key army lists could change these issues. I argued strongly for some. Changing Ax in some army lists to 3Bd is an example. Phil however is very confident in his views of Auxilia.
Lastly, while you may have a process to update the rules, there is no process to update the lists - and some of them are terrible from. the perspective of history.
I agree, the lists can always be improved... and have been throughout the life of DBA.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 8, 2017 15:30:17 GMT
Thanks Joe. I guess I was just thinking about what we were hoping to achieve in launching a new version and what the problem is we are trying to fix. Then this needs to be weighed against potential downsides of launching into a new version. These downsides could , for example, include distraction or even splitting of the DBA community, getting used to a new set of rules, rebuilding armies and diverting wargame funds into a new set of rules. So, before getting into what 3.1 might look like, should we think about whether a 3.1 is wanted and worth the effort? 1. What are we hoping to achieve? I see three goals which I will list with no meaning to the order. The first would be to clarify the rules. The second to cleanup the army lists. The third would be to improve the narrative the game generates. I am concentrating on the last here.2. Could that be achieved in ways other than having a 3.1? Probably not. Phil and Sue have appointed Tom the official rules person for the US. But the changes and clarifications needed probably warrant a 3.1. I don't see an amendment sheet working. I am at a loss as to other ideas to even propose.3. Overall, do the pros outweigh the cons? Somewhat moot I think. We are after all on DBA 3. Another version is I think part of the natural flow of our hobby... as certain as rain on the hillside in the summer. If Phil, Sue, and the other partners want to keep the DBA franchise alive, then new versions are needed.
Regards, Simon. Joe Collins Joe,
You list three objectives you would like to reach with version 3.1
1. Clarify the rules.
2. Clean up the army lists.
3. Improve the narrative the game generates.
What exactly do you mean by the ‘narrative’ the game generates?
Cheers, Robert
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Jun 9, 2017 0:00:05 GMT
For example, your change to auxilia recoil seems to have no basis whatsoever in history. So perhaps you need to reclassify Roman auxiliary as blade if you want to make that change. You are incorrect here. They have a direct basis from my attempts to refight Punic and Macedonian war battles... and to a lesser extent Irish vs Viking invasion.Please source this. There is no evidence that Roman auxilia recoiled differently to Roman blade. |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Jun 9, 2017 0:00:40 GMT
1. Note that the approach you are using is to balance the army lists by only changing the rules. It might be easier to do that, but there may be issues in the army lists? Yes, a change in several key army lists could change these issues. I argued strongly for some. Changing Ax in some army lists to 3Bd is an example. Phil however is very confident in his views of Auxilia.
2. For example, your change to auxilia recoil seems to have no basis whatsoever in history. So perhaps you need to reclassify Roman auxiliary as blade if you want to make that change. You are incorrect here. They have a direct basis from my attempts to refight Punic and Macedonian war battles... and to a lesser extent Irish vs Viking invasion.Surely then, you are right regarding changing the army lists? Because the rules are much more fragile and a small change ripples through all of the lists. An army list change is so much less disruptive, and is far easier to justify with some history. But point 2 is still garbage. Please source this. There is no evidence that Roman auxilia recoiled/retreated differently to Roman blade. Its not even clear how or wether Roman auxiliary (infantry) were armed and used differently, let alone this level of behavioural difference. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 9, 2017 3:45:15 GMT
Dangun:
Easy answers here. The examples run throughout history...from Alexander's Hypaspists at Chaeronea, to Hannibal's infantry at Trebbia and Cannae, to Irish tactics versus invading Vikings, these all point to the capability of a lighter armed infantry to withdraw in the face of the enemy amd continue fighting and skirmishing (as long as their morale held). Phil has rated all these troops as Ax.
One has great difficulty recreating these tactics, events, and battles with DBA as written now. I have tried... many times. Allowing lights to retreat a full base width and break contact helps with this issue and preserves Phil's view of these troop types as Ax.
As to your question about Roman Auxiliary, you are simply wrong. Roman Allies were differently armed and used exclusively on flanks of the main Roman battle lines until perhaps the middle of the Punic wars.
After that Roman Auxilia were armed much like the standard legionary. But this doesn't matter. DBA doesn't divide troop types by arms and armor, rather it divides them by psychology of the warriors involved. Vikings were probably not armed any differently than the Saxons they fought. Crusader Knights certainly were not better armed or armored than many of their Muslim opponents. Yet, DBA rates them all very differently. This is one of the basic assumptions of the game.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by evilgong on Jun 9, 2017 6:54:31 GMT
I think some lists were an inaccurate translation from new ideas worked into the DBMM lists. An errata might be ok for this.
My vote would be to not bother changing, may players are reasonably casual and dip into DBA every now and then, rules changes are a good way to scare them off - and past changes did.
If there _was_ to be new edition, I reckon a) the Break-off should come back, which can help Ax, b) give Ax side-to-side support to make them sorta 2nd rate line troops, c) give some penalty to CB and LB to compensate vs their anti-knight capacity - no move and shoot?, or lose some kills vs LH, Ps?
David F Brown
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 9, 2017 8:05:55 GMT
I think some lists were an inaccurate translation from new ideas worked into the DBMM lists. An errata might be ok for this. My vote would be to not bother changing, may players are reasonably casual and dip into DBA every now and then, rules changes are a good way to scare them off - and past changes did. If there _was_ to be new edition, I reckon a) the Break-off should come back, which can help Ax, b) give Ax side-to-side support to make them sorta 2nd rate line troops, c) give some penalty to CB and LB to compensate vs their anti-knight capacity - no move and shoot?, or lose some kills vs LH, Ps? David F Brown General point: List changes are not very important. Historically interested gamers will tweak the lists anyway (and DBA allows for that easily), hardcore tournament players will choose whatever they think is effective. Everyone else is in-between. David: 1) Break-off could be good. But we would need to talk about what that is meant to represent. Ps and LH have that factored in. 2) I am not sure that we need "2nd rate line troops". This grading is exactly what DBA tries to avoid. Auxilia is a rough terrain fighter and that works for the game (Ironically, this seems to represent most cases quite well, just not the troops that historically were called "Auxilia" by the Romans...). 3Ax is fine, but 4Ax is a bit underpowered because it is too slow and does not hit hard enough. But that is a general problem of the "Solid" vs. the "Fast" types and should be fixed accordingly. 3) Lb and Cb are no problems IMHO. The advantage is only against a single enemy element, which historically seems to make sense. A better way would be for tournament organizers to rule that all Bw count as Lb/Cb. |
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Jun 9, 2017 11:56:01 GMT
Dangun: Easy answers here. The examples run throughout history...from Alexander's Hypaspists at Chaeronea, to Hannibal's infantry at Trebbia and Cannae, to Irish tactics versus invading Vikings, these all point to the capability of a lighter armed infantry to withdraw in the face of the enemy amd continue fighting and skirmishing (as long as their morale held). Phil has rated all these troops as Ax. One has great difficulty recreating these tactics, events, and battles with DBA as written now. I have tried... many times. Allowing lights to retreat a full base width and break contact helps with this issue and preserves Phil's view of these troop types as Ax. As to your question about Roman Auxiliary, you are simply wrong. Roman Allies were differently armed and used exclusively on flanks of the main Roman battle lines until perhaps the middle of the Punic wars. After that Roman Auxilia were armed much like the standard legionary. But this doesn't matter. DBA doesn't divide troop types by arms and armor, rather it divides them by psychology of the warriors involved. Vikings were probably not armed any differently than the Saxons they fought. Crusader Knights certainly were not better armed or armored than many of their Muslim opponents. Yet, DBA rates them all very differently. This is one of the basic assumptions of the game. Joe Collins Agree completey with your synopsis above Joe - and your other ideas that started this thread are well thought through, by someone who understands the game and historical links |
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on Jun 9, 2017 17:49:04 GMT
As someone who participated vigorously in debates during the development of 3.0 I find it quite ironic that my erstwhile opponents are now identifying problems with the 'most thoroughly playtested set of DBA rules ever.' As I recall DBA 2.2 lasted 8 years before there were calls for a fix.
Issue 1. I disagree that blades are underpowered relative to knights. At present, a knight element destroys a blade 15/36 times at contact; the blade quick kills the knight, if you will forgive my use of the term, only 6/36 times. Historically German knights were unable to defeat Swiss HALBERDIERS frontally, without dismounting as at Laupen. Late Roman legions were able to stand off both Sassanid and Parthian Cataphracts, although they were occasionally broken. But changing the win/loss ratio from 2.5/1 to 5/1 would be grossly unhistorical. The Gothic cavalry at Adrianople lack couched lances and armor sufficient to be classed as knights, their success; according to Prof. Ken Harl of University of Louisiana, was due to tactical surprise and positioning as with Hannibal at Canna and not a knightly mounted charge.
The DBA 2.2 solution, blades getting rear support from psiloi, was well attested to historically. Read the recent book 'The Nisbis War' to see how this worked in the later Roman era. Rear support in 2.2 gave a legion a 4/36 chance of a quick kill versus a 9/36 for the knights. But losing knight formations are worse after a recoil in that edition
I agree that making elephants a 5 against foot is problematic. Successor armies in particular intermingled elephants to 'side support' their infantry. This would be historical and an interesting addition to the rules. By increasing the elephant factor in 3.0 and doing away with rear support against mounted the balance between infantry and elephants became severely disturbed. In earlier DBA editions it was quite sensible to attack elephants with light infantry with a good chance of success. Aux really have no chance against elephants at 2 vs. 5.
Elephants should not be more vulnerable against bowfire, at least as discussed in a recent edition of Slingshot by a former big game hunter. He notes that it was considered a miracle when during one safari an elephant was stopped with a .303 bullet. Usually they could not, and this is why elephant guns were invented. I doubt that longbows had the same power as the .303.
DBA 1.0 and 1.1 did have knights killed if beaten by bows in their own bound. As if a 4 versus 3 advantage preceeded by a turn of shooting was not harsh enough to discourage knightly charges against bow lines. But historian Kelly Verbruggen does not believe that knights versus longbows was such a mismatch- that English bowmen were defeated in several engagements where they did not also have the advantage of favorable ground on which to set up their 'herce'.
There is already an alternative to DBA 3.0 which addresses many of these issues, it is published by The Washington Grand Company and is called Triumph. They've been playtesting this now quite vigorously for 2 years, and it is pretty good. Players who find issue with DBA 3.0 might give it a try.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 9, 2017 20:27:24 GMT
So, before getting into what 3.1 might look like, should we think about whether a 3.1 is wanted and worth the effort? 1. What are we hoping to achieve?
2. Could that be achieved in ways other than having a 3.1?
3. Overall, do the pros outweigh the cons?
Regards,
Simon.
Bit of a worry, this - yes, we could do with a few clarifications, but NO we don't need all the grief we went though over the past five plus years+ (have we all forgotten the rifts, grief and division we went though in the 2.2/3.0 transition??). For whose benefit is this??
Martin |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 9, 2017 20:28:51 GMT
Basically, agree with Simon's comments....
M
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 10, 2017 1:08:49 GMT
<abbr>Yo</abbr>u list three objectives you would like to reach with version 3.1
1. Clarify the rules.
2. Clean up the army lists.
3. Improve the narrative the game generates.
What exactly do you mean by the ‘narrative’ the game generates?
Cheers, Robert
Robert: Just a silly way of saying "make the game more historical". Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 10, 2017 1:33:58 GMT
Basically, agree with Simon's comments.... M Martin: While I don't like to speak of this past... I will. The rift in our community was caused by one factor. That factor is gone, though competition remains. Some of the rift was public. I can attest... much was private. If anyone was bothered by the rift besides the Barkers, it was me. I will not say more. In short, I understand your concerns. I believe the attitudes that caused the problems of the past are gone. They certainly do not reside in me. I do however believe that DBA needs new versions and refinements to continue. My agenda here is too encourage new ideas and thinking. Let us not let the ugliness of the past keep us from a constructive and growing future. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 10, 2017 1:56:27 GMT
Mike:
Wow... a rather meaty post. I'm not sure I can respond to all of it and make much sense.
Let me respond to the first part. I will interestingly respond furthering your side...
One point you left out (ok... perhaps didn't emphasis is a better description) is that Blade vs Knight is also now very different match up than Blade vs Spear. In short, Blade vs Knight is much bloodier for both sides under 3.0 than 2.2. Is this historical?
The simple answer is, "who in hell knows?".
I will however put forth that such a match up under 3.0 is more interesting. Certainly I would like to envision William's knights suffering casualties at the hands of Harold's Huscarles and simply being driven back back the average boring Spearman.
DBA 3.0 gives us this outcome... historical or not.
My changes mitigate this. I worry that this may be too much. As you say, "I disagree that blades are underpowered relative to knights."
I suggest play testing my changes to see if this is the case.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Jun 10, 2017 8:24:51 GMT
I do however believe that DBA needs new versions and refinements to continue. My agenda here is too encourage new ideas and thinking. Let us not let the ugliness of the past keep us from a constructive and growing future. I do not believe that DBA needs new versions per se. I believe that DBA in the current rules needs: 1) Clean-up of the rules. Most things (everything?) seem to work conceptionally. But it is too hard to understand some of these things from the rules. Plus there are a few contradictions. 2) Maybe minimal changes to make Solid infantry better. But I am ok with the rules as they are.* (* Fast Warbands are clearly better. But I still enjoy playing with Solid Warbands, it is an extra challenge. Etc.) What DBA does not need: 1) Changes to the army lists. 2) More complicated factors. 3) Attempts to balance the rules as a competition game. |
|
