|
|
Post by BrianNZ on Jul 4, 2017 4:35:25 GMT
On a different tack, I would very much like to see Pike & Warband changed so that Two Elements are not required to give them their punch.
Solid Pike & Warband should be 8 Figures on a 40x30 base and count as 1 Element.
Fast Pike & Warband should be 6 Figures on a 40x40 base and count as 1 Element.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 4, 2017 11:45:38 GMT
On a different tack, I would very much like to see Pike & Warband changed so that Two Elements are not required to give them their punch. Solid Pike & Warband should be 8 Figures on a 40x30 base and count as 1 Element. Fast Pike & Warband should be 6 Figures on a 40x40 base and count as 1 Element. Brian, how would you adjust an army like, say, Alexandrian Macedonian. You would need to add three elements, and what would they be? You surely wouldn't want 6 double Pk blocks, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Jul 4, 2017 15:13:41 GMT
If it is decided that we need a 3.1 , can we agree some boundaries for the change? Eg no new troop types or rebasing, no new mechanics (eg evade moves) and keep to same or less wordcount for the rules. Just some ideas.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 4, 2017 19:02:19 GMT
If it is decided that we need a 3.1 , can we agree some boundaries for the change? Eg no new troop types or rebasing, no new mechanics (eg evade moves) and keep to same or less wordcount for the rules. Just some ideas. Simon And good ideas at that. More controversially I would also propose... especially if Phil is not able to participate... That much of his style of writing be preserved...please note that this doesn't mean parts that are unclear. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 4, 2017 19:33:25 GMT
I agree with Simon to the extent that there should be very few changes, in fact no change in the rules would be best. Just clarifications like incorporating the FAQ. If people want to change the rules to make up a new game it is not called DBA. If Phil doesn't write it it's not DBA it is something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 4, 2017 21:15:34 GMT
I’d like to take this opportunity to give my thoughts about the Imperial Auxilia and what their function was. I’ll be mostly using Phil Barker’s “Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome” as one of the sources... All through the imperial period the auxilia were armed and equipped differently from the legionaries.
It needs to be pointed out that this is not a good approach to anything that claims to represent history. The “Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome” is not only lightyears from being a primary source, it contains almost no referencing. So it is not surprising that you make the claim that "all through the imperial period the auxilia were armed and equipped differently from the legionaries," blissfully ignorant of how little evidence there is for this. Actually, I can think of one very good and irrefutable piece of evidence for the difference in the equipment between the legionary soldier and the Roman Auxiliary… …Trajan’s Column. If the fine fellows in the heavy restrictive lorica segmentata armour with the large heavy semi-cylindrical squarish shields are the legionaries, then who were the chaps in the lighter mail armour with no extra shoulder protection and the smaller lighter oval shields? Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 4, 2017 21:58:26 GMT
I agree with Simon to the extent that there should be very few changes, in fact no change in the rules would be best. Just clarifications like incorporating the FAQ. If people want to change the rules to make up a new game it is not called DBA. If Phil doesn't write it it's not DBA it is something else. What if those people are Phil's wife and the other owners of DBA? I'm sorry Bob... it will be DBA... rule changes and all. You don't have to participate if you don't want to do so... There need to be quite a few rule changes. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 5, 2017 0:13:55 GMT
I agree with Simon to the extent that there should be very few changes, in fact no change in the rules would be best. Just clarifications like incorporating the FAQ. If people want to change the rules to make up a new game it is not called DBA. If Phil doesn't write it it's not DBA it is something else. What if those people are Phil's wife and the other owners of DBA? I'm sorry Bob... it will be DBA... rule changes and all. You don't have to participate if you don't want to do so... There need to be quite a few rule changes. Joe Collins I think there is merit in having a good look at DBA, from the perspective of having the most historically accurate game we can have, given the limitations we set upon ourselves. Simplicity and playability should not be sacrificed needlessly. That said, we should also not cling, like religious fundamentalists, to concepts that can be shown to be wrong, unless there really is absolutely no way whatsoever to fix them without breaking the first rule. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 5, 2017 19:35:05 GMT
Let me again invoke caution about revising DBA 3.0. Without Phil's or the company's participation consensus on changes will be difficult and acceptance more so. Phil (and playtester/developers) just spent two years on DBA 3.0 - I doubt he's up for another round. We did the best we could and the results are much better than I had hoped. Its a great compition set though a bit abstract and chess like in that we all get equal (12) pieces to play with. The troop types are also a bit abstract "Bow" doesn't really represent longbows or crossbows but is an odd hybrid of the two (probably closest to "ancient" massed missile troops). Still its a great system considering we have to cover 3000 years of warfare and everyone is wedded to 12 pieces per side.
While I'm happy with DBA 3.0 as a competition set, that isn't all there is to miniature gaming. There's also historical battles, campaigns, fantistorical and just pick up games. IN these arenas DBX seems to be losing out to Hail Caeser, Kings of War, the French Game, Two Hour Wargames etc. - despite being a much better general mechanic. I'd certainly like to see DBX get into the modern world and compete - something I've spent a lot time on. This seems a much better use of our time than trying to get Phil to start changing DBA 3.0 already. He will not for instance change the presentation style - something we went round and round with him on for DBA 3.0. He writes to a certain space, is disdainful of diagrams and puts the rules in the order he wants. While many like his style; it reamains a barrier for many others.
An example is Pike (Fast). Its an odd duck historically but great for tournament armies - I'm not proposing we get rid of it in DBA 3.0. I'm just suggesting for historical battles troops who "fit" (or rather are jammed into) this troop type are better represented by Spear Fast (or Medium Foot w/Spear - even better).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by BrianNZ on Jul 7, 2017 3:56:22 GMT
On a different tack, I would very much like to see Pike & Warband changed so that Two Elements are not required to give them their punch. Solid Pike & Warband should be 8 Figures on a 40x30 base and count as 1 Element. Fast Pike & Warband should be 6 Figures on a 40x40 base and count as 1 Element. Brian, how would you adjust an army like, say, Alexandrian Macedonian. You would need to add three elements, and what would they be? You surely wouldn't want 6 double Pk blocks, right? They are not double elements. They are single elements that function as they do now in two ranks. Pike & Warband armies are weakened ( Warband especially ) because to get the punch that they need the army's frontage is greatly reduced. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 7, 2017 18:38:27 GMT
Why not just make a single element of pike or warband be equal to what is now the value of a double element but not require people to get more figures?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 7, 2017 18:50:20 GMT
Pike solution:
Each Pike "element" gets two elements. Rear Support from Pike is +2 (so +5 v. Foot, +6 v. Mounted). Destroyed Pike Elements count as half an Element for Victory/Defeat.
But only for home use.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by BrianNZ on Jul 9, 2017 8:49:41 GMT
An example is Pike (Fast). Its an odd duck historically but great for tournament armies - I'm not proposing we get rid of it in DBA 3.0. I'm just suggesting for historical battles troops who "fit" (or rather are jammed into) this troop type are better represented by Spear Fast (or Medium Foot w/Spear - even better). TomT I played two games of 25mm Big Battle DBA v3 today, my LIR v Picts. The first game saw my Romans smashed with ease by the Picts. Second game saw the Picts despatched back over the wall with heavy casualties to the Romans, but no commands lost. The Fast Pike are soooo much more effective than Warbands. The Auxilia have to hide in the Bad Going. |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jul 9, 2017 19:24:07 GMT
On a different tack, I would very much like to see Pike & Warband changed so that Two Elements are not required to give them their punch. Solid Pike & Warband should be 8 Figures on a 40x30 base and count as 1 Element... I proposed deeper Pike stands to Phil during the development of 3.0. He rejected it. I wouldn't expect him to change his mind should he ever consider doing an update. An extended change, as you propose, further impacts other interactions creating a ripple into other interactions. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 11, 2017 16:15:28 GMT
Phil is not going to make big changes to DBA 3.0 and is very unlikely to make any small changes.
It is what it is (and that ain't bad). We just spent two years working with Phil on 3.0 with daily emails and twice weekly game sessions. We did the best we could. He's not going to revisit these exhausting debates again (not to mention personnal attacks from some quarters).
If your interested in changes get involved in the Fire and Ice project (or Knights and Knaves). I'm very interested in DBX mechanics - what works and what needs work. I would esp like to get more general interest and compete with Hail Caeser, Kings of War, Two Hour Wargames etc.
TomT
|
|
