|
|
CB and LB
Jun 29, 2017 0:57:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by phippsy on Jun 29, 2017 0:57:05 GMT
This has been puzzling me a little since starting DBA3.0, but just ran with it. Recently been reading whilst travelling the 1356 book by Richard Sharp Author - do not have to hand.
Anyway the point when you read this and other battle accounts are;
1. Crossbows outrange Longbows and
2. Once in range Longbows out shoot by volume fire effectiveness crossbows.
Why in DBA3.0 are they treated exactly the same? Why not have a 4BW range for CB, and they only fire like artillery every other bound, or some other differences?
Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 29, 2017 1:54:47 GMT
Well, when you say ‘crossbow’, what type of crossbow do you mean? A light crossbow: with a wooden bow or ‘prod’ that could be cocked by simply pulling back the cord? A heavier crossbow: with a composite or metal ‘prod’, that needed a bit more effort to pull back? A pull lever crossbow: with a push or pull leaver mechanism to cock it? A belt cocked crossbow: which needed a hook attached to the user’s belt and a foot stirrup? An Windlass crossbow: that had to be cocked by a ‘cranequin’ winch mechanism? An Arbelast crossbow: a very heavy powerful crossbow that was very slow to cock via a winch as above? Certainly the heaviest crossbows were slow but more powerful, had greater penetration, and could outrange even a longbow…but where do you draw the line between ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ weapons of this type, and who used what? (Mind you, I think it is a nice idea to have a difference between longbows and crossbows) 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 Simon on Jun 29, 2017 14:57:54 GMT
Certainly the heaviest crossbows were slow but more powerful, had greater penetration, and could outrange even a longbow…but where do you draw the line between ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ weapons of this type, and who used what? (Mind you, I think it is a nice idea to have a difference between longbows and crossbows) 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
personally, I think it is important that DBA keeps its identity as a high level, fairly abstract game without getting too overloaded with detail and chrome. There are other rule sets that do that. Regards, Simon |
|
|
|
CB and LB
Jun 29, 2017 15:30:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by Haardrada on Jun 29, 2017 15:30:05 GMT
I always thought it was taken that it was the "effective" rather than maximum range back in the Wargames Research Group days?
Plus the Lb effectiveness was based on the recorded the English archers rate of fire over short periods of time in HYW battles?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 29, 2017 17:48:43 GMT
The best solution for Lb & Cb is as follows:
Light Crossbows and Bows are just treated like "Bows".
Heavy Crossbows and very effective (often armored) "longbowmen" count as "Shooters" +3 v. Foot +4 Mounted. Both have the Cry Havoc Ability (Destroy Knights on Equal Results)
Heavy Crossbows shoot only in their own bound and are generally considered protected by pavises. Heavy Crossbows cannot be Fast. Longbows can be Fast but lose Cry Havoc (no Stakes).
Mount Heavy Crossbow and non-Fast Longbow on 20mm deep Stands (so its clear they move only 2BW - Stakes and Pavises help to identify) - 15mm deep for 15mm?) Also helps to put only 3 figures on the Stand to show they are "medium" foot (ie generally +3) but that's optional.
Points: 3 for Bows and Crossbows; 4 for Longbows (quick and dirty if you are using DBA lists you get 2 LB for every 3LB on your Army List - any left overs become Bow).
Have used these rules for several years and they are very popular esp. with more historially based less tournament oriented players. Great for HYW battles.
These rules (and other Medieval specific rules) are codified in A Game of Fire and Ice.
Thomas J. Thomas
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 29, 2017 19:28:43 GMT
Certainly the heaviest crossbows were slow but more powerful, had greater penetration, and could outrange even a longbow…but where do you draw the line between ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ weapons of this type, and who used what? (Mind you, I think it is a nice idea to have a difference between longbows and crossbows) 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
personally, I think it is important that DBA keeps its identity as a high level, fairly abstract game without getting too overloaded with detail and chrome. There are other rule sets that do that. Regards, Simon Totally agree with Simon. The title is "FAST PLAY RULES"......if we wanted micro-detail we'd be playing old school rules like Newbury (+1...had breakfast. -1 dagger a bit blunt. +1 wearing both shoes. -1 sun within 45 degrees of straight ahead etc etc et bl**dy cetera). So let's 'keep it real' here. If we want DBMM, we'll play DBMM. (Or wotevvs) Martin |
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jun 29, 2017 20:06:20 GMT
personally, I think it is important that DBA keeps its identity as a high level, fairly abstract game without getting too overloaded with detail and chrome. There are other rule sets that do that. Yes, I completely agree Simon. |
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jun 30, 2017 6:54:51 GMT
Best thing is if you want to tinker with the rules you can. And make your own house rules. Each to their own.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Jun 30, 2017 7:42:07 GMT
I agree that the ability to add house rules is a strength of DBA. I didn't mean to imply doing so was wrong in anyway. After all we have different interpretations of history and how to model it.
I recall that in the development cycle receiving emails from Phil with a range of ideas he wanted playtest information on. Some where in my view at the time just odd. Of these many actually worked really well. Which still surprised me! Some didn't and were quickly dropped. Yet despite having played hundreds of games of DBA 3.0 I'm still finding really interesting situations and interactions. My most recent experiences with horde and command posts have proven fascinating.
As a result I'm just cautious of adding additional complexity. There are still many fascinating things to explore and for me try and understand. Finally, having a standard set of rules which you can turn up at a new group and play is for me a significant plus.
But that is of course just my view.
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jun 30, 2017 13:58:44 GMT
Since Lb and Cb have an uncompensated advantage (when compared to Bw) that they can kill Kn on equal, I very much like the idea that they should not be able to move and shoot in the same bound.
scott
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 30, 2017 16:33:33 GMT
The key to effective rule esp in DBX is to model the real world with the minimum of rule overhead. But you must keep both goals in mind. Longbows and Crossbows differed in effect (and tactical use). Hence the need to differenciate but with a minimum of rule overhead. That's why I use simple easy to apply rules (laid out above) which reflect their capabilites and differences but with very little additional rule hassle.
Having them not move does not reflect their actual abilities - its just a made up abstract rule for "play balance".
Careful rule construction means you can have a solid simulation with a minimum of charts/tables/modifers etc. DBX is quite capable of handling the nuances of medeival warfare without resorting to DBMM levels of complexity (let alone absurd Newbury). This does not mean that we throw out all historical effects only that we reflect them with clever easy to apply rules - actually based on how weapons/troops worked (i.e. crossbows had a lower rate of fire than Longbows - both had greater power then conventional Bows) not "play balance" (that's what points are for).
DBA is not built for this as it must reflect 3000 years of history and every army must have 12 elements. But DBX can handle this and is quite flexiable and inherently does lots of the work for us. Don't let DBMM mislead you - its not an effective use of the DBX mechanics and is wildly overwrought. We can get all this stuff to work within a very workable model.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Jul 1, 2017 10:51:34 GMT
The key to effective rule esp in DBX is to model the real world with the minimum of rule overhead. But you must keep both goals in mind. Longbows and Crossbows differed in effect (and tactical use). Hence the need to differenciate but with a minimum of rule overhead. That's why I use simple easy to apply rules (laid out above) which reflect their capabilites and differences but with very little additional rule hassle. Having them not move does not reflect their actual abilities - its just a made up abstract rule for "play balance". Careful rule construction means you can have a solid simulation with a minimum of charts/tables/modifers etc. DBX is quite capable of handling the nuances of medeival warfare without resorting to DBMM levels of complexity (let alone absurd Newbury). This does not mean that we throw out all historical effects only that we reflect them with clever easy to apply rules - actually based on how weapons/troops worked (i.e. crossbows had a lower rate of fire than Longbows - both had greater power then conventional Bows) not "play balance" (that's what points are for). DBA is not built for this as it must reflect 3000 years of history and every army must have 12 elements. But DBX can handle this and is quite flexiable and inherently does lots of the work for us. Don't let DBMM mislead you - its not an effective use of the DBX mechanics and is wildly overwrought. We can get all this stuff to work within a very workable model. TomT My perception of the kill on equals rule is that the knights have been brought to a standstill and the archers have drawn their knives and poked them through holes in the armour. This rapid deceleration is aided by planting stakes in the ground, so presumably when the longbowmen move, they have to "up stakes", which probably takes a bit of time. hence the restriction on moving and shooting (by the time they have moved they no longer have time to shoot). I don't know why crossbows kill knight on equals to be honest though. Scott |
|
|
|
CB and LB
Jul 3, 2017 23:38:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by phippsy on Jul 3, 2017 23:38:55 GMT
Keeping the current rules and all the positive elements around it are ideal indeed...thread just started from an interest really.
Thanks Peter
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jul 5, 2017 19:52:31 GMT
Crossbows also kill Knights on Equals. Longbows did not use Stakes until Agincourt and may not have used them at all during the War of the Roses (so would not account for Crecy for instance). Even at Agincourt the English advanced either by replanting Stakes or leaving behind before engaging French Knights. At Poiters in particular the archers moved round to the French flank and then engaged so moving and shooting did happen. In any case the prime distinction between Longbows and Crossbows was rate of fire.
Again I don't suggest any change to DBA 3.0 - I've bronzed my copy and pull it off the shelf for tournaments. I'm just suggesting this for DBH (DBX Historical or soemthing...) Great for doing Hundred Year War battles and campaigns.
TomT
|
|
