Maybe there was an old topic somewhere about that, but as i understood, Knights are destroyed at egal by Blades or Lb, Cb in contact and not if the opponent win with +1, (at this case Kn just recoil right?) is it a logical reason for that?
You want to Play DBA (3.0 or 2) online? try the TableTop Simulator free DBA workshop! (a small advert to have the possibility to find more player from all part of the world! )
I think the logical reason might be that, if loosing they recoil out of immediate danger, but if the combat is a tie, then they are bogged down in these dangerous troops and are killed. Hope it makes sense
« You’ve got ennemies ? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. » Sir Winston Churchill
I think the idea was a PB original when 3.0 was being developed. It is intended to simulate some of the occasions in mediaeval battles when knights were brought to a halt in a complex melee, and, being essentially immobile, were sitting ducks for their more agile opponents. Where they bounced off and were forced to fall back and regroup they were much safer. Whether it applies to earlier periods, or whether it actually works as a rule is, in my opinion, something of a moot point.
Post by medievalthomas on Oct 2, 2017 17:37:06 GMT
"Mussale power" combat can be viewed in this manner:
Troops advance into combat with these three results: Side A gets the worst of it and falls back/breaks off; Side B gets the worst of it and falls back/breaks off. In ether case causlties are limited but lots of bumps and bruises. Third situation: neither side breaks off/falls back and an intense melee results. A highly dangerous situation with a likely hood of heavy losses. One side may be staying in the combat based on a misprecption of the situation or inherent stubborness. Not because its tactially smart.
Some weapon/troop combinations thrive in such situations. Swords come to mind with their close fighting capacity. Likewise archers protected by a thicket of (unseen) stakes.
Somewhat conunter intuative but causalties and "sudden collapse" syndrome are more likely on an "Equal Result" than where one side wisely falls back. Its a breakthrough mechanic that Phil invented for DBA 3.0 (though needing a bit of designer notes). We should fully exploit its effects. We call it Cry Havoc. So a troop type with Cry Havoc v. X would Destroy X on Equal results in Close Combat.
As to whether it should apply to Alexander's Companions is a period specific issue. DBA is not a period specific game. Whether any troops in the "Alex" period should have Cry Havoc v. Companions is up to the scenario/period rules designer. The mechanic is there to use as you best see fit.
Given DBA has no traditional combat results table, it is a way to get a bit more granularity in results.
The historical justification is fun...but this is the reason.
Actually, when you think of it, a traditional CRT would have to be a cube, not a table, since the A vs B dynamic is much richer than a mere comparison of fighting strength. That or a billion modifiers and column shifts. The opposed dice rolls not being a perfect mechanic, are however a bit cleaner and more direct than the alternatives...
Declaring a War on Terror in response to 9/11 is like declaring a War on Torpedo Bombing in response to Pearl Harbour...