|
Post by barritus on Oct 25, 2020 0:31:22 GMT
I like that Barritus. Has a good rock, paper, scis9sors feel to it. Thanks Greedo. One thing I forgot to mention. Another slight adjustment to RAW is also need witg the above change I mentioned. Namely, Warband are changed to +3 vs mounted. So Wb(F) would be worth +2 vs most mounted. And Wb(S) would be +3. Which I hope would keep Snowcat happy😂.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 24, 2020 12:04:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 24, 2020 11:14:17 GMT
Ok this (as I've read almost none of this interesting but voluminous thread) is where I make an arse of myself (again).
Re Fast troops I certainly feel that they are a bit too uber. My 'solution" at moment is too make them more vulnerable to mounted than Solid foot. Why? Well historically I suspect the most common tactic that foot in open going would make vs enemy mounted was to adopt a VERY close formation. This is evidenced throughout history eg in the napoleonic era squares/masses, or the ECW advice to pikemen to close up tightly or the adoption of shieldwall tactics by the Romans when facing cataphracts etc etc. When they didn't then as happened in one murderous tourney during the HYW - the foot get bowled over by the horse (a Frenchman cheated - well well ..... and during refreshments mounted his horse and rode into the melee knocking over the English/Gascon knights leading to a French victory!).
So the rule I use at moment is (new tactical factor):
-1 if Fast foot (except Ps) in open going and in close combat with any mounted other than LH, El or SCh.
The effects being that Fast foot are more chary of facing mounted in open going - those 3Bw are a bit more skittish as are various mountain peoples (eg 3Ax or 3Pk etc).
So if thinking of choosing Fast foot there's more of a player decision to be made than at the moment about the relative worth of such vs Solid foot.
Just my tuppence worth!
Barritus
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Sept 19, 2020 7:46:55 GMT
Hi Snowcat
Personally I don't have an issue with 4Ax being +3 vs mtd (and likely 4Wb should be similarly rated - recall them defeating Julian's Roman cataphracts in 357AD...try that at moment!). 3Ax are admittedly as you rightly imply a very dodgy proposition and to be honest I'm rather chary of Fast foot vs mtd in open going (with some exceptions) but DBA being simple I suppose we are stuck with it - in which case 3Wb could/should be +3 as well.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Dec 15, 2019 4:24:27 GMT
Proposal:
III/4 Early Byzantine army list archers can be Ps or 3/4Bw.
Rationale:
Currently archers in the Early Byzantine list can only be Ps.
This seems highly suspect because;
1. ALL Eastern Roman armies from II/56 EIR onwards can deploy their archers as either Ps or 4Bw.
2. Pretty much every Byzantine army with the singular exception of Early Byzantine can deploy their archers as 3/4/8Bw (depending on which army).
3. The Early Byzantine DBMM list allows their Ps to be deployed as Ps or 3Bw.
So we have a situation that for well over a 1000 years 'Eastern Roman/Byzantine' armies could deploy their archers as Bw with the singular exception of the Early Byzantines. Given the sparseness of evidence in this period one can only wonder as to how this is a reasonable determination.
Personally I feel that they should be allowed the option to be 3Bw (based on the DBMM list - interestingly Early Lombard and Italian Ostrogoth - contemporary enemies of the Early Byz - can both deploy 3Bw archers, just as they can in the DBMM lists - so their is an anomaly here). Furthermore I'd allow the option of 4Bw as both the preceeding Eastern Patrician list (II/82) and the succeeding Maurikian Byz list (III/17) give the option of deploying their archers as 4Bw or Ps.
cheers
Barritus
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Nov 22, 2019 7:12:39 GMT
I agree about letting LH move for half a PIP. Re combat what Stevie proposes sounds reasonable tho if it doesn't completely suit perhaps modify it so that:
LH in close combat in their own bound and score half or less are destroyed by Bw.
This would likely restrain the more obvious LH 'kamikaze' tactics of charging Bw in hope of QKing them but not being able to be destroyed themselves...
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Aug 16, 2019 10:50:09 GMT
Hi
I've been overseas for last few weeks (Indonesia) otherwise i would have replied earlier.
A big thumbs up to both PrimusP and Stevie for this. Some really good stuff and nice to see Solid Ax and Bw get their due.
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Feb 2, 2019 1:51:46 GMT
Some points - and pardon my skepticism.
1. Ax shouldn't die from Scythed chariots - so no need to change this.
2. I can see the 1BW recoil being useful for simulating 3Ax battlefield behaviour but not 4Ax (better ways to improve these chaps have been discussed previously on the board).
3. the 1BW recoil should also I think apply vs Spears - as otherwise you are allowing them to hard flank Ax more easily than Blade etc which as they say - just seems wrong...…
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 11, 2018 6:30:46 GMT
Thanks Joe for clarifying the situation regarding Pk(F). A positive step there. Mind you having been thumped a couple of times in BBDBA by the Later Swiss (IV/79c) I'm not sure Pike need any improving - certainly the IV/79c could be a super army with it.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 10, 2018 2:38:27 GMT
Stevie, thanks for the arithmetic analysis. I admit I still don't support the idea that somehow this is for the Bd's advantage (and goes against Joe's stated aim of improving Pike). One other telling reason whilst it is not a good idea is that it will improve Fast Pike - which will cause more problems. Perversely I would say Joe's Pike idea would actually be good for Fast Pike (good as in more historical not necessarily better for the Fast Pike) provided that Fast Pike no longer receive rear support (the idea of rapidly moving deep formations of Pikes - as represented by Pk(F) is historically untenable I think).
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 9, 2018 5:35:42 GMT
Primuspilus, I'm not sure I understand your logic here. Giving the recoil on a DRAW will give the Pikes more chance of overlaps on the Bd - I can't see how that is helpful to Blade (especially as Joe is openly trying to improve Pike.....). That is likely to defeat the Blade before any outflanking can occur.
There is also the issue that if you include it for Fast Pike (a very dodgy troop type I believe) then you are breaking the Solid foot recoils Fast foot on a DRAW rule.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 9, 2018 2:15:49 GMT
Joe
Whilst your ideas are interesting I'm not convinced about the rules for pikes pushing back foot on a draw. At Cynocephalae the Macedonians were uphill (DBA +1 factor) and yet still could not break the opposing left wing legionaries - giving the Roman right wing time to come to its aid and outflank said pikemen. Giving armies that consistently failed (as Macedonian pike did against Romans legionaries) a bonus seems a rather shall we say counter intuitive idea.
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jul 6, 2018 9:07:22 GMT
Trying to keep up with this thread is challenging however following on from my last post a few comments/observations. 1. I note someone on the thread has mentioned unsourced comments. For my quote in an earlier post on this thread on the belief that archers are 'the most necessary thing in the world for an army' but needed in large numbers (small being useless). This is from AMA vol 1 (WRG) pg 53. It is by Commynes (Philip de Comines) who fought with Charles the Bold at two battles, Montl'hery (1465) and Brusthem (1467) - so we can assume he knew (at least for longbow) what he was talking about. 2. It has been proposed here that archers need to be better in melee. I agree but only for Longbow - as there is plenty of historical evidence for this. I should also say that for the HYW and such that this increase is as much justified by the effectiveness of point blank shooting as by the archers hand-to-hand combat ability. My own personal view as mentioned previously is to give Lb the capacity to kill opposing foot on a draw (see my previous comment for exact proposal). I should note that for Bows other than Lb I have not to date seen any evidence presented to show that they should be better in close combat than they already are. This may seem a bit harsh but empirically this is I think correct. If there is empirical evidence (of battlefield performance) to counter this then I am happy to see it presented. Unfortunately evidence in most periods of archers (excluding later longbows) in close combat is lacking and the only cases I have found so far (besides Greeks vs Persians etc) indicate archers vulnerability vs medium/heavy infantry. Namely legionaries vs Mithradites archers, Arminius' Germans vs 'Roman' archers, Thracians vs 'Roman' archers and Dio commenting that Roman archers in Britain were vulnerable to charging Britons. These examples are all mentioned in 'The Roman Army at War 100BC-200AD' by Adrian Goldsworthy (pg 188-189). 3. Sparabara (8Bw and such) are a bit of a problem as much because the first loss costs 2 elements as anything else. One option might be to not count their loss as two elements (so just one) but to NOT allow them to move and shoot in same bound (pavises and such would indicate they are stationary shooters) - indeed this could well apply to all other such (eg 8Cb, 8Lb etc). It would leave them stil vulnerable to heavier infantry (the rmoval of the TZ issue would help a tad) but I'm not sure they were that successful against them historivally (again evidence to contaray welcome). 4. Previously I also mentioned the idea of Bw shooting and not shot at to have a +3 (as agaisnt currently a +2) factor vs foot. It seems that some (Stevie) think this is a non-starter - I'm not so sure and still think it viable (and more importantly historical - archers were given respect at range by their opponents which is why they would try to close with said archers as quickly as possible). A somewhat watered down alternative would be to use the above rule proposal only when the target shot at is Fast foot - as an example Galwegians [Wb(F)] certainly found English archery unpleasant at Northallerton (1138) and no doubt many other lightly armoured foot found the same. It would certainly balance up a bit the advantage that Fast foot currently have of being able to rapidly contact Bw. 4. For 44Ax I agree that something should be done vs heavier foot (along lines of what primuspilus has suggested). Now I just have to wait for Stevies reply cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 28, 2018 2:38:44 GMT
Some years ago I came up with an idea to improve all Bows vs foot (as I think they are too weak in that regard);
Namely change the shooting factors vs foot as follows
a) Bows shooting and neither shot at or shot back at. +3 b) Bows in other circumstances. +2
It did I think work quite well - certainly encourages foot to try to get at Bows but is not too deadly. Bows usually need to gang up on a target to have a real chance to kill it. This is historically inline with a (Burgundian ?) comment that said bows are essential for an army but useless in small numbers.
Recently I also added in Stevies idea of removing the TZ target restrictions (as in former versions of DBA).
I then tried out a couple of 4x8Bw vs 4xSp tests. PIPs I gave a base of 2 to each side with a +1 PIP if they rolled an even PIP dice (so max of 3 all up). This was to balance the fact that PIPs in a 12 element a side game would also be needed elsewhere. First side to kill 2 elements won.
Results 1 win to each side. So I'd say that wasn't a bad result (for the 8Bw). The 8Bw win took longer than the Sp win and was trickier to obtain - but I'd say that was fair - the Sp really should have a better than 50:50 chance of beating Persian bows .
Oh and did I tell you about improving 4Ax.....an another story.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 4, 2018 2:37:55 GMT
That’s an interesting proposition Barritus. You are of course talking about close combat, and not distant shooting. Now I’m not against it...but I think we should look at the wider picture. The tournament crowd will be up in arms against it (and quite rightly so) if it only applied to Longbows. After all, why turn up at a tournament with low quality ordinary Persian Bows when you can have high quality super Longbows? Perhaps it should apply to all bows (or at least all solid bows), and not just medieval longbows. Yes, the longbow was the very peek of bow development and evolution, but medieval foot, even ordinary retinue troops, had better armour than their Hoplite and Legionary ancestors, so maybe we should let all bows in all periods be equal and relative to each other. 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
Hmmmm....Lb have a historical record to allow for some strengthening. Persian strength was more based in Sparabara (8Bw). They should get side-support from spear to link in with mercenary hoplites. Not sure there is a historical argument for all solid bows to be given the bonus. Cheers Jim Stevie there is as you say an issue with play balance - but then there already is with Lb & Cb getting a freebie QK against Kn & Cm on a draw whilst lesser Bw don't. But from an historical view is that wrong - probably not and I'm not sure tournament players have gone AWOL over it. It probably depends on whether the proposed changes would make the Book IV Lb armies (I have never owned or used those armies by the way) in question tournament tigers. Playtesting would determine that I suspect.
cheers
B.
|
|