|
Post by barritus on Jun 3, 2018 9:48:03 GMT
The other simpler thing to do is as Greedo prefers, and just allow shooters to concentrate their fire at any range, the way DBA has been played for the last 28 years since it’s first inception way back in 1990. (I’m not against change, and I love the new innovations - especially side support - that DBA has introduced into the latest version. But the old phrase “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” springs to mind. And that is exactly what has happened with regards to shooting...DBA 3.0 introduced the new concept of threat zone priority which has buggered up the shooting system and caused anomalies such as these ‘safe areas’ and long range fire being superior and better than close range fire)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
Agree Stevie although I might chip in my tuppence worth.
Namely a couple of other thoughts for house rules in addition to the above change for playtesting.
1. For later (Book 4) Longbows - allow them a QK vs Foot (other than Lb) on a DRAW. Note this gives supported solid Lb (+3 vs foot) a 4 in 36 chance of destroying enemy Blade (or supported Sp) and 3 in 36 chance of same with unsupported Lb (+2 vs foot). So not earth shattering but helpful for Lb.
2. Allow 8Bw and 8Cb to gain flank support from either Blade, Spear (?), 8Bw or 8Cb (one occurrence only).
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 2, 2018 7:03:46 GMT
Well, Stevie, one more quibble - at range whether long bow or other missile weapon (even firearm) the target is the mass rather than an individual. Not necessarily then harder to hit. And again, at closer ranges the flatter trajectory makes the shield a bigger factor - shooting at those Republican Romans toes or crests... Still the minus 1 does look to be the best of the discussed options. Not sure Barritus that the English longbow would be better against infantry say than the various Chinese infantry armed with both crossbows and a halberd. Or than Roman archers in scale and helmet with bucklers and axes or swords. Or that they would be more effective against infantry who weren't exhausted French knights with several pounds of mud adhering to each foot. Of course my opinion might be colored by the fact that to date I have several Chinese armies and the only longbow I can currently field are Welsh for the Anglo-Normans... FYI Gorgorad the reason I didn't include crossbows is because currently I'm unsure about their effectiveness against infantry. Perhaps I might clarify a bit more - I only included Lb (and basically Later Lb so English and their copyists) because we have good evidence from the HYW and the Anglo-Scots Wars of the brutal effectiveness of these in action (against both mounted and foot). Also because their lack of effectiveness in DBA has distorted things - take the English HYW lists IV/62 - from a DBA perspective I'd guess the best variant is IV/62a which has the least number of Lb compared to the other variants. Similarly I think most players would rate the French list for Agincourt (IV/64c) as being better than the English list (IV/62c) yet history showed otherwise. There's probably no real evidence I suspect to show English HYW armies declined in effectiveness over time (at least from the point of view of any decline being due to the increasing proportion of Lb's in said armies). So it seems DBA is rating English Lb wrongly. Of course this doesn't stop other types of Bows being better but I'm not sure that their is an empirical case for them to be so - but others may know better
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jun 1, 2018 2:23:56 GMT
I might chirp in here.
My own view would be to use Stevies idea, namely;
-1 if foot other than Ps is shot at by Bows and War Wagons at close 1 BW range.
but throw in an additional idea of;
Lb QKing enemy foot (other than Lb) in close combat on a DRAW.
By Lb here I might add that I'm referring to later Lb (so Book IV variety only). This needs to be playtested but would make English HYW armies a little better (tho' maybe not enough !) than they currently are.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Apr 24, 2018 12:50:54 GMT
Just a quick comment.
The rules look promising (thanks Natholeon).
But (and maybe its just me) do Kn look a bit too awesome ? On a one-to -one basis Kn vs Pistols the kill ratio is around 14:1. Now I know Pi can get rear support (if Solid) and from flanking shot but they still look a bit overpowering especially as most Kn in the game are the old style gendarmes which were going out of fashion and not always highly rated by contemporaries (La Noue I think makes a comment along the uselessness of the lance).
At moment the best fix I can come up with is to allow Pistols to kill Kn on a draw.
Any thoughts ?
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Apr 22, 2018 2:15:25 GMT
I don't have lists/rules to hand, but doesn't this go against the list writers' classification of (?) MIR Palestinian Clubmen as 3Bd (/BdF)? Their main role was to counter cataphracts, so "quick kill on a draw" (excuse the phrase, Bob!) is definitely 'right' for them, specifically, and arguably more so than for their 4Bd legionary colleagues........I see them as getting in amongst the enemy Kn, rather then forming a solid front to repel them. MartinRegarding the Palestinians I'd be rather chary, for one thing this smacks of novelty which Roman historians amongst others liked to give their readers. But presuming that Zosimus has recorded the event correctly we should note that he states that the Palestinians were armed with clubs and staves in addition to other weapons - so possibly not all are armed with the said clubs etc. More importantly though he notes that that the Roman foot wheeled about and attacked the cataphracts whilst they were scattered and out of order (from pursuing the roman cavalry). This sounds like a flank rear attack on a scattered force - not a frontal combat of clubmen (or Roman infantry for that matter - its unlikely the Palestinians were by themselves) vs cataphracts. Finally we should understand that there is no evidence given that the Palestinians were in any sort of open order so the Fast appellation is on very shaky ground.cheersB.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Apr 21, 2018 3:04:32 GMT
Forgive me if this is not a well considered post.
1. Regarding Bd(F) vs Kn as Spizicles mentions when dice don't roll your way Kn are likely to run you over. True but the issue here (besides bad dice hurting) is that exactly the same can be said for Bd(O) - ie Bd(F) are as good vs Kn as Bd(O) which is historically inaccurate I would say. As mentioned previously historically foot would adopt very close order to resist mounted attacks (outside our period we have Napoleonic squares and ECW pikes in period shieldwalls and so forth). The whole aim for th efoot was to avoid a break in by the mounted where the foot could be literally bowled over. So Bd(F) are definitely overrated in that matchup.
Re Later Swiss - they are rated as Pk(O) so the speed factor doesn't come into it. I'm still chary tho of whether many Pk(F) types really had the ability to charge fast on a battlefield whilst retaining cohesion eg Picts, Arkaddians and so forth - Pk(F) to me looks a very artificial creation.
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Apr 19, 2018 13:52:00 GMT
In addition to Joe's suggestions above I'd personally also like to see Fast Blades reduced to +2 vs mounted (similarly Fast auxilia). Historically foot resisted mounted troops by taking the closest possible order - which fast troops by their definition in DBA cannot.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Jan 2, 2018 5:18:02 GMT
An interesting thread which I'll just throw in my tuppence worth.
in answer to primuspilus' question on what are 3Ax and 4Ax my thoughts are outlined via the link in Stevies original post above.
To summarise 3Ax are peltast/skirmisher types and 4Ax close combat types.
To follow up on that (see the link above) I proposed - as Stevie kindly mentioned in his post that 3Ax should recoil 1BW (Joe Collins suggestion) and that 4Ax being 'fightin' types would recoil as normal but would QK Bd, Sp and Pk on a tied combat result. Now as some have pointed out whilst improving 4Ax somewhat it still would not make them world-beaters. I admit I understood this when making the proposal as I didn't want to upset the combat results too much. However it seems that some feel here that they would like 4Ax to be a bit better again (you can never have enough of a good thing it seems).
So here's an idea (in conjunction to those already mentioned above) for both 3Ax and 4Ax. Namely, (primuspilus again) that Ax add +1 if their score is lower versus Pike, Blade or Spear. The only proviso being that if the +1 is used 4Ax cannot generate a tied QK from it. A little convoluted but may just work.....
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Dec 11, 2017 7:11:33 GMT
Looking forward to seeing more stratagies Stevie.
I've also sent you a PM - or at least I think I have - not sure if I've got the hang of it yet.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Dec 9, 2017 2:20:44 GMT
Thanks Stevie for your comprehensive and courteous (as always) reply.
Yes flank marches shouldn't be too prevalent - I always believe historicity should be our guide. So perhaps 3 is an appropriate score to flank march as you say. And also I've had an alternative idea which I'm mulling over.
Namely that only those elements that can deploy on the 'wings', so Cv, LH, Cm, Mtd, Ax and Ps can force march. This could represent the advance guard of a flank marching force. Naturally this is just an optional rule on an optional rule but perhaps an interesting alternative.
On a change of subject yes 3Bd are a bit awesome and 4Ax a bit underdone - and I've some thoughts on them (some of which you've seen previously you may recall) - which I'll put up on the house rules space in the next day or so (yes I know......is that a threat or a promise..... ).
cheers
Barritus
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Dec 8, 2017 2:35:04 GMT
Also the much-maligned Auxilia Incidentally, I remember reading a thread some time back with people worrying that Auxilia were under-powered, and I wondered to myself if the choice of board size mattered to their judgement. On a 2ft x 2ft board, there isn't enough deployment room for an entire 12 elements side-by-side... unless you can extend your line into flank corridor. Auxilia let you start with a fully extended line of foot, if that is your desire. With the armies closing as quickly as they do in DBA3, that means either fewer PiPs spent extending or maybe even an early advantage on the flanks. Oh how could I forget my beloved (and underpowered Roman Auxilia !)
Thanks Michael - I'll amend my post to include those.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Dec 8, 2017 2:13:10 GMT
Stevie,
Your points are quite valid and as you have playtested it I bow to your superior wisdom. Well almost !
I'm just mulling over (for BBDBA anyway) an idea that Micheal Demko's comments above have sparked. Namely perhaps that a flank march could be made on a die roll of 3 (for defender determination) or if the flank marching command composes entirely of those troops allowed closer to the table edge (so what's that Cv, LH, Ax, Ps and Mtd infantry I think....)also on a score of 4.
In BBDBA it might give armies like Hun's and such more of a chance than at present where the flank zones can be closed off easier than in regular DBA due to ratio of elements to board frontage being higher.
cheers
Barritus
So
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Dec 7, 2017 11:33:46 GMT
Recently I've been considering what I would do if I could rewrite DBA 3.0 (sort of a personal version as it were) and flank marches were right up there on the list. As such I can REALLY appreciate the thought that has gone in to your proposal. I also cannot agree more about your comments on the current littoral landing rules which are completely ahistoric.
Having said that may I humbly (and without too much thought I might add ) offer the following thoughts for consideration.
1. What happens if both sides make a flank march on the same flank ? 2. Should forced marching (ie1 PIP tactical move) be allowed ?
I've always thought that the fact that the elements can deploy anywhere on the designated table edge is a huge advantage in its own right as you can get the best match ups vs enemy element and so forth.
3. Assuming forced marching is allowed should all elements be allowed to do so ?
I tend to think that many (tho' not all) flank marches consisted of more mobile troops for a reason. Perhaps only certain troops should be allowed to force march on arrival - this may make up slightly for the arrival process being arbitrary so for example a force of Greek Hoplites (Sp) can arrive just as quickly as say Huns (LH) where as in reality the Huns are likely to arrive quicker.
A great piece of work Stevie. I'm impressed. Very impressed.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 20, 2017 11:05:04 GMT
Arrian (c135AD) wrote a treatise on how the Romans in Cappadocia could face off the marauding Alans (3Kn). As is well known this involved amongst other things having the legions supported by artillery situated to their rear. In DBA of course this doesn't make much sense as artillery cannot fire overhead. This rule can be used to represent 'overhead' shootng in a rather simple (and dare I say abstract manner) - hopefully Arrian would have approved The rule is as follows; A "Solid" element of Auxilia or Blade in frontal close combat add +1 if fighting Elephants, Knights or Scythed Chariots, while supported by a single friendly element of Artillery that did not move that bound and is lined up in contact directly behind them or directly behind a friendly element of the same type in side edge and front corner-to- front corner contact with them. Rationale: This enables Arrian's artillery dispositions against the Alans to make sense (vs Kn anyway - Elephants and Scythed chariots have been added by extrapolation - both being charging mounted as are Knights). Note this is really a static defensive measure for the foot as the artillery must remain stationary to give support.
cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 17, 2017 1:55:51 GMT
This thread is (as usual in such things) drawing out all sorts of issues.
Personally I think 3Bd are somewhat overrated (especially against mounted in open going - as perhaps Fast troops are in general) and understand Joe's thoughts on reining them in somewhat.
Rather than limiting 3Bd QK vs Knights (I certainly DON'T agree with limiting 4Bd's QK - it was put there by PB for a reason) however I think a better bet would be to just restrict Fast troops movement (except for Ps) in Rough or Bad going to 2BW. This would balance up the relative merits of Fast vs Solid troops in an overall sense better than trying to restrict 3Bd's QK vs Kn (recall that in open going Kn will QK Bd about twice as often as visa versa.
cheers
B.
|
|