|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 13, 2020 13:37:14 GMT
So with 4/3 CF, would 4Ax still kill Ps on a double? Also are they the equal of hoplites or legions under bowfire? Or do you make two more exceptions for them besides -1in BGo? And if your Bw are as stated, do they get any change in bad going? Do you keep side support for Bw, or do they now need an exception as well?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2020 14:00:41 GMT
It is interesting to note how the relative (as compared against itself) complexity of DBA has grown since v1.0. That said, it is the core mechanics (PIPs, recoils, "going", terrain setup, fixed battle size, group vs single element moves, etc) that continue to make it perhaps the most playable, compelling game in its class.
But the big majority consensus is that the complexity added so far have all worked brilliantly! I see no reason that the tweaks proposed have any realistic chance whatsoever of breaking the game. I suspect the vast majority of the skepticism is driven by things other than facts and data on how these tweaks work.
And in a great many cases, they are driven by those who couldn't even be bothered to give them a solid test-drive. Because the feedback so far from folks who have tried the Ps/3Ax/3Bw "recoil", the Solid Ax/Solid Bw +1 anx so on, extensively for instance, is that they work well, are dead easy to use and dramatically imlrove gameplay.
That concerns me. I'd prefer that if there are gameplay/playbalance issues (actual data and performance driven issues, rather than just feelings about aesthetics) then that needs to be teased out as soon as possible.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2020 2:11:55 GMT
My general take is it would be a mistake to try to morph DBA into something that its not. It isn't a simulation. It is meant to be a (reasonably) straight forward quick play game with toy soldiers ( informed by history) But that is not what PB attempted to design at all, or he would have slightly updated the game of chess and bolted on an ancient theme or two. DBA is an attempt to find a highly nonlinear optimisation - the most realistic set of rules possible in the simplest most abstract way possible to achieve that goal. Hence things like the recoil/overlap system as a clever way of simulating attrition, without using markers. The problem then is you need a whole raft of rules to manage overlaps, flanking etc. A simple, abstract game would have everyone line up and chuck dice, and track hits. Like Hail Caesar, where the players are more spectators at a football match, rather than actively working out difficult moves and solving positional problems in force, time and space, on the board in order to win. DBA already does a pretty good job. But they went a Bridge too Near, and didn't solve the longstanding 3/4 Ax problem. And then they briefly forgot they weren't playing Hail Caesar, and threw in the bone-headed TZ shooting rule, for no good reason. The "ganging up" shooting ability was NOT literally, elements rotating and aiming 50-60 degrees to their right, say, but was another clever way of simulating the mounting attrition from bowfire, and the rising chance of a sudden break in the line due to the steady drip drip of casualties, without needing attrition markers. PB once stated that in response to one of my claims in my DBA youth that I couldn't see how DBA captured the accumulation of mounting small casualty rates to bowfire. So PB was well up on what the game was trying to simulate, and how. DBA is a somewhat simple game (though much to the amusement of my young boy, my wife heartily disagrees!). But it is actually a very deep game. Incredibly deep and challenging to master. These tweaks make it even better, at virtually no material additional cost.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 9, 2020 22:42:48 GMT
If my seven year old can cope I am sure seasond wargamers can. You sure about that? Baldie, the key term was "seasoned" ..... Not "marinated" !!!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 9, 2020 3:27:31 GMT
Tom, have you tested them? BTW the game already has several conditional pluses: rear support, side support, DBE (but not in bad going). They are "tactical factors".
I don't understand your hatred for the conditional +1 for Solid Ax /Solid Bw. There used to be a +1 for Ps rear support for Bd against certain types of troops. No one seemed to have an issue with it except that it made Bd lines impregnable by Wb.
Have you playtested the modifier we suggested? Your blanket 4/3 CF suggestion for 4Ax will introduce more exceptions for the bad going modifier and for interactions with Ps and 3Ax or else it seriously unbalances the 4Ax/3Ax army list choice. Which then has to get addressed through a points system. Which I get is part of Knights and Knaves, but I suspect we aren't going to get traction for a points system in DBA version anything.
The thing is: my fix actually fixes Solid Auxilia. Spanish behave as they did historically. Thracians have some 4Ax (nobles) as well as many 3Ax. This army is now a delight to play. The Illyrians are fun as well, and actually give Alexander a bit of a headache - to the degree I think Alex Mac Pk should have the option to fight a battle as if 4Ax to negate the modifier, and handle bad going - the way they did historically.
But Tom, your factors work great perhaps in Medieval, with a points sytem. I can't see them working so well for Classical and Biblical.
A blanket +3 for Bw shooting will simply obliterate 3Ax, Pk and Wb. As in don't bother to show up! I tried "helping" the Persians by upping the 8Bw to +3 shooting. It seemed way too unbalanced - just seemed impossible for the Sp hoplites to close without getting really badly shot up on the way in. Seemed way over the top, and not what actually happened.
Why mess up the finely calibrated rest of the game? The conditional mods fix the problem. And only the problem. They introduce no spurious outcomes or effects, and they work.
I recall people railing against side support, Fast vs Solid, and DBEs. Then people realised these actually work.
All I ask is that you give the mod a serious, unprejudiced, extended playtest. It quickly becomes 2nd nature. If my 7 year old can handle it, and become clever at how he uses it in his games, then seasoned wargamers can easily cope, I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 2, 2020 20:34:18 GMT
Joe, that is an interesting set that I have not seen in its entirety before! Probably missed it somewhere.
What I like about reducing HI is that if we choose the factors right, may allow Ps, Cv and LH to occasionally (once in a Blue Moon, but not "never") pick off a Sp or Pk element. This provides some nagging doubts that a Sp line can hold off LH and Cv for eternity! It also provides a reason for a Hoplite army to not let its Cv and/or LI get driven off?
Just thinking out loud...
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 2, 2020 20:29:06 GMT
Time for Lessons from History v2.0
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 2, 2020 20:27:47 GMT
You know Stevie, I think you are onto something. Question, what if now all HI also got +1 for rear support? Or at least double ranked HI win all ties against non-double ranked HI? Now you have to choose: deploy wide (like at Marathon) to try an envelopment? deploy double ranked? or single line with a flexible reserve? I like it!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 28, 2020 6:00:35 GMT
Regarding Primus Pilus`s comments: There is absolutely no guarantee in real battles, that dispatched orders will arrive, or if the troops so ordered will obey, or are capable of doing so. And under no circumstances is a commander 100% sure that he has 4 "pips" to use. Of Course DBA is fun- but i think if one really wants to reflect the uncertainty of a battle- concentrate more on other factors - such as visibility - and cut down on too much detail in troop types. To reflect fatigue- especially for the commander., have him drink say a shot of vodka every 20 minutes- to reflect drowsiness... I always find myself drawn to PB's commentary at the start of the book - DBA is a dramatic simplification that has the uncanny ability to reproduce broad stroke high level historical accounts about 80% of the time. Pretty remarkable. If command friction of the DBA sort is not what you are after, by all means switch it up. I predict one of two things will happen: you will develop a ground breaking new command system that will turn DBA into a world-beating game that will even have ADLG players comverting back!!! Or you'll find that after several plays, the more "realistic" commands system just enda up being deifferent rules for the sake of somehow feeling different, and one eventually just gives up and plays it as is. Because, as you will see with hundreds if plays, it is actually a damn fine little game as is!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 25, 2020 21:22:49 GMT
The PIP roll is, as I see it, a highly effective abstraction of command intent vs capability.
I see the roll not as being a case of "Sir, you can move any four of our elements" but rather the following:
"Sir, we deployed 6 messengers/couriers a while back, to relay orders. 2 are still not back from the forward lines yet. If you want to give any orders, send them out with these 4 guys now. Otherwise if you delay, other priorities will arise/they will get picked off by arrows ... etc".
Be aware that choosing blocks from a bag simulates a DIFFERENT viewpoint/model of command. Not better, just different.
In face to face play, I tried something similar: Spend 1 PIP, then roll. On a 1 you were done. On a 2+, you had the remainder to spend as normal.
Two issues arise:
1. How to deal with Elephants/Horde/Artillery and/or out of command elements costing >1 PIP to move 2. When you don't know how many PIPs you will have, you become ultra-conservative, and very reluctant to release wing troops into the fray, for example.
We had a lot of trouble with these when we tested our games using the unknown PIPs.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 17, 2020 14:24:24 GMT
Sorry, dunes are impassable? Or are you lamenting the fact that they are bad going except to Camels? There are a lot of elements that don't mind bad going: Ax, Bw, Wb, and even Bd aren't terrible in bad going.
If fhe dune against the Waterway is your biggest piece, there will be less bad going or roigh going elsewhere. And Waterways won't always be placed.
The attacker can deploy along the Waterway also. Then the dune anchors one flank. But I use Waterways frequently, and they give inferesting battles. Add in a fort and it is even more fun times!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 17, 2020 5:11:59 GMT
Randomness for randomness' sake can be taken to excess (Remember ASL, a game played almost entirely by dice, where players were merely facilitators?).
For me there is already plenty that is beyond the control of the players. I don't mind in my games having the random pursuit applied to HI vs Mtd and Ps, since that introduces a slight vulnerability that wasn't there before, and gives Ps and LH a more tangible harassment capability.
However I have not found it as effective when applied across the board for all troop types. Likely solves a nonexistent problem, and introduces new problems?
Just my $0.02 though. YMMV of course!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 16, 2020 23:49:16 GMT
Last I checked, beaches were a strip of good going along a Waterway. Were they area features?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 16, 2020 16:23:00 GMT
Well remember, placing a Waterway means you have LESS space to place the other pieces. You cannot fill the board "half full" really reliably, because you still need 1BW space between each area feature, and between each are feature and the board edge, and you still have to dice for which quarter each piece is placed in.
The only features that can go "on top" of existing area features are roads and rivers.
On a 6, the attacker can decide the piece goes in an already-filled space, and since there now maybe isn't room, it gets thrown out!
Waterways frequently result in LESS terrain overall!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Feb 16, 2020 6:48:14 GMT
When I used this rule, I found over many games (played a campaign) that it really seemed to make Ax even weaker: nothing like an Ax (or even a Bw) pursuing into a quick double overlap.
I felt it should be restricted to troops who preferred to really get to grips with an enemy, and disdained the use of missiles.
I liked the idea that Pk or Bd might pursue Ps or LH, and get out of position.
But I don't like it for Ps, Bw, Ax et al.
|
|