|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 23, 2018 18:18:33 GMT
I've never quite known what the 4Bw were supposed to represent as the Royal army was invariably sparabara. Maybe early days of empire? Maybe satrapal forces without trained infantry? A quick look at the enemies list and 4Bw would be OK against non-Sp heavy enemies. Against Lydians and Greeks they would've been sparabara I think.
But you have more experience playing EAP. What are your thoughts?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 23, 2018 16:13:23 GMT
"Making Athens City State Great Again!"
It couldn't be on a red chiton. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 23, 2018 16:11:00 GMT
5th Century Athens is like French Napoleonic. They fight everybody! Saitic Egyptian anyone?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 23, 2018 16:06:00 GMT
I am happy with changes that effect all 8Bw, Lb and Cb because I believe that PB would've given serious thought to categorising these troops with these labels with significant weight the historical prototype such as English longbow and Persian Sparabara.
I am as yet unconvinced by historical examples of 4Bw being underpowered.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 23, 2018 15:59:38 GMT
But not all 4Bw are the same are they? Why are there rules specifically for Lb and Cb if they are all the same? Seems to me that the designer realised that some are different, otherwise the Lb/Cb distinction would be unwarranted. There are fudges in DBA and I don't begrudge it. Most Vikings fought with Spear and could form a shieldwall and yet they are Bd in DBA. To make fixes that suit our favourite armies without considering the knock-on effect is also a form of sodding.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 22:45:18 GMT
Otherwise we would be being very judgemental and tantamount to saying that we consider HYW longbows and Persian sparabara as being special and important and need the fix, but as for those Shang Chinese/Palmyran/Ghaznavid 4Bw, who cares, let them die with their pathetic CF 2 when they face blades CF 5.
I am happy to admit that I have absolutely no idea how the Shang Chinese/Palmyran/Ghaznavid archers performed against heavy infantry. Do they need a boost? Jim PS Check the "Any hints on playing Gauls?" thread for some interest in your mapless campaign rules. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 22:31:46 GMT
I will email him and and let him know.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 21:38:35 GMT
The ancients did what they did according to their laws, customs, religious beliefs and level of understanding of the physical world. It's not their fault that some later people glorified them. A bit harsh to judge them with a modern eye?
But in reference to the original post, it was the Persians that started it after all. Over a bit of earth and water as a sign of submission.
Cheers
Jim
PS Heaven forbid that rich and influential families influence modern day politics...
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 20:33:09 GMT
Terrain and hiding works ok for my Ancient British, the problems start when I come out to fight. I do love em though. Hiding? No. Protecting the Sacred Woods of the Gods. But you have hit on a potential failing of DBA. Without a background strategic situation you can end up in stalemates where neither army wishes to engage. stevie has a quick campaign system to help overcome this situation. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 17:19:54 GMT
Enemies of the I/1a 4Bw Sumerians:- I/1a Themselves (only the general is a blade...all the rest are not Bd/Pk/Sp) I/4a Anatolians (only the general could be a blade...all the rest are not Bd/Pk/Sp) I/5a Early Elamites (no Bd/Pk/Sp in this army) I/6a Early Bedouin (no Bd/Pk/Sp in this army) ...so how does giving 4Bw a +1 against Bd/Pk/Sp in close combat make the I/1a Early Sumerians “a different beast?” Not everybody plays only historical match ups. This has to be considered. We don't want to fracture the community again. Obviously it will beef up all Bows in all periods. But is there evidence for this in all periods or is it based on specific historical examples (i.e. period specific  )? Playing within period, or over a limited time span, during development, can at least allow comparison to historical results. Trying to determine the effect over all the army lists is daunting. This becomes exponentially more daunting by making 4-5 changes. That risks developing a continuous cycle of development. Duncan's book is great, I agree. It's what my Classical armies are based on. He also differentiates javelin-armed and rhomphaia-armed Thracians. Iphikrates tried hard to utilise terrain to aid his troops. Roman "Medium Infantry" don't seem to have retired as often as other nationalities, such as the javelin-armed Thracians. Ancient authors (sadly) weren't thinking about modern wargamers, often interchanging terms or lumping into groups (all lights are "Psiloi" etc) because their intended audience knew what they were getting at as they had lived it. My thinking, and it's just my musings, that the ancient medium infantry troops "set up" differently if they were going to hold the line versus when they were to be more mobile (Alexander rearming his troops for the tribes in modern Afghanistan is an example of adapting to an enemy).
Anyway, I am still in agreement that tweaks are required to DBA 3. But I'm more a slowly, slowly approach (don't be fooled by my mad rush of Gauls during our gaming the other day!). But differences of opinion are what make the world interesting.
Cheers
Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 22, 2018 16:31:52 GMT
I had a few games with stevie a couple of weeks ago, finishing 1-2. What I learned was to play in the zero aggression era so you are likely to defend. Then try and deploy as much Bad Going as you can. Take out you terrain pieces and go through the deployment process a few times to see how things work with your pieces. In Bad Going Wb v Bd is in your favour (3v3 and you have the QK). The triarii are even weaker. If you take the 3Wb option the extra movement may help close the flank of some annoying Ps the Romans can field. If you leave a flank open for your cavalry, try to close quickly before the Spears are redeployed. You may be able to catch and flank the General.
Above all, and this is the most important....roll 6s!!! I rolled three 1s in the first four combats to lost the first battle inside 10 minutes!
Cheers
Jim
PS If this works, it may make future similar match ups with the same opponent over cautious as there is no requirement in DBA to attack under unfavourable circumstances. I'll be interested to see how it works for you.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 21, 2018 21:56:43 GMT
I much prefer precise surgical fixes...
Wow stevie! That's a strange definition of surgical. A points system. Every army with solid Bow. Every army with solid Aux. Every army with a Ps. Every enemy of these armies. That's very radical surgery and I'm not sure that the patient requires it. Personally, I think that your work indicates that there is not enough evidence of a benefit for a points system to justify it. I think 12 elements works well and certainly seems similar to the stylised maps the experts use to explain battles to us. However, I would be interested in the thoughts of people that play DBA derivatives (e.g. HOTT, HOTE) where there can be a signifcant difference in elements to see how it works . I don't think all Bow need a bonus. For example, army I/1a Early Sumerian 3000-2800 BC with 8x4Bw becomes quite a different beast. So far, we have seen historical examples of 8Bw (Greco-Persian Wars) and 4Lb (Hundred Years War) as a balance issue. As these are specifically separated in DBA then surgical fixes for these elements are possible. I'm of the opinion that Sparabara at +4 works well enough against Hoplites at +5 at the clash of battlelines. Side-support makes them brittle, which is historical, but perhaps too brittle. Only playtesting will work it out (oh for 28 hour days!) The +1 PIP to advance to contact with Bows doesn't seem right to me. If anything, heavy infantry should impetuously advance under fire in most circumstances over the 4500 years covered. At least that would stop your camping in front of Bows concerns. But if there has to be a change for all Bows then let them assist shooting up close. I like the concept of the evade idea but if solid Aux get +1 in CC against heavy foot then they shouldn't also be able to break off. Maybe all fast can evade all solid? It's sort of intuitive by the description. It gives a thought to the player when there is a "3/4" choice (Thracians, Gauls). As I'm typing I'm picturing Romans v Gauls and fighting a 3Wb or 4Wb line and trying to see how things would work. With pursuing and QKs things would get messy, which may not be a bad thing. Anyway, that's my 2 cents/pence worth. It would be nice to test these ideas in very strict match ups to see how they work. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 20, 2018 9:01:09 GMT
Thanks bob. You're not being dense and I hope you don't think that I am. My comments are my thoughts about the real world situation that the rules are trying to abstractly reflect. The rules are "as written" and you have quoted them clearly. But you also have cleared up the thinking behind them, for which I thank you.
This indicates that the rule was made to stop a potential "breaking" of the game. It is a game after all, so that's fine. But it would be better if we used game terms. Call it a playing area rather than a battlefield then things are much clearer. The road certainly doesn't cross the playing area if a Waterway is present. Using real world terms only encourages some people (like me) to think of things in the real world. The historical side of wargaming is important to me so that's where my thoughts come from. I do understand that sometimes the historical precedent and the game mechanic clash such as in this case. DBA tells us that invaders use roads because that was what happens historically but not opposite a Waterway because that breaks the game. But it doesn't explain why. There are no designer's notes and we were not all privy to the design discussions. So I hope you don't mind when people ask about the rationale of a certain rule.
My musings about Forts, Roads and Cities are again thoughts of them in an historical context and how they functioned in the real world versus how they function in DBA. I like the road rule. It makes sense to me. If landings were banned on any coast that had a City or Fort (think of it as local naval assets preventing a significant landing) then the road rule could have precedence. Defenders with Littoral armies concerned about cramped space can use narrower Waterways or larger "playing areas" to negate this issue. But they're not and the rules are as they are so further musings will be in the House Rules section.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 19, 2018 23:10:02 GMT
Was this situation discussed during the playtesting so we could get an idea if PB knew about this situation or is it something that has cropped up?
He has written that in his view invaders would use a road if it was available, which is not unreasonable. But then this principle is abandoned when this situation with a Waterway develops. Bob has also illustrated how the similar situation occurs with Forts and Cities.
Why wouldn't an invader approach a City from a road if it was on a coast? It may be on a peninsula. It seems quite reasonable to me for an invading force to approach from opposite the city and the defenders having to give battle outside their city gates. If it were allowed then defenders may use more reasonably sized Waterways.
As to how the rules are interpreted, it seems that we are taking the least objectionable interpretation, which, incidently, I agree with as I want the game to work and I want to see lots of different types of terrain used. But it comes down to definitions. What is the DBA definition of a battlefield? Is the Waterway part of the battlefield, as it is impassable and battle cannot occur on it? Roads exit Cities via gates but don't cities have internal roads leading up to the walls even if they don't have gates? Ancient roads were mostly dirt paths. Could the roads then reach the Waterway? Do Forts have internal roads? Would the fort not be placed in a position to make it highly likely that the invader would have to approach it?
The Road rule comes before the Waterway rule, which makes me wonder if it had precedence in PB's mind. With regard to Waterways, did he envision the invader approaching the coastal City/Fort by road as the first option (quite plausible historically) or then approaching along the coast or landing on the beach (again quite plausible historically) but not catching a defender on the coast with nothing to defend. Anybody psychic enough to read his thoughts?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 17, 2018 15:22:21 GMT
Naaa Simon: being an old ex-London cockney, beer and cider is my cultural heritage (I know my place in society). Besides, vintage port is too sticky, and clings to the bottom of the elements...although it does help them to stay on hills.  I’ve been racking my brain (which didn’t take long!) to think of another word that Phil Barker could have used instead of “extra”:- Additional, more, further, bonus, supplementary, accompanying...but they all imply having some plough in the first place. The best I can come up with is “other plough”. Perhaps it’s better to do as Primuspilus suggested, and leave out the word “extra” altogether. 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
That's unless Phil, for whatever reason, did not want BUA and Plough on the same battlefield. To quote a sage DBA player "I didn't write the rules"  Jim |
|
)? Playing within period, or over a limited time span, during development, can at least allow comparison to historical results. Trying to determine the effect over all the army lists is daunting. This becomes exponentially more daunting by making 4-5 changes.
