|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 17, 2023 2:33:34 GMT
I must admit that I quite like the 12 element-a-side format. It’s abstract yes, but also nice and simple. And all armies, no matter what their actual size, can be split into 12 parts. However, I also realise that trying to make all element types of equal value is practically impossible…the rigid and limited DBA two-dice combat system just hasn’t got the variety. So a points system is a way out, but it itself is not perfect. Take Camels for example. What should their point value be? The Camel combat factor of 3 against both foot and mounted makes them equal to Auxiliaries and Cavalry… But they have a ‘quick kill’ against Knights, so should cost more… And they’re ‘quick killed’ on an equal score by Blades, so should cost less… Then add on their terrain advantages, which only really applies when defending… Now I’m not saying that a point system won’t work, but it’s not as easy a fix as many people seem to think. Don’t get me wrong. The 12 element game is sheer genius - or at least it was in 1990! It’s just that over 30 years us players have got more discerning and now understand that if it’s just 12 elements then they need to be balanced….so either balance them or introduce a points system (that will invariably break the 12 element principle) to do the balancing for you. For me “rock, paper, scissors” is balanced. So is (for the geeks amongst us) “rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock.” So why can’t we balance Sp, Wb, Ps, Ax, Bw…….” It is a war-game…War=history, game=playable contest! So the closer we get to all units being considered equally valuable on the table-top the better war-game we have. Plus it IS historically justified - do you think Samnites thought they had zero chance vs Romans because they were Aux and the Romans Bd? Plus it’ll rectify historical anomalies such as LH armies being “pants” under DBA. I'm also a big fan of the 12 element game. Most of my reading seems to show battelines expand/contract to roughly equal length most of the time so the 12 elements work well. Not sure I want a points based game with significant differences in element numbers, as flank attacks are so devastating in DBA3 regardless of what element is on your flank. Probably works better in bigger battles but I like having lots of different armies rather than painting more of what I've got. But agree that 4Ax, Pk and LH (Horse Archer) need work to get closer to history and better game balance. I don't need perfectly balanced but not less than 60/40, otherwise it loses the fun factor. Cheers Jim PS One important historical battle where it seems the main battlelines were unequal was Leuctra, but in DBA3 the Theban double elements allow for both to be equal! Go figure? |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 11, 2023 12:29:55 GMT
Yet again Alex spins in his lost tomb. 3 games vs Thebans Game 1 double ranked pike got flanked and Alex crumbled Game 2 double ranked pike got flanked and Alex drumbled Game 3 Alex crushed a spear element and it looked grim for the Thebans until a double ranked pike got flanked and Alex crumbled Aactually very enjoyable games Alex is going to have a crack at Lart next How problematic was the automatic pursuit in your games? I find the short line coupled with the inability to maintain even that is a fatal double-whammy! Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 10, 2023 14:02:35 GMT
I'm still not sure I get why a defender would have to deploy first, why would an invader know where you stuff is? it's not really realistic is it. Well…it’s like why the defender gets to move first. Somebody has too! Having the defender placing terrain, deploying first, and moving first, while the invader picks base-edges, deploys second, and moves second, is a nice game balancer. It also seems to be supported by many (but not all) battle reports from the historical sources, where the defender has placed their army on the axis of advance of the invader and awaited battle. The armies may have faced each other for some time/days waiting for the right moment or omen to begin. We have written accounts of discussions regarding positions being changed based on the enemy's deployment such as at Plataea. David Lawrence's "Collision Course" rules give us deployment for a meeting engagement of two armies on the march. We don't have a good "ambush" set to cover Arsuf and others. But I agree that their is something clunky about the current system, particularly for high aggression armies that are dependent on terrain. Tweaking the system to have the invader be more involved with placing terrain and perhaps trading that off with less control of the camp edges may improve balance. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 7, 2023 6:23:46 GMT
It does make you wonder why a country that is dominated by mountainous hilly country decided to fight with perfectly formed troops that needed flat ground. Which is why they always fought at the same places, ok I'll meet you on the field at the back of the bike sheds after school. One day I'll hire a car and do this trip, Waterloo is fantastic as is Nasby (both quite untouched) my brother and I did Agincourt and Crecy in a day, there and back on the bikes. My guess is that as they were mostly farmers, they fought for the relatively scarce farmland at their borders. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 6, 2023 2:44:41 GMT
Couldn't convince my family to indulge me and go to Chaeronea or Leuctra. Thankfully Plataea was on the road back to Athens from Thebes. Also, our Thermopylae plans were stopped by the floods. Next time!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Oct 6, 2023 2:06:51 GMT
Recently returned from Greece and was lucky enough to visit the Museum in Thebes and the ruins of Plataea. I found that looking over the probable battle site was quite an experience so I thought I would share it with you. I took this panoramic view of the ground from the city walls towards the north east. Though the land has  obviously changed, it is still flat, arable land. Having driven from Macedonia to Epirus to Aetolia to Boeotia to Attica, I can tell you that this is a rarity in Greece! No wonder they fought over it constantly. You can understand why the Greek army sat in the foothills to avoid the Persian cavalry. The River Asopos lies to the front of the white shed in the centre of the picture. There is a second stream running parallel to the south but it is never mentioned in the accounts and may have formed over the last 2500 years. The Asopos was still quite low even after the horrendous storm that affected Central Greece just a few weeks earlier, though this will be due in part to irrigation demands. Possible site of the Persian camp? Who knows?  Thebes is just to the west of the hills in the top left corner. I would imagine the ancient road out of Plataea that the Athenians retreated along ran in that general direction. South of Plataea is Mt Kithairion and the Asopos Range. These are steep and heavily wooded. Hope you found this interesting. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 26, 2023 14:53:58 GMT
Perhaps we should do away with inherently doubled units (6Kn/6Cv/6Bd/8Sp/8Bw) provided in the army lists, but allow any unit to be doubled and get the +1 rear support bonus? Also, I was never clear why only solid units are doubled for spear and pike (8sp and 8pk) while only fast blade and warband units are doubled (6bd and 6wb)? I would think these are specific historical examples that PB wanted to include such as the Theban phalanx or the Persian sparabara. My gut feeling is that PB wanted to avoid rear support but was forced to "beef up" light horse and warband. Pikes are modelled to represent his view on the legion v phalanx contest. The playtest group may know more. I'm on PB's side, in that I would rather avoid rear support where possible in a 12 element game. Cheers Jim PS I think Ps are great in DBA3. 3Ax are OK. 4Ax are a problem child |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 24, 2023 20:49:11 GMT
Specifically, you cannot contact the flank if you don't have enough movement. But you can maintain corner to corner overlap and move enough distance to be able to contact the flank on the next turn.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 21, 2023 16:04:54 GMT
And yet DBA 2.2 was followed by three new rule sets, L'Art de la Guerre, DBA 3 and Triumph. So some people thought that it could be improved. Besides, tinkering with rules is one of the fun parts of the hobby. Whilst there are wargames, there will always be house rules, even ones for Asterix! 😉
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 21, 2023 14:12:21 GMT
It certainly never helped against that small village of indomitable Gauls...
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 20, 2023 20:17:24 GMT
stevie does have John Cleese's centurion as his profile pic!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 20, 2023 19:58:05 GMT
From my reading, testudo seems to be less value generally, particularly outside assaults on fortifications, than modern people give it credit. It looks great but it must limit movement and close combat by its very nature. Even wikipedia seems to agree, even quoting Cassius Dio on how it was defeated by the Parthians. Not sure DBA needs the complication.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 20, 2023 19:48:07 GMT
I am really looking forward to DBF. But we'll need a new section in the forum to discuss these rules once they pass through the fiery crucible of mass release! 😉
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 20, 2023 9:48:15 GMT
I've looked at some neoprene 2D terrain for holiday, travel, etc. But I haven't found the right mix for DBA. Would also use it for a quick throw down battle in an evening to minimise setup and tear down time.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 19, 2023 23:14:35 GMT
I cut long thin "V" slit with a craft knife. Then pulled at the cork to roughen it up. I went with thin, forked gullies so the elements wouldn't tip into it!
Jim
PS a rasp is very useful to file down and bevel the edges of the piece. The waste can be gathered up as it is great as rocky flock for bases!
|
|
