|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 19, 2022 17:10:13 GMT
Paulisper:
No doubt more testing is in order. Our experience is the opposite of yours, though it was gathered from individual and club games, not tournaments. It also may produce different results from different play styles. I am more aggressive with my Pike armies and use echeloned attacks. Therefore, my Pike are already exposed. This has helped me. As you have stated, your experiences were different.
Again, broader testing is in order.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 19, 2022 15:35:41 GMT
Here is some drivel I wrote several years ago. I think it ok to post here as most have read it...and it is available in its entirety on the interwebs, though in French.
The Problem with Pike
Pike (Pk) has suffered an unusual setback in DBA 3. The greater movement rates, improved rules for moving to contact, and the reclassification of the Pike troop type as impetuous would seem, at a cursory glance, to have improved the Pk troop type compared to earlier versions of DBA. Gone is the capability of a defender using simple geometric ploys to prevent a Pike phalanx from making contact in hand-to-hand combat. Banished is the need for large amounts of PIPs to keep those Pike formations fighting after they do finally contact.
Not all the changes were positive. Pike did have its rear support factor against most mounted cut to +1, but this is mitigated by foot classed as ‘Solid’ (most Pike is rated as such) recoiling mounted on a tie (as an aside this change helps to better simulate the early Renaissance period). The addition of side support for Spear also is not much of a negative factor as the standard +5 (Spear with side support) vs +6 ((Pike with rear support) matchup will quickly break the Spear line, eliminating the side support. The improved capability of Pike to get to the enemy, enter combat with the enemy, and stay in combat would seem to vastly outweigh these small negative changes.
The Pike’s problems however quickly become apparent after playing a few games. The troop type has always suffered in DBA because of its lack of frontage. In ancient battles, non-pike-based armies facing pikes would shorten their lines in order to attempt to match the depth of their opponent, so as to prevent the Pike phalanx from breaking through their lines. This, coupled with the difficulty of commanding troops over a wide frontage, helped to keep Pike armies from being easily surrounded and destroyed. DBA, with its set limit of 12 elements per side, and the need for Pike elements to be deployed two-deep, has always struggled to simulate this.
DBA 3 makes the issue worse than previous versions. The greater movement, improved movement to contact, and classification Pike as impetuous, actually work against the Pike troop type by allowing its enemies to more easily flank and engage the Pike phalanx. Envelopments that under 2.2 or earlier versions of DBA would take four or five turns to accomplish can now be done in two. The combat factors of the Pike simply aren’t high enough to produce the casualties needed for a breakthrough in that short number of turns. Defenders against Pike based armies don’t worry with deepening their lines or positioning reserves. They can instead expand their frontage and attempt an envelopment. An experienced Greek Hoplite player will recognize this and easily flank and destroy a Pike based army.
The matchup between Pike based armies and Romans is even worse. The Roman Legionnaire Blade has always had the advantage against the Pike. One could of course argue from history that this should be the case. The Macedonians were unable to win any major victories over the Romans after Pyrrhus. Still, Pydna, Cynoscephalae and Magnesia were near run battles. Under DBA 3, Later Macedonian vs Early Imperial Romans is a slaughter. The Romans will easily outflank the Macedonians and make short work of them. The balance has shifted further against the Pike.
The solution would seem to be found in upping the combat factor of the Pike, but this leads to some difficult balancing problems against other troop types. The addition of +1 to the factor of Pike vs Foot makes the Auxilia issue worse and produces bad effects against Bow, Warband, and Artillery.
So, I propose the following: change the combat outcome for ‘Solid’ foot on ‘If its total is equal to that of its opponent’ to
‘‘Solid’ foot Destroyed by foot if CP, CWg or Lit & in contact on 2 or more edges by enemy front edges. If not Pike, recoiled by ‘Solid’ Pike, Otherwise no effect.’
This change increases the capability of a Pike phalanx to disrupt its enemy’s lines. While the Pike won’t become a killing machine, the improved outcome is just a recoil, the Pike phalanx does have a better chance to create breaks and dislocations in the enemy battle lines. In the following bounds the Pike will have a much greater chance of isolating and possibly destroying enemy infantry. Further, a Pike phalanx that is flanked has a better chance of recoiling its flankers. This prevents another flanked combat the next bound, where destruction is possible, and isolates the front attacking element so that it faces the wrath of the Pike phalanx alone!
With this change, the Greek hoplites at Chaeronea are now forced to consider a reserve. The Roman Legionnaires at Pydna and Cynoscephalae will be driven to the rear to face the danger of being broken before their compatriots can engage the flanks of the Macedonian/Greek Pikes. The Swiss will be able to take their place as a formidable battlefield force, though they will still underperform compared to their historical record as DBA lacks factors for grading quality.
Finally, this change allows the commander of a Pike army a slight amount more of flexibility. Pike in DBA must be deployed in two element ranks, otherwise it is hopelessly weak against enemy foot. With this modification, the single rank Pike is a more viable combat force, now enabled to stand for a time against Spear and slowly win against Auxilia.
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 18, 2022 18:03:55 GMT
There are three reasonable ways to do this... The first is the "rolling carpet" method of 2.2 and before. This lead to some moronically stupid tricks. Yes, I used them in tournaments. Good riddance! The second is the "flashlight method". Many of the developers preferred this one. You can still pull some stupid tricks with it... but they are more difficult and yield less. The third is the current "XRay" method. This had the advantage of being tested in DBMM.
Phil picked the XRay method.
I am afraid the idea of limiting to front edge only while moving has lots of exploits. We considered it during development. Fast moving troops can do all sorts of odd but powerful things with it. The addition of the verbiage to DBA was unfortunate and due to unfortunate circumstances... as were the errors in the diagram wording and other things.
Life however sometimes causes problems. A 3.1 version would certainly help things.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 16, 2022 15:48:55 GMT
Bald is beautiful! It is very close to perfection.
Baldie and I are proof.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 15, 2022 15:52:38 GMT
I would show this by keeping the pikes in the good going... and interweaving the 4Ax where the going is bad. This seems to be what happened. I don't see a problem here at all.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 11, 2022 18:18:17 GMT
Yes, this is by design and on purpose.
It is my understanding that this is square with DBMM... though I am not a DBMM player.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 11, 2022 14:55:06 GMT
Yes. First, though not a native speaker, your English is excellent. Second, this passage from the rules was unfortunately garbled in the later part of the writing process. The story is long and complex, but the odd wording is the result of us trying to correct a more severe error. We got it partly corrected.
So, the problem is not your capability with English... the problem is that this section is confusing.
Here is the threat zone wording from October 2013... before the events I just mentioned.
THREAT ZONE The area 1 BW deep in front of any edge of a War Wagon or the front edge of any other element, or the area within 1 BW of any point of a camp, city or fort containing enemy is its Threat Zone (TZ). An element or group in, entering or touching the far edge of an enemy TZ can move only: (a) to advance to line up in contact with or towards such contact, or parallel opposite the front edge of 1 such element (or contact that camp, city or fort); or if a single element (b) straight back for the entire move, or (c) after combat; as an outcome move or to conform if still in contact.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 4, 2022 19:15:45 GMT
Thank the Lord! No bad puns... I am not near 90 and the last still causes small twitches at times!
BTW, I think Phil is 89... but not sure.
Thanks for doing this for us! It is a great gesture.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 2, 2022 16:13:24 GMT
Very cool visuals..
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 29, 2022 20:24:16 GMT
Pretty simple. The concept of a lighter and more loosely organized group of fighters that rely on spears is better represented by 3Pk or 3/4Ax.
This was Phil's conclusion. It seems to work well in practice for the few armies that are based on the troop type.
The suffix of 3 or 4 is just the number of figures per base with 15mm or 25mm figures. We use those to retain an easy compatibility with older/other WRG rules... such as 7th Edition...
That is beginning to change as well. Now you can have "solid" blades that are only 3 figures to a base for instance.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 29, 2022 20:09:31 GMT
You’ll go blind Baldie. and Bald. Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 25, 2022 14:47:04 GMT
I'm not sure that any liberties were taken as I requested such directly!
Now who is being pedantic?
Thanks Stevie!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 24, 2022 22:10:45 GMT
Excellent!
Thanks!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 24, 2022 17:27:50 GMT
I have just posted the new Q4 2022 FAQ to the Yahoo/Groups.io message board and to Keith's web site... (hw will post it when he gets a chance). I would be most pleased if someone would take the time to post it to the Wiki. I haven't worked with the Wiki in a long time. The software has changed. I am somewhat hesitant to mess with it.
Thanks:
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Sept 27, 2022 16:18:47 GMT
How would you represent the Irish?
What about Thracians? Spanish? Estonians?
There are no 3SP in version 3 of DBA.
These seem the very definition of 3Ax. They certainly aren't 4Ax. They don't fit Ps either.
Joe Collins
|
|