New 3.0 draft posted!

[Ammianus]

Sue just posted March 2012 draft in DBA Yahoo Group.
Good luck all!

[john meunier]

Sue just posted March 2012 draft in DBA Yahoo Group.
Good luck all!

Lots of interesting stuff in there. I can certainly see the impact of play-testing and feedback on the development of the rules.

I can also see the way the 2.2+ and 3.0 development processes are influencing each other. (Or at least that is what it looks like from the outside of both. It may be that independent development groups are coming up with similar ideas.)

I hope one day to actually get a final draft in my hands.

[Ammianus]

It's a fascinating process, no doubt! I'm amazed at the almost total elimination of rear support for most units coupled with the creation of flank support for Spears & Bows. Won't it be interesting to see where 3.0 ends up?

[Kingo]

I must pully finger out and test this draft....did'nt get a game of the last one!!!

[broadsword]

2.2+ is definitely influencing the entire process top to bottom. I doubt Phil would even be releasing playtest version if it weren't for the existence of 2.2+, so I think it's good all round.

[SteveW]

I have been a little concerned about the changes in the interaction between element types, but the latest draft seems to have sorted out the problems.

I am looking forward to playing some games next week.

I especially like the Bd QK on the Kn.

[john meunier]

2.2+ is definitely influencing the entire process top to bottom. I doubt Phil would even be releasing playtest version if it weren't for the existence of 2.2+, so I think it's good all round.

I think the process is going both ways. Some of the 2.2+ ideas appear inspired by 3.0 early drafts.

[Ammianus]

Interesting quick kill strategy: Blades QK KN on a tie, otherwise KN qks Blade.
That should cause a little dialog.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Did you notice the change to camelry?...

[Xavi]

More than inspired, quite a few of the points of 2.2+ are taken straight from 3.0. DBA 2.2+ is just other people's take on what 3.0 should be, after all :) I will take a look at this version. Has it changed much from the previous one?

[michael guth]

gee, I can double move into contact with blades, but fight at 3vs5, double move into contact with pike at 3vs6, or now fight spears who become 5 because of the blades next door.

Unbalanced, and very stupid.

Oh, and the rule on double moving warbands is also stupid, 'straight ahead.' So, my enemy angles slightly and I am not allowed to double move. Probably saves my life.

Warbands need rear support restored. Yes, I know, blades lost psiloi support. But, at least with psiloi support they had a BIG risk, and were fighting on a shorter front so I could double move to outflank them.


There's not even a point in playtesting this. Gauls or Germans vs. Romans.

[david kuijt]

Has it changed much from the previous one?

He seems to have added 3Pk as his own version of the v2.2+ Light Spear proposal that he rejected a year ago.

What's an enclosure?

[Captain Rabbit]

2.2+ is definitely influencing the entire process top to bottom. I doubt Phil would even be releasing playtest version if it weren't for the existence of 2.2+, so I think it's good all round.

Not sure why you would say that? he has released play test versions of almost everything he's put out since he's been interneting. It's pretty much exactly the same process as he used for DBMM.
I'm not saying it's a good process but the same process.:rotfl

[john meunier]

More than inspired, quite a few of the points of 2.2+ are taken straight from 3.0. DBA 2.2+ is just other people's take on what 3.0 should be, after all :) I will take a look at this version. Has it changed much from the previous one?

I've not been doing a draft-by-draft read, but a few things I noticed:

The 3Pk that DK mentioned.
No more rear support for anything but 4Pk.
Spear and Bw get side support.
4Kn do not follow up.
Bd QK Kn on a tie.

Double-based elements get +1 vs. all opponents.

I'm not sure which ones of these are new to this draft.

[snowcat]

Warbands need rear support restored. Yes, I know, blades lost psiloi support. But, at least with psiloi support they had a BIG risk, and were fighting on a shorter front so I could double move to outflank them.


There's not even a point in playtesting this. Gauls or Germans vs. Romans.


Or maybe let Wb QK Bd on a tie as well.

But yes, I'd prefer it if Wb could have rear support against Bd (due to the factors) - but with rear support against Sp it looks too good.

[john meunier]

Or maybe let Wb QK Bd on a tie as well.

But yes, I'd prefer it if Wb could have rear support against Bd (due to the factors) - but with rear support against Sp it looks too good.

Wb is more deadly against Bd than Sp is against Bd. Wb is also more brittle and vulnerable against Bd than Sp is.

The relationships seem right to me.

It may just be that Bd is overpowered against both types.

[snowcat]

Matt had an idea on Yahoo that I quite like (as a compromise):

"Maybe the addition of an 8/6Wb element? Could be used to replace some of the
standard Wb elements to represent the more fanatical or committed troops?"

And in theory the first lost of these would count as 2 lost elements, for a +1 bonus in combat. 0-2 of these double-element Wb could replace 0-2 normal Wb.

At least it gives the gambler something to play with.

Cheers

[lkmjbc]

Mike and John:
I am cycling between your opinions about ever 5 minutes! I am concerned about the WB vs Bd interaction...

The old interaction was usually +6 vs +4... the blade supported by Ps and the warband rear supported. The new interaction will +5 to +3. The warband is now more brittle, but of course is not rear supported... so in theory they can be wider.

To add to the matter, bd now pursues. So, blades when they don't double the WB can now be in a very bad spot next bound!

Is this a wash from 2.2? I don't know. (Which is why may opinion changes ever 5 minutes.)

I am not as worried about the Sp flank support vs Wb... though I was less worried when Wb had rear support!

I suspect a lot of playtesting is needed.

I also like the look of rear support for WB on the table... though it may not be particularly historical.

Bows of course are still stupidly broken... but less so than in 2.2. I suspect I will just make all 4LB and 4CB elements to be "Pavisers" (stolen directly from 2.2+ and make 3Bw move 300paces... and take away all QF vs Knts).

I just don't see Phil (or the DBA 2.2+ Mafia) making a light infantry Bow vs HI Bow distinction.


Joe Collins

[david kuijt]

Bows of course are still stupidly broken... but less so than in 2.2. I suspect I will just make all 4LB and 4CB elements to be "Pavisers" (stolen directly from 2.2+ and make 3Bw move 300paces... and take away all QF vs Knts).

I just don't see Phil (or the DBA 2.2+ Mafia) making a light infantry Bow vs HI Bow distinction.


Mafia? Don't be offensive, Joe. Even if you're joking, that sort of joke isn't very funny when there are other people are saying that sort of thing seriously (mostly on the yahoo group this month).

[Inari7]

I don't see 2.2+ as the mafia, more like the "Rebel Alliance :)

[john meunier]

Italian-American small-business men

[Ammianus]

Mafia? I thought they were "The Cabal?"

[david kuijt]

Mafia? I thought they were "The Cabal?"

We did get some accusations of being associated with the Gnomes of Zurich or the Illuminati, but I'm fairly sure those were facetious.

[Ammianus]

Well I think y'all are doing a heck of job, seems to me DK.
The more I see from the 3.0 effort, the less I see to like.
Too bad.

[Bobgnar]

Different strokes, as they say, the more I see of DBA 3, the more I like it.

[Ammianus]

Exactly Bob, to each his own! :)
I'm continually impressed with your patient efforts over there.

[lkmjbc]

DK,
My apologies. You are correct. It is too soon for a poor attempt at humor. Though I do like the "Gnomes of Zurich" moniker. I will be more careful.

Joe Collins

[david kuijt]

Though I do like the "Gnomes of Zurich" moniker. I will be more careful.


Thanks, Joe. Gnomes of Zurich is fine, of course -- my father called my oldest brother "Bilbo" because he was short and had hairy feet.

[Kingo]

Italian-American small-business men

I thought that was a Republican :D

Mafia are Italian crims in Sicily and southern Italy.

Kingo

[Xavi]

Thanks, Joe. Gnomes of Zurich is fine, of course -- my father called my oldest brother "Bilbo" because he was short and had hairy feet.

*Xavi imagines DK in the role of Frodo and DS as Legolas and runs out of the room screaming*
:rotfl

Xavi

[Bobgnar]

As my father once said, the fun part of beating your head against a wall is that it feels so good when you stop.

Exactly Bob, to each his own! :)
I'm continually impressed with your patient efforts over there.

[Redwilde]

Don't say anything that will get Frodo Corleone upset now.

[snowcat]

Don't think this has been mentioned...(I may have missed it elsewhere)

Currently, mounted who tie in combat vs foot now recoil. Exception to this is Kn & Cm destroyed by Bd.

[Pillager]

Oh, and the rule on double moving warbands is also stupid, 'straight ahead.' So, my enemy angles slightly and I am not allowed to double move. Probably saves my life.


Obviously you have not read ANY of the 3.0 drafts or you would know that the EMTLU foils the angling trick.

The Wb must move straight ahead to INITIAL contact. Then EMTLU happens.

[Lobotomy]

*Xavi imagines DK in the role of Frodo and DS as Legolas and runs out of the room screaming*
:rotfl

Xavi

Xavi,

Given their relative stature, you have them backwards. However, I would suggest that DK is Boromir (who wants to steal the Ring from Phildo) while DS would be more reasonable as Gimli. :eek

[DaveB]

I am just amazing that Phil is responding to input. NIcely surprised.

[lkmjbc]

LH QK just went by the wayside.

Just reporting the news.

Joe Collins

[Pavane]

LH QK just went by the wayside.

Just reporting the news.

Joe Collins
Competition is a wonderful thing.

[snowcat]

So is ramming certain views home at every opportunity. :up

[Pavane]

True, but without competition I don't believe that Phil would ever have written this mellow comment about removing the LH QK:
It was originally put in when Sp still got rear support. I was planning to
ask if anyone thought it was still needed, then take it out unless there
were complaints.

Phil

[snowcat]

Of course. The more the merrier. :)

[Thomas J. Thomas]

I'm on the DBA3.0 playtest team and until recently had not even looked at 2.2+ which seems based on an earlier draft of 3.0.

DBA3.0 is based on Phil's ideas and suggestions from we the 7 Dwarfs.

TomT

[Inanna'sBoyToy]

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p219/Keeneddie_2007/Misc-OhSnap_Bear.jpg

[ferrency]

I'm on the DBA3.0 playtest team and until recently had not even looked at 2.2+ which seems based on an earlier draft of 3.0.

2.2+ is based on keeping what the 2.2+ developers consider to be good ideas, independent of where they come from, and throwing out what they believe to be the bad ideas, independent of where they come from.

Alan

[peleset]

I'm on the DBA3.0 playtest team and until recently had not even looked at 2.2+ which seems based on an earlier draft of 3.0.

DBA3.0 is based on Phil's ideas and suggestions from we the 7 Dwarfs.

TomT

Congratulations! That certainly is a special group of people to be numbered one of.
Do you all have special Dwarf names?

[kontos]

I'm on the DBA3.0 playtest team and until recently had not even looked at 2.2+ which seems based on an earlier draft of 3.0.

DBA3.0 is based on Phil's ideas and suggestions from we the 7 Dwarfs.

TomT

I'm happy for you. :rolleyes

[Rich Gause]

I'm on the DBA3.0 playtest team and until recently had not even looked at 2.2+ which seems based on an earlier draft of 3.0.

DBA3.0 is based on Phil's ideas and suggestions from we the 7 Dwarfs.

TomT

Most of the changes in 2.2+ have been discussed in one form or another on this forum for awhile before Phil even suggested that he would start 3.0. Your observation that it is based on an earlier draft of 3.0 is not accurate. I have played both 3.0 and 2.2+ and at this point 2.2+ is by far a better game IMO. I would love it if they both turned out to be great games but don't have a lot of hope for 3.0 at this point. After you play 2.2+ I would be interested in hearing your opinion about it.

[Bob Santamaria]

I have played both 3.0 and 2.2+ and at this point 2.2+ is by far a better game IMO.

Game preference is of course a matter of taste.

I have now played 2.2+ and 3.0 (in a couple but not the latest iteration).

For me in 2.2+ I don't like the multiplication of troop types but like almost everything else.

For 3, I really don't like the really long moves, and each draft seems worse than the prior.

I initially liked 3 and was full of hope. Now I am leaning to 2.2+. Still going to wait for the final version of each, and will still play with friends according to their preferences.

Adrian

[lkmjbc]

Hello Tom...
Thanks for the good work. I'm fighting hard from this end as well. Though I will admit my patience is wearing thin.

Quick update...

Flanks support is now nerfed somewhat. An element that provides overlap can no longer provide flank support.

Also... Bow now benefit from flank support only from blade.

From inside sources....
Basically, flank support which fixed Bd vs Sp interaction and helped Bd vs Bw broke Wb vs Sp.

This change is to re-address the situation.

Two steps forward... one back.

Joe Collins

[Captain Rabbit]

Game preference is of course a matter of taste.

I have now played 2.2+ and 3.0 (in a couple but not the latest iteration).

For me in 2.2+ I don't like the multiplication of troop types but like almost everything else.

For 3, I really don't like the really long moves, and each draft seems worse than the prior.

I initially liked 3 and was full of hope. Now I am leaning to 2.2+. Still going to wait for the final version of each, and will still play with friends according to their preferences.

Adrian

Different strokes and all that I suppose.
After a long long brake I have started to play again and have really enjoyed my 6 games of 3.0. Some things still annoy me but on the whole for me at least it's better.
My games of 2.2 have just reinforced why I stopped playing after 1.1.

I'm just not sure of what to make of the whole lord of the flies vibe from some people though :D
It is just a game after all, and like Adrian says it's what your friends play that will decide it for me.

[snowcat]

I'm just not sure of what to make of the whole lord of the flies vibe from some people though :D
It is just a game after all, and like Adrian says it's what your friends play that will decide it for me.

Lord of the Flies vibe - good one; I like that (even if I may or may not be guilty of it). :up

[john meunier]

From inside sources....
Basically, flank support which fixed Bd vs Sp interaction and helped Bd vs Bw broke Wb vs Sp.



Wb vs. Sp is broken?

How?

Isn't the Wb vs. Sp fight at the same factors now as Wb vs. Bd until flank support is broken?

[Jeff]

Dude...how many versions is this guy going to make? I am so trying to keep quiet but finding myself drawn in anyway.

Ah "sugar" (Chris, be proud I am keeping it on my daughter's level)

:yawnPhil, finish the darn thing so that everyone settles down and we can bask in your glory. Stop just swagging at things and make choices. All the "historical genius" you claimed back at Fall-in seems to have come full turn back to geometric, numbers, and game play "evening" out. Cut the crud!:sick

Enjoy your game and I will enjoy the modification of your "older" genius that has been discussed since 2.2 was published ten or so years ago.

[lkmjbc]

Wb vs. Sp is broken?

How?

Isn't the Wb vs. Sp fight at the same factors now as Wb vs. Bd until flank support is broken?

In giving flank support to spear... and taking away rear support from warband, you now have warband at a disadvantage greater than 2.2.

Consider 3 Wb vs 3 Sp.

The first (middle fight) is not at 5 vs 3. On a recoil of the WB, the other two fights are at an ugly 5 vs 2.

Yes, this is the same fight as vs Bd (in this scenario.) This was deemed as making WB weaker.

There may have been other concerns as well. I am aware of this one.

Joe Collins

[john meunier]

In giving flank support to spear... and taking away rear support from warband, you now have warband at a disadvantage greater than 2.2.


Okay. I see the concern.

Are we in a death spiral of changes and tweaks?

Recently (before removal of rear support) Wb vs. Sp was touted as broken. Then it was Sp vs. Bd. Now it is Sp vs. Wb for the opposite reason.

Maybe we need to go back to ground zero. What are these various troop types and what should be their general interaction?

Bd vs. Wb should favor the Bd but the Wb might get lucky and break up the Bd formation.

Bd vs. Sp should favor Bd but the Sp should be able to stand up to them if they get position and stay in formation.

What is Sp vs. Wb? Shouldn't it be that the Sp are favored vs. Wb if they can maintain the phalanx against the charges of the Wb?

What if flank support, instead of giving a +1 combat factor took away the QK from Wb? (Probably too complex, but might do what you want.)

Or (even more complex) what if flank support was liked (S) in DBM. After die roll, an element of Sp (or Pk?) with flank support that has a result less than an opponent adds +1 to its result.

[Rich Gause]

Okay. I see the concern.

Are we in a death spiral of changes and tweaks?

Recently (before removal of rear support) Wb vs. Sp was touted as broken. Then it was Sp vs. Bd. Now it is Sp vs. Wb for the opposite reason.

Maybe we need to go back to ground zero. What are these various troop types and what should be their general interaction?

Bd vs. Wb should favor the Bd but the Wb might get lucky and break up the Bd formation.

Bd vs. Sp should favor Bd but the Sp should be able to stand up to them if they get position and stay in formation.

What is Sp vs. Wb? Shouldn't it be that the Sp are favored vs. Wb if they can maintain the phalanx against the charges of the Wb?

What if flank support, instead of giving a +1 combat factor took away the QK from Wb? (Probably too complex, but might do what you want.)

Or (even more complex) what if flank support was liked (S) in DBM. After die roll, an element of Sp (or Pk?) with flank support that has a result less than an opponent adds +1 to its result.

I think that could be a good idea, certainly better than the last released flank support idea, that unfortunately introduces a new probably undersirable game mechanic to DBA. I would probably just as soon play DBMM 100 as play DBA with all the complex mechanics and none of the army list choices.

[david kuijt]

Are we in a death spiral of changes and tweaks?


You are an observant fellow, Mr. Meunier. Have a caramel.

[Rich Gause]

Dude...how many versions is this guy going to make? I am so trying to keep quiet but finding myself drawn in anyway.

Ah "sugar" (Chris, be proud I am keeping it on my daughter's level)

:yawnPhil, finish the darn thing so that everyone settles down and we can bask in your glory. Stop just swagging at things and make choices. All the "historical genius" you claimed back at Fall-in seems to have come full turn back to geometric, numbers, and game play "evening" out. Cut the crud!:sick

Enjoy your game and I will enjoy the modification of your "older" genius that has been discussed since 2.2 was published ten or so years ago.

My biggest concern with the 3.0 development process is that changes get made apparently without the changers being aware that they will cause other issues which they then attempt to correct by making another change in the next draft release that also has unintended consequences that the people making the changes apparently never took into account or else they would have adressed them before releasing the draft. It does not increase my confidence that the person making the decisions for 3.0 understands the interrelationships of the various bits and parts of the game when Phil asks Bob on the Yahoogroup why would an element in a threat zone want to move closer to an enemy element without actually contacting and he apparently doesn't see a need for the rules to explicitly allow this.....:sick

[lkmjbc]

My biggest concern with the 3.0 development process is that changes get made apparently without the changers being aware that they will cause other issues which they then attempt to correct by making another change in the next draft release that also has unintended consequences that the people making the changes apparently never took into account or else they would have adressed them before releasing the draft. It does not increase my confidence that the person making the decisions for 3.0 understands the interrelationships of the various bits and parts of the game when Phil asks Bob on the Yahoogroup why would an element in a threat zone want to move closer to an enemy element without actually contacting and he apparently doesn't see a need for the rules to explicitly allow this.....:sick

Rich:
:rotfl
Your first sentence rocks! It is almost impossible to follow, yet makes sense!
Seriously, your concern about changes is shared.

On a good note however, Phil is really being creative and open to changes.
Perhaps something good will come out of it.

One can hope.

Joe Collins

[john meunier]

You are an observant fellow, Mr. Meunier. Have a caramel.

Now that heffalumps don't QK Sp or Wb, I want a rematch.

[teenage visigoth]

Came for a glimpse of clarity and hope.

Leaving, looking for my wine.

-TV (keep fighting the good fight my comrades)

[sleepysloo]

I'm new to 3.0 but not to DBA.
IMO flank support AND overlap should remain in 3.0. It just seems to so clearly fit battles such as Fulford Gate, and clearly Hastings. The Blade supporting Spear just IS the huscarles forming a front line for the Fyrd, and the distribution of King Harold's brothers in the battle.
The Fyrd either against Vikings or Normans benefit from staying together in one large group. However if overlap is removed where flank support exists then the Fyrd have to break ranks to get an overlap advantage; most unhistorical. If you overlap, essentially you either outnumber or are pushing the enemy back, in either case the larger/advancing body of men SHOULD have the advantage represented by the overlap. So Spear end up in the same position as Blade (able to generate +5 to +4 or +3 with one/two overlaps) AS LONG AS THE SHIELDWALL HOLDS. Once it breaks then they are worse than Blades, even more so given the Blade pursuit rules.
So Bravo Phil for the new rules (I also LOVE the Blade draw kill Knights; also
very Hastings).
Bill Peck

[david kuijt]

Now that heffalumps don't QK Sp or Wb, I want a rematch.

Tamil are now Raiders and Elephants in 2.2+; a very interesting mutation.

IIRC, one reason you wanted a rematch was my split deployment (that Phil made semi-illegal a few years later).

[kontos]

I'm new to 3.0 but not to DBA.
IMO flank support AND overlap should remain in 3.0. It just seems to so clearly fit battles such as Fulford Gate, and clearly Hastings. The Blade supporting Spear just IS the huscarles forming a front line for the Fyrd, and the distribution of King Harold's brothers in the battle.
The Fyrd either against Vikings or Normans benefit from staying together in one large group. However if overlap is removed where flank support exists then the Fyrd have to break ranks to get an overlap advantage; most unhistorical. If you overlap, essentially you either outnumber or are pushing the enemy back, in either case the larger/advancing body of men SHOULD have the advantage represented by the overlap. So Spear end up in the same position as Blade (able to generate +5 to +4 or +3 with one/two overlaps) AS LONG AS THE SHIELDWALL HOLDS. Once it breaks then they are worse than Blades, even more so given the Blade pursuit rules.
So Bravo Phil for the new rules (I also LOVE the Blade draw kill Knights; also
very Hastings).
Bill Peck

So the steep Senlac Hill (bad going) isn't enough for Hastings? Blade 2 vs Knights 1 and QK the Knights because the Knights are in bad going? Spear 3 vs Knights 1 and QK the Knights for the same reason? At what point did we forget terrain when studying battles and the reasons for their outcomes? Would the Huscarls and Fyrd done as well if on level ground? I think not.

[john meunier]

Tamil are now Raiders and Elephants in 2.2+; a very interesting mutation.

IIRC, one reason you wanted a rematch was my split deployment (that Phil made semi-illegal a few years later).

Of course. And your abuse of my poor Wb.

[david kuijt]

So the steep Senlac Hill (bad going) isn't enough for Hastings?

Senlac Hill shouldn't be a steep hill in DBA, I don't think. Gentle hill. I've visited Battle Abbey a couple of times, and looked over the terrain in detail using Google Earth more recently to create a Hastings DBA scenario for the Embattled Isle scenarios DS and I ran at Fall In.

Even as a gentle hill, though, it is MORE than enough. It is nearly impossible for the Normans to win at Hastings in DBA. Spear is just too tough against Knights. Unless William the Bastard was rolling all 6s that day. And I'm talking 2.2 there -- in 3.0, with flank support, I think William the Bastard would have left his lifeless body under Senlac Hill even if he had borrowed a couple of hundred trained War Elephants from India for his expedition.

So back to agreeing with Frank's point -- in v2.2, with terrain, DBA makes it nearly impossible to get a historical result for Hastings. Not because Spear are too weak -- because Spear are too strong. Enhancing Spear with flank support takes away the "nearly" qualifier.

[david kuijt]

Of course. And your abuse of my poor Wb.

I forget what army you were using, John?

(they all look the same when you're picking the remnants out from between the toes of your Elephants... :D )

[lkmjbc]

For clarity only...
Here are 3.0s newest Flank support rules.

Flank support factors:
An element of Spears or Bows (except 8Sp or 8Bw) adds +1 when in frontal close combat in good going against enemy foot if at least 1 flank edge is in mutual side edge and mutual front corner contact with a friendly element that does not count as overlapping this opponent and is either of Spears or Blades if the supported element is Spears, or of Blades if it is Bows

Joe Collins

[Skeptical Gamer]

Even as a gentle hill, though, it is MORE than enough. It is nearly impossible for the Normans to win at Hastings in DBA. Spear is just too tough against Knights. Unless William the Bastard was rolling all 6s that day. And I'm talking 2.2 there -- in 3.0, with flank support, I think William the Bastard would have left his lifeless body under Senlac Hill even if he had borrowed a couple of hundred trained War Elephants from India for his expedition.

So back to agreeing with Frank's point -- in v2.2, with terrain, DBA makes it nearly impossible to get a historical result for Hastings. Not because Spear are too weak -- because Spear are too strong. Enhancing Spear with flank support takes away the "nearly" qualifier.

The most recent version of 3.0 gives a flank support bonus vs. foot only, so it wouldn't affect William much at all...

Personally, I think that the only real problem is the interaction with Blade now that most rear support has been removed. I'd rather see something like "Bw, Sp, and Wb that are part of a group gain +1 vs Bd in close combat." This would balance out the match-ups while still giving Bd an edge (and a little more tactical flexibility by not being so dependent on maintaining a battle line.)

(I know that only requiring being in a group might lead to some non-historical formations, but it also avoids punishing armies with only one or two elements of Sp, Bw, or Wb... )

[Lobotomy]

Even as a gentle hill, though, it is MORE than enough. It is nearly impossible for the Normans to win at Hastings in DBA. Spear is just too tough against Knights. Unless William the Bastard was rolling all 6s that day. And I'm talking 2.2 there

Well, there is always Diceman playing the role of Harold. :silly

[Tony Aguilar]

Well, there is always Diceman playing the role of Harold. :silly

That's the first thing I thought of too, Larry. ;)

[john meunier]

I forget what army you were using, John?

(they all look the same when you're picking the remnants out from between the toes of your Elephants... :D )

Later Carthos. Spears and Wb as Heffalump fodder.

[john meunier]

So back to agreeing with Frank's point -- in v2.2, with terrain, DBA makes it nearly impossible to get a historical result for Hastings. Not because Spear are too weak -- because Spear are too strong. Enhancing Spear with flank support takes away the "nearly" qualifier.

I'm no expert on Hastings. Weren't the Normans pretty much hosed until some of the Saxons got too eager and chased some horsemen down off the hill? (And that whole arrow in the eye thing.)

DBA does a good job of using Pips to represent friction. Sometimes you can't make the winning move because you run out of pips. But it does not do such a good job with the impetuous or uncontrolled advance (or retreat) that mucks up your plans.

The elements won't always do what you want, but they very rarely charge off when you don't want them to.

[sleepysloo]

So the steep Senlac Hill (bad going) isn't enough for Hastings? Blade 2 vs Knights 1 and QK the Knights because the Knights are in bad going? Spear 3 vs Knights 1 and QK the Knights for the same reason? At what point did we forget terrain when studying battles and the reasons for their outcomes? Would the Huscarls and Fyrd done as well if on level ground? I think not.

I reckon Senlac is not bad going (i.e. gentle going). 3.0 takes away the spears' rear support against William's Knights and only adds flank suport against foot. So instead of 3 against 6 (+4+1+1) with the rear support and the hill or 3 vs 7 (Psiloi support as well) we have 3 vs. 4+1 for the hill. Also the Norman knights can recoil when drawn so making themselves less vulnerable to counter attack. Also when successful they can pursue far otn to Senlac to encircle the Fyrd from behind. The quick kill blade option on a draw is nasty, but just means that the Norman knights want to avoid huscarles as they would in real life! So it seems to me this is better for William and also allows for a better saxon performance against Vikings, as I think it should. Finally if the Norman foot are played as dismounted Milites (blades) rather than spear, then I find the Normans also have a chance with their foot. Of course the West Norman army list does not allow this, but if you look at the east Frankish list (not to mention the DBMM Conqueror army) then I feel that Bd is the way to portray Norman foot.
Cheers,
Bill Peck

[david kuijt]

I'm no expert on Hastings. Weren't the Normans pretty much hosed until some of the Saxons got too eager and chased some horsemen down off the hill? (And that whole arrow in the eye thing.)


It was a long, long battle. Eventually some of the Saxons did decide they were winning and impetuously advanced on one flank, but they weren't winning as much as they thought they were and it turned out to be a baaaad decision.

The arrow in the eye of Harold is debatable -- while a figure in mail takes an arrow in the eye near the statement about Harold getting killed, there are lots of other figures in mail getting killed near that statement also, so some historians think that the Harold-arrow connection isn't true. Especially since there are only about 10 figures with bows in the whole 70 meters of the tapestry, mostly in the margins, and all unarmored. So if Harold was fighting with his Huscarles when things broke down (which would involve a huge amount of close combat), an arrow seems like an unlikely way for him to go.

Here is the image being discussed:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Harold_dead_bayeux_tapestry.png/800px-Harold_dead_bayeux_tapestry.png
Note that "INTERFECTUS EST" means "he is slain" or equivalent; as likely to apply to the dude getting smacked by the horseman as the guy with the arrow in his eye.

Further, Wikipedia notes that it was normal Medieval iconography for a perjurer (one who is forsworn) to die with a weapon in his eye; even if the eye-poke dude was supposed to be Harold, this might have been a political statement (that he was a perjurer, since William's claim to the throne was on the basis of a disputed oath that Harold supposedly swore to William) rather than an accurate retelling of the actual method of his death. There is also some doubt that the arrow is original.

[kontos]

I reckon Senlac is not bad going (i.e. gentle going). 3.0 takes away the spears' rear support against William's Knights and only adds flank suport against foot. So instead of 3 against 6 (+4+1+1) with the rear support and the hill or 3 vs 7 (Psiloi support as well) we have 3 vs. 4+1 for the hill. Also the Norman knights can recoil when drawn so making themselves less vulnerable to counter attack. Also when successful they can pursue far otn to Senlac to encircle the Fyrd from behind. The quick kill blade option on a draw is nasty, but just means that the Norman knights want to avoid huscarles as they would in real life! So it seems to me this is better for William and also allows for a better saxon performance against Vikings, as I think it should. Finally if the Norman foot are played as dismounted Milites (blades) rather than spear, then I find the Normans also have a chance with their foot. Of course the West Norman army list does not allow this, but if you look at the east Frankish list (not to mention the DBMM Conqueror army) then I feel that Bd is the way to portray Norman foot.
Cheers,
Bill Peck

So 3v5 being the BEST odds the knights can gain following up with the probable 2v5 on the subsequent combats and get QK on ties isn't a little overkill in your opinion? Who are these Huscarles - supermen - no, they're Blade. DBA, I don't believe, was invented to simulate Hastings. Many Roman fans complain their Blade shouldn't die to Knights i.e. Parthians either. And the Romans do not have Spear for this side support rule. Should we devise yet another model to simulate that period? For how many other specific periods in time do we want to create special rules? DBA is a game; not a simulation; and it has to be about combat throughout a vast time span. 1066 is a moment in time. If we are simulating, how about units on a hill being attacked by knights, but the knights withdraw causing the enemy elements to charge off their hill on their next bound? That simulates Hastings as well for whatever reason and bear in mind - the Saxons lost the battle. Just sayin'.

[snowcat]

So 3v5 being the BEST odds the knights can gain following up with the probable 2v5 on the subsequent combats and get QK on ties isn't a little overkill in your opinion? Who are these Huscarles - supermen - no, they're Blade. DBA, I don't believe, was invented to simulate Hastings. Many Roman fans complain their Blade shouldn't die to Knights i.e. Parthians either. And the Romans do not have Spear for this side support rule. Should we devise yet another model to simulate that period? For how many other specific periods in time do we want to create special rules? DBA is a game; not a simulation; and it has to be about combat throughout a vast time span. 1066 is a moment in time. If we are simulating, how about units on a hill being attacked by knights, but the knights withdraw causing the enemy elements to charge off their hill on their next bound? That simulates Hastings as well for whatever reason and bear in mind - the Saxons lost the battle. Just sayin'.

Amen.

(otherwise, here we go again, ignoring the forest for a few favourite trees)

[sleepysloo]

Yes, I tend to agree about the spear pursuit. In fact some of the best hastings DBA or Double DBA games I've played have modelled the Saxon right flank by using horde rather than spear for that very reason.
However I do think that the point at issue here is that under current DBA shieldwalls, whether they be Fyrd or Hoplites should do better than at present against blades. The 'WALL' effect has been missing thus far. However vs. Wb I agree there is an issue and I wonder if the solution is to give Wb a QKill when drawing with Spear (only). What do you think (after all Brennus did pretty well against the Greek Hoplites). I suggest this rather than making Wb +4 for an 'inherant' rear rank, because it allows Wb to still be dangerous against flank supported Sp, and yet still be brittle (+3 can be doubled far more easily than +4)

Great discussion!

Bill Peck

[snowcat]

What do you think (after all Brennus did pretty well against the Greek Hoplites).

Bill Peck

Did he?

I've cobbled this together from posts on Yahoo from a month or so ago:

"In 280 BCE a great army, comprising about 85,000 warriors, coming from Pannonia and split into three divisions, marched South in a great expedition to Macedon and central Greece. 20,000 of those, headed by Cerethrius, moved against the Thracians and Triballi. Another division, led by Brennus and Acichorius moved against Paionians while a third division, headed by Bolgios, aimed for Macedonians and Illyrians.

Bolgios inflicted heavy losses on the Macedonians, whose young king, Ptolemy Keraunos, was captured and decapitated. However, Bolgios' contingent was repulsed by the Macedonian nobleman Sosthenes, and satisfied with the loot they had won, Bolgios' contingents turned back. Sosthenes, in turn, was attacked and defeated by Brennus and his division, who were then free to ravage the country.

So a couple of early wins there for the Galatians against the Macedonians.

The Battle of Thermopylae followed in 279BC in which the Greek hoplite army (in very favourable defensive terrain vs the Galatians) was eventually forced to flee by sea (which they did successfully). But later the same year at Delphi, the Greeks beat the Galatians. In fact, they slaughtered them. And later in 277 BC the Macedonians got their revenge, at Lysimacheia.

Following on from this somewhat, the Galatians ravaged the cities of the Seleucids until the Seleucids fought them in the 'Elephant Battle' in 269BC which the Galatians lost. But after this, the Galatians fought back and smashed the Seleucids in battle in 261BC, after which the Seleucids never fought the Galatians again. The Galatians expanded into Asia Minor and in 233BC marched on the new rival power of Pergamon, but were intercepted by the Pergamene army and defeated. In 166BC the Pergamenes defeated the Galatians again.

So from these and the earlier Macedonian-Successor battles, it appears that the Galatians had a reasonable track record against Pk-based armies (which still included some defeats), and the beginning of a poor record against post-Pk-based armies - but where are the examples of them wrecking hoplite (Sp) armies?"

The question remains. :)

[kontos]

Yes, I tend to agree about the spear pursuit. In fact some of the best hastings DBA or Double DBA games I've played have modelled the Saxon right flank by using horde rather than spear for that very reason.
However I do think that the point at issue here is that under current DBA shieldwalls, whether they be Fyrd or Hoplites should do better than at present against blades. The 'WALL' effect has been missing thus far. However vs. Wb I agree there is an issue and I wonder if the solution is to give Wb a QKill when drawing with Spear (only). What do you think (after all Brennus did pretty well against the Greek Hoplites). I suggest this rather than making Wb +4 for an 'inherant' rear rank, because it allows Wb to still be dangerous against flank supported Sp, and yet still be brittle (+3 can be doubled far more easily than +4)

Great discussion!

Bill Peck

2 things here, Bill, in my estimation. DBA cannot be attack/defense specific. The shieldwall, while an excellent defensive concept to keep even city militia effective, is highly immobile. Any factor or side support benefit is largely lost while advancing on the enemy especially if we are considering morale or motivation which is not accounted for in DBA except as a justification for a combat outcome. Blade, on the other hand, is implied I guess by Phil's description in the notes, to be less reliant on "formation" and allows the "individual" soldier to whoop his opponent. Not saying I agree or disagree here. I don't see an inherent system problem with the Blade/Spear interraction in DBA.

Warband...ahhhh....warband. A tough nut to crack and especially in 3.0 with the removal of Ps and rear supports. Not an issue in 2.2+ so all I can say is good luck figuring that one out without breaking every other element interaction. :eek

Fun stuff.

[Kingo]

I'm no expert on Hastings. Weren't the Normans pretty much hosed until some of the Saxons got too eager and chased some horsemen down off the hill? (And that whole arrow in the eye thing.)

DBA does a good job of using Pips to represent friction. Sometimes you can't make the winning move because you run out of pips. But it does not do such a good job with the impetuous or uncontrolled advance (or retreat) that mucks up your plans.

The elements won't always do what you want, but they very rarely charge off when you don't want them to.

Do'nt forget Norman Cav at this time rode ponies of 12 to 13 hands max. Hard to break a solid shield wall up hill.

Kingo

[sleepysloo]

My understanding is that Brennus could not be stopped except by retreating from him, evacuating the Greek archipelago and leaving him and his to starve to death (he commited suicide when he realised how he'd been tricked by drining unwatered wine I believe!)
So your evidence & mine correlate, and show that Wb could beat Sp, and this is why I think the Wb vs Sp might need fixing if broken by flank support and overlap. Hence my earlier suggestions on this.

Thanks for the response!
Bill

[sleepysloo]

I think your right about the advance issue with Sp; but I also think that's dealt with by the fact that they do NOT pursue unlike Bd.
Billl

[Xavi]

Normans shild be Cv. Same for feudal Spanish. It is just that the DBA lists have them badly represented. But it is not the most blatant mistake in the lists, so no biggie, really.

The point about brennus just reinforces me in my opinion that Pk should disappear as an element type and go back to be considered Sp. Historical battles work better that way. Oh, and Sp should need rear support against mostly everything except really light troops (LH and Ps). But that is me and my DBA musings.

Cheers,
Xavi

[snowcat]

My understanding is that Brennus could not be stopped except by retreating from him, evacuating the Greek archipelago and leaving him and his to starve to death (he commited suicide when he realised how he'd been tricked by drining unwatered wine I believe!)
So your evidence & mine correlate, and show that Wb could beat Sp, and this is why I think the Wb vs Sp might need fixing if broken by flank support and overlap. Hence my earlier suggestions on this.

Thanks for the response!
Bill

Bill, that's one battle. For all we know the Greeks were massively outnumbered. Either way, the evidence shows that the Greeks smashed the same Galatians later the same year at Delphi. The rest of the examples show Galatians vs pike-based armies. So all 'my' evidence shows is that the Wb beat Greek Sp once (but allowed them to escape) and were then trounced by Greek Sp shortly afterwards. Again, it only shows that Wb could beat Sp once. Whoopee! On its own, it does not show that Wb vs Sp might need fixing, or is broken, under 3.0. IOW it is a flawed example to use (in isolation) to push for an improved Wb vs Sp matchup. 'Hence' my response to your earlier comments.

If you add Allia in 390BC between the Gauls and Latin Rome into the equation, you have a slightly stronger case. The Romans had a Sp based army (pre-Camillan reforms following the lessons learned from this disaster), and were comprehensively trounced by Gauls under Brennus (popular name). The Romans realized that they had been defeated by Gallic swordsmen (with heavier long swords and full body shields that could be interlocked for greater defence) and so, under Camillus, their battle tactics had to be revised. The largely hoplite based (Sp) Roman army gradually began to evolve into the sword-pilum-shield system (manipular to cohort) that DBx classes increasingly as Bd (ie. the further along the evolutionary path, the greater number of Bd, and fewer Sp.)

Perhaps the Latin Roman 'hoplites' didn't use their shields as well as Greek hoplites; it even sounds as if their shields were smaller than normal hoplite shields. Either way, in this battle, a hoplite Sp army was thrashed by Gallic Wb. It's interesting to note that this Gallic Wb could be seen as an early form of Bd, and certainly a precursor to the Bd that would prove its undoing in the future.

Finally, I'm not arguing that Wb may not need improving under the current version of 3.0 (although I'm not convinced it does); only that using Brennus' 'success against Greek hoplites' as the reason it needs improving is not sustainable on its own.

Cheers

[snowcat]

Normans shild be Cv. Same for feudal Spanish. It is just that the DBA lists have them badly represented. But it is not the most blatant mistake in the lists, so no biggie, really.

Cheers,
Xavi

Ouch! There's a slap in the face for my Norman ancestry!
(...although you do have a point...)

The Norman milite is the forerunner of the Crusader knight. What size horses were used by the Crusaders? Were they the big destriers we've come to expect - or did they appear later (if at all)? And if it's more about battlefield behaviour (irrespective of horse size), do the Norman milites with their successive charges, spear throwing and feint maneuvers better represent Kn or Cv?

If the Norman milites were Cv, wouldn't the likes of Ostrogothic/Vandal nobles be much the same?

Cheers

[snowcat]

Do'nt forget Norman Cav at this time rode ponies of 12 to 13 hands max. Hard to break a solid shield wall up hill.

Kingo

Err, no.

Wiki:
By the eleventh century the average warhorse was probably 14.2 to 15 hh (58 to 60 inches (150 to 150 cm)), a size verified by studies of Norman horseshoes as well as the depictions of horses on the Bayeux Tapestry.

[Bob Santamaria]

I wouldn't have thought the height of the horse was the only or even the dominant determinant of Kn status. I thought in DBA it was a question of battlefield behaviour - I am sure some of the horseflesh pulling many early HCh were not very tall either

[snowcat]

I wouldn't have thought the height of the horse was the only or even the dominant determinant of Kn status. I thought in DBA it was a question of battlefield behaviour - I am sure some of the horseflesh pulling many early HCh were not very tall either

Agreed. Which brings us back to:

"And if it's more about battlefield behaviour (irrespective of horse size), do the Norman milites with their successive charges, spear throwing and feint maneuvers better represent Kn or Cv?"

:)

[kontos]

Agreed. Which brings us back to:

"And if it's more about battlefield behaviour (irrespective of horse size), do the Norman milites with their successive charges, spear throwing and feint maneuvers better represent Kn or Cv?"

:)

Well if the consensus is Knights, that is the fighting style of the Early/Middle Byzantines and they are rated Cv. :rolleyes

[snowcat]

Well if the consensus is Knights, that is the fighting style of the Early/Middle Byzantines and they are rated Cv. :rolleyes

Uh oh, it's a slippery slope...!

:)

[snowcat]

Err, no.

Wiki:
By the eleventh century the average warhorse was probably 14.2 to 15 hh (58 to 60 inches (150 to 150 cm)), a size verified by studies of Norman horseshoes as well as the depictions of horses on the Bayeux Tapestry.

Of course, this doesn't entirely discount the possibility they could have been ponies with really big feet! :D

[kontos]

Uh oh, it's a slippery slope...!

:)

Throw me a roooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope. :D

[snowcat]

Throw me a roooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooope. :D

"OK - CATCH!!!"

*Throws rope from small pony with giant feet scrambling furiously up slippery hillside*

:eek

[Bob Santamaria]

Agreed. Which brings us back to:

"And if it's more about battlefield behaviour (irrespective of horse size), do the Norman milites with their successive charges, spear throwing and feint maneuvers better represent Kn or Cv?"

:)

I don't know, as I would almost always prefer to take Cv over Kn.

It may be that very few things were Kn before the eleventh or twelfth century. Questions of classification of this kind are always difficult and there is often more than one arguable position.

[Xavi]

Move in, throw spears, feint maneuvers, move back, engage in hand to hand in hit and run....

That is what Cv is defined as doing. Mounted is already overrepresented in DBA, so no biggie as I said :)

And well, Pk could disappear in favor of Sp and IMO it would better represent their respective armies. Sp would need Sp support against *everything* except LH and Ps as I said, otherwise we would need to say that the spear users of the world have been the most moronic bunch of fighters in the history of humankind, something I am not prepared to be the one saying :)

Neither 3.0 nor 2.2+ did a very good job regarding Sp despite overwhelming Sp reports showing that Sp deployed deep to have a punch against a multiplicity of enemies, not only other Sp and Kn. This would have been a much easier change (and IMO historically accurate) than adding new element types like the weird 3Sp and the badly designed 3Bd (that in case it is kept should NOT get a -1 in close combat in BGo, or just be classed as Ax) but hey. :)

But I am ranting now, so Id better shut up and work :D

Cheers,
Xavi

[Kingo]

Err, no.

Wiki:
By the eleventh century the average warhorse was probably 14.2 to 15 hh (58 to 60 inches (150 to 150 cm)), a size verified by studies of Norman horseshoes as well as the depictions of horses on the Bayeux Tapestry.

Err Yes, Wiki lol!, :D

Try Mike Loades or "Time Team" check the episode where they use a Norman horse bit and it fits a 13 hand pony.

Kingo

[snowcat]

Err Yes, Wiki lol!, :D

Try Mike Loades or "Time Team" check the episode where they use a Norman horse bit and it fits a 13 hand pony.

Kingo

He laughs at Wiki, then trots out the Time Team...:cool

I'll look into this.

[snowcat]

From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England, 1066-1215
By Christopher Daniell pg9

"The Norman horses were considered to be of amazing quality. That there was differentiation amongst Norman horses is shown by the different monetary values for different types of horse, whilst the Anglo-Saxon references treated all horses equally (Davis 1987: 81). Modern historians estimate that the horses were no more than 14 hands high (Davis 1987: 69). (A hand is 4 inches and 14 hands high is about the size of a large modern pony.) Archaeological evidence confirms this (Graham Campbell 1991: 78). Sometimes horses could be smaller. Richard son of Ascletin, the Norman Count of Aversa, preferred to ride horses so small that his feet almost touched the ground (Davis 1987: 69). The indigenous species in Europe was about the size of the present Shetland pony and so for the Normans to achieve horses of 14 hands high there must have been selective breeding on stud farms."

So 13-14 hands high would seem to be correct for the normal range, with some possibly smaller. Not 14.2-15hh (I stand corrected). But 12-13hh would be at the shorter end of the scale. Perhaps the best broadest answer is 12-14hh. Yes folks, it's all about that extra 4 inches!

The Davis source is: The Warhorses of the Normans (extremely detailed) by R.H.C. Davis - from Anglo-Norman Studies X - Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1987 (R. Allen Brown - Editor).

[Kingo]

From Norman Conquest to Magna Carta: England, 1066-1215
By Christopher Daniell pg9

"The Norman horses were considered to be of amazing quality. That there was differentiation amongst Norman horses is shown by the different monetary values for different types of horse, whilst the Anglo-Saxon references treated all horses equally (Davis 1987: 81). Modern historians estimate that the horses were no more than 14 hands high (Davis 1987: 69). (A hand is 4 inches and 14 hands high is about the size of a large modern pony.) Archaeological evidence confirms this (Graham Campbell 1991: 78). Sometimes horses could be smaller. Richard son of Ascletin, the Norman Count of Aversa, preferred to ride horses so small that his feet almost touched the ground (Davis 1987: 69). The indigenous species in Europe was about the size of the present Shetland pony and so for the Normans to achieve horses of 14 hands high there must have been selective breeding on stud farms."

So 13-14 hands high would seem to be correct for the normal range, with some possibly smaller. Not 14.2-15hh (I stand corrected). But 12-13hh would be at the shorter end of the scale. Perhaps the best broadest answer is 12-14hh. Yes folks, it's all about that extra 4 inches!

The Davis source is: The Warhorses of the Normans (extremely detailed) by R.H.C. Davis - from Anglo-Norman Studies X - Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1987 (R. Allen Brown - Editor).

Just need the figure makers to read this :D, look at greek vases and you will see the same for Greek and Macedonian cavalry too ...another awkward truth, :eek.

Hats off to you Snowcat for digging this out, many thanks.

Kingo

[Ammianus]

At least they weren't llamas!

[snowcat]

Just need the figure makers to read this, look at greek vases and you will see the same for Greek and Macedonian cavalry too ...another awkward truth,

Hats off to you Snowcat for digging this out, many thanks.

Kingo

No worries, always happy to learn from a misconception, etc. In fact, that bit of research resulted in me coming across the original published source of the Davis article, and I purchased it yesterday!

If 28mm is your thing, eBob is already setting the record a bit straighter:

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/424271_347979971889323_100000319692349_1181995_173 3485738_n.jpg
http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/418895_347980038555983_100000319692349_1181996_141 3361563_n.jpg
http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/422228_347980141889306_100000319692349_1181998_605 914868_n.jpg
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/419178_347980171889303_100000319692349_1181999_177 3401443_n.jpg

Cheers!

[snowcat]

At least they weren't llamas!

Indeed! And much could be said about this excellent point - but I fear it already has. ;)

[peleset]

A lovely, lovely Norman!
With sculpts like this how does one resist the pull of SAGA?

[Si2]

It was a couple of games of Saga that enthused Bob enough to go sculpt some Normans...

We're up to Enfield tomorrow to play some more....

I'm hoping he'll do some Welsh.
Si

[Si2]

Here he is.... rear left - moving so fast he's a blur..

http://www.bendsinister.co.uk/photos/saga1.jpg

[Ammianus]

OMG! He appears to be overrunning the chips!

[winterbadger]

I'm just impressed by the left-side player in the other game, sho is moving so fast he's not even visible. :silly

[Kingo]

No worries, always happy to learn from a misconception, etc. In fact, that bit of research resulted in me coming across the original published source of the Davis article, and I purchased it yesterday!

If 28mm is your thing, eBob is already setting the record a bit straighter:
Cheers!

WOW!!:eek very nice

where do you buy these figures?

Kingo

[snowcat]

WOW!!:eek very nice

where do you buy these figures?

Kingo

Bob's site: http://www.ebobminiatures.com/

Bob's done a couple of foot as well. Pix here: http://www.facebook.com/ebob.miniatures?sk=photos

[Alex Bostwick]

However vs. Wb I agree there is an issue and I wonder if the solution is to give Wb a QKill when drawing with Spear (only). What do you think (after all Brennus did pretty well against the Greek Hoplites). I suggest this rather than making Wb +4 for an 'inherant' rear rank, because it allows Wb to still be dangerous against flank supported Sp, and yet still be brittle (+3 can be doubled far more easily than +4)

Great discussion!

Bill Peck
Okay. I see the concern.

Are we in a death spiral of changes and tweaks?

Recently (before removal of rear support) Wb vs. Sp was touted as broken. Then it was Sp vs. Bd. Now it is Sp vs. Wb for the opposite reason.

Maybe we need to go back to ground zero. What are these various troop types and what should be their general interaction?

Bd vs. Wb should favor the Bd but the Wb might get lucky and break up the Bd formation.

Bd vs. Sp should favor Bd but the Sp should be able to stand up to them if they get position and stay in formation.

What is Sp vs. Wb? Shouldn't it be that the Sp are favored vs. Wb if they can maintain the phalanx against the charges of the Wb?

What if flank support, instead of giving a +1 combat factor took away the QK from Wb? (Probably too complex, but might do what you want.)

Or (even more complex) what if flank support was liked (S) in DBM. After die roll, an element of Sp (or Pk?) with flank support that has a result less than an opponent adds +1 to its result.

My dad has an interesting idea for Warband. Remove the rear support entirely, as is the case in 3.0, but give them a +1 against foot on a bound in which they have moved forward. This would apply A) when charging, and B) when following up after winning. This makes them deadly in initial charges, but can break disastrously if the foot withstands the onslaught. Both my dad and I think that this makes warband behave like warband.

However, this is sort of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, because neither one of us has playtested it. As an intellectual exercise, it looks like it might not only fix the relationship between spear, blade and warband, but would encourage players to actively choose to close, and close first, which appears to be one of Mr. Barker's goals with 3.0.

Anyone have any thoughts on the idea?

-A-Bos

[Skeptical Gamer]

My dad has an interesting idea for Warband. Remove the rear support entirely, as is the case in 3.0, but give them a +1 against foot on a bound in which they have moved forward. This would apply A) when charging, and B) when following up after winning. This makes them deadly in initial charges, but can break disastrously if the foot withstands the onslaught. Both my dad and I think that this makes warband behave like warband.

However, this is sort of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, because neither one of us has playtested it. As an intellectual exercise, it looks like it might not only fix the relationship between spear, blade and warband, but would encourage players to actively choose to close, and close first, which appears to be one of Mr. Barker's goals with 3.0.

Anyone have any thoughts on the idea?

-A-Bos

In general, I'm opposed to anything that would not be obvious to someone who just walked up to the table. I've never been fond of Kn killed if beaten by Bw if they moved into contact this bound rule for the same reason (though I understand and generally approve of what it is trying to model...).

My armchair quarterback solution (if we're removing rear support) is to reduce Bd to +4/+3, reduce Sp to +3/+3 and to give Sp +1/+1 when part of a group. I think that this would fix most of the interactions (including the arguments going on over at the Yahoo group about "fixing" auxilia) and would give an interesting distinction to Sp by requiring that they be supported by "something" to be really strong and weaker if they are isolated.

Is this a good idea? Who knows?
Will anyone take it seriously? I doubt it!
Do I have time to test it? Nope! not for the next couple months anyway.

[lkmjbc]

My dad has an interesting idea for Warband. Remove the rear support entirely, as is the case in 3.0, but give them a +1 against foot on a bound in which they have moved forward. This would apply A) when charging, and B) when following up after winning. This makes them deadly in initial charges, but can break disastrously if the foot withstands the onslaught. Both my dad and I think that this makes warband behave like warband.

However, this is sort of Monday Morning Quarterbacking, because neither one of us has playtested it. As an intellectual exercise, it looks like it might not only fix the relationship between spear, blade and warband, but would encourage players to actively choose to close, and close first, which appears to be one of Mr. Barker's goals with 3.0.

Anyone have any thoughts on the idea?
-A-Bos

Alex:

An excellent idea. Another would be to allow WB to QK spear on a tie... perhaps in their bound? A lot of interesting ideas are being presented.

Joe Collins

[Skeptical Gamer]

Alex:

An excellent idea. Another would be to allow WB to QK spear on a tie... perhaps in their bound? A lot of interesting ideas are being presented.

Joe Collins

Mr. Barker has said that there is strong resistance against the idea of "X happens in your bound, Y happens in opponent's bound" effects in DBA.

Personally, I wouldn't mind it for most QK troops...