Help support TMP

"Testing out some mods for 3.0" Topic

7 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the DBx Message Board

547 hits since 23 Aug 2012
©1994-2016 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2012 8:53 a.m. PST

Posted a little blog entry on some modifications to the DBA 3.0 combat system. I have mixed results but mostly favorable. You can read about it here. link

A question to all you DBA 3.0 players: Does the Bd quick kill on Kn "fix" the imbalance between Kn heavy armies verses Bd heavy armies? I have not tried out this match up yet and I was curious what you thought.

Personal logo Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2012 9:08 a.m. PST

Historically, didn't knight-heavy armies usualy overrun blade-heavy armies? Longbows and pikes fixed the imbalance IIRC.

I could be wrong of course.

Personal logo timurilank Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2012 9:10 a.m. PST

I will be testing this out this weekend. As I have only Late Medieval armies I rather like that change as well as the new terrain features.

If a knight heavy army has an option to dismount they certainly would reconsider to do so.


Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP24 Aug 2012 10:21 a.m. PST

Historically, didn't knight-heavy armies usualy overrun blade-heavy armies?

Not always but a lot of times, sure. I guess the point is to make sure everything has some sort of fighting chance. Something more than simply being a speed-bump on the road to victory.

Yesthatphil Supporting Member of TMP25 Aug 2012 2:26 a.m. PST

Also 'knight' covers everything from ancient cataphract cavalry to medieval plate armoured chevaliers … and there are few similarities other than the horse and the competeness of the armour.

The definition of Blade seems to evolve from a footsoldier whom we don't think was a 'warband' or a 'spear', through a regular HI with sword and heavy javelin to a Swiss halberdier. Now I don't think anyone thinks that Roman Legionaries and Medieval halberdiers fought in the same way (the 'pilum shower' bit would seem to preclude that) …

The comments are not meant as an assault on a game system I use regularly myself, just as a note on why I'm not convinced that the broad generalisation are all that helpful.

lkmjbc325 Aug 2012 8:29 a.m. PST

I'm not sure what you mean by "fix". Blades unsupported by Ps in 2.2 were in trouble. In 3.0, they fair somewhat better as the knights are subject to being QK on a tie. On the other hand, there is no rear support. Knts with rear support tended fair to better in 2.2.

So, the shift is slightly to the blades I think, but the results are more varied and certainly bloody.

Joe Collins

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP25 Aug 2012 11:45 a.m. PST

Knights never got rear support in DBA. Are thinking of DBM(M) maybe? Bd used to get rear support from Ps against Kn and maybe other mounted however.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.