"History of Bw (S) in DBM" Topic

How have the rules for Bw (S) evolved through the years?
I see on the army popularity and effectiveness stats that the Samurai went from killer army to average to loser, so what happened?

I remember back in '96 that there was fierce debate about the ineffectiveness of English longbows in 100YW battles. It seems that this got fixed. Is that right?

Depends on the Samurai (Early or Post Mongol) and what list book.

For example the Early Samurai in the DBMM lists is very different from the DBM lists.

As for DBMM Bw(S), it is still very effective. Especially English with bills in support.

Cheers,
JohnG

What I mean is, what rules changes changed the performance of Samurai?

I'm not sure about the latest v3 rules of DBM* because I never played them.

But the Samurai thing could be a red herring, because current DBM comps allow you to use the DBMM lists.

And in the DBMM list, the Early Samurai (wait for it), doesn't have any Bw(S)!!!

It's basically an pretty ordinary** cavalry army in DBM.

Cheers,
JohnG

*Though I understand they changed some points values and significatly reduced the effect of (S) grading.

**But in DBMM, it is anything but ordinary due to the rule differences.

With DBM 3.0, published in 2000, the Superior rating became less effective. Previously a losing S element added 1 to its combat score; now an element beating S troops adds 1 instead. This halves the close-combat value of being S. Also, S bowmen no longer add 1 to a winning score when shooting; instead they add 1 if they would otherwise draw the combat. This makes S bowmen more likely to recoil the target instead of being more likely to destroy it.

Fast Blades no longer benefit from rear support against knights.

Mounted troops able to dismount, such as the Samurai cavalry dismounting as Superior Bows, used to be able to dismount as a group for 2 PIPs. Now dismounting costs 2 PIPs per element, scuppering the old Samurai tactic of riding up to bow range, dismounting to shoot the enemy to pieces and remounting if attacked.

All good changes in my opinion! Superior Bows are still good troops but no longer wonder-weapons.

Late Medieval English armies have benefited in DBM 3.2 (2011) from the reduction in points costs of Regular Blades and from making the longbowmen's horses optional instead of compulsory.

Thank you so much for your answers. I am satisfied.

The difference is the huge change from DBM 2.0 to 3.0.

(S) Bow lost the +1 on a winning score and instead got a fairly confusing extra recoil rule. (In addition S troops were made less reisilant in combat.) The effect was to make the point cost for (S) quite dubious. Large armies of (I) and (O) had much higher break points (due to less cost) and were almost as effective.

It pushed interesting armies like the English HYW off the table. Previously the rules had done a great job of refecting their historial capabilities – small but tough and deadly. Now the (S) bow rating was more a liability than a benefit. 3.2 has tried to patch this over but it is way too little way too late. It also uses the incorrect method of making the English armies cheaper and therefore larger rather than the DBM2.0 of perspective of small but tough. 2.0 was a near perfect treatment of these troops at least from an historical perspective (which I suppose is one reason it had to change).

The Samurai were a specific problem as they were not really Bw(S) in the first place and the dismounting rules were underdeveloped. This problem should have been solved other ways not by nuking the very intelligent grading system of 2.0 giving less simulation value and much less play balance. (You could have gotten rid of back rank support for Ireg bow for instance). Its the principle reason I went from an avid DBM player to virtually never playing at all.

The good news is that DBMM2.0 has fixed many of the problems of DBM3.0 but at a cost of greater complexity. It does do a much better job with archery in general – it just take many more rules to get you back to DBM2.0's elegant constructs.

The even better news is that simple DBA3.0 has added some of the best shooting rules of the entire DBX serias. It solves the grading problem by not having any (its handled in different ways). Despite its seeming simplicy its a far better historical reflection of HYW battles than DBM3.0.

TomT

Well, I disagree with Thomas – I think DBM 3.0 was a big improvement over previous versions. Successive versions 3.1 and 3.2 have fine-tuned the system, for those of us who like DBM and find DBMM over-complex. S troops are still well worth having, just no longer practically unkillable as they tended to be previously – remember the long slogging matches of Ax(S) v Ax(S) or Cv(S) v Cv(S)?

Late medieval English armies are still "small but tough", and I like them.

The solution for S v. S "slogs" was not to count S v. S (which I think came in about 2.2).

Reducing the effectiveness of "S" archery made them bad point buys and make historial tactics/deployement much less effective. Ahistorically now numbers counted more than skill in archery.

I played the English in both 2.0 and 3.0 – they were not a killer army in either game but are hapless in 3.0 (you can win by making them into a Kn(I) army – maybe).

Prior to 3.0 DBM had a huge following in two scales – a brilliant blend of history and interesting game play – in general well balanced.

After 3.0 (and unpublished 3.1, 3.2) its become a niche game. 3.0 was the Barbarrosa of DBM. One of the greatest design blunders in the history of gaming.

I had fully expected to play DBM until my death bed, but due 3.0 locally it went from hugely popular to not played at all.

A sad fate for a truly great game system.

Well, my experience is different. In Britain at least, DBM peaked in 2002 with version 3.0. Usage declined after that; 3.1 gave it a brief shot in the arm but Field of Glory and DBMM split the Ancients competition crowd three ways.

3.2 is published, by the way – as a free download from Phil Barker's WRG site – and there's still a competition circuit here with around 50 players. The biggest growth area is East Anglia, with quite a few new players in Norfolk and Essex. There are also regular competitions in the US and in Western Australia. A "niche game" perhaps, but a modestly thriving one.

I too have played with both HYW and WotR English armies under various editions of the rules, and they work fine in DBM 3.2.

Actually Thomas Bw(S) has become my latest troop type to fiddle around with, not sure about previous versions to 3.0 but it seems fine at the moment, for me anyway.

Also as Graham says we have a large player group here in the Eastern US. ,granted not as many as before FOG came along (MM is not played much at 'cons at all -they had 3 games total at the last 'con with nothing before or since), but still enough to get games at the club where we have an average of 3 games going most Sundays.