Phil on possible changes to grading system

[MikeCampbell]

Posted on the DBMM list 8/11 & I figure there may be interest here from people not on the list.....

I have read all the contributions with interest. Sadly, some were more complex than at present, some were less realistic, some were both. There were some very good summings up of aims. though.

One theme has been that (S) foot should always be +1 if less, as it was in DBM. Unfortunately, this makes those with high CF almost proof against doubling.

I have spent the last few days attempting a new synthesis of my own and testing it. One conclusion is that modifying the equals result is at least as powerful as modifying the less result (because it greatly increases the number of overlaps), and another is that whether the equals result is modified by deducting from one side or adding to the other makes no difference to simplicity of play, but adding is more complicated for the rule writer.

My current test version is:

(S) in distant combat:
    +2 if scoring more when shooting, +1 if scoring less when shot at.

(S) in close combat:
    +1 if Kn, Cm or LH scoring equal or more against any in own bound.
    +1 if Sp, Pk, Bd, Wb, Hd, Ps scoring more in own bound against foot or less in enemy             bound against mounted.
    +1 if others [El, Cv, Ax, Bw, WWg, Bge, Naval] scoring less against any in any bound.

Any scoring equal except (I):
    +1 in close combat against (F) in own bound or (I) in any bound, or shooting at (F) or (I).

[or -1 if (F) in close combat in enemy bound, (I) in any bound, or (F) or (I) shot at.]

I think this touches all the bases. It nearly eliminates double jeopardy and improves (F) and (I).

At first sight, it looks as if the three (S) +1 groups could be simplified to "mounted", "foot" and "other", but this does not produce totally historical results.

El definitely does not belong in the 1st group and Cv is a borderline case but seems to work better in group 3, as does Ax (better for Spanish at Cannae). Ps need to be in the 2nd group (so they can beat up gaesati). Whether Bw should be in the 2nd or 3rd group will have to be decided by 100YW testing of Bd (S) v Bw (S).

I have toyed with the idea of naming the 1st group "Offensive [or Active?]riders", the 2nd "Offensive foot" and the 3rd "Others". You may have better ideas.

Phil

Personally I think doing away with -1 if lower for (I) sucks royally and makes them way too good, plus (S) troops take a shafting too (except for longbow machine-gunners!  )......but at least the direction is towards adding simplicity, which is always good.

[landmeister]

IMHO he should dedicate his time to fix other game areas, such as the line up mess. 

[Valentinian Victor]

There are a whole batch of things needing sorting out- Gradings (just make them easier to understand), Groups (clarification needed), Feigned Flight (clarification and revision), Strategems in general (Phil has hinted that all armies could potentially use all strategems, not just being limited to those in their list. This may explain why no one can find the 'False Reinforcements' strategy in any list, not the 'Unusual Troops' strategem for those who have scythed chariots etc), Destroyed Elements (needs clarification/revision), Movement (needs clarification/revision)...