|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 17, 2018 15:07:43 GMT
More thinking on "Fast" Blades...
Were they actually that "Fast"?
Should their movement be cut to 2BW in Good Going and 2BW in Bad/Rough?
Thoughts?
Historical Examples?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 18, 2018 4:33:11 GMT
I am happy with them as is. They would not be fast if they moved only 2BW. They would just be light weight Blades that lose to Solid types on ties. "Blades are classed as “Solid”, except for those more lightly equipped but faster moving (3Bd), such as Dacian falx-men, Roman lanciarii or medieval Indian swordsmen, who are classed as “Fast”, " also sword and buckler types. In most army descriptions, these are described as fast charging or fast moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 18, 2018 6:20:51 GMT
In terms of game balance, Fast Blades are probably a bit too good.
However, as Bob said, they would not be "fast" if they were restricted to 2 BW movement.
I think it might be interesting to restrict all Fast heavy infantry (except for Fast Auxilia and Fast Warband) to 1 BW movement in Bad Going.
|
|
hdan
Munifex
Posts: 35 
|
Post by hdan on Apr 18, 2018 15:07:27 GMT
They'd be plenty fast in going they consider bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 18, 2018 16:15:46 GMT
I agree. They would be in fact twice as fast in rough or bad going...
I can't find any evidence that archetypal "Fast" Blades were in any fact "Faster" than heavier troops. They certainly were better in bad and rough going...
Viking Raiders were able to take on Irish in the Bogs...though evidence is scant.
Romans did lighten their Legionnaires in order to pursue into bad going.
The early Swiss certainly faster in the operational sense... but I can't find any evidence they were faster on the battlefield except on steep hills or perhaps through forest.
I'm not sure anyone can comment on "book 1" armies as the evidence is so thin.
Here are some ideas to try.
Move "Fast" Blade down to 2BW/2BW. This puts them on par with "Solid" Ax.
Change their combat factor vs Shooting to +3
Again, this puts them on par with Ax... I just re-read Oman's passage concerning the English mercenary company in the 14th century that marauded through Swiss territory. The Swiss evidently had great problems dealing with the bowmen. This shows this nicely.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Apr 19, 2018 13:52:00 GMT
In addition to Joe's suggestions above I'd personally also like to see Fast Blades reduced to +2 vs mounted (similarly Fast auxilia). Historically foot resisted mounted troops by taking the closest possible order - which fast troops by their definition in DBA cannot.
cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 19, 2018 15:23:43 GMT
Here are some ideas to try. Move "Fast" Blade down to 2BW/2BW. This puts them on par with "Solid" Ax. Change their combat factor vs Shooting to +3 Joe Collins I have given this much thought, and a bit of play testing, and have come to the conclusion that I quite like the idea. The basic premiss in DBA is that all elements are roughly equal (at least in theory), with advantages and disadvantages. And most people agree that 3Bd, what with their high CF and high speed, have too many advantages. Their only disadvantage compared to 4Bd is they recoil from solid foot on an equal score. Reducing their speed to 2 BW in all going and having a CF 3 against shooting certainly balances them out a bit. In bad going they would actually be slightly inferior to 4Ax and 3Ax… …same CF, but are recoiled by 4Ax on an equal score, and move slower than 3Ax (giving the poor 3Ax some advantage). So foot would be like the following:-
| | Good Going | Rough/Bad Going |
| Light Fast Foot =
Tough Fast Foot =
| 3Wb, 3Ax, 3Bw, Ps
3Pk, 5Hd
| 3 BW 3 BW | 3 BW 3 BW | (CF unaffected by Bad Going)
(just as fast, but -2 CF in Bad Going)
| | Medium Foot = | 3/6Bd, 4Wb, 4Ax | 2 BW | 2 BW | (3/6Bd -2 CF in Bad Going) | Solid Heavy Foot =
Solid Static Foot =
| 4Pk, 4Bd, Sp, 4/8Bw, 7Hd
Art*, WWg*, CP, Lit, CWg | 2 BW
2 BW | 1 BW
1 BW | (all but Bw -2 CF in Bad Going)
(can’t move into enemy contact) |
I say go for it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way…I’d also think the following suggestion by Barritus should become incorporated.  Have 4Bd, but not 3Bd, killing Elephants on an equal score, like they do Kn, for the same reasons. This would give 4Bd a slight (4 chances out of 36, or 11%) chance of destroying the pachyderms… Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 19, 2018 17:20:30 GMT
I may be in the minority here, but I am not convinced for a need to change 3Bd.
What I do read is a proposal based on the lack lustre performance of one’s army fighting 3Bd armies.
I would like to read these battle reports.
Perhaps, the best solution is to counter them as was historically done.
Time Scale, Page 2
“Play is in alternate bounds, simulating action and response. The real life time represented varies, since sometimes response was immediate, but sometimes both armies paused for reorganisation or rest. Averaged over the battle, each bound represents about 15 minutes. Move distances were those needed rather than the maximum theoretically possible in the time.”
In the preceding paragraph, ground scale of 1BW is expressed as 80 paces giving Celtiberians and Viking raiders 15 minutes to cover 180 meters.
Celtiberian
Regarding the Celtiberian infantry, Rome described their infantry attacks as ‘concursare’, quick attacks followed by a quick retreat. Nonetheless, the Celtiberian was prepared to meet Rome in the open and I have highlighted these encounters with references at my blog under ‘Timeline Hispania’.
Duncan Head (Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars) has revised his comments on the tactics used by the Lusitanian and Celtiberian armies based on the research done by Quesada (page 18).
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Apr 19, 2018 19:34:00 GMT
I may be in the minority here, but I am not convinced for a need to change 3Bd.
What I do read is a proposal based on the lack lustre performance of one’s army fighting 3Bd armies.
Agreed....I also don’t see the issue. Having used 3Bd Sea Peoples and early Philistines I’ve seen them slaughter all before them in some games and bounce off solid foot or be slaughtered in turn by heavy chariots in others. Yes, they’re quick in BG, but they’re also easily killed off by eg Wb in BG, so it’s swings and roundabouts. Win some, lose some. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Apr 19, 2018 19:50:22 GMT
I'm against the change if for no other reason to not fracture any more people from playing DBA 3.0.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 19, 2018 20:21:09 GMT
I recall there being a change in HotT on the move rates between shooters and Wb. Didn't seem to cause a massive rift. Ditto with the moves of Wb in DBA 2.2. Not sure there is historical justification for having 3Bd be faster than 4Ax in any and all going. I mean the +5 CF of Bd comes from some combination of heavier armour, and more tight formations, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Apr 19, 2018 23:00:19 GMT
Like Martin and Timurilank, I am not in favour of a change and believe that it may be influenced by some bad experiences.
Having come to the conclusion through reading vast panegyrics here on Fanaticus about the power of Fast Blades and backing it up with the mathematics of my element rating system (which has a bias towards solid troops) I could see that Fast Blades were the way to go and took the glorious Siamese to MOAB last year and then ran it at Landwaster - expecting that a wall of Fast Blades capable of setting down a fair amount of rough going (1xhamlet, 2xenclosures) would be hard to beat.
I managed 3 wins from 6 at MOAB and do not want to talk about my experience at Landwaster (where the Maori tore me a new one).
Fast Blades remain very vulnerable to Knights and I saw a lot of them.
cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 20, 2018 0:03:15 GMT
Like Martin and Timurilank, I am not in favour of a change and believe that it may be influenced by some bad experiences. Having come to the conclusion through reading vast panegyrics here on Fanaticus about the power of Fast Blades and backing it up with the mathematics of my element rating system (which has a bias towards solid troops) I could see that Fast Blades were the way to go and took the glorious Siamese to MOAB last year and then ran it at Landwaster - expecting that a wall of Fast Blades capable of setting down a fair amount of rough going (1xhamlet, 2xenclosures) would be hard to beat. I managed 3 wins from 6 at MOAB and do not want to talk about my experience at Landwaster (where the Maori tore me a new one). Fast Blades remain very vulnerable to Knights and I saw a lot of them. cheers My thinking is based on re-fighting historical battles, not on tournament or pickup game experiences. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 20, 2018 1:03:08 GMT
And it seems odd that 3Bd are faster than 4Ax. ... In all going. While 3Bd enjoy incredible durability against shooting and other heavy foot.
|
|
|
|
Post by felixs on Apr 20, 2018 8:44:42 GMT
I'm against the change if for no other reason to not fracture any more people from playing DBA 3.0. Very good point, which I agree with. Nevertheless, discussing these things as house rules or scenario rules can't hurt. |
|
