|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 8, 2018 23:52:25 GMT
Just sayin... EAP are now 2 to 0 versus Greeks... all with adding a simple +1 pip to the cost of closing with them. Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the argument! (and if you believe that....) Joe Collins Are you noticing any specific effect from the rule change that is helping the Persians? Is it the delay or the overlaps? I must say that I don't see this delay/difficulty in closing as representative of the Hoplite/Sparabara battle. I think they would be even more inclined to close under fire. But I'm curious in what effect you're seeing. Another idea I had was that the Persians can get a final shot off when the Hoplites close. Think of it as the rear ranks with bows firing whilst the front ranks raise spears. Maybe this gives a chance to upset the line in a similar way to the additional PIP? Cheers Jim
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 8, 2018 23:56:17 GMT
Just sayin... EAP are now 2 to 0 versus Greeks... all with adding a simple +1 pip to the cost of closing with them. Not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the argument! (and if you believe that....) Joe Collins An excellent data point Joe! My guess is about 3-5 games for each suggested rule group (i.e. +1PIP vs SideSupport) would give us a good notion of superior ideas. Having a whole tournament around experiments like this would give a LOT of feedback too
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 8, 2018 23:58:02 GMT
Are you noticing any specific effect from the rule change that is helping the Persians? Is it the delay or the overlaps? I must say that I don't see this delay/difficulty in closing as representative of the Hoplite/Sparabara battle. I think they would be even more inclined to close under fire. But I'm curious in what effect you're seeing. Another idea I had was that the Persians can get a final shot off when the Hoplites close. Think of it as the rear ranks with bows firing whilst the front ranks raise spears. Maybe this gives a chance to upset the line in a similar way to the additional PIP? Cheers Jim Sort of a "Defensive Fire" type attack I like it. If you start doing stuff like that, you could even start including Pilum rules!
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 11, 2018 14:42:55 GMT
Attempted to a do a playtest of 4x4Sp vs 4x8Bw last night. The only rule change I made was to remove the 1BW Target priority. Unfortunately the Greek had terrible luck, rolling a pile of 1's vs the Bw's 6. One Sp was destroyed by bowfire before closing, then another was recoiled afterwards.. The Greek were demolished. I shall run this again hopefully with more usual dice
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 11, 2018 15:06:33 GMT
They were clearly Ionian Greeks. And NOT the hard core Athenians, or Spartans!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 11, 2018 16:26:47 GMT
Greedo, when playtesting, use two packs of cards instead of dice (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10035/ ). There will still be a certain degree of luck, but at least both sides will have the same number of ‘1’s’ and ‘6’s’. By the way, Jim1973 and myself came up with an interesting idea. Give all bows a combat factor of 3 in close combat against foot, as HoTT does and as Medievalthomas suggests. But, 8Bw/Lb/Cb never receives nor gives side support, instead they make close combat foot recoil on an equal score. (After all, just why do bows receive side-support from Blades? Bows can't form a 'shield wall'! Is it because some of the Blades are assumed to be in the front rank to support and protect the vulnerable bowmen? Well, 8Bw already have a front rank of heavy foot, so why should they have side-support as well?)Now the HYW longbowmen with side-support and the Persian double-base 8Bw will both have a CF of 4 in close combat against foot. This will give the boost that the bows desperately need, without making 8Bw too powerful. 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 primuspilus on Jun 11, 2018 18:25:22 GMT
That makes 8Bw pretty strong against Ps. Mind you, if you accept the Sparabara shieldwall as a standard practice, what Psilos in his right mind would want to get to javelin range against that?! Now will 8Bw be overpowered overall against 3/4Ax? I can see 3Ax running from that fight, but should they (8Bw) have the same advantage against 4Ax? I proposed instead a TF of +1 for solid Bw and solid Ax in close combat against Bd, Sp and supported Pk in good going. This reflects the boys being done dancing around in pretty pyjamas throwing insults and sharp pointy things, and getting down to the serious business of cutting arteries and smashing facial bones... I have tested this variant extensively. It makes 4Ax and 4/8Bw much more durable. Cannae can happen as the Romans can fight the Gauls at 5 vs 4. It doesn't overpower Ax and Bw against similar troops. And it doesn't mess with the Ps interactions either. Anyone feel like testing it?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 11, 2018 18:56:07 GMT
Not only do I agree with your +1 Tactical Factor Primuspilus, I can even give you a justifiable justification... ...4Ax can change their formation, and would switch from loose formation to close formation when fighting close formation opponents (hence the +1 v Bd, Sp, Pk, but not against Ax or Ps, as they need a loose formation to catch them, and not against Wb - which would make the 4Ax as inflexible and as vulnerable as Bd to the Wb fierce charge). Consider 3Ax as ordinary native warriors fighting in their own undisciplined 'irregular' style (so no +1 Tactical Factor), but 4Ax are more disciplined, trained, 'regulars' who have officers and have been trained to change formation (Samnites, Hellenistic thureophori, veteran mercenary Thracians and Illyrians, later Spanish Iberians, and of course the Imperial Roman Auxilia). However, we still need to stop 8Bw from having a close combat factor of 5 (CF 2 + 1 for double base +1 for side-support and now +1 Tactical Factor v Bd, Sp Pk), as that makes them equal to Bd/Sp and too powerful. They need to level-off at a maximum of CF 4. I say take away side-support from 8Bw...let ‘em recoil foot opponents on an equal score instead. Your suggestion not only gives bows the boost they need in close combat, but it also helps to fix the weak 4Ax as well! Excellent thinking. (Wish I had thought of it...) 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 primuspilus on Jun 11, 2018 19:10:50 GMT
Hi Stevie,
That was my rationale for the +1. But it doesn't give them an overpowering advantage. And it playtests quite well in my games. It needs, of course, wider testing.
I proposed that in lieu of the side support for 8Bw. The +1 for rear support for 8Bw is already capturing a benefit over and above the regular 4Bw. So they would have CF 2, then +1 for DBE, then +1 against Bd, Sp or supported (i.e. double ranked) Pk. I didn't want to put it against all Pk, since they already can shoot at Pk (if ganging up) at +2 vs +1!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 11, 2018 19:19:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 11, 2018 19:43:04 GMT
Greedo, when playtesting, use two packs of cards instead of dice (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10035/ ). There will still be a certain degree of luck, but at least both sides will have the same number of ‘1’s’ and ‘6’s’. By the way, Jim1973 and myself came up with an interesting idea. Give all bows a combat factor of 3 in close combat against foot, as HoTT does and as Medievalthomas suggests. But, 8Bw/Lb/Cb never receives nor gives side support, instead they make close combat foot recoil on an equal score. (After all, just why do bows receive side-support from Blades? Bows can't form a 'shield wall'! Is it because some of the Blades are assumed to be in the front rank to support and protect the vulnerable bowmen? Well, 8Bw already have a front rank of heavy foot, so why should they have side-support as well?)Now the HYW longbowmen with side-support and the Persian double-base 8Bw will both have a CF of 4 in close combat against foot. This will give the boost that the bows desperately need, without making 8Bw too powerful. 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
Double Card Pack! Of course! Will do for my next go around... With regards to +1 to Bw, I'm really not feeling it. Doesn't that make Bw = Ax, except that the Bw can fire long range? Both can go into rough going, both are 3 vs Foot. We've already had a big debate about making 4Ax better, why should Bw be made better? 8Bw are +1 in cc for being big, and removing the Threatzone rule allows them to punch holes in the Sp line (even if it's just a recoil, that's costing the Sp side PIPs to reform) up to contact. At least adding the +1 PIP cost for contact is like an automatic recoil that the Sp has to overcome. And I'm guessing it's +1 PIP for the GROUP to contact the GROUP, if there are holes in the group it's going to get really costly to do. Perhaps the big reason for these debates is the difference between medieval Bow vs Ancient Bow? As has been said in other threads, is volleyfire a thing until we get to the middle ages? Or was it drips and drabs? Another question I have is, what is the difference between how 8Bw (Persians) worked vs 8Cb (HYW)? Yes I know we don't REALLY know, but how do we *think* based on the scant evidence believe it worked? Or perhaps better, how does Phil believe it worked? Is his thoughts published? Still on the fence about side support for 8Bw, but I'm down with it.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Jun 11, 2018 19:45:31 GMT
Whoops, looks like I replied and others answered/replied before I hit send!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 11, 2018 21:16:26 GMT
Hi greedo, my rule is designed simply around making 4Ax and 4/8Bw survive longer against HI. Against each other, mounted or Ps, no change!
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 13, 2018 15:23:16 GMT
+3 Longbow reflect troops that fought like Aux (having armor and sword/buckler as side arms - sometimes two handed weapons). They are intended to be Aux with Bows as that was their battlefield function. Bow at +2/+4 are retained as lighter bow not willing to stand in HTH.
Aux should have the option of taking "blades" just like HF and so getting a +1 v. Foot and a -1 v. Mounted. So you could have dedicated close fighting Aux a bit better than Bow.
So no need for new rules and dubious "closing" penalties. As I've mentioned Phil Barker's ideas on closing with missile troops are just the opposite of those proposed.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jun 13, 2018 19:25:35 GMT
Tom, I'd agree in principle with what you are trying to achieve with the K&K rules, however, have you given thought to what that would like in the Ancients space? And whether a points system would be the best way to balance these?
I am in agreement with things like 4Ax choosing "swords", giving +1 against foot, and -1 against mounted, but does 4Ax possessing swords make them more likely to trap and destroy Ps? See, presumably, they are at -1 against mounted since they may have lost some of their ability to discharge missiles. But then shouldn't Ps flee from them if doubled?
I can see this getting very hard to pin down for ancients, where there are WAY more armies, and flavours, as well as different troop types in action?
|
|