|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 5, 2019 6:48:09 GMT
So the debate around 4Ax, 8Bw, 3Bd etc. seems to have gone quiet for a bit, but for a while I've been wondering if it's not these troops are too weak, so much as fast troops are too strong...
Hear me out on this...
The only new rules are these:
1) Fast troops are CV -1 against foot, and no more losing on ties.
2) Have a separate CV for shooting vs CC.
3) 4Ax, 4Wb, 4Bw are bumped up +1 vs foot, but get a -1 in bad going since they are actually formed troops that don't like fighting in rough like their lighter, faster cousins.
So, now Ax looks like this:
4Ax = 4,3, 2BW move, and -1 in bad going
3Ax = 3,3, 3BW move, and no penalty for bad going
We worry that fast blade is too good? 4Bd = 5,3, 2BW move, -2 in bad going
3Bd = 4,3, 3BW move, -2 in bad going
This *might* nerf 3Bd too much, but they still walk through rough going easily...
In addition:
Keep xBw at CV 2,4 in ranged combat. BUT, make them 3 against foot. Now in CC: 3Bw = 2,4, move 3BW, and no penalty in bad going
4Bw = 3,4, move 2BW, and -1 in bad going
8Bw = 4,4, move 2BW, and -1 in bad going
4Sp is still good, since it'll still get side support for 5,4. And we won't have to introduce any weird 3Sp element.
Although this will probably cause some balancing issues, it might solve more than it breaks, and it does it very simply.
I've heard that 4Wb isn't great compared to 3Wb, probably for the same reason as 4Ax. And reading D. Head's book about Celts, he mentions that formed Wb actually didn't like rough going much and preferred fighting out in the open. I can quote him if you guys like, but it's page 132 of "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars". Stevie, you've really got me looking for evidence here mate!
So: 4Wb = 4,2, 2BW move, and -1 in bad going
3Wb = 3,2, move 3BW, and no penalty in bad going This one might actually break something, so there might have to be something else.
It would mean with rear support 4Wb are 5 with a QK against foot! Too much perhaps, especially with a general.
Perhaps 4Wb lose QK against foot (heresy!). Not sure yet. Would welcome suggestions on this one specifically.
Might be a lot of change to swallow, but no army list changes  My goal is to make more systemic changes rather than the micro changes that have to be remembered. Mounted recoiling on ties against heavy foot I like because it applies to everyone. So something that applies to ALL fast troops.
What do people think? Haven't tested at all, but could give it a shot.
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 5, 2019 8:15:17 GMT
One of the key issues for me is the lack of movement penalty in rough and bad going for fast troops. It doesn’t seem right that they can romp across difficult hills, woods, etc., at the same pace as they can open country. I would like to see them taken down to 2BW movement in such terrain...
P
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 5, 2019 12:56:30 GMT
Your mods are not shocking, but they don't really address the root cause: fast troops are too fast, especially in RGo and BGo.
Down to 2 BW in RGo and BGo is a must.
Down to 2.5 in GGo would be nice, but apparently half BW are "wrong?".
Which is also why while I quite like the precision of Primus' mod for 4/8Bw and 4Ax, I don't think it addresses the root causes either (for another thread however, brevity ...)
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 5, 2019 13:03:38 GMT
Hmm, well that’s not a bad one. Instead of going to 1BW, fast heavy troops (3Bd,3pk) go to 2bw. Meanwhile lighter troops (wb,ax,bw) stay at 3 all the time?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Apr 5, 2019 14:06:43 GMT
Hmm, well that’s not a bad one. Instead of going to 1BW, fast heavy troops (3Bd,3pk) go to 2bw. Meanwhile lighter troops (wb,ax,bw) stay at 3 all the time? I would argue they all should drop to 2BW in bad/rough going P |
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 5, 2019 15:04:37 GMT
I would argue they all should drop to 2BW in bad/rough going P Ditto. Gives a bit of a (small) edge to Ps too (if they were to remain at 3BW).
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 5, 2019 16:01:20 GMT
Arnopov, I tried 1/2 BW incrememnts over about a dozen solo games. I realise that is NOT a fully valid playtest, but my reasoning was "if I don't find it effective playing solo, why would adding cutthroat competition make it any better?". Bottom line - it basically sucked for me. Just didn't enjoy it. It was more cumbersome, felt less "clean" and just all round fiddly. For no tangible benefit. I also tested 1"BW" = 3cm (i.e. all moves are in 3/4BW increments, to keep whole number increments). That just slowed the game to a crawl, and seemed to nerf LH pretty good. Maybe that was just me. I think PB's choices of move rates were surprisingly subtle and effective. Probably entirely by accident. But they just seemed to "work". By the way, those are also the movement rates used in Commands and Colours: Ancients" i.e 1-2-3-4. There is something about only having four maovement rates... I actually would even have been happy with only 3 rates, as I don't believe movement rate was ever the determining factor in ancient warfare, beyond a certain level, and it was more about ease of command and control, in the given terrain. Of course, your mileage may vary ... |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 5, 2019 16:13:32 GMT
For the record, guys, I always felt "Fast" vs "Solid" was a rather poor way to simulate regular vs irregular troops. By the way, in DBMx you have this distinction, as well as superior and inferior. Irregular troops move by what is quite possibly the most complex and twistedly-written method in DBMM that I have ever seen in any kind or class of wargame. I welcome anyone to come over to my place and show me, under any and all circumstances, how this stuff was supposed to work... Literally, your irregular army moved itself by a most complex set of switching instructions/decision tree flowchart, unless you spent a PIP holding them. Seemed like a good idea I am sure, but I found the execution awful. At that point, why not just code it all up on a game app and leave me as the player out of it, unless I pay a PIP? DBMM would be better as a computer game, in my view.
There were, back in the 2.2 days, suggestions for requiring irregular (3Ax, 3Bw, 3Bd, etc) to move more like SCh - i.e. cost an extra PIP unless moving full distance, or ending in CC contact or overlap. Back then, Wb had a "double move" into contact. Both of these were an absolute blast to play! But for whatever reason, PB canned these test ideas, in favour of 3BW move for Fast Wb, and no slowing down in BGo and RGo for 4Wb.
To be fair, DBMx also had "Fast" troops (like Kn(F), Wb(F), etc).
From my view, getting irregular tribesmen to "cooperate" by making maneuvers would have taken time, persuasion, and patience (+1 PIP), until the enemy came within striking distance. Then they'd be easy to move all of a sudden!
Maybe worth revisiting the "irregular" vs "regular" distinction, as opposed to "Fast" vs "Solid". Certainly at the scale of DBA and the intended level of complexity, it may just be easier to manage?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 5, 2019 17:59:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 5, 2019 18:06:08 GMT
Makes sense. So new suggested rules/changes: 1) ALL Fast Troops are -1 against foot, ties are just ties now 2) ALL Fast Troops are 2BW in Bad/Rough going. Regular Heavy Foot are still 1BW in bad/rough. Regular Light foot are still 2BW in bad/rough. 3) Ps are not considered Fast. They are just skirmishers, but retain all other current rules around overlaps, movement etc. So they are still special 4) Bowfire is 2,4, separate from CC 5) 4Ax, 4Wb, 4Bw are bumped +1 CC vs foot (i.e. 4Ax is now 4,3), 8Bw adds to this new value (i.e 8Bw is 4,4, 4Bw is 3,4 in CC) 6) 4Ax, 4Wb, 4Bw get a -1 CC in bad going, also applies to 8Bw |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 6, 2019 18:06:19 GMT
Makes sense. So new suggested rules/changes: 1) ALL Fast Troops are -1 against foot, ties are just ties now 2) ALL Fast Troops are 2BW in Bad/Rough going. Regular Heavy Foot are still 1BW in bad/rough. Regular Light foot are still 2BW in bad/rough. 3) Ps are not considered Fast. They are just skirmishers, but retain all other current rules around overlaps, movement etc. So they are still special 4) Bowfire is 2,4, separate from CC 5) 4Ax, 4Wb, 4Bw are bumped +1 CC vs foot (i.e. 4Ax is now 4,3), 8Bw adds to this new value (i.e 8Bw is 4,4, 4Bw is 3,4 in CC) 6) 4Ax, 4Wb, 4Bw get a -1 CC in bad going, also applies to 8Bw I tend to agree with most of this,but why restrict the 4Wb in CC in bad going?They already loose rear support and when historically Wb are recorded as a problem for raw Auxiliaries in BG? |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 6, 2019 18:31:59 GMT
I tend to agree with most of this,but why restrict the 4Wb in CC in bad going?They already loose rear support and when historically Wb are recorded as a problem for raw Auxiliaries in BG? A fair point. The idea was to do something systemic around fast troops. Since 4Wb get a bump in cc, I thought there needs to be a penalty of some kind to prevent them becoming uber. But the rear support does throw a monkey in things... 3Wb are aok in bad going so since 4Wb are more formed, seemed logical that they wouldn’t be as great in the forests. |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Apr 6, 2019 18:36:17 GMT
I tend to agree with most of this,but why restrict the 4Wb in CC in bad going?They already loose rear support and when historically Wb are recorded as a problem for raw Auxiliaries in BG? A fair point. The idea was to do something systemic around fast troops. Since 4Wb get a bump in cc, I thought there needs to be a penalty of some kind to prevent them becoming uber. But the rear support does throw a monkey in things... 3Wb are aok in bad going so since 4Wb are more formed, seemed logical that they wouldn’t be as great in the forests. How about leaving the 3/4Wb as the same as they loose rear support in Bad and Rough and are more vulnerable to Mounted in the open than other fast or steadier troops? Wb are already at a disadvantage having to double-up to be effective vs other Heavy foot and slowing them down in BG is probably enough. Maybe off topic but certainly linked throughout this thread..has anyone cosidered adding a QK for Ps against Close order foot in BG? Examples...Iphicrates desroying Spatans and the Greeks defeating Galatian Wb to name a few. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Apr 6, 2019 20:06:45 GMT
Wb is a tricky one. I’m trying to figure out how to tweak fast, whilst also adding the improvements for ax and bw. Wb is tricky because of the qk and as you said the need to double up.
The other thing between fast and non- fast troops is that quite often the player gets the option to pick between either so making sure that one or the other isn’t an “auto include”.
My main concern is trying to have a few more “system wide” fixes that will still have the intended historical effect. Trying to avoid as many element specific changes if possible.
|
|
).