|
Post by evilgong on Aug 6, 2023 1:56:10 GMT
I like the Fast and Solid inclusion to give troop variety - but as somebody else said, it does mean the rules are no longer as simple as possible - but that's a trade-off I can live with.
I think removing the break-off was a bad idea, keeping it in gave the lower impact / low resilience troops some hope to compete against their tougher cousins; by getting out of dodge when things were too dangerous and perhaps setting up a new neater battle line after the break off.
(the new powers for LH and Ps are fine, but that still leaves a number of troop types / grades looking weak).
Regards
David F Brown
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 9, 2023 21:36:24 GMT
Fast is an excellent idea that helps make a bit of a distinction for different tactical uses for similar troops. It is also quite simple to state and use: Fast Elements move +1 BW but Recoil on Equal Results from Solid. In addition Fast Foot do not take terrain penalties in Movement Phase.
Our mistake was not to make it universal and apply it to Mounted and all Foot types. In addition a poorly worded feedback during initial playtest allowed an odd result to creep in. I was a big advocate of a general Fast rule (the ability had been scattered around the rules). So Phil said OK you playtest. The original rule was that Fast Recoiled on Equals. But we noticed this caused Fast to Recoil from each other in Close Combat. So we noted this in our playtest result. So Phil changed it to Solid Recoil Fast on Equals. But this was only meant to apply in Close Combat. Fast Bow were still supposed to Recoil Fast Elements in Ranged Combat. So the odd result that Welsh longbows shooting don't Recoil less armored Fast like English archers (though weapon and abilities are the same.)
Fast represents troops with less armor that use mobility as a defense and are not willing to engage in a sustained Melee. Its an excellent rule - easy to use and adding tactical depth. And yes we really need a Fast Spear (but not a Fast Pike.)
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 9, 2023 21:39:30 GMT
Should also note the use of a figure count "4" v. "3" is archaic and should be dumped.
In 25's it better to denote Fast on 30mm deep bases and Solid on 20mm deep bases. Avoids figure crowding.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Aug 9, 2023 21:45:30 GMT
Should also note the use of a figure count "4" v. "3" is archaic and should be dumped. TomT Yet its still used in other rule sets , not just DBX rules .
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 10, 2023 0:28:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 10, 2023 6:42:42 GMT
The original rule was that Fast Recoiled on Equals. But we noticed this caused Fast to Recoil from each other in Close Combat. So we noted this in our playtest result. So Phil changed it to Solid Recoil Fast on Equals. Actually Tom, I can see nothing wrong with having both ‘Fast’ elements recoiling from each other on an equal combat score. They are both falling back to regroup before engaging yet again. DBA uses the ‘I-Go-You-Go’ system… …but having a bit of ‘simultaneous action’ would do no harm.
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Aug 10, 2023 18:57:17 GMT
"Our mistake was not to make it universal and apply it to Mounted and all Foot types."
See my thread/rant "Doubling down on fast/solid designations"
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Aug 10, 2023 19:01:17 GMT
Snowcat, not sure if fast pike should go. Maybe just redefine it?
The rules' description of 3pk as "hillmen with long spears used in both hands and mostly lacking shields (3Pk)" is a perfect description of Swiss pike.
It's also a perfect description of Scottish schiltrons.
Take out reference to hills and it perfectly describes all medieval and renaissance pikemen.
3PK is faster than 4Pk.
So were medieval/renaissance pike who were trained to maneuver independently, form squares defensively and attack aggressively, compared to Hellenistic pike which served as a solid defensive wall.
So why not use 3PK to reference all medieval/renaissance pike?
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Aug 10, 2023 20:24:27 GMT
Hellenistic (or at least Philip/Alexander's) pikes had smaller shields and were more aggressive than Greek hoplites. Macedonia was a hilly place. Their aggression, and their deeper formations, were why they beat the Greeks. As for speed, these pointed things are 6 or 7 metres long. Is it credible to imagine people running with them while keeping formation (and, therefore, effectiveness)? (Ditto spears, even if those are shorter.)
Paul H
|
|
|
Post by evilgong on Aug 10, 2023 23:59:03 GMT
Stevie said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually Tom, I can see nothing wrong with having both ‘Fast’ elements recoiling from each other on an equal combat score. They are both falling back to regroup before engaging yet again.
>>>>>>
Conceptually nothing wrong with the idea and it might look 'right' to have lighter troops and cav swirl about engaging and disengaging on the table.
However, in DBx many things are subsumed into the element / footprint, things like formations for example, so maybe that swirling is happening within the footprint of opposed elements - there is after all a fair bit of area covered in such things.
In larger BB / DBM games areas loaded with light troops will slow down with such a rule as lines degrade and pips are soaked up trying to repair them. Which resonates with reports of light troops not being particularly decisive when they clash.
Still, it's an idea worth testing, assuming it's on the plate.
Regards
David F Brown
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 11, 2023 2:45:05 GMT
Hellenistic (or at least Philip/Alexander's) pikes had smaller shields and were more aggressive than Greek hoplites. Macedonia was a hilly place. Their aggression, and their deeper formations, were why they beat the Greeks. As for speed, these pointed things are 6 or 7 metres long. Is it credible to imagine people running with them while keeping formation (and, therefore, effectiveness)? (Ditto spears, even if those are shorter.) Paul H The pikemen you reference are graded as 4Pk. So they're not really the issue here. Or do you think they should be Fast Pike (if they were aggressive)?
My biggest issue with 3PK is it being used to classify troops in armies that did not fight in deep phalanx (12-20 ranks) formations.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 11, 2023 2:47:10 GMT
Snowcat, not sure if fast pike should go. Maybe just redefine it? The rules' description of 3pk as "hillmen with long spears used in both hands and mostly lacking shields (3Pk)" is a perfect description of Swiss pike. It's also a perfect description of Scottish schiltrons. Take out reference to hills and it perfectly describes all medieval and renaissance pikemen. 3PK is faster than 4Pk. So were medieval/renaissance pike who were trained to maneuver independently, form squares defensively and attack aggressively, compared to Hellenistic pike which served as a solid defensive wall. So why not use 3PK to reference all medieval/renaissance pike? Yes, by all means redefine it. And remove the '3' part.
Were all Hellenistic pike defensive walls? How did the Macedonians use their pikemen, if not aggressively?
And stop allowing Far Eastern armies to have bamboo freight trains!
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Aug 11, 2023 8:11:01 GMT
Snowcat, not sure if fast pike should go. Maybe just redefine it? The rules' description of 3pk as "hillmen with long spears used in both hands and mostly lacking shields (3Pk)" is a perfect description of Swiss pike. It's also a perfect description of Scottish schiltrons. Take out reference to hills and it perfectly describes all medieval and renaissance pikemen. 3PK is faster than 4Pk. So were medieval/renaissance pike who were trained to maneuver independently, form squares defensively and attack aggressively, compared to Hellenistic pike which served as a solid defensive wall. So why not use 3PK to reference all medieval/renaissance pike? Yes, by all means redefine it. And remove the '3' part.
Were all Hellenistic pike defensive walls? How did the Macedonians use their pikemen, if not aggressively?
And stop allowing Far Eastern armies to have bamboo freight trains!
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Aug 11, 2023 8:17:22 GMT
The point I meant to make was that it is not obvious that medieval/renaissance pike differed from Macedonians. I am comfortable with them all being solid. I share Snowcat's doubts about the existence of fast pike (partly because the thing seems so impractical - I imagine them as a line of synchronised pole vaulters running towards you).
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Aug 11, 2023 11:48:38 GMT
The point I meant to make was that it is not obvious that medieval/renaissance pike differed from Macedonians. I am comfortable with them all being solid. I share Snowcat's doubts about the existence of fast pike (partly because the thing seems so impractical - I imagine them as a line of synchronised pole vaulters running towards you). Agree, but either way, just be consistent about it. Either get rid of fast pike or give every unit a fast/solid designation (see my thread/rant "Doubling down on fast/solid designations"). Personally, my preferred approach is to keep certain units inherently solid (spear, pike, blade, horde) and others inherently fast (auxilia, warband, psiloi). Bow can be either but should be designated as either bow (fast) or pavise (solid). The lack of logical consistency is off putting.
|
|