|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Oct 15, 2023 10:52:33 GMT
We all know 4Ax sucks. It loses the extra movement of 3Ax, and at 3+ cant hold its own against blade or spears.
A simple house rule: 4Ax gain the same +1 as Spear do, from side support by solid blades/spears/(and now auxilia). Means they will be 4+ in line and can hold their own for a little longer.
Maybe its been suggested before, but i couldnt find it through googling.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 15, 2023 11:37:18 GMT
Ah but there are unwanted side-effects with this approach, as my play testing has shown. Rough GoingThere is no side (or rear) support in this type of terrain. This means that Blades, and even Spears, will happily seek out such terrain in order to rob the 4Ax of their bonus…meanwhile 4Ax will try to avoid it, the opposite of reality. FormationsSide-support works best when they have a friendly unit of the appropriate type on either side. That way if one friend recoils, they’ll still have the other to provide them with the bonus. This results in the 4Ax often being placed in the centre of the battleline, and not on the ends. Again, the opposite of reality. See “Auxiliary Improvements” in here: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index?page=1
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Oct 15, 2023 12:53:10 GMT
This results in the 4Ax often being placed in the centre of the battleline, and not on the ends. Again, the opposite of reality. *cough* SAMNITE *cough*
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 15, 2023 13:22:54 GMT
Ha! Only because they have no other troops! The same goes for the Spanish Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians, etc. Now look at Roman formations, and Macedonian Pike formations…
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 15, 2023 14:17:26 GMT
Ha! Only because they have no other troops! The same goes for the Spanish Iberians, Illyrians, Thracians, etc. Now look at Roman formations, and Macedonian Pike formations… Dont get us started on Alex again.
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 15, 2023 14:46:09 GMT
DBF is upgrading them to CF of 4 versus Foot and play testing has been positive about this suggested change.
P
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 15, 2023 16:03:43 GMT
Although I like this kind of upgrade very much, what about their CF in BG?
They keep their CF of +4 against let's say 4Bd with now +3. Looks very interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Oct 15, 2023 16:15:08 GMT
Ah but there are unwanted side-effects with this approach, as my play testing has shown. Rough GoingThere is no side (or rear) support in this type of terrain. This means that Blades, and even Spears, will happily seek out such terrain in order to rob the 4Ax of their bonus…meanwhile 4Ax will try to avoid it, the opposite of reality. FormationsSide-support works best when they have a friendly unit of the appropriate type on either side. That way if one friend recoils, they’ll still have the other to provide them with the bonus. This results in the 4Ax often being placed in the centre of the battleline, and not on the ends. Again, the opposite of reality. See “Auxiliary Improvements” in here: fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index?page=1 And what if we gave the 4Ax and 3Ax the same immunity against overlaps like Ps have? (And, by the way LH.) Surely this would let them fulfill their historical role on the battlefield as a link between heavier and lighter troops? (A new idea, not yet playtested...)
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 15, 2023 16:19:47 GMT
Although I like this kind of upgrade very much, what about their CF in BG? They keep their CF of +4 against let's say 4Bd with now +3. Looks very interesting... It drops by 1, so they’re back to 3 in Bad Going v Foot P
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 15, 2023 17:18:14 GMT
...are this sill DBA-rules???
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 15, 2023 17:26:43 GMT
...are this sill DBA-rules??? Blend of DBA and HOTT, with a Big Battle emphasis P
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 15, 2023 20:26:33 GMT
...a mixture of PB-rules, must be quite expensive i see...
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Oct 15, 2023 20:54:07 GMT
...a mixture of PB-rules, must be quite expensive i see... We hope not to be 😉 P
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 15, 2023 22:45:24 GMT
Nothing wrong with “standing on the shoulders of giants”… …which is a metaphor which means "using the understanding gained by major thinkers who have gone before in order to make intellectual progress".
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 16, 2023 13:48:49 GMT
Forgetting history for a moment and just looking at DBA as a game - Each side chooses 12 playing pieces each with variable powers to win a battle. However, the problem is 12! Unlike HOTT you can’t elect to have 8 super-powerful pieces or 16 weak pieces. It’s 12 and that’s it. However, because of the history the various options for playing pieces have not been balanced…..at least not deliberately.
Elephants, Artillery and Horde are balanced by costing 2 PIPs to move, while the “rock, paper, scissors” effect balanced Bow, Heavy Inf, Knights and Cavalry and Ps are balanced with the no corner-to-corner overlaps. However, 4Ax, LH and Pk remain unbalanced and so regardless of history a player given free-reign to choose these pieces probably wouldn’t because they are poor choices. So if DBA was a board game I’d suggest more play-testing!
Given this we have 2 options for 4Ax - either strengthen 4Ax (+1 vs foot, no corner-to-corner overlaps, +1 vs solid in GG etc) OR weaken everything else! So how about -1 for fighting in Rough going with the usual exceptions for Ps, Aux etc. Alternatively Aux win all draws in RG and/or QK in BG.
That said haven’t we already mostly “solved” the 4Ax issue with the following existing house rules: +1 to 4Ax in the open vs Sp or Bd, Aux recoil like mounted (either BD or BW). Add to this no corner-to-corner overlaps for Ax in RG or BG or the -1 in RG (above) and we have pretty much balanced them out.
|
|