|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 3, 2018 8:32:04 GMT
On the other hand…being the knit-picking rule lawyer that I am…what happens when a shooter is less than 1 BW from a target that is not facing the shooter, so that the shooter is not actually within the target’s Threat Zone? Shouldn’t they still get the +1 for being more effective as they are also shooting at close range? Perhaps it might be better to amend the Tactical Factors to read as follows:- +1 If in close combat; and either uphill or defending any but a paltry river’s bank off-road, or if shooting 1 BW or less. There’s enough room to fit the extra words in. (But I’m not sure about giving shooters a +1 and their target a -1 for being in close range. One or the other yes, both not both. I only mentioned it as a comparison, not to frighten people off the idea. +1 should suffice…anyway, they can still give their opponents -1’s from support shooter’s who are not in Threat Zones) Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 4, 2018 22:46:51 GMT
Hi Stevie, I wasn't anticipating applying both. But the -1 to the target is more deadly than the +1 to the shooter. Of the two, I am thinking I prefer the +1 to the shooter at close range, as Lb and Cb are already quite dangerous against mounted as is. They would shoot base at 4 vs 2 against Kn if we apply a -1 to the Kn, versus a base 5 versus 3.
Now a Bw general would be brilliant: a total of 4 against foot at close range, and 6 against mounted! But to me, that feels about right.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 4, 2018 22:57:40 GMT
The pluses and minuses are a bit harsh. How about...
If within 1 BW, on a tie in distance combat... the non-shooter in all cases recoils.
This gives Bows a small amount more power against heavy foot... but not over much.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 5, 2018 6:38:21 GMT
Too many logic switches, no?
I like the +1 for shooting at a target in the TZ. It upguns them, but since the Bw have to shoot at a target in their TZ, it is hard to gang up on an enemy group. So rushing at archers with a line becomes a tactic, to break up their ability to concentrate fire (Marathon, anyone?). And now Ps also get to perform a historical function as screening AND distracting enemy archery!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 5, 2018 9:22:42 GMT
I agree with primuspilus. The main issue is about bows being less effective when in a Threat Zone as they lose their shooting supports. What you are proposing Joe is an unnecessary complication that doesn’t really address these concerns. ‘Close range shooting’ is merely a justification for an extra effect to compensate the bows in this situation. It’s the effect that matters…not the fancy words we use to justify that effect. And extra recoils won’t help if the target is in ½ a BW…after foot recoil, the shooters will still be in their Threat Zone. With that in mind, lets us have another look at giving a +1 to the bows when close to a target. The chart below shows the chances out of 36 of getting a doubling result, with the new proposal in blue:- Shooting No One Two Factors:- Support Support Support4+1 vs 3 6 12 18 (probably too high - see note ‘a’) 4 vs 3 4 9 15 (current bow vs heavy mounted) 2+1 vs 3 2 6 12 (the new bow vs medium foot - see note ‘b’) 2 vs 3 1 4 9 (current bow vs medium foot) Note ‘a’: if too high, eliminate these possibilities by restricting the extra +1 for close range to foot targets only. (The justification is that bows get fewer volleys against charging mounted targets that are so close, negating the effect)Note ‘b’: the increase to doubling is quite small when compared to the current effects. (Even in a perfect situation, at close range with two support shooters, it’s only 3 chances out of 36 more, or just 8.3% higher.
And note that the chances of recoiling the target also increase by about 50%…the effect that Joe was proposing)Note ‘c’: to discourage bows from aggressively advancing into close range, limit it to stationary shooters only. (The justification is that if moving they are getting off fewer volleys, again negating the close range effect) Therefore the final rule could look like this:- +1 if shooters who did not move this bound are shooting at foot at 1 BW or less.The chart above shows that having two support shooters without the +1 (i.e. at long range) is still much more effective. But the +1 will help if there is only one or no support shooters. In other words, it looks more impressive than it actually is (at least, when used on it’s own without support). Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 5, 2018 15:07:25 GMT
Hi Stevie, nice analysis. I also thought it should apply only to Bows, since they seem most likely to have variable and flexible rates of fire and ability to aim under pressure, as compared to artillery and war wagons, say?
I like making the rule apply only to foot, and I like the time/fear of close-by mounted as justification.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 5, 2018 17:51:31 GMT
A bridge too far I think. Bows were mostly a morale spoiler... not a battle winner... with few exceptions.
Making elements tied recoil if shot from within the threat zone would represent this well...
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 5, 2018 19:22:20 GMT
Joe, if that were true, it seems unlikely that an entire Hoplite battleplan at Marathon would have been designed from start to finish to avoid its effects.
And at Issus, Alexander had the phalanx book it, to close fast with the Persian foot before the archery could begin to be decisive (to me that suggests the Kardakes/Takabara were capable of mass archery, but that is an aside).
And no less than Theucydides himself argues that both Marathon amd Plataea were awfully close-run things, and that hoplite armies should be extremely wary of missile fire(archers) and mounted troops.
The oft-touted claim that archery was ineffective rubs headlong into the extraordinary lengths generals frequently went to, to minimise its impact. That is at army level, not element level.
For the record, try even walking much less standing with an arrow through your foot....
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2018 11:16:47 GMT
A bridge too far I think. Bows were mostly a morale spoiler... not a battle winner... with few exceptions. Making elements tied recoil if shot from within the threat zone would represent this well... Joe Collins Very well Joe. Here are some more charts for comparison (although you have probably already calculated these for yourself). Firstly the recoiling effects of the +1, then secondly the effects of an extra recoil on an equal score. Chances out of 36 of recoiling a target when bows have an extra +1 tactical factor when within 1 BW.
(figures in brackets show doubling results):-
Shooting No One Two
Factors:- Support Support Support
4+1 vs 3 20 (6) 18 (12) 15 (18) (with bow +1 vs heavy mounted, at close range)…if too high, limit +1 to foot targets
4 vs 3 17 (4) 17 (9) 15 (15) (current bow vs heavy mounted, at long range)
2+1 vs 4 10 (0) 13 (2) 15 (6) (with bow +1 vs heavy foot, at close range)
2 vs 4 6 (0) 9 (1) 11 (4) (current bow vs heavy foot, at long range)
2+1 vs 3 13 (2) 15 (6) 14 (12) (bow +1 vs medium foot, at close range)
2 vs 3 9 (1) 11 (4) 12 (9) (current bow vs medium foot, at long range)
Chances out of 36 of recoiling a target when bows give an extra recoil on an equal score when within 1 BW.
(figures in brackets show doubling results):-
Shooting No One Two
Factors:- Support Support Support
4 vs 3 22 (4) 21 (9) 18 (15) (with equal bow vs heavy mounted, at close range)
4 vs 3 17 (4) 17 (9) 15 (15) (current bow vs heavy mounted, at long range)
2 vs 4 10 (0) 14 (1) 17 (4) (with equal bow vs heavy foot, at close range)
2 vs 4 6 (0) 9 (1) 11 (4) (current bow vs heavy foot, at long range)
2 vs 3 14 (1) 17 (4) 17 (9) (with equal bow vs medium foot, at close range)
2 vs 3 9 (1) 11 (4) 12 (9) (current bow vs medium foot, at long range)Advantages of the ‘extra recoil on an equal score’ method The doubling chances remain the same as they are now… The recoiling chances are slightly higher than the +1 method… Could be applied to shooting WWg and Art as well as bows… Could be applied to mounted targets as well as foot… Disadvantages of the ‘extra recoil on an equal score’ method Awkward to word the combat outcome…whereas “+1 if within 1 BW” is easy peasy… I still think it should be limited to shooters that do not move (to discourage aggressively advancing into close range). There is another idea I had that may also help when shooting (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10089/ ).
This could be another way of breaking-up an enemy formation…
…when they are recoiled they move back, and if they roll a ‘6’ when shot at they ’impetuously surge forwards’.
Having targets recoiling back and sometimes surging forwards would give the shooters more opportunity to single out an element...
...thereby helping to overcome the no support disadvantage shooters currently suffer when they are in a Threat Zone. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jan 6, 2018 15:30:14 GMT
Something like this I think:
If its total is equal to that of its opponent:
No effect if attacking or defending a city, fort or camp.
If not:
Scythed Chariots Destroyed.
Knights or Camelry Destroyed in close combat by any Blades or any Bows that are Lb or Cb, recoiled in close combat by other “Solid” foot. 4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn. Otherwise no effect.
Other mounted Recoiled by “Solid” foot in close combat, otherwise no effect.
Foot if shot and not shooting back Recoiled if within the threat zone of the closest shooter
Otherwise
Fast foot Recoiled by “Solid” foot in close combat with it or shooting at it, otherwise no effect.
Solid foot Destroyed by foot if CP, CWg or Lit & in contact on 2 or more edges by enemy front edges, otherwise no effect.
I would probably limit this to foot... though I am open to applying it to mounted as well.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2018 17:35:06 GMT
I see where you’re going Joe. But it may be a bit more complicated than that. Something like this I think: If its total is equal to that of its opponent: Foot if shot at and not shooting back Recoiled if within the threat zone of the closest shooter. Otherwise... What if the foot shot at and not shooting back is CP, Lit, CWg, or Art in the opponents bound or facing the wrong direction? Do they recoil? (I suppose WWg will be ok…they shoot all round, and must shoot back). Also, are we not entering the dangerous waters of defining what ‘nearest’ or ‘closest’ actually means? May I remind you of this: fanaticus.boards.net/post/10068/  But I fully understand that this is only a rough preliminary draft. And it could work with a bit more polishing-up. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2018 17:40:51 GMT
Hmmm…I’ve been thinking (always a dangerous sign!). Instead of all this rather complicated “+1 if shooting within 1 BW” or “targets recoil on a tied score if within a TZ”, both of which have little real effect, and neither of which addresses the real issue of shooting being less effective when in a Threat Zone (due to the loss of support shooting)…I have a rather simple solution. Take away the thing that is causing close range shooting to be less effective than long range shooting. In other words, ignore Threat Zones and let shooters pick their targets, just as they do when shooting at long range.Let them concentrate on one target, or split their fire against several targets if they so choose. There you go…being at close range is no longer a disadvantage. After all, if the shooters were close to an enemy, but not actually within their Threat Zone because of the target’s facing, they don’t have any shooting penalties. So why should they if the target is facing them? (A single element can move in any direction, even directly into front-edge contact if it has enough movement. So even if not facing the shooter, it’s still a threat. So why isn’t it also a priority target?) ---Later Edit: my mistake...they would be a priority target, as rule 10.4 says "Bows and WWg must shoot at a target in their TZ".
But this is the cause of the problem. It takes away the bows and WWg freedom to shoot in support, making close range shooting weak.---And who is to say which target is the more dangerous? The nearest enemy foot, or the mounted enemy that is a bit further away? Let the shooter decide. (Shooting restrictions would still apply of course…see figure 15c on page 25) This simple change would be a lot easier than farting about with combat factors and outcome effects… …and it would make the rules less rather than more complicated. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jan 6, 2018 18:15:05 GMT
Yes, Stevie. That. To be honest, my original house rule was that shooters are only forced to shoot at Mounted targets in their TZ. Based on speed and relative threat, this seemed appropriate.
But since the new TZ requirements for shooting were a v3 new addition, and given that many people still cling to literalist interpretations, forgetting that DBx has no attrition at unit level, I had given up on getting this one in.
Here it is: An element of Bows must shoot at a mounted target in its TZ.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 6, 2018 19:10:03 GMT
Here it is: An element of Bows must shoot at a mounted target in its TZ. I'll go with that.  And it doesn't matter which way the mounted element is facing... ...it's a priority target because it's in the shooter's Threat Zone. As for having enemy foot in the shooter's Threat Zone...who cares. Leave it up to the shooter to decide who to shoot and who to support if there are no enemy mounted in the shooter's TZ. Later Edit:-
The bow high shooting factor makes it too easy if they are allowed to gang-up on mounted that are within the shooter's TZ.
I would also apply this same shooting priority to WWg, as their best targets are mounted (plus the threat from elephants).
Artillery can of course choose who to shoot at.
The 'primary shooter' (rule 10.5), shooting back (rule 10.4), and things that block shooting (also rule 10.4), would still apply of course. In short, simply add the word 'mounted' to page 10 paragraph 4 shooting priorities, like this... "Bows and War Wagons must shoot at a mounted target in their TZ (or shoot back, or if neither then they can choose)" ...and we have a much better game. Now what could be simpler. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jan 7, 2018 1:41:04 GMT
Just a quick note to say that I've updated my previous post by filling in some details to primuspilus' excellent suggestion. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
