|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 7, 2018 20:57:36 GMT
The descriptions are of course just fluff. The game effect is what counts - even Phil does not always get what the game effect of various rules will be. That comes from reviewing many games and player feedback.
Given we have at least some games under our belts do people feel Warbands are adequately balanced against other elements (and for my interest decent historical representations of this class of troops).
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 8, 2018 0:57:04 GMT
It is my opinion that Wb and Pk are not well balanced - elements that require sacrificing breadth for depth to bolster fighting power suffer in a game where even the slowest of troops can fall on their flank (ie shut the gate) from a distance beyond contact.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 8, 2018 3:45:06 GMT
Yet I find even 3Wb x 8 can be quite a formidable force against a Marian Roman army. I found the wins around 50/50, unless fighting in wooded areas, where the edge goes to the Gauls.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 8, 2018 18:04:08 GMT
I agree that Pike are not well balanced and gave them a major revision in Knights and Knaves (its a late medieval game and you really have to get the Swiss to work for all sorts of historical reasons - though no big deal for tournament play - just don't use the Swiss).
Not as sure about Warband due to "Shock" power v. most Heavy Foot types. You are quite correct that +1 Rear Support is a sucker bet in a 12 on 12 game because it means you have to somewhere give up a -1 overlap (worth more than a +1) and even worse open the door to get Hard Flanked. But if Warband slightly cheaper than Heavy Foot, it becomes more useful.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 8, 2018 20:55:22 GMT
And yet, against Bd they can be a fearsome enemy - Bd pursuit coupled with no longer the rear element dying if double ranked and doubled in close combat, ... , Gaul is a hell of a lot tougher to conquer. Given that Caesar only lost one battle in Gaul I believe, how come the Wb armies are so strong? EAPs won many battles against hoplites, and yet they have been declared suck-tacular...
Maybe Phil had a thing for Asterix and Obelix...?
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 9, 2018 0:04:51 GMT
It's probably good that Gaul is tougher to conquer than historically recorded. Having Spartans, Romans, Mongols etc win the same percentage of battles in DBA as in history would kill the hobby. I'm not sure what the exact percentage should be between "matched pairs" but the army that history records as weaker should probably win at least 40% of games to make them playable. There is another type of army, which I call the "nuisance" army, that can be a bit weaker but still be built (e.g. Thracians, Welsh, Picts). You need these armies for good campaigns. What really breaks the system is when the historically successful army struggles (e.g Spartans, Alex v Darius)
I think much of the problem is that people like myself, with an interest in classical warfare (pikes and spears), didn't do enough playtesting when it mattered. medievalthomas eluded to this in an earlier post. You can see the benefit of his work in the medieval period and lkmjbc worked hard on the dark ages to achieve a balance.
The cost to frontage to achieve a bonus for pikes is a problem. It makes the phalanx too small and too easily outflanked. Descriptions of Cynoscephalae and Pydna don't indicate that the Romans simply extended their line, wrapped up the flanks and went home for lunch. The battles were hard fought, often requiring combined arms tactics from the Romans. The initial clash seemed to favour the pikes but as it wore on, disorganization created gaps and flanks for the more flexible/manouverable Romans to exploit. I'm not sure if it will work but I am going to try 8Pk options to allow a strong battle line but each loss to count for two elements so you must protect the phalanx. This will hopefully balance strength and brittleness.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on May 9, 2018 20:25:03 GMT
Jim, you are onto something. I think a universal '+1' for ALL double-ranked foot in CC, along with some DBE that cost 2 when destroyed is a great model for DBX. Allows the "depth vs breadth" conundrum equally, and provides no single "one answer only" for Pk, Wb and Sp armies.
Thebans can get their very deep Phalanx with a DBE and a single additional Sp behind. Gives everyone (even Bw(F)) an agonising choice.
I think we should start be replacing Alex with choices between single and double-ranked Pk... So 6×4Pk, or 4x8Pk + 2 extra 4Ax or something. Each 8Pk costs two for winning and losing? Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 9, 2018 22:09:50 GMT
After much pondering came up with this solution for Pikes in Knights and Knaves:
Heavy Foot Base +4 w/Pikes (-1 v. Foot & Bow Shooting); Cost 4 points FOR TWO STANDS (so half as expensive as normal HF); double Rear Support modifier (so +2)
Hence you buy them in pairs and they are +5 v. Foot; +6 v. Mounted in Close (but +3 v. Bow Shooting). Gives them same frontage as HF w/Sword and same Combat Factor in Close (+5). Both Pursue but Pike have advantage they only die 1 Stand at a time.
Also bear in mind that historical battles were not fought between balanced 12 element armies with the troop types generalized so every body is about equal. In particular the 12 element structure throws out any real historical camparisons.
We should have worked harder on Pike. Have often considered a general +1 for second Rank for none "Shock" types but decided we could work around.
Thebans: should we give them both Shieldwall (side support) AND +1 Rear Support (but get rid of double based stuff).
Spartans: High Morale +1 on any adverse Recoil Result OR/AND Lethal +1 on any winning result???
Hoplite: enhanced Shieldwall any Hoplite Spear that is not Overlapped gets a +1 in Close (rather than side support).
TomT
|
|
