The 3/4Ax debate Mar 14, 2019 6:18:49 GMT
Post by greedo on Mar 14, 2019 6:18:49 GMT
I was definitely on-board with flexible side supported 4Ax, and I felt the same way about this weird +1 vs Heavy Foot idea. It really did not seem like a core DBA parameter. Then again, side support, and Ps ignoring overlaps wasn't either, but now they are rules.
At any rate, this debate had me wondering, so I ran another mini-test.
Test 2: 4Ax Side Support from almost all other foot5x4Ax vs 5x4Sp, straight up fight with no flanking units to worry about.
Starting in contact, 4Ax go first.
Surprisingly the 4Sp were beaten. An early kill of the Spear in the center of the line really made things hard for the Spear to recover.Every time they got pushed back in certain areas, they would lose their +1 side support.
In addition to this, the center 4Ax was free to flank one of the Spears, and a slightly luckier than 50% shot later, killed him too.
So it's not even, but the 4Ax side supported are not out of the game, and the rolls didn't seem to favor one side or the other too much.
I don't know what happens when you put 4Bd or even rear supported 4Pk against them.Have to test this, since the combination of impetuous blades, AND a constant CV5 might prove too much for the 4Ax who will only get a CV4 when there is support.
The problem with side support is that it makes units really brittle. Punch 1-2 small holes in a line, and now everybody's CV has dropped by at least 2 (-1 for the loss of side support, -1 for an overlap or 2), and as Stevie and Primus have pointed out, doubled overlapped 4Ax die, although I'm not necessarily opposed to that. Double overlapped anything should die. That's the point of an overlap! The side support magnifies this effect.
So I think where 4Ax are a supporting unit (say 1x4Ax in a Macedonian army), then they would make a great flank support to the Pikes, since they would be supported by the pike, and wouldn't get knocked out TOO quickly.
Where things get tricky is where they are a larger line (like in my test, of 4Ax heavy armies like Thracians, or even Later Carthaginians). The line falls apart pretty quickly when it starts to fall.
Stevie will of course bring up Cannae where the 4Ax backed up gradually instead, and side supported 4Ax I don't think will work as well.
Again I have to test 4Bd against the 4Ax, and I have mixed feelings about trying to fix Cannae which to my limited knowledge is the only occurrence of a specific setup of 4Ax in the middle, with that specific result, or being pushed gradually back.
I do think there are other solutions to the Cannae problem than just +1 vs HI, but I think, side supported 4Ax, isn't it. And I like it's elegance, quite frankly.
My biggest problem with the +1 solution is that I've found 4Ax hardly EVER die (granted in only 4 tests). They ALWAYS just backup like a bunch of spears, and so the battle rages on, and will be decided on the wings. Fixing Cannae might mean that Cannae happens every time. Is that what we want?
Not to go all 2.2+ on you guys, but does there need to be another troop type?
Are Peltasts and whatever we think these heavy Aux are supposed to be TOO far removed from each other to be classed the same?
Should we have a heavy 2Ps that acts and smells the same as 3Ax, and then have just 4Ax which are 4,3 accepting the fact that they will now be more powerful against Wb and 3Ax, and Ps? It would certainly be simpler..
What if we took away this new 4Ax's bad terrain abilities (no -2 in bad going, and doesn't slow down) and made them in effect medium infantry? This leaves 3Ax to be the bad going bad dudes that they are..Should there be 2 different versions of 4Ax? The "crap" troops with current 4Ax, and the "ninja" troops who can fight toe toe with heavies.