|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 20, 2019 7:53:32 GMT
Watching Tony Aguilar’s excellent YouTube videos and from my own experience I consider that LH heavy armies are not well represented under DBA3.0.
Historically LH heavy armies were the scourge of Empires. Attila and Ghengis bear testament. The Scythians, Huns, Magyars and Mongols were feared opponents who were highly effective on the battlefield. But who in their right mind plays LH heavy armies in open competition? Who would ever chose a LH General even with historical precedent. Why are armies with 6+ LH classified as Wimp Wars armies - surely they should be killer armies.
Now in my ideal little world DBA would allow for a variety of elements, each with pros and cons that are on average all equally as beneficial to winning the game......the same way that “rock, paper, scissors” works. DBA 3.0 moves a long way towards this with its changes to Ps, Bow etc but, for me, doesn’t do it with LH which are IMHO undervalued. OK they can make multiple moves - and that is good and have a 20BW command radius. However, they cannot really use any of these benefits because they are tied to the same PIP dice as every other army.
LH Armies were supremely mobile and existed to move and flow around its enemy. They didn’t stand still. Yet a LH army is equally likely to roll 1 for PIPs and stand still as the static Hussites. Nothing is more frustrating when playing LH than working round the flanks to get into a perfect position only to roll low for PIPs for a couple of rounds while your pony’s legs turn to lead and your horsemen, happy in using their initiative 20BW from the commander loose their minds. This leaves your LH pinned to the edge of the table by less mobile forces and unable to act like the horsemen that they are.
So if low PIPs impact LH armies disproportionately - one possible solution is to give them more PIPs. I have been trying out a house rule for giving them +1 PIP per 4 elements of LH on the table........and yes I do mean that if you have 12 LH (unlikely but guarantees a LH General) you should have 4-10 PIPs and that 8-11 LH should get 3-9 PIPs. Let LH heavy Wimp Wars armies use the speed and flexibility of LH and gain some protection from rolling 1s.
Using this approach LH suddenly become far more attractive but you need a lot of them. Consider the choice for some armies (including the Parthians) do you go for LH or Cav/3Kn/4Kn? You go for the heavy hitting Cav/3Kn/4Kn - right. But Historically Parthian Armies with more LH did better - so stretching to the 4 or 8 LH numbers to get the extra PIPs looks more attractive. LH Generals also look more attractive. On the table the extra PIPs counteract this and IMHO provides a more historical looking game......but you need a lot of LH to benefit from this.
Other options I have considered are:
Allowing one group consisting entirely of LH can make one tactical move for no PIP’s. This doesn’t quite do it for me. That benefit can he gained by an army with 2 x LH.....hardly LH heavy.
Pitching the extra +1 for PIPs for every 3 elements of LH. This works well and lowers the LH entry cost. However, I though it a step too far for others to
Gain acceptance.
Rolling an extra PIP dice for every 4 LH in an army and selecting the highest. I like this approach because it doesn’t get rid of the chance of a 1. It moves the average PIPs a little back to 4.42 rather than 4.5 for armies with 4-7 LH. It has pretty much the same effect but wasn’t quite as simple.
Any other ideas or thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 20, 2019 8:10:03 GMT
Hmm, one thing I thought while watching Tony's videos were the Collision Course games possibly giving LH armies a bit more of a chance to get around the opponent's forces. But even these games still mean the LH General wants good PIPs, especially on the first roll.
Your idea is interesting in that it nicely simulates outscouting the enemy, which is largely the forte of LH armies.
Interested to hear how your play-testing goes.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 20, 2019 11:39:52 GMT
I do like this ‘extra PIPs for LH’, and I think it would greatly help improve LH armies.  However, I would prefer it if the extra PIPs were not added to the normal PIP roll, but were instead restricted for use by single LH elements or purely LH groups. Otherwise armies with say 8 x LH and 4 x other elements could end up spending their ‘+2 extra LH PIPs’ on the other elements instead of the LH elements/groups. In other words, next to your PIP die you place another die showing the ‘extra LH PIPs’, and these extra PIPs can only be spent on entirely LH groups or single LH elements. The ‘normal’ PIPs can be spent in any way you like. (This will prevent the spending of the ‘extra LH PIPs’ on say elephants for example)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 20, 2019 12:18:45 GMT
I do like this ‘extra PIPs for LH’, and I think it would greatly help improve LH armies. However, I would prefer it if the extra PIPs were not added to the normal PIP roll, but were instead restricted for use by single LH elements or purely LH groups. Otherwise armies with say 8 x LH and 4 x other elements could end up spending their ‘+2 extra LH PIPs’ on the other elements instead of the LH elements/groups. In other words, next to your PIP die you place another die showing the ‘extra LH PIPs’, and these extra PIPs can only be spent on entirely LH groups or single LH elements. The ‘normal’ PIPs can be spent in any way you like. (This will prevent the spending of the ‘extra LH PIPs’ on say elephants for example)Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
I am going to try this weekend using both the added pips to be used for any element and also just restrict the extra pips to LH nd see what happens.
I really want to try out the 9x LH and 3x 7Hd composition for the Kimmerians, and using pips for any element certainly makes the 3x 7Hd very attractive.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 20, 2019 14:26:20 GMT
Otherwise armies with say 8 x LH and 4 x other elements could end up spending their ‘+2 extra LH PIPs’ on the other elements instead of the LH elements/groups. I get what you are saying Stevie but can’t say I’m that concerned given that any army with that much LH deserves a bit of a break. I suppose you could rule that the extra PIPs must be spent on LH....i.e. 8 x LH and 4 elements including an Elephant. Roll a 1 = 3 PIPs of which 2 are for LH so don’t move Jumbo. I’d be content with such a modification if others felt strongly. Would that be an improvement others would like to see? |
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 20, 2019 16:01:17 GMT
Hi all I definitely struggle with LH. I’ve found the potential extra couple of moves just send them to their maker sooner  They have a tendency to melt in front of any shooting, so I thought maybe fleeing instead of dying would be better. But then they don’t flee off side edges giving games the potential to last forever so maybe not... Allowing extra pips may help, but why not allow deployment anywhere on your own side of the board? May allow the LH to get the jump early, but still low starting factors still gonna make it tough. This would work better for the attacker I think. Smaller board size does not help either. Another possibility - allow LH to contact enemy foot for no pips. (must be a single up to 4 base width move) May simulate better horse archers as their shooting is factored in. Think Parthians shooting up Romans in the desert. All in all LH heavy armies are a tough gig. Can see why some apparently wanted Cv/LH merged in play testing as riders are in HotT. Genghis would have died sitting on his ass in Mongolia had he tried world conquest playing DBA for sure! Craig |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 20, 2019 17:21:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Sept 20, 2019 18:11:50 GMT
In DBAOL LH used to flee from shooting if doubled.
I think it was one of the good things that set of rules had.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 20, 2019 18:12:46 GMT
In DBAOL LH used to flee from shooting if doubled. I think it was one of the good things that set of rules had. Agree! |
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 20, 2019 20:22:22 GMT
I agree to a point. LH used to flee in DBM as well. Not sure what it does in DBMM?
The problem I foresee is a troop type with a low combat factor having trouble killing anything which it self tends to flee when beaten.
With the side edges not acting as “the edge of the world “ the fleeing LH might end up going round in circles (and yes I know it kind of did) unable to kill anything itself.
As they say a quick game is a good game. Perceive it may not be that quick. DBM For pacifists if you like🙂
But all said LH ain’t got much of a chance v Bw even if they manage to get in contact.
I’ve said earlier I personally really struggle with them. They are broken and just don’t work in DBM for me
Maybe Bw use factor as if shooting at foot, fast moving elusive target, but leave the current outcomes
Along with a forward deployment zone and free move to contact foot, it might help but not really thought too hard of possible knock on effects
Poor Genghis, the world tour needs to go on hold!
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 21, 2019 1:25:44 GMT
"... The problem I foresee is a troop type with a low combat factor having trouble killing anything which it self tends to flee when beaten. With the side edges not acting as “the edge of the world “ the fleeing LH might end up going round in circles (and yes I know it kind of did) unable to kill anything itself. ..." LH need to gang up on unsupported targets, like wolves picking off isolated prey rather than attacking the main herd. Then they will have their share of kills.
Creating these isolated targets - where none are offered by the enemy - is the domain of the LH General.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 21, 2019 4:33:19 GMT
That is good advice Snowcat. And we must remember that any element that recoils can be ‘quick killed’ by LH... ...if you hit them simultaneously from both the front and flank at the same time. Just don’t expect frontal charges on their own to achieve much. Of course, to be able to sandwich the enemy simultaneously from both the front and flank you’ll need lots of PIPs...which is the point that Paddy is trying to make. Give it a try Sicadi and see how you get on.  Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 21, 2019 11:04:22 GMT
"... The problem I foresee is a troop type with a low combat factor having trouble killing anything which it self tends to flee when beaten. With the side edges not acting as “the edge of the world “ the fleeing LH might end up going round in circles (and yes I know it kind of did) unable to kill anything itself. ..." LH need to gang up on unsupported targets, like wolves picking off isolated prey rather than attacking the main herd. Then they will have their share of kills.
Creating these isolated targets - where none are offered by the enemy - is the domain of the LH General.
Yes fully aware of the hard flanking options. Fairly easy to avoid with terrain, table edge and the like. Still think LH are a broken troop type (why are we having this conversation otherwise) FWIW (not much really) I like the option I mentioned earlier with doing away with the LH troop type. Not as radical as it sounds.... Make them Cv fast. CF 3 v everything. No need to re-base so no need to worry on that count. The fast bit means they still move 4bw, but keep the option as current for 2nd/3rd March moves. Also being fast recoil on ties v other mounted. (This may give unwanted results v Kn possibly so may need to lose the QK v Kn) They still flee v Sp, Ax and Pk when doubled but now pick up v Bd & Wb. I like the idea that they could QK Bd on ties (a nod to Crassus and his legions in the desert against the Parthians). CF 3 makes them slightly more survivable v shooting but still vulnerable. I see a possible problem v Ps as Cv do QK where LH don’t in DBA 3. All conjecture and discussion, but DBA does lend itself wonderfully to these house rule tweaks. Just hope in future there is a 3.1 version that fixes the problems we perceive. Just need a consensus on what the problems are and then another on what the fixes are and this will be difficult to say the least! Craig |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 21, 2019 13:27:25 GMT
LH need to gang up on unsupported targets, like wolves picking off isolated prey rather than attacking the main herd. Then they will have their share of kills.
Creating these isolated targets - where none are offered by the enemy - is the domain of the LH General.
Yes fully aware of the hard flanking options. Fairly easy to avoid with terrain, table edge and the like. If that is all true, then perhaps that is precisely what needs addressing rather than turning LH into something they're not, or creating a subclass of something they're not into something more like LH. I've been watching a few videos of DBA games lately that have LH in them, and so far I haven't seen much focus on getting them to do what only they can. They've ended up being used more like Cv and in some cases frontal assault 2-deep battering rams against Kn. Now maybe there weren't enough PIPs to be more creative with them, which if true returns us to the idea of giving them more...
That said, your idea of Cv(F) does need considering. Just because I'd rather find a simple enough fix to give a little more to LH doesn't mean a parallel solution can't be found via Cv. My 1st choice would be to tweak LH though.
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 21, 2019 15:00:13 GMT
I played two games this morning using the house rule: for every four LH you get one extra PIP and can use any PIPs for any element and thus not restricting extra PIPs to be used on LH.
Played I/51 Assyrians vs. I/43a Kimmerians.
The Kimmerians were:
Cv General, 8x LH, and 3x 7Hd.
The Assyrians were:
HCh General, HCh. 2x Cv, 3x Sp, 2x 4Ax, 2x 4Bw, and Ps.
Games were played on the big board.
The Kimmerians won the first game and the Assyrians the second.
One thing that I like about this house rule is that it is not affecting combat factors.
I love the way the Kimmerians behaved... zipping around, here one minute, gone the next, and forcing the Assyrians to stay compact and try to pin the odd LH in a threat zone, which was really hard to do.
Terrain placement became massively important, as in the first game the Assyrians left too much of a gap between terrain pieces and the edge of the board for example, allowing the Kimmerian LH to get behind the Assyrian line in no time at all. The Assyrian camp was sacked pretty quickly, resulting in the Assyrians having to use their Cv to drive off the LH, while the rest of the Kimmerian LH to buzz around the rest of the Assyrians, and basically just waiting on the periphery for any opportunity to arise.
The second game the Assyrians placed a difficult hill 1Bw away from one side edge and a wood 1Bw on the adjacent side edge, and then used them as threat zone anchors with a 4Ax on the hill and a Ps in the wood. Also placed a BUA within 1Bw of the camp, restricting how the LH could get to the camp from one direction. This allowed the Assyrians to limit how the Kimmerian LH could get around.
Still, the LH, with those extra PIPs, behaved the way I think LH should behave, at least from what I read... able to get around the field quickly, provide feints in that it looks like the LH are going one way, Assyrians move out to meet them, then the LH take off only for other LH somewhere else to make a provocative move, etc..
It felt like a game of "whack a mole" for the Assyrians.
I think this will fit the bill just nicely for many games that I have wanted to try but was reluctant to because it just felt like the Kimmerians would not behave the way I have read about them. The Kimmerians had a massively disruptive effect in the near Middle East... just ask the Phrygians, Lydians, and Urartians for example.
|
|
