|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2019 8:23:58 GMT
Paddy, I did recently suggest allowing the LH to end their subsequent move in contact (if this was deemed absolutely necessary). But you said that that made it a move, not a subsequent move. All you need to do is create an exception to the usual subsequent move rule that permits LH to end in contact if they wish (and this exception can be attributed to their superior closing SPEED). Then you have a game changer. So try it and see how it plays. Forget about the semantics for now. The rule would then read something like, 'LH receive 1 free subsequent move that may end in contact with enemy'. So if they think they're hard enough, send 'em in!
And re Ammianus - I did also suggest that it has a whiff of poetic licence about it. And not all LH can be like Huns and Mongols. (Besides, were Huns really that good? The Alans, Visigoths and Gepids had their measure on occasion.) But it is a great visual depiction of what could possibly occur at the most optimum end of the ledger for some LH.
I did also recently propose 1BW shooting for LH but this was dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 29, 2019 8:42:05 GMT
I think one proposal was to allow LH to flee from Bow shooting and leave in contact unchanged. Tried that...players ended up having their Bows charging at the LH. Not very realistic. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/10302/And Goragrad, it’s the Bows ganging up and having three of them shooting at LH. CF 4 v CF 0 = 21 chances out of 36 (58.3%) of a dead LH...which many players think is a little bit excessive! (and having two ranks of LH don’t help...no rear support when shot at). As MedievalThomas suggested, having LH flee when doubled by Bows is much better. Good grief, LH can only flee twice and they’re off the table!...and that’s on a large table. Having LH be destroyed when doubled in the rear is my own addition, and works well. Give it a go.  |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 29, 2019 9:00:16 GMT
Yes - subsequent moves that end in contact aren't subsequent moves - they may as well be additional PIPs. So if we have "1 free subsequent move that can end in contact" and I roll a 1 for PIPs I can move a group of 12LH close to the enemy saw 2BW and then starburst with 12 subsequent moves into contact...which is the equivalent of 13PIPs - on the toll of 1......and you were worried about giving LH an additional +2 or 3 - yet you've just given them 12.
But once committed and split into 10-12 separate elements or groups all flanking and fighting subsequent moves - even if into contact don't help. It would allow individual LH who had fled turn and get back into contact quickly with anything within 8 BW. But if inside a few BW the LH become no more mobile than spear.
So the impact of your suggestion is to give probably too much mobility, even with poor PIPs up to the starburst and then too little when in the Tetris phase. So why am I not going to playtest this idea - because if I do it'll play out as above. However, don't let me stop you playtesting it though because if you find a mechanism to make it work it would indeed be a game changer.......and I hope you do! Maybe you've got better foresight than me but I can't see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2019 9:13:57 GMT
I'll wait to read what others think based on their playtests etc. Maybe others will find ways to take advantage of the free subsequent move that haven't been fully explored yet.
In the meantime I'll see if I can come up with a more conservative mechanic to add a little more bite - if this extra bite is truly needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 29, 2019 9:30:56 GMT
Great - because if you come up with a refined mechanism and it works or if anyone (including you) says I've playtested this and it really improves the game I'll give it a good look and try it for myself. If it proves better than any other mechanism I'll be its biggest supporter.
At the moment all I can say is the I've tried +1/3LH on table free LH moves (which I believe was your amendment that was universally agreed) and it works and IMHO really improves the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 29, 2019 16:19:30 GMT
If the free subs move is too complex to figure out, what about increasing LH move to 6 BW but you still have to pay for all your moves. In addition to extra pips should give the LH plenty of movement. For the cost of 2 pips you get the equivalent of a free one. I could see with larger LH armies keeping track of who had used the free move and who hadn’t could get complex, and hopefully this will alleviate the starburst problem. You can do it, but it’ll cost you |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2019 23:17:24 GMT
If the free subs move is too complex to figure out, what about increasing LH move to 6 BW but you still have to pay for all your moves. In addition to extra pips should give the LH plenty of movement. For the cost of 2 pips you get the equivalent of a free one. I could see with larger LH armies keeping track of who had used the free move and who hadn’t could get complex, and hopefully this will alleviate the starburst problem. You can do it, but it’ll cost you So LH would move further for slightly less than normal PIPs (3 old moves = 2 new ones). OK. And they can close to CC using these PIPs. OK. If they roll low PIPs, they're still nerfed though aren't they?
'...with larger LH armies keeping track of who had used the free move and who hadn't could get complex'. Yes this needs more playtesting.
'...and hopefully this will alleviate the starburst problem'. Are you referring to what happens immediately post-starburst? i.e. having all these LH in great positions close to the enemy but then having to surrender the next move to the enemy (because subsequent moves can't end in contact)? I'm guessing this is what you mean. IMO the 'starburst' (coined by Paddy I believe) is part of what makes the free subsequent move so lovely for LH. So the 'starburst' itself isn't the problem, just what happens next (apparently).
I wonder if one answer to this 'starburst problem' could be timing the starburst a safer distance from the enemy. So you've done your divide and scatter and got into good attacking positions, just far enough away from the enemy so he can't reach you (except with LH or Cv). Then the enemy moves. OK, he might roll high PIPs. That can happen under RAW now. Or he might roll low-average. Hopefully you still have somewhere good to strike at in your next turn, with normal PIPs. Of course, some of your LH could potentially continue doing more subsequent moves if PIPs allow. Again, still better than RAW now.
Something I'm currently pondering is if LH move distance was increased to 5BW. That would mean they could be positioned out of range of all enemy counter-attacks other than enemy LH, although they could still be ZOC'd by enemy Cv. Not sure if there's much merit in this idea yet, but it's worth exploring. The rule would be something like: 'LH move up to 5BW and are allowed 1 free subsequent move'.
I'm a little loathe to give up on the 'free subsequent move for LH' rule suggestion because it's neat and seems such 'a beautiful thing'.
Now imagine if there was a clever way to combine some aspect of the current version of Paddy's original idea (guaranteed extra PIPs for surviving LH based on their quantity) with the free subsequent move for LH... I don't mean literally combing the 2 ideas. Something else...
Maybe Stevie or Paddy can see a way to combine the two. Maybe someone else can. I'll try to come up with something good, but I'm only one person with one brain... 
I'm interested to learn what Stevie finds in his playtests of the LH free subsequent move idea. (In principle, I still think it's 'enough' compared with RAW, without unbalancing the game or having folks who don't use LH complain about their opponent getting bonus PIPs for his LH every bound.) Who knows - maybe we'll reach a point where both ideas are deemed equally valid (just different), and are both included as recommended optional rules to improve LH in DBA 3.0. Or someone might come up with the Master Idea that fixes it all! |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 30, 2019 3:46:33 GMT
Snowcat,
i hear what you’re saying.
So my thinking was we have two rules changes:
1) +1 / 3 LH pips
2) extra movement for LH
The first one has been tested and although I don’t like just adding pips instead more subtly getting closer to 6, I can’t fight against results, and Paddy’s test speak. Maybe you roll an extra d6 for every 4 LH and pick the highest.. I dunno. For now +1/3 stands and I’m cool with it.
The second one seems like a good idea but I’m trying to figure out a simpler way to achieve a similar result without have to make workaround rules for all the special cases that could appear (such as getting into cc or starburst).
So having a movement of 6BW seemed a decent compromise between have new rules around 0 pip extra movement. LH already have extra moves which is pretty simple. Doing a single 0 pip extra move raises all kinds of complications: does it have to be taken immediately after the initial move? Can you come back to the LH for the extra move? How do you keep track of which LH have moved vs which ones have taken their 0 pip? Are moves after the first free one not in cc but the first one can be etc? I see it as a lot of rules for a pretty simple effect.
My understanding of the starburst is that for 1 pip, you move a group of many LH on that pip, and then for the price of 1 pip lots of LH get to scatter and be crazy etc etc. that strikes me too pip “hyper efficient” vs the pip sucking LH that they used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2019 6:21:02 GMT
Doing a single 0 pip extra move raises all kinds of complications: does it have to be taken immediately after the initial move? Can you come back to the LH for the extra move? How do you keep track of which LH have moved vs which ones have taken their 0 pip? Are moves after the first free one not in cc but the first one can be etc? I see it as a lot of rules for a pretty simple effect. My understanding of the starburst is that for 1 pip, you move a group of many LH on that pip, and then for the price of 1 pip lots of LH get to scatter and be crazy etc etc. that strikes me too pip “hyper efficient” vs the pip sucking LH that they used to be. I'll try to answer the questions.
Does it have to be taken immediately after the initial move? No, you could spend 2 PIPs for a move + a successive move and then use your free successive move after that. Or you could put a cap on only 1 successive move, which for LH would be free. Just a thought. How do you keep track of which LH have moved vs which ones have taken their 0 pip? I'm struggling with this one. Can you give me an example of a situation where it would make a difference? To use the free move, you must have already moved, so...? Are moves after the first free one not in cc but the first one can be etc? Sorry I'm really struggling with your wording. A normal LH move for 1 PIP can end in CC. A free move cannot because it's a successive move.
Re the starburst: for 1 PIP you could move a group of LH, and then individual elements within that group could each make a free successive move. Too good? OK. One of the reasons I originally hesitated with the idea was because I thought it might be too good, not the opposite.
I'll give your idea some thought now. Are you OK with LH being 50% quicker than Cv before using any successive moves? Does that seem right to you? If you answer 'yes' then OK, we continue... |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 30, 2019 6:23:30 GMT
Greedo - in previous versions of DBA LH had a movement of 5, not sure what the rationale for reducing it to 4 in Purple was (perhaps the shift from paces/inches to BW for movement while retaining the playing area dimensions was a factor). However, I am sure that PB and the development team had a good reason.
However, giving LH back that movement rate of 5 would allow them to advance to contact with BW without getting hit on the way in. Perhaps this would silence the suggestion that 'LH flee BW shooting.'
One presumes that the notes on the various elements reflect PB's views on them. For LH it notes - 'LH detested foot archers, who out shot and out ranged them, and artillery who made their rally position unsafe.'
To me that makes the case for not modifying the combat results.
It also notes that - 'They were often used for wide flanking movements behind the enemy, operating semi-autonomously rather than under close control, so are permitted extra movement out of contact and are rarely affected by distance from the general.'
I think this can be construed to allow for the extra PIP proposal, but not, at least, the proposal for 'free' supplemental move ending in contact.
If I can get work completed on my house I'll sit down and give the proposals a whirl...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2019 6:40:03 GMT
I think this can be construed to allow for the extra PIP proposal, but not, at least, the proposal for 'free' supplemental move ending in contact. Goragrad, you probably already know this but...the free successive move for LH cannot end in contact. (I only put the option for it to do so forward to give the LH more bite, which I was being told they still didn't have even with the starburst free successive move idea.) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2019 6:43:48 GMT
However, giving LH back that movement rate of 5 would allow them to advance to contact with BW without getting hit on the way in. Perhaps this would silence the suggestion that 'LH flee BW shooting.' One presumes that the notes on the various elements reflect PB's views on them. For LH it notes - 'LH detested foot archers, who out shot and out ranged them, and artillery who made their rally position unsafe.' That's a good point. Could LH feasibly advance to contact Bw from outside bow range without being shot on the way in? It does seem unlikely when you think about it. They're fast, but they're not on rockets! |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2019 7:23:10 GMT
Hunnic Attack (aka Starburst Mk II ):
An attempt to reproduce something similar to Ammianus' description of the Hunnic attack on pg 11 of this thread (included again at the bottom of this message), designed to allow a group of LH to divide, scatter and close with the enemy without draining too many PIPs.
'For 1 PIP, a group of up to 4 LH may divide into multiple elements and move up to their full allowance.'This 'divide and scatter' can end with the LH in contact because it's not a successive move.
If up to 4 LH in the one group is deemed too generous, it could be reduced to 3 LH. So an extra PIP might be required, depending on how many LH are in the army/being moved that turn.
This rule could also work nicely in conjunction with other LH rules.
Ammianus Marcellinus on the Huns:
"They also sometimes fight when provoked, and then they enter the battle drawn up in wedge-shaped masses, while their medley of voices makes a savage noise. And as they are lightly equipped for swift motion, and unexpected in action, they purposely divide suddenly into scattered bands and attack, rushing about in disorder here and there, dealing terrific slaughter; and because of their extraordinary rapidity of movement they are never seen to attack a rampart or pillage an enemy's camp. And on this account you would not hesitate to call them the most terrible of all warriors, because they fight from a distance with missiles having sharp bone, instead of their usual points, joined to the shafts with wonderful skill; then they gallop over the intervening spaces and fight hand to hand with swords, regardless of their own lives; and while the enemy are guarding against wounds from the sabre-thrusts, they throw strips of cloth plaited into nooses over their opponents and so entangle them that they fetter their limbs and take from them the power of riding or walking."
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 30, 2019 7:48:06 GMT
I’m in two minds about the ‘+1 extra LH PIP for every 3 x LH, which can only be used by LH’ and the ‘first subsequent move for LH costs zero PIPs’ methods. Both have their attractions. So in order to get me out of this impasse I decided to go for a second opinion by showing both to my wargaming mates. Now usually I test house rules to death before I show them to eliminate any flaws and complaints, leaving my mates little room for objections. And as they are not tournament but historical players like myself they are already receptive to new ideas and concepts in order to make DBA both more play-balanced and more historically realistic. (We have already be using “Invaders Choose the Table Size” and “Doubled LH Flee from Bows” for some time, and are reluctant to play without these) First I demonstrated the ‘first subsequent move for LH costs zero PIPs’. This did not go well. When I showed them that you could ‘starburst’ without actually moving by having all 12 elements in a single group and just spending 1 PIP to move a mere 1mm in order to trigger the free subsequent move ‘starburst’ effect they all started laughing! “What!” they said, “12 elements could zip about and form any number groups, facing in any direction, within 4 BW of their original position...and all this for just 1 PIP!” Oh, they are fully aware of the wimpy nature of LH, and how only pure PIP luck gives LH enough PIPs to actually make use of their subsequent move ability, and that something needs to be done to redress this flaw and make LH both more play-balanced and historical... ...but ‘starbursting’ is not the answer, as it is too powerful, gimmicky, and exploitative. Very well then...undaunted I then demonstrated the ‘+1 extra LH PIP for every 3 x LH’ method. This received a much better reception, although they did all admit that it’s not as effective. Nonetheless, they are reluctantly willing to accept this if finally makes LH armies playable. So there you have it. Out of the three possible methods:- a) the ‘free subsequent move’ was rejected as being too artificial... b) the ‘extra LH PIPs’ does improve LH, although it’s not as powerful... c) and the current default DBA rule is the least popular, and makes LH armies wimps. As I have to play with these people (unless I want to play solo for the rest of my life) I have little choice but to go along with the crowd. ‘+1 extra LH PIP for every 3 x LH currently surviving, which can only be used by LH’ it is then.  Even if it doesn't make LH armies quite as good as others, it's still better than the current situation. P.S. Increasing the LH move to say 5 BW is not the answer either...they’d flee off the table too easily, as well as making them the best mounted to tackle Bows instead of Bows being their archenemy. 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 paddy649 on Sept 30, 2019 8:19:00 GMT
Stevie, that is really interesting. I initially pitched +1/4LH - which would have been even less effective as I wanted a slight tweak to rebalance LH and didn’t want to overdo it and I originally envisaged that other rules would complete a set of rebalancing options. However, nothing else seemed to work that well. +1/3LH seemed the obvious next step which works well with 10+LH or the table. So I’m glad it felt less powerful - that was the aim the question is was it powerful enough?
However, when I tried it with Thessalians, who are 8Sp, Cav & 3LH it felt unnecessary as the spear only ever took 1 PIP so all the rest could be spent on the mounted......but I suppose I didn’t throw a 1 so never had the either/or problem.
If you want to make +1/3LH more powerful you can go for in ORBAT rather than on table. You could go for +1/2LH but I think that excessive. Or you could combine with tactical tweaks.
Did you play with LH flew from bows shooting (but not from bows in contact?) This is an idea that has merit but I haven’t tried yet and that is about the only tactical tweak that makes sense.
|
|
