|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 30, 2019 8:26:08 GMT
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. Oh we tested and rejected that many months ago already Paddy:-  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 30, 2019 8:36:46 GMT
OK - I missed that. It sounds an obvious flaw when you put it like that. But am I right I’m thinking you were using “Doubled LH flee from bows” - doesn’t that make them unhistorically indestructible?
The only other potential tweak may be LH count as 3 against bows shooting which has precedent in the stats for Blade.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2019 8:40:21 GMT
Stevie (and everyone else of course), please see ' Hunnic Attack' on Page 12 (near the bottom). It addresses the major flaw in the starburst application of the free subsequent move idea, while allowing a more limited 'divide and scatter' and also permitting the LH to close with the enemy.
The rule doesn't assist with LH subsequent moves; it's more of a LH attack rule.
The new rule could also be used in conjunction with other LH rules, such as those that provide additional PIPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 30, 2019 8:51:03 GMT
The only other potential tweak may be LH count as 3 against bows shooting which has precedent in the stats for Blade. I don't mind that. Seems logical. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 30, 2019 9:22:46 GMT
But am I right in thinking you were using “Doubled LH flee from bows” - doesn’t that make them unhistorically indestructible? Not at all...as playtesting has shown.  How Bows can kill LH when they flee if doubled by Bows:- * make ‘em flee off a table base edge (two flights will do it, or one on a small table if they don’t advance). * after fleeing they’ll have their rear facing the Bows, and a double in the rear routs ‘em (and they are lost). * if while fleeing they hit an obstacle (a Waterway, City, Fort, Camp, or troops they can’t penetrate), they’ll halt and have their rear facing the Bows, and will often still be in range after the Bows advance 1 BW (see above). * if they cannot flee at all because of an obstacle, they'll be lost (see page 12 paragraph 8...so watch double ranks!).Plus of course there are the usual conventional ways of killing them (hard-flank ‘em, use Cavalry against ‘em, etc). Try it and see.  |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 30, 2019 10:14:25 GMT
So the revised wording is:
If Light Horse doubled
Destroyed in bad going, or by any mounted, Artillery shooting, if shot in the rear, or by Psiloi. If not, flee.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 30, 2019 15:06:13 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.' Ah, that does make sense. Now I see why the 3 subsequent moves without contact became a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 30, 2019 15:16:17 GMT
So the revised wording is: If Light Horse doubled Destroyed in bad going, or by any mounted, Artillery shooting, if shot in the rear, or by Psiloi. If not, flee. I don’t quite get the reasoning for this one. Is the LH who “detest” Bw behaving strangely because of it? Surely if LH we’re afraid of bw it seems reasonable and LH shouldn’t be frontally charging bw anyway right? |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 30, 2019 20:05:14 GMT
Greedo, I could give one of my looong winded explanations with very detailed examples... ...but instead I’ll just say “try it”. Give it a go...try it out...see for yourself the effects on your own wargames table, then comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 30, 2019 20:49:32 GMT
So Stevie and I have been discussing off line for a few days exploring possibilities given the opposition to +1/3LH (despite it delivering the right effects) and the problems with free subs....but wanting to come up with something from the same stable. So we came up with an alternative which is.....
LH moves cost 1/2 PIPs.... that’s it! Nothing else.
Lots of analysis by me and Stevie indicate that it is approximately the same in effect as +1/3LH overall but penalises low numbers of LH and low PIP rolls plus it has similar effects as free subsequent moves but allows moves 2x moves into combat. So while coming from a different direction it actually is a combination of the two.
So doing the number crunching this looks reasonable. Not play tested yet - but the numbers look promising and playing it through off table looks promising. Plus it is super easy to implement.......I mean this is massively simple.
Thoughts?
As Stevie says “Try it!”
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 30, 2019 22:23:49 GMT
It certainly seems to fix the issue of armies that have one or two LH not getting any benefit with the +1PIP for every 3x LH.
If through play testing it seems to work, then all LH are improved, and that would be awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 30, 2019 23:20:56 GMT
I like it...a lot. ‘½ a PIP moves’ gives roughly the same effect as ‘free subsequent moves’, but it FEELS better, and is not exploitative as ALL moves, even subsequent ones, must be paid for (at ½ a PIP each). It also has built-in PIP wastage...unused ½ PIPs are lost, so it costs 1 PIP to move a single LH once. It means that for ½ a PIP a LH element or group can move, then pay ½ a PIP to make a subsequent move, which under the default current DBA rules would cost 2 PIPs. And to ‘starburst’ a group of 3 LH would cost ½ a PIP (for the initial move) then 1½ PIPs (to subsequently move the 3 LH individually). The same move would cost 4 PIPs under the current rules. Now LH CAN dance around their opponents...not by moving faster, not by getting ‘free moves’ or 'extra PIPs', but because by only by paying ½ a PIP to move an element or group they can get more LH moving, and thus get those overlaps and the hard-flanking they so desperately need in order to finally turn LH armies from being the mere wimps they are now to being a force to be reckoned with. Trying to choose whether to take X Cv or X LH is going to become a much trickier decision, and I’m sure I could sell this to my mates with no problem. (By the way, this was entirely Paddy’s idea, so blame him if you don’t like it.
On the other hand, if you do like it, then we worked on it together  )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 snowcat on Sept 30, 2019 23:48:19 GMT
First impression: I like it. Among other useful things, you seem to have found a way to make my free subsequent move (and divide & scatter 'starburst') idea work without exploitation. And the more LH you have, the more 1/2 PIP moves become available (for LH). I can't see anything wrong with it yet. And hopefully there won't be, because it is super simple. I'm pleased to have played a part in the process of taking Paddy's original idea and refining it, to suggesting some ideas of my own, one of which while ultimately flawed really showed the dance that we want LH to be able to do, which then led to further brainstorming and what appears to be an epiphany. Well done Paddy, this idea does look to be the ' one rule to rule them all, one rule to find them, one rule to bind them all and in the darkness bind them'. Well done all involved. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 1, 2019 2:32:41 GMT
Oh that’s good. This mechanism could be extended to other elements (such as Ps) if we ever start looking for other things that can be improved. Not now of course Nicely thought of. Will test as soon as I can. And this 1/2 pip cost is the only necessary change right? I like how it helps all LH. Also the LH still have the extra moves that they already had in 3.0 right? |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 1, 2019 5:44:27 GMT
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves......it looks promising but needs a lot of play testing.
I am nervous about how mercurial it’ll make LH armies with 10-12 LH as under this only 2 LH moves are guaranteed.....but you’ll average 7 and could get 12....that is zippy!
Don’t think it helps armies with 1 LH, OK it can sub move but that just puts it ahead of the line. What it does allow small numbers of LH to do is switch flanks relatively quickly.
It probably helps armies with 6-9 LH most especially when they have a stiffer back none of Cav or Knights. Now if only that were historic.....Oh it is!
Anyway a lot of play testing to go..... and if it works - good team effort! If it doesn’t blame Stevie!
If this does work.....anyone up for rebalancing Pike armies? They are the next biggest dogs in the Army lists.
|
|
)