|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 1, 2019 7:57:41 GMT
Yes Snowcat, it’s interesting to see how this concept has matured and evolved. It was a matter of selecting and experimenting with various ideas and rejecting those that didn’t quite work right until Paddy found the correct mechanism, the one that gave us the just the desired effect that we were seeking. Yes Greedo, all you need is ‘LH always pays ½ a PIP to move, including subsequent moves’. Things like “Letting the Invader Choose the Table Size” and “Doubled LH Flees from Bows, unless Shot in the Rear” are optional extras. (Consider them as the deluxe version...with go-faster stripes and sunroof  )Lastly Paddy, as for ‘rebalancing Pike armies’ (which don’t need rebalancing if you use them right), see here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/17660/  |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 1, 2019 8:11:02 GMT
Stevie, That’s the post I was looking for this morning.
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Oct 1, 2019 9:12:39 GMT
Good to see some consensus and agreement
DBA always needs “simple yet elegant” fixes and this maybe the one. 👍
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 5, 2019 17:59:06 GMT
Platesting “LH only pays ½ a PIP to move” (read on if you like positional puzzles!) I showed Paddy’s “LH ½ PIP moves” to my mates and they were most enthusiastic, much preferring it to the “extra LH PIPs” or “free subsequent moves”. So we decided to test it. The EngagementII/49 Marian Romans (aggression 3) against II/37 Parthians (aggression 2). Now this not a strict re-enactment of Carrhae, 53 BC. To do that would require the Romans to be in a hollow square (which is an unnatural formation), and the Romans outnumbered the Parthians by at least 3 to 1 (requiring ‘decorative double bases’ to show the numbers). (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/10670 ) So we just did a ‘generic’ engagement...Crassus wasn’t the only Roman to fight the Parthians. Unfortunately, we never finished any of the playtests, because both my mates insisted after two bounds to re-start the engagement several times over in order to see if they could use their movement to get to better positions. The ForcesRome = 7 x 4Bd, 2 x Cv, 2 x Ps, 1 x 4Ax (the general is with the Blades). Parthia = 3 x 4Kn, 9 x LH (the general is with the 4Kn). Note that both the 4Ax and 4Bd have a CF of 3 against mounted. The table was 15 BW square and Parthia were the defenders with little or no terrain. Here is the initial deployment, with the Parthian first bound moves and subsequent moves shown in green:- P1 Ax P2
▄ ▄ ▄
L1▐ C1 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 Cv L2▐ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ L3▐
↑
---
---
---
L4 ▄
↑ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄ ▄
L1 L2 L3 L4 K1 K2 K3 L5 L6 L7 L8
▄
L9Initial Parthian move: L1 moves forward 4BW, with L2-L3-L4 behind it in column (cost, ½ a PIP).
Subsequent moves: L4 remains stationary while L1-L2-L3 moves 4 BW individually (cost, 1½ PIPs).
Total Parthian cost = 2 PIPs.
Roman moves: C1 (which is not in a TZ) turns so it covers the front of both L1-L2.
B1 moves 45° sideways a bit so L3 can’t hard-flank it or C1 (total cost, 2 PIPs).
(L4 is over 4 BW away and is too far to reach B1 in the next bound)
If the Romans can afford a 3rd PIP then P1 could move to protect the flank of C1.
Alternative Parthian subsequent move: L3 remains stationary and L4 moves up beside it forming
two groups...the flanking L1-L2 group and the facing L3-L4 group (total cost, still 2 PIPs).And remember, the Parthians have a 50% chance of rolling a 4, 5 or 6 for PIPs, and if they do then all the above is also happening on the other Roman wing as well! After several re-tries we couldn’t decide which was the better position for Parthia. L3 is critical. Should it join L1-L2 to form a 3 element flanking group, or remain stationary to form 2 separate groups? Give it a try yourselves and see what you think.  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 Oct 5, 2019 21:25:53 GMT
So for 4 PIPs you can get LH worrying both flanks. Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 5, 2019 23:37:50 GMT
So for 4 PIPs you can get LH worrying both flanks. Sounds good to me. My Numidians were able to do this with 2x2LH on each flank using this new rule. A single LH is irritating but a pair of em get dangerous |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 6, 2019 6:14:20 GMT
Sounds good. Regret real world interference has prevented me getting any lead on the table for a play test.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 6, 2019 8:14:53 GMT
One quick question stevie: does this only work with the larger board? Guessing the Parthians get to pick anyway right with that other new rule.. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 6, 2019 9:52:50 GMT
Actually Greedo:- The table was 15 BW square and Parthia were the defenders with little or no terrain. Using my diagram above, another way for the Parthians to move is as follows. (Although my mates thought it a bit risky)Have L1-L2-L3-L4 form a column (½ a PIP), then don’t split-up this column but use a 4 BW subsequent move (another ½ a PIP) to pass it by the Roman wing... ...keeping it over 1 BW from C1 of course. It will end up in a column facing the Roman base edge, but only totals 1 PIP. B1 and P1 are too far away to reach this column, even with their Threat Zones, and if C1 charges into contact, it’ll meet 2 x LH, both of which will turn, giving the LH rear support (see figure 14c). No matter who recoils who, the other LH in this column will be able to hard-flank or at least overlap C1 next bound. As this manoeuvre only costs a single PIP, the Parthians can easily do the same on the other wing, and use any remaining PIPs to trundle the 4Kn group forwards. Oh, and if anyone does want to do a true re-enactment of the Battle of Carrhae, here are the Roman forces deployed in one group in their hollow square formation. (xxx shows the rear rank of the ‘decorative double bases’):- Cv Ps Ax Ps Cv
xxx xxx
Bd Bd
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Bd Bd Bd Bd Bd
Rome: 28,000 hvy inf (7 x decorative 8Bd ‘Legions’), 4,000 mounted (2 x Cv), 4,000 light inf (2 x Ps), and (1 x 4Ax) = 70 figures.
Parthia: 1,000 Cataphracts (2 x 4Kn), 9,000 Horse Archers (10 x LH) = 28 figures.
The Romans were not 'poor quality' in this battle, but they were led into a waterless desert plain,
so think of the 'decorative double bases' as -1 for heat and thirst but +1 for their deep formation.
The Effect Of “LH pays ½ a PIP” On Road MovementRoad moves cost 1 PIP each after the first, so:- LH in good going = initial move (4 BW, ½ a PIP)---> 1st sub move (4 BW, ½ a PIP)---> 2nd sub move (4 BW, ½ a PIP) = 1½ PIPs.
LH using a Road = initial move (4 BW, zero PIPs)--> 1st sub move (4 BW, 1 PIP)------> 2nd sub move (4 BW, 1 PIP) = 2 PIPs.Who needs roads when you’re Light Horsemen. 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 Oct 6, 2019 15:33:53 GMT
Quite right to make LH pay more PIPs to travel by road. No self respecting Steppe horseman would use a road anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 6, 2019 15:43:44 GMT
I may be off base here, but it seems to me that no one in their right mind would want Cv now, if you had the choice of LH instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 6, 2019 16:50:37 GMT
I may be off base here, but it seems to me that no one in their right mind would want Cv now, if you had the choice of LH instead? No - not really. LH remain wimps in combat - just a lot more mobile. Play testing the Thessalians under these rules I would still go for the Cav option over the LH option. However, under these rules it becomes a very close choice rather than a complete no-brainer / no choice at all. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 6, 2019 17:28:50 GMT
I may be off base here, but it seems to me that no one in their right mind would want Cv now, if you had the choice of LH instead? No - not really. LH remain wimps in combat - just a lot more mobile. Play testing the Thessalians under these rules I would still go for the Cav option over the LH option. However, under these rules it becomes a very close choice rather than a complete no-brainer / no choice at all. Maybe there’s the test. Thesalians with LH vs Thesalians with Cv and see who wins out of 5 games |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 6, 2019 18:11:20 GMT
Well no, LH can rapidly concentrate now to double rank and nullify the combat difference, and given a choice between 3xCv or 3xLH, is it not now a no-brainer?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 6, 2019 19:05:17 GMT
Well no, LH can rapidly concentrate now to double rank and nullify the combat difference, and given a choice between 3xCv or 3xLH, is it not now a no-brainer? To compensate, we could remove that LH rear support if its too powerful but also, as Stevie has reminded me, the LH will still spend 1 pip if they want to make contact since they can’t do it on the 2nd move. so I’d say LH are powerful for movement but they still get bounced by frontal charges. it also makes flank guarding of more static armies more important which strikes me as realistic. |
|
)
