|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 6, 2019 19:34:06 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? ...the LH will still spend 1 pip if they want to make contact since they can’t do it on the 2nd move. Hmmm...not exactly Greedo...the house rule is ” LH only pays ½ a PIP to move”. So for ½ a PIP a group of 3 or 4 LH could contact an enemy, but only if they start that bound within 4 BW of their target. But if you mean 2 x LH can individually move for a single PIP, then yes, you’re right. And I don’t think that making LH weaker than they already are is called for. LH still has two arch-enemies...Cavalry (if the LH are 2 deep, they’ll find it is they being overlapped and hard-flanked, not the Cavalry), and enemy shooting at them (even with the “Doubled LH flee from Bows, unless shot in the rear” house rule). Against forces with few mounted, it would explain why LH armies were so dangerous in reality, especially those Huns and Mongols, even though they are mere wimps in DBA and little more than poor quality Cv...unless they are very lucky and get more PIPs than their opponents. Now the choice of whether to take 3 x Cv (for their ‘punch’) or take 3 x LH (for their mobility) is going to be a much trickier decision. I feel another playtest coming on...I/43b Skythians against II/24 Early Rhoxolani. (My money is on the Cv...)  |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 6, 2019 21:46:23 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? All I can say is try it with a play test and you’ll find it’s not quite that simple. Yes you are correct LH can rapidly concentrate - as they did historically. But when double ranked it takes two elements to hit one element and double ranked LH risk losing the front element on a flee. And LH remain vulnerable to shooting plus they don’t really stand up to Cav or Knights on a 1-2-1. When I play tested with the Thessalians where the choice was 3 Cav or 3LH (and I would never under RAW even contemplate taking the LH) I would still have gone for the Cav - although the weighting has changed from 100-0 to about 55-45. However, if others take the LH then the house rule has done its job of making LH heavy armies more competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 7, 2019 0:12:53 GMT
As a lover of LH, I'd wear losing the supporting rank rule for LH in favour of giving them this increased mobility. (I've always found the 2nd rank for LH a fudge. How can LH get a supporting rank but not Cv, etc?)
If LH want to kill Kn, let them do so by putting the Kn at -1 as a product of their improved mobility, and take their QK chances from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 7, 2019 1:14:42 GMT
I think I am with you on this one, Snowcat.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 7, 2019 2:15:26 GMT
I think I am with you on this one, Snowcat. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 7, 2019 2:46:08 GMT
Quite right to make LH pay more PIPs to travel by road. No self respecting Steppe horseman would use a road anyway. Couldn’t we just say that LH count roads as clear terrain so they don’t get a penalty or a benefit from using them? Just to keep it simple? |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Oct 7, 2019 2:53:55 GMT
I think I am with you on this one, Snowcat. That sounds like a quote from a H.P. Lovecraft writing  |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Oct 7, 2019 6:03:59 GMT
One presumes snowcat that the rear support factor for LH was intended to represent a deeper formation with a wave of horse archers riding forward, loosing arrows, and then withdrawing while succeeding waves of horse archers do the same in a continuous cycle.
I want to playtest both Han and T'ang mounted lists against their historical nomad opponents.
Then there is the Battle of Mobei - where are the Han WWG (and Song and Ming) and why can't WWG kill LH?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 7, 2019 6:14:26 GMT
I’ve always found double ranking LH a difficult one. Yes they get the +1 but are still only CF 3 and so run the risk of getting doubled where a flee = kill. Plus as Stevie says double ranking invites overlap if you get it wrong. So double ranking LH is not something I do lightly but where it is absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 7, 2019 7:33:21 GMT
FWIW...
Base width = 80 paces (200 feet). LH base depth = 150 feet / 50 yards.
Typical horse archer tactics: LH advances at canter; at 100 yards (2 base depths) breaks into gallop and fires; at 50 yards (1 base depth) either wheels to the right, still firing along enemy front, or reins in and retreats while firing to the rear (Parthian shot). How are we representing this in DBA 3.0? (I'm not saying we're not, just putting it out there.)
I hear what goragrad is saying re continual circulating waves of horse archers in deep formations. Do we have plentiful evidence of this done by Skythians, Parthians, Huns, Mongols, Turkomans, etc? (If the answer is "yes" then OK.)
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Oct 16, 2019 6:41:29 GMT
Been thinking more about this particular rule change, and really loved how it worked with the limited testing that I was able to do.
The intention was to make in a very simple way, LH based armies more competitive.
Then I started thinking, what about 2Ps based armies? These troops are skirmishers too, could we do a consistent rule for "skirmishers". i.e LH AND Ps.
So could 2Ps move for 1/2 a PIP, and get up to 1 extra move per bound, with the 2nd bound not being able to approach 1BW of enemy? LH are just WAY faster, so they get 3 moves,
Would this allow armies made up of predominantly 2Ps to get up to some craziness? Is there ANY historical legitimacy to my claim, or should 2Ps based armies just die unless the entire board is a jungle?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Oct 16, 2019 7:49:42 GMT
Greedo - the short answer is I don’t know. The long answer is that like you I have been suffering from interference from the real world and so haven’t been able to play test the 1/2 PIP for LH thoroughly. However, like you the initial signs are good.
Ps is a different matter. Unlike LH, Ps are already relatively strong in DBA 3.0. Their speed, group move through BG and lack of corner-to-corner overlap coupled with QK of Elephants etc make them useful. They are not the complete dogs that LH were/are. I can always see a reason to add1-2 Ps into an army and don’t regard them as useless if they are there.
Where you do have a point is that armies with large quantities of Ps do seem to have a tough time. However, is there historical evidence of those sorts of armies sweeping all before them like there is got Steppe armies? Spare Ps heavy armies poor under DBA because they were historically poor orate they unfairly disadvantaged by the rules?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 16, 2019 9:10:23 GMT
...or should 2Ps based armies just die unless the entire board is a jungle? Yes.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 16, 2019 10:10:39 GMT
That’s a bit harsh Snowcat.  But I find myself agreeing with Paddy. Psiloi are already quite useful, and are hard to kill, providing they are not facing mounted in good going or find themselves fighting Auxiliaries. I think that Psiloi heavy armies do poorly because DBA only concentrates on ‘set-piece’ battles, the sort that mounted and heavy foot excel at, and not the ‘guerilla’ type tactics that Psiloi and Auxiliaries were best at historically. So rather than trying to get Psiloi to win battles in the open (which they cannot do unless you beef them up so much that they are no longer Psiloi any more), a better solution would be to alter the victory conditions, so that Ps can win without having to rout the enemy. This is the approach taken in the “Lessons from History” booklet:- ---The invader must defeat the defenders, or at least sack their camp, before nightfall or the defender wins---
This gives the invader an incentive to attack with two possible objectives, and also allows light weak Ax and Ps
armies to actually win a battle by using ‘guerrilla’ type tactics in bad going to ambush, harass, and delay their
mounted or heavier opponents from reaching their camp before night-time ends the engagement.
(Remember that a common tactic throughout history when faced with an entrenched enemy is to go around
them and cut their lines of supply, forcing them to either retreat and give up territory or eventually starve.
Destroying the defender’s camp simulates this)
Note that all this is entirely in keeping with Phil Barker’s own thoughts, as he says near the bottom of page 14:-
“A drawn battle counts as a win to the defender, since he loses no territory.”
All the above adds a whole new dimension to DBA that has so far been ignored, that of ‘guerilla warfare’.
Ax and Ps armies may not be able to win a battle...but by avoiding defeat they can still win a defensive war.
Much like how the 1st century Roman invasion of Germania was ultimately called off as it was too much effort.
And why the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, 1979 to 1989, was also cancelled and the Russians finally withdrew.
You invade, but can’t crush the defenders, and eventually the cost makes your leaders call the whole thing off.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 greedo on Oct 16, 2019 14:32:11 GMT
Stevie, modifying the victory conditions... I love it. Never thought of that and doesn’t make Ps any crazier. But the victory conditions reflect the fighting strengths of the Ps.
|
|
