|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 7, 2019 15:45:19 GMT
I certainly don’t have the answer, but here are some thoughts to mull over. I like to let history be my guide. And as Goragrad says, the traditional opponents and counters to LH were Cv. So history seems to imply the following:- Kn beat Cv... Cv beat LH... LH beat Kn. Yep, it’s that old ‘rock-paper-scissors’ format, and DBA 3.0 represents this quite well. However, there is one very well documented historical account that seems to contradict this. I’m sorry but it’s that old favourite of mine once again: the battle of Cannae in 216 BC. In this engagement the Roman-Latin mounted on their left wing (represented in DBA as Cv) found themselves frustrated by the nimble Numidian mounted on the Carthaginian right wing (represented in DBA as LH), led by Hannibal’s nephew Hanno. These Numidians did not defeat the Latin Roman cavalry, but literally ran rings around them, and kept them busy until Hannibal’s brother Hasbrubal led the victorious Gallic and Spanish cavalry from the Carthaginian left wing right round the back of the Roman army to threaten the Latin cavalry in the rear. (See www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html section 116.5 for Polybius' account,
and section 48.1 for Livy’s totally made-up ‘embellishment’)So here we have a paradox. Cv are the best counter to LH, yet the Roman CV found themselves impotent against LH. Well, one solution is to use Paddy’s “LH only pays ½ a PIP to move”, then the Numdians would be able to easily run rings around the Latin Roman cavalry, and threaten them with flank attacks to buy time (even though they can’t use subsequent moves to get closer than 1.1 BW from their enemies). As for the LH combat factor against foot...we must remember that the “+1 to LH for rear-support” is just a fudge and an excuse to give a weak troop type a much needed boost in close combat. Another way would be as Snowcat suggested:- give LH a CF of 3 v foot and 2 v mounted (and take away rear-support). This would make LH stronger against foot without the need to shorten their battleline. And against mounted, the ½ PIP cost would make it easier to get overlaps/hard flanking (and their CF of 2 would mean enemy Kn being drawn into double-overlap positions...
...simulating ’feigned flight’ perhaps?) |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 7, 2019 15:51:13 GMT
The problem I have with making LH CV 3 is that I feel it makes them too powerful. Quite often an army is given a choice between LH and Cv, and if LH was cv 3 I’d take LH every time instead of it being a decision. Part of the idea to give LH mobility was to help make that decision harder, as well as giving LH a chance.
I would also argue an all LH army SHOULD feel different to play than an all Cv army or indeed a mixed LH Cv, Kn army. Giving LH cv 3 blurs things too much. Yes you could double rank them for cv 3, but there is a cost to doing this.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Nov 7, 2019 17:26:25 GMT
Greedo - I think you capture my thoughts quite well. Under RAW LH are crap - forget about them etc. With LH move for 1/2 PIP they are still crap but boy do they move fast and that movement makes them a very different troop type to Cav. They aren’t Cav they are more useful than Cav in some respects but less in others. They give the player a very real tactical option.
Now Stevie is right - rear support for LH is a fudge BUT it does give LH a bit more punch, as Snowcat feels is necessary and I agree, but with the down side of reducing frontage and possible death. So in play tests I never use it until the 1/2 PIPs and evades have pulled battle lines out of sorts and I can get decent overlaps and flanks to make it an even fight. Then it is worth taking the risk and if you throw low then it is just one of those things. This makes the LH vs Cav / Knights look like a battle line trying to hold steady against the swarm while the swarm picks on the edges and try to disrupt it before doubling up to hit. Now I’m no expert but this kind of feels right to me and gives a good game even if it is historically accurate.
Giving LH a CF of 3 may just return them to being crap Cav which would be a shame.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 7, 2019 22:47:28 GMT
Another way would be as Snowcat suggested:- give LH a CF of 3 v foot and 2 v mounted (and take away rear-support). This would make LH stronger against foot without the need to shorten their battleline. And against mounted, the ½ PIP cost would make it easier to get overlaps/hard flanking (and their CF of 2 would mean enemy Kn being drawn into double-overlap positions...
...simulating ’feigned flight’ perhaps?)Err, I didn't suggest that...but it's an interesting thought.  (My idea was CF3 in their own bound, otherwise 2. So the LH only get the CF3 when they're 'phasing'. And possibly no rear support with this; I hadn't decided.)
Incidentally, are you aware that your idea of a CF of 2 v mounted and 3 v foot is the exact reverse of the way TRIUMPH! handles Horse Bow (LH horse archers)?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 8, 2019 2:29:47 GMT
A further option: LH are CF 3 vs shooting (Bw, Art) OR Bw, Art are CF 3 shooting at LH. Another way of handling it: LH +1 if shot at.
The flee if doubled by Bw (unless shot in rear) rule helps against the Bw CF 4 vs LH CF 2 starting point issue, as doubling was commonplace and LH would die in droves.
But shooting is still a bugbear for them. Should it be? When you consider they're more dispersed than Cv, in the RAW they're still a lot easier for Art to make them flee than Cv, and easier for Bw to make them recoil than Cv. Why? Are they not moving faster/closing the range more rapidly/more dispersed = harder to hit? Furthermore, they're not formed in 'strict formations' like many Cv, so disruption to their 'formation' is less of an issue than it would be to Cv.
Why do Cv not also 'detest foot archers who outshot and outranged them, and artillery who made their rally position unsafe' as is apparently the case for LH in the troop definitions? Cv wear more armour (not necessarily on the horses) but present an easier target by being formed more closely together. So why are LH more penalised vs archery and artillery than Cv?
(The rest as RAW or with LH 1/2 PIPs.)
I'll ask this question in the DBA 3.0 board as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 10, 2019 8:46:37 GMT
Good point on the CV snowcat. At this time I am just looking at the 1/2 pip LH element/group as a means of improving the performance of LH armies. Really have a problem with giving them a base CF equal to CV. Just getting my nephew back up to speed with DBA (hadn't played in over a year, so RAW), therefore haven't gamed it yet. As I previously noted though, to me any adjustment to LH movement or CF has to be run against the armies that evolved to deal with them - particularly the mixed CV and LH heavy (if not entirely mounted) armies of the Chinese. As noted in the army lists, those were the armies that took the battle to the steppe tribes on their home turf. The largely mounted Chinese armies that took the fight to the steppe tribes were effectively a mirror of their enemies. So largely like for like. They won some battles. They lost some battles. Territories and dominions shifted and changed; dynasties rose and fell. An important thing I'd add to this is that one of the major reasons why the Chinese were able to resist some of the invading steppe tribes was the geography of southern China. For example, the Khitan-Liao had no problem dominating all of Northern China, but it was a different story when they pushed south. All those rivers and terrain unsuited to cavalry based armies. Even Genghis Khan's Mongols struggled to conquer all of China in his lifetime - it was the later Mongols who finally succeeded. |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Nov 11, 2019 2:38:25 GMT
A mirror indeed. The Chinese armies tended to have a higher proportion (if not a majority) of cavalry.
And those later Mongols had large contingents of foot. Rather like Attila's army.
In fact, per wiki, the bulk of the troops in the 'Mongol' armies that campaigned in the south of China were Chinese.
Not many LH in the Mongol armies that defeated the Song.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 11, 2019 3:16:44 GMT
Agreed.
It was the Khitan heavy cav that smashed Chinese armies in northern China, and when the Khitans lost their spirit for fighting after a century and a bit, the Jurchens repeated the process with almost identical troops. They then declined into mixed armies (like the Khitans before them) of less formidable cavalry and lots of Chinese infantry to push south, lay siege, build walls, establish fortresses, etc. And then the Mongols came.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 11, 2019 4:55:12 GMT
And then the Mongols came. ... “but they got too big and fat and turned to oil... and then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And then Prince Charles started wearing women’s clothes... “ Dunno why but Flying High/Airplane! shot into my head with your post Snowcat |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 11, 2019 4:59:38 GMT
But to get back on topic, I guess flee from being doubled by shooting would make LH not as machine gunned down by bw..
I’m still against them having cv 3 against foot tho, unless you mean shooting only, but I’d prefer to get rid of another cv just for shooting if we can avoid it.
Would making Mongol LH “superior” giving them a reroll on a 2 might give them a nudge. Of course, that’s another additional rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 11, 2019 7:06:10 GMT
And then the Mongols came. ... “but they got too big and fat and turned to oil... and then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And then Prince Charles started wearing women’s clothes... “ Dunno why but Flying High/Airplane! shot into my head with your post Snowcat I have that effect on people.  |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 13, 2019 19:43:07 GMT
As I was driving home tonight I had an idea about redressing the ballance in deployment for LH armies.... what if the LH armies received a modifier to the dice roll depending on the number of LH in the army?
ie. 6+ = -1,8+ = -2 and 10+ = -3. This would armies such as Alan's, Huns, Numidians, Mongols and Scythians could end up choosing terrain.
Sorry if this has been suggested before.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 13, 2019 20:40:56 GMT
As I was driving home tonight I had an idea about redressing the ballance in deployment for LH armies.... what if the LH armies received a modifier to the dice roll depending on the number of LH in the army? ie. 6+ = -1,8+ = -2 and 10+ = -3. This would armies such as Alan's, Huns, Numidians, Mongols and Scythians could end up choosing terrain. Sorry if this has been suggested before. Thoughts? Do you mean a modifier to the aggression factor for the army to determine attacker/defender? Not a half bad idea! Could also apply to armies that had generals who were good at choose terrain even when invading. Do you have any data showing the average roll vs their historical enemies? |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 13, 2019 21:46:28 GMT
Yes Greedo I do mean a modifier against the aggression role.My idea is that armies predominantly of LH should have a good scouting strength which is I think is over-looked by the rules which value their often High aggression rather than their manoeuvrability. This I hope should go part of the way to re-dressing the ballance and give such armies a fairer chance to choose the battlefield.
... And no I have no statistics as I just thought of it tonight.... I just wanted to put it out there and see what other gamers made of it and allow others to develop the option should the idea hold any water.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 13, 2019 22:23:56 GMT
Instead of reductions to the original Aggression factor, the 'minuses' could even be used as removals of pieces of terrain that the defender placed. So the attacker/defender isn't changed, but the number of terrain pieces on the board is. Different way of handling the same thing.
|
|
