Rebalancing for LH Armies

Will you testing the 1/2 pip for LH only groups?

Those are some interesting ideas there Gonatas.
I’d just like to go over them if I may (although my opinion, like everyone else’s, is pretty subjective).

1) do away with second rank support, but, 3) give LH a +1 for flank support against certain opponents
Possibly, but I quite like the LH rear support...it allows them to concentrate their fire at individual targets,
a bit like Bows do at a distance.
Of course, doing so will shorten their battleline (ah, decisions, decisions...)
However, Light Horse should not have a better chance of riding down Psiloi in the open.
The ancient battle accounts say that Ps were a good way to counter LH.
(See the historical links in this post: fanaticus.boards.net/post/26712/ )

2) keep LH factors at 2
I agree. LH are the mounted equivalent of Ps. But they shouldn’t be beefed-up against Cv.
Historically, Cv were used as a counter and could beat LH.
(See fanaticus.boards.net/post/26660/ )

4) make LH follow up if they win a combat against Kn or Cv
Hmmm...I don’t think it’s a good idea to have weak troops with a low combat factor pursuing into
double-overlap positions...especially as being armed with missiles weapons they want to keep their
distance and dislike getting up close and fighting toe-to-toe (unless they have a tactical advantage,
such as a disordered, i.e. overlapped, opponent).
It should be the LH luring the enemy into double-overlap positions by using ‘feigned flight’ tactics,
not the other way round!

Last of all, playtesting shows that if LH flees when doubled by shooting, but is destroyed if doubled
in close combat with Bows, then players will be encouraged to charge their bowmen AT the LH...
...which not at all realistic.
(LH already flees when doubled in close combat with WWg, so why not do the same v Bows?)



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

I am sorry, stevie, but making LH essentially invulnerable to BWs while retaining the QK (as well as the regular kill on doubles) seems to me to fly in the face of historical reality just as much as BW 'charging' LH.

Flee from double shooting has some justification and would already be a significant change in LH's battlefield survivability.

The cited instance of being forced off the board presumes that the LH is unable to move after the first flee move while the BW has the ability to follow up. Not what I see as anything like a sure thing.

In CC with BW if an LH is in the dire strait of being double overlapped it still has a 1 in 36 chance of killing the BW. Which isn't at all bad considering the base CVs.

Frankly, with RAW CV values LH with rear support is better against infantry than BW already.

But if it's 'none', then where does that leave you...other than with RAW in which 'LH are far too weak and immobile'?

Re "LH flee if doubled by Bows, unless shot in the rear" - this was one of the house rules for LH that immediately struck me as sensible. (It began as 'doubled by shooting Bows' and got extended to 'doubled by Bows' thus including close combat into the equation.) Has the extension to the original idea not received as much support?

However, re this next bit...

"You may ask why LH are killed by being doubled by Psiloi in close combat, but they will flee from Bows.
Well, a Bow figure represents between 6 to 10 ranks, with the rear ranks shooting blindly using ‘barrage fire’
as they can’t even see the target. Psiloi on the other hand are a thin line of snipers spread out in open order,
shooting directly just when their target raises his shield to ward off an attack from another direction, or are
deliberately aiming for that unprotected head or that unarmoured part of the light horseman’s body..."

I'm not convinced by the Psiloi vs LH argument. On most days I think LH would have a field day with Ps in the open and ride them down. But when you look at how PB models LH, they (LH) don't ride down (QK) Ps on recoil results, whereas Cv, Kn and Cm do. So what PB is seeing and what I'm seeing are two different things. Consequently, not also permitting 'LH flee if doubled by Ps' probably keeps the 'equivalence' between LH and Ps that PB originally envisaged. Under RAW each can destroy (by doubling) the other with equal odds. Changing that might unbalance things too much.

Oh I do understand what you are saying Goragrad, so let us split the discussion into
its three main salient points:-
　　1) what should happen to doubled LH when shot at a distance?
　　2) what should happen when doubled LH are in ‘close combat’ with shooters?
　　3) why should Ps kill doubled LH in close combat when Bows can’t?

As for point 1): I think many would agree that having LH being machined-gunned down
by three shooting Bows (21 chances of being doubled out of 36) is a little too excessive.
It doesn’t seem to match the historical accounts, and from a game point of view it’s far
too easy and makes LH far too vulnerable.

And this excessive vulnerability is not based upon historical evidence or game playbalance.
It’s merely a side-effect of the DBA combat system. Bows need to be able to defeat Cv/Kn,
so Bows have a CF of 4 against mounted. LH are weaker than Cv/Kn, so have a CF of 2.
Ergo, LH get slaughtered by shooting Bows...and the fact that the LH are spread-out in a
an open-order skirmish formation (so that many arrows would land in empty space) and
that the LH are zooming about (making them a difficult target to hit) has been completely
ignored.

Having doubled LH flee from distant shooting, as MedievalThomas suggested, is a much
better solution. It doesn’t make the LH ‘invulnerable’...they’ll often flee right off the table.
And having LH being ‘routed’ (i.e. destroyed) when doubled in the rear, or if they are unable
to flee at all, also helps to reduced this perceived ‘invulnerability’.
In effect, it means that Bows will take roughly two bounds to destroy the LH instead of one.

LH should be defeated by shooting, the historical accounts say so, but I also think that the
shooters should have to work for it rather than just have it handed to them on a plate for
just turning up!
(An alternative is to make all LH/Cv/Cm/Kn have a CF of 3 when shot at.
Hell Cataphracts, no matter how much horse armour they are carrying, are just as vulnerable
in DBA as Cv when shot at. So a CF of 3 would be the standard, and LH are also 3 because
although they have less protection they gain a bonus for being in a an open skirmish formation
and are moving about rapidly, while Kn are also 3 because although they often have more
protection they are in a denser formation and more arrows are likely to strike someone.
But it is a bit more awkward and a less elegant solution)

That bring us on to point 2): What about being doubled in close combat with shooters.
Here we come face-to-face with the severe limitations of the DBA combat system.
If you score less you recoil, and if you are doubled you are destroyed.
It would be nice to have something in between these two extremes, and fleeing fits the
bill. Fleeing is worse than just recoiling, but it’s not as bad as being destroyed.

And as I’ve said, extensive playtesting showed that if LH are destroyed when doubled
in close combat with Bows, the bowmen will be encouraged to charge at the LH.
So how do we resolve this paradox?...we want LH to be destroyed when doubled in
close combat with Bows...but we don’t want the Bows to actually charge at the LH?!
(An alternative would be to do what HoTT does with Kn...LH that charge into Bows
are destroyed if doubled in close combat, but if the Bows do the charging the LH will
flee instead.
But it is a bit more awkward and a less elegant solution)

Actually, my playtesting with my wargaming mates showed that having close combat
LH fleeing from Bows when doubled is essential in reducing the ‘invulnerability’ of LH.
Consider the following situation:-
　　The LH charge the Bows...get doubled...and turn and flee 4 BW.
　　Next bound the Bows advance 1 BW and shoot...into the rear of the fleeing LH.
　　And if LH are doubled in the rear, they are routed and removed.
Again it means that Bows will take roughly two bounds to destroy the LH instead of one.

Last of all, we have point 3): Psiloi killing LH in close combat when Bows can’t.
Well, strange as it may seem, the historical battle accounts by the ancient historians tell
us that missile armed skirmishers were a good way of countering Light Horsemen.
Xenophon mentions this in his “March of the 10,000”, where the Greek mercenary Hoplites
hastily formed bands of slingers to see off the Persian Light Horse, and Arrian in his account
of Alexander fighting the Scythians when crossing the Jaxartes river, plus many other examples.

This superiority of Ps over LH was probably due to three reasons: foot Ps could ‘outrange’ the
Light Horsemen, and standing on steady ground would make the Ps more accurate than bouncing
up and down on a galloping horse, and a Light Horseman is more vulnerable than a foot skirmisher
(a skirmisher is one small target...a Light Horseman is two targets, the rider and his horse, so is
much easier to hit).

Indeed, a case can be made that Ps should be better than LH...and in DBA 3.0 they are (sort of):-
Ps get to ignore corner-to-corner overlaps. LH do not.

So having Ps able to kill LH in close combat by using direct aimed ‘sniper fire’ (but with a low CF
of only 2) rather than massed bows shooting in volleys (most of them shooting blindly overhead
at a dispersed fast moving target that the rear ranks can’t even see) seems about right.

DBA is only a simulation of ancient warfare, and in DBA it’s the effects, and not how you generate
those effects, that matters...providing they give the correct battlefield behaviour.

All I can say is give this “LH flee if doubled by Bows, unless shot in the rear” concept a go,
and see the effects with your own eyes.