|
|
Post by timurilank on Sept 21, 2019 15:00:38 GMT
I enjoy using cavalry armies and any deficiencies I had encountered were the result of an over optimistic use of LH. Learning to use them well, even in the face of adversity, requires a longer learning curve.
I can remember a number of instances LH were caught in a two deep column eventually leading to their demise. Since then, I use the formation to manoeuvre and form line outside enemy charge reach.
This often results in LH manoeuvring in groups, though single elements can be useful as well. These can move to within 1BW of opponent’s flank forcing the expenditure of a pip to engage your LH or withdraw out of your TZ.
Overcoming terrain obstacles can be a bigger challenge. There are a number of battle reports of LIR against the Hun with the latter overcoming difficult hills and woods to gain two victories. The Battle of Brenta (Italian Lombard vs. Magyar) involved similar terrain and ended with a historical outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 21, 2019 18:20:22 GMT
Like Nangwaya I too have been doing some playtesting. Here are my observations and comments. Justification: I like to justify things, as it adds depth and meaning to the rules. My justification for ‘+1 PIP per 4 LH’ is that the more LH elements in your army, the more experienced competent veteran LH commanders you’ll likely to have. Rules: I used +1 PIP for every 4 LH /LCm, on a large 20 BW square table, and “Doubled LH Flee from Bows, unless shot in the rear” (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10302/ ).(At first I tried using the extra LH PIPs can only be used by single or LH groups, but I
found this to be awkward and unnecessary, so just added the extras to the PIP roll)Losses: although it would be much easier to add the extra PIPs based on the starting
number of LH/LCm in your army, I think that Paddy’s idea of basing the extra PIPs on the current number of surviving LH/LCm is better. It could represent the LH becoming ‘spent’ or ‘fatigued’ as losses mount...or that those experienced competent veteran LH commanders are being killed. It also gives a reason for having ‘spare’ LH elements. (i.e. with 4 LH, you’ll lose the extra PIP when one is lost. With 6 LH, you could afford to
lose a couple of LH before the extra PIP is taken away)Luck: I found that having just a single extra PIP had very little effect and was hardly noticeable - it was like fighting a battle and never having a PIP roll of ‘1’ (which does happen sometimes...we players only seem to remember our bad luck, never the good!). On the other hand having 2 extra PIPs or more did have a significant effect, as it should. (Note: the few times I rolled and got ‘6’ PIPs + 2 or 3 extras didn’t really have much effect.
Rarely was I able to spend so many PIPS!)Allies: I see nothing wrong with having say 2 LH in my main army and 2 allied LH. It’s still 4 LH on the table, so adds an extra PIP (until losses reduce the number of LH). Camps: yes, these are a possible target...but you need at least 2 LH to assault them. The opposition could always place tougher foot to protect them, but that will effectively keep one of their elements out of the main battleline (giving the LH army a small advantage). Conclusion: I like it. As Paddy pointed out, having the ability to make multiple moves is lost if you have the same PIP score as your opponent. The more LH you have in your army, the less ‘punch’ you have. Currently, the only way a LH heavy army can get to use their mobility is if they are very lucky and get lots of PIPs. (It’s like having a high powered sports car with very little fuel in the tank!)
Weak elements and normal PIPs = a weak wimpy army, that is usually no faster than the enemy. Weak elements with extra PIPs = a more dangerous army, that can make use of its manoeuvrability. But don’t presume that having 2 or 3 extra PIPs makes a LH army a sure-fire battle winner. You will still need skill and clever manoeuvring in order to secure a victory. The nemesis of a LH army is still a Bow or Cavalry heavy enemy (and bad luck of course). So I would say these extra LH PIPs at least raises LH armies from being wimps to equals. I am sure that Paddy would like to hear other people’s playtest observations.  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 nangwaya on Sept 21, 2019 18:28:56 GMT
That is one thing I forgot to do Stevie, and that was to reduce the extra PIPs when LH elements were eliminated.
I agree with you too, in that just because you might get two extra PIPs does not make the LH heavy army a sure-fire winner, but it sure makes them behave more of what I think a LH heavy army should behave like.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2019 3:35:23 GMT
"... Rules: I used +1 PIP for every 4 LH /LCm, on a large 20 BW square table, and “Doubled LH Flee from Bows, unless shot in the rear” (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/10302/ ).(At first I tried using the extra LH PIPs can only be used by single or LH groups, but I
found this to be awkward and unnecessary, so just added the extras to the PIP roll)Losses: although it would be much easier to add the extra PIPs based on the starting
number of LH/LCm in your army, I think that Paddy’s idea of basing the extra PIPs on the current number of surviving LH/LCm is better. It could represent the LH becoming ‘spent’ or ‘fatigued’ as losses mount...or that those experienced competent veteran LH commanders are being killed. It also gives a reason for having ‘spare’ LH elements. (i.e. with 4 LH, you’ll lose the extra PIP when one is lost. With 6 LH, you could afford to
lose a couple of LH before the extra PIP is taken away)..."
My 5c...(I really like Paddy's idea)
For the 1st bound, allow the entire army to benefit from the +1 PIP per 4LH/LCm on table (preferably 20BW square). This represents the entire army benefiting from the scouting of the LH/LCm assisting deployment and opening moves.
Thereafter, the +1 PIP per 4LH/LCm remaining on table applies only to LH/LCm. This represents only the LH/LCm benefiting from their scouting, movement & maneuver from that point on.
Personally I see no extra difficulty or added brain fatigue in playing with this simple distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2019 8:20:20 GMT
Actually Snowcat, I found that trying to reserve the ‘extra PIPs’ for pure LH formations severely restricted the use of combined groups consisting of say LH and Cv together. Such a mixed group would need ‘normal PIPs’ in order to move it, resulting in the forced segregation of the LH from all the other elements. For example, take army II/28 Early Armenians (2 x Kn, 4 x LH, 4 x 3Ax, 2 x Ps). Having all the LH in one group looks a bit artificial, but the benefits of the ‘extra LH PIPs’ is largely lost if you deploy 1 x Kn and 2 x LH on each wing. Now it is true that these ‘extra PIPs’ could end up being spent on non-LH. But, contrary to what I first thought, I now don’t see this as a problem. After playtesting I now I think of it as a benefit. When players are given the choice between 4 x Cv or 4 x LH, what will they choose? The 4 x Cv certainly has more ‘punch’. The 4 x LH has what?...nothing but less ‘punch’ and the faint hope of maybe getting a lucky PIP roll so they can actually use their multiple move ability. In DBA, all elements are supposed to be equal (at least theoretically), with various advantages and disadvantages. But where is the advantage of taking 4 x LH instead of 4 x Cv? Ah, but trading ‘punch’ for ‘speed’ suddenly begins to make more sense, and makes large numbers of LH more play-balanced. If an army of 8 x LH wants to spend their ‘extra PIPs’ on the other 4 elements I say let them. They have already sacrificed a lot of ‘punch’ by taking so many LH, so give them more PIPs to make the most use of their remaining elements as compensation. 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 22, 2019 8:29:40 GMT
Stevie OK, how about this... "Thereafter, the +1 PIP per 4LH/LCm remaining on table applies only to a single element of LH/LCm or a group of mounted containing LH/LCm." Just a thought for a compromise. ?
(I'm guessing you'll say "nah" for reasons already given, but thought I'd throw it out there...) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2019 8:49:51 GMT
Perhaps...but it is a little more complicated than simply adding the ‘extra PIPs’
to the normal PIP roll (I like to keep things simple...like me!).
What do others think?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2019 8:55:29 GMT
I suppose it might come down to this...
Throughout a battle's duration, should the extra PIP(s) for large numbers (4+) of LH/LCm benefit:
1). individual elements or groups of mounted that include LH/LCm only; or 2). any individual elements or groups within the army
What is the historical rationale behind each of these options? |
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 22, 2019 9:18:23 GMT
I think possibly trying to put lipstick on a pig... It’s still a 🐷
Some horribly complicated stuff going on here and breaks a basic principle of DBA. Command and control is decided by a die roll and best laid plans go down the drain at times. Having guaranteed pip(s) just not right for DBA.
I know we are talking house rules here, but larger playing area, free pip(s), running from and not dying from shooting....
How much more to try and make LH work in the fashion we perceive they did?
It’s broken and needs a more radical rethink or we continue using it “tiptoeing” round the edges trying to snipe a flank or hiding at the rear safe from bows
Not trying to rubbish people’s efforts here and apologies if it comes across that way
I have been playing war games from around 30 years. Played WRG 7th, DBA, DBM, DBMM, WAB AND FoG and not one of these systems gave a satisfactory game when using a LH heavy army against a largely heavy foot army, so I don’t think this is just a DBA issue.
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 22, 2019 9:25:19 GMT
I am all for not restricting the extra PIPs to LH, and that is how I will be playing the Kimmerians at home. I only did two games, but did not find that the Kimmerians became unstoppable just because I could use the PIPs for anyone in the army, just made them very elusive. Just have to remember to reduce the extra PIPs when they lose LH during the game |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2019 9:25:58 GMT
Some horribly complicated stuff going on here ... Ha ha ha! You ever tried playing Advanced Squad Leader?!
So you want something a bit more 'Blue Sky Thinking' eh...?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2019 9:30:51 GMT
I suppose it might come down to this... Throughout a battle's duration, should the extra PIP(s) for large numbers (4+) of LH/LCm benefit: 1). individual elements or groups of mounted that include LH/LCm only; or 2). any individual elements or groups within the army
What is the historical rationale behind each of these options? Ha! I might have an answer for you Snowcat. (Watch out...Stevie is justifying again!  )If these ‘extra LH PIPs’ are being generated by experienced competent veteran commanders, then the C-in-C can rely on his sub-commanders to get on with their jobs without overseeing them, and thus focus and concentrate his entire attention on the other troops in his army by giving them precise and detailed orders. Just a thought (anyway, in DBA it’s the effect that matters, not the justification). And Sicadi...have you playtested these ideas yet? Or are you just ‘armchair theorizing’? Give them a try...you might find they work better than you think. They are certainly better than the present situation, even if not ‘perfect’. (A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source  ) |
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 22, 2019 9:39:14 GMT
No I haven’t play tested my ideas Stevie and I don’t think you and 2 or 3 others playing a handful of games in an afternoon constitutes proper playtesting either.....
Snowcat probably hit the nail on the head. Blue Sky approach needed
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 22, 2019 9:42:36 GMT
OK, here's another idea (or the seed for one)... An army with 4+* LH/LCm more than its opponent** may deploy up to this amount of LH/LCm beyond their normal deployment zone but not within their opponent's deployment zone, AFTER their opponent has deployed his entire army. Food for thought?
*this quantity could be changed **this qualification could be removed
The rationale behind this is that it allows the LH General to get some of his LH into an uncomfortable position for the enemy immediately. Suddenly enemy LH become something to prepare for, or else...!
(So rather than giving LH/LCm more PIPs to 'get them there', let's 'get them there' straight away.)  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2019 10:02:56 GMT
No I haven’t play tested my ideas Stevie and I don’t think you and 2 or 3 others playing a handful of games in an afternoon constitutes proper playtesting either..... Snowcat probably hit the nail on the head. Blue Sky approach needed Craig That's a good point Craig...and is precisely why we need more people playtesting, not less. And allowing LH armies to zip about more (either by giving them extra PIPs or by making them cheaper to move) IS a 'Blue Sky approach'. Identify why LH armies are wimps...find ways of correcting that deficiency...and give players a reason for taking 4 x LH instead of 4 x Cv.  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
|
|
)
