Rebalancing for LH Armies | Fanaticus

snowcat
Senator

Posts: 1,128

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 20, 2019 23:12:34 GMT

Quote

Post by snowcat on Nov 20, 2019 23:12:34 GMT

Nov 20, 2019 13:48:15 GMT stevie said:

Ha!...don’t blame me if the actual historical accounts don’t match the thoughts of some
‘modern day armchair military historians’.

I’ll be honest...I don’t know why Ps were considered to be a good way to counter LH.
I only know that the ancient historians said they were, and they give actual accounts
of their performance in real life battles to prove it.

If the ancient historians said Ps could counter LH, then that’s good enough for me.
After all, they knew far more about ancient warfare than we today will ever know...

　　-------------------------------------------------------------

But on a slightly separate issue, I do wonder if some players have a misconception into
what Light Horsemen actually are (whether they were armed with javelins like Numidians
or armed with bows like Asiatic horse archers).

Just because they are on horseback they are not simply poor quality cavalry.
No, they were mounted Psiloi, and fought and behaved like mounted Psiloi.

And just as missile armed Psiloi wants to fight at a distance and avoid a hand-to-hand
fight (because it’s safer), so to did the Light Horsemen.
(Although if they spied an opportunity, like an exposed flank or an enemy disorganised
by their missile barrage, they would be willing to get stuck in)

Take LH in so-called ‘close combat’ with Ps or Bows:-
Both sides want to keep their distance and use their missiles, not get into a risky melee.

Now it is true that some troops classed as Cavalry (and in some cases even Knights) in
DBA are dual-armed, with both melee weapons and bows. Well, it’s up to the owners
of these elements to imagine whether they’re shooting at close range or getting stuck in...
...DBA just calls it ‘close combat’, and leaves it up to your own imagination.

In short, a man on a horse is not automatically someone who wants to fight toe-to-toe.
LH had a different ethos, and a different style of fighting, and different behaviour, than Cv.

I agree with a lot of what you say here, although I do think that the further you move beyond Hellenistic times for your 'supportive accounts re Ps vs LH', the times they will be a-changin'.

Personally, I'd give your italicised sentence even greater emphasis. There were indeed plenty of horse archers - of a certain 'ilk' - that were very keen to get to close quarters when they saw an opportunity. Take that account of the Huns by Marcellinus for one. The arrows are loosed, they spy an opportunity to close and they're straight in! (I realise these are the LH(S) from DBM etc, and we can't go about grading different kinds of LH for DBA...)

...or can we?

Last Edit: Nov 20, 2019 23:32:28 GMT by snowcat

"When one goes, one must go with style."

stevie
Emperor

Posts: 3,195

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 21, 2019 9:38:51 GMT

Quote

Post by stevie on Nov 21, 2019 9:38:51 GMT

Good points Snowcat.
But here is something else that I forgot to mention...

Formation
What is the best and worst formation for fighting in a hand-to-hand melee?

Well, the best formation is to be in a fairly tight close-knit bunch.
And the worst formation is to be in a spread-out dispersed skirmish mob.

Thus we have the following:-

        Mounted with melee weapons (lances, spears, etc)                  Mounted with missile weapons (javelins and bows)
        Mounted with protection (helmets, armour, and shields)           Mounted with little protection (like Parthian LH)
        Mounted in a fairly tight close-knit formation                          Mounted in a dispersed open skirmish formation
        ------------------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------
                (the above describes DBA Cavalry)                                      (The above describes DBA Light Horsemen)

As you can imagine, these two very different types will behave very differently on the battlefield.

If players want Huns, Mongols, and the many other tribes of the Asian steppes to be able to
both fight at a distance and in a melee, then they should be classed as dual-armed Cv.

But as I said in another thread...”I didn’t write the army lists”.

goragrad
Senator

Posts: 1,025

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 21, 2019 9:53:02 GMT

Quote

Post by goragrad on Nov 21, 2019 9:53:02 GMT

Nov 20, 2019 11:55:23 GMT stevie said:

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)

Actually, a CF of 3 vs shooting could be the better approach. But then the WWG should get the kill on doubles.

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.

As you noted, CC for LH is merely a close range missile attack - there fore BW closing to CC are not ahistorically 'charging the LH but merely closing to a more effective range. Presuming no overlaps the BW will have 9 chancea to kill the LH vs 6 of being destroyed - still fairly risky for the BW. And the uncertainties of PIPrills may leave the BW without the chance to advance and get a second shot at the LH prior to their 'recovering their facing.

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.

Actually, the Greeks (aside from Athens) didn't field actual archer or massed slinger units (and DBA does limit slingers to skirmish units where in reality they were often used in massed units that outranged and had more lethality than bows) - the Ten Thousand and Alexander in massing their slingers were in effect doing so.

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).

Aside from the higher density of the BW units, all the reasons why foot archers should also kill LH. And due to the higher density of BW there would be more missiles going downrange than with PS.

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.

Additionally, all of the arguments why LH should flee in CC on doubles when facing BW seem to equally apply to PS who instead die. At that, why then not add PS to the 'missile proof' list and further neuter massed archery leaving the poor KN an CV the only troops they can effectively counter?

Part of the argument for additional PIPs or 1/2 PIP moves for LH was to have them zipping about the battle field rather than charging in like lesser versions of CV - with 9 chances to kill a BW unit on a head to head matchup in CC with no chance of dying against the BW they will be used to run over BW. Exactly the opposite of Mr. Barker's view of the relationship between horse and foot archers.

And snowcat has a point - a significant number of LH were actually primarily armed with lances and other melee weapons to ride down the oppositions horse archers or overrun disrupted opponents. So there should be two classes of LH if horse archers become arrow proof.

snowcat
Senator

Posts: 1,128

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 21, 2019 11:30:15 GMT

Quote

Post by snowcat on Nov 21, 2019 11:30:15 GMT

Nov 21, 2019 9:38:51 GMT stevie said:

Good points Snowcat.
But here is something else that I forgot to mention...

Formation
What is the best and worst formation for fighting in a hand-to-hand melee?

Well, the best formation is to be in a fairly tight close-knit bunch.
And the worst formation is to be in a spread-out dispersed skirmish mob.

Thus we have the following:-

        Mounted with melee weapons (lances, spears, etc)                  Mounted with missile weapons (javelins and bows)
        Mounted with protection (helmets, armour, and shields)           Mounted with little protection (like Parthian LH)
        Mounted in a fairly tight close-knit formation                          Mounted in a dispersed open skirmish formation
        ------------------------------------------------------------             ------------------------------------------------------
                (the above describes DBA Cavalry)                                      (The above describes DBA Light Horsemen)

As you can imagine, these two very different types will behave very differently on the battlefield.

If players want Huns, Mongols, and the many other tribes of the Asian steppes to be able to
both fight at a distance and in a melee, then they should be classed as dual-armed Cv.

But as I said in another thread...”I didn’t write the army lists”.

Yep, I can't argue with those LH definitions if they were describing LH(F) from DBM. But...many of the steppe horse archers truly were a blend of Cv and LH, which was where LH(S) came along in an effort to simulate them. It's tricky. I have proposed some ways to approach this, but ultimately I can't fault or deny the cleaner demarcation that PB created between the mounted troop types for the purpose of DBA.

I read somewhere - years ago - there was strong belief the Huns, Mongols, and various other steppe horse archers adjusted their formation according to specific role and battlefield demand. I realise that allowing such a thing in DBA is both impractical and a very big can of worms, but I mention it in support of the 'blending' I referred to above. (In another system, players can choose to have proportions of their 'Huns et al' as LH or Cv, I believe in an attempt to represent this very thing, or at the very least to permit alternative interpretations.)

Last Edit: Nov 21, 2019 11:40:59 GMT by snowcat

"When one goes, one must go with style."

stevie
Emperor

Posts: 3,195

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 21, 2019 11:52:59 GMT

Quote

Post by stevie on Nov 21, 2019 11:52:59 GMT

Just a couple of points Goragrad (well...quite a few actually!

).

“As you noted, CC for LH is merely a close range missile attack - therefore Bows closing to CC
are not ahistorically 'charging the LH’ but merely closing to a more effective range.”

Ah, but DBA 3.0 (unlike HoTT) has the quite clever limitation of Bows can’t shoot if they move over 1 BW.
So technically, the Bows would dash forwards (2 BW for solid Bows and 3 BW for fast Bows) to get into
‘close range’ and then find themselves unable to shoot! If it takes an entire 15 minute bound to advance
2 BW, where do they find the time within that 15 minute time-slot to actually do any shooting?

“Presuming no overlaps the BW will have 9 chances to kill the LH vs 6 of being destroyed -
still fairly risky for the BW.”

One-on-one perhaps...but let us consider 3 x LH against 3 x Bow in close combat.
(The numbers show the chances out of 36):-

	Bows Doubled	Bows Recoil (destroyed)	Equal (LH recoil from solid Bows)	Light Horse Recoil	Light Horse Doubled (destroyed or flee?)
CF4 v CF 0 (LH overlapped twice)	-	1	2	12	21
CF 4 v CF 1 (LH overlapped)	-	3	3	15	15
CF 4 v CF 2 (no overlaps)	-	6	4	17	9
CF 3 v CF 2 (Bow overlapped)	1	9	5	15	6

Due to the very high chances of recoiling, the line in blue is the most usual situation.

I still don’t fancy being the LH much, even if they flee when doubled (then find themselves with
as many as three Bows shooting them in the rear next bound with 21 chances of being ‘routed’).

　　-------------------------------------------------------------------------

But all we are doing is merely quibbling over ‘justifications’.
Quite frankly, I don’t give a toss about what justifications our fertile imaginations can come up with.
Justifications are secondary, they are unimportant...it’s the effects on the wargames table that matter.

So what ‘effects’ are we trying to achieve?
　　* LH are too vulnerable and not playbalanced when shot at (so make ‘em flee instead).
　　* We don’t want Bows charging at LH (so take away the temptation to do so).
　　* We want LH to be defeated by Bows, but not so easily (so make it two bounds to kill them).
　　* Historically Ps were a counter to LH (so leave their combat interactions just as they are now).

Now there may well be other ways of achieving all the above...
...but “Doubled LH flee from Bows, unless doubled in the rear” ticks all the right boxes...and is simple.

Again I urge people to playtest this for themselves, and see the effects with your own eyes...
...and see that it does not make LH ‘arrow proof’...it just takes a bit more effort to kill them.

Last Edit: Nov 21, 2019 12:10:17 GMT by stevie: ...only playtesting...and not theorizing...shows the true effects...☺

greedo
Tribune

Posts: 833

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 21, 2019 14:24:52 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by greedo on Nov 21, 2019 14:24:52 GMT

Nov 21, 2019 9:53:02 GMT goragrad said:

Actually, the Greeks (aside from Athens) didn't field actual archer or massed slinger units (and DBA does limit slingers to skirmish units where in reality they were often used in massed units that outranged and had more lethality than bows) - the Ten Thousand and Alexander in massing their slingers were in effect doing so.

Wait a sec! What if we allowed Ps to rear support? Or perhaps better to limit it to Alex’s Greeks, have 4Ps double ranked ? Ps would then be 3,2

Of course large skirmish formations I would just call 3Ax or maybe 3Bw and be done

To The Strongest has talked about these massed skirmish units and I had never heard of them.

Last Edit: Nov 21, 2019 14:30:29 GMT by greedo

Contribute to the DBA Wiki!
It'll ensure none of these discussions/suggestions/battle reports/army pics get lost!

fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Fanaticus_DBA_Wikia

To quote Two Fat Lardies "Play the history. Not the rules!"

goragrad
Senator

Posts: 1,025

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 21, 2019 22:11:40 GMT

Quote

Post by goragrad on Nov 21, 2019 22:11:40 GMT

So even if the BW only had to move 1 BW to contact that would be 'charging...'

And if already in contact due to a 'draw' they can't move away to avoid being run down.

And what appears even worse we have an 8BW unit of archers fronted by pikes, Chinese halberds, or other pole arms also QKed by LH without being able to do more than make the LH flee.

Additionally if the 1 BW movement restriction is the rationale with BW not having time to shoot if moving further, then when are 'stopping short of contact to shoot' LH and PS doing their missile thing when they come in from 3 or 4 BW away?

I see players under this rule taking PS when given the option rather than BW since PS not only can kill LH but can 'charge' in to do so.

Makes this house rule an even bigger boost for PS than LH and a total disincentive to take CV when given the option for LH.

So much for history.

barritus
Beneficiarii

Posts: 73

Rebalancing for LH Armies Nov 22, 2019 7:12:39 GMT via mobile

Quote

Post by barritus on Nov 22, 2019 7:12:39 GMT

I agree about letting LH move for half a PIP. Re combat what Stevie proposes sounds reasonable tho if it doesn't completely suit perhaps modify it so that:

LH in close combat in their own bound and score half or less are destroyed by Bw.

This would likely restrain the more obvious LH 'kamikaze' tactics of charging Bw in hope of QKing them but not being able to be destroyed themselves...

Just a thought.

Last Edit: Dec 4, 2019 7:58:54 GMT by barritus