|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 22, 2019 18:37:12 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. 
Not sure who “we” are Stevie and best not to forget these are house rule suggestions, and as such don’t need a playtest - just use whatever you feel gives you an enjoyable game, tweak along the way if necessary. DBA is an easy game to fiddle with 😲. However for “pick up” and competition games the community needs a set standard to play to and that’s the Purple Book. My idea came from reading a recent email attachment for the upcoming Bakewell matched pairs competition, which is playtesting Joe Collins suggestions from his recent excellent Slingshot article. My intention is to go and try and “break” one of the suggestions, and in doing so give it a proper test. Odds are I will fail, and I’m happy to be proved wrong, but I digress... Joe mentions different factions with separate philosophies one of which was to simplify - streamline and amalgamate Cav and LH as in HotT. Can’t help thinking the “wrong pony” may have been backed, and I have no proof and maybe putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but think the problematic LH CF of 2 was fudged somewhat by giving it a +1 for rear support. This gives a contracted frontage, leaving the very troop whose prime tactic was to surround the enemy vulnerable themselves to such a fate, not to mention compromising their flee moves. All in all LH don’t really work in DBA 3.0 for me and the low starting CF would seem to be the issue. That’s why I’m suggesting them as fast Cav. Hoping somewhat, but maybe in vain, that there’s something brewing and we might get a slight tweak to the rules sometime soon, but not holding breath. Incidentally Stevie are you the Stevie on the list of entrants for Bakewell? If you are then I look forward to meeting you Craig |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 22, 2019 21:09:24 GMT
So I play tested I/43 Skythians Cav(Gen), 11 x LH vs II/15 Alexandrian Imperial 3Kn(Gen), 1 x 3Kn, 1 x LH, 6 x 4Pk, 1 x Art, 1 x 3Ax, 1 x Ps. Normally an easy win for Alex and I wouldn't bother playing it...so a good test!
Game 1 RAW. Skythians won terrain 2 gentle hills, rocky and scrub. Skythians deployed in 3 groups of 4 Right, Left and Centre, with Gen. Alex rested his Artillery flank on RG with Ax and Ps holding, Pk alongside the Artillery, 2 Knights and LH all on one flank. Skythians advanced on both flanks and held out of Artillrey range in the centre. Alex refused the left turning the artillery to control that flank. Pike and mounted extended on the other flank. Skythians advanced to strike against Alex but not enough PIPs to support from other flank - only centre moved up in support. Alex moved a second pike block up in support, straightening his line. Skythians 6 for PIPs and they hit overlapping both sides but not enough PIPs to hard flank. Alex LH went down early, Knights and pike pushed or held - no QKs for the LH. Alex PIPs rolls high for PIPs allowing Pike blocks to split and start hard flanking. Knights fall to a QK, Alex pushes again, and 2 LH fall to hard flanking by pike. Skythian 1 for PIPs make them static they hard flank Alex looking for a kill but he pushes. Alex rolls 5 for PIPs and again the static LH are out manoeuvred by the fast moving and agile pike blocks. Ends 5-2 to Alex who out manoeuvred LH with Pike.
Game 2 - Play Test Improved LH. Same terrain - same start. Extra PIPs meant that Skythians could advance further and faster down the flank. However, Alex extended his line sooner and got in an Artillery shot forcing some LH to flee. Skythians flowed round both flanks but two 6s from Alex meant that he stretched from board edge to the Rough anchoring the Art with LH, Kn, Kn and a line of 5 Pk with one in reserve. Ps and Ax holding the RG. Skythians went in and immediately lost against Alex's LH with everything else getting pushed or standing. Not good combat dice for the Skythians. Alex advanced straightening his lines and doubling a LH to kill it with Kn. Skythians 2 for PIPs would have lost them the game under RAW but with 4PIPs they could get a double overlap against the Knights. A lucky die roll saw Alex fall from his horse dead but the other knight won. Meanwhile LH and lights contested the Rough to no avail. 3 vs 2G! Macedonian PIPs and a 6 allowed them to hard flank two LH and get 2 kills. Ends 5-2G to Alex who recovered from his wounds.
So what did I learn? Arrrgh! The extra PIPs didn't change the outcome BUT in the first game the Skythians rolled high for PIPs and lost. In the second game the Skythians rolled poorly for PIPs and same result, but would have got stuffed far earlier under RAW but lasted 2 more bounds because of the +2 on PIPs. What is certain is that the +1 per 4LH didn't dominate the game, indeed it was less significant than the normal variation on a d6. However, in game 1 it felt at the end that the LH were static and Pike manoeuvrable. In the second game it felt closer even though it probably wasn't but importantly the LH felt more like LH. If the games had been the other way around then the Skythians may had shaded it. More play testing needed.....but playing LH was more fun with the +2 even if it didn't make a significant difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 0:12:53 GMT
"... Joe mentions different factions with separate philosophies one of which was to simplify - streamline and amalgamate Cav and LH as in HotT. Can’t help thinking the “wrong pony” may have been backed, and I have no proof and maybe putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, but think the problematic LH CF of 2 was fudged somewhat by giving it a +1 for rear support. This gives a contracted frontage, leaving the very troop whose prime tactic was to surround the enemy vulnerable themselves to such a fate, not to mention compromising their flee moves. All in all LH don’t really work in DBA 3.0 for me and the low starting CF would seem to be the issue. That’s why I’m suggesting them as fast Cav. ..." I also dislike the +1 for rear support. Reeks of fudge to me. But I'm not yet convinced about the Cv alternative being put forward. So far no-one has commented re my initial suggestion for changing deployment rules for numbers of LH/LCm...(?)
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2019 0:28:11 GMT
Loving this topic! Been away for a while and saw this as soon as I came back  I like the +1 pip / 4. Seems reasonable. Fleeing from bw? Not sure but probably will work. If people are skeptical, what about this... If an army has over 4 LH, then the LH army gets to have a free bound first, whether they are attackers or defenders. So it’s possible that they might get 2 bounds in a row, to set themselves up for the “beginning” of the game. Might be too over powering if you roll a 6 on the first bound but wanted to chuck it out there. Chris |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 0:39:14 GMT
Loving this topic! Been away for a while and saw this as soon as I came back I like the +1 pip / 4. Seems reasonable. Fleeing from bw? Not sure but probably will work. If people are skeptical, what about this... If an army has over 4 LH, then the LH army gets to have a free bound first, whether they are attackers or defenders. So it’s possible that they might get 2 bounds in a row, to set themselves up for the “beginning” of the game. Might be too over powering if you roll a 6 on the first bound but wanted to chuck it out there. Chris Yes, similar basic premise to my deployment idea. I like it. IMO it's not so much about the exact mechanics at this stage as it is about seeing the 'vision' behind getting the LH around the enemy early in the battle. |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 23, 2019 1:17:26 GMT
Loving this topic! Been away for a while and saw this as soon as I came back I like the +1 pip / 4. Seems reasonable. Fleeing from bw? Not sure but probably will work. If people are skeptical, what about this... If an army has over 4 LH, then the LH army gets to have a free bound first, whether they are attackers or defenders. So it’s possible that they might get 2 bounds in a row, to set themselves up for the “beginning” of the game. Might be too over powering if you roll a 6 on the first bound but wanted to chuck it out there. Chris Yes, similar basic premise to my deployment idea. I like it. IMO it's not so much about the exact mechanics at this stage as it is about seeing the 'vision' behind getting the LH around the enemy early in the battle. I love reading abut house rules, just love it.
Miss your posts greedo!
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2019 4:00:08 GMT
Loving this topic! Been away for a while and saw this as soon as I came back I like the +1 pip / 4. Seems reasonable. Fleeing from bw? Not sure but probably will work. If people are skeptical, what about this... If an army has over 4 LH, then the LH army gets to have a free bound first, whether they are attackers or defenders. So it’s possible that they might get 2 bounds in a row, to set themselves up for the “beginning” of the game. Might be too over powering if you roll a 6 on the first bound but wanted to chuck it out there. Chris Yes, similar basic premise to my deployment idea. I like it. IMO it's not so much about the exact mechanics at this stage as it is about seeing the 'vision' behind getting the LH around the enemy early in the battle. Very much influenced by your post snowcat! Which reminded me of the recce platoons in flames of war. They get to forward deploy, expanding the deployment zone for the rest of the army. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2019 4:08:53 GMT
Amazing what a 3 year old can do to ones time |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 6:04:44 GMT
Very much influenced by your post snowcat! Which reminded me of the recce platoons in flames of war. They get to forward deploy, expanding the deployment zone for the rest of the army. This is IMO getting to the heart of the solution. Armies with large bodies of LH need to be able to swiftly get at and get around the enemy, and be more able to threaten camps and flank/rear of their forces.
Giving them an extra PIP to do this is one possible solution. It certainly allows them to do slightly more in each bound. But I'm not sure that it's the best solution. (Don't get me wrong, it still might be.)
I now believe that a better solution (and it is the more radical approach) is to allow the army with large numbers of LH - or significantly larger numbers of LH than the enemy (note the distinction) - to immediately deploy those LH forward, even on the flanks of the enemy deployment zone (as an idea to consider), and do this AFTER the enemy has finished deploying. Now whether this is achieved via a free first bound of movement for the LH or a change to where they're allowed to deploy in the opening bound of the game or some other mechanic is open to debate and test...but I do think this is more 'blue sky' and more definitively 'LH' than adding +1 to their PIPs.
Perhaps a combination of both might work. A forward deployment (specifics to be decided) of LH for armies with either 4+ LH (or 4+ LH more than their enemy) AND +1 to their PIPs. Or this might be 'too much'.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 6:20:18 GMT
...the problematic LH CF of 2 was fudged somewhat by giving it a +1 for rear support. This gives a contracted frontage, leaving the very troop whose prime tactic was to surround the enemy vulnerable themselves to such a fate, not to mention compromising their flee moves. All in all LH don’t really work in DBA 3.0 for me and the low starting CF would seem to be the issue. That’s why I’m suggesting them as fast Cav. The suggested change to deployment rules for LH addresses one of your prime concerns: "the very troop whose prime tactic was to surround the enemy".
How would Cv(F) work? Any ideas on actual mechanics?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 23, 2019 6:56:07 GMT
Yes and no. The trouble with a free first bound is that it is a single shot that can place an army in a vulnerable position......a bit like Littoral landings. A typical LH army split into 3-4 groups with a free first bound starts flanking an enemy and trying to get round the back.....however after the free first bound if it isn't throwing 3+ on PIPs then one or more of those groups will be static and open to attack.....and that is even if moving in a group. If actually trying to string together tactical attacks where LH get some hard flanking done then you'll need 5-6 PIPs minimum. Without those PIPs the free first move just puts LH armies in a worse tactical situation.
However, with the +1 per 4LH the LH have more PIPs both at the start of the game and in the decisive phase. Under existing rules LH can do additional moves in a single bound which, in the early stages of a battle when moving as groups lets them advance quickly using the extra PIPs....the equivalent of a free first bound. Plus it also allows the LH more tactical flexibility once those groups get into contact.
Finally it just comes down to numbers. On average a free first bound would give the LH army an extra 3.5 PIPs. However, +1 per 4LH can give them 2 per turn and in a game lasting 7-8 bounds that adds 14-16 extra PIPs. So more benefit to the LH and when needed and not only at the start.
For me the major discussion should be whether it is +1 per 4LH or +1 per 3LH......any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 7:17:34 GMT
What if there was a neat way to return the ability to shoot to LH?
Yes I know it's retro...but what if a solution was being ignored simply because it was seen as obsolete?
Give LH the ability to shoot with their current CF at 1BW range. Could this combined with their movement - including the bonus PIP idea as an option - and even enhanced deployment zones do the trick? A CF of 2 as a shooter isn't great, but with shooting support from more LH this could become damaging. They could potentially whittle an enemy down (with a bit of luck and clever management).
A follow-on from this would then be to do the same with Ps.
Imagine if those so-called Wimpy armies (with lots of LH and/or Ps) suddenly get to shoot!
(I'm guessing someone will say this would make LH and Ps too powerful...)
Why don't Cv and Ax get the same shooting ability? Can of worms? Probably. Just throwing it out there. (Someone might develop a better idea from reading these thoughts.)
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 7:28:06 GMT
Yes and no. The trouble with a free first bound is that it is a single shot that can place an army in a vulnerable position......a bit like Littoral landings. A typical LH army split into 3-4 groups with a free first bound starts flanking an enemy and trying to get round the back.....however after the free first bound if it isn't throwing 3+ on PIPs then one or more of those groups will be static and open to attack.....and that is even if moving in a group. If actually trying to string together tactical attacks where LH get some hard flanking done then you'll need 5-6 PIPs minimum. Without those PIPs the free first move just puts LH armies in a worse tactical situation. However, with the +1 per 4LH the LH have more PIPs both at the start of the game and in the decisive phase. Under existing rules LH can do additional moves in a single bound which, in the early stages of a battle when moving as groups lets them advance quickly using the extra PIPs....the equivalent of a free first bound. Plus it also allows the LH more tactical flexibility once those groups get into contact. Finally it just comes down to numbers. On average a free first bound would give the LH army an extra 3.5 PIPs. However, +1 per 4LH can give them 2 per turn and in a game lasting 7-8 bounds that adds 14-16 extra PIPs. So more benefit to the LH and when needed and not only at the start. For me the major discussion should be whether it is +1 per 4LH or +1 per 3LH......any thoughts? I think some folks are going to take exception to the idea of their opponent receiving guaranteed PIPs beyond the normal spectrum, especially if they get +3 PIPs each turn because they have 9LH (initially) in their army.
What about enhanced immediate deployment options combined with a toned down number of bonus PIPs? e.g. a maximum of either +1 or +2 PIPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 23, 2019 9:52:39 GMT
Yep Snowcat. I think you are right. If set at +1 per 4LH then even Mongol armies with Cav General can't get more than +2. Skythians do have a LH General option as do other Hunnic and Alan's. These could just get to the +3 until their first casualty. Timurids and Avars would get no benefit, Golden Horde, Attila, Khazar, and most of the Turkic armies would top out at +1, Pecheng would get +2 as would a LH heavy Bulgar army or Hsien-pi. So not a massive handout and the ffective additional PIPs is +1 or +2. So well aligned with what you recommended.
However if set as +1 per 3LH then Skythians, Alan's and Huns could get +4, Mongols, Bulgars and Hsien-pi could push to +3, most stepp armies get +2 and Timurids get +1. I think that this level of additional PIPs may be justified, especially as casualties reduce the bonus as the game progresses. This level of additional PIPs would act like you first free move. That said I can see why others think this could be too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 23, 2019 10:57:17 GMT
I find “+1 PIP for every 4 LH/LCm” is just about right...not too much, and not too little. However, if people dislike the idea of having 8 or 9 PIPs, you could always cap it at 6. “+1 PIP for every 4 LH/LCm in their army currently on the table, up to a maximum of 6 PIPs”. Remember everyone; it’s the effect that is important, not the mechanism that generates that effect. And I find that giving LH armies a bit of a PIP boost is the simplest and best way of getting the right effect. Now at last there is a good reason for taking 4 x LH instead or 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
|
|
