|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 12:18:08 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
The 'capping' idea is good. Should offset some opposition to the proposal, if not all.
Any thoughts on some of the other - non-PIP - thoughts/suggestions I and a couple of others put forward? (I'm trying to help by brainstorming multiple and diverse ideas here, rather than only supporting one single idea in case we miss the opportunity of a really viable alternative.)
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2019 13:49:23 GMT
“+1 PIP for every 4 LH/LCm in their army currently on the table, up to a maximum of 6.”
I really like this, especially the 6 cap. A bit like using a skewed dice but only for movement. So weird stuff can’t happen by getting 8-9 pips! As for giving LH (and Ps and maybe even 3Ax) bowfire, I think it’s a bit too much. The flee and recoils results are intended to model the effect of these (don’t close until you really need to) type troops. The model is MASSED bowfire instead the general shower of missiles. Some 3Cv are modelling bows to have bows too but this is again more showering with missiles instead of a volley. Def some DBx like games have done it ... it certainly “feels” like it’s supposed to be there, just not sure what the extended effects would be. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2019 13:55:26 GMT
What about another one:
“LH can reroll any 1 pip score for every 4LH currently in their army”.
So it automatically caps at 6, and there’s still a chance to roll a 1. Just a really tiny one.
And for large LH heavy armies, rolling a 1 will be really really hard, until they take casualties.
it also adds a bit of risk to the LH player. Do you really want to reroll that 3?...
Still another option would be to roll 2 dice and pick the higher one. Hard to modulate this one with more and more LH though...
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 23, 2019 17:06:02 GMT
So 3 more play tests today. This time IV/35 Mongol Conquest with Cav(Gen), 2 x Cav, 9 x LH vs IV/30 Teutonic Knights with 3Kn(Gen), 5 x 3Kn, Cav, LH, 2 x CB, Sp 3Ax. This was basically the Battle of Liegnitz which the Mongols one decisively so they should have a chance in the rematch. However let me ask you this if you were offered this match up in a matched pairs tournament which army would you choose. Me too! I reckon that if you play this match up 100 times the Teutonics win 99 of them.
So the first playtest was with the rules as written. This soon became a sorry site of Teutonic Knights chopping up pony flesh. The score 4-1, and the Mongols only got their kill from ganging up against the Teutonic local Turcopolen LH for a consolation kill. This game revealed that the Mongols were less agile than the Teutonic Knights. This was because the Mongol PIPs had to be distributed between 12 elements. In contrast the Teutonic foot elements were more static and so their pips were only distributed between eight elements making them more mobile. The exact reverse of what should happen.
Next playtest was with the +2 for the Mongle PIP die. The Mongols deployed in three groups Lighthorse on both flanks and cavalry with the general in the centre. The Teutonic is deployed with crossbow and spear on a central hill and nights supported by either light horse or cavalry on either flank. The Mongols advanced on either flank keeping their light cavalry out of the range and a Cav facing off against Knights and crossbow in the centre. The Teutonic Knights countered by pushing forward a central column of nights and cavalry and trying to close down the Mongols on the opposite flank with knights and light horse. Crossbow shooting pushed back some of the Mongol cavalry but had little effect. Two elements of Mongle Lighthorse worked round the right flank and pulled the Teutonic knechte out of the battle line to counter them. A 6 for pips for the Teutonic Knights allowed them to hit hard. The knechte contacting the column of 2 LH on the right flank, a central battle of Knights vs Cav and LH with a mongol overlap. On the left flank it was light horse against Teutonic Knights and LH. An easy breakthrough by the knights on the left and centre saw the Mongols down 2 LH quickly with the Mongol QK on knights failing dismally and with the double ranked LH dieing on double when fleeing. Mongol bound and a 4 for PIPs went to a 6 and they managed to work some flanks killing the Turcopolen and a Knight. 2-2 but now the Teutonics got serious with a 5 for PIPs allowing some hard flanking. End result 5-3 to the Teutons BUT the game was fun and flowed better.
Last Playtest was the same again except we switched sides of the table. The Mongols deployed in two groups. Cav and one light horse on the left and 8 LH on the right. The Teutonic Knights deployed in a line of mounted on one flank and the crossbow, spear and auxilia on the other. Flanking moves by the Mongols soon had them threatening the Teutonics on either side with Cav skulking out of bow shot range. Extending the line the Mongols tried to flank around the Teutonic light horse and cavalry and when pips allowed client the light horse and attacked the Cav with a column. The Mongol cavalry advancing to within bow range to deflect the archers from shooting at the light horse. The Turcopolen died quickly but Cav pushed back. With their PIPs the Knights advanced to take out 2 elements of LH. Next with 7 PIPs the Mongols entered the "Tetris" phase and the game swung to and fro. A master stroke by the Mongol Gen saw LH contacting the front edge of an isolated knight in columncausing it to aligh and bringing it in range of Cav crossing the front of the bow to contact the knight in the flank, a fight that the Mongols won. Soon it was 3-3 but the extra Mongol PIPs giving an advantage. Their next PIP role was 7 and after losing a Cav to bowfire they had to win at least one of the ensuring 3 fights. In the end a knight dies as did the Aux....so 5-3 to the Mongols.
So what did I learn from these playtests. Well the big thing was that playing with light vs heavy armies is pretty dire under the rules as written but with a +1 per 4LH this changed the Mongols into a mobile interesting army that was fun to play both with and against. It did not swing the balance of play unfairly in favour of the Mongols but what it did do was make them a more playable army rather than a dead loss from the start. You don't need to cap the numbers or add more constraints - they add little except extra complication. Plus a few extra PIPs don't change LH heavy armies into killers - they merely give them a fighting chance!
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2019 20:44:58 GMT
Paddy, would you be fine with unrestricted pips, going above 6, or based on your initial play tests would you cap it at 6?
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 23, 2019 21:23:32 GMT
Paddy, would you be fine with unrestricted pips, going above 6, or based on your initial play tests would you cap it at 6? So based on my playtesting I'll be totally fine with unrestricted PIPs assuming +1 per 4LH. No cap. Given that I never remembered to take off casualties - I'd make it +1 per 4LH in ORBAT rather than on table. Try it yourself! It makes for a better game. If it were 100% my choice I'd go for +1 per 3LH on table but I can understand the resistance to that hence I scaled back the proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 23, 2019 21:38:38 GMT
Use a d8 for PIPs or roll 2d6 and take the highest.
Another approach - allow Trickster Gen for LH - they can force opponent to re-roll PIP die (but don't moan too much when the opponent's score of "5" becomes a "6" - sometimes trickters out smart themselves.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2019 23:43:17 GMT
How about +1 per 3LH in orbat, with a cap at 6 PIPs. (Having a cap at 6 PIPs is not an added complication. It's just someone else's idea.)
I still think changing the deployment rules for LH is a clear way to simulate what armies with lots of LH could do vs what others could not, rather than relying purely on the LH 'getting there' with a few extra PIPs. I see no issue with giving them both. However, I think that a deployment bonus should only apply to those armies with significant numbers of LH, such as 50% or more. So in a 12 element game, 6+ LH would qualify for this advantage. Armies with fewer LH would only receive the PIP bonus.
What do others think?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 23, 2019 23:50:06 GMT
Suppose we increased the pips to unlimited and /3, as a counter, would people also take away the +1 for being column? I’ve heard that one is a bit too gamey..
Also would this kind of thing apply to Ps too? I.e +1 for every 4Ps to give those Ps heavy armies some sneaky git tactics?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 24, 2019 0:39:41 GMT
Also would this kind of thing apply to Ps too? I.e +1 for every 4Ps to give those Ps heavy armies some sneaky git tactics? Maybe.
Or should it be limited to benefiting their army's 'deployment'? (What are those extra PIPs representing post-deployment?)
Perhaps armies with large numbers of Ps are able to deploy Ps in ambushes and/or in extended deployment zones.
Or, like I posted earlier re armies with 6+LH, perhaps you could give +1 for every 4Ps (or 3Ps), AND deployment advantages to those with 6+Ps.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 24, 2019 1:25:38 GMT
So 3 more play tests today. This time IV/35 Mongol Conquest with Cav(Gen), 2 x Cav, 9 x LH vs IV/30 Teutonic Knights with 3Kn(Gen), 5 x 3Kn, Cav, LH, 2 x CB, Sp 3Ax. This was basically the Battle of Liegnitz which the Mongols one decisively so they should have a chance in the rematch. However let me ask you this if you were offered this match up in a matched pairs tournament which army would you choose. Me too! I reckon that if you play this match up 100 times the Mongols win 99 of them. So what did I learn from these playtests. Well the big thing was that playing with light or heavy armies is pretty dire under the rules as written but with a +1 per 4LH this changed the Mongols into a mobile interesting army that was fun to play both with and against. It did not swing the balance of play unfairly in favour of the Mongols but what it did do was make them a more playable army rather than a dead loss from the start. You don't need to cap the numbers or add more constraints - they add little except extra complication. Plus a few extra PIPs don't change LH heavy armies into killers - they merely give them a fighting chance! In para 1 did you actually mean "I reckon that if you play this match up 100 times the Teutonics win 99 of them". Because if the Mongols already win 99 of them, why are we trying to improve them?
In the last para did you actually mean "that playing with light vs heavy armies is pretty dire under the rules as written" rather than "playing with light or heavy armies is pretty dire under the rules as written"? Because if both are dire, we really have our work cut out for us!
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 24, 2019 3:54:23 GMT
Maybe there’s the difference. Modify the Ps move in the first bound so affect their own effective deployment zone where as LH get extra pips all the time..
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 24, 2019 3:59:28 GMT
Maybe there’s the difference. Modify the Ps move in the first bound so affect their own effective deployment zone where as LH get extra pips all the time.. What do you propose? A double move for Ps in the opening bound? |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 24, 2019 4:20:22 GMT
Maybe there’s the difference. Modify the Ps move in the first bound so affect their own effective deployment zone where as LH get extra pips all the time.. What do you propose? A double move for Ps in the opening bound? They already have a 2nd move off the bat but perhaps something extra? Perhaps this is worthy of another sub thread. Don’t want to distract from the LH discussion. Sorry to derail us. Any more tests Paddy? Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 24, 2019 5:31:59 GMT
How about trying force with more than x LH always attacks but chooses terrain and which side of the table to attack from.
If both have x LH and no more than opponent you roll as normal.
Or above and they get larger table.
With or without the additional pip rules.
|
|
