|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 24, 2019 6:16:38 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. Good one! This affects the deployment and where the LH can go IMMEDIATELY. (I'd go further and expand the deployment zones for those LH too.)
Maybe increased PIPs are still required, but that [force with more than x LH always attacks but chooses terrain and which side of the table to attack from] is the kind of approach I'd be starting from in rebalancing LH armies. Thumbs up.
You might want to add a further qualification to that rule, such as: The force with more than x LH - and at least x-more LH than opponent - always attacks but chooses terrain and which side of the table to attack from.
(Or something like that.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 24, 2019 10:26:09 GMT
There are certainly lots of interesting ideas bouncing around here.  But let us not forget the main issue, and let's let history be our guide. Historically armies with lots of LH could (literally) run rings around their opponents. In DBA they cannot, because they have the same amount of PIPs as their enemies. Thus there is no incentive to choose 4 x LH over 4 x Cv. Indeed, having 4 x LH is a definite disadvantage, as they have much less ‘punch’. I’ve done a little bit of playtesting and experimenting with the alternative suggestions. Here are some of my results. Giving LH ‘bowfire’: lots of complications (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1151/horse-archer-shooting ). Re-Rolling PIPs: just an alternative way of generating extra PIPs. Rolling 2d6 and choosing one of them: Not as precise as +1 for 4 LH, and gives no control over LH numbers. Giving LH a deployment advantage: not as effective as having extra PIPs, for the following reasons:- 1) too easy to block by the enemy making their first move, even on large 20 BW tables (remember, LH making subsequent moves cannot end up within 1 BW of the enemy). 2) encourages moving and fighting down a table side-edge (we should be discouraging going near the totally artificial table side-edges, not encouraging it). 3) after deployment the LH are back to square one...moving no faster than the enemy. LH chooses terrain/table-edge: I’d let the aggression roll decide this. Most LH armies have high aggression, but not all do. But definitely let invaders choose the table size (which benefits ALL high aggression armies, including foot armies with clever generals such as Alexander, Pyrrhus, and such like). All-in-all, Paddy’s suggestion of giving LH a small PIP boost based on the number of LH in their order-of-battle is still (so far) the best, simplest, and easiest method, that gives just the right effect on the wargames table. 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 24, 2019 12:14:16 GMT
I get that you like Paddy's idea. I like it too. But dismissing the deployment advantage so swiftly is missing an opportunity IMO. How will it be easy for the enemy to block LH if LH deploy to their flank AFTER the enemy has completed their deployment? Why should a LH army be discouraged from moving some of its units down a table side-edge, when they are not considered unsupported by being there? I'd argue that's precisely where they SHOULD be, or doing off-table flank moves. As for your 3rd point, I did say that there was a case for a deployment advantage + some extra PIPs. If folks are happy to just go with extra PIPs / 4LH and leave it at that, I'll take it. But I'm left thinking 'still something missing here'. |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 24, 2019 13:49:43 GMT
So when looking at improving Light Horse armies you can either: give them a head start, give them more PIPS or improve the individual effectiveness of the elements.
If I have proposed only one of these. Snowcat argues that these are not mutually exclusive but could be AND rather than OR. I agree....which is why I'm content to go for +1 per 4LH.
I agree there is more to discuss. I think giving LH an evade or feigned flight capability is part of the solution.
I don't fully get Snowcat's argument for a head start if using a 30 x 30 table. With a 24 X 24 table all the flank channels can't be fully blocked and even if they are the phantom overlap gives LH a fighting chance to clear the obstruction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 24, 2019 14:12:11 GMT
Is the real issue not the fact that the LH armies would ride into bow range shoot up the forces and move back if they were advanced upon.
I know the recoil/flee results are used to give this effect but getting into that close is not something that LH would have done.
We just have to accept DBA is a fab game made to give quick battle simulations, some armies get nerferd and some seem way too good when judged against their real world selves but what the heck.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 24, 2019 14:47:43 GMT
How will it be easy for the enemy to block LH if LH deploy to their flank AFTER the enemy has completed their deployment? Simple...the defender moves first.  I my playtests I had the LH army as the invader (most LH armies have high aggression), so the defender will deploy and move first. And the vast majority of armies have some ‘wing troops’ (i.e. LH-LCm, Cv-LCh, Cm, Ax, Ps, and Mtd-Inf)...apart from a few like the early Greeks, Vikings, and others like them. And as for Paddy’s statement about using Phantom Overlaps to give “LH a fighting chance to clear the obstruction”...LH and Cv are not affected by Phantom Overlaps, and the other ‘wing troops’ can just use their Threat Zones from inside some sort of terrain to block any moves down a table side-edge. Give it a playtest and see how easily you yourselves can block the table side-edges from being used by an army with lots of LH. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 24, 2019 14:52:53 GMT
Is the real issue not the fact that the LH armies would ride into bow range shoot up the forces and move back if they were advanced upon. I know the recoil/flee results are used to give this effect but getting into that close is not something that LH would have done. But isn’t that just a matter of perception and scale? To quote from “Lessons from History” (see fanaticus-dba.fandom.com/wiki/File:LESSONS_FROM_HISTORY.pdf ):-
Imagine you are an eagle flying 100 meters over an ancient battlefield. When you look down you might well see
a gap where the shooters cease to concentrate their shots and begin individually targeting the nearest threat.
Then imagine you are that same eagle flying not a 100 but a 1,000 meters above that very same battlefield.
Now you can no longer see that gap...the shooters and their target appear to be almost touching each other.And DBA will stay that way...if we don’t even try to correct things. My philosophy has always been: “If something is wrong in DBA, then lets fix it!”... ...in order to make the game both more play-balanced and more historically accurate, providing this can be done simply and easily without creating unwanted knock-on effects.  |
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 24, 2019 15:39:38 GMT
Yes a 24 X 24 table is 15 BW wide. If defenders move first then expanding out to block either flank if only with TZ is easy. However, my play tests would indicate that if the defenders do this they have thined their front and placed troops on the flanks I can kill. Singleton LH or LCm on the flanks are the first target for a LH heavy army to kill. Cav on the flanks are hard to budge. Anything else attack with supported LH (+1) and phantom or real overlap (-1) - that gets rid of most obstacles.
If one flank is blocked the +1 per 4LH allows the LH heavy army to deploy to the other flank quickly or exploit the thinned center. Remember just one gap in the line opens 2 flanks for LH to exploit.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 24, 2019 17:09:26 GMT
Ha! We seem to be descending into “yes-but-no-but” territory.  If the LH army is the invader, the defenders will deploy first, then see the invading enemy LH deploying outside their deployment zone, so can use their first move to block any attempts of the invading LH to zip down the table side-edges...even on a large 20 BW table. Should both armies deploy as far forward as they can (and defenders don’t have to), the nearest LH will be at least 6 BW away, and even with extra moves they can’t go within 1 BW of the defenders. This lets the defenders see the threat coming, and have a couple of bounds to respond. If the LH army is the defender, then it is they that must deploy first, and the invading enemy will see them deploying outside the deployment zone and so again can make preparations. (Actually, I like to let history be my guide.
The Byzantines knew a thing or two about fighting mounted enemies, and deployed in two lines.
If the first line were outflanked then the reserves would counter them)All I am saying is giving +1 PIP for every 4 LH is good, it’s very very good, but having LH deploying outside the normal limits is a waste of time, as I’ve ready found ways of countering it. Anyway, LH don't need to deploy outside their normal deployment area... ...with their extra PIPs they can easily reach a table side-edge if they want (it's only two BW away...). |
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 24, 2019 17:28:41 GMT
Hi all
I’m gonna row backwards on this one waving a white flag. And apologies if any of my previous posts have offended anyone 😔
Still a little reticent with “free” pips but the overall idea is growing on me.
Can somebody please sum up the latest proposals. It’s become a little confusing with so many ideas bouncing around
Yours head bowed in shame
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 24, 2019 17:54:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 24, 2019 19:21:52 GMT
Just want to thank Paddy for coming up with the "for every 4LH get +1 PIP" house rule.
It will be my go-to rule when playing with Kimmerians on the board.
I love the way it affects both armies and makes for a fun and challenging encounter.
Now off to see if the Albanians (5x LH if you take the LH General option), fair better against those bloody Serbian Empire fellows.
Also want to try out the Kimmerians against the New-Babylonians I/46a. Some HCh and lots of 3Bw should make those Kimmerians want to flow around the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 24, 2019 19:26:59 GMT
I actually like TomT’s idea of using a d8. I know that won’t fly in the DBA community but it gives the same average pip score as a +1 and gives the chance of rolling a 1. Even the mongols would have some communication breakdowns. I’m a bit uncomfortable with a guaranteed 2 pips but that’s just me. And going further, if it’s for every 4LH, you could roll a d10 for 8LH. Same average as a +2 and you still get a chance of a 1. Of course, you can also roll a 10 for pips, but you pays your money and you takes your chances And for the grand prize, have 12 LH in your army and literally run rings around the opponent by rolling a d12!! |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 24, 2019 19:29:12 GMT
Just want to thank Paddy for coming up with the "for every 4LH get +1 PIP" house rule. It will be my go-to rule when playing with Kimmerians on the board. I love the way it affects both armies and makes for a fun and challenging encounter. Now off to see if the Albanians (5x LH if you take the LH General option), fair better against those bloody Serbian Empire fellows. Also want to try out the Kimmerians against the New-Babylonians I/46a. Some HCh and lots of 3Bw should make those Kimmerians want to flow around the board. But Nangwaya what about my poor Thessalians with only 3LH, they miss the quota. Is anybody thinking about them??! Agreed. Love this rule and hope it’ll make LH challenging to play and play against! |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 24, 2019 19:35:07 GMT
Just want to thank Paddy for coming up with the "for every 4LH get +1 PIP" house rule. It will be my go-to rule when playing with Kimmerians on the board. I love the way it affects both armies and makes for a fun and challenging encounter. Now off to see if the Albanians (5x LH if you take the LH General option), fair better against those bloody Serbian Empire fellows. Also want to try out the Kimmerians against the New-Babylonians I/46a. Some HCh and lots of 3Bw should make those Kimmerians want to flow around the board. But Nangwaya what about my poor Thessalians with only 3LH, they miss the quota. Is anybody thinking about them??! Agreed. Love this rule and hope it’ll make LH challenging to play and play against! I guess you are just out of luck Greedo
But seriuosly, are you going to try and playtest the every 3LH gets you an extra PIP, and perhaps have a PIP cap?
|
|
