|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2019 0:20:18 GMT
Stevie I'm not convinced you're understanding what it was I was loosely proposing re improved deployment for LH. (Or maybe you are...) When I wrote that LH can deploy on the flank of the enemy AFTER the enemy has finished deployment, these flank areas are on the enemy's side of the table. LH and other units are currently not allowed to deploy in these areas. If they did, the LH could potentially see the flanks and rear and baggage of the enemy army. This is what I was exploring. The enemy doesn't know which flank the LH army might deploy some LH in. So what does he do? Put some units to counter this on both flanks? So now he has really spread his forces very thinly. The LH General then chooses which of his enemy's flanks he'll finish deploying on, with other units nearby in support. Enemy General then moves some units to fight the flanking LH, but risks exposing his centre-flank (of these) to the LH supporting units that also came to the party. From reading one of Paddy's recent posts, it appears he's thinking along similar (if not the same) lines to this. It might be more beneficial to discovering extra options to 'rebalance LH armies' if rather than finding reasons to quickly dismiss alternative ideas, we seek ways to explore them further and fully understand how they could potentially work. Otherwise, when we read the equivalent of "no because, no because, no because, no because, no because, except for this one idea which is GREAT" it just seems a bit 'closed' and contrary. As I've said before, they may only be the 'seeds' of ideas, but if nurtured a little more, might actually stand a chance of growing into a fully fledged EQUALLY GREAT IDEA.  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 25, 2019 0:24:03 GMT
Snowcat, are you suggesting something like a littoral landing available only to LH and allowed on either flank?
I know it’s been discusssed before, but I’d love to revisit... need to test
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2019 0:30:22 GMT
Yes, not the same but along similar lines. Like I said a couple of pages back, it's just the beginning of an idea. But if genuinely explored, maybe there might be something to be found there! I'm happy for someone to take that seed and improve it into something that could actually work (and who knows, possibly work really well!)...that's why I threw the seed out there. Thanks for your open, positive response.  |
|
|
|
Post by nangwaya on Sept 25, 2019 0:41:20 GMT
Yes, not the same but along similar lines. Like I said a couple of pages back, it's just the beginning of an idea. But if genuinely explored, maybe there might be something to be found there! I'm happy for someone to take that seed and improve it into something that could actually work (and who knows, possibly work really well!)...that's why I threw the seed out there. Thanks for your open, positive response. Hi snowcat;
I have been enjoying reading your house rules ideas.
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, so I am hoping you can explain what would happen with a 12x LH army with your deployment rules for LH.
Thanks you.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2019 0:57:14 GMT
nangwaya Firstly, thanks. Secondly, it's not a rule yet. It's just a thought...so the answer is as likely to come from you as me. Re 12 LH. This idea doesn't follow the 'extra PIP per 4 LH' structure. It would be more like...'If an army has x-more LH than their enemy, they may deploy (LH) up to x paces forward of their normal deployment zone AND deploy up to x LH from the side edge of the enemy's flank AFTER the enemy has completed his deployment.' Apologies if the wording isn't great. A 12 LH army would usually ensure meeting the qualifying criteria for the sneaky deployment option. For example, 'x-more LH than their enemy' could be 4-more. This is very much a 'take it and improve it' idea. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 25, 2019 2:58:10 GMT
nangwaya Firstly, thanks. Secondly, it's not a rule yet. It's just a thought...so the answer is as likely to come from you as me. Re 12 LH. This idea doesn't follow the 'extra PIP per 4 LH' structure. It would be more like...'If an army has x-more LH than their enemy, they may deploy (LH) up to x paces forward of their normal deployment zone AND deploy up to x LH from the side edge of the enemy's flank AFTER the enemy has completed his deployment.' Apologies if the wording isn't great. A 12 LH army would usually ensure meeting the qualifying criteria for the sneaky deployment option. For example, 'x-more LH than their enemy' could be 4-more. This is very much a 'take it and improve it' idea. Definitely like the “if you have more than your opponent” since it prevents two mongol armies from trying to do a side edge flanking move on each other, and all the complications that would arise.. Still gotta think about deployment zones because of that blocking problem that Stevie points out.. In figuring out the 3 vs 4 problem we’d have to test against many different “army types”. I.e how does it do against a spearwall? A bow wall, mixed bd and bw, another LH army, all blades, mostly ps, mostly ax (modified with the +1 vs heavies), billiard table, lots of terrain. Will the LH win mostly when they should and lose mostly when they should? |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2019 4:41:36 GMT
Re the blocking problem...are you referring to this: "remember, LH making subsequent moves cannot end up within 1 BW of the enemy"? If necessary, change it. Have the flanking deployment from table edge not count as a subsequent move. (Just like 'if along a road' is already an exception to the rule.) The closest the enemy can deploy to either table side edge is 2BW, with certain troops, none of which include Bw or Art. So if the enemy deploy some 'blocking' troops 2BW from each side edge in their deployment zone, that leaves some gaps in their middle sector, AND the LH General free to ignore one or both flanks as he chooses. IF the LH General decides to commit a flanking force, it deploys with its back to the table side edge, putting it more than 1BW from the nearest enemy anyway - thus avoiding 'ending within 1BW of the enemy - even without a rule change. If the enemy General then moves against the LH flanking force with his 'blocking force' by turning to face them (assuming not already lined up this way) and moving to contact, he then risks exposing the flank of his blocking force to friends of the LH flanking force deployed nearby. You don't just send a LH flanking force without a supporting force.
(The biggest problem I see with using a LH flanking force in this way at the moment is if they are attacked by a blocking force and recoiled off the table before the friends of the LH flanking force can help. Those recoiled elements will count as 'lost' even though in reality they've just moved away temporarily - a nuance of the game.) Perhaps there is a better way to 'bring on' the LH flankers...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2019 5:16:12 GMT
Leaving the deployment advantage option aside for a moment, and returning to 'movement'... What if LH were entitled to one free LH move per bound, limited by the number of LH in the army? So the more LH in your army, the more free moves they (the LH) would get. No-one else benefits from this, just the LH. It would stop a player taking 4 LH and 8 hard-hitters, and using +1 PIP on his hard-hitters every turn while keeping his LH out of the way. Conversely it would enable his 4 LH to move better.
So...something like 1 free LH move per 4 LH in the army. This is basically in parallel with the +1 PIP per 4 LH idea, but limits the extra move to LH.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 25, 2019 5:40:03 GMT
When I wrote that LH can deploy on the flank of the enemy AFTER the enemy has finished deployment, these flank areas are on the enemy's side of the table. Oh...you are quite right Snowcat...I DID misunderstand you. I didn’t think you meant having the LH deploying in the enemy half of the table. I certainly haven’t playtested that! My initial thoughts are that it’s a bit complicated, can be a bit messy when combined with the enemy making a Littoral Landing, and I very much dislike the idea of having troops ‘teleporting’ in DBA (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/23983/ for my rant about
Littoral Landings and how to neutralize them using the existing rules as written).Still, that’s just me being naughty and doing some ‘armchair theorizing’.  We need to playtest it of course to get a clearer picture. 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 goragrad on Sept 25, 2019 6:19:51 GMT
Having followed this, but not having time to generate a constructive comment, I'll now chip in on the +1 for every 4LH and snowcat's latest take on it.
Soon after the release of DBA 3 I remember reading the point that 'anything more than 4LH was a just a PIP drain.' Based on the thought then that 4 LH were playable with the standard single PIP die, add the extra PIPs per snowcat's suggestion above but with 1 additional PIP per 3 LH above the 4 LH base.
This would limit the extra PIPs to those armies with more than half of their force LH. I.E. the 'true' LH armies. Rather than say, the Early Armenian with just 4 LH or a cataphract heavy Parthian list.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 25, 2019 6:30:43 GMT
As to stevie's points above, I agree - letting the LH army set up second (if the attacker) and put LH on their opponent's flanks on the opponent's side of the board will lead defenders to develop counters.
Compact setups near the base line with refused flanks or reserves positioned to counter flankers.
That and/or maximization of terrain chosen and placed to deny the flanks to the LH.
And should the LH army be the defender and deploy first...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2019 6:45:31 GMT
Having followed this, but not having time to generate a constructive comment, I'll now chip in on the +1 for every 4LH and snowcat's latest take on it. Soon after the release of DBA 3 I remember reading the point that 'anything more than 4LH was a just a PIP drain.' Based on the thought then that 4 LH were playable with the standard single PIP die, add the extra PIPs per snowcat's suggestion above but with 1 additional PIP per 3 LH above the 4 LH base. This would limit the extra PIPs to those armies with more than half of their force LH. I.E. the 'true' LH armies. Rather than say, the Early Armenian with just 4 LH or a cataphract heavy Parthian list. I'd happily accept '+1 PIP / initial 4LH, + 1 PIP / 3LH thereafter'.
I do think '+1 free LH move / initial 4LH, +1 free LH move / 3LH thereafter' is 100% more cheese-proof though.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 25, 2019 7:15:35 GMT
+1 additional PIP per 3 LH above the 4 LH base. This would limit the extra PIPs to those armies with more than half of their force LH. I.E. the 'true' LH armies. Rather than say, the Early Armenian with just 4 LH or a cataphract heavy Parthian list. Interesting thought there Goragrad. Yes, what should the threshold be? Having +3 PIPs is a huge advantage, and should only be for entire 12 x LH armies. (With 12 combat factor 2 elements, such armies need all the help they can get!)Having +1 PIP for just 4 x LH may undeservedly reward some armies, like Armenians. (But my playtesting showed that a mere +1 PIP had very little effect and was hardly
noticeable - it was like a normal game where you never rolled a ‘1’ for PIPs)I found that armies with say 8 x LH play much better with the +2 extra PIPs. (So the II/40 Numidians, with a max of only 7 x LH, only get +1 extra PIP...
...although this can make their Elephant a bit dependable, if nothing else moves)Having +1 extra PIP for every 3 LH over and above the threshold of 4 means you’d need to have 10 x LH in order to get the +2 extra PIPs...a bit too many LH perhaps? So I still think that Paddy’s original idea of +1 extra PIP (that can be spent any way you like) for every 4 x LH is best, and it is much simpler. By the way, I still like the idea of making the extra PIP depend upon the currentnumber of LH on the table. It gives a reason for having 'spare' LH to cover losses... ...although it is a little more complicated that having the extra PIPs defined by the starting deployed order-of-battle numbers. (It would also help to reduce the undeserving armies from getting extra PIPs...
...the Armenians, with 4 x LH, would lose their extra PIP when they lose one LH,
representing troops becoming 'spent' or 'fatigued' as losses mount) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 25, 2019 8:49:12 GMT
Goragrad
Rather than needing 7 LH to start receiving +1 PIP, you could tone it back to 6-8 LH = +1 PIP, 9-11 LH = +2 PIP, 12 LH = +3. So the bonus PIPs would start at 50% of the army being LH.
And I think that the slight change to the wording of '+1 PIP' to '+1 free LH move' is the difference between the former having potential to be exploited - the extra PIP(s) used by non-LH - and the latter unable to be exploited. That's 7 extra letters on the page to make the rule 100% non-cheesy. (Unless of course you genuinely believe the non-LH units in the army could or should also benefit from extra PIPs/moves generated by the large numbers of LH in their army. Personally I don't see it...yet.)
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 25, 2019 10:30:20 GMT
Stevie, I will collect my thoughts and try to reflect the consensus of the discussions but am distracted by a work conference at the moment set in a location with poor phone signal. Real life getting in the way I'm afaraid! However, I'll have 3-4 hours in the car to mull everything over tonight. A few of immediate points: Is "each army having the same chance of PIPs" is a fundamental principle of DBA? I'm not aware of the fundamental principles of DBA and would contest that this is one of them. I don't mind what you call the +1 PIPs per 4LH. "Extra PIPs that only LH can use" and "Free moves for LH" are exactly the same in function and effect......"a rose by any other name...." Yes - if you accept +1 PIPs per 4LH then it will disadvantage armies with 3LH. Drawing a line will always do that. The real question is what do you want to incentivise? Is an army with 25% LH sufficiently disadvantaged to need the boost. Currently nobody in their right mind would play Thessalian with LH as the Cav option is far better. Does +1 PIP per 3LH change that decision - if so it may be worth adjusting the ratio. If not why bother? What does your play testing show? Thanks for all the kind words. I love DBA and enjoy playing it, painting figures and thinking about it. It is a very good set of rules and is far from broken. However, were I think it can be improved I'll make suggestions and it is very pleasing when they get well received. +PIPs per LH in ORBAT or on table drives slightly different numbers and advantages. But +1 PIP per 3LH on table looks pretty similar to +1 PIP per 4LH in ORBAT to me. However, I would consider giving the +1/4LH model a head start but +1/3LH would give entire LH armies +4 PIPs and so also giving them a "Light Horse Littoral Like" capability seems excessive. Lastly - what do you playtests reveal? I encourage you all to throw a LH heavy army on the table and give it a go against a historical opponent with tweaked rules and then report back. Suggestions backed by the experience of playtests have far more credibility than "helpful suggestions from interested parties." |
|
