|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 26, 2019 10:13:26 GMT
Had another random, probably already thought of idea:
Pip chits:
You get 1 chit for every 3 LH in your army. So a max force of 12LH would get 4 chits.
Consider them tokens that you keep next to your camp during the game.
May be spent when rolling pips in any bound and you add +1 per chit spent. Not sure about whether you spend them before or after rolling the die... I’m in favor of spending them before rolling to make it more of a gamble.
You can only use them to move a group consisting purely of LH.
You can spend more than 1 in a Bound if you want to.
Once they are spent, they are gone. No take backs.
Might have to experiment with 1 chit / x LH.. /2 would yield 6 chits for the heaviest of pure LH armies, but generally 3-5 for LH heavy armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 26, 2019 11:59:15 GMT
"Hey Ma! Stevie put forward one of MY ideas! Now I'm in with a chance!" Oh, and your cheque hasn’t arrived yet... Check your account. (The other one.)  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 26, 2019 13:22:55 GMT
The pip chit idea could be extended to other light troop types too to represent their “ambushiness” and popping up in rough terrain when least expected (and to give them more of a fighting chance if they need it)
/ 2 LH: 1 chit
/ 3.Ps: 1 chit
/ 4 Ax: 1 chit
/ 4 Bw: 1 chit
Not sure if this is necessary and might not represent anything historical but might be a boost to the light troop heavy armies.
Actually now that I think about it, these “reserved pips” are like preplanned ambushes etc that light troops would engage in anyway, so perhaps we think about it that way.
Stepping back from this idea for a sec, does the +1 pip (or the 0 cost subsequent move) still work ok in BBDBA? I’m pretty sure but wanted to make sure we’d thought of it, since it explicitly deals with high and low pip scoring dice.
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 26, 2019 16:53:58 GMT
I love this thread and 9 pages and still going strong!
So if I am understanding this now essentially - LH / groups entirely of LH can move initially in any bound up to 8 BW for 1 pip, and then make 1 subsequent 4 BW move for an additional pip, both of which must not start, pass or end within 1 BW or the enemy?
That’s a very simple and elegant way of making LH more mobile if I am interpreting it correctly.
So alone does it make me want to take LH over Cv if it’s an either or choice or even a LH heavy (8+ for arguments sake) army? No really as yet.
I am a firm believer that manoeuvre wins any wargame, get the right troops in the right place at the right time. No sure LH are that “right troop” though. They need a little extra help still so come on guys nearly there! Something simple and elegant that gives them a chance in combat please ....
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 26, 2019 17:55:36 GMT
I love this thread and 9 pages and still going strong! So if I am understanding this now essentially - LH / groups entirely of LH can move initially in any bound up to 8 BW for 1 pip, and then make 1 subsequent 4 BW move for an additional pip, both of which must not start, pass or end within 1 BW or the enemy? That’s a very simple and elegant way of making LH more mobile if I am interpreting it correctly. So alone does it make me want to take LH over Cv if it’s an either or choice or even a LH heavy (8+ for arguments sake) army? No really as yet. I am a firm believer that manoeuvre wins any wargame, get the right troops in the right place at the right time. No sure LH are that “right troop” though. They need a little extra help still so common guys nearly there! Something simple and elegant that gives them a chance in combat please .... Craig Craig, The situation as I see it is that there are two potential ideas still on the table - I'll call them +1PIP/3or4LH and free single subsequent move. The +1PIP/3or4LH idea comes with minor variants; whether it is LH "on table" (i.e. taking into account casualties) or in ORBAT and whether it is +1PIP/3LH or +1PIP/4LH or a hybrid. The full wording of this rule, assuming the +1PIP/3LHon table option, is: Additional PIPs. In addition to normal PIPs LH or LCm heavy armies are granted one additional free PIP that can only be used by a LH or LCm element or group containing entirely LH and/or LCm for each 3LH/LCm that army has on the table at the end of its Manoeuvre phase. Additional PIPs cannot be used by elements that dismount in the turn they dismount. This idea has been play tested 3-4 times (not exhaustively) but looks very promising. It certainly seems to give a more balanced game and a more historically looking game than RAW. The free single subsequent move idea is that "Each LH or pure LH group that pays PIPs to move gets a free single subsequent move." This idea looks interesting on paper but has not yet been playested by anyone yet so I can't really comment on how well it works. I have some reservations about its performance in the later stages of a game. There are several other ideas that haven't been picked up upon or which were tried in playtesting and found to be counter productive or just poor. You can go back on the thread to look at these but they include LH Littoral Like Outflanking Manoeuvres, Evade, No PIPs for LH to contact, PIP Chits, Riders, Rerolls, d8 or d10, LH Bowfire, Highest of 2 d6 and LH chooses terrain. Sorry if I have missed any. Finally one that is already pseudo accepted which is not directly aimed at LH armies but certainly gives them a boost is Attacker chooses Table Size 24x24 or 30 x30. I add this last one for completeness but I only playtests on 24x24 - coz that's what I got! So that is the précis of where I think we are at - hope it is useful. I should get some playtests done this weekend and plan to start with Skythians vs Vedics and Skythians vs Seleucids. Two matchups that would be suicide under RAW. However, I'm starting to really like playing LH armies again once they are given half a chance as they offer a much richer tactical challenge that sloggit it out with blades or knights or dominating a table with Bow fire. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 26, 2019 18:08:44 GMT
Thanks for the summary of suggestions Paddy! And thanks for using the word “précis” in a sentence. Haven’t heard that since high school!
Can’t wait to see the results. The attacker choosing board size I like just because shutting down a flank with a wall of Spear” seems pretty easy at the moment on the smaller board.
|
|
|
|
Post by sicadi on Sept 26, 2019 19:03:08 GMT
Thanks for that Paddy.
Can see the point of trying to make LH heavy armies more interesting if not world beaters, and from now on will approach this subject from that point of view. Will try some play tests myself tomorrow (solo so not ideal - my solo opponent thinks he’s a genius!) . Will go with Hunnic, either the full 12 LH version or Attila against Pat Roms I think.
Will let you know my thoughts.
Has anyone considered that the larger board option is potentially counter productive for LH? More room to move yes but also more room for the defender to scatter maximum terrain as well.
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 26, 2019 19:43:34 GMT
Historically LH armies WERE world beaters for 750 years+.....but under DBA they are dogs. So the aim is to make LH heavy armies at lest competitive so that a LH army vs a conventional army is at least fun. They don'thave to win 100% of the time - nor should they.....50% would be nice! Even 25%....just not single figures.
When you playtest, and solo is OK, can I advise play RAW first to prove the baseline negative. Then try something else more LH friendly. I tend to play from the same starting assumptions also - so the only variable is the house rules.
Just remember Atilla and Ghengis didn't command armies full of 3Bd!
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 26, 2019 23:32:20 GMT
In fairness to some of these 'other' ideas, I don't think they've really had sufficient time to be thoroughly tested or even adequately considered by enough people yet. I personally haven't even finished reading all of them, let alone give them due consideration. The more people who have time to read through these various suggestions and test them out, the better. Is there a need to reach a speedy conclusion I'm unaware of?
I hope the group finds an idea (or multiple ideas) they agree best serve(s) the purpose of rebalancing LH armies (or even the performance of LH in general) in DBA. I look forward to reading the group's conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 27, 2019 6:07:36 GMT
I have to disagree a bit paddy649 - particularly under great leaders and/or when the opposition was fragmented or ad not dealt with them previously LH armies could be world beaters.
In the Far East, the Han and T'ang both conquered vast stretches of steppe territory from predominantly LH opponents.
Interestingly many of the LH armies got heavier as time went on if they lasted for long periods - adding CV and/or KN (in DBA terms).
Now that might be warriors/tribesmen getting more equipment (booty) as time went on, but some at least of it was a desire to be able to deliver a heavier punch than can be done with LH alone.
The Huns under Atilla and the Mongols in China also added quantities of infantry.
I like the added mobility being proposed, but LH capabilities shouldn't be over inflated due to the successes of a couple of exceptional leaders and armies.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 27, 2019 7:15:48 GMT
I have to disagree a bit paddy649 - particularly under great leaders and/or when the opposition was fragmented or ad not dealt with them previously LH armies could be world beaters. In the Far East, the Han and T'ang both conquered vast stretches of steppe territory from predominantly LH opponents. Interestingly many of the LH armies got heavier as time went on if they lasted for long periods - adding CV and/or KN (in DBA terms). Now that might be warriors/tribesmen getting more equipment (booty) as time went on, but some at least of it was a desire to be able to deliver a heavier punch than can be done with LH alone. The Huns under Atilla and the Mongols in China also added quantities of infantry. I like the added mobility being proposed, but LH capabilities shouldn't be over inflated due to the successes of a couple of exceptional leaders and armies. That reads like agreement to me rather than disagreement. My reading of history is aligned with LH heavy armies emphasising LH in their conquest phases and then assimilating new methods of warfare as they conquered increasingly urbanised foes and faced the problem of seige warfare. However, they never lost their identity as LH armies. Please don't think I'm focused solely on Huns and Mongols. It was just a throw away remark about Gengis and Atilla not commanding 3Bd armies. I own neither army (at least not painted.) They are just the more obvious examples, I could have chosed Skythians, Magyar, Parthians, Turks, Hungarians, Persians, about 4 Chinese dynasties or oriental armies, Pecheng....... I agree that LH capabilities shouldn't be over inflated but currently they are so badly disadvantaged at the moment that it would be difficult. I'm just aiming to rebalance and give LH heavy armies a chance rather than no chance at all....and if you disagree with "no chance at all" just put Mongols and Teutonics on the table and relight the Battle of Leignitz using DBA rules. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 27, 2019 9:08:05 GMT
I find myself agreeing with both Goragrad AND Paddy... ”The main function of a set of Ancient Rules is to simulate the behaviour and performance of real-life troops,
so that our little metal soldiers on our wargames table behave and act in a similar manner to the way the
ancient historians said they did. And the only way to test they are performing correctly is to re-fight the actual
battles themselves and check that the historical outcome as stated by the ancient scholars is the most likely result.
If the historical outcome is likely, then fine, we can be reasonably sure that the rules are more or less correct.
If the historical outcome as laid out by the ancient historians is unlikely, then something is missing or wrong.”
Anyway, even leaving aside all the historical stuff and just looking at things from a game point of view, it would be nice if all armies had a fighting chance of victory, and were roughly ‘equal’...when used correctly. But they need the right tools and abilities to be able do their job. So in this post I‘d like to offer some of my playtesting observations. What follows are some of the maxims and guidelines I have found useful...call them ‘tactics for LH’ if you will. And these ‘tactics’ apply equally well to both Paddy’s ‘+ extra LH PIPs’ and Snowcat’s ‘free subsequent move’ method, as both these suggestion have the similar effect of getting LH to move about a bit more. LH VulnerabilityLH in DBA are quite hard to kill. Only by being doubled by mounted, Psiloi, or shooting will kill them...the rest of the time they just flee, and they are not slowed but will flee at full speed through rough and bad going (see “Fleeing” on page 12 of the rules). And the over excessive kill rate from Bows can be modified by the “Doubled LH flee from Bows, unless shot in the rear” house rule here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/10302/ . Of course they can also be killed by being ‘hard flanked’, but that is true for all elements. So they only really fear enemy Cavalry and being shot at. LH Combat FactorYes, a CF of 2 is weak...but it can be enhanced by positioning. Giving the enemy -1 for being overlapped or give the LH +1 for rear support can make LH equal to their main antagonists, enemy Cavalry. Allowing them more mobility makes it more likely they will be able to get this positional advantage, as well as 'quick-killing' by hard-flanking the enemy. The Perfect FormationIf the enemy were to the North of them, ideally LH will want a group of say 4 elements threatening the opposition’s West wing flank and the same on the enemy’s East wing flank, with the 4 remaining elements in the centre facing North. And have all these groups just over 3 BW from the enemy, so that they can charge into contact but only enemy Cavalry (and shooters that advance 1 BW to shoot) can reach them. I find that 4 LH elements with 3 in the front and the 4th behind the centre LH is the best formation. The centre LH will have a CF of 3, giving the centre LH a 50-50 chance of recoiling an enemy Cv, allowing the adjacent friendly LH to get overlaps so they too have a 50-50 chance as well. Leaving Threat ZonesSpend a PIP to move straight back out of the TZ, then the LH can use a subsequent move to nip off to somewhere else. This is nothing new...it already happens under the current rules. But under the current rules it is PIP expensive. Having extra PIPs or free subsequent moves makes this much more attractive. Terrain ConsiderationsIf the LH are the invaders, they will want a large 20 BW table. Now you might think that the defending enemy will flood the table with lots of terrain...but this is not always the case. If the defender’s are say all Blades or Spears, then they too will want an open battlefield so that they can spread-out in one long line to prevent the LH from getting around their flanks. If the LH are the defenders, then the invaders will choose a small cramped 15 BW table. Now you might think that the LH defenders would want an open playing field...but having lots of terrain can actually help LH. It turns the battlefield into a sort of maze, with lots of potential pathways, and prevents the invader from forming one long battleline. Numbers CountWhen an army with say 4 x LH is facing an army of 6-8 x LH, the army with the most LH has the advantage. This is because the army with fewer LH can’t send them off to to harass the enemy wings...they’ll meet bigger LH groups that’ll overlap and hard-flank them. Thus the army with the most LH can actually restrict and corral the fewer LH, so they cannot use their extra mobility. In short, one way of countering enemy LH is to have more LH! Anyway, I hope all the above helps players with their own playesting. And no doubt there are several other little tricks and ploys to be discovered once you give LH the mobility they deserve, and make LH heavy armies a force to be reckoned with instead of the pathetic helpless wimps that need very lucky PIP rolls that they currently are. 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 paddy649 on Sept 27, 2019 10:05:53 GMT
Good lord! Consensus and agreement! That'll never do.......RIVERS! There you go that's put things back to normal.
Stevie - you hit the nail on the head. If I can add to your thoughts:
LH Vulneravility. In a 1 on 1 fight LH only really fear bows, Cav, Knights and Elephants. Bows, Knights and Elphants are 4vs2 and have 25% chance of killing LH. Cav are 3vs2 and have a 16% chance of killing LH. LH flee from all else except Ps. But LH QK Knights and Elephants - so there is a 16% chance of them getting killed by the LH. Also LH flee which puts it 4BW away from the fight and facing away. So what - well these stats are OK but are for a 1 on 1 fight but with LH elements fleeing it isn't a 1 on 1 fight for long as they flee and allow the less manoeuvrable elements to hard flank them UNLESS they have the PIPs to get rapidly back into the fight. But under RAW the LH have no more chance of PIPs than an army of solid foot.
LH Aggression. In a 1 on 1 fight LH may not get killed - but they don't kill either and to win at DBA you need 4 kills. LH can only kill Kn and El 16% of the time and Cav 3% of the time. So they need to gang up on Ps (which will be deep in BG with so much LH around) or other LH. So to use LH effectively and actually kill something LH need to overlap, hard flank and double rank. If you are fighting 1 on 1 with LH you aren't doing it right! Typically 3LH need to co-ordinate to achieve a kill against an average RAW PIP allocation of 3.5. So if you are spending the majority of your PIPs working one kill you are leaving the rest of army vulnerable especially if there is Bow on the table as Fast Bow can be 6BW from your LH, and within 1 PIP put themselves in range and with a 25% chance of a kill every phase. That is the problem - LH in combat are PIP hungry. This is where the "free subsequent move doesn't help.
So should we give LH the flee from shooting capability OR give them enough extra PIPs to keep out of the way? Now that is a good question to playtest. However, when playing Cav and LH mixed armies with the additional PIPs I will use the Cav to sop up the shooting and protect the LH which swarm for the kills.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 27, 2019 11:10:12 GMT
Just a minor point Paddy... ...especially if there is Bow on the table, as Fast Bow can be 6 BW from your LH and with 1 PIP put themselves in range and with a 25% chance of a kill every phase. No they can’t...no shooter can shoot if they move more than 1 BW. So if LH flee from contact with any shooters (i.e. they flee 4 BW), the shooters can move 1 BW and be in range. But if the LH are 1 BW or more from the shooters when they flee, the shooters 1 BW won’t bring them in range. And if the LH are 1 BW or more from the shooters when they flee, any shooters moving more than 1 BW can’t shoot. (At least, not that bound, so the LH have a bound to rally and turn around...PIPs permitting of course) It all boils down to this:- * give LH extra PIPs so they can’t have a bad PIP roll (once the complications have been sorted out)... * or have extra movement built into the LH with a free subsequent move (which is much simpler, but they can sometimes still suffer from PIP shortage if they are unlucky). Players will have to playtest to see which they prefer.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 27, 2019 11:47:47 GMT
Oh...one more thing that playtesting showed me. With ‘free subsequent moves’, you could spend a PIP to move a column of LH, then use the ‘free subsequent move’ to move each LH element individually to brake-up the column and form them into a line. How many ‘extra LH PIPs’ would that take, especially if you want to do it on both wings? |
|
