|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 8, 2019 23:35:24 GMT
Why do Cv not also 'detest foot archers who outshot and outranged them, and artillery who made their rally position unsafe' as is apparently the case for LH in the Troop Definitions? Cv wear more armour (not necessarily on the horses) but present an easier target by being formed more closely together. So why are LH more penalised vs archery and artillery than Cv?
When you consider LH are more dispersed than Cv, in the RAW they're still a lot easier for Art to make them flee than Cv, and easier for Bw to make them recoil than Cv. Why? Are they not moving faster/closing the range more rapidly/more dispersed = harder to hit? Furthermore, they're not formed in 'strict formations' like many Cv, so disruption to their 'formation' is less of an issue than it would be to Cv.
The flee if doubled by Bw (unless shot in rear) house rule helps LH against the Bw CF 4 vs LH CF 2 starting point issue, as doubling was commonplace and LH would die in droves. This has been accepted as a fix. But...
Shooting from Bw and Art is still a bugbear for LH. Should it be?
(I'm not looking for a house rule here; I'm trying to understand Phil's rationale, because I don't.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 9, 2019 17:25:40 GMT
Hmmm...there are probably two reasons: historical and the DBA combat system. The Historical Reason: When Alexander the Great fought his way across the River Jaxartes in 329 BC, he used catapults and ‘siege bows’ to drive the Scythian horse archers from the riverbank. These disconcerted the Scythians because they easily out-ranged their bows, and they couldn’t reply as the Macedonian artillery was positioned on the far side of the river. (See Arrians account here: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anabasis_of_Alexander/Book_IV/Chapter_IV
and some maps can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes )The DBA Combat System: Bows need a shooting factor of 4 so they can defeat mounted (thus reproducing Crecy in 1346, along with many other Bow v mounted engagements). Now in DBA LH are considered to be the mounted equivalent of Ps, and as Ps has a CF of 2, so does LH. This causes the LH to be very vulnerable when shot at, especially when three bows can gang-up on the LH at long range. It is true that LH have less armour than Cv, but as you pointed out Snowcat, the LH are also spread-out in an open-order skirmish formation, and one would expect that many of the arrows would simply fall in the empty spaces between the horsemen. More interestingly, Cv have a CF of 3 when shot at...but so do totally armoured Cataphracts. So what was the point of having all that heavy armour to protect the horse from arrow fire? Ah, but in DBA it’s the effect that counts. And having both CV and Kn with a CF of 3 when shot at seems to give just the right effect. 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 Nov 9, 2019 23:50:13 GMT
Sorry Stevie, but that historic example could equally have applied to cavalry or any number of troops with missile weapons, so that's a complete non-starter for me. You say: "Now in DBA LH are considered to be the mounted equivalent of Ps" Perhaps, but also debatable. "...and as Ps has a CF of 2, so does LH. This causes the LH to be very vulnerable when shot at, especially when three bows can gang-up on the LH at long range." I'm aware of the issue.  "It is true that LH have less armour than Cv, but as you pointed out Snowcat, the LH are also spread-out in an open-order skirmish formation, and one would expect that many of the arrows would simply fall in the empty spaces between the horsemen." So again, why the difference between Cv and LH with respect to being shot at? "Ah, but in DBA it’s the effect that counts. And having both CV and Kn with a CF of 3 when shot at seems to give just the right effect." Then why not LH as well? Where's the evidence/historic record of bows 'shooting' having greater effect against light cavalry than cavalry and knights? (I'm not talking about close combat.) |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 10, 2019 1:13:31 GMT
All right then, as I've just got back from the pub, how's this for an answer... ..."I didn't write the rules".  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 10, 2019 2:01:18 GMT
Calling Phil Barker then... Why do Cv not also 'detest foot archers who outshot and outranged them, and artillery who made their rally position unsafe' as is apparently the case for LH in the Troop Definitions? |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 10, 2019 2:52:48 GMT
All right then, as I've just got back from the pub, how's this for an answer... ..."I didn't write the rules". But what was the beer tonight? Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 10, 2019 6:23:32 GMT
All right then, as I've just got back from the pub, how's this for an answer... ..."I didn't write the rules". But what was the beer tonight? Joe Collins Hopefully a much easier question to answer...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 10, 2019 9:10:38 GMT
But what was the beer tonight? Joe Collins Hopefully a much easier question to answer... Ha!...I don’t remember (I don’t even remember how I got home!). (Question: why is it when buying rounds I always seem to spend some
40 quid or more, when I know damn well that I didn’t drink 10 pints!
I think someone is skimping on their round...)Annnnyyyy waaaayyy...getting back to the subject. Light Horse should also gain some protection from their moving and zipping about, making them a difficult target to hit (by the time the arrows arrive, they’ve moved on). Yes, any way you look at it, LH are far too vulnerable to shooting in DBA. Which is why ( Warning! House Rule Alert!) there is the following in “Lessons from History”:- Historical justification for doubled LH fleeing from bows, unless shot in the rear
Three shooters targeting a single LH element has 21 chances out of 36 of scoring a double...which is a bit high!
MedievalThomas suggests that doubled LH instead flee from Bows, and this does indeed more closely match
the historical accounts, where LH often fled rather than being slaughtered by arrows or crossbow bolts.
If LH are doubled when shot in the rear-edge, usually after fleeing last bound, then they will be broken and lost.
It’s as if they were already shaken by the first flee move, and another double score turns the flight into a rout.
Note that playtesting shows that if LH were killed when doubled in close combat with Bows, bowmen would be
encouraged to charge at the light horsemen...which is not at all realistic (doubled LH already flees from WWg).
You may ask why LH are killed by being doubled by Psiloi in close combat, but they will flee from Bows.
Well, a Bow figure represent between 6 to 10 ranks, with the rear ranks having to shoot blindly overhead using
‘barrage fire’ as they can’t even see the target, and half their arrows would fall in the open spaces between the
spread out open order light horsemen. Psiloi are a thin line of snipers, shooting directly as the target raises his
shield to ward off an attack from another direction, or the Psiloi are deliberately aiming at vulnerable spots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------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 Nov 10, 2019 9:26:11 GMT
Yep, that's all good and sensible. The rule you mention is one I use as AN ABSOLUTE MUST.
However, my questions still remain unanswered.
But more importantly, there is clearly a skimping little skimper afoot at your pub when you frequent it, and this needs addressing swiftly, preferably with a broomstick!
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 10, 2019 20:41:30 GMT
Surely a LH with all its movement (including 1/2 pip cost if that happens), if it gets caught within bow range of a bw unit, it DESERVES to die?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 10, 2019 22:35:44 GMT
Surely a LH with all its movement (including 1/2 pip cost if that happens), if it gets caught within bow range of a bw unit, it DESERVES to die? Presuming you're not opposing 'doubled LH fleeing from bows, unless shot in the rear'...
Again:
Why do Cv not also 'detest foot archers who outshot and outranged them, and artillery who made their rally position unsafe' as is apparently the case for LH in the Troop Definitions?
Can someone answer the question? It doesn't seem logical (to me) to apply this criteria to LH and not Cv as well. This criteria is behind the relevant CF and shooting outcomes for LH v Bw and Art.
That's the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 10, 2019 23:20:50 GMT
Surely a LH with all its movement (including 1/2 pip cost if that happens), if it gets caught within bow range of a bw unit, it DESERVES to die? Why?...just because the current DBA combat system says so? Remembering of course that in reality the LH are in a spread-out open formation (so many arrows will simply land in the empty spaces between the horsemen), plus the LH are zooming about the place and not just standing still waiting to be shot (thus making them a difficult target to hit). Of course, once hit by an arrow the Light Horseman, with less protection, is likely to be more damaged than when an armoured/shielded Cavalryman is struck... ...but the arrow has to actually hit the Light Horseman first. (unless the Bowmen are shooting ‘fire-and-forget-self-guiding-homing-arrows’
that never miss, no matter how fast or dispersed their target is  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Nov 10, 2019 23:25:21 GMT
Hi Snowcat I sympathise with your dilema, maybe the answer lies in the definition of Cavalry on page 3 of the rules which states "Not as committed to the charge as Knights, they could 'retire out of reach of archery'... which implies they were more inclined to attack than LH who waited for fatigue, casualties and disorder to take effect before attacking.But Cavalry could retire out of reach of shooters(arguably so could LH) .... Cavalry in close combat with artillery flee if they loose the combat and are doubled.
Therefore, does this not imply that Cavalry were not afraid of artillery or bowmen as they could opt to charge them and evade in some circumstances?
LH (if doubled) are destroyed by artillery shooting, but flee from combat... but Cavalry flee (if doubled) while in close combat with artillery and are destroyed (if doubled) by artillery shooting at them....a subtle difference lies in combat outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 11, 2019 0:26:39 GMT
Hi Snowcat I sympathise with your dilema, maybe the answer lies in the definition of Cavalry on page 3 of the rules which states "Not as committed to the charge as Knights, they could 'retire out of reach of archery'... which implies they were more inclined to attack than LH who waited for fatigue, casualties and disorder to take effect before attacking.But Cavalry could retire out of reach of shooters(arguably so could LH) .... Cavalry in close combat with artillery flee if they loose the combat and are doubled. Therefore, does this not imply that Cavalry were not afraid of artillery or bowmen as they could opt to charge them and evade in some circumstances? LH (if doubled) are destroyed by artillery shooting, but flee from combat... but Cavalry flee (if doubled) while in close combat with artillery and are destroyed (if doubled) by artillery shooting at them....a subtle difference lies in combat outcomes. "But Cavalry could retire out of reach of shooters(arguably so could LH)"
Agreed. This probably just shows the difference between Cv and LH not being destroyed by certain Bw on ties, whereas Kn get destroyed because they couldn't retire out of range.
You wrote, "LH (if doubled) are destroyed by artillery shooting, but flee from combat... but Cavalry flee (if doubled) while in close combat with artillery and are destroyed (if doubled) by artillery shooting at them....a subtle difference lies in combat outcomes."
With respect to LH and Cv vs Art, that's exactly the same thing for both. There is no difference. Your own words: "LH (if doubled) are destroyed by artillery shooting... Cavalry...are destroyed (if doubled) by artillery shooting at them." = same "LH (if doubled) are destroyed by artillery shooting, but flee from combat. Cavalry flee (if doubled) while in close combat with artillery..." = same
Cavalry and LH v Art under RAW: Cavalry flee doubled close combat results vs artillery, and are destroyed if doubled by shooting vs artillery.
LH flee doubled close combat results vs artillery, and are destroyed if doubled by shooting vs artillery. = both the same.
So both Cv and LH are destroyed if doubled by the shooting of Art which could represent their rallying positions being made unsafe by the long reach of the Art.
However, LH are forced to flee from Art shooting on a 'less than but more than half' result, whereas Cv recoil under same circumstances. And the differing CFs between Cv and LH vs Art is likely to produce this outcome. So presumably the artillery have more effect on the more dispersed riders than the less dispersed riders. I'm not sure why this is, because extra armour on the Cv would be of little or no value against Art. So is it something else?
Which brings us back to Cv and LH vs Bw for now. LH will be recoiled more easily vs Bw shooting than Cv because of their different CF vs Bw (LH have CF2, Cv have CF3). Why? Less armour? Being more dispersed doesn't count for as much? Possibly not. Both - unlike Kn - could retire out of range if it suited them, and in close combat the Cv are presumably firing a more concentrated burst of missiles than the LH (supporting CF 3 vs CF2), but at shooting range of Bw, I still don't see why the LH suffer more than the Cv. Maybe it is purely the lack of armour/protection outweighing any potential benefits gained from being more dispersed or moving a little faster. Or maybe it's because there are less of them to sustain casualties from archery, which outweighs any advantages of extra dispersal and speed?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 11, 2019 0:30:42 GMT
Surely a LH with all its movement (including 1/2 pip cost if that happens), if it gets caught within bow range of a bw unit, it DESERVES to die? Why?...just because the current DBA combat system says so? Remembering of course that in reality the LH are in a spread-out open formation (so many arrows will simply land in the empty spaces between the horsemen), plus the LH are zooming about the place and not just standing still waiting to be shot (thus making them a difficult target to hit). Of course, once hit by an arrow the Light Horseman, with less protection, is likely to be more damaged than when an armoured/shielded Cavalryman is struck... ...but the arrow has to actually hit the Light Horseman first. (unless the Bowmen are shooting ‘fire-and-forget-self-guiding-homing-arrows’
that never miss, no matter how fast or dispersed their target is )Well aren’t LH supposed to have a retreat point where they can change ponies, rest, get more Javelins etc, and it was this rest spot that the bw are hitting. Out there the ponies are sitting and not zooming around as they are up close and actually shooting at the enemy. So I thought that was what Mr Barker meant by the danger to LH. The base size of LH includes both the spread out formation of the attacking horses but also their rearward rest area. |
|
)