|
Post by greedo on Nov 12, 2019 15:43:31 GMT
I tend to favor rules that cover lots of areas over micro adjustments that require a special rule to remember here and there.
So since it’s been a bit quiet, I wanted to raise a point I’ve been thinking about double based elements vs rear supported ones.
There is a distinct difference between elements which are double based (8bw, 6Cv, 8Sp etc) vs elements which gain a +1 or +3 when backed up from the rear (4Wb, 4Pk, 2LH etc)
The former gets a +1 for free given that it’s 1/12 of the army. The latter must make the decision as to extend their battle line or go for depth.
Once again I’m of two minds on this. I’ve read, especially in hoplites battles about the tactical decision to go deep or broad so the rear support makes sense...
But I also quite like the simplicity of double based elements to represent the Theban Sacred Band 8Sp, or Persian Sparabara 8Bw.
My suggestion is to make things one or the other. Could we combine pike armies into 8Pk or 8Wb? To compensate, they would only get 3x8Pk where they would normally get 6x4Pk. And is the rest of the 12 elements would be filled out with lighter troops or cav. The loss here is that going deep or wide is no longer a tactical choice to make. But then again, was it ever in the first place? Does anybody in their right mind ever put single rank Pk out there?
So the upshot is, could we get rid of rear support entirely? Not particularly solving a need or pain point but I’m always looking for simplicity where I can find it. To be clear, single ranked versions would still exist but the army choice would then the choice to make (ie to pick 4Wb or 8Wb?)
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 13, 2019 2:42:41 GMT
If my army is 11x4Wb and 1xCv General for example, how will your proposal work? 11x8Wb + the Cv General? That's certainly a better deal for 4Wb armies.
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 13, 2019 6:47:51 GMT
Hiya Snowcat, Well, the idea would that the army would not consist of purely 8Wb, since that would be pretty powerful. The 8Wb should represent a "Teaming Horde of hairy barbarians", that is formed prior to battle, and won't general break up (or be formed) during combat. So they represent a different type of Wb vs the regular 4Wb which are still ferocious (with a quick kill vs Bd etc.), but just aren't *quite* as powerful as the 8Wb.
Also, if the army you provided is double ranked, it would end up being
So the updated army you're talking about would be something like 1xCv(gen), 5x(8Wb or 4Wb), 4x4Wb, 2x(2Ps or 4Wb). As an example. Since you only get a penalty for the *first* 8Wb killed, it would be pretty potent to give you 10 of them, so I would balance that with a number of 4Wb single based (and no rear support) and some light troops. The assumption here (which would be WAY wrong) is that this hairy army possesses some light troops, and can differentiate between 8Wb and 4Wb by some kind of measure.
Perhaps this proposal is un-needed, but it just struck me a a strange thing to have a +1 in 2 different ways representing roughly the same thing.
Chris
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 13, 2019 7:37:44 GMT
Just give the +1 to everyone. Then the wide vs deep issue is something you always have to address. And if Stevie's weaker HI sugggestion takes off, it would be a great thing to include. I like the idea of more troop types getting a benefit from double ranking. Think of it as "stacking" or concentrating the troops.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 13, 2019 11:44:35 GMT
Just give the +1 to everyone. Then the wide vs deep issue is something you always have to address. And if Stevie's weaker HI sugggestion takes off, it would be a great thing to include. I like the idea of more troop types getting a benefit from double ranking. Think of it as "stacking" or concentrating the troops. Is there anything it realistically couldn't or shouldn't apply to historically?
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Nov 13, 2019 15:57:37 GMT
Just give the +1 to everyone. Then the wide vs deep issue is something you always have to address. And if Stevie's weaker HI sugggestion takes off, it would be a great thing to include. I like the idea of more troop types getting a benefit from double ranking. Think of it as "stacking" or concentrating the troops. I like the idea of double ranking. Rear support always troubled me because the unit could theoretically split itself up whereas I’m not sure a deep pile unit or large warband would be able to do so. It’s a decision that would be made prebattle and would stay there until it was over. To The Strongest! Is even thinking about deep skirmish units though I don’t know the historical rational for that.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 14, 2019 23:23:55 GMT
Perhaps there's a way to do this for just 4Pk and 4Wb initially. Those are the first troop types that come to mind in which depth seemed pretty constant. Did their army frontages suffer? Not to my knowledge.
|
|