Thread Reserection

Well, after playing a single game (so 1 data point), I gotta say, I like rear support + side support for Spears only with -1 to CV for heavy infantry.

Later Spartans (10x4Sp, 1x2Ps, 1x3Cv) vs Later Thebans (2x8Sp, 6x4Sp, 1x3Cv, 3x2Ps).

A typical hoplite battle anchoring themselves on bad going, so the Ps and Cv on the flanks blocked each other out of the battle..

It came down to 2 ranks of 5 hoplites facing each other.
I DO like the fact that it's easier to have the Sp mutually supportive formation without all the maneuvering and futzing past terrain.

The Spartans lost their general in the 3rd bound, but even there, it didn't matter because the Sp would be pushed back, and with 1 PIP can move right back into contact. Expected pushing and shoving occurred.

Even a double overlapped 4Sp STILL has a CV of 3, which will generally lose against 5, but not as easily doubled, so more stuff recoiled, but didn't DIE so the game dragged.

So I will keep testing this, but right now (1 datapoint!), I think rear support + side support will only work if we also drop -1 CV on heavy infantry generally (Sp, Pk, Bd), for 4Sp becomes (3,4) but can get support from rear or side.

Hoplite battlines will generally start at 4 most of the time, but double overlapped 4Sp are gonna be CV2 so have a good chance to die.
CV3 is more susceptible to bow shooting, but I want to see that "blotting out the sun" to be something to be afraid of to force the hoplites to close when they face my Persians. Maybe they should be CV4 against shooting (like Bd)... Would have to test that one.

I would steer clear of the +1 on first contact, since it's quite hard to track, but I do like it as a concept to give Wb more hitting power for the quick kill. 
Still have to think about that one more. Happily, my hoplites don't have to worry about Wb, so perhaps it's era based rather than general.

Don't get me wrong, I like a "charge bonus" that a lot of other games use, but I'm thinking to my battleline of hoplites. The initial clash is easy enough, but once battle is joined, you have elements recoiling and some staying put, and you have to keep track of who has charged again vs pushes. One of the beauties of DBA is the complete lack of record keeping, even within a bound.

That said, I do love the idea since it really gives the feel of Warbands sweeping away in the first charge, and then losing impetus as the combat wears on. I'm assuming it only applies to Wb, and it must be used in conjunction with the -1 to CV for HI. I'll give it a shot and see what happens.

It seems no matter how much we try we can't quite get Agincourt - but one more try:

English shooting at range was the essential element of their victory. First against the mounted wings and then against the slow but apparently steady foot advance. Eye witness accounts make it clear that the French foot wings broke from shooting and never made contact with the English archers who had to charge out from their stakes to fall on the backs of the retreating French some of which apparently piled in behind those men at arms still advancing on the English men at arms who (because the archers took on those directly to their front) were not being shot at. (I'm told that during the Napoleonic wars these sorts of "columns" were observed to be formed to create human shields to effective shooting). The French men at arms that made it to the English lines gave a good account of themselves and do not seem to have been exhausted by their advance (the English had just advanced about three time further over the same ground to get within bow range). But they were now unsupported on both flanks and badly outnumbered by the English. The archers now turned their attention to the engage French men at arms first with shooting but when they ran out of arrows by falling on their flanks. So the battle was won by shooting with hand to hand being used to mop up the first French line and then break the outnumbered and demoralized townies in the second line.

Poitiers is a different battle but still illustrates some of the same principles. The ratio of archers to men at arms (and "light" troops) was only 1-1 not the 4-1 or so of Agincourt so not surprisingly it was more of a hand to hand fight. Still according to Frosisart who interviewed some of the French survivors it as the shooting that made the difference knocking holes in the French first line and possibly helping to dissuade the second line from participating.

You may also wish to consider Shrewsbury where an entire 3-4K wing of Henry IVs army was driven from the field by archery alone. There are many such examples of effective shooting where mud played no role.

Its also important to keep in mind that in DBA we don't distinguish between routed and dead troops - both are removed as combat ineffective.

To get theses late medieval battles to work you need to have an "Aux Bow" one able to shoot effectively and fight hand to hand if needed and as all HOTT players know we have had this for years with "Shooters" and it works great. You are much more likely to get the community to accept this smaller and very well playtested add on then to get them to accept a massive change of lower the CF of Heavy Foot (I once tried to get Phil to consider a general reduction in CF so Ps would be +1; Warband +2, Spear +3 and so forth to help with the doubling math but he came up with sound reasons to keep what we had). Again and this can't be emphasized enough Bow do not fight in melee any differently against other medium foot than they do against heavies, we don't need this complication.

Raising Aux to +4 v. Foot gives a reasonable melee oriented Medium Foot and gives some protection v. shooting; Ps getting Flee if doubled v. Shooting solves that worry; leaving us with Pike which needs work no matter what we do with Bow (easy to solve with points - hard to solve with 12 elements).

If the +3 shooting continues to distress you give them a -1 for shooting outside TZ. I don't think its a complication we need but would resolve must worries with a simpler rule that conditional modifiers.

TomT

There is another alternative Tom that we could learn by taking the lesson of Agincourt into account.

Allow shooting at an enemy as they try to make contact during the opponents movement turn.
So shooting happens after movement, or during movement if they make contact (just advance
to ‘almost’ touch the Bows as a visual reminder...if you survive the shooting then move them into
contact. If affected by the shooting then recoil them back ½ a BW from the front-edge of the Bows).

With a bit of luck, the advance will recoil, not make contact that turn, and simulate English longbows
forcing the French men-at-arms into veering away from the arrow-storm and failing to come to grips,
thus leaving their friends who did make contact and did not veer away in an overlap position.
This would be a 'natural' way of making it easier for the French Blades to reach the English Blades,
but trying to reach the English Bows would be a bit harder...just like at Agincourt. 

This needs playtesting of course, and to be effective the Bows might need a +1 for shooting at close
range, or have Bows with a CF of 3 and a -1 for shooting at long range...and the effects against a
mounted charge will also need assessing (perhaps it only applies against foot targets, as mounted
targets are moving too rapidly to get many shots in).

It would give a similar effect to Joe Collins ‘+1 PIP to contact Bows’ suggestion.

(And for what its worth, I think the Sp +1 for side OR rear-support, but not both, is an excellent idea) 👍

"1. The difference between Solid and Fast. Fast is -1 in CC against foot of the fast version. "

You mean Fast is -1 in CC against foot of the Solid version, yes?

I like the look of those thoughts/suggestions Greedo.

Re the possibility of improving the shooting factor of 4Bw "for Agincourt" we have to remember that 4Bw is also all those other troops that go by the same classification for all Bk I-IV armies & periods too.

Cheers