|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 14, 2020 12:10:50 GMT
Yes, let's keep the Pk situation simple as discussed recently; no need to go complicating it now by giving them additional support/supported options etc.
Just read the new Pg 1 summary. Super job Shrimply! Really well done. Congrats on the whole idea and its development, regardless of play test consequences (which I believe will be positive anyway).
And thanks to those - we lucky few! - who were involved in the evolution of the original idea, especially Greedo and our resident super computer, Stevie!
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 14, 2020 17:54:29 GMT
If we’re deciding who gets and doesn’t get support, I would error on the side of too much support over too little. The argument for morale support of troops behind you can always be made even if the direct line replacement of casualties cannot.
My only concern is that by both weakening the strong units, or at least forcing them to half their line to be as good as they are RAW, and then on top of that allowing lighter troops to be better also by doubling up, have we tipped the balance of power too much in favor lighter troops?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 14, 2020 18:29:20 GMT
If so Greedo, then good! The light foot have been underpowered for far too long. But I don’t think so... ...even in a worse case scenario, a single rank of heavy foot may be weaker, but they’ll have a longer battleline to outflank their double-ranked lighter enemies. Depth or width...ah decisions, decisions...  |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 14, 2020 19:51:30 GMT
But that’s just it, the heavy infantry are weakened and so also have to double up.
Take Sp. they are now 3 vs Ax of 3.
We assume the Ax has rear support so cv4.
The Sp needs side support to be 4 and if they want to be superior to the Deep Ax, must now double up as well. How you deploy your army is really crucial to ensure the fight matchups, but if I’m first to deploy, that can really put me in a major disadvantage, and it’s amplified by needing to match my opponent. We could allow the first to deploy to move 2 elements post deployment?
Perhaps this is neat though because now I really want to put my Ps out front to disrupt that Ax (or the Sp line) to either knock out side support or at least get some overlaps....
Ok, never mind. The tactical decisions this opens up are pretty great.
But want to make sure that light troops don’t just turn themselves into line troops because they can, and will still try to hug rough terrain.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 14, 2020 23:10:37 GMT
My only recommendation at this point is try them out and see. Maybe it will make them too strong maybe it won't. Won't know until we try
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Sept 15, 2020 13:05:48 GMT
11 pages in 4 weeks! How did I miss this one.
By all means test this house rule out, but it seems like a misreading of the 12 element design and how deep effective Battlefield formations really were (Vs. mobs.)
I think altering the 4 unit kills victory conditions and Timurilanks’s double DBA sized games address the issue of depth better.
Could this be the emergence of the old Nappy Line vs, column debate. :-)
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 15, 2020 13:39:18 GMT
To be perfectly honest, I was personally mostly thinking of using this house rule in a Double DBA context anyway. But the current deployment zone isn't designed for majority foot armies to deploy properly. So rather than having troops bunched up on the edges waiting to get onto the flanks people can now deploy them better tactically
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 15, 2020 15:34:51 GMT
I like Shrimply’s idea because it leads to historical deployments in a normal 12-element-a-side game. I hate it when I see my opponent deploying their II/10 or II/33 Romans in one long line with no reserves, as if they were nothing more than a bunch of Greek Hoplites. Where are the famous Roman multiple lines? And players often do this...with a CF of 5 they have nothing to fear from CF 4 or less foot enemies, so they don’t need reserves as they have little or no chance of being destroyed, even when double overlapped. Meanwhile their Ax enemies die fairly easily, so they need to be in columns or have substantial reserves in order to fill in the inevitable gaps that’ll appear in their battleline. Thus the Blades are not only practically impossible to kill in the centre, they have a longer battleline as well! And the way the current rules are constructed actively encourages and rewards this unhistorical deployment. Shrimply’s suggestion directly addresses this. Sure, the Romans can still form a single line with no reserves if they want to...but their centre will be weaker, just as you might expect in a real battle. But I think it’s all a matter of scale. In BBDBA and DBMM you have lots more elements, so can afford to have ‘like supporting like’ and multiple lines. But DBA only has 12 elements, so how can we simulate more and get the same feel as a BBDBA/DBMM game? Again, Shrimply’s house rule does this, by allowing foot to support foot, creating reserves and ‘lines’. (Usually having one element behind another shows they are in physical contact, so they form a column.
Hastati, Principes and Triarii were in separate lines, but at the 12-element-a-side Grand Tactical scale of DBA,
the gap between them isn’t visible, so for all intent and purposes they are treated as if they were in column) In other words, one DBA element becomes the equivalent of two BBDBA or DBMM elements. It’s just that our overhead spotter plane is flying so high that we can’t see the the individuals.  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 16, 2020 0:03:58 GMT
11 pages in 4 weeks! How did I miss this one. By all means test this house rule out, but it seems like a misreading of the 12 element design and how deep effective Battlefield formations really were (Vs. mobs.) I think altering the 4 unit kills victory conditions and Timurilanks’s double DBA sized games address the issue of depth better. Could this be the emergence of the old Nappy Line vs, column debate. :-) Bill In that case I refer you back to my comment at the top of page 5:
Sept 8, 2020 14:43:05 GMT 10 snowcat said:
"I must admit I immediately thought of 24AP battles a la Timurilank's games where each side uses single D6 for PIPs, and often deploys with a second line in reserve.
Shrimplyamazing's idea would appear to add an extra dimension to those games, which already strike me as 'right'."
As previously stated, I don't see this new idea resulting in a massive shortening of battle lines in the 12AP game, more likely 2-3 elements. If you were to use this house rule in combination with Timurilank's 24AP game, it'll give those reserve elements the option of plugging holes/shifting forces (which is what they do now) plus rear support as an alternative. Can't see that as a bad thing unless 'mostly universal rear support' is proven to be invalid.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 16, 2020 7:15:09 GMT
So just so that I can play test this (or anybody else), what collection of house rules (and the final wording of this one) should be used?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 16, 2020 7:21:57 GMT
See page 1. All updated by Shrimply.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 16, 2020 14:43:26 GMT
See page 1. All updated by Shrimply. Ah there it is. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 16, 2020 15:50:53 GMT
I think this would be particularly suited to double DBA. Since can be anywhere from 12-24 “elements” assuming some of even all of them double up. So just agreeing with previous 24ap statements. It’ll add that granularity of thinning the line to match an opponent’s line. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 19, 2020 1:15:54 GMT
Some Parthian shots -
Joe Collins notes in the WB susceptible to Cavalry thread that Mr. Barker was working to eliminate all rear support with DBA 3.
Insofar as improving the chances of Samnites in particular with rear support and nerfing SP and Bd, Purple noes in the Army Lists that the Samnites were a tough opponent but that they formed in a single line with not reserves...Need a better fix for the Ax problem - at least the hypaspists, Samnite, Iberian, and Roman versions.
Insofar, Greedo, to the triarii as front line troops using this house rule, SP get side support from BD as well as fellow SP - I would use them there as I stated in my post.
And as to improving the performance of WB, note again the Collin's post previously referenced. Mr. Barker doesn't apparently think they need more help.
A bit late with this, I need to get my keybord dixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 19, 2020 7:08:49 GMT
Some interesting points.
In terms of the Barker viewpoint, that is fair enough. though this is the house rules section for a reason, namely that these are rules that Mr. Barker did not put in his ruleset anyway, so I'm not too concerned with straying slightly from his intentions. I primarily am focused on Double DBA where I think, and others have mentioned, this house rule would fit nicely, so I personally am already straying from the Barker 12-element focus anyway.
For the Auxilia argument, I disagree. I think that it does still help Auxilia, as the default 1-on-1 will now be a 3v4 instead of a 3v5. while you may argue that Samnites formed in a single line, this is no problem. if the Romans field a deeper formation to get a 3v5, the samnites with their one line would greater overlap them, reducing them back to 4v3 on the flanks with likely hard-flank overlaps with quick kills. additionally, the rear support does not necessarily represent a secondary line in the form of reserves, and could easily represent a deeper single line, the concept is abstract. the romans can't stack a three deep line without a literal gap between the last line as you can only recoil back one element, so one could still play a game with rear supported Auxilia and the samnites would not appear as deep as the roman line. the roman line would appear to have more reserves (but eitherway, auxilia are stronger now by blades weakening so people can play however formation they want, this just adds options).
I don't really see why you'd want your triarii in your front line. as soon as there is one recoil in the line spear will lose their side support and be weaker than the blades. if anything you'd want your spear on the rear or the flanks to provide rear support (while blades dont have any side support to lose as the battle line warps) so to protect from any flanking or rear attacking mounted attacks, with the spear higher CF vs mounted. so while you could use the triarii in your front line, and it might work fine enough, blades in front will be an equally good or marginally better. (but only marginally, realistically if the triarii had been in the front line that wouldn't have actually been thaaat bad an idea, would it? they can fight well enough)
|
|
