|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 3, 2020 16:41:48 GMT
...and Lord knows warband need something going their way!  so an interesting thing with this will be Wb will be more powerful against isolated heavy foot with the QK, but the heavy foot can mitigate this with numbers and rear support. Another interesting tactical choice! |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 3, 2020 16:42:57 GMT
Stevie, Tom suggested a while back that spear should be able to get rear support or side support but not both. Does that still hold true in your tests?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 3, 2020 22:55:42 GMT
Could someone do a probability test on single rank warband QK vs lowered CFs of Sp, Bd, etc.? e.g. Wb 3 QK vs CF 4 (previously 5).
I have a feeling this might make Wb too powerful. i.e you won't need to double up your Wb to smash through your traditional heavy foot enemies. And if Sp, Bd, etc need to double up to counter single-rank Wb (to restore the previous status quo under RAW), that then leaves more free Wb elsewhere...
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 4, 2020 2:52:35 GMT
Yeah looks like in this scenario Bd CF4 vs Wb CF3 would mean blade would double 4/36 and Wb would beat 10/36 compared to the 6/36 each way of the original 5 v 3. So I guess one could fix that by changing Wb quick kill to a quick kill on equal result which would mean Bd wins 4/36 and Wb win 5/36 which is much more even odds.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 4, 2020 3:00:04 GMT
Could someone do a probability test on single rank warband QK vs lowered CFs of Sp, Bd, etc.? e.g. Wb 3 QK vs CF 4 (previously 5). I have a feeling this might make Wb too powerful. i.e you won't need to double up your Wb to smash through your traditional heavy foot enemies. And if Sp, Bd, etc need to double up to counter single-rank Wb (to restore the previous status quo under RAW), that then leaves more free Wb elsewhere... I'm using my percentages sheet: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16dUuJyGr0SeKCC1SG8eHamRJaG7q03yumeEPzazgzcY/edit?usp=sharingFeel free to copy. My numbers come out as this: Wb Cv 3, Bd Cv 4 Wb Dies: 11% Wb Recoils: 47% Tie: 14% Bd Recoils: 0% Bd Dies: 28% |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 4, 2020 6:41:50 GMT
Thanks Greedo. And under RAW with Bd at CF5?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 4, 2020 6:43:43 GMT
Another option (which I've always liked) is for Wb to only QK in their bound. Think of it as a 'ferocity surge' as opposed to a constant.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 4, 2020 9:15:03 GMT
Stevie, Tom suggested a while back that spear should be able to get rear support or side support but not both. Does that still hold true in your tests? Yes, leaving aside any other house rules,for the moment, MedievalThomas’ excellent suggestion that Spears receive +1 for side OR rear-support (but not both together) is a good one, and has no downsides or unwanted side effects whatsoever. It doesn’t make Spears more powerful...it just makes them a bit less vulnerable and more adaptable. It is also more realistic:- “(Hoplites) most commonly fought in multiples of 4 ranks deep, usually eight, though four was known,
12 and 16 common. Asklepiodotus says early infantry organisation was based on a file of eight men,
but there is little evidence that hoplites were organised at all down to this level, except in Sparta;
and Spartan organisation was better adapted to depths of six or twelve, twelve being usual.”
(Source: Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”)
If a Spear element in DBA represents about 8 ranks deep, and a two element column represents 16 ranks, how do we represent a 12 deep formation? Allowing Spears +1 for side OR rear-support (but not both together) does this. It also helps to recreate certain historical battles more accurately, such as Marathon in 490 BC:- “Now, as they marshalled the host upon the field of Marathon, in order that the Athenian front might be of equal length with the Median, the ranks
of the centre were diminished, and it became the weakest part of the line, while the wings were both made strong with a depth of many ranks.
The two armies fought together on the plain of Marathon for a length of time, and in the mid battle, where the Persians themselves and the Sacae
had their place, the barbarians were victorious and broke and pursued the Greeks into the inner country, but on the two wings the Athenians and
the Plataeans defeated the enemy. Having so done, they suffered the routed barbarians to fly at their ease, and joining the two wings in one, fell
upon those who had broken their own centre, and fought and conquered them.”
(Source: www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Herodotus-Marathon.html )Having a small piece of rough going (where side and rear-support is not allowed) in the centre of the Greek battleline nicely simulates this engagement. Last of all, it helps us DBA wargamers to deploy historically. On a normal 15 BW square table, you only have 7 BW of space to deploy heavy foot in. Having the extra heavy foot behind the main battleline ends up looking more like a Roman formation than a Greek one, with the troops deployed in multiple lines. Allowing Spears to gain some sort of advantage for being in column addresses this. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 4, 2020 9:23:58 GMT
Could someone do a probability test on single rank warband QK vs lowered CFs of Sp, Bd, etc.? Here is some number crunching for you Snowcat, and broadly backs-up Greedo’s findings. (The numbers below are chances out of 36) Current unchanged combat outcomes:- Wb Doubled Wb Recoils Equal Score Bd Recoils (destroyed) Bd DoubledWb CF 3 v Bd CF 5 = 6 (17%) 20 (56%) 4 (11%) 6 (17%) - (0%) Wb CF 3+1 v Bd CF 5 = 2 (6%) 19 (53%) 5 (14%) 10 (28% ) - (0%) Proposed reduced combat outcomes:- Wb Doubled Wb Recoils Equal Score Bd Recoils (destroyed) Bd DoubledWb CF 3 v Bd CF 4 = 4 (11%) 17 (47%) 5 (14%) 10 (28%) - (0%) Wb CF 3+1 v Bd CF 4 = 1 (3%) 14 (39%) 6 (17%) 14 (39% ) 1 (3%) With universal rear-support for the Blades the combat factors will be the same as the current factors above, but the Blade battleline, being two deep, will be the same length as the Warband two deep battleline. (See the following for a more detailed set of number crunching, which takes into account all the bonuses and
penalties such as generals, being uphill, and overlaps:-
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/e/e7/COMBAT_EFFECTS_CHART_for_DBA_%26_HOTT.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190204191800 )Oh...one more thing. Wb do not get rear-support when fighting Ps, but with universal rear-support the Ps will get rear support against the Wb. This might help with the debate in the fanaticus.boards.net/thread/2754/warband-vulnerable-psiloi thread. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 4, 2020 13:02:33 GMT
Thanks for that Stevie. So on the basis of those figures, what do you think? Does it make Wb too good?
Quick query: if Wb can't get rear support vs Ps, how do Ps get rear support vs Wb?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 4, 2020 15:51:23 GMT
Quick query: if Wb can't get rear support vs Ps, how do Ps get rear support vs Wb? From Shirimplyamazing’s ‘universal rear-support’. The Rear Support rules currently says:- “Pk +3 and Wb +1 when in close combat against any enemy foot except Ps”. This would become:- “Pk +2 if supported by other Pk and all foot +1 if rear-supported by any friendly foot when in close combat against enemy foot, other than enemy Ps”. (assuming they are in good going of course, and not defending or assaulting Cities/Forts/Camps)Having more men behind you isn’t much help if the skirmishers in front keep their distance. As for the Ps themselves, think of it as more missiles are being thrown at the target (like rear-supported LH), or that the Ps has a morale boost by knowing they have some friendly foot backing them up that they can quickly fall back through are not out there all on their own. Does it make Wb too good?...I don’t know. Wb are still ridiculously easy to recoil, so will usually be overlapped. People will have to try it for themselves and see what they think. For what it’s worth, I like it.  |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Sept 4, 2020 20:44:51 GMT
All the focus on WB vs BD!!!
Pity the poor hoplite - apparently in the DBA world SP is held in such low regard that there isn't even a pause (aside from snowcat's initial query on probabilities) on their near total emasculation by this.
Head to head the SP will be destroyed over 40% of the time with less than a 6% chance of destroying their opponent.
Same probabilities whether supported or not - except that with support added for both the odds of the SP destroying the WB drop to 1 in 36.
My nephew tells me that in 'Call of Duty' there are occasions when a weapon in the game is decided to have been rated too highly and so has it's performance downgraded. This is termed 'nerfing' by the players.
With this change the Greeks and other spear carriers are truly 'nerfed.'
P.S. For those not familiar with the Nerf gun, it is a toy firearm that shoots foam rubber balls.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 4, 2020 22:27:29 GMT
With this change the Greeks and other spear carriers are truly 'nerfed.' Oh I don’t know Goragrad...do you think the current Spear CF 4+1 is at a severe disadvantage compared to the current Blade CF 5 when fighting Wb 3+1? Very well, let us discard the names ‘Spear’ and ‘Blades’ and all the mental baggage they bring, and just concentrate on the raw combat factors, remembering that CF 4 +1 (for ‘universal rear support’) and CF 3 +1 (for side-support) plus another +1 (for ‘universal rear support’) both equal 5. CF 3 Doubled CF 3 Recoils Equal Score CF 5 Recoils (destroyed) CF 5 Doubled
CF 3+1 overlapped twice v CF 5 = 12 (33%) 18 (50%) 3 (8%) 3 (8%) - (0%)
CF 3+1 but overlapped v CF 5 = 6 (17%) 20 (56%) 4 (11%) 6 (17%) - (0%)
CF 3+1 not overlapped v CF 5 = 2 (6%) 19 (53%) 5 (14%) 10 (28% ) - (0%)
CF 3+1 v overlapped CF 5 = 1 (3%) 14 (39%) 6 (17%) 14 (39% ) 1 (3%)
(note that because of the high chance of destroying/recoiling the CF 3 troops, the line in blue is the usual situation)Now it is true that with this ‘lower heavy combat factor’ with the ‘universal rear-support’ (which could be from any friendly foot, even lowly Ps lobbing their missiles overhead), both the CF 3 and the CF 5 troops will be in two-deep columns, and have the same frontage. But currently the CF 5 troops have to have some sort of reserves anyway because of the CF 3 ‘quick kill’ may punch a hole in the battline that will need filling, even with just a TZ. And, like Blades, Warbands pursue, often causing them to advance into single or double overlap positions...something that Spears do not do. In short, if the present CF 5 troops are currently considered to be about right against CF 3+1, why would Shirmplyamazing’s suggestion, with the same combat factors, be any different? |
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 4, 2020 23:05:53 GMT
For what it's worth, I would have gone with Sp being able to get BOTH rear and side support, that way they still had the potential to equal Bd in double ranks (until the recoils start happening). This would make them more resilient against Wb I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 4, 2020 23:35:25 GMT
For what it's worth, I would have gone with Sp being able to get BOTH rear and side support, that way they still had the potential to equal Bd in double ranks (until the recoils start happening). This would make them more resilient against Wb I think. And so do I.... IF the ‘lowering of heavy foot combat factors’ is implemented. However, my earlier reply to Greedo was assuming NO other house rules:- Stevie, Tom suggested a while back that spear should be able to get rear support or side support but not both. Does that still hold true in your tests? Yes, leaving aside any other house rules for the moment, MedievalThomas’ idea is an excellent suggestion... So use the rules exactly as they are now, and add “Spears +1 for side OR rear-support, but not both together”... ... OR... ...have “lowered heavy foot combat factors AND universal rear support”. Sorry if I caused any confusion. (I blame Greedo...)  |
|
