|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 5, 2020 0:41:54 GMT
Doh! Didn’t mean to add confusion but with the decreased cv, that optional rule isn’t required. Will just require more math when calculating combats.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 5, 2020 0:47:11 GMT
None of these 'changes to combat factors' affect distant shooting, correct? That stays as RAW?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 5, 2020 2:02:10 GMT
None of these 'changes to combat factors' affect distant shooting, correct? That stays as RAW? a good point. If so then all the troops would need 3 stars, like blades. I’m ok with it though. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 5, 2020 6:29:33 GMT
Another couple of questions: 1: Does this mean that Ps can also double up to be 3 2? 2: What happens if this cloud fights another Ps? Does the rear support still not work? 3: Can LH get rear support from Ps or that just going muck things up. Love that this discussion is taking place  Chris |
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 5, 2020 7:12:10 GMT
None of these 'changes to combat factors' affect distant shooting, correct? That stays as RAW? The way I see it you have two options. First, reduce HI against foot, thus merging the blades distant shooting and foot stats into one returning everything back to two stats each across the board (and making Pike and spear slightly weaker against distant shooting) Alternatively you could keep the higher stats for Pike and Spear for distant thus swapping the one 3 stat unit, Blades, with two 3 stat units. Personally I prefer the first option but none of my armies (Punic wars) uses bows anyway |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 5, 2020 8:14:58 GMT
Another couple of questions: 1: Does this mean that Ps can also double up to be 3 2? 2: What happens if this cloud fights another Ps? Does the rear support still not work? 3: Can LH get rear support from Ps or that just going muck things up. Love that this discussion is taking place Chris The system I used was:- Rear-Support: “Pk +2 if supported by other Pk and all foot (except double-bases) +1 when rear-supported by any friendly foot when in close combat against foot, other than enemy Ps”. (assuming they are in good going of course, and not defending or assaulting Cities/Forts/Camps)Side-Support: “Spears +1 (even when shot at) if side-supported by Spears or Solid Blades and fighting foot. Solid Bows +1 if side-supported by friendly Solid Blades in close combat with enemy foot.” (again, assuming they are in good going, and not defending or assaulting Cities/Forts/Camps)Bad Going: “All troops (except Ps, Ax, Wb, and Bows) -1 if even partially in bad going”. (And no side or rear-support either)...which may or may not be the best system, but it’s the one I playtested. The “Spears +1 (even when shot at) if side-supported” helps keep their combat factor the same as they are presently for shooting purposes; i.e. CF 4 (reduced Spear CF 3+1), the same as Blades, which means a disrupted ‘shield-wall’ is more vulnerable to shooting...which seems realistic. It does mean that an element of Ps supported by friendly Ps won’t get the ‘universal rear-support’ against other enemy Ps...but I can justify that by assuming all the skirmishes in close combat are trying to keep their distance, and the rear Ps are simply too far away to have an effect. (CF 3 v CF 3 has just 2 chances out of 36 of getting a double result, while CF 2 v CF 2 has 4 chances,
so the current factors seem best...Ps should be more vulnerable and brittle when fighting other Ps).And to keep things simple (and not have exceptions to exceptions!) I limited ‘universal rear-support’ to foot only...so no rear-support for LH from friendly Ps. (Mounted need a lot of space to manoeuvre and control their large mounts, and skirmishing LH need
even more space, so again the rear Ps would be too far back to be effective...and might not even be
in range!)But as I said, all this is just what I have playtested. Others may want to do things differently. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 5, 2020 8:21:01 GMT
My 2 cents: Sp shouldn't be worse than Bd vs distant shooting. And Pk shouldn't be weaker than they already are under RAW vs distant shooting.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 5, 2020 8:47:05 GMT
They won’t be Snowcat.
Reduced Blades will be CF 4 when shot at (same as they are now).
Reduced Spears will be CF 4 when shot at (if they have side-support).
Reduced Pikes are still CF 3 when shot at (same as they are now).
Remember that the reduced Pikes are CF 3 against foot, but only
+2 for rear-support instead of +3 (and rear-support has no effect
under the rules when shot at).
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 5, 2020 18:21:47 GMT
They won’t be Snowcat. Reduced Blades will be CF 4 when shot at (same as they are now). Reduced Spears will be CF 4 when shot at (if they have side-support). Reduced Pikes are still CF 3 when shot at (same as they are now). Remember that the reduced Pikes are CF 3 against foot, but only +2 for rear-support instead of +3 (and rear-support has no effect under the rules when shot at). These changes are very simple, and don’t add any crazy special rules. Love em. Still like the 1/2 pip for LH as well. The only reason I suggested the Ps support LH was literally represent Alex’s LH with intermingled Ps but I understand it’s pretty niche. So will hold off until a later discussion Now what about Ax? They get to double rank as well yeah? |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 6, 2020 1:23:46 GMT
It is looking good...although I can see Wb carving through heavy infantry opponents with more regularity now. That 11% increase to their QK success against Bd will be telling, and Sp will feel their bite even more.
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 6, 2020 4:57:26 GMT
Now what about Ax? They get to double rank as well yeah? This was the main thing which prompted the concept. Ax vs Bd at 3 v 5 seemed way too in favour of Blade. 4 v 3 seemed more reasonable and allowing rear support for all means that double ranked Auxilia would be able to equal Blades. Makes Samnites (12 4Ax) fighting romans a bit less one sided and honestly its realistic. Samnite Auxilia and Roman Blades weren't that differently equipt. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 6, 2020 6:58:03 GMT
Expanding my numbers to all the variations of Wb vs Bd.
This does not take into account overlaps which will change things, especially for Wb if they get double overlapped.
But 2 elements on both sides, with Wb rear ranked, and Bd overlapping takes them back down to 3v4 anyway which still has only a 28% change of Bd dying. I think it will be ok.
If a lone Bd goes up against rear supported Wb, then yeah, it's going to die a LOT, but Bd has 2 options to fix this; go wide or go deep.
My numbers come out as this:
New Rules, nobody has rear support:
Wb 3, Bd 4
Wb Dies: 11%
Wb Recoils: 47%
Tie: 14%
Bd Recoils: 0%
Bd Dies: 28%
New rules, Wb has rear support only:
Wb 4, Bd 4:
Wb Dies: 3%
Wb Recoils: 39%
Tie: 17%
Bd Recoils: 0%
Bd Dies: 42%
RAW, nobody has rear support, or New rules, Bd has rear support:
Wb 3, Bd 5:
Wb Dies: 17%
Wb Recoils: 56%
Tie: 11%
Bd Recoils: 0%
Bd Dies: 17%
RAW, Wb has rear support, or New Rules, both have rear support:
Wb 4, Bd 5:
Wb Dies: 6%
Wb Recoils: 53%
Tie: 14%
Bd Recoils: 0%
Bd Dies: 28%
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 6, 2020 19:44:35 GMT
Just realized that EIR or Polybian romans will be interesting against Britons.
The Romans will be forced to double rank to match Wb (if Wb chooses to) since their Bds will be murdered otherwise.
So two strategies appear:
1) A line of Bd with a line of Ax behind them as the 2nd rank. Higher cv but risk of qk.
2) A line of Ax to face the hairies with the blades acting as the 2nd rank. No chance of a qk but tied in terms of cv so equal pushing and shoving.
There’s also the single line of Bd and Ax trying to avoid Bd vs Wb and overlapping and outflanking by the Bd, but might be harder to pull off.
|
|
|
|
Post by saxonred on Sept 6, 2020 21:20:02 GMT
Don't forget that you can use terrain to neutralize the +1 from a supporting rank. If in close combat and either element is in rough or bad going then no +1.
Should make terrain placement a bit more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 6, 2020 21:46:08 GMT
Don't forget that you can use terrain to neutralize the +1 from a supporting rank. If in close combat and either element is in rough or bad going then no +1. Should make terrain placement a bit more interesting. Good point! Wb vs bd in woods would only be 3v3 with qk on bd. Really bad for bd. Wb vs ax in woods would be 3v3 and no qk so even up. Seems decent. It’s be good that heavy foot only get -1 in woods as they’ve already got the -1 elsewhere. |
|
