|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 12, 2020 1:31:27 GMT
My thoughts concur with Greedo's, which is no surprise as they stem from my 'like supports like' starting point vs 'everyone supports everyone' starting point for rear support. Troops are either inherently compatible or they're not; failing 'like:like compatibility' they need something appropriately flexible to work with them...which brings me to Greedo's idea for Ax... I particularly like how Greedo has added an extra ability for Ax to 'like supports like', one that strikes me as feasible. Suddenly Ax have an extra dimension compared with their contemporaries, a flexible positive battlefield role backed up by history. Now those Roman auxiliaries and Macedonian Hypaspists (just 2 examples) are slightly more flexible/useful than they were before Greedo's Ax-idea. So if we have: "Like supports like, but Ax supports and is supported by any foot", do we also have... "Bw and Ps support any foot with a +1 in cc"? In which case, why not use a modification of Stevie's "Like supports like, but Ps/Bow/Ax supports and is supported by any foot" and create the following:
"Rear support for foot troops: Like supports like, but Ps and Bow may support any foot, while Ax may support and be supported by any foot."
This still allows Art and WWg to support each other. Not sure about that. But possibly not worth an exception?
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 12, 2020 2:31:27 GMT
It works but I’m just not seeing why bw and ps get stronger with say Wb or pk or anything behind them. I can picture them supporting other troops Ok but not being supported.
However in keeping with keeping it simple, perhaps it would be easier to have them do both, but it does make the super power of Ax a bit less by comparison.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 12, 2020 2:51:04 GMT
It works but I’m just not seeing why bw and ps get stronger with say Wb or pk or anything behind them. I can picture them supporting other troops Ok but not being supported. However in keeping with keeping it simple, perhaps it would be easier to have them do both, but it does make the super power of Ax a bit less by comparison. Greedo, read the bolded line again. It's not the same as Stevie's interpretation. Ps and Bw cannot be supported by Wb or Pk. The Ax superpower is completely preserved.  I'll break it up for you...
Like supports like Ps and Bow may support any foot Ax may support and be supported by any foot
|
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 12, 2020 3:28:28 GMT
Ah... I’m gettin’ old! Totally read it wrong. My hobby is graying  Yup that’s what I agree with. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 12, 2020 3:57:05 GMT
Should there be a limit on how many bases rear support can be provided for?
e.g. maximum of one base supported, or up to two bases further supported, etc.?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 12, 2020 4:09:06 GMT
Now let's test the Ax superpower idea. Here's one example: An element of Pk can be supported by an element of Ax. How exactly is the Ax providing support? Fatigue replacements? How do they manage that when they're not trained pikemen? Furthermore, if an element of Ax can provide rear support to an element of Pk, why can't an element of trained swordsmen (Bd)? Or drilled spearmen (Sp)? The latter in particular would seem an obvious good fit. Did I just break the Ax superpower idea? Or does it just need modification? Or can you account for the above scenario in favour of why only the Ax should be able to provide rear support?
For consideration (the recent rule iteration now with an exception added):
Like supports like
Ps and Bow may support any foot
Ax may support and be supported by any foot except Pk
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 12, 2020 6:20:13 GMT
Now let's test the Ax superpower idea. Here's one example: An element of Pk can be supported by an element of Ax. How exactly is the Ax providing support? Fatigue replacements? How do they manage that when they're not trained pikemen? Furthermore, if an element of Ax can provide rear support to an element of Pk, why can't an element of trained swordsmen (Bd)? Or drilled spearmen (Sp)? The latter in particular would seem an obvious good fit. Did I just break the Ax superpower idea? Or does it just need modification? Or can you account for the above scenario in favour of why only the Ax should be able to provide rear support?
For consideration (the recent rule iteration now with an exception added):
Like supports like
Ps and Bow may support any foot
Ax may support and be supported by any foot except Pk
I like this like for like + auxilia superpower suggestion in terms of gameplay. I like that it gives auxilia some more use. But I also like the universal Rear support. Both seem reasonable systems. Though I reckon if you disagree with the feasibility/logic of universal rear support you'll have the same issue with auxilia rear support as it's really the same argument on a smaller scale combined with the desire for auxilia with more purpose. Neither option will work with the way you're framing the reality of the rear support But I think we have two reasonable systems so far. The best thing to do at this point would be to play the systems and see which one 'feels' right/overpowered. |
|
|
|
Post by greedo on Sept 12, 2020 6:51:18 GMT
At the risk of making things complicated, how about this?
Like supports like
Ps and Bow may support any foot
Ax may be supported by any foot
Now Ax gains from literally anybody behind them providing morale support, but Pk needs to have Pk, Ps, or Bw behind them to get support (and they get +1. +2 is reserved for supporting Pk).
This ensures that Ax will stay out front (ie in front of the legionaries or beside them), and Pk will be supported by appropriate troops.
But if I wanted to take the simple option I would just say “like supports like” and leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 12, 2020 6:55:44 GMT
I like this like for like + auxilia superpower suggestion in terms of gameplay. I like that it gives auxilia some more use. But I also like the universal Rear support. Both seem reasonable systems. Though I reckon if you disagree with the feasibility/logic of universal rear support you'll have the same issue with auxilia rear support as it's really the same argument on a smaller scale combined with the desire for auxilia with more purpose. Neither option will work with the way you're framing the reality of the rear support But I think we have two reasonable systems so far. The best thing to do at this point would be to play the systems and see which one 'feels' right/overpowered. I'd agree with that overall. I could suggest that apart from 'like for like', Ax may support and be supported by a much more limited list of foot types, such as Bd and possibly Sp only. So this: Like supports like
Ps and Bow may support any foot
Ax may support and be supported by Bd or SpOr, I could just run with 'like supports like', plus 'Ps and Bw may support any foot', with no Ax superpower at all, not even a greatly reduced one. And re 'like for like' do we mean 4Bd for 4Bd only, or any close vs loose order as long as they're both the same basic type, e.g. 3Bd for 4Bd? |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 12, 2020 7:01:29 GMT
At the risk of making things complicated, how about this? Like supports like Ps and Bow may support any foot Ax may be supported by any foot Now Ax gains from literally anybody behind them providing morale support, but Pk needs to have Pk, Ps, or Bw behind them to get support (and they get +1. +2 is reserved for supporting Pk). This ensures that Ax will stay out front (ie in front of the legionaries or beside them), and Pk will be supported by appropriate troops. But if I wanted to take the simple option I would just say “like supports like” and leave it at that. I can't see how Ax could be supported by Pk immediately to their rear - ouch! That's one of the reasons I made sure it couldn't happen with the previous iteration of the Ax part of the rear support rule.
(I too am leaning towards the 'like supports like' rule only, with or without 'Ps and Bw may support any foot'. You could argue that missile troops supporting heavy foot from behind are already included as mixed units.)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 12, 2020 10:48:56 GMT
I like how we are narrowing down the various options to reach a consensus. Perhaps we can approach things by looking at ‘practical examples’, and then decide which is best. Basically, how we want armies look and ‘feel right’ when we deploy them on the table. (‘Like supports like’ seems simple common sense...it’s different types that concerns us.
And Psiloi plus Bows could shoot overhead, but not at range, as the Late Romans did)I/57 Etruscans and II/10 & 11/33 Romans: armies with some Blades, but more Spears. These look best if the Blades can be rear-supported by the Spears behind them, either by giving the front rank a morale boost, or by providing some fresh men to temporarily replace tired men who are taking a short break from fighting while they get their breath back, or by intimidating the enemy by their shear mass. (Should Spears get rear-support from Blades?...it’s a weaker formation, so why not, for the above reasons) Barbarian Warband armies with some other foot troops: i.e. some Bd/Ax/Hd/etc:- These look best if the other troops are not all bunched-up in columns but are rear-supported by the Wb, for the same reasons given above (rear-supporting Ax could be lobbing their javelins overhead after all). II/39 Spanish type armies: those with a mix of lots of Ax and lots of Ps:- A line of Ps rear supported by a line of Ax looks and feels right (and if Ax rear-supporting are by throwing their javelins overhead, the Ps will also get a +1, making them a bit more powerful and useful). A line of Ax rear supported by a line of Ps also looks and feels right (the Ps, after falling back, are also lobbing their missiles overhead, thus making the Ax a bit more powerful when facing heavy enemy foot). But Ax supported by Ax is a bit better than Ax supported Ps if the front Ax are destroyed. The same weakness applies to Wb supported by Ps. Some Historical ExamplesI’ve already mentioned in a previous post about the battle of Mons Graupius in 84 AD, where the Roman Ax were in front and the Bd were behind them. Giving the Ax a +1 for rear support looks and feels right here. Zama in 202 BC: in this battle the Carthaginians had their Ax/Wb in front supported by their Sp behind them. Giving this front rank a +1 for rear support looks and feels right for this battle (otherwise, why deploy like that?). As for the Ax/Wb being behind the Sp...well, we’ve already mentioned Ax lobbing missiles overhead and morale. Now For What DOESN’T Look Or Feel RightPikes rear supported or supporting anything other than Pikes. Pk getting rear support from Bd/Ax/Wb/Hd or visa versa just looks and feels wrong...although we’ve already ascertained that Ps, Bows, and even Ax, could shoot overhead (but not at range). Still, Pk supported by anything other than Pk is a weaker formation than an all Pk column, because of the Pk bonuses when supported by other Pk. ConclusionArmies will deploy, look, and feel right with something like the following rules:- * Pk supported by Pk get +2 when in close combat with foot (other than enemy Ps) and +1 against enemy Kn/HCh/SCh/Elephants.
* Pk can only support or be supported by Pk/Bow/Ps.
* In all other cases all other foot get +1 when in close combat with foot and rear-supported by other foot (except against enemy Ps).
* Double-based elements do not receive any extra rear-support, but they may give it to those in front.(assuming in all cases that both friendly elements are in good going and not defending or assaulting Cities/Fors/Camps)By the way, an element can only rear-support those friends directly in front of them that they touch. This seems to cover all situations, be it ‘like supporting like’, mixed barbarian Wb armies with some Bd/Ax/Hd, Ps and Bows out in front or behind, Bd with Sp armies, and mixes of 3/4Bd, mixed 3/4Wb, and mixed 3/4Bow. Plus...and this is the important bit...it is simple. (Note: Bows rear supported by Bd could give Hundred Year War English Longbowmen a bit of a boost
against dismounted French men-at-arms along with their +1 for side-support, i.e. CF 2+1+1 =4 against
the French Blade CF of 4+1)As for recoiling and interpenetration...leave it as it is. Soooo, what ya fink? |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 12, 2020 13:03:47 GMT
Stevie, I don't dislike what you're proposing, even if it is mostly doing away with 'like supports like' (ONLY) and returning to something closer to 'universal support' with the exception of Pk. Pk is an absolute must as an exception to the universal rear support idea. I'm happy with Bw and Ps an an alternative 2nd rank support to Pk. However, I disagree with Bw and Ps being supported by Pk. How can Pk support Bw or Ps? I expect you see some distance between them (to avoid skewered Bw or Ps); in which case are they not in separate lines as opposed to 'rear support'? As for Wb providing support to non-Wb or v.v. I can live with it if others can live with it. IMO a warband is a single-minded ferocious thing that is unleashed on the enemy; it is not something that is there to provide support to non-warband. However, it's not a stretch to imagine a similar bunch of sword-armed 'enthusiasts' classed as Bd charging madly at the enemy with sword and spear armed nutters (Wb) supporting them from behind...and so the blurred lines between classes exist and begin to widen. |
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Sept 12, 2020 13:21:19 GMT
Sounds like a reasonable compromise between the two and fairly historical
+1 rear support from me
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 12, 2020 15:44:29 GMT
Pk is an absolute must as an exception to the universal rear support idea. I'm happy with Bw and Ps an an alternative 2nd rank support to Pk. However, I disagree with Bw and Ps being supported by Pk. How can Pk support Bw or Ps? I expect you see some distance between them (to avoid skewered Bw or Ps); in which case are they not in separate lines as opposed to 'rear support'? Very well, I’m open to compromise. How about this then:- “Pk can only support or be supported by other Pk”. Now you may ask, if Ps, Bow, and Ax can chuck their missiles over the heads of other troops, why can’t they do the same to a single element of Pikes? My justification is simple...even a single element of Pikes represents some 8 ranks deep, with only the first four or so ranks are actually fighting while the rest are holding their pikes vertically so they don’t trip people up and restrict movement. And all those upright poles will hinder missiles that ricochet off them losing momentum causing many of the javelins and arrows to fall on the heads and shoulders of the Pikemen below! (Not a good way of boosting morale is it)Likewise, lone pikemen can’t push their way through other tired troops or missile shooters in front of them to have a bit of a poke with their pikes...pikes only work effectively when they’re used together in a coordinated fashion. Thus Pikes can’t get rear-support from the Ps, Bow, or Ax behind them, and other troops behind without pikes that push forwards to relive tried front row Pikemen would just cause weak spots in the pike formation, so they can’t rear-support the Pikes either. And the Pikes themselves can’t rear-support other troops by pushing forwards to relieve tired men, because a pikeman on his own is vulnerable, even if he is sandwiched between swordsmen or warriors. All sounds plausible to me...and is a damn sight more plausible than having solid 4Bow receiving side-support from solid 4Bd (yet not from solid Sp), who’s only justification is an excuse to give a much needed artificial boost to an underpowered troop type in close combat! (Plus “Pk can only support or be supported by other Pk” is much simpler, with no exceptions) |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 13, 2020 0:38:51 GMT
Agreed. Mind you, this does seem more like a step back to 'universal rear support but with an exception for Pk' rather than a continued evolution of where we'd got to more recently. Didn't we have something like this several pages back?
Thought so...bottom of page 6, from Shrimply himself:
Sept 10, 2020 12:27:00 GMT 10 shrimplyamazing said:
You wouldn't have to worry about 3Pk if you're limiting Pk and Wb to only rear support from themselves:
Pk receive +2 rear support from other Pk
Wb receive +1 rear support from other Wb except against Ps
Other solid foot receive +1 rear support from other foot except against Ps
Though I personally would say just allow Foot in general +1 from rear support from other Foot (not against Ps) with only a specific +2 for the Pk+Pk combo.
*********
We even had an exception for Wb to go with the Pk exception!!
Ha!
|
|
