|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 27, 2020 23:16:03 GMT
Under RAW, a cataphract horseman - man and horse completely armoured - is as easy to shoot down as a man in a leather corslet on an unarmoured horse. The former is 4Kn and the latter is Cv. Bw vs either has the same CF: 4. Now imagine a regiment of cataphracts - such as Tibetans who history records as 'impervious to arrows' trotting in against a unit of archers. Those archers would be very concerned for their safety when they see the trivial effect of their shooting on the relentlessly closing cataphracts. But in DBA RAW it's the cataphracts who can be eliminated as easily as a regiment of mostly unprotected riders on unprotected horses.
Is this not ludicrous?
Meanwhile, under RAW you have crossbow and longbow armed shooters more able to eliminate Kn by virtue of their particular weapons. So a special case exists for these guys. But no special case exists for mounted who have far more protection than other mounted vs shooting.
Fortunately, in the case of 4Kn, there is a simple solution.
-1 if Bw vs 4Kn
This goes some way to rebalancing history vs a simple rock/paper/scissors abstraction that allows far too much fantasy.
What it doesn't do, however, is help all those heavily armoured mounted troops within the 3Kn and Cv classes who, by virtue of their armour, are on similar or equal terms to 'cataphract protection'. It's not difficult to picture heavily armoured medieval knights (3Kn) for a Western example, in which man and horse are covered in plate and chain. Or a Timurid guard horseman (Cv) for an Eastern example, completely protected by lamellar, plate & chain. Yet these 'super-armoured' troops within their respective DBA classes are afforded no better protection vs shooting than equivalently classed troops wearing scant armour on unprotected horses.
Again, I find this ludicrous. And the often convenient riposte of 'play armies from the same DBA Book period' doesn't help here. Because you can have scantily protected Cv or Kn within the various DBA Book periods afforded identical protection vs shooting as super-heavily protected Cv and Kn in the same periods.
Other rules systems, such as L'Art de la Guerre (AdG) and Impetus (even Basic Impetus!), just to name two, don't throw history out the window like this. Armour/Protection is actually worth something if you're mounted and facing enemy shooting at you. Sure, in AdG, being on a horse vs not being on a horse is a negative vs shooting opponents, BUT it doesn't stop there: the rider's degree of armour gets to counteract or rebalance this penalty. And it's not rocket science. It's not complex.
But how to do it in DBA without creating a new category for both Cv and Kn, such as CvX and KnX...? This could be done, and could employ the same -1 if Bw vs 'x' rules as above, but would require rewriting army lists. I personally can't see this occurring except under 'Gentlemen's Agreement' conditions for certain armies played by various folks at home.
But maybe there is a way. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 28, 2020 9:14:51 GMT
You are not alone on this Snowcat... ...I too have thought it ‘odd’:- As we are discussing cataphracts, does anyone else think the following is a bit odd:- In DBA Bows have a combat factor of 4 against Cavalry and against 3Kn (not all ‘knights’ had heavy armour...think of Alexander’s Companions or the Goths at Adrianople in 378 AD). But Bows also have a CF of 4 against 4Kn cataphracts... ...so what was the point of all that heavy expensive armour to protect horses from bowfire, when they are just as vulnerable as unarmoured Cavalry and 3Kn when shot at? Ah, but in DBA it’s the effect that counts, and a CF of 4 against mounted seems to work fine. (Still, one would have thought that Bows having a CF of 3 against totally armoured cataphracts,
or the Cataphracts having a CF of 4 when shot at, would have been more appropriate)I suppose we could assume that 4Kn Cataphracts are better protected (giving shooters a -1), but they are also in a denser formation than 3Kn (giving shooters a +1), so the overall effect cancels out and both 3Kn and 4Kn have the same vulnerability when shot at. And, as mentioned above, not all 3Kn rode on well protected heavily armoured horses. In DBA the 3Kn class is more of a mental attribute that simulates their battlefield behaviour, rather than how well they could face up to shooting (and a storm of arrows, even if they have difficulty penetrating, could still be pretty demoralizing). Nonetheless, I would not be adverse to have 4Kn having a combat factor of 4 when shot at (just like Blades)...but this notion that 4Kn never pursue is entirely made up and artificial.(See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30831/ ) It was only added to make 4Kn different from 3Kn, and has no basis in reality. In short, I quite favour MedievalThomas’s suggestion:- Give 4Kn a CF of 4 against foot but remove their ‘quick kill’ (and I’d let them pursue like 3Kn). That’ll make them a different kind of knight, and would give them protection from shooting. It would make them what they really were; dense ponderous formations of mounted spearmen. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 28, 2020 9:19:06 GMT
Ah yes. A fair idea worthy of more thought.
Re denser formation - not necessarily.
Re non pursuit - agreed.
And what about those 3Kn and Cv that are cataphract-armoured equivalent in all but name???
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 28, 2020 9:31:42 GMT
There's also movement allowance reduction to consider, something I asked about in that other thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 28, 2020 9:36:35 GMT
And what about those 3Kn and Cv that are cataphract-armoured equivalent in all but name??? Well, as I said, “a storm of arrows, even if they have difficulty penetrating, could still be pretty demoralizing.” Oh, and here are some more historical examples of 4Kn Cataphracts pursuing:- See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30984/ |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Sept 28, 2020 9:40:38 GMT
In short, I quite favour MedievalThomas’s suggestion:- Give 4Kn a CF of 4 against foot but remove their ‘quick kill’ (and I’d let them pursue like 3Kn). That’ll make them a different kind of knight, and would give them protection from shooting. It would make them what they really were; dense ponderous formations of mounted spearmen. This is how they were treated in DBA 2.2+. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 28, 2020 9:51:16 GMT
In short, I quite favour MedievalThomas’s suggestion:- Give 4Kn a CF of 4 against foot but remove their ‘quick kill’ (and I’d let them pursue like 3Kn). That’ll make them a different kind of knight, and would give them protection from shooting. It would make them what they really were; dense ponderous formations of mounted spearmen. This is how they were treated in DBA 2.2+. Ha! A good idea is still a good idea, no matter the source.  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 28, 2020 9:53:35 GMT
And one more thing to throw into the mix... PB grades Chinese heavily armoured mounted 'knights' as either 4Kn if more completely armoured, or 3Kn if their lower arms and legs were unarmoured, and carried bows as secondary weapons. (This from the original DBM lists prior to the more 'streamlined' explanation in the DBA lists, specifically the Hsien-pi.) So far I've found 1 image of a period sculpture of a completely armoured Chinese 'cataphract' from the Northern Wei dynasty to support Hsien-pi or Nth Dynasty Chinese having 4Kn. All others, and they are numerous, are of the 3Kn variety, some of whom carry bows, OR something in between PB's distinctions. (I'm not talking 'Tibetans' here BTW.) Anyway, that's a personal research thing of mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 28, 2020 9:55:59 GMT
And what about those 3Kn and Cv that are cataphract-armoured equivalent in all but name??? Well, as I said, “a storm of arrows, even if they have difficulty penetrating, could still be pretty demoralizing.” Oh, and here are some more historical examples of 4Kn Cataphracts pursuing:- See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30984/Not if they don't hurt you. Meanwhile, the largely unarmoured blokes are falling in droves. Other rule systems address this with ease. Why does DBA ignore it? |
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 28, 2020 10:16:48 GMT
Well, as I said, “a storm of arrows, even if they have difficulty penetrating, could still be pretty demoralizing.” Oh, and here are some more historical examples of 4Kn Cataphracts pursuing:- See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30984/Not if they don't hurt you. Meanwhile, the largely unarmoured blokes are falling in droves. Other rule systems address this with ease. Why does DBA ignore it? Probably because it’s designed as a fast play rule set, and intentionally avoids complications which are readily available in DBMM....45 minute game vs 2 hr 30 minute game... |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 28, 2020 10:20:54 GMT
Well, as I said, “a storm of arrows, even if they have difficulty penetrating, could still be pretty demoralizing.” Not if they don't hurt you. Hmmm...I’m not so sure about that. At Agincourt the French dismounted men-at-arms often shied-away from the English Longbows and preferred to advance on the English dismounted men-at-arms who were not shooting them... ...a prime historical example of “a storm of arrows, even if they have difficulty penetrating, could still be pretty demoralizing.” |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 28, 2020 12:43:38 GMT
It does strike me that the Fast/Solid differences create pseudo classes that perhaps would've done better as specific classes? Instead of 3Ax/4Ax we could have Peltasts and Auxilia. Knights and Cataphracts instead of 3Kn/4Kn. This does sound very 2.2+ and perhaps this is the price we pay for schism. Certainly the mechanics of DBA 3 are fabulous. (The Anglo-Danish just handed Harald Hardraada another defeat and the Blades/Spears interaction as well as the role of the Psiloi were better than so many so called more serious rulesets.)
DBA 3 is so strong because it is simple but not simplistic, because it gets great results that are plausible history with a small figure count on a small board in under an hour. If we can get the message out then this can be the flagship that keeps the future wargamer interested. It has wrinkles (4Ax, Pikes, Bw v Heavy Infantry) but overall it seems as though we all love playing it. Shame there won't be an "official" update.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 28, 2020 13:06:28 GMT
Not if they don't hurt you. Meanwhile, the largely unarmoured blokes are falling in droves. Other rule systems address this with ease. Why does DBA ignore it? Probably because it’s designed as a fast play rule set, and intentionally avoids complications which are readily available in DBMM....45 minute game vs 2 hr 30 minute game... And you have this...
being no more difficult to shoot down than this:
And that's being kind with my examples.
If you wear this kind of kit, it's for a reason:
It makes you harder to kill, and that includes vs shooting. The Timurid 'tank' above is just a Cv too.
As for adding unnecessary complications to a fast-play game, had the army lists been written with an 'x' class for heavily armoured 3Kn and Cv to reflect historic examples, and these were then provided with a simple -1 to shoot at them (for example), it wouldn't add any extra time to play a game.
To add benefits to crossbows and longbows on the one hand, and ignore things like the above differences in protection on the other, borders on arbitrary vs balanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 29, 2020 6:58:20 GMT
Hmmm.....you must be careful equating things across the millennia. Your example of a Cataphract is from 1400 and Alexander’s Companions were from 330 BCE. The bows that each of these faced being wielded by troops labelled 3Bw or 4Bw were radically different! The later Cataphracts needed the armour because the bows they faced Had evolved into better weapons over the centuries so their effects may have been similar!
That said Cataphracts acted very differently to Knights and a single 3Kn/4Kn class under DBA 3.0 seems odd. Cataphracts with +4 vs inf, reduced movement and an optional pursuit seems about right to me.......Certainly worth playtesting!
However, for me this is not the most broken area of DBA - which is Pike (assuming that LH move cost is 1/2 PIP is in use to solve the LH problem.)
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 29, 2020 7:31:22 GMT
Hmmm.....you must be careful equating things across the millennia. Your example of a Cataphract is from 1400 and Alexander’s Companions were from 330 BCE. The bows that each of these faced being wielded by troops labelled 3Bw or 4Bw were radically different! The later Cataphracts needed the armour because the bows they faced Had evolved into better weapons over the centuries so their effects may have been similar! That said Cataphracts acted very differently to Knights and a single 3Kn/4Kn class under DBA 3.0 seems odd. Cataphracts with +4 vs inf, reduced movement and an optional pursuit seems about right to me.......Certainly worth playtesting! However, for me this is not the most broken area of DBA - which is Pike (assuming that LH move cost is 1/2 PIP is in use to solve the LH problem.) Actually my example of a cataphract was a Parthian from 2ndC AD. It was meant to be from the same DBA Book period. That was the point.
Like these:
So Parthian cataphracts from 1stC BC - 2ndC Ad.
The Timurid from 1400 is not an example of a cataphract. It's a Cv, as I stated. The point being the close parallel with respect to armour/protection between heavily armoured Cv, 3Kn and cataphracts (4Kn).
And you have special missile weapons (longbow & crossbow) that penetrate armour providing a bonus to their shooters at close range against Kn, but with no rules providing an armour benefit to those very mounted in the first place.
|
|
