|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 26, 2020 6:43:58 GMT
The question arises from time to time as to whether Fast foot are a bit overrated compared to their more pedestrian Solid counterparts. Certainly the ability of Fast to race through pretty much any terrain as if it does not exist and even for that matter quicker than Solid can in open going ("oh come on Solid I can run faster than you and I'm in a marsh!) does I think give reason to consider the relative balance of each on the tabletop.
Fast troops I certainly feel are a bit too uber. Surely if Fast are rough/bad going specialists can they really be also almost as good as Solid in open going.
My 'solution" at moment is too make them more vulnerable to mounted than Solid foot. Why? Well historically I suspect the most common tactic that foot in open going would make vs enemy mounted was to adopt a VERY close formation. This is evidenced throughout history eg in the Napoleonic era squares/masses, or the ECW advice to pikemen to close up tightly or the adoption of shieldwall tactics by the Romans when facing cataphracts etc etc. When they didn't then as happened in one murderous tourney during the HYW - the foot get bowled over by the horse (a Frenchman cheated - well well ..... and during refreshments mounted his horse and rode into the melee knocking over the English/Gascon knights leading to a French victory!).
So the rule(s) I use at moment are (new tactical factor):
a) -1 if Fast foot (except Ps or 5Hd) in open going and in close combat with any mounted other than El or SCh.
and
b) Warband are changed to CF +3 vs mounted. So Wb(F) would be worth +2 vs most mounted and Wb(S) would be +3.
The effect of these two changes is Fast foot will be more chary of facing mounted in open going - those 3Bw are a bit more skittish...as are various mountain peoples (eg 3Ax or 3Pk etc) and will think twice before leaving the safety of supportive terrain when confronted by mounted opponents.
So if thinking of choosing Fast foot there's more of a player decision to be made than at the moment about the relative worth of such vs Solid foot.
Just my tuppence worth!
Barritus
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 26, 2020 8:04:08 GMT
It has the rock, paper, scissors feel of DBx about it, and strikes an interesting balance between historical plausibility vs game mechanic.
The fix to Wb is in line with my own suggestion, but with the difference of the more dispersed *faster* warbands having to pay a price for their advantages in speed and maneuver, keeping them susceptible (CF3-1) to cavalry and knights if they get caught in the open. And similarly, all those 3Ax, 3Bd, etc who like to move about rapidly in loosely formed groups, able to take advantage of terrain, now have to watch out for their natural predators ('riders') who can hunt them down more easily in the open.
What you're proposing:
Fixes solid Wb vs mounted while also keeping those Wb who prefer not to form shield walls susceptible to Cv and Kn in the open as a result.
Addresses an imbalance between fast and solid foot, giving the player a just reason to pause before choosing fast foot over solid: beware having the fast foot caught in the open by Cv and Kn, as they will be much more brittle now. Gives something back to Cv and Kn that has been missing: a target that they could historically be expected to relish hunting down more than their closely formed equivalents.
This could be a missing piece in the DBA puzzle.
Some will say that the -1 is too brutal for those 3Bd and 3Ax already QKable by Kn in the open at CF3 vs CF3. But what it's doing is putting them in the same group as 3Wb (currently under RAW all Wb) at CF2 vs CF3, QKable by Kn. Why should the 3Bd and 3Ax have it any better? (Note 3Bd can still QK Kn on ties.)
3Bw will become QKable at CF3 vs CF3 Cv/Kn. (Note 3Cb or 3Lb can still QK Kn on ties in close combat.)
3Pk deployed 2-deep will be CF4 vs Cv/Kn - not so impenetrable a target, especially to Kn.
5Hd may need to be an exception as they are already CF2 vs mounted.
All in all, worthy of consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 27, 2020 4:47:38 GMT
Ah good spot Snowcat. I've amended the exclusions to include 5Hd. Yes, I admit I'd like to think that the proposal has some historical merit. One of the issues I've had (amongst many with fast in general) is in RAW 3Pk 2 deep could roll over a block of Kn (+5 vs +3). I find this quite astonishing to be honest - doubly so as many 3Pk probably didn't fight in deep formations, carried a longish spear (say about 8' long eg medieval welsh or brigands) rather than a true pike and in many cases probably adopted it as more of a defensive measure vs mounted than an offensive one. And besides how can a fast Pike formation possibly maintain formation - it beggars belief really  ! |
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Oct 27, 2020 5:49:48 GMT
I like it, though I'm not sure about excluding LH from causing the -1, seems like the perfect role for LH and would help them take out fast troops in the open.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 27, 2020 8:31:16 GMT
I like it, though I'm not sure about excluding LH from causing the -1, seems like the perfect role for LH and would help them take out fast troops in the open. I'd wondered about that too. Barritus, your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 27, 2020 9:49:03 GMT
I like it, though I'm not sure about excluding LH from causing the -1, seems like the perfect role for LH and would help them take out fast troops in the open. A good question. Basically I excluded LH for 2 reasons; 1. Because that would mean that 3Ax and 3Wb would end up with a CF in open going vs LH of +2. This would make them the same as Ps which I thought would be a bit hard to justify. Indeed Ps would actually be slightly better than 3Ax and 3Wb as Ps can ignore front corner overlaps. 2. 3Bw vs LH would have a CF of +3 which I considered a bit too low vs LH (which themselves don't particularly like to charge home). Both of the above are of course somewhat subjective but given the wide range of quality of DBA troop classifications (not all LH are Mongols  ) and for simplicity I thought excluding LH was the best option. cheers B. |
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 27, 2020 9:59:41 GMT
I don't understand.
3Ax and 3Wb are CF2 vs Cv/Kn CF3 with this rule already, with Kn QKing them. What difference does it make if they're also CF2 vs LH CF2 (with the LH not QKing them)?
3Bw are already CF3 vs Cv/Kn CF3 with this rule already. What difference does it make if they're also CF3 vs LH CF2?
?
|
|
|
|
Post by shrimplyamazing on Oct 27, 2020 11:22:16 GMT
also, arent Psiloi fast? wouldn't they also get a -1 anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Oct 27, 2020 11:32:04 GMT
also, arent Psiloi fast? wouldn't they also get a -1 anyway? I think the idea is to reduce by -1 but not lower than CF2. That's why 5Hd are an exception because they're already CF2. Same with Ps. |
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 27, 2020 12:43:20 GMT
Re Ps you're right Snowcat I didn't want to reduce their CF below 2. Shrimply - you'll notice Ps and 5Hd are specifically excluded from the -1 vs mounted.
In terms of interaction of 3Ax/3Wb vs LH if we gave them a -1 then they would have the same CF (+2) vs LH as Ps. I feel that LH are more likely to charge home against other skirmishers (eg Ps) than against heavier (eg 3Ax/3Wb) foot.
Similarly with 3Bw. I feel that to charge home LH (as skirmishers) would likely need to soften up the 3Bw first (with missile weapons). In this case however this is quite difficult since the 3Bw can outshoot them in many cases. Given the LH can quick kill the 3Bw I feel that making it a 2 vs 3 combat (if the 3Bw suffer a -1) might be a bit too favorable to the LH.
So basically I'm trying to resolve what i think would be the most like historical interaction (or perhaps i can say abstraction in DBA terms). This is of course highly subjective so you have to determine whether you agree or not with my assumptiins in that regard.
Of course that doesn't mean Im right 😂.
Probably the best course of action would be to playtest whatever version of the rules you think is best.
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 28, 2020 3:12:35 GMT
Snowcat
I've sent you a pm.🖐
|
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Nov 6, 2020 5:11:22 GMT
After considering others opinions and reading of the effectiveness of Ps vs skirmishing mounted
- see Slingshot Issue 219 pg 27 and Luke Ueda Sarson's thoughts on Alexanders defeat of Scythian LH with Ps and Cv and importantly of his comment on the effectiveness of a small force of bow and sling armed Ps in keeping Persian mounted at bay during the march of the Ten Thousand - I've decided to omit LH as an exclusion from my original proposal.
So I have amended it from;
a) -1 if Fast foot (except Ps or 5Hd) in open going and in close combat with any mounted other than LH, El or SCh.
to
a) -1 if Fast foot (except Ps or 5Hd) in open going and in close combat with any mounted other than El or SCh.
(note I have amended it in my original post).
This will mean that Ps are a bit better vs LH than most other Fast foot but as Ps are more likely to be armed with longer distance weapons (eg bows, slings, xbows etc) this is not unreasonable (and Ps are still more vulnerable to Cavalry than javelin armed 3Ax).
B.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Nov 7, 2020 0:47:59 GMT
Sounds like a plan. |
|
! 
) and for simplicity I thought excluding LH was the best option.