Post by barritus on Nov 11, 2020 7:29:19 GMT
I'm interested in how people feel about the current fighting uphill rule (ie uphill element gets +1). Does this feel right?
My own opinion is that although its simple it does give the uphill elements quite a boost. Doubly so if the hill in question is difficult (so bad going) - they become - at least in my experience veritable fortresses - which puts a bit of a damper on things.
To elaborate, uphill fighting is a bit of an issue as historically good quality troops could win attacking uphill (eg Hastings or Mons Graupius 84 AD?) both victories for the side attacking uphill but which are incredibly difficult to simulate in DBA given the current rules.
Hastings Kn fighting Sp is currently +3 vs +5 ( with Kn recoiling on a Draw) - thats just death to the Kn. Interestingly the Huscarles (Bd) at +4 Qking Kn on a draw may be weaker than the Sp(?). That just doesn't look right. As for Mons Graupius Wb(F) fighting Ax(S) is probably a bit more balanced at +4 vs +3 (unless of course the Wb double rank) but it certainly is not tbe combat as described by Tacitus which gives the Batavian and Tungrian auxilia a markedly better performance vs the Caladone warbands.
I feel therefore that uphill fighting could do with a bit of a rebalance to at least encourage downhill attackers to give it a go ( and stop defended difficult hills from being virtually impassable obstacles).
My 'solution' at moment is instead to delete the current rule and substitute giving a -1 to a winning score by the downhill element (or those fighting enemy defending the banks of a non-paltry river).. This results in less kills for the uphill element and produces more draws thereby helping Solid troops fighting from downhill to pushback 'Fast' uphill opponents a tad more often.
Any thoughts welcome.
Cheers
My own opinion is that although its simple it does give the uphill elements quite a boost. Doubly so if the hill in question is difficult (so bad going) - they become - at least in my experience veritable fortresses - which puts a bit of a damper on things.
To elaborate, uphill fighting is a bit of an issue as historically good quality troops could win attacking uphill (eg Hastings or Mons Graupius 84 AD?) both victories for the side attacking uphill but which are incredibly difficult to simulate in DBA given the current rules.
Hastings Kn fighting Sp is currently +3 vs +5 ( with Kn recoiling on a Draw) - thats just death to the Kn. Interestingly the Huscarles (Bd) at +4 Qking Kn on a draw may be weaker than the Sp(?). That just doesn't look right. As for Mons Graupius Wb(F) fighting Ax(S) is probably a bit more balanced at +4 vs +3 (unless of course the Wb double rank) but it certainly is not tbe combat as described by Tacitus which gives the Batavian and Tungrian auxilia a markedly better performance vs the Caladone warbands.
I feel therefore that uphill fighting could do with a bit of a rebalance to at least encourage downhill attackers to give it a go ( and stop defended difficult hills from being virtually impassable obstacles).
My 'solution' at moment is instead to delete the current rule and substitute giving a -1 to a winning score by the downhill element (or those fighting enemy defending the banks of a non-paltry river).. This results in less kills for the uphill element and produces more draws thereby helping Solid troops fighting from downhill to pushback 'Fast' uphill opponents a tad more often.
Any thoughts welcome.
Cheers
