|
Post by paulisper on Aug 5, 2021 16:01:27 GMT
Has anyone played with a house rule where LH with Bws are allowed to shoot (range - 3BW; +2 v foot and +4 v mounted)? Just wondering how this would work and whether it may make certain armies, such as the Mongols, more historical and, potentially more playable?
P.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 5, 2021 16:14:28 GMT
I think that, from what I have read, LH bows tended to get pretty close when shooting rather than going for longer range massed bowfire. Perhaps not giving them ranged fire in these rules is historically accurate?
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
Post by paulhannah on Aug 5, 2021 16:30:09 GMT
Gonna make for a much longer game. I much prefer simulating their effect, as written, in CC and (equally important) their abilities to threaten flanks and harass opponents by extending TZ's on their advance.
If you do want to spice up your LH armies, try Stevie's house-rule that simply gives LH the same , ignore-corner-overlaps rule that Psiloi and SCh enjoy. Locally, we really, really like that.
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 5, 2021 16:52:26 GMT
Has anyone played with a house rule where LH with Bws are allowed to shoot (range - 3BW; +2 v foot and +4 v mounted)? Just wondering how this would work and whether it may make certain armies, such as the Mongols, more historical and, potentially more playable? P. I have put some ideas forward to our group, but haven't play tested them. Probably try that when I have a Mongol army and we do a historical scenario... No plans on the horizon however.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Aug 5, 2021 19:02:02 GMT
Has anyone played with a house rule where LH with Bws are allowed to shoot (range - 3BW; +2 v foot and +4 v mounted)? Just wondering how this would work and whether it may make certain armies, such as the Mongols, more historical and, potentially more playable? P. No - and I wouldn't even consider it, because I believe it would give the LH too much of an edge. As a suggestion, it begs a lot of questions. Top of my list would be, why just for LH? Why not for Cv, such as Asavaran or even the Mogol armoured cavalry, as well? Other questions might be, is the range right - or should there be a shorter range, but perhaps allow them to move up to 2 BW and shoot? Are the factors right or should it be, say, just +2 v any enemy? What happens to the QK v Kn? Limit the QK to close combat?
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Aug 6, 2021 0:31:08 GMT
Has anyone played with a house rule where LH with Bws are allowed to shoot (range - 3BW; +2 v foot and +4 v mounted)? Just wondering how this would work and whether it may make certain armies, such as the Mongols, more historical and, potentially more playable? P. Paul, I've run 2 campaigns at MOAB where LH and Cv were permitted to use bow fire. These campaigns were based around Mongol Conquest armies one, and an Early Samurai one. I limited range to 2BW for each troop type and their shooting factors were the same as their CC ones. We were able to complete each campaign in a day's play. All participants considered both campaigns to be a great success. I hope that this helps. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Aug 6, 2021 5:56:12 GMT
Has anyone played with a house rule where LH with Bws are allowed to shoot (range - 3BW; +2 v foot and +4 v mounted)? Just wondering how this would work and whether it may make certain armies, such as the Mongols, more historical and, potentially more playable? P. Paul, I've run 2 campaigns at MOAB where LH and Cv were permitted to use bow fire. These campaigns were based around Mongol Conquest armies one, and an Early Samurai one. I limited range to 2BW for each troop type and their shooting factors were the same as their CC ones. We were able to complete each campaign in a day's play. All participants considered both campaigns to be a great success. I hope that this helps. Cheers, That's an interesting idea gregorius. Tho to be fair I think you'd also have to consider giving some Ps (those with longer distance weapons eg bows, crossbows & slings) a shooty factor too as these seem to have been a bit of an antidote to mounted shooters (I'm trying to think of examples here but I think the March of the Ten Thousand in Xenephon(?) is a case in point - also Alexander may have used Cretans or such vs Scythians and I'm sure Later Romans vs various mounted armies etc). This makes some sense as LH especially liked to come to close range vs heavy foot but this became much more hazardous if the foot had supporting Ps (sheltering amongst the heavier foot) shooters which could hit the rider or disable their mounts - at which point you'd likely be dismounted and butchered in short order by the opposing foot. cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 6, 2021 7:49:02 GMT
...skirmishing bowmen are not the same like English archers to use an example. That would change the DBX-sistem completely. And now Triumph as well. There are Rules like Art de ha Guerre.There skirmishers can shoot as well, depending ofthe weapon; bow, javelin & also slingers and in later period firearms. But that will be more complex...
|
|
|
Post by gregorius on Aug 6, 2021 8:37:51 GMT
Paul, I've run 2 campaigns at MOAB where LH and Cv were permitted to use bow fire. These campaigns were based around Mongol Conquest armies one, and an Early Samurai one. I limited range to 2BW for each troop type and their shooting factors were the same as their CC ones. We were able to complete each campaign in a day's play. All participants considered both campaigns to be a great success. I hope that this helps. Cheers, That's an interesting idea gregorius. Tho to be fair I think you'd also have to consider giving some Ps (those with longer distance weapons eg bows, crossbows & slings) a shooty factor too as these seem to have been a bit of an antidote to mounted shooters (I'm trying to think of examples here but I think the March of the Ten Thousand in Xenephon(?) is a case in point - also Alexander may have used Cretans or such vs Scythians and I'm sure Later Romans vs various mounted armies etc). This makes some sense as LH especially liked to come to close range vs heavy foot but this became much more hazardous if the foot had supporting Ps (sheltering amongst the heavier foot) shooters which could hit the rider or disable their mounts - at which point you'd likely be dismounted and butchered in short order by the opposing foot. cheers B. Barritus, I didn't have to worry about Ps as there weren't any in the armies used 😏. Cheers,
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 6, 2021 22:28:24 GMT
Yes I have play tested LH shooting, although I never gave them 3BW range but instead restricted them to 1 or 2 BW. However, for me it wasn’t the shooting that differentiates LH but rather their mobility plus I could live with the abstraction that LH in base to base contact represented them shooting anyway.
Hence from my experience if you want to fix the problem of “broken” LH in DBA3.0 them try letting an element or group of entirely LH move for 1/2 PIP. It doesn’t make them world beaters but it does make them far more Light Horsey than their current DBA3.0 guise of just being “fairly bad cavalry that are unusually vulnerable to shooting.”
Just my 2p - try it and see what you think!
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Aug 7, 2021 8:10:23 GMT
Another option to improve LH armies is too simply allow the LH elements to be chosen as Cv instead ( LH or Cv). PB's thoughts that most Mongols or Huns etc are LH (in DBA terms) is to be honest questionable. Certainly its not a universal view. Many nomad cavalry are likely dual purpose and theres no reason to believe they didn't fight as heavier cavalry using only a portion of their units to act as skirmishers at any one time (they would then come back to the main body - which like the supports of Napoleonic foot skirmishers were kept in a compact body - to be replaced by other skirmishers etc). Of course some mounted may have preferred massed skirmishing [in DBMM these are likely to be LH(F) as against those above which would be LH(S)].
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by Sicadi21 on Aug 7, 2021 11:17:45 GMT
Hi all FWIW I’ve struggled with how LH work for a while. Do Horse Archers need to be different to say Numidians etc? I think they possibly do. (I know another troop type!) I’ve always liked Paddy’s suggestion for LH to pay only half a pip to move so how about allowing them an out of sequence shot? Move-shoot-move. They are already allowed up to 3 movements . Could/ should the shot also cost half a pip? I’d let them shoot from any edge, but only at infantry at a factor of 2. They’d be scared of being counter charged by mounted plus mounted suffer from being shot enough already. Possible effects I would envisage are disorganisation and pip drain, and possibly creating favourable combats on elements whose support has been recoiled. So more a slow drain than devastating. It would be nice to have range at 1 BW but this breaks a few criteria regarding 2nd moves so 2 BWs necessary. I Imagine a column of 3 Parthians fizzing across the front of Roman legionaries wearing them down then the cataphracts charging the disrupted line. As a counter the Roman Cv hangs close to make the Horse archers more weary? Risk/ reward in action which I personally like. Not playtested as I said just an old dude daydreaming…. Craig
|
|