|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 10, 2022 10:38:31 GMT
I'm about to start my Illyrians as I continue collecting classical armies around the eastern Mediterranean. Now we all know that 4Ax will be slaughtered by Sp in RAW in good going. Unfortunately, the Illyrians have an aggression of 3, so will face hoplites across a billiard table more often than not. I'm not expecting them to dominate. They will be a peripheral army in a future campaign. But they have to have some chance of inflicting damage, otherwise it's a waste of time. So my house rule will be that 4Ax get +1 side support from all solid infantry in good going. This my interpretation of 4Ax being a hinge between heavy and light infantry. I thought about giving them side support from any infantry but that seemed too far a reach.
I've done some testing with blank bases and they lose but they do last longer. So when finished, I'll be testing them against Argos, 10 Sp+2 Ps, against 10 4Ax+2Ps. Hopefully, the Illyrians can win the Ps exchange (50/50) and get onto a flank and just might etch out an occasional win.
Any other house rules for 4Ax being used?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 10, 2022 13:40:23 GMT
That’s a good idea Jim.
And I have no problem with 4Ax gaining side-support from most solid foot,
which will include Sp, 4Pk, 4Bd, Command Elements (i.e. CP, Lit, CWg) and
other 4Ax.
Although I’m not sure about 4Bw, 8Bw, 4Wb, WWg, Art, and 7Hd giving them
the same benefit (oh what the hell...let ALL solid foot do so. It’s simpler).
However, as I mentioned in another thread, there are a couple of issues.
Rough Going: since there is no side-support in this type of terrain, won’t
4Ax try to avoid it while Bd actively seek it out...the opposite of reality?
Formations: won’t players be encouraged to have their 4Ax in the centre,
where they have the potential for support from either flank, rather than
having the 4Ax on the wings, where the end element depends on its sole
adjacent friendly solid element for support...again, the opposite of reality.
(Mind you, having all the 4Ax in the centre would make a weak battleline,
so perhaps this isn’t a problem as players would rarely do so)
Since you asked for other 4Ax ideas (and let’s be honest...there are more
fixes for the poor weak 4Ax than there are DBA players!), here is something.
4Ax have the same ‘quick-kill’ against Sp, Pk and Bd as Warbands,
but as now with no rear (or side) support and they still don’t pursue.
This suggestion has a rather odd history.
I sometimes like to use HoTT 2.1 with historical DBA ancient armies.
But HoTT 2.1 has no auxiliary type troops (although D3H2 does).
What is needed is quick moving medium infantry that likes Bad Going.
HoTT Warbands work well in this role, but to be a bit more historical
these ‘HoTT Auxiliaries’ receive no rear-support, don’t pursue, and they
are not ‘quick-killed’ by Behemoths (unless doubled in close combat).
So this 4Ax ‘quick-kill’ has been fully tested in HoTT settings, and works well.
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on May 10, 2022 14:44:13 GMT
Hi stevie.
The rough going is a problem. 4Ax will at least look for good going as a contrast to 3Ax, which can't hide from Bd. Side-support in rough going may be a little too far. The formation is probably less of a problem but I did think of giving them side support from all infantry so other lights could support them.
The quick-kill rule looks promising. I'll give it a try.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 11, 2022 19:37:37 GMT
What do the "4Ax" actually represent?
If the common mobile spear types (often elite troops) then just make them Fast Spear. Same as Spear (+4) though mounted on 30mm (in 25s) bases. Like all Fast they cannot benefit from Formations (like Shieldwall) but move 3BW and are not slowed by terrain.
If close in fighters then treat them as Medium Blades (so a base of +3 but +1 v. Foot and -1 v. Mounted - so +4/+2). I assume then not Fast but like all Medium Foot types not bothered by terrain.
Finally if armed with Javelins or Heavy Throwing Weapons give them Lethal (+1 on a winning score - so could knock you up to a Double).
This should let you model any historical troop type that falls under the broad "4Aux" label.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on Jun 16, 2022 16:21:28 GMT
Triumph! rules has an elegant solution for 4Ax. They named them "Raiders" and give +4/+2 CM. Raider can quick kill Elephants, Knights. Vulnerable to Knights.
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 16, 2022 20:50:28 GMT
Triumph! rules has an elegant solution for 4Ax. They named them "Raiders" and give +4/+2 CM. Raider can quick kill Elephants, Knights. Vulnerable to Knights. I thought they used ‘raiders’ for the DBA 3Bd type? But I haven’t seen Tr****h, only the ‘2.2+’ predecessor. |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Jun 17, 2022 9:40:00 GMT
jim1973@:it's a version issue. In the original DBA, auxilia were simply fast troops but too numerous to count as skirmishers. The current DBA tries to simulate complex actions of DBMM with 12 elements.
martin@: you can't compare the US version of DBA22+ with Triumph. T. also uses elements, but in contrast to DBA it is logically structured but without the ambiguity of PB's language.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 24, 2022 16:23:00 GMT
RE: Raiders
Not a great idea but they are trying.
First creating new types of Elements greatly increases complexity so is to be avoided.
They are correct that we need a Medium Foot type that can be +4/+2 but that is just Medium Foot (+3 CF) with Blades (so +1 v. Foot; -1 v. Mounted).
No reason they should have Shock v. Knights (though Blades should get Cry Havoc (Destroy on Equals)).
And of course like all Foot in Open Destroyed on More by Knights (Shock).
Like many of Triumphs ideas it seems rambley and unfocused but Phil could be blamed for these failings too.
Better to establish a set of key words and consistent rules that can be applied across types.
Modern DBX ideas much better and can easily solve this issue but still of course must be applied.
TomT
|
|
