|
|
Post by snowcat on May 21, 2023 13:33:58 GMT
Edit (August 7 2023): When this thread was created, I attributed 40 paces to equaling 1 BW. Not sure where I got that from!
I've now replaced all my references to 40 paces with '1 BW' or '80 paces'. As I'm unable to similarly edit others' replies, just treat any remaining instances of 40 paces as 80 paces = 1 BW.
Some ideas...
A while ago it occurred to me that perhaps providing LH with extra PIPs to do more things was not sufficiently addressing their intrinsic inadequacies under the Rules As Written in 3.0. In other words, it's less about needing more PIPs, and more about improving what they actually do in the battle with the PIPs they receive (just like everything else).
Currently they're easy targets for Bw and Art, more than other Mounted. It's suicide moving LH anywhere near enemy Bw, especially if the Bw are in groups able to combine their shooting against the LH.
I believe that LH should be CF3 vs distant shooting, same as Cv. Reason: less protection but dispersed target vs clumped target. It should not be easier to shoot down LH than Cv. The overall density of the Cv formation makes a much juicier target than the dispersed LH. The LH are also moving more swiftly on average, potentially able to close more rapidly vs arrow storms being launched at them. (The same argument could possibly also be applied to Ps vs distant shooting.)
Shooting/Combat Option 1: 1BW (80-paces) distant shooting range/ability for horse archers, with CF2. If shooting at an enemy front, because of the Threat Zone occurring at 80-paces, the LH would not be able to combine their shooting, shooting instead as individual elements. They would be able to combine their shooting if not facing an enemy front edge (Threat Zone), and are bound by all other distant shooting rules. They may distant shoot after being recoiled. This certainly makes them feel more like horse archers. The extra distant shooting slows the game down slightly, but not more than an army possessing additional Bw for instance. It is still NOT a good idea for LH to engage Bw or Art in a shooting duel.
The same option could be extended to Cv horse archers - such as Avars, Turks, Mongols, etc - at the same distant shooting range of 1 BW (80-paces) and CF of 2, retaining their CF3 in close combat.
Potentially recoiling an enemy element or two from distant shooting in this way places additional PIP-strain on the enemy general: the need to redress the lines vs things he would rather be doing. Un-redressed (disordered) lines can then be exploited by the LH (& Cv) charging home.
Shooting/Combat Option 2: Alternatively, a QK option vs Sp/Pk/Bd & Kn could be worth pursuing (like the way it was under v2.2 vs Sp/Pk & Kn) and yes, the rear-support in 3.0 would then have to go. (No complaints there, as you don't really need a second element in support to imagine LH operating dispersed in depth, with supplies to the rear.) (The recent thread in the 2.2 section of the Forum with comments from Vodnik and Stevie assisted with this suggestion.)
If this option was deemed too potent, a 'QK on ties' or similar could be considered, like Bd vs Kn. (Or a 'recoil on ties' if the latter was still too strong.)
Also: faster elements should be able to break off from combat vs slower opponents, as mentioned by Stevie (this is one I've read numerous times before). These are just some ideas I'm currently considering to improve LH (and possibly Cv horse archers as well). A work in progress. |
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 21, 2023 15:01:40 GMT
...it could be a win to introduce shooting with an other CF for both; Ps & LH...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 22, 2023 2:15:01 GMT
...it could be a win to introduce shooting with an other CF for both; Ps & LH... This could be possible (for both).
The reason I have the LH shooting at a range of 80 paces and not further is this: 80 paces x 0.75m = 60m.
Horse archers (notably Parthians) began firing from the gallop at approximately 90m (100 yards) as they approached the enemy, then continued firing from 45m (50 yards) while wheeling to the right along the enemy's front. The distance of 80 paces (1BW) simulates this distance well enough. Allowing the LH horse archers to distant shoot from a greater range could give them too much shooting power at longer range, and be less representative of their close range shooting.
If we were to consider a 1BW distant shooting range for LH horse archers and Ps, would a 60m distance be feasible for all of bow, sling and javelin ranges?
The same could be asked for LH not using bow - but this thread is related to horse 'archers', not other LH.
I suspect many players will be opposed to providing LH horse archers (and Ps) with distant shooting, as they are so used to successive versions of DBx over many years since Phil Barker ruled this idea out, and it may seem retrograde to even consider it.
So providing horse archers with a way to cause disorder in the enemy line as a result of their shooting would be an improvement, better matching historical accounts. Currently they make little impact and are not seen as a serious threat. Whether this is done via distant shooting or a close combat outcome (QKs or additional recoils on ties, etc.) seems beneficial. The challenge is finding the right balance.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 22, 2023 8:08:12 GMT
...according to Triumph rules there are 2 types of LH; horse archers & javelin cavalery. Horse archers are more effective against mounts, javelin cavalery are more effective against infantry but keep the QC against Kn. Also, I think that v3 has lost the balance...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 22, 2023 8:22:36 GMT
I honestly don't understand the thinking behind Horse Bow and Javelin Cavalry combat factors and outcomes in Triumph.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on May 22, 2023 8:54:04 GMT
...I think that's the kind of balance in the rules. The T-rule distinguishes 3 different types of hordes. There is also bad horse, a type of horse that should not fight. What really bothers you are Battle Cards, a completely superfluous type of additional rules. But without these BCs you can play Thiumph well...
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 22, 2023 11:33:22 GMT
Triumph is saying that LH horse archers do better against mounted than foot, and that LH with javelin do better against foot than mounted. But why?
|
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 22, 2023 12:47:14 GMT
Dear Snowcat,
Jav Cav are mounted 2 to a base in Triumph, but still can represent what DBA 3.0 would define as cavalry, the majority of ancient horsemen, primarily armed with javelins or bows but combining these with sword or lance who charged when that would serve better to follow up an advantage. In Triumph they have more mobility than they do in DBA, and are not destroyed when doubled by infantry, except by bows. So, they are not just DBX light horse but DBX light horse AND many DBX cavalry types.
Numidian LC and similar are given the same combat factor against foot as standard DBA 3 figure cavalry; debatable, but ask the Romans at Cannae. In other words, Triumph is allowing javelin/sword armed cavalry classed as 'LH' in DBA to close up to attack infantry when the infantry appears to be a good target; and not to just continue throwing javelins from a distance.
Horse Bow are mounted 2 to a base in Triumph, but could represent either DBA light cavalry fighting with bow, or 3 figure cavalry from DBA fighting primarily with bow. Why the extra factor against mounted? Ask the African Vandals or anyone who rode against the Mongols.
Why only a 2 against infantry for Horse Bow instead of 3? Because horse bow attrition against formed foot did occur, but takes time; Romans at Chalons or Parthians at Carrhae. In Triumph the horse bow do not die to close formation foot except bow, even when doubled. They can destroy most foot (with a defense of 3) on a 6-1. If they get an overlap then the odds increase to 6-1, 5-1 or 6-2 (triple the odds). So still very effective if the infantry have had to 'break ranks.' Bow are at least marginally less powerful in Triumph because Triumph eliminates the mass firing of bows at individual targets.
Triumph also allows some bow armed cavalry which did so historically to halt and fire mass volleys using the 'Shower Shooting' card.
The combat results table and board size also influence how 'cavalry' fight in Triumph. Horse Bow have lost their 'quick kill' against knights. But Knights in Triumph do not kill horse bow even when they double them. They drive them off in 'Panic.' Mounted in Triumph have an advantage because opponents contacted in flank do not turn to face, but fight at -1.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 22, 2023 12:49:34 GMT
I have been playtesting several ideas over the years, and would like to share some thoughts. Game PlayStrangely enough, I’ve found that giving ‘shooters’ range (i.e. HA Horse Archers, ALL Psiloi, and possibly even bow armed Cavalry as well) doesn’t slow down play at all. After all, if three of these ‘shooters’ move into close combat you have to resolve three combats, and it’s the same if they stop 1 BW away and shoot…either way, it’s still three combat resolutions. ‘Quick Kills’ Are Too PowerfulCombat factor 2 vs combat factor 4 has 6 chances out of 36 of scoring more and getting a kill, and CF 2 vs CF 3 has 10 chances out of 36 of scoring more and getting a kill. Better to only have the ‘quick kill’ on an equal score, which is 4 chances out of 36 if CF 2 vs CF 4, and 6 chances out of 36 if CF 2 v CF 3, i.e. 5 chances of scoring equal plus 1 chance of scoring double. The 4 and 6 chances of a kill is better than 6 and 10, which is a little too high, especially with overlaps. (It may seem odd that a lower combat result means a recoil, while an equal score means being killed.
But I like to think of it as the element temporarily falling back in disorder and rallying, as opposed to
stubbornly standing their ground as they are being shot to pieces) Play BalanceIf HA can shoot at a range, then why would anybody want to use ordinary javelin armed LH? In DBA, every advantage should also have a corresponding disadvantage, to avoid ‘super units’. Perhaps the ‘quick-kill-on-an-equal-score’ only applies in distant and not close combat. Alternatively, allow javelin LH to also shoot at 1 BW range, then there is no extra advantage to HA. (Think of it as the javelin armed LH are dashing forwards to shoot and then falling back to reform.
But this doesn’t apply to javelin armed Cavalry, who like to get stuck in, so no range shooting for them)Corner-to-Corner OverlapsLet LH & HA ignore corner-to-corner overlaps, like Psiloi and Scythed Chariots do. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30985/ for details. LH & HA Flee When Doubled by BowsHave LH &HA flee when they are doubled by Bows, unless they are shot in the rear. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/10302/ for details. PIP CostsPaddy came up with an interesting idea: “ LH only pays ½ a PIP to move”. Now LH can finally act like LH, and dance around their opponents, without the need of having more PIP die-rolling luck. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/25578/ for details. Alternatively, have LH pays no PIPs to make subsequent moves. (Of course, in order to make a subsequent move you must first make an
tactical move, so PIP’s will still need to be spent)Just a few thoughts… |
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 22, 2023 13:02:10 GMT
Dear Snowcat,
The other advantage of the Triumph classification is that you need fewer figures for a cavalry army where the 3 figure DBX cav now becomes 2 figure Jav Cav.
Note that Jav Cav like the Numidians regain their 'historical' advantage over early Republican Roman cavalry in Triumph UNLIKE IN DBA. In DBA the LH would be 2 against 3 for Roman cavalry; but early Republican cavalry are 'bad horse' in DBA and only fight at a factor of 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 22, 2023 13:05:30 GMT
Dear Snowcat, Jav Cav are mounted 2 to a base in Triumph, but still can represent what DBA 3.0 would define as cavalry, the majority of ancient horsemen, primarily armed with javelins or bows but combining these with sword or lance who charged when that would serve better to follow up an advantage. In Triumph they have more mobility than they do in DBA, and are not destroyed when doubled by infantry, except by bows. So, they are not just DBX light horse but DBX light horse AND many DBX cavalry types. Numidian LC and similar are given the same combat factor against foot as standard DBA 3 figure cavalry; debatable, but ask the Romans at Cannae. In other words, Triumph is allowing javelin/sword armed cavalry classed as 'LH' in DBA to close up to attack infantry when the infantry appears to be a good target; and not to just continue throwing javelins from a distance. Horse Bow are mounted 2 to a base in Triumph, but could represent either DBA light cavalry fighting with bow, or 3 figure cavalry from DBA fighting primarily with bow. Why the extra factor against mounted? Ask the African Vandals or anyone who rode against the Mongols. Why only a 2 against infantry for Horse Bow instead of 3? Because horse bow attrition against formed foot did occur, but takes time; Romans at Chalons or Parthians at Carrhae. In Triumph the horse bow do not die to close formation foot except bow, even when doubled. They can destroy most foot (with a defense of 3) on a 6-1. If they get an overlap then the odds increase to 6-1, 5-1 or 6-2 (triple the odds). So still very effective if the infantry have had to 'break ranks.' Bow are at least marginally less powerful in Triumph because Triumph eliminates the mass firing of bows at individual targets. Triumph also allows some bow armed cavalry which did so historically to halt and fire mass volleys using the 'Shower Shooting' card. The combat results table and board size also influence how 'cavalry' fight in Triumph. Horse Bow have lost their 'quick kill' against knights. But Knights in Triumph do not kill horse bow even when they double them. They drive them off in 'Panic.' Mounted in Triumph have an advantage because opponents contacted in flank do not turn to face, but fight at -1. Thanks for that. Very useful to mull over and understand. Much appreciated.  |
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 22, 2023 13:10:11 GMT
Stevie,
Letting LH move for 1/2 a pip, immune to bow fire, ignoring corner to corner overlaps sounds like a 'super troop' to me, but strangely, ONLY if the army has a low aggression so that they can get a billiard table board.
For Kn vs. LH in DBA the quick kill looks tasty, 6/36, But the knight has a 9/36 chance of killing the LH. So the quick kill does not actually balance out combat factor differential.
I've seen many players forget that LH also gets LH support in DBA.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 22, 2023 13:11:07 GMT
I have been playtesting several ideas over the years, and would like to share some thoughts. Game PlayStrangely enough, I’ve found that giving ‘shooters’ range (i.e. HA Horse Archers, ALL Psiloi, and possibly even bow armed Cavalry as well) doesn’t slow down play at all. After all, if three of these ‘shooters’ move into close combat you have to resolve three combats, and it’s the same if they stop 1 BW away and shoot…either way, it’s still three combat resolutions. ‘Quick Kills’ Are Too PowerfulCombat factor 2 vs combat factor 4 has 6 chances out of 36 of scoring more and getting a kill, and CF 2 vs CF 3 has 10 chances out of 36 of scoring more and getting a kill. Better to only have the ‘quick kill’ on an equal score, which is 4 chances out of 36 if CF 2 vs CF 4, and 6 chances out of 36 if CF 2 v CF 3, i.e. 5 chances of scoring equal plus 1 chance of scoring double. The 4 and 6 chances of a kill is better than 6 and 10, which is a little too high, especially with overlaps. (It may seem odd that a lower combat result means a recoil, while an equal score means being killed.
But I like to think of it as the element temporarily falling back in disorder and rallying, as opposed to
stubbornly standing their ground as they are being shot to pieces) Play BalanceIf HA can shoot at a range, then why would anybody want to use ordinary javelin armed LH? In DBA, every advantage should also have a corresponding disadvantage, to avoid ‘super units’. Perhaps the ‘quick-kill-on-an-equal-score’ only applies in distant and not close combat. Alternatively, allow javelin LH to also shoot at 1 BW range, then there is no extra advantage to HA. (Think of it as the javelin armed LH are dashing forwards to shoot and then falling back to reform.
But this doesn’t apply to javelin armed Cavalry, who like to get stuck in, so no range shooting for them)Corner-to-Corner OverlapsLet LH & HA ignore corner-to-corner overlaps, like Psiloi and Scythed Chariots do. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30985/ for details. LH & HA Flee When Doubled by BowsHave LH &HA flee when they are doubled by Bows, unless they are shot in the rear. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/10302/ for details. PIP CostsPaddy came up with an interesting idea: “ LH only pays ½ a PIP to move”. Now LH can finally act like LH, and dance around their opponents, without the need of having more PIP die-rolling luck. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/25578/ for details. Alternatively, have LH pays no PIPs to make subsequent moves. (Of course, in order to make a subsequent move you must first make an
tactical move, so PIP’s will still need to be spent)Just a few thoughts… Stevie
The free subsequent move idea was one of mine, and was proven to be flawed.
Re the QK on ties, see what I wrote above. And also the toned down recoil on ties alternative if the QK was deemed to still be too strong an outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by mthrguth on May 22, 2023 13:11:49 GMT
Snowcat,
Why do LH only move the same as cavalry in DBA? Wouldn't the looser formation enable them to move faster? if LH moved 5 in DBA then supported LH could actually charge bows, supported with a quick kill, to charge bows from beyond shooting range.
|
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on May 22, 2023 13:18:42 GMT
Snowcat, Why do LH only move the same as cavalry in DBA? Wouldn't the looser formation enable them to move faster? if LH moved 5 in DBA then supported LH could actually charge bows, supported with a quick kill, to charge bows from beyond shooting range. Yes, liking where you're going with this re extra movement and what this could potentially offer. (I'm still not a fan of rear support for LH though.) |
|
