Improving LH - Specifically Horse Archers

...a few samples of LH with javelins:

...Berber...

...Lithuanians...

...Germans...

..chinese bowmen...

...Steppe people with bows...

Oh I don’t think this is necessary.
Keep it as it is…Wb & Ax have a CF of 3 in close combat with each other.
        3Ax will be able to shoot (with 1 chance in 36 of doubling the Wb…i.e. once in a blue moon).
        Ax have a CF of 3 against mounted (Wb only have a CF of 2…so advantage to the Ax).
        Wb can ‘quick-kill’ heavy foot (Ax cannot…so advantage to the Wb).
        Wb get +1 for rear support (Ax do not…another advantage for the Wb).
Otherwise have them fighting the same as each other, just as they are at present.
(It’s simpler, and seems realistic)

As for 4Ax against heavy foot, although a bit off-topic in this current thread:-

A New Tactical Factor
(to be placed in the page 11 paragraph 3 Tactical Factors, between the “+1 if a general” and “+1 if uphill”)

Historical justification
Justifications are really secondary; it’s the effect that is important. Indeed, DBA gives no justification at all for
why Solid Bows receive a +1 when side-supported by Solid Blades...Bows cannot form ‘shield-walls’ like Spears!
No, it’s just an excuse to give a weak troop type a much needed boost.

Nonetheless, here is our justification:-
Native disordered and untrained 3Ax fight in loose order, which is why they are unaffected by hindering terrain.
But trained and drilled regular 4Ax, plus those native troops who were just naturally stubborn, would have the
sense to temporarily form-up into close formation when facing heavy enemy foot. Against all other kinds of foot
they stay in loose formation, because close order against Warbands would make them as brittle as Blades and
Spears (and not able to ‘roll-with-the-punch’ to avoid being ‘quick-killed’), they would be more vulnerable to
Bows (all arrows would hit someone instead of half of them falling in the empty spaces between the men),
and they need a loose formation to be able to make sudden short dashes to catch slippery evading Auxiliaries,
Psiloi, and Fast Bows. Changing into a close formation is really quite simple for troops that have practised it:-

                                          ●●●●●●●●            ●●●●●●●●
                                          ●●●●●●●●            ●●●●●●●●
                                          ○ ○ ○ ○ ○             ○○○○○○○○
                                           ○ ○ ○ ○ ○              ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
                                          ○ ○ ○ ○ ○             ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

The effect of this new rule
This new Tactical Factor will make solid 4Ax have a combat factor of 4, but only against Blades, Spears, and
Pikes, and only when in rough or good going, with no knock-on effects against other troop types.
When up a gentle hill or defending a riverbank, 4Ax will be equal with Sp and Bd...and why shouldn’t they be?
And should your opponent have no heavy foot (and most Book 1 armies don’t) then it will have no effect at all.

But in addition to all the above, it will also give 4Ax just a little bit of ‘punch’, and causes opponents such as
the Romans to keep some reserves in case a double result creates a gap in their battleline that will need filling.
At the moment, using only the basic rules, 4Ax are no threat whatsoever to Blades, so the Romans can simply
form one long line with no reserves at all as if they were nothing more than bunch of Greek Hoplites.
This is not at all realistic.
Having this extra Tactical Factor not only improves the historical behaviour and performance of the 4Ax,
it will also encourage their opponents to behave and deploy in an historical formation as well.

Alternatives
We tried other solutions to remedy this weakness of 4Ax when fighting heavy infantry, such as giving them
side-support, or simply making their combat factor 4 against all foot, or giving them the ‘evade 1 BW’ ability.
But these proved ineffective or made them more powerful against Ps, 3Ax, Wb, Bows, Hd, WWg, or caused
them to act contrary to their real-life counterparts as they will shun rough going (where side-support is lost).
The above solution, of giving them +1 when facing heavy foot, avoids all these undesirable knock-on effects.

Historical examples and links to the sources:-

Battle of Cannae 216 BC: Polybius’ (115.5) and Livy’s (47.4) account of the performance of Hannibal’s 4Ax:-
“For a time the Spaniards and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by
the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Romans, however, following up the
Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they
now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks.”
(Source: www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources6.html , Polybius section 115.5)

Battle of Zama 202 BC: Polybius’ (13.1) and Livy’s (34.2) account of the performance of Hannibal’s Gauls and Ligurians:-
“The mercenaries at first prevailed by their courage and skill, wounding many of the Romans, but the latter still continued
to advance, relying on their admirable order and on the superiority of their arms."
(Source: www.johndclare.net/AncientHistory/Hannibal_Sources8.html , Polybius section 13.1)

Iberian warfare, by Fernando Quesada, endorsed by Duncan Head, page 18:-
“A great deal of new information about Iberian and Celriberian warfare is now available (see Quesada) , which argues
that the Celtiberians and Iberians did not favour guerilla tactics but pitched battles, where they fought in a flexible style
not dissimilar to that of the Romans, but without Roman discipline and organisation.”
(Source: “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 18 of the 2016 edition)
(See also : Spanish Iberian warfare by Fernando Quesada:- →link )

All the following quotes are from Duncan Head’s “Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars”, 2016 edition:- →link 

Thureophoroi: “these and similar troops, such as Thracians and Illyrians, might also be deployed in battle to protect
the vulnerable flanks of a phalanx...”. “Asklepiodotos bases their organisation on files of eight, and this was probably
their typical depth in battle. It seems likely they would skirmish in open order but close up to pyknosis for close combat”.
(The Jewish Maccabees, and many others, were also armed and fought as Hellenistic thureophoroi).
(Source: “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 114 of the 2016 edition)

Later Illyrians: “The good order and the willingness to hold firm and fight hand to hand, displayed by the Dardanoi in 200 BC,
is seen as early as 358 BC...”. “The Dardanoi in 200 BC are described as much steadier warriors - these troops do not leave their
ranks impulsively but keep close order in both combat and withdrawl”.
“The contrast between 5th century Illyrians fighting individually in no order and their 3rd century counterparts in formed speirai
suggests a marked improvement in battlefield organisation”.
(Source: “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 122 of the 2016 edition)

The Spaniards: “did not despair if things went badly, but fought doggedly on...Their initial charge was often powerful enough to
break through even a Roman line; if it was held, the Spaniards were still formidable with swords, but Roman discipline and armour
would usually beat them.”
(Source: “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 130 of the 2016 edition)

The Samnites: “The Romans believed the first Samnite attack was the most dangerous, and after a while they would run out of
missiles and their spirits would flag...Their infantry would usually charge fiercely and fight at close quarters rather than skirmish
with their javelins; the Romans seem to have had a slight edge in such a contest, but Samnite troops worsted them more than once.”
(Source: “Macedonian and Punic Wars” by Duncan Head, page 143 of the 2016 edition)

                                                       ----------------------------

None of the above is likely using a combat factor of 3 against heavy foot with a combat factor of 5, unless lucky.
But add a +1 to 4Ax when facing heavy foot, then all the above quotes will become more likely.

I've always thought that CF 4 vs Heavy Foot was necessary for 4Ax, even though there still seems to be something missing for them.

Actually, I was thinking of the dense deep columns of 4Wb used by the early and middle Frankish armies.
They didn’t seem to be put out by enemy Cavalry.

Javelin armed troops already distance within the rules - it is just assumed they are doing or able to do this even if in base to base contact. Allowing them to distance distance shoot is a bit unnecessary in my book. But ps armed with bw could be a different matter, after all they could be quite a nuisance to cav. and should be able to disrupt their formation, after all Alexander screened his Companions with light troops for a reason or moved quickly into combat to avoid casualties from shooting. Even with a 1 BW shooting ability for PS Bw it would still take a particular set of events for them to even get close enough to do this, but would at least give the other side food for thought and add a another layer to tactical thinking. Same can be said about LH Bw, but I don't think either should be able to do any more than cause a recoil to most troops.But as a fully signed up member of the LH armies it's a shame they are quite unusable at the moment, something should be done about LH and I don't get how they can move 5 BW in DBM and only 4 in DBA. (different rules I know)

It isn't about making the rules historically accurate (it's impossible to do with simplified rules sets) but historically pleasing.

+1 side support for 4 aux could be good (after all a shield wall is a shield wall), blade and pike would still eventually conquer once they broke the formation up