|
Post by snowcat on Aug 7, 2023 0:24:44 GMT
So page 2 of the rules says that a BW is roughly equivalent to 80 paces in real life. A “pace” according to Wikipedia is 75cm or 30”. So a BW roughly equals 60m. Given this what range is proposed for LH? I did make an error re the number of paces originally. I had it in my head that 1BW = 40 paces. Where did I get that from? Another system? (So I've made a note of this in the first post of this thread and fully updated all of my posts accordingly.)
Re the distance of a 'pace' - you can get different results. I originally used the Roman pace unit, which = 2 steps or 4ft 10 inches or 1.48m. I've now updated this to the standard 'pace' of 0.75m x 80 paces = 60m. Sorry about that. Explains the confusion.
So distant shooting for horse archers:
Option 1: CF 2 at range 80 paces (1BW) Option 2: CF 3 at range 80 paces (1 BW) Option 3: CF 2 at range 120 paces (1-1/2 BW) Option 4: CF 3 at range 120 paces (1-1/2 BW)
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Aug 7, 2023 5:26:25 GMT
As far as I know the original English mile was 1,000 Roman double paces which equalled 5,000 feet, it changed circa 500 plus years ago to the present mile of 5,280 feet.
So originally a Roman double pace was 5 feet which is 1.524 metres. This might be a more accurate distance.
David Constable
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 7, 2023 5:30:58 GMT
I don't think LH/LI should ever have a CF more than 2 as they are and should be less effective than 3/4 BW or even CV BW. I agree re LI. I do think it should be unwise for LH horse archers to engage in a shooting duel with Bw.
Using Option 1 (CF 2 shooting at 1BW) the LH horse archers would be mad to engage in a shooting duel with Bw. They'd be better off moving straight into contact and hoping for a QK. And good luck with that.
Using Option 2 (CF 3 shooting at 1BW) the LH horse archers could try to engage in a shooting duel with Bw at 3 vs 4 with no combined shooting to either side, hoping for a recoil that, if not redressed, could be exploited next bound for an easier contact QK. Again, probably not going to be hugely successful that often. Using Option 3 (CF 2 shooting at 1-1/2 BW) the LH horse archers could try to engage in a shooting duel with Bw with combined shooting available to both sides. At a base CF 2 vs 4, it's probably not going to end well for the LH. Using Option 4 (CF 3 shooting at 1-1/2 BW) the LH horse archers should inflict a recoil on the Bw but will more than likely suffer one (or worse) in return. So still not great odds.
So all of the above appears pretty good to me when looking at this particular interaction of LH horse archers vs Bw. It doesn't matter which option you take, the Bw should win. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
The next thing to look at is where the LH shooting at CF 3 options (2 & 4) occur vs non-Bw enemy, and comparing their CF 3 odds vs Bw shooting at CF 2/4 against the same enemy. Bw have double the range, and would be slightly worse vs foot, slightly better vs mounted. Is this right? Maybe not. It could be argued that LH shooting should not be better vs enemy foot than Bw shooting at the same. Which then brings me to Options 5 & 6 ...
Option 5 (CF 2/3 shooting at 1 BW) Option 6 (CF 2/3 shooting at 1-1/2 BW)
Options 5 & 6 maintain LH shooting being no better than Bw vs foot, and slightly worse than Bw vs mounted. (They also appear to be a 'shooting equivalent' of how Triumph! treats Horse Bow in its rules, i.e. CF 2/3 = higher CF vs mounted due to targeting the enemy horses.)
The question is: which of the above (now 6!) options for LH shooting works best, and does it work well to effectively represent horse archers degrading and disordering enemy frontally in DBA?
If the answer is 'none of the above' - which would be a bit surprising given the range of options and potential outcomes available - then a fresh idea to achieve the above criteria is needed.
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 7, 2023 5:34:17 GMT
As far as I know the original English mile was 1,000 Roman double paces which equalled 5,000 feet, it changed circa 500 plus years ago to the present mile of 5,280 feet. So originally a Roman double pace was 5 feet which is 1.524 metres. This might be a more accurate distance. David Constable This is what I used initially (see above).
But I suspect Paddy is correct, and Phil would be working with the standard military pace of 0.75m rather than the double pace Roman unit.
(Might have to go back through older WRG Rules to find this.)
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 7, 2023 5:59:21 GMT
One more thing that's missing from recent summaries of the above ideas and variations is the 'break-off from combat if they move faster' rule from v2.2 (mentioned by Stevie on pg 4), which goes hand in hand with horse archer shooting.
|
|
|
Post by mwise on Aug 7, 2023 7:29:55 GMT
As far as I know the original English mile was 1,000 Roman double paces which equalled 5,000 feet, it changed circa 500 plus years ago to the present mile of 5,280 feet. So originally a Roman double pace was 5 feet which is 1.524 metres. This might be a more accurate distance. David Constable This is what I used initially (see above).
But I suspect Paddy is correct, and Phil would be working with the standard military pace of 0.75m rather than the double pace Roman unit.
(Might have to go back through older WRG Rules to find this.)
Hello Snowcat,
from the old rules "Wargames Rules 1685-1845":
"All distances in the text are quoted in the paces universally used as a unit in drill books of the era in preference to yards, metres and other local measures. A pace can be taken as 21⁄2 feet or 0.75 metres."
Regards
M Wise
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 7, 2023 7:54:51 GMT
This is what I used initially (see above).
But I suspect Paddy is correct, and Phil would be working with the standard military pace of 0.75m rather than the double pace Roman unit.
(Might have to go back through older WRG Rules to find this.)
Hello Snowcat,
from the old rules "Wargames Rules 1685-1845":
"All distances in the text are quoted in the paces universally used as a unit in drill books of the era in preference to yards, metres and other local measures. A pace can be taken as 21⁄2 feet or 0.75 metres."
Regards
M Wise
Excellent find. Well done Sir!
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 7, 2023 8:51:12 GMT
...a quick view to other comparable rules: Design note: Many historical troops which were armed with missile weapons (bows, javelins, etc.) are not allowed to participate in ranged combat in TRIUMPH! These troops typically carried out missile fire when in close proximity to the enemy. Their missile fire is included as part of their close combat attack....
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 7, 2023 8:56:38 GMT
...a quick view to other comparable rules: Design note: Many historical troops which were armed with missile weapons (bows, javelins, etc.) are not allowed to participate in ranged combat in TRIUMPH! These troops typically carried out missile fire when in close proximity to the enemy. Their missile fire is included as part of their close combat attack.... Yes, Triumph! is essentially a variant of DBA 2.2+.
I wrote: "They also appear to be a 'shooting equivalent' of how Triumph! treats Horse Bow in its rules, i.e. CF 2/3 = higher CF vs mounted due to targeting the enemy horses.)"
(emphasis added)
I was drawing a parallel with the CF 2/3 part.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 7, 2023 11:40:18 GMT
If LH and Ps may shoot at the range of 1BW, there is the possibility that other shooters support them, more LH, Ps or Bw...
That increases their chances to weaken the line...
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Aug 7, 2023 11:58:28 GMT
...bei ADG erzielt ein einzelner Plänkler noch keine Wirkung, er bekommt -1 beim schiessen. 2 Plänkler bekommen keinen Abzug. Ab 4 Plänklern wird gezählt. Schiesst ein Bogenschütze mit wird es komplizierter.Aber DBA sollte einfache Regeln beibehalten...
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 7, 2023 12:23:21 GMT
Another idea I'd like to throw in is this: SkirmishingLH and Ps may enter, cross and leave enemy TZ in any direction. I admit this is quite new, even unheard of in DBA's rigid rules concerning TZ. But it might be worth considering and playtesting.
I think it would recreate quite good the agility of LH and Ps, help them to live a bit longer, and yet they would not become to strong...
(Another special ability of Ps/LH might be that they may shoot in any direction...)
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 7, 2023 12:46:53 GMT
And another idea.Khorovod, the Battle Dance of the Golden HordeThe usual rules for Interpenetration allow:
Advancing through friends ‐ only when starting and ending lined up. Any mounted through Ps , Ps through any friendly units. If we put LH in: Any mounted through LH or Ps, and LH or Ps through any friendly units.
Alongside with 1BW shooting range, suddenly we may indeed simulate the special battle tactic of the Golden Horde, the Khorovod: several attacks of LH shooting, followed by cavalry charging with lances...
In game terms: a line of LH advances up to 1 BW in front of the enemy battle line, followed by a line of Cv, massive shooting opens gaps in the line, the enemy cannot close them (low PIP throws), Cv advances through the LH, exploiting the resulting overlaps...
Splendid!
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Aug 7, 2023 13:03:18 GMT
I don't think LH/LI should ever have a CF more than 2 as they are and should be less effective than 3/4 BW or even CV BW. I agree re LI. I do think it should be unwise for LH horse archers to engage in a shooting duel with Bw.
Using Option 1 (CF 2 shooting at 1BW) the LH horse archers would be mad to engage in a shooting duel with Bw. They'd be better off moving straight into contact and hoping for a QK. And good luck with that.
Using Option 2 (CF 3 shooting at 1BW) the LH horse archers could try to engage in a shooting duel with Bw at 3 vs 4 with no combined shooting to either side, hoping for a recoil that, if not redressed, could be exploited next bound for an easier contact QK. Again, probably not going to be hugely successful that often. Using Option 3 (CF 2 shooting at 1-1/2 BW) the LH horse archers could try to engage in a shooting duel with Bw with combined shooting available to both sides. At a base CF 2 vs 4, it's probably not going to end well for the LH. Using Option 4 (CF 3 shooting at 1-1/2 BW) the LH horse archers should inflict a recoil on the Bw but will more than likely suffer one (or worse) in return. So still not great odds.
So all of the above appears pretty good to me when looking at this particular interaction of LH horse archers vs Bw. It doesn't matter which option you take, the Bw should win. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
The next thing to look at is where the LH shooting at CF 3 options (2 & 4) occur vs non-Bw enemy, and comparing their CF 3 odds vs Bw shooting at CF 2/4 against the same enemy. Bw have double the range, and would be slightly worse vs foot, slightly better vs mounted. Is this right? Maybe not. It could be argued that LH shooting should not be better vs enemy foot than Bw shooting at the same. Which then brings me to Options 5 & 6 ...
Option 5 (CF 2/3 shooting at 1 BW) Option 6 (CF 2/3 shooting at 1-1/2 BW)
Options 5 & 6 maintain LH shooting being no better than Bw vs foot, and slightly worse than Bw vs mounted. (They also appear to be a 'shooting equivalent' of how Triumph! treats Horse Bow in its rules, i.e. CF 2/3 = higher CF vs mounted due to targeting the enemy horses.)
The question is: which of the above (now 6!) options for LH shooting works best, and does it work well to effectively represent horse archers degrading and disordering enemy frontally in DBA?
If the answer is 'none of the above' - which would be a bit surprising given the range of options and potential outcomes available - then a fresh idea to achieve the above criteria is needed.
LH shouldn't be able to get into a shooting dual at all, they couldn't put out the same volume of missiles as densely packed troops, CV (bw) probably but not LH (bw)
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Aug 7, 2023 13:07:27 GMT
If LH and Ps may shoot at the range of 1BW, there is the possibility that other shooters support them, more LH, Ps or Bw... That increases their chances to weaken the line... Good point.
But wherever the enemy Threat Zone is 1BW away from such shooters, combined firing is not allowed, unless one or more of the shooters is in an overlap position.
Otherwise, the shooters must create a recoil from 1 element vs 1 element matchups, then the recoiling element takes its Threat Zone with it. This then creates opportunities for some combined shooting if the recoiling element is not returned to the original line.
See my earlier posts on this in this thread.
At beyond 1BW . . . such as 1-1/2 BW (120 paces), combined shooting is automatic.
So this gets back to the 6 options: which, if any, is best?
|
|