|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 13, 2017 16:50:05 GMT
The Kn v. Blade match up is overall tough on the Blades (though for some reason everytime we charge Blades we get ties and the Knights lose anyway - but that's not how it should play out).
If, however, Kn cannot reliably beat Blade in the open what natural enemies would Blade have? At the NashCon tournament many experienced players insisted Blades were over powered in 3.0 (my son's high school science project seemed to confirm this) but I don't agree that 3.0 made this situation worse.
At least during the medieval period heavy infantry always sought some protection from Knight charges. They either got up on a hill (very steep if possible) such as Hastings, intermixed archers such as Crecy, used Pikes such as the Swiss and Flemmings or erected barricades such as the Portugese. They did not seek (or allow) fair fights against Knights. That said the army lists tend to be a bit generous in Knighting every mounted medieval man at arms. Many would in fact be Medium Mounted w/Lance and have Shock v. Medium Foot but not Heavy Foot.
Though I don't think the rules of DBA 3.0 can really be changed (fortunately they are overall quite good), I'm interested for my own purposes whether the community feels Fast Blades should have Cry Havoc?
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 13, 2017 16:55:52 GMT
MacBeth:
The impetus for my suggestion of changes for knights comes directly from my own play testing of Normans vs Vikings and Normans vs Saxons. I have done this both with historical battles, my 1066 campaign. I have further seen issues with tournament games... (a weaker type of evidence I grant you).
Under 2.2 a straight Knight vs Blade matchup was (roughly) 42% Kill vs 17% Tie (lock) vs 36% Recoil vs 6% Kill
Under 3.0 this has shifted to 42% Kill vs 36% Recoil vs 22% Kill.
In essence the Blade now has over 3x the chance of killing the Knight in version 3 over 2.2. Further, this takes away the chance of committing a knight general to such a charge.
I would further argue that the loss of rear support is a benefit to knights. Knights now recoil vs Solid infantry on a tie (well, not Blades)... this is huge change. A knight charge vs a wall of Spear is now a very bloody and risky endeavor.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 13, 2017 17:08:50 GMT
After that Roman Auxilia were armed much like the standard legionary. But this doesn't matter. DBA doesn't divide troop types by arms and armor, rather it divides them by psychology of the warriors involved. Not only does this make little sense, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate that Roman auxilia recoil differently to Roman blade. The "process" as outlined on this thread is ridiculous. Errr... recoil is a game convention. It is used to provide a useful narrative for the game. The problem is that Roman Blade and Ax don't recoil differently in the game. This keeps the game from providing a reasonable outcome in many Punic War battles, Irish Invasion Battles, Late Greek battles, etc... Or are you asking me to prove that a fictional game convention existed in real life??? There is no proof that "recoil" exists at all. It certainly doesn't exist as the game portrays it. Look...what I am trying to do is to model actual battle outcomes more closely. I am doing this with the existing mechanics that the game provides. Allowing Ax to break contact helps with this in the Punic Wars, Irish wars and in other periods. It also fits nicely with the game narrative that different troop types fought differently. I find it easy to imagine the more lightly armed Ax skirmishing more and falling back in the face of the enemy to evade an enemy charge. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 13, 2017 17:11:22 GMT
Barritus posted....
In relation to Joe's original proposals my thoughts are as follows;
Elephants vs shooting +4. Maybe but.....
My preference would rather be to allow Lb and Cb to kill Elephants in close combat on a draw. This simulates shooting by powerful bows destroying elephants at very close range. Historically Elephants were defeated by shooters on occassions eg the Chinese used Cb effectively against elephants in 971AD and pits and Cb were used against Vietnamese elephants around 602-605AD. So I would suggest that Cb (and Lb which are similarly classified as having superior armour penetration at close range and frequently used stakes and pits) should also get a boost vs elephants.
As an aside I would also allow Blade to destroy Elephants in close combat on a draw. I've actually used this as a home rule for the last couple of years and it has worked out very well - gives blade some chance against elephants without letting them be over powerful and definitely gives much better historical outcomes.
Note historically Elephants were defeated on a number of occassions by Blade eg Caesar's legionaries at Thapsus and Jovian & Herulian legions fought off Sassanian elephants during Julian's Persian campaign. Also Arab Bd defeated Sassanian Elephants at Qadisiyah.
Fascinating idea. I will consider this... though I tend to want less "quick kills" rather than more. I do quite like it though.
As to your Ax idea... probably a dead end. It was proposed during the development period, but rejected quite strongly by Phil.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 13, 2017 20:55:24 GMT
I just want to run this up the flagpole and see who salutes it. What do players think of the following suggestion? PIP Costs: Wb, 3Kn, and SCh only cost 1 PIP to move straight forwards, but if they are not a general’s element they must pay an extra PIP when they try to change direction.
Being an ‘historical’ rather than a ‘game’ player, I feel very uncomfortable when I move my unruly, impetuous, and difficult to control troops through precise complex manoeuvres that even a modern day military band would have trouble performing! Especially as I know damn well that these troops types would have been totally incapable of making such disciplined and controlled exercises in reality, unless the general himself were physically present and taking direct control of his own personal bodyguard or contingent. A rule such as this would make them feel more like their historical counterparts. They would be good at direct charges, but not so good at obeying orders involving complex manoeuvres. It would also make clumsy HCh more difficult to turn than the more nimble LCh. It may help dispel some of the criticism about ‘crossover charges’ that the DBA 3.0 new longer movement allows. And as the general’s element is exempt, it still allows Alex the Great and his successors to nip about pretty much as they please (such as at Gaugamela, where Alexander leads his Companions to the right, the Bactrian knights try to follow him, but he then doubles back to charge into the gap the Bactrians left behind them as they are too undisciplined to be able to change direction and match him).Just a thought. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, back to improving the Clarity of DBA. Dear uncle Joe Collins, please may I add the following to my wish list:- I would like DBA 3.1 to have a proper (dare I say it) “detailed” rule index. (As the one in the current DBA 3.0 is really not up to the job)I would like a playsheet to be contained within DBA 3.1. (Many players will probably make their own, but it would be nice to have an official 2 page playsheet in the rules)I would like a simple one page 2 player campaign system included. (The campaign system in DBA 2.2 was probably very good…but I have never played it as I couldn’t get 6 players together who were freely available and committed enough to devote themselves to it. A 2 player system would suffice, something like the “Map-Less Wars” which can be found at the end of this document:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf
…although I'm pretty sure that someone else could come up with a better system)Oh, last of all I would like a puppy….  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 13, 2017 22:11:26 GMT
I just want to run this up the flagpole and see who salutes it. What do players think of the following suggestion? PIP Costs: Wb, 3Kn, and SCh only cost 1 PIP to move straight forwards, but if they are not a general’s element they must pay an extra PIP when they try to change direction.
Oh, last of all I would like a puppy…. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Super Stevie,
I will certainly share some thoughts on your suggestions, however, I just returned home from a great evening of dancing. Reading this while enjoying a glass of wine and French cheese, I think I shall wait until tomorrow morning after my coffee and croissant to render a lucid response.
I can tell you there are some good ideas percolating in the far regions of my brain.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jun 13, 2017 23:12:28 GMT
The Kn v. Blade match up is overall tough on the Blades (though for some reason everytime we charge Blades we get ties and the Knights lose anyway - but that's not how it should play out). If, however, Kn cannot reliably beat Blade in the open what natural enemies would Blade have? At the NashCon tournament many experienced players insisted Blades were over powered in 3.0 (my son's high school science project seemed to confirm this) but I don't agree that 3.0 made this situation worse. At least during the medieval period heavy infantry always sought some protection from Knight charges. They either got up on a hill (very steep if possible) such as Hastings, intermixed archers such as Crecy, used Pikes such as the Swiss and Flemmings or erected barricades such as the Portugese. They did not seek (or allow) fair fights against Knights. That said the army lists tend to be a bit generous in Knighting every mounted medieval man at arms. Many would in fact be Medium Mounted w/Lance and have Shock v. Medium Foot but not Heavy Foot. Though I don't think the rules of DBA 3.0 can really be changed (fortunately they are overall quite good), I'm interested for my own purposes whether the community feels Fast Blades should have Cry Havoc? TomT In my misspent youth I played a lot of social but competitive volleyball and I had a friend who was even more a maniacal volleyball player than I was. He quite often liked to return the serve on the first hit with the intention of catching the opposition off guard and winning the point quickly. He was very good at remembering every time this ploy worked. I took to counting the number of times when this ploy FAILED to win the point there and then. Whether his impetuous move cost us the point or whether we won the point at the end of the rally, I simply defined every time his shot didn't win the point as a fail. This enumeration changed the perception of how successful the one shot return was working.
The point I am trying to make is that it is a matter of perception - Charging into a line of Bd with a line of Kn carries the expectation of the Kn carrying the day (Thanks to Joe I already have the numbers - 42% chance of a kill.) A first kill shifts the odds seriously in favour of the Kn, and a Kn general hitting the Bd has a 58% chance of a kill and only a 14% chance of a death by tie.
If we have the preconceived notion of the odds being heavily in favour of the Kn then when the Kn lose we remember it all the more and it soon becomes "Every Time".
It is also worth remembering that in 2.2 with Ps support any Bd line faced with Kn would quickly augment its factor by putting the rear rank into play - shifting the odds back in favour of the Bd - then the expected result was a recoil for the Kn - with only an 11% chance of the Kn being destroyed and a 14% chance that the Kn would break through.
And even without the kill on a tie Kn cannot reliably beat Bd. All it takes is for the Kn to roll a 1 and the Bd to roll 5 or 6 and the Bd kill the Kn. There are very few certainties in DBA, but without the quick kills the expected results for uneven combats become the pivot on which long hard grinding matches turn.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Jun 13, 2017 23:19:12 GMT
MacBeth: The impetus for my suggestion of changes for knights comes directly from my own play testing of Normans vs Vikings and Normans vs Saxons. I have done this both with historical battles, my 1066 campaign. I have further seen issues with tournament games... (a weaker type of evidence I grant you). Under 2.2 a straight Knight vs Blade matchup was (roughly) 42% Kill vs 17% Tie (lock) vs 36% Recoil vs 6% Kill Under 3.0 this has shifted to 42% Kill vs 36% Recoil vs 22% Kill. In essence the Blade now has over 3x the chance of killing the Knight in version 3 over 2.2. Further, this takes away the chance of committing a knight general to such a charge. I would further argue that the loss of rear support is a benefit to knights. Knights now recoil vs Solid infantry on a tie (well, not Blades)... this is huge change. A knight charge vs a wall of Spear is now a very bloody and risky endeavor. Joe Collins Joe,
I cannot believe that you wouldn't commit a Kn general to the fray in a Bd vs Kn lineup. The Kn general vs an ordinary Bd has a 58% chance of killing the Kn and a 14% chance of being killed by the Bd. In the Sp matchup you talk about the effect of recoil, which makes charging the Sp harder because of overlaps. The same can be said for Kn vs Bd - each time the Kn win (the chances are almost 2 to 1) then the odds for the next combat shift in favour of the Kn (pushing the kill percentage up to near 60%).
I don't hold back charging my Kn into enemy that I can quick kill, so much the better if I can push the odds up by overlaps. Every now and then I get a surprise and lose out, but if the odds weren't in my favour in the first place I would not have charged home.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jun 15, 2017 12:44:27 GMT
I just want to run this up the flagpole and see who salutes it. What do players think of the following suggestion? PIP Costs: Wb, 3Kn, and SCh only cost 1 PIP to move straight forwards, but if they are not a general’s element they must pay an extra PIP when they try to change direction.
Being an ‘historical’ rather than a ‘game’ player, I feel very uncomfortable when I move my unruly, impetuous, and difficult to control troops through precise complex manoeuvres that even a modern day military band would have trouble performing! Especially as I know damn well that these troops types would have been totally incapable of making such disciplined and controlled exercises in reality, unless the general himself were physically present and taking direct control of his own personal bodyguard or contingent. A rule such as this would make them feel more like their historical counterparts. They would be good at direct charges, but not so good at obeying orders involving complex manoeuvres. It would also make clumsy HCh more difficult to turn than the more nimble LCh. It may help dispel some of the criticism about ‘crossover charges’ that the DBA 3.0 new longer movement allows. And as the general’s element is exempt, it still allows Alex the Great and his successors to nip about pretty much as they please (such as at Gaugamela, where Alexander leads his Companions to the right, the Bactrian knights try to follow him, but he then doubles back to charge into the gap the Bactrians left behind them as they are too undisciplined to be able to change direction and match him).Just a thought. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
Stevie,
Your suggestion of adding an extra pip cost got me thinking about warband behavior and the research I did for the Migration to Kingdom project.
Warband
Using Wolfram as a reference, the barbarian groups whether they be Vandal, Goth, Alamanni or Marcomanni were a confederation of sub-tribes lead by their own chieftains. The account of Julian’s battle against the Alamanni (Strasbourg) exemplifies this as we find the German sub-tribes in wedge formation lead by their chieftains. Sub-tribes placed in order to form a battleline meant limited flexibility to take independent action and maneuver around the battlefield such as we see on the table top.
The extra cost factor would work well to produce historical battles involving large number of barbarians fighting a smaller force of say Romans.
Another way to approach this is to reduce the control distance of barbarian warlords to less than the current 8BW. This would simulate friction among the less than homogenous assembly of tribes.
Knights
On a similar line, knights of the feudal period might be thought of as a warband on horseback and giving them similar restriction of command distance would also work; rival houses fighting on the same side. However, I am not sure knight or nobles of the nomadic horse armies would fit this pattern as they could be capable of flexible tactics.
These are certainly ideas I would add to our next barbarian or feudal campaign.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Jun 15, 2017 16:50:03 GMT
Various Topics:
For the record I feel that Blades are the single most powerful Element in DBA with only Knights as a natural (but potent) enemy (well maybe El too). In 2.2 with silly Ps support Blades become a near super troop (but only if you had Ps & Blades in your list - restricting compition lists). Knights should beat Blades in 3.0 and are better off than when faced by the super Blades w/Ps support of 2.2. In short both from a game and historical perspective 3.0 has much the better approach.
Aux
The Aux problem stems from the inherent problem of troop types - dear to the heart of DBX but a design dead end. DBX mechanics can easily handle this problem but for troop types. As I'm sure we all realize DBX Foot has three basic types: Light (+2), Medium (around +3 - Warband, Bow, Aux), Heavy (around +4, Pike, Blade, Spear). So when a generic Heavy faces a generic Medium its +4 v +3 favoring the Heavy but reasonable. In terrian it becomes Heavy +2 v. Medium +3 favoring the Medium. Theortically quite sound and reflecting the uses of both types. Problems arise when we vary the generic types with weapons. Heavy w/Blades goes up +1 v. Foot but down -1 against Mounted (so +5/+3) again theorictially sound but it makes them +5 v. +3 v. generic Medium and +3 v. +3 even in terrian so a big advantage in the open and just as good in the woods (in 3.0 we at least have the differnence in MA though not v. Fast). The problem is because of the troop type straight jacket we don't have a "close fighting" version of Mediums, we should have a Medium w/Blade +4 v. Foot, +2 v. Mounted (remember when Aux were +2 v. Mounted?), so then we'd have (aganist Heavy w/Blade) +5 v. +4 in the Open and +3 v. +4 in the Woods and all would be theortically correct again.
The problem can't be solved with conventional DBA mechanics. Trying to apply band aid fixes only increases complexity and produces odd non-intuative "tie results". (DBA has already gotten so far from an easy intro game that I had to design an intro version to compete with 2 Hour Wargames which is busy taking our potential audaince.)
The community will never agree on what "needs" to be done (other than fixing typos) and Phil will never agree to do a 3.1 anyway. I don't spend time worrying about "problems" that can't be solved.
For tournament purposes we are "stuck" with DBA 3.0 as written - which ain't bad all things considered.
For home use, campaigns, historical battles and all other purposes, just design the troops according to their historical abilties - stop worrying about troop types.
Give them appropriate CF (Combat Factor), assign Abilities:
Cry Havoc (destroy on Equals v. type XXX)
Shock (destroy on more...)
Drive Off (Recoil opponent on Equals)
Loose Order (not effected by terrian)
Evade (convert Doubles into Flees)
Crossbows (shoot only in own bound +3 v. foot w/pavise)
Plate Barding (count as Foot v. Bow shooting)
Clumsy (costs 2 PIPs to move after first bound)
etc.
By all means fight out Cannae, Bouvines, Crecy, Issus, Agincourt, Bosworth or the whole War of the Roses if you like. DBX mechanics can handle them all splendily (just not troop types). Let tournaments be tournaments and history be history.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by mellis1644 on Jun 16, 2017 15:52:18 GMT
again just a single voice but I must admit I'd generally be against a V3.1 unless there are real good reasons for it. As an occasional tourney player and one of the regulars in our group here we generally don't see any of the issues been reported here as major concerns. DBA armies are not all equal and neither are all the troops types in them. Blade and knight being the 'kings of battle' actual reflects my very high level of the generalities of battle as well.
It's taken this long to get V3 played regularly and we have lost players along the way to other systems. The swap from V2.x was a big one and getting the rules right between versions is a challenge at times. Also, the rules are not the easiest to get hold of either as no local stores stock them. Adding a minor version is not likely to help that or improve our understandings.
Nothing nasty but it seems like all these could be covered by 'house rules' to me if there are aspects of the rules that your specific group would like to change for their regular play.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 16, 2017 16:57:47 GMT
I am more optimistic than Tom on the idea of DBA 3.1 being possible. While I also quite like most his ideas (he of course already knows this), I also am more optimistic that some tweaking can improve the game and make outcomes more in line with history.
I also want to appeal to folks to not let the recent past sour the future. I remember no sour taste when DBA went from "1.0" to 1.1 to 2 to 2.2. My memories are ones of great anticipation and excitement to see the changes. The recent move from 2.2 to 3 was difficult and filled with strife due to circumstances that no longer exist.
I understand that folks still have bad memories of this...but once again these circumstances no longer exist.
The Fanaticus site has been a great positive force repairing the damage.
Let us put all this behind us and be positive about the future.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jun 16, 2017 18:41:14 GMT
again just a single voice but I must admit I'd generally be against a V3.1 unless there are real good reasons for it. As an occasional tourney player and one of the regulars in our group here we generally don't see any of the issues been reported here as major concerns. DBA armies are not all equal and neither are all the troops types in them. Blade and knight being the 'kings of battle' actual reflects my very high level of the generalities of battle as well. It's taken this long to get V3 played regularly and we have lost players along the way to other systems. The swap from V2.x was a big one and getting the rules right between versions is a challenge at times. Also, the rules are not the easiest to get hold of either as no local stores stock them. Adding a minor version is not likely to help that or improve our understandings. Nothing nasty but it seems like all these could be covered by 'house rules' to me if there are aspects of the rules that your specific group would like to change for their regular play. Well said (especially the 'house rules' comment). We all have ideas of what 'might' be an improvement, but they are not universally shared. Therefore, to change the rules to fit one particular person or group's view of "ancient warfare as we think it was" is going to leave another group or individual feeling wronged. Like it or not, this WAS a core problem in the 2.2 - 3 transition, and was a source of significant friction. Individual egos may have played a part, but the fundamental cause of much of the angst was certain ideas being forced through against some players' wishes. There is a very strong risk of further rifts* if rules CHANGES, rather than CLARIFICATIONS, are in the running. Martin * and I don't want us to go through that again, thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 16, 2017 20:13:57 GMT
I must respectfully disagree. Individual egos were the entire part.
You can rest assured that my advice to Phil, Sue and the other partners will be for further development to be done privately without public comment.
DBA must change and grow if it is to survive.
If this has soured folks such that no one wants to participate... I understand. I am saddened by this... but I do understand.
As this thread has strayed from my hoped discussion of ideas, I will open another to discuss my individual suggestions in detail.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 17, 2017 9:00:45 GMT
Blades are too powerful vs Knights... Fast Blades are too powerful in general... The change here would be (under "If its total is equal to that of its opponent") ...
Knights or Camelry Destroyed in close combat by any Bows that are Lb or Cb, or by "Solid" Blades whose dice score is even, recoiled in close combat by
other “Solid” foot. 4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn. Otherwise no effect.Auxilia still aren't quite correct. The change here would be (under "RECOILING OR BEING PUSHED BACK")...
A recoiling foot element except Ps and Ax always moves its own base depth or ½ BW if this is less than its base depth.
A recoiling mounted element and Ps and Ax can choose either to move 1 BW or to move its own base depth if this is less than 1 BW.I would be interested in folks playing games with these changes and providing feedback. Joe Collins before you go and open another thread to discuss your individual suggestions in detail (which I for one am very much looking forward to reading), I just want to review your original suggestion of allowing Ax and Ps to choose to either recoil a base depth or a full base width, just like mounted can. As much as I like and endorse the concept, I have been doing some number crunching and play testing. And I am sorry to say that if the idea is to keep Ax alive so that Cannae can be reproduced, then it doesn’t work. No matter how far the Ax recoil, it’s the overlaps when fighting heavy foot that doubles and kills them with such ease. What is really needed is some way of reducing the doubling destruction overlaps of Ax when facing heavy foot. But there is another way this can be done. And it was you yourself that first suggested it. It appears that most people are against any adjustments to the 4Bd vs. Kn results on an even score. (Although I agree with you that 'Fast' 3Bd should not have this ability, only 4Bd) So why not use that same mechanism when Ax vs. heavy foot instead, to read as follows… Combat outcome when half or less than half that of their opponent (i.e. when ‘doubled’):-
Auxiliaries: In good/rough going, recoil 1 BW from Spear, Pike or Blade whose die roll is odd, otherwise destroyed.This means that when doubled by heavy foot, roughly half the time the 3Ax and 4Ax will be destroyed, and half the time they will ‘evade’ 1 BW instead. But the Ax do not have this advantage while in bad going, as obstacles impede their ‘evade’ move (thus leaving bad going outcomes the same as they are now). Here are some charts showing the effect of this change. (Because Ax are so easily recoiled, items in blue are the most usual situation)Chances out 36 of the Ax being doubled and destroyed under the current DBA system:-
Ax vs. Pk Ax vs. Sp/Bd Ax vs. Pk Ax vs. Sp Ax vs Bd Ax vs. Ax/Wb
in good going in good going in rough in rough in rough in any going
Ax overlapped twice = 21 18 12 15 18 12
Ax overlapped once = 15 12 6 9 12 6
Ax with no overlaps = 9 6 2 4 6 2
Ax overlap enemy once = 6 4 1 2 4 1
Ax overlap enemy twice = 4 2 0 1 2 0
(No matter how far an individual Ax recoils, it exposes it’s neighbour to an overlap, causing them to be slaughtered)
Chances out 36 of the Ax being doubled and destroyed under the new proposed system:-
Ax vs. Pk Ax vs. Sp/Bd Ax vs. Pk Ax vs. Sp Ax vs Bd Ax vs. Ax/Wb
in good going in good going in rough in rough in rough in any going
Ax overlapped twice = 12 9 6 9 9 12
Ax overlapped once = 9 6 3 6 6 6
Ax with no overlaps = 6 3 1 3 3 2
Ax overlap enemy once = 3 3 1 1 3 1
Ax overlap enemy twice = 3 1 0 1 1 0
(Sp and Bd have an almost identical chance of doubling Ax in rough due to the quirks of the two dice combat system)To an outside spectator, they would see Ps sometimes recoiling and sometimes fleeing (Ps don’t like to fight hand-to-hand). And they would see Ax sometimes recoiling a base depth, sometimes ‘evading’ 1 BW, and sometimes being destroyed. And for those who don’t like the idea of Imperial Roman Auxiliaries ‘evading’ 1 BW, just think of it as they are being bested in melee, and being more agile than slow ponderous heavy infantry have disengaged and fallen back, and seeing they have out-distanced their pursuers they rally and reform ready to continue fighting (when destroyed, their moral has been broken preventing them from reforming, or their initial break-off was caught by a sudden charge or due to an unseen terrain impediment). I still like the idea of Ax and Ps having the choice of recoil move, and this could be in addition to the above. But remember…it's the reduction of their being destroyed, not the distance they recoil, that will be keeping them alive. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
