|
Post by barritus on May 9, 2021 8:58:05 GMT
Thanks Stevie - that's actually quite an interesting rule you have there - and certainly likely simulates human behavior in battle better than the current follow up rules. Coincidently I was browsing youtube the other night and watched one on the British vs Americans fight at Lexington Green(?). Whilst watching I recalled reading how difficult it was for the British officers to bring the British Grenadiers back into order after they had launched a bayonet charge on the unfortunate militia. Cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on May 7, 2021 9:11:41 GMT
Just a quick question to test the water as it were.
How do people feel about the effectiveness of Sp vs Kn's in 3.0 ?
My own thoughts are that in a 1 on 1 its not too bad (favours Kn a bit) but in group situations eg say 4 Sp vs 4 Kn (I play BBDBA a bit so they happen a bit more) this swings to the Sp (due to the recoil on equal results). From my own experiences (ouch!) the Kn's often die a bit too rapidly. Makes Hastings a bit hard to replicate and Kn's were a dominate factor on battlefields in the early feudal period until pikes and longbows came along.....
Any thoughts/observations welcome.
cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Mar 28, 2021 9:41:58 GMT
Personally,
Without wishing to hijack this thread I feel that there is a case for allowing all mounted (in their bound) to ignore being overlapped by foot (except Bow). The foot being immobilised somewhat by bracing for the mounted's impact. This would balance up the introduction in 3.0 of the 'Recoil on Equal result' for most Solid foot - which has swung the combat too far in my opinion to the foot* (with the singular exception of those confounded overpowered Elephants!).
*as an example line up half a dozen Kn's vs an opposing line of Spear - most often the Sp win - which is not as historical as one may think as Pikes were the medieval foots answer to Kn not Sp.....
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Mar 4, 2021 5:42:11 GMT
Hi
Just having a glance at the rules regarding detached generals.
My question is;
As they are on a 'round' stand are they hard flanked if a second enemy element is in contact?
I'm presuming so if only for simplicity - though I'd presume that both enemy contacts would have to be by their front edge (ie not just a front corner contact).
cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Dec 7, 2020 2:25:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Nov 12, 2020 12:12:37 GMT
A good point Cromwell on mounted troops.
Indeed in Kriegsspiel (a system developed by officers with actual combat experience in the Napoleonic Wars) mounted charging downhill are actually penalised! Foot in KriegS on the otherhand are penalised if they are downhill - but given DBA's combat system this would be too heavy a penalty so I think penalising (-1) the downhill elemet when it wins seems about right.
Cheers
B.
PS for 4Ax i use the published house rule of +1 vs Bd, Sp and double based Pk.It just makes DBA so much better!
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Nov 11, 2020 7:29:19 GMT
I'm interested in how people feel about the current fighting uphill rule (ie uphill element gets +1). Does this feel right?
My own opinion is that although its simple it does give the uphill elements quite a boost. Doubly so if the hill in question is difficult (so bad going) - they become - at least in my experience veritable fortresses - which puts a bit of a damper on things.
To elaborate, uphill fighting is a bit of an issue as historically good quality troops could win attacking uphill (eg Hastings or Mons Graupius 84 AD?) both victories for the side attacking uphill but which are incredibly difficult to simulate in DBA given the current rules.
Hastings Kn fighting Sp is currently +3 vs +5 ( with Kn recoiling on a Draw) - thats just death to the Kn. Interestingly the Huscarles (Bd) at +4 Qking Kn on a draw may be weaker than the Sp(?). That just doesn't look right. As for Mons Graupius Wb(F) fighting Ax(S) is probably a bit more balanced at +4 vs +3 (unless of course the Wb double rank) but it certainly is not tbe combat as described by Tacitus which gives the Batavian and Tungrian auxilia a markedly better performance vs the Caladone warbands.
I feel therefore that uphill fighting could do with a bit of a rebalance to at least encourage downhill attackers to give it a go ( and stop defended difficult hills from being virtually impassable obstacles).
My 'solution' at moment is instead to delete the current rule and substitute giving a -1 to a winning score by the downhill element (or those fighting enemy defending the banks of a non-paltry river).. This results in less kills for the uphill element and produces more draws thereby helping Solid troops fighting from downhill to pushback 'Fast' uphill opponents a tad more often.
Any thoughts welcome.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Nov 6, 2020 5:11:22 GMT
After considering others opinions and reading of the effectiveness of Ps vs skirmishing mounted - see Slingshot Issue 219 pg 27 and Luke Ueda Sarson's thoughts on Alexanders defeat of Scythian LH with Ps and Cv and importantly of his comment on the effectiveness of a small force of bow and sling armed Ps in keeping Persian mounted at bay during the march of the Ten Thousand - I've decided to omit LH as an exclusion from my original proposal.
So I have amended it from;
a) -1 if Fast foot (except Ps or 5Hd) in open going and in close combat with any mounted other than LH, El or SCh.
to
a) -1 if Fast foot (except Ps or 5Hd) in open going and in close combat with any mounted other than El or SCh.
(note I have amended it in my original post).
This will mean that Ps are a bit better vs LH than most other Fast foot but as Ps are more likely to be armed with longer distance weapons (eg bows, slings, xbows etc) this is not unreasonable (and Ps are still more vulnerable to Cavalry than javelin armed 3Ax).
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 28, 2020 10:07:07 GMT
I'm no expert on the period but I would plump for a boost to any handgunners or such.
One reason why gunpowder firearms became popular is that although slow firing they were lethal if they hit and compared to non-firearm weapons could ignore most armour in the Italian Wars period.
So if you are representing them with Ps perhaps consider Qking some heavier troops (eg Pk) on a DRAW.
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 28, 2020 3:12:35 GMT
Snowcat
I've sent you a pm.🖐
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 27, 2020 12:43:20 GMT
Re Ps you're right Snowcat I didn't want to reduce their CF below 2. Shrimply - you'll notice Ps and 5Hd are specifically excluded from the -1 vs mounted.
In terms of interaction of 3Ax/3Wb vs LH if we gave them a -1 then they would have the same CF (+2) vs LH as Ps. I feel that LH are more likely to charge home against other skirmishers (eg Ps) than against heavier (eg 3Ax/3Wb) foot.
Similarly with 3Bw. I feel that to charge home LH (as skirmishers) would likely need to soften up the 3Bw first (with missile weapons). In this case however this is quite difficult since the 3Bw can outshoot them in many cases. Given the LH can quick kill the 3Bw I feel that making it a 2 vs 3 combat (if the 3Bw suffer a -1) might be a bit too favorable to the LH.
So basically I'm trying to resolve what i think would be the most like historical interaction (or perhaps i can say abstraction in DBA terms). This is of course highly subjective so you have to determine whether you agree or not with my assumptiins in that regard.
Of course that doesn't mean Im right 😂.
Probably the best course of action would be to playtest whatever version of the rules you think is best.
Cheers
B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 27, 2020 9:49:03 GMT
I like it, though I'm not sure about excluding LH from causing the -1, seems like the perfect role for LH and would help them take out fast troops in the open. A good question. Basically I excluded LH for 2 reasons; 1. Because that would mean that 3Ax and 3Wb would end up with a CF in open going vs LH of +2. This would make them the same as Ps which I thought would be a bit hard to justify. Indeed Ps would actually be slightly better than 3Ax and 3Wb as Ps can ignore front corner overlaps. 2. 3Bw vs LH would have a CF of +3 which I considered a bit too low vs LH (which themselves don't particularly like to charge home). Both of the above are of course somewhat subjective but given the wide range of quality of DBA troop classifications (not all LH are Mongols ) and for simplicity I thought excluding LH was the best option. cheers B.
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 27, 2020 4:47:38 GMT
Ah good spot Snowcat. I've amended the exclusions to include 5Hd. Yes, I admit I'd like to think that the proposal has some historical merit. One of the issues I've had (amongst many with fast in general) is in RAW 3Pk 2 deep could roll over a block of Kn (+5 vs +3). I find this quite astonishing to be honest - doubly so as many 3Pk probably didn't fight in deep formations, carried a longish spear (say about 8' long eg medieval welsh or brigands) rather than a true pike and in many cases probably adopted it as more of a defensive measure vs mounted than an offensive one. And besides how can a fast Pike formation possibly maintain formation - it beggars belief really !
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 26, 2020 6:59:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by barritus on Oct 26, 2020 6:43:58 GMT
The question arises from time to time as to whether Fast foot are a bit overrated compared to their more pedestrian Solid counterparts. Certainly the ability of Fast to race through pretty much any terrain as if it does not exist and even for that matter quicker than Solid can in open going ("oh come on Solid I can run faster than you and I'm in a marsh!) does I think give reason to consider the relative balance of each on the tabletop.
Fast troops I certainly feel are a bit too uber. Surely if Fast are rough/bad going specialists can they really be also almost as good as Solid in open going.
My 'solution" at moment is too make them more vulnerable to mounted than Solid foot. Why? Well historically I suspect the most common tactic that foot in open going would make vs enemy mounted was to adopt a VERY close formation. This is evidenced throughout history eg in the Napoleonic era squares/masses, or the ECW advice to pikemen to close up tightly or the adoption of shieldwall tactics by the Romans when facing cataphracts etc etc. When they didn't then as happened in one murderous tourney during the HYW - the foot get bowled over by the horse (a Frenchman cheated - well well ..... and during refreshments mounted his horse and rode into the melee knocking over the English/Gascon knights leading to a French victory!).
So the rule(s) I use at moment are (new tactical factor):
a) -1 if Fast foot (except Ps or 5Hd) in open going and in close combat with any mounted other than El or SCh.
and
b) Warband are changed to CF +3 vs mounted. So Wb(F) would be worth +2 vs most mounted and Wb(S) would be +3.
The effect of these two changes is Fast foot will be more chary of facing mounted in open going - those 3Bw are a bit more skittish...as are various mountain peoples (eg 3Ax or 3Pk etc) and will think twice before leaving the safety of supportive terrain when confronted by mounted opponents.
So if thinking of choosing Fast foot there's more of a player decision to be made than at the moment about the relative worth of such vs Solid foot.
Just my tuppence worth!
Barritus
|
|