|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 19, 2019 4:12:07 GMT
Well, I for one like the idea of seeing the overwhelming favourites sweating it out badly once in a while!
Test 4Sp vs 4×8Bw in a rubber of 20 games, to smooth out some of the randomness. Not perfect, but better than just a two-off...?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 18, 2019 21:21:08 GMT
I've always thought that should be a thing, Tom. A single Sp should not be at such a handicap. What about a single Wb or Pk, though?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 18, 2019 17:24:44 GMT
Would this not heavily penalise the lone 4Sp in the Persian Army?
Now engaged at equality by 3Ax? That said, I can see a lot of benefit to doing this overall. So even if there is some downside, if overall things work better, then this might be good.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 18, 2019 4:17:19 GMT
I think the single 4Sp represents a kind of long run aggregate of battles where perhaps the hoplite allies were few in number, or performed poorly. But your idea makes a ton of sense for Medising Greeks at Plataea, say!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 15, 2019 6:32:54 GMT
In the words of “Are You Being Served”... ...”I’m free Mr Humphries”. "But Mrs Slocombe, who will watch your ----- while you help us?" 😝 "Someone's got to keep an eye on young Mr. Grace, especially since old Mr. Grace doesn't get around much anymore ..."
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 13, 2019 7:37:44 GMT
Just give the +1 to everyone. Then the wide vs deep issue is something you always have to address. And if Stevie's weaker HI sugggestion takes off, it would be a great thing to include. I like the idea of more troop types getting a benefit from double ranking. Think of it as "stacking" or concentrating the troops.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 8, 2019 4:41:43 GMT
The forest of pikes vs arrows has been debunked. There is video testing - they barely deflect any arrows at all. And the pikes will render the small shields carried to be pretty useless except close in, when the pike has been bypassed by enemy, or the pike dropped/broken
Whether Pike should be that vulnerable to Bow is, however debatable. The difference in 3 vs 4 when shot at by bows is massive. Perhaps if they are a CF of 4, as Tom says, then perhaps they should lose all ties if shot at, and possibly be destroyed if recoild by bow into rough or bad going?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 3, 2019 6:03:19 GMT
Stevie, sorry for your defeat mate 😛
But those Springboks just rolled all over you like Alexander over Darius ...
Actually, scratch that, there was no breakthrough in the Centre. With a try from each wing, it was more like Hannibal at Cannae!!!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 20, 2019 18:50:25 GMT
Stevie, I started playing around with similar ideas a few years ago. I agree doubling is not needed, BUT if Phil was using his original one-page DBA knockabout rules, the difference meant that Bd vs Bd is EXACTLY the same kind of fight as Ps vs Ps. Not sure I'd agree.
However, the difference is interesting. What can then happen is we can get rid of the silly "-2" in bad going, and instead see the historical effects of bad going: as a battle slow-diwn mechnism. ALL elements would be less effective but more resilient in bad going. But the terrain itself becomes a problem, as elements and units get lost, broken up, etc.
If you adopt that approach, then an outnumbered hoplite element will seek shelter in bad going, which is EXACTLY what the Psartans did at Sphacteria!
But as you say, that is DBSMI ... De Bellis Stevius Maximus Imperatorius
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 19, 2019 22:33:43 GMT
Mandatory ale on Monday nights. Tequila shots on Fridays. Mass reenactments using all your country's varsity rugby players: No sharp steel (makes too much of a mess), but otherwise full-contact!
Just a few things I am sure Stevie would introduce if he had total control. And compared to me, he is quite sedate really...
It's why I am not allowed to run for PM.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 19, 2019 19:39:01 GMT
To Stevie's point, over the years I tried many of the suggestions I have read so far, many times over. The +1 seemed most effective and getting what was needed and no more. And it felt "canonical", being aligned with, as Stevie has mentioned Pk receiving conditional +1 for rear support, and being no more complicated than the Sp/Bd/Bw special side support rules.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 18, 2019 22:42:53 GMT
Sorry for the epic rant ... Must remember to NOT drunk-post so much!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 18, 2019 22:41:25 GMT
I tried the reduced CFs a bunch back in 2011/2012. Somehow seemed to make the game a total crapshoot. Highly luck dependent. Maybe I didn't test it enough, and to be sure it fits more closely to historical accounts, but ultimately in game design the fundamental question that needs answering is this: "What is it that I require a good player to execute well, and how am I planning to reward that execution." At the risk of being an intergalactic @$$ (and I'll blame British Ale now, for I am WELL into my cups, guys) all the rest (like Warhammer, for instance) is just masturbating with dice... and gargling designers' balls!!!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 7, 2019 1:14:42 GMT
I think I am with you on this one, Snowcat.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 6, 2019 18:11:20 GMT
Well no, LH can rapidly concentrate now to double rank and nullify the combat difference, and given a choice between 3xCv or 3xLH, is it not now a no-brainer?
|
|