|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 22, 2023 11:55:53 GMT
I do love the eye-candy you post!
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 22, 2023 10:57:10 GMT
Remond me again you need a pip to break off correct? To voluntarily break-off, you need a PIP. But as LH have a combat factor of 2, they lose a lot of combat rolls and as they are rarely destroyed, they can break-off with outcome moves. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 22, 2023 10:54:13 GMT
I think we need to be careful that changes designed to improve light horse armies ends up improving the light horse category so much that it creates unwanted side-effects by making historically lower quality troops in many other armies game winners. Cheers Jim , the current LH situation is broken. You only need to read the history books to see that. What they need is more opportunities to use their mobility. I don’t want LH armies to be ‘killers’…but it would be nice if they could at least be equal to their opponents, without needing to be more ‘PIP lucky’ in order to use their mobility. I don't disagree. But not all LH were Huns/Mongols/Turks etc. The best were invariably horse archers and not javelin armed, which are also LH in DBA (as are my Sargatian lasso troops in my EAP army!). From my reading, the best were more than happy to ride up close and feint away, wanting to entice pursuit and disorganise the enemy. That's why I'm looking at house rules that allow this interaction at the battleline rather than sweeping flank rides, which did happen but seem less common. Sure, it needs PIPs but if they disorganise the enemy then they need PIPs to reorganise. I also like the tension of having the game decided on the battleline rather than the flanks, which is why I'm a fan of the 12 element game rather than points system, which can easily end up as rank-and-flank games. But that's just my view for my gaming. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 22, 2023 10:29:59 GMT
The pursuing elements (Kn/Bl/Wb/Pk/Ele) can be drawn out of line by clever wording of the outcome moves. Couple this with LH ignoring overlap and TZ and then you can pull out elements and try to destroy them. This seems that it be of much greater benefit to armies with large numbers of LH and less so for those with one or two. I just haven't worked out the wording for the outcome moves... Jim So Jim that is interesting. Your proposed play test LH improvement package is: LH ignore corner-to-corner overlaps (like Ps.) LH ignore all enemy TZ restrictions. Pursue: Pk, Bd or Wb that fought against any foot (except Ps) or LH pursue 1/2 BW if opponents die, recoil or flee. Note: 3Kn, SCh, El or Hd already pursue 1BW but 4Kn do not. Just to clarify, you propose keeping the LH +1 if supported and supported front rank LH die on a flee result and the LH flee from bow shooting rules unchanged. Just to clarify LH still die if doubled by any mounted, Art shooting, Bows or Ps else flee. That is an interesting package that might work and is definitely worth trying. I have tried some individual parts of it before and I found ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps make LH stick around far longer while they wait for a decent PIP roll. Ignoring TZ makes them very slippery and I found this rule favours small numbers of LH rather than LH heavy armies as it allows them to act with virtual impunity in the rear areas. It’ll certainly make LH play more prominently in the centre of the battle rather than only on the flanks. One question / historical anomaly - this means that Pk, Bd, Wb or Hd would pursue supported LH that recoil but wouldn’t pursue Cav despite both situations seeming to be very similar. I'm happy to stick to the troops that PB identified as likely to pursue for simplicity's sake. Imagine them as frustrated by the steady drizzle of missiles and charging out to close the gap. Once out in the open, their flanks are at risk from other light horse that can ignore TZ unless their friends come to help. It may become a bit of a PIP race but it is a game and at least both sides get a chance. Cav I see recoiling without getting as close or discharging as many missiles. A bit of feint/charge/feint. Also, the greater mass of Cav may dissuade foot to charge out. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 22, 2023 3:35:49 GMT
The pursuing elements (Kn/Bl/Wb/Pk/Ele) can be drawn out of line by clever wording of the outcome moves. Couple this with LH ignoring overlap and TZ and then you can pull out elements and try to destroy them. This seems that it be of much greater benefit to armies with large numbers of LH and less so for those with one or two. I just haven't worked out the wording for the outcome moves...
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 22, 2023 3:15:36 GMT
For I/7d time period I would look at Carthaginian "African" spearmen. Ostrich feather and tunic is more ancient tribal warbands IMHO.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 21, 2023 23:46:46 GMT
1 - LH cost 0 PIPs in the first Bound, either as a single element or a group of LH 2 - LH can make as many additional moves as there are PIPs available, not limiting it to 2nd or 3rd moves 3 - Reintroducing the Break Off Move for Mounted (if they have more movement than the enemy elements in contact with them). Move minimum 2BW and up to its full movement allowance 4 - Flee if doubled by Bow in Ranged Shooting (still Destroyed if Doubled in Close Combat) 5 - If in Shooting Circle formation (ie. one LH providing rear support to another) and they get a Flee result in Close Combat, then they both turn and Flee as one group. Attila vs Western Patrician Romans. My initial finding are you can, if you roll high pip's, hit a flank front and side. It is possible to sweep a flank away in 2-3 turns, depending on combat rolls, or die a glorious death. not receiving a -1 overlap aids the former and receiving it the later. So if you break off the unit either side of you is un-supported. Of course this all relies upon the oppo nit having flanks resting on terrain or any flank support, either or both of which you would do with LH zipping about the place. Unless the army is LC for the most part and could all move into contact together it tended to result in them dying as they are unsupported. And they still seen to die against Cv on a 3-1 roll before any flanking maneuver can take effect, if you take a more measured approach. Maybe more patience is needed. I think we need to be careful that changes designed to improve light horse armies ends up improving the light horse category so much that it creates unwanted side-effects by making historically lower quality troops in many other armies game winners. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 18, 2023 12:51:37 GMT
I'm thinking Dark Elf witch queen palace, though may be a little too bright and green for your tower stevie.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 17, 2023 12:19:37 GMT
On a recent trip to NYC, I found a keyring of Lady Liberty that inspired me to make a HOTT stronghold:  I imagined this as a view from Brooklyn. Now I need an army to defend it. As it is always the target of aliens, super villains, etc, I am thinking an army of NYPD, US military and superheroes. Any other thoughts? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 17, 2023 6:22:11 GMT
Ties in DBA 3 can have outcome moves (Fast v Solid) or even destroy some elements. This may lead to unwanted effects.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 17, 2023 2:49:56 GMT
However, you could possibly re-introduce 'superior' vs 'inferior' (from other DBx systems) as they are just 2 extra classifications that serve as a catch-all for much more numerous niche variations. Certainly Superior/Inferior would be relatively easy to implement as we already cope with Solid/Fast. The concern is whether the bonus/penalty, which would apply to all troop types, allows the troops to behave as they would historically or would promote ahistorical strategies, eg lightly armed troops suddenly charging heavy infantry or knights, contrary to their historical counterparts because they now have a bonus in close combat. As always, the devil is in the detail. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 16, 2023 4:25:02 GMT
When I think of high fantasy I don't think of light horse or horse archers. I think of knights charging each other or lesser cavalry or foot troops. This is what HOTT represents with knights and riders. But it is fantasy, so why not?
In terms of historical armies, it's not the one or two elements of LH in an army that are the bother. These seem to work well, operating in the flanks and looking for an opportunity. The model fails with historically successful armies from Mongolia and the steppe that fielded high numbers of horse archers (Egyptian light chariots against there historical enemies may also have a claim). A DBA army with predominately LH is weak and that is the great flaw. In my view, solutions should be aimed at, and where possible limited to, these armies, so that play balance in other armies is not affected.
Invariably, these armies are horse archers, so creating a sub-category of horse archer, like longbow and crossbow, would help limit the tinkering to only the historical armies that deserve the upgrade. There will be some complaints and some will fall into the cracks considering the hundreds of armies available (Thessalians will complain but then they don't have to face Spartiates either). But this top down approach may help devise some solutions without unwanted side-effects. One concept I've tinkered with is allowing horse archers to ignore TZ (either all or just foot). This plays on the concept of their "invulnerability" and their speed, outpacing all others. It allows them to dance around and turn flanks of pursuers without concern. If they are contacted in flank on subsequent turns they just turn and face. Sounds like the flexibility of horse archers. Another concept is to create a new outcome result for horse archers of "Fall back", which allows them to retire without turning around to a more preferred distance, perhaps with them enticing enemy pursuit. It could even be used as a choice instead of recoiling the enemy if the player chooses.
So now to my Skythians for painting and playtesting.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 14, 2023 10:18:06 GMT
Hittites... so tempting...
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 14, 2023 10:14:00 GMT
Interesting thoughts there. Need more time to think about those properly. What do you think about the Bw being easier to shoot LH than Cv issue/non-issue? Maybe because there are less LH than Cav (2v3) per stand?  More likely LH are missile troops not looking to get into melee that run into a superior missile weapons system. They are outshot and happen to be sitting on a very convenient way out. Cav probably believe they can fight their way out if they can reach them. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 14, 2023 1:00:59 GMT
Fantastic work stevie! Will print it out this Wednesday.
Jim
|
|
