4 base skirmishing BGs

[azrael86]

If you have an army that can't go wide, doesn't have many mounted and has no significant missile capability then I am afraid you are very much the rock to the light horse paper.

Which is, of course entirely historically realistic.

It simply isn't possible (despite points systems) to have a realistic set of rules that gives an even chance to an army in a situation in which that army would historically have been flummoxed.

Maybe, but the result is not very realistic. The heavy guys would just get on with it, and unless they made a mistake the skirmishers gave ground. And before anyone starts up about Crassus, please consider Xenophon. Unlike Crassus,he was a professional soldier, not a politician, and the army held together.

[rbodleyscott]

Maybe, but the result is not very realistic.

Au contraire.

The heavy guys would just get on with it, and unless they made a mistake the skirmishers gave ground. And before anyone starts up about Crassus, please consider Xenophon. Unlike Crassus,he was a professional soldier, not a politician, and the army held together.

He managed to extricate his army, but (propaganda aside) he did not actually defeat the Persians. Sounds like a draw to me.

Yes, the Heavy Guys would capture the battlefield. Whoop-de-do. Do you think the Skythians would give a damn? They would just keep retreating until the heavy guys starve or give up and go home. Why should the heavies be rewarded with an in-game victory?

[hazelbark]

Yes, the Heavy Guys would capture the battlefield. Whoop-de-do. Do you think the Skythians would give a damn? They would just keep retreating until the heavy guys starve or give up and go home. Why should the heavies be rewarded with an in-game victory?

So we have a game that ifyou take Skythians you cannot be beaten unless you choose to fight. Not much fun of a game. c'mon you are a better designer than that.

Maybe the Skythian tribal cheif had to fight because his wife questioned his manhood and the that is why we have a do-or-die battle. Maybe the forage is bad off the table edge.

[rbodleyscott]

Yes, the Heavy Guys would capture the battlefield. Whoop-de-do. Do you think the Skythians would give a damn? They would just keep retreating until the heavy guys starve or give up and go home. Why should the heavies be rewarded with an in-game victory?

So we have a game that ifyou take Skythians you cannot be beaten unless you choose to fight. Not much fun of a game. c'mon you are a better designer than that.

Skythians can be defeated under the rules, just not easily with a heavy foot army. However, a MF archer army can defeat the LH army but may struggle against the HF army.

It is called scissors-paper-stone.

Or to put it another way, historically, the troops that are guaranteed to win a stand up fight always whine if the enemy won't stand and be slaughtered like men.

[philqw78]

Or to put it another way, historically, the troops that are guaranteed to win a stand up fight always whine if the enemy won't stand and be slaughtered like men.

So we have the opponents of the skirmishers, who believe that they should be forced to fight, or lose if they do not suicide themselves. The propponents who believe the LH should have as much chance on the table as they had historically. And those that will fight whatever is put in front of them.

We just keep going over the same things. Of the top 10 players in the UK only 1 is a habitual user of LH. I can't remember any of the others using a LH army. So where is this imagined problem. Somebody more vocal makes it up and sets off on a crusade. And, in his rules, if he reaches the other side of the table he has won.

[madaxeman]

If we modeled it on the Romans marching on Ctesiphon maybe we would get somewhere. It seems like the historical record is something like:

• Romans get tired of Parthians, decide to nick Parthian treasure.
• Romans invade, clever Romans pick a parth through hills, along a river, etc. They tend not to wander out into the middle of nowhere.
• Parthians send out masses of skirmishers to harass and wear out the Romans along the way, but this is not enough to stop Romans
• Parthians could just ignore Romans, let them sack capitol but decide to make an effort to stop them and thus we have a battle.

I really like this analysis. Well thought out, and makes a number of very very good points.

[philqw78]

• Romans get tired of Parthians, decide to nick Parthian treasure.
• Romans invade, clever Romans pick a parth through hills, along a river, etc. They tend not to wander out into the middle of nowhere.
• Parthians send out masses of skirmishers to harass and wear out the Romans along the way, but this is not enough to stop Romans
• Parthians could just ignore Romans, let them sack capitol but decide to make an effort to stop them and thus we have a battle.

I really like this analysis. Well thought out, and makes a number of very very good points.

But I bet the Romans trudging all that way were F p*ssed off with not getting a decent fight. Much like the Romans now.

[benos]

just out of interest i think the influential players might need to declare any vested interests
I know Nik has used seljuks a fair bit, and I understand Richard has Sassanids...are we seing a grand horse archer masonic conspiracy ?

Have we inadvertantly uncovered Dan Browns forthcomming 6th novel "the bow on the steppe" ?

probably not but sounds far more fun than complaining about light horse, 4 base battlegroups and how swarms ar ethe only way

Ben

[philqw78]

just out of interest i think the influential players might need to declare any vested interests
Ben

I'm not influential but I do have a vested interest in keeping rubbish that lancers can run over quickly in the game. If these changes happen LH will dissappear as a troop type.

[hammy]

So far I have won tournaments with:

Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian (800 points themed, 14 BG, 5 BG of 4 bases of skirmishers)
Early Libyan (650 points open, 13 BG, no BG of 4 bases of skirmishers but 6 BG of 6-8 bases of skirmishers)
Santa Hermandad Nueva Castilian (1000 points themed, 17 BG, 4 BG of 4 bases of skirmishers)
Early Successors (1000 points themed, 16 BG, 2 BG of 4 bases of skirmishers)
Bosphoran (900 points open, 15 BG, 3 BG of 4 bases of skirmishers)
Slave Revolt (1000 points themed, 19 BG, no 4 base skirmisher BG and only one mounted BG)
Nikephorian Byzantine (900 points themed, 16 BG, 3 BG of 4 bases of skirmishers)
Dominate Roman (900 points themed, 19 BG, 5 BG of 4 bases of skirmishers)
German Sity Leagues (900 point open, 15 BG, 2 BG of 4 bases of skirmishers)

Make of it what you will

[geoff]

Richard,


I am very pleased to see you post in this thread and show your opinion that nothing really needs changing.
I have been watching this thread with some horror and hoping that the rule writers would not be unduly influenced by it.
I do not run LH armies myself but that is simply personal preference. The rules as they stand I feel model LH/HF/MF interactions exceptionally well.
Keep up the good work.


Cheers.................Geoff

Maybe, but the result is not very realistic.

Au contraire.

The heavy guys would just get on with it, and unless they made a mistake the skirmishers gave ground. And before anyone starts up about Crassus, please consider Xenophon. Unlike Crassus,he was a professional soldier, not a politician, and the army held together.

He managed to extricate his army, but (propaganda aside) he did not actually defeat the Persians. Sounds like a draw to me.

Yes, the Heavy Guys would capture the battlefield. Whoop-de-do. Do you think the Skythians would give a damn? They would just keep retreating until the heavy guys starve or give up and go home. Why should the heavies be rewarded with an in-game victory?

[grahambriggs]

Richard,


I am very pleased to see you post in this thread and show your opinion that nothing really needs changing.
I have been watching this thread with some horror and hoping that the rule writers would not be unduly influenced by it.
I do not run LH armies myself but that is simply personal preference. The rules as they stand I feel model LH/HF/MF interactions exceptionally well.
Keep up the good work.


Cheers.................Geoff

While I like the rules I'm afraid I've had the opposite reaction as far as competitions go. Armies consisting mostly of air don't win many competitions but they do spoil the weekend for those who bring a solid army and end up playing them. To the extent that it is putting some people off entering.

It's disappointing to see people saying there is no problem because tournaments are not being won by these armies. Indeed they are not. But people still play them and their opponents still have non games.

Richard is right in that these non results may well be historical. So was Hannibal ambling round Italy for years while the Roman army stayed fortified. I don't want to play that out in a competition either.

Granted this is an issue that could be resolved by tournament organisers. But an author saying "all is well" is hardly going to encourage that.

[rbodleyscott]

Granted this is an issue that could be resolved by tournament organisers. But an author saying "all is well" is hardly going to encourage that.

Well I have listed a package of changes that are planned, so I don't think I can be accused of saying that all is 100% well. However, some of the solutions suggested in this thread would make the game less historical, which I am afraid that I cannot see as acceptable. Moreover, we need to make sure that we do not swing the pendulum too far the other way and kill off the useability of LH armies entirely.

As always, balance is the key.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm not influential

You'd be surprised ...

but I do have a vested interest in keeping rubbish that lancers can run over quickly in the game. If these changes happen LH will dissappear as a troop type.

Depends what you mean by "these changes" - there have been so many suggestions here. Certainly, IMO, the ones Richard mentioned would not see the end of LH and I'd point out that the ones we put in FoG:R (and thus have had some play testing) wouldn't either as LH are still very useful in that set.

I don't think Richard will be removing your LH victims

[nikgaukroger]

It's disappointing to see people saying there is no problem because tournaments are not being won by these armies.

Indeed - that is missing the point being raised by those who are concerned

[philqw78]

Depends what you mean by "these changes" - there have been so many suggestions here. Certainly, IMO, the ones Richard mentioned would not see the end of LH and I'd point out that the ones we put in FoG:R (and thus have had some play testing) wouldn't either as LH are still very useful in that set.

I don't think Richard will be removing your LH victims

So when will you be making them even easier victims?

[grahambriggs]

Granted this is an issue that could be resolved by tournament organisers. But an author saying "all is well" is hardly going to encourage that.

Well I have listed a package of changes that are planned, so I don't think I can be accused of saying that all is 100% well. However, some of the solutions suggested in this thread would make the game less historical, which I am afraid that I cannot see as acceptable. Moreover, we need to make sure that we do not swing the pendulum too far the other way and kill off the useability of LH armies entirely.

As always, balance is the key.

Yes, fair point Richard. I had, of course, forgotten you'd said that some changes are planned. At least there are lot's of ideas for how to fix it, and agree that it has to be within the bounds of history.

It would be nice if the fix could be outside the rule book entirely - i.e. tournament scoring, table sizes or whatever. That way the majority of people who just want to play outside of tournaments will be able to carry on entirely as before.

[dave_r]

Richard did actually post the proposed changes - not sure if they are in this thread or the other "all light horse are evil" thread.

They were (from memory)

- BG's that flee of base edge count as 2AP
- Can't wheel more than 90 degrees in one turn

There may have been some more (in fact I am fairly certain there were) but these were the main ones. Not earth shattering, but the no wheel more than 90 degrees significantly cuts down on their slipperiness.

[nikgaukroger]

Richard did actually post the proposed changes - not sure if they are in this thread or the other "all light horse are evil" thread.

They were (from memory)

- BG's that flee of base edge count as 2AP
- Can't wheel more than 90 degrees in one turn

There may have been some more (in fact I am fairly certain there were) but these were the main ones. Not earth shattering, but the no wheel more than 90 degrees significantly cuts down on their slipperiness.

IIRC flee off rear table edge 2AP, still 1AP for other edges.
No more than a total of 90 degree wheeling
No wheel to avoid fleeing off table edge
Something else - I'm sure it was a 4 point plan

[madaxeman]

Richard did actually post the proposed changes - not sure if they are in this thread or the other "all light horse are evil" thread.

They were (from memory)

- BG's that flee of base edge count as 2AP
- Can't wheel more than 90 degrees in one turn

There may have been some more (in fact I am fairly certain there were) but these were the main ones. Not earth shattering, but the no wheel more than 90 degrees significantly cuts down on their slipperiness.

IIRC flee off rear table edge 2AP, still 1AP for other edges.
No more than a total of 90 degree wheeling
No wheel to avoid fleeing off table edge
Something else - I'm sure it was a 4 point plan

I think #4 was either "Relocate all players to Manchester", or "change all players names to 'Dave' ".