Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote: We are current considering the following collection of amendments to improve the lot of MF:

Mounted get a + POA vs MF in the open in the impact phase but not in the melee phase.
MF cohesion test modifier -1 vs HF or mounted in the open.

Impact Foot get + POA vs mounted in the impact phase

but

Mounted don't suffer a -1 CT modifer if they lose vs impact foot in the impact phase.
Mounted swordsmen do count vs Skilled Swordsmen in melee. (Thus cancelling out instead of the skilled swordsmen getting a net +)

A lot of this looks good IMO, however, might it be a bit too much for lancers against bowmen? They'll have a ++ and lancers are often Superior - even allowing for the 2nd rank shooting of the archers (which appears to do very little from what I've seen).

Are we moving to a case for HF archers in some cases (Janisseries, English?) or that the + PoA for mounted fighting MF only counting if they have no other impact PoA or just Light Spear?

nikgaukroger wrote:Having all but the best (say Janisseries and English) flattened by knights in the open seems OK

Yet historically Janissaries were deployed behind field fortifications (even against Timurids who would not even be graded as lancers), and English behind hedges, pot-holes or stakes or uphill.

Where is the evidence for them standing up to knights in the open?

nikgaukroger wrote:A lot of this looks good IMO, however, might it be a bit too much for lancers against bowmen? They'll have a ++ and lancers are often Superior - even allowing for the 2nd rank shooting of the archers (which appears to do very little from what I've seen).

In fact it cancels out one of the enemy POAs

e.g. Against armoured non-lancer cavalry.

9 dice at - = 3 hits
6 dice at + = 3 hits

Against lancers this would be

9 dice at --/- = 3 hits
6 dice at ++ = 4 hits

Thus to break even vs lancers in the impact phase they need to disrupt the enemy before they charge. As you say, this does not take into account the lancers being of higher quality than the archers. Of course most of the cavalry recorded historically as being repelled by archers/crossbowmen in the open (which is AFAIK mainly only the Chinese evidence) are not graded as lancers.

Note also that unprotected MF archers will be equal to light chariots in melee after the proposed change. They will be at - in the impact phase, but the rear rank shooting cancels that. Yes they are lower quality than the chariots in most cases, but they are also likely to have overlaps in melee. So within period Egyptian/Kushite etc bowmen really aren't bad.

As a player at Leeds...

My MF bow Sw were OKin the open against most things - scary to be commanding buit not suicidal. I played the hoiplited pretty straight up and lost 14-5 AP but should have been about 14-9 APs if I could have hit the frag BGs with 5 dice a couple of times.... Although Andy did play them as Protected which gave me more chance. Mind you I would not have epxcceted to have much chance playting so bold vs Armoured Hoplites and rightly so.

Vs the Swiss played in full comp fettle they were fine. Needed careful handling and support and use of uneven terrain to be effective but that was fine. In the open once the enemy were thinned out a bit they were OK.

A stand up fight with MF JLS in the last game went the Indians way after a tough stand up fight.

Overall not bad. I found that the extra dice when charged give them a chance.

Si

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Having all but the best (say Janisseries and English) flattened by knights in the open seems OK

Yet historically Janissaries were deployed behind field fortifications, and English behind hedges, pot-holes or stakes or uphill.

Where is the evidence for them standing up to knights in the open?

In my mind I was distinguishing between being (low) speed bumps and mearly being beaten

nikgaukroger wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Having all but the best (say Janisseries and English) flattened by knights in the open seems OK

Yet historically Janissaries were deployed behind field fortifications, and English behind hedges, pot-holes or stakes or uphill.

Where is the evidence for them standing up to knights in the open?

In my mind I was distinguishing between being (low) speed bumps and mearly being beaten

In the absence of historical evidence for them trying to stand up to knights in the open, how can you say how bad it should be for them? Clearly they thought it was bad enough not to risk it!

nikgaukroger wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:Having all but the best (say Janisseries and English) flattened by knights in the open seems OK

Yet historically Janissaries were deployed behind field fortifications, and English behind hedges, pot-holes or stakes or uphill.

Where is the evidence for them standing up to knights in the open?

In my mind I was distinguishing between being (low) speed bumps and mearly being beaten

Under the current rules the problem for the archers is not at impact but in melee. Against anything better than protected swordsmen the 100 YW longbowman will be at -- and while the impact is close (slightly favours propper knights) the melee is no contest. With the proposed change bow will still be at - against mounted but IMO that is reasonable.

Essentially with the change, knights into longbow will favour the knights if they get a formed charge and be about even if the knights are disrupted. Sounds OK to me.

Hammy

Since most of my army (New Kingdom Egyptian) was MF and I lost 3 out of 4 games, perhaps I can adopt a jaundiced view. In the open, medium impact foot die in droves - with 2 POAs down against armoured cav and legionnaries in the melee. But in rough terrain they're OK and come mob handed to swamp any auxilliaries they meet. Medium bow not too impressive against legionnaries (5 or 6 to hit). I tried the Egyptian trick of close fighters behind and exchanging with bow when the latter were charged but medium close fighters (swordsmen) weren't much cop against legionnaries.
If I fight with NKE again I'll bring heavy close fighters, fewer medium impact foot and more chariots - what a good troop Lt Chariots are, shoot well, evade if they want to and fight well against cav (when you roll the right dice that is!!!)
Clive

I took Late Republician Roman to leeds. I considered taking 1 BG of MF but in the end decided that BG of 4 legionaries were not noticably effected by the terrain, and anything they could not cope with in the terrain the MF wouldn't be sufficiently better at handling. Even my 4 base Cav BG can fight LH, LF, and pure missile MF, in broken terrain where the Cav is disordered and the enemy aren't.
I suspect that skirmishers should be costed as drilled, instead of undrilled, as they are clearly better than similarly equipped undrilled MF and are probably better than drilled MF.

rbodleyscott wrote: This means that

1) Legions will be better (than currently) vs mounted in the impact phase, but not as good in the melee phase.
2) Legions will be less like road-kill against elephants. (But they will still be disadvantaged in the melee phase).
3) Legions won't be worse than HF auxilia vs mounted in impact phase.
...

Not sure it matters what you do to Legionaries...noone will take the buggers on

shall wrote:As a player at Leeds...

My MF bow Sw were OKin the open against most things - scary to be commanding buit not suicidal. I
Si

My observations after a few friendles and Leeds are that MF bow with Sw seem okay, especially if they are protected. Without Sw they are pretty vulnerable.

I found this out in friendlies beforehand so I was careful to hide MF (XB & Bw, protected) in terrain at Leeds. In earlier games I played them a bit like DBM BwO (good against mtd in the open, okay in the open against foot provided that that there aren't too many of them), which didn't work.

As a preference I'd much prefer LF for all the reasons Matt mentions. Unfortunately, in the Early Crusader list there is very little LF available, so I took the MF missile and essentially used them for contesting terrain. There is really very little to recommend MF over LF. The only time it really made a difference is when Dave Handley found that my LF can't charge anyone, not even in flank/rear. So his cavalry gave two fingers to the LF he was facing, who were holding terrain, turned around, and attacked some nearby spearmen in the flank. He couldn't / wouldn't do that if he was facing MF.

It may be worth pricing LF as drilled as suggested to reflect the extra versatility compared to MF.

The lack of LF does hamper an army like the Crusaders, who have very little (except allies) in the way of flexible troops to hold the flanks. Historical - perhaps yes. But it does struggle to work as a viable army in an "open" comp, and it is vulnerable to being surrounded. Which is exactly what happened to the Crusading armies, but they developed techniques to cope with this.

Neil

neilhammond wrote: The only time it really made a difference is when Dave Handley found that my LF can't charge anyone, not even in flank/rear.

That sounds odd - is it correct?

not unless they are in bad going or fragmented (I think)

not unless they are in bad going or fragmented (I think)

Not true. LF can charge any skirmishers in the open.

They are prohibited from charging unbroken non-skirmishers in open terrain.

Pete

rbodleyscott wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:I'm keen on the idea of allowing both 15 mm and 20 mm base depth for both MF and HF. THis would save a lot of rebasing of Roman Auxilia, Celtic Wb(S), Bd(F) and Bd(X) etc for DBM transfers. Base depth has no game mechanics effect and identifications generally get sorted out at the start when players declare their troops.

It would also allow DBR based elements to be correct.

The main argument against it is that some troops types that are allowed to be fielded as either (e.g. Roman auxiliaries) could be hard to identify. However, we intend to change to lists to say "all MF or all HF" for such types, so declaration at the start of a game could be sufficient. (And they should be the same for the whole tournament as this represents differing interpretations of their role rather than a choice of formations they could adopt).

Nevertheless, scope for (possibly unfair) misidentification by opponents does exist.

Misidentification hasn't been a problem in DBM for e.g. Turkish cavalry that can be Kn or Cv or other armies that can be Cv(O) or (S), or Hsiung Nu LH(S) or (F). Irr Ax, Bd(F) and Wb(F) all look the same too, without causing a great deal of confusion in DBM.

it should be easier in AoW as you dont have to worry about the 2 bases of reg, 3 irregular and 4 wb all together - you only have to keep track fo 10-15 BGs rather than 50-60 element

Except the deadly ancient Britons who beat them 32-0 with not a single AP against

Si

rbodleyscott wrote: I think this points up an issue that AoW may be better for (approximate) historical matchups than for "Open Tournaments".

We always envisaged that AoW tournaments might be based on the AoW army list books rather than "open". The AoW army list books are themed, which largely avoids mis-matches, (apart from the entirely historical mis-match of Romans vs Parthians), whereas the DBM ones are done purely by date, which still allows for horrible mis-matches. We also planned to have a list in each army list book of armies from other books that can also be used in their theme.

This is how most Warrior tourneys in Oz are organised though there are still open tourneys. The themed tourneys work well with new armies being tried and some that wouldn't see the light of day normally having a run.

I'd encourage these types of tourneys over opens any day though I know that there are lots of tournament players who will disagree.

John O