Page 1 of 2

Rules Change - To Keep Battle Lines more Intact

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:42 am
by philqw78
Make the distance BG must test not to charge if shock 4MU for mounted and 3MU for foot. This means people can keep battle lines intact, especially Byzantines with Cats and cav in the same line that were supposed to charge together, armies that had MF theurophoroi and HF hoplites, MF and HF warbands, Armd Knights and cav, even HA and Cav. And Lance Bw* can shoot at least once to prepare their charge. (Not that their shooting will do much.)

It still means mounted and foot have different distances so will split formation unless played well,..... with a co-operative enemy

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:15 am
by nikgaukroger
Bit of a non starter really, as the idea behind shock troops testing not to charge is that it is unplanned and can cause disruption to the plan.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:21 am
by kevinj
I think trying to tempt faster BGs out of a line in a rash charge is a perfectly legitimate tactic.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:46 am
by philqw78
nikgaukroger wrote:Bit of a non starter really, as the idea behind shock troops testing not to charge is that it is unplanned and can cause disruption to the plan.
KevinJ wrote:I think trying to tempt faster BGs out of a line in a rash charge is a perfectly legitimate tactic
Maybe with skirmishers. Not by moving battle troops to 4.5 inches away so that the cavalry charge before the cataphracts. It makes little difference to skirmishers, just means that if armed with bow they have to get to effective range before the cavalry think about charging them. Why would the cav be bothered if they were outside effective range?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:30 pm
by ethan
philqw78 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Bit of a non starter really, as the idea behind shock troops testing not to charge is that it is unplanned and can cause disruption to the plan.
KevinJ wrote:I think trying to tempt faster BGs out of a line in a rash charge is a perfectly legitimate tactic
Maybe with skirmishers. Not by moving battle troops to 4.5 inches away so that the cavalry charge before the cataphracts. It makes little difference to skirmishers, just means that if armed with bow they have to get to effective range before the cavalry think about charging them. Why would the cav be bothered if they were outside effective range?
I actually wonder if those Byzantine "cataphracts" wouldn't actually play better as Elite Cavalry instead of Cataphracts.

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 2:41 pm
by rbodleyscott
philqw78 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Bit of a non starter really, as the idea behind shock troops testing not to charge is that it is unplanned and can cause disruption to the plan.
KevinJ wrote:I think trying to tempt faster BGs out of a line in a rash charge is a perfectly legitimate tactic
Maybe with skirmishers. Not by moving battle troops to 4.5 inches away so that the cavalry charge before the cataphracts.
Hmm. I wonder who has a Nikephorian Byzantine army?

(The words "rough" and "smooth" spring to mind here)

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:53 pm
by spikemesq
No doubt Lancers would enjoy this rule.

*Hangs out at 4.5 MU
*Can charge at will

Spike

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 8:29 pm
by philqw78
rbodleyscott wrote:
philqw78 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Bit of a non starter really, as the idea behind shock troops testing not to charge is that it is unplanned and can cause disruption to the plan.
KevinJ wrote:I think trying to tempt faster BGs out of a line in a rash charge is a perfectly legitimate tactic
Maybe with skirmishers. Not by moving battle troops to 4.5 inches away so that the cavalry charge before the cataphracts.
Hmm. I wonder who has a Nikephorian Byzantine army?

(The words "rough" and "smooth" spring to mind here)
And where is the smooth part of a 2 base BG of cataphracts?

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:03 am
by kevinj
And where is the smooth part of a 2 base BG of cataphracts?
They're not compulsory, so if you're taking them there must be some good reason.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:14 am
by philqw78
kevinj wrote:
And where is the smooth part of a 2 base BG of cataphracts?
They're not compulsory, so if you're taking them there must be some good reason.
Nobody is. Nor are they taking mixed BG of lancer bow or Bw*lancer as they never get to shoot. The way the rules work against the bow* and half bow BG is worse than it is for the battle lines, but the 4MU CMT range would solve both issues.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:23 am
by philqw78
spikemesq wrote:No doubt Lancers would enjoy this rule.

*Hangs out at 4.5 MU
*Can charge at will

Spike
Well LH enjoy it more at the moment. Hang out at 5MU cannot be caught by or do any damage to the cav but force a test to charge.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:03 am
by caliban66
rbodleyscott wrote:
Hmm. I wonder who has a Nikephorian Byzantine army?

(The words "rough" and "smooth" spring to mind here)
I had the same feeling when I bought D&F companion book. I was very interested on Nikephorians, but after reading the list, I decided that I was not that skilfull to raise an army from there. And that´s not mentioning maurikian byzantine, which seems also quite difficult for me.
I imagine byzantine generals of that age, thinking: "Hey, I do not want to rule this army. I prefer a Ghaznavid one..."

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:52 pm
by ethan
I think the later Byzatines are not quite that bad. Lancer front rank and bow rear rank are IMO a pretty decent troop type. The point is not to sit there and shoot up the enemy...The bows are IMO there to make them much less pleasant to skirmish and in general they play like Reg cavalry lancers which are a solid troop type.

The cataphracts are IMO a bit pants, but others think they are quite valuable. As I posted above I would prefer to see them with an option to be armoured elite cavalry instead of cataphracts (based on my extensive research...err reading what the Khurasan Miniatures guy/web site has had to say about them) but I will admit that I haven't done extensive research on the army recently. In any case I don't view the cats as pivotal, though if they were mandatory it would be a bigger issue.

The Nikephorian problems are not IMO the cavalry which is pretty solid. It is twofold. First, they lack any LH which...Given a relatively large number of other lists which seem to not have this level of forced change this is a pit puzzling and a genuine problem - especially given teh second problem...Second, the foot options are a problem. You can't get any LF without taking the minimum heavy foot and the heavy foot has some issues. it is not terrible but neither is it great. The Nikephorians were an army that was pretty successful and I believe thought to be tactically very flexiblea and well trained. It is hard to imagine given how FoG works that this is an army that often completely lacked any skirmishing capability - especially when most of their enemies had such a capability.

Fortunately, the Thematic list fixes many of these issues. It has some internal LH, you can take the LF without taking the heavy foot and if you do take the HF it is a IMO at least more useful than the Nikephorian heavy foot. the figures are same if you assume it is a late Thematic army so just carry on. One might argue that havin mandatory average cavalry is a problem, but I think those are actually fine, just have to be handled carefully. FWIW, this is on my short list of armies to work up and I will probably start it late this year after finishing up the Qin.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:52 pm
by philqw78
ethan wrote:I think the later Byzatines are not quite that bad. Lancer front rank and bow rear rank are IMO a pretty decent troop type. The point is not to sit there and shoot up the enemy...
They can't sit and shoot the enemy now, nor could they if the test for shock mounted to charge was dropped to 4MU. But they could get 1 shot in the enemies turn. Whereas now if the enemy move to 5 MU they, if in a battle line, will charge unless v's skirmishers when they can risk piecemeal contact
ethan wrote:The bows are IMO there to make them much less pleasant to skirmish and in general they play like Reg cavalry lancers which are a solid troop type.
but cost more
ethan wrote:The Nikephorian problems are not IMO the cavalry.....
But this is not just about the Byzantines. Some of the chinese armies have Lance Bw*, others have half lance half bow, but it is points spent on a useless missile weapon, points wasted. So these armies will generally not see the light of day in competition.

Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:14 pm
by ethan
philqw78 wrote:But this is not just about the Byzantines. Some of the chinese armies have Lance Bw*, others have half lance half bow, but it is points spent on a useless missile weapon, points wasted. So these armies will generally not see the light of day in competition.
I disagree that it is useless, I think it is quite handy. But IMO it is of greatest value against skirmishers rather than formed troops. You might get lucky against formed troops which is a bonus, but it makes skirmishing such cavalry much less pleasant.

Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:40 pm
by philqw78
ethan wrote:
philqw78 wrote:re Bw*
I disagree that it is useless, I think it is quite handy. But IMO it is of greatest value against skirmishers rather than formed troops. You might get lucky against formed troops which is a bonus, but it makes skirmishing such cavalry much less pleasant.
It is of greatest value against skirmishers that can sit at 5 MU and force a test to charge without being shot. Therefore not much use. They will pull a Bw* battle line apart before the Bw* can be used to bother them. Once the BL is disrupted the LH can then move around the flanks and shoot with impunity, but still be in charge reach.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:55 am
by ethan
It is not that easy to pull apart a line of drilled lancers. If the skirmishers want to sit at 5 MU then they don't get to shoot and if they aren't shooting trying to cause disruption they are going to get backed up 5 MU a move and will rapidly run out of table to skirmish on.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:43 am
by nikgaukroger
ethan wrote:If the skirmishers want to sit at 5 MU then they don't get to shoot

Well LF bowmen can, however, at 1 dice per 3 it isn't very effective.

Phil needs to take the advice he gave in the LH topic - learn to deal with it, learn to play better 8)

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:52 am
by DavidT
I think that Phil's idea is a very good one.
A similar problem existis with shock HF. Enemy LF can move to within 3MU of the HF, forcing them to test not to charge without any risk (even rolling a 6 for their VMD, the HF will only go 5MU which is insufficient to catch the LF, even when they roll a 1 and only move 3MU). This enables LF to be used to pull apart a BL of shock foot unless the shock foot have sufficient decent LF to deal with it. And even having your own LF is a problem as you want to try and avoid a LF v LF battle in front of your main BL as this only prevents your BL getting into the fight. At some point you have to withdraw your own LF to enable your BL to go forward, exposing them to the problem.
Historically, some hoplite forces used to have a number of more lightly armed hoplites within their ranks who could dash out and try to catch annoying enemy LF - Phil's suggestion of reducing the range at which shock foot have to test not to charge to 2MU would mean that the LF would have to come close enough to risk being caught (still only a small chance, but at least a chance).
Currently skirmishers are able to pull apart BLs of shock foot with no risk which, in my opinion, is wrong.
The current rules also enable players to use that age old 'tactic' (well probably as old as the first wargames rules dealing with impetuous troops) of angling their BL slightly so that some enemy shock troops are within range, while others aren't. This cahnge would make this much harder.
For mounted, why shock cavalry would try to charge LH who aren't a threat (i.e. who are outside the LH shooting range), is a bit strange. In fact, I would go further and just make the range at which shock troops have to test not to charge as 2MU for all troops. This would mean that LH have to risk being caught if they want to try and pull enemy shock mounted out of line. (Again, only a small chance, but still a chance).
So, I'll vote with Phil on this one as it appears to make sense historically and would would improve the game a little in favour of non-skirmishers.

Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 4:22 pm
by madaxeman
Much more fun to say that any charger contacts evaders on a 6:1 dice roll. :wink: