Issues from latest test game (Sicilians versus Indians)
Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:08 am
Issues from latest test game (My Sicilians versus Lance Flint’s Indians)
Observations:
After 4 hours we were both close to breaking, but would have needed at least 2 more turns to get those last AP. Not sure how many turns we got in. We started at 5-10 minutes each but slowed down a lot when it got to combat.
Crossbows are pretty nifty against elephants. However, we couldn’t find the rule that elephants count as 2 bases each for 1HP3B, so counted them as 1. I found it this morning in the glossary. Can’t it be fitted into the reference sheet?
Massed bowmen are pretty nifty against skirmishers.
1. A commander was with a battlegroup of LH that routed. Some of the LH bases left the table, so the BG was removed. The commander’s base itself did not leave the table. Should he have been removed with the BG? The rule is:
If a commander leaves the table (as a result as a result of evading or routing with a battlegroup), he is removed from play for the remainder of the game.
I think this probably means the commander’s base must actually leave the table, but Lance took it to mean that he just needed to be with a BG that left the table. (If any base leaves the table then the whole BG is removed, including any attached commander.)
2. An unattached commander moved within bowshot of enemy. According the rules he could stay there until the enemy moved. Only then did he have to move to join a BG. This enabled him to stay within command range of two BGs during the shooting phase. Not sure if this was intended.
3. Support shooting in impact: Does the entire rank shoot, or only bases directly behind bases that will fight in impact close combat? This made a difference of 3 dice in one combat.
4. Defensive spear charging bowmen. We were a bit surprised that the spearmen got no impact POA against bowmen. If they are net + against 1 rank of defensive spearmen (as in my half spear/half crossbow BG) shouldn’t they be on a + vs people with nothing? The extra shooting dice gave the bowmen quite an advantage in impact. The spearmen had the advantage in melee, which makes sense (they were Bow only, not bow/sword) .
I’m still a bit unhappy with defensive spear charging defensive spear on evens. You have stated that it was put in to prevent Mexican standoffs. IMO if a Mexican standoff is historical, (which it would be if Def Spear tactics did not involve charging) then it should be in the game. Armies with Def Spear have other troops to attack with, so the overall game would not be a stand off. Def Spear are there to fend off enemy attacks, not to attack. If the enemy are not going to attack them, they are doing their job, even if they themselves can’t attack. If you want to attack enemy Def Spear, use something other than Def Spear. If Def Spear were on a - charging Def Spear, then being on evens against defenceless bowmen would make a lot more sense.
I suggest removing "Defensive Spear Charging Defensive Spear" from the POAs as the simplest change.
Giving them net evens for 2 ranks charging 1 rank of defensive spear and + against foot with no impact capability would probably be better, but might be an unnecessary complication.
5. Disorder due to elephants:
The first point I must make here is that it took ages to find the section on disorder. Although disorder comes from a variety of causes, and has its effect in several phases, we found it eventually in the Terrain Appendix. The first place we looked was Cohesion Mechanism, the second place Movement Mechanism. Disorder due to elephants is described in the section on Special Effects. I think all the disorder rules should probably be in this section as they don’t fit neatly into any of the Mechanism sections. Certainly they should not be in an appendix, as they are a core mechanism.
Page 71 says "Knights, cataphracts, cavalry, light horse and chariots are DISORDERED if less than 1 base width from elephants or camelry.
On page 81 we have "If the a battle group’s formation could not function well due to its situation (such as terrain, part way through an interpenetration, or camelry or elephants) it is DISORDERED or SEVERELY DISORDERED and therefore vulnerable."
This suggests that disorder applies the battle group as a whole (pronoun "it" refers to "Battle group").
The bullet points under the table of disorder effects say "Only bases that are at least partly in the situation are affected" . This is perfectly clear. However, because the first column in the table is headed "Terrain Grade", Lance was certain that these bullet points only applied to disorder caused by terrain (not other causes). I think you would have said "terrain" instead of "situation" if that were the case. However, the table heading and the paragraph above are conducive to confusion.
6. Cheese contest.
I moved some knights up towards some bowmen. Lance moved some heavy weapon troops into some rough ground where they could intercept my knights. If I charged the HW troops, I’d be in the open on impact, but on conforming I’d be dragged into the rough. He thought that a bit cheesy. The distance was such that I could not have stepped forward into the bowmen.
However, I wheeled my knights to face the HW troops. This brought the other end of the knight BG close enough to the bow that a charge and step forward would contact them. After impact, I could not conform to either BG as it would have broken contact with the other one. So I saved myself from being pulled into the rough. Lance thought this a bit cheesy.
In his bound, he was able to conform to the knights, which pulled his HW troops out of the rough into the open. He thought that a bit cheesy.
Overall we both think that unrestricted wheeling before charging probably gives too much leeway (although in this case the wheel was a move and the charge was straight ahead next turn). However, it’s probably better to give the advantage to the charging player to encourage aggressive play.
7. In the non-conformed combat we weren’t entirely sure if the separate HW and Bow battle groups counted as "A line of bases counting as if in front edge combat" (hence no overlaps in the middle). From the geometry our intuitive opinion was that one Kn was in front edge contact with a HW, one Kn overlapped it (there was a bowmen base to his front but it was a long way off) and two other Kn fought bowmen they were in corner to front edge contact with as if in front edge combat. Initially the HW BG was separated from the bowmen by a large gap. After conforming, the HW were in front of some of the bowmen. At this stage I thought the knight that had been overlapping the HW would now be as if in front edge contact with a bowmen, although there was a gap due to other knights being stepped forward. In DBM it would have been an overlap. With hindsight I suspect that the bowmen should have come forward into contact with the knight (like a step forward).
8. Lance thinks Defensive Spearmen capability should be free and all poor troops should be cheaper. He also thinks knights are too powerful. I took out 4 BG of foot and probably would have got 1 of elephants too with 2 BG of 4 average knights.
Observations:
After 4 hours we were both close to breaking, but would have needed at least 2 more turns to get those last AP. Not sure how many turns we got in. We started at 5-10 minutes each but slowed down a lot when it got to combat.
Crossbows are pretty nifty against elephants. However, we couldn’t find the rule that elephants count as 2 bases each for 1HP3B, so counted them as 1. I found it this morning in the glossary. Can’t it be fitted into the reference sheet?
Massed bowmen are pretty nifty against skirmishers.
1. A commander was with a battlegroup of LH that routed. Some of the LH bases left the table, so the BG was removed. The commander’s base itself did not leave the table. Should he have been removed with the BG? The rule is:
If a commander leaves the table (as a result as a result of evading or routing with a battlegroup), he is removed from play for the remainder of the game.
I think this probably means the commander’s base must actually leave the table, but Lance took it to mean that he just needed to be with a BG that left the table. (If any base leaves the table then the whole BG is removed, including any attached commander.)
2. An unattached commander moved within bowshot of enemy. According the rules he could stay there until the enemy moved. Only then did he have to move to join a BG. This enabled him to stay within command range of two BGs during the shooting phase. Not sure if this was intended.
3. Support shooting in impact: Does the entire rank shoot, or only bases directly behind bases that will fight in impact close combat? This made a difference of 3 dice in one combat.
4. Defensive spear charging bowmen. We were a bit surprised that the spearmen got no impact POA against bowmen. If they are net + against 1 rank of defensive spearmen (as in my half spear/half crossbow BG) shouldn’t they be on a + vs people with nothing? The extra shooting dice gave the bowmen quite an advantage in impact. The spearmen had the advantage in melee, which makes sense (they were Bow only, not bow/sword) .
I’m still a bit unhappy with defensive spear charging defensive spear on evens. You have stated that it was put in to prevent Mexican standoffs. IMO if a Mexican standoff is historical, (which it would be if Def Spear tactics did not involve charging) then it should be in the game. Armies with Def Spear have other troops to attack with, so the overall game would not be a stand off. Def Spear are there to fend off enemy attacks, not to attack. If the enemy are not going to attack them, they are doing their job, even if they themselves can’t attack. If you want to attack enemy Def Spear, use something other than Def Spear. If Def Spear were on a - charging Def Spear, then being on evens against defenceless bowmen would make a lot more sense.
I suggest removing "Defensive Spear Charging Defensive Spear" from the POAs as the simplest change.
Giving them net evens for 2 ranks charging 1 rank of defensive spear and + against foot with no impact capability would probably be better, but might be an unnecessary complication.
5. Disorder due to elephants:
The first point I must make here is that it took ages to find the section on disorder. Although disorder comes from a variety of causes, and has its effect in several phases, we found it eventually in the Terrain Appendix. The first place we looked was Cohesion Mechanism, the second place Movement Mechanism. Disorder due to elephants is described in the section on Special Effects. I think all the disorder rules should probably be in this section as they don’t fit neatly into any of the Mechanism sections. Certainly they should not be in an appendix, as they are a core mechanism.
Page 71 says "Knights, cataphracts, cavalry, light horse and chariots are DISORDERED if less than 1 base width from elephants or camelry.
On page 81 we have "If the a battle group’s formation could not function well due to its situation (such as terrain, part way through an interpenetration, or camelry or elephants) it is DISORDERED or SEVERELY DISORDERED and therefore vulnerable."
This suggests that disorder applies the battle group as a whole (pronoun "it" refers to "Battle group").
The bullet points under the table of disorder effects say "Only bases that are at least partly in the situation are affected" . This is perfectly clear. However, because the first column in the table is headed "Terrain Grade", Lance was certain that these bullet points only applied to disorder caused by terrain (not other causes). I think you would have said "terrain" instead of "situation" if that were the case. However, the table heading and the paragraph above are conducive to confusion.
6. Cheese contest.
I moved some knights up towards some bowmen. Lance moved some heavy weapon troops into some rough ground where they could intercept my knights. If I charged the HW troops, I’d be in the open on impact, but on conforming I’d be dragged into the rough. He thought that a bit cheesy. The distance was such that I could not have stepped forward into the bowmen.
However, I wheeled my knights to face the HW troops. This brought the other end of the knight BG close enough to the bow that a charge and step forward would contact them. After impact, I could not conform to either BG as it would have broken contact with the other one. So I saved myself from being pulled into the rough. Lance thought this a bit cheesy.
In his bound, he was able to conform to the knights, which pulled his HW troops out of the rough into the open. He thought that a bit cheesy.
Overall we both think that unrestricted wheeling before charging probably gives too much leeway (although in this case the wheel was a move and the charge was straight ahead next turn). However, it’s probably better to give the advantage to the charging player to encourage aggressive play.
7. In the non-conformed combat we weren’t entirely sure if the separate HW and Bow battle groups counted as "A line of bases counting as if in front edge combat" (hence no overlaps in the middle). From the geometry our intuitive opinion was that one Kn was in front edge contact with a HW, one Kn overlapped it (there was a bowmen base to his front but it was a long way off) and two other Kn fought bowmen they were in corner to front edge contact with as if in front edge combat. Initially the HW BG was separated from the bowmen by a large gap. After conforming, the HW were in front of some of the bowmen. At this stage I thought the knight that had been overlapping the HW would now be as if in front edge contact with a bowmen, although there was a gap due to other knights being stepped forward. In DBM it would have been an overlap. With hindsight I suspect that the bowmen should have come forward into contact with the knight (like a step forward).
8. Lance thinks Defensive Spearmen capability should be free and all poor troops should be cheaper. He also thinks knights are too powerful. I took out 4 BG of foot and probably would have got 1 of elephants too with 2 BG of 4 average knights.
