PDA

View Full Version : Mark Davies' Light Spear


Richard Lee
01-29-2011, 04:31 AM
Have been re-reading Mark Davies' house rule for a new category of troop type.

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/variants/LightSpear.html

It seems interesting to me, as one of my Early Northern Barbarian armies has a lot of elements that would be 'Light Spear' under this house rule. Have people who tried it been pleased with the result? What chance (if any) have we got to get Phil Barker to consider incorporating it into version 3.0?

Mark Davies
01-29-2011, 05:02 AM
To be honest, I've not used it much, so couldn't really say. My Welsh and Pre-feudal Scots haven't seen much action. I'd need to see how they go against Wb.

Crocus
01-29-2011, 05:56 AM
Hi folks

I like the Sp(L) addition. I have some lovely Picts and the rules suit them beautifully, and much more elegantly than Ax(X), Pk(X) or some such. Disadvantaged against regular Sp, but scrub up nicely in two ranks, and of course strong vs mounted, with Rough facility. The Pictish gods are happy with this.

Wb(L), as Ax in Rough, no CF malus but no second rank bonus, are woefully toothless. A recent outing of some Brigantians had the Wb wash up to the Roman line and stop before being broken and pushed back in disorder, leading to their swift demise and defeat. The lack of rank bonus leaves them extremely weak, and I will continue to experiment with the idea of a differentiated 3Wb patch.

Cheers

david kuijt
01-29-2011, 09:41 AM
That article is from 2005? I think there was a more recent discussion this summer (2010) about this topic. Can any threadomancer find it?

Edit: found it here:

http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=8960

What we're talking about, boiled down, is to have 3Sp (which represents Ax(X) or Pk(F) in DBM/DBMM) fight at Pike factors, with no -2 for BGo.

I like it quite a bit.

I don't see any need to differentiate 3Wb from 4Wb, though.

john meunier
01-29-2011, 01:43 PM
http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?p=94502#post94502

Brief conversation here, too.

Pavane
01-31-2011, 01:12 PM
I like the suggestion a lot too. It would make battles with my Picts and Sub-Roman British much more interesting.

Richard Lee
02-01-2011, 02:33 AM
David Kuijt seems to be experimenting with something similar for Viking armies and their opponents. He is also trying variations for 3blade. It is interesting that he seems to be increasing the movement distances of 3spear and 3blade as well..

http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=10761

I would be extremely interested to hear whether he thinks the speed increases are useful or not, in due course.

snowcat
02-01-2011, 04:56 AM
I liked the idea when I first read it last year. I still do.:up

Foge
02-01-2011, 10:51 AM
FWIW, I'm not a big fan of special rules for a single element type. If you want to go that route, you could easily add rules for fast troops (3Wb vs 4Wb, among others) or cataphracts (3Kn vs 4Kn) or double based knights (aka Panzer Truppen) or mixed bow and spear units (6Bw and 8Bw). DBA doesn't differentiate any of them, and I think that's fine. One of the things that I like about DBA is its simplicity. Adding special rules like this one breaks that.

david kuijt
02-01-2011, 11:33 AM
David Kuijt seems to be experimenting with something similar for Viking armies and their opponents. He is also trying variations for 3blade. It is interesting that he seems to be increasing the movement distances of 3spear and 3blade as well..

http://fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=10761

I would be extremely interested to hear whether he thinks the speed increases are useful or not, in due course.

I'm just goofing around -- within period I haven't seen any problem so far, but insufficient playtesting has occurred for any generalization. The only criticism of note floated so far (from an outside commentator, not one of the players participating) is that with a 300p move the 3Bd house rule might tread to closely on Auxilia's sole advantage. While that is a reasonable concern, it didn't feel that way in play (as reported in the thread above, I believe). Blade already fight Aux even in BGo, and the speed advantage of Aux mostly shows itself in A GGo fight where movement requires fewer pips; in practice when a Bd army meets an Aux army there are few opportunities to exploit the speed advantage unless your enemy makes a serious misstep, because the combat factor advantage is high enough in GGo to be relatively unconcerned about a few overlaps here and there. The feel of the Wends/Early Vikings game (Aux vs. 3Bd) was that the Wends had a better chance than usual (than they would have had against normal Blade factors and Blade movement).

Will (Pavane) suggested a 250p move; while that would be better in many senses, I am resistant to the idea because nothing has a 250p move in DBA as it is now.

Hauptmann
02-05-2011, 07:44 AM
Apologies for repeating a post on the North Welsh Spear discussion, but I've playtested to destruction the following option with Hittites, NK Egyptians and Sea Peoples...

Pk(F) as Pike but rear rank only gives +2, and they are only -1 in bad terrain
Bd(F) as Blade but only +2 against mounted (and -1 against ordinary Bd, Ax and Ps if you can handle the extra complexity).

We then increased the move of BdF and PkF to 300p in good terrain only.

We found that Bow became useless so we increased their range to 300p, which has dealt with the issue.

Gavin Moore