PDA

View Full Version : Are Knights too powerful


Martyn
02-02-2012, 06:25 AM
I am concerned that Knights are a big beneficiary in the latest draft compared to v2.2 and are now too powerful against infantry.

Sp, Bd and Ax loose the Ps support, Wb and Sp loose second rank support and Pk have second rank support down graded. Ax do have an upgraded CF in compensation.

So Kn have a QK against all of these and fight with basic CF (including support factors) of:

Level with Bd (was one down)
One down vs Sp (was three down)
Two down v Pk (was four down)
Level with Ax (was level)
One up vs Wb (was level)

I have not playtested Kn/Inf interaction. I would be interested to see what others have found when theses factors are applied in battle.

snowcat
02-02-2012, 06:36 AM
I think Kn are 2 down vs Pike (Kn 3 vs Pk5), assuming 2-rank Pk.

But yes, the removal of certain supporting ranks (esp the Ps) has left a few troops exposed to the Knasty Knigget.

Martyn
02-02-2012, 06:45 AM
I think Kn are 2 down vs Pike (Kn 3 vs Pk5), assuming 2-rank Pk.

But yes, the removal of certain supporting ranks (esp the Ps) has left a few troops exposed to the Knasty Knigget.

Yes, you're right. I will amend my original post so that it makes sense.

I knew I would get one of them wrong. :o

snowcat
02-02-2012, 07:13 AM
Bd are in strife at CF3 vs Kn3 QK. Vrooooooom - splat! - vroooooooooom!

Ax are in the same strife as before (see above), but without needing a support element to provide it. :)

Wb are even worse off than Bd and Ax - you don't even hear the splat!

Spear will now struggle (like Sp vs Wb) against Kn. Sp have gone from being able to stand up to Kn - usually either in 2 ranks at CF5 vs Kn 3, or in 1 rank with Ps-support, again at CF5 vs 3. But now at a forced max of CF4 vs Kn 3 QK, they'll be doing it tough.

2 rank Pk should still be OK, but have lost their cockiness.

In all, not a good day for the infantry.

snowcat
02-02-2012, 07:22 AM
Of course, if you limit the Kn QK to only when they charge into contact (including subsequent charges from their own recoils), the infantry are more likely to be able to counterpunch (especially if they follow-up a recoiled Kn to maintain contact/pressure and not allow the Kn another charge with QK momentum).

*but you knew I was going to say that*

:)

Martyn
02-02-2012, 07:28 AM
the infantry are more likely to be able to counterpunch

If there are any left. :p

snowcat
02-02-2012, 07:32 AM
...yes well...there is that.

:cool

snowcat
02-02-2012, 08:09 AM
OTOH my new Normans are looking very swish, and African Vandal positively stunning! :D

Sea Weathered Aketons
02-02-2012, 09:02 AM
And LH and Cv benefit as well. My hoplites are going to be looking for terrain to set up behind or in!

The idea of reduciing Kn/Wb QK vs Sp/BdPk to just 1st Contact has great appeal among 4 of us in our club so far.

SWA

snowcat
02-02-2012, 09:10 AM
Interestingly, I've been trying to solve the imbalance caused by loss of Ps-support and loss of Sp rear rank by revising the combat factors.

Best I can come up with possibly fixes the issue with Kn/Wb vs Sp/Pk/Bd, but creates a new problem with Cv and LH being sub-par vs Sp and Bd. At present, it doesn't look like adjusting the CF's is the way to go.

Anyway, here it is:

If against foot: If against mounted:
Elephants, Blades in close combat. +5 +4
Spears, Blades if shot at,
or Artillery if shooting or shot at unless in a BUA. +4 +5
Pikes +3 +5
Knights, Scythed Chariots, or War-Wagons. +3 +4
Cavalry, Auxilia. +3 +3
Warband, Hordes or Camelry. +3 +2
Bows. +2 +4
Light Horse or Psiloi. Artillery in close combat or BUA. +2 +2
Camp followers or BUA denizens. +1 +0

Thoughts?

Martyn
02-02-2012, 09:18 AM
And LH and Cv benefit as well. My hoplites are going to be looking for terrain to set up behind or in!

The idea of reduciing Kn/Wb QK vs Sp/BdPk to just 1st Contact has great appeal among 4 of us in our club so far.

SWA

The gains for Cv and Lh are limited as it is only the Ps support that is lost by Sp, Bd and Ax.

Ax are compensated by the change to their CF.
Bd are going to get nervous facing Cv level or Lh only one up, but the real loser is Sp who have to face Lh with a QK only two up.

Sea Weathered Aketons
02-02-2012, 09:21 AM
Interestingly, I've been trying to solve the imbalance caused by loss of Ps-support and loss of Sp rear rank by revising the combat factors.

Best I can come up with possibly fixes the issue with Kn/Wb vs Sp/Pk/Bd, but creates a new problem with Cv and LH being sub-par vs Sp and Bd. At present, it doesn't look like adjusting the CF's is the way to go.

Anyway, here it is:

If against foot: If against mounted:
Elephants, Blades in close combat. +5 +4
Spears, Blades if shot at,
or Artillery if shooting or shot at unless in a BUA. +4 +5
Pikes +3 +
Knights, Scythed Chariots, or War-Wagons. +3 +4
Cavalry, Auxilia. +3 +3
Warband, Hordes or Camelry. +3 +2
Bows. +2 +4
Light Horse or Psiloi. Artillery in close combat or BUA. +2 +2
Camp followers or BUA denizens. +1 +0

Thoughts?

Interesting, they'll never go for Sp et al as 5 vs Mtd! How about we change to a D10? That would give us more play in the factors to work with?

SWA

snowcat
02-02-2012, 09:24 AM
How about we change to a D10? That would give us more play in the factors to work with?

SWA


Careful - that way madness lies! :)

BTW Does your group like the First Contact for the QK for the initial charge only - or subsequent charges from recoils as well (if the enemy doesn't close the gap)?

Sea Weathered Aketons
02-02-2012, 09:24 AM
The gains for Cv and Lh are limited as it is only the Ps support that is lost by Sp, Bd and Ax.

Ax are compensated by the change to their CF.
Bd are going to get nervous facing Cv level or Lh only one up, but the real loser is Sp who have to face Lh with a QK only two up.

My Xyston Thracian Light Horse arrived yesterday so I can run the 3 LH option:2up

SWA

Martyn
02-02-2012, 09:33 AM
Interestingly, I've been trying to solve the imbalance caused by loss of Ps-support and loss of Sp rear rank by revising the combat factors.

Best I can come up with possibly fixes the issue with Kn/Wb vs Sp/Pk/Bd, but creates a new problem with Cv and LH being sub-par vs Sp and Bd. At present, it doesn't look like adjusting the CF's is the way to go.

Anyway, here it is:

If against foot: If against mounted:
Elephants, Blades in close combat. +5 +4
Spears, Blades if shot at,
or Artillery if shooting or shot at unless in a BUA. +4 +5
Pikes +3 +5
Knights, Scythed Chariots, or War-Wagons. +3 +4
Cavalry, Auxilia. +3 +3
Warband, Hordes or Camelry. +3 +2
Bows. +2 +4
Light Horse or Psiloi. Artillery in close combat or BUA. +2 +2
Camp followers or BUA denizens. +1 +0

Thoughts?

A change to the CF is probably a bit of a blunt tool for this.

For example Pk did not get the +3 second rank support against Cv and Lh so giving them an extra 1 vs mounted penalises Cv and Lh.

Sp have the double disadvantage of loosing 2 support points but only one of these applies to Cv/Lh, so they are still down against Kn.

The main concern is that the support factors are only earned if there is an element in support. By giving an upgrade to the CF that supporting element is free to be deployed elsewhere. This removes the player choice and the beauty of the game where an advantaged obtained on one part of the board is compensated by a disadvantage elsewhere. I think that this would unbalance in the other direction.

Sea Weathered Aketons
02-02-2012, 09:36 AM
Careful - that way madness lies! :)

BTW Does your group like the First Contact for the QK for the initial charge only - or subsequent charges from recoils as well (if the enemy doesn't close the gap)?

1st charge only. I think - we're still discussing. That way it simulates the fatigue of Kn & Wb (a hangover from 7th Edition).

SWA

snowcat
02-02-2012, 09:37 AM
Ironically, just writing the rules clearly for the original Ps-support would go a long way to fixing all of this. ;)

snowcat
02-02-2012, 09:38 AM
1st charge only. I think - we're still discussing. That way it simulates the fatigue of Kn & Wb (a hangover from 7th Edition).

SWA


Hmm, the ultimate gambler's army then. :cool:up

Sea Weathered Aketons
02-02-2012, 10:23 AM
Hmm, the ultimate gambler's army then. :cool:up

(Sorry I was gluing spears on hoplites!)

Yes, I've always thought it a tad unrealistic that Kn were still charging at full strength after a half-dozen combats. (of course my Knights of St John benefited greatly!)

SWA

Rich Gause
02-02-2012, 10:25 AM
I think it would be easier to just put Ps support back.

Sea Weathered Aketons
02-02-2012, 10:35 AM
I think it would be easier to just put Ps support back.

I could not agree more! :up

SWA

Martyn
02-02-2012, 10:46 AM
I think it would be easier to just put Ps support back.

I do get the feeling that this is due to the changes to the Ps support that were proposed in the Dec draft but picked to pieces because of the difficulties with Bd pursuits and destruction of supporting Ps if any of the supported elements were destroyed.

Perhaps it was just easier to remove the whole concept, but it feels as if the baby has been chucked out with the bathwater. Now we have a whole raft of other problems consequential to that change.

dicemanrick
02-02-2012, 11:32 AM
2.2 is looking so much better ....(ducks behind low wall as he chucks the grenade):D

john meunier
02-02-2012, 12:14 PM
I think it would be easier to just put Ps support back.

How about we just adjust the factors vs. mounted?

If Bd at 3 vs. Kn is too weak, then just make them 4 vs. mounted. Same for Sp and Pk.

The interactions of Wb/Kn and heavy infantry can be balanced and adjusted without Ps support.

Rich Gause
02-02-2012, 12:19 PM
How about we just adjust the factors vs. mounted?

If Bd at 3 vs. Kn is too weak, then just make them 4 vs. mounted. Same for Sp and Pk.

The interactions of Wb/Kn and heavy infantry can be balanced and adjusted without Ps support.

Except then the Bd are too strong against everything else mounted and we have to look at those agian.

john meunier
02-02-2012, 12:56 PM
Except then the Bd are too strong against everything else mounted and we have to look at those agian.

I'm not convinced that Cv should be able to fight Bd even, so I am not troubled by them being 4 against Cv and LH.

Martyn
02-02-2012, 01:21 PM
How about we just adjust the factors vs. mounted?

If Bd at 3 vs. Kn is too weak, then just make them 4 vs. mounted. Same for Sp and Pk.

That does impact on all mounted, will it not unbalance the game? Cv and El will become less effective (the affect of Lh on heavy inf has always seemed overstated to me). Whether that is supported by historic evidence Iím not sure but it will have a big impact on the game itself.

The interactions of Wb/Kn and heavy infantry can be balanced and adjusted without Ps support.

This has been discussed elsewhere, do you have any suggestions as to how this is best achieved?

john meunier
02-02-2012, 01:34 PM
This has been discussed elsewhere, do you have any suggestions as to how this is best achieved?

The proposal I've made is to treat Wb like Kn vs. Bw. Only QK if they moved into contact this bound.

If the Ps-support rule is essential to the survival of foot vs. Kn, I'd just do the same as Phil did with Ax and raise the Sp/Pk/Bd factor vs. mounted. The effect of this higher factor on Cv/LH/El seems in keeping with historical interaction.

Two small changes.

john meunier
02-02-2012, 01:40 PM
Except then the Bd are too strong against everything else mounted and we have to look at those agian.

Too strong compared to what? History?

When did Cv or LH ride down Roman legions?

Martyn
02-02-2012, 01:43 PM
The proposal I've made is to treat Wb like Kn vs. Bw. Only QK if they moved into contact this bound.

Yes, looking back, I can see now that you have been in discussion with Paul (Snowcat). And after discussion with John Meunier:

Sp, Pk, Bd whose total is less than that of its opponent but more than half: QK by Wb or Kn whose front edge has contacted them this bound...(and everything else remaining the same)

That makes things a lot tougher for Wb & Kn in subsequent bounds if they did not QK the Sp/Pk/Bd element at first contact (ie their charge). Some holes may have been blown in the Sp/Pk/Bd line (conferring possible overlaps), but a base CF3 (single rank Wb) vs base CF4 (Sp) or CF6 (2 rank Pk) or Base CF5 (Bd); and CF3 (single rank Kn) vs base CF4 (Sp) or CF5 (2 rank Pk) or CF3 (Bd) doesn't look so good for the original QKers.

In the case of the Kn it represents them not bursting through and being impaled or pinned and dragged down. In the case of Wb it represents them not smashing through and being gradually (or more severely in the case of 2 rank Pk) pinned and steamrolled (or held and dispatched by more efficient Bd).


If the Ps-support rule is essential to the survival of foot vs. Kn, I'd just do the same as Phil did with Ax and raise the Sp/Pk/Bd factor vs. mounted. The effect of this higher factor on Cv/LH/El seems in keeping with historical interaction.

Two small changes.

Humm, these may be small changes but what are the affects. I have not tested the latest draft of v3 with Kn. It will be interesting to see how that shapes up and how much of an imbalance it causes.

david kuijt
02-02-2012, 01:53 PM
Reduce Kn factor against foot to +2!

:D

jacar
02-02-2012, 02:14 PM
My thoughts:

Keep Ps the way they are now (no rear support).
Bring back double ranked spears (+1 vs knights)
Make double ranked pike +2 vs Knights.

Easy to remember and sticks with the new game concepts.

John

arnopov
02-02-2012, 02:45 PM
Are Kn too powerful in 3.0 ?

Perhaps, but it's useful to consider the metagame (especially the holy trinity of DBA, Kn/Bw/Bd).

Good Kn will proliferate, but so will therefore their natural ennemy, the Bw (especially with the defrading of dismounting). And the natural ennemies of Bw are ... Bd of course.

Agreed that Sp are even more useless now (but they already were a marginal troop type, way too vulnerable to El and and Bd in 2.2).

The troop imbalances are already there, 3.0 makes them way worse.

Ciao
Arnopov

john meunier
02-02-2012, 04:02 PM
Are Kn too powerful in 3.0 ?

Perhaps, but it's useful to consider the metagame (especially the holy trinity of DBA, Kn/Bw/Bd).




This is an important issue. I don't really play medieval. I tend to play classical period. The Kn/Bw/Bd is not a holy trinity in the age of Alexander and Hannibal. :)

arnopov
02-02-2012, 04:09 PM
This is an important issue. I don't really play medieval. I tend to play classical period. The Kn/Bw/Bd is not a holy trinity in the age of Alexander and Hannibal. :)

You are right, not so much, but I was thinking "open" style tournament.

This being said, in a "successor", "east-med 3rd century B.C" type tourney, I would still bring Bw heavy Nabateans or Bd heavy LPIA :0)

Ciao
Arnaud

Crocus
02-02-2012, 04:32 PM
As I've explained elsewhere I am peripheral to this whole debate as I mostly play alone in my draughty garret (ahhhh), however as I love DBA and plan to continue to play it in some form I shall enlighten you with my two penneth worth! As I have loved 2.2 for many years now I am biased in that direction, but am taken aback by the amount of changes from one to the other drafts of 3. Small changes make for big results when you are modifying a 1D6.

Ps rear support: only for the element directly in front, otherwise we have problems of following up, damage and most importantly, I just can't visualise it.

Spear remain +4/+4 and keep rear support. I play dark age/late antiquity wotnots and this suits the nominal sizes of the armies and units. Having your rear covered boosts morale. But then, why not Ax/Bd rear support? Hmmm, might have to give that some more thought!

There is a case for making Bd +5/+4 as locked and ordered legionary scutae are an impenetrable obstacle to the horse around town. Whether your falx men or bondi could pull the same off I doubt. The Raider type (+4/+3 Bd outcomes, Ax move) is an option, so too might the Bd as +4/+4 outlined in DBMM 1 (got the rules but never played - I haven't enough cheap Wb or a table to accommdate them - so no freaking out because I mentioned the other game!).

Make Kn explicitly for ancient cataphracts and the couched lance, barded destriers of medieval times.

Establish "Shock Horse" (SH) +3/+3 with Kn Qk's and combat outcomes but with Cv move rates (whatever they end up as!), as a new troop type that represents Alexander's Companions, Gothic Kn and other stuff I'm not aware of (that's alot!).

As I cannot see the previous posts and am hanging after night shifts so my oration may be over. If this spiel makes someone's blood boil then please forgive this rank amateur. Th proliferation of troop types is bound to be a mighty bugbear, but I guess that comes down to whether you think the sacrifice of simplicity for detail is valid and/or worth the bother.

Crocus already crashing and burning!

Mark Davies
02-02-2012, 06:19 PM
The problem is that at 3-4 odds one cannot double the enemy; that's the origin of the QK, I think. A change of one fact has a big effect.

I like the dynamics of psiloi support: it changes the balance in most combats to the side that has it, but the challenge is to remove it and then the situation changes.

It does mean that spear armies that have no, or too few, psiloi are pretty useless (the Later Crusaders, for example), but that's a list problem not unique to spear. Samnites, anyone?

snowcat
02-02-2012, 07:25 PM
How about we just adjust the factors vs. mounted?

If Bd at 3 vs. Kn is too weak, then just make them 4 vs. mounted. Same for Sp and Pk.

The interactions of Wb/Kn and heavy infantry can be balanced and adjusted without Ps support.

We really need to stop sharing the same brain - it's messing with our identities! :up

snowcat
02-02-2012, 07:26 PM
Reduce Kn factor against foot to +2!

:D

You very naughty boy. :cool

Pillager
02-02-2012, 10:23 PM
>Establish "Shock Horse" (SH) +3/+3 with Kn Qk's and combat outcomes but with Cv move rates (whatever they end up as!), as a new troop type that represents Alexander's Companions, Gothic Kn and other stuff I'm not aware of (that's alot!).
>

You mean a bonus effect, kind of like the Wedged Knights in DBMM2...

Martyn
02-03-2012, 07:02 AM
>Establish "Shock Horse" (SH) +3/+3 with Kn Qk's and combat outcomes but with Cv move rates (whatever they end up as!), as a new troop type that represents Alexander's Companions, Gothic Kn and other stuff I'm not aware of (that's alot!).
>

You mean a bonus effect, kind of like the Wedged Knights in DBMM2...

Correct me if I am wrong, in DBMM Wedge Knight do not get any combat modifiers for being overlapped, but presumably this is a limited list specific modification.

In DBMM there are several limits on who can give who overlap support against what. Much too much complication.

Crocus
02-03-2012, 04:59 PM
I am unaware of the ins and outs of DBMM "Shock Cavalry" supports and so on. But I do play the Cv(!) as laid out in the "Justinian's Wars" campaign rules posted on Fanaticus (I think). I don't want to play DBMM. I want to play DBA. Ish!

Pillager
02-03-2012, 10:18 PM
I'm just saying that there is an easy mod to give certain Kn a bonus, without mucking with the Tactical Factors.

Say that the don't suffer overlaps, sometimes. Like when they move into contact with the enemy.

Crocus
02-04-2012, 05:19 AM
That sounds interesting, and could be expanded to take in any Wb cuneus formation too - perhaps made up of three Wb in a wee triangle. But of course that way lies madness!

Would you suggest your idea (DBMM idea) be as a house rule or would you think this should be adopted as the kosher real McCoy?

As I have LIR cataphracts in combat with Gothic Kn quite often, I would prefer to differentiate between them. But I am happy to muck about with the rules in isolation; more to the point, in this thread, is the final draft of the new deal rules.

jacar
02-08-2012, 04:23 PM
Yes, looking back, I can see now that you have been in discussion with Paul (Snowcat).




Humm, these may be small changes but what are the affects. I have not tested the latest draft of v3 with Kn. It will be interesting to see how that shapes up and how much of an imbalance it causes.

I can assure you, with the right match-up, the the enemy army would be a speed bump on the road to victory. :D

trailape
02-16-2012, 06:09 AM
My thoughts:

Keep Ps the way they are now (no rear support).
Bring back double ranked spears (+1 vs knights)
Make double ranked pike +2 vs Knights.

Easy to remember and sticks with the new game concepts.

John

That's exactly what I think.:up

colinrice
05-05-2012, 01:44 AM
As I have loved 2.2 for many years now I am biased in that direction, but am taken aback by the amount of changes from one to the other drafts of 3.
I too think 2.2 is a great game that could some tweaking rather than a complete overhaul.

Ps rear support: only for the element directly in front, otherwise we have problems of following up, damage and most importantly, I just can't visualise it.

On this one the rear support, at least for the Romans was from bows and artillery, so it would be great if these were rear support capable.

Spear remain +4/+4 and keep rear support. I play dark age/late antiquity wotnots and this suits the nominal sizes of the armies and units. Having your rear covered boosts morale. But then, why not Ax/Bd rear support? Hmmm, might have to give that some more thought!
A strong argument can be made for any heavy infantry have rear support. This would be a good change. I am all in favour of the rear support and extending it to blades. And against any other unit except light horse, psiloi and bow.

Make Kn explicitly for ancient cataphracts and the couched lance, barded destriers of medieval times. YES!


Establish "Shock Horse" (SH) +3/+3 with Kn Qk's and combat outcomes but with Cv move rates (whatever they end up as!), as a new troop type that represents Alexander's Companions, Gothic Kn and other stuff I'm not aware of (that's alot!). And YES. Roman cavalry were shock cavalry. Poor at it but shock none the less. For simplicity they could be treated as Kn or left at Cv.

For all shock (i.e. QK) this should only be given when the units move into contact.

Wb were not the only shock infantry. Greek hoplites and Roman legionairies also practiced shock combat. But rolling that into the game may be a bit complex.

A great post with some creative ideas. Adding these as optional rules would leave the good old game alone but introduce some flexibility to the new version.. From experience most people will play all the "optional" rules.

Crocus
05-05-2012, 06:51 PM
Thank you for your kind comments Colin. I guess it all adds to the fun, flying in the granite face of D6 granularity!

The rear support for Art as well as Ps is a bright idea for my LIR and I will try it out at some point.
Rear support for all HI seems fair but will strain the D6 outcomes.
The 2.2+ outline of the +4/+4 Cataphract floats my boat and I'm using it for LIR vs/with "my" Shock Horse +3/+3, Kn outcomes, for the Germanic hordes.

I have to say the more I play Chipco rules the more I like them, their use of the D10 allows more mods and this enhances my games in Late Antiquity - Dark Ages. How could I stop playing DBA though? Perish the thought!