Raiders

[Xavi]

We have a thread for Cataphracts (still unconvinced) and a thread for Light Spear (seeing the poiint, but still unconvinced Welsh cannot deal well with their historical enemies in BGo using normal spear rules) but we do not have a thread for the Raiders, so here it comes.

Pretty much the same question: What the heck differentiates raiders from normal Blades? What makes them so special that they cannot be represented using Bd, Ax or Wb instead?

Xavi

[snowcat]

I posted exactly this thread yesterday, before deleting it.

[Martyn]

I don’t have as many concerns with Raiders as I have for Lt Sp.

I think there is a need to differentiate between the two types of Bd. Not all Bd are the equal to the Legions or the massed ranks of armoured dismounted Kns, but they are different to Ax and Wb. It certainly adds colour to the Bd heavy armies such as Sea Peeps and early Viking.

On a slightly different topic I have pervioously queried the why Ax and Bw are not treated the same way with different attributes for 3/4. I think I have answered my own question. When looking at the lists there are a lot of armies with 3/4Ax or 3/4Bw options. If these are differentiated then there will be a lot of new elements needed to peoples existing armies. So perhaps the advantage does not outweigh the disadvantage.

[ferrency]

Pretty much the same question: What the heck differentiates raiders from normal Blades? What makes them so special that they cannot be represented using Bd, Ax or Wb instead?

There are many possible answers to this. I'm going to answer from a 2.2+ gameplay perspective.

That is: In 2.2+, how are Raiders different enough from Bd, Ax, and Wb that they warrant inclusion?

To me, one of the biggest defining differences between Raiders and Auxilia is the fact that Raiders cannot kill Psiloi by doubling them. Since they're slower than Auxilia and Psiloi, they can't withdraw, and the true light troops will usually beat them in bad going.

Raiders are almost identical to blades in bad going, but faster, and therefore slightly better: they'll typically beat blades in bad going since they can withdraw from a bad position and the blades can't.

Warbands and knights are the Raider's bane. There aren't any troops that are as susceptible to being killed by both of these: Auxilia aren't quick killed by Warband, and Blades will usually beat Warbands in the open.

So overall, we have:
- Weaker than Bd in the open, better than Bd in bad going, so they aren't blades.
- Weaker than Auxilia in bad going, but better in the open, so they aren't Aux.
- They don't quick kill anything, and are faster but more fragile than Warband, so they aren't Warband.

The intermediate movement speed category is an important defining characteristic of Raiders and Light Spears. I liked the troops as an add-on in 2.2, but they really shine with 2.2+'s movement rates. This is a big example of the synergy between two changes (troop types and movement rates) making both of them better.


From a rules perspective, there is definitely a niche that Raiders are filling.

Whether you think it is valuable for this niche to be filled is another discussion.

Whether you think this difference reflects a historical difference between troop types is also a different discussion.


Alan

[Pavane]

The intermediate movement speed category is an important defining characteristic of Raiders and Light Spears. I liked the troops as an add-on in 2.2, but they really shine with 2.2+'s movement rates. This is a big example of the synergy between two changes (troop types and movement rates) making both of them better.
Very true. Before MU, Raiders and Light Spear moved as fast as Psiloi/Auxilia. This was too much in my opinion as I see them somewhere in between heavy foot and skirmishers. That is why one cannot "cherry pick" rules from DBA 2.2+.

[johnpap]

I believe that Raiders was the one troop type that was really "necessary", rather than a "nice addition". However, it seems to me that they are very weak against mounted, which I don't think was true against historical opponents. With the +2 vs mounted modifier, it is very easy for the feudal knights of middle ages Europe to ride down the invading Vikings. And there is the also the issue of play balance: Why choose a Rd-heavy army over a Bd-heavy army in a competition? For the +1 MU movement rate and only? Not enough, IMHO. +3 vs mounted, maybe? I may be wrong, but I think that at least some 3Bd use pole-arm weapons, so they can be quite effective against mounted. Either +2 or +3, I think that 4Aux should also be categorized as Rd: 4Aux were more heavily armed, less mobile and less "skirmishing" than stantard Aux modifiers and outcomes makes them to be.

[lkmjbc]

Xavi...

Once again... Raiders aren't needed... but they do an extra depth to the 2.2 rules.

They also help to fix a historical period. The Dark Ages are broken under 2.2.

The games are not fun to play. The "Raiders" troop type is a simple solution to this. It also adds a fun dimension to Middle Imperial Romans with their "lightened legionary" unit. It may help with some far Eastern armies as well.. though that is far outside my experience.

Could this issue be fixed in other ways... Sure, Phil is working on a flank support rule that I think has promise in 3.0. But, the Raiders troop type is fun and full of flavor.

Joe Collins

[Pavane]

It may help with some far Eastern armies as well.. though that is far outside my experience.
I have two 4Bd elements in my NKE DBM army, and the rest are 3Bd. I'm painting up at least another 4Bd element (maybe 7 for BBDBA play) because DBA 2.2+ allows me to field a choice of two different troop types; an option I never had before.

[ferrency]

However, it seems to me that they are very weak against mounted, which I don't think was true against historical opponents.

This was a big concern I had, especially versus knights. However, discussion led me to discover that there are very few Knights that are historical enemies of Raider heavy armies. It just isn't a very big problem in reality, if you're talking about historical enemies and not just the general "Rd vs. Kn" problem from a gameplay perspective.

The later Vikings who fought against feudal armies are all 4Bd still. Vikings vs. Carolingian Frankish are the only historical matchup of Vikings vs. Knights that's worth mentioning.


Alan

[broadsword]

I find now I have to rethink "Rd" whenever I play HotT, as in that game they're Riders! Here they're Raiders. AAaarrgghhh.....

See, I am just becoming far too stupid for this whole DBA gaming thing...:silly

[winterbadger]

I find now I have to rethink "Rd" whenever I play HotT, as in that game they're Riders! Here they're Raiders. AAaarrgghhh.....

See, I am just becoming far too stupid for this whole DBA gaming thing...:silly

These Rd are Riders too--they are riding to victory on the glory of their swords! :silly

[broadsword]

Come to think of it, I think Raiders aren't a bad addition to HotT too :D

[kontos]

Come to think of it, I think Raiders aren't a bad addition to HotT too :D

Since HotT doesn't have an aux or Ps equivalent, a new troop type may be refreshing. :up

[johnpap]

This was a big concern I had, especially versus knights. However, discussion led me to discover that there are very few Knights that are historical enemies of Raider heavy armies. It just isn't a very big problem in reality, if you're talking about historical enemies and not just the general "Rd vs. Kn" problem from a gameplay perspective.

The later Vikings who fought against feudal armies are all 4Bd still. Vikings vs. Carolingian Frankish are the only historical matchup of Vikings vs. Knights that's worth mentioning.


Alan

Actually, it was Carolingian Frankish and the "general gameplay perspective" I was worried about. Carolingians were extensively and succesfully raided by Vikings. Also, we must remember that almost all Kn (except Cataphracts) before around 1100 AD were less heavily armed than the fully-armored hard-charging knights of 13-14th century we usually have in mind as Kn. In DBM terms, they are categorized as Kn(F). A match-up of Kn(F) vs Bd(F) is identical to Kn vs Bd: 3 vs 3QKed. Rd with a +3 vs mounted are still weak against mounted, considering that Vikings, at least, have limited Ps support (correct me if I am wrong; I only have the DBAOL and 1.1 lists). But they are not so pathetic as with the +2 modifier. And they make an interesting army for an a-historical tournament as well.

Also, I would like to promote, once again, the idea of turning 4Aux into Rd.

[david kuijt]

Actually, it was Carolingian Frankish and the "general gameplay perspective" I was worried about. Carolingians were extensively and succesfully raided by Vikings.

In a strategic sense, yes. But in a tactical sense, Carolingian Kn gave Vikings some major defeats and I can't recall any major Viking victories in field battles against Carolingians (but I don't have my books here, so that may just be my memory being faulty).

[johnpap]

In a strategic sense, yes. But in a tactical sense, Carolingian Kn gave Vikings some major defeats and I can't recall any major Viking victories in field battles against Carolingians (but I don't have my books here, so that may just be my memory being faulty).

The Francs will still have their victories with the Rd at +3. But they won't be totally fearless. Should they? Against the Vikings?

[Redwilde]

Against the Vikings?

Not a lot of big field battles between the two, and the Franks did quite well in the field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saucourt-en-Vimeu

Strategically, the Vikings stomped all over France with raids and sieges, not through winning field battles.

[Rich Gause]

In a strategic sense, yes. But in a tactical sense, Carolingian Kn gave Vikings some major defeats and I can't recall any major Viking victories in field battles against Carolingians (but I don't have my books here, so that may just be my memory being faulty).

Pretty much; The Vikings needed to use their superior strategic mobility by using ships to raid a place and scoot with the loot before the Carolingians could muster enough of an army to come stomp them. That is why they were raiding France at the time instead of colonizing it.

[david kuijt]

The Francs will still have their victories with the Rd at +3. But they won't be totally fearless. Should they? Against the Vikings?

Yes, they should. The Vikings were raiders picking on isolated areas in the period in question, not creating kingdoms. If the Francish field army was present, the Vikings did not attack.

And putting Raiders at +3 against mounted makes them better than LSp in every respect. So that breaks the LSp concept. It also makes no sense when you compare Raiders to Aux or Wb.

[david kuijt]

Not a lot of big field battles between the two, and the Franks did quite well in the field. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saucourt-en-Vimeu

Strategically, the Vikings stomped all over France with raids and sieges, not through winning field battles.

That's got another link to the Battle of Thimeon, just a year or two earlier -- another 5,000 Vikings dead.

In other words, in an open field battle rather than a raid, the Vikings got killed. They could not match the Carolingian Kn.

[Redwilde]

Yup. The Franks' biggest problem was operational speed. Once the raiders got onto their boats, they were off like rats out of an aqueduct. Then the silly French kinnigits couldn't force them to bring battle.

[Xavi]

Or maybe the 3Bd and 3Sp should have the same combat factors

Xavi

[johnpap]

And putting Raiders at +3 against mounted makes them better than LSp in every respect..

The most convincing argument for me: play balance.

It also makes no sense when you compare Raiders to Aux or Wb.

In fact, I didn't. I said the exact opposite: that 4Aux (well, at least thureophoroi, in an era I know well enough) are, IMO, better represented historically by the factors and outcomes of the Rd type. It is a failure of the Aux type, IMO, not of the Rd type. I didn't mean that Rd should more "Aux-ey", but that 4Aux should be less so. But that's another discussion, of course.

[winterbadger]

4Aux (well, at least thureophoroi, in an era I know well enough) are, IMO, better represented historically by the factors and outcomes of the Rd type. It is a failure of the Aux type, IMO, not of the Rd type. I didn't mean that Rd should more "Aux-ey", but that 4Aux should be less so. But that's another discussion, of course.

It's funny, because when peoepl were recently discussing here what might be a more "historical-y" name for them, "thureophoroi" was the one that sprang to mind for me. But when I looked up thureophoroi in the DBM lists, they seemed all to be represented by Reg Aux, so I didn't even suggest that name.

The "regular"ness of the t'phoroi is perhaps the one argument against them being similar to Rd, who I tend to think of as being almost entirely irregular. But that may just be my deviant perceptions. :silly

[david kuijt]

that 4Aux (well, at least thureophoroi, in an era I know well enough) are, IMO, better represented historically by the factors and outcomes of the Rd type. It is a failure of the Aux type, IMO, not of the Rd type. I didn't mean that Rd should more "Aux-ey", but that 4Aux should be less so. But that's another discussion, of course.

It's an interesting idea. I know that there has been a lot of discussion on the yahoo group on the topic of whether Roman Aux should be represented as Blade in the usual Imperial period, given that the concept of them being lighter troops who fought differently has been pretty-much shown to be myth.

But are all 4Ax that way? I know that thorakitai (wearing mail shirts) are fairly heavy troops. Thureophoroi might be Rd; that seems reasonable (only looking at it very casually here, nobody quote me two years from now please). What about Inca 4Ax, though? Are there lots of other 4Ax that are really just regular Aux, without being tougher in some other sense?

My guess (without having the army lists here) is that this topic quickly becomes one of changing the army lists, which is beyond the scope of this effort. In other words, some 4Ax (Romans) might be Raiders or Blade; other 4Ax should not be anything of the sort, so any change would need to be on a list-by-list basis.

[pozanias]

It's funny, because when peoepl were recently discussing here what might be a more "historical-y" name for them, "thureophoroi" was the one that sprang to mind for me. But when I looked up thureophoroi in the DBM lists, they seemed all to be represented by Reg Aux, so I didn't even suggest that name.

The "regular"ness of the t'phoroi is perhaps the one argument against them being similar to Rd, who I tend to think of as being almost entirely irregular. But that may just be my deviant perceptions. :silly

Its even funnier to think that the namesake for the element type Auxilia should probably not be classified as such. I really like Johnpap's idea, but agree with DK that its probably best handled through an army list modification (which isn't happening anytime soon).

[Xavi]

Looking at the lists there are quite a lot that can have 4Ax. Quite a few of those ONLY have 4Ax and Ps as Bad Going troops. And they have Wb armies in their enemy lists. As such they would be more vulnerable than now against Wb armies. Don't know if the end result would be more historical, really.

Cheers,
Xavi

[david kuijt]

Looking at the lists there are quite a lot that can have 4Ax. Quite a few of those ONLY have 4Ax and Ps as Bad Going troops. And they have Wb armies in their enemy lists. As such they would be more vulnerable than now against Wb armies. Don't know if the end result would be more historical, really.


Right, that would be the concern about a blanket "all 4Ax become Raiders" statement. Wouldn't seem to work for many armies, even if it is good for Thureophoroi.

[johnpap]

Right, that would be the concern about a blanket "all 4Ax become Raiders" statement. Wouldn't seem to work for many armies, even if it is good for Thureophoroi.

That was the idea: all 4Aux as Raiders. No changes in the lists. It works best when 4Aux represent some "poor man's heavy infantry", or some kind of colourless "medium infantry", and not if they are the spesialized mountain troops, or the "skirmishers with a punch" kind of troops. If the former type is considerably more common than the latter, so as to justify the change, that needs quite some research in the lists. So I just throw the idea here.

An interesting side-effect of this change would be that Aux (the remaining 3Aux) wiil become a more valuable type of element, since their special abilities (anti-Wb, anti-Ps, anti-El, higher rate of movement) would now be harder to find.

[Richard Lee]

An interesting idea that I would want thought about quite a bit before implementation. For example, I notice that the Samnites (II/13) ) are all 4auxilia except for the cavalry general. That might be an interesting match-up against the Camillan Romans (II/10), but might leave them a bit weaker than they were historically against the warband of the Gauls (II/11) and Italian Hill Tribes (I/36). The Italian Hill Tribes have the option to have either nearly all 3auxilia or nearly all 3warband.