General Category > General Discussion
Suggested rule changes for next edition
Neil Williamson:
i'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this so please redirect me if there is a more suitable place.
The following are just a few things I'd like to be considered for the next edition. I'm not trying to wordsmith them - just trying to convey the intent.
1. When you have multiple elements in combat (front, flank, and/or rear) you can choose which single element you fight with, this does not have to be the front one.
Rationale - Lets take an extreme example. A Ps has pinned the enemy to the front, and Elephants charge into the rear (downhill with the wind behind them) - who do you think is going to do the most damage? I think it is more realistic to allow the game to reflect the damage output of the El rather than the Ps. Flank attacks are similar.
2. When an element, excluding skirmishers, is turned to face the enemy for combat it should be at a -1 combat disadvantage for that bound.
Rationale - The elements represent 200+ men (1000 for hordes) in close or fairly close formation. If attacked in the flank there would be a great deal of disruption as they turn to face the enemy. In the game there is currently no accommodation of this disruption. Troops can fairly comfortably try and sneak past confident that there is little downside if they get caught.
3. With marches, currently a group within 400p containing 2 or more contiguous non-skirmishers can block a march, if they are just skirmishers the enemy can be moved straight ahead. I propose that the march blocking is limited to 400p from the nearest non-skirmishing element not from the nearest lement in the group.
Rationale - Currently you can employ a gamey (IMO) deployment where some Ps or LH extend out towards the flanks attached to elements of other troops. This can effectively stop any marches coming down the extreme flanks. This seems contrary to the spirit of the idea that skirmishers only have a limited effect on the ability to march.
STRATAGEMS
3. Guides - Change the wording "passage counts as if along a road" to "passage counts as if in good going".
Rationale - The current wording creates too many problems to use the stratagem. It gives the opponent notice about what you're attempting to do which can then be relatively easily countered. The hidden pass should enable the attacker to spring an attack from an unexpected direction. This change will allow an easier use of the stratagem which still has counters to it.
4. Feigned Flight - The direction of the flee should be the same as for combat outcome.
Rationale - The feigned flight is meant to trick the enemy into believing that you are fleeing from combat. Why, when you hit a flank would yu then run off at a peculiar angle? Its even odd with an oblique attack and makes the feigned flight less useful to use.
Barritus:
These are all good ideas and worth discussing further.
My only reservation is with number 2, and that's for practical reasons rather than because I disagree with it. The general concept underlying the DB* system is to remove the need to place markers next to troops for any reason - elements either exist or they don't, and it's at the command level that any status changes occur. However with turning elements it would be necessary to mark them as a reminder.
Obviously this isn't a show-stopper, and I know a lot of players use markers anyway to ensure no combats are missed, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
Barritus:
Here's a couple more suggestions:
1. Scouting stratagem: Eliminate the need to allocate elements to perform the scouting. Instead, purchasing and using the stratagem entitles you to a single roll. The problems at the moment are: (a) the stratagem is biased against armies with only a few eligible elements (especially if they're armies with Cv (S)); (b) the need to place surviving scouting elements with the C-in-C seems clumsy and unnecessary; and (c) for some armies the elements historically used as scouts can't be because they can't be in the C-in-C's command (a classic example is the Early Crusader, for whom the Byzantine allies were their scouts). This change simplifies and speeds up the process.
2. Betrayal stratagem: Eliminate it altogether. Has anyone ever used it? Or, as an alternative to eliminating it, change it to a stratagem which allows a player to increase the chance of an enemy's ally being unreliable to 1-3 on their first PIP dice (the cost of the stratagem representing the bags of gold delivered to said ally general).
3. BUA and BUAf: Eliminate the latter and simply allow all BUAs to be fortified with PF or TF. As it stands there are a number of very odd choices over whether an army can have BUA or BUAf - or even have a BUA at all - the lack of which effectively prevents some armies from using the Delay Battle stratagem.
4. Paved Road: Eliminate it. In how many battles did the existence of a paved road play a major role? Sure, they were significant strategically, but how often did they play a tactical role in a battle?
5. BUA and river: Is there any particular reason why BUAs can't be placed against a river? I'd suggest there are a significant number of cases where the site of a battle was near a town on a river. As it is there are some lists which have BUA and River in their terrain list, but not Road, which means the BUA can only be placed on one of the three non-enemy table edges.
6. Single element moves: The distinction for Expendables, train and Ships as opposed to other types of elements making single element moves should be eliminated. After all, the element represents a considerable number of chariots, wagons, ships or whatever within the area covered by the base, with a lot of empty space as well - that's plenty of space for the individual whatevers to make their moves. However, people think it's necessary to distinguish them, perhaps make such moves more expensive in PIPs.
7. Turning to face a flank hit: It'd be good to get some clarity about what happens when a group in line hits the flank of a group in column, particularly when the contacted elements are not 40 paces deep. For example, how do the attackers line up with the defenders, and which attackers do the defenders turn to face?
8. Kn wedges and Cv: The benefit for Kn wedges of not being overlapped doesn't come close to making up for the loss of the Quick Kill against Cv. For example, it makes it particularly hard for Alexander and Companions to deal with Darius and accompanying Cv in a realistic manner.
9. An index and more cross-referencing: Please! It's still so hard to find everything in the rules about all sorts of subjects. Even worse when Important Stuff isn't in the rules but in the list books (for example, the distinction between BUA and BUAf).
Barritus:
Oh, and another suggestion that comes to mind...
How about having a Dismounting stratagem, for those troops who dismounted in other than those cases of automatic entitlement to dismount. It's unfair having two otherwise similar armies in which one's mounted troops have an automatic right at no cost to dismount, while identically costed troops in the other army can't. So, if you want your men to be able to dismount, make them pay for the right.
And when armies acquire or lose the ability part-way through the list (Med French come to mind), then make the stratagem available only within a limited time period (but still available to Inert Generals seeing as there are plenty of such examples).
Neil Williamson:
I like the sound of all your suggestions too Sir Barritus even though a lot of them I have not experienced yet as I've only been playing a year. I only found out about the BUA on a river one a month ago. I was misled by page 11 re a BUA abutting a water feature and assumed it could line up to a river. As you say - indexes and cross references please.
I did consider the necessity of placing a "turned" marker, but thought it was not a biggy and in most situations you can remember anyway as the combat occurs soon after the movement.
Another one I meant to post, but the wife was hurrying me out of the house - Betrayal Stratagem. I suggest the 5ME losses to pay for the bribe is dropped. I don't understand why a successful infiltration results in the loss of morale for the attacker and an unsuccessful one does not! The chances of getting to the loot is so much greater if you have infiltrated. The stratagem costs 5AP for something quite high risk and does not need a further penalty.
What is the procedure for suggestions to get forwarded and considered?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version