Remove this ad

Lead

Sep 25 16 8:42 AM

Tags : :

Hi,

I just recently purchased LR (and DR), one of the main reasons being our search for an alternative to the combat system in Dux Brit. I really like the campaign structure and many of the details of the system, but the combat system is a little cludgy, and the troops selection not as inspiring as it could be. So ... in order to fit LR into the Shieldwall Britons vs Warband Saxons mode of play, a little tweaking needs to be done to portray the different levels of militia, warriors, and elites. By the way, yes, we will also be comparing it with Dux Bellorum (and maybe even Glutter of Ravens!), but I have a feeling my son and his friends would respond better to LR.

The basics are already there in LR of course. For the Britons, you could field Serjeants as the warrior class, better skilled at arms and with some in the front rank even sporting armor. Yeomen, however, are exactly as skilled as Serjeants and only differ in being unarmored - to portray somewhat experienced/drilled militia, it might be nice to downgrade them a bit, but not to the level of Serfs! In the same way, elite hearth troops fighting in shieldwall aren't really well portrayed by MAA - it would nice to just adjust the Serjeants' stats upwards a bit. So, here is what I am thinking, and please comment as to whether this makes sense.

Militia Shieldwall = Yeomen, but not as confident in aggressive warfare, being trained to stand and defend their village, and not as skilled with their weapons. Attack (order) +1 = 7, Attack (combat) +1 = 6, Defence (combat) +1 = 5. Courage stays 4, as they may not as experienced as the warrior class, but are defending their homes. Does this neuter them too much? Are the downgrades worth reducing their points cost to 2?

Warrior Shieldwall = Serjeants.

Elite Shieldwall = Serjeants, but better all around. Attack (order) -1 = 5, Courage -1 = 3, Attack (combat) -1 = 4, Defence (combat) -1 = 3. I am debating whether upgrading them to Armour 4 with Schildton/Shieldwall would be overpowered, but it wouldbe nice to portray their more common use of body armor, unusual for the period. Now, about points cost. Would the non-Armour upgrades by themselves be worth +2 points, or more? In DR, an Armour upgrade by itself is worth 2 points, so if I add that would the points reasonably double to 8?

Mounted troops and skirmishers seem well represented by their existing types.

Saxon Warband = Fierce Foot

Elite Saxon Warband = Fierce Foot, but upgraded, rather than MAA. Move (order) -1 = 5, Courage -1 = 3, Armour +1 = 3. Improving the existing Attack (combat) from 3 to 2 seems too much, but improving their Defence (combat) rating by +1 (or even +2) would make sense. Given the Armour upgrade is worth +2 points by itself, are these now worth 7 points overall?

I was considering allowing the "javelins" upgrade for everyone, although it would admittedly not be worth as much to the Fierce Foot / Saxons (as they could Wild Charge).

I know the author knows this period very well, so I welcome any criticism or advice!

Cheers,

Christopher
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Sep 25 16 8:51 AM

Hi,

I just realized that Yuku automatically logged me in with an account I used to use for a game a couple of year ago ... this is the author of the above message! :)

Cheers,

Christopher

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Sep 28 16 5:43 AM

Dan posted a set of 'Dark Age' lists for LR a while ago - you might use those as a starting point.
We really liked the card-assisted combat system in Dux Brit - lots of interesting decisions. Lion Rampant is certainly simpler, but the games can be a bit vanilla if you don't use boasts.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Sep 28 16 10:48 AM

Hi Steve,

Yep, I found that article, and I really liked the expansion of the Boasts and the addition of religious personalities. I have DR as well, and I think there is a lot of potential (for instance) to match up and expand the role of nobles/leaders in LR in the Dux Brit model. However, I want a little more differentiation of troop types than just the straight equivalencies given in the article, especially for shieldwall troops, which I don't think are well represented by MAA for instance.

I like the Dux Brit system of moving by leader/contingent, however the combat system and the tracking of fatigue and its effects has slowed down our games. Note that I usually prefer more complex rules, but in this case I am usually playing with my teenage son and his friends, so speed of play is more important than usual. The combat cards are an interesting idea, but we seem to have settled down into a sort of predictable cycle, where both sides trade in cards early in the game looking for that great carpe diem run, and then set up a big attack with an elite unit led by the lord and champion ... and then both scramble to rebuild. Where I think Dux Brit shines is scenario generation and of course the linked campaign, however the scope of troop diversity is pretty narrow and it takes a very long time to build up larger and more diverse armies.

At any rate, that's really here nor there. In terms of representing the shieldwall versus warband dynamic, I have had a second thought of how to go at it. Yeomen (with Schiltron) could easily represent the bulk of warriors, with Serjeants (with Schiltron) representing the armored elites. The option of increasing the morale and/or combat factors of the Serjeants slightly could thus be handled with the examples already given in LR or DR. Militia could be represented by Yeomen without Schiltron, perhaps balancing the addition of Mixed Missiles with a slight decrease in combat capability. The front line role of the nobles and champions could then be represented by the smaller more aggressive MAA. This involves fewer adjustments, has easier equivalencies with the Fierce Foot types, and introduces some troop diversity into the normal Dux Brit mix.

I'll report back when we have tried something out!

Cheers,

Christopher

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#4 [url]

Oct 5 16 10:18 AM

CATenWolde wrote:
Hi Steve,
 Yeomen (with Schiltron) could easily represent the bulk of warriors, with Serjeants (with Schiltron) representing the armored elites. The option of increasing the morale and/or combat factors of the Serjeants slightly could thus be handled with the examples already given in LR or DR. Militia could be represented by Yeomen without Schiltron, perhaps balancing the addition of Mixed Missiles with a slight decrease in combat capability. The front line role of the nobles and champions could then be represented by the smaller more aggressive MAA. This involves fewer adjustments, has easier equivalencies with the Fierce Foot types, and introduces some troop diversity into the normal Dux Brit mix.

I'll report back when we have tried something out!

Cheers,

Christopher

I think that sounds very reasonable- it should work great.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Oct 7 16 3:38 AM

We had a quick little test game, using the following stats:

Britons
Veterans = Serjeants, no changes
Warriors = Yeomen, no changes
Militia = Yeomen, Mixed Weapons (+2 points), Inexperienced (Defense value reduced from 4 to 5, -2 points)
Skirmishers = Bidowers, no changes

Saxons
Veterans = Ferocious Foot, Battlewise (i.e. Drilled, +1 points), Heavy Armor (Armour increased to 3, but Move reduced to 6", +1 points)
Warriors = Ferocious Foot, no changes

The Saxon infantry (at 4 and 6 points each) were much more expensive than the Britons, which seemed okay as long as it would provide the feel of a hardened raiding force. I wanted to differentiate the veteran troops in some other way than making them even "hairier and scarier", and the combination of better self-control and gear than the young warriors seemed both to make sense and provide a good gaming variation. I wasn't sure how the Briton Militia would work out, but it turns out that they were rather powerful in the right circumstances.

Saxons: 2 Veterans @6 each = 12 points, 3 Warriors @4 each = 12 points -> 24 points total
Britons: 1 Veteran @ 4 points, 2 Warriors @3 each = 6 points, 4 militia @3 each = 12 points, 1 skirmisher @ 2 points -> 24 points total

The scenario was a simple one: Village Raid! A village occupied the center of the table - there were 6 buildings, each with a piece of Loot, and each Loot was worth 1VP. There was a large forest extending from one side of the village down towards the "Saxon" side of the table, and a long hill extending from the other side of the village. The rest of the terrain was broken fields and such. The Britons started out with the 4 Militia and 1 Skirmisher defending the village. The Saxon force started out 2 turns away from the village outskirts, and the rest of the Briton force (and their Lord) started out 3 turns away on the opposite side of the village.

The Britons set up one Militia unit on the hill defending an outlying building building, another in the center of the village behind a handy cattle fence, a third Militia unit and the Skirmishers on the Woods flank, and kept the last Militia unit in reserve. The Saxons sent their faster Warriors straight up the middle and on the "hill" flank, while sending their Veterans through the forest. The Britons actually tried to send their Skirmishers into the woods to get some shots at the Veterans, but at Armour 4 in cover it was pointless. Although one of the Veterans lagged behind due to failed rolls, the one that pressed forward managed to catch the Skirmishers on a failed Evade after emerging from the woods (that was quick and ugly), and then rounded a building to charge a Militia unit and send it packing. The Saxon Veterans are legitimately scary guys, and seem worth the 6 points. On the other flank, two of the Warrior units approach in a staggered fashion towards the Militia on the hill. The Britons managed to cause a couple of hits with missile fire on the first one, then actually repulse its charge, using the cover of the hill. When the second Saxon unit came up they manage to get in another couple of missile and melee hits before routing off the table. In the center, the third Saxon Warrior unit used buildings as cover to approach the Militia defending the cattle fence, but the ensuing melee was a draw.

At this point the Briton reinforcements had arrived. The Saxons had grabbed 3 pieces of Loot (a tie), and had two fresh Veterans on a one flank, but all three of the Warriors were weakened. The Britons sent their Veterans and a Warrior unit to defend against the Saxon Veterans, and a Warrior unit and the reserve Militia unit to defend against the Saxon Warriors. The Saxons chose to withdraw their Warriors with their loot before they were forced to charge the Britons again, although the unit engaged in the town ended up being forced to charge repeatedly against a shieldwall and died a heroic death. The confidant Saxon Veterans launched an attack against the Briton shieldwalls that was just ugly. Both sides ground each other down for a couple of turns, before the Saxons decided to drift back through the woods. The result was a tie (based on Loot VP's): the Saxons technically only lost one unit (4 points) to the Britons 4 units (11 points), but the Militia were sort of set up to fail, so I didn't count this (and the entire remaining Saxon force was very chewed up).

Lessons learned? Overall I think it had a good feel. I'm not sure whether the Mixed Missile Militia is a bit overpowered for their points, and I wonder about reducing their firepower to half dice. Courage is so important that I would like to see the Veterans on both sides have 3's, but it would make them points prohibitive. On the other hand, are the Saxon Veterans worth the same 6 points as MAA? I haven't tried out the idea of using something like MAA stats to represent the small hearthtroop of the Leader, but might do so next game. Also, I think it would be fun to field another leader or two per side in some circumstances, maybe with some special scenario/force characteristics.

My hope for LR was that it would "fast and fun" but still provide the elusive satisfaction of "period feel", and it did that. Meaning this as a compliment, I think its the equivalent in my mind of "The Sword and the Flame" for ancients/medievals - not in the sense of the details of the rules, but in the spirit and play. I wanted to find a set of rules we could use to string together 2-3 campaign games in a day and not run 2-3 hours per game, and these may well be it.

Cheers,

Christopher

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Oct 8 16 10:32 AM

CATenWolde wrote:

Lessons learned? Overall I think it had a good feel. I'm not sure whether the Mixed Missile Militia is a bit overpowered for their points, and I wonder about reducing their firepower to half dice. Courage is so important that I would like to see the Veterans on both sides have 3's, but it would make them points prohibitive. On the other hand, are the Saxon Veterans worth the same 6 points as MAA? I haven't tried out the idea of using something like MAA stats to represent the small hearthtroop of the Leader, but might do so next game. Also, I think it would be fun to field another leader or two per side in some circumstances, maybe with some special scenario/force characteristics.
 

Probably one of those things that would take a few games to really know. Perhaps it would be neccessary to track rolling (in a one off game a couple of rounds of above average rolling can give skewed picture). It might also depend o what faces them across the table: if they continually see of units of MAA coming at them through cover then perhaps they area bit too over-powered.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help