[Mass Combat] "Real Soldiers Dig"

[nik1979]

Oops. thanks for the correction Ulzgoroth

If the light infantry only had Fire superiority ability, even it was limited to its own TS of 1, that would be an advantage +1.

Are there rules for Mobility Superiority (mtd vs foot)?
Like if the Light infantry had Mounts.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by nik1979

Are there rules for Mobility Superiority (mtd vs foot)?
Like if the Light infantry had Mounts.

No, though a mobility edge can give a small benefit in the recon contest. (Not worth it for an all-recon ambush force, though, since adding the mounts will mean losing the all-recon bonus). Mobility class doesn't generally play a roll once battle is joined.

Of course, if they're actually Light Cavalry, they'll have Cavalry Superiority, but mounted infantry don't have the same capability.

[nik1979]

What if Class TS independent from Base TS?

Light Infantry with F-TS1 has Fire Capability equal to Inferior Bowmen
Bowmen with Rec-TS1 has Recon Ability equal to Inferior Light Infantry

Unlike Multi-Class Able Elements, where all class abilities go Up with TS.

ex. Medium Cavalry at TS3 has better Fire Capability than Bowmen or Horse Archers of the same quality.

If Class TS was separate for some units, it would have more interesting combinations IMO. Considering Core Roles, differing with Secondary Roles or Class Abilities. The option of Light Infantry with F-TS1 vs Bowmen with Rec-TS1.

No, though a mobility edge can give a small benefit in the recon contest. (Not worth it for an all-recon ambush force, though, since adding the mounts will mean losing the all-recon bonus). Mobility class doesn't generally play a roll once battle is joined.

Yikes, mounts remove the "All recon Bonus"! I think it should have been classified as an Augmentation instead of a separate element. Considering that it assumes the units its being used for are skilled in riding and the relative effect of the quality of the mounts (there is no printed disadvantage of getting inferior and Poor mounts (-75% to cost).

[Anthony]

The usual wargamy way to handle units that entrench themselves is to give them a bonus when defending, or in some cases a bonus when defending if they didn't move or attack during the previous turn.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by nik1979

Yikes, mounts remove the "All recon Bonus"! I think it should have been classified as an Augmentation instead of a separate element. Considering that it assumes the units its being used for are skilled in riding and the relative effect of the quality of the mounts (there is no printed disadvantage of getting inferior and Poor mounts (-75% to cost).

I wouldn't say skilled at riding. Capable of riding, which implies some proficiency, but if they're able to operate from the mounts with high proficiency, you're probably dealing with a cavalry element, not an infantry element. Light Cavalry costs the same and functions better than light infantry plus mounts anyway! The only drawback is you can't detach them from the horses.

Tangentially, did Draft Teams ever get errata'd? In my PDF their stats are absurd. I seem to recall they're supposed to have foot mobility, not mounted...

Originally Posted by Anthony

The usual wargamy way to handle units that entrench themselves is to give them a bonus when defending, or in some cases a bonus when defending if they didn't move or attack during the previous turn.

The former would be possible. The latter wouldn't really be meaningful in Mass Combat. I don't think, in general, that either would be the right approach, because of how timescales vary. Even Romans aren't going to do much digging in in the course of a 15 minute battle round.

I think that there's already a representation for basic entrenchment, anyway. Engineering Superiority counts in pitched battles where one side started out encamped. Though if you give legionaries the multi-mode treatment, you get them either fighting at reduced TS, or losing the benefit of their fortification...

If you build up more advanced field entrenchments than that could account for, the rules don't specify costs or requirements, but obviously at some point they qualify as a fortress that requires siege combat! Before that point they might be worth an increased DB, but the rules don't seem to address that.