|
Post by stevie on Dec 9, 2019 9:54:03 GMT
Yes Simon...off-centred squares in a ‘brickwork’ pattern act exactly the same as hexagons, and thus have the very same limitations. See general-staff.com/the-problem-with-hexagons/ for the ‘drunken walk’, and it isn’t possible to have nice neat straight formations in a line in certain directions.
|
|
|
Post by wargamerdale on Feb 1, 2020 14:18:03 GMT
I started out playing on a gridded battle-field (20" x 20", 1-inch squares). I was not playing DBA yet, but using Bob Cordery's rules for colonial armies. Gridded battles can seem rigid at first, but there is a pleasant geometry to the thing. It works best though when the elements/units are fairly rigid. They line up and fire (horse and musketry), or they charge straight ahead. Then I started looking at DBA. I wasn't sure how I would adapt to the free-form movement. I tried a hex-grid map, but much as I tried, I never could say I really liked it. I tried DBA on a gridded map using Bob Cordery's rules. Couldn't get my arms around that either. I realized that the free-form movement of elements and groups was one thing I really liked about DBA (among many others). But I found those little measuring sticks to be sort of a nuisance and slowing me down. I should mention at this point that I play solo only, so being impatient with myself was not good form. From what I see in Youtubes of wargames being played, there appears to be a lot of "wait" time (checking the rules, taking out those rulers and measuring sticks, waiting for the opponent to decide already). I wanted the game to move along, as well as the campaign. So I tried putting my markers on the original gridded map, and used the squares to just estimate distance of movement, while all the elements moved free-form. The result was terrific. I could move elements/groups much more quickly, with the same overall affect. Since I'm playing the part of two generals, I didn't want to get bogged down in the details of measurement. If I was off by a millimeter, so what? I'm playing solo, not trying to win a tournament. For some this might sound like sacrilege, but for me it was the best of all worlds.
As an aside, while doing the above, I realized also that while I really was liking DBA rules more and more, one thing kept nagging at me. The use of PIP's for movement, and the single element vs. group movement, and the maneuvering to out-maneuver your opponent, these were the best aspects of the rules. But when combat took place, some of the results seemed sort of random or arbitrary. A lot of dancing around, and then a lucky roll of the dice and the enemy was blown away. One aspect of wargame rules that I picked up from Bob Cordery, Joe Morschauser, and Neil Thomas, was that of attrition. An element had a certain strength point, some more than others. An enemy could score a "hit" against it, but did not knock it out completely until its strength point was down to zero. Then it was curtains. This means one lucky roll of the dice would not decide its fate, but accumulated hits being acquired but being fired upon, and losing melees, took its toll eventually. This seemed more realistic. It requires a roster, but the record-keeping is very easy. But I still love the other aspects of DBA. So I am trying to blend the two (i.e. PIP's, movement, single/group, strategy, gaining advantage in melee with support and overlap - all of that stuff - with the firing and melee combat methods of Joe Morschauser). The result has so far been really pleasing. Sort of DBA with a twist. When done, I'll post the rules and you will be welcome to review and critique. And now back to my "fast-moving" battles and campaign.
Dale
|
|
|
Post by wargamerdale on Feb 1, 2020 14:31:59 GMT
To Stevie, I wrote the above before I saw your discussion on trying to adapt DBA to a gridded system. It really looked interesting. Have you worked it all through yet and posted the result, or still working on it? Dale
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 1, 2020 18:48:52 GMT
Well Dale, I am still working on it. I’ve got a working system, and the Grid Booklet is half finished. I just need to polish off the second section (45° diagonal orientation) by wording it clearly and adding lots of descriptive diagrams, then thoroughly playtesting the thing in order to find any bugs before anybody else finds them!
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Feb 2, 2020 9:07:59 GMT
Yesterday I was play testing a home grown set of English Civil War rules based around DBA and played on a grid.
I used the 6" grid I have for King and Parliament rules. I have found the grid really muddies the water as far as DBA is concerned. As I have developed my rules the similarity to DBA has become less and less. To the point the combat factors and outcomes are about all that remains and the outcomes are heavily modded to accommodate the grid system.
Wet morning here so I shall do a bit more testing and tinkering. When happy I shall post the results here.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 2, 2020 10:20:28 GMT
I made reducing or even eliminating any distortions my primary objective Cromwell when trying to get DBA or HoTT to work on a grid...and I believe I have largely succeeded. The method I found that works best is to have 2 cm ½ BW squares, and to call the intersections where the grid-lines cross ‘nodes’. Positioning is rigidly controlled by having both front-corners and the front-edge on or touching a node for 90° orientation (i.e. N, S, E, W), and having one front-corner and the front-edge on or touching a node for 45° orientation (i.e. NE, NW, SE, SW). All distance measurement is done not by counting squares, but by counting the nodes the furthest corner travels...node-to-node along a grid-line is 2 cm, node-to-diagonal-node not following a grid- line is counted as 3 cm. This way a single element ends up spanning two squares, so it can pin two enemy elements with its Threat Zone (just like in DBA), and can protect itself from being hard flanked by preventing an enemy from being entirely beyond its side-edge (just like in DBA). Plus it makes recoiling simple. The only real problem I’ve come across is wheeling...especially with the 90° only orientation method. Fortunately things become much easier and more natural looking with the 45° orientation system. All this will become clear when I finally finish off the second 45° section of the “Playing DBA and HoTT on a grid” booklet, which contains many easy to follow diagrams. I’ve been delayed slightly by the upgrading of the new “Army List Corrections” file... ...and it’s about time that I updated the “House Rule Index” with all the new stuff... Ah, so much to do, and only one Stevie.
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Feb 2, 2020 13:56:39 GMT
In the world of trade-offs, it would be interesting to list as you go what you give up to get the faster movement system. Stevie, you are giving us insights into your thinking that way, but a summary of what’s been accomplished would be helpful as we follow this along.
When you talk about wheeling, it reminds me of the hex based movement systems for sailing ships. I think that would be a much more complicated case.
The good news in all of this is that both sides will have similar restrictions and benefits.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Feb 2, 2020 14:05:36 GMT
BTW pre-measurement is not really an issue IMHO. Counting hexes, squares or nodes is the same thing. And if you argue that there is no pre-measurement in real life, the counter argument to that there would be people in real life who can judge those things accurately and they would be called upon in an army sized body to help make the real life decisions. Counting hexes is faster than measuring in mm.
Not to mention the randomness of the command die roll encompassing that category of errors.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Feb 2, 2020 14:08:02 GMT
Dale,
Although I have only watched it played, I understand Art de La Guerre ADLG has the attritional aspects you mention combined with many of the DBx like systems.
Bill
|
|
|
Post by wargamerdale on Feb 2, 2020 14:46:26 GMT
Thank you Bill for the tip. I need to take a look at it. meantime, looking forward to everyone's developments in this area.
Dale
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 2, 2020 15:11:39 GMT
I agree with you Wjhupp...pre-measuring is essential in DBA, and it can’t be played without it. For example, when moving you have to pre-measure an enemy element’s Threat Zone, or you might end up moving somewhere you shouldn’t. And it’s the same when making subsequent moves, and ‘Phantom Edge Overlaps’, and entering rough/bad going or rivers, and shooting. As for the sacrifices in order to get DBA and HoTT to play properly on a grid with few distortions, I’ve found remarkably few. Basically, you just count the nodes and away you goes! Although it is necessary to add a little bit of extra speed when wheeling so they end up in roughly the same place as when measuring. This is because diagonal distances are counted as 3 cm for simplicity, when really the measured diagonal distance is 2.83 cm...so having one front-corner pivoting gives a wheeling line a little boost to compensate (this is like the free sideways slide... ...a bit of extra movement in certain limited situations in order to make things work properly). That’s about it really.
|
|
|
Post by oriel on Feb 20, 2020 22:22:30 GMT
Just to say that i think Stevie´s (Senator) suggestions for grid DBA are very Sound. We have been playing with a very similar set here in Munich for the past two years. Concerning wheeling in a group - we just don`t do it - Anyway i think it is pretty unrealistic- even trained troops would have problems doing such - let alone untrained barbarians- it is one of the most unrealistic actions in the rules. The other is throwing for Pips - Which General in real life would be "informed" "sir, you can move 4 Units of your choice. Much better to reflect uncertainty by having the Opponent throwing the die in secret and telling the Opponent when he has exhausted his pips. or throw 1 die before attempting to move a unit/Group a score of 1 and it can`t move - then try the next and so on. Also the pre-determined pips lead to alot of beard stroking and slow things down. Although i like the rules- they are Pretty abstract. Oriel
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Feb 21, 2020 6:17:36 GMT
Just to say that i think Stevie´s (Senator) suggestions for grid DBA are very Sound. We have been playing with a very similar set here in Munich for the past two years. Concerning wheeling in a group - we just don`t do it - Anyway i think it is pretty unrealistic- even trained troops would have problems doing such - let alone untrained barbarians- it is one of the most unrealistic actions in the rules. The other is throwing for Pips - Which General in real life would be "informed" "sir, you can move 4 Units of your choice. Much better to reflect uncertainty by having the Opponent throwing the die in secret and telling the Opponent when he has exhausted his pips. or throw 1 die before attempting to move a unit/Group a score of 1 and it can`t move - then try the next and so on. Also the pre-determined pips lead to alot of beard stroking and slow things down. Although i like the rules- they are Pretty abstract. Oriel Let's not all go crazy here. I intentionally grew a goatee just to get in on the beard stroking. Now I am a signed up SOE member I am considering the full transition to sandals with knee length grey socks. Would love a pipe but I have not attained anywhere near the cool factor to pull that off. Like the idea of a few games with secret pips like Blucher, may give it a go.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Feb 21, 2020 16:35:55 GMT
The other is throwing for Pips - Which General in real life would be "informed" "sir, you can move 4 Units of your choice. Much better to reflect uncertainty by having the I always saw PIPs as less about the General being unable and more about the ability of troops to execute the orders. That sometimes things are working, clicking and everyone's on the same page. Other times, the messenger falls down a deep hole, field commanders get confused and ask for confirmation/explanations, or they're incompetent and can't do the thing, etc.
|
|
|
Post by chgowiz on Feb 21, 2020 16:39:58 GMT
One aspect of wargame rules that I picked up from Bob Cordery, Joe Morschauser, and Neil Thomas, was that of attrition. An element had a certain strength point, some more than others. An enemy could score a "hit" against it, but did not knock it out completely until its strength point was down to zero. Then it was curtains. This means one lucky roll of the dice would not decide its fate, but accumulated hits being acquired but being fired upon, and losing melees, took its toll eventually. This seemed more realistic. It requires a roster, but the record-keeping is very easy. That's a really fascinating idea! Not about the roster bit, but about somehow reflecting attrition. I get that DBA/HOTT are abstract, but so is Thomas's One Hour Wargames where you remained locked in combat, grinding each other down till one person gets to 0. I'm a simple guy, who likes simple rules, so I'm wondering if just saying "at a certain point, as determined by the results, the unit becomes diminished and can't fight as well, gets a -1 to their combat factor." You could represent it by just tossing a chit or marker next to that element. Maybe if the result was 1 or 2 away from the dreaded "half or more", that represents the point where the element has really taken on a lot of casualties. Hmm...
|
|