|
Post by skb777 on Feb 28, 2024 8:19:30 GMT
We have brought this in as a change to the DBF rules, currently in Beta phase of development P …no chance that the LH destruction might be intentional/realistic? A deep swarm of LH who, in Close Combat, are doubled might accurately represent the front part of the element attempting to flee in severe disorder and they and possibly others being killed in the crush/mayhem which ensues [??]…perhaps. No, and why are we to assume they have to be in close combat and you are assuming a swarming maelstrom of LH archers are ordered in nice neat rows in the first place. To myself they now both form part of the same tactical unit (same as pike or Wb when in two ranks) so flee as one, hence why they are destroyed by mounted because they catch them.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Feb 28, 2024 10:03:16 GMT
We have brought this in as a change to the DBF rules, currently in Beta phase of development P …no chance that the LH destruction might be intentional/realistic? A deep swarm of LH who, in Close Combat, are doubled might accurately represent the front part of the element attempting to flee in severe disorder and they and possibly others being killed in the crush/mayhem which ensues [??]…perhaps. I have a similar view as Martin. From Troop Definitions on page 3: Light Horse“They typically fought by sending a constant stream of small parties to gallop past shooting several times at close range, then return to rest or change ponies while others took their turn. Armies with large numbers of horse archers could form up very deep, increasing the frequency of exchange and the effect of shooting, but on a dusty confused battlefield they could make evading a charge risky”. Therefore, on a score of twice as many, the second LH element show contempt for the cowards fleeing by standing their ground and prepare to shoot.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Feb 28, 2024 11:03:25 GMT
That is completely subjective in that you are assuming that is what the troops behind are thinking - they could equally be thinking ‘good call lads, let’s regroup back there’
All I can say is it is being changed because A) it is so unpopular or B) it’s misinterpreted 🙈
This is why an active forum were the authors can either clarify or change wording is a must.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Feb 28, 2024 11:09:55 GMT
…no chance that the LH destruction might be intentional/realistic? A deep swarm of LH who, in Close Combat, are doubled might accurately represent the front part of the element attempting to flee in severe disorder and they and possibly others being killed in the crush/mayhem which ensues [??]…perhaps. No, and why are we to assume they have to be in close combat and you are assuming a swarming maelstrom of LH archers are ordered in nice neat rows in the first place. To myself they now both form part of the same tactical unit (same as pike or Wb when in two ranks) so flee as one, hence why they are destroyed by mounted because they catch them. Rather than looking at historical justifications, might it not be an idea to look at this in terms of the mechanics of the game? If the worst result one can get against most foot troop types is a flee, using the LH in two ranks and getting a bonus for rear support is the obvious course of action. Unless they are contacted on the flank edge as well, the LH have a basic combat factor of 3 and are effectively invulnerable. Whereas at the moment the player has to choose between fighting at a basic factor of 2 and being able to flee or putting in a second rank and upping the combat factor, but risking being destroyed in the event that the outcome is flee. You've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?"
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Feb 28, 2024 11:47:20 GMT
But they are destroyed on a double from mounted etc. basically those troops that can catch them.
Personally I think it’s a bending of the the interpretation of the rule and doesn’t mean that at all.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Feb 28, 2024 13:03:14 GMT
But they are destroyed on a double from mounted etc. basically those troops that can catch them. Personally I think it’s a bending of the the interpretation of the rule and doesn’t mean that at all. Well, it would appear that the rules author, Mr Barker, has specifically referenced the condition that causes the ‘loss if flee on doubled’ , though it took Timurilank to point it out:- ”- From Troop Definitions on page 3:
Light Horse “They typically fought by sending a constant stream of small parties to gallop past shooting several times at close range, then return to rest or change ponies while others took their turn.
Armies with large numbers of horse archers could form up very deep, increasing the frequency of exchange and the effect of shooting, but on a dusty confused battlefield they could make evading a charge risky”. “. It would appear from the troop type description* that this combat result is exactly as he intended, rather than some unintended oversight. Any changes by other post-Barker rules amenders would go against his intent (it would appear). Also, the comment that an active forum is needed where the rules author is involved might have ignored the reality that Mr B. is older than he was and is understandably disinclined to argue the ins and outs with us mere mortals. * I failed to check at the time, so thanks, Timurilank…the Troop Definitions answer a huge number of “why do troop type ‘x’ do that?” queries, though we often fail to reference them. Well worth a re-read now and then.
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Feb 28, 2024 15:12:51 GMT
I would have thought ‘evading’ and ‘fleeing’ to be two separate and different things 😜
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Mar 1, 2024 15:46:46 GMT
I think we need to distinguish between where the rules as written need supplementing and where they might need changing. There seem to be plenty of examples of things in the rules that need supplementing. Having no definition of “uphill” for close combat is clearly an example. Players have to decide how to interpret this and it is good that a common definition has been reached. There are also, in my view, plenty of things in the rules that could advantageously be changed. To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a “flee” result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. But I think that the advantages of playing the rules as written, of having a single reference point that everyone can turn to, outweigh the advantages of changing them on particular points. Concerning the way in which gentle hills affect shooting and command distance, I think the rules are clear. Hills are required to have “a centre line crest”. You can’t shoot, and command distance is reduced, if the element you are measuring to is “entirely beyond” a crest. Up to now, I have found it helpful to think of hills in DBA as being shaped like cornish pasties. The crest line runs all the way from one end to the other, rising to a bulge in the middle and then falling. This has seemed to me a natural interpretation of “a centre line crest”. With hills shaped like this, the shooting rule as written certainly produces an anomaly. An element at one end of the hill can shoot, over the bulge, at an element at the other end, provided that both are on the same side of the crest line. But I think this is quite a rare case, and not worth changing the rules for. Maybe I’m reading the rules wrong, and they are not as clear as I think. Maybe they’re clear but the anomaly, for example in the case of conical hills, is bigger/more serious than I think and is one of the cases (which should presumably be rare if at all) that could justify moving away from the rules as written. In any case, interested to hear your view. Depends slightly which way the pasty is pointing, hodsopa . If the crest (?crust) is roughly parallel to the base edge troops can hide behind it. However, if it runs parallel to the side edges, one could get some improbable results, including Artillery being able to hit troops on flat ground (Good going) on the far side of the hill.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Mar 1, 2024 15:48:29 GMT
I think we need to distinguish between where the rules as written need supplementing and where they might need changing. There seem to be plenty of examples of things in the rules that need supplementing. Having no definition of “uphill” for close combat is clearly an example. Players have to decide how to interpret this and it is good that a common definition has been reached. There are also, in my view, plenty of things in the rules that could advantageously be changed. To give one example among many, when two LH in column receive a “flee” result, both should flee rather than the front one being destroyed. But I think that the advantages of playing the rules as written, of having a single reference point that everyone can turn to, outweigh the advantages of changing them on particular points. Concerning the way in which gentle hills affect shooting and command distance, I think the rules are clear. Hills are required to have “a centre line crest”. You can’t shoot, and command distance is reduced, if the element you are measuring to is “entirely beyond” a crest. Up to now, I have found it helpful to think of hills in DBA as being shaped like cornish pasties. The crest line runs all the way from one end to the other, rising to a bulge in the middle and then falling. This has seemed to me a natural interpretation of “a centre line crest”. With hills shaped like this, the shooting rule as written certainly produces an anomaly. An element at one end of the hill can shoot, over the bulge, at an element at the other end, provided that both are on the same side of the crest line. But I think this is quite a rare case, and not worth changing the rules for. Maybe I’m reading the rules wrong, and they are not as clear as I think. Maybe they’re clear but the anomaly, for example in the case of conical hills, is bigger/more serious than I think and is one of the cases (which should presumably be rare if at all) that could justify moving away from the rules as written. In any case, interested to hear your view. Depends slightly which way the pasty is pointing, hodsopa . If the crest (?crust) is roughly parallel to the base edge troops can hide behind it. However, if it runs parallel to the side edges, one could get some improbable results, including Artillery being able to hit troops on flat ground (Good going) on the far side of the hill.
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Mar 1, 2024 15:50:15 GMT
I think you are right about the Artillery point, Menacus. I've seen that in the beta version of the DBF rules the authors address this by saying that you can never shoot from good going to good going if any part of a hill is in between. That seems to me to be a good rule.
|
|