|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 27, 2017 13:38:56 GMT
The rules about placement of plough and types of camp followers seem unusual to me. They are not deal-breakers by any stretch but I just don't understand the limitations.
Why "must" plough enter a second adjacent quarter?
Why must you choose between fixed camp followers or mobile camp followers?
I would be interested if anyone can explain Phil's rationale for these rules. I'm sure I'm missing something quite logical.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrussell on Aug 27, 2017 17:24:14 GMT
Jim,
Doubt if there is a definitive answer to either of these, but:
If the battle is being fought over agricultural land then a significant proportion of the basic terrain is likely to be ploughed fields. By making them extend into two quarters they are less a distinct terrain feature to be fought over and more an indication of the underlying field type.
Re camp followers, I am fairly sure that earlier sets of rules specified that camp followers should be provided as distinct entities, capable of being removed from the playing area if needed. Players ignored this and some modelled them as integral to the camp, some as removable elements. Nobody seemed particularly bothered by this as it seemed to make no difference, but it did seem to be an issue for Phil, so he wrote the rules into DBA 3.0 to differentiate between the two.
I think.
Scott
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 27, 2017 21:07:24 GMT
Great questions, here are my thoughts...
My impression is that the placement of areas of plough across sectors, rather than in, ensures they are more central and therefore create potentially open areas in the central battlefield. This tends to be the case with battles fought between nations typically classed as arable. You see the same with gentle hills, which likewise feature in many battles central sectors, though for different reasons.
Camp followers were unrepresented in many players armies in earlier versions. Some players had no camp followers modelled, others had them modelled within the camp and a few players with seperate stands which could be replaced by a garrison. Under 3.0 camp followers can sally out and reinforce the main army. This new ability for camp followers to sally forth is not often seen, but adds further variety to to the game when it occurs. It of course requires a seperate camp folder element.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 28, 2017 0:20:18 GMT
Ditto to the above comments on plough. Phil was once in in the game when he wanted to move one of his elements into the camp, but the camp had fixed figures in it. His opponent argued that he could not move them out in order to move the element in . Other such anomalies have occurred over time so he meant to resolve the issue. It is still possible to have no camp followers in the camp. So there are four options: an army element, fixed figures, A camp follower element, or nothing. That pretty much covers all options and leaves no chance for misunderstanding.
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on Aug 28, 2017 2:51:43 GMT
Phil was once in in the game when he wanted to move one of his elements into the camp, but the camp had fixed figures in it. His opponent argued that he could not move them out in order to move the element in. Wonderful! I smiled when I read this Bob. Phil should carry a small hammer. A swing or two later and such problems as camp followers glued to bases would be resolved, and the camp would be free to occupy. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 28, 2017 7:35:08 GMT
I am imagining a DBA hammer as a possible accessory from Litko or Baueda...(lol)
The explanation for the plough is excellent. I knew there would be some logic that I didn't realise. I may need to put in a bit more effort than just a piece of corrugated brown cloth.
The explanation for the camp also makes sense, in order to identify when a camp has been left undefended. But it can limit the modelling. Luckiliy, my plasticard matches the Baueda hellenistic fortifications perfectly for thickness. So I can make some inserts to allow for both options.
Thanks to all
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 28, 2017 17:58:39 GMT
Re Camp Followers: a good example of how absurd rule lawyering causes complex and unnecessary rules.
In the real world people are not glued down. So the glue status of the figures is irrelevant to intent which is that Camp Followers can be pushed out by regular troops.
Phil should have invoked his Supreme Being powers to rule that glued figures are nominally pushed aside just like unglued ones.
Its how I would (and will) rule.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 28, 2017 23:02:57 GMT
Re Camp Followers: a good example of how absurd rule lawyering causes complex and unnecessary rules. In the real world people are not glued down. So the glue status of the figures is irrelevant to intent which is that Camp Followers can be pushed out by regular troops. Phil should have invoked his Supreme Being powers to rule that glued figures are nominally pushed aside just like unglued ones. Its how I would (and will) rule. TomT And yet unglued figures are not pushed aside - if you wish to replace the camp followers (unglued) with an element from your army you need to spend the PIPs for both moving the Camp Followers out and moving the replacement in.
Personally I cannot understand how the camp can fit 12 elements plus the camp followers during the night, but is strictly limited to one element and one element only when the din of battle is in everyone's ears.
Sensibly you would think that the camp followers man the defences when there are no trained professionals around, but if some martial types come into the camp the camp followers would leave the easy job of driving off the enemy to them and return to the more difficult tasks of cooking the food, doing the laundry, mucking out the horselines and all the other myriad tasks that need to be done by camp servants so that the army can function.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Aug 28, 2017 23:09:52 GMT
The new DBA3 rule that I find quirky is the interpretations around Cities that suggest
1) If the city is not occupied in at deployment, then even the defender can only get an element inside by assaulting the walls and overcoming the denizens - Phil went to great lengths in the playtest to explain that local citizens are never happy to welcome marauding soldiers from outside the immediate area, even if offering allegiance to the same ruler, inside their city.
My opinion - this may be the general case but when the enemy is within view they might change their tune.
I think that this is a rule honoured more in the breach than the acceptance.
2) That the city can only be looted once. I am sure that I have read that in the battle for Jaffa one side assaulted the city that had only been recently taken by the other side and then helped themselves to the already piled up loot.
I cannot understand how within a couple of game turns all of the moveable wealth of the city is not only taken but transported back behind the looters baseline without any chance of interception.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 29, 2017 4:03:22 GMT
Re Camp Followers: a good example of how absurd rule lawyering causes complex and unnecessary rules. In the real world people are not glued down. So the glue status of the figures is irrelevant to intent which is that Camp Followers can be pushed out by regular troops. Phil should have invoked his Supreme Being powers to rule that glued figures are nominally pushed aside just like unglued ones. Its how I would (and will) rule. TomT And yet unglued figures are not pushed aside - if you wish to replace the camp followers (unglued) with an element from your army you need to spend the PIPs for both moving the Camp Followers out and moving the replacement in.
Personally I cannot understand how the camp can fit 12 elements plus the camp followers during the night, but is strictly limited to one element and one element only when the din of battle is in everyone's ears.
Sensibly you would think that the camp followers man the defences when there are no trained professionals around, but if some martial types come into the camp the camp followers would leave the easy job of driving off the enemy to them and return to the more difficult tasks of cooking the food, doing the laundry, mucking out the horselines and all the other myriad tasks that need to be done by camp servants so that the army can function.
Cheers
David,
Stranger still, the same size camp serves three non-allied commands for the BBDBA.
Presumably, this is the portion we can view with the remainder of the camp lying off-board.
On a side note, since using the larger board (80cm x 80cm), camps are hardly bothered by enemy troops. An element with a bit of ‘muscle’ finds itself stopping short of the walls having moved beyond the command distance.
Light horse that do manage the journey fail in the attempt to sack the camp or die doing so. Evidently the fumes coming from the cooking pots are overpowering.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 29, 2017 19:49:02 GMT
Macbeth. I cannot find a rule that says a defender must attack his own city in order to garrison it. There is clearly a rule that states that the defender can move through its own city. Where is the rule that says that the defender cannot enter the city and become a Garrison?
I also cannot find any rule that says you can only Sack a city once. Is it not possible for an enemy to enter a city, sack it, leave the city; the defender reoccupy the city, the invader recapture it and sack it again? I can't imagine a game ever lasting long enough for that to happen, but isn't it possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by martin on Aug 30, 2017 12:22:13 GMT
Macbeth. I cannot find a rule that says a defender must attack his own city in order to garrison it. There is clearly a rule that states that the defender can move through its own city. Where is the rule that says that the defender cannot enter the city and become a Garrison? I also cannot find any rule that says you can only Sack a city once. Is it not possible for an enemy to enter a city, sack it, leave the city; the defender reoccupy the city, the invader recapture it and sack it again? I can't imagine a game ever lasting long enough for that to happen, but isn't it possible? Multiple sackings occurred to/by me in a v2.2 game once (Roman unCivil War).....same probably possible in v3 |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 31, 2017 13:19:00 GMT
I think there was some discussion previously about what happens to camps after they are sacked but I can't seem to find the thread. Since it has to be placed in good going other than plough and when sacked it "ceases to have any defensive or other value" I assume it can be removed? Also regarding an ediface, "it is treated only as bad going, except when it is used as a camp", it would follow the same rules as camps and therefore be of no value and potentially removed?
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 31, 2017 16:39:56 GMT
I think there was some discussion previously about what happens to camps after they are sacked but I can't seem to find the thread. Since it has to be placed in good going other than plough and when sacked it "ceases to have any defensive or other value" I assume it can be removed? Also regarding an ediface, "it is treated only as bad going, except when it is used as a camp", it would follow the same rules as camps and therefore be of no value and potentially removed? Jim: The FAQ covers both of these questions... Find it here ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/dba_resources/Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 31, 2017 16:51:32 GMT
Just to clarify a bit. A camp is a temporary structure which when sacked is pretty much worthless. An edifice is a solid long term permanent structure which can be used to act as a camp. When that camp is sacked, the impedimenta are gone, but the structure stays, as an area of bad going. Phil made the distinction because he did not like players using permanent features such as pyramids as camps.
Note that sacking a city is does not destroy it but does destroy camp.
|
|
