|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 6, 2017 22:10:03 GMT
This is a summery of an idea that appeared in in the “Shooting?” thread, which went a bit off track I’m afraid (my fault). On the advice of Joe Collins, I have posted the salient points here in a new thread for further discussion. The SuggestionRemove the current “turn-to-face after the Move Phase has ended” with “instantly turn-to-face, after the conforming troops have lined-up”. What’s Wrong with the “Wait to Turn” method?The current turn-to-face method does have several disadvantages, both from a rule simplicity and a combat simulation point of view:- Facing the weakest, not the strongest troops: currently, if knights or blades contact and line-up with an enemy flank, while psiloi simultaneously contacts the enemy front, the sandwiched element cannot turn-to-face the more powerful troops (even if the knights/blades were first to make contact), because by the end of the Move Phase they are already engaged frontally with the psiloi. Allowing “instant turning-to-face” would give the moving/bounding player the option of choosing which of their elements gets to fight…the knights or blades if they were first to make contact (once they have lined-up to the flank, the stationary enemy instantly turns to face them), or the psiloi, if they were first to make contact and line-up. This seems a better combat simulation than having the stationary element fighting the relatively harmless psiloi to their front while ignoring the more dangerous troops smashing into their flank. Flank attackers are weak, no better than psiloi: currently, anyone attacking a flank is a mere -1, no matter what type of troops they are. This is a bit odd, and one would have thought that powerful knights, who are capable of sweeping away an enemy when they hit them frontally, would be even more powerful when they charge a vulnerable open flank, not weaker. Allowing “instant turning-to-face” would force the outflanked enemy to turn to face and fight these flankers (if they were first to make contact), who would be able to use their normal combat factors and combat outcomes. Again, this seems a better combat simulation instead of being merely a -1. Flanking troops don’t pursue: currently, troops attacking a flank do not pursue…which doesn’t sound very realistic. Allowing “instant turning-to-face” would force the outflanked enemy to turn to face and fight these flankers (if they were first to make contact), so they would not be facing a flank, and they would pursue. Once more this seems a better combat simulation instead of having so called ‘impetuous’ troops suddenly overcoming their tendency to lose control and continue killing. Simplicity: the current “turn after the end of the Move Phase” seems to be an unnecessarily and awkward complication. Apart from all the problems mentioned above that it introduces, it also sometimes requires players to physically move their troops twice; once to make contact to the flank, then again after the end of the Move Phase in order to maintain contact once their opponent has turned. Allowing “instant turning-to-face” would be simpler, easier, quicker, less complicated, and be one less rule to remember. So there you have it. “Instant turning-to-face” has many advantages over the current “wait to turn” method, cures lots of problems, is a better combat simulation, and is easier to use. The only disadvantage is that Threat Zones will also instantly turn as well…but that is a relatively minor price to pay considering all the advantages this turning method brings. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 7, 2017 10:56:14 GMT
Firstly, I think that your ideas make sense for the single element being outflanked. You would imagine the troops facing the first threat that contacts them. But I'm not so sure about a group, particularly a batteline (DBA terms - side to side contact). I'm trying to picture a flank attack on a battleline. In my mind's eye, I've always thought that when the defender "wins" the combat, it symbolises that the flanking force hasn't been able to get into contact (the depth of the base allows for me to imagine troop separation) and the defender is able to deal with the frontal troops, rather than the defender beating back both elements. The flank of the battleline would be pencil-thin in comparison to the frontage of the flanking element. Turning the defender out of the line doesn't seem right to me. However, I would be open to the attacker choosing which combat factor to use (either flanker or frontal) and certainly some troops involved in a successful flanking attack should be able to pursue.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 7, 2017 12:26:39 GMT
You guys think Fast Bd are strong now...?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 7, 2017 14:43:18 GMT
Jim, I can understand your concerns about having an element that is also part of a group instantly turning. I myself like to visualize a flank attack like this:-  Here the end blue element is either trying to face in two different directions as it responds to the flank threat, or the troops on the open flank have been rolled-back by the impetus of the charge. Of course, having our figures on set bases, our elements can only face in one direction. But, even if we do instantly turn to face the first contact, the above visualisation is still probably occurring, it’s just that we can’t show it with our fixed bases. Also, consider the following picture:-  Under the present “wait to turn” system, blue element ‘A’ will turn after the Move Phase has finished. Under the proposed “instant turn-to-face” method, it will turn as soon as the red element has lined-up to its flank. Either way, by the time combat starts it will be turned and no longer in a line with its former group. Primuspilus raises a good point about fast blades. Some people think that this troop type is already too powerful. If so, then one possible solution would be to reduce their move rate to 2 BW in all terrain, just like other ‘medium infantry’ such as 4Wb and 4Ax (or would this make them too weak compared to 4Bd?). Anyway, is it really necessary to penalize and cripple all other troops in all flank attacks just because of this one relatively rare troop type? Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 7, 2017 15:34:52 GMT
Stevie, what problem, exactly, is the instant turn to flank supposed to solve? Flank attacks are alreadt a massive advantage (converting recouls into QKs). DBx already suffers from the flank attack being the primary vehicle for deciding the game. Historically it simply wasn't as dominant a tactic as it is in wargames, since it is frought with issues to pull off successfully - ask any veteran such as myself.
DBx is a massive abstraction as is. There are many subtle effects built into the rules. Unless and until the effects of 1. instant TZ flicker and 2. Kn, SCh and Wb as the overwhelming choice for flank attack troops against formed battlelines is fully and comprehensively tested in ftf and tournament play, I remain highly skeptical...
You will simply undo the great results of DBA 3. Namely, rendering a straight up forward advance and central HI breakthrough that was once again a viable approach replaced by all manner of oddball flanking as the dominant choice, as was the case with 2.2.
That is of course my biased opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 7, 2017 18:40:36 GMT
Primuspilus, I thought I had made it clear in my first post what the problems are with the “wait to turn” system (facing the weakest and not the strongest troops, flank attackers are as weak as psiloi, pursuers not pursuing, etc). But don’t think of me as a ‘flank fanatic’…I’m far more of a Roman ‘frontal attack with reserves’ sort of person. For a start, flank attacks are mind numbingly easy to stop. Secondly, “instantly turning-to-face” actually makes breaking the centre a much more viable and decisive tactic. Take this example:-  There is no way red element ‘A’ can attack the flank of blue element ‘Y’, because of element ‘Z’s’ Threat Zone. The best that the red player can do is to get an overlap on blue’s element ‘Y’. And this example, using the current “wait to turn” method:-  Here the red blades have destroyed a blue element in a previous bound, pursued, and it’s red’s bound again. The victorious blades hit blue element ‘Z’ in the flank, but they won’t turn because the Ax has also contacted them. The combat factors are 3 for the Ax, and a minus -1 to the blues for the blade flank attack. If the reds are victorious the blues will be destroyed because they can’t recoil, but the blades won’t pursue. Now let’s take the same situation, but this time using the “instant turn-to-face” method:-  Because the blades were the first to make contact, the blues instantly turn, then the Ax move in. The combat factors are 5 for the blades, and a minus -1 to the blues for the Ax flank attack. If the reds are victorious the blues will be destroyed because they can’t recoil, but the blades will pursue. As you can see, the second “instant turn-to-face” method is much more deadly, and the blades get to pursue as well. Of course, had the blues kept an element or two behind their front line, then the red blades would have been unable to launch the flank attack because of Threat Zones…much like in my first picture. “Woe to the player that does not keep a reserve!” So please give it a try and see what you think.  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 7, 2017 22:32:37 GMT
Stevie, what problem, exactly, is the instant turn to flank supposed to solve? Flank attacks are alreadt a massive advantage (converting recouls into QKs). DBx already suffers from the flank attack being the primary vehicle for deciding the game. Historically it simply wasn't as dominant a tactic as it is in wargames, since it is frought with issues to pull off successfully - ask any veteran such as myself. DBx is a massive abstraction as is. There are many subtle effects built into the rules. Unless and until the effects of 1. instant TZ flicker and 2. Kn, SCh and Wb as the overwhelming choice for flank attack troops against formed battlelines is fully and comprehensively tested in ftf and tournament play, I remain highly skeptical... You will simply undo the great results of DBA 3. Namely, rendering a straight up forward advance and central HI breakthrough that was once again a viable approach replaced by all manner of oddball flanking as the dominant choice, as was the case with 2.2. That is of course my biased opinion. Hello primuspilus, well spoken. I highly agree with you. Cheers, Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 8, 2017 1:34:35 GMT
Thanks for the kind words, ronisan. However, I feel my post comes across as overly harsh toward Stevie. That said, he's a tough bloke, so I am pretty sure I didn't break the skin, but let me know, Stevie. If I did, multiple apologies!
It is a topic I am somewhat passionate about, as with DBA, I find people often oscillate between literalist and abstractionist viewpoints, essentially in a random and chaotic way, and are not consistent in their approach. The writing style that PB uses has not helped this, and at some level, wargame design is just an organized attempt to strike the balance between these viewpoints. I try where possible to always land on the side of abstraction. I see DBA as inspired as a boardgame with a continuous movement system, and can easily have been designed as such, with a grid to regulate movement. However, in my view, it would have sucked as a pure boardgame! (ahem... cough, cough... )
So that leaves us with a high level abstraction, using just 12 elements, (could have been 16, like chess, but there is something distinctly Babylonian and Old English-feeling about 12, so I am glad of the number) and an attempt using a minimalist approach to capture the high level decisions that a general took on an ancient battlefield. Like chess, DBA is an intriguing puzzle in space, time and force. It is all too tempting at times to go "Hail Caesar" on DBA, and get into the weeds, with a literalist approach. My suspicion is, after an extensive foray into HC, or CoE, or any of the usual "culprits" for that matter, one returns to DBA, as somehow a cleaner, more direct way to get the same overall strategic outcome.
To me, Wb, Kn, Sch, El, Art are primarily "straight-ahead" weapons. That is not always the case, and turn-to-face rules are written to accommodate deviations from the norm, but to me, they are just that. The norm. I find far, far too many gamers are overly-invested in the flank attack meme, and far too many game designers reward such far too explicitly, when the same could be accomplished with an implicit approach. That could be primarily due to the limitations of reflecting warfare with predefined bases with predetrmined numbers of figures attached, but there we are. Absent the ability to "hide" one's true strength, and conduct true "Schwehrpunkt" on the enemy main battle line (Commands and Colours: Ancients comes closest to accomplishing this) game designers reach for the "I get + or - k to my dice/odds because I have wiggled my piece around the side of yours"...As a way of giving the player something to accomplish, something to "DO" as it were.
Personally, I would rather be required to plan ahead, to have the right troops on front and flank, than simply be free to nominate whichever element I like as the "lead" in the close combat. At least in THIS war-game. And for me, this is a deal-breaker.
With humble apologies for rambling on like this, but Stevie has done such outstanding work on the 3.1 file, and I am deeply thankful for his thoughtful and engaging analyses. Keep it up, mate!
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 8, 2017 3:09:44 GMT
Turning to face in a previous version of DBA.
In the original version of DBA - March 1990, there was a rule-- "An element not already in frontal contact which is contacted to flank or rear turns to face. ". This was interpreted at the time to mean at the time of contact. The rule was later changed to be as it is now, turning at the end of all movement. Thus the immediate turning to face was removed by Phil. No reason to bring it back. The game has evolved as Phil has seen fit.
Also in that original version, was an interesting rule about what outcome to apply.
"…(loser) Makes an immediate outcome move, which depends on its own type and that of the most dangerous opponent in contact with or shooting at it but not of overlaps. "
That was interpreted to mean that if an element were contacted in front and to flank, and the flanking element would destroy the element by just beating it, and the front elements, whose factor was used, would merely cause a recoil, then the flank elements outcome was used.
I view DBA as Phil Barker's model of ancient And medieval history turned into a game with rules based on that model. It has evolved. People are certainly encouraged to challenge the model and the rules, but what they end up with is their view of history and their game. They are certainly free to write their own home rules as others have done. Many of us, however, will continue to accept Phil's model and his rules. And play the game as it has been interpreted for 27 years. I do find it interesting to learn of others views anyway.
"
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 8, 2017 9:45:56 GMT
Fear not primuspilus, I’m not in the least bit offended… …I’ll just get my revenge on you after school…  Yours and Bob’s philosophising about rules is an interesting topic in itself. Yes, DBA has changed and evolved over the years, with each new version being better, clearer, easier to understand, and…dare I say it…more realistic (although this is a dirty word among some wargamers for some reason, which is odd considering that DBA is meant to be an historical gaming system, based on reality). And of course it uses abstractions. All wargames use abstractions. But an abstraction that gives plausible results is preferable to an abstraction that doesn’t. And if that abstraction is also simpler, easier, and quicker, then so much the better. However, I do find it somewhat amusing when players defend something in the present rules, not because it is the best way of doing things, but purely because it is the current dogma… …like how for 20 years spears receiving rear-support was the accepted dogma, and players bent over backward to justify it, until a much better method came along and now side-support is the new accepted dogma, with all the old rear-support justifications of 20 years conveniently forgotten and assigned to the dustbin. So who knows, perhaps if a better method of turning-to-face were incorporated into DBA 3.1 then it would become the new dogma, and the present system will be forgotten…because DBA is still evolving. On the other hand, should the DBA community decide to keep with the current “wait to turn” method, despite all its flaws (facing the weakest and not the strongest troops, flank attackers are as weak as psiloi, pursuers not pursuing, unnecessarily complicated, etc), then so be it. I for one will go on playing. So at least give this “instant turn-to-face” method a go, and try it out for yourselves. You never know…you might even like it. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 8, 2017 16:49:37 GMT
Following on from my previous post, the question below springs to mind:- Why was the “wait to turn” method introduced in the first place?I have pointed out the bad combat simulations this method brings (facing the weakest instead of the strongest troops, flank attackers being as weak as psiloi, pursuers not pursuing, more complicated, etc), so why did the play testers decide that all these issues were worth tolerating for the sake of “waiting to turn”? Just what is it that “waiting to turn” adds to the game that is worth sacrificing all the above subjects? In other words, why add something to the game that causes more problems than it solves? Having said that, it is now only fair that I point out some of the problems that “instant turning-to-face” may add. Players that are prepared to give the new method a try may find more. Shifting Threat ZonesIf an element instantly turns to face the first enemy to contact its flank, the Threat Zone will turn with it. I don’t think this a major problem, but if it is it could be justified by assuming that the first 5 minutes of a 15 minute bound have been used to distract, divert, and occupy the attention of the turning troops. If that explanation is insufficient, then perhaps the Threat Zone rules could include the following new words:- “An element or group that begins a bound at least partly within a TZ, or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ…etc” (An exception for troops making extra moves will also probably be needed) Pursuers will still sometimes fail to pursueWhen troops instantly turn to face a flank attack, mutual front-edges will be in contact, so the normal pursuit rules will apply (I like to think of this as “charging a flank”). When troops that are already engaged frontally are attacked in flank, they cannot turn, so any pursuers will not pursue just as they don’t with the current turning to face rules (I like to think of this as “probing a flank”). These are the only problems I’ve found with the “instant turning-to-face” method so far… Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 8, 2017 21:13:50 GMT
Just be aware Stevie that now you are already proposing additional verbiage on managing the unintended consequences of TZ flicker. Hardly streamlining, and in all the DBA games I have EVER played (there are thousands) I have yet to have this bother me. I suspect I am not alone.
Also, I suspect you will find your games end extremely quickly, as your Bd and Ax example will show. I predict games going to on average, 4-5 bounds with your proposed changes. Don't forget, this is a 12 element game.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 8, 2017 21:30:30 GMT
Turning to face in a previous version of DBA. In the original version of DBA - March 1990, there was a rule-- "An element not already in frontal contact which is contacted to flank or rear turns to face. ". This was interpreted at the time to mean at the time of contact. The rule was later changed to be as it is now, turning at the end of all movement. Thus the immediate turning to face was removed by Phil. No reason to bring it back. The game has evolved as Phil has seen fit. Also in that original version, was an interesting rule about what outcome to apply. "…(loser) Makes an immediate outcome move, which depends on its own type and that of the most dangerous opponent in contact with or shooting at it but not of overlaps. " That was interpreted to mean that if an element were contacted in front and to flank, and the flanking element would destroy the element by just beating it, and the front elements, whose factor was used, would merely cause a recoil, then the flank elements outcome was used. I view DBA as Phil Barker's model of ancient And medieval history turned into a game with rules based on that model. It has evolved. People are certainly encouraged to challenge the model and the rules, but what they end up with is their view of history and their game. They are certainly free to write their own home rules as others have done. Many of us, however, will continue to accept Phil's model and his rules. And play the game as it has been interpreted for 27 years. I do find it interesting to learn of others views anyway. " Thanks Bob - I was not sure that I remembered the "Archaic" DBA Period correctly. Back in the day the outcome was based on the most dangerous element in contact, but this was intensified by changing to a destroyed outcome if flanked. Stevie - that in itself makes exposed flanks dangerous - in the cases you pose the commander has several choices 1) Strike at once to front and flank with the elements available to hand 2) Organise the elements to hand in the most effective combination and then strike 3) Strike the flank with the stronger element to isolate it from the group and then strike the exposed flank at a later stages Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 8, 2017 21:34:21 GMT
...and once again wargamers will be strongly encouraged to beleieve that the only way generals win battles is with flank attacks...
But again I ask: "what current problem is this supposed to solve? And at what cost?"
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 8, 2017 21:37:28 GMT
Following on from my previous post, the question below springs to mind:- Why was the “wait to turn” method introduced in the first place?I have pointed out the bad combat simulations this method brings (facing the weakest instead of the strongest troops, flank attackers being as weak as psiloi, pursuers not pursuing, more complicated, etc), so why did the play testers decide that all these issues were worth tolerating for the sake of “waiting to turn”? Just what is it that “waiting to turn” adds to the game that is worth sacrificing all the above subjects? In other words, why add something to the game that causes more problems than it solves? Having said that, it is now only fair that I point out some of the problems that “instant turning-to-face” may add. Players that are prepared to give the new method a try may find more. Shifting Threat ZonesIf an element instantly turns to face the first enemy to contact its flank, the Threat Zone will turn with it. I don’t think this a major problem, but if it is it could be justified by assuming that the first 5 minutes of a 15 minute bound have been used to distract, divert, and occupy the attention of the turning troops. If that explanation is insufficient, then perhaps the Threat Zone rules could include the following new words:- “An element or group that begins a bound at least partly within a TZ, or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ…etc” (An exception for troops making extra moves will also probably be needed) Pursuers will still sometimes fail to pursueWhen troops instantly turn to face a flank attack, mutual front-edges will be in contact, so the normal pursuit rules will apply (I like to think of this as “charging a flank”). When troops that are already engaged frontally are attacked in flank, they cannot turn, so any pursuers will not pursue just as they don’t with the current turning to face rules (I like to think of this as “probing a flank”). These are the only problems I’ve found with the “instant turning-to-face” method so far… Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
To the list above we can add also Changes in contact distance
when an element turns as soon as it is contacted then other elements at close to maximum move distance from this target could become either just in or just out of contact range. as their facing and the positioning of the "short" and "long" edge changes as the element facing changes. I am sure that this could be construed as either an advantage or a disadvantage but either way it adds another layer of complexity to how movement is conducted. Cheers |
|
