|
Post by ronisan on Nov 8, 2017 8:57:59 GMT
Well, Martin, I'm intrigued also by this whole text of rulebook/page 9 "Moving into conact with enemy". After being contacted like in A1, the Pk first conform with their flank edge + front corner contacting the front edge + front corner of the Ax. At the end of the bound (if there will be no additional contact on the Pk front edge!) ... the Pk turn to front edge to front edge contact ... ? Cheers. Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 8, 2017 7:54:48 GMT
Hi Stevie, I think I have to apologize ...? 'mea culpa'. Is it possilbe, that the rules say (in a "very hidden way" for non-native speaker like me ), that If a group contacts a single element, it is possible to contact it just by front-corner to enemy edge or front-edge to enemy-corner. (?)
Because ... that's the only situation, where the other (non-moving) party moves to conform? So ... my Picture A1/A2 would be correct, as long as the pikes are a single element. But if the pikes where part of a group (!), the Ax would have to conform! And if the Ax where "fast", B1/B2 would be correct? But if the Ax where "solid", only the right element of the Ax-group would be able to contact the flank edge of the pikes? See also here: D1/D2 (group contacting group) E1/E2 (group contacting single element) Am I on the path to DBA-enlightment Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 7, 2017 22:42:48 GMT
... and stevie, your "A single element contacted by a group conforms to it…” is only to be considered, if we talk about front edge contacting front edge. See my pictures "C1/C2" (group contacting a group) and "D1/D2" (group contacting a single element). "One party moves the minimum distance to so conform. Contactors conform using their tactical move, but an extra sideways slide of less than 1 BW is allowed if this is necessary to conform after contacting an enemy front edge."
Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
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 ronisan on Nov 7, 2017 22:05:04 GMT
Ah, Ronald… Ronald… Yes, let’s please stick to the rules. The reason the elements in diagram 10 are not allowed to make contact is because they are single elements that don’t have enough movement to conform and lined-up. Had they been moving groups contacting single elements they won’t have to line-up…the single elements would. But only if own front edge contacts enemy front edge! There is no need to line up if own front edge contacts enemy side edge or rear edge because ... if the contact is legal, the attacking element is already lined up! See page 20, figure 9a. And the element being attacked has to wait until the end of the bound, to see if it is also contacted in its front. If not ... it may turn to the contactor.
Or have you forgotten page 9 paragraph 10:- “A single element contacted by a group conforms to it…” What’s the point of the moving group going through all the hassle of lining-up to a single element when it is the single element’s responsibility to do all the conforming? Anyway, as Joe suggested, I’ve started a new thread on this subject. See you there matey. 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
Hello stevie, I think you're still playing 'contacting' "corner-to-edge" or "edge-to-corner" - but that is not allowed any more in DBA 3.0! I think you play like my picture "A1/A2". But DBA 3.0 is played like my picture "B1/B2", isn't it? (If the group of Auxilia would be "solid", they can't attack in the pike's flank as a group! But if they are "fast" (oops ... typo error, yellow line should read 3BW!), they'll have enough movement to reaach the legal position. See page 9 paragraph 9: "... (c) in front edge to side edge contact with front corners in contact, ...") Cheers, Ronald. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 6, 2017 17:55:00 GMT
Yes ... Shooting? ... Missed!
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 6, 2017 16:51:07 GMT
Stevie ... Stevie ... the contact of the red group is not legal (corner to edge is not allowed! Page 20, figure 10). Let's stick to the rules! You have to have enough movement allowance to get into position "own front-edge to enemy flank-edge with own front corner to enemy front corner"! And the blue element has to turn at the end of the bound, but only if it is not contacted on its front edge by a different red element during that bound! See Picture. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 6, 2017 9:45:36 GMT
Ronald, you’re making me go back on my vow of not talking about this matter any more. As for your diagram:- What if ‘D’ were blades and ‘E’ were psiloi? Would ‘A’ just stand there and not respond using ‘simultaneous movement’ to the greatest threat? That doesn’t sound very realistic… But it’s ok, because flank attacks are a mere -1, no matter what troops are making the attack. That doesn’t sound very realistic… And if ‘D’ were Kn, Wb or Bd, they mysteriously forget that they are impetuous, and don’t pursue. That doesn’t sound very realistic… It doesn't matter what kind of troops the elements are ... they are just enemies, who want to kill your soldiers. It doesn't matter, if they will be killed by a Knight or a Psiloi!Lastly, if ‘A’ were a single element, and red element ‘D’ was part of a group, then ‘A’ would “instantly turn-to-face”. NO!!! The rules say (page 9): Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p.10), contacted elements conform at contact. That means, even a single element being contacted in its flank or rear has to wait until the end of the bound. If it's not contacted in its front also ... then (and only then) it turns to the (first) contactor!
So much for being simple and consistent… Anyway, none of this matters. We have to use the rules as they are written, so all this is academic. But I’ll tell you one thing… HAD “instant turning-to-face” been introduced into DBA 3.0, I very much doubt people today would be clamouring for the “wait to turn” method, and demanding:- “We want the enemy to face our weakest and not our strongest troops when we charge them in the flank.” “And we want flank attackers to be as weak as possible, no better than psiloi.” “And we want pursuing troops not to pursue when they smash into a flank.” “And we want a more complex system, where sometimes we turn instantly, and sometimes we wait till after the Move Phase”.
Hi Stevie, be so kind to look at my coments ( red) in the quoted text above. cheers. Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 5, 2017 11:23:00 GMT
Hello Stevie, I think the “wait to turn-to-face” system is perfect, simple and much "more realistic". Look at the picture: "In reality" (!) the movement of element D and E would be simultaneous. There is no need for element A to give up its kind of "shieldwall"-position being attacked in the front, just because some other enemies are also attacking its flank. It won't be a good idea to change formation 90 degrees to the right in the heat of being attacked into your front!?
Cheers, Ronald.
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 4, 2017 14:41:39 GMT
But that is exactly what happens now Martin. Here the red element has lined-up with the blue group’s flank, and no other red elements are involved. By the time combat actually starts, the end blue element ‘A’ has turned to face the red flank attack. The red player has broken-off an end element from a group before that same group was contacted en masse by another group. What difference does it make if this turn happens instantly on contact, or after the end of the Move Phase? The difference is that if there were another red element ready to simultaneously hit blue element ‘A’ frontally, then the blue element would not turn to face the flank attack (because it’s already engaged), so they would stay facing those pesky psiloi in front of them instead of the far more dangerous red knights crashing into their flank. ... this unnecessarily complex system doesn’t even give us a good realistic outcome!Hi stevie, as you said: "doesn’t even give us a good realistic outcome!" Well - it is not realistic! It's an abstraction. Movement takes place simultaneously but you as the general sometimes have the possibility to handle some of your troups 'earlier' and some 'later' to get a different tactical situation. For me that is part of the game.
Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 4, 2017 8:46:05 GMT
Here the red element 'A' was first to make contact, then red element 'B' did so. After the Movement Phase has finished, the blue element turns to face element 'A'. But as you can see, this would leave element 'B' no longer in contact. So page 10 paragraph 1 had to add a fix: "Any existing contacts are adjusted to maintain contact". Well...if the turning-to-face happened immediately, during the move, this fix would have been unnecessary. So having to wait until after the Movement Phase has finished to turn (an extra complication), required a fix to maintain additional contacts (another extra complication). Therefore, the current rules do not "keep it short & simple"...at least, not as short and simple as it could have been. (I'd much rather have a simple system that 'might' have some issues than a complicated system that does have them) Hello Stevie, but I don't see the point. Looking at figure 14d (page 24) you have to adjust the contact of element A anyway ... during or after the movement. I remember some situations where it was important to wait and having all movments done. Then checking any turnings or adjustments. cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 3, 2017 17:49:06 GMT
Hello paddy649,
beautiful! Well done!
Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 3, 2017 17:22:21 GMT
Hi to everybody here.
Please keep in mind that DBA makes it possible to play historical battles with armies consisting of 12 elements only! What a great set of rules. Therefore gaming has to be of a certain 'abstraction'! People who want to play 'more detailed' should try playing DBMM or Field of Glory. DBA should stay a simple set of rules to also attract newcomers to the hobby. I would appreciate, if DBA will be kept 'simple'! The introduction of fast/solid troops, flank support, etc. was enough of expansion. :-) Remember: K.I.S.S. ... keep it short & simple.
Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 30, 2017 13:39:22 GMT
To add support, I fully agree that when more than one shooter targets the same element, the factor of the shooter closest to the target is the factor used, and the other(s) provide a minus one factor. The rule In DBA 3 seems to be exactly the same as it was in the original DBA and has been play that way since the beginning. Hi Bob, that's exactly the way we play it! ... and nobody cares if artillery is a supporting shooter. ... It's combat factor isn't used for shooting ... so - nobody cares for "combat outcomes vs. Artillery"! Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Oct 30, 2017 13:19:50 GMT
Well, can you tell me where my interpretation is incorrect?:- Page 11 paragraph 4:- "A supporting element in close combat against an enemy element's flank or rear recoils if the friendly element in combat with that enemy's front recoils, flees or is destroyed." Page 12 paragraph 9:- “Otherwise an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue, but only if (they are of the right type)…” Seems pretty clear to me...attacking a flank is classed as close combat, and close combat troops must pursue. Hello Stevie, well - page 10, Paragraph 6+7 say, that the close combat is only fought by the two elements, which combat factors are used! Additional Elements (overlaps, rear supports, flank Supports, "closed doors", ...) take part in the close combat. But it's not "their" close combat. So a pursuing element can only be an element (including friends in column behind it), you've diced for in the close combat!. Cheers, Ronald.
|
|