|
Post by primuspilus on Oct 6, 2019 15:43:44 GMT
I may be off base here, but it seems to me that no one in their right mind would want Cv now, if you had the choice of LH instead?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 19, 2019 1:27:44 GMT
Then you thoroughly nerf the Ps-heavy army when fighting a "regular" army, no?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 17, 2019 22:36:47 GMT
That's exactly the kind of list that the 1/2 element loss rating has in mind!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 15, 2019 17:17:20 GMT
Why is it divisive? This may come as a shockig statement, and I don't mean to be a badass, but the FAQ team, the designers, playtesters, Stevie and I with Lessons, ... none of us represents the DBA Papacy! It is a game. Interpret and play it in yhe way that makes the most sense to you. If travelling, and playing in some far off kingdom or Satrapy, play as the locals do. Adjust your game. You will find that you are likely already 95+% aligned, but there might be small regional variations on certain interpretations.
Sports teams that travel are aware that even though (unlike DBA) there is universal agreement on the rules, officials sometimes focus on differing applications.
I see as this as healthy and normal. Some folks might see this as heresy that needs to be stamped out, I guess. Thankfully I have faith that the DBA players ofnthe world are sufficiently mature to just agree to differ in certain areas, and get on with playing a game.
Now if you are a tournament player with your entire identity tied up with perfecting your tactics and winning as many games as possible on the open road, well then you have two choices: learn to adjust your game occasionally at certain away matches, or attempt to stamp out the heretics!!!
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 14, 2019 18:54:47 GMT
Phil and Sue seem to prefer to let gamers work it out among themselves as individuals. Works for me, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 14, 2019 1:35:52 GMT
I shall continue to play rivers as Stevie and I have indicated. They work that way, give a good game, and are the only linear obstacle available to us. Everyone else can do whatever they feel is best. To each their own, and ultimately it is about enjoying your gaming.
In my case, rivers count as the going they are in for combat, as at the scale represented by DBA, the going is the dominant effect. Done and dusted.
You guys do what you feel works for you.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 13, 2019 2:49:59 GMT
So you avoid placing rivers too, or do you use them?
And what about a paltry river. Not even rough going enough to slow a Phalanx down, but rough enough to cost its combat bonus. Really?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 12, 2019 3:52:49 GMT
And as seen in their ongoing absence in tournament games for instance. This is a rather adventurous assumption. Tournaments require an outcome within a strict time-frame. Since rivers have the potential to seriously extend games before a decision can be reached, I'd say its at least equally likely that rivers are not often used in tournaments due to the likelihood of games ending in an unsatisfying draw. Aren't you exactly making my point for me, though? DBA seems aimed at giving a quick, complete battle in a reasonable time frame. If not in tournaments, and certainly not in campaigns amd pick-up games for busy gamers with families, exactly when would rivers be worth putting into the game? Never seen Tony film a battle with a river. That , and what you have so correctly pointed out, seems to me to indicate a problem with rivers in the game. And I believe newbies know it too. Ancient armies frequently followed rivers, and frequently fought across them (Trebia). I'd be suspect of an ancient game system in which rivers are likely to give a crappy game.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 12, 2019 2:00:03 GMT
To be clear, the gist of the discussion seems no longer "what do the rules say?" but rather "what SHOULD the rules say" about rivers.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 11, 2019 23:38:57 GMT
Hydaspes could be modelled with Alexander performing a Littoral landing.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 11, 2019 23:28:17 GMT
But it doesn't say they ARE green simply by virtue of ommission. And more to the point, if rivers are not a type of going (they are a magical twilight zone - not good, not bad, not rough) then they become unplayable. As noted. And as seen in their ongoing absence in tournament games for instance.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 10, 2019 0:23:10 GMT
I believe that possibly the idea is that the troops are NOT actually in waist deep water. The only reference to depth is in the description of paltry. This suggest to me water is "not militarily deep". However it is not mentioned in the other two states.
Is it possible that the other two states represent knee-deep water, but with unsteady footing? In other words, chest deep rivers are waterways, and militarily "destroy" elements that enter them?
Personally, I preferred the idea of dicing for the going of a river instead. Then they are good going, rough or bad, depending on a combination of depth, speed of water flow, and obstacles in the river (logs, boulders, etc) as well as height and steepness of banks?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 8, 2019 17:02:36 GMT
To further clarify, gamers (amd professional traders) make decisions (take positions) on simple, tractable, clear models. I recall when I first learned about the birth of Operational Research. Decision models needed ti be simple and clear. They needed to be communicated, and able to be acted upon.
Now Arnopov, we await your updated results including your calibration studies as well as your model risk quantification.
In the meantime, I will trust Stevie's analysis as it is tractable and I believe better fits the argument he is trying to make
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 8, 2019 16:22:56 GMT
By the way Arnopov, I work with and for professional traders who trade very large capital positions on myltiple risk factors.
A simple model is superior to a complex one (EVERY TIME) due to the compounding model risk. I ask you how exactly will you calibrate your Markov Chain MC model? I assume you will be using Markov Chain MC. If not, what decisioning model are you using on your branch switching?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 8, 2019 16:19:03 GMT
pawsbill, you have been asked three times to demonstrate the flaw in the mathematical reasoning. Would you care to do so? How is it any more or less complete than your mathematical reasoning? The flaw in Stevie's "mathematical reasoning" is obvious. The Pk-Sp combat can only be 3-5 (or 3-6) if the Pk player is very dumb indeed. The Sp player cannot force these odds. The experienced DBA player with an Alex Mac army facing a LAP hiding behind a river would first scout the river, and if it is paltry mexican stand-off the Sp with Pk or Ps (Zoc them, but not engage). Thanks Arnopov for actually making Stevie's point for him! very well done, mate! And paltry means 3 v 5. Same odds as base Persian 8Bw against Sp. Not a winning formula.
|
|