|
Post by stevie on Apr 16, 2021 9:17:01 GMT
Snowcat has already beaten me to it...yes, it’s actually the complete opposite. See Figure 16c on page 25 for an example. DBA 3.0 has a lot of ‘exceptions’, where a rule is described followed by an exception to that rule. I like to add brackets to my copy to make these exceptions stand out and be more memorable. So, “An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any enemy element ( except Psiloi or Scythed Chariots) overlaps this;”. Some of us think it would be a good idea if LH and Kn wedges also had this special advantage. See if the following helps to highlight and aid in the remembering of certain element abilities:- static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/8/8e/Hint_Cards_for_DBA_3.0.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20190210013111
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 12, 2021 8:45:19 GMT
Hmmm...not really that much different Paul. In DBA 3.0 the II/41a Western Han Chinese can already have 4 x 5Hd and 1 x 7Hd. Still, what’s an extra Horde amongst friends? If you really have a fetish for Hordes, DBMM II/45 Slave Revolts allows 96 of ‘em, which divided by 8 becomes 12 x Hd in DBA... ...ah, but they must also have some other element types as well (either Ps/Ax/Cv/4Bd, plus the general’s element), so the maximum in DBA is about 7 x Hd. And as the loss of Hordes doesn’t count in DBA...talk about fight to the last man!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 10, 2021 12:36:04 GMT
Here are some thoughts on re-creating historical campaigns.
An ancient campaign was a yearly affair, ending with a rest in ‘winter quarters’. Usually (but not always) there was a single major battle fought during that year. A continuous series of these yearly one battle campaigns made up an entire war. A war ended when one side either gained a complete victory, or until war weariness set in and the exhausted parties finally signed a truce.
For example, ignoring any skirmishes, sea battles and sieges:-
Alexander’s conquest of Persia Hannibal’s invasion of Italy 334 BC: Battle of Granicus in Anatolia. 218 BC: Battle of Trebia in Cisalpine Gaul. 333 BC: Battle of Issus in Syria. 217 BC: Battle of Lake Trasimene in Etruria. 332 BC: (Alexander occupies Egypt). 216 BC: Battle of Cannae in Apulia. 331 BC: Battle of Gaugamela in Mesopotamia. 215 BC: (start of delaying tactics, avoiding defeat)
Notice how there was one major battle in each year, and that the defeated army, far from being smaller, was actually larger (but of a much lower quality) in the following year.
This could be reproduced using the ‘ladder’ map system, suitably illustrated to Mr.E’s excellent high standards, with each map move representing a single campaign year. Cromwell’s ‘warchest gold talent coin system’ could be used to raise fresh elements at the end of each campaigning year, with low quality troops such as Psiloi, Auxiliaries, and Hordes being far cheaper to recruit than the other more powerful and useful elements, thus simulating the defeated army becoming larger but of a lower quality after each defeat.
Sometimes it took multiple separate wars before an opponent was finally defeated. Alexander conquered Persia and Caesar conquered Gaul in a single war, but Rome had to fight 3 Samnite Wars, 3 Punic Wars, 3 Illyrian Wars, 3 Macedonian Wars, and 3 Mithridatic Wars before these peoples were finally crushed and erased from history. Therefore some sort of ‘war weariness’ system is needed to prevent inconclusive and indecisive wars from going on forever (perhaps the war will end after say 5 battles, so that both sides can tell when their people are becoming tired of the conflict, and to grab as much territory as they can so that they can start the next war a generation or two later in a more favourable position?).
However, sometimes several major battles were fought during the course of a single year. This can be simulated by having each map move representing a single season, with 3 of these seasons a year with an end of year winter quarters period. This would require a much longer map, with many more regions (say 4 or 5 times as many). Perhaps it could be made of three ‘ladders’ running in parallel, say something like this:-
Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region CAPITAL Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region CAPITAL Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region
...with the historical terrain in the centre ‘ladder’, but with harsher compulsory terrain in the upper and lower ‘ladders’, and armies that advance cannot receive any new recruits. This gives players more freedom and more strategic decisions...although defeated armies will spend most of their seasonal moves running away and falling back to buy time (and new recruits) to rebuild their army, until they feel strong enough to face another engagement.
Another consideration is special rules for certain wars. The Second Punic War 218-202 BC was in fact two separate wars occurring simultaneously, in both Spain and Italy, with neither side feeling strong enough to assault their rival’s capital until they had secured victory in Spain (and war weariness didn’t seem to be a problem). The Peloponnesian Wars of 460-404 BC required the elimination of all the allies before the enemy capital could be assaulted. And the Hundred Years War of 1346-1453 was really a series of separate wars, each lead by a different commander, with the earlier wars being decided by a single major battle.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 9, 2021 12:44:08 GMT
Well, in the following diagram, using the current ‘Wait-To-Turn’ procedure, the red player also needs to spend 2 PIP’s to get both the Kn and Ps into combat...
→ Sp Sp ↑ ↑ Kn Ps Ax
...and what do they get for this extra PIP expenditure? The Psiloi trying to help end up making the Knights fight weaker! 🤪
That doesn't sound very realistic...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 9, 2021 9:46:46 GMT
Perhaps I can illustrate what I mean with the aid of some crude diagrams. Sp Sp Sp Bd Sp Sp Bd Bd Bd ↑ ↓ Ax AxHere a line of Blades and Auxiliaries are fighting against a line of Spears. After much pushing and shoving one of the Blades managed to get a double-overlap on one of the Spears, killing it and pursuing into the gap. However, the adjacent Auxiliary was recoiled and bounced off the Spear. The Spears cannot turn to face this newly formed gap because they are either already being frontally engaged or are pinned by the red Threat Zones. In the next red bound, under the current ‘Wait-To-Turn’ rule, the red player could:- ① move both the Blade and the Auxiliary into contact, meaning the Auxiliary will do all the fighting (Ax CF 3 v Sp CF 4 +1 for side-support but -1 for being flanked, but the Sp will be destroyed if it recoils due to the flank attack). --- OR--- ② just move the Blade on its own into the Spear’s flank, which will turn after waiting. (Bd CF 5 v Sp CF 4...no side-support because it has been turned, but the Sp can recoil) With ‘Instant-Turning-To-Face’ the red player would have a third option:- ③ move the Blade into contact FIRST, turning the Spear, and THEN move the Auxiliaries in. (Bd CF 5 v Sp CF 4 -1 for the Ax flank attack, AND the Sp will be destroyed if it recoils) Soooo...CF 3 v 4, and destroyed if recoiled (10 chances out of 36 of a kill), or CF 5 v 4 (and only 2 chances out of 36 of a kill), or CF 5 v 3, and destroyed if recoiled (a whopping 26 chances out of 36 of a kill). I know what I would do if I was the red player! And if the blue player doesn’t like it, then he should have kept a reserve (even a Psiloi would do), and used its Threat Zone to prevent the Blade from charging the Spear’s flank. Here is an even better diagram to show the advantages of ‘Instantly-Turning-To-Face’:- Sp Sp Kn Ps Ax
If the red player moves BOTH the Kn and Ps into contact, the Sp won’t turn because it’s being frontally engaged, so the poor lowly Ps has to do all the fighting, while the mighty Kn loses its ‘quick-kill’ and is relegated to be nothing more than a -1 penalty (but it will prevent recoiling). Having the Ps also engaging actually makes the Kn weaker!...they’d be better off charging on their own!Ah, but if the Kn attacks the Sp flank FIRST, turning them, and THEN the Ps moves in to hit the newly exposed Sp flank, the Kn will do all the fighting, and keeps its ‘quick-kill’, and it is the Ps that provides the -1 penalty...AND prevents recoiling (which won’t happen, as recoiling Sp are killed by Kn). As for the shifting Threat Zone...a staple cliché of just about every action movie is “We need a diversion!”... ...and that is exactly what ‘Instantly-Turning-To-Face’ provides. You hit an enemy flank FIRST, their attention is diverted and they turn instantly to meet this new threat, and the friendly element they were pinning is now free to move as it likes. What’s not to like?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2021 23:59:32 GMT
I like the immediate turn to face option also. The house-rule/amendment might look something like: Immediately after the movement phase, elements upon contact to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face... What would be the indirect consequence of this change (if any)? In practical terms, I think this is pretty close to what typically happens in play (insofar as I recall it happening). When would it be materially different to complete all moves/conforms first, and then do all turns to face? In a word, ‘Threat Zones’ (hang on...that’s two words!). Apparently the DBA 3.0 Development Team decided that pinning the Psiloi in front of an element was far more important than turning to face the greater threat about to hit their flank. If an element turns-to-face as soon as it’s contacted, their Threat Zone will also shift, freeing a formally pinned enemy, who could then move as they wished (although this freed enemy is still likely to charge into the newly revealed flank of the turned enemy in order to give them an addition -1 combat penalty rather than zoom off somewhere else). Now having instant-turning-to-face may seem to favour wide outflanking moves. But it also helps to make breakthroughs in the centre more decisive. Punch a hole in the enemy line and your victorious troops can still use their ‘quick-kill’ and combat factor to roll-up the enemy line instead of being castrated into just throwing insults and rocks by giving the enemy a mere -1 penalty as if they had suddenly turned into Psiloi. But how do you protect yourself from this flank attack? Oh, that's simple...in a word, use your own Threat Zones (that’s still two words Stevie), generated by your own reserves and flank guards to prevent the enemy from ‘hard flanking’ and ‘shutting the door’ on your troops. Any army that deploys in one long line with no reserves deserves to have their centre broken! The Romans understood this, which is why they had reserves in multiple lines behind their front. (By the way, it also makes the rules simpler, instead of adding an elaborate, complicated, artificial, and unnecessary ‘Wait-To-Turn’ procedure.
Of course, this will only be a House Rule. When playing in tournaments, you will still have to follow ‘the-rules-as-written’... ...no matter how absurd they are)
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2021 22:03:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2021 10:35:47 GMT
I think Jim has sussed it... ...either that or he’s a mutant!
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2021 9:54:03 GMT
Fear not Derek...you are not being discriminated against. Too many people were uploading pictures to Fanaticus, which exceeded the storage capacity, so the attachment function has now been disabled (shame). But you can still display stuff if you uploaded it to another site first and then post the link here. I use imgbb.com/ which is free. To see how it’s done, go to fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3041/ , and click on “Quote” to see an example of how I displayed both a picture and a link.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 8, 2021 9:23:09 GMT
Well, I’m all up for changing the rules to improve clarity or realism. (see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/1146/house-rule-index ) The question is...which of the following four rules do we want to break or re-write?:- * allow elements to end a Move Phase when they’re NOT in positions (a), (b), (c), or (d)? * or make the stationary group conform to the moving element or group? * or make Turn-To-Face happen instantly on contact instead of artificially waiting to turn? * or remove the word “front”, so that it says “If conforming to an edge by contactors is prevented...” Personally, I favour having instant Turning-To-Face. This not only solves the “front-edge always causes combat” issue, but it also allows the bounding player (i.e. the one doing the moving) to decide which of their elements gets to fight when an enemy is sandwiched by a simultaneous front & flank attack...the first to make contact can turn the enemy. At the moment it does seem a bit odd that Knights are capable of smashing their way through most enemies when they charge them frontally, but when charging a flank (where they should be even deadlier) they are relegated to merely providing a -1 penalty, as if they were no more than lowly Psiloi! However, the simplest solution is to remove the word “front”. That would prevent this legal geometric ploy. It means that if the flank attacker doesn’t have the space to get their front-corner to touch the enemy front-corner, then instead of them having to conform those contacted have to do the conforming instead.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 7, 2021 13:38:32 GMT
...but you can’t end a move unless the corners touch. I agree, but the move phase isn't ended until after any allowable/required conforming is completed. E.g., in the specific case you illustrated over in the other topic (which gave rise to this topic): Ps
Cv Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Sp Cv Pk Pk Pk Kn Cv (<--- facing) Ax Pk Pk Pk (<--- facing) Ax Ps CvHere the red Ax are together in a group facing to their left. Neither the end Ax nor the end Pk can be attacked in the flank. Because to be in close combat you must have front corners touching at the end of the move phase, and there just isn’t room. Why can't the blue Sp move forward to contact the side edge (without corner-to-corner contact) of the red Ax, who then "automatically conforms" (per the sentence quoted below) by moving slightly forward so that corner contact is achieved, before the move is ended? Ah...you are missing out a whole paragraph of the rules. Page 9, third paragraph from the bottom, says:- “A single element contacting a single element conforms to it. A single element or group contacting a group conforms to that group. A single element contacted by a group conforms to it, unless itself is entirely in bad and/or rough going, then the group conforms. (Note that only front-edges trigger conforming, not front-corners, see the FAQ. And conforming does not force groups to split - see Figures 13c and 13d, but Turning-to-Face does).Page 9 Moving Into Contact is quite clear:- “At the end of the bound’s movement phase the contacting conforming element or at least one element of a contacting conforming group must be lined-up with an enemy element, in either (a), (b), (c) or (d) positions. (And Turning-To-Face only occurs “Immediately after the movement phase”, after all elements have already been lined-up in (a), (b), (c) or (d) positions)The stationary Auxiliaries are together in a group... So the moving single/group of Spears must do the conforming... But there isn’t room to get those front corners touching... And the Spears can’t claim to be physically blocked, as they are not contacting an enemy FRONT-edge. Therefore, an illegal contact (see also Figure 10 on page 20). Yes...I know it’s daft, but it’s what the rules say. Another daft example is when a group of say Auxiliaries or Cavalry is placed so that their rear is actually touching an impassable obstacle, such as a Waterway or a table-edge. They too cannot be attacked in the flank, as the moving enemy element/group must do the conforming, but can’t do so because they can’t get those corners to touch without partly leaving the table or entering the Waterway. Now... IF Turning-To-Face happened instantly on contact instead of waiting, or IFthe word “front” were removed from “ If conforming to a front edge by contactors is prevented”, then these daft things wouldn’t happen... ...but that is not what the rules-as-written say. All I can say is (♫ big drum roll ♪) “I didn’t write the rules”.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 7, 2021 9:41:52 GMT
You were quite right Wote to follow Joe Collins suggestion to start a new thread on this subject, but I think you may have used the wrong title, as your concerns relate to ‘Conforming’ and not ‘Pikes’. The thing about DBA (or any set of rules for that matter) is you can’t just pluck out a single sentence. Each sentence must take into consideration the sentences both before and after it, and be used in the right context. The first sentence of the Page 9 Moving Into Contact, which says “The general principle is that moving a front edge into contact with an enemy always results in combat” is not an end-point... ...it is just a mid-point. The actual sequence of events is:- ① Make Tactical Moves that end in legal contact positions. ② If the front-edge is in contact then fight in close combat. ③ Perform all the post combat outcomes. And Page 9 gives a strict list of the ONLY legal end-of-move-phase contact positions:- (a) in full mutual front-edge contact (sliding so corners touch), or (b) in full front-edge to rear-edge contact (with corners touching), or (c) in front-edge to side-edge contact (with front corners touching), or (d) with no enemy in contact to its front, but in an overlap position (see p.10). (Actually, there is a fifth unmentioned contact position...”In mutual side-edge contact”, but that comes under (d) an overlap position. Note that mutual side-edge contact is the ONLY legal contact position that doesn’t require the corners to touch each other)As I said before (highlighted in blue)...yes, front-edges ’always’ cause combat... ...but you can’t end a move unless the corners touch. As for:- ...what should be made of the last line of the first para under MOVING INTO CONTACT WITH ENEMY: " Elements contacted this bound by enemy or whose front edge is still in contact when combat ends automatically conform if necessary." (emphasis mine)? ...this is clarified by the very next paragraph, which says “Single elements and groups conform to a group” etc, and “Unless turning-to-face, contacted elements conform on contact”. As for mitigating awkward geometric ploys, DBA 3.0 is a vast improvement over the older DBA 2.2 rules (which my group gave up using decades ago, as it was far too unrealistic and ‘gamey’), but they can still happen on occasions... ...if players play by the rules ‘as-they-are-written’ and don’t break or change any of them. ---------------------------------- BTW, few if any players realise that DBA is actually played on a ‘semi-virtual grid with 1 BW squares’. Oh, you can measure and move your troops pretty much as you like (depending on Threat Zones), but as soon as you touch an enemy element, elaborate and complicated rules come into play to force you to conform as if you were playing on a 1 BW square grid. I’m currently working on a simplified version of DBA to take away all this complexity, by simply extending this principle to cover ALL movement (see fanaticus.boards.net/post/36374/ ). This is surprisingly easy to do...just make all movement and measuring in whole units of 1 BW, with no fractions, and all elements have a 1 BW x 1 BW card beneath them. In other words, you move a BW or not at all, and all units/terrain/table-edges are whole BW’s apart.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 7, 2021 7:47:32 GMT
What Mark Leslie says is true... ...but my bunch of opponents are devious buggers. Even if they didn’t think of something themselves, as soon as they see me do it they all copy me. So it’s wise to be aware of these legal rule exploits, even if you never plan to use them yourself.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 6, 2021 22:09:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 5, 2021 15:48:09 GMT
Converting the DBMM Army Lists for use with DBA 3.0
I have found that the following scaling-down method works quite well, if you first group all the troop types together to find their maximums.
For example, work out the maximum number of DBMM Artillery, the maximum number of DBMM Psiloi, the maximum number of DBMM Auxiliaries, and so on, then:-
a) If DBMM says “0-1”, then you can’t have that element. (as there are too few to be represented in a 12 element army) b) Divide all other DBMM amounts by 8, rounding down. (but any amount divided to be less than 1 is counted as 1) This roughly appears to be the method used to create the DBA lists, as you can see by looking at the DBMM II/12 Alexandrian Army.
|
|