|
Post by bob on Nov 3, 2016 11:41:52 GMT
Every element and group on the road is entitled to a first move for no pips. I even think that single elements can move backwards as first move for no PIPs All as long as the element is on the road and " the centre of their front approximately in the middle of the road, rather than being confined between the road edges. " This is what astride means.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 31, 2016 21:12:08 GMT
road. 'It cannot begin or end at a waterway edge, but crosses rivers by ford or bridge. It can end at a BUA on a waterway edge. It can only cross a city from city gate to city gate. A second road must cross or join the first."
If a road enters BUA on the waterway then the invader cannot pick the other end of the road because that puts the Waterway at the defenders back. I think if the BUA is not touching a waterway and road enters it, The rule implies that the road continues through the BUA . The rule states "(The road) can end at a BUA on the waterway." Does this not mean then, it cannot end on a BUA which is not on the waterway?
So if there is no waterway, and there is a road running through a BUA, then the invader must pick the edge at either end of the road: The edge with the BUA or the edge with the open road.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 22, 2016 20:38:13 GMT
In the original version of DBA, Phil took this situation into account. Is there anything he hasn't thought of? :-) I have use this system in a number of situations and it works quite well. xxx cut xxx This is all well and good but to avoid unbalancing the game you'll need to introduce a points system so that a player with inferior troops gets more of them. Similarly a superior general with command control and other advantages would have to play with fewer troops. An eliminated inferior might only be worth ½VP, a superior 1½. Then some people would produce DBA3+, not unlike DBA 2.2+, leading to schism and the closing of the website. If you don't want to go down that road then stop this nonsense now! zygul, do not get bent out of shape We are all discussing home rules or special rules for one off campaign, not a new game that takes the place the real DBA. The points idea is good. Everyone, keep the ideas ("nonsense") coming.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 22, 2016 20:31:49 GMT
Okay, "Vodnik", that's a nice list. Now, how about researching and creating a 12-element scenario or two from among those you listed? --Complete with terrain details, hard-coded starting positions, and special rules, of course! (Grins.) Mega DITTO to Paul on this. Vodnik, do 10 of them and Joe will put it in a book for you Generalize so can be used for the older version or DBA 3
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 21, 2016 18:26:34 GMT
In the original version of DBA, Phil took this situation into account. Is there anything he hasn't thought of? :-) I have use this system in a number of situations and it works quite well.
"VARIATION IN TROOP QUALITY Organisers of full scale campaigns may wish to introduce some differences between troops of the same nominal type. If so, when two elements of the same nominal type fight each other, that judged to be worse counts a single extra -1 tactical factor. This will be that which has the largest total of the following disadvantage points:
1 dp if same troop type, but appreciably worse armour.
1 dp if same troop type, but worse, fewer or shorter ranged weapons.
1 dp if same troop type, but inferior morale class and/or less figures per base. (Bob: Almost a precursor to the solid versus fast dichotomy in DBA3)
2 dp if any type and fatigued by forced marching, weather or shortage of food or water.
3 dp if any type and own army has acquired less than half as many prestige points as its opponents.
The varying ability of generals in campaign or solo games can be simulated by an addition of +1 to, or deduction of-1 from, movement die scores."
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 20, 2016 14:17:38 GMT
Why not give the details?
Original text
"Figure 3a. Groups Groups are made up of elements. These elements must all face in the same direction and must be in either full front or rear edge, and corner‐to‐corner contact, or side edge contact and front corner to front corner contact."
should be
"Groups are made up of elements. These elements must all face in the same direction and must be in either full front or rear edge, and corner‐to‐corner contact, or side edge contact and at least one corner to corner contact."
Groups can be formed with elements in side edge contact and rear corners touching.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 19, 2016 19:27:38 GMT
In DBA 2.2 the problem was dealt with quite nicely: "Elements not in mutual front edge contact with an enemy element but contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first to so contact at the end of the movement phase, the contactor making room. "
"Contractor making room" is omitted from DBA 3 as others have noted. "If an element so contacts the flanks of two enemy elements, both these turn to face it if the first must, the second moving to behind the first. On the rare occasions that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back (p.9) to make room for the others to turn."
Rather than use home rules to cover the situation, perhaps, given Phil's reluctance to do any repetition for clarification's sake, we can use the preceding sentence to apply to the double rank situation:
"Any existing contacts are adjusted by moving the elements forward, back or the minimum distance sideways to maintain contact. "
So, rather than push the second rank off the battlefield edge, we adjust the existing contacts (the two attacked elements) by moving the elements, in this case the attacking element, back, to maintain the existing contacts.
Yes, same effect as the home rules cited, but with textual justification?
The 2.2 "contractor making room" was eliminated from the very first 3 draft I have: February, 2011. The text in the final version is the same as in that original version.
Did the issue of what happens when there is lack of room to turn come up during development?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 18, 2016 1:53:11 GMT
Joe is answering both questions. Succinctly Compare the questions with the answers. .
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 11, 2016 18:30:35 GMT
Any book one army? I'm asking because I'm considering a similar tournament and I wondered what limits you were suggesting for it. I/49 EARLY VIETNAMESE 700 BC - 938 AD, for example, Is a book one army, but hardly biblical. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 10, 2016 15:41:26 GMT
I think the purpose of the battlefield diagram in 1a is to show where particular troop types can be deployed AFTER the invader has selected his/her edge. If the invader had selected the right edge as his/her edge, then the defender will be on Q1-Q2. If there is any doubt in your mind about something follow the rules.
"The defender chooses and places terrain allowed to its army to create the battlefield. The invader then selects a base edge. If a road crosses the battlefield, one of the intersected sides must be chosen, otherwise any edge that is not opposite a waterway. The defender’s base edge is that opposite the invader’s edge."
However, it is always good to get confirmation from the group here.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 10, 2016 15:31:04 GMT
wha specifict armies will be allowed?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 7, 2016 21:06:14 GMT
I just noticed that the Fall-In event is going to use BW movement. I will therefore not be participating. Rick Wynn All the games are DBA 3 which requires Base Width moves.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 7, 2016 16:07:18 GMT
If the sallying element is destroyed, then the winning element pursues, if allowed, up to the edge of the Fort but does not enter. It could be argued that it came out through an open gate, and so should Be allowed to recoil back inside. However, it could also be argued perhaps more reasonably, that an element representing a military unit, streams out of the gate and then forms up into a combat line. It is this line that fights and must recoil against the walls of the fort not able to retreat through the gate in good order. Or as suggested, the gate has been closed.
In any event there is absolutely no reason to expect a sallying element to pursue the outside opponent if it wins, unless it is a pursuing type element in the first place.
Too bad that in such a high level of generalization game we have to worry about the minuscule aspects of the BUA. Is the gate open or closed. Does the threat zone extend from outside to inside the Fort? If an enemy element is at the side of the Fort, is The Garrison in its threat zone, such that the inside element cannot move outside, that is through the TZ of the external element/?
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 6, 2016 22:52:39 GMT
An interesting aspect of the new rules is that it's possible that the battlefield will not have any rough or bad going. You must take a piece when you make your selection of required and optional pieces, but when you roll the dice for quadrants they all might end up getting the same number so only one gets placed. If the first one were a gentle hill and it took up all the space in the quadrant, that's all you can put down.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Oct 3, 2016 16:29:54 GMT
Thanks, Spratzman. Hadn't seen Sue's book, but as you say it pretty much confirms it. We've always have played to a win (unless in timed competition games), but a player on the Society of Ancients website suggested he had drawn at 4-4, and another agreed with his interpretation. Still not sure if he's convinced....but there's no helping some M Sadly, the reference in Sue Laflin-Barker's book is is not necessarily as conclusive as it might appear. In the original edition, the illustrative battle narrative - from which this is taken - contained at least one error (although I understand this has now been put right).
Menacus S
indeed there were a couple of errors in the original release, they were quickly pointed out. The tie game continuing was not one of them so what is the purpose of suggesting that this is an error?
|
|