|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jun 19, 2018 20:35:59 GMT
You could argue that as PB wrote "A road must run from one battlefield edge towards the opposite battlefield edge" that a road still crosses the battlefield even though it only contacts one edge (cul-de-sac). David C. You could, but you'd be wrong. The sentence quoted merely give the direction of travel and says nothing about the distance traveled. The road is "on" the battlefield, but, until it reaches the opposite edge, it does not "cross" it. |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 19, 2018 23:10:02 GMT
Was this situation discussed during the playtesting so we could get an idea if PB knew about this situation or is it something that has cropped up?
He has written that in his view invaders would use a road if it was available, which is not unreasonable. But then this principle is abandoned when this situation with a Waterway develops. Bob has also illustrated how the similar situation occurs with Forts and Cities.
Why wouldn't an invader approach a City from a road if it was on a coast? It may be on a peninsula. It seems quite reasonable to me for an invading force to approach from opposite the city and the defenders having to give battle outside their city gates. If it were allowed then defenders may use more reasonably sized Waterways.
As to how the rules are interpreted, it seems that we are taking the least objectionable interpretation, which, incidently, I agree with as I want the game to work and I want to see lots of different types of terrain used. But it comes down to definitions. What is the DBA definition of a battlefield? Is the Waterway part of the battlefield, as it is impassable and battle cannot occur on it? Roads exit Cities via gates but don't cities have internal roads leading up to the walls even if they don't have gates? Ancient roads were mostly dirt paths. Could the roads then reach the Waterway? Do Forts have internal roads? Would the fort not be placed in a position to make it highly likely that the invader would have to approach it?
The Road rule comes before the Waterway rule, which makes me wonder if it had precedence in PB's mind. With regard to Waterways, did he envision the invader approaching the coastal City/Fort by road as the first option (quite plausible historically) or then approaching along the coast or landing on the beach (again quite plausible historically) but not catching a defender on the coast with nothing to defend. Anybody psychic enough to read his thoughts?
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjconstable on Jun 20, 2018 3:08:00 GMT
You could argue that as PB wrote "A road must run from one battlefield edge towards the opposite battlefield edge" that a road still crosses the battlefield even though it only contacts one edge (cul-de-sac). David C. You could, but you'd be wrong. The sentence quoted merely give the direction of travel and says nothing about the distance traveled. The road is "on" the battlefield, but, until it reaches the opposite edge, it does not "cross" it. You are correct, there is a complete sentence missing.
I went on and put - "However, PB is old fashioned and would use the word across to mean to cross, now if the road stops 1mm from the waterway or at a BUA then it has not gone across the board."
Sorry, probably deleted by accident, this board does funny things on occasions on my computer, and Norton stops it.
David C.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jun 20, 2018 3:55:11 GMT
Regarding Jim's last comments above:
The issues of initial terrain placement and deployment were extensively discussed during play testing. The wording was changed a number of times to eliminate anomalies of road - BUA- waterway - deployment edges. The crucial issue was to prevent a defender from having a Waterway on his deployment edge, so invader could not land behind him. Second was that the Invader should enter via a road, if the first restriction was met.
What is a battlefield?: "The standard playing area, “the battlefield”, is square; with sides 600mm/24” to 800mm/32” for the smaller scale and
900mm/36” to 1,200mm/48”square for the larger scale. "
Is Waterway part of the battlefield?: " It(waterway) extends 1-4 Base Width inwards from an entire battlefield edge and half its length must extend no more than 3 BW in from that edge." So the Waterway is inside of the battlefield, thus part of it.
don't cities have internal roads leading up to the walls even if they don't have gates?: I do not know what effect this would have. Indeed, element in a city can move around inside the city, and defend all the walls.
Ancient roads were mostly dirt paths. Could the roads then reach the Waterway?: "It (Road) cannot begin or end at a waterway edge. . . "
Do forts have internal roads.? Does it matter, as they have only a (one) gate. "A FORT (or castle) has permanent defences and a gate . . . "
Sorry to be dense Jim, but what are you getting at with these comments?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jun 20, 2018 6:29:45 GMT
Actually, I was impressed by Jim’s inciteful thoughts, and found myself agreeing with most of them. However, when it comes to Phil Barker’s thought processes on the matter of roads and waterways, I think Bob has gone to the heart of the matter, and it all boils down to one relatively simple question:- Why doesn’t Phil Barker want defenders to deploy with a waterway behind them?If there is no road present, then the invader can choose any edge as their deployment area... except that opposite a waterway. So what is it about waterways that would unbalance an abstract simulation of ancient warfare like DBA? Is it because it would make littoral invaders too powerful? Whatever the reason, the deployment rules have been designed to prevent it. And if an invader was limited in his choices by a waterway-BUA-road combination, then instead of preventing it, it would be allowable:- a) because the invader would have only one end of the road, that opposite the waterway, to deploy in, or... b) the invader could choose either end of the road, and so could freely pick that opposite the waterway. Strangely enough, and contradictory to what the history books tell us, I find that deploying with a waterway behind you is an asset rather than a disadvantage in DBA...it means that my fleeing troops halt when they meet the water instead of fleeing right off the table. And as an invader, I can freely choose to have the waterway behind my invading army if I so wish. But that is by choice...the rules have been designed so that no-one is forced to have the waterway behind them. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Jun 20, 2018 9:01:09 GMT
Thanks bob. You're not being dense and I hope you don't think that I am. My comments are my thoughts about the real world situation that the rules are trying to abstractly reflect. The rules are "as written" and you have quoted them clearly. But you also have cleared up the thinking behind them, for which I thank you.
This indicates that the rule was made to stop a potential "breaking" of the game. It is a game after all, so that's fine. But it would be better if we used game terms. Call it a playing area rather than a battlefield then things are much clearer. The road certainly doesn't cross the playing area if a Waterway is present. Using real world terms only encourages some people (like me) to think of things in the real world. The historical side of wargaming is important to me so that's where my thoughts come from. I do understand that sometimes the historical precedent and the game mechanic clash such as in this case. DBA tells us that invaders use roads because that was what happens historically but not opposite a Waterway because that breaks the game. But it doesn't explain why. There are no designer's notes and we were not all privy to the design discussions. So I hope you don't mind when people ask about the rationale of a certain rule.
My musings about Forts, Roads and Cities are again thoughts of them in an historical context and how they functioned in the real world versus how they function in DBA. I like the road rule. It makes sense to me. If landings were banned on any coast that had a City or Fort (think of it as local naval assets preventing a significant landing) then the road rule could have precedence. Defenders with Littoral armies concerned about cramped space can use narrower Waterways or larger "playing areas" to negate this issue. But they're not and the rules are as they are so further musings will be in the House Rules section.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
