Picking on a Pike block... Answered...the final word...

The judgement of Solomon! Thanks Joe.

Thanks for taking the time to trawl through the history of the process, Joe, and ALSO for holding up your hand and admitting it wasn’t as you had remembered....many would never do that. 👍👍. Max kudos.

As for the decision/definition, there will always be those of us who play the glorious game of DBA whose opinions differ from others who have read the very same rule book or historical text. It’s a feature of wargaming, and also of wargamers, who will read the same passages of history and perceive ‘what happened’ in different ways. (I have ‘alternative views’ on some rules, and their historical ‘reality’, but try to play them as now currently accepted, as far as possible....otherwise the 45 minute game becomes a two hour arguing session 😳).

Thanks again, Joe.

Martin

Thanks joe. It was worrying when you and bob couldn't agree. But there it is. Rules as written. he debate has been interesting.

However, I am with stevie and primuspilus in that I will be "houseruling" (is that a verb?) pikes. martin is right, in that an enemy attacking from the rear should cause maximum disadvantage. But why is it worse for supported elements? primuspilus has made the argument for Phillips's phalanx against 8Sp Thebans. I'm also imagining 8Bw archer/pavise infantry picking up the pavise and running back without an issue. It doesn't make sense. Nor does the thought that half a Macedonian phalanx breaks off to fight independently while the other is oblivious. There is no historical justification. 

It's a shame PB compromised. Surprising too, given his knowledge of the era. I love his Alexander the Great's Campaign book! Hellenistic Pike armies are already penalised by a very short battleline (3x2Pk). I believe the idea was to allow outflanking by Polybian Roman armies but the Romans do not have to form in triple acies. They can deploy 8x4Bd across and outflank and then some. Add pursuit and Pikes are nerfed.

I will be trying 8Pk as a house rule and I will report back.

Cheers

Jim

LOL....

Yes!

I wonder if 8Sp, 8Bw, etc ... vs double ranked Pk, double ranked Wb, i.e. the whole double rank vs DBE meme wasn't a big mistake.

Maybe we should have reduced combat factors for HI and given +1 or +2 for rear support to everyone, but force said elements to play the entire battle as a DBE if they wanted to claim the bonus.

This captures the frontage/depth dilemma. And it is a mechanism similar to dismounting - a decision you take at deployment.

On the whole snap-turn if hit in the rear, and not pinned to front, You could just live with it as the lesser evil, or you could leave the DBE facing its original dorection, and apply a '-2' TF as if double overlapped. It then turns to face at the instant of combat resolution, but applies the '-2' (this is a mechanism to aid memory). My only rationale for this rule is that often you had weaker and junior troops formed up in the rear ranks, and they would, after doing theor about face, now find themselves suddenly holding the front line against the enemy. In addition there is the morale impact of knowing the enemy has broken your line or outflanked you, and is likely about to rape amd enslave your wife and kids ... But to be clear these are the only effects I'd be trying to reflect in this rule.

A 180 degree about face for formed troops is a fairly simple matter. Alexander did just that at Gaugamela, when he dispatched his forces to drive off the Persians who had sacked his camp.

All of the development team were 2.2 players, and I do not believe any of them "had already turned much of the US DBA tournament community against DBA 3. It was the proponents of the so-called DBA 2.2+ that turned the US community against 3.0. They already had turned the community against 2.2. As folks local to the convention sites, they were able to get to the conventions and set up their events. I was at that a time the DBA Chief Umpire, but was distracted by DBA 3 development so stopped running DBA 2.2 events. I tried to run some DBA 3 events in the 2011 and later period but they drew insufficient players, as all were now involved with the + game. Some of those + developers were invited to participate in 3 development but they did not get their particular suggestions accepted early on so dropped out early instead of staying the longterm course with compromise.

The development group did have a number of DBMM players who often suggest that processes from that game be included, DBMM lite, as Joe says. Not many of those ideas got to the final version. Many of the group had never even played DBMM. There was a common misconception that DBA was a stepping stone to DBMM. Many of us pointed out that a vast majority of the DBA community did not play DBMM. DBA is a sufficient game unto itself, but the notion of introduction to DBMM remains. We did convince Phil that the overlap was in the concepts and not the players
2011 version
"There is a large overlap between players of DBA and players of DBMM; so DBA can serve as a simpler introduction to DBMM (or to ancient wargaming in general) as well as a stand-alone game. "

Final version
"There is a large overlap between the concepts of DBMM and those of DBA; so DBA can serve as a simpler introduction to DBMM (or to ancient wargaming in general) as well as a stand-alone game."

I wanted just clarifications to 2.2 as I was satisfied with how it played, but not how it was understood. I argued against many changes, but for some, and in the end am very happy now with how it turned out. Chiefly I argued against complexity. There were about 80 drafts by the way.

And again a thank you to you and the entire development team for working so hard to provide the best edition of DBA we have seen.

Cheers

Jim