|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 23, 2019 3:27:06 GMT
I am with Stevie on this one. The rules do not clearly state rivers are good going, but then presumably we wouldn't allow deployment of a camp in a river either. So not clear.
That said, let's see what history reveals: oh wait, river assaults could succeed, for instance by Alexander et al.
I think the side/rear support rules should say "unless in bad or rough going,..." rather than "in good going". Fixes the problem. Renders rivers playable, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 23, 2019 5:38:08 GMT
That is a good partial solution Primuspilus...
...but it is only a partial solution.
In DBA, movement and combat are two completely separate mechanisms, and the rule states that
“For movement, a river is neither good nor other going”...implying that this does NOT apply to combat.
And as you and I have discussed before, a river NEEDS to be classed as ‘Good Going’ for combat,
otherwise the following absurd situation will occur:-
Spears, Pikes, Blades, Warbands, Auxiliaries, Psiloi, and Hordes in a river will not be in ‘Good Going’,
so will therefore be safe from being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights.
“Quick lads, there are Knights about! Let’s all dive into that river and stand in cold water up to our
armpits. No, not cross to the opposite riverbank and gain a defensive bonus, but actually stand in
the water. Then we will be safe!”
Only by classifying them as ‘Good Going’ for combat can the absurdities of making rivers unplayable
and safe havens from Knights be avoided...and in some cases safe from SCh and Elephants as well.
But you are quite right about Camps. So instead of changing or re-wording the side and rear
support rules (which is not necessary if people don’t misinterpret what “For movement” means),
an addition should still be added stating that you cannot deploy, or place a Camp, in a river.
--------------------------
You know, I do find it a bit odd that none of the many people who playtested DBA 3.0 prior to
publication, nor any of the FAQ Team, nor any of the Tournament Organisers, have voiced an
opinion on this river issue.
Strange that.
I think I might start a new thread in the “Rants and Raves” section of Fanaticus in order to draw
their attention to this matter and see if we can get someone to arbitrate and make a decision...
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 25, 2019 4:00:47 GMT
"For movement, a river is neither good nor other going; instead the elements crossing it are restricted by conditions that are constant along its whole length and for the whole game. "
We all agree on that, I think. So what are Rivers for other activities. I suggest that they are not Bad or Rough, as implied by this rule:
"Those chosen (terrain features) must include BAD or ROUGH GOING (as defined below) or a River ..." Thus a River does not fulfill the requirement for a Bad or Rough Going. There is no rule that says they are Good Going either. Thus they are just "RIVER Going. " Thus all combat outcomes that indicate that there is a special outcome for Good, Bad, or Rough do not apply.
"Spears, Pikes or Blades Destroyed by Knights or Scythed Chariots if in good going or by Warband. If not, recoil. "
so Knights and SCh do not destroy Spears, Pikes or Blades in River going. Makes sense, the mounted types cannot get the necessary impetus in water.
"Cavalry Flee from Scythed Chariots, or if in bad going. If not, recoil." Recoil for Cavalry in River if lose to SCh or other types.
Whatever advantage an enemy has, it does not hold if enemy is in River Going.
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 25, 2019 6:10:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 25, 2019 9:51:22 GMT
Thanks for the link to the Battle of the River Tagus Timurilank, but are some better ones:- www.thehistoryherald.com/Articles/Ancient-History-Civilisation/Hannibal-and-the-Punic-Wars/hannibal-s-elephants-myth-and-realityAnd here is Polybius’ own account:- www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0234:book=3:chapter=14&highlight=tagusIn DBA terms, we have Auxiliaries with a combat factor of 3 fighting against Cavalry with a combat factor of 4 (3 +1 for defending a riverbank). The Auxiliaries, even if they manage to force the Cavalry to recoil, will not pursue, and so will still be in the water when the Cavalry re-advance to reclaim the riverbank bonus in their next bound. Unfortunately, this tells us nothing about what ‘going’ the river is, or whether side and rear support should be allowed in a river or not. And Bob...please remember that I am not the villain of this issue. If anything I am the hero.  I am the one trying to make river crossings possible, for ALL troops. I’m not the one trying to make rives unplayable for Pikes and Spears. And I’m not doing this by altering or changing any of the rules in the current rulebook. I’m just showing that people are getting things wrong and misinterpreting the river rules. Mr Barker has a great knowledge of ancient warfare, and is a very clever inventor of rules. And he will be fully aware of Alexander fighting his way across rivers with Pikes. So do you honestly believe that he would write his river rules to make that impossible? Or is it a case of Mr Barker being right, and his rules being right, but people are just misinterpreting his rules? |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 25, 2019 11:14:32 GMT
Stevie, I was thinking about the conflict which took place in the river as that is cited by the sources. Carthaginian mounted had a height advantage over the tribesmen who struggled with the current and chest-high water. Chest high for foot would equate to the shoulder of a horse or the seat of the rider. In DBA terms, both fight with equal factors.
So, the advantage must come from the river being an obstacle.
Allowing the tribesmen to cross, Hannibal chose the right moment to attack sending them back into the river. In DBA terms, tribesmen crossed in deep columns which prohibited the front element from recoiling as a combat result.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Jul 25, 2019 11:47:05 GMT
Phil Barker agrees with you Timurilank that the advantage to the defenders is that a river is an obstacle. (Oh...and I agree as well ) As for your other point, under DBA terms, are Cavalry that are gaining the +1 for the riverbank bonus standing stationary, or are they making short charges as the enemy tries to climb the slippery riverbank? Also, under DBA, the recoiling front rank will push those behind them back if they cannot interpenetrate (unless they are in a column three or more elements deep).
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 25, 2019 14:16:16 GMT
Phil Barker agrees with you Timurilank that the advantage to the defenders is that a river is an obstacle. (Oh...and I agree as well ) As for your other point, under DBA terms, are Cavalry that are gaining the +1 for the riverbank bonus standing stationary, or are they making short charges as the enemy tries to climb the slippery riverbank? Also, under DBA, the recoiling front rank will push those behind them back if they cannot interpenetrate
(unless they are in a column three or more elements deep). I refought this as a big battle game, with each tribe represented as a full size command of twelve elements. Crossing the Tagus by each tribe was done in three or four columns. Changing from column to line was the moment that Hannibal struck.
|
|
