|
Post by Simon on Aug 31, 2019 7:04:37 GMT
I think it is plausible to take the RAW as written and interpret them as paddy and stevie would like, namely that a River is considered the going that it is in for combat. Firstly, we have terrain features as AREA and LINEAR with all other space as GOOD GOING. An area, by definition, has a perimeter and encompasses everything within it, including the River. The rules state that "It (a river) can cross any feature except...". Crossing a terrain feature doesn't change its integrity. Its perimeter would continue beneath the river feature. It doesn't divide the feature into two separate pieces, (otherwise you may have to discard part of a feature!). So elements within the terrain feature are governed by all the rules of the terrain feature, except that "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going..." I think this is important because being "in" a river and defending the "bank" of the river are not absolutes in DBA3. This rule is clear: "An element is defending the bank if it is entirely on land and its close combat opponent is at least partly in the water". So the defender gets the bonus even if the back corner is in river. The defender may well be over 1/2BW from the river. But what going is the combat occurring in? What terrain is the combat occurring in? The rules only give us the following: "An element only in GOOD GOING is treated as in the other going. But if a River is passing through a Wood then this rule does not apply. This rule works for Area terrain as it must be 1BW away from other Area features and Roads have specified rules for movement and combat. Rivers? However, DBA3 adds further complexity by grading rivers into 3 groups. If we just accept the rule as rivers take the going they are in then paltry rivers in Woods are worse terrain for combat than deeper, fast flowing rivers in the plains. This is not sensible. I think that the combat terrain of a river should be dictated by the combination of its nature and the going that it is in. So a paltry river would be good going, a normal river would be rough going, and a difficult river should be bad going. However, if the river is passing through terrain that is worse than its nature then the area terrain takes precedence. But that would require a rule change which is beyond the remit of the FAQ team. So I wish them luck sorting this one out! For those interested in PB's view on rivers, I will follow this post up with a summary of how he deals with rivers in DBMM (where rivers do get classified as Good/Rough/Difficult). For those interested in PB's view on Issus and Granicus, I can refer you to his book on Alexander's campaigns. Cheers Jim Interesting Jim - my thoughts were flowing in the same dirctions as yours! Simon
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Aug 31, 2019 7:26:18 GMT
Pawsbill, clear - thanks. How about the conditions I raise of shooting down a river or measuring Command radius along a river? An element even partly in a river cannot shoot. That is stated in the shooting section.
Rivers have no effect on command distance.
Bill - I wasn’t questioning shooters in the river - page 10makes that clear. I was talking about shooters entirely and deep in the wood shooting out over the river because if you have a wood dissected by a 1BW river which is not any sort of going - you have effectively got 2 woods. Same for command radius. If there were 2 woods separated by 1BW of GG then command radius would not count as “entirely beyond” but if that gap were a 1BW river then what is the situation?
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 31, 2019 12:38:09 GMT
So we can't get PB to give us a ruling on this point. But we can look into his thinking regarding rivers in DBMM. A bit like looking for a legal precedence.
Firstly rivers are divided into those that are between 80-200p and those less than 80p. In DBA3, PB only gives rivers less than 80p. Strange, as our elements represent a larger body of troops but there you have it. He specifically states that they are: - difficult going if in spate (this occurs as part of the weather rules), otherwise - good going if if within 800p of sea, otherwise - rough going for foot and difficult going for mounted
So this indicates to me that PB considers: a) the underlying nature of the river to be important b) that a river can be different going in different places c) that mostly it is not good going
For completeness, regarding wider rivers, PB states: - difficult going in spate (weather rule), otherwise - rough going if low (weather rule), otherwise - rough going for mounted (except chariots) and difficult going for foot and chariots
Maybe this will help the FAQ team in their deliberations (or maybe not!)
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Aug 31, 2019 13:56:27 GMT
I'm with arnopov and pawsbill on this one and would rule that way at the Northern Cup
P.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 31, 2019 14:36:09 GMT
Perhaps we need to adopt the thinking of Barbossa from Pirates of the Caribbean when it comes to DBA! "The code is more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules.”
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Aug 31, 2019 19:03:58 GMT
I think it is plausible to take the RAW as written and interpret them as paddy and stevie would like, namely that a River is considered the going that it is in for combat. Firstly, we have terrain features as AREA and LINEAR with all other space as GOOD GOING. An area, by definition, has a perimeter and encompasses everything within it, including the River. The rules state that "It (a river) can cross any feature except...". Crossing a terrain feature doesn't change its integrity. Its perimeter would continue beneath the river feature. It doesn't divide the feature into two separate pieces, (otherwise you may have to discard part of a feature!). So elements within the terrain feature are governed by all the rules of the terrain feature, except that "For movement, a river is neither good nor other going..." I think this is important because being "in" a river and defending the "bank" of the river are not absolutes in DBA3. This rule is clear: "An element is defending the bank if it is entirely on land and its close combat opponent is at least partly in the water". So the defender gets the bonus even if the back corner is in river. The defender may well be over 1/2BW from the river. But what going is the combat occurring in? What terrain is the combat occurring in? The rules only give us the following: "An element only partly in GOOD GOING is treated as in the other going. But if a River is passing through a Wood then this rule does not apply. This rule works for Area terrain as it must be 1BW away from other Area features and Roads have specified rules for movement and combat. Rivers? However, DBA3 adds further complexity by grading rivers into 3 groups. If we just accept the rule as rivers take the going they are in then paltry rivers in Woods are worse terrain for combat than deeper, fast flowing rivers in the plains. This is not sensible. I think that the combat terrain of a river should be dictated by the combination of its nature and the going that it is in. So a paltry river would be good going, a normal river would be rough going, and a difficult river should be bad going. However, if the river is passing through terrain that is worse than its nature then the area terrain takes precedence. But that would require a rule change which is beyond the remit of the FAQ team. So I wish them luck sorting this one out!
For those interested in PB's view on rivers, I will follow this post up with a summary of how he deals with rivers in DBMM (where rivers do get classified as Good/Rough/Difficult). For those interested in PB's view on Issus and Granicus, I can refer you to his book on Alexander's campaigns.
Cheers Jim I like the idea of labelling the classification of a river as Good, Rough or Difficult going after determingin its type.
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Aug 31, 2019 20:35:11 GMT
I think I have only ever fought two games with a river and one was Northern Cup where you had pre determined terrain.
|
|
|
Post by somecallmetim on Sept 1, 2019 1:43:04 GMT
So now this “debate” seems to be moving to a conclusion that if a river, for example, runs through good terrain, that makes the river good terrain.
Presumably, if a river runs through different terrain on different parts of the table, then the river changes its status. Nuts.
DBA is a fast play set of rules, with the actual rules written over a handful of pages. There have been numerous posts by numerous people on these pages pointing out anomalies in the rules. Could it possibly be that “Stevie”, in his relentless scrutiny of the rules, has noted yet another anomaly? If so, why not adopt a commonsense reaction based on rationality that a river can NEVER be good going and is a special case of bad / rough going where there are no quick kills and everyone gets -2, or something like that.
I can’t believe there has been 6 pages of posts with people even suggesting that a flowing, often deep body of water can be good going. Some of the people posting here need to get out more and get a life.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 1, 2019 2:12:58 GMT
Yeah...and some people should try reading books and educate themselves.
The ancient historians say that Alexander the Great’s pikemen fought their way over a river at Issus... ...oh wait, 21st century armchair wannabe military ‘expert's’, who have never held a pike in their life, and who for some unknown reason can’t even see the words “For Movement” in the DBA 3.0 river rule, say it can’t be done.
Well, they know far more about ancient warfare than those stuffy old ancient historians ever did, so those old ancient historians must all be lying about Issus, and Alexander really lost this battle. It’s all just a conspiracy, because our interpretation of Phil Barker’s rules can’t be wrong can it.
“We don’t want to change a single word of Phil Barker’s rules, but we don’t want to play by them either!”
|
|
|
Post by somecallmetim on Sept 1, 2019 3:50:34 GMT
Your right Stevie. You should read some more books.
Your arguments throughout this thread have been illogical and inconsistent. You keep harping on about Issus. Ok, Alexander’s pikemen fought across a river. How does this make a river in good going? And how many battles in history have been fought in a middle of a river? The reason there’s not that many is because the people fighting don’t think a river is a good place to have a battle.
At other times you argue that if if a river is not good going, then it is disadvantage to certain troop types, and so it should be good going. It’s an irrational, circular argument.
No body is saying you can’t fight in a river. What I and others are saying is that is completely nonsensical to suggest that a river is good going.
And nobody is saying to change Phil’s rules, because there isn’t a rule to change. He wrote a small set of rules, and there were bound to be anomalies in them. It obviously didn’t occur to him that a bunch of Uber nerds would spend precious life seriously arguing over whether a river is good terrain.
And yes Stevie, I have never seriously held in pike in my life, and neither have you.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Sept 1, 2019 7:31:04 GMT
Your right Stevie. You should read some more books. Your arguments throughout this thread have been illogical and inconsistent. You keep harping on about Issus. Ok, Alexander’s pikemen fought across a river. How does this make a river in good going? And how many battles in history have been fought in a middle of a river? The reason there’s not that many is because the people fighting don’t think a river is a good place to have a battle. At other times you argue that if if a river is not good going, then it is disadvantage to certain troop types, and so it should be good going. It’s an irrational, circular argument. No body is saying you can’t fight in a river. What I and others are saying is that is completely nonsensical to suggest that a river is good going. And nobody is saying to change Phil’s rules, because there isn’t a rule to change. He wrote a small set of rules, and there were bound to be anomalies in them. It obviously didn’t occur to him that a bunch of Uber nerds would spend precious life seriously arguing over whether a river is good terrain. And yes Stevie, I have never seriously held in pike in my life, and neither have you. .....I have....and in my right hand too.... not in a river though. 😁
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 1, 2019 7:42:05 GMT
And yes Stevie, I have never seriously held in pike in my life, and neither have you. You are quite right...neither of us have held a pike. But I know 20,000 men who have...the Macedonian Phalangites that fought their way over the river at Issus. You tell them that they couldn’t possibly have done so. If it’s the phrase “rivers are good going for combat” that is causing mental hangups, then don’t use it. Call the going in rivers anything you like. BUT...because of the DBA combat mechanism, pikes need rear support in order to be able to cross rivers. Take away this rear support, then Issus cannot be fought the way the ancient historians said it was. The ancient scholars are telling us how pikes fought in rivers, and I think we should listen to them. Phil Barker is fully aware of this, which is why he deliberately constructed his page 6 river rule to say:- “ For movement, rivers are neither good nor other going...” But I bet he never considered that players using his rules would intentionally ignore the “For movement” restriction and would mistakenly try to apply the “neither good nor other going” condition to combat as well. It says “For movement”... ...ONLY for movement... ...JUST for movement... ...for nothing else EXCEPT movement... ...not for combat, not for shooting, not for deployment, but for movement. Troops in a DBA river are penalized, as they should be...they give the opposition a +1 riverbank bonus. Because Phil Barker sees rivers as an obstacle, not some sort of special type of going for combat. So until someone comes up with another way of having rivers as not good going, but still allow rear support, then Phil Barker’s method of ONLY applying the “neither good nor other going” conditions to movement and movement alone, and not to combat, is the best solution. Oh, and remember; I'm not the one who is trying to make rivers unplayable...
|
|
|
Post by chaotic on Sept 1, 2019 11:12:30 GMT
The ancient historians say that Alexander the Great’s pikemen fought their way over a river at Issus... I'm not sure Issus is a good example to use as evidence that the Macedonian phalanx should be permitted to maintain its cohesion and fight effectively across even such an apparently minor obstacle as the Pinarus River. Part of the problem is that, unlike most rivers in DBA, the Pinarus meandered quite a lot, which meant that different elements of the phalanx came to the river at different times. According to Arrian [Anabasis, 2.10.5-7; tr. A. de Sélincourt.], this caused gaps to appear in the Macedonian line. The Macedonian phalanx was in real danger of being pushed back by the lightly armed kardakes and came very close to being enveloped by Nabarzanes' cavalry attack on the Macedonian left flank. Quintus Curtius Rufus describes the Macedonian situation like this: "Then the blood really flowed, for the two lines were so closely interlocked that they were striking each other's weapons with their own and driving their blades into their opponents' faces. It was now impossible for the timid or cowardly to remain inactive. Foot against foot, they were virtually engaging in single combat, standing in the same spot until they could make further room for themselves by winning the fight: only by bringing down his opponent could each man advance. But, exhausted as they were, they were continually being met by a fresh adversary, and the wounded could not retire from the battle as on other occasions because the enemy were bearing down on them in front while their own men were pushing them from behind." [Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander of Macedonia, 3.11.5-6; tr. J. Yardley.] Its fair to say that the Macedonian phalanx was saved by two factors: Parmenion's stubborn defence on the left of the phalanx preventing its envelopment and Alexander's desperate, "all or nothing" charge on their right. The timing of his charge may even have been forced on him by the increasing disorder of the phalanx and Parmenion's impending defeat. There may be other battles where a phalanx coped effectively with a river, but I don't think Issus qualifies. The phalanx did cross the Pinarus, but in all likelihood only after Darius fled and Persian resistance collapsed.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 1, 2019 13:50:02 GMT
Arrian (at the bottom of the page): en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anabasis_of_Alexander/Book_II/Chapter_X And it turned out just as Alexander had conjectured; for as soon as the battle became a hand-to-hand one, the part of the Persian army stationed on the left wing was put to rout; and here Alexander and his men won a brilliant victory. But the Grecian mercenaries serving under Darius attacked the Macedonians at the point where they saw their phalanx especially disordered (in DBA terms, ‘ovelapped’ due to recoils). For the Macedonian phalanx had been broken and disjoined towards the right wing (i.e. ‘overlapped’); because Alexander had charged into the river with eagerness, and engaging in a hand-to-hand conflict was already driving back the Persians posted there (i.e. he 'pursued' them); but the Macedonians in the centre did not execute their task with equal speed (not surprising with a Hoplite combat factor of 6); and finding many parts of the bank steep and precipitous, they were unable to preserve the front of the phalanx in the same line. Here then the struggle was desperate; the aim of the Grecian mercenaries of Darius being to push the Macedonians back into the river, and regain the victory, though their own forces were already flying; the aim of the Macedonians being not to fall short of Alexander's good-fortune, which was already manifest, and not to tarnish the glory of the phalanx, which up to that time had been commonly asserted to be invincible. Moreover the feeling of rivalry which existed between the Grecian and Macedonian races inspired each side in the conflict. Here fell Ptolemy, son of Seleucus, after proving, himself a valiant man, besides about one hundred and twenty other Macedonians of no mean repute.This doesn’t sound like the Macedonian Phalangites just stood around watching until it was safe to cross the river as the battle had already been won, but more like a hard struggle. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/24559/ for why a pike CF of 3 can’t fight their way across, but a CF of 6 can)So by all means discount the river crossing at Issus, and the river crossing at Granicus as well... ...but people will still have to face the fact that Phil Barker’s river rule on page 6 says:- “ For movement, a river is neither good nor other going...” For movement it says, not for combat, ONLY for movement. Thus people need to ignore the historical accounts of Issus, and ignore the combat factor 3 mathematical proof, AND ignore Phil Barker’s own river rule, just so they can get weird absurd river effects, and make rivers unplayable in DBA 3.0. Whereas if they follow Phil Barker’s river rule and ONLY apply the ‘neither good nor other going’ conditions SOLELY to movement and NOT for combat like it says, they get sensible river effects, Alexander’s Pikemen CAN fight their way across, and rivers in DBA 3.0 become crossable for ALL troops. The choice is a simple one...play by the rules AS WRITTEN and rivers are playable, or deliberately misinterpret the river rule and rivers become unplayable.
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Sept 1, 2019 19:45:14 GMT
“We don’t want to change a single word of Phil Barker’s rules !” *Cough* Compulsory Arable terrain *Cough* Now peoples can go back to rivers .
|
|