|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 1, 2019 21:36:08 GMT
The question is, do people want rivers to work well (linear obstacle, variable effects) or not?
The +1 defence bonus for a river bank can be a pretty challenging issue to overcome. If you remove side and rear support, and also say Kn don't QK Bd in a river, you are saying that you want Sp and Pk to be unable effectively to force a crossing. Even if the river is paltry! And that Bd should stand in waist deep water to avoid being run down by Kn. Seems weird, no?
Now if paltry rivers were good going, and the others were rough/bad depending on dice, that might address some of the problem. Then Kn could still ride down Bd and Ax in paltry rivers.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 2, 2019 0:58:44 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 . Er...Joe Collin’s revelation about the Arable compulsory 2 Plough is not changing a single solitary word of Phil Barker’s rules...but it is changing our interpretation of that particular rule (that the 2 Plough should be a single pick, but we the players have decided to interpret 2 compulsory Plough as being 2 picks). Likewise, what I am saying about rivers is not changing a single solitary word of Phil Barker’s rules...but some players have decided to interpret “For movement” as also applying to combat (even though it quite clearly says don’t do this). Perhaps what I should have said is:- “We don’t want to change a single solitary word of Phil Barker’s rules... ...but we also don’t want to follow his “For movement only“ river rule, so we are going to pretend that the words “For movement” are not there.” *Cough, splutter, and choke*
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Sept 2, 2019 2:37:12 GMT
To think - if the compulsory for Arable was written as BUA and/or Plough then everything could be catered for Want a BUA and no plough - no problem Want 2 plough and no BUA - no problem Want a BUA and a plough - no problem Want a BUA and 2 plough - no problem - simply choose 1 BUA and 1 plough from the compulsory and 1 extra plough from the optionals Want a BUA and 3 plough - no problems - simply choose 1 BUA and 1 plough from the compulsory and 2 extra plough from the optionals This change would not have even had an effect on the line or page count Gods below
|
|
|
Post by paddy649 on Sept 4, 2019 7:36:30 GMT
When is a river a Waterway?
I always reckon that typical ancient / medieval battles were around 25,000 a side so a typical element is about 2000 men or a frontage of 400-600 men or approx 400 meters. This is a quarter of a mile!. So a river 1 BW wide or 400m wide is in the Danube / Rhein category i.e. in game terms it is a water way not a river.
On this scale a more typical river 10-15m across (this is not a stream) would be represented by a line 1-2mm i.e. a thin blue line of string and not a 40mm wide blue ribbon. Rivers are linear terrain and should be lines, not areas.
If we make linear terrain more linear then elements can’t be totally in them and so the question about what going they are disappears. An element crossing a river is merely partly in the terrain the river is crossing or partly in the river (that has no property of going - it is null and so can’t impact the element.). The only restriction is that the element is in a river and so can’t shoot - see page 10.
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Sept 4, 2019 13:49:43 GMT
I like this. Probably too sensible.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 5, 2019 11:03:48 GMT
When is a river a Waterway? I always reckon that typical ancient / medieval battles were around 25,000 a side so a typical element is about 2000 men or a frontage of 400-600 men or approx 400 meters. This is a quarter of a mile!. So a river 1 BW wide or 400m wide is in the Danube / Rhein category i.e. in game terms it is a water way not a river. On this scale a more typical river 10-15m across (this is not a stream) would be represented by a line 1-2mm i.e. a thin blue line of string and not a 40mm wide blue ribbon. Rivers are linear terrain and should be lines, not areas. If we make linear terrain more linear then elements can’t be totally in them and so the question about what going they are disappears. An element crossing a river is merely partly in the terrain the river is crossing or partly in the river (that has no property of going - it is null and so can’t impact the element.). The only restriction is that the element is in a river and so can’t shoot - see page 10. Although the ground scale on P2 says a base width is 80 paces and the guide to historical refights on page 14 suggests infantry other than horde are 400 - 600 men? So a base width wide river is about 70 yards? Simon
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 5, 2019 11:41:23 GMT
Well Simon, if DBA infantry only represents some 600 fighters, then a 12 element force is only about 7,000 men (less when you take into account the fewer figures in Ps and many other elements). Even BBDBA, with three times as many elements, would only represent some 20,000 men. Is DBA a set of small scale skirmish rules, or is it an abstract simulation of large scale ancient armies, ' representing' some 20,000 to 40,000 men or more? Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 5, 2019 13:00:44 GMT
Well Simon, if DBA infantry only represents some 600 fighters, then a 12 element force is only about 7,000 men (less when you take into account the fewer figures in Ps and many other elements). Even BBDBA, with three times as many elements, would only represent some 20,000 men. Is DBA a set of small scale skirmish rules, or is it an abstract simulation of large scale ancient armies, ' representing' some 20,000 to 40,000 men or more? Some Helpful Downloads can be found here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes And here is the latest Jan 2019 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2019_1st_Quarter
Just saying what the rules are (I think). As someone once said - I didn't write the rules! Simon
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Sept 5, 2019 21:17:42 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... No they don't. They say the pikemen attacked across the river and were repulsed with heavy casualties until Alexander intervened and saved the day.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 6, 2019 0:00:40 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... No they don't. They say the pikemen attacked across the river and were repulsed with heavy casualties until Alexander intervened and saved the day. But there is a difference between being repulsed with heavy losses and being completely destroyed. Please see fanaticus.boards.net/post/24559/ for a mathematical proof of why a combat factor of 3 stands no chance against a combat factor of 6...even if the combat factor of 6 is ‘hard flanked’. Alexander can’t come to the aid of his pikemen, because many of them won’t be there any more! This on its own shows the absurdity of the situation, let alone the daftness of avoiding being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights if you abandon defending the riverbank and instead plunge into the water, or the ridiculousness of troops defending a riverbank that passes through a wood suffer the -2 bad going penalty but those actually in the water do not and thus have a combat advantage. And why are there these absurd river effects? Because people insist on not playing by the rules as written. The page 6 river rule says “ For movement, rivers are neither good nor other going”. “For movement” it says... not for combat... just for movement...and only for movement. Distort the rule that you can clearly see in front of you by trying to pretend that the words “For movement” are not there, and you get all the absurd river effects mentioned above and rivers become unplayable. Play by the rule as it is written, and ONLY apply the ‘neither good nor other going’ to movement, like it says you should, then all the absurd river effects mentioned above disappear and rivers become playable. Rivers are not given a specific going in DBA 3.0 because they don’t change the going, just like roads don’t. Instead troops in a river are penalized by giving their opponents a +1 riverbank bonus. NOWHERE does it say that “For combat, rivers are neither good nor other going”. That condition ONLY applies to movement...not combat.
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Sept 6, 2019 22:50:37 GMT
No they don't. They say the pikemen attacked across the river and were repulsed with heavy casualties until Alexander intervened and saved the day. But there is a difference between being repulsed with heavy losses and being completely destroyed. Please see fanaticus.boards.net/post/24559/ for a mathematical proof of why a combat factor of 3 stands no chance against a combat factor of 6...even if the combat factor of 6 is ‘hard flanked’. Your so called "proof" was incomplete and flawed.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 7, 2019 2:00:21 GMT
Not sure, pawsbill, would you mind elaborating as to how the 3 vs 6 outcomes were flawed? I am not seeing it.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 7, 2019 7:40:03 GMT
But there is a difference between being repulsed with heavy losses and being completely destroyed. Please see fanaticus.boards.net/post/24559/ for a mathematical proof of why a combat factor of 3 stands no chance against a combat factor of 6...even if the combat factor of 6 is ‘hard flanked’. Your so called "proof" was incomplete and flawed. You are quite right...I shouldn’t be using terms like ‘mathematical proof’ without showing exactly how that ‘mathematical proof’ was derived. Very well then, here it is. A CF of 3 (Pk with no rear support) v a CF of 6 (Sp, +1 for side-support and +1 for riverbank bonus):-
| CF 6 and die roll of -1 = 5 | CF 6 and die roll of 0 = 6 | CF 6 and die roll of +1 = 7 | CF 6 and die roll of +2 = 8 | CF 6 and die roll of +3 = 9 | CF 6 and die roll of +4 = 10 | CF 6 and die roll of +5 = 11 | CF 6 and die roll of +6 = 12 | CF 3 and die roll of -1 = 2 | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 and die roll of 0 = 3 | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 and die roll of +1 = 4 | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 and die roll of +2 = 5 | Equal | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 and die roll of +3 = 6 | CF 6 recoiled | Equal | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 DOUBLED | CF 3 and die roll of +4 = 7 | CF 6 recoiled | CF 6 recoiled | Equal | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 and die roll of +5 = 8 | CF 6 recoiled | CF 6 recoiled | CF 6 recoiled | Equal | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 and die roll of +6 = 9 | CF 6 recoiled | CF 6 recoiled | CF 6 recoiled | CF 6 recoiled | Equal | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled | CF 3 recoiled |
The best case scenario for the CF 3 is to attack from the front while ‘hard flanking’ the defending CF 6 troops. CF of 3 v CF of 5 (Sp, +1 for side-support, and +1 for riverbank bonus, but -1 for the flank attack):- CF 3 Doubled CF 3 Recoils Equal Score CF 6 Recoils (destroyed) CF 6 Doubled 6 20 4 6 --- (chances out of 36)
At first glance, not too bad...both sides have 6 chances out of 36 of being destroyed. But the CF 3 also has 20 chances (55.6%) of being recoiled, leaving their adjacent friendly CF 3 to an overlap, thus... CF of 2 (-1 for the overlap) v CF of 6 (Sp, +1 for side-support, and +1 for riverbank bonus):- CF 3 Doubled CF 3 Recoils Equal Score CF 6 Recoils CF 6 Doubled 15 (41.7%) 18 2 1 --- (chances out of 36)
(I didn't invent the laws of mathematics! )Pikes attacking across a river without rear support is suicide. They would need to roll ‘ 6’s’ while their opponent rolls ‘ 1’s’. You will have to re-fight the Battle of Issus some 30 times or more before you are lucky enough to get an historical outcome. Did Alexander only win because he was just phenomenally lucky? -------------------------------------------------- I have given ample proof of why the notion that ‘rivers are neither good nor other going for combat’ is wrong... ...historical proof... ...mathematical proof... ...the weird absurd river effects proof... ...and not following the rules AS WRITTEN proof... And what have the opposition offered? Nothing. Nothing except the blind faith that because they have always misinterpreted things and played it their way for years, so they can’t possibly be wrong, and in their eyes rivers are meant to be unplayable for Pikes and Spears. Even Paltry rivers.
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Sept 7, 2019 16:54:24 GMT
I poke my baby-blue crested helmet (with the globe in white on the side, classical period UN) in and ask everyone to cool off please.
|
|
|
Post by pawsbill on Sept 7, 2019 17:50:24 GMT
Your historical "proof" can most politely be described as a Romantic bias in your interpretation of secondary sources. Your mathematical "proof" is so incomplete as to be fatally flawed. I don't even know what you are talking about when you refer to "weird fiver effects". And you are guilty of not following the rules as written by asserting that a sentence about movement means that similar conditions cannot possibly apply to other situations.
You asked for the opinion of the FAQ team and play testers. As a member of both, I have given my answers but you have chosen to ignore them and argue the opposite.
As the author of post fanaticus.boards.net/post/24593/ in this thread said this time last week
No more need be said, so I’m not going to post anything else in this thread (Hurrah!).
|
|