|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 7, 2019 19:48:34 GMT
pawsbill, you have been asked three times to demonstrate the flaw in the mathematical reasoning. Would you care to do so? How is it any more or less complete than your mathematical reasoning?
As for what the rules say, well they say "for movement". Not "rivers are neither good not bad going".
In my group, we have elected to interpret the rules as saying what they say: "for movement". We have found the rules for rivers play best and most seamlessly if they are used in this way.
I notice many arguments from people who elect not to use rivers in their games. Why? Because with their interpretation, they are quite tedious and cumbersome. Seems odd to be defending an interpretation of rivers that all but guarantees they will hardly be used, no?
|
|
|
Post by vtsaogames on Sept 7, 2019 20:02:23 GMT
Reading this thread makes my head hurt. Can someone sum up the two different different approaches (if that's how many there are) without taking hits at the opposing view? With a concise summary the Fencibles can then vote on what we'd prefer - or to not bother using rivers. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 7, 2019 21:32:50 GMT
One interpretation:
Rivers are neither good nor bad going for movement. But for combat, treat them as you would a road - i.e. they are the going they are passing through, and ensure if they DO cross an area feature, there is enough "stuff" to clearly identify which going the river is in.
The advantage of this interpretation is that rivers remain highly playable, and will not require "agreements" not to place them. They are a nice linear obstacle, given that DBA has no other form really, like fences and walls.
Another main interpretation is that they are always neither good nor bad going. Ever.
The disadvantage is that rivers would now have weird knock-on effects, like parking Ps in a river to prevent Kn or Cv from riding them down. Or parking Bd in a river, in a wood, to shut down an enemy advance through said wood. Note, under river rules, you can't close the door on an element in a river. So allowing the Bd to ignore the Bad Goinn effect of the wood renders this tactic seriously bizarre.
The advantage of this interpretation is that you get to treat rivers as they were treated in 2.2, I guess (haven't played 2.2 in nearly a decade though) which means they don't turn up in games, being still mostly unplayable, due to said weirdness, and the Maginot Line defence effect. So you never have to worry about them at all.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 8, 2019 8:48:33 GMT
Actually, I have a great respect for both the DBA 3.0 Development and the FAQ Team, and I follow the FAQ pronouncements diligently, word-for-word. But I simply cannot believe that such a sage and wise body of highly experienced players would deliberately construct the river rules to have the following flaws:- 1) to make it impossible for Alexander’s pikemen to fight their way across rivers...even though they did. 2) to have those defending a riverbank be subject to being ‘quick-killed’ by Knights, but those in the water are not. 3) to have those defending a riverbank in a wood penalized by the -2 for bad going, but those in the water are not. 4) to deliberately disregard the rules AS WRITTEN, and try to apply ‘neither good nor other going’ to combat, when it specifically says to only apply this condition to movement, not combat. 5) and to make rivers unplayable for Pikes and Spears.
I would like to believe that all the above is merely the result of not playtesting the river rules properly prior to publication, or that people are misinterpreting the “For movement only” river rule.
However, if the river rules have been deliberately and purposefully designed to have all the above flaws, then players like myself and my wargaming friends are being forced to “House Rule” the river rules in order to get sensible, historical, and playable rivers in DBA.
Please remember that I am not the villain here. It is not I that is trying to make rivers unplayable. On the contrary...I WANT rivers to be playable. And the best way to avoid all the daft ridiculous effects listed above, AND to play by the rules as-they-are-written, without adding or omitting or changing anything, is to say:- “for combat, rivers are the going of the terrain they pass through, like roads”.
(In fact it is those that want to apply ‘neither good nor other going’ to rivers that are making the “House Rule”. They are the ones changing the wording of the “For movement” river rule and trying to apply it to combat... ...even though the rule quite clearly says don’t do this, but only apply it to movement, not combat)
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 8, 2019 14:55:51 GMT
Please remember that I am not the villain here. You're no villain stevie. You are one of the strongest (and in terms of T-shirts, loudest) supporters of DBA 3. It is a shame that your posts sometimes attract a less than pleasant response. I agree with you that Rivers have to be some type of going for combat. I find it hard to accept that because it is not specifically listed as anything it lives in some kind of limbo, not good, not rough and not bad. Imagine explaining that to a newcomer. But I'm not optimistic the FAQ team will reach any consensus on this topic. So is it time to move this discussion to the House Rules? Cheers Jim PS Now back to The Ashes!
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Sept 8, 2019 16:07:43 GMT
pawsbill, you have been asked three times to demonstrate the flaw in the mathematical reasoning. Would you care to do so? How is it any more or less complete than your mathematical reasoning? The flaw in Stevie's "mathematical reasoning" is obvious. The Pk-Sp combat can only be 3-5 (or 3-6) if the Pk player is very dumb indeed. The Sp player cannot force these odds. The experienced DBA player with an Alex Mac army facing a LAP hiding behind a river would first scout the river, and if it is paltry mexican stand-off the Sp with Pk or Ps (Zoc them, but not engage). It's easy enough to fight the 3Ax and Cv with Pk and 4Ax. If the LAP player wants to use his Sp, he has to get wet too, and we are at 3-4. That is the relevant combat, not an ultra hypothetical 3-5. And ultra-basic, trivial, single element combat probabilities are not that useful to get insight into element types combat capabilities, you need to do probability trees or use some form of Monte Carlo (and even then, the results are partially dependent on the number of element facing each other and definitions for victory conditions). The DBM comunity had realised that 20 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 8, 2019 16:15:32 GMT
What going is a road? The answer is: the going they pass through. Elements moving along it will move differently. But at no point along a road move in a forest is a Bd element NOT subject to the -2 modifier.
Now how wide was a Roman road? I submit not massively narrower than our fordable rivers. (Remember, bigger rivers are represented as Waterway). Ergo, it seems that treating rivers in similar logical fashion (they have special movement effects, and may give a "barrier" bonus in close combat) is the least jarring overall, is the most consistent for newbies, and allows rivers to actually be used in pick-up or tournament ganes without wrecking the game.
I find it hilarious that a great many DBA players will tenaciously defend and justify the river rules as written, but laternwill quietly admit they never use them in open play. Seems weird to me.
Personally, I trust "the market" to show me if a feature or a rule or an army is broken. How many of you who run tournaments actually see rivers being used?
So now you have yet another data point in favour of looking at rivers more closely to see if indeed they are being interpreted correctly, and whether they are indeed working as intended.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 8, 2019 16:19:03 GMT
pawsbill, you have been asked three times to demonstrate the flaw in the mathematical reasoning. Would you care to do so? How is it any more or less complete than your mathematical reasoning? The flaw in Stevie's "mathematical reasoning" is obvious. The Pk-Sp combat can only be 3-5 (or 3-6) if the Pk player is very dumb indeed. The Sp player cannot force these odds. The experienced DBA player with an Alex Mac army facing a LAP hiding behind a river would first scout the river, and if it is paltry mexican stand-off the Sp with Pk or Ps (Zoc them, but not engage). Thanks Arnopov for actually making Stevie's point for him! very well done, mate! And paltry means 3 v 5. Same odds as base Persian 8Bw against Sp. Not a winning formula.
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 8, 2019 16:22:56 GMT
By the way Arnopov, I work with and for professional traders who trade very large capital positions on myltiple risk factors.
A simple model is superior to a complex one (EVERY TIME) due to the compounding model risk. I ask you how exactly will you calibrate your Markov Chain MC model? I assume you will be using Markov Chain MC. If not, what decisioning model are you using on your branch switching?
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 8, 2019 17:02:36 GMT
To further clarify, gamers (amd professional traders) make decisions (take positions) on simple, tractable, clear models. I recall when I first learned about the birth of Operational Research. Decision models needed ti be simple and clear. They needed to be communicated, and able to be acted upon.
Now Arnopov, we await your updated results including your calibration studies as well as your model risk quantification.
In the meantime, I will trust Stevie's analysis as it is tractable and I believe better fits the argument he is trying to make
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 8, 2019 18:09:55 GMT
Arnopov probably won’t rise to your bait...but I would say if it involves numbers and probability, I certainly would think twice about whether it was wise to challenge his analytical abilities. I reaalllly would....😎
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Sept 8, 2019 18:33:40 GMT
What we supposed to analyze odds in game, thought my trusty point at enemy and hope for a miracle was the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 8, 2019 18:40:38 GMT
Very well...make your own calculations. Here's a start:- Blue Die Roll
Red die roll | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 1 | Equal | Red doubled | Red doubled | Red doubled | Red doubled | Red doubled | 2 | Blue doubled | Equal | Red beaten | Red doubled | Red doubled | Red doubled | 3 | Blue doubled | Blue beaten | Equal | Red beaten | Red beaten | Red doubled | 4 | Blue doubled | Blue doubled | Blue beaten | Equal | Red beaten | Red beaten | 5 | Blue doubled | Blue doubled | Blue beaten
| Blue beaten | Equal | Red beaten | 6 | Blue doubled | Blue doubled | Blue doubled | Blue beaten | Blue beaten | Equal |
...now just add on the element's own combat factor, including any bonuses, penalties and overlaps.(Just because you don't like the answers doesn't make them wrong )
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 8, 2019 18:47:35 GMT
But I'm not optimistic the FAQ team will reach any consensus on this topic. So is it time to move this discussion to the House Rules? Cheers Jim I disagree Jim. The “Rants and Raves” section of Fanaticus is for, and I quote:- “...your place to sound off on DBA, the rules, gaming, etc” And that is exactly what I have done. I am asking the FAQ Team to go and discuss the river rules to see which gives the better game, the ‘rivers are neither good nor other going for combat’ interpretation, or ‘rivers are the going they pass through for combat’ interpretation. Moving this thread to the “House Rule” section is just trying to hide the issue ( censorship!). Only if they decide that it is best to have rivers unplayable for Pikes and Spears as well as all the other absurd river effects, or if they cannot come to a unanimous decision (which is what I too expect will happen), will it be necessary to make our own “House Rule” in order to finally get sensible, historical, and playable rivers in DBA.
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:29:41 GMT
But I'm not optimistic the FAQ team will reach any consensus on this topic. So is it time to move this discussion to the House Rules? Cheers Jim I disagree Jim. The “Rants and Raves” section of Fanaticus is for, and I quote:- “...your place to sound off on DBA, the rules, gaming, etc” And that is exactly what I have done. I am asking the FAQ Team to go and discuss the river rules to see which gives the better game, the ‘rivers are neither good nor other going for combat’ interpretation, or ‘rivers are the going they pass through for combat’ interpretation. Moving this thread to the “House Rule” section is just trying to hide the issue ( censorship!). Only if they decide that it is best to have rivers unplayable for Pikes and Spears as well as all the other absurd river effects, or if they cannot come to a unanimous decision (which is what I too expect will happen), will it be necessary to make our own “House Rule” in order to finally get sensible, historical, and playable rivers in DBA. Joe has stated that this will be raised at the next meeting so that's a start. I am going to start a new thread in the House Rules section as primuspilus and macbeth have raised some more issues today. If nothing else, it may give the FAQ team an alternative to discuss. Cheers Jim
|
|