|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 3:55:08 GMT
So many of us have followed the debate surrounding the rules on rivers and their "Going" for combat. At least everybody agrees about their "Going" for movement!
So I am considering using this chart to determine the river "Going" for combat:
Nature of the River (dice roll) Going surrounding the River Combat Going of elements within the River
Paltry (dice 1-2) Good Good
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Good Rough
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Good Bad
Paltry (dice 1-2) Rough Rough
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Rough Rough
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Rough Bad
Paltry (dice 1-2) Bad Bad
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Bad Bad
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Bad Bad
This uses concepts already in the rules:
- the dice roll for the nature of the river
- the going rules for the only other linear feature, "Roads"
It seems to use common sense, which we are told PB expects us to use with his rules. (paddy wrote about the actual width of rivers on the other post so really, they should be much thinner than the areas covered by our bases.)
It removes the "limbo" going regarding Rivers in Combat.
And finally, there should be no issues to simulate Issus. PB writes in his book on Alexander's campaigns that he considered the Issus river a minor obstacle only (in this table a Paltry River in Good Going).
Love to hear people's thoughts.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 10, 2019 7:44:33 GMT
So many of us have followed the debate surrounding the rules on rivers and their "Going" for combat. At least everybody agrees about their "Going" for movement! So I am considering using this chart to determine the river "Going" for combat: Nature of the River (dice roll) Going surrounding the River Combat Going of elements within the River
Paltry (dice 1-2) Good Good
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Good Rough
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Good Bad
Paltry (dice 1-2) Rough Rough
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Rough Rough
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Rough Bad
Paltry (dice 1-2) Bad Bad
"Normal" (dice 3-4) Bad Bad
"Difficult" (dice 5-6) Bad Bad
This uses concepts already in the rules:
- the dice roll for the nature of the river
- the going rules for the only other linear feature, "Roads"
It seems to use common sense, which we are told PB expects us to use with his rules. (paddy wrote about the actual width of rivers on the other post so really, they should be much thinner than the areas covered by our bases.)
It removes the "limbo" going regarding Rivers in Combat.
And finally, there should be no issues to simulate Issus. PB writes in his book on Alexander's campaigns that he considered the Issus river a minor obstacle only (in this table a Paltry River in Good Going).
Love to hear people's thoughts.
Cheers
JimI like this and had been thinking along the same lines. The river is good/rough/bad going overall according to the dice throw and uses the current rules for the crossing and having defensive banks etc. In addition, where a river crosses area terrain, at that point it is the same going as the terrian it is crossing. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2019 8:56:37 GMT
To put your suggestion into a simpler easier to remember form Jim:-
1-2 = a Paltry River (good going for combat, except where it enters rough/bad going).
3-4 = a Shallow River (rough going for combat, except where it enters bad going).
5-6 = a Deep River (bad going for combat, no matter what terrain it passes through).
Anything deeper is a Waterway, and is impassable.
This will make Paltry Rivers fairly easy to fight over (no riverbank bonus remember),
but it will make Deep Rivers even worse than they are at the moment (-2 penalty
to most troops for being in bad going AND the riverbank bonus).
|
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 10, 2019 13:20:33 GMT
To put your suggestion into a simpler easier to remember form Jim:- 1-2 = a Paltry River (good going for combat, except where it enters rough/bad going). 3-4 = a Shallow River (rough going for combat, except where it enters bad going). 5-6 = a Deep River (bad going for combat, no matter what terrain it passes through). Anything deeper is a Waterway, and is impassable. This will make Paltry Rivers fairly easy to fight over (no riverbank bonus remember), but it will make Deep Rivers even worse than they are at the moment (-2 penalty to most troops for being in bad going AND the riverbank bonus). Brilliant stevie! Saw the huge hole in this solution. 33% chance of an unplayable river. So back to the drawing board... A River is considered Rough Going for combat unless: - it is a Paltry River (dice roll 1-2) and in Good Going, in which case it is Good Going - it is a Deep River (dice roll 5-6) and in Bad Going, in which case it is Bad Going This makes Rivers in Bad Going a little unusual, in that the Going around the river is more likely to be Rough than Bad. I don't mind this as it may simulate the clearing of terrain at the site of the River. An alternative would be to have all Rivers in Bad Going as Bad Going. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2019 16:54:58 GMT
Hmmm...may I suggest a different approach to rivers Jim.
Let’s let history be our guide.
There are some modern-day armchair military theorists that find it difficult to believe that Pikes
and Spears could maintain their formation when fighting their way over rivers (even though
Alexander’s Phalangites did so at the Battle of Issus). And for all I know they may well be right.
That’s why I prefer to rely on the ancient historical accounts of what actually did happen.
Now near me is a very deep and wide river called The River Trent. This river is so deep and wide
it has no shallow or fordable stretches along it, so we only have one bridge when me and my
mates want to go on a pub crawl south of the Trent to the little villages of Gotham and Thrumpton
(yes...that’s Batman’s ‘Gotham City’...and the children’s town of ‘Trumpton’...
...with Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, and Grubb).
And that’s my point.
Ancient Generals, even barbarian ones, were not stupid.
When they were faced with a very difficult and almost impossible river, they didn’t try to cross it there.
They just marched up or down stream until they found an easier safer place to cross it.
That’s what rivers should be in DBA...places where our generals have found somewhere they can cross.
In fact, the mere act of deploying our troops on the wargames table shows that the river is crossable,
or we wouldn’t even be deploying there if it weren’t!
With this in mind, ALL rivers in DBA should be crossable. And the easiest and simplest way of doing this?
“For combat, rivers are the going of the terrain they pass through, but not for movement”.
The difficult and impassable stretches of water, that prevent side and rear support, are off the table,
further up or down the river.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Sept 10, 2019 20:31:51 GMT
Just to be clear Stevie, is this dispensing with throwing the dice to see what sort of river it is? Also what happens to the +1 for defending a bank?
Cheers
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 10, 2019 21:28:00 GMT
Oh, troops in a river should be penalized in some way Simon...and in DBA they are. Those in a non-Paltry river give their opponents a +1 for the riverbank bonus. Jim is suggesting the three different rivers have three different types of going as well. I’m suggesting all rivers should have the same going as the terrain they pass through, which was first thought of by Paddy, as well as the riverbank bonus. And really, Really, REALLY hindering rivers shouldn’t be on the table at all, because generals in reality would just march on to find an easier crossing point. (Ok...Hannibal did fight his way over the very deep, wide, and fast flowing Rhone River
in 218 BC. But he used hastily constructed rafts, and a wide off-table outflanking move.
So if you want him to cross a DBA Waterway, then give him the right tools to do the job.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rhone_Crossing ) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 0:28:54 GMT
Oh, troops in a river should be penalized in some way Simon...and in DBA they are. Those in a non-Paltry river give their opponents a +1 for the riverbank bonus. Jim is suggesting the three different rivers have three different types of going as well. I’m suggesting all rivers should have the same going as the terrain they pass through, which was first thought of by Paddy, as well as the riverbank bonus. And really, Really, REALLY hindering rivers shouldn’t be on the table at all, because generals in reality would just march on to find an easier crossing point. (Ok...Hannibal did fight his way over the very deep, wide, and fast flowing Rhone River
in 218 BC. But he used hastily constructed rafts, and a wide off-table outflanking move.
So if you want him to cross a DBA Waterway, then give him the right tools to do the job.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rhone_Crossing )But Arrian says this regarding the Battle of the Hydaspes: " Besides at this season all the Indian rivers were flowing with swollen and turbid waters and with rapid currents; for it was the time of year when the sun is wont to turn towards the summer solstice.[3] At this season incessant and heavy rain falls in India; and the snows on the Caucasus, whence most of the rivers have their sources, melt and swell their streams to a great degree. But in the winter they again subside, become small and clear, and are fordable in certain places, with the exception of the Indus, Ganges, and perhaps one or two others. At any rate the Hydaspes becomes fordable." I mean Alexander did camp in Good Going. So why march 20km downstream and cross? He left Craterus back in the camp and he crossed with his forces against opposition as did other officers left along the bank after they perceived that Alexander had "won a brilliant victory". The Hydaspes River is thought to be the Jhelum River. You can Google image the River. It will show its various natures. Alexander fought this battle in monsoon season. I just can't imagine the following scenario: " Right boys. This river is fast, deep and tricky. So into column of march to cross it so we can stay together." " But sir. What if we are attacked?" " No problem. Stay in the water. Form up in line of battle. We can fight normally in the current and chest high water with armour." " What if we have to take the steep, slippery, rocky bank?" " It's a bit like fighting uphill and we've done that before" It just doesn't seem right to me. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 0:32:46 GMT
Jim is suggesting the three different rivers have three different types of going as well. I’m suggesting all rivers should have the same going as the terrain they pass through, which was first thought of by Paddy, as well as the riverbank bonus. Actually, your first post made me change my original suggestion. I'm suggesting Rivers are Rough going most of the time, except Paltry rivers in Good Going or any rivers in Bad Going (for simplicity). We worry a lot about the Spears and Pikes. What about the armies that are mostly Ps/Ax? Surely if they are being invaded they would like a River to try and protect them? They don't want to be speed humps all the time do they? Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 11, 2019 6:45:33 GMT
We have to be a bit practical here Jim. If I am invading with a Pike or Spear army, and my defending opponent plops a river onto the table that strips away my side/rear support, then I will simply refuse to cross it. “Are you going to advance over the river?” “No, are you?” “No, I ain't gonna cross it either...” You might as well pack up and go down the pub! (This used to annoy the hell out of my mates...then the buggers started doing the same to me!
The result?...rivers never got used)Pikes and Spears need an incentive to enter a river...and offering them suicide isn’t it. Otherwise, rivers become unplayable and break the game (although pub landlords love ‘em!) And I don’t think that the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC is a good example. All the fighting occurred after Alexander had crossed the river...he didn’t fight his way across. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes ) |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 7:51:24 GMT
We have to be a bit practical here Jim. If I am invading with a Pike or Spear army, and my defending opponent plops a river onto the table that strips away my side/rear support, then I will simply refuse to cross it. “Are you going to advance over the river?” “No, are you?” “No, I ain't gonna to cross it either...” You might as well pack up and go down the pub! (This used to annoy the hell out of my mates...then the buggers started doing the same to me!
The result?...rivers never got used)Pikes and Spears need an incentive to enter a river...and offering them suicide isn’t it. Otherwise, rivers become unplayable and break the game (although pub landlords love ‘em!) And I don’t think that the Battle of the Hydaspes in 326 BC is a good example. All the fighting occurred after Alexander had crossed the river...he didn’t fight his way across. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes ) Well... - you could invade along the length of the river and you get to deploy after your opponent - if he puts a road then you can deploy on the closer side and try and get to the river first - or you can play on the larger boards (I know you like to give the invader the choice of boards) and try and deploy with a force somewhere to force a crossing But if you like playing Early Spartans like me you are probably going to have to tough it out. But then again, I can't find a report of the Spartans forcing a river crossing in a major battle. I don't think this breaks the game. (But I have heard worse excuses for a beer). It does make Spears and Pikes more challenging. But it also gives light armies a chance against them. Cheers Jim |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Sept 11, 2019 7:55:48 GMT
As for the Hydaspes, you could have the river lengthwise along one side, with Alexander and Porus facing off with the bulk of the forces, and two detachments on either side of the river to represent Craterus and the covering Indian troops.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 11, 2019 8:32:02 GMT
Remember that Spears never pursue, so even with side-support in a river they’ll have a tough time.
They may drive the enemy back, but they’ll just advance to the riverbank once more in the following bound.
(PIP’s permitting of course)
Anyway, I don’t think Greece was noted for having deep rivers (nor Ionian Asia Minor for that matter).
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 11, 2019 23:38:57 GMT
Hydaspes could be modelled with Alexander performing a Littoral landing.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Sept 12, 2019 2:00:03 GMT
To be clear, the gist of the discussion seems no longer "what do the rules say?" but rather "what SHOULD the rules say" about rivers.
|
|
