Post by stevie on Nov 23, 2019 14:51:10 GMT
I did once toy with this idea some time ago Simon.
I came to two different methods:-
a) have the grid in 40mm by 40mm squares, so that everyone recoils 1 BW.
b) have the grid in 20mm by 20mm squares, which would allow both ½ BW
and 1 BW recoils (and all elements occupy two squares).
The problem with method (b) was being at 45° means enemy elements in close
combat will also have to be at 45°, so won’t line-up exactly (i.e. corner-to-corner)
and 45° columns would also not be in a corner-to-corner formation.
Option (a) was better, as at least it allows 45° elements to be aligned, and allows
two foot elements to be in a column within a single square of the grid.
That’s about all I can remember, as I never continued with the concept.
Oh...one more thing.
I remember that I had it that turning 45° or less did not slow your speed, but turning
more than 45° cost 1 BW of movement, so that a Ps fleeing would turn 180° for free
and then flee 3 squares/BW, but trying to get back into position would cost 1 BW to
turn around leaving only 2 squares/BW to move...so they couldn't get back in exactly
the same position in a single bound, just like the measuring system used in the rules.
It also means that troops that only move 1 square/BW in rough or bad going couldn't
hard-flank an enemy unless they started in a 45° overlap position...again, just like the
Post by stevie on Nov 23, 2019 20:56:01 GMT
Thanks for that link Simon
...an excellent find.
However, there is one thing that both John of JohnsWargames and myself have omitted...
...having a single one of your elements using their Threat Zone to pin two enemy elements.
(Important when trying to defend a wing with inferior forces, or to prevent being hard-flanked)
This could be done by using what I call ‘overhang’, where an element in a grid square is allowed
to have a tiny part of itself ‘overhanging’ into an adjacent empty square to its side as a visual aid
indicating that it is pinning two enemy elements with its TZ, like this:-The * shows 'Z' overhanging into the adjacent square
Here element ‘Z
’ is pinning Cavalry ‘A
’ and ‘B
’, as well as preventing ‘A
’ from hard-flanking as
it is not beyond the line of ‘Z’s
’ flank edge...but Cavalry element ‘C
Of course, once in close combat, elements have to align corner-to-corner, and any ‘overhang’
And getting rid of any 45° orientation would look better and be simpler, but I need to do some
calculations in order to get roughly the same effect as the measuring system (perhaps, unlike
DBA, allow the end element of a wheeling line to use its full movement and not be restricted
to moving at the speed of the slowest, so that the right kind of 3 element line can wheel 90°).
Although troops with a movement of only 1 BW should not be allowed to go from an overlap
to a hard flanking position in a single bound...but that can be simulated by saying they must
start in mutual side-edge contact as they spend their one-and-only 1 BW move to turn 90°.
I am really glad you brought this subject up, as I have fat fingers and hands like a bunch of
bananas, and I too detest ‘micro-measuring’. So this grid concept is well worth looking into.(And, as I’ve said before, they say that people with big hands have a big...er...heart! )
Post by Simon on Nov 24, 2019 11:00:29 GMT
Hmmm...I don’t think so Snowcat
You have to pre-measure Command Range (or how many PIPs can you spend?).
You have to pre-measure Shooting Ranges (or that target may not be eligible).
You have to pre-measure Threat Zones (or you may be moving where you shouldn’t).
...hell, you might as well pre-measure everything.
It’s not as if it gives people an advantage, as both players will be doing it.
... although in practice I'd say that most distances are fairly obvious by eye and pre-measurement isn't always necessary.
Post by stevie on Nov 25, 2019 9:48:08 GMT
I have tried hexagons, both large containing an entire element and small so that an
element spans two hexagons, and
both large and small ‘off-set squares’ (which act
like hexagons), and
both large and small chequerboard squares, and
even a pattern
of simple dots for orientating each element’s corner with (which was a bugger to count
to determine distance and ended up looking like a galactic star-chart from the starship
is right...you need 45° orientation, or the distortions when turning and
wheeling are too great and become unacceptable.
The best that I have come up with is small 20mm chequerboard squares where elements
are orientated by having them with both their front-edge and one front-corner in contact
with the grid square corners.
This shows great promise so far.
Once I have perfected the system, and fully playtested it, I intend to bung it all together in
a single document (with copious example diagrams of course) and place it in the Fanaticus
Wiki for easy reference.
Leave it with me. 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 Vic on Nov 25, 2019 10:29:07 GMT
I think there's a basic incompatibility between DBA's combat system, which is focused on elements directly in front of other elements, and what's more practical in grid-based systems, which is to walk away from squares and embrace hexagons.
Any square-based game will find serious problems trying to reflect manoeuvres, as stevie
points out for 45 degree turns. The square grid severely distorts movement on the plane, and correcting it in a manner that still reflects "grid-less" movements is far from trivial or convenient in the middle of a game (it essentially boils down to the difference between Manhattan and Euclidean distance metrics, complicated by restricting valid positions to a finite set in a grid). Honestly, I think it'd be probably easier to restrict positions to parallel and perpendicular to the board edges and limit other movements to a reduced list.
Something like this:
- A square grid, with square sides of 1/2 BW
- Elements all have a frontage of 2 squares, and a depth of as many squares as needed to fit their normal DBA bases (i.e. 2x1 for most solid or fast foot, 2x2 for cavalry, hordes, artillery, elephants or double-based foot, 2x3 for double-based cavalry, 2x2 or 2x4 for war wagons, etc.)
- Elements can only be positioned astride two contiguous squares, so the only orientations allowed are parallel or perpendicular to the board edges; no 45º turn allowed (or any other turn except 90º or 180º)
- Movement allowances are translated to "movement points" (MPs), equal to 2 x the number of BWs the element can move
- Individual elements are only allowed to move doing one of the following "steps":
· Move 1 square straight forwards or backwards without changing facing, at a cost of 1 MP
· Slide 1 square laterally without changing facing, at a cost of 1 MP
· Turn around in place, occupying the same squares but facing in the opposite direction, at a cost of 1 MP + the element's base depth
· Move 1 square diagonally, either left or right and either forwards or backwards, without changing facing, at a cost of 1.5 MP
· Pivot over one corner, turning 90º over one of the frontal squares so that the front ends perpendicular to the starting position, and either forwards or backwards, at a cost of 3 MP
Therefore, the element's movement will be composed of a sequence of such steps up to its movement allowance in MPs.
- Groups are further restricted; their only allowed steps are
· Move 1 square straight ahead without changing facing, at a cost of 1 MP
· Move max. 1 square diagonally only once per movement phase, forwards and either left or right, at a cost of 2 MP
· Pivot over one corner of the group, turning 90º over one of the corner squares of the front line of the group, and forwards (not backwards) at a cost of 3 MP * width of the group in elements
- Columns are restricted in the same way as other groups, but they can be moved as a 1-element-wide group (the lead element) with other elements following behind step by step. Columns may cease to be columns if only part of the elements can do a certain diagonal or pivot.
· Recoil, pursuit and flight distances are similarly converted to MPs (1 MP = 1/2 BW).
· Threat Zone affects the 2x2 area directly in front of an element, and works as usual.
Post by stevie on Nov 25, 2019 13:16:55 GMT
Hexes have their own inherent problems.
A line going say North-to-South have their edges touching, so is in a group.
The same goes for a line going from NW-to-SE or from NE-to-SW.
But a line going from East-to-West is in a zig-zag line (and one of the elements
will be jutting forwards where it could be individually attacked)...not to mention
the ‘drunken walk’ when moving East-to-West...
Having elements spanning two hexes does not alleviate this problem.
Plus there are issues with ‘lining-up’ in close combat, corner-to-corner.
The fact is the DBA conforming requirements on page 9 are intended for a square
grid-like 90° system, and not a Hex based 60° format.
For 90° orientation, I’m thinking along the same lines as yourself Vic
But I’ll tell you what...I’ll add the two systems in the final “Grid Document”:-
A simple 90° only orientation (that causes some distortions when turning and wheeling)...
And an advanced 45° orientation (a bit more complex, but also a bit more accurate)...
...and let players decide for themselves which they prefer.
Post by wjhupp on Nov 25, 2019 13:38:56 GMT
Having played a lot of grid systems, they are much easier for new players and the games move along faster. However, as your discussion has shown, you pretty much have to abandon the group movement process and other fiddly aspects of movement and combat. Going the other way, there are many DBA concepts that can be dropped into a movement grid game IMHO.