|
|
Post by paulisper on Jul 9, 2020 20:31:15 GMT
I'm also very interested in what people think the rule should be. My playtesters don't like the idea of allowing an Recoiling element to slide along the front edge of on opposing element as this is not permitted generally. Should contact with an enemy element Destroy Recoilers? Even if they can start the Recoil? TomT No. P |
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Jul 9, 2020 23:50:34 GMT
The thought comes to my mind is that the rules are an approximation of what we regard as being reality. They model, as a discrete series of events, something in reality that would be a continuous process. The situation being modelled here is what happens to the chariots recoiling from the gladiators with cavalry flanking their intended recoil path. If the cavalry were not present, the recoil would be made without issue. What interaction occurs (if any) between the chariots and the cavalry? The recoil identifies a reduction of control with the chariots, who are in a state of deciding whether they need some breathing space before returning to the fray or want to head for the hills. It is not a good moment for them and to compound matters they might also have seen the cavalry to increase their disquiet.
While the chariots are deciding, the Roman cavalry prefect is just congratulating his men for making the other chariots withdraw. To his amazement, in some disarray, more chariots move past his front. Are the cavalry suprised into inactivity; restrict themselves to a volley of javelins or advance into this new target to continue their earlier mayhem? Are they aware the chariots they face are two different units and not a single swirling mass? As it was a Roman initiated attack, the physics would suggest the cavalry momentum carries them into the new target, the prefect urging his men and mounts onto greater glory. This puts the chariots into a nasty position, they need to retain enough cohesion to turn and face a new enemy to their flank or their recoil becomes a rout. Being irregular troops, already under pressure, I see the surviving chariots running for safety when their unit cohesion falls apart!
We need to realise both chariots and cavalry are moving simultaneously. It is not a set of discrete positions where time stops and starts depending on which move or phase it might be.
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Jul 13, 2020 21:59:43 GMT
Actually, michealw, in a previous discussion it was noted that CV don't advance after combat. The presumption being that they were more disciplined than KN and would be regrouping and redressing their ranks.
Therefore, they would not automatically come into contact with the chariot unit, and in fact seeing the chariots falling back would probably increase the need for the unit to reform to enable the CV to make a concerted attck.
Meanwhile the chariots would be withdrawing with an eye to the new threat on their flank which is reflected by the chariots turning to face at the end of their recoil.
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 10, 2020 5:44:58 GMT
Late here, just found this. An element can not recoil and then be destroyed. It is destroyed immediately if it is flanked, or if it cannot recoil at all.
An element can recoil into having its side edge in contact with enemy front edge and is not automatically destroyed.
"An element that has an enemy front edge in contact with its side or rear edge (not corner Bob) is destroyed by recoiling, being pushed back, fleeing or being in a column whose front element is destroyed."
A flanked element does not recoil and then be destroyed if ending in flanked position. It is destroyed by a recoil outcome. If there is no side edge flank contact at the time of the combat, the loser can recoil into a new position (if it is not hemmed in). Once an element completes its recoil, it remains there, no turn. "Recoiling or pushed back elements move straight back without turning. "
So in the next bound, the recoiled element is in close combat with the Cv It cannot move as moves "can be by a single element or a group of elements, but cannot include any element currently in close combat."
At the end of all movement, "Immediately after the movement phase, elements contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first enemy element to contact them unless they are already in full front edge contact with another enemy element or providing rear support. The only interpretation is whether "contacted" must be active or can it be passive. That is to say, can it mean an element is "in contact with an element to its flank?"
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 10, 2020 10:35:54 GMT
At the end of all movement, "Immediately after the movement phase, elements contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first enemy element to contact them unless they are already in full front edge contact with another enemy element or providing rear support." The only interpretation is whether "contacted" must be active or can it be passive. That is to say, can it mean an element is "in contact with an element to its flank?" I think it does Bob. As I always say, put yourself in an ancient warrior’s shoes. If you recoil from an opponent who doesn’t pursue and find yourself in contact with another enemy, your first priority will be to turn-to-face this new opponent. (Either that or get slaughtered because you’re facing the wrong way...) |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 10, 2020 22:50:39 GMT
Rather than put myself in the ancient warrior's shoes, I prefer to put my self into the rules:) Different warriors wear different shoes. The rules say that ""Recoiling or pushed back elements move straight back without turning. " The rules player knows that in his bound he will get a chance to respond.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 11, 2020 4:28:18 GMT
Doesn’t The Great Purple Bible say in the very last sentence of Moving Into Contact on page 9:-
“Elements contacted this bound by (an) enemy, or whose front-edge is
still in contact when combat ends, automatically conform if necessary.”
However this is contradicted by:-
“Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p.10), contacted elements conform at contact.”
And Turning To Face on page 10 says:-
“Immediately after the movement phase, elements contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front-edge
turn to face the first enemy element to contact them (unless they are already in full front-edge contact
with another enemy element, or providing rear-support) (see figure 14a).”
On the other hand, Pursuing on page 12 says:-
“If a pursuing element’s front-edge contacts (an) enemy, or its front-corner contacts an enemy front-edge,
they line up immediately (i.e. they must try to conform, if they can) as if contact was by a tactical move,
but the resulting combat is resolved next bound.”
(Thus pursuers line up immediately...one would have thought that recoilers running into an enemy front-edge
would do the same instead of having to wait before turning)
So strict adherence to scripture says we must artificially wait until the next bound to turn-to-face an
accidental flank attack following a recoil instead of using good old common sense and turn immediately...
...but the effect is pretty much the same.
(I’ve always thought things would be much easier, simpler, and more realistic to have turning-to-face happening
instantaneously on contact instead of this arbitrary, artificial and unnecessarily complicated waiting-to-turn business...
...but then again, I didn’t write the rules)
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Aug 12, 2020 17:38:58 GMT
(I’ve always thought things would be much easier, simpler, and more realistic to have turning-to-face happening
instantaneously on contact instead of this arbitrary, artificial and unnecessarily complicated waiting-to-turn business...
...but then again, I didn’t write the rules)
I wondered this too Stevie and of course have the power to do this. Have fixed Flank contact "attacks" by a different method as this is an ongoing DBX problem. However, immediate turning might be an easier solution. It still does not fix the problem of an ongoing melee to front left over from last bound and now your Knight charges into their flank only to find you might as well have had a Ps element toss a few javelins in for all your tactical brilliance accomplished. But very tempted to add this rule to latest edition. Keep up the good work... TomT |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Aug 12, 2020 22:49:11 GMT
Those who like the immediate turn rule might well go back to the Original DBA. That text was
" An element not ready in frontal contact which is contacted to flank or rear turns to face."
This was generally interpreted to mean "turn immediately."
Phil did not mean this, so in the 1995 changed rule to "An element not ready in frontal contact which is contacted to flank or rear turns to face at the end of the movement phase."
By 2 this was further modified to
"Elements not in mutual front edge contact with an enemy element but contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first to so contact at the end of the movement phase, the contactor making room. "
and now we have
"Immediately after the movement phase, elements contacted to flank or rear by an enemy front edge turn to face the first enemy element to contact them unless they are already in full front edge contact with another enemy element or providing rear support. Any existing contacts are adjusted by moving the elements forward, back or the minimum distance sideways to maintain contact. "
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 13, 2020 6:59:12 GMT
What I dislike about the waiting-to-turn procedure, apart from it being totally artificial and
overly complex, is it completely eliminates the real world concept of ‘distraction’.
(How many times in films and TV shows do the characters say “we need a distraction”)
Having turning-to-face happening immediately on contact is not only simpler (as it is
universally applied in ALL situations, without the need for arbitrary exceptions), it also
adds distracting the enemy by forcing them to turn to face a particular threat, thus
making breakthroughs in the centre and flank attacks more decisive, thereby increasing
the need for reserves and more historical looking formations.
With the present unrealistic wait-to-turn rule, it is impossible to ‘distract’ the enemy by
forcing them to turn straight away, and so cause their Threat Zone to move with them.
It actively eliminates ‘distraction’, and so artificially protects flanked units, making them
a bit more resilient and a bit less vulnerable.
This is fine in a ‘game’, where the rules must be followed, no matter how daft they are...
...but it’s not a good simulation of real world combat.
|
|
|
|
Post by eg407 on Aug 13, 2020 8:00:16 GMT
Hi Stevie,
I hope you're not suggesting that TV shows and movies provide realistic depictions of ancient and medieval combat
While I agree that the rule is probably overly complex and certainly not helped by the Barkerise wording. I do quite like it and am not exactly sure what you are struggling with. Don't forget, we are conceptualising 100s if not 1000s of men. They would not, in reality, be able to turn on a dime and within an instant.
Also, it is very easy to get a flanked element to turn. You just don't put anything into the front edge combat. Therefore, at the end of the movement phase, it will turn. And you have caused the line to fracture. Now, if you do put an element in front but not in frontal combat, so the opponent’s element is within the ZOC, then in their movement you give them the chance to realign to their front (assuming your element recoiled). If not, then they cannot turn back and re-join the main battle line. They are held by the ZOC of your flanking element. And so, in your next movement phase, you can attack the main line and will likely have an advantage, because you turned the end element. It is all a point of timing and context. I like to picture initially not all of the men turn, some remain facing a previous, but as yet un-materialised threat. But once the opponent’s movement phase is completed, then the whole body of troops has re-aligned to face the threat trying to flank the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 13, 2020 9:23:31 GMT
Ha!, of course not.  But if lazy script writers can understand the concept of distracting the enemy, why does DBA try to pretend it can’t possibly happen in a real life battle? And distracting the enemy has always been a major part of warfare, be it ancient, medieval, Napoleonic or modern warfare. Take Knights for example, who in DBA are capable of smashing through certain opponents when they charge them frontally, but for some reason are reduced to merely throwing insults and chucking a few javelins as if they were lowly Psiloi when they charge a vulnerable open flank. One would have thought that in such a situation they would be MORE deadly, not LESS. How do you feel about the following scenario?:- Ax
Bd Ps
Under the present system, if both red elements engage the blue Ax, the CF is 2 each. On the other hand, if the Bd hit the Ax flank first, ‘distracting’ them by forcing them to immediately turn-to-face, and then the Ps moves in, the resulting CF factors will be CF 5 v CF 2. Which seems more realistic...the Ax turning straight away to face the greatest threat, or totally ignoring the flank attack because they fear the skirmishing Ps to their front? (In reality they’d probably try to do both...but our bases can only face one direction)Remember, immediately turning-to-face is not taking anything away...it is actually ADDING something that is currently missing, that of ‘distracting’ the enemy. In the above scenario, the red player could still move the Ps in first, and then move the Bd into the flank later, just as they do now, which causes no turning as the Ax will already be frontally engaged. In effect, immediately turning-to-face gives the player who’s bound it is the initiative, and allows them to control the combat, instead of having their most powerful elements artificially and unrealistically reduced to a mere -1 combat penalty. It would also solve weird combat situations like recoiling into an enemy front-edge. AND it would make the rules simpler and easier to remember. What’s not to like?  |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Aug 13, 2020 14:48:52 GMT
Hi Stevie, well in your example... if red spends just one pip (group move) then CF is just 2:2 right. If red wants your CF of 5:2, well red has to spend 2 pips (Single moves) right? So in my opinion it is absolutely ok having these two tactical options. So if you (the general) are in good command of your troops... spend 2 pips and let the Bd fight! If your troops are in a bad command situation (just one pip left) your Ps has to bare the main fight! Nice and simple and in my opinion even quite realistic. Cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 13, 2020 23:34:44 GMT
Actually Ronald:-
* if the reds move forwards as a group for 1 PIP, the combat will be CF 2 v CF 2
due to the corner-to-corner overlap, and the Ax can recoil.
* if the reds spend 2 PIPs, the Bd can flank-attack the Ax...the CF will still be 2 each,
but the the Ax won’t be able to recoil (and the Bd has been neutered from a combat
factor of 5 to being merely a -1 penalty, as if they had suddenly become Psiloi).
Why should Blades become as weak as Psiloi just because they are attacking a flank?
Is it simply because a poorly thought out rule says so?
On the other hand, if the Blades make their flank-attack first, and the Ax had to turn-to-face
them instantly on contact, then the Blades would fight at full strength and not be neutered,
and the Psiloi could join in once the Ax had been distracted and turned by the Blade flank
attack, thus making the combat CF 5 v CF 2, all in a single bound...without having to neuter
the Blades (which seems to me to be far more realistic than artificially weakening the Blades).
The DBA 3.0 wait-to-turn procedure appears to be nothing more than a convoluted complicated
and contrived artificial way of making close combat as unrealistic as possible.
Still, it’s what the rules say, and to hell with realism...
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 14, 2020 7:48:44 GMT
Here are some further thoughts for those that remain unconvinced (and there will be many...
...especially those that think that DBA is perfect just as it is).
* When a single element all on its own attacks an enemy flank, that enemy will turn-to-face
once the Movement Phase has been completed, and both parties will fight at full strength.
* When an element contacts an enemy’s front, and at the same time another friendly element
simultaneously contacts that same enemy’s flank, one party will fight at full strength while
the other party suffers a -1 combat penalty (as you’d expect...the flanked element is at a
tactical disadvantage by having to fight two opponents, one of which is supporting the attack).
* However, when a weak element attacks the front of an enemy, and another powerful unit
simultaneously contacts that same enemy’s flank, the attackers find their combat factor
much reduced, as the flankers (no matter how powerful they are) are nothing more than
-1 combat penalty.
So having a second supporting element can actually make your attack WEAKER instead of STRONGER.
Where in the whole of military history is there an example of friendly support making you weaker?
Only in DBA.
Now let’s look at another absurdity.
Imagine a group of two elements in a line contacting a single enemy’s flank, but the front corners
do not touch. Contrary to popular belief this IS a legal contact, as Moving Into Contact on page 9
says “at the end of the bound’s movement phase elements must be lined up”, and as it happens
single elements must do the conforming when contacted by a group.
But how can the single element conform if it’s not allowed to turn-to-face just yet?
Well, you have to go through the rigmarole of first moving the single element (without turning)
so that its front-corner does touch a front-corner of the group, and then after the Move Phase
has ended move it again as it turns-to-face its opponents.
Much easier, simpler and quicker is to use common sense and turn it immediately on contact.
I’m sorry but every scenario I can think of has immediate turning-to-face far superior and more
realistic than this convoluted and artificial waiting-to-turn procedure.
So why do we do it?
Because it’s in the rules...and NOT because it makes things better.
Wargame rules are supposed to simulate real life combat on our wargames table.
And waiting-to-turn just makes things worse.
|
|
