Post by eg407 on Aug 14, 2020 7:59:20 GMT
Hi Stevie,
I see your logic and agree it would make the game simpler, being less convoluted, but I am unclear how exactly it makes the game less realistic. After all we are dealing with a 12-piece abstraction of reality already. The size and footprint of 'units' are rigidly defined unlike reality. Additionally, time is totally abstracted into an I-go-You-go system.
Taking your example above, which I hasten to add the commander of the Ax is really a terrible general to end up in
The Bd, will normally move a lot slower than the Ps. And to make it to the flank they have further to go, and would require an aggressive/micro management from a commander. Hence the need for more Pips to make the movement (something I really like in DBA). So, taking all movement as simultaneous, the Ps come into close combat (+10m distance) with the Ax. The Bd at the same time set off to catch the Ax in the flank. The Ps not only get there first, but there is the possibility that the full weight of the Bd troops has yet to hit the Ax, hence only a -1. I agree, in future rounds a further, cumulative, negative on the Ax would be appropriate, but that makes the game even MORE complex, which is not needed!!
Whereas if the Bd set off first, and get fully into contact with the Ax. While the Ps hold back. Then there is the possibility to turn the Ax troops fully. And provided they don’t recoil under the weight of the Bd’s attack, the Ps can come in and support the Bd (in the player’s next movement phase). And in reality, they probably can do it even if the Ax recoil, provided the General is able to get them moving towards an opponent (PiPs!). Not everyone would be a berserk fanatic, so actually getting men to charge towards an enemy, even one showing their flank, was probably quite a tough job! Whenever thinking about this issue, I am always reminded of the following blog post, which does a good job of explaining it further: scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2015/10/pre-modern-battlefields-were-absolutely.html
EG
I see your logic and agree it would make the game simpler, being less convoluted, but I am unclear how exactly it makes the game less realistic. After all we are dealing with a 12-piece abstraction of reality already. The size and footprint of 'units' are rigidly defined unlike reality. Additionally, time is totally abstracted into an I-go-You-go system.
Taking your example above, which I hasten to add the commander of the Ax is really a terrible general to end up in
The Bd, will normally move a lot slower than the Ps. And to make it to the flank they have further to go, and would require an aggressive/micro management from a commander. Hence the need for more Pips to make the movement (something I really like in DBA). So, taking all movement as simultaneous, the Ps come into close combat (+10m distance) with the Ax. The Bd at the same time set off to catch the Ax in the flank. The Ps not only get there first, but there is the possibility that the full weight of the Bd troops has yet to hit the Ax, hence only a -1. I agree, in future rounds a further, cumulative, negative on the Ax would be appropriate, but that makes the game even MORE complex, which is not needed!!
Whereas if the Bd set off first, and get fully into contact with the Ax. While the Ps hold back. Then there is the possibility to turn the Ax troops fully. And provided they don’t recoil under the weight of the Bd’s attack, the Ps can come in and support the Bd (in the player’s next movement phase). And in reality, they probably can do it even if the Ax recoil, provided the General is able to get them moving towards an opponent (PiPs!). Not everyone would be a berserk fanatic, so actually getting men to charge towards an enemy, even one showing their flank, was probably quite a tough job! Whenever thinking about this issue, I am always reminded of the following blog post, which does a good job of explaining it further: scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2015/10/pre-modern-battlefields-were-absolutely.html
EG
