|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 24, 2023 18:25:25 GMT
Another one. A variation:  Again the knights of the Teutonic Order attack first. What happens now? That is a really interesting question - and the honest answer is that I don't know. I don't think this precise situation is covered by the rules. I'm going to suggest that the Polish Kn turns to face and that the Kn at the front of the column moves forward to allow this to happen. The leading Sp moves behind the Kn, but the LH - which started in legal contact with the Sp moves back and across so that it ends in front edge to rear edge contact with the Sp which then turns to face. (So it and the second Polish Kn end up back to back.) Then the 2nd and 3rd Sp move forward to close the gap which has appeared in the column and turn to face the right-hand Teutonic Kn. Another option would be to have the Polish Kn turn to face - again moving the front element of the column forwards slightly. Then the leading two Sp turn to face the LH which has made legal front corner to front corner contact with the first Sp and the third Sp is pushed back. Then the right-hand Teutonic Kn moves forwards to maintain contact with the Sp, hitting the rear edge of the second one and causing it to turn to face. (But also putting the Kn in close combat with the front edge of the third Sp touching its side edge, which would mean it is destroyed if it loses the combat.) Frankly it's a bit of a mess either way - and I dare say there are other possible solutions. PS Are you sure those Poles aren't East Friesians? |
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Jul 24, 2023 21:39:40 GMT
menacussecundus The right hand Teutonic Kn just seems wrong to me , contacting 4 elements none of them legally rule wise ?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 25, 2023 6:35:29 GMT
menacussecundus The right hand Teutonic Kn just seems wrong to me , contacting 4 elements none of them legally rule wise ? That's because you are looking at it as a single element rather than as part of a group - a tree rather than a wood, as it were. I believe the move is legal because "at the end of the bound's movement phase the contacting element or at least one element of a contacting group" is lined up etc etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jul 25, 2023 7:19:21 GMT
menacussecundus The right hand Teutonic Kn just seems wrong to me , contacting 4 elements none of them legally rule wise ? That's because the two knights moved as a group and the first of them made legal contact. |
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Jul 25, 2023 8:25:28 GMT
All I’ll say is that the Poles deserve everything that’s coming their way… 😱😂
P
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jul 25, 2023 15:45:50 GMT
All I’ll say is that the Poles deserve everything that’s coming their way… 😱😂 P Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
Hi paulisper!
Well, one thing I learned in life as well as in DBA is this:
sh... happens, and maybe the Early Poles simply suffer under a weak
general AND an unlucky chain of PIP rolls, we just don't know–but
maybe you get the picture...
Nevertheless to me this topic of attacks on columns is very interesting.
Seems we spotted another weakness in our beloved DBA rules.
As menacussecundus pointed out: a simple situation leads to many problems,
and even different solutions, and somehow nothing seems right: as he said,
it's a bit of a mess either way. Thanks to hodsopa we now may think on these problems.
Another thing that puzzles me is this: in historical battles the sudden attack on
marching columns had devastating effects. (See the battle of Rossbach)
In contrast to this I think that the Poles in my small examples fare even too well...
What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by hodsopa on Jul 25, 2023 16:06:24 GMT
Depending on the source you read, the battle of Ula (Lithuanians defeating Russians, 1564) was another attack that did not go well for a marching column.
I don't have a strong view here on what the rule should be, just that it should be clear.
I have also made my peace with the rule that if a column is of three or more and the front unit is recoiled, it is destroyed instead. But it should be signposted more clearly because it is not intuitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jul 25, 2023 21:13:41 GMT
Depending on the source you read, the battle of Ula (Lithuanians defeating Russians, 1564) was another attack that did not go well for a marching column. I don't have a strong view here on what the rule should be, just that it should be clear. I have also made my peace with the rule that if a column is of three or more and the front unit is recoiled, it is destroyed instead. But it should be signposted more clearly because it is not intuitive.  Clarity is one thing which is clearly missing in the purple book.  |
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jul 27, 2023 13:08:21 GMT
Another one. A variation: Again the knights of the Teutonic Order attack first. What happens now? Now I tried to work this out properly for myself, strictly according to these quoted rules:
1. [TURNING TO FACE] 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. (p.10) 2. Any existing contacts are adjusted by moving the elements forward, back or the minimum distance sideways to maintain contact. (p.10) 3. If an element so contacts the flanks of two enemy elements, both these turn to face it if the first must, the second moving to behind the first. (p.10) 4. On the rare occasions that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back (p.9) [invalid reference, read: p.12] to make room for the others to turn. (p.10) 5. [RECOILING OR BEING PUSHED BACK] Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others. (p.12) 6. [DESTROYED ELEMENTS] An element that has an enemy front edge in contact with it's side or rear edge is destroyed instead of recoiling, being pushed back or fleeing or being in a column whose front element is destroyed. (p.12)
So after making contact, the second polish knight and the first polish spear
turn to face to contact the first Teutonic knights. (quoted rules 1. and 3.) Now the second and third polish spear move forward into legal flank contact. (2.)
Then they turn to face the second enemy knight. (1. and 3.) The first polish unit of bows is pushed back. (4.) But it can't move (5.), so it is destroyed. (6.)
[Edit: And it is also destroyed because of (6.) only: flank contact
plus being pushed back, so even if it had no units behind.] The second and third bows don't move. (1.)
Now the LH is in contact with (a small part of) the rear of first polish spear,
but not the rear of the second polish spear which is a bit too far away. The first spear doesn’t turn or conform since the LH contacted second. (1.) The LH moves sideways to maintain contact with the first spear and ends
in full rear contact. (2.)
Now, this outcome is rather interesting. The flank attack destroyed a polish
unit of bows on the spot and leaves two polish units in a dangerous position
as they are being attacked in front and rear.
I'd say this result is quite convincing. All rules applied well and it caused a
really heavy impact on the column.
(And yet there again is still a small question mark: The free sideways move of the LH
into full rear contact is only legal if PB really meant "any existing contacts" (2.), but I'm
not 100% sure about that, since in connection with the sentence before he might have
meant as well only "elements contacted to flank or rear". Personally I find the LH move
from legal side contact to full legal rear contact to be very realistic, even elegant.
What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Jul 28, 2023 7:02:10 GMT
All sounds perfectly simple
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jul 28, 2023 11:20:37 GMT
Hi Brian,
Perfect analysis of the rules - how they are written and how they should be played!
Just one little thing:
[Edit: And it is also destroyed because of (6.) only: flank contact
plus being pushed back, so even if it had no units behind.]
Your quote refers to a „Combat Outcome“ situation! But here we are in the end of the movement phase!
So - the first element of bows is destroyed, because it couldn‘t be pushed back.
If 2nd and 3rd element of bows wouldn‘t be there, the (1st) element of bows would be pushed back until its front edge is in contact with the side edges of spear 2 and spear 3. (page 10: „On the rare occasion that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back to make room for the others to turn“)
(And yet there again is still a small question mark: The free sideways move of the LH
into full rear contact is only legal if PB really meant "any existing contacts" (2.), but I'm
not 100% sure about that, since in connection with the sentence before he might have
meant as well only "elements contacted to flank or rear". Personally I find the LH move
from legal side contact to full legal rear contact to be very realistic, even elegant.
Your absolutely right - at the end of the movement phase, the LH was in contact with the 1st element of spears. Of course the LH conforms to them, after they have turned!
Regards
Ronald
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jul 28, 2023 12:48:36 GMT
Hi Brian, Perfect analysis of the rules - how they are written and how they should be played! Just one little thing: [Edit: And it is also destroyed because of (6.) only: flank contact
plus being pushed back, so even if it had no units behind.]Your quote refers to a „Combat Outcome“ situation! But here we are in the end of the movement phase! So - the first element of bows is destroyed, because it couldn‘t be pushed back. If 2nd and 3rd element of bows wouldn‘t be there, the (1st) element of bows would be pushed back until its front edge is in contact with the side edges of spear 2 and spear 3. (page 10: „On the rare occasion that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back to make room for the others to turn“ )
(And yet there again is still a small question mark: The free sideways move of the LH
into full rear contact is only legal if PB really meant "any existing contacts" (2.), but I'm
not 100% sure about that, since in connection with the sentence before he might have
meant as well only "elements contacted to flank or rear". Personally I find the LH move
from legal side contact to full legal rear contact to be very realistic, even elegant.
Your absolutely right - at the end of the movement phase, the LH was in contact with the 1st element of spears. Of course the LH conforms to them, after they have turned!
Regards
RonaldHi Ronisan, thank you! (It was hard work.) You're right with your arguments concerning being pushed back. And yet the rules section about destroyed units (p. 12) refers only indirectly to combat outcome. But when I think it over the push back solution is better because otherwise every unit in this situation would be killed automatically, while PB (in quoted rule 4.) states clearly it is pushed back, and not it is killed. Cheers, Brian Edit: It is quite interesting that the 2012 DBA 3.0 free pdf version uses this variant of rule (4.): On the rare occasions that a 3rd element is contacted, it moves straight back to make room for the others to turn.But why, and what does it mean? |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Jul 29, 2023 8:59:16 GMT
Hello Brian,
Edit: It is quite interesting that the 2012 DBA 3.0 free pdf version uses this variant of rule (4.):
On the rare occasions that a 3rd element is contacted, it moves straight back to make room for the others to turn.
But why, and what does it mean? That‘s just the explanation of figure 14c in the rulebook Now, that leads me to a disagreement concerning your example: In fact, I would play it the way, that all three elements of bows will be moved backwards to make room for the spears to turn (facing the knights contacting their side edge). Why? Because for me, the wording in the rulebook: 4. On the rare occasions that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back (p.9) [invalid reference, read: p.12] to make room for the others to turn. (p.10)
is not a push back combat outcome move! It‘s just a move straight back to make room. For me - no elements are eliminated in or at the end of the movement phase by „rearranging“/„adjusting“ for the coming shooting or Close combat phase - never ever!
Elements are eliminated in the shooting and/or in the close combat phase because of being doubled, being unable to recoil, being pushed back … unable to interpenetrate, etc.!
But reading page 12 (Recoiling or being pushed back) … „This represents troops falling back … to make space for friends while continuing to maintain formation and facing.“ Could be taken as: The leading element of bows will be eliminated because of „Pushed back elements cannot interpenetrate or push back others“!?!?!?!? Regards, Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 29, 2023 9:40:38 GMT
Brian,
This is our interpretation as well.
Your list of points, numbers 1 – 4 fall under the movement phase.
Points 5 and 6 are compulsory moves resulting from combat outcomes.
Flank attacks on an enemy column would have more success if the head and/or rear
of the column were engaged as well; Lake Trasimene, Teutoburger Wald, Beth Horon to name a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Jul 29, 2023 10:50:02 GMT
Great, these are valuable principles:
no kills in the movement phase, only in distant or close combat...
|
|
Clarity is one thing which is clearly missing in the purple book.
