|
|
Post by Obadiah on Mar 6, 2017 11:21:38 GMT
OK so tell me...if a unit has two elements in it's TZ, but those two elements are one in front of the other but not touching, are both impacted by the TZ or just the front one?
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Mar 6, 2017 12:24:21 GMT
OK so tell me...if a unit has two elements in it's TZ, but those two elements are one in front of the other but not touching, are both impacted by the TZ or just the front one? Both. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Mar 7, 2017 1:28:20 GMT
OK so tell me...if a unit has two elements in it's TZ, but those two elements are one in front of the other but not touching, are both impacted by the TZ or just the front one? As I said in response to your comment about movement rates in another thread, this is one way of getting in your enemy's face to stop him running around and tolchocking you in the bollocks...😛 |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 7, 2017 2:59:31 GMT
OK so tell me...if a unit has two elements in it's TZ, but those two elements are one in front of the other but not touching, are both impacted by the TZ or just the front one? A great tactic is to hit a front element...Get a recoil...And freeze the reserves behind it. My son figured this out in early playtesting. It took me some time to learn to set up my reserves at a proper safe distance. He still catches me on occasion. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by phippsy on Apr 9, 2017 9:35:51 GMT
For final clarity of TZ. If an element moves into a TZ of an enemy, with out moving into contact, at the end of the move that element must either be parallel to the enemy element front, or fully lined up. Is that correct. Fig 7a and 7b.
Is this the same for Groups? Fig 11 suggests that Ax Y and the WB Group can end up like this, even though the Group has either moved forwards into the TZ of Ax Y, or the Ax Y has moved into the TZ of Wb B and Wb C and stopped there at at an angle. Clarification please.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 9, 2017 12:35:37 GMT
For final clarity of TZ. If an element moves into a TZ of an enemy, with out moving into contact, at the end of the move that element must either be parallel to the enemy element front, or fully lined up. Is that correct. Fig 7a and 7b. Is this the same for Groups? Fig 11 suggests that Ax Y and the WB Group can end up like this, even though the Group has either moved forwards into the TZ of Ax Y, or the Ax Y has moved into the TZ of Wb B and Wb C and stopped there at at an angle. Clarification please. No and no. Movement in a threat zone must be toward lining up...The exact workings of this are left to the players. Trying to define this exactly is fraught with difficulty. In actual playing, it presents no problem. The diagram you reference is a good guide. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 9, 2017 16:27:43 GMT
A great tactic is to hit a front element...Get a recoil...And freeze the reserves behind it. Great tactic. Completely ahistorical. But the X-ray TZ is completely not historical. |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 9, 2017 22:24:20 GMT
A great tactic is to hit a front element...Get a recoil...And freeze the reserves behind it. Great tactic. Completely ahistorical. But the X-ray TZ is completely not historical. Hmmm. I find it completely historical. Funny how opinions can differ. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 10, 2017 1:00:59 GMT
Great tactic. Completely ahistorical. But the X-ray TZ is completely not historical. Hmmm. I find it completely historical. Funny how opinions can differ. Joe Collins Its not an opinion. It is history. Find some sources where a general sat around thinking that he couldn't move a unit behind his front line because of the magical mystery xray ZOC. I would be very impressed if you could find 3 good examples. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2017 3:58:24 GMT
Dangun, it is pretty much a given that competent commamders will keep reserves clear of potential engagement and breakthrough zones. As a former infantry commander myself, I can tell you there is a term for getting your reserves too close to frontline activity: it's called "commitment". Committing reserves prematurely is a beginner mistake.
Few wargames recognise that fighting units are comprised of men, and men are all too frequently rash, impatient, prone to veing goaded, and overly concerned with booty, proving themselves, and battlefield ambition. Yet others are filled with dread and paralysis at the sights, sounds and scent of battle.
Sorry, the X-ray TZ is bang on in my view...
Most wargamers I find have never slipped on the guts of their fallen comrades, heard the deafening din and shriek of battle, shat or pissed themselvs at the sheer horror of carnage. It is these who frequently think of combat units as robotic automata...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 10, 2017 5:06:30 GMT
Dangun, it is pretty much a given that competent commamders will keep reserves clear of potential engagement and breakthrough zones. As a former infantry commander myself, I can tell you there is a term for getting your reserves too close to frontline activity: it's called "commitment". Committing reserves prematurely is a beginner mistake. There are two important AND VERY LARGE problems with your argument. Firstly, we are not talking about committing reserves or staying clear of an enemy. That is a separate issue. I am not saying that a "rolling-carpet" threat zone isn't a good idea. But the X-ray TZ means that a commander cannot freely move a unit which is SEPARATED from the enemy by another friendly unit. Secondly, THERE IS NO "given". This is history. Find me a single example in a historical source - or better still, a pattern of historical sources - which demonstrate the reality of the X-ray power of DBA 3.0's threat zones. I can show half a dozen historical examples of psiloi-interpenetration rules or knight-follow-up (impetuosity) rules. You try it for the X-ray TZ. IMHO, not possible. Some of the rules accurately reflect history, and some don't (like X-ray TZs and BUAs). This is the ancient period, so your experience will be exceptionally valuable next time you are commanding infantry aimed with spears who don't have to immediately worry about anything less than 100m away - whereas in your experience you undoubtably worried about small arms fire from 5x that distance, artillery or aircraft from who-knows-where etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 10, 2017 7:33:39 GMT
Find me a single example in a historical source - or better still, a pattern of historical sources - which demonstrate the reality of the X-ray power of DBA 3.0's threat zones. I can show half a dozen historical examples of psiloi-interpenetration rules or knight-follow-up (impetuosity) rules. You try it for the X-ray TZ. IMHO, not possible. Some of the rules accurately reflect history, and some don't (like X-ray TZs and BUAs).
Actually, I can think of not one but two historical examples of ‘x-ray threat zones’:-
The Battle of Cannae, 216 BC
The Romans outnumbered the Carthaginian forces of Hannibal by almost two to one, but instead of using their extra numbers to extend their line, they formed up deeper than usual (possibly because their troops were of lower quality following the disasters of Trebia and Lake Trasimene, and they needed the extra mass to make up for this deficiency).
They maintained this deep formation even when their flanks were attacked, and made no effort to use their extra numbers to counter it.
The Battle of Pharsalus, 48 BC
The army of Pompey outnumbered Caesar’s army by almost two to one, but instead of using their extra numbers to extend their line, they formed up deeper than usual (possibly because their troops were of lower quality, and they needed the extra mass to counter Caesar’s veterans).
They maintained this deep formation even when their left flank was attacked, and made no effort to use their extra numbers to counter it.
When re-fighting these two battles, some sort of rule needs to be applied in order to prevent these deep formations from moving freely, because any wargamer in their right mind will break-up such unnaturally deep deployment and use their extra elements to confront any outflanking move by their opponent. And if deep formations were prevented from moving freely in these two battles, then they could also be prevented from moving freely in other battles.
‘X-ray threat zones’, abstract as they may be, provides such a rule.
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Apr 10, 2017 7:35:47 GMT
Dangun, it is pretty much a given that competent commamders will keep reserves clear of potential engagement and breakthrough zones. As a former infantry commander myself, I can tell you there is a term for getting your reserves too close to frontline activity: it's called "commitment". Committing reserves prematurely is a beginner mistake. There are two important AND VERY LARGE problems with your argument. Firstly, we are not talking about committing reserves or staying clear of an enemy. That is a separate issue. I am not saying that a "rolling-carpet" threat zone isn't a good idea. But the X-ray TZ means that a commander cannot freely move a unit which is SEPARATED from the enemy by another friendly unit. Secondly, THERE IS NO "given". This is history. Find me a single example in a historical source - or better still, a pattern of historical sources - which demonstrate the reality of the X-ray power of DBA 3.0's threat zones. I can show half a dozen historical examples of psiloi-interpenetration rules or knight-follow-up (impetuosity) rules. You try it for the X-ray TZ. IMHO, not possible. Some of the rules accurately reflect history, and some don't (like X-ray TZs and BUAs). This is the ancient period, so your experience will be exceptionally valuable next time you are commanding infantry aimed with spears who don't have to immediately worry about anything less than 100m away - whereas in your experience you undoubtably worried about small arms fire from 5x that distance, artillery or aircraft from who-knows-where etc. etc. I think almost every ancient battle I have studied has good examples of men being caught forward in the fight. In fact, I have trouble of thinking of even one where a narrative account exists that doesn't fit with x-ray threat zones. They certainly work very well in the game. They also work very well in historical scenarios. I've played one or two of those. Funny how opinions differ. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by somecallmetim on Apr 10, 2017 11:09:19 GMT
One of the difficulties I have following arguments / disagreements like this is, what I thought, was the basic starting point that DBA is an abstract game.
In particular, a base or stand is basically a self ordering group or unit. For romans for example it could represent anything from a cohort to a legion.
The historical examples given above seem to be deep units, rather than a group of units.
I like DBA 3, and I think most of the changes in it are for the better. But the x ray zoc isn't one of them. I can understand it if units are actually touching ie in support directly behind another. But if there is a clear gap, given the abstractness of the game, isn't it more like a second line or reserve?
Rob
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2017 11:57:58 GMT
If one is comfortable with bow range being 3 times the depth of a TZ, I fail to see the issue. The TZ is the "forward operational area".
The "gap" you require is one you have to actually think about a little. With the faster movement rates (which is why bow range has to be the length it now is) it is all part of the basic abstraction. If you allow reserves to deploy too close to the forward battle area, you risk them getting drawn into the fighting, or you risk command paralysis. Abstract. Simple. Elegant.
Elements are not little brick walls, remember...
|
|
