|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 10, 2017 12:10:25 GMT
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. Rob
Well, if two of my elements represents two ‘units’ of cohorts (or two separate legions), both of which are fully capable of moving independently of each other, but I choose to place them one behind the other for some reason, then they are a group of units.
But let us just look at morale effects...
...how would the men in the leading element feel if they are in a threat zone and facing the prospect of close combat, when suddenly the men behind them shoot off and desert them?
I know how I would feel...
...I’d probably be off with them! 
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 Dangun on Apr 10, 2017 12:18:57 GMT
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 I agree that having some rule (a ZOC or TZ) that simulates being "caught forward" is an excellent mechanism, well based in history. And this was achieved by lots of other ZOC rules - flashlight, rolling-carpet etc. But that is not really the point, because the xray TZ has an additional effect - hitting units despite the presence of intermediary units. And it is this feature that is very difficult to give a historical example for. I don't really see this as controversial, and I am not suggesting it is bad for the game per se. I am just suggesting its not historical. We have other rules like this... The terrain system is broadly speaking not historical - 90% of historical battlefields were largely featureless, but its not a bad "game" rule Conversely there are lots of historical examples for psiloi interpenetration rules, or the impetuosity of knights, or the vulnerability of elephants to missile weapons. Stevie's examples are interesting illustrations of formation in depth, but they don't say anything about the unique feature of Xray TZs - i.e. the inability of rear units to move laterally because of the X-ray TZs projecting through friendly units. Its going to be tough to find an example of some ancient general worrying that he cannot move his light horse reserve because the enemy pike engaged in combat can project a mysterious tractor beam through an enemy unit. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 10, 2017 12:24:29 GMT
You keep missing the point Dangun. You will be equally hardpressed to find an ancient general capable of peeling rear ranks away from a knockdown fight at will either. My first question to your hypothetical general is "what the hell are you doing throwing your LH into the meat grinder of the FOA???"...
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 10, 2017 17:25:47 GMT
I believe that the x-ray threat zone is just a gaming artifact. By that I mean once we except the threat zone there needs to be a way of moving through it. As I recall the development group spent months trying to come up with some reasonable way of allowing elements behind the front element in the zone to move around . Rolling carpet? Flashlight? What would work? Nothing could be found to make a simple enough rule to make it playable. I suggested just doing away with the zone. Phil would have none of that. So the final compromise or perhaps just Phil's will was that the entire zone was A threatening area. This Solves all of the rules problems. Forget trying to find a historical basis as the game is too abstract.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 10, 2017 18:25:42 GMT
Threat Zones are an abstract but very useful concept to reflect real world concept that troops focus on nearby enemies regardless of what the High Command may want.
Now how to apply this concept to get the maximum simulation value with the minimum rule hassle. X-Ray TZ's were a response to the truly terrible "rolling carpet" interp which had we only used "flash light" instead would have solved the problem years ago. But that's history.
TZ's effectively cause troops to either withdraw or advance on nearby enemies - you can't ignore them - so far so good. But what about the case where you have a line of your own troops compeletly blocking the enemy's access to the effected troops. Now they cannot advance to contact and fight they must withdraw. Herein lies the rub. Under the current interp you cannot even advance into overlap position and help your friends fight this fearsome X-Ray opponent but weirdly you could if that opponent had a friend in line beside it that also had its TZ on your cowering troops - now facing double the enemies they would bravely advance!
The examples mentioned involve battles where the opponents flanks were turned locking them in. They may also reflect command control problems with getting the troops deployed (in other words they got a "1" twice in a row on PIPs and couldn't move).
I think the justification for cowering in the rear behind your own troops is the fear that the enemy would suddenly break through on be on you while your trying to move away. Has some merit but still doesn't explain why you can't advance forward into overlap position to help fight. You also don't want to allow supporting troops to move off and leave their friends (such as Pike).
So overall X-Ray represents a great improvement over "Rolling Carpet" (one of not just DBA but gaming in generals worst rules only Ps Support comes near in the ranks of DBX bad ideas). Except for the overlap overkill interp, it may represent the best compromise between simulation value and rule clarity.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on Apr 11, 2017 1:27:06 GMT
You keep missing the point Dangun. You will be equally hardpressed to find an ancient general capable of peeling rear ranks away from a knockdown fight at will either. My first question to your hypothetical general is "what the hell are you doing throwing your LH into the meat grinder of the FOA???"... No, you are the making the claim - you have to justify the claim. That's how logic works. Your argument boils down to X-ray TZs are the best model because I cannot find a source that refutes their posited existence?? And there are undetectable leprechauns sleeping under my bed! It might be the best game mechanic, but like the terrain system, that doesn't make it history. Why are we so defensive about that being pointed out. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 11, 2017 6:40:41 GMT
The examples mentioned involve battles where the opponents flanks were turned locking them in. They may also reflect command control problems with getting the troops deployed (in other words they got a "1" twice in a row on PIPs and couldn't move). TomT
Actually, the flanks were turned because the troops at the end of the line were first pinned (by x-ray threat zones?) and so were unable to move their rear ranks to counter their opponents, thus allowing the enemy to outflank them unopposed.
Remember, it's the horse that pulls the cart, not the cart that pushes the horse. 
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 primuspilus on Apr 11, 2017 11:16:40 GMT
Dangun, because unlike most of the wargamers I know, I have spent extensive time in a forward operational area. Units are not solid blobs. a "rear" unit or element does not represent, in the abstract world that is a DBA game, anything other than a military capability. The abstract representation we play recognises that military options decrease in proximity to the enemy. They decrease for any number of reasons...One of which is that the "front" as such has always (yes, even in ancient times) been a fluid thing, with any number of holes/gaps or irregularities in it... If you find enough holes, it stops being a front, and the enemy rout (and try to regroup next day if they can). Get close enough to one of the holes, or thins spots, and watch you and your unit take on someone else's problem.
I find DBA an excellent window into the psychology of command...
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 13, 2017 21:01:05 GMT
My understanding of Canne is that the Romans moved forward against a weak center and were enveloped on the flanks. The dept of the Roman formation would have been much greater than an X-Ray TZ.
Increased depth sometimes help (Thebans v. Spartans) and this may explain why the Romans maintained a deeper formation. Most likely they simply did not have enough PIPs to extend the flanks. Their opponents moved to fast and hemmed them in.
Flashlight combined with not allowing elements able to give Rear Support to move would have been a better option - still X-Ray much better than Rolling Carpet.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Apr 14, 2017 21:27:12 GMT
TomT are you suggesting it is inappropriate for for example LH, Cv or open order foot to be X-ray TZed, if behind a similar element? Open order by definition seems ... Well.... Open? Hence TZ passes through, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Apr 17, 2017 20:01:27 GMT
I don't think its worth the added complication to X-Ray only loose order formations. Ironically as loose order are mounted on deeper bases they are the least likely to be X-Rayed.
In any case loose order units would be the least likely to be "caught" by a charging enemy and so the least likely to worry about nearby enemy units seperated by a friendly unit.
I have accepted X-Ray as a better idea than Flash-light but still not the best idea.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by uppsalanizze on Apr 27, 2017 22:23:29 GMT
Interesting discussion. Is the example of Alexander ridig behind his lines "following" the Persian king Darius an example of a non-X-ray TZ? Can't remember which battle. Gaugamela perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyrrhus1717 on Feb 12, 2019 4:28:37 GMT
Ok I see the logic here but explain to me how roman manipular tactics worked with a TZ.
On another note could I have a page to reference in the rules ,Thanks !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 12, 2019 13:39:51 GMT
Ok I see the logic here but explain to me how roman manipular tactics worked with a TZ. On another note could I have a page to reference in the rules ,Thanks !!! Well, DBA treats the 1st ‘Hastati’ line and the 2nd ‘Principes’ line as just a single combined line of 4Bd (see II/33 Polybian Romans). So the manipular system and ‘quincunx’ checker-board formation are all assumed to be occurring within a single blade element. This abstract simplification is inevitable in a top-down Army Level set of rules such as DBA. After all, dividing a typical 20,000 man two Roman and two allied legion Consular Army into 12 elements means each element is about 1,600 men, and a mere maniple was only 120 strong (in effect, a single legionary figure represents some 400 men...or a whole cohort of 3 maniples!). As for your second question, I am not quite sure what it is you are asking for:- The “Threat Zone” rules are all on page 9... Figures 7a to 7e on pages 18 and 19 give practical TZ examples... And I made an index to help find obscure rules here: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:DETAILED_RULES_INDEX_for_DBA_3.0.pdf Does any of the above help? 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 pyrrhus1717 on Feb 12, 2019 15:17:27 GMT
Thanks for that . I am just trying to Confirm the "Threat Zone is never blocked or turned off once an element is in combat . Is there an "official" interp ( to avoid the long discussion or incorrect play at a local tourney ) Sorry to be a pain in the butt Thanks for all the work you guys have done .
|
|
