|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 27, 2017 8:38:32 GMT
Just a matter of curiosity really.
During the development of DBA3.0 did anybody raise the obvious problem of terrain type, or was it decided that it was to complex?
For example - if you look at II/78a Western Roman Army, the terrain it can defend in varies from the Scottish border (UK) in the north down to Africa in the south, very different terrains, but in fact it is Arable, no matter where it is.
Now I am sure that this is not going to be the only case, just that I played against the "b" version on Monday, and was thinking about the game.
David Constable |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 27, 2017 9:41:30 GMT
Just a matter of curiosity really.
During the development of DBA3.0 did anybody raise the obvious problem of terrain type, or was it decided that it was to complex?
For example - if you look at II/78a Western Roman Army, the terrain it can defend in varies from the Scottish border (UK) in the north down to Africa in the south, very different terrains, but in fact it is Arable, no matter where it is.
Now I am sure that this is not going to be the only case, just that I played against the "b" version on Monday, and was thinking about the game.
David Constable It does seem odd, but the Western Roman Army would seek to protect its economic centres whether they be located in Northern Britain or North Africa. A defeat in the field an army could easily seek the protection of a walled city and await relief.
The difference in climate zone offers a challenge for players to create terrain features with an appropriate ambiance.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 27, 2017 20:17:38 GMT
I was thinking about an extreme possibility, Crassus in Parthia, attacking in the east in a desert, while others defended in the hilly terrain of Hadrians Wall in Scotland UK.
The only way I can see around it, specify terrain and aggression against each enemy army, but that makes the lists even more complicated, especially for checking.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Apr 27, 2017 20:32:05 GMT
I was thinking about an extreme possibility, Crassus in Parthia, attacking in the east in a desert, while others defended in the hilly terrain of Hadrians Wall in Scotland UK. The only way I can see around it, specify terrain and aggression against each enemy army, but that makes the lists even more complicated, especially for checking. David Constable Just think the "lists" are the least complicated, clearest written part of the rules.  |
|
|
|
Post by riothamus on Apr 27, 2017 20:37:43 GMT
I was thinking about an extreme possibility, Crassus in Parthia, attacking in the east in a desert, while others defended in the hilly terrain of Hadrians Wall in Scotland UK. The only way I can see around it, specify terrain and aggression against each enemy army, but that makes the lists even more complicated, especially for checking. David Constable Simulating historical battles or campaigns means using the historical terrain. The terrain-rules are for more generic games. To generate terrain in a special environment you can simply use the appropriate type of terrain and the correct Terrain features. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2017 0:09:12 GMT
Actually, I think that Arable gives too much variation. They can have an Edifice BUA and 3 Difficult Hills or Woods (all bad going)...only one less than Hilly or Forest regions. Or they can have 2 plough (and 5 times out of 6 these can be removed), a 1BW deep Waterway or Road, and just a tiny 1BW x 1BW patch of rough going...which is even less defensive delaying terrain than Steppe or Dry regions. In other words, Arable can represent either a flat open billiard table or a heavily wooded/mountainous district. (That’s why I prefer randomly selected terrain – few generals in history had the luxury of picking their terrain like they were shopping in a supermarket)
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 bob on Apr 28, 2017 3:49:13 GMT
"The types of feature that can be used depend on those of the terrain in which the defending army historically normally fought at home. " I do not understand a problem here. If a Roman army is the defender, then it is defending its homeland core. This leads to some anomalies, as it is difficult for for certain armies to actually invade the Roman core area. Nevertheless, as "riothamus" states quite well, the terrain generation is for generic games. When our group does historical games, we try to set up terrain for the specific area of the battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 28, 2017 8:18:01 GMT
Actually, I think that Arable gives too much variation. They can have an Edifice BUA and 3 Difficult Hills or Woods (all bad going)...only one less than Hilly or Forest regions. Or they can have 2 plough (and 5 times out of 6 these can be removed), a 1BW deep Waterway or Road, and just a tiny 1BW x 1BW patch of rough going...which is even less defensive delaying terrain than Steppe or Dry regions. In other words, Arable can represent either a flat open billiard table or a heavily wooded/mountainous district. (That’s why I prefer randomly selected terrain – few generals in history had the luxury of picking their terrain like they were shopping in a supermarket)
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
Actually that is worse for a Parthian expecting to fight in the desert. Where does all that terrain suddenly appear from?
Accepted that probably the system as is suits most armies, but I have to assume that it was kept the way it is for simplicity.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Apr 28, 2017 13:25:40 GMT
Well, we mustn’t forget about the aggression factors. If we are talking about the battle of Carrhae in 53 BC, then Marcus Licinius Crassus will be using army II/49, which has an aggression factor of 3. The Parthian general Surena will be using army II/37, which has an aggression factor of 2. This means that Crassus will have 21 chances out of 36 of being the invader, while the Parthians only have 10 chances out of 36 (the remaining 5 chances are re-rolls due to equal scores). Therefore, on average, the Parthians will be the defenders in 2 out of 3 games. And being an Arable defender, they can make the battlefield as open and flat as they like. As for where all that terrain comes from if the Parthians are ‘unlucky’ enough to be the invader, the Armenian King Artavasdes II did suggest to Crassus that he should invade Parthia via hilly and wooded Armenia, but Crassus rejected this idea. My problem with the ‘shopping basket approach’ to terrain selection (“Oh look, marshes are on special offer in this region, I’ll pop a couple of those in the cart!”) is that there is a tendency for players to use the same terrain pieces over-and-over again on every single battlefield. I myself am guilty of this...I have a very cunning plan for my II/39 Arable Iberian Spanish that involves an Edifice BUA, two Difficult Hills and a Road (the road make sure that my bad going pieces, which are 3BW x 6BW, always have their longest sides facing the invaders deployment area for maximum battlefield coverage). Oh, their location on the field of battle varies, and sometimes one of them is discarded, but my Spanish always have an Edifice ‘Sacred Grove’, two Difficult Hills and a Road. It’s as if they carry these around with them in their knapsacks and build them on each and every single battlefield! In reality of course, few invaders would attack just where I happen to have my perfect defences. They could invade my lands a couple of days march to the north where it is flat and threaten one of my towns. Or they could invade further to the south and seek a crossing across a river where there is no road or ford. They are after all the ‘invaders’, so could attack wherever they liked along my frontier, not just where I want them to. That’s why I prefer the defenders to choose how many terrain pieces they want, but not what each individual piece is. 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 medievalthomas on Apr 28, 2017 16:48:07 GMT
Bare in mind that in 2.0 the defender could just set up a perfect terrain lay out.
That's what we started with and only after lots of connvincing/whinning were we able to get some terrain reform (which Phil out of the blue came up with). Even this level of random terrian set some tournament players off.
You need to balance the ability of a general to scope out and set up on advantageous terrain and the real world problem that sometimes advantageous terrain is just not available.
I modified the terrian rules a bit in A Game of Fire and Ice to (try) and prevent so much terrian self nuking when the same sector keeps coming up. As this is the expermental DBX rule set I'm interested in new ideas.
By the way Plough does not "go off", it stays on the table but just counts as Good Going.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on Apr 28, 2017 21:32:54 GMT
Bear in mind that in 2.0 the defender could just set up a perfect terrain lay out. That's what we started with and only after lots of connvincing/whinning were we able to get some terrain reform (which Phil out of the blue came up with). Even this level of random terrian set some tournament players off. Yes, but in 2.x the attacker had more input in choosing a table edge (admittedly with a random element). In 3.0 the defender using a road can systematically set up essentially the same sophisticated optimised terrain, every time. It's simply a matter of dealing with a reduced symmetry (2-fold instead of 4-fold). Terrain set up was also more random in 2.x than in 3.0 (due to the attacker table edge roll). There are several improved things in 3.0: terrain is certainly not one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Apr 28, 2017 22:28:40 GMT
Most invasions would come along the easiest route -- along a road. Thus requiring the invader to enter on a road edge seems reasonable to me. That among other things mentioned make the terrain in 3 a great improvement. Some players do not like to give the invader such easy access with the free road move, so do not place them. Three terrain types do not have road.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 29, 2017 5:28:09 GMT
I agree with Bob, look at most historical battles, they tend to involve a BUA type area or a road.
My favourite, Gaugamela, has NO TERRAIN, cannot happen in a DBA game and I suspect most rules (unless you create scenarios).
For those unfamiliar, Darius cleared the battlefield area for his scythed chariots, possibly only one bush was left, marking the spot where Darius was.
Even across a desert you usually have tracks (roads in DBA terms), people follow these, and the sand tends to get compacted.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Apr 29, 2017 6:53:13 GMT
I agree with Bob, look at most historical battles, they tend to involve a BUA type area or a road. My favourite, Gaugamela, has NO TERRAIN, cannot happen in a DBA game and I suspect most rules (unless you create scenarios). For those unfamiliar, Darius cleared the battlefield area for his scythed chariots, possibly only one bush was left, marking the spot where Darius was. Even across a desert you usually have tracks (roads in DBA terms), people follow these, and the sand tends to get compacted. David Constable David,
If at Gaugamela, the ground were cleared of rock and scrub, where was this deposited?
One can imagine Persian auxilia and skirmishers shouting “over here please” welcoming the extra cover. 
Flat terrain however would still have minor undulations. At the height of a man they would become a 'gentle hill' for game purposes providing cover from archery fire or giving defenders an advantage fighting from higher ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Apr 29, 2017 16:35:50 GMT
One suspects that to an extent dips where filled in by hummocks, however if the plain was relatively flat then bushes can be burnt and smaller rocks broken up, larger rocks moved. With the few days available the worst could be removed.
Since it was cleared for the scythed chariots, they can handle limited size obstacles, but larger rocks were a problem, and the only mention of hills occur at the edge of the battlefield. So in DBA terms, gentle hills at the two sides, a road near the middle would work.
David Constable
|
|
