Towards DBA 3.1

Your'e probably right Ronald...

...although that would be an illegal end move position, as it does not match rule 9.9's list of legal contact positions (i.e. mutual fronts touching, front-edge touching a flank or rear, or an overlap position).
Many people will probably say that the pursuers have to halt, say 1mm from contact...which is not much of an impetuous pursuit.

Tell you what...it might be better to just say that pursuers automatically freely conform, and are not limited to just using their pursuit move.

Think I'll alter my original post saying that.

My "Moving Into Contact in DBA3.1" post has been edited.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

There are some rules in DBA 3.0 that seem superfluous and unnecessary.
So it might be a good idea to weed-out these redundant rules and make DBA 3.1 more streamlined.
Individually, each of the items below is quite trivial…but when taken as a whole removing them could help make the rules easier to remember and reduce unwanted complexity, as well as freeing-up more space for additional clarity in the other existing rules.

Terrain that must be included
Page 6 paragraph 3 says “Terrain must include Rough, Bad Going, a River, or a Waterway”.
But almost all regions already include these terrain types as compulsory features,
(apart from Steppe, but this has to choose two optional features, all of which are either Rough, Bad Going, or a River).
So the only region this rule applies to is Arable.
Perhaps it would be clearer if the rule said “Arable must include Rough, Bad Going, a River, or a Waterway”.

Minimum terrain size
Page 6 paragraph 6 says “Only 1 feature can have a length (maximum dimension) of less than 3 BW”.
In other words, one terrain feature could be as small as 1 BW by 1 BW.
Is this ‘postage stamp’ sized terrain really necessary?
Its only purpose seems to be to rob invading Ax and Ps armies any bad going in which to hide in.
After all, the defender already has the right to choose the minimum of terrain, and to make each feature small.
I’d say get rid of it.

Rivers crossing other terrain
Page 6 paragraph 10 says “(Rivers) can cross any feature except a Hill, Dunes, Oasis, or BUA”.
No surprises that rivers cannot cross an oasis…only Dry regions can have an oasis, and Dry regions cannot have rivers!
So why bother mentioning it?

Sallying civilians
Page 7 paragraph 3 describes the city denizen sallying rules,
i.e only if both friends and enemies are within 2 BW, and they can’t voluntarily move more than 3 BW from the city.
Page 7 paragraph 9 describes the camp follower sally rules,
i.e. they can leave the camp but cannot return (why not? Did the last one out slam the gates and they forgot the key!?  )
But why have two different sets of rules for sallying civilians?
Would it not be simpler to combine both situations and just have one rule for sallying civilians?
Either have all sallying civilians obey the denizen rule (which is more complex but more realistic), or have all sallying civilians obey the camp follower rule (and they all forget to bring the key!)

Littoral landing deployment
Page 8 paragraph 3 says troops making an landing deploy as one group, part of which must touch the waterway.
Page 13 paragraph 5 says Big Battle amphibious landings deploy all of a command within 1 BW of the waterway.
Again, why have two different rules to cover the same situation?
Combine both situations to be the same…either the BBDBA rule (which is more realistic), or the 12 element rule (which is just fantasy).

Who can make a Littoral Landing
Page 8 paragraph 3 also says that Elephants, War Wagons and Artillery cannot make Littoral Landings.
Note that there is no mention of Scythed Chariots, giving the impression that these can land.
However, as there are no Littoral Scythed Chariots in the army lists, this omission is understandable.
But there are no Littoral War Wagons either…so why bother mentioning them?

Extra moves on a road into contact
Page 9 paragraph 3 says that extra moves cannot “start or go within 1 BW of the enemy, unless moving along a road”.
This highly unpopular and completely unrealistic exception has no basis whatsoever historically.
Let’s get rid of it.

Ps recoiling through other Ps
Page 9 paragraph 6 says “Ps (can recoil through) any friends, except Ps”.
Why not?
What’s the difference between picking up the first element in a Ps column and placing it behind the rear Ps element, or shuffling the rear Ps element back so the first Ps element can recoil?
The result is the same…and the former method is a lot faster and much less fiddly.
If there were different types of Ps then this rule might make sense, but all Ps in DBA 3.0 are the same as each other.
Anyway, one would have thought that if Ps can recoil through soild Bd or Sp, all standing shoulder-to-shoulder in a close formation, then they would have no problem slipping through other Ps who are in an open formation and a couple of paces apart!
I really don’t see the point of this rule.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

Those are very good points genoansteel. 

I just have a few responses:-
    Your diagrams do not show Ps columns (only a minor point I know, but I thought I’d mention it).
    Passing through is a “may”, not a “must” rule (recoillers don’t have to interpenetrate…they can often push back if they wish).
    I still fail to see why open order Ps, standing an arms length or more from each other, can’t recoil and slip through other Ps.

After all, Ps can voluntarily interpenetrate each other as a tactical move (see page 9 paragraph 5).
And they can flee through each other without penalty (see page 12 paragraph 7).
So why can’t they recoil through each other if they want to?



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

The case FOR having a city in DBA 3.1

Instead of my usual picking DBA 3.0 apart and suggesting improvements, I’d like to have a change of pace.
This time I would like to do the opposite and actually stand up for retaining something in DBA 3.1…the city.

There are still some players that dislike the idea of having cities on the table, saying sieges are not appropriate in DBA.
This has been alleviated somewhat with the option of having a BUA to be a fort, hamlet, or an edifice instead.
But this is not much help if you dislike cities and your defending opponent has plopped one on the battlefield.
But I wonder if this is just a matter of perception.

A major urban metropolis such as Rome, Capua, Tarentum, Syracuse, Carthage, Athens and the like, with a population in the ten’s or even hundred’s of thousands and larger than the force besieging it, a full army of 12 elements defending it from within the city walls, and so large that they would take up the whole of a table edge, then yes, these are certainly beyond the remit of DBA and would require a long protracted siege before they were taken.
But a DBA ‘city’ does not represent such large urban centres.

If you think of a DBA ‘city’ as representing one of the numerous small walled towns that dotted the ancient landscape, with a population of a few thousand and smaller than the army trying to take it, a garrison of only a few hundred represented by a single element, and only a couple of bow shots in length, then these small walled towns are appropriate to the scale and scope of a DBA battle.
These could be assaulted and taken in just a few days, once enough scaling ladders had been constructed from wood taken from nearby trees or village buildings, with maybe a ram to break through a city gate made from a pointed tree trunk carried by soldiers protected by other men carrying their shields overhead.

So let’s see more small walled towns on our wargame battlefields, and not ignore these interesting terrain pieces.
A so-called DBA ‘city’ is really a small walled town, and not a major urban metropolis.
As they say…size is everything.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

I’m pretty sure that an old pro (!) like yourself Timurilank is already aware of the following, but I’ll mention it anyway.

Page 6 paragraph 6 says…
“BUA and Plough can have straight edges, otherwise all features must be a natural shape with curved edges.”
…so never have your ‘cities’ or forts with straight edges, but always give them curved ones.
Why?
It’s because trying to move a group so all it’s elements are in front-edge contact with a curve is impossible.
The enemy will have to move each element individually to be able to assault the place, costing lots of PIP’s.
Likewise, if their assault fails and they recoil, each enemy element will move straight back in slightly different directions, so next bound they will be separated and no longer a group, again costing them lots of PIP’s to get back into action.

Just a little tip for those that didn’t know.



Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes

Two in use frequently yesterday at the Tarrington Tourney. Think they may have been used in around 4-5 games each.

Martin