|
Post by stevie on Oct 31, 2017 18:16:53 GMT
Stevie do not drop out we need to have the literal text tossed in our faces - so we know where we screwed up! Fear not Tom...you won't get rid of me that easily. If I go bit quiet it's because, believe it or not, I can't find anything else to complain about! Which just goes to show what a good robust gaming system DBA 3.0 actually is. It just needs a little bit of polishing in a few areas... 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
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Oct 31, 2017 21:06:13 GMT
Stevie do not drop out we need to have the literal text tossed in our faces - so we know where we screwed up! Real world stuff intruding into tournament style DBA - gads! OK why when a Knight crashs into the side of a Spear does the Spear get to fight (and probably beat) the Ps to the front? Well probably because when Phil first designed DBX this did not occur to him and then it got grandfathered in by (conservative) tournament players who don't like change to DBX lore. So now we are stuck. Why has it lasted? Because it doesn't make that much difference. In my example in either case if the Spear loses it dies (either due to Knight Shock or Hard Flank). The only difference is the CF (+2 or +3). The weird convention that the attacker does not get to pick which element is the "primary" attacker drives local players crazy (they are a bunch of historical non-tournament types so what do they know?). In a perfect world the bounding player would pick the primary attacking/shooting element. (So in the Spear turn it could pick the Ps in an effort to "break out" of the trap.) But I hate to make such changes even for Knights and Knaves since it supposed to be an easy learn version of DBX to allow transition into the wilds of DBA 3.0 tournament play (at the same time its supposed to be a more advanced simulation of late medieval warfare - so you see the conflicting pulls). So we have to juggle two considerations: 1) Explaining the rules as they are (ie Knights, even Hard Flanking, do not Pursue even though they probably should) and the closest shooter is the primary shooter even though the Art would probably dominate (and even though Art and Bow would be unlikely to work together in any case); 2) considering what the rules should have said to create a better simulation. Generally I try to explain standard procedures (who shoots, who is the primary attacker, who Pursues) just as per the DBA 3.0 rules (by far the most advanced of the DBX stable). But where I can add stuff to the advanced game (crossbows, polearms etc.) I do so. TomT We may have been playing it wrong all those years ago but in DBA1.0 there was a way to "choose the primary combatant". Back in the day elements reacted to the first contact - the concept of waiting until all movement was done before turning to face was either a 1.2 or a 2.0 modification. So if you had Kn and Ps targeting a Sp then you hit the Sp flank with the Kn first (and they turn) then hit the now exposed flank of the Sp with the Ps. Of course back then there was no instant death for having flank contact. We did also assume that you took the worst (for the loser) combat effect based on elements in contact so a Kn fighting Cv to the front and LH on the flank would be quick killed because the LH was in contact. I seem to remember that the death by flank change came in as early as 1.1 Cheers
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 31, 2017 22:14:12 GMT
Very interesting Macbeth. I don’t know if you have been following Joe Collins “Towards DBA 3.1” thread, but I made an almost identical suggestion there. (See fanaticus.boards.net/post/8464 ). I’ll repeat it here:- Change the "waiting until the end of the movement phase to turn and face"Personally, for DBA 3.1, I think page 10 paragraph 1 should say:- “immediately after the conforming troops have conformed, turn to face, unless currently in frontal close combat”.
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 1, 2017 17:13:22 GMT
We may have been playing it wrong all those years ago but in DBA1.0 there was a way to "choose the primary combatant". Back in the day elements reacted to the first contact - the concept of waiting until all movement was done before turning to face was either a 1.2 or a 2.0 modification. So if you had Kn and Ps targeting a Sp then you hit the Sp flank with the Kn first (and they turn) then hit the now exposed flank of the Sp with the Ps. Isn't that pretty much what happens in 3.0? If the target of a charge is not already in contact to its front, it turns to face the first unit that contacted it at the end of the movement phase? Cheers Simon
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 1, 2017 22:21:42 GMT
We may have been playing it wrong all those years ago but in DBA1.0 there was a way to "choose the primary combatant". Back in the day elements reacted to the first contact - the concept of waiting until all movement was done before turning to face was either a 1.2 or a 2.0 modification. So if you had Kn and Ps targeting a Sp then you hit the Sp flank with the Kn first (and they turn) then hit the now exposed flank of the Sp with the Ps. Isn't that pretty much what happens in 3.0? If the target of a charge is not already in contact to its front, it turns to face the first unit that contacted it at the end of the movement phase? Cheers Simon Yes but not if it is also (later) contacted to the front as part of the same bound. So if you want to have the Bd fighting the Sp with the Ps on the flank you have to engineer it so that those elements are lined up with the desired facings. You can't have the Bd facing the flank hit the flank causing a turn before the Ps then power into the now exposed flank. (Well not in one bound anywise) Cheers
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 2, 2017 16:11:26 GMT
Yes that is correct. You wait till the end of movement phase to turn and face if hit on flank. So if you charge a knight into a flank but then have a Ps make frontal contact the enemy ends up fighting the Ps and the knight may as well have been another Ps.
I have suggested over the years having flank contacts conform on contact (as everything else does). The draw back is that when the contacted element turns so does its TZ. This can cause some major changes in whose in a a TZ etc. Too much change for some players. As you may have guessed we have playtested this rule both ways (I'm blessed with a great group of Knight and Knave playtesters where we try out lots of experimental rules).
Having the bounding player pick the primary element for combat would help some and avoid the flanked element having to turn early.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 2, 2017 17:34:03 GMT
My personal view is that one of the aims of a good set of wargame rules (such as DBA) should be to make it challenging for players to do what they would ideally like to do and so introduce some friction into the command process. I am quite happy that it is difficult to synchronise attacks neatly and so, in the example above, one might argue that the commander is concentrating on getting his knights in first to use their better melee factor and force the spear to turn to face and then, perhaps, follow up next turn with Ps on the flanks.
Regards,
Simon
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 3, 2017 16:28:46 GMT
I appreciate the rationalizations for the rule and have heard many over the years but they make little real world sense. Its not a question of synchronisizing but of effect. Knights crashing into the flank of a spear formation will dominate the combat regardless of the arrival of skirmishing Ps. No matter who arrives first its the Knights that will preoccupy the spear and the fate of that attack will determine what happens next. The Ps may annoy the spear to various degrees, hence assisting the knights (may do so at any point in the fighting without any major change in effect) but win or "lose" to the Ps, its the knights hitting the flank that count, if that causes the spear to collapse beating off the Ps is irrelevant.
Games should reflect real world capabilities and realities and here we don't BUT and its a big BUT there are some mechnical problems in having an element turn during movement phase. The beauty of the DBX system is that the problem is greatly reduced by the Hard Flank mechnism and so looks much worse than it really is. It looks bad to casual players though and the mechanical explaintion isn't very satisfying. (Trying to convince them that its a "feature" reflecting some real world stuff is worse, however.)
Only Phil can make such a major upgrade to DBX mechanics and he's unlikely to want to do so and incure the wrath of tournament players used to gaming this particular situation. Fortunately as mentioned its effect is suprisingly minor.
TomT
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 3, 2017 17:22:21 GMT
Hi to everybody here.
Please keep in mind that DBA makes it possible to play historical battles with armies consisting of 12 elements only! What a great set of rules. Therefore gaming has to be of a certain 'abstraction'! People who want to play 'more detailed' should try playing DBMM or Field of Glory. DBA should stay a simple set of rules to also attract newcomers to the hobby. I would appreciate, if DBA will be kept 'simple'! The introduction of fast/solid troops, flank support, etc. was enough of expansion. :-) Remember: K.I.S.S. ... keep it short & simple.
Cheers, Ronald.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 3, 2017 23:35:03 GMT
I would appreciate, if DBA will be kept 'simple'! The introduction of fast/solid troops, flank support, etc. was enough of expansion. :-) Remember: K.I.S.S. ... keep it short & simple. Cheers, Ronald. I really like this phrase. Now I know that this thread is about the current rules, and I should have perhaps posted this under Joe Collins “Towards DBA 3.1” thread, but consider the following, where a moving front-edge or front-corner contacts a stationary flank-edge:- A moving element contacts a element = the moving troops conform to the flank, later the stationary troops turn to face. A moving element contacts a group = the moving troops conform to the flank, later the stationary troops turn to face. A moving group contacts a group = the moving group conforms to the flank, later the stationary troops turn to face. A moving group contacts a element* = the stationary single element immediately turns and conforms to the group. (* if the stationary element were in rough or bad going, the moving group must conform, as if it contacted a group) So sometimes the turning-to-face happens after the Movement Phase has finished, and sometimes it happens immediately. Would it not have been simpler to have all situations turning to face immediately, once the moving troops had conformed and lined-up to the enemy flank? This would have been far more consistent, less complicated, and easier to remember...as well as more realistic. It would also allow the moving player to choose which element the stationary troops must turn towards (i.e. the first to make contact). ---Additional, added later---In fact, waiting until after the Movement Phase has finished to turn introduced an extra problem:- Here the red element 'A' was first to make contact on a blue flank, then red element 'B' did so on the opposite flank. After the Movement Phase has finished, the blue element turns to face element 'A'. But as you can see, this would leave element 'B' no longer in contact. So page 10 paragraph 1 had to add a fix: "Any existing contacts are adjusted to maintain contact". Well...if the turning-to-face happened immediately, during the move, this fix would have been unnecessary. So having to wait until after the Movement Phase has finished to turn (an extra complication), required a fix to maintain additional contacts (another extra complication). Therefore, the current rules do not "keep it short & simple"...at least, not as short and simple as it could have been. (I'd much rather have a simple system that 'might' have some issues than a complicated system that does have them)
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 4, 2017 8:46:05 GMT
Here the red element 'A' was first to make contact, then red element 'B' did so. After the Movement Phase has finished, the blue element turns to face element 'A'. But as you can see, this would leave element 'B' no longer in contact. So page 10 paragraph 1 had to add a fix: "Any existing contacts are adjusted to maintain contact". Well...if the turning-to-face happened immediately, during the move, this fix would have been unnecessary. So having to wait until after the Movement Phase has finished to turn (an extra complication), required a fix to maintain additional contacts (another extra complication). Therefore, the current rules do not "keep it short & simple"...at least, not as short and simple as it could have been. (I'd much rather have a simple system that 'might' have some issues than a complicated system that does have them) Hello Stevie, but I don't see the point. Looking at figure 14d (page 24) you have to adjust the contact of element A anyway ... during or after the movement. I remember some situations where it was important to wait and having all movments done. Then checking any turnings or adjustments. cheers, Ronald
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 4, 2017 10:00:41 GMT
Hi Ronald,
Ho kay then…which of these is ‘simpler’:- (using my picture, which is the same as diagram 14d, but with element ‘Z‘ missing)
1)‘A’ moves once only, to line up with the enemy flank. (note that if ‘A’ were part of a group, then the blue element would turn immediately. As it is, we have to wait) 2)‘B’ moves next, also lining-up with the enemy’s other flank. 3)Once the Move Phase is over, players have to remember which red element made 1st contact, and the blue’s turn to face it. 4)Now ‘B’ is no longer touching, so ‘B’ must move again to maintain contact. (And if ‘B’ is also part of a long group, they all move, which might cause complications with other blue elements)
------OR-----
1) ‘A’ moves once only, to line up with the enemy flank, then the blue element immediately turns to face. (Even if ‘A’ were part of a group, the blue element still immediately turns to face) 2) ‘B’ moves next, once only, using their normal move allowance, now that the blue element has already turned to face. (And if ‘B’ is also part of a long group, they can see if moving all of them would cause trouble, and might choose to split it and only move part of the group)
Seems to me that the second method is much easier and less complex.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 4, 2017 10:26:59 GMT
Stevie The double contact situation you showed in the recent pic is all covered by the first 4 lines of text on p10, so needs no changes.
M
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 4, 2017 11:35:11 GMT
Stevie The double contact situation you showed in the recent pic is all covered by the first 4 lines of text on p10, so needs no changes. Welcome Martin, Perhaps I’m not making myself clear because I used the word ‘immediately’ when I should have used the word ‘instantly’.
Page 10 paragraph 1 says:- “Immediately after the movement phase (i.e. once the bounding player has stopped moving everything), turn to face a flank attack…” But this is not true is it. Page 9 paragraph 10 says:- “A single element contacted by a group conforms to the group…” And when does this conforming and turning occur? Page 9 paragraph 10, last sentence says:- “Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact, contacted elements conform at contact.” In other words, a single stationary element contacted by a moving group turns and conforms instantly.
But if the very same single stationary element is contacted in the flank by a moving single element, we have to wait until all movement has been completed before those contacted will turn to face. Even then, we still have to move, again, after the end of the Movement Phase, because we still have to maintain contact with elements that do turn to face. Would it not have been much simpler to have all turning to face happening instantly, once the moving player had lined-up with the flank, just like when a group contacts a single element’s flank? (Not that there is much we can do about it now in DBA 3.0…the rules have already been written.)
|
|
|
Post by martin on Nov 4, 2017 12:15:23 GMT
Well, excuse me if I'm misreading, but that would allow a flank attacker (who would otherwise be merely closing the door) to break off an end element of a group before that same group was contacted en masse by another group....where's the logic in that? M
|
|