|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 4, 2017 13:55:53 GMT
But that is exactly what happens now Martin.
Imagine a red element is attacking and has lined-up a the blue group’s flank, and no other red elements are involved.
By the time combat actually starts, the end blue element ‘A’ has turned to face the red flank attack.
The red player has broken-off an end element from a group before that same group was contacted en masse by another group.
What difference does it make if this turn happens instantly on contact, or after the end of the Move Phase?
The difference is that if there were another red element ready to simultaneously hit blue element ‘A’ frontally, then the blue element would not turn to face the flank attack (because it’s already engaged), so they would stay facing those pesky psiloi in front of them instead of the far more dangerous red knights crashing into their flank.
“Sire, the enemy knights are beginning to charge our flank! Shouldn’t we turn to face them?”
“No, I want to wait until everyone else has moved first.”
“But sire, if those skirmishers to our front move in, we won’t be able to turn at all!”
“Shut up knave and stop using common sense…just follow the rules…”
So, not only do we have an awkward system (where sometimes elements turn instantly, and sometimes they wait until everyone has moved), and occasionally we have to physically move our elements twice in a bound (once to contact the flank, and then again after the move phase ends to maintain contact with those turning), this unnecessarily complex system doesn’t even give us a good realistic outcome!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 4, 2017 14:41:39 GMT
But that is exactly what happens now Martin. Here the red element has lined-up with the blue group’s flank, and no other red elements are involved. By the time combat actually starts, the end blue element ‘A’ has turned to face the red flank attack. The red player has broken-off an end element from a group before that same group was contacted en masse by another group. What difference does it make if this turn happens instantly on contact, or after the end of the Move Phase? The difference is that if there were another red element ready to simultaneously hit blue element ‘A’ frontally, then the blue element would not turn to face the flank attack (because it’s already engaged), so they would stay facing those pesky psiloi in front of them instead of the far more dangerous red knights crashing into their flank. ... this unnecessarily complex system doesn’t even give us a good realistic outcome!Hi stevie, as you said: "doesn’t even give us a good realistic outcome!"
Well - it is not realistic!  It's an abstraction.
Movement takes place simultaneously but you as the general sometimes have the possibility to handle some of your troups 'earlier' and some 'later' to get a different tactical situation. For me that is part of the game.
Cheers,
Ronald.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 4, 2017 15:20:51 GMT
Ronald, we seem to have swapped roles... ...I'm the one who wants to "keep it short & simple", while you now want to defend an unnecessarily complex system!  As for abstractions, yes, all wargame rules are abstractions. But an abstraction that gives approximately realistic results is better than an abstraction that doesn't. And if that abstraction is also easier to use, is less complex, and shorter, then so much the better. (Anyway, the rules are what they are, and we can't change them...at least, not in DBA 3.0...)
|
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Nov 4, 2017 23:05:56 GMT
As a counter to the argument that in the real world the SP focus on the KN attacking the flank and pay less attention to the PS first contacting them, in RTS games I have often engaged an opposing unit with one of my weaker units and then hit them in the flank with a heavier unit. Something I Have also seen occurring in accounts of historical battles. Of course in DBA with a flanker on providing a -1 modifier regardless of their combat value this is not as effective. Better to attack a SP with a BD and have a PS watch than to have both hit in a situation where the PS becomes the primary attacker even with a hard flank.
I recall doing so in a tourney in fact, although it was a LH and CV general and not a PS and BD.
One other point on Steve's double flank example would be that if the turn was made at first contact the second might well not have had enough movement to make its contact. As it is it gets the free slide to maintain its relative position. Not something that would occur frequently, but still perhaps a consideration.
Not sure if these add to the discussion, but thought I'd throw them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 5, 2017 1:28:47 GMT
I don't know, flank attacks feel about the right amount of "deadly" for me as is. Having the flank attacker's side basically being able to choose which element is the "lead", no matter the means, will, in my view, over the long run shorten an already quick-playing game.
This has never bothered me as a player, and I do not see the elements as solid blocks, but as fluid and dynamic. This helps me get comfort with "non-obvious" mechanics, and challenge myself to plan better.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 5, 2017 10:06:06 GMT
Yes goragrad, it is a bit odd that powerful troops such as knights, who are capable of sweeping an enemy off the field when they charge them frontally, become as weak and ineffectual as psiloi when they charge an enemy in their vulnerable flanks. One would have thought they would be more powerful, not less. But there is one last thing I’d like to say on this subject. Had the “instant turn-to-face” method been chosen rather than the “wait to turn-to-face” system, flanking knights (and other flanking troops) would fight facing their stationary opponents front, so they would pursue if victorious. As it stands at the moment, flanking troops mysteriously become unimpetuous for some reason, and don’t pursue. So the “instant turn-to-face” method has so many advantages, and cures so many problems:- It’s simpler and more consistent (instead of sometimes turning on contact and at other times waiting)… It allows the moving/bounding player to decide which troops fight (by forcing turning on 1st contact)… It’s quicker, as elements are only moved once (instead of moving again after the Move Phase has finished)… And it causes impetuous troops to actually pursue (because after the turn, they are facing a front-edge)… Still, there is no point in crying over spilt milk, or pining for what might have been. It was decided to go with the inferior “wait to turn-to-face” system, and we’ll just have to learn to live with it. Fortunately, DBA 3.0 is too good a gaming system to let something as relatively trivial as turning-to-face ruin it. Therefore I’ll say no more on the matter and just concentrate on the rules as they are now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ronisan on Nov 5, 2017 11:23:00 GMT
Hello Stevie, I think the “wait to turn-to-face” system is perfect, simple and much "more realistic".
Look at the picture:
"In reality" (!) the movement of element D and E would be simultaneous. There is no need for element A to give up its kind of "shieldwall"-position being attacked in the front, just because some other enemies are also attacking its flank. It won't be a good idea to change formation 90 degrees to the right in the heat of being attacked into your front!?
Cheers,
Ronald.
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 5, 2017 12:53:54 GMT
Ronald, you’re making me go back on my vow of not talking about this matter any more. As for your diagram:- What if ‘D’ were blades and ‘E’ were psiloi? Would ‘A’ just stand there and not respond using ‘simultaneous movement’ to the greatest threat? That doesn’t sound very realistic… But it’s ok, because flank attacks are a mere -1, no matter what troops are making the attack. That doesn’t sound very realistic… And if ‘D’ were Kn, Wb or Bd, they mysteriously forget that they are impetuous, and don’t pursue. That doesn’t sound very realistic… Lastly, if ‘A’ were a single element, and red element ‘D’ was part of a group, then ‘A’ would “instantly turn-to-face”. So much for being simple and consistent… Anyway, none of this matters. We have to use the rules as they are written, so all this is academic. But I’ll tell you one thing… HAD “instant turning-to-face” been introduced into DBA 3.0, I very much doubt people today would be clamouring for the “wait to turn” method, and demanding:- “We want the enemy to face our weakest and not our strongest troops when we charge them in the flank.” “And we want flank attackers to be as weak as possible, no better than psiloi.” “And we want pursuing troops not to pursue when they smash into a flank.” “And we want a more complex system, where sometimes we turn instantly, and sometimes we wait till after the Move Phase”.  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 primuspilus on Nov 5, 2017 13:58:08 GMT
Ronald, you’re making me go back on my vow of not talking about this matter any more. As for your diagram:- What if ‘D’ were blades and ‘E’ were psiloi? Would ‘A’ just stand there and not respond using ‘simultaneous movement’ to the greatest threat? That doesn’t sound very realistic… But it’s ok, because flank attacks are a mere -1, no matter what troops are making the attack. That doesn’t sound very realistic… And if ‘D’ were Kn, Wb or Bd, they mysteriously forget that they are impetuous, and don’t pursue. That doesn’t sound very realistic… Lastly, if ‘A’ were a single element, and red element ‘D’ was part of a group, then ‘A’ would “instantly turn-to-face”. So much for being simple and consistent… Anyway, none of this matters. We have to use the rules as they are written, so all this is academic. But I’ll tell you one thing… HAD “instant turning-to-face” been introduced into DBA 3.0, I very much doubt people today would be clamouring for the “wait to turn” method, and demanding:- “We want the enemy to face our weakest and not our strongest troops when we charge them in the flank.” “And we want flank attackers to be as weak as possible, no better than psiloi.” “And we want pursuing troops not to pursue when they smash into a flank.” “And we want a more complex system, where sometimes we turn instantly, and sometimes we wait till after the Move Phase”. 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
Has anyone examined "pursuit" in more detail, i.e. what it actually represents? To me, there are two sides in a battle - us over here on this side of the valley, and the bad guys over there, straight ahead. Presumably impetuous troops are not spontaneously impetuous, like a gang of mad puppies or magpies, but on average, have been worked into a kind of bloodlust over their morning raw meat and beer, and are hungering to charge "straight over there, that-a-way" and smash the enemy straight through his frontal sector (bash his face in), and keep chasing him all the way back to his homeland... I think there is an unwritten assumption that is being overlooked: troops flee back in the opposite direction to their established frontal battleline? Impetuous troops not pursuing a defeated hardflank does not bother me in the slightest, and I suspect changing this may lead to unusual tactics. On average, Kn charge straight ahead, Cv attack flanks. I think this was by design intent. The current rules encourage this to some extent. |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 5, 2017 14:32:10 GMT
As a reminder of the law of unintended consequences, see from about 33:50 on in Tony Aguilar's youtube video on the chariot battle. TZ's will flick on and off with each turn to face. This will have very significant consequences in a 12-piece game.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 6, 2017 9:45:36 GMT
Ronald, you’re making me go back on my vow of not talking about this matter any more. As for your diagram:- What if ‘D’ were blades and ‘E’ were psiloi? Would ‘A’ just stand there and not respond using ‘simultaneous movement’ to the greatest threat? That doesn’t sound very realistic… But it’s ok, because flank attacks are a mere -1, no matter what troops are making the attack. That doesn’t sound very realistic… And if ‘D’ were Kn, Wb or Bd, they mysteriously forget that they are impetuous, and don’t pursue. That doesn’t sound very realistic… It doesn't matter what kind of troops the elements are ... they are just enemies, who want to kill your soldiers. It doesn't matter, if they will be killed by a Knight or a Psiloi!Lastly, if ‘A’ were a single element, and red element ‘D’ was part of a group, then ‘A’ would “instantly turn-to-face”. NO!!!
The rules say (page 9): Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p.10), contacted elements conform at contact.
That means, even a single element being contacted in its flank or rear has to wait until the end of the bound. If it's not contacted in its front also ... then (and only then) it turns to the (first) contactor!
So much for being simple and consistent… Anyway, none of this matters. We have to use the rules as they are written, so all this is academic. But I’ll tell you one thing… HAD “instant turning-to-face” been introduced into DBA 3.0, I very much doubt people today would be clamouring for the “wait to turn” method, and demanding:- “We want the enemy to face our weakest and not our strongest troops when we charge them in the flank.” “And we want flank attackers to be as weak as possible, no better than psiloi.” “And we want pursuing troops not to pursue when they smash into a flank.” “And we want a more complex system, where sometimes we turn instantly, and sometimes we wait till after the Move Phase”.
Hi Stevie, be so kind to look at my coments ( red) in the quoted text above. cheers. Ronald. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 6, 2017 13:05:22 GMT
Lastly, if ‘A’ were a single element, and red element ‘D’ was part of a group, then ‘A’ would “instantly turn-to-face”. NO!!!
The rules say (page 9): Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p.10), contacted elements conform at contact.
That means, even a single element being contacted in its flank or rear has to wait until the end of the bound. If it's not contacted in its front also ... then (and only then) it turns to the (first) contactor!Oh, I see Ronald, well spotted. “A single element contacted by a group conforms to it…”, and “Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact, contacted elements conform on contact”, and these two sentences appear to contradict each other. For example, who conforms and when in this picture:-  I’ve always assumed that the single stationary blue element would have to conform and instantly line-up it’s front-edge with the front of red element ‘B’ of the moving group (but I have been known to interpret the rules too literally), or should the blue element merely line-up its flank (as shown by the dotted lines) and only later after the end of the Move Phase does it then turn to face? The latter procedure seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Still, if that is the case, and there is no “instant turn-to-face”, that still doesn’t alter the fact that there should be, as it would solve the facing of the weakest instead of the strongest troops when making a flank attack, or that flank attackers are as weak as psiloi, or that pursuing troops don’t pursue when they charge a flank (and instantly turning-to-face is much simpler as well). About Pursuit
To answer primuspilus concerning pursuit, I may (yet again!) have confused things by using the word ‘impetuous’. Impetuous troops are those that charge without orders, and are not really represented as such in DBA 3.0. Pursuing “represents following up a retiring close combat opponent or panicked survivors of a destroyed element with the intention of continuing to kill them”. The direction of base edges is unimportant. The panicked troops just want to run away in the opposite direction and put as much distance between themselves and their attackers, while the commander-in-chief has temporarily lost control of the pursuers as they continue to cut down the helpless enemy from behind. And as Paddy649 posted on page 3 of this thread: “You don’t stop being ‘impetuous’ (when and where possible) just because you hit a flank rather than the front of a unit.” |
|
|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 6, 2017 16:51:07 GMT
Stevie ... Stevie ...  the contact of the red group is not legal (corner to edge is not allowed! Page 20, figure 10). Let's stick to the rules! You have to have enough movement allowance to get into position "own front-edge to enemy flank-edge with own front corner to enemy front corner"! And the blue element has to turn at the end of the bound, but only if it is not contacted on its front edge by a different red element during that bound! See Picture. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 6, 2017 17:19:10 GMT
Stevie, the key word is "retire". But I think you missed the gist of my argument. "Retire" is, on average mind you, back towards their own lines...
As DBA is an abstraction, it is the "on average" part that is key.
Kn did not (according to the assumptions in the design) operate as flank attackers, at a high level, but went "straight at" the enemy.
Of course,in your scenario where a Sp is attacked by Ps to the front, and charged by Kn to the flank, it is an assumption (however reasonable) that the Sp routs away from the Kn, and does not have yhe troops attempt to break free by running back towards friendly lines. If they are indeed running back toward friendly lines, (or at least back away from the "front line", however that gets defined), then the Kn would NOT pursue, as they can kill enemy spearmen pretty much by staying put and hacking away, no?
Again, this is a perfectly reasonable simplifying assumption to me, as an overall nod to the interplay between game and history.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 6, 2017 17:44:44 GMT
LOL.. Stevie has quite a lot of last things to say...
Quick suggestion...
I would actually open up a new thread to continue this discussion. I fear it will eventually get lost due to the title. Certainly a year from now it will be obscured by the title.
Joe Collins
|
|
It's an abstraction.
