|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 8, 2017 21:42:21 GMT
However, I do find it somewhat amusing when players defend something in the present rules, not because it is the best way of doing things, but purely because it is the current dogma… …like how for 20 years spears receiving rear-support was the accepted dogma, and players bent over backward to justify it, until a much better method came along and now side-support is the new accepted dogma, with all the old rear-support justifications of 20 years conveniently forgotten and assigned to the dustbin. So who knows, perhaps if a better method of turning-to-face were incorporated into DBA 3.1 then it would become the new dogma, and the present system will be forgotten…because DBA is still evolving.
I find it just as amusing when a new way is defended as "obvious" in spite of decades of contrary play In DBA3 there is a restriction on moving and shooting, a rule that was absent through all of my previous years of playing Ancients under WRG except for a brief and very specific hiccup in WRG6th where Longbows could not move more than half their distance and shoot. WRG5th, WRG6th (Except for the above one case), WRG7th, DBA1, DBA2 - I don't know about DBM or DBMM in any of their versions but we are talking about nearly 40 years of us being absolutely wrong  Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 8, 2017 21:46:58 GMT
Following on from my previous post, the question below springs to mind:- Why was the “wait to turn” method introduced in the first place?I have pointed out the bad combat simulations this method brings (facing the weakest instead of the strongest troops, flank attackers being as weak as psiloi, pursuers not pursuing, more complicated, etc), so why did the play testers decide that all these issues were worth tolerating for the sake of “waiting to turn”? Just what is it that “waiting to turn” adds to the game that is worth sacrificing all the above subjects? In other words, why add something to the game that causes more problems than it solves? Having said that, it is now only fair that I point out some of the problems that “instant turning-to-face” may add. Players that are prepared to give the new method a try may find more. Shifting Threat ZonesIf an element instantly turns to face the first enemy to contact its flank, the Threat Zone will turn with it. I don’t think this a major problem, but if it is it could be justified by assuming that the first 5 minutes of a 15 minute bound have been used to distract, divert, and occupy the attention of the turning troops. If that explanation is insufficient, then perhaps the Threat Zone rules could include the following new words:- “An element or group that begins a bound at least partly within a TZ, or whose front edge enters an enemy TZ…etc” (An exception for troops making extra moves will also probably be needed) Pursuers will still sometimes fail to pursueWhen troops instantly turn to face a flank attack, mutual front-edges will be in contact, so the normal pursuit rules will apply (I like to think of this as “charging a flank”). When troops that are already engaged frontally are attacked in flank, they cannot turn, so any pursuers will not pursue just as they don’t with the current turning to face rules (I like to think of this as “probing a flank”). These are the only problems I’ve found with the “instant turning-to-face” method so far… 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
To the list above we can add also Changes in contact distance
when an element turns as soon as it is contacted then other elements at close to maximum move distance from this target could become either just in or just out of contact range. as their facing and the positioning of the "short" and "long" edge changes as the element facing changes. I am sure that this could be construed as either an advantage or a disadvantage but either way it adds another layer of complexity to how movement is conducted. Cheers ...and another level of complexity is perhaps the last thing we want. I think we are at risk of wrecking what is a perfectly good rule set that has been, and is, enjoyed by may over the years. Let's calm down and continue to play the game. Simon |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on Nov 8, 2017 21:47:52 GMT
I agree Simon - are we approaching the "Perfect is the enemy of good" arc  Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 8, 2017 22:38:07 GMT
Having pondered this question, I've come to the conclusion that turning to face is not the solution (which I had been stuck on for sometime).
The far better solution is to have the Bounding player designate the primary attacking element. So if you have a Ps to the front but a Knight crashing into the flank the Bounding player can designate the Knight as the primary attacker. All combat results apply to the primary attacker (so if victorious it Pursues for instance solving the why don't flanking Knights Pursue issue raised in a different thread). The primary attacker must be in front edge contact and can count as both a Hard Flank and primary attacker. Interesting optional rule: any Knight or Warband that is in front edge contact MUST be declared the primary attacker (so enjoy those Destroyed on Equals Cry Havoc results...).
This solves many problems not least of which is the rotating TZ. (Again the problem is somewhat cosmetic as the actual in game effect is small - but not zero - but this scheme works well and seems far more reasonable than the current rule).
As to history at least for medieval battle the "crush" - see the Battle of the Bastards for a graphic example - was the big killer. It occured when troops were trapped between at least two advancing foes. Frontal contacts tended to feature a bunch of indecisive battering. One reason why the winners seemed to suffer such low causalties despite heavy fighting prior to the "break".
Please note though that none of these ideas will be adopted for tournament play - the rules will remain DBA 3.0 as written (as near as we can ever figure out what they mean). But are great ideas for playing at home, big battle, campaigns and esp. historical battles. We've just implemented the primary attacker rule in our last round of K&K playtests - worked great and calmed down the historical players who hate the current rule.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Nov 8, 2017 22:45:54 GMT
I agree that purely from a simplicity of the rules perspective, turning to face on contact makes a lot of sense... if we assume that turning to face is the norm, rather than an exception. Coming at the rules as someone with no prior knowledge of earlier versions of the rules, as stevie advocates, I think we should question this assumption.
I look at hard flanking in DBA as an escalated version of overlapping. It represents a tactical situation where a unit engaged in close combat is especially vulnerable because it lacks friendly support to its flank, and the opponent has sufficient mobility to exploit this vulnerability. But it is an abstraction - it might represent a unit having to spread itself especially thinly in order to maintain a battle line, or an enemy force in position to pounce on soldiers disengaging from melee, rather than representing a unit being literally attacked from the side.
If units never changed facing in response to enemy contact, this would be consistent with a vision of hard flanking as an especially dangerous overlap. The exceptional rule then would not be the choice to delay turning to face, but rather the rule that units _ever_ turn to face an opponent in contact with them. The "turning to face" rule can be seen as a "hack" to deal with the case where the movement phase of a bound ends with a passive unit under attack but with no enemy to its front.
Requiring such a unit to turn ensures that all close combat rules can be expressed in terms of units in front-to-front contact, but it is a pragmatic exception to the rule that units never turn to face, rather than a real-world maneuver that the game is aiming to simulate (this is not to say that a game couldn't choose to simulate turning to face, only to say that DBA does not simulate this).
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 8, 2017 22:53:13 GMT
Should mention dogma: its the result of inercia and tournament play not a cool assesement of how rules should work. It never should have been the case that missile weapons could move full distance and shoot at full effect. Almost every other game system had some restriction in this regard but since it had not been part of WRG games, we were stuck with the incorrect assumption that it didn't matter; it does and we have now - at last - fixed it. DBA 3.0 has lots of overdue improvements. We need to stop rationalizing stuff that has just gotten into the rules often by accident and we have just as yet not figured out how to fix without sending players into a panic. We spent two years developing 3.0 while hearing endless cries that the sky was falling (and a huge split in the US). Yet now at least amongest those who play 3.0 is generally agreed that its marked improvement in simulation value over 2.2.
Its quite possible to recognize a problem but just have to admit we have not found an elegant way to fix it (elegance in design if not presentation is the hallmark of DBX). But when do discover a fix lets not all start rationalizing the old method and decrying the new, lest we sound like a bunch of DBX cool aid drinkers (of which I'm often accused...)
Experimental rules are great and often reveal that the problem is not the DBX method but only our current application of it.
But again they cannot be used in tournaments. DBA 3.0 is a Dragonfly in Amber. Unchanging and Unchangable by anyone but Phil (and good luck with that).
Tomt
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 8, 2017 23:00:15 GMT
I agree that purely from a simplicity of the rules perspective, turning to face on contact makes a lot of sense... if we assume that turning to face is the norm, rather than an exception. Coming at the rules as someone with no prior knowledge of earlier versions of the rules, as stevie advocates, I think we should question this assumption. I look at hard flanking in DBA as an escalated version of overlapping. It represents a tactical situation where a unit engaged in close combat is especially vulnerable because it lacks friendly support to its flank, and the opponent has sufficient mobility to exploit this vulnerability. But it is an abstraction - it might represent a unit having to spread itself especially thinly in order to maintain a battle line, or an enemy force in position to pounce on soldiers disengaging from melee, rather than representing a unit being literally attacked from the side. If units never changed facing in response to enemy contact, this would be consistent with a vision of hard flanking as an especially dangerous overlap. The exceptional rule then would not be the choice to delay turning to face, but rather the rule that units _ever_ turn to face an opponent in contact with them. The "turning to face" rule can be seen as a "hack" to deal with the case where the movement phase of a bound ends with a passive unit under attack but with no enemy to its front. Requiring such a unit to turn ensures that all close combat rules can be expressed in terms of units in front-to-front contact, but it is a pragmatic exception to the rule that units never turn to face, rather than a real-world maneuver that the game is aiming to simulate (this is not to say that a game couldn't choose to simulate turning to face, only to say that DBA does not simulate this). Interesting comments Michael... Query to the group... how does HoTT 2.1 handle turns to face? Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 9, 2017 1:10:38 GMT
I maintain that death by hard flank is just about the right level of incentive for flank attacks. Combining the QK for hard flank with the attacker's choice of combat factor (effectively) on average shortens the game, and renders many intriguing flanking skirmishes now utterly deadly, and over pretty much immediately. I maintain the incentive against Sp will be to put Bd out wide, and "hold" the centre with Ps or LH.
I think the 12 element games will be over ridiculously quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 9, 2017 12:19:13 GMT
Lots of interesting comments and observations. I’d like to thank everybody for contributing. Simon: having instant turning-to-face is not adding complexity…it is in fact removing it. It would make the awkward, fiddly, and complicated waiting to turn sub-routine completely unnecessary. Macbeth: you mention having to travel a further distance to make contact when an enemy instantly turns. Well, there were many players that were very concerned about DBA 3.0’s increased movement rates. Surely these will already be sufficient, and they don’t need a bit more by shuffling forward after the Move Phase has ended in order to maintain contact with a turning enemy. Primuspilus: about adding verbiage to the the TZ rule…remember that the words “Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact…” would no longer be necessary, and nor would the entire Turning to Face rules on page 10 paragraph 1. Seems a very good trade to me. And you ask what current problem is this instant turning supposed to solve, and at what cost? I noticed that no-one answered my question: what problem is waiting to turn supposed to solve? Because I have already listed the costs of the current method…so was adding it really worth it? Lastly you mention that instantly turning to face could shorten the game length. I have not found this to be true in my experiments with this new method so far. And for good reason. If the element making the flank attack is the same type as that making the frontal attack, then the situation is the same as the current wait to turn method (apart from spears, who would lose their side-support if they turn). Allowing bounding players to effectively choose which of the moving elements gets to fight actually protects weak troops like auxiliaries…and we all know that having Ax in your front line when facing heavy infantry is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Choosing who gets to fight helps combined arms armies, whereas the current wait to turn system actually penalizes them. 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 stevie on Nov 9, 2017 12:24:09 GMT
The far better solution is to have the Bounding player designate the primary attacking element. So if you have a Ps to the front but a Knight crashing into the flank the Bounding player can designate the Knight as the primary attacker. All combat results apply to the primary attacker (so if victorious it Pursues for instance solving the why don't flanking Knights Pursue issue raised in a different thread). The primary attacker must be in front edge contact and can count as both a Hard Flank and primary attacker. TomT Now I think this is an excellent suggestion, and it was also proposed by Jim1973 and Michael Demko as well. I haven’t had a chance to test this yet, but I envision it working something like this:- The current wait to turns rules are unchanged and stay as they are, word-for-word. Unlike the ‘primary shooter’, which is decided by the rules to be the closest to the chosen target, the ‘primary fighter’ would be chosen by the player with the most elements with their front-edge in close combat to the flanked enemy (no matter who's bound it is). And if the ‘primary fighter’ were victorious, and it is of the right type, it will pursue. This seems to solve all these issues:- Threat Zones will not flip and stay as they are now… Flankers get to choose who actually fights, and flankers are not just a mere -1, as weak as psiloi… Combined arms armies are not quite as penalized as they are now, with the weakest doing the fighting… Pursuers will pursue… It even helps to keep our battlelines straight, and not have our elements facing in different directions… The only problem is that DBA is a positional set of rules, where the location and orientation of our bases is used to convey important information, instead of using paperwork or on table markers like other rulesets employ. But DBA players are quite intelligent. If they can change their mindset to adopt side-support, limited movement if you want to shoot, blades/crossbows/longbows quick-killing knights on an equal score, and elephants swapping their combat factors between foot and mounted, then perhaps they can also change their mindset and accept this ‘primary fighter’ method as well. 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 bob on Nov 9, 2017 19:43:06 GMT
I don't like the idea that the bounding player can make up for his lack of good tactics by talking his way into combat. If a player wants his knights to attack in the front then he should just do it. The game is about maneuvering your troops to the best advantage. The game has about 20 years of history with the current method, most of us are happy with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 9, 2017 23:50:59 GMT
I don't like the idea that the bounding player can make up for his lack of good tactics by talking his way into combat. If a player wants his knights to attack in the front then he should just do it. The game is about maneuvering your troops to the best advantage. The game has about 20 years of history with the current method, most of us are happy with it. Well said Bob. Bang on. There are a dozen things I'd "fix" way before I'd fix this oddball fixation woth flanking. And I don't think any of them are worth the cost. Stevie, are you testing your proposals across dozens of players and hundreds of games? Sorry for banging on with the skepticism, but this is, in my view, an awful idea. And the "problem" waiting to turn was supposed to solve? None. It has been the way the game has been lovingly enjoyed by thousands of players across hundreds of thousands of games over the years, with no complaints. There are literally a dozen things that burn a great many folks about the game in the RAW form. This ain't one of them in my view. By all means, house rule it. I houserule EAP Cavalry as Knights, to make the Spartans rightfully nervous and reluctant to engage at Plataea. I allow LH to kill supported Pk on a tie in good going if both final scores are even, to reflect Alexandar's difficulties with fighting Skythians, who would sometimes dismount and duck under the sarissae to get in close with the scalping kinfe. I houserule hoplites to pursue, and sometimes have them fight as Wb in the Pelopponesian war. Just some things that seem needed to me. But I would never suggest these as anything but houserules. Why not include your suggestions in an official variant section for 3.1? |
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Nov 10, 2017 8:57:04 GMT
I am with Bob and Primuspilus on this one. Great to play around with different ideas and the House rules section is is probably the best place to discuss them.
Simon
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 10, 2017 13:16:56 GMT
I don't like the idea that the bounding player can make up for his lack of good tactics by talking his way into combat. If a player wants his knights to attack in the front then he should just do it. The game is about maneuvering your troops to the best advantage. The game has about 20 years of history with the current method, most of us are happy with it. You are quite right Bob, the bounding player should not be allowed to make up for his lack of good tactics by talking his way into combat. But shouldn’t he be rewarded for his good tactics in catching his opponent at such a disadvantage instead of being penalized for it? History shows us that units attacked in the flank or rear were very unlikely to survive, and this is true from the ancient to the modern period. Other rulesets simulate this by giving flanking troops a hefty plus to their combat factors…but no-one is asking for that. All I am suggesting is for recognition of the fact that it is the flanking troops that are the most important and deciding factor in a flank attack, while the troops also fighting to the front have a lesser secondary effect on the final outcome. The current rules do not reflect this, and relegate all flank attacks to be a mere -1, with the troops fighting to the front having the biggest impact. For example, suppose I have a Late Republican Roman Marian army, composed of mostly blades, and I punch a hole in the centre of my opponents battleline. It would be a good tactic to to ‘shut the door’ and attack the flank of a neighbouring enemy element with the victorious blades while also engaging them to the front with other blades. My resultant combat factor (using the current system, or the proposed instant-turn-to-face method, or the proposed ‘primary fighter’ method) would be 5, with the enemy having -1 for the flank attack, and he will be destroyed if he recoils. But now suppose it was you fighting exactly the same enemy and in exactly the same situation, but you have a Early or Middle Imperial Roman army, consisting of half blades and half auxiliaries. When you ‘shut the door’ and attack the flank of a neighbouring enemy element with the victorious blades, you may find you have no choice but to engage them to the front with your auxiliaries. Your resultant combat factor (using the current system) would only be 3, with the enemy having -1 for the flank attack, and he will be destroyed if he recoils. Why is your Early or Middle Imperial Roman army being penalized, while my Marian army is being rewarded? Why?…it’s because your flanking blades, which should have the biggest impact, is relegated to a mere -1, that’s why. Having instant-turning-to-face, or choosing the ‘primary fighter’, would correct this imbalance, and have both armies recognising the importance of the flanking troops, and both armies would have a combat factor 5. Or are you saying that it’s your fault and your ‘bad tactics’ for bringing an army with so many auxiliaries in it? 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 stevie on Nov 10, 2017 13:20:43 GMT
Well primuspilus, since you asked, I’m currently testing solo and seeing if I can find any flaws with the new suggestions, because if I can find any flaws then I’m pretty sure others would to (you have to learn to craw before you can walk as the saying goes). I’m now past that stage and doing exactly what you suggest…this thread is about offering it to dozens of other players so that they can test it for themselves and contribute their opinions (and already a counter proposal has been suggested, that of the ‘primary fighter’, which might possibly be better). And your mention of the Spartans is an interesting one. Several players, and even Phil Barker himself, have toyed with the idea of Spartan hoplites fighting as blades…not because they used swords, but because blades in DBA are superior to spears. As blades they would have the discipline to maintain their ‘shield-wall’ as it were, even if they were an isolated single element, and only having a combat for of 3 instead of spear’s 4 when facing mounted could simulate the Spartans being rightfully nervous and reluctant to engage the Persian cavalry at the battle of Plataea. But I digress. And the "problem" waiting to turn was supposed to solve? None. It has been the way the game has been lovingly enjoyed by thousands of players across hundreds of thousands of games over the years, with no complaints. Really? Is that your argument? Waiting to turn adds nothing but an extra unnecessary complication to the game but as we have played it that way for decades it must be right? Well, perhaps we should all go back to having rear-support for spears then. After all, this new side-support has only been around for 3 or 4 years, while rear-supported spears is the way the game has been lovingly enjoyed by thousands of players across hundreds of thousands of games over the past 20 years, with no complaints. Sorry if I seem harsh, but by all means criticise a new suggestion because it is impracticable, or is too complicated, or it is unrealistic, not because “we have played using the current system for a long time, so anything new must be bad”. DBA is still evolving, and DBA 3.0 is not the end and final product. I think real dichotomy here is between those players who are happy to just play games, even if some of the rules do not match what the history books tell us, and those historical players that want a bit more ‘realism’, providing said realism does make the rules too complicated. But do we have to have a situation where one side or the other is trying to dominate and mind control the rest? Can we not reach a compromise, and say each to their own, and give both parties what they desire? Well, the ‘game’ players already have what they want in the current DBA 3.0, so their needs are catered for. But what about the ‘historical’ players…can they not have their needs catered for as well in a new version called DBA 3.1? 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
|
|
