|
|
Post by ronisan on Nov 10, 2017 15:58:12 GMT
Hello, I'm in both worlds. If I want to play quick after-work battles ... I play DBA 3.0 ... Perfect!  If I want to play more 'historical accurate' battles ... I play DBMM 2.1 ... Perfect! Is anybody driving a FERRARI off-road? No.  Does anybody have fun driving a LADA on the german "Autobahn"? No. Choose what you need for which situation. Cheers, Ronald |
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Nov 10, 2017 15:59:20 GMT
I think this debate stems partly from taking the representation of the game too literally. When a unit is "destroyed" in DBA, it vanishes from the board. Does this mean the men in the unit literally disappear into thin air? Of course not. So then what happens to them? Some of them are dying, some of them are quite likely _still_fighting_, others are running away and being pursued by members of the unit that destroyed them. Why does this matter? Because when a unit is "destroyed" in the battle line, its opponent likely does not have the organization to execute a fine maneuver and turn on the nearest unit in the line (which itself is at least partially engaged in combat) and "hit it in the flank". A unit which is "destroyed" in DBA represents a circumstance where the opponent has achieved enough superiority that it is free to exert influence elsewhere in the battle, and many players in this forum do not want that outcome to be interpreted over-generously.
Likewise, when a "hard-flank" opportunity arises at the end of a battle line, this does not have to represent a unit literally fighting to its front while also being chewed up from the side. It represents the severe disadvantage of a unit being outnumbered 2 to 1. Likely the unit isn't equally engaged with men from both opposing units, but it is fair to assume that under different circumstances the engagement could have favored fiercer fighting with one of the units rather than the other, and that who is deepest in the thick of things is not necessarily under the control of the outnumbering force.
Again, this is not to say that a game couldn't work differently from the way DBA does, but it is to say that we've accepted a lot of abstraction in the game already to get the "feel" of battle lines striving against one another, and I don't see why we have to say that the "closing the door" mechanic is somehow special and needs to be interpreted as a literal strike to the flank.
This problem arises in hex-and-counter games (which I play a lot of), where attacks on the flank are both: generously rewarded; and far too easy to achieve in most rule systems. Many games boil down to players taking turns hitting each other on "flanks" that arise as an artifact of the hex grid system, even though in real life you would have a continuous line. Part of what I like about DBA is that most combat is front to front, with modifiers for various types of support, and part of this I think is a conscious preference in the rules for not modeling "real" flank attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 10, 2017 17:09:22 GMT
Once again Stevie is spot on.
The game currently punishes the sound tactic of charging Knights into the flank of an opponent occupied to the front. Both Stevie and my proposal reward sound tactics and remove a gamey mechanic. The counter arguements devolve to "since we have always made this mistake in the past lets keep making it". Its bascially the same arguement we waded through during the whole DBA 3.0 development. Its difficult to conceive of any rule more tacticaly and historically unsound than the current "front only" method (though its a testment to the overall effectiveness of DBX that it matters from a game perspective much less than it appears).
Some problems can't be fixed (at least not in a user friendly way). DBMM tried to fix problems but did so with out regard to the elegance which is the essence of DBX. It ended up oddly in many ways a less effective simulation than DBA 3.0 (in some ways the shooting rules are better in DBA 3.0). This demonstrates that elegance can be an asset even if increased simulation value is your goal. So I do, reviewing the train wreck of DBMM, take with caution suggestions for new mechanics. But that is quite different than rejecting new ideas simply because we've been stuck in a rut so long that current players no longer care (bare in mind that oddities like the "front only" attack cause people to leave DBX for less gamey systems so we simply don't here from them anymore as they are off playing the French game or something else).
I freely admit I got hung up on the turn to face solution to this annoying problem and could never in many test games make it work quite right (the spinning TZ just changed too much stuff in bound). For what ever reason I just had not conceived of the primary attacker method. We used it in out last Knights and Knaves playtest (we added it at the last minute to the Fire and Ice 2nd Edition - which just got released) and it worked very well. Its effect is not all that dramatic (because from a game perspective the problem is smaller than it looks) but in reason and logic and what players expect to happen, it worked wonders. I wish that I my gaming muse had visited on this issue during 3.0 development as it would have been a great edition to DBX mechanics. Alas, I was stuck on an interesting but ultimately unworkable alternative.
I strongly recommend adapting it for all purposes OUTSIDE tournaments. It helps to bring in historical players who may eventually become tournament players (most players recognize that the tournament environment is going to be stricter on rules and less concerned about sound historical tactics.) It makes the DBX method seem to work better for players who want to use sound tactics rather than "work" the rules and thus helps us spread acceptance of DBX methods outside the tournament community.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 10, 2017 22:20:13 GMT
Once again Stevie is spot on. The game currently punishes the sound tactic of charging Knights into the flank of an opponent occupied to the front. Both Stevie and my proposal reward sound tactics and remove a gamey mechanic. The counter arguements devolve to "since we have always made this mistake in the past lets keep making it". Its bascially the same arguement we waded through during the whole DBA 3.0 development. Its difficult to conceive of any rule more tacticaly and historically unsound than the current "front only" method (though its a testment to the overall effectiveness of DBX that it matters from a game perspective much less than it appears). Some problems can't be fixed (at least not in a user friendly way). DBMM tried to fix problems but did so with out regard to the elegance which is the essence of DBX. It ended up oddly in many ways a less effective simulation than DBA 3.0 (in some ways the shooting rules are better in DBA 3.0). This demonstrates that elegance can be an asset even if increased simulation value is your goal. So I do, reviewing the train wreck of DBMM, take with caution suggestions for new mechanics. But that is quite different than rejecting new ideas simply because we've been stuck in a rut so long that current players no longer care (bare in mind that oddities like the "front only" attack cause people to leave DBX for less gamey systems so we simply don't here from them anymore as they are off playing the French game or something else). I freely admit I got hung up on the turn to face solution to this annoying problem and could never in many test games make it work quite right (the spinning TZ just changed too much stuff in bound). For what ever reason I just had not conceived of the primary attacker method. We used it in out last Knights and Knaves playtest (we added it at the last minute to the Fire and Ice 2nd Edition - which just got released) and it worked very well. Its effect is not all that dramatic (because from a game perspective the problem is smaller than it looks) but in reason and logic and what players expect to happen, it worked wonders. I wish that I my gaming muse had visited on this issue during 3.0 development as it would have been a great edition to DBX mechanics. Alas, I was stuck on an interesting but ultimately unworkable alternative. I strongly recommend adapting it for all purposes OUTSIDE tournaments. It helps to bring in historical players who may eventually become tournament players (most players recognize that the tournament environment is going to be stricter on rules and less concerned about sound historical tactics.) It makes the DBX method seem to work better for players who want to use sound tactics rather than "work" the rules and thus helps us spread acceptance of DBX methods outside the tournament community. TomT Gee, Tom and Stevie, someone should have intervened and told Alexander the Great that his tactics(slamming the Companions at the centre of the enemy line) were incorrect, amd would never work, and he should have used them as a wide flanking and encirclement force instead. Again, you guys are grabbing literalist views. The game is designed as an overall whole. Tom you asserted that having Bows fire at full effect after moving a full move had to per force be "wrong". Why may I ask? Again, I suspect Phil's decision may have been more to do with the increased bow fire range, than with issues of exact timing. For that matter, I believe you guys would have come down far harder on the "silly" BUA siege rules by now. Yet I am not seeing a ton of folks complaining about them. They are a ton of fun, and add tremendous flavour to the game. DBA is a 12 element abstraction that captures some of the high level challenges that an ancient general had to face. Your guys' claim that Kn being encouraged to charge flanks is somehow more historical is an assertion. Sorry, flank charges by enemy were not the norm in ancient warfare. Lining up amd crushing a weak point of thebline was far more common. Flank maneuvers were hugely committing, risked crashing into their own troops that were advancing forwards, and frequently resulted in the flanking troops losing contact. Once again you are also assuming a charged element is incapable of changing formation, doesn't at element level contain a sub reserve that could countercharge the flankers, and that the ground on the flanks is always suitable for a flank charge (think pre battle scouting has already determined the optimal lanes of battle, which is why the defender deployed that way). To me (and I suspect a great many others) the hard flank QK is already deadly enough! |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 11, 2017 5:15:42 GMT
Interesting comments Michael... Query to the group... how does HoTT 2.1 handle turns to face? Joe Collins FWIW from HOTT Flank or Rear Contacts An element contacted to flank or rear by an enemy element's front edge must turn to face at the end of the movement phase unless either of following apply • It is already in mutual frontal edge contact with an enemy element. • It is already in front edge contact with the enemy stronghold. If there is insufficient room for the tum, the contactor is moved back to make room. If that is impossible, the contactor's move is cancelled. If an element is contacted to flank or rear by the front edges of more than one enemy element, its controller chooses which one it will face. If turning to face one such attacker breaks contact with another, this is moved to renew contact if there is room. If an element contacts the flanks of two enemy elements, both these turn, the second moving to behind the first. If a 3rd element is contacted, it recoils*. An element in contact with the flank or rear of an enemy element which is fighting to its front fights only as a tactical factor for its friends. *note that in HOTT the 3rd element "recoils" with the possible bad outcome that presents. In DBA 2 the 3rd was 'Pushed back clear." There were no negatives for being pushed back. In 3 that element is just "pushed back." Hopefully, no element being it. By the way, is there a reference on p. 9 to "pushed back?" "On the rare occasions that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back (p.9) to make room for the others to turn. " |
|
|
|
Post by goragrad on Nov 11, 2017 5:51:21 GMT
Based more on reading various histories rather than experience with DBA, I have to say that I am with Steve and Thomas here. Getting hit in an open flank by knights or heavy foot should be far more devastating than being flanked by skirmishers.
While not perfect the suggested change will reflect reality better and require a minimal change to the rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 11, 2017 8:40:58 GMT
Interesting comments Michael... Query to the group... how does HoTT 2.1 handle turns to face? Joe Collins FWIW from HOTT Flank or Rear Contacts An element contacted to flank or rear by an enemy element's front edge must turn to face at the end of the movement phase unless either of following apply • It is already in mutual frontal edge contact with an enemy element. • It is already in front edge contact with the enemy stronghold. If there is insufficient room for the tum, the contactor is moved back to make room. If that is impossible, the contactor's move is cancelled. If an element is contacted to flank or rear by the front edges of more than one enemy element, its controller chooses which one it will face. If turning to face one such attacker breaks contact with another, this is moved to renew contact if there is room. That is very interesting Bob. If it said "the moving player" instead of "its controller", it would give the effect that Tom, myself, and others are suggesting. If an element contacts the flanks of two enemy elements, both these turn, the second moving to behind the first. If a 3rd element is contacted, it recoils*. An element in contact with the flank or rear of an enemy element which is fighting to its front fights only as a tactical factor for its friends. *note that in HOTT the 3rd element "recoils" with the possible bad outcome that presents. In DBA 2 the 3rd was 'Pushed back clear." There were no negatives for being pushed back. In 3 that element is just "pushed back." Hopefully, no element being it. By the way, is there a reference on p. 9 to "pushed back?" "On the rare occasions that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back (p.9) to make room for the others to turn. " Well spotted Bob, Page 10 paragraph 1 says:- “On the rare occasions that a third element is contacted, it is pushed back (p.9) to make room for the others to turn.” And you’re right…page 9 makes no mention of being “pushed back”. For what it’s worth, here is a list of all the times the words “pushed back” are used:- Page 10 paragraph 1 (when turning to face an enemy contacting a column’s flank)… Page 12 paragraph 1 (situations that destroy an element instead of recoiling it)… Page 12 paragraph 2 (the “Recoiling Or Being Pushed Back” section)… Page 12 paragraph 4 (if a recoiling element cannot interpenetrate and pass through friends)… Page 12 paragraph 5 (recoiling or pushed back elements halt if they meet an obstacle)… Page 12 paragraph 12 (pushed back elements are destroyed if they cross a battlefield edge)… (You know, I should have added the words “Pushing Back” to that “Detailed Rules Index for DBA 3.0” that I posted in the Fanatics Wiki, the link to which can be found at the bottom of this post.)By the way, the last sentence of page 12 paragraph 5 says:- “An element already in such contact with any of these (obstacles) cannot recoil and is destroyed instead.” Maybe this sentence would be better if it said:- “An element already in such contact with any of these cannot recoil move back and is destroyed instead.” Then it would also cover situations where troops that should be pushed back cannot do so due to already being in contact with an obstacle (another minor word change for the FAQ and DBA 3.1 perhaps?). 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 11, 2017 10:16:01 GMT
Gee, Tom and Stevie, someone should have intervened and told Alexander the Great that his tactics(slamming the Companions at the centre of the enemy line) were incorrect, amd would never work, and he should have used them as a wide flanking and encirclement force instead. Just a minor point primuspilus…Alexander the Great DID have his Companions at the end of his battleline at Granicus, Issus, and Guagameia, and is famous for his tactic of pinning the enemy front with his phalangites while personally leading his best mounted troops to then hit his opponents in the flank. Indeed, this same tactic was also used by his successors such as Antigonus and Eumenes at the battles of Paraitakene and Gabiene, and at a later date by Pyrrhus when he fought the Romans. But I do agree with you that lining up and crashing into the centre was far more common than wide flanking manoeuvres. But this suggestion is to enhance centre breakthroughs by simply recognising the fact that troops attacking a flank have far more effect than the troops also engaging the same enemy in the front have, and it should be their combat factor and their combat outcomes that should be the major influence. Think of it as one man attacking a flank is four or five times more effective than a man attacking the front. And these suggestions get this effect not by adding an extra combat factor, but merely by using the existing combat rules in a different way to reflect this. As I have said before, if you attack an enemy in the front and flank with blades, you will have a combat factor of 5, your enemy will be -1 because of the flank attack, and he will be destroyed if he recoils. This is already in the rules…it is how the DBA has always been played. One element gets to use it’s full combat factor, while the other element supports it by giving the enemy a -1. Instant turning-to-face or the ‘primary fighter’ concept would not change this…everything is the same as it is now. The difference would be that if you attacked an enemy in the flank with blades while also attacking them in the front with some other element, it would be the flanking blades whose combat factor of 5 which is used, and it is the other element that is supporting it causing the -1 and the recoil destruction. So it is not adding an extra combat modifier, or making flank attacks any more dangerous than they already are. It is just recognising which troops have the biggest influence, using the current combat system. 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 11, 2017 16:06:56 GMT
• It is already in front edge contact with the enemy stronghold. If there is insufficient room for the tum, the contactor is moved back to make room. If that is impossible, the contactor's move is cancelled. If an element is contacted to flank or rear by the front edges of more than one enemy element, its controller chooses which one it will face. If turning to face one such attacker breaks contact with another, this is moved to renew contact if there is room. That is very interesting Bob. If it said "the moving player" instead of "its controller", it would give the effect that Tom, myself, and others are suggesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 11, 2017 17:18:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 12, 2017 15:08:07 GMT
Stevie, I mean absolutely no disrespect here, but how long, and in how many face to face battles across how many epochs have you fought DBA? I ask this because a great many folks who are not as vocal as you and Tom have played, literally, thousands of games, covering all four books, in the last 10+ years. Again, I shall reiterate, I am not stating that because something has been done for this long by this many people, it is "correct", but rather that this is the first time I have seen folks fight and die in droves on this particular DBA hill. On a great many others, for sure. While we're at it, and arguing what is "historically correct" let us examine the fact that the game does not even track fatigue and hit points, a pretty basic requirement of any game claiming that it wants historical perfection. The fact that the design decision (against practically EVERY piece of conventional gaming wisdom at the time, and since) was made to ignore "reduced" status on individual elements, meant that the game has had to abstract out a lot of things, to compensate. It has done so brilliantly. Your "flank attack" example in the centre is one case where I respectfully suggest you have catastrophically failed to understand the design decisions and motivating philosophy of DBA. Absent a hit points system, the game has to make use to other vehicles to illustrate the weakening of a battle line. What this means is that your "flank attack" example in the centre is, ON AVERAGE, IN THE LONG RUN, not actually what you call a flank attack. In most cases it is representing a loss of cohesion in the enemy line, and a potential opportunity to collapse the enemy centre. This mechanism is used because primarily the game has no hit tracking system. It may occasionally represent a centre breakthrough, but I respectfully suggest that what you and Tom refer to as a "flank attack" can, ON AVERAGE, IN THE LONG RUN, be more appropriately understood by playing Phil Sabin's "Lost Battles" game, where flank attacks occur at greater formation level than the "closing the door" mechanism of DBA. I maintain that in at least half the cases, the DBA abstraction known as "closing the door" is about attack superiority, and is a stand-in for combat strength, absent hit points, and the "stacking" so frequently seen in board wargames. It is not meant to be based on a literal reading of the geometry unfolding before your eyes. But since you and Tom seem to want historiographies, here is one: What makes you think the Enemy element being flanked is necessarily not already partly merged in close melee with the troops to their front? In which case, your "flank charge" (which in most cases we have established is somewhat not) is bogged down in unforeseen terrain restrictions (hey there is a reason the armies deployed the way they did in this battle), and tangled up between enemy and friendly troops. It is a far different thing from the kind of "line the enemy up from hundreds of yards away, over a nice, clean, straight open run, and run them down as they flee" that is the Sch, Wb and Kn attack the rules currently encourage. And if this is not enough, now you run into the following problem: What if the troop element being flanked is Kn? I have Spears to front and on the Kn's flank. Now the Kn wins the combat. Which Sp dies? Do they both die? If not, why not? Does the Kn get a choice to pursue to its flank, pursuing sideways? If not, why not? Or what if the flanked element is Cm. To its front it has Ps, to its flank, Kn. Who is QKed if the Cm wins? Both? Hey, if one can choose which to two elements is the lead for flanking or forward, what is the "historical" rationale for not using BOTH as the lead element, and applying on the one hand the combat factor that suits you, followed by afterward applying the combat results that suit you? I suggest the added rules verbiage you are going to need around Fast/Solid, ties, QKs and a great many things, is going to give you a lot of headaches. You are rapidly running into the law of diminishing returns. In order to "fix" what I believe is a non-existent supposedly major issue with the geometric aspects of the game, as abstraction. You are creating even more issues, whose solutions will look just as strange as current state. And in that case, I suggest using the minimalist approach, and keeping things as they are.. I respectfully submit that you and Tom may have not thought this through all the way. Tom, I know your focus is Medieval warfare, and I humbly suggest if.when you begin to thoroughly test this across multiple epochs, and armies, you will run into serious issues. Stevie, I am not sure how many games across varied armies in current state against live opponents (to remove deployment and playing style biases) you have tested this with. I highly suspect that PB has, and has done so carefully, and in great detail, over dozens of years. Again, not trying to be an ass here, but I know Stevie will sort me out behind the bicycle shed after school if I am being too much of one. Tom, feel free to join him in pummelling me!  I am sure I deserve it by now! |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 12, 2017 21:44:44 GMT
Wow, that was a long post primuspilus, even longer than some of mine!…and I loved every bit of it. More please. Now then, where shall I start? Stevie’s Wargaming CV:-I started playing in the early 1970’s with my chums at school, and when we all left school we set up our own club by hiring out spare rooms in the upstairs of various pubs (hic!). Sadly, people drifted way over the years, and I myself left London in 2000 and now live in the Midlands, and play with a small group of new friends. We started playing ancients using WRG 5th, 6th and 7th editions, moved on to “Shock of Impact”, “Classical Hack”, all the early DBA versions including DBM (too complicated), “Warlord”, “Impetus”, something called “Ancients D6” (by John Acar & Andrew Damon), “Field of Glory”, DBMM (even more complicated), and now back to DBA 3.0. We also played Napoleonic’s with WRG’s 1750-1850 rules (although my favourite period was “The American War of Independence”) and “Empire” (far too complex), plus several other rulesets. Played WW2 using various rules including WRG’s “Armour & Infantry: 1925-1950”. Played almost all of the Avalon Hill hex boardgames, and most of the SGI hex games from Strategy & Tactics magazine. Played many PC strategy games (turn based, not rubbishy ‘real time strategy’, although the “Total War” series is very good). …(Have I got the job yet?)…In short, the answer to your question is “ Lots!”. What is a Wargame?Well, the clue is in the name really. There are some ‘games’ out there that are great fun to play, such as chess, Risk, Diplomacy, Kingmaker, and the like, but they don’t pretend to be historically accurate or realistic. A ‘wargame’ is something else; it must not only be fun to play, it must also try to mimic or simulate real life events as described in the history books, but do so in a way that is not too complicated and time consuming. It does this by using ‘abstractions’ (and even rolling a dice is an ‘abstraction’). Because all a wargamer is really interested in is getting the results and outcomes on their table that match what is written in those history books, not how those results and outcomes are generated. And if the outcome on the wargames table is different from what the history books say, then the abstraction used must be flawed (either that or the rules are right and it is history that is wrong!). The beauty of DBA 3.0The DBA series is unique in that it has discarded all the fluff and noise that other rulesets have burdened themselves with, and just concentrated on getting those real life results and outcomes on the table by the simplest and quickest means possible. This has resulted in a highly popular quick, simple, relatively realistic yet fun to play set of rules. But let us not kid ourselves that it is perfect…there is still room for improvement, providing it stays simple. The current suggestionsPerhaps I should stop using the phrase “flank attack”, as it seems to mean something different to you than it does to me. I’m just using it to describe the physical situation we see on our wargames table, where one element has it’s front-edge in contact with an enemy side-edge. Let’s just call it “combat advantage” if you like. History tells us that being attacked from two different directions was ‘a-very-bad-thing’, to put it mildly. The current rules abstract this by having a -1 to your combat factor and you are destroyed if you recoil. This is a lazy abstraction because it assumes that all side attackers are the same. Knights, blades, auxiliaries, it doesn’t matter…they are all -1 to your combat factor and you’re destroyed if you recoil. Common sense tells us that if knights and blades were dangerous in the front, they’ll be even more dangerous in the side. But no, currently knights and blades are as limp as psiloi when they attack you in the side. This is a bad combat simulation, it goes against history, and therefore the current system is a bad abstraction. It could be done better. It also unfairly punishes situations were you have Ax to the front and something more powerful attacking the side. Currently the Ax must do all the fighting, as anyone in the side, no matter who they are, are as limp as Ps. (Unless you think those overpowered 4Ax that presently dominate the battlefield need taking down a peg or two. Yeah, let’s make ‘em even weaker than they already are…that’ll show ‘em…) As for which element fights, uses it’s combat factor, it’s combat outcome, and is affected if it’s defeated?… …simple: with instant-turning-to-face it’s the one in full mutual front-edge contact, just as it is now. (I’m still experimenting with Tom’s ‘primary attacker’ concept). 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 12, 2017 23:15:41 GMT
Hi Stevie, OK, in the interests of keeping it coming, here goes: First off, this: "In short, the answer to your question is “Lots!”. " did not actually answer my question. My question is not about your age and pedigree (which modulo about five years, is pretty much exactly the same as mine, with "A House Divided" being the first game I played extensively that had DBA's "pip" system, pretty much verbatim). My question is about your extensive experience against a wide variety of DBA players, against a wide spectrum of armies. I have always thought that DBA does about an 85% good job on about 85% of the battles to which it is applied. For a game of its depth and simplicity, across a spectrum of 3500 odd years, that is simply brilliant. Not game I have ever played, board or otherwise, has done such a bang-up job in so simple a method. As such, unless you are proposing specific rules for each army list book (not necessarily a terrible idea, but a lot of work), then you have to keep things going more or less straight down the middle, on average, across all armies and epochs. Then "Because all a wargamer is really interested in is getting the results and outcomes on their table that match what is written in those history books, not how those results and outcomes are generated.". Exactly. That. I have found that on average, DBA tracks to the events in the histories, as described, in about 85% of the cases, and about 85% of the armies. To be sure, there are some things (like Greeks vs EAPs) that the game absolutely fails spectacularly at, but again, in the majority of cases, the results are plausible, believable, and in line with history. "But let us not kid ourselves that it is perfect…there is still room for improvement, providing it stays simple." Agreed. So why the push to change something that really seems never to have bothered anyone to any significant extent for years and years and years? OK, you start out understanding the concept of "Combat advantage". You then immediately slide back into the literalist interpretation again: "History tells us that being attacked from two different directions was ‘a-very-bad-thing’, to put it mildly.". Well, which is it? Abstract combat advantage, or literally two different directions? I thought we settled this is NOT a flank attack? To be sure, a flank attack (say three elements in the group, smashing around and eventually behind an enemy line is already catastrophic in this game, to be sure! And equally, the QK due to hard flanking already causes fairly quick and decisive death as is! "Common sense tells us that if knights and blades were dangerous in the front, they’ll be even more dangerous in the side.". Sorry, disagree. You are slipping back into the literalist interpretation again. Given that DBA 3 is a gam in which ancient Bows have a range of about a fifth of the entire battlefield, you have to get rid of your literalist interpretations all the time. And I am prepared to accept that Knights would act VERY differently if they had a long flat straight run into a target that had plenty of time to watch in horror and absorb what was about to happen to them, versus Knights awkwardly attempting to wheel, already partially bogged down somewhat in melee, and getting drawn into a knock-down drag-out fight. From a literalist perspective, it may very well be that Psiloi lobbing javelins at your unshielded side while you attempt to hold off charging Wb might be more deadly to you than having a tangle of enemy horsemen, who are tripping over each other and their own Wb while trying to pull off stumbling maneuvers over less then perfect ground, for instance. "It also unfairly punishes situations were you have Ax to the front and something more powerful attacking the side." Think about this for a sec. The game is attempting to encourage realistic and historical deployments, whether referring to the restrictions on the centre deployment, or "punishing" ancient armies that try to use Ps to hold the centre, and deploy all the Roman maniples on both flanks. The fact that this was so hard to win with was shown by the fact that only Hannibal seems to have been able to win this way, and probably because he had such brilliant battle cavalry that could sweep around behind the enemy line, and trap the enemy in place. By the way, the inability to escape back to camp seems by ancient writings to have been the primary cause for catastrophic collapse in morale among average troops. Not "flank attacks" per se. "As for which element fights, uses it’s combat factor, it’s combat outcome, and is affected if it’s defeated?… …simple: with instant-turning-to-face it’s the one in full mutual front-edge contact, just as it is now. (I’m still experimenting with Tom’s ‘primary attacker’ concept)." No, we need to understand which outcome to apply in cases where an element is already in combat to its front, and is then contacted in flank as well, no? By the way, on Alexander, he absolutely did NOT work his way around a flank. He charged typically at a weak spot in the rough centre of the enemy line. Chaeronea, Issus, Gaugamela. Alexander and the companions smashed into a weak spot in the centre, and burst through the lines. OK, sorry about the long posts. But I am enjoying the debate immensely! Thanks for the insights, Stevie, Tom, et. al. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 13, 2017 14:34:13 GMT
Is it my bound again primuspilus? Oh, I see, you want to know if I’ve played in lots and lots of tournaments? Nope, I haven’t. I and all my friends over the past 50 years have all been historical players, and none of us have been interested in tournaments. And if you are implying that playing lots of different people in tournaments somehow gives you a better insight into the workings of history, then I beg to differ. As medievalthomas eloquently put it: “most players recognize that the tournament environment is going to be stricter on rules and less concerned about sound historical tactics”. I remember many years ago I was showing one mate how to play ancients, and his favourite saying was “Don’t give me all this historical realism crap. Just show me how to win!”. So sorry, tournament play is just not our cup of tea I’m afraid. “I have always thought that DBA does about an 85% good job on about 85% of the battles to which it is applied.”And I totally agree with you…but wouldn’t it be better if was 90%? "But let us not kid ourselves that it is perfect…there is still room for improvement, providing it stays simple." “Agreed. So why the push to change something that really seems never to have bothered anyone to any significant extent for years and years and years?”Er…because there is still room for improvement perhaps? Or are you saying that you agree it’s not perfect, and that it could be improved, but let’s keep playing the same old flawed system that we have always used because…because…well, we have always played it that way! Following sheep in a herd is not the best way to instil progress. Anyway, don’t blame me just because nobody else thought of it. But I do find it amazing that you have meekly accepted all these newfangled concepts in DBA 3.0 such as side-support, blades killing knights on an equal score, the new terrain deployment system, the new elephant combat factors, and all the rest, without so much as a murmur. Shouldn’t you be campaigning for a return to DBA 2.2? After all, those rules “seems never to have bothered anyone to any significant extent for years and years and years”. Or is it a case of change was ok in the past, but not in the future? “Well, which is it? Abstract combat advantage, or literally two different directions?”I don’t care what you call it…‘flank attack’, ‘front-edge to side-edge’, ‘combat advantage’…whatever. It doesn’t matter. All that matters is that on our wargames table we will have situations where a front contacts a side, and how we deal with it. If that is being ‘literalist’, then so be it. I can see it with my own eyes. And the current system has taken the lazy way out by saying “oh, just give ‘em -1 and be destroyed if they recoil, that’ll do”. “The QK due to hard flanking already causes fairly quick and decisive death as is!”Only if the element to the front, the one doing all the fighting, has a high combat factor. If the fighting element were Ps, then the flankers are reduced to just throwing stones, no matter how powerful they are. "Common sense tells us that if knights and blades were dangerous in the front, they’ll be even more dangerous in the side.". “Sorry, disagree. You are slipping back into the literalist interpretation again…you have to get rid of your literalist interpretations all the time.”No, it’s not ‘literalist’, it’s realist. I’m sorry if historical facts offend you. Powerful troops like knights and blades did not just stand there throwing stones like psiloi just because they hit the enemy in a vulnerable spot. “...Knights awkwardly attempting to wheel, already partially bogged down somewhat in melee, and getting drawn into a knock-down drag-out fight. From a literalist perspective, it may very well be that Psiloi lobbing javelins at your unshielded side while you attempt to hold off charging Wb might be more deadly to you than having a tangle of enemy horsemen, who are tripping over each other and their own Wb while trying to pull off stumbling manurers over less then perfect ground, for instance.”Yeah…and the commander of the element might have had a bad egg for breakfast, and he might have been hit by a meteorite, or that part of the field might have been covered in cow pats… …in every front-to-side situation, on every battlefield, in every period… Good grief…talk about trying to bend reality to fit the rules. We should be adapting the rules to fit reality, not the other way round! "It also unfairly punishes situations were you have Ax to the front and something more powerful attacking the side." “Think about this for a sec. The game is attempting to encourage realistic and historical deployments, etc…”.Yes, and it doesn’t help when the game punishes you for being historical and using weak troops like auxiliaries. You tournament players know damn well that having Ax in your front line is the kiss of death when facing HI. We historical players know it too, and we would like to do something about it. "As for which element fights, uses it’s combat factor, it’s combat outcome, and is affected if it’s defeated?… …simple: with instant-turning-to-face it’s the one in full mutual front-edge contact, just as it is now." “No, we need to understand which outcome to apply in cases where an element is already in combat to its front, and is then contacted in flank as well, no?”No. You said it yourself; if an element is already in combat to its front, then it can’t turn, and all your excuses about wheeling awkwardly, being bogged down by some invisible troops that we can’t actually see on the table, and stumbling horses comes into play (I like to think of this as ‘probing a flank’, and it explains why the flankers don’t pursue, because they are not all fully engaged. So all they give is a -1 and destruction on a recoil…just as now). Instantly-turning-to-face only applies to troops that are not already in combat to their front, and they instantly turn to face the first enemy that makes contact with them, as chosen by the moving/bounding player (I like to think of this as a ‘flank attack’ or ‘gaining the combat advantage’ if you prefer. And as they will be in full mutual front-edge contact with the turning stationary element, they will fight with their full combat factor, their combat outcomes will apply, and they will pursue). “OK, sorry about the long posts. But I am enjoying the debate immensely!”Me too. I look forward to your reply…the longer the better. Although I doubt that you and I will ever see eye-to-eye, we could perhaps persuade others. It’s your bound 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 primuspilus on Nov 15, 2017 1:16:28 GMT
Alright, Stevie, I'll bite again. On your first point: I have played in three (yup, three) tournaments. Won one (yay me!), came third in one, and crapped the bed in the third. So no, not actually asking about tournaments. More interested in you being in position to back up your assertion that your suggested fix for flanking is in fact an improvement, and will not suffer from the law of unintended consequences. In my view, testing rules with a handful of mates, with only a handful of armies is no substitute for wide and vast testing across the spectrum of armies and players. Especially in a game that is as "lumpy" as DBA is in regard to the far-reaching effects of even minor-seeming changes. I agree it would be better if 90% was the rule, as opposed to 85%. But are you sure your attempts to "perfect" the game won't drop the results to 80%. As in engineering, very often tacking a piecemeal approach to design perfection frequently leads to a suboptimal overall result. Phil would know - he in an engineer. Hence my question on depth and breadth of testing. I speak from bitter experience tinkering with rules. And by the way, as to your comment regarding 2.2 vs 3: there was plenty that was in need of radical surgery, as per the overwhelming consensus of the DBA 2.2 players (among them a ton of historical gamers like you and me) including among other things, fixing the deployments, movement, combat interactions, etc. You seem to be suggesting that somehow the design team (who were numerous, and tested games across the historical spectrum) fell short. I submit that there is little you have presented that in my opinion would not have been explored by the design team, and thrown out during the design process. It is tempting to assume the design team "got it wrong". In cases where the game was untested, or was inadequately that argument would be stronger. Not saying it is completely without merit, just that overall, they got almost all of the changes right in my view. Oddly enough, the impression I had had was that you were arguing FOR allowing the bounding player in a hard flank, to decide which element was the "lead". I retorted with a few issues that I believe explain why Phil and the team rejected this idea. Including, for instance, what about in a lock, when it is now the hard flanked player - and must he also now choose which element he is "focusing" on in his bound (it would matter for combat outcomes, for example). Most of my arguments were predicated on the understanding that you were unhappy with the status quo, i.e. attacking the side edge of an element already in combat to ts front. BUT: you have clarified that this is NOT what you are supporting, but rather you suggest the bounding player selects during movement, which way a contacted element turns to face (thanks for clearing that up! ). I maintain that coordinating flank attacks (which you have clarified here is the element hitting the enemy element's flank first, followed after by the "frontal" element moving in) is hard. The move restrictions result in about the right level of "hassle factor" in my view. Games are already dynamic and decisive enough. You risk turning the game into a flank-fest, in my view. But again, that is why I suggest wide, robust testing across multiple armies, epochs, etc. Heck, speaking to guys who play HI armies on the 30" board, they are already getting mauled by flank attacks with Ps, Ax and Cv. With your rules suggestion, I would wonder why anyone would want to use a HI army on a 30" board against a mobile opponent who has Kn, Wb or Such in his army. "Instantly-turning-to-face only applies to troops that are not already in combat to their front, and they instantly turn to face the first enemy that makes contact with them, as chosen by the moving/bounding player (I like to think of this as a ‘flank attack’ or ‘gaining the combat advantage’ if you prefer. And as they will be in full mutual front-edge contact with the turning stationary element, they will fight with their full combat factor, their combat outcomes will apply, and they will pursue)." I think you will find this less successful in the long run than you believe, but that is my admittedly biased view in this. Cheers, mate. You are right, I remain unconvinced, but consider this debate highly valuable. |
|
I am sure I deserve it by now!