PDA

View Full Version : Dismounting in DBA


Pete Duckworth
12-22-2010, 10:45 AM
Is there any chance that the dismounting rule could be dropped?

This rule gives some troops in some armies a major advantage at no cost.

I cannot think of few instances of dismounting once battle commenced and none of then re-mounting (or vice versa).

Would it not be better to offer these as options in the relevant army lists? As a reform it has the advantage of making the rules simpler.

Regards

Pete D.

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 10:52 AM
It would also be nice if it was consistent (between DBA/DBM in the case of 2.2) in which armies could dismount. For instance, Mongols and Normans are both are allowed to dismount in DBM, but not in DBA.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-22-2010, 11:04 AM
Pete -- I have never had a problem with the dismount rule, except maybe it should always be 2 pips per element. I really like my Trojan chariots to ride into battle and then dismount to fight. And I have the elements too.

Not sure what you mean "offer these as options in the relevant army lists?" Only certain armies can do this.

Tony -- strange to call for similarity between DBM and DBA when most DBA players are asking for DBA independence from DBMM?

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 11:15 AM
Tony -- strange to call for similarity between DBM and DBA when most DBA players are asking for DBA independence from DBMM?

And others think it would be more beneficial to update the army lists if there is new research available. (as in the case of the Abassids which has been brought up before)

Both DBMM and DBA should reflect the same "type" of army as they are based on the same research from the same author.

You can't claim to be consistent if the 100 Years War English (for instance) can dismount, but not other armies that are allowed to in DBM/DBMM, yet aren't allowed to do so in DBA.

El' Jocko
12-22-2010, 12:12 PM
Tony -- strange to call for similarity between DBM and DBA when most DBA players are asking for DBA independence from DBMM?

It's not simply one or the other. It would be detrimental for DBA game mechanics to take on the complexity of DBMM game mechanics. But the DBMM army lists seem to be well researched and well thought out. It's straight forward to translate DBMM troop types to DBA troop types. So using the DBMM army lists as a starting point for the DBA 3.0 army lists is a very reasonable approach.

I'll go so far as to say that I'm not necessarily opposed to using some of the new DBMM game mechanics in DBA. I'm not opposed to change. Change can be good if it makes DBA better. But I wouldn't want to see changes that increase the overall complexity of DBA. And it's really important that there's adequate playtesting by experienced DBA players to make sure the new game mechanics work properly and don't introduce new, unanticipated problems.

- Jack

Pete Duckworth
12-22-2010, 12:31 PM
Pete -- I have never had a problem with the dismount rule, except maybe it should always be 2 pips per element. I really like my Trojan chariots to ride into battle and then dismount to fight. And I have the elements too.

Not sure what you mean "offer these as options in the relevant army lists?" Only certain armies can do this.

Tony -- strange to call for similarity between DBM and DBA when most DBA players are asking for DBA independence from DBMM?
Bob I meant by "offer these as options in the relevant army lists?" is instead of having a dismounting rule that troops like your Trojan chariots to offer dismounted options in the arny lists.

Why should your chariots have that option when others eg Ancient British aren't allowed? All armies get 12 elements but some special armies get to magically transform on the tabletop at no charge.

Its a huge advantage to give some armies with very dubious source material.

Presumably any competent ancient/medieval general COULD choose to get mounted troops to dismount had they considered it effective wether or not they did or are recorded as doing it....

Rich Gause
12-22-2010, 12:38 PM
There has been a whole lotta discussion of this issue over the years with a pretty large consensus being that dismounting should be at deployment or first bound only and/or that it should cost per element to dismount with no group move dismounts allowed. The other issue being the willynilly nature of some armies being allowed to dismount and others not as pointed out above.

The Last Conformist
12-22-2010, 12:45 PM
Presumably any competent ancient/medieval general COULD choose to get mounted troops to dismount had they considered it effective wether or not they did or are recorded as doing it....
Competence of generals can always be argued, but there are recorded instances of medieval mounted troops flatly refusing to dismount when ordered to do so.

Personally, I think that if there's to be a dismounting option, it should be restricted to armies that did so on a regular basis in open battle.

Pete Duckworth
12-22-2010, 01:34 PM
Andreas wrote "it should be restricted to armies that did so on a regular basis in open battle" I agree - but that would mean that NO army was aloud to do so other than as a deployment option.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-22-2010, 01:38 PM
The Trojan war was fought by men in chariots (not like the movie with people sitting on horses) who rode to battle, moved and fought in bounds 1-x while mounted and then in bound x+1 dismounted to fight man to man. Clearly so described in the Illiad.

I do agree with Peter that all elements should have the same functions. Why are some armies allowed to have Aux who fight and move in woods with no penalty while Blades and Chariots fight and/or move with penalty. Why should some armies be allowed to make Littorial landings? All elements should be exactly alike. All armies should have the same elements.

But I forget, these rules are based on Phil Barker's reading of ancient history, and present a model based on his ideas. If someone has a different theory of history, and wants a different model, then they need to write their own game based on their own theory. I do believe in playing the game as written and not try to outguess the author.

Redwilde
12-22-2010, 01:55 PM
Also British Chariots, even though they are not allowed to dismount in the current rules. According to Caesar's Commentaries:
"Their manner of fighting from chariots is as follows : first they drive in all directions and hurl javelins, and so by the mere terror that the teams inspire and by the noise of the wheels they generally throw the ranks of soldiers into confusion. When they have worked their way in between the troops, they leap down from the chariots and fight on foot. Meanwhile their charioteers retire gradually from the battle, and place chariots in such a fashion that, if the warriors are had pressed by the enemy, they have a ready means of retreat to their own side "

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 02:00 PM
Bob and Brian (Redwilde), can we focus more about Medieval dismounting, and less about Chariots? Chariot dismounting is a small fraction of the total, Chariot dismounting is largely non-controversial, and Chariot dismounting doesn't unbalance the game. And most especially, Phil seems to have been fairly consistent in applying his concept of when-and-how to the DBA lists for armies that dismount with Chariots -- the fuss comes when we look at the Medieval and Dark Ages lists, where consistency is absent and linkage to history is more haphazard.

Redwilde
12-22-2010, 02:02 PM
Don't know of any medieval or cavalry dismounting/remounting after battle has been joined.

Kontos
12-22-2010, 02:09 PM
Once again, dismounting your knights should be in the deployment phase of the game. That choice was made by the general before the battle was joined. I hope that makes 3.0 as opposed to movement measured in base widths! :eek

Frank

The Last Conformist
12-22-2010, 02:23 PM
Don't know of any medieval or cavalry dismounting/remounting after battle has been joined.
There's a Yuan/Burmese battle that keeps getting mentioned on the DBMMlist where Yuan cavalry apparently started the battle on horseback, dismounted to deal with the enemy elephants, and then remounted to fight mounted.

In DBA terms, that'd be something like LH//Bw//LH ...

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 02:29 PM
There's a Yuan/Burmese battle that keeps getting mentioned on the DBMMlist where Yuan cavalry apparently started the battle on horseback, dismounted to deal with the enemy elephants, and then remounted to fight mounted.

In DBA terms, that'd be something like LH//Bw//LH ...

That would be the Battle of Vochang, I suspect.

http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/battles/Vochang/index.html

Incidentally, at lunch I was glancing through DBM Book 4 and in the Yuan list it says that all Mongol Cv are allowed to dismount, yet it wasn't reflected in their DBA list.

Rich Gause
12-22-2010, 02:37 PM
It keeps getting mentioned because it is one of the very rare occasions where it happened. In DBA if you make something that almost never happened legal in the rules and make it advantageous for a player to do it then the thing that almost never happened historically becomes very common in the game. So for dismounting knights to blades which rarely happened during battle to make it rare during our games we either need to make it illegal or make it less advantageous for the player. So if we were to say that a player has two choices a) all dismounting is done at deployment which doesn't cost pips and disallows any further dismounting during the game; or b) players may dismount elements during the game if they don't dismount any during deployment but it costs 2 pips per element and they cannot dismount if they start or end the move in ZOC we might actually see in game dismounting become a lot more rare while still being possible.

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 02:43 PM
Incidentally, at lunch I was glancing through DBM Book 4 and in the Yuan list it says that all Mongol Cv are allowed to dismount, yet it wasn't reflected in their DBA list.

One of the problems with mechanical translation of DBM lists to DBA is that the DBM lists allow for ALL "reasonable" possibilities for army X, and the DBA army lists seem to be more focused on allowing for all "usual" possibilities for army X. When the distinction between "reasonable" and "usual" is significant, the army lists don't seem to correspond.

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 02:54 PM
One of the problems with mechanical translation of DBM lists to DBA is that the DBM lists allow for ALL "reasonable" possibilities for army X, and the DBA army lists seem to be more focused on allowing for all "usual" possibilities for army X. When the distinction between "reasonable" and "usual" is significant, the army lists don't seem to correspond.

So what's wrong with making more DBA "reasonable?" ;)

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 03:20 PM
So what's wrong with making more DBA "reasonable?" ;)

Being flippant, or missed my point?

Giving an army list any possible set of troops that any of the army list commentators could justify is the way the DBM army list constructors seem to have worked.

Doing the same thing for DBA is not the way the army list constructors seem to have worked. They seem to have been a bit more tightly focused on what usually was fielded, not what could by some stretch of the imagination have been fielded.

Does that make it clearer?

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 03:35 PM
Being flippant, or missed my point?

Neither...Tongue-in-cheek...a play on your "reasonable." I would have figured that the ;) was a give-away.


Giving an army list any possible set of troops that any of the army list commentators could justify is the way the DBM army list constructors seem to have worked.

Doing the same thing for DBA is not the way the army list constructors seem to have worked. They seem to have been a bit more tightly focused on what usually was fielded, not what could by some stretch of the imagination have been fielded.

Does that make it clearer?

I understand this, but why the change? Having the same formula apply to all armies evenly keeps the introduction of personal bias to a minimum, not to mention it also make more armies useful and competitive. This isn't the case as their are still "one offs" such as Demetrios' Towers etc.. included in DBA.

Redwilde
12-22-2010, 03:48 PM
I'd prefer to see the DBA lists reflect likely choices, not one-off or hypothetically possible ones.

For home play though, I'll still give my Republican Romans the option of 1 x Tar Daubed Flaming Pigs (SCh) when facing elephants though, the model is just too much fun to pass up!

El' Jocko
12-22-2010, 03:53 PM
One of the problems with mechanical translation of DBM lists to DBA is that the DBM lists allow for ALL "reasonable" possibilities for army X, and the DBA army lists seem to be more focused on allowing for all "usual" possibilities for army X. When the distinction between "reasonable" and "usual" is significant, the army lists don't seem to correspond.

I agree on the importance of distinguishing between "all reasonable possibilities" and "usual possibilities". But I think you and Tony have run down the rabbit hole of this one. I suspect that the lack of Yuan dismounting has more to do with the uneveness of the army list translation process than it does with the likelyhood of Yuan cavalry to dismount.

The correct answer is to make the army list translation process more thorough and even.

And to fix dismounting. Only in the first bound would work for me. And I wouldn't object to eliminating it altogether.

- Jack

Lobotomy
12-22-2010, 05:58 PM
One of the problems with mechanical translation of DBM lists to DBA is that the DBM lists allow for ALL "reasonable" possibilities for army X, and the DBA army lists seem to be more focused on allowing for all "usual" possibilities for army X. When the distinction between "reasonable" and "usual" is significant, the army lists don't seem to correspond.

You mean like the Anglo-Norman warwagon? :silly

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 06:01 PM
You mean like the Anglo-Norman warwagon? :silly

A perfect example.

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 06:06 PM
You mean like the Anglo-Norman warwagon? :silly

Being an Irr WWg (I), it should have been a Litter, if it were to be included at all. :???

Redwilde
12-23-2010, 01:47 AM
You mean like the Anglo-Norman warwagon? :silly

It's a perfect camp decoration!

The Last Conformist
12-23-2010, 02:01 AM
Being an Irr WWg (I), it should have been a Litter, if it were to be included at all. :???
Nah. DBM WWg (I) becomes either WWg or Lit in DBA: the later only if they represent an actual command litter, which this one doesn't.

Tony Aguilar
12-23-2010, 08:45 AM
Nah. DBM WWg (I) becomes either WWg or Lit in DBA: the later only if they represent an actual command litter, which this one doesn't.

Yep, now that I have my rulebook in front of me I see the caveat about having to be a portaged general.

jtstigley
01-27-2011, 04:14 PM
I believe that there should be a penalty for elements that are able to dismount.

Additional PIPs is one solution and another would be for each loss of such an element should count as 1.5 elements lost when assessing army losses. This is not a new concept to the rules as SCh corrently count as zero.

I apologise if this has been suggested in the past but this is my first posting to Fanaticus to which I hVE BEEN TRYING TO GAIN ACCESS TO FOR SOME MONTHS

Macbeth
01-27-2011, 06:46 PM
Here in Canberra at my tournaments I have balanced the dismounting rule by not allowing it to be a group move ;), and as a side issue reminding players that dismounting elements start the game mounted :D

This means that it is 1PIP per element in bound 1 and 2PIPs per elmement in subsequent bounds.

That seems to cut them back a little

Cheers

Richard Lee
01-28-2011, 02:58 AM
I apologise if this has been suggested in the past but this is my first posting to Fanaticus to which I hVE BEEN TRYING TO GAIN ACCESS TO FOR SOME MONTHS

Welcome. I understand that it has been very difficult to join Fanaticus in the past few months because the volume of spam attacks (including spambot registrations) has made life very difficult for Chris, and severely hampered normal moderation of the board.

timurilank
01-28-2011, 07:09 PM
Here in Canberra at my tournaments I have balanced the dismounting rule by not allowing it to be a group move ;), and as a side issue reminding players that dismounting elements start the game mounted :D

This means that it is 1PIP per element in bound 1 and 2PIPs per elmement in subsequent bounds.

That seems to cut them back a little

Cheers

I like the idea of keeping them mounted at the start of battle.

Since I use the DBA system for the gunpowder era I would lean toward a remounting option with similar cost and as you mention, not as a group move.

Peter Feinler
01-28-2011, 08:17 PM
I've started playing BBDBA regularly recently so have just joined this forum even though I've been reading it for years.

I think that one way of reining in dismounting would be to require that any move that includes a dismounted element costs 2 PIPS.

Peter

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 09:00 PM
I would:
Allow dismounting units to deploy dismounted or mounted

Dismounting during the game would be 2 pips per individual element, done in place of a move not in conjunction with a move, and could not be done in ZOC.

Si2
01-29-2011, 08:12 AM
If elements dismount then they should leave behind an element of horses/stationary chariots that have a pitiful attack rating and cannot contact the enemy.
Having a weak element on the field and having to model three elements for 'one' should reduce the ammount of large dismounting knight armies.
After dismounting is an option - you don't have to do it.

Hauptmann
02-05-2011, 07:36 AM
In our 100YW games we have limited it to a decision at the beginning of the game whether you field an element mounted as Kn/Cv or dimounted as Sp/Bd/whatever, and done away with mid-game dismounting. I can't recall many descriptions of dragoon-style behaviour prior to C16.

We also make English longbow +1 against all comers, shooting and close, and limited the English to a max of 1 mounted Kn. Gives a differnt dynamic to the normal DBA 2.2 Medieval French vs 100YW English game.

katch22
02-08-2011, 05:06 PM
Seems to me that either the deployment/1st bound option, or just removing the group dismount option for later bounds (1 pip per element / 2 pips per element with movement) would be adequate to remove the likeleyhood of mass in game dismounts.
Unless of course the real intent is to hamstring these forces...

Rich Gause
02-08-2011, 05:33 PM
Seems to me that either the deployment/1st bound option, or just removing the group dismount option for later bounds (1 pip per element / 2 pips per element with movement) would be adequate to remove the likeleyhood of mass in game dismounts.
Unless of course the real intent is to hamstring these forces...

The goal with dismounting units should be to make the players decision to use them more like the decisions of the real life generals who the rules are based on. Most of what we think of as dismounting in DBA seems to have happened at deployment which isn't even legal in DBA(except for units like Celtic chariots who did it commonly but aren't even allowed to in DBA). In game terms the forces would be set up dismounted and there would be no in game dismounting. A few very rare instances seem to have large bodies of fighters start a battle mounted but dismount during the battle to fight on foot. We could just ignore this since it is relatively very rare or try to depict it in the game. If we try to depict it in the game there needs to be a mechanism so that most players who plan to dismount elements will do it at deployment instead of during the game. The rules should not make in game dismounting so advantageous to the player doing it that it becomes the standard. The current rules are simply ridiculous. To simulate the historical record we need to have an option to dismount at deployment and we also need an option to dismount during the game and the option to dismount during the game needs to be sufficiently difficult that players are encouraged to dismount at deployment rather than chance it. Your idea would be an improvement on the current rules but I don't think it goes far enough.

Pavane
02-08-2011, 07:40 PM
Most of what we think of as dismounting in DBA seems to have happened at deployment which isn't even legal in DBA(except for units like Celtic chariots who did it commonly but aren't even allowed to in DBA).
I assume that chariots are not allowed to dismount in DBA because of the scale. A LCh element represents 50 chariots which would convert to a foot element representing from 750 - 1,200 men if allowed.

Tony Aguilar
02-08-2011, 10:23 PM
I assume that chariots are not allowed to dismount in DBA because of the scale. A LCh element represents 50 chariots which would convert to a foot element representing from 750 - 1,200 men if allowed.

I understand that Phil descibes how many troops are represented in each element, but certainly 50 LCh can't have the same effectiveness as 750 Cavalrymen.

david kuijt
02-09-2011, 01:04 AM
I assume that chariots are not allowed to dismount in DBA because of the scale. A LCh element represents 50 chariots which would convert to a foot element representing from 750 - 1,200 men if allowed.

Except there are numerous examples of LCh dismounting in DBA, Will. Kyrene Greeks, Elamites, Mycenean/Achaean, just off the top of my head.

Martyn
02-09-2011, 08:34 AM
Except there are numerous examples of LCh dismounting in DBA, Will. Kyrene Greeks, Elamites, Mycenean/Achaean, just off the top of my head.

Having had a quick flick through the lists I think there are only three lists that have dismounting chariots.

Generally, it would seem logical not to allow dismounting due to the small numbers of chariots that a chariot element represents and therefore the small number of foot that would dismount from them. If so, why have any dismounting at all?

David Constable
02-09-2011, 10:18 AM
Hello Martyn

You could have dismounting on the first turn only.

On the Yahoo DBMM group it was mentioned that troops very rarely re-mounted, however I think they mentioned one case of what would be a General element starting a battle mounted, dismounting, then re-mounting.

The dismounting is really only a problem with Section 4 lists, a lot of Kn//Bd, a very good element type.

Why we ban section 4 in the Midland Open.

David Constable

katch22
02-09-2011, 11:24 AM
To simulate the historical record we need to have an option to dismount at deployment and we also need an option to dismount during the game and the option to dismount during the game needs to be sufficiently difficult that players are encouraged to dismount at deployment rather than chance it. Your idea would be an improvement on the current rules but I don't think it goes far enough.

I agree that the dismount rule as written, allows the act of riding up and dismounting right in front of intended target with minimal pips.. (too powerful)
I could live with just a deployment option, but also like the idea of having another in-game decision to make (albeit with additional restrictions)

The addition of restrictions to in-game dismounting to prevent it from being performed while in ZOC (reasonable) could be just the right mixture to still allow the manuever, while also adding sufficient risk, to induce the player to make the decision early enough not to unbalance the game.

Rule suggestion:
Dismount option at deployment, no group dismount, and dismount in game
(1 pip/element, 2 pips/element with move) not in ZOC.

This provides increased pip management issues, as well as adding potential risk if dismount decision is not made soon enough.

ferrency
02-09-2011, 11:33 AM
Having had a quick flick through the lists I think there are only three lists that have dismounting chariots.

Almost.

Besides the three DK mentioned (Kyrene Greeks, Elamites, Mycenean/Achaean), there is also Dark Age and Geometric Greek.

Alan

Pavane
02-09-2011, 12:02 PM
Except there are numerous examples of LCh dismounting in DBA, Will. Kyrene Greeks, Elamites, Mycenean/Achaean, just off the top of my head.
I don't have any armies with dismounting chariots, but I remarked on the scale difference because in DBM or DBMM (I don't remember which) there is a 4:1 dismounting ratio for chariots to foot.

dicemanrick
02-09-2011, 12:09 PM
Except there are numerous examples of LCh dismounting in DBA, Will. Kyrene Greeks, Elamites, Mycenean/Achaean, just off the top of my head.

Agreed, but the amount of men who dismount are small...like it should be one element of dismounts per two chariot models. it's very difficult to represent this with stated "numbers of real men per represented stand" in DBA.

dicemanrick
02-09-2011, 12:14 PM
As I've said before, I believe dismounting, if permitted at all, should be done in the first bound only. The armies which have this capability should be the same ones which can dismount in the DBM/DBMM lists for consistency.

And don't mess with my Anglo-Norman cheater war-wagon! <JOKE!!>:rotfl

david kuijt
02-09-2011, 12:48 PM
I don't have any armies with dismounting chariots, but I remarked on the scale difference because in DBM or DBMM (I don't remember which) there is a 4:1 dismounting ratio for chariots to foot.

Sure. But it is also wierder than that -- at least one of the armies in DBA that has dismounting chariots (Elamite) is (IIRC, which is a bit hazy) really mounted infantry in DBM -- so the dismounting rate there should be (might be?) based upon a foot ratio, not the 4:1 chariot ratio?

Rich Gause
02-09-2011, 01:03 PM
I agree that the dismount rule as written, allows the act of riding up and dismounting right in front of intended target with minimal pips.. (too powerful)
I could live with just a deployment option, but also like the idea of having another in-game decision to make (albeit with additional restrictions)

The addition of restrictions to in-game dismounting to prevent it from being performed while in ZOC (reasonable) could be just the right mixture to still allow the manuever, while also adding sufficient risk, to induce the player to make the decision early enough not to unbalance the game.

Rule suggestion:
Dismount option at deployment, no group dismount, and dismount in game
(1 pip/element, 2 pips/element with move) not in ZOC.

This provides increased pip management issues, as well as adding potential risk if dismount decision is not made soon enough.

I don't like the option of moving with dismounting, don't like 1 pip per element instead of 2, prefer 2 because that means if you wait too long to do it you might not get to and that is good for the game, having the uncertainty and gives another reason why you should dismount at deployment. It just seems silly also that a unit of knights can dismount form up as blades, have somebody remove their horse to safety, and then move as far as they could if they started formed up as blades with no horses to worry about. You rule in some ways is even more open to abuse by dismounting players because with a 1 pip per element dismount if no move you can ALWAYS dismount at least one unit which you cannot do in the current game. A dismounting army has a huge advantage that its units can dismount, allowing at deployment dismount for free is a huge advantage that they do not currently have. The concurrent disadvantage to balance that is to make it much more difficult to dismount in game. Not in ZOC, in place not as part of a move, 2 pips per element not as part of a group, and free dismounting at deployment which is what you should do. That is a lot more liberal proposal that the other one which is at deplyment for free or first bound only. Yours is too liberal.

Martyn
02-09-2011, 01:05 PM
Sure. But it is also wierder than that -- at least one of the armies in DBA that has dismounting chariots (Elamite) is (IIRC, which is a bit hazy) really mounted infantry in DBM -- so the dismounting rate there should be (might be?) based upon a foot ratio, not the 4:1 chariot ratio?

Good memory DK, the Kallapani are mtd Bw in DBM. The description is "Kallapani were troops on fast carts, each cart carrying several archers to support true chariots or cavalry." so not true chariots. Even so at 50 chariots to an element allowing for four archers per chariot that is only 200. Not quite the same as 750-900 men for a standard 3Bw element.

I don't have such an issue with dismounting Kn/Cv as far as scale is concerned. I do agree that the current dismounting rules make them very powerful. As stated before I think that as a minimum there should be no group move dismount and no dismount that ends a move within ZoC of an enemy element.

Almost.

Besides the three DK mentioned (Kyrene Greeks, Elamites, Mycenean/Achaean), there is also Dark Age and Geometric Greek.

Alan

Thanks Alan, I was only one out. ;)

winterbadger
02-09-2011, 02:02 PM
A dismounting army has a huge advantage that its units can dismount, allowing at deployment dismount for free is a huge advantage that they do not currently have.

How is it any different than an army that has different options in its list (e.g., "3 x 3Kn or 4Bd")? Dismounting at deployment should be free; IMO it's the only time dismounting should be allowed, outside scenario or campaign special rules.

Rich Gause
02-09-2011, 02:14 PM
It's not????? That is a huge advantage.

ferrency
02-09-2011, 03:03 PM
allowing at deployment dismount for free is a huge advantage that they do not currently have.

How is it any different than an army that has different options in its list (e.g., "3 x 3Kn or 4Bd")?

I almost asked that question, until I realized the answer.

Choosing between "3x3Kn or 4Bd" happens once before the first game of a multi-round tournament (there we go with the competitive play thing again...), while dismounting at deployment is a decision made at the start of each game.

Dismounting at deployment isn't the same as an army composition choice; it's the same as choosing a new army composition at deployment time, which is quite different.

Alan

winterbadger
02-09-2011, 03:10 PM
I almost asked that question, until I realized the answer.

Choosing between "3x3Kn or 4Bd" happens once before the first game of a multi-round tournament (there we go with the competitive play thing again...), while dismounting at deployment is a decision made at the start of each game.

Dismounting at deployment isn't the same as an army composition choice; it's the same as choosing a new army composition at deployment time, which is quite different.

Well, if it were up to me, since I favour eliminating dismounting during play and allowing it at deployment, I would just change the list from dismounting to a choice of elements at deployment.

But then I don't obsess about "balance", so I'm the wrong person to assess whether this is a huge advantage. :rolleyes

ferrency
02-09-2011, 05:38 PM
Well, if it were up to me, since I favour eliminating dismounting during play and allowing it at deployment, I would just change the list from dismounting to a choice of elements at deployment.

I agree.

But then I don't obsess about "balance", so I'm the wrong person to assess whether this is a huge advantage. :rolleyes

General opinion seems to be that the current dismounting rule is overpowered. However, I think any rule that neuters it sufficiently will result in additional rules complication with no real benefit over simply altering the army composition.

But I don't have any cats in this bag, so kick it however you like.

Alan

kontos
02-09-2011, 06:04 PM
Well, if it were up to me, since I favour eliminating dismounting during play and allowing it at deployment, I would just change the list from dismounting to a choice of elements at deployment.

But then I don't obsess about "balance", so I'm the wrong person to assess whether this is a huge advantage. :rolleyes

I'm a proponent of dismounting at deployment as well.

Pavane
02-09-2011, 06:24 PM
I'm a proponent of dismounting at deployment as well.
Would this be done when the element is placed, or before any element is placed (and, if so, when is your opponent aware of the decision)?

Stephen Webb
02-09-2011, 06:24 PM
I'm a proponent of dismounting at deployment as well.

In my competitions, you have to decide on dismounting during deployment.

It is simple and effective.

Mind you, I have played games where I would have liked to dismount later...

kontos
02-09-2011, 06:27 PM
Would this be done when the element is placed, or before any element is placed (and, if so, when is your opponent aware of the decision)?

I would pose that when the element is placed on the table, it is placed either mounted or dismounted. Done.

Macbeth
02-09-2011, 06:58 PM
I'm a proponent of dismounting at deployment as well.

Personally I liked the look of agony on the face of an Anglo Norman commander when he realised that if he wanted to defend his BUA with Bd he needed to put a mounted element there to start with and run the risk of it being attacked in bound 1.
:p

Not the greatest reason to want them starting mounted but fun nonetheless. Personally I find making them start on horses and paying PIPs for each element goes a little way to balancing the power. ;)

There are instances of the Kn getting off their horses during battle - Nicopolis for example the French Lunatics charged through two lines of Turks on their horses before coming across the Janissaries behind stakes. They dismounted here (probably to avoid the QK vs Bw) and charged in there.

Cheers

David Constable
02-10-2011, 05:15 AM
PART REMOVED

There are instances of the Kn getting off their horses during battle - Nicopolis for example the French Lunatics charged through two lines of Turks on their horses before coming across the Janissaries behind stakes. They dismounted here (probably to avoid the QK vs Bw) and charged in there.

Cheers

Thanks, I think this is the battle I was thinking of mentioned in DBMM.
The Kn are mounted, then dismount, then remount.
The remounting not being allowed in DBA, but an oddity so excusable.
But the element could be listed as Kn//Bd//Kn, allowing them to remount as Kn.

David Constable

winterbadger
02-10-2011, 09:19 AM
There are instances of the Kn getting off their horses during battle - Nicopolis for example the French Lunatics charged through two lines of Turks on their horses before coming across the Janissaries behind stakes. They dismounted here (probably to avoid the QK vs Bw) and charged in there.

Unless it was much more common than that (and I'm not familiar with it being so), I'd think that this was a great candidate for a scenario special rule. Especially if they then remounted, as David says.

There are many instances of Kn dismounting before battle (which you can't do in DBA currently) and seemingly only one or two of them doing it during battles (which is currently allowed in all games for many lists). This picture looks wrong to me. :)

elsyr
02-10-2011, 02:51 PM
I would pose that when the element is placed on the table, it is placed either mounted or dismounted. Done.

That certainly makes the most sense to me.

Doug

Tony Aguilar
02-10-2011, 03:00 PM
There are many instances of Kn dismounting before battle (which you can't do in DBA currently) and seemingly only one or two of them doing it during battles (which is currently allowed in all games for many lists). This picture looks wrong to me. :)

Yep, seems bass-ackwards to me too. It isn't like the Kn//Bd elements are nerfed either by doing this because they still are able to choose - per battle how they want to deploy, instead of picking one that they have to keep for the whole tourney.

pozanias
02-11-2011, 11:17 AM
Unless it was much more common than that (and I'm not familiar with it being so), I'd think that this was a great candidate for a scenario special rule. Especially if they then remounted, as David says.

There are many instances of Kn dismounting before battle (which you can't do in DBA currently) and seemingly only one or two of them doing it during battles (which is currently allowed in all games for many lists). This picture looks wrong to me. :)

I agree with this completely. I would like to see dismounting limited to: 1. at deployment, or 2. in the first bound (for an extra pip per element).

I used to say I would begrudgingly accept dismounting after the first bound if group dismounting were eliminated (i.e. 2 pips to dismount each element), but I've changed my mind. I don't want it at all after the first bound.

pozanias
02-11-2011, 01:05 PM
I should add that I don't mind chariots dismounting during the game. Not sure if there are enough of them to warrant an official exception in the rules, but I wouldn't have a problem if this were allowed.

For example:

Movement: +1 PIP -- "Chariots (that are eligible to dismount) may do so in any bound. All others may only do so in bound 1"

Martyn
02-11-2011, 01:53 PM
I should add that I don't mind chariots dismounting during the game. Not sure if there are enough of them to warrant an official exception in the rules, but I wouldn't have a problem if this were allowed.

For example:

Movement: +1 PIP -- "Chariots (that are eligible to dismount) may do so in any bound. All others may only do so in bound 1"

Mark, I am a bit more relaxed on the Kn/Cv dismounting I would like to see it made more difficult, but, I have no objection to it being limited to deployment/first bound.

However, as had been said before, dismounting chariots do have a problem. If nothing else it is a question of scale. One element of 50 chariots dismount one or two soldiers per chariot giving max 100 men who miraculously convert into an element representing 750-1200. Now I know that basing conventions are slightly fluid in DBA but even so!

winterbadger
02-11-2011, 01:58 PM
I'm NRBH, but doesn't the definition of the Ch troop types include something about riders occasionally fighting on foot? IOW, couldn't it be said to be abstracted as part of the essential action of the troop type (like the missile fire of Ps and Cv and LH that isn't actually modeled directly)?

Tony Aguilar
02-11-2011, 01:59 PM
Mark, I am a bit more relaxed on the Kn/Cv dismounting I would like to see it made more difficult, but, I have no objection to it being limited to deployment/first bound.

However, as had been said before, dismounting chariots do have a problem. If nothing else it is a question of scale. One element of 50 chariots dismount one or two soldiers per chariot giving max 100 men who miraculously convert into an element representing 750-1200. Now I know that basing conventions are slightly fluid in DBA but even so!

Even though it is stated otherwise in the rules, chariots must represent more than just 50 vehicles. If one element of LCh chariots represents 50 chariots, how can they have the same effectiveness as (a 3Cv element) 750 cavalry men? Certainly they aren't 15 times more effective.

Rich Gause
02-11-2011, 02:04 PM
Mark, I am a bit more relaxed on the Kn/Cv dismounting I would like to see it made more difficult, but, I have no objection to it being limited to deployment/first bound.

However, as had been said before, dismounting chariots do have a problem. If nothing else it is a question of scale. One element of 50 chariots dismount one or two soldiers per chariot giving max 100 men who miraculously convert into an element representing 750-1200. Now I know that basing conventions are slightly fluid in DBA but even so!

We already have dismounting chariots so the scale issue is obviously not a problem. As Tony pointed out earlier how do 50 chariots have the same effectiveness as 750 Cav or Kn? The answer is they do not. My chariot stands represent at least 250+(and probably closer to 400+) chariots which is obvious from their combat factor.

pozanias
02-11-2011, 02:04 PM
However, as had been said before, dismounting chariots do have a problem. If nothing else it is a question of scale. One element of 50 chariots dismount one or two soldiers per chariot giving max 100 men who miraculously convert into an element representing 750-1200. Now I know that basing conventions are slightly fluid in DBA but even so!

Your point is a good one. However, the fact that EVERY army in DBA is exactly 12 elements makes me a bit dismissive of the descriptions that indicate a limited range of men as representative of an element.

The counter to my counter, though, is that one could reasonably presume that the ratio between chariot elements and foot elements would scale up and down in concert.

At the end of the day, though, I am less concerned about those types of details than I am about how game play feels. And I think for Mycaneans to "feel right", it makes sense to allow the chariots to dismount. Same for the Ancient Brits (who aren't currently allowed to dismount at all).

Martyn
02-11-2011, 02:10 PM
Does the element scale make an allowance for the psychological effect.

Are 50 chariots scarier than 750 cavalry. :eek

Martyn
02-11-2011, 02:15 PM
At the end of the day, though, I am less concerned about those types of details than I am about how game play feels. And I think for Mycaneans to "feel right", it makes sense to allow the chariots to dismount.

In that instance perhaps this can be considered to reflect the superiority of the elite warriors that were carried into battle by their chauffeurs, before dismounting to beat the living daylights out of the plebs before them.

This is not a major issue, after all there are few dismounting chariots in the list.

kfenstermaker
02-12-2011, 07:27 PM
I'm NRBH, but doesn't the definition of the Ch troop types include something about riders occasionally fighting on foot? IOW, couldn't it be said to be abstracted as part of the essential action of the troop type (like the missile fire of Ps and Cv and LH that isn't actually modeled directly)?

Exactly. I think we sometimes lose sight of the 30,000 foot nature of DBA.
Paul Hannah and I fought Yuan(Paul) vs. Burmese(me) in which his line of LH beat down my line of El without the benefit of overlaps, IIRC. I suppose you could chalk it up to them being shot down from horseback, but at the time, I preferred to imagine the local commander had enough smarts/flexibility to dismount in the face of elephants.
Okay, maybe it was just a coping mechanism, but you don't know how many battles that I have managed to lose with these Burmese. :)

Keith

Tony Aguilar
02-12-2011, 08:04 PM
Exactly. I think we sometimes lose sight of the 30,000 foot nature of DBA.
Paul Hannah and I fought Yuan(Paul) vs. Burmese(me) in which his line of LH beat down my line of El without the benefit of overlaps, IIRC. I suppose you could chalk it up to them being shot down from horseback, but at the time, I preferred to imagine the local commander had enough smarts/flexibility to dismount in the face of elephants.
Okay, maybe it was just a coping mechanism, but you don't know how many battles that I have managed to lose with these Burmese. :)

Keith

More like 10,000 troops, but no matter. When an element is eliminated, I sometimes imagine they are not utterly destroyed, but figured to be routing off the field. (which is how I justify the LH QK on Sp) Either than or they are tired of this nonsense and decide that it is time to go loot, pillage, or eat somewheres else.

Si2
03-24-2011, 04:53 PM
I'm NRBH, but doesn't the definition of the Ch troop types include something about riders occasionally fighting on foot? IOW, couldn't it be said to be abstracted as part of the essential action of the troop type (like the missile fire of Ps and Cv and LH that isn't actually modeled directly)?

No, it doesn't. It just says "up to two crew" for Ch, or for HCh "more than two horses or crew".

Chris Brantley
03-24-2011, 10:02 PM
Does the element scale make an allowance for the psychological effect.

Are 50 chariots scarier than 750 cavalry. :eek

Or put in a historical context....are 50 Hittite chariots scarier to 1000 half-naked, unarmored and unshielded Egyptian spearmen than 750 Welsh cavalry to 1000 mail armored, shielded Mid-Saxon spearmen in a shieldwall formation? ;)