PDA

View Full Version : Rampant Speculation


ferrency
01-28-2011, 12:22 PM
Just because Phil doesn't want any heat, that doesn't mean we can't have it.

I was considering our limited knowledge of what has changed in DBA 3.0, and started thinking about how it might play out.

The only changes we know at this point, based on Phil's last note, are:

Tactical movement was neasured in base width increments
Time before armies contacted was lower than in 2.2


This implies the two armies start less than 1200 paces apart. We don't know if the tactical movement distances (in paces) were modified, or whether the distances were simply scaled up.

So, I got to thinking.

Scaling up movement rates to use base widths instead of inches would seem to make movement way too big for a 24" board. At the very least, the General's command radius would make the board size irrelevant for command purposes.

However, things might work better on a 30" board. The greater movement distances wouldn't change the fact that a 30" board solves the "edge of the world" problem. But they would fix the two biggest valid complaints I've read about 30" boards:

Camps are too far away on 30" boards
Littoral landings are hampered by 30" boards


With 100 paces per base width, using 30" boards with 40mm base widths, it would seem to solve all of these problems. If the command radius was still 1200 paces, both littoral landings and camp raids would be easier to do while staying in command.

Combine these changes with the double 30" board for BBDBA and "place terrain and rotate each half separately" rules, and I continue to like the way things look.

I think the command radius may still be too large at 1200 paces, however.

On a side note: in Slingshot issue 242, Phil described how the soon-to-be-released DBMM 1 was different than DBM 3. He apparently did address the "edge of the world" flank problem:
The zones next to the table side edges in which deployment is banned are larger, especially for heavy infantry. This increases the difficulty of extending flanks after game start to rest them on what is historically a non-existent feature! Even if this is done, an element close to an edge is considered automatically overlapped.

So, it seems that he agrees that the "edge of the world" can be a problem, but presumably didn't think 30" boards were the right solution in DBA. I'm hopeful that 30" boards in combination with base-width movement could provide a useful solution to all of these concerns.

But as I said, it's all just rampant speculation (and/or house rules)...

Alan

JLogan
01-28-2011, 12:42 PM
Actually, this isn't heat, it's light - some very interesting analysis here. Nice job.

Also points to my concern with using BW on 24" boards; if indeed scale becomes 100 paces = 1BW, then presumably LH in 15mm now move 8" a bound/pip, rather than 5"?

John

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 01:15 PM
Also points to my concern with using BW on 24" boards; if indeed scale becomes 100 paces = 1BW, then presumably LH in 15mm now move 8" a bound/pip, rather than 5"?


Not necessarily.

Currently movement is 2/3/4/5, all in inches (speaking about 15mm scale).

Suppose movement was changed to 1/2/3/4, all in BW (40mm).

That ends up being:

Heavy Foot: 40mm (previously 50.8mm)
Light Foot/Knights: 80mm (previously 76.2mm)
Cav: 120mm (previously 101.6mm)
LH: 160mm (previously 127mm)

Which works fairly well. Heavy foot are a little more stodgy, and there are a couple of boundary-conditions that get a little odd (can't unpack a pair of heavy foot into a line with 1 pip). Kn/Aux/Cv are virtually the same -- Cv get a bit of a boost, but that is unlikely to mess with anything. LH get a bigger boost, but again -- that isn't going to unbalance the world play-balance wise.

Playing on 30" boards, I don't see a problem with the above.

BUT! I have no idea if the above is the way DBMM works -- never seen DBMM rules.

ferrency
01-28-2011, 01:26 PM
Heavy Foot: 40mm (previously 50.8mm)
Light Foot/Knights: 80mm (previously 76.2mm)
Cav: 120mm (previously 101.6mm)
LH: 160mm (previously 127mm)

This isn't consistent with the "got into combat a few turns earlier" comment Phil made, if they were playing with heavy foot and starting 1200 paces apart. It would also not seem to solve the "closing the door" problem for slow-moving troops.

I just checked out a DBMM QRS and I have no clue how to translate it.

Good going movement distances in paces are:

Sp, Pk, Bd, Wb, Bw, Sh, Hd: 160
Bd(f), Pk(f), Wb(f), Hd(f): 200
Ax, Ps, El, Kn: 200
Cv, Cm, Exp: 240
LH: 320
LH(f): 360

I don't know what the relationship between paces and base widths is, however. It looks like it would make sense at 80 paces per base width, but I'd rather defer to someone who has actually played the game.

At 80p per base width, the movement rates in base widths would be: 2/2.5/3/4. This would speed up everything, but cavalry less than foot.

Alan

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 01:28 PM
The DBMM movement allowances are:

Heavy foot: 2 BW's
Light foot, Kn, El, 2½ BW's
Cav, camelry: 3 BW's
Light horse: 4 BW's

Edit: xpost with ferrency. Indeed, 1 BW = 80p in DBMM.

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 01:32 PM
The DBMM movement allowances are:

Heavy foot: 2 BW's
Light foot, Kn, El, 2½ BW's
Cav, camels: 3 BW's
Light horse: 4 BW's


So that works out to:

HFt: 80mm (prev. 50mm)
LFt/Kn: 100mm (prev. 75mm)
Cv etc.: 120mm (prev 100mm)
LH: 160mm (prev 125mm)

Interesting.

30" boards.

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 01:32 PM
I like DKs 1/2/3/4 proportion much better than 2/2.5/3/4.

Speeding up heavy foot doesn't seem like a good idea to me. They were some slow jokers.

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 01:36 PM
So that works out to:

HFt: 80mm (prev. 50mm)
LFt/Kn: 100mm (prev. 75mm)
Cv etc.: 120mm (prev 100mm)
LH: 160mm (prev 125mm)

Interesting.

30" boards.

DK, I think that with these new movement rates, 30" boards would be much smaller than the 24" boards we have now. See my post below on the other thread:

My biggest fear, which seems plausible based on what I have overheard, is if the switch is made from inches to BWD. This would alter the game tremendously especially if the size of the board is not increased as well. The equivalent sizes would be 38.4" x 38.4" (for the 24" equivalent) and 48" square (for the 30" equivalent.)

ferrency
01-28-2011, 02:01 PM
DK, I think that with these new movement rates, 30" boards would be much smaller than the 24" boards we have now. See my post below on the other thread:

I agree that the 30" board would be smaller from a movement perspective, but the ratio of board size to army size would not change, so the flank issues solved by 30" boards are still solved. I agree that the relative speed would change the game, but I don't think it would necessarily be a bad change. That remains to be seen, but I'm open to investigating it.

On one hand, faster movement means the two lines can close more quickly. This means there are fewer bounds available for one side to attempt to swap elements behind the lines before the enemy reaches them. On the other hand, individual element swaps will be faster because the troops are faster.

For flank maneuvers it's the same story: cav will be able to get around the flanks more quickly, but there are fewer turns available before the enemy contacts you.

I think overall, maneuvering before primary contact will be similar: it may take a few less pips to move the same elements the same distance, but you'll have fewer turns to do it before the enemy contacts you.

Once the lines contact, you have different forces in play. At this point, much movement is constrained by ZoC and not movement distance. I would expect a bit more maneuverability behind the lines since even heavy foot can shift two full base widths sideways. I'd expect flanks to be more vulnerable. It would be easier to take advantage of a gap in the enemy's line, especially with warband.

Overall, I don't really fear the DBMM movement distances if they're played on a board larger than 24".

However, A 1200 pace command radius at 80 paces per base width is over 23". Because of this, I would expect command radius to be decreased to 600p/300p instead of 1200p/600p. Even a 30" board is way too small for a 23" command radius.

Alan

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 02:01 PM
I would not be optimistic about DBMM movement allowances on a 24" board. That's the smallest recommended board size for the 100 AP variant of DBMM (which tends to DBA-size armies), but in my experience feels claustrophobic (36" is much better). The DBA deployment rules would help some (armies aren't forced to squeeze together in the centre to the same extent) but not, I think, enough.

Martyn
01-28-2011, 02:05 PM
Phil’s post on the play test was silent on board sizes. However by the fact that the lines close more quickly that would suggest no change, just quicker troops. Whether this is relevant or not who knows, it was being applied to BBDBA so may only reflect some aspects of the rule changes, or even Phil only wanted to test certain mechanisms in isolation. We don’t know.

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 02:10 PM
DK, I think that with these new movement rates, 30" boards would be much smaller than the 24" boards we have now. See my post below on the other thread:

There are two distinct issues, Tony. Movement rate is only one of them. The other is frontage. Changing the movement rate does not change the frontage.

All the original reasons (that I can recall offhand) to go with 30" boards have to do with element frontage, not with element movement rates.

So I suspect 30" would be fine for DBA armies using these increased movement rates. I might increase the distance between the start lines a bit -- as Rich said (elsewhere?) regarding the playtest report (BBDBA, oddly), having elements get stuck in faster isn't necessarily an improvement. But that wouldn't be a big deal.

But as Alan points out, command radius would be all messed up if it isn't modified.

El' Jocko
01-28-2011, 02:14 PM
It's rampant speculation of course, but there's another reason that combat may have happened earlier. As I mentioned on the other thread, one of the likely changes is to make it harder to avoid combat by angling elements and such. That could also contribute to combat starting earlier.

Switching topics, one thing that concerns me about expanding the movement distance is that it will be easier to turn flanks. Of course, that would be mitigated if the DBMM contact rules are included also (which puts HOTT-like requirements on flank and rear contact). Hopefully that's included with the new move distances.

- Jack

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 02:18 PM
Switching topics, one thing that concerns me about expanding the movement distance is that it will be easier to turn flanks. Of course, that would be mitigated if the DBMM contact rules are included also (which puts HOTT-like requirements on flank and rear contact). Hopefully that's included with the new move distances.


I think that could work (see? Everyone see? That's me, not being immediately dismissive about ideas imported from other systems!)

I'm disturbed that you actually know the DBMM rules to some extent, Jack. Your DBA purity is now suspect. We're marking that in the Book of Sins.

ferrency
01-28-2011, 02:19 PM
Phil’s post on the play test was silent on board sizes. However by the fact that the lines close more quickly that would suggest no change, just quicker troops.

Not necessarily: "lines close more quickly" only means that troop speed increased relative to the starting distance between armies; not that the starting distance didn't increase. Board space outside this starting distance is totally irrelevant and can't be deduced from Phil's comments.

Increasing board size from 24" to 30" is minor compared to adjusting heavy foot move distance from 50.8mm up to 80mm. You could maintain a deployment zone depth of 6" (with 18" between armies) and still have the lines contact each other (slightly) faster than in DBA 2.2 on 24" boards. I wouldn't expect this to be the case, though.

Alan

Martyn
01-28-2011, 02:24 PM
Not necessarily: "lines close more quickly" only means that troop speed increased relative to the starting distance between armies; not that the starting distance didn't increase. Board space outside this starting distance is totally irrelevant and can't be deduced from Phil's comments.

Increasing board size from 24" to 30" is minor compared to adjusting heavy foot move distance from 50.8mm up to 80mm. You could maintain a deployment zone depth of 6" (with 18" between armies) and still have the lines contact each other (slightly) faster than in DBA 2.2 on 24" boards. I wouldn't expect this to be the case, though.

Alan

but would that be enough for the couple of bounds earlier as per Phils post?

Martyn
01-28-2011, 02:34 PM
I would not be optimistic about DBMM movement allowances on a 24" board. That's the smallest recommended board size for the 100 AP variant of DBMM (which tends to DBA-size armies), but in my experience feels claustrophobic (36" is much better).

Do we take it that changes to board size is not on the agenda?

The DBA deployment rules would help some (armies aren't forced to squeeze together in the centre to the same extent) but not, I think, enough.

Is that because of the wider non deployment zones to each flank that are required in DBMM. Are they included in the 100 point version on a small board? No wonder it gets cluttered.

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 02:37 PM
Increasing board size from 24" to 30" is minor compared to adjusting heavy foot move distance from 50.8mm up to 80mm.


Another big difference with the movement rates is that heavy foot (assuming they move 2 BW) instead of 2" would be SIGNIFICANTLY more manuverable than they are in 2.2. They'd be able to wheel 90 degrees and then some.

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 03:05 PM
Do we take it that changes to board size is not on the agenda?


Martyn wins the prize for the first person to attempt to get Andreas to reveal the Secrets.

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 03:17 PM
Do we take it that changes to board size is not on the agenda?

Please do not scour my posts for hidden meanings. (I realize it's frustrating for people here that I've got privileged access to what Phil's up to re: 3.0, but Kremlinology isn't going to help anyone.)


Is that because of the wider non deployment zones to each flank that are required in DBMM. Are they included in the 100 point version on a small board? No wonder it gets cluttered.

The no-deploy zones are wider than in DBA (and different for light and heavy troops) but narrower than in regular DBMM.

But as said, I don't think that's the only reason the 24" board feels claustrophobic.

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 03:50 PM
It will be interesting to see if the increased move of heavy foot relative to mounted makes it a lot more difficult for the mounted to attempt to outmanuver the heavy foot which I suspect it will. I wonder if that will be an improvement.

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 04:15 PM
It will be interesting to see if the increased move of heavy foot relative to mounted makes it a lot more difficult for the mounted to attempt to outmanuver the heavy foot which I suspect it will. I wonder if that will be an improvement.

I won't increase the number of people playing lighter armies with mounted in them. IMO there is already too much of an incentive to play heavy foot armies.

El' Jocko
01-28-2011, 04:26 PM
I'm disturbed that you actually know the DBMM rules to some extent, Jack. Your DBA purity is now suspect. We're marking that in the Book of Sins.

Come on, you know I'm a rules collector. I own a copy of almost every set of Ancient/Medieval rules published in the last 20 years. I just ordered a copy of Lost Battles this afternoon.

Anyway, you don't need to worry until I start organizing games of Ironbow at Cold Wars.

- Jack

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 04:31 PM
I won't increase the number of people playing lighter armies with mounted in them. IMO there is already too much of an incentive to play heavy foot armies.

Especially if the board size stays at 24"............

ferrency
01-28-2011, 05:12 PM
but would that be enough for the couple of bounds earlier as per Phils post?

Two armies starting 18" apart with 80mm movement for heavy foot is not enough to get into contact even one bound sooner.

Two armies starting at 12" apart with 80mm movement for heavy foot gives contact easily 2 bounds earlier.

Alan

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 05:29 PM
I don't see what the big hurry is.
I wonder if it has anything to do with some DBA tourneys in England allowing only 35 minutes per game. :rolleyes

Martin Smith
01-28-2011, 05:37 PM
I don't see what the big hurry is.
I wonder if it has anything to do with some DBA tourneys in England allowing only 35 minutes per game. :rolleyes

I doubt if Phil would take that into account - he's rarely seen on the UK DBA circuit. I've only met him twice, and I get to as many tournaments as I can.
M

ferrency
01-28-2011, 05:37 PM
I don't see what the big hurry is.
I wonder if it has anything to do with some DBA tourneys in England allowing only 35 minutes per game. :rolleyes

That does strike me as a bit daft.

I'm in no hurry to end games more quickly. I have mixed feelings about reducing early-game redeployment. It's a bit annoying when the enemy spends the first 4 bounds swapping elements as I slog forward with my line of heavy foot. It's less annoying when I'm doing it :)

Alan