PDA

View Full Version : Geometric Ploys


Victor
02-04-2011, 08:33 AM
It has been stated by Phil Barker one main change in DBA 3.0 is "to curb extreme geometricists."

For those who play DBMM or otherwise know, what is this change exactly? How does it work?

David Constable
02-04-2011, 09:39 AM
If I was to guess I suspect PB would go for a DBA modification of the DBMM Threat Zone (TZ).
The Version 2.0 rules as well as the rule itself have nearly two pages of explanatory diagrams.

Then again I am probably making 2+2=5 and he will do something entirely different.

David Constable

Tony Aguilar
02-04-2011, 09:51 AM
If I was to guess I suspect PB would go for a DBA modification of the DBMM Threat Zone (TZ).
The Version 2.0 rules as well as the rule itself have nearly two pages of explanatory diagrams.

Then again I am probably making 2+2=5 and he will do something entirely different.

David Constable

Well, he certainly won't devote two pages to it as that would make it half the size of the whole rules. :rolleyes

Martyn
02-04-2011, 10:05 AM
If I understand DBMM correctly there is a requirement that any element that obstructs another element from entering close combat is moved out of the way unless it is already in combat.

It sounds simple, but maybe only with the two pages of diagrams that David identified to explain it.

Rich Gause
02-04-2011, 11:20 AM
I like the idea that single elements, not part of a group, in GGo contacted by a group conform to the first element contacting them as long as they are able to recoil. That alone would wipe out 99% of any cheesy possibilities with any kind of kinked lines nonsense and make any remaining cheese much more difficult to implement.... A rule that says anybody wanting to make contact moves blocking elements out of the way sounds complicated and open to new cheesy nonsense that will need pages of diagrams to avoid confusion.............

ferrency
02-04-2011, 11:31 AM
I like the idea that single elements, not part of a group, in GGo contacted by a group conform to the first element contacting them as long as they are able to recoil.

I'd be interested to see how DBMM handles turning to face currently-legal-in-DBA flank/rear contacts. Are these just another case of "turn to face instantly" or are they handled differently if you make flank/rear contact with an element that is a part of a group?

Alan

El' Jocko
02-04-2011, 12:25 PM
I'm not a DBMM gamer, but I've done a little research into how it works. My understanding is that the rules designed to end "geometric ploys" applies to groups making contact with groups, not just individual elements. I couldn't explain all of the nuances of it, but the basic idea seems to be that if a group can make any kind of contact with an enemy group, then you are obligated to bring those groups into full frontal contact. Either or both groups can make a series of moves, wheels, and slides to do so--as long as no element moves more than one base width as part of this adjustment process. You can also move non-contacted elements out of the way if necessary.

I can appreciate the motivation for this--making it easier to get into combat despite angles and kinks in the enemy line is a good thing. But I've got to believe that it's a real challenge to work out how this proceeds in the wide variety of situations that arise in real games. It seems like two pages of diagrams won't be enough. :)

Hopefully I haven't butchered the description too badly. Maybe a real DBMM player can correct anything that I've misunderstood.

Edit: I realized that I left out an important part of this. Elements are no longer destroyed if they are unable to complete a recoil. Instead, an element that would not be able to recoil fights at a -1.

- Jack

Foge
02-04-2011, 01:56 PM
NRBH, but I'm pretty sure that Jack's description is correct. Kinking lines is a common tactic in DBM. Its done to prevent certain contacts and overlaps. Its also done to concentrate shooting. The degenerate case is a line that looks like Charlie Brown's shirt. I think most people have figured out ways to work around it, but apparently it bugged Phil enough to spend some energy in DBMM.

I think the DBMM rules also make it difficult to ZOC someone without allowing them the chance to contact. But don't quote me on that. DBM forces skirmishers to conform to non-skirmishers in certain situations, so this isn't as much of a problem. It can be annoying, however, to have a single Ps positioned such that it ZOCs you but you cannot contact it. I suppose that's why they invented LH, though. :)

kontos
02-04-2011, 02:03 PM
I'm for changes that solve some of the geometry in DBA and allow us to fight battles. However; I do not want to have a solution to the ladybug problem that creates a stinkbug issue! :eek:sick

Frank

Rich Gause
02-04-2011, 02:14 PM
I'm not a DBMM gamer, but I've done a little research into how it works. My understanding is that the rules designed to end "geometric ploys" applies to groups making contact with groups, not just individual elements. I couldn't explain all of the nuances of it, but the basic idea seems to be that if a group can make any kind of contact with an enemy group, then you are obligated to bring those groups into full frontal contact. Either or both groups can make a series of moves, wheels, and slides to do so--as long as no element moves more than one base width as part of this adjustment process. You can also move non-contacted elements out of the way if necessary.

I can appreciate the motivation for this--making it easier to get into combat despite angles and kinks in the enemy line is a good thing. But I've got to believe that it's a real challenge to work out how this proceeds in the wide variety of situations that arise in real games. It seems like two pages of diagrams won't be enough. :)

Hopefully I haven't butchered the description too badly. Maybe a real DBMM player can correct anything that I've misunderstood.

Edit: I realized that I left out an important part of this. Elements are no longer destroyed if they are unable to complete a recoil. Instead, an element that would not be able to recoil fights at a -1.

- Jack

So If I wheel a line into contact at one end because the last few elements are cav and move faster than rest of the elements that are heavy foot then the heavy foot get into contact even though they don't have the move?

ferrency
02-04-2011, 02:27 PM
Edit: I realized that I left out an important part of this. Elements are no longer destroyed if they are unable to complete a recoil. Instead, an element that would not be able to recoil fights at a -1.

Ouch. Under what circumstances, only running into your own side's troops (that can't be passed through or pushed back) or also if an enemy element blocks your recoil? Clearly it can't apply to flank or rear contact.

If done right I wouldn't complain. But blocking recoils is one of the ways some "unkillable" elements are killed. Does this force us to make legal flank/rear contact instead of standing behind the enemy?

Most of the time making legal contact is just as easy, but in DBA 2.2 a single light horse behind the lines can block two elements' recoils.

Alan

winterbadger
02-04-2011, 03:47 PM
If nothing else, this thread helps convince me that I don't want to try to learn either DBMM or HOTT. One set of complex, convoluted rules and their attendant hotly debated interps are enough for me. Trying to learn several different (but significantly similar) sets and keep them straight would burn out my already overtaxed peabrain. :eek

El' Jocko
02-04-2011, 03:51 PM
Ouch. Under what circumstances, only running into your own side's troops (that can't be passed through or pushed back) or also if an enemy element blocks your recoil? Clearly it can't apply to flank or rear contact.


I believe that recoiling into an enemy element just results in the premature end of the recoil--the recoiling element is not destroyed.

- Jack

[Usual caveats apply. I don't actually play DBMM, so I may be talking out of my hat (http://www.wadbag.com/images/jsheriff.jpg). And we (Andreas and Doug excepted) have no idea what Phil is really thinking about including in DBA 3.0.]

David Constable
02-04-2011, 05:27 PM
If nothing else, this thread helps convince me that I don't want to try to learn either DBMM or HOTT. One set of complex, convoluted rules and their attendant hotly debated interps are enough for me. Trying to learn several different (but significantly similar) sets and keep them straight would burn out my already overtaxed peabrain. :eek

You should have seen the discussions on the DBMM sight.

In the end if DBA 3.0 is not to the majority of peoples liking we will just play 2.2 with WADBAG guide as our helper.

It will be interesting to see if an alternative set comes out in a few years time or not.

I started with WRG 1st and went to 5th, 6th was a step to many.
That is why I await DBA 3.0 with interest.

David Constable

dicemanrick
02-04-2011, 05:39 PM
I like the idea that single elements, not part of a group, in GGo contacted by a group conform to the first element contacting them as long as they are able to recoil. That alone would wipe out 99% of any cheesy possibilities with any kind of kinked lines nonsense and make any remaining cheese much more difficult to implement.... A rule that says anybody wanting to make contact moves blocking elements out of the way sounds complicated and open to new cheesy nonsense that will need pages of diagrams to avoid confusion.............

Rich, DOOOD...what's this "Go, Pack, Go" crap???:D

Stiller Nation Roolz!!!:2up

Rich Gause
02-04-2011, 06:41 PM
Rich, DOOOD...what's this "Go, Pack, Go" crap???:D

Stiller Nation Roolz!!!:2up

It is my team. And I do stress the my, I am one of the owners. You guys just root for somebody elses team..................

Richard Lee
02-05-2011, 03:18 AM
In the end if DBA 3.0 is not to the majority of peoples liking we will just play 2.2 with WADBAG guide as our helper.

It will be interesting to see if an alternative set comes out in a few years time or not.

If an alternative set comes out it would be interesting to see if they would be as good as DBA in terms of simplicity and historical realism. The danger would be that the result might be DBA (or some other rule set) with tweaks that may or may not have been fully play-tested.

In my opinion, the hardest part of writing rules for the ancient period would be to do the army lists. It seems to me that very few people have the knowledge to cover the whole of the DBA period, for all continents. It would be possible to intensively study a particular sub-period or series of wars, for example the Macedonian and Punic Wars. It might take quite a long time to expand one person's knowledge beyond the core period, or to recruit people with sufficient knowledge of other sub-periods.

I have sometimes thought that it might be nice to have a set of ancient rules based upon DBA but a little more detailed than either DBA or HotT, but much less complex than DBM or DBMM. Have to admit that I have always shied away from trying to write anything because I would be embarrassed if the result were too derivative.

prich
02-05-2011, 05:00 AM
I have sometimes thought that it might be nice to have a set of ancient rules based upon DBA but a little more detailed than either DBA or HotT, but much less complex than DBM or DBMM.

L'art de la guerre is your rulebook, if you speak french. http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/index.php

winterbadger
02-05-2011, 11:32 AM
L'art de la guerre is your rulebook, if you speak french. http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/index.php

I've yet to try playing it, but it's my impression that Basic Impetus (http://www.dadiepiombo.com/basic2.html) is another option as well.

Richard Lee
02-05-2011, 12:32 PM
I've yet to try playing it, but it's my impression that Basic Impetus (http://www.dadiepiombo.com/basic2.html) is another option as well.

Not played it, but when I looked at it it didn't quite do it for me. Thanks, though.

Richard Lee
02-05-2011, 12:34 PM
L'art de la guerre is your rulebook, if you speak french. http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/index.php

Thank you, but sadly I don't.

ferrency
02-05-2011, 12:43 PM
I've yet to try playing it, but it's my impression that Basic Impetus (http://www.dadiepiombo.com/basic2.html) is another option as well.

They're solid rules, but they aren't DBA :rolleyes

They combine much of the unit-based abstraction of a DBA-like game, with a bit of the equipment-based reductionism of something like WAB.

As long as I have opponents, I'd prefer DBA 2.2 over Impetus. I looked into Impetus as a way to play something with friends who couldn't grok DBA combat, but once I found enough DBA opponents I stopped bothering.

Alan

Redwilde
02-05-2011, 01:05 PM
L'art de la guerre is your rulebook, if you speak french. http://www.artdelaguerre.fr/index.php

40 euros with shipping to the US. Ouch. But tempting...

winterbadger
02-05-2011, 01:24 PM
They're solid rules, but they aren't DBA :rolleyes

Well, of course not. The point was to suggest rules that were not DBA but had some similarities while being a bit more complex.

ferrency
02-05-2011, 01:54 PM
Well, of course not. The point was to suggest rules that were not DBA but had some similarities while being a bit more complex.
Sorry, I wasn't intending to be critical. I only meant to express that having played both rules, I still prefer DBA.

Alan

winterbadger
02-05-2011, 01:56 PM
Sorry, I wasn't intending to be critical. I only meant to express that having played both rules, I still prefer DBA.

Ah, OK. :up

I misunderstood the rolleyes, which I usually associate with exasperation.

Andreas Johansson
02-05-2011, 02:54 PM
Thank you, but sadly I don't.

There used to be an English translation online I believe ... ?

Foge
02-07-2011, 10:17 AM
I second Alan's opinion. Impetus is okay, but I think DBA is superior. I just couldn't shake the "generic" feel of the units in Impetus, and that bothered me. IIRC, the only differences between a knight and a legionnaire were movement distance and combat factor. Meh.