PDA

View Full Version : Base widths vs paces advantages?


Rich Gause
02-12-2011, 10:21 PM
It sounds like DBA 3.0 is going to go to using basewidths vs paces for movement. That isn't a big problem if the relative speeds and board sizes stay the same. I can see the logic that everything measured in bw means that the game plays the same no matter what size bases you use. So if for example slow foot moved 1 bw, fast foot and kn 1.5 bw, cav 2 bw and lh 2.5 bw and the board size was defined as 12 bw(or 15 for a 30" board equivalent) that would be no big deal and you would have the main downsides of having to make your own rulers unless somebody makes rulers marked in bw and that maybe peoples current carpet squares just got obsolete. If however there are dramatic changes to the movement rates of the different elements relative to each other and to the battlefield size that could be a big big problem unless after playtesting it turns out the game play is superior with the changes, and by superior I don't mean that it is simplified with less maneuver being possible and games playing faster. Does anybody know if the movement rates in DBMM have similiar relative rates to DBA? I seem to recall that the relative speeds change dramatically but I may be confusing that with some other game and my version of DBM and DBR all use paces.

Tony Aguilar
02-12-2011, 11:34 PM
On another thread....

The DBMM movement allowances are:

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



DBM, BTW has the same movement rates as DBA 2.2.

Seems likely that this new ratio might be considered to put DBA 3.0 in line with DBMM.

kontos
02-12-2011, 11:51 PM
On another thread....



DBM, BTW has the same movement rates as DBA 2.2.

Seems likely that this new ratio might be considered to put DBA 3.0 in line with DBMM.

On our standard boards, those move rates will surely change the game as we know it. :sick

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 01:22 AM
On our standard boards, those move rates will surely change the game as we know it. :sick

Looking at www.dbmm.org.uk they have some info, it looks like as of 2010 dbmm v2 has the following movment rates(I'll leave out the fast graded elements). They still use paces but everything is multiples of 40 paces to correspond to base widths I assume and I was assuming it is still 50 p to the inch as well which seems to check out with the rulers on the site:

LH 320p, 6.4", 3.7 moves to go 24"
Cav 240p, 5.8", 4.7 moves to go 24"
Kn Aux Psi 200p, 4", 6 moves to go 24"
Slow foot 160p, 3.2", 8 moves to go 24"

So relatively speaking slow foot becomes faster compared to everything, KN Aux and PSi become slower compared to everything else and the entire board even on a 30" board seems like it would take less time for units to maneuver than a current 24" board. Now I am not sure how this will play in practice(if indeed these same movement rates will be adopted wholesale into DBA) but it seems like armies that rely on speed like LH/Cav or Ax/Ps armies may have a more difficult time outmaneuvering slow foot armies since the heavy foot will be able to react more quickly to outflanking attempts and close with/zoc their faster opponents more easily. Depending on what other rules change could modify this I suppose. I will try to get Tony to playtest a few games at Recon with these movement rates with heavy foot armies vs fast armies to see how it works out. If this is the change being envisioned and it results in less room for maneuver and armies just getting rapidly into contact and rolling dice(which it seems like it would but we won't know until we try it), it seems like it would simplify the game and make initial deployment and luck relatively more important than skillful maneuvering. I don't think I would see that as an improvement over DBA 2.2 but if I wanted the game to be an introductory game for DBMM or wanted to play both without getting confused about the movement rates I might.

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 01:44 AM
If any DBMM players see any mistakes in the above good going movement rates please repond with corrections. Also DBMM has good, rough and difficult going and the DBA bad going appears to be most like difficult going in DBMM. Here is the table I got it from hope I don't have to edit it too much to make it show up right.

TACTICAL AND MARCH MOVE DISTANCES IN PACES (p. 29)
.........................................Road Good Rough Difficult
LH(F).................................. 640 ..360.... 240.... 160
LH ......................................640 ..320 ....240.... 160
Cv, Cm, Exp ........................480.. 240 ....160.... 80
Kn(F) ..................................400 ..240 ....160.... 80
El, Kn ..................................400 ..200 ....160.... 80
Ax, Ps .................................400 ..200.... 200.... 160
Bd(F), Pk(F), Wb(F), Hd(F) .....400 ..200 ....200.... 120
Sp, Pk, Bd, Wb, Bw, Sh, Hd ....400 ..160 ....160.... 80
Art(F), Bge(F) .......................400 ..200 ....120.... 40
WWg, Art, Bge ......................400 ..160 .....80..... 0
Art(S) ..................................240 ...80 .....40...... -
Naval(F)................................. - ...360..... -....... 200
Naval..................................... - ...320..... - .......160
Naval(X)................................ - ....160..... -........ 80

Richard Lee
02-13-2011, 02:43 AM
Don't know whether it is relevant or not, but the suggested playing area for DBMM100 is "a 1,200p to 1,800p square tile" (from DBMM v1). These equate to 600mm and 900mm squares (nearly 2' and 3' respectively).

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 02:54 AM
So that would be a 24-36" board if it transferred over to DBA 3.0. A 36" board would be just slightly quicker to move across for slow foot than the current 24" board and slower for everyone else. That might be better for armies needing to maneuver, don't know if it makes up for the increased speed of the heavy foot We'd just need bigger tables with that probably.

pawsBill
02-13-2011, 06:15 AM
It sounds like DBA 3.0 is going to go to using basewidths vs paces for movement.

I don't think this is strictly true.

DBMM still uses paces but the critical distances are set at half basewidths.

A better statement would be "It sounds like DBA 3.0 is going to go to using basewidths vs inches for movement"

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 12:24 PM
I don't think this is strictly true.

DBMM still uses paces but the critical distances are set at half basewidths.

A better statement would be "It sounds like DBA 3.0 is going to go to using basewidths vs inches for movement"

I don't have a problem with using bw instead of " for movement I just have concerns hat changing relative movement rates will be bad.

El' Jocko
02-13-2011, 12:29 PM
It sounds like there's a good chance that there are several important changes that are being playtested for DBA 3.0, and I think you need to take them all into account. The real impact comes from the rules together, not any one rule in isolation.

(Rampant Speculation Follows!)

Reading the tea leaves, these are my guesses for some of the rules changes being tested:

1. Increase the move distances, using base widths instead of inches.
2. Add HOTT/DBMM restrictions on flank and rear contact.
3. Add DBMM-like rules for making contact with enemy elements.
4. Measure movement using front corner only.

So what would the impact of these changes be? Well, one important result will be that it will be easier and sometimes quicker to get into frontal contact (that is, close combat) with the enemy. Defenders sitting in V-shaped lines and angles will be forced to conform to the attacker. Heavy foot will be able to take advantage of both the increased movement rate and easier contact rules to make a bigger impact.

Consider a typical game setup with the opposing lines 12 inches apart at the start (this is the usual case on both the 24" and 30" boards). Using DBA 2.2 movement rates, heavy foot would take 6 bounds to cross that space and make contact with the enemy. And a shallow V in the defender's line would make contact something of a challenge, with the attacker forced to wheel and leave some elements behind.

Assuming the rules changes listed above, in DBA 3.0 that line of heavy foot would instead take 4 bounds to cross that space. And kinks, V's and angles wouldn't prevent the heavy foot from making contact as a group.

Oddly enough, the impacts are uneven. Imagine for a moment that it's not heavy foot crossing that space, but cavalry. Using DBA 2.2 movement rates, cavalry can cross that space in 3 turns. Using the putative DBA 3.0 movement rates, cavalry can now cross that space in, well, 3 turns.

Light horse can now make that trip a little faster, reducing the time from 3 turns to 2 turns to cross that space. But light horse also are likely to have a new restriction. If the HOTT/DBMM rules on flank contact are used, then an element must start outside an enemy element's flank in order to make flank contact. So light horse get faster, but are restricted from using that speed in some important ways.

(Rampant Editorializing Follows!)

Personally, I suspect that I'm going to like the way these changes play out. Heavy foot should be able to march forward and smash into the enemy line. Light horse should be able to dash around the battlefield--but without the ability to jump from facing an enemy element to suddenly attacking on the flank.

I'll admit to one concern about the contact rules that are in DBMM. It's not the effect that worries me, but the added complexity. Figuring out exactly what happens when you have two groups making contact at funny angles with other elements blocking certain adjustments may make us nostalgic for the whole ZOC discussion.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding--we'll have to see what comes out in playtesting. And that's assuming that these are actually the rules that Phil has in mind. I've never been very good at reading tea leaves.

- Jack

david kuijt
02-13-2011, 12:45 PM
TACTICAL AND MARCH MOVE DISTANCES IN PACES (p. 29)
.........................................Road Good Rough Difficult
LH(F).................................. 640 ..360.... 240.... 160
LH ......................................640 ..320 ....240.... 160
Cv, Cm, Exp ........................480.. 240 ....160.... 80
Kn(F) ..................................400 ..240 ....160.... 80
El, Kn ..................................400 ..200 ....160.... 80
Ax, Ps .................................400 ..200.... 200.... 160
Bd(F), Pk(F), Wb(F), Hd(F) .....400 ..200 ....200.... 120
Sp, Pk, Bd, Wb, Bw, Sh, Hd ....400 ..160 ....160.... 80
Art(F), Bge(F) .......................400 ..200 ....120.... 40
WWg, Art, Bge ......................400 ..160 .....80..... 0
Art(S) ..................................240 ...80 .....40...... -

That's almost impenetrable to me. Lemme translate it into mm and throw out the BGo movement types (using the DBA principle that all mounted will move at heavy foot rate in BGo, and all foot moving unaffected by BGo) and throw out "Road" (which is 5 BW for almost everyone) and throw out Art(F), Art(S), and BGe(F) which are irrelevant:

TACTICAL AND MARCH MOVE DISTANCES IN PACES (p. 29)
................................ Good Inches (approx)
LH(F)............................180mm 7.1"
LH ..............................160mm 6.3"
Cv, Cm, Exp .....................120mm 4.7"
Kn(F) ...........................120mm 4.7"
El, Kn ..........................100mm 3.9"
Ax, Ps ..........................100mm 3.9"
Bd(F), Pk(F), Wb(F), Hd(F) ......100mm 3.9"
Sp, Pk, Bd, Wb, Bw, Sh, Hd .......80mm 3.1"
WWg, Art, Bge ....................80mm 3.1"


Nothing seems all that objectionable there, but I'm inspired to ask why heavy foot rate wouldn't best be 60mm? That would fix the "closing the door" issue (assuming front corner measuring) and would be a much less severe change to the current (and working very well) game.

Tony Aguilar
02-13-2011, 12:46 PM
I will try to get Tony to playtest a few games at Recon with these movement rates with heavy foot armies vs fast armies to see how it works out.

You got it, Dude. Looks like we'll be staying up late!


If this is the change being envisioned and it results in less room for maneuver and armies just getting rapidly into contact and rolling dice(which it seems like it would but we won't know until we try it), it seems like it would simplify the game and make initial deployment and luck relatively more important than skillful maneuvering.

Sound like someone was getting upset with their Vikings getting trounced.

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 12:50 PM
It sounds like there's a good chance that there are several important changes that are being playtested for DBA 3.0, and I think you need to take them all into account. The real impact comes from the rules together, not any one rule in isolation.


Of course, the proof is in the pudding--we'll have to see what comes out in playtesting. And that's assuming that these are actually the rules that Phil has in mind. I've never been very good at reading tea leaves.

- Jack

Exactly right. Unfortunately we don't know a lot about exactly what rules are being playtested. The movement rate increase, DBMM contact rules, and possible "threat zone" changes I have heard about. I like the front corner only move rule. I like the idea of the lone LH/Psiloi contacted in the open by a group must conform rule being applied to everyone.

kontos
02-13-2011, 12:50 PM
You got it, Dude. Looks like we'll be staying up late! Sound like someone was getting upset with their Vikings getting trounced.

Or someone wants an introductory game where you get right to it and save the art of maneuver for the "higher level" DBMM players. :rolleyes

Tony Aguilar
02-13-2011, 12:50 PM
Nothing seems all that objectionable there, but I'm inspired to ask why heavy foot rate wouldn't best be 60mm? That would fix the "closing the door" issue (assuming front corner measuring) and would be a much less severe change to the current (and working very well) game.

I don't understand the need to give the Legionnaires/Spearmen more speed. Those guys carry a lot of heavy stuff and would tire easily. They are well balanced now (in 2.2) with their speed (or lack there of) being balanced by big combat factors.

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 12:54 PM
[CODE]Nothing seems all that objectionable there, but I'm inspired to ask why heavy foot rate wouldn't best be 60mm? That would fix the "closing the door" issue (assuming front corner measuring) and would be a much less severe change to the current (and working very well) game.

Because then it would be different than DBMM movement rates thats why not:silly

nick hux
02-13-2011, 01:37 PM
Because then it would be different than DBMM movement rates thats why not:silly

Because history doesn't support such speed differences? ;)

Nick

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 02:17 PM
Because history doesn't support such speed differences? ;)

Nick

Not so sure that is correct. Carrying heavy stuff like armor slows you down, marching in a close order formation slows you down. A psiloi/auxilia moving about 1.5 times what a heavy infantry man seems about right. Did historians recently unearth ancient scrolls that held detailed secrets about battlefield mobility of ancient soldiers that made what was considered historically accurate in the last 20 years of wargaming suddenly obsolete? Did Phil used to not care about history and now he does? I think my previous post is exactly why the movement rates are going to change and like DK said it doesn't seem too bad exept for the huge increase in mobility of heavy foot.

El' Jocko
02-13-2011, 04:26 PM
Not so sure that is correct. Carrying heavy stuff like armor slows you down, marching in a close order formation slows you down. A psiloi/auxilia moving about 1.5 times what a heavy infantry man seems about right. Did historians recently unearth ancient scrolls that held detailed secrets about battlefield mobility of ancient soldiers that made what was considered historically accurate in the last 20 years of wargaming suddenly obsolete? Did Phil used to not care about history and now he does? I think my previous post is exactly why the movement rates are going to change and like DK said it doesn't seem too bad exept for the huge increase in mobility of heavy foot.

At the scale of DBA, movement rates are simply an artificial construct with absolutely no correspondence to the how fast a particular type of troop moved historically. They're purely an abstraction. The only reasons to give a particular troop type a particular movement rate is for it to make sense to the players and for it to give the desired affect in the game.

So heavy foot will take 4 turns to cross the board and make contact with the enemy line instead of 6 turns. There's really no history involved--no one measured the movement of Roman Legions in turns unitl the 20th century. It's an arbitrary choice, and the only thing to guide us is whether the game is better this way.

- Jack

nick hux
02-13-2011, 04:36 PM
Not so sure that is correct. Carrying heavy stuff like armor slows you down, marching in a close order formation slows you down. A psiloi/auxilia moving about 1.5 times what a heavy infantry man seems about right. Did historians recently unearth ancient scrolls that held detailed secrets about battlefield mobility of ancient soldiers that made what was considered historically accurate in the last 20 years of wargaming suddenly obsolete? Did Phil used to not care about history and now he does? I think my previous post is exactly why the movement rates are going to change and like DK said it doesn't seem too bad exept for the huge increase in mobility of heavy foot.

Well, DBA 2 exactly agrees with DBM, so Phil has changed his mind on movement between DBM and DBMM. Now, maybe this was just so that he could wreck DBA, or that may be paranoia? ;)

Nick

Rich Gause
02-13-2011, 05:48 PM
Well, DBA 2 exactly agrees with DBM, so Phil has changed his mind on movement between DBM and DBMM. Now, maybe this was just so that he could wreck DBA, or that may be paranoia? ;)

Nick
.
I imagine it was because he thought it made DBMM play better

geekmeter11
02-13-2011, 08:08 PM
So I guess that my Litko gauge set for 15mm scale will be worthless then.

Andreas Johansson
02-14-2011, 05:02 AM
*waves Open Playtest Now flag*

Martyn
02-14-2011, 05:08 AM
*waves Open Playtest Now flag*

Andreas, I think you will have more luck if you take the flag off the pole and use that instead.:silly

Martyn
02-14-2011, 07:22 AM
.
I imagine it was because he thought it made DBMM play better

That would be my take on this. DBMM now uses a single unit of measure with everything being multiples of the base width. The assumption being that it is less complex.

Not sure if I agree, but it does not make a huge difference what the unit of measurement is, it is the relationship between all distances that affect elements (movement, combat ranges, ZoC, etc) and board size that is important. It is that detail we do not know.

ferrency
02-14-2011, 11:40 AM
DBMM now uses a single unit of measure with everything being multiples of the base width. The assumption being that it is less complex.

I wouldn't say it's more or less complex than using unrelated measurements, but measuring with base widths is more flexible. By tying all measurements to base width, you can scale the base width up or down to any size without any distortion, and without itemizing pace and board size measurements for every different scale.

In DBA pre-3, there are differences between the 15mm and 25mm games because the board size and movement distances were not scaled up by the same factor as base widths. Normalizing everything to paces, and measuring paces in base widths, keeps everything in scale.

The only remaining measurement not related to base width is base depth. The proposed 3.0 basing doesn't seem to fix this either.

Alan

Martyn
02-14-2011, 12:06 PM
The only remaining measurement not related to base width is base depth. The proposed 3.0 basing doesn't seem to fix this either.Alan

and just as well. We do not want base depths 'fixed' in this way. DBMM does not do so, it just followed DBM, even Phil could see that to change basing convention would see DBMM killed at birth. He followed the convention that went back into the mists of time to avoid the horror of rebasing.

kontos
02-14-2011, 12:28 PM
While scaling to Base Widths appears to fix certain problems and make things "easier", my main concerns are the relative speed conversions of the various elements and how these new speeds affect game play. If everything moves faster and we stay on the accepted board sizes of 24" or 30" (for those that prefer), DBA will lose the art of maneuver in its battles. The only fix then is to proportionately increase the playing area. This becomes a problem. One problem is more table space needed at conventions - something already severely limited - and DBA will lose a social feature very important to some players - the "intimacy" of the small board. I like the chess game type feel of DBA sitting across from my opponent. 36"-40" creates a distance between the players and requires different gaming arrangements in many cases even in players homes or their local gaming store. I play DBA for its "social" aspect as much as I play it for friendly competition. I prefer not to play DBA on a FoG sized table. Is this a deal breaker - it depends. If it changes the very nature of DBA maneuver - YES! If it means a larger playing surface, no. Its just an inconvenience and a disappointment to me.

Frank

Rich Gause
02-14-2011, 01:51 PM
While scaling to Base Widths appears to fix certain problems and make things "easier", my main concerns are the relative speed conversions of the various elements and how these new speeds affect game play. If everything moves faster and we stay on the accepted board sizes of 24" or 30" (for those that prefer), DBA will lose the art of maneuver in its battles. The only fix then is to proportionately increase the playing area. This becomes a problem. One problem is more table space needed at conventions - something already severely limited - and DBA will lose a social feature very important to some players - the "intimacy" of the small board. I like the chess game type feel of DBA sitting across from my opponent. 36"-40" creates a distance between the players and requires different gaming arrangements in many cases even in players homes or their local gaming store. I play DBA for its "social" aspect as much as I play it for friendly competition. I prefer not to play DBA on a FoG sized table. Is this a deal breaker - it depends. If it changes the very nature of DBA maneuver - YES! If it means a larger playing surface, no. Its just an inconvenience and a disappointment to me.

Frank

Or we could reduce the movement rates so that we can still have an interesting game of maneuver on a 24-30" board. Wouldn't be compatible with DBMM then though. I guess it depends on whether compatibility with DBMM trumps having a good stand alone DBA game.

kontos
02-14-2011, 02:11 PM
I guess it depends on whether compatibility with DBMM trumps having a good stand alone DBA game.

And I suspect it will trump DBA.

ferrency
02-14-2011, 02:12 PM
If everything moves faster and we stay on the accepted board sizes of 24" or 30" (for those that prefer), DBA will lose the art of maneuver in its battles.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, even if you reduce the number of turns before enemy lines meet.

Mounted will still move faster, and may have more opportunity to move around a flank, since the enemy heavy foot will be farther ahead. Once you're in contact, movement is often restricted by ZoC and "you can't fit" anyway. Maneuver behind the lines will be increased, by allowing elements (psiloi/spear rear support) to move back and forth further in a single move.

I think the most likely change will be reducing the possibility of swapping elements to improve your matchups before you start walking forward.

In any case, I look forward to being able to playtest any changes related to movement speed in DBA 3.0. I'm certainly willing to try longer movement distances, but I'd like a larger board with or without the larger moves.

Alan

Rich Gause
02-14-2011, 02:20 PM
I don't think this is necessarily the case, even if you reduce the number of turns before enemy lines meet.

Mounted will still move faster, and may have more opportunity to move around a flank, since the enemy heavy foot will be farther ahead. Once you're in contact, movement is often restricted by ZoC and "you can't fit" anyway. Maneuver behind the lines will be increased, by allowing elements (psiloi/spear rear support) to move back and forth further in a single move.

I think the most likely change will be reducing the possibility of swapping elements to improve your matchups before you start walking forward.

In any case, I look forward to being able to playtest any changes related to movement speed in DBA 3.0. I'm certainly willing to try longer movement distances, but I'd like a larger board with or without the larger moves.

Alan

A lot of times maneuvering around the enemy flank with faster troops is more about how many pips you have and how fast the enemy can react than about the outflanking forces movement rate. Its not so much how quick you can get on his flank but how fast can he do something about it. I think aux in particular will have a much tougher time.

david kuijt
02-14-2011, 02:29 PM
I think the most likely change will be reducing the possibility of swapping elements to improve your matchups before you start walking forward.


Whoopsie! Quite the reverse.

If you have more movement range, elements will be able to swap positions (pre ZOC) MUCH more easily.

So we would see much MORE swappage, rather than less.

David Schlanger
02-14-2011, 02:40 PM
So we would see much MORE swappage, rather than less.

I am am sure the playtesters have already identified these kinds of things!

DS

ferrency
02-14-2011, 02:42 PM
Whoopsie! Quite the reverse.

If you have more movement range, elements will be able to swap positions (pre ZOC) MUCH more easily.

So we would see much MORE swappage, rather than less.

I think there are two factors that tend to balance out; I'm not sure which would be more important.


Faster heavy foot movement means there will be fewer turns before the two lines contact. This reduces the total number of PIPs available for the non-advancing side to swap elements before the enemy forces contact.
Movement rates are higher for the swapper as well, so maneuvering before contact requires fewer PIPs overall.


Which of these ends up being the more important factor is not clear to me; especially since I don't know what the proposed rule changes are.

Alan

Tony Aguilar
02-14-2011, 02:43 PM
Whoopsie! Quite the reverse.

If you have more movement range, elements will be able to swap positions (pre ZOC) MUCH more easily.

So we would see much MORE swappage, rather than less.


Yes and no. It would allow you to swap with units that are farther away from each other than they are in 2.2, but will still be PIP determined. But the enemy force would be able to close quicker, so you would potentially have less bounds in which to complete the switch before being ZOC'ed...assuming the ZOC rules are kept of course. :eek

Tony Aguilar
02-14-2011, 02:45 PM
I am am sure the playtesters have already identified these kinds of things!

DS

We'll just put you in the "Optimist" box then DS. ;)

ferrency
02-14-2011, 02:47 PM
A lot of times maneuvering around the enemy flank with faster troops is more about how many pips you have and how fast the enemy can react than about the outflanking forces movement rate. Its not so much how quick you can get on his flank but how fast can he do something about it. I think aux in particular will have a much tougher time.

This is a good point. PIPs and movement rates are directly related, because with longer movement, fewer PIPs are required to achieve the same maneuver. This goes for both sides, but the relative difference in movement rates is probably the most important effect.

Do you mean: you think Aux will have a harder time outflanking the enemy? (or, that they'll have a harder time preventing enemy flanking maneuvers? I doubt that's what you meant.)

I think having a wider board would help a lot, independent of whether the movement rate increases. Since element size and ZoC size are presumably not increasing, having more space on the flanks will help a lot.

Alan

Kingo
02-14-2011, 02:56 PM
Base width sounds great, then you can use smaller tables. I carry a 24 square in my campervan and thats as big as I want to go thanks :D

I first saw DBA played on the corner of the bar at a club, beer next to my troops, it had to be a winner.

David Schlanger
02-14-2011, 03:01 PM
Yes and no. It would allow you to swap with units that are farther away from each other than they are in 2.2, but will still be PIP determined. But the enemy force would be able to close quicker, so you would potentially have less bounds in which to complete the switch before being ZOC'ed...assuming the ZOC rules are kept of course. :eek

It depends on if we are discussing redeployment or swapping. Two very different things.

Closing quicker hampers redeployment. Swapping usually only happens in close proximity to troop engagement.

DS

david kuijt
02-14-2011, 03:03 PM
I think there are two factors that tend to balance out; I'm not sure which would be more important.


Faster heavy foot movement means there will be fewer turns before the two lines contact. This reduces the total number of PIPs available for the non-advancing side to swap elements before the enemy forces contact.
Movement rates are higher for the swapper as well, so maneuvering before contact requires fewer PIPs overall.



You're assuming that one player is closing, while the other player is swapping.

Swapping is largely a horizontal set of moves. It often triggers a similar response from the enemy, which (in its horrible worst case) can end up with each player spending multiple turns in a sideways interweave shuffle on his own elements, in an alternating shell-game dance that replicates absolutely nothing historical.

Lower movement rates force more conservative movements involving wheels and stuff. Higher movement rates allow more wacky sideways shuffles. Seems pretty obvious to me.

In DBMM this is not an issue -- the pip density per element is waaaaaay lower, and interlaced (multi-type) groups are made difficult for all but the most regular armies. I strongly suspect that Phil has no idea what a mess of sideways matchupswapping his increased movement rates might create.

ferrency
02-14-2011, 03:13 PM
It depends on if we are discussing redeployment or swapping. Two very different things.

Closing quicker hampers redeployment. Swapping usually only happens in close proximity to troop engagement.

I was referring to redeployment: defenders not advancing, moving their elements around before the enemy contacts them.

I think that any rules change that allows a light foot element to slide two elements sideways will result in a huge win for element-swapping after lines make contact. The most recent changes I saw allowed even heavy foot to slide two elements directly sideways.

I'm not as concerned by this as I am about redeployment, assuming the DBA 2.2 ZoC rules. Swapping or maneuvering after you're within range of is already limited by factors other than movement.

I expect "measure the front corners only" would have at least as much effect on local maneuver as increased movement distances.

Alan

ferrency
02-14-2011, 03:21 PM
You're assuming that one player is closing, while the other player is swapping.

Yes, I was. Apparently I should've said "redeployment" and not "swapping."

Lower movement rates force more conservative movements involving wheels and stuff. Higher movement rates allow more wacky sideways shuffles. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Because with longer movement, you can do a complete swap in one turn, so you can be sure you're not borrowing PIPs from future turns? Yes, I guess I agree. I hadn't considered this portion of the maneuver.

Alan

Rich Gause
02-14-2011, 03:24 PM
This is a good point. PIPs and movement rates are directly related, because with longer movement, fewer PIPs are required to achieve the same maneuver. This goes for both sides, but the relative difference in movement rates is probably the most important effect.

Do you mean: you think Aux will have a harder time outflanking the enemy? (or, that they'll have a harder time preventing enemy flanking maneuvers? I doubt that's what you meant.)

I think having a wider board would help a lot, independent of whether the movement rate increases. Since element size and ZoC size are presumably not increasing, having more space on the flanks will help a lot.

Alan

Aux will have a harder time outflanking heavy foot. 3:2 movement advantage allows them to do it sometimes, not so sure about 4:3.

El' Jocko
02-14-2011, 04:14 PM
I think we've identified some of the key points here. But it's awfully hard to know what the real affect of these changes will be until you try using them in a game against a player trying to take advantage of everything the new rules offer.

In other words, I want to playtest them against DK or DS running in full rules-exploitation-mode. That would tell me what's possible with these changes.

- Jack

david kuijt
02-14-2011, 04:36 PM
In other words, I want to playtest them against DK or DS running in full rules-exploitation-mode. That would tell me what's possible with these changes.


... and if you end up weeping in frustration, gnashing your teeth, and smashing holes in the wall; or huddled in fetal position under the table, you'll know that the changes have significant problems?

kontos
02-14-2011, 04:42 PM
... and if you end up weeping in frustration, gnashing your teeth, and smashing holes in the wall; or huddled in fetal position under the table, you'll know that the changes have significant problems?

I see your confidence on these changes is about as high as mine, DK. :cool

So, how far along are you on your rules? :rotfl

ferrency
02-14-2011, 04:57 PM
... and if you end up weeping in frustration, gnashing your teeth, and smashing holes in the wall; or huddled in fetal position under the table, you'll know that the changes have significant problems?

Only if that's different than his ordinary reaction.

Alan

winterbadger
02-14-2011, 05:24 PM
Only if that's different than his ordinary reaction.

Alan

Exactly! I would have thought that was a sign that nothing much had changed. :silly

Lobotomy
02-14-2011, 07:02 PM
With regard to rearranging your line, there is nothing that says you have to start 6 inches or base widths in from your edge. If that is a concern, you can always set up closer to your base line and do the rearranging there as it allows for more time, if this will be a great concern. With the higher movement rate, therefore, I think it may encourage this type of play, particularly from those of us who are afraid of our opponent's skill (which I thought I would say before someone said it in response to my post).

david kuijt
02-14-2011, 07:18 PM
With regard to rearranging your line, there is nothing that says you have to start 6 inches or base widths in from your edge. If that is a concern, you can always set up closer to your base line and do the rearranging there as it allows for more time, if this will be a great concern. With the higher movement rate, therefore, I think it may encourage this type of play, particularly from those of us who are afraid of our opponent's skill (which I thought I would say before someone said it in response to my post).

Larry's got a good point. It puts me in mind of a game at a convention long ago (2002, perhaps?) I watched between Mark Pozniak (playing Sumerian) and someone not-from-my-area (who will remain nameless, and he isn't on this forum either, so don't guess) who was playing French Ordonnance or WOTR English (forget which -- but a power army with many tools). The non-Mark player set up on his own baseline. Then on each of his bounds from then on, the non-Mark would attempt to rearrange his troops from side to side, with what purpose I knew not, as if by shuffling them and interlacing them he could solve the tactical problem of BEING AN IDJIT. On Mark's bounds, Mark would try to march forward with his Sumerians, through the maze of terrain. (The non-Mark had placed terrain, and it was a packed board, as Mark had essentially no BGo troops).

It took Mark the first 20 minutes to realize that the non-Mark was not going to advance AT ALL. Rushing as he could after that, when an hour had passed, Mark still hadn't managed to reach his foe. Time was called with no result. The non-Mark was still on his baseline, not having advanced at all.

I've never seen anything so stupid in my life. Mark (who is, when not intoxicated, a paragon of patience and goodwill towards men) was completely baffled. Why would anyone deploy his troops on the baseline, spend like 80% of the game shuffling his troops back and forth (Mark's moves were much, much faster, even with the problems of arraying his Pikes) -- all on terrain of his choosing? When I asked the non-Mark, as non-adversarially as I could, why he had chosen that tactical path, he remarked that he didn't like his matchups.

Both Mark and I were left speechless. And you know, that doesn't happen very often.

Pavane
02-14-2011, 07:27 PM
Larry's got a good point....And you know, that doesn't happen very often.
Larry, there is your new tag line.

pozanias
02-15-2011, 09:48 AM
Larry's got a good point. It puts me in mind of a game at a convention long ago (2002, perhaps?) I watched between Mark Pozniak (playing Sumerian) and someone not-from-my-area (who will remain nameless, and he isn't on this forum either, so don't guess) who was playing French Ordonnance or WOTR English (forget which -- but a power army with many tools).

Thanks a lot David, I had banished that game from my memory. Reading your post was like playing the game all over again, frustration and all.



It took Mark the first 20 minutes to realize that the non-Mark was not going to advance AT ALL. Rushing as he could after that, when an hour had passed, Mark still hadn't managed to reach his foe. Time was called with no result. The non-Mark was still on his baseline, not having advanced at all.

I'm not sure which makes me feel worse, having to re-live the game or coming to grips with just how stupid I am. It took me 20 minutes?

I've never seen anything so stupid in my life. Mark (who is, when not intoxicated, a paragon of patience and goodwill towards men) was completely baffled.

Yah, good luck finding me sober again. I'm going away for the next 10 years to drink away my misery.

Foge
02-15-2011, 09:59 AM
Yah, good luck finding my sober again. I'm going away for the next 10 years to drink away my misery.

I think the correct play in that situation is to go check out the flea market. :up

What really sucks about that situation is one jerk off basically killed any chance you had of winning the tournament. :(

david kuijt
02-15-2011, 11:37 AM
Thanks a lot David, I had banished that game from my memory. Reading your post was like playing the game all over again, frustration and all.

I live to serve. Hehehehehe


I'm not sure which makes me feel worse, having to re-live the game or coming to grips with just how stupid I am. It took me 20 minutes?


Naw, I made that number up for purposes of the story. I know it took you some time to realize that the bozo wasn't going to move off his baseline, so for the first half-dozen bounds or longer you were moving forward with a bit of caution, worried about some clever aggressive plan he might have. But I don't know it was 20 minutes.

As a side note, did it strike anyone else that the word baseline, with one letter replaced, is vaseline? Hmmmm....


Yah, good luck finding me sober again. I'm going away for the next 10 years to drink away my misery.

No change, then? :rotfl

David Schlanger
02-15-2011, 03:06 PM
... and someone not-from-my-area (who will remain nameless, and he isn't on this forum either, so don't guess)...

It was quite enjoyable to get a chance to play this guy in Big Battle DBA several years later though...

DS

David Schlanger
02-15-2011, 03:07 PM
Thanks a lot David, I had banished that game from my memory. Reading your post was like playing the game all over again, frustration and all.

What most people don't know is that this was the LAST game that Mark ever played with those Sumerians... they were ruined for him.

DS

winterbadger
02-15-2011, 03:21 PM
What most people don't know is that this was the LAST game that Mark ever played with those Sumerians... they were ruined for him.

Now that is truly sad. :( What a pity!

david kuijt
02-15-2011, 04:19 PM
It was quite enjoyable to get a chance to play this guy in Big Battle DBA several years later though...


And CRUSH him. Might have been 100-0.

pozanias
02-15-2011, 04:35 PM
Now that is truly sad. :( What a pity!

It was more like the final straw that broke the Summerians back. Its a pretty good army, and I'm a pretty good player -- but I just could not win with them.

I am vowing now, though, to bring them back at Historicon!

pozanias
02-15-2011, 04:36 PM
And CRUSH him. Might have been 100-0.

Revenge is a dish best served cold... by your friends.

Victor
02-18-2011, 08:00 AM
Just finished a few games with Steve Webb (15mm) using the following movements (on a 2' x 2' table);

TACTICAL AND MARCH MOVE DISTANCES IN PACES (p. 29)
................................ Good Inches (approx)
LH(F)............................180mm 7.1"
LH ..............................160mm 6.3"
Cv, Cm, Exp .....................120mm 4.7"
Kn(F) ...........................120mm 4.7"
El, Kn ..........................100mm 3.9"
Ax, Ps ..........................100mm 3.9"
Bd(F), Pk(F), Wb(F), Hd(F) ......100mm 3.9"
Sp, Pk, Bd, Wb, Bw, Sh, Hd .......80mm 3.1"
WWg, Art, Bge ....................80mm 3.1"


Nothing seems all that objectionable there, but I'm inspired to ask why heavy foot rate wouldn't best be 60mm?

Here are some observations;

1. Terrain size/deployment area - does this all proportionately increase in size? If so, a larger table may be necessary.

2. The game was faster - as the lines hit earlier, there are fewer turns to play - two turns of forward movement by heavy infantry with the new measurements is 160mm, whereas this would have approximated to 3 turns using existing measurements, which actually cuts out a turn in the approach.

3. There was a tendency to keep groups together as it is easier to shut the gate on isolated elements.

4. Holes in the line, or threats on the flanks are more easily dealt with due to elements getting to a spot faster. Though the attacker can get to the flanks a lot faster in the first place aswell. I think that overall, faster moving elements seems to make reserves more worthwhile.

5. Heavy infantry (blades/pike/spear etc) with an 80mm changes a number of dynamics. Currently, psiloi can attack a line of say blade, and only be at risk if it sticks in combat (1 in 36 chance), when it can get flanked by the HI in the next turn. With increased movement (I'm not sure of the maths here), to the eye it looked like if the psiloi recoiled, the blades had enough move to advance and still shut the gate. This seems to weaken the impact of psiloi.

Overall, it was interesting, in some cases a move that looked safe actually wasn't, due to misjudging how fast the enemy could move. Though David's comment about reducing heavy infantry movement to 60mm looks like a good one.

Anyway, it's all hypothetical as to what movement rates are being used in the new edition.

Richard Lee
02-18-2011, 10:42 AM
5. Heavy infantry (blades/pike/spear etc) with an 80mm changes a number of dynamics. Currently, psiloi can attack a line of say blade, and only be at risk if it sticks in combat (1 in 36 chance), when it can get flanked by the HI in the next turn. With increased movement (I'm not sure of the maths here), to the eye it looked like if the psiloi recoiled, the blades had enough move to advance and still shut the gate. This seems to weaken the impact of psiloi.


Don't know whether I made a mess of the calculation (it is quite a while since I did geometry) but I calculate that a 40mm wide base should be able to 'shut the gate' with a 57mm move. Assuming that the psiloi is based on a 20mm deep base, and recoils its base depth, then I think you are correct when you say that the blade should be able to shut the gate. It would move 77mm.

ferrency
02-18-2011, 11:55 AM
Don't know whether I made a mess of the calculation (it is quite a while since I did geometry) but I calculate that a 40mm wide base should be able to 'shut the gate' with a 57mm move. Assuming that the psiloi is based on a 20mm deep base, and recoils its base depth, then I think you are correct when you say that the blade should be able to shut the gate. It would move 77mm.

I believe your math is only appropriate if you measure movement only from the front corners and not the rear corners.

If you measure from the rear corners as well, it's a different story. Simply closing the door causes the outer rear corner of a 15mm base to move 60.4mm, so it's just outside range to advance 20mm and then close the door.

On the other hand, if you do it in a single smooth move with the outer corner following the shortest possible path, instead of advance/close, then the rear corner moves 79.1mm and it can close the door.

On the third hand, a 3Bd using a 20mm deep base cannot advance 20mm and then close the door, or do it in a single move. By my calculation that's 82.4mm.

Alan

Martyn
02-18-2011, 11:59 AM
I believe your math is only appropriate if you measure movement only from the front corners and not the rear corners.

If you measure from the rear corners as well, it's a different story. Simply closing the door causes the outer rear corner of a 15mm base to move 60.4mm, so it's just outside range to advance 20mm and then close the door.

On the other hand, if you do it in a single smooth move with the outer corner following the shortest possible path, instead of advance/close, then the rear corner moves 79.1mm and it can close the door.

On the third hand, a 3Bd using a 20mm deep base cannot advance 20mm and then close the door, or do it in a single move. By my calculation that's 82.4mm.

Alan

All such complications goes to show that perhaps BWD is not such a good idea.

More strength to the play testers. :up

Rich Gause
02-18-2011, 12:20 PM
I believe your math is only appropriate if you measure movement only from the front corners and not the rear corners.

If you measure from the rear corners as well, it's a different story. Simply closing the door causes the outer rear corner of a 15mm base to move 60.4mm, so it's just outside range to advance 20mm and then close the door.

On the other hand, if you do it in a single smooth move with the outer corner following the shortest possible path, instead of advance/close, then the rear corner moves 79.1mm and it can close the door.

On the third hand, a 3Bd using a 20mm deep base cannot advance 20mm and then close the door, or do it in a single move. By my calculation that's 82.4mm.

Alan

So it looks like if slow foot moves 1.5 bw ie 60mm everything would still be fine but 80mm allowing them to close the door on recoiled 20mm deep elements would cause some big big negative changes in the viability of ps/aux armies. 80 mm means they just barely cannot do it to 30mm deep elements as that would need a move of 80.63 mm.

ferrency
02-18-2011, 12:54 PM
All such complications goes to show that perhaps BWD is not such a good idea.

Maybe, maybe not.

The other issue is: will measurement be from front corners only, or front and rear? If it's only front corners, then the whole problem goes away (with others creeping into its place).

Alan

Martyn
02-18-2011, 01:12 PM
Maybe, maybe not.

The other issue is: will measurement be from front corners only, or front and rear? If it's only front corners, then the whole problem goes away (with others creeping into its place).

Alan

Certainly there is a problem to be sorted on front corner, rear corner or any corner measuring.

On the example you quoted earlier why should a 3Bd be disadvantaged by comparison to a 4Bd? Although that may be a problem to be dispensed with by the removal of 3/4Bd elements.


Having said that though, the declared intension is that any DBMM element is legal so that you may use a 3Bd element with a 20mm deep base. So do we assume that front corner measuring is going to be the only method to avoid that discrimination?

winterbadger
02-18-2011, 01:23 PM
Having said that though, the declared intention is that any DBMM element is legal so that you may use a 3Bd element with a 20mm deep base. So do we assume that front corner measuring is going to be the only method to avoid that discrimination?

I would think that if the intent is to make the rules "base-depth blind", they would have to go to measuring on front corners.

That assumes that such is the intent; I don't know if that's true.

Also, I'm sure I must have missed something, but why the discussion about whether a slow element can move forward *and* close the door? Surely it's enough for them to be able to close the door from a standing stop?

Martyn
02-18-2011, 01:40 PM
Also, I'm sure I must have missed something, but why the discussion about whether a slow element can move forward *and* close the door? Surely it's enough for them to be able to close the door from a standing stop?

The current discussion has arisen due to the comment made by Victor following a play test he had carried out

5. Heavy infantry (blades/pike/spear etc) with an 80mm changes a number of dynamics. Currently, psiloi can attack a line of say blade, and only be at risk if it sticks in combat (1 in 36 chance), when it can get flanked by the HI in the next turn. With increased movement (I'm not sure of the maths here), to the eye it looked like if the psiloi recoiled, the blades had enough move to advance and still shut the gate. This seems to weaken the impact of psiloi.

He has identified that it is possible with the 2BWD movement allowance to move forward and close the door where previously you could only close the door with those elements if you were already in corner to corner contact. The concern is that this weakens Ps, which it does, but it also increases the general potential occurances of hard flanking, thereby increasing the rate of kills and speeding up the game

kontos
02-18-2011, 01:51 PM
The current discussion has arisen due to the comment made by Victor following a play test he had carried out



He has identified that it is possible with the 2BWD movement allowance to move forward and close the door where previously you could only close the door with those elements if you were already in corner to corner contact. The concern is that this weakens Ps, which it does, but it also increases the general potential occurances of hard flanking, thereby increasing the rate of kills and speeding up the game

Maybe this can all go away if we follow the HotT rule that states you cannot make flank contact unless you started on the enemy's flank. I believe it is defined as being behind the proverbial imaginary line extending from the element's front.

winterbadger
02-18-2011, 01:59 PM
He has identified that it is possible with the 2BWD movement allowance to move forward and close the door where previously you could only close the door with those elements if you were already in corner to corner contact. The concern is that this weakens Ps, which it does, but it also increases the general potential occurrences of hard flanking, thereby increasing the rate of kills and speeding up the game

Ah, thanks, Martyn! Of course, having now gone back and read Victor's post more carefully, this seems to be deriving from a situation in which outnumbered psiloi make a frontal attack on heavy infantry and fail. I'm not sure that we should be too concerned with finding a way to shield players from the negative consequences of what sounds on the face of it like a really foolish action.

Rich Gause
02-18-2011, 02:01 PM
The current discussion has arisen due to the comment made by Victor following a play test he had carried out



He has identified that it is possible with the 2BWD movement allowance to move forward and close the door where previously you could only close the door with those elements if you were already in corner to corner contact. The concern is that this weakens Ps, which it does, but it also increases the general potential occurances of hard flanking, thereby increasing the rate of kills and speeding up the game

Making it easier for slow foot to close the door and speeding up the game because the slow fopot are getting kills against their opponents quicker are not good things IMO. Now maybe along with the move increase the HOTT rule will be adopted or fighting with no recoil allowed will just give you a -1 but those create issues also, further devaluing units whose main advantage was that they could do those kinds of things to heavy foot.

Martyn
02-18-2011, 02:06 PM
Maybe this can all go away if we follow the HotT rule that states you cannot make flank contact unless you started on the enemy's flank. I believe it is defined as being behind the proverbial imaginary line extending from the element's front.

No, it is the line extending the enemies flank, so in HoTT you can still close the door as the flanking element is beyond the flank of the element it is closing on.

HoTT also includes the non measured closing the door manoeuvre just as DBA does.

Martyn
02-18-2011, 02:13 PM
Ah, thanks, Martyn! Of course, having now gone back and read Victor's post more carefully, this seems to be deriving from a situation in which outnumbered psiloi make a frontal attack on heavy infantry and fail. I'm not sure that we should be too concerned with finding a way to shield players from the negative consequences of what sounds on the face of it like a really foolish action.

This effect will apply to all elements. If your assault against a heavy infantry line fails, and you recoil, you will now be more likely to be flanked in your opponent next turn, making it easier to create kills. It doesn't make any difference which element of foot you are (except 5Wb and their ilk who are soon to be disposed of).

ferrency
02-18-2011, 02:37 PM
Ah, thanks, Martyn! Of course, having now gone back and read Victor's post more carefully, this seems to be deriving from a situation in which outnumbered psiloi make a frontal attack on heavy infantry and fail. I'm not sure that we should be too concerned with finding a way to shield players from the negative consequences of what sounds on the face of it like a really foolish action.

The thing is, this concern is not limited to Psiloi attacking Blades. It holds for all heavy foot. If you increase heavy foot movement to 2 base widths, their movement is far enough to close the door even if they don't start in corner-to-corner contact with the enemy.

Imagine a hoplite battle where a spear stand could advance 15mm and still have enough movement to close the door in a gap in the line.

This is already the case with cavalry and light horse, but in that situation there compensation for attempting to close the door in the center of the line: the horses die if they recoil because they're more than a half base width deep. The problem is worse when you can do the same thing with shallower bases that won't die if they recoil when facing sideways in a base width gap.

I'm not sure if it's a real problem or only a theoretical one. But it's worth mentioning, because it's one more way that longer movement distances change the game.

Alan

winterbadger
02-18-2011, 03:07 PM
I'm not sure if it's a real problem or only a theoretical one. But it's worth mentioning, because it's one more way that longer movement distances change the game.

It's certainly an *issue*, and probably a real one. I'm still not convinced it's a *problem*.

You and Martyn emphasized that it applies not only to heavy foot attacking light troops but to heavy foot attacking heavy foot. To which my response is, "Well, of course!" In my opinion, there's only a possible question of it being a problem if the "recipient" are more mobile troops than heavy foot. I don't have any problem with heavy foot that are in close enough proximity to be in contact being able to exploit gaps in the line. Yes, it's not how the game plays now, but that isn't enough to make me think it's a bad idea.

ferrency
02-18-2011, 03:30 PM
In my opinion, there's only a possible question of it being a problem if the "recipient" are more mobile troops than heavy foot.

Does Warband vs. Auxilia fit this category for you? Warband could always advance and close the door on Auxilia, but now it can cost fewer PIPs in some cases.

Another case I hadn't done the math for yet: a Cavalry or LH stand recoils 30mm away from a line of Auxilia or Psiloi. In this case, the Auxilia's rear corner would have to move only 92mm to advance and flank the mounted in a single move. If Auxilia's move distance is 2.5BW, that's 100mm and it would be able to complete this move. The old move distance of 76.2mm was not enough to do this maneuver.

I don't have any problem with heavy foot that are in close enough proximity to be in contact being able to exploit gaps in the line. Yes, it's not how the game plays now, but that isn't enough to make me think it's a bad idea.

Personally, for this entire issue I'm not willing to pass judgement until I've actually playtested the move distances. As I tried to say previously: it's different, but I don't know if it's better or worse yet.

I think it helps for me to consider the new possibilities before I sit down to a playtest session, since things like this might not occur to me if I don't think of them ahead of time.

Alan

winterbadger
02-18-2011, 03:41 PM
Personally, for this entire issue I'm not willing to pass judgement until I've actually playtested the move distances. As I tried to say previously: it's different, but I don't know if it's better or worse yet.

I think it helps for me to consider the new possibilities before I sit down to a playtest session, since things like this might not occur to me if I don't think of them ahead of time.

Oh, absolutely. I'm all for noodling things out. I was just expressing the feeling that just because an alteration in the rules may change an existing dynamic doesn't make it a bad change.

ferrency
02-18-2011, 03:50 PM
Oh, absolutely. I'm all for noodling things out. I was just expressing the feeling that just because an alteration in the rules may change an existing dynamic doesn't make it a bad change.

I agree. But it doesn't necessarily make it a good one either :)

No worries.

Alan

winterbadger
02-18-2011, 03:53 PM
I agree. But it doesn't necessarily make it a good one either :)

Quite true. :up

Foge
02-18-2011, 04:03 PM
Speaking of which, do you think we'll have a chance to playtest any of these changes at Cold Wars? Or will Bob and DK still be under NDA?

Later,
Kevin

Victor
02-18-2011, 05:00 PM
The thing is, this concern is not limited to Psiloi attacking Blades. It holds for all heavy foot. If you increase heavy foot movement to 2 base widths, their movement is far enough to close the door even if they don't start in corner-to-corner contact with the enemy.

Imagine a hoplite battle where a spear stand could advance 15mm and still have enough movement to close the door in a gap in the line.

Actually, a variation of this happened in our battle with heavy foot v heavy foot. Double ranked pike was attacking blade, and there was an element wide gap between two pike groups. Previously, the free blade in the middle could wheel in, closing the door, but the blade that was fighting the pike had to fight them at factor 5 vs 5 - still not a sure thing. Now instead, the free blade in the middle could advance in, and flank attack the second rank of pike, peeling it away as support from the first rank. Now the fight to the front was 5 vs 3, and the losing pike recoils into a friendly pike at a right angle, becoming destroyed.

For this to happen before it took the blade two moves - one to move forward, and the second to attack the rear rank, now it happens in the one move.

David Schlanger
02-18-2011, 05:10 PM
Speaking of which, do you think we'll have a chance to playtest any of these changes at Cold Wars? Or will Bob and DK still be under NDA?

Later,
Kevin

Kevin,

Cold Wars is only 3 weeks away, so we could add something informal to the schedule, and to be honest my preference would be to keep it VERY informal.

However, I suspect given how close we are to the Con now that holding a greater public playtest might be a bit premature. This is of course only based on my discussions with DK about the state of the draft 3.0 rules.

Also, If I remember correctly Bob is going to miss Cold Wars this year.

DS

Cold Wars DBA Crew Chief

kontos
02-18-2011, 05:19 PM
Actually, a variation of this happened in our battle with heavy foot v heavy foot. Double ranked pike was attacking blade, and there was an element wide gap between two pike groups. Previously, the free blade in the middle could wheel in, closing the door, but the blade that was fighting the pike had to fight them at factor 5 vs 5 - still not a sure thing. Now instead, the free blade in the middle could advance in, and flank attack the second rank of pike, peeling it away as support from the first rank. Now the fight to the front was 5 vs 3, and the losing pike recoils into a friendly pike at a right angle, becoming destroyed.

For this to happen before it took the blade two moves - one to move forward, and the second to attack the rear rank, now it happens in the one move.

Sounds like how the Romans defeated the Macedonians. Historically accurate. Unfortunately I wouldn't want to see ALL blades do this. The Roman organization was special and beyond the scope of DBA.

Rich Gause
02-18-2011, 05:33 PM
Sounds like how the Romans defeated the Macedonians. Historically accurate. Unfortunately I wouldn't want to see ALL blades do this. The Roman organization was special and beyond the scope of DBA.

The Romans could still do it in 2 moves in the old rules, maybe that would be more historically accurrate? Or were the Macedonians and other successors like Pyrrus and Selucids pushovers?

winterbadger
02-18-2011, 05:46 PM
The Romans could still do it in 2 moves in the old rules, maybe that would be more historically accurrate? Or were the Macedonians and other successors like Pyrrus and Selucids pushovers?

Leaving a huge hole in you line that someone can send an element into without it getting ZOCed is going to make you a pushover for almost any opponent.

kontos
02-18-2011, 06:06 PM
Leaving a huge hole in you line that someone can send an element into without it getting ZOCed is going to make you a pushover for almost any opponent.

Let's be fair. Anyone can be 6-1'd. Now, not having reserves is another story. ;)

winterbadger
02-18-2011, 06:09 PM
Let's be fair. Anyone can be 6-1'd. Now, not having reserves is another story. ;)

True. I'm just seeing a lot of posts about, "X will have this bad effect if you have a huge gaping hole in your line that the enemy can march a brass band into", which rather begs the question of whether the problem is the rule change or the very large hole. :D

ferrency
02-18-2011, 06:34 PM
True. I'm just seeing a lot of posts about, "X will have this bad effect if you have a huge gaping hole in your line that the enemy can march a brass band into", which rather begs the question of whether the problem is the rule change or the very large hole. :D

Example: I move to contact you, and you punch a hole in my line. Now it's your bound and there's a gap in my line.

If it takes you 2 bounds to move into a flank position in that gap, because of a shorter move distance, then I have time to make use of reserves (that aren't ZoC'ing you) to fill the gap.

However, if you can immediately take advantage of it the bound after the gap appeared, then it doesn't matter whether I have reserves or not. I won't have time to use them unless they happened to be ZoC'ing the place in the line where the gap appeared.

Yes, it's a problem to have a big hole in your line; but it already was a problem in DBA 2.2. The question is, should the penalty be increased beyond what the DBA 2.2 rules allow?

In this example, the only case where the move distance would make any difference is if I contact you, you punch a hole in my line, but my adjacent elements both recoil. If you recoil adjacent to the gap, your element that won would be able to flank me even in 2.2 since it maintains corner to corner contact.

Alan

Lobotomy
02-18-2011, 11:24 PM
Kevin,

Cold Wars is only 3 weeks away, so we could add something informal to the schedule, and to be honest my preference would be to keep it VERY informal.

However, I suspect given how close we are to the Con now that holding a greater public playtest might be a bit premature. This is of course only based on my discussions with DK about the state of the draft 3.0 rules.

Also, If I remember correctly Bob is going to miss Cold Wars this year.

DS

Cold Wars DBA Crew Chief

No, we just need a session to taunt DK. over his role as secret play tester. :silly (Again, too much beer at dinner. That Belgium brew can be brutal)

Victor
02-19-2011, 06:23 AM
Sounds like how the Romans defeated the Macedonians. Historically accurate. Unfortunately I wouldn't want to see ALL blades do this. The Roman organization was special and beyond the scope of DBA.

DBA gives a historical result at the moment, if you had 6 blades vs 6 pike, the blades should win most (if not all) times as the pikes are forced to halve their frontage and get lapped. Blades don't need any more help here.

Victor
02-19-2011, 06:36 AM
Leaving a huge hole in you line that someone can send an element into without it getting ZOCed is going to make you a pushover for almost any opponent.

Having the hole in the line wasn't really the point, it was just a situation that arose in the game that showed what the extra move ability of heavy foot could do.

There is no problem if heavy foot move at 60mm. At 80mm they get a bit of a steriod injection, especially vs lighter foot such as auxilia or psiloi. In DBMM this is OK, as it's point based and heavy foot is probably worth twice as much as psiloi. Where this doesn't translate to DBA is that every element theoretically has an equal points value, and this change increases the abilities of heavy foot against lighter ones.

Overall, I liked the greater movement rates, apart from issues with heavy foot.

Anyway, we are only discussing hypotheticals, as only the playtesters know whether the move rates have changed....

Richard Lee
02-19-2011, 08:36 AM
One possible counter to the speeded up heavy foot might be to have units recoil further. My suggestion would be one base width for all units. This may also help address the differing base depth issue, for example, warband with 3Wb being 20mm deep and 4Wb being 15mm deep.

Rich Gause
02-19-2011, 11:32 AM
Having the hole in the line wasn't really the point, it was just a situation that arose in the game that showed what the extra move ability of heavy foot could do.

There is no problem if heavy foot move at 60mm. At 80mm they get a bit of a steriod injection, especially vs lighter foot such as auxilia or psiloi. In DBMM this is OK, as it's point based and heavy foot is probably worth twice as much as psiloi. Where this doesn't translate to DBA is that every element theoretically has an equal points value, and this change increases the abilities of heavy foot against lighter ones.

Overall, I liked the greater movement rates, apart from issues with heavy foot.

Anyway, we are only discussing hypotheticals, as only the playtesters know whether the move rates have changed....

That is probably the key difference between DBA and DBMM and explains exactly why things that work in DBMM don't work so well in DBA. DBMM has a point system, DBA doesn't. DBA also has a lot more restrictive army lists than DBMM so you get less choice about what to put in an army. For example in DBM(don't have dbmm) if I had 12 Ir Kn(O) that would be 120 points for that same 120 points I could get (all elements IR (O) unless only Reg available) 17 Cav, 24 LH or Bd, 30 Sp Pk or Bw, 40 Wb or Ax, 60 Ps, or 120 Hd. So If the rules make one element much better relative to another so what it will just reflect in the points and will balance out. If DBA 3.0 makes the mistake of making armies with large Ps or Ax contingents so non-competitive that almost nobody will play them ever just to preserve compatibility with DBMM concepts(and I am not claiming that that will happen or is being planned) it will not be an improvement vs 2.2, rather the opposite.

kontos
02-19-2011, 03:13 PM
If DBA 3.0 makes the mistake of making armies with large Ps or Ax contingents so non-competitive that almost nobody will play them ever just to preserve compatibility with DBMM concepts(and I am not claiming that that will happen or is being planned) it will not be an improvement vs 2.2, rather the opposite.

It is that very scale difference that makes me shudder everytime someone states bringing DBA more "in line" with DBMM. They should be separate and distinct gaming platforms and forget about all the BS about making it easier for DBMM players to play DBA and vice versa. Apples and oranges. ;)

David Schlanger
02-19-2011, 11:37 PM
No, we just need a session to taunt DK. over his role as secret play tester. :silly (Again, too much beer at dinner. That Belgium brew can be brutal)

You may not know it, but I really do have your best interest in mind here Larry!

DS

peleset
02-20-2011, 01:35 AM
What is so wrong with the movement system now that it requires a change to multiples of base widths? Surely PB should be trying to fix faults not bugger around with things that work quite well.

Lobotomy
02-20-2011, 04:06 PM
You may not know it, but I really do have your best interest in mind here Larry!

DS

Yea, but isn't it DK who always said the public, peer pressure is a good thing? That said, it would probably work on him as well as it does me. :rotfl

kontos
02-20-2011, 04:35 PM
Yea, but isn't it DK who always said the public, peer pressure is a good thing? That said, it would probably work on him as well as it does me. :rotfl

Don't you have to have peers to feel the pressure? :silly

david kuijt
02-20-2011, 04:42 PM
Don't you have to have peers to feel the pressure? :silly

Exactly, Frank. Which makes me immune.

Lobotomy
02-21-2011, 09:40 PM
Exactly, Frank. Which makes me immune.

Damn, he beat me to it!!! :up