PDA

View Full Version : How much dismounting can we live with or without


Bobgnar
04-29-2011, 01:54 PM
Dismounting is a variable rule in DBA events. I did a short survey on Yahoo and found that there is a mix of practice in tournaments around the world. Some Game Masters allow it, so do not, or only in the first bound. There are pros and cons which we need not go into here, as it has been discussed extensively in other threads. I do not want to know why it is historical, or why it is not, nor why it creates super armies or not. I only want to know peoples opinion on various options on the use of this rule in Tournaments. Maybe scenario games are different but players can decide for themselves there.

In Tournament Games
(all assume no remounting, and other associated rules remain as appropriate)

1. Keep the rule as is, Groups dismount for 1 PIP in first bound and 2 in later ones
2. Individual Elements dismount as above, not groups, any time in game
3. Deploy mounted and dismount only in first Bound, 1 PIP for Group
4. As 3 but as Individual elements, for a PIP each, only in first Bound
5. Elements are deployed in first Bound as either the mounted or dismounted type, no PIPs. This type is used for all games in event
6. Same as 5 but player can switch between types from game to game

Did I miss any option? I will pass this on to Phil so if you have an interest, please vote.

miros
04-29-2011, 02:04 PM
I prefer 3 or 4. Deploy mounted and can choose to dismount in the first bound. It preserves the player's choice how to deploy while not allowing the gimmicky dismounting right before combat.

kontos
04-29-2011, 03:11 PM
It should be a commander's decision at deployment and as each tactical battle is different, the commander should be able to choose differently in each game.

Paul Potter
04-29-2011, 03:14 PM
I'm with Kontos here. my personal rule is I never dismount after the 1st bound. #5 -Paul

winterbadger
04-29-2011, 04:17 PM
I'll third Kontos. IMO, dismounting *during* a game should be reserved for scenario special rules.

Redwilde
04-29-2011, 05:57 PM
I voted for 3. 6 is my second choice.

Lobotomy
04-29-2011, 07:44 PM
Bob,

I did not vote. The problem I have with voting as presented is that we do not know if there will be any consideration of flank marches, for example. I think that would effect whether the attacker should have to dismount on the first bound if the defender can use a flank attack. The same applies directly regarding littoral landings by the defender.

Personally, if the rules are going to restrict dismounting, it should be allowed into the second bound to see how the battle develops in the initial phase.

Peter Feinler
04-30-2011, 08:47 PM
Other options for hobbling dismounting could be:
- Require that any move that includes a dismounted element costs an extra PIP.
- Apply a tactical factor of -1 to dismounted blades in close combat (because the majority of dismounting blades are medieval knights this could be rationalised as the dismounted knights being hampered by heavy armour and also as fewer in number than a normal blade element.
- Prohibit psiloi support for dismounted elements.
- Reduce the movement of dismounted blades by 100 paces (rationalised as being slowed down by heavy armour).

Peter

Bobgnar
04-30-2011, 11:25 PM
Peter, all good suggestions, thanks. Some would require some bookkeeping or a special new element, Dismounted Knights - DKn. Not a bad thing but something to consider. Should a DKn be stronger against shooting? It is now, as a Blade a +5 vs +2, but while mounted it is +3 vs +4. So much more powerful dismounted. Is the horse so vulnerable?

I like the limiting of the DKn so that the player really needs to calculate if it is a good idea to make the change. Now, when facing Bows, it is almost a no brainer.

I have mentioned other places that it is difficult to imagine 800 Knights dismounting to be 1200 Blades.

When I pass on to Phil the poll results, I will add these ideas as some options if he insists on allowing the dismounting during game.

winterbadger
05-01-2011, 09:59 AM
Other options for hobbling dismounting could be:

- Apply a tactical factor of -1 to dismounted blades in close combat (because the majority of dismounting blades are medieval knights this could be rationalised as the dismounted knights being hampered by heavy armour and ...

- Reduce the movement of dismounted blades by 100 paces (rationalised as being slowed down by heavy armour).

Except that the image of medieval knights being slowed down by heavy armour is a canard propagated by Hollywood. Medieval knights (that is, 14th-15ht century knights and men at arms) were able to do handsprings in their armour; its weight was not excessive, and it was well distributed by their harness. A knight, properly accoutered, could leap onto his warhorse.

david kuijt
05-01-2011, 10:14 AM
Except that the image of medieval knights being slowed down by heavy armour is a canard propagated by Hollywood. Medieval knights (that is, 14th-15ht century knights and men at arms) were able to do handsprings in their armour; its weight was not excessive, and it was well distributed by their harness. A knight, properly accoutered, could leap onto his warhorse.

As Jan says. The weight (total mass) of white harness (plate) was less than the weight of transitional armor (mail and plates) and of the mail that preceded it. And if well fitted, it was easier and less awkward as well. Better we should penalize the non-knight spear and halberd units fighting in the same army than penalize dismounted knights, if the physical constraints of armor are the justification.

Andreas Johansson
05-01-2011, 01:42 PM
At nominal ground and time scale, the heavy infantry movement rate amounts to 0.6 km/h - not even a leisurely walk. Arguments about being slowed down are not apposite - even if knights were slowed grievously by their armour, they'd be able to go faster than that.

Movement allowances, then, are not about how fast troops could move, but about how fast the typically did, talking into account liberal amounts of hurry up and wait.

(One might want to consider the many 3Bw or 2Ps types in various lists. They're the same men with the same equipment - the difference in speed is about presumed differences in tactics, not in ability.)

Rich Gause
05-01-2011, 04:46 PM
I would want the dismounting rules to encourage mostly dismounting at deployment, especially for Kn to Bd, except elements like chariots or Cav should be able to dismount during the game, but 1 pip per eleement and not in ZOC or in addition to moving. There should be an other choice in the poll. I can't really vote for any of them.

Bobgnar
05-01-2011, 05:34 PM
I would want the dismounting rules to encourage mostly dismounting at deployment, especially for Kn to Bd, except elements like chariots or Cav should be able to dismount during the game, but 1 pip per eleement and not in ZOC or in addition to moving. There should be an other choice in the poll. I can't really vote for any of them.

"There should be an other choice in the poll. "
What would that be?
"mostly dismounting at deployment, especially for Kn to Bd, except elements like chariots or Cav should be able to dismount during the game, but 1 pip per eleement and not in ZOC or in addition to moving. "

This is pretty complicated. I was looking for some simple choices to show Phil.
I

Rich Gause
05-01-2011, 06:50 PM
"There should be an other choice in the poll. "
What would that be?
"mostly dismounting at deployment, especially for Kn to Bd, except elements like chariots or Cav should be able to dismount during the game, but 1 pip per eleement and not in ZOC or in addition to moving. "

This is pretty complicated. I was looking for some simple choices to show Phil.
I

How about dismounting can either be at deployment or 1 pip per element, not in ZOC, and in place of not as part of a move. Kn dismounting to Bd must be done at deployment. Elements deploying dismounted must be chosen by both players before either deploys and without knowlege of opponents dismounting choices.

Overly simple solutions to complex problems are rarely ideal.

Rich Gause
05-01-2011, 06:51 PM
Either choice 2 or 6 above would be better than what we have now.

Scott Russell
05-02-2011, 08:44 AM
Rich,
I like the "not in ZOC" bit. I think Phil would consider that.
Scott

Bobgnar
05-10-2011, 06:37 PM
Looks like we have no clear cut consensus
12 say allow dismounting during game
9 say deploy mounted and dismount only in first bound
19 say deploy as one thing and stay that way.

So I guess dismounting during game is not so bad as some would have us believe, since 30% of those who have an opinion prefer that. Wish we could have 100 votes.

winterbadger
05-10-2011, 09:37 PM
Looks like we have no clear cut consensus
12 say allow dismounting during game
9 say deploy mounted and dismount only in first bound
19 say deploy as one thing and stay that way.

So, a plurality of people (the totally statistically insignificant 40 people out of the thousands of people who play DBA ;) ) are in favour of eliminating dismounting in-game entirely, and 70% of respondents want to severely restrict it.

Sounds like consensus to me... :cool

ETA: And just imagine if we'd had AV!!!

David Schlanger
05-10-2011, 09:53 PM
Looks like we have no clear cut consensus...

...So I guess dismounting during game is not so bad as some would have us believe, since 30% of those who have an opinion prefer that. Wish we could have 100 votes.

I am not a big fan of these online polls, as the response is usually low and it is too easy for mischievous people to mess up the results. Also, giving six reasonable options just means that you are going to get a lot of variety in response. There may be a lot of acceptable solutions to a definite problem.

In this case, the only conclusion worth drawing is that approx. 85% of the people that responded would prefer one of the options listed that is different from the rule as written in DBA 2.2 Based on that information, I am not sure your comments above are accurate.

DS

david kuijt
05-10-2011, 10:51 PM
Looks like we have no clear cut consensus


Every time you run one of these online polls, Bob, I feel you don't understand how non-useful the results are, and I say something similar to what Jan just did.

And when you see the results, I wonder how you can possibly conclude that mostly it isn't a problem, based on most of the respondents wanting a significant change from the 2.2 rule as written.

Bobgnar
05-11-2011, 02:11 PM
Glad that people agree there is not even a majority that want elements deployed as mounted and then dismount in the first bound: 22% of those who are interested in this topic. Indeed only 30% want to keep the dismounting during the game. So 70% want a change from current rules. Most want elements deployed as either mounted or dismounted in first bound, as it was in 1.1.


Every time you run one of these online polls, Bob, I feel you don't understand how non-useful the results are, and I say something similar to what Jan just did.

And when you see the results, I wonder how you can possibly conclude that mostly it isn't a problem, based on most of the respondents wanting a significant change from the 2.2 rule as written.

michael guth
05-11-2011, 04:44 PM
A list of battles in which troops dismounted, and whether they deployed dismounted, dismounted and attacked on foot, or moved at the beginning of the battle and dismounted defensively. I have not studied the question myself. I think this would give me some idea of how often this was an important tactic and in what era...

One thing that always bugs me about dismounting in DBX games is that the mounted elements represent fewer 'bodies' than foot elements, and given any need for 'horse holders' or stewards I wonder how realistic it is to dismount element per element.

From a design standpoint I am uncomfortable with only certain armies being able to dismount. Historical perhaps, perhaps not, but it gives a special capability to troops in some armies which other armies don't have, hence, an advantage. Sort of like the old 'wedging' knights in WRG 4-6, which always beat non-wedging knights for the same points cost.


Mike