PDA

View Full Version : Battle Reports now posted


Doug
12-30-2011, 02:48 AM
I had a chance to run two test games thanks to Platypus01

http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com/2011/12/dba3-test-games-no-2.html

http://aleadodyssey.blogspot.com/2011/12/dba3-test-games-no-1.html

Alan Saunders
12-30-2011, 07:11 AM
Using the December 19th draft as well :)

Doug
12-30-2011, 07:45 AM
Using the December 19th draft as well :)

Yep, as far as I can see, the only change is that move distances for El, Ax, ps etc is now 3 BW

john meunier
12-30-2011, 09:15 AM
Those both looked like DBA games to me.

Alan Saunders
12-30-2011, 05:50 PM
Yep, as far as I can see, the only change is that move distances for El, Ax, ps etc is now 3 BW

It's a start - that 1/2 BW just seemed untidy.

Doug
12-30-2011, 07:29 PM
It's a start - that 1/2 BW just seemed untidy.

Yes, it now restores the differentials which I think is better. The games themselves played very smoothly. The key difference we noted was that in the first game John was able to wheel and slide into contact. Under 2.2 the slight geomtery would have made it impossible.

I would very much like to see the 'amoeba' move passing through a corner legalised/illustrated using a diagram. The other thing is a DZ Diagram, resolving whether it is a torch or a carpet.

Martyn
12-30-2011, 08:04 PM
Using the December 19th draft as well :)

Is this a newer draft that is generally available or is this only for the original playtesters?

If the former where is it available?

Doug
12-30-2011, 10:18 PM
Is this a newer draft that is generally available or is this only for the original playtesters?

If the former where is it available?

Hi Martyn, as far as I know it isn't publically available, but I will do a compare and check for the differences.

So
- rewording for road movement to:

"The first move of each bound uses 0 PIPs if entirely by road, without reversing direction, and by either a single element or by a column that moves the full distance possible. Each other tactical move uses up 1 PIP. "

- tactical movement clarified:

"A tactical move by a single element can be in any directions, even diagonal or oblique, can pass through any gap as wide as the edge that first enters it or through 1 other element’s corner, and can end facing in any direction. An element whose move is replaced by dismounting is exchanged for the foot type, then moves in subsequent bounds as that type. "

- movement changed:

El, Kn, Ax, Ps all now move 3 BW

- BUA & Camps gave DZ -

- Breaking off, reworded for clarity:

"A single element can use a tactical move to break-off from enemy foot in contact with its front, but only if it is Knights, Cavalry, Light Horse or mounted infantry, has no enemy front edge in contact with its flank or rear and will not meet either friends it cannot pass through or enemy. It moves at least 200 paces straight back and ends facing the original enemy. "

- Pursuing slightly reworded for clarity: (but still the most conoluted sentence in the rules.).

"An element of any of Knights (but not mounted infantry), Scythed Chariots or Elephants that is fighting against mounted or foot, or of Pikes, Blades or Warband (or that could provide rear support to a pursuing element of these that is directly in front, even if not providing such support against current opponents) that is fighting against foot, whose close combat opponents recoil, break-off, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue ˝ BW if foot or 1 BW if mounted; unless it is in a camp or BUA, or would cross a battlefield edge, or is in or would enter bad going other than Marsh or Rough. If its front edge contacts enemy, it or they line up immediately as if contact was by a tactical move, but the resulting combat is resolved next bound."

Bobgnar
12-31-2011, 01:02 AM
A number of changes noted by Doug are due to comments from various folks on Fanaticus and Yahoo. Besides the ones mentioned by Doug,

The ability to move thru one corner of ANY element
"A tactical move by a single element can be in any directions, even diagonal or oblique, can pass through any gap as wide as the edge that first enters it or through 1 other element’s corner, and can end facing in any direction. "

Elements in a camp or BUA with a recoil result from Shooting are not destroyed.

A recoiling or pushed back element starting with enemy in any front edge contact with its flank, rear or rear corner, or that contacts an enemy with its rear edge or rear corner, or that is in close combat in a BUA or camp, is destroyed.

Lobotomy
12-31-2011, 11:21 PM
A number of changes noted by Doug are due to comments from various folks on Fanaticus and Yahoo. Besides the ones mentioned by Doug,

So Phil is still insisting on the 2 BW movement for close order foot, eh. :???

Doug
01-01-2012, 12:16 AM
So Phil is still insisting on the 2 BW movement for close order foot, eh. :???

Yes, and my games have adequately demonstarted to me and my opponents that this isn't a problem.

Of course, those who prefer to run around screaming that everything is broken, and the sky is falling in, may prefer to differ.

It is his set of rules.

Bobgnar
01-01-2012, 12:26 AM
No change, too many people seem to like it. Now people want no 1/2 BW moves so Ps and Aux go to 3BW. No chance of 1 1/2 for for close order. Simple 2 - 3 - 4.

So Phil is still insisting on the 2 BW movement for close order foot, eh. :???

larryessick
01-01-2012, 02:52 PM
Now people want no 1/2 BW moves so Ps and Aux go to 3BW. No chance of 1 1/2 for for close order. Simple 2 - 3 - 4.

This will be a good change.

Lobotomy
01-01-2012, 11:21 PM
Of course, those who prefer to run around screaming that everything is broken, and the sky is falling in, may prefer to differ.

It is his set of rules.

Doug, I asked a serious question and your response is less than helpful. I believe that having close order foot move 2BW changes the mechanics of the game completely. We have argued this before when you also believed I had no understanding of what the change does to the game, which turned out to be unsubstantiated on your part.

I am still of the opinion that this is such a substantial change that it makes this something I do not prefer because of the numerous effects it does have on game play. Having never personally attacked your opinion, it would be gracious of you to respect mine. I decline to play Chicken Little to your Pillager.

Doug
01-02-2012, 02:00 AM
Doug, I asked a serious question and your response is less than helpful. I believe that having close order foot move 2BW changes the mechanics of the game completely. We have argued this before when you also believed I had no understanding of what the change does to the game, which turned out to be unsubstantiated on your part.

I am still of the opinion that this is such a substantial change that it makes this something I do not prefer because of the numerous effects it does have on game play. Having never personally attacked your opinion, it would be gracious of you to respect mine. I decline to play Chicken Little to your Pillager.

My apologies, it wasn't meant to be a personal attack. But yes, the 2BW move looks like it has been set in stone. And frankly it hasn't made a huge difference in all the games I have played so far. Your experience may be different.

As far as I can tell the only differences are that if both sides deploy as fully forward as possible, then they can get into combat very quickly. Secondly, that HI now find it easier to get into a flanking position. (This has been very unusual in the games we have played to date, as partly due to the narrow deployment area for 'heavy troops', internal flanking following a 6-1 or similar has been rare.)

If you have found other substantial differences, then I would be very interested to hear about them.

larryessick
01-02-2012, 02:42 AM
If heavy foot move 2BW and light foot move 3BW then I don't think there is a huge problem vis-a-vis foot movement.

Where I think there is a problem is with mounted movement since light foot would move the same distance as mounted infantry and knights.

It would seem that movement rates of 1BW for heavy foot, 2BW for light foot, 3BW for mounted infantry and knights, 4BW for cavalry and 5BW for light horse would retain much of the feel of earlier DBA versions.

Light horse would then need to be reined in a bit (pun intended) by reducing the number of moves on additional PIPs. Perhaps 3 extra moves for 1 PIP each rather than the, potentially, 5 that they now have would suffice.

This does seem a bit more complex but otherwise requires moving 1/2 BW increments which I just read there is talk of doing away with. Else 1.5, 2.5, 3, 3.5 and 4 seem like equally good ideas.

Richard Lee
01-02-2012, 03:46 AM
If heavy foot move 2BW and light foot move 3BW then I don't think there is a huge problem vis-a-vis foot movement.

Where I think there is a problem is with mounted movement since light foot would move the same distance as mounted infantry and knights.
[snip]

Although mounted infantry are a version 3.0 innovation, I believe that you will find that knights, elephants, auxilia and psiloi all moved 300 paces in previous versions of DBA; other foot moved 200 paces.

Doug
01-02-2012, 04:30 AM
Although mounted infantry are a version 3.0 innovation, I believe that you will find that knights, elephants, auxilia and psiloi all moved 300 paces in previous versions of DBA; other foot moved 200 paces.

Quite right. In fact the only real difference in comparative movement is that LH are 'disadvantaged' (moving 4 rather than 5 'units') - but as they retain the multi-move ability, and have a much greater 'command' radius, they are compensated.

Rich Gause
01-02-2012, 01:23 PM
By retaining the same base sizes and increasing the movement rate of heavy foot by 60% it has effectively allowed players to do 60% more before the opponent has a chance to react. For any game with an I Go You Go game mechanic to split the game up into turns(as opposed to a simultaneous move game) one of the the most important things to get right is what can be done in a players turn. I though 2.2 was fine, the 80mm heavy foot move in my opinion has the exact same effect as increasing the bond length from 15 minutes to 24. It is a bad rule IMO.

larryessick
01-02-2012, 02:32 PM
Although mounted infantry are a version 3.0 innovation, I believe that you will find that knights, elephants, auxilia and psiloi all moved 300 paces in previous versions of DBA; other foot moved 200 paces.

Right, but changed in 3.0 to move slower at 2.5BW. I suppose moves of 1, 2, 3 and 4 BW would do with heavy foot at 1, light foot & mounted infantry & knights at 2, cavalry at 3 and light horse at 4 then?

Or, does Phil have it right with 2, 3, 4 as seems to be coming?

As to length of bound considerations, that is all smoke and mirrors as there is nothing really fixed about bound length and movement rates to start with -- it is all somewhat arbitrary. Although we could try to find metrics for measuring battle-condition speed it is pretty much irrelevant to any game discussion. Who really is to say that light troops were capable of moving X paces in Y minutes under battle conditions whereas heavy troops moved G paces in H minutes while light horse moved A paces in B minutes? These numbers are so elusive that they are meaningless. So greater distance does not really equate to greater time per bound.

To a large degree the WRG system (and that carries over to DBM and to most current rules systems as well) that proposes different movement rates for light and heavy troops and for foot and mounted troops is all based on illusion and tradition. What we know from historical records is that for short durations light troops can move faster. But we don't know that this really translates into any type of battlefield behavior for routine movement. It could just be a matter of faster movement in short bursts -- such as during an evade or break-off.

Ultimately, what it all means is that movement rates are just a tool, a mechanism, meant to enable game play. In that sense there is no good or bad, no right or wrong. If 2, 3, 4 lets us play and brings troops to battle in a timely way that is all that matters.

If I keep in mind that a goal of 3.0 might be to speed play then increased movement rates, changed combat factors, automatic follow-ups and pursuits -- these all serve that goal. I don't know that it is a goal. But, if it were these types of changes would serve that purpose.

Dangun
01-02-2012, 02:33 PM
In fact the only real difference in comparative movement is that LH are 'disadvantaged'.

Relative movement is not the point Doug.

The change in movement allowances, makes changes relative to basewidth (ZOC), relative to command radius, relative to board size, relative to time (as Richard pointed out) etc.

Surely Lobotomy is right to say it is a very significant change.
(In my opinion one that leads to greater historicity and similar levels of fun and therefore a "good" change.)

Cheers
Dangun

larryessick
01-02-2012, 09:21 PM
The change in movement allowances, makes changes relative to basewidth (ZOC), relative to command radius, relative to board size, relative to time (as Richard pointed out) etc.

I'm not sure that moving to BW movement distances affects the ZOC or TZ or DZ or whatever it is called today. However, the other points are something I was trying to refer to in my last post.

If the intent is to speed up play by causing the game to run fewer bounds then that is exactly what the effect of longer movement brings to the game. I think it is worth examining this side of the coin.

A goal of DBA is to be able to play a game in an hour or less. We know that this is not happening with 2.2, at least not consistently. It is not unusual to have games run longer than an hour or to have them time out in draws during tournament play.

One characteristic of 3.0 play tests has been that games almost always play less than 1 hour. In fact, early tests of the public release beta rules seemed to indicate that they played too fast (although that seems to have passed).

Is this a design goal? If so, doesn't the movement rate increase serve that purpose? And if these are both yes then what is the real issue -- that it is different?

Doug
01-02-2012, 09:42 PM
By retaining the same base sizes and increasing the movement rate of heavy foot by 60% it has effectively allowed players to do 60% more before the opponent has a chance to react. For any game with an I Go You Go game mechanic to split the game up into turns(as opposed to a simultaneous move game) one of the the most important things to get right is what can be done in a players turn. I though 2.2 was fine, the 80mm heavy foot move in my opinion has the exact same effect as increasing the bond length from 15 minutes to 24. It is a bad rule IMO.

Hi Rich, as an experienced player I wonder if you would mind giving some feedback that I can take back to the playtest group demonstrating the problems you have had with the longer HI move?

To date, it doesn't seem to have had a major impact in the test games I have played, but there will always be situations that get missed.

Doug
01-02-2012, 09:50 PM
Or, does Phil have it right with 2, 3, 4 as seems to be coming?

I think what I am hearing from Rich and others is that the changed moves make a difference to the ability to get inside an opponents decision making loop - (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) largely by changing the length of the loop.

All I can say, (cautiously) is that hasn't been my experience to date. There are minor differences in the ability to react (so for example in my last game a Bd that destroyed it's opponent was able to slide two base widths across to engage a new frontal opponent, and note this would have been possible even with the old move distances due to the free slide to line up now in the rules).

Lobotomy
01-02-2012, 11:30 PM
If you have found other substantial differences, then I would be very interested to hear about them.

Yes, the flanking has been a problem. The other three major problems are how close order can close off the edges quickly, but now with the constricted set up, not so much, and how they can slide to cover holes created by a lost element so much faster now. I do not think the increasing movement of Cv to 4BW solves much of the problem as the close order foot will most usually be working on interior lines while the Cv work on exterior lines. And, of course, how fast close order can get across the board when unopposed.

mdsanderson
01-03-2012, 12:04 AM
A goal of DBA is to be able to play a game in an hour or less. We know that this is not happening with 2.2, at least not consistently. It is not unusual to have games run longer than an hour or to have them time out in draws during tournament play.


-----------------------
This is again solving a problem that did not exist. Perhaps games in the rest of the world outside the US midwest are long drown out affairs but here rarely do games last more than an hour and most are done in far shorter times. I have not travelled to any of the large DBA contest in the East but I do not remember any outcry to make the game shorter. It is interesting to find so many problems with V2.2 that I was not aware of.
Mike Sanderson

dicemanrick
01-03-2012, 12:30 AM
A goal of DBA is to be able to play a game in an hour or less. We know that this is not happening with 2.2, at least not consistently. It is not unusual to have games run longer than an hour or to have them time out in draws during tournament play.



This is not accurate in the three East Cons. The overwhelming number of games do complete within an hour. Most unfinished games are due to certain players, too much terrain, or bad dice on both sides where neither kill.

I've had ONE unfinished game in FIVE YEARS!!!!

Doug
01-03-2012, 12:45 AM
This is not accurate in the three East Cons. The overwhelming number of games do complete within an hour. Most unfinished games are due to certain players, too much terrain, or bad dice on both sides where neither kill.

I've had ONE unfinished game in FIVE YEARS!!!!

Yep..I have never had a problem finishing 2.2 games in well under an hour (we normally allow 50 minutes for a game). I think I have had two unfinished games in about 18 years of playing.

The issue is much more likely to be about terrain, or new players needing to consult rules etc.. or specific players who couldn't finish a game of tic-tac-toe. (Noughts and Crosses).

larryessick
01-03-2012, 12:54 AM
Alright, I'll take it then that there isn't an issue with playing to completion unless one or both players want there to be a problem. In that case changes would not make a difference as they would still find ways to dither about.

So it it isn't an issue of speeding up the game then it appears to be an issue of the distances introducing a change in how the game plays. I'd suggest that this is a good thing and not a bad thing. It stops complacency and it serves to invigorate new players.

Changes to the decision loop actually suggest that there is less time to make choices as reaction/response is faster. The shorter moves make for longer developments and reward planning further ahead.

This could be problematic for people of certain generations where attention spans and the type of mental exercises that this necessitates are not often in evidence. It becomes a great leveler.

Maybe that isn't such a bad thing either.

Doug
01-03-2012, 01:01 AM
Yes, the flanking has been a problem. The other three major problems are how close order can close off the edges quickly, but now with the constricted set up, not so much, and how they can slide to cover holes created by a lost element so much faster now. I do not think the increasing movement of Cv to 4BW solves much of the problem as the close order foot will most usually be working on interior lines while the Cv work on exterior lines. And, of course, how fast close order can get across the board when unopposed.

Hi Larry, thanks for that.

Can you explain what you mean by 'problem' in relation to flanking?

As for unopposed HI, if I am working it out correctly, it takes 9 moves to go from futhest forward possible deployment under 2.2 to 5 moves under 3. It is certainly different. I am just interested why you see this as a 'problem'.

My own experience is that HI do not 'leap across the table' under 3.0 - simply because they wont be unopposed. The relative density of element to board hasn't changed.

I am trying to ensure I am not conflating 'change' with 'problem' and dismissing these as changes when there is a genuine problem.

Doug
01-03-2012, 01:09 AM
Alright, I'll take it then that there isn't an issue with playing to completion unless one or both players want there to be a problem. In that case changes would not make a difference as they would still find ways to dither about.

So it it isn't an issue of speeding up the game then it appears to be an issue of the distances introducing a change in how the game plays. I'd suggest that this is a good thing and not a bad thing. It stops complacency and it serves to invigorate new players.

Changes to the decision loop actually suggest that there is less time to make choices as reaction/response is faster. The shorter moves make for longer developments and reward planning further ahead.

This could be problematic for people of certain generations where attention spans and the type of mental exercises that this necessitates are not often in evidence. It becomes a great leveler.

Maybe that isn't such a bad thing either.

I would say that there are differences in that the increased movement for HI makes the game more forgiving in some espects, and less forgiving in others.

So in one way you have increased ability to respond to some local situations if you have HI. But on the other hand, your reaction time is decreased due to the longer moves.

I have found it largely balances out, and I do like some of the contact changes such as having to start on the flank or rear to contact flank or rear. This works well in HOTT and other DBx rules, and makes sense here.

The conforming rules do need work to be wrinkle-proof, but frankly, the number of situations that come up that could be problematic is infinitesimally small, and are more exercises in intellectual stimulation for some people on this list rather than real-life examples.

In all cases, remember the dictum that troops that in real life could fight, must!

Dangun
01-03-2012, 02:43 AM
I'd suggest that this is a good thing and not a bad thing.

I agree! But for a completely different reason.
Reducing the number of discrete decisions available to the general, both before contact but most importantly after contact, should make the game a more historical experience for the player.

Cheers
Dangun

Lydia
01-03-2012, 06:51 AM
the number of situations that come up that could be problematic is infinitesimally small,


My experience with supporting software, playing DBA, and life in general has shown me that weird problematic situations happen all the time.

Lydia
01-03-2012, 07:10 AM
Hi Rich, as an experienced player I wonder if you would mind giving some feedback that I can take back to the playtest group demonstrating the problems you have had with the longer HI move?

To date, it doesn't seem to have had a major impact in the test games I have played, but there will always be situations that get missed.

In at least one DBA 3.0 game I have played recently, heavy foot were able to 'close the door' on units when they would not have been able to in either DBA 2.2 or DBMM. One of the stated intentions of DBA is to be a 'simpler introduction to DBMM'. Changing the relative and actual movement speeds so they are different from DBMM takes the game away from that goal. If the relative movement speeds in DBMM were more faithfully translated then people would find the transition from DBA 2.2 to DBA 3.0 (or DBA 3.0 to DBMM) easier.

Dangun
01-03-2012, 10:29 AM
I'm not sure that moving to BW movement distances affects the ZOC or TZ or DZ or whatever it is called today.

It would effect what you can do with a ZOC.

For example HI can now close the door (flank) an enemy unit from a base depth behind an adjacent friendly element in contact with an enemy element. So HI elements could be in echelon, preventing flanking of adjacent elements but keep the option of "closing the door".

Maybe a bit obscure, but relative maneuverability changes.

And why make it different to DBMM?

Cheers
Dangun

Martyn
01-03-2012, 01:44 PM
In at least one DBA 3.0 game I have played recently, heavy foot were able to 'close the door' on units when they would not have been able to in either DBA 2.2 or DBMM.

That was something I had found in play testing. Where a Bd wins and pursues its neighbour can move forward the base depth and still have sufficient movement to close the door. Still not sure if I prefer this but it does create a quicker resolution to the combat.


One of the stated intentions of DBA is to be a 'simpler introduction to DBMM'. Changing the relative and actual movement speeds so they are different from DBMM takes the game away from that goal. If the relative movement speeds in DBMM were more faithfully translated then people would find the transition from DBA 2.2 to DBA 3.0 (or DBA 3.0 to DBMM) easier.

When v3 was first muted I was concerned that it would be seen as only being an intro to DBMM, I am relieved that it is sufficiently different that it has its own identity. The stated intent is that “DBA can serve as a simpler introduction to DBMM (or to ancient wargaming in general) as well as a stand-alone game.” This does not mean that it is a simpler intro to DBMM, only that it can be. The differences are critical to make the two separate but clearly of the same linage.

larryessick
01-03-2012, 05:11 PM
It would effect what you can do with a ZOC.

For example HI can now close the door (flank) an enemy unit from a base depth behind an adjacent friendly element in contact with an enemy element. So HI elements could be in echelon, preventing flanking of adjacent elements but keep the option of "closing the door".

Maybe a bit obscure, but relative maneuverability changes.


Such maneuvers involve breaking ZOC so I still don't understand your "what you can do with a ZOC" and similar statements. There is no ZOC thru elements as it is now.

And, the movement to close the door from behind a friendly element only works if sliding to align is permitted on the flank as it is on the front. Again, that is not a move distance effect but one of the slide to conform.

As I said before, I don't see the ZOC case because ZOC must be broken for any of these types of moves to work in any case. It is not only obscure but also rather invented as a legitimate issue regarding the increase in move distance.

The problems you identify are not distance caused but by-products of other considerations.

larryessick
01-03-2012, 05:20 PM
In at least one DBA 3.0 game I have played recently, heavy foot were able to 'close the door' on units when they would not have been able to in either DBA 2.2 or DBMM.

In and of itself, this is just a "it is different" comment. There is nothing in historical battle reports to indicate that such maneuvers take place or that they only do so over X distance. So the entire maneuver is merely a game mechanic to speed up combat resolution. That it is the same as or different from any other version or game is mostly irrelevant.

One of the stated intentions of DBA is to be a 'simpler introduction to DBMM'. Changing the relative and actual movement speeds so they are different from DBMM takes the game away from that goal.

This is a legitimate observation and the reason why the previous "same as or different...is mostly irrelevant" has the word mostly in it. But, it is a legitimate observation that applies to other things as well including troop types, element basing, combat factors, etc.

There is a distinction to be made between making the mechanisms identical and making them similar. They need to be similar enough that it is easy to transition. Being identical facilitates this but isn't automatically required. Adjustments due to lack of grading and similar differences between the games should be expected as reasonable.

broadsword
01-03-2012, 05:21 PM
It bothers me when enemy HI charge forward and surround (friction-lock) Ps. Surely Ps were trained to avoid that kind of thing?

larryessick
01-04-2012, 07:19 PM
It bothers me when enemy HI charge forward and surround (friction-lock) Ps. Surely Ps were trained to avoid that kind of thing?

Maybe the player shouldn't have moved their Ps so close. If the Ps stay back a reasonable distance this cannot happen. What is more, it likely doesn't happen in a game either -- even when move distance might permit -- because the 2 or more on 1 scenario isn't there on the table top.

What bothers me is this type of invented situation which seldom exists in a game or that only exists in a game because the player has chosen to allow it. If you treat your Ps as expendables then they deserve to be caught and destroyed.

Lobotomy
01-04-2012, 09:39 PM
Hi Larry, thanks for that.

Can you explain what you mean by 'problem' in relation to flanking?

What I should have said is closing the door. Close order can close the door on even loose order that have recoiled. It is my opinion that this unbalances the game as it stops the representation of the morale effect, I believe, recoil represents.

As for unopposed HI, if I am working it out correctly, it takes 9 moves to go from futhest forward possible deployment under 2.2 to 5 moves under 3. It is certainly different. I am just interested why you see this as a 'problem'.

My own experience is that HI do not 'leap across the table' under 3.0 - simply because they wont be unopposed. The relative density of element to board hasn't changed.

I have played enough games where the close order can get the the opposing camp. Depending on the army and the need for support to the front line, there is not always something to interpose. It also relates to what I see as the problem of close order foot vs. Cv and how the foot cuts off the board due to interior lines. It is substantially more difficult for Cv, or even LH (though they have multiple moves), to maneuver around a flank.

I am trying to ensure I am not conflating 'change' with 'problem' and dismissing these as changes when there is a genuine problem.

I guess it is all perception, as are most things. I see these as problems to a game that I have enjoyed for years and that do not add to that game but detract from it.

Doug
01-04-2012, 11:02 PM
Maybe the player shouldn't have moved their Ps so close. If the Ps stay back a reasonable distance this cannot happen. What is more, it likely doesn't happen in a game either -- even when move distance might permit -- because the 2 or more on 1 scenario isn't there on the table top.

What bothers me is this type of invented situation which seldom exists in a game or that only exists in a game because the player has chosen to allow it. If you treat your Ps as expendables then they deserve to be caught and destroyed.

Not to mention the line of HI behind the Psiloi advance, and then attack the Bd that moved to flank contact with a double overlap, or even better the line of Kn behind the Psiloi..

I think Larry has a point though. There are a lot of objections based on hypothetical situations that I haven't seen occur in my test games. This is why Phil is much more likely to be swayed by accounts of problems experienced in a genuine test game, than a theoretical problem.

kontos
01-05-2012, 01:16 AM
Not to mention the line of HI behind the Psiloi advance, and then attack the Bd that moved to flank contact with a double overlap, or even better the line of Kn behind the Psiloi..

I think Larry has a point though. There are a lot of objections based on hypothetical situations that I haven't seen occur in my test games. This is why Phil is much more likely to be swayed by accounts of problems experienced in a genuine test game, than a theoretical problem.

If your test games are a straightforward layout to confirm what is written the rules can never be truly challenged to hold up to ALL styles of play. Many of these examples are not contrived but are a result of test games or recreations of events that have happened in games past. Maybe people play different styles but I can tell you from experience, the friendly club games differ from the tournament games in many ways. Those that understand every aspect of a ruleset can bring some "tricks" to the tournament tabletop. A solid ruleset stands up to these developments and does not dismiss them as rarities to be ignored. ;)

Doug
01-05-2012, 01:52 AM
If your test games are a straightforward layout to confirm what is written the rules can never be truly challenged to hold up to ALL styles of play. Many of these examples are not contrived but are a result of test games or recreations of events that have happened in games past. Maybe people play different styles but I can tell you from experience, the friendly club games differ from the tournament games in many ways. Those that understand every aspect of a ruleset can bring some "tricks" to the tournament tabletop. A solid ruleset stands up to these developments and does not dismiss them as rarities to be ignored. ;)

You are quite correct, but I do have qualifications as a test manager and know the difference between positive and negative tests. I also have several cupboards worth of trophies for DBA so I know the difference between a friendly, and a competition game.

I am not dismissing the issues raised, I am suggesting that they are not commonplace.

And I am going to get together with my opponent from test games 1 & 2 tonight and thrash out a common understanding of some of the examples raised here. I have already put some conforming issues and a substantive rewording suggestion to Phil via the playtest group based on questions raised here, but to date he hasn't responded.

This isn't at all unusual.

kontos
01-05-2012, 08:32 PM
You are quite correct, but I do have qualifications as a test manager and know the difference between positive and negative tests. I also have several cupboards worth of trophies for DBA so I know the difference between a friendly, and a competition game.

I am not dismissing the issues raised, I am suggesting that they are not commonplace.

And I am going to get together with my opponent from test games 1 & 2 tonight and thrash out a common understanding of some of the examples raised here. I have already put some conforming issues and a substantive rewording suggestion to Phil via the playtest group based on questions raised here, but to date he hasn't responded.

This isn't at all unusual.

Thanks Doug. Your efforts never cease. :up

Doug
01-05-2012, 10:11 PM
Thanks Doug. Your efforts never cease. :up

Well, we thrashed out that we didn't have a common understanding - as the rules don't specify that the entire group that contacts have to conform, it could be read either way.

So another email went off to the playtest group and Phil last night complete with diagram...

Fingers crossed.

Dangun
01-05-2012, 11:35 PM
Well, we thrashed out that we didn't have a common understanding - as the rules don't specify that the entire group that contacts have to conform, it could be read either way.

So another email went off to the playtest group and Phil last night complete with diagram...

Fingers crossed.

Now that it is the moving group that has to conform.
Do you think we'll see defenders moving defending groups up to within a millimeter or two, inviting attacking groups to break up.

It seems that it would be quite a reasonable tactic because the defender would have the first chance at closing the door. If the defender can survive one bound, then they will have a shot at closing the door on the attacking element at the point at which the attacked beaks his group. (In the example posted by jack in another thread, if Green defender B survives, A and B will be in a position to close the door on the middle blue element.)

Martyn
01-06-2012, 05:56 AM
Considering that in DBMM the contact rules run to almost a page but are supported by three pages of diagrams there is clearly a need for diagrams to help understand the intention of the rules.

Is it possible to persuade Phil to release the diagrams he intends to use to help explain.

Doug
01-06-2012, 11:12 AM
Considering that in DBMM the contact rules run to almost a page but are supported by three pages of diagrams there is clearly a need for diagrams to help understand the intention of the rules.

Is it possible to persuade Phil to release the diagrams he intends to use to help explain.

I am trying to get Phil to explain intentions and THEN we can do diagrams..

Hannibal Ad Portas
01-06-2012, 01:08 PM
I would say that there are differences in that the increased movement for HI makes the game more forgiving in some espects, and less forgiving in others.

So in one way you have increased ability to respond to some local situations if you have HI. But on the other hand, your reaction time is decreased due to the longer moves.

I have found it largely balances out, and I do like some of the contact changes such as having to start on the flank or rear to contact flank or rear. This works well in HOTT and other DBx rules, and makes sense here.

The conforming rules do need work to be wrinkle-proof, but frankly, the number of situations that come up that could be problematic is infinitesimally small, and are more exercises in intellectual stimulation for some people on this list rather than real-life examples.

In all cases, remember the dictum that troops that in real life could fight, must!

I remember warband speed being ridiculous in my playtest. Centrally placed warband reserves could effectively move 4+ BW to get into combat on a collapsing flank. All they have to do is be moving forward into contact on the second bound so that they get the alignment slide bonus. Couple that with impetuous blade being out of the control because you can not break off and the barbarians look to be more disciplined and efficient than the Romans who conquered most of the Western world.

larryessick
01-06-2012, 01:34 PM
I remember warband speed being ridiculous in my playtest. Centrally placed warband reserves could effectively move 4+ BW to get into combat on a collapsing flank. All they have to do is be moving forward into contact on the second bound so that they get the alignment slide bonus. Couple that with impetuous blade being out of the control because you can not break off and the barbarians look to be more disciplined and efficient than the Romans who conquered most of the Western world.

If your opponent has obliged you by allowing this scenario to develop then that is not the fault of the rules. I can scarcely see an event during actual play where such a move could be carried out successfully by more than a single element. This is because of the geometry of group movement, including elements in column, and the need to wheel rather than move obliquely. Couple this with restrictions on moving through friendly elements and I doubt that such ready reserves actually present much of a threat.

Add to this the already well established effect of the blade lines winning most of the fights, demonstrated now by a variety of posters other than my initial reports when the complaint first arose. The frequent assertion of blade moving forward unsupported has been shown to be false by actual game play -- or to be an anomaly consistent with expected results, that is, a desired and intended but infrequent and atypical effect.

Complaints about the greater tactical flexibility of warband and reduced effectiveness of blade are simply manufactured fantasy not supported by multiple tests. Those tests have, at this point, come from a variety of people establishing their reliability.

Martyn
01-06-2012, 01:49 PM
I am trying to get Phil to explain intentions and THEN we can do diagrams..

Thanks Doug.

I assumed that Phil had some diagrams in mind (possibly some of the DBMM ones), but considering the process so far it is probably better to have some suggestions clarifying confusion that people have with the rule rather than Phil's expectation of what people find confusing.

Hannibal Ad Portas
01-06-2012, 02:04 PM
Discount my experience all you want. Of course the moves I spoke of were by indidual elements. Your condescending remark does not make those moves any more realistic, or less ridiculous.


If your opponent has obliged you by allowing this scenario to develop then that is not the fault of the rules. I can scarcely see an event during actual play where such a move could be carried out successfully by more than a single element. This is because of the geometry of group movement, including elements in column, and the need to wheel rather than move obliquely. Couple this with restrictions on moving through friendly elements and I doubt that such ready reserves actually present much of a threat.

Add to this the already well established effect of the blade lines winning most of the fights, demonstrated now by a variety of posters other than my initial reports when the complaint first arose. The frequent assertion of blade moving forward unsupported has been shown to be false by actual game play -- or to be an anomaly consistent with expected results, that is, a desired and intended but infrequent and atypical effect.

Complaints about the greater tactical flexibility of warband and reduced effectiveness of blade are simply manufactured fantasy not supported by multiple tests. Those tests have, at this point, come from a variety of people establishing their reliability.

Doug
01-06-2012, 07:39 PM
I remember warband speed being ridiculous in my playtest. Centrally placed warband reserves could effectively move 4+ BW to get into combat on a collapsing flank. All they have to do is be moving forward into contact on the second bound so that they get the alignment slide bonus. Couple that with impetuous blade being out of the control because you can not break off and the barbarians look to be more disciplined and efficient than the Romans who conquered most of the Western world.

I am confident the intent was that they only got the extra move if straight forward into contact.. so not that great as a central reserve.

Doug
01-06-2012, 07:43 PM
Thanks Doug.

I assumed that Phil had some diagrams in mind (possibly some of the DBMM ones), but considering the process so far it is probably better to have some suggestions clarifying confusion that people have with the rule rather than Phil's expectation of what people find confusing.

I am assuming from conversation to date that three maxims are guiding this...

1. Elements that historically would have fought - can
2. Kinking or other geometric 'tricksiness' should not confer an advantage
3. The maximum number of elements should get into combat

There are other questions, such as - can a group split through part of it conforming?

Anyway - intense debate taking place.. not a word from PB so far though.

Dangun
01-06-2012, 11:36 PM
2. Kinking or other geometric 'tricksiness' should not confer an advantage


It is odd given this very reasonable objective, that he should have chosen to write the group on group confirmation rule to have the mover conform and not the defender. (If our understanding of the rule, matches his intention.)

Doug
01-07-2012, 04:45 AM
It is odd given this very reasonable objective, that he should have chosen to write the group on group confirmation rule to have the mover conform and not the defender. (If our understanding of the rule, matches his intention.)

I am not confident it does.. that's why I asked him.