PDA

View Full Version : 3.0 Movement thoughts


Matt
01-22-2012, 04:14 AM
Would changing movement allowances to 1 BW for Heavy Infantry, 2 BW for light infantry/cavalry, and 3 BW for Mounted, with the added feature of a bonus BW movement if an element/group did not start its move, or end its move within 1 BW of an enemy element, be more acceptable than the current 2-3-4 scheme?

This would allow armies to close quickly, but once close, slow down the movement and allow more dynamic activity during the tactical fight, and probably provide more decision points for players - and likely a longer game.

It would require tinkering the rules to reinstate the ability to "close the door" from a flanking position, but likely allow the restrictive rules for flank contact to be removed since there would not be ample movement to execute such maneuvers.

snowcat
01-22-2012, 04:59 AM
You lost me here: "2 BW for light infantry/cavalry, and 3 BW for Mounted"

:huh?

broadsword
01-22-2012, 01:40 PM
Matt, having HI move 1 1/2 BW does allow closing the door without requiring a rule for it, but is still slow enough to require maneuver.

I'd propose: Heavy Foot, Arty: 1.5 BW, Light Foot, Knights, El: 2.5 BW, Cav: 3 BW, Lh: 4 BW
(not exhaustive, but suggestive).

Crocus
01-22-2012, 03:27 PM
I love it when you get suggestive.

broadsword
01-22-2012, 05:36 PM
As long as it's not too exhaustive afterwards, eh? :D

peleset
01-22-2012, 08:27 PM
Why not just use the old movement/ ground scale? Surely the ability to deploy further forward is enough to speed the game up (if it really needs speeding up at all).

broadsword
01-22-2012, 09:39 PM
peleset, the only thing about the old movement rates was the requirement for a "closing the door" rule for slower elements, otherwise they worked great, imho.

I have actually played a few games with the deployment area moved far forward as you suggest. It works great, and I recommend for tournaments in 2.2, using 30" boards, that each side have their deployment zone shoved forward 300p off the baseline. That does cut down a bound or three, without really giving up on the whole pre-battle maneuver.

The other way to cut down on element-matching, if a GM wishes to experiment, is to add +1 to group move costs if a group contains both mounted and foot elements. This might encourage more "historical" deployments?

Brian Peruski
01-22-2012, 11:57 PM
peleset, the only thing about the old movement rates was the requirement for a "closing the door" rule for slower elements, otherwise they worked great, imho.



The closing the door rule is a rule that most beginning players had figured out during their first or second game, especially if you have experienced players who are helping them to learn the game. I see no need to change the movement rates to get rid of this very basic rule.

broadsword
01-23-2012, 01:46 AM
Absolutely right, I was thinking though of PB's wordcount policy, and if a sentence could be removed and replaced with something that perhaps clarified some other of PB's mysterious points?

john meunier
01-23-2012, 07:17 AM
How about we get the 3.0 rules in our hands and play them for a while before we amend the movement rules?

Matt
01-23-2012, 08:46 AM
How about we get the 3.0 rules in our hands and play them for a while before we amend the movement rules?

Who's amending? :???

I made a suggestion for a rule change that I feel might accomodate various points of view on the issue of movement in the last draft 3.0 rule set published. Since Mr. Barker is going back to "polish" the rules, this seems like the appropriate time to make such suggestions, and the DBA 3.0 forum seemed like the proper place to post it.

broadsword
01-23-2012, 10:21 AM
John, I already have been. From what's been posted at Yahoo, not much is going to be different between the playtest version, and what will be released, unless Phil himself has a last minute change of heart. The DBMM movement rates simply don't work that well for foot elements in DBA.

pozanias
01-23-2012, 10:30 AM
How about we get the 3.0 rules in our hands and play them for a while before we amend the movement rules?

My understanding is that Phil is still open to changing 3.0 based on broad availability to playtest. So I think this is the perfect time for people that will be playing 3.0 to discuss ideas for change/improvement.

Once that window closes, then I agree its best to wait for the final version. I suppose its possible that window did close and I just missed it.

Lydia
01-23-2012, 06:01 PM
The DBMM movement rates simply don't work that well for foot elements in DBA.

In a long-winded way I agree with you.

They do work if you take the DBMM movement rate in paces and convert them at the stated ground scale of 100p = 1BW: with a little rounding you get 1.5BW for heavy foot, 2BW for light foot, 2.5 for cavalry, and 3 for light horse. That is pretty much unchanged from DBA2.2. [edit: there's another thread about these somewhere] Heavy foot see the biggest increase but it's only a centimetre.

Unfortunately that isn't how the "conversion" happened, and some people are allergic to using their ruler to work out 6 and 10 cms.

Are we any closer to identifying who it was who set his forces up on the baseline against PB's Athenians? I'm still a bit baffled about how that on its own could have led to a draw, because if the other guy isn't doing anything with his PIPs, and you're set up correctly, all you have to do is roll the die and move your troops forward. 8 bounds could be over in 10 minutes or so. Leaving you plenty of time to make your opponent wish he had room to recoil.

broadsword
01-23-2012, 06:16 PM
Lydia I call BS on Phil's experience being anything other than some crazy outlier.

Head over to the DBMM forum, and check out the files: there's a Word Doc called "An Introduction to DBMM.doc". I suggest everyone who's tested/thought about DBA 3.0 read it.

john meunier
01-23-2012, 06:59 PM
Matt, I misread the intention of your suggestion.

I did not understand it as a suggestion for Phil to change the rules, but as a "fix" to the rules that have not yet been published.

My fault.

Pillager
01-23-2012, 11:36 PM
Pretty obvious that Snowcat and Peleset have not yet bothered to actually READ the 3.0 draft.

How can you add anything to a discussion of something that you have no knowledge of?

snowcat
01-23-2012, 11:49 PM
Pretty obvious you misunderstood my post. I commented on the original's poster's idea - it made no sense to me.

eg
1 BW for Heavy Infantry, 2 BW for light infantry/cavalry, and 3 BW for Mounted.

What does that mean? 2 BW for LH? Or 2 BW for Cv? And then 3 BW for Mounted - what is that? Mounted Infantry or all mounted? And if the latter, how can it be faster than Cv (who are mounted) or possibly LH? As I said, the sentence as written made no sense to me.

So kindly refrain from stating what seems obvious to you but is actually nothing to do with my post. I have all the 3.0 drafts so far and have read them.

Pillager
01-24-2012, 12:28 AM
Pretty obvious you misunderstood my post. I commented on the original's poster's idea - it made no sense to me.

eg
1 BW for Heavy Infantry, 2 BW for light infantry/cavalry, and 3 BW for Mounted.

What does that mean? 2 BW for LH? Or 2 BW for Cv? And then 3 BW for Mounted - what is that? Mounted Infantry or all mounted? And if the latter, how can it be faster than Cv (who are mounted) or possibly LH? As I said, the sentence as written made no sense to me.


Your words indicated bafflement about the _entire_ sentence. But "1 BW for Heavy Infantry" is quite clear. Unless you don't know what "BW" means.

snowcat
01-24-2012, 12:31 AM
Your words indicated bafflement about the _entire_ sentence. But "1 BW for Heavy Infantry" is quite clear. Unless you don't know what "BW" means.

Base Width.

Okay?

snowcat
01-24-2012, 12:33 AM
So what exactly did Matt mean?

1 BW for Heavy Infantry, 2 BW for light infantry/cavalry, and 3 BW for Mounted,

?

Matt
01-24-2012, 01:45 AM
You lost me here: "2 BW for light infantry/cavalry, and 3 BW for Mounted"

:huh?

Snowcat,

Complete oversight on my part missing your original question, and yes, I was about as clear as mud in my text now that I go back and re-read it. :o

I guess my thought was for Heavy Infantry to move 1 BW, light infantry/KNIGHTS/MI/Elephants to move 2 BW, and Cavalry/LH to move 3 BW

This keeps things simple, and could be modified further with a half base width addition for knights/elephants, etc.

However, the "crux" of the suggestion is to allow elements to cross the battle field faster by giving everyone a 1 BW bonus if they do not come within 1 BW of an enemy element.

snowcat
01-24-2012, 01:53 AM
Thanks Matt. :up

Martyn
01-24-2012, 07:59 AM
My understanding is that Phil is still open to changing 3.0 based on broad availability to playtest. So I think this is the perfect time for people that will be playing 3.0 to discuss ideas for change/improvement.

Once that window closes, then I agree its best to wait for the final version. I suppose its possible that window did close and I just missed it.

Several snippets coming from the Yahoo group or from playtesters that the next draft will have changes. The latest is that deployment will be 300 paces/3Bw from the centreline.

Matt
01-24-2012, 03:22 PM
Matt, I misread the intention of your suggestion.

I did not understand it as a suggestion for Phil to change the rules, but as a "fix" to the rules that have not yet been published.

My fault.

No fault. Simple misunderstanding!

No worries. :D

Matt
01-24-2012, 04:12 PM
Several snippets coming from the Yahoo group or from playtesters that the next draft will have changes. The latest is that deployment will be 300 paces/3Bw from the centreline.

Martyn,

Appreciate the update. I find trying to navigate on that forum exhausting and painful. And the discourse can be extremely rude. :sick