1 MU - 1/2 BW - 100 Paces?

[Skeptical Gamer]

This is for the developers of 2.2+...

So... I really like the movement rates in 2.2+, but I don't like "MU".
Moving 100's of paces sounded cool and "felt" right.
(Also, assuming 2.5 feet per pace, this makes the nominal size of the battlefield just about right...)

Out of curiosity, why didn't you just keep define 100 paces as 1/2 base width and go with it? That's the movement label that everyone is familiar with and the change is minimal.

[Dangun]

I think the authors wanted to avoid explicitly setting a scale and just have a relative scale (element width to movement).

The advantage of avoiding a scale definition is that the game conceptually scales up and down for battles between 500 vs 500, or 5,000 vs 5,000, or 50,000 vs 50,000 etc, otherwise (assuming constant soldier density) you would logically need more and more elements.

But I'm just guessing.

[Bardolph]

Dunno bout "paces", we always measured in inches. ;)
Just have to whip up some new measuring sticks and templates and then I will never think of them as anything in particular again. "This one moves 3, those guys move 4".

[Rich Gause]

I think DBA is best conceptualized without regard to a scale. Not having paces defined as part of the movement rates is a good step in that direction IMO.

[david kuijt]

Some GMs had a significant objection to paces, and made the comment that multiplying simple units (3,4,5...) by 50 didn't make the distances any easier to visualize. Since the putative real-world scale was clearly false (since 100,000 men would have the same frontage in paces as armies only 2% as large), there wasn't a compelling reason to keep paces.

[ferrency]

Yeah, Rich and David have posted enough to spare you from my long answer, but I agree: "No Paces."

Alan

[Skeptical Gamer]

Some GMs had a significant objection to paces, and made the comment that multiplying simple units (3,4,5...) by 50 didn't make the distances any easier to visualize. Since the putative real-world scale was clearly false (since 100,000 men would have the same frontage in paces as armies only 2% as large), there wasn't a compelling reason to keep paces.

Thank you.
I thought it was something like that.

I do wish there was something more "interesting" to call them...
However, as was mentioned above, people will probably just start to say "that type moves three and the other moves four", instead of worrying about names...

I just like evocative names in my ancients gaming... Though the lack of such in many of my other games doesn't bother me so much for some reason...

[pozanias]

Also, please note that there are no 2.2+ police. So, if you prefer paces -- use paces. No problem. We didn't want to label everything in paces/basewidths/MUs, so we had to pick one. I think once people get used to MUs it won't be a problem. But if it never catches on with you or your group, then just use whatever term you like.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Also, please note that there are no 2.2+ police. So, if you prefer paces -- use paces. No problem. We didn't want to label everything in paces/basewidths/MUs, so we had to pick one. I think once people get used to MUs it won't be a problem. But if it never catches on with you or your group, then just use whatever term you like.

No... I like to use the terms that are being used by the majority of players.

If I get used to calling them "blitz-steps" or something, I'll be horribly embarrassed when I play with another group (or the very rare for me tournament).

I'll get used to them quickly enough and then probably never notice the change again. Though I suspect that it will wind up being shortened to "units" as in "the psiloi is twelve units from the general"...

[Redwilde]

No... I like to use the terms that are being used by the majority of players.

That's probably a regional thing in any case. In 20 some years of playing DBA, I've never called them paces, always inches. Don't recall ever hearing paces used in the Eastern US. Don't think I've ever used paces conversationally in my life except while discussing WRG rules.

My guess is that paces is just a Britishism, possibly just an Englishism, and for all I know could be pronounced blitz-step!

I do like the idea of only using one standard of measurement while playing the game. The most critical distance in actual game mechanics is the base width for ZOCs. And then MUs (by whatever name) are the best increment for maintaining relative movement rates.

[Skeptical Gamer]

That's probably a regional thing in any case. In 20 some years of playing DBA, I've never called them paces, always inches. Don't recall ever hearing paces used in the Eastern US. Don't think I've ever used paces conversationally in my life except while discussing WRG rules.

My guess is that paces is just a Britishism, possibly just an Englishism, and for all I know could be pronounced blitz-step!

I do like the idea of only using one standard of measurement while playing the game. The most critical distance in actual game mechanics is the base width for ZOCs. And then MUs (by whatever name) are the best increment for maintaining relative movement rates.

I was originally introduced to historical miniatures by a group of DBM players and they did use "paces". I suppose it depends on the system and locale.

I do agree that MU's are a much cleaner measurement system.

[broadsword]

Very simple solution: 100p = 1/2 BW. Make the necessary subsitutions. Done.

Now 4MU = 400p. Easy peasy.

[pozanias]

If I get used to calling them "blitz-steps" or something, I'll be horribly embarrassed when I play with another group (or the very rare for me tournament).


[whispers to friends] did you hear what Skeptical Gamer calls MUs.... 'blitz-steps'. Giggle, giggle. What a loser. Let's not play with him. ;)



I'll get used to them quickly enough and then probably never notice the change again. Though I suspect that it will wind up being shortened to "units" as in "the psiloi is twelve units from the general"...


Or you may find that its really fun to say "Mooooo".

[winterbadger]

That's probably a regional thing in any case. In 20 some years of playing DBA, I've never called them paces, always inches. Don't recall ever hearing paces used in the Eastern US.

Whereas I (also in the eastern US) have always called them paces.

I would agree that there are very few miniature games (American or British) that explicitly use scale increments as measurement units (e.g., scale paces instead of real life inches or centimeters). One of the few exceptions that occurs to me right away is Nigel Marsh's Carnage & Glory. And *that* causes me to think that it may be a peculiarity of games not from a specific place but of a specific design--that is, games that attempt to be scale agnostic.

[Chris Pagano]

I do not think that 2.2+ should mess around with the scale of DBA.

What it does is define each ‘MU’ in terms of base widths (due to all the benefits that confers) and by default it leaves the scale of each MU as whatever scale DBA gives (or fails to give) for base widths.

The important thing is that the MU scheme gives each troop type a reasonably accurate movement rate RELATIVE to the movement rates of other troop types. In this way it makes the game work fairly well so that reasonably ‘accurate/historical’ things tend to happen.

[ferrency]

The important thing is that the MU scheme gives each troop type a reasonably accurate movement rate RELATIVE to the movement rates of other troop types. In this way it makes the game work fairly well so that reasonably ‘accurate/historical’ things tend to happen.

There are a few other effects of the current movement scales in 2.2+:

- Movement categories have increased from 4 to 5 different speeds. This makes the "withdraw if you move faster" rule work better because there is a finer grained difference between elements' movement speeds.
- The ratio of each element's movement speed relative to the size of a ZoC is very important. 2.2+ does a good job of setting this correctly for various movement speeds.

As seen in a thread on the GM list, here are some explanations of what you can and can't do with each movement rate:



For two lines in combat, one overlapped (the element in question being the
overlapping one), using front corner measurement and Pythagoras, we get the
following:

1.5BW move: can close the door on an element that is a smidge (4.7mm) apart from the main line
2 BW move: can close the door on an element that has recoiled or is otherwise back 29mm from the main line
2.5 BW move: can close the door on an element that has recoiled or is otherwise back 51mm from the main line -- so any recoiled element, but not an element defensively covering the flank with ZOC
3.0 BW move: can close the door on an element that is 73mm back from the main line -- a ZOC will still protect.
4.0 BW move: one refused element won't do the job.

[Skeptical Gamer]

[whispers to friends] did you hear what Skeptical Gamer calls MUs.... 'blitz-steps'. Giggle, giggle. What a loser. Let's not play with him.

See... it's already started...;)

[Skeptical Gamer]

I understand and like the mechanical aspects of 2.2+ movement rates.

It's the whole left brain / right brain thing.
I like both to be happily cruising along in tandem.

So... left brain happy, "those new distance measurements / movement rates work really well":up... right brain unhappy, "couldn't you find something more 'ancients gaming' sounding to use?":(...

I've told my right brain to hush often enough that it won't bother me in the long run... I just like to have my cake and eat it too...