PDA

View Full Version : Side support


Ammianus
02-22-2012, 02:07 PM
From several posts on DBA Yahoo, it seems that PB is considering replacing rear support with side support. Anyone have more detail on this? ( but different from overlap I guess)

Rich Gause
02-22-2012, 02:28 PM
I think it causes as many problems as it fixes. For every matchupp that works better there is one that works worse.

lkmjbc
02-22-2012, 02:35 PM
It still is in alpha testing.... but my guess would be

Rear and Flank Support Factors:

Pikes add +3 and Warband +1 when in frontal close.....(big snip) is in bad
going.

Spear add +1 when in frontal close combat and they are supported by a contiguous
friendly Spear element on one or both flanks that is in side to side to and
front corner contact. Both Spear Elements must be in good going.

And a further conjecture (really a silly wild a**ed guess)

Bd and Aux add +1 when in frontal close combat with mounted and they are
supported by a contiguous friendly element of the same type on one or both
flanks that is in side to side to and front corner contact. Both elements must
be in good going.

Both are interesting.

Joe Collins

lkmjbc
02-22-2012, 02:37 PM
Rich:
Genuinely interested... what does it break?

Joe Collins

Xavi
02-22-2012, 02:45 PM
So the solution to the fact that DBA has SERIOUS issues replicating the multiple lines and reserves of historical battles is to make extending your front and refusing to use reserves even more of a "must have"? Right...

It solves the interlined line of Bw-Kn-Bd-Bw-Kn-Bd that is so common, though

Xavi

david kuijt
02-22-2012, 03:10 PM
It solves the interlined line of Bw-Kn-Bd-Bw-Kn-Bd that is so common, though


Maybe so, but the interleaved line of Bw/Bd/Bw/Bd/Bw that the English used so successfully in the HYW is now going to be toast, eh?

Joe wrote:
It still is in alpha testing.... but my guess would be

Unless Doug Melville or Bob post with what the 3.0 development group is chewing on, I'm not sure it is any use to discuss details. Phil will let the idea bubble up when he does.

Xavi
02-22-2012, 03:15 PM
LOL. Too true :) I always envisioned the Bw-Bd formation as being a book example of closing the door, though :)

lkmjbc
02-22-2012, 03:36 PM
Actually if side support works for Bd vs Mounted...

A Bw-Bd-Bd-Bw formation would be quite ugly for knts.

Dk is correct however....this is all conjecture till Phil opens the test up.

Joe Collins

Rich Gause
02-22-2012, 04:04 PM
Rich:
Genuinely interested... what does it break?

Joe Collins

Any matchup that works fine with Sp at +4 as is without flank support? Sp vs Ax or LH imo.

lkmjbc
02-22-2012, 04:48 PM
Rich:

I would argue that it helps against LH... remember, we have the LH QK still in 3.0.

Point taken on the Aux though...

Joe Collins

David Schlanger
02-22-2012, 04:52 PM
Sure seems like a radical change for a set that was supposed to be ready for publishing by last Fall In!

DS

lkmjbc
02-22-2012, 06:07 PM
Competition has a way of improving products.

Joe Collins

Pavane
02-22-2012, 06:48 PM
Competition has a way of improving products.

Joe Collins
I noticed that. It also increases the number of posts on Yahoo significantly.

peleset
02-22-2012, 07:49 PM
Sure seems like a radical change for a set that was supposed to be ready for publishing by last Fall In!

DS

Exactly!

Far too many changes that have come after when I was under the impression it would hit the shops.

Two steps forward, one step back! The whole process seems to be dragging out far too long.

David Schlanger
02-22-2012, 08:09 PM
Competition has a way of improving products.

Joe Collins

Be sure to tell him that WADBAG does not approve... then he will surely do it! :)

DS

snowcat
02-22-2012, 08:10 PM
I don't mind if the end product is worth the wait. (In the meantime there's still 2.2 and 2.2+ to play with...) :)

Hannibal Ad Portas
02-22-2012, 10:32 PM
It sounds a little like DBR, in those rules pike and shot give side support. It made sense to get the flavor of that time period. DBR is a more complicated set of rules than DBA though....

I don't see it making as much sense in DBA. Spear is already a very powerful element. I guess this might also be kind of a sop to the heavy foot that in 3.0 are losing psiloi support. With this rule change, a wall of spear would be the same combat factor as psiloi supported spear....and your psiloi are now free to extend the line or do other jobs.

dervel
02-23-2012, 11:49 AM
So how would side support work with overlap??

Seems redundant?

Ammianus
02-23-2012, 12:27 PM
good question Dervel! pondering that myself

Martyn
02-23-2012, 01:14 PM
So how would side support work with overlap??

Seems redundant?

I believe, but I may be wrong, that the +1 applies as long as front corner and side contact is maintained irrespective of the supporting element being in combat to its front.

I assume that this is supposed to replicate the strength of a shield wall. Once the wall is broken the Sp element loses the support and presumably gets a -1 for an overlap, so a sudden 2 point swing once the wall starts to break up.

Bobgnar
02-23-2012, 01:26 PM
Some questions I have about the rule.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/flanksupport.jpg
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/moreflank.jpg



I wish I had more time to follow all the discussions. How do people have time and energy to be in discussions with both DBA 3 and the Washington Area Gamers ancient rules?

Martyn
02-23-2012, 01:30 PM
Some questions I have about the rule.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/flanksupport.jpg
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/moreflank.jpg



I wish I had more time to follow all the discussions. How do people have time and energy to be in discussions with both DBA 3 and the Washington Area Gamers ancient rules?

but you do produce such wonderful (and easy to understand) drawings. NB Phil. :rolleyes

In answer to your question. Don't know, only the inner circle have the full wording, I only know what I have picked up from comments on Yahoo.

Xavi
02-23-2012, 01:33 PM
I just follow the 2.2+ discussions. In fact I started quite a few of them :D I read 3.0 and tested it twice. Did not like the results. Then Phil came and instead of correcting what I didn't like introduced more things I did not like into the game. So I stopped reading it. THe DBA yahoo digest is skimmed from time to time just for laughs.

Cheers,
Xavi

jacar
02-23-2012, 02:05 PM
Some questions I have about the rule.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/flanksupport.jpg
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/moreflank.jpg



I wish I had more time to follow all the discussions. How do people have time and energy to be in discussions with both DBA 3 and the Washington Area Gamers ancient rules?

Flank support is not a new and ingenious concept. Chipco uses this concept in their rules and it works well there. The reason it works well is because they don't have a penalty for overlap. It will not work well here because you have a penalty for overlap. As Bob points out, there are plenty of situations that this could be exploited.

This is not a simple fix and it will probably throw everything out of whack statistically. I have learned to not like the support rules of any kind in this scale of game.

lkmjbc
02-23-2012, 02:30 PM
Bob:

I would say yes to all your examples.

I strongly disagree with the "it doesn't work because of overlap".

I would say "It only works because of overlap!"

Now 2 Blades vs 2 Sp is even.... until the shield wall crumbles...

Consider this....

2 Blades hit 2 Spears.
The first fight is 5 vs 5. The blade loses and recoils.
The next fight is Spears +5 vs Blade at +4.

The spears have an small chance (5%) unlike 2.2 where slaughter is guaranteed.

On the other hand. If the Spear loses....
The Blade follows up. The next fight is Bd +5 and Sp +3. A 20% chance of a Double....

You need both overlap and the flank support... you still lose... but at least you have a remote chance now.

Joe Collins

david kuijt
02-23-2012, 02:43 PM
The next fight is Bd +5 and Sp +3. A 20% chance of a Double....


16.7%, Joe.

lkmjbc
02-23-2012, 03:42 PM
Quite right... I counted 7 doubles rather than 6... somehow...

Joe Collins

Macbeth
02-23-2012, 05:18 PM
The side support - which is limited to Sp and Bw that are lined up in side edge and front corner contact with either the same type of element or with Bd seems to make Sheildwall combat between Vikings and Saxons match the way it is written in the current crop of Viking fiction (Giles Kristian, Bernard Cornwell, Robert Low)

Hd was originally included in the mix but have been howled down :D

Bw might have to be in a Bd/Bw/Bd style formation to get it as the system is debated.

Cheers

peleset
02-23-2012, 07:52 PM
An interesting house rule for added flavour for a Dark Ages campaign.

I don't see, however, that throwing more and more into the pot brings the publication date any nearer.

jacar
02-23-2012, 08:18 PM
An interesting house rule for added flavour for a Dark Ages campaign.

I don't see, however, that throwing more and more into the pot brings the publication date any nearer.

DING! DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! :D

Cremorn
02-23-2012, 08:22 PM
Some questions I have about the rule.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/flanksupport.jpg
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~abeattie/dbasum2005/DBA3/moreflank.jpg





Bob,
from the drafts I've seen, I think that all your diagrams are right. Flank support is switched on all the time, regardless of what is happening to the front. There is the old "Only 1 overlap or flank contact can be counted on each flank" in Close Combat Para 3, but that is there to stop double overlaps. The only Flank Support provisos are "good going" and "enemy foot". I have been playing Book II/5 games and it seems to work. I am also trying to find time to play LIR and Patrician games where I find the "or of Blades" support rule more complicated to apply and I'm not so sure. I like the philosophy of it, though.
Richard.

Lobotomy
02-23-2012, 09:33 PM
Quite right... I counted 7 doubles rather than 6... somehow...

Joe Collins

Joe,

Next time use both hands to count. :silly

Bobgnar
02-23-2012, 11:12 PM
Hey Martyn, Thanks for the nice comment.

hint hint,
the full wording is at bottom of the second diagram :)

but you do produce such wonderful (and easy to understand) drawings. NB Phil. :rolleyes

In answer to your question. Don't know, only the inner circle have the full wording, I only know what I have picked up from comments on Yahoo.

Paul Potter
02-24-2012, 01:39 AM
side support? oh my.

jacar
02-24-2012, 11:35 AM
Hey Martyn, Thanks for the nice comment.

hint hint,
the full wording is at bottom of the second diagram :)

We seem to be getting farther and farther from the simplicity that once was DBA. (1.0 and 1.1)

Ammianus
02-29-2012, 04:55 PM
I see Macbeth said this flank support would be for BW and SP only.
Is that how it currently stands??

[get rid of some rear supports, add some flank supports, I see]:???

kontos
02-29-2012, 07:38 PM
Not to mention it may only wind up being "list specific" based on some postings I see. I haven't kept up though.

Macbeth
03-01-2012, 12:03 AM
As it stands at the moment

Side support is for Sp and Bw when in side edge and front corner contact with another element of the same type OR with Bd while fighting foot.

The current set of rules still has Hd listed but later chatter has confirmed that this is meant to go :) Hd with a +3 combat factor and not recoiling are pretty well served (or so the theory goes) and shouldn't get a +1 for huddling.

Some of the other chatter that had me sweating - no side support for 8Bw and
Bw only getting side support in a Bw/Bd alternating formation has not arisen.

The T'ang are looking better by the minute :) - until the Ellies arrive

Cheers

Ammianus
03-01-2012, 02:50 PM
Thanks MacBeth; does have one wondering what next will be pulled from the hat.

Captain Rabbit
03-02-2012, 05:29 AM
We seem to be getting farther and farther from the simplicity that once was DBA. (1.0 and 1.1)

how so?
He took one line out about rear support
and put another in about side support
Much the same in complexity surely?
Then again I may have missed something. :D

jacar
03-02-2012, 10:23 AM
how so?
He took one line out about rear support
and put another in about side support
Much the same in complexity surely?
Then again I may have missed something. :D

He took one line out of the same train of thought and added one line of a different train of thought and now will apply it to certain situations but only to certain army lists...or so I have read. Definitely more fiddly! :eek (even if only by a little)

kontos
03-02-2012, 12:23 PM
Bob:

I would say yes to all your examples.

I strongly disagree with the "it doesn't work because of overlap".

I would say "It only works because of overlap!"

Now 2 Blades vs 2 Sp is even.... until the shield wall crumbles...

Consider this....

2 Blades hit 2 Spears.
The first fight is 5 vs 5. The blade loses and recoils.
The next fight is Spears +5 vs Blade at +4.

The spears have an small chance (5%) unlike 2.2 where slaughter is guaranteed.

On the other hand. If the Spear loses....
The Blade follows up. The next fight is Bd +5 and Sp +3. A 20% chance of a Double....

You need both overlap and the flank support... you still lose... but at least you have a remote chance now.

Joe Collins

Well that's wonderful, Joe, but what are you going to do when 4 warband go in on 4 spear @ 3 v 5? As you say the spear now have a 16.7% of doubling the supported warband killing them both. Game over if it happens twice in that combat. Each rule change has to be examined across the full game and not just your favorite fights. And since when is 5 v 4 a slaughter? Heavily armed disciplined Bd against citizen levy with pointy sticks is 5 v 4? If you look at it that way then spear are overpowered. Side support rule is not a fix to anything in my opinion and does not belong in this scale.

Cremorn
03-02-2012, 07:44 PM
The side support - <snip>

Hd was originally included in the mix but have been howled down :D

Cheers
When I studied history I felt like semi trained levy of doubtful enthusiasm featured on more battlefields than those created by wargamers. I'm not sure where that idea belongs in DBA, but...

I would keep Horde in the mix most of all. You could drop Horde's combat factors to the same line as Lh and Ps, but then give them a +1 for huddling. I love it.

An element of Spears or Bows or Horde adds +1 when in frontal close combat in good going against enemy foot if at least 1 flank edge is in mutual side edge and front corner contact with a friendly element of the same type or of Blades.

This seems really historical to me. Not really hysterical.
Richard.

Captain Rabbit
03-02-2012, 08:21 PM
Well that's wonderful, Joe, but what are you going to do when 4 warband go in on 4 spear @ 3 v 5? As you say the spear now have a 16.7% of doubling the supported warband killing them both. Game over if it happens twice in that combat. Each rule change has to be examined across the full game and not just your favorite fights. And since when is 5 v 4 a slaughter? Heavily armed disciplined Bd against citizen levy with pointy sticks is 5 v 4? If you look at it that way then spear are overpowered. Side support rule is not a fix to anything in my opinion and does not belong in this scale.

Or scantily clad peasants with halberds taking on the heavily armoured might of Spartan manhood, if you look at it that way spear aren't all that hard done by :up
In the end it's much like the PS rear support option. You either like it or you don't I suppose. It's still testing stage so I'm willing to go along with it and see where it takes me. I've had one game with side support, not enough to say it's not broken but enough to say it has promise.

I'm keen to hear how other peoples test games are going, how many games of side support have you had and what were the results?

Captain Rabbit
03-02-2012, 08:24 PM
When I studied history I felt like semi trained levy of doubtful enthusiasm featured on more battlefields than those created by wargamers. I'm not sure where that idea belongs in DBA, but...

I would keep Horde in the mix most of all. You could drop Horde's combat factors to the same line as Lh and Ps, but then give them a +1 for huddling. I love it.

An element of Spears or Bows or Horde adds +1 when in frontal close combat in good going against enemy foot if at least 1 flank edge is in mutual side edge and front corner contact with a friendly element of the same type or of Blades.

This seems really historical to me. Not really hysterical.
Richard.

:2up:2up :D

lkmjbc
03-02-2012, 09:59 PM
Frank:

Thanks for the information. I have played the game awhile. I have thought through the possibilities. I have played some test games.

I am a strong supporter of the flank support.

In fact 4Wb hitting 4 blade... on the first combat is 28% chance of a kill vs 6% in the opposite direction. If that happens... then the next is a 40%.

Oh, and supporting units aren't destroyed in 3.0.... at least in the current beta.

Joe Collins

lkmjbc
03-02-2012, 10:04 PM
Oh, and Frank...

I'll take you on all day with Vikings vs Mid Saxons.

5 vs 4 is very difficult. Especially when the blades are impetuous. Dark ages is broken.... badly...

So badly that it isn't fun to play... though 2.2+ raiders are a remedy.

How many test games have you played with flank support?


Joe Collins

Haardrada
03-03-2012, 05:51 AM
An interesting house rule for added flavour for a Dark Ages campaign.

I don't see, however, that throwing more and more into the pot brings the publication date any nearer.

I think time should be taken to get things right in a rule set. This will probably Phils' last addition to DBA so needs to be right. I have been amused by the fall out over the proposed revision which has reminded me of the rangles over WRG 7th & 8th editions all them years ago. Thats when all my armies were 25mm and not 12 element 15mm with swap elements for variation lol.

Maybe the competition has caused some re-thinking of the rules which to me can only be for the better.

Captain Rabbit
03-03-2012, 06:01 AM
He took one line out of the same train of thought and added one line of a different train of thought and now will apply it to certain situations but only to certain army lists...or so I have read. Definitely more fiddly! :eek (even if only by a little)

Cool trains!

Ammianus
03-03-2012, 09:12 AM
quoting: lkmbjc, "Dark ages is broken.... badly...So badly that it isn't fun to play.."

Which explains why some of us now play "historical" HotT with their
Patricians, Pictish, Saxon, Sub Romans, Welsh, Viking & PreFeudal Scots armies. (but to each his own)

Bobgnar
03-03-2012, 01:27 PM
March 3 edition

Flank support factors:
An element of Spears or Bows (except 8Sp or 8Bw) adds +1 when in frontal close combat in good going against enemy foot if at least 1 flank edge is in mutual side edge and mutual front corner contact with an identical friendly element or of Blades


Some subtle fixes.

Matt
03-04-2012, 05:09 AM
March 3 edition

Flank support factors:
An element of Spears or Bows (except 8Sp or 8Bw) adds +1 when in frontal close combat in good going against enemy foot if at least 1 flank edge is in mutual side edge and mutual front corner contact with an identical friendly element or of Blades


Some subtle fixes.

I like this rule. But I am curious why a Theban player (who I assume will have an option to use 8Sp) would ever want to use a DBE, since the enemy Sp will fight on even terms, and the DBE is a liability when lost.

Thoughts?

snowcat
03-04-2012, 05:12 AM
I like this rule. But I am curious why a Theban player (who I assume will have an option to use 8Sp) would ever want to use a DBE, since the enemy Sp will fight on even terms, and the DBE is a liability when lost.

Thoughts?

I suspect they haven't thought of that yet.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering why Sp benefit from having Bd beside them...

...or is it simply because the Bd can behave in a manner similar to an equivalent element of Sp that would be providing support?

If so, fair enough, I guess.

Matt
03-04-2012, 05:34 AM
I suspect they haven't thought of that yet.

Meanwhile, I'm wondering why Sp benefit from having Bd beside them...

...or is it simply because the Bd can behave in a manner similar to an equivalent element of Sp that would be providing support?

If so, fair enough, I guess.

My horizons are pretty narrow when considering the eras I play, so when I look at this, I see Triarii actually having an opportunity to perform better.

However, I think that this will be a problem, since it only encourages using them in the front line from the very beginning of the battle, most likely deployed on the flanks.

snowcat
03-04-2012, 07:14 AM
Perhaps this is the closest DBA can come to feasibly portraying it.

Xavi
03-04-2012, 07:42 AM
DBA is extremely bad (well the whole DBx system and heirs, like FOG) at portraying the reserves issues in the battlefield. A lot of armies deployed in 3 battles (vanguard, centre and rearguard) and each was sent in in turns. DBA does not encourage that. 1 or 2 reserve elements is all you will ever need to consider if you do not want to be totally smashed into pulp. That the triple acies does not work is hardly surprising. It is still a great game, though, and more or less allows you to do some manoeuvre and look cool after surrounding an element and rolling a 6 that ensures its destruction regardless of what the opponent rolls.

Cheers,
Xavi

Ammianus
03-04-2012, 08:04 AM
DBA is ... still a great game, though, and more or less allows you to do some manoeuvre and look cool after surrounding an element and rolling a 6 that ensures its destruction regardless of what the opponent rolls.
Xavi

I found that rolling a six is indeed highly useful. I hope someday to be able to roll more of them.

lkmjbc
03-04-2012, 12:21 PM
Xavi:

I have actually won a few games using the Rep Romans in 3 lines! The trick is this.... Use the deployment against someone setting up in one long line. Your shorter frontage will allow you to wheel and hit one flank before your opponent can bring forces into combat. You move as a block until you are in striking distance....

Then your front line goes in... the second line of blades supports them and is ready to extend the line, move to the flank, fill gaps. The third line turns to your long open flank to hold off the enemy.

Against some opponents... it works well. Against more experienced opponents...
well.....

Joe Collins

Xavi
03-04-2012, 12:35 PM
I doubt my regular opponents would allow me to do that with heavy infantry. It is fairly easy to stop the second line of infantry using mounted and other fast troops to ZOC them and force them to abandon the push forward. But well done if you have had success with that! Quite some generalmanship there :)

Cheers,
Xavi