Breaking off from close combat

[Xavi]

Hi there,

In one of our tests games on Friday we had this situation: A Cataphract charged a Bow element and forced it to turn. That caused the bow to end up in good going (having been on a swamp before). The combat ended in a tie (much cheering on the Bow side of the table).

After that the Bow decided to break off to get into the swamp. In the swamp the Cat would move 3 MU, so we thought it was OK for it to retreat there. However, checking the rules later we found that you need to move MORE than the enemy (3MU each in this case) to break off. We found the Bow tactic to be fairly sensible at the time since it was like 0,1 inch from the swamp, so the question is if it MUST be greater or EQUAL or greater? The current rule is OK as it is, but just to make sure it is not an oversight.

Thx :)

Xavi

[Roland Fricke]

Must be greater than the opposing unit's movement in the terrain it ends in. Equal to is not good enough.

[Xavi]

Thanks for the confirmation. :)

Xavi

[ferrency]

Hi there,

In one of our tests games on Friday we had this situation: A Cataphract charged a Bow element and forced it to turn. That caused the bow to end up in good going (having been on a swamp before). The combat ended in a tie (much cheering on the Bow side of the table).

After that the Bow decided to break off to get into the swamp. In the swamp the Cat would move 3 MU, so we thought it was OK for it to retreat there. However, checking the rules later we found that you need to move MORE than the enemy (3MU each in this case) to break off. We found the Bow tactic to be fairly sensible at the time since it was like 0,1 inch from the swamp, so the question is if it MUST be greater or EQUAL or greater? The current rule is OK as it is, but just to make sure it is not an oversight.

Thx :)

Xavi

Also: I believe that when a single element is in bad going, it does not conform to a group. This is to avoid the situation you found, where it could be pulled out of the bad going by mounted to avoid the terrain penalty.

Finally, it isn't clear whether the cataphract was making a group move or not. Single elements only conform to groups.

This is just like HOTT in these respects.

Alan

[Xavi]

The cataphract made a single element move. It made a perfect flank contact with the bow (right front corner to right front corner). More than half of the bow was outside bad going, so when it turned to face at the end of the movement phase the whole of it was in good going. You do not need groups to pull people, just good flank contacts. We do that all the time is someone is careless enough to leave an element where it turning to face will mean that it ends out of bad going. :)

We have been playing DBA for a while and know how the turn to face when your are contacted in the flank works, heheh ;) This has not changed in 2.2+. We have never played HOTT, though.

I am still waiting for the other guy to send me the pictures, so no report on Friday's battles available yet :(

Xavi

[Lobotomy]

We do that all the time is someone is careless enough to leave an element where it turning to face will mean that it ends out of bad going. :)Xavi

That's why we (The Stooges and those we've tutored to stooge) started saying exactly where the element is if there would be any question on the subsequent move. It is just not worth getting into an argument about whether the element is more or less than half out of the BG.

But, then, there are times when one is just not paying attention close enough! :D

[ferrency]

The cataphract made a single element move. It made a perfect flank contact with the bow (right front corner to right front corner).
I'm sorry, my mistake!

I thought this was an example of 2.2+ "single element conforms" and not the standard 2.2 "flank contact turns to face" rule.

Alan

[Xavi]

:) No, it was a case of "breaking from combat", not flank move. Anyway, to make things 100% clear, the event in images:

PHASE 1: the 4Kn moves to put himself unsuspiciously by the side of ther Bw, and provide overlap support.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x181/xrequejo/DBA%2022%20plus%20playtest/IMG_1644.jpg

PHASE 2: the SCh breaks the ZOC of the Kn element so the 4Kn can turn and engage the Bw. The bow turns to face at the end of the movement phase and he happens to be in the open now :) The bastard refused to die when it was proper that he should (damn northern barbarians...) but tha tis another matter entirely
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x181/xrequejo/DBA%2022%20plus%20playtest/IMG_1645.jpg


Cheers,
Xavi

[colinrice]

This is another one of those rules that I disagree with. It places a needless constraint on the mechanics of play that seems to be entirely artificial. If a player wishes to break from contact they should be permitted to instead of just dumbly waiting to get hammered. I have no idea what the justification for this rules constraint is.

[kontos]

This is another one of those rules that I disagree with. It places a needless constraint on the mechanics of play that seems to be entirely artificial. If a player wishes to break from contact they should be permitted to instead of just dumbly waiting to get hammered. I have no idea what the justification for this rules constraint is.

Breaking off from combat remaining ordered is a difficult maneuver to pull off. 2.2 allowed it at will. I think that grants too much control. 3.0 restricts it...period. 2.2+ allows it IF you are faster than your opponent. Simply stated. I happen to find this an excellent compromise. :up

[david kuijt]

Breaking off from close combat without being destroyed is a very difficult maneuver in the real world, Colin. Doing it against faster, more mobile troops is nearly impossible.

Yes, 2.2 allowed it without restriction. Good players used it all the time, in ways unrealistic and unhistorical.

[Lobotomy]

Breaking off from close combat without being destroyed is a very difficult maneuver in the real world, Colin. Doing it against faster, more mobile troops is nearly impossible.

Yes, 2.2 allowed it without restriction. Good players used it all the time, in ways unrealistic and unhistorical.

My favorite time happened last Historicon when a Kn, double overlapped, locked with a Ps. It then withdrew and dismounted in the face of the Ps. No more shenanigans like that!

[david kuijt]

My favorite time happened last Historicon when a Kn, double overlapped, locked with a Ps. It then withdrew and dismounted in the face of the Ps. No more shenanigans like that!

Right, exactly.

Totally aside from the fact that anyone making that maneuver would have to abrogate any chance of ever receiving a Man Card, for the rest of their life.

[Richard Lee]

Having to be able to move faster than the troops that you were fighting to be able to break off from them is one of the mechanisms that I like in Hordes of the Things. I can't think why DBA version 2.2 didn't have the same rule.

[Martin Smith]

Having to be able to move faster than the troops that you were fighting to be able to break off from them is one of the mechanisms that I like in Hordes of the Things. I can't think why DBA version 2.2 didn't have the same rule.

Hi Richard
This was a change from some earlier/original DBA variants, where it had previously been the requirement to have greater movement in order to break off (....from memory...so if I'm wrong, I stand corrected).
Martin

ps at Sheffield/Northern Cup this year?

[Kevin Boylan]

My favorite time happened last Historicon when a Kn, double overlapped, locked with a Ps. It then withdrew and dismounted in the face of the Ps. No more shenanigans like that!

While I generally agree with the must be faster to break off rule, this particular case strikes me as quite reasonable. Knights routinely broke off from combat with opposing foot, "rallied back" and reformed to charge again.

I would not be averse to the idea that all mounted except scythed chariots and elephants should be able to break off from all foot. When moving at a walk, knights are no faster than Psiloi, but when breaking off they would naturally accelerate to a trot or even gallop, thus moving at a pace that even the fastest foot could not keep up with.

[Pavane]

While I generally agree with the must be faster to break off rule, this particular case strikes me as quite reasonable. Knights routinely broke off from combat with opposing foot, "rallied back" and reformed to charge again.

I would not be averse to the idea that all mounted except scythed chariots and elephants should be able to break off from all foot. When moving at a walk, knights are no faster than Psiloi, but when breaking off they would naturally accelerate to a trot or even gallop, thus moving at a pace that even the fastest foot could not keep up with.
Knights can break off from all foot in 2.2+. Only Cataphracts and Elephants are limited in that they cannot break off from Psiloi and Auxilia.

EDIT: I am off by a movement level, sorry. I should have checked first.

[Tony Aguilar]

Knights can break off from all foot in 2.2+. Only Cataphracts and Elephants are limited in that they cannot break off from Psiloi and Auxilia.

The other difference in the example in Larry's post, is that in 2.2+ Kn will not be able to dismount in midgame either.

[Redwilde]

This was a change from some earlier

Yup. 1st ed. you could break off only if you were faster than your opponent in the terrain you ended your move in.

[david kuijt]

Knights can break off from all foot in 2.2+. Only Cataphracts and Elephants are limited in that they cannot break off from Psiloi and Auxilia.

Not exactly correct, Will -- you need to be faster to break off, not same-speed. So Knights cannot break off from the fastest foot (Aux/Ps) and Cat/El can only break off from slow foot (Wb/Hd/Sp/Bd/Bw).

With that said, I'm not convinced by Kevin's argument -- Kn breaking off, reforming, and charging again is tactical action that takes place within an element during combat, exactly like second-rank individual heavy foot replacing losses in the front line, or juggling manipular formations of Romans, short-range missile fire, throwing pila and francisca, and things like that. In other words, it isn't represented by the movement of the whole element (a thousand warriors); it is part of normal combat results.

And further, in 2.2+ Kn can disengage from any foot except Aux/Ps. Arguments based upon individual Knights colliding with a rigid fighting surface to recoil-from, reform, and charge again are appropriate only for attacks against heavy foot (who present that sort of a rigid line) --and those are exactly the type of foot from whom Kn can disengage.

Against the less organized, less rigid-front mass of Aux/Ps, Knights are much more likely to crush the loose order troops immediately (which is built into the combat results already), but if that fails it makes perfect sense that they would have difficulty disengaging, because they are much more mixed into the enemy and much less "repulsed in front of" the enemy as they would have been with a failed charge against a rigid line of heavy foot. So personally, I find it perfectly reasonable that Kn who fail to shatter an element of Psiloi or Auxilia might find it difficult to disengage -- any tactical reform-countercharge actions are already built into the combat results for the next turn (which are certain to happen, given that both elements cannot disengage).

[Kevin Boylan]

With that said, I'm not convinced by Kevin's argument -- Kn breaking off, reforming, and charging again is tactical action that takes place within an element during combat, exactly like second-rank individual heavy foot replacing losses in the front line, or juggling manipular formations of Romans, short-range missile fire, throwing pila and francisca, and things like that. In other words, it isn't represented by the movement of the whole element (a thousand warriors); it is part of normal combat results.

Against the less organized, less rigid-front mass of Aux/Ps, Knights are much more likely to crush the loose order troops immediately (which is built into the combat results already), but if that fails it makes perfect sense that they would have difficulty disengaging, because they are much more mixed into the enemy and much less "repulsed in front of" the enemy as they would have been with a failed charge against a rigid line of heavy foot.

I am not convinced by Dave's argument here, as it seems self-contradictory. For on one hand it admits that knights routinely broke off from opposing foot, but argues that this doesn't matter because it's represented abstractly within generic game mechanics. On the other hand, it argues that we need to distinguish between different types of foot elements in a way that that the game (generic as it is) does not. Moreover, any argument that Knights should not be able to break off for this reason would have to apply with equal force to Cavalry as well.

In any event, the question of whether or not knights are fighting enemy in close or loose order is immaterial. The real issue is whether or not they could break off from such combat -- which they definitely could.

[john meunier]

While I generally agree with the must be faster to break off rule, this particular case strikes me as quite reasonable. Knights routinely broke off from combat with opposing foot, "rallied back" and reformed to charge again.



Why isn't that represented by a recoil?

[Rich Gause]

I like the current 2.2+ only break off if faster in the ending terrain mechanic. Can an individual guy on a horse run away from a guy on foot in fairly open terrain? Usually yeah, but how many times is the guy on foot going to get to stab him before he can turn the horse and get away? Well that depends on other things, how close are they, did the guy on the horse stop short of the guy on foot or even ride past him? Do they have freedom of individual movement or are they trying to maintain a formation with their friends or maybe they are in a crowd of other guys on horses that are still trying to go forward... Now multiply all that by hundreds of guys either side. I think all this complexity is nicely represented by the simple mechanic of break off if you are faster mechanic. I don't think all mounted should be able to break off from all foot all the time. Until somebody can come up with another game mechanic that works at least as well and is as simple I think there is about zero chance of getting any sort of consensus to agreee to change it.

[Pavane]

Until somebody can come up with another game mechanic that works at least as well and is as simple I think there is about zero chance of getting any sort of consensus to agreee to change it.
We are really only talking mounted that pursued or a push result, so that your mounted starts your bound in contact with the enemy's front edge.

I like 2.2+ as it stands, but I also liked how DBMM handled mounted breakoff. If I remember correctly, mounted have the option to swap their recoil or push result against foot into a repulse result instead. A repulse is like a recoil, but at the full movement distance instead of base depth. It adds complexity though.

[david kuijt]

I like 2.2+ as it stands, but I also liked how DBMM handled mounted breakoff. If I remember correctly, mounted have the option to swap their recoil or push result against foot into a repulse result instead. A repulse is like a recoil, but at the full movement distance instead of base depth. It adds complexity though.

Phil was looking into adding that to 3.0 at some point; not sure if it is in now or not (I stopped following 3.0).

Regardless, having situational choice (recoil or repulse) is not only something that the overall commander would not have had control over (and therefore, to my mind, very suspect as a mechanic) but is also complexity that I really don't see as having enough benefit to be worth adding to the nice simple mechanic we have.

[Kevin Boylan]

Can an individual guy on a horse run away from a guy on foot in fairly open terrain? Usually yeah, but how many times is the guy on foot going to get to stab him before he can turn the horse and get away? Well that depends on other things, how close are they, did the guy on the horse stop short of the guy on foot or even ride past him? Do they have freedom of individual movement or are they trying to maintain a formation with their friends or maybe they are in a crowd of other guys on horses that are still trying to go forward... Now multiply all that by hundreds of guys either side.

Knights necessarily fought "unformed" after the initial contact. Indeed, when opposing foot, their advantage was greatest if the melee became "unformed" because they did not have to worry about fighting cohesive bodies of formed spear, etc., and had the advantages of speed and height (the ability to strike downward) over their enemies. They particularly had little to fear from bodies of light skirmishing foot in open terrain, whether charging or riding through/away from them. Thus, when the recall was sounded, there was no need to form ranks. Each man would ride back individually and rally with his comrades around their leader's standard.

Perhaps some approximation of the DBMM result could be elegantly achieved simply by having knights flee from foot that they do not beat.

[david kuijt]

I am not convinced by Dave's argument here, as it seems self-contradictory. For on one hand it admits that knights routinely broke off from opposing foot, but argues that this doesn't matter because it's represented abstractly within generic game mechanics.

Perhaps you didn't understand my main point, Kevin. INDIVIDUAL knights and small groups routinely did such actions. ELEMENTS, not so much.

Individual Roman blade threw Pila. Elements, no. Individual Cretan archers (Psiloi) fired their bows at enemy. Elements of Psiloi do not get missile fire, as it is subsumed in their skirmishing combat style.

Individual Skythian horse archers used the "parting shot" to harass enemy. LH elements in DBA do not get to fire out their butts after being recoiled/fled.

You were talking about individual behavior. While interesting, that doesn't necessarily correspond with the behavior of a unit of a thousand men. That was my point.

Does that resolve your confusion on what I was talking about?

[david kuijt]

Perhaps some approximation of the DBMM result could be elegantly achieved simply by having knights flee from foot that they do not beat.

Broken. The "lock" (tie result ending still in combat) is a major component in the DBA combat results. Even a studly killing machine like Knights hitting Psiloi/Aux in the open must worry about getting a lock, because then the enemy can come in and overlap him on their bound and reduce his odds of success, possibly even putting him in a flank attack that will kill him. In your system the Knight will never end in combat (will never lock). That causes a major change in the way combat works. Not a good idea, and to me clearly too far from the 2.2+ mission to keep the feel of the game essentially the same as 2.2.

If you mean replace recoil results with flee results, that wouldn't have the problem above (no 'lock' result) but also wouldn't do what you wish; a free disengage on lock results. And a flee on any loss by Kn against foot would look totally different on the battlefield from what we are familiar with -- before even considering such an idea I'm sure the GMlist would want to see lots of examples of that sort of behavior from historical battles, because that would be a huge change from v2.2.

[Pavane]

Phil was looking into adding that to 3.0 at some point; not sure if it is in now or not (I stopped following 3.0).

Regardless, having situational choice (recoil or repulse) is not only something that the overall commander would not have had control over (and therefore, to my mind, very suspect as a mechanic) but is also complexity that I really don't see as having enough benefit to be worth adding to the nice simple mechanic we have.
I prefer 2.2+, and you are right that optional combat outcomes is quite a departure that may lengthen games. It did answer Rich's request though.

[david kuijt]

I prefer 2.2+, and you are right that optional combat outcomes is quite a departure that may lengthen games. It did answer Rich's request though.

Yup. I was just remembering my reaction when Phil brought up the optional repulse concept for 3.0.

[Kevin Boylan]

Broken. The "lock" (tie result ending still in combat) is a major component in the DBA combat results. Even a studly killing machine like Knights hitting Psiloi/Aux in the open must worry about getting a lock, because then the enemy can come in and overlap him on their bound and reduce his odds of success, possibly even putting him in a flank attack that will kill him. In your system the Knight will never end in combat (will never lock). That causes a major change in the way combat works. Not a good idea, and to me clearly too far from the 2.2+ mission to keep the feel of the game essentially the same as 2.2.

If you mean replace recoil results with flee results, that wouldn't have the problem above (no 'lock' result) but also wouldn't do what you wish; a free disengage on lock results. And a flee on any loss by Kn against foot would look totally different on the battlefield from what we are familiar with -- before even considering such an idea I'm sure the GMlist would want to see lots of examples of that sort of behavior from historical battles, because that would be a huge change from v2.2.

True enough. I agree.

[Kevin Boylan]

Perhaps you didn't understand my main point, Kevin. INDIVIDUAL knights and small groups routinely did such actions. ELEMENTS, not so much. You were talking about individual behavior. While interesting, that doesn't necessarily correspond with the behavior of a unit of a thousand men. That was my point.

Dave,

I believe I do understand your point. You are saying that while individual men might break off, whole elements cannot. If this argument is correct, then there is no basis for allowing any element of any type to break off. And yet, entire elements (representing, in many cases, many thousands of individuals) have always been able to do so since the dawn of DBA and can still do so even in 2.2+.

If we agree, as you seem to, that knights could and did routinely break contact with foot and fall back to reform and charge again, then they could only have done so in large bodies. It surely would have been pointless for them to reform only so they could charge again as individuals! All I'm saying is that if knights are assumed to be breaking off from foot all the time as a matter of course, then why is it such a stretch to assume that they trot or gallop a little further before reforming? I believe that there is plentiful historical evidence to support this.

[david kuijt]

I believe I do understand your point. You are saying that while individual men might break off, whole elements cannot.


No, that's not what I'm saying, Kevin. You are saying "individuals do X!" which is a poor argument for "elements do X!" because this is not a skirmish game. What is the difference between a single-foot Blade, Spear, Warband, or Auxilia in a skirmish game? There is no difference -- they are all the same. One foot figure with melee weapons (and in some cases, identical melee weapons). One warrior. The difference is that the group fights differently, due to different training etc.


If we agree, as you seem to, that knights could and did routinely break contact with foot and fall back to reform and charge again, then they could only have done so in large bodies.

You're saying "knights" and simultaneously meaning "individual warriors" and "a thousand such warriors together." I'm pointing out that you have an embedded assumption that all things that an individual can do when faced by another individual, will generalize upwards to when a thousand individuals are fighting a thousand other enemies.

Which is clearly false.

A LH element does not behave the way a LH warrior does. A Psiloi element does not behave the way a single Cretan archer (or Balearic slinger, or whatever) does. And so on.

So no, I do not accept your argument, because you are saying:
1) one individual Knight could do X
2) therefore a whole element can do X

And that isn't always true. I've given you lots of examples in DBA for which it isn't true.

If you want to have Knights disengaging from Psiloi, pulling back, then 15 minutes or 30 minutes later, charging again, you need to show that for ELEMENTS. For groups of 1000 or so. Not for individuals. And hopefully not in a way that can be construed as recoiling, either.

[Skeptical Gamer]

This will seem like an odd question...

How did knights (meaning army elements described as knights in DBA) fight?
Was the behavior of the Normans at Hastings common or a one-off thing?
Is it more common to "get stuck in" or to try repeated charges?

I find that I know less of this than I would like.
I can't seem to recall any description of a battle where Alexander's companions bounced off and tried again repeatedly, but this may just be that I haven't looked at this recently...

So, for those of you up on this sort of thing, how did knights fight?

[Rich Gause]

Since DBA 2.2 Kn include everything from heavy chariots, cataphracts, greek companion cavalry, german barbarian horse and early to late armored knights there really isn't a good historical answer. DBA says they charge without shooting and try to use impetus to break the enemy and could endanger themselves with overrash pursuit.

[snowcat]

This will seem like an odd question...

How did knights (meaning army elements described as knights in DBA) fight?
Was the behavior of the Normans at Hastings common or a one-off thing?
Is it more common to "get stuck in" or to try repeated charges?

I find that I know less of this than I would like.
I can't seem to recall any description of a battle where Alexander's companions bounced off and tried again repeatedly, but this may just be that I haven't looked at this recently...

So, for those of you up on this sort of thing, how did knights fight?

Can't answer for the 'commonality', but the Norman milites at Hastings started off fighting pretty much as Kn but ended up resembling something arguably more akin to Cv. So go figure. This 'behaviour' probably varied more often than we realise, and almost certainly didn't always closely resemble the criteria of the rules imposed on them. But for a simple game, we need something to distinguish such enormous ranges of types into as few classes as possible, so we have Kn, Cv, LH, etc.

I know this doesn't answer your question directly; I'm saying there probably is no straight, simple answer to it - and especially when tying it back to DBA.

[Richard Lee]

ps at Sheffield/Northern Cup this year?

Unfortunately, not this year. My travel plans to the UK this time are dictated by what various relatives are doing, and I will just miss it. I do want to go to Triples again, though.

[Scott Russell]

:) No, it was a case of "breaking from combat", not flank move. Anyway, to make things 100% clear, the event in images:

PHASE 1: the 4Kn moves to put himself unsuspiciously by the side of ther Bw, and provide overlap support.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x181/xrequejo/DBA%2022%20plus%20playtest/IMG_1644.jpg

PHASE 2: the SCh breaks the ZOC of the Kn element so the 4Kn can turn and engage the Bw. The bow turns to face at the end of the movement phase and he happens to be in the open now :) The bastard refused to die when it was proper that he should (damn northern barbarians...) but tha tis another matter entirely
[IMG]http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x181/xrequejo/DBA%2022%20plus%20playtest/IMG_1645.jpg[/IMG


Cheers,
Xavi

Xavi,
Is this correct?
The SCh only breaks the ZOC of the 3Kn element at the end of the movement phase, so the 4Kn cannot turn into the flank of the Bw on that move.
Incidentally, I think the 2,2+ break-off rule is a marked improvement on the 2.2 rule. It just makes more sense.
Scott

[Kevin Boylan]

You're saying "knights" and simultaneously meaning "individual warriors" and "a thousand such warriors together." I'm pointing out that you have an embedded assumption that all things that an individual can do when faced by another individual, will generalize upwards to when a thousand individuals are fighting a thousand other enemies. Which is clearly false.

Dave,

You say that knights could break off as individuals, but not as groups. However, you offer no evidence to support that assertion, only a series of assumptions which -- while well presented -- are inherently no more valid than my own. So I don't see how it can be said that my assumptions are "clearly false" while yours are presumably correct beyond all doubt. The only basis I could see for stating that mine are "clearly false" would be if it could be proven that knights could not break off even as individuals.

[Rich Gause]

Xavi,
Is this correct?
The SCh only breaks the ZOC of the 3Kn element at the end of the movement phase, so the 4Kn cannot turn into the flank of the Bw on that move.
Incidentally, I think the 2,2+ break-off rule is a marked improvement on the 2.2 rule. It just makes more sense.
Scott

This is incorrect, Scott. ZOC effects including elements breaking ZOC or having to conform to ZOCs they enter happen during the turn as soon as the moves are made. There is no 1 turn delay for anything.

[david kuijt]

You say that knights could break off as individuals, but not as groups.

That's not what I said, Kevin.

So I don't see how it can be said that my assumptions are "clearly false" while yours are presumably correct beyond all doubt.

You are trying to cast my argument into the mold of yours, and then put the burden of proof on me, not you.

Let me repeat.

You are saying "individual knights can do X, therefore the whole element can do X."

I'm saying that your logic is faulty. There is no reason to believe that the second part follows from the first.

Then I gave evidence for other elements in DBA where individual warriors can do Y, but the whole element cannot do Y.

If you want to prove your argument, then you should find evidence that the whole element of Knights actually does X.

It is not incumbent on me to disprove your argument, and certainly not incumbent upon me to prove that elements of Knights could not disengage -- any more than it is incumbent upon me to prove that they could not fly, or walk on water. There is a huge difference between me saying "Knights could not disengage" (which I would have to prove, or at least provide evidence for) and me saying "your logic is faulty". The first is a statement about Knights, the second is a statement about your logic. When I say your logic is faulty, I am responsible for pointing out flaws in your logic. I have done so. I am not responsible for disproving your premise, because I didn't say your thesis was wrong -- I said that you haven't proven it is right by the logic you are using. Perhaps there is some other argument that would prove your premise.

Maybe Knights should be able to disengage. That is unproven. But your logic, that the individual behavior of Knights when fighting one-on-one against single footmen should allow us to generalize to the group behavior of 1000 knights fighting against 1000 footmen, is invalid.

[Scott Russell]

This is incorrect, Scott. ZOC effects including elements breaking ZOC or having to conform to ZOCs they enter happen during the turn as soon as the moves are made. There is no 1 turn delay for anything.

Rich,
My impression was that the SCh made the 3Kn turn to contact, and thus broke the ZOC, but looking at the second of the two pictures (which doesn't appear to have made an appearance in the quote) the SCh actually seems to have cut the ZOC in some other way.
Scott

[Kevin Boylan]

That's not what I said, Kevin.

You are trying to cast my argument into the mold of yours, and then put the burden of proof on me, not you.

Let me repeat.

You are saying "individual knights can do X, therefore the whole element can do X."

I'm saying that your logic is faulty. There is no reason to believe that the second part follows from the first.

Then I gave evidence for other elements in DBA where individual warriors can do Y, but the whole element cannot do Y.

If you want to prove your argument, then you should find evidence that the whole element of Knights actually does X.

It is not incumbent on me to disprove your argument, and certainly not incumbent upon me to prove that elements of Knights could not disengage -- any more than it is incumbent upon me to prove that they could not fly, or walk on water.

Somewhere between all the X's, Y's, casting of molds, incumbents, etc. we seem to have lost sight of the fact that neither of us can PROVE how ELEMENTS behaved in real life because in real life there were no elements. All we can do is lean on the historical evidence, which often highlighted the roles of individuals with whom the chroniclers & troubadors were principally concerned. Generalizing from specific examples may not always yield the right answer, but it's not necessarily faulty logic either.

[david kuijt]

Somewhere between all the X's, Y's, casting of molds, incumbents, etc. we seem to have lost sight of the fact that neither of us can PROVE how ELEMENTS behaved in real life because in real life there were no elements.

I agree completely.

All we can do is lean on the historical evidence, which often highlighted the roles of individuals with whom the chroniclers & troubadors were principally concerned. Generalizing from specific examples may not always yield the right answer, but it's not necessarily faulty logic either.

All we can do is lean on the historical evidence of how units and large groups behaved. There are lots of descriptions of that, too.

If we rely on descriptions of Alexander's exploits in personal combat for how all Macedonians fought c.330 BC, we aren't going to get a very realistic picture.

[Kevin Boylan]

All we can do is lean on the historical evidence of how units and large groups behaved. There are lots of descriptions of that, too.

Can you cite some examples that serve to prove your point? I am willing to consider the possibility that I am mistaken.

[Rich Gause]

I would say that a large group of indivdual Kn who are all charging home with impetus would have a difficult time breaking off all together if some were repulsed and others were making inroads in the enemy formation. Since they are inclined to overrash pursuit unless the whole element got repulsed from breaking into the enemy's formation(easy to visualize with a close order formation of heavy foot, less so with open order Ax and Ps), the element as a whole should not be allowed a voluntary break off IMO as the lock result represents some repulsed and some winning and the ones who are winning would be disinclined to stop riding down the open order foot. If they get recoiled that represents a serious enough lack of success for the Kn to have disengaged as an entire element from the loose foot. IMO

[colinrice]

Breaking off from combat remaining ordered is a difficult maneuver to pull off. 2.2 allowed it at will. I think that grants too much control. 3.0 restricts it...period. 2.2+ allows it IF you are faster than your opponent. Simply stated. I happen to find this an excellent compromise. :up

I guess that is why it is a single element move and costs a full pip to do it. Units in combat had the capability to withdraw. The rule makes something that was possible, impossible. It removes a capability. That is not compromise.

[david kuijt]

I would say that a large group of indivdual Kn who are all charging home with impetus would have a difficult time breaking off all together if some were repulsed and others were making inroads in the enemy formation. Since they are inclined to overrash pursuit unless the whole element got repulsed from breaking into the enemy's formation(easy to visualize with a close order formation of heavy foot, less so with open order Ax and Ps), the element as a whole should not be allowed a voluntary break off IMO as the lock result represents some repulsed and some winning and the ones who are winning would be disinclined to stop riding down the open order foot. If they get recoiled that represents a serious enough lack of success for the Kn to have disengaged as an entire element from the loose foot. IMO

Very well stated, Rich. And a perfect illustration of how group behavior is not the same as individual behavior.

[Rich Gause]

Napoleonic armies in genreal had better command and control than ancient armies. The British at Waterloo wanted their heavy cavalry to break off and reform, even sounded the recall but the heavies kept right on going. If Wellington couldn't get it done(and he was about as well organized and as micromanaging a control freak as I have ever read about, not in a bad way, he was very good) then I doubt many ancient generals would have had better luck. There are plenty of other examples like that where what would be Kn in DBA didn't break off when the General wanted. I don't think in DBA it should be so simple that Kn should get to break off whenever the player wants for just one Pip. I think a recoil represents Kn breaking off from combat. I think the break off if faster is better than any suggestion I have heard yet to replace it and doubt if anything better is possible without becoming hideously complicated or allowing breakoffs that shouldn't be allowed. If the choice is Kn that get a lock result vs Ps or Ax are never able to break off or always able to break off I would pick never for both realism and game play reasons.

[Lobotomy]

I guess that is why it is a single element move and costs a full pip to do it. Units in combat had the capability to withdraw. The rule makes something that was possible, impossible. It removes a capability. That is not compromise.

Colin,

It is a design choice, not a "compromise." Until 2.2, the design choice was you had to be faster, so that is the design choice we are use to. This is no difference than the other changes in 2.2+, which are all design choices.

[john meunier]

IIRC, speaking of bodies of knights, in the English wars against the Scots, I believe there were accounts of bodies of knights charging, falling back, and charging again.

To me this works perfectly well as a recoil and charge again.

[david kuijt]

Can you cite some examples that serve to prove your point? I am willing to consider the possibility that I am mistaken.

I think you have misunderstood my position in this, Kevin. I'm not the one trying to convince you of something. And to be truthful, even if you could convince me of something (and I, too, am willing to consider the possibility that I am mistaken), that wouldn't matter much either. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the majority of the people on the GMlist to support your position, rather than the one they have already decided upon as the way to move forward.

The issue we have been discussing was discussed extensively by all the GMs who were working to create 2.2+, on the GMlist. The rule in 2.2+ (can only disengage if faster) was resolved upon after many issues were considered.

I understand that you don't like the rule, and that you'd like it better if it were different. Fair enough.

If you want it to be different, though, you need to present a convincing argument that it would be better in some other way. I'm sure that all the GMs on the GMlist, like you and I, are willing to consider that they might be wrong. But if you want them to consider it, then you need to put in the work -- you need to amass historical examples of knights disengaging from combat, and present the alternate rule you prefer, and why it would be better (simpler, more accurate, whatever).

Most of the GMs on the GMlist read fanaticus regularly. If you present a convincing argument here, I'm sure they will read it. But it really isn't my job to convince you -- I'm not going to spend a lot of time and effort accumulating historical battle material to justify (to you) a decision that the GMlist has already resolved and is satisfied with. Especially since I haven't seen any reason to believe that it needs changing. The breaking-off rule has been playtested extensively, and it works well. Virtually all the people trying it like it better than v2.2 (where anyone can disengage any time for a pip) and better than 3.0 (where nobody can disengage, last I checked, but that was a while ago and it may have changed again). If you're an exception to that, fair enough -- no rule will please all the people all the time.

[david kuijt]

IIRC, speaking of bodies of knights, in the English wars against the Scots, I believe there were accounts of bodies of knights charging, falling back, and charging again.

To me this works perfectly well as a recoil and charge again.

Right.

And note also, that in v2.2+ it is possible for knights to disengage if they are faster than the foot they are fighting -- which they will almost always be, unless they are fighting auxilia or psiloi. So the point that Kevin and I are discussing is only the case of whether Kn should be able to disengage when facing the fastest foot -- which seems to me to really be a tempest in a teacup. If you're fighting psiloi or auxilia in the open with your Knights, WTF would you want to disengage for? To find some more vulnerable troops to attack? Oh, wait, there aren't any more vulnerable troops, are there...:)

[David Schlanger]

You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the majority of the people on the GMlist to support your position, rather than the one they have already decided upon as the way to move forward.

That is one way, but another is to convince one or more of the GM's to support his position (need not be the majority). That one GM or maybe more could then go to the GM group and lobby for a change to Beta.

The issue we have been discussing was discussed extensively by all the GMs who were working to create 2.2+, on the GMlist. The rule in 2.2+ (can only disengage if faster) was resolved upon after many issues were considered.


And all of this is why it will probably be difficult for Kevin to get the support he needs for an additional modification to the current Beta version for the breaking off rule.

I do think his chances would be enhanced by suggesting a clearly stated possible alternative rule.

DS