Kinked Lines and Shooting on the Rear

[El' Jocko]

The discussion of kinked lines and the ZOC sparked another thought. I don't recall seeing this mentioned before...

Given the following situation:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsheriff/DBA18a.gif

A kinked line like this has come up before. It's always been at least a minor problem that the auxilia (or any elements in this situation) can't move into contact as a group. You could send one element straight in and send the second element around the flank, but that's extremely PIP intensive, and there may easily be other reasons why the flank attack is unacceptable. So your only choice may be to send a single element into contact and accept the overlap.

But now it gets a little worse. If the kinked element is a bow and sticks out just far enough, and the contacted element recoils, then the other bow is left with a rear shot at the attacking element! 2 to 3 with a quick kill.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsheriff/DBA18b.gif

Are their any holes in this logic?

- Jack

[ January 22, 2004, 17:15: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[xeswop]

Move B ahead too to protect the flank of A.

In the second diagram, if both X and Y are bows, then the factors are 2 v 2 and the shooting is not entirely on the rear.

[imported_JLogan]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:


Are their any holes in this logic?

- Jack Jack;
I don't neccesarily think there are any holes, but are you/we assuming here that Aux B is prevented from attacking Bw X on Bw X's right flank due to the crossing the front rules? Ottherwise, that's the obvious move for Aux B is it not?

[Andrechin]

X should have moved in the tilted position when it was still outside the BWD of B and C.

So the BC player should have had the time to start the flanking manoeuver before getting "too close".

[Roland Fricke]

Originally posted by Bob.:
In the second diagram, if both X and Y are bows, then the factors are 2 v 2 and the shooting is not entirely on the rear. I think El Jock meant X shooting C on the rear - according to the current interp this is a rear shot.

[ January 22, 2004, 19:57: Message edited by: Roland Fricke ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Move B ahead too to protect the flank of A.I assume that you mean to protect the flank of C, and to do so by blocking X's shot at C. From what I can tell, there's no way to do that without getting B at an angle and risking B and C recoiling into one another.

In the second diagram, if both X and Y are bows, then the factors are 2 v 2 and the shooting is not entirely on the rear. Good point, I hadn't thought of that. You can always change element Y to be something else, but that messes up the symmetry of it. With two bow it didn't matter which one you attacked, you other one always had the rear shot. Or, keeping them both as bows, you can add another element that Y could shoot at. But that starts to get into a somewhat more contrived situation.

- Jack

[ January 22, 2004, 22:08: Message edited by: El' Jocko ]

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by JLogan:
Jack;
I don't neccesarily think there are any holes, but are you/we assuming here that Aux B is prevented from attacking Bw X on Bw X's right flank due to the crossing the front rules? Ottherwise, that's the obvious move for Aux B is it not? Yes, that's the working assumption. It's not unusual for X to have another element protecting its flank. X is not so far out that this is difficult to do.

- Jack

[K.H.Ranitzsch]

As far as I can see, element B is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether X can get a rear shot or not, as long as it is not in contact. The problem would be the same if A were alone. Also, the same would happen if Y is destroyed.

Nasty little trap, if that remains the official rule.

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[xeswop]

Yes, Shooting on C by bow on side is a "rear" shot. Yes if front element were something else then entirely on the rear. In second diagram

Now regarding the first diagram:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/jsheriff/DBA18a.gif


The question we must ask is how did this situation arise. I assumed that BC moved into the current position in their last bound and now want to move again. In XY bound, X could not have pivoted as shown now because it is at or inside of a base width of B.

So how did BC get to where the are. Both C and B enter the BWD of X before they enter the area of Y. B enters the area about half a base DEPTH before it reaches the position shown. At that point it should either stop or start to turn to face X. C could keep moving forward but then it enters the area of X before it enters the area of Y.

Here is a problem I had not considered before. B moves forward and hits the area of X not Y so must now be restricted by X. B pivots to line up with X and in so doing enters the area of Y. Now it is in both areas. An element in the area of two elements can react to either. Can B then turn back to face Y. This all assumes that C does not stop B from turning to face X. By the one corner can pass through an element rule B could turn, through C, to face X but then what happens to C.

I think in this case, B cannot be where it is as it would have to stop a half base depth back from where it is. C would have to move alone and end up where it is is in the picture. It seems to reach the Base Width Area of X before it hits that of Y. So the question about B's turning to face and then entering two areas applies.

So assuming this configuration is very difficult to arrive at, B would have stopped outside the BWD of X and could therefore slide to the side and attack it on the flank.

El J -- Tell us how this arrangement came to be. X could not have turned in front of B and B could not have moved forward without trying to line up with X.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Bob.:
El J -- Tell us how this arrangement came to be. X could not have turned in front of B and B could not have moved forward without trying to line up with X. For my purposes, it doesn't matter how the elements reached this position. All I was pointing out is that the new rear shooting rule has made it so that bow in a kinked line get an extra bonus...they may get an easy opportunity for a rear shot. Anyone who runs an army with one or more bow elements may want to use this. Anyone who plays against bow elements may want to watch out for it.

- Jack

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
All I was pointing out is that the new rear shooting rule has made it so that bow in a kinked line get an extra bonus...they may get an easy opportunity for a rear shot. Anyone who runs an army with one or more bow elements may want to use this. Anyone who plays against bow elements may want to watch out for it.Well, that certainly rewards historical deployment of 100YW or WoTR English which would look like a sawblade:
/\_/\_/\
with bow on the outward facing V's and blades in the between the teeth.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Redwilde:
Well, that certainly rewards historical deployment of 100YW or WoTR English which would look like a sawblade:
/\_/\_/\
with bow on the outward facing V's and blades in the between the teeth. 1) no it doesn't -- any attacking blades would just move in singly, hit the bows on the Vs and kill them (especially since they have no recoil).

2) discussion of the "herse" formation (by military historians) is by no means resolved, and the formation you describe is only one of several possibilities. Keegan ("the face of battle") does a fair (brief) overview of the debate somewhere in his section on Agincourt, if I recall correctly.

[Pozanias]

I think the real point is this: the new way of determining bow fire entirely on the rear makes bow extremely powerful. It's just WAY TOO EASY to target an enemy element's rear edge. This is just one of many examples.

By the way, it's also pretty hilarious that X is better off shooting at C if Y is NOT a bow, or is a bow that has another target.

[ January 25, 2004, 15:06: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[konstantinius]

Hmm, a good thing to keep in mind indeed. Good one, El Jocko.

[Badger]

Another example of the lunacy of that means of determining whether the target is shot on it's rear edge.... Or can any of the assembled cite me a reputable source discussing the special bows/archers that were able to reliably shoot around corners (without a strong head- and crosswind)?

To paraphrase the sensei of DBA Zen:
Behind is behind.

[ January 26, 2004, 18:35: Message edited by: Badger ]

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

I can't understand why we always end up trying so hard to get around the rules or imagine a rule exists where it doesn't. I think the rules, although poorly written, meant that a unit should actually be beyond an enemy's rear edge to shoot at its rear (it should have been clearer, but there you have it). I know Phil Barker gives inconsistent responses to the question (he will eventually get it fixed....just like he fixed all the attempts to take advantage of that front corner measurement crap), but why can't we just settle on a ruling? I think it is hilarious to think that a unit canted to its side and in front of an imaginary line drawn extending from the enemy's front edge can declare it is shooting on its rear edge. Come on....let's be reasonable :rolleyes: . With that kind of "reasoning", one can argue that bows directly in front of an enemy can declare they are shooting over the enemy front ranks to target his rear edge.....

[Ares]

DITTO.

A shooter's front edge is entirely behind extensions of a target element's rear edge, but a little off to one side - "no, the shooter can still see the flank... shot couldn't be 'entirely on the rear'."

So what's the fix? To legalize a so-called "rear shot" where the shooter's front edge can hardly see anything BUT the target's flank edge...

Ludicrous. So the interpretation was imported from HOTTs? Parallelism or no, in trying to divine what Phil DID intend, we did something he has explicitly told us NOT to do... infer things between rule sets. That's one that can stay in HOTTs IMO.

Eric

[Ares]

Originally posted by Badger:
Or can any of the assembled cite me a reputable source discussing the special bows/archers that were able to reliably shoot around corners (without a strong head- and crosswind)?After much thought, I figured it out.

Buttocks-seeking arrows. tongue.gif

It's the only possible explanation.

ERic

[ January 26, 2004, 21:27: Message edited by: Ares ]

[xeswop]

Phil's expressed intention, as I had quoted in the thread on rear shooting in the Rules section, a long time ago, is that the shooting is on the rear edge, not that the shooter is behind the target. He wants players to keep shooters from getting beyond the front edge of their own elements.

All other DB* rules have the same procedures for shooting. DBA has none. Once you arrive at a procedure for shooting in DBA based on the other games, then the way a shooter can target the enemy's rear edge follows. Just so for shooting at any edge. Draw uncrossed lines from the the ends of the shooter's front edge to ends of any target edges. Only one target edge can be selected by shooter.

Lobby Phil for the next edition to make the rule have the shooter behind the target rear edge extension (all of the shooter?).

I did so for 2.1 but he refused.

Until he changes the rule, the placement of the shooter does not matter as long as it can target the rear edge.

[imported_Bryanmd]

Originally posted by Redwilde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by El' Jocko:
All I was pointing out is that the new rear shooting rule has made it so that bow in a kinked line get an extra bonus...they may get an easy opportunity for a rear shot. Anyone who runs an army with one or more bow elements may want to use this. Anyone who plays against bow elements may want to watch out for it.Well, that certainly rewards historical deployment of 100YW or WoTR English which would look like a sawblade:
/\_/\_/\
with bow on the outward facing V's and blades in the between the teeth. </font>[/QUOTE]Stole my thunder....I was working on this specifically with my 100 Years English boys in mind, arrived at it when trying to ram a Scots schiltron into/through them....I found it silly, all be it in the rules of the game. Kinking bows can provide devastating fire, and wouldn't it do that anyways? If you can partially see the rear, you are certainly going to see the rear-flank of a unit...that is a nice way to pump arrows into the foe, and should get some kind of reward in the sense of carnage, don't you think? I'd just go pound the flank of the kinked bow, and enjoy the rewards. Sometimes, deployment (kinked or otherwise) makes your attacking pals spend the extra PIPS. If you don't have the PIPS, wait until you do...and unleash the fury, or something like that... :eek:

[Ivan]

I just read Bernard Cornwell's novel 'Vagabond' which features the battle of Neville's Cross between HYW English and Scots, and in it he has the longbows savaging the Scots, especially when they use infilade fire, which is arguably what is represented by the firing on rear edge rule.

It would be too easy to fire on a flank edge, so, although it is somewhat counter-intuitive, perhaps the best way to represent the deadly effect of infilade fire is by requiring you to fire on the rear.

Anyway, shooting in DBA is fairly weak, so if this rule rewards a little good maneuvering with increased effectiveness for shooting, all the better.

[ January 27, 2004, 17:26: Message edited by: Ivan ]

[Ivan]

Originally posted by David Kuijt:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Redwilde:
Well, that certainly rewards historical deployment of 100YW or WoTR English which would look like a sawblade:
/\_/\_/\
with bow on the outward facing V's and blades in the between the teeth. 1) no it doesn't -- any attacking blades would just move in singly, hit the bows on the Vs and kill them (especially since they have no recoil).

2) discussion of the "herse" formation (by military historians) is by no means resolved, and the formation you describe is only one of several possibilities. Keegan ("the face of battle") does a fair (brief) overview of the debate somewhere in his section on Agincourt, if I recall correctly. </font>[/QUOTE]Wouldn't it make more sense for the men-at-arms to be in the 'V' formations, and the archers staggered back in the straight lines? That way the French would be forced to contact the much tougher melee specialist foot first, thus slowing their advance and allowing a few more arrows at close range. The field of fire for the archers would be less restricted by this formation than you might think. (Imagine for a moment how a recessed arrowloop works, a very wide opening on the outside but very narrow inside, so although one is very well protected, there is still a wide arc of fire.) The archers would still have at least 90 degrees or more to work with.

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by Bob.:

All other DB* rules have the same procedures for shooting. DBA has none. Once you arrive at a procedure for shooting in DBA based on the other games, then the way a shooter can target the enemy's rear edge follows. Just so for shooting at any edge. Draw uncrossed lines from the the ends of the shooter's front edge to ends of any target edges. Only one target edge can be selected by shooter.
Bob,
Your comparison to other DBx games is not accurate. Here is the DBM rule:

"An element recoiling from distant shooting only by enemy entirely behind an imaginary line extending its rear base edge..."

I think this is EXACTLY how most people would like DBA to play.

So, if you're using other DBx games to establish the 'shooting on the rear edge' procedure for DBA -- and the vast majority of people prefer the DBM version to the HOTT version, wouldn't it be logical to go with the DBM version?

Mark

[ January 29, 2004, 10:21: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[xeswop]

I refer to the "shooting" procedure, not the "recoil" results.

I want to establish how to shoot in all situations in DBA. Once that is done, then the procedure for shooting on a rear edge is set. The effects of recoil is a whole different issue. Why is shooting on the rear deadly in DBA and not HOTT or DBM? I do not know. This is an issue to lobby Phil for 3.0.

Am I not correct in how I present the shooting procdure used in the other games? All are the same. All are different on the way they deal with rear edge shooting outcome.

[Pozanias]

I think this is a shooting procedure. It just happens to fall in the "Recoil" section.

In DBA it's the same way. That is to say, the rear edge shooting part is in the recoiling section.

It defines what shooting on the rear edge means (as opposed to shooting any other edge).

Don't get me wrong -- I do understand your logic. And I understand how and why you have made your conclusions. I'm just trying to open the door for an alternate conclusion. One that can be justified by the rules as written AND is much more popular.

[ January 29, 2004, 12:44: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[xeswop]

I am not getting you wrong ;)

But we seem to be focusing on two different things. Me on a shooting procedure and you on a specific consequence of that procedure.

I want to have a shooting procedure for DBA. Let's do that first. Once that is established, then we can apply it to various situations. The shooting procedure I have suggested is based on all the other DB* rules.

The effect of shooting in DBA for combat outcome is explicitly different from DBM and HOTT and other DB* based games. The effect of shooting in a specific situation, however, should not cause us to have a different shooting procedure.

I have suggested that we establish a procedure for shooting, independent of any specific consequence. Once we have a shooting procedure, then we see how it effects various situations.

I was open to how shooting for DBA should be done, if different from other DB* games. The procedure for other games seemed to be reasonable for DBA. However, once the procedure is determined, then use it for all situations. Do not change the general shooting procedure because it gives a particular result for the recoil situation. Change the recoil rule. Have the shooting come from behind the target, make the result be a turn around instead of a destroy, do something else to lessen the effect of shooting. Do not blame the shooting procedure for recoil problems, blame the recoil rule.

[Ares]

Originally posted by Bob.:
But we seem to be focusing on two different things. Me on a shooting procedure and you on a specific consequence of that procedure. I'm not getting that at all, Bob - what Mark is illustrating is that there is a precedent in a written, extant, official DBx rule for defining the procedure for a rear shot. Nowhere does he mention consequences or outcomes. The distinction you make, that he is quoting from the section on outcomes, is irrelevant to his point.

I want to have a shooting procedure for DBA. Let's do that first. Once that is established, then we can apply it to various situations.You lost me on this one, too - this is a general-sounding statement, and I'm not sure what your intent is. We have a shooting procedure; it's at the top of page 10 of the rules. You have described shooting in your commentaries. Shooting in general is not at issue; Mark's comment is relevant to defining procedure , as far as rear-shooting goes.

Eric

[Parmenio]

Originally posted by Ares:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bob.:
But we seem to be focusing on two different things. Me on a shooting procedure and you on a specific consequence of that procedure. I'm not getting that at all, Bob - what Mark is illustrating is that there is a precedent in a written, extant, official DBx rule for defining the procedure for a rear shot. Nowhere does he mention consequences or outcomes. The distinction you make, that he is quoting from the section on outcomes, is irrelevant to his point.

I want to have a shooting procedure for DBA. Let's do that first. Once that is established, then we can apply it to various situations.You lost me on this one, too - this is a general-sounding statement, and I'm not sure what your intent is. We have a shooting procedure; it's at the top of page 10 of the rules. You have described shooting in your commentaries. Shooting in general is not at issue; Mark's comment is relevant to defining procedure , as far as rear-shooting goes.

Eric </font>[/QUOTE]Eric,

I'll take a swing at this one.

The general shooting procedure, common to all DB* games, goes something like this:

1. Draw uncrossed lines from the front corners of the shooter to the corners of an edge of the target element.
2. If one or both lines passes through the target element or a blocking element, that edge is not a legal target for purposes of shooting combat.
3. Note, it is acceptable for one or both lines to fall right on top of any element's edge when defining legal targets because edges (and corners) do not "block."

So using the above shooting procedure, there arise certain situations where a shooter can declare the enemy's rear edge to be the legal target of the shooting combat.

I think Bob is saying that, if the combat result produces a recoil, it is a recoil rule that determines if the target is destroyed. (Because all shooters have to be targeting the rear edge, not just one of many...)

I would say I agree it is a modification of the combat result/recoil rule that has to be "fixed," not the shooting procedure, if you want to say that all shooters (or just one) must be completely behind a line that extends outward parallel to the element's rear edge...

I hope this clarified things...

Parmenio

[xeswop]

"I think Bob is saying that, if the combat result produces a recoil, it is a recoil rule that determines if the target is destroyed. (Because all shooters have to be targeting the rear edge, not just one of many...)

I would say I agree it is a modification of the combat result/recoil rule that has to be "fixed," not the shooting procedure, if you want to say that all shooters (or just one) must be completely behind a line that extends outward parallel to the element's rear edge...

I hope this clarified things..."

Parmenio
----------
Better said than I have been doing! Thanks

[Niltz]

Forgive my ignorance, but I do like the symetry of two melee elements flanking an enemy at 90 degrees and two bow elements being able to do the same (at a distance that is).

If they had to go behind their enemy completely it would only be a likness to the 180 degree flanking (sandwich kind of a move which is rather uncommon). And since they are bow they can't overlapp exactly 90 degrees like the melee and touch, they have to have some distance in order to shoot.

The rule of shooting the enemy "in the back" is just a fictuous test to se if the firing element is closer to a complete 90 degree outflanking (the normal melee one) or a normal overlap (less than 90 degrees that only give -1 and normal recoil). The wording is misleading. It should say something like; shooting "mostly" in the flank (more flank than front) and the test check for this is to se if the back is exposed at all. If it is, then it's a "mostly" flank/back shot, if it is not, then it's just a normal -1 overlap shot.

But I could be wrong, and probably am. Most of the other rules discussions are yet slightly above my head, since I'm still trying to learn these "simple" rules. At least they seemed simple until you guys came along and made it all soooo complex. ;)

I understand that clarifications are needed and that you are doing a great job at figuring out how to make the rules unambigous, but I vote for the simple interpretation over the realistic one any day. DBA is supposed to be a simple game, right? In other words I don't care how the bowformations were set up historically... well I do :), but only as an amateur student of history, not as a gamer. But then again most of you might se the connection between DBA and history/reality more clear than I do.

Just my 2 bits of copper...

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by Niltz:
The rule of shooting the enemy "in the back" is just a fictuous test to se if the firing element is closer to a complete 90 degree outflanking (the normal melee one) or a normal overlap (less than 90 degrees that only give -1 and normal recoil). The wording is misleading. It should say something like; shooting "mostly" in the flank (more flank than front) and the test check for this is to se if the back is exposed at all. If it is, then it's a "mostly" flank/back shot, if it is not, then it's just a normal -1 overlap shot.Actually, the rule is there for a much more mundane reason. Originally, distant shooting didn't have any special conditions with respect to the shooter's position. This led to the situation where an element of bow might get behind a target element, and might force the target to recoil. Since there were no special rules, the target element recoiled toward the shooter! And players thought this looked silly. :rolleyes:

Hence the rule we have today.

- Jack