Non-aligned movement/combat: An Alternate DBA Concept

[JamesLDIII]

Apologies in advance for poor typing--got laser eye surgery lesterday so can't see well yet...

Inspired by a thread initiated in the past year or so on simplifying DBA in some ways to make it easier for newbies, especially those under 18, to play, I started on simplifying DBA. While I don't feel the results of my effort are particularly worth posting on fanaticus, working through the process brought an idea to mind that I would like to solicit comments on.

One of the primary concepts of DBA and all of the WRG inspired rule sets is that elements must make a "legal" contact, aka edges and corners of elements must align. This makes it easy to determine who is fighting who, where overlaps and flank contacts exist, what are legal groups, etc. The echallenge with using this concept is that much thought, angst, and argument has arisen over what constitutes legal contact, and how elements can come into contact. Once challenging point in teaching novice players the game is getting them to understand legal contact. A recent extensive thread on contacting and fighting WarWagons is perhaps the extreme case of this discussion, but

So my question is this: would DBA be easier explained and or played without the requirement for edge and corner alignment for groups and combat?

I'll give one example of an impact that changing this requirement would have. Consider a single element 1111) facing two enemy elements AAAA and BBBB.

AAAABBBB

...1111

Now in DBA as it is played right now, if AB advance to contact 1, then either A or B would align edge and corner with 1 to create the followng:

AAAABBBB
1111

In subsequent combat, 1 would suffer a -1 factor for being overlapped by B.

But if exact edge and corner alignment were not required, then the combat would look like this:

AAAABBBB
...1111

and the subsequent combat would provide a -2 factor for element 1 for being overlapped on both sides.

I draw from this that in general, the impact of non-aligned combat would be to increas the deadliness of combat.

I have thought through several different impacts, but I'll reserve posting any more of them for now OIT not bias the responses.

[David Kuijt]

Why -2? One of those two elements must be the primary combatant, surely?

I'd suggest just go with -1, and the primary combatant is the enemy with the greatest frontage in contact.

But there are a slough of complications unmentioned here. It isn't the front-to-front contact that confuses newbies -- it is corner contact, slightly angled contact, and so on. And none of that is solved by your solution.

[JamesLDIII]

Why -2? One of those two elements must be the primary combatant, surely?

I'd suggest just go with -1, and the primary combatant is the enemy with the greatest frontage in contact.


depends on how you write out the rule. If the overlap rule changes to something like
"A friendly element in front edge contact with en enemy element whose frint edge extends beond the end of the friendly element is said to overlap the friendly element unless an adjacent friendly element also is on contact with the enemy element on that side. An element can be overlapped at each end. An element can obth overlap and be overlapped by an enemy element. "

Consider AAAA and 1111

AAAA
---1111.

A overlaps the left end of 1, and 1 overlaps the right end of A. Both are overlapped on one end. Each element receives a -1.

Or a rule could reflect your thinking (that would be closer to DBA practice) and say this:

An element which contacts the front edge of an enemy element but is not the primary combatant [because it does not have more of its edge in contact with the enemy element] overlaps the enemy element if the front edge of the friendly element extents beyond the front edge of the enemy element's front edge and no additional enemy element is in edge comtact the friendly element.

I prefer the first option because with non-aligned movement/combat there will essentially only ever be one overlap with the second option.


But there are a slough of complications unmentioned here. It isn't the front-to-front contact that confuses newbies -- it is corner contact, slightly angled contact, and so on. And none of that is solved by your solution.
Corner problems go away if you don't consider corner-to-corner contact to be "contac:" contact occurs when any part of an edge of two different elements touch one another.

[David Kuijt]

What you propose doesn't seem simpler than the current system; if your objective is to make teaching newbies easier, it will not fulfill your objective.

Also, your proposal seems to encourage not-lining-up. If you get a -2 for overlaps if not-lined-up, and only a -1 if lined up, why would you ever line up?

[JamesLDIII]

What you propose doesn't seem simpler than the current system; if your objective is to make teaching newbies easier, it will not fulfill your objective.


I don't think the writing of the rules is simpler, but consider explaining it:

Q: Who to I get into close combat with the enemy?
A: You move your element so that at least part of its front edge is touching at least part of an edge of an enemy element?

Q: What if more than one element makes contact with the enemy? How do I know which one is the prmary combatant?
A: The element with the longest edge contact with the enemy is the primary combatant. If you can't tell which element has the longest edge contact, the defender decides which the primary combatant is. Other elements which are in edge contact with the enemy may provide an overlap, flank, or rear attack modifier.
Q: How can I tell if an element is overlapping or flank/rear attacking?
A: An element is in flank or rear contact with an enemy element if it's front edge is in contact with the flank or rear edge of an enemy element. An element is overlapping an enemy element if it's front edge contacts and extends past the end of an enemy element's front edge, unless there is an additional enemy element adjacent to the first element and in contact with your element's front edge.

What am I missing? This seems so simple to me (in my post-op painkiller enhanced state_.

Also, your proposal seems to encourage not-lining-up. If you get a -2 for overlaps if not-lined-up, and only a -1 if lined up, why would you ever line up?

In DBA, the majority of units wouldn't ever be exactly lined up of they didn't have to be--they only end up so because the system relies on the concept of alignment to edjudicate combat. (Dangerous to presume from battlefield experience...) but most (hoplite) armies with even a slight advantage in numbers might chose to overlap both sides of an enemy army if possible )Consider the Greeks at Marathon who thinned the depth of their formation to avoid being overlapped on either flank). So a force twice as big as its opponent (like AB vs 1), would probably prefer to overlap both sides of its enemy if possible as well. What about ABC vs 12? The same effect overall (to get an overlap on each side) that is not possible with forced alignment in DBA right now.

AAAABBBBCCCC
---11112222

The effect of this, of course, is to magnify small differences in troop numbers, which again would likely increase the casualty rate.

Looking at the war wagon example, instead of the convoluted justification that was explained before,

http://64.202.179.155/discussion/showthread.php?t=827&highlight=wagons

the explanation would go something like this:

element 1 contacts warwagon A. THe side it touches becomes the front edge. Other sides are flank/rear edges.

AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
---1111
---1111

IN this instance, element 1 would have two overlaps--not a good idea for an attack. SO it brings along another element:

AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
---11112222
---11112222

Now the primary combatant must be element 1 because it has the longest edge in contact with A. Element 2 provides an overlap against A, while element 1 is overlapped by A.

Player 1 decides a better way to attack the warwagon is from two directions.

AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA22
AAAAAAAA22
---1111---22
---1111---22

Now 1 is still the primary combatant. Element two is touching the flank of warwagon A. But 1 stull has 2 overlaps. Finally player one settles in onthe best possible way to attack warwagon A.

AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA
AAAAAAAA22
AAAAAAAA22
------111122
------111122

Now element 1 only has 1 overlap, and gets the flank modifier with element 2.

While there are some advantages and disadvantages pointed out with this extended example, what isn't hard is figuring out how to make contact, who is the primary attacker, and what modifiers are involved.

[David Kuijt]

Try it, and let us know how it goes. But to me it seems not simpler, and the idea that it is better (in your modifications) to be misaligned seems very odd.

[El' Jocko]

For me, it's not so much a learning issue as it is a playability issue. My experience has been that learning what makes a legal contact isn't too hard. The idea that an element needs to be in full front contact with the enemy element is pretty straightforward.

But learning how to effectively make that contact is much more challenging. And not just for newbies. Here's an example: I'm advancing a line of 4 spear elements forward to attack two elements of enemy blade. Before I make contact, my opponent wheels his blade so they're now at a 30 degree angle to my line. Obviously, I now need to wheel my spear to match. But this introduces complications.

- The geometry (of both lines wheeling) changes matchups.

- It's possible that one or more elements on the end of my line can't legally wheel as part of the group.

- Changing the angle of my line makes it more dangerous if my elements are forced to recoil.*

And it's even worse if, insteading of wheeling his whole line, my opponent moves one of the elements of blade to kink his line. Sure, there are ways of attacking a kinked line, but they frequently require a lot of skill.

So a simpler way to make contact might be benficial. But finding a system that works is far from simple. Most proposed solutions end up creating more problems than they solve. One of the DBM/DBMM groups (I don't recall which) has been wrestling with how to solve this for some time, and I don't think they've reached a consensus yet (though I need to check back to see what they've come up with).

* Not so important for spear, since the base depth is so small. But for 6Kn elements? It's a big deal. :)

- Jack

[Minimus Maximus]

* Not so important for spear, since the base depth is so small. But for 6Kn elements? It's a big deal. :)

- Jack[/QUOTE]

Getting 6Kn elements to do anything but go straight forward is indeed a big deal!!

[Stephen Webb]

Instead of tampering with the intent of the rules, I find that using a few elements to explain the concepts works much better.

But if the rules could include diagrams as per HOTT, it would be easier as well.

[Andrechin]

If you are interested, the ruleset Basic Impetus (http://www.dadiepiombo.com/impetus2.html) is trying to use a non-aligned movement/combat system.

There has been already a significant playtesting and some tournements. It seems the principle works.

[JohnValiant]

try armati 2.0 aswell perhaps?

[cpagano]

This is not exactly what this thread is all about, but back in 2000 I posted the following variant which I thought simplified play:

“An individual element or group of elements is slid to conform to a group that extends beyond both its ends. The smallest number of elements possible should be slid the shortest distance possible to create corner to corner alignment."

Combat is then resolved normaly.

-Chris P.

[David Kuijt]

This is not exactly what this thread is all about, but back in 2000 I posted the following variant which I thought simplified play:

“An individual element or group of elements is slid to conform to a group that extends beyond both its ends. The smallest number of elements possible should be slid the shortest distance possible to create corner to corner alignment."

Combat is then resolved normaly.

-Chris P.

Such sliding will take you into bad going, or out of bad going. Which doesn't prevent gamesmanship (the purported reason for non-aligned combat), it just provides a different avenue for its expression.

[Jonathan T Miller]

JamesLDIII, you could also look at Might of Arms, which is quite fun, and it has simple contact rules.

http://home.earthlink.net/~bryantbob/

I empathize completely with the desire to simplify DBA contact rules, and I think it touches on the more general problem that, empirically speaking, DBA rules are very poorly organized and very poorly written. Very much so, period. Add the fact that DBA is also very complex, compared to today's widely popular wargames (e.g. Flames of War), and it's a deal-killer for lots of newbies (trust me). In my experience, the ONLY way newbies learn DBA is through friends.

It's honestly too bad. Truly so. Because DBA is an extremely rich game which deserves wider acceptance, which it could have if only the rules were clear.

I will now don my flame-retardant suit and suggest that we could attract more players by 1) writing down a clear set of rules interpretations, such as the WADBAG guide (which isn't perfect and could use a 2nd edition), 2) un-abashedly embracing that standard for tournament play etc. and 3) somehow getting wider distribution of that standard so that newbies know where to start.

Jonathan Miller

[JamesLDIII]

If you are interested, the ruleset Basic Impetus (http://www.dadiepiombo.com/impetus2.html) is trying to use a non-aligned movement/combat system.

There has been already a significant playtesting and some tournements. It seems the principle works.

I read through the rules. I would have to play them to see what the interactions were like in that game. I believe the gamiest part of working with partial overlaps would be the case of two units touch only a slight portion of their bases, like this

AAAAA
AAAAA
AAAAA
......BBBBB
......BBBBB
......BBBBB

Otherwise I think DBA could fairly easily handle unaligned combat, and it would relieve many of the problems associated with figuring out what movement/contact is legal.

[K.H.Ranitzsch]

How do handle recoils and follow-ups in non-aligned combat ?

For an example:

A = An element of Auxilia
H = Hordes

both fighting against
W = an element of Warband

AAAAHHHH
__WWWW

What happens if the Wb win the combat but does not double the enemy?
The Ax recoil, the Hd don't. Does the WB follow up ?

If the Wb were fighting against two Ax, do both recoil ? If not, which one recoils ?

If you have two non-aligned lines fighting each other, how do you regulate recoils ? And you think there is no chance for gamesmanship here ?

And how do you write that out in language so simple the the proverbial 8-year old understands it, and yet well enough defined that a rules-lawyer has no chance to exploit loopholes ?

Greetings
Karl Heinz

[Pozanias]

I agree that non-aligned combat conceptually makes the most sense. By that, I mean that historically groups of troops didn't line up perfectly with each other before fighting -- so it makes sense that if possible we should replicate that.

But, I think that in DBA much of the ruleset is constructed around the assumption that figures are based on fixed blocks (e.g. 40x15, 40x20). And as KHR has pointed out so eloquently, it's very difficult to pull out a cornerstone rule and replace it with something else without all the other rules crumbling down.

Of course, I'm always in favor of trying new ideas that might improve the game (or add neat variants) -- but I would guess that this one would not hold up to a rigorous play test. And to be honest, I've never really had a problem with aligned combat. Sure, every once in a while bizarre things happen because of the alignment requirement -- but that's true of almost all the rules.

[JamesLDIII]

How do handle recoils and follow-ups in non-aligned combat ?

For an example:

A = An element of Auxilia
H = Hordes

both fighting against
W = an element of Warband

AAAAHHHH
__WWWW

What happens if the Wb win the combat but does not double the enemy?
The Ax recoil, the Hd don't. Does the WB follow up ?

If the Wb were fighting against two Ax, do both recoil ? If not, which one recoils ?



An excellent choice of a scenario to challenge the brain. First the choice of which element the Warband fights. Easily enough, the element sharing the most frontage. Lets say the Ax is the most frontage. Then the element of Hd is providing an overlap for the Ax. I think I'd have the supporting unit recoil as well. If the Hd had the most frontage with the Wb, then the Horde wouldn't recoil, so neither would the Ax.

With two elements of Ax, the one sharing the greatest frontage with the Wb would be the element attacked, the other Ax would recoil of the main Ax was recoiled or destroyed.

Consider this:

AAAAHHHH
__W1W1W2W2

Now there are two Warbands facing the Ax and Horde. Depending on which attack the Wb player chose to resolve, there might not be an element present for W2 to fight.

IN this instance, the Wb player would probably choose to resolve the W2 vs H battle first, since W2 would have the advantage of an overlap vs Hd. So CF 3 vs CF 3 -1=2. If he won this battle, then the next battle would involve Ax and Wb1, each with one overlap on the other CF3-1= 2 vs CF3-1= 2.

Just as I'm thinking of this, one challenging point of allowing non-aligned movement is it would still be possible for a unit to end up aligned against another, so one might have to describe both aligned and non-aligned movment and combat resolution.