A thought about BBDBA setups

[Stelzone]

Paul Potter put me to thinking in our tournament on the 30th. We had been discussing the change between 2.0 and 2.1. Paul's comment was blind setup would be the best way, my comment in return was how to do it.

Well the idea that came to me is a fairly simple one. Since commands are to be set before setup starts, why not have them rough draft their set up. each side shows the other command composition and then numbers them 1,2,3 use a die what ever. then on a card mark them in as left, center, right. (An example is 2 left, 3 center, 1 right.) This would be at the same time that you set the high, middle, low pips. both sides set cards in middle and setup in usual way.

Another option would be to have them boxed in on the card so commands could be placed behind one another, excetra. With the boxes numbered per command.

Any other ideas????? Just throwing these out because I don't like the 2.1 setup, and I do like the idea of blind setup, but most blind setups are clumsy.

Mike

[Roland Fricke]

Armati uses a blind set up. Most people simply take a car sun screen and use it as a blind running down the middle of the table. Both sides now set up at the same time not knowing how/where the other is setting up. It leads to much more conservative and histroical sets ups when you can't see the other players set up. Players need to make a good plan before hand since they can't base their whole set up on what they see the enemy doing.

[Stelzone]

I have seen and played games like that, Roland. The problem with it is it can cause real problems in a competitive formate. I once saw two guys (board game blind setup) get up to discuss their positioning and the other two players start to accuse them of cheating, looking over the board, etc., it would have been an amusing arguement if one of the guys hadn't tipped the table over. And these guys were all long time friends, and all of us in Doubles get up to discuss terrain and placemant outside of the hearing of others from time to time.

I am thinking of something much more simple and easy to do. On the notecard would be placement and command pips. It would give you some flexability in setting troops within the area shown.

I am just thinking about this, it is not something I am advocating should be done.

[Kanishka]

Do the DBM thing and set up alternate commands - pretty simple, gives one side a bit of an advantage but not too much so you can use that to offset whatever otehr advantages you think one side or other might get.

[xeswop]

If you cannot accept Phil's new plan for deployment then just go back to the previous version. There were few compliants from players about that system.

He plans to use this all defender then all invader deloyment for all the DB games. The DBR revision has it. He sees placing all the terrain as a strong advantage for the defender, now evened out by making defender place all troops first.

We will never be able to complain about how the new system works if people do not use it. Currently, most complaints are "on principle" with little usage.

[ September 02, 2003, 08:56: Message edited by: xes*** ]

[Stelzone]

Bob,

Not even complaining here just throwing out an idea. While I do like the 2.0 way of doing things, I believe that a blind setup is the true challenge in any game.

If an easy way of doing it is developed. I do disagree witht the 0-2 pairs swapped, but feel that 0-6 pairs are to much.

Don't get touchy bob, I hope we can still discuss house rules here as well. smile.gif

Mike

[David Schlanger]

The 0-2 or 0-6 element swap really doesn't translate well from regular DBA to BBDBA. It works okay for a triple army, but is less of an advantage for a double army with ally. It is almost no advantage for a single army with two allies. This underlines the quality of the original 2.0 deployment. It worked the same for all BBDBA armies, regardless of structure.

Phil's "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix it" Spearpoint BUA article title comes to mind.

David Kuijt and I are currently working on an article addressing the differences between Big Battle deployment in 2.0 and 2.1 - focusing on the inadequacy of 2.1.

DS

[Paul Potter]

I really liked the swap 6 pairs of elements. The attacker gets to deploy all of his troops based on the defenders set up. swapping 6 pairs allows the defender to rearange a 3rdof his army. I liked this better than the 2.0 set up. I still prefer blind deployment evan though we have not used it around here in a while. In my opinion set ups looked more 'historical' with the blind deployment. We did it simply by holding a screen down the middle of the board and setting up the armies. used it for both dba and big battle dba. It does give the defender a significant advantage because of getting to choose terrain but attacker chosses side he wants with out rolling. -Paul

[Pozanias]

I really like the idea of blind setup. But I think that this does take away a significant edge traditionally given to the attacker. A possible counter would be to make terrain placement random. I.e. defender picks pieces of terrain, and then rolls dice to determine where they can be placed (a la DBM). The attacker would get to pick sides and move first.

I believe these two changes would eliminate some of the science of terrain placement and match-up troop deployment. This *should* lead to more "realistic" results as historical commanders didn't have the ability to manipulate terrain to the extent DBA defenders do --- and historical generals never had the deployment intelligence DBA invaders do.

Obviously these changes are significant strays from the rules as written, but I think they would be fun to try.

My thinking for these changes was primarily for BBDBA, but I suppose they might be worth trying for regular DBA as well.

p.s. I don't like any element swapping. I don't like it's effect on DBA. I don't like it's effect on BBDBA. Tripling it is not a good idea IMO. If necessary, I would prefer for the defender to simply leave 2 elements (6 for BBDBA) off the board until after the invader has deployed.

[ September 03, 2003, 15:05: Message edited by: Pozanias ]

[David Schlanger]

Originally posted by Pozanias:

p.s. I don't like any element swapping. I don't like it's effect on DBA. I don't like it's effect on BBDBA. Tripling it is not a good idea IMO. If necessary, I would prefer for the defender to simply leave 2 elements (6 for BBDBA) off the board until after the invader has deployed. How about 4 elements for DBA, 1 command for BBDBA? smile.gif

Dave

[xeswop]

Mike, don't get so touchy smile.gif I am just giving my opinion too.

I was suggesting that there is no need to invent a whole new system when the old one was well accepted.

I worry about a variety of processes used in tournament play as opposed to house games. If there are many differnt systems for starting a game, then how will players be able to plan their games. It would be like football played in various places with some having a kick off and some scramble for the ball (XFL) or just start with the ball on the 20 or some all together new plan.

This is a thead about starting options because people do not like the current rules. So one point I raise is that there has not been enough testing of the current system to know that it is bad. Why not play as written for a year and then offer Phil some statistcis on problems, for example, defenders, setting up first lose 80% of the time.

I have yet to understand what the problem is. Is the goal to make setting up first or second have no impact on who wins? Does setting out the terrain not compenstate for for setting up first?

Mutual, blind set-on seems the best way to achieve a no pre-determined advantage. This can be by using a screen or by drawing the set-up positions. If this is done, then the defender cannot have the advantage of terrain selection, except to compensate for a weaker army. However, picking that weak army was the player's choice. Thus it seems to me that if there is a blind set-up, then there must be a random terrain deployment.

Such a deployment should allow both players to put down some pieces. Divide the table into 4 or 6 sectors. Allow he defender to pick out some number of terrain features:
1-2 required and 2-3 optional, as now. Let the defender pick, say 0-1 of the defender's allowed optional features. Then have each throw dice to determine what sector they go in. Keep the current limits on numbers of each type allowed, eg, only 1 water way.

Thus the table consists of the defender's topography but it is not custom designed to suit his army.

Then players write their deployment, or use a screen (a pain to put down over a table with terrain).

I hope that all those who run BB tournaments in the US can arrive at a single process for deployment and winning/losing so all players can expect consistency from event to event -- he old system, the new system, a borrowed system, a blue system, but one system.

Thanks
Bob


Originally posted by Stelzone:
Bob,

Not even complaining here just throwing out an idea. While I do like the 2.0 way of doing things, I believe that a blind setup is the true challenge in any game.

If an easy way of doing it is developed. I do disagree witht the 0-2 pairs swapped, but feel that 0-6 pairs are to much.

Don't get touchy bob, I hope we can still discuss house rules here as well. smile.gif

Mike