He's A Rebel.....

[Basil Bulgar-Slayer]

I know we've done this d*** game area size thing before. But, just to throw some gas on the fire: I've taken to playing HOTTs/DBA 15mm on a 36" x 36" area. Works fine. Just change deployment area to 25% of the distance of the game area.

[Badger]

Ah, but are you limiting yourself to the number and size of terrain pieces specified in the DBA v2.0 rules?

I thought not! ;)

Any change in board size should be looked at in conjunction with making corresponding changes in the terrain rules so as not to cause (relatively) much sparser boards as they increase in size.

[ December 16, 2003, 17:53: Message edited by: Badger ]

[El' Jocko]

In playing on the 32x32 boards, we haven't made any changes in the number or size of terrain pieces. So it does change the relative amount of terrain that may be place on the board.

On the other hand, I haven't heard of anyone who wanted to put more terrain down but couldn't. Based on what I've seen, it's still possible to overload the board with terrain, generally to both player's regret.

- Jack

[imported_adsarf]

Take a look at http://www.gazclub.co.uk/webpage.asp?PageId=31

The last game up there shows an early Libyan vs Granadine clash with maxxed-out terrain. Its a whole different ball game, but its great fun.

Andrew

[GAZMAN]

Ah, but are you limiting yourself to the number and size of terrain pieces specified in the DBA v2.0 rules?

I thought not!

Any change in board size should be looked at in conjunction with making corresponding changes in the terrain rules so as not to cause (relatively) much sparser boards as they increase in size. The 44 per cent reduction in 25mm playing area in 2.1 was NOT supported by a change in any terrain rules.
Believe me - all mounted armies in 2.1 are dead meat if thier opponent chooses to max out the BG.

[RonG]

Now with the reduced size of the playing area, its time to look at your army of choice. Fun games, who cares, play for enjoyment. Tournament, well thats another story. Armies maxing out terrain will fare better now. All cav armies will have a more difficult time. ;) An combined arms army will be more suited to those types of terrain setups. :cool:

[xeswop]

Great battle reports. I enjoyed the pictures. I noticed in battle 10, the Indians seemed to have an element moving along a river. I had never thought of an element moving along a river, only of crossing a river. How were you doing the movement for this? It was a paltry river. Could this be done in a regular river? Have others been moving elements along a river?

http://www.gazclub.co.uk/images/battle10b.jpg


Originally posted by adsarf:
Take a look at http://www.gazclub.co.uk/webpage.asp?PageId=31
The last game up there shows an early Libyan vs Granadine clash with maxxed-out terrain. Its a whole different ball game, but its great fun.
Andrew

[Martian]

Bob,

Didn't Phil in one of his declarations state that an element that enters a river MUST continue across the river?

That was the big lament about elements recoiling into rivers then being forced to back all the way out before they could attempt to cross again.

Marty

[Ares]

It's no declaration; it's in the rules.

p.9:
"RIVER CROSSING
Troops that enter a river must continue crossing at the same angle or line up in close combat with an enemy element that is defending the opposite bank."

Eric

[Wanax]

It isn't a river. That is the Via Azur.

Wanax smile.gif

[Badger]

Originally posted by Ares:
p.9:
"RIVER CROSSING
Troops that enter a river must continue crossing at the same angle or line up in close combat with an enemy element that is defending the opposite bank."Interesting... I'd never read that as having to go all the way across, but rather merely as having to keep the same angle of facing whether moving forward or backward.

Well, that changes things a bit.

[El' Jocko]

I agree with Badger on this one. The text only tells you that you can't change your facing or move sideways. I don't believe that if you start to cross a river that you can't go half way across and then back out.

Editorial Comment Follows:

That's just silly. Even if the Barker thought that's what he originally meant when he was subsequently asked. (When it comes right down to it, the man doesn't know his own rules, and this is made worse by the fact that he is utterly unaware that he doesn't know his own rules.)

- Jack

[Ares]

I s'pose we better find out what he meant by "continue" and "crossing." :D :mad: tongue.gif :rolleyes: :( :confused:

Tongue firmly in cheek,
Eric

[cpagano]

Originally posted by El' Jocko:
I agree with Badger on this one. The text only tells you that you can't change your facing or move sideways. I don't believe that if you start to cross a river that you can't go half way across and then back out.I think that the best way to interpret the rule is that once you enter a river you cannot change your direction until you are out of the river again, either by moving forward through or by backing back out, except that you may turn to face an enemy element.

Any other interpretation is absolutely wrong smile.gif

It appears the element in the picture must have set up in the river, in which case it can NEVER TURN TO LEAVE IT, unless it becomes ZOCed by an enemy element and it turns to face the enemy element, or it moves straight out of a bend in the river (which doesn't seem likely for this element). This is an interesting quirk in the rules for those who enjoy keeping track of such things, but not a big problem. It just means that you should not set up in a river facing parallel to the flow of the river, which wouldn't be very realistic anyway.

Note that if an enemy element enters the river and then turns to face this element, and then eliminates it, it may find itself perpetually trapped in the uniformly straight river. ("Help, I've fallen in a river and I can't get out.)

-Chris P.

[Aristonicus]

Sorry guys, but I can't resist. I thought of this song instantly on reading these post ;) - at least it is relevant (I've cut the controversial bits):

WAIST DEEP IN THE BIG MUDDY
by Pete Seeger (1967)

It was back in nineteen forty-two,
I was part of a good platoon.
We were on manoeuvers in Louisiana,
One night by the light of the moon.
The captain said, "We've got to ford the river",
That's where it all began.

We were knee deep in the Big Muddy,
And the damn fool kept yelling to push on.

The Sergeant said, "Sir, are you sure,
This is the way back to the base?"
"Sergeant, I once crossed this river
Not a mile above this place.
It'll be a little soggy but we'll keep slogging.
We'll soon be on dry ground."

We were waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fool kept yelling to push on.

"Captain, sir, with all this gear
No man'll be able to swim."
"Sergeant, don't be a Nervous Nellie,"
The Captain said to him.
"All we need is a little determination;
Follow me, I'll lead on."

We were neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damn fool kept yelling to push on.

All of a sudden, the moon clouded over,
All we heard was a gurgling cry.
A second later, the captain's helmet
Was all that floated by.
The Sergeant said, "Turn around men!
I'm in charge from now on."

And we just made it out of the Big Muddy
With the captain dead and gone.

We stripped and dived and found his body
Stuck in the old quicksand.
I guess he didn't know that the water was deeper
Than the place where he'd once been.
For another stream had joined the Muddy
A half mile from where we'd gone.

We were lucky to get out of the Big Muddy
When the damn fool kept yelling to push on...

[GAZMAN]

As far as I can remember the indian group moved up to contact the greek line and shifted into the river (paltry) to line up for combat.
This photo is post combat - there is not a lot of greek line left.
S

[ December 19, 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: GAZMAN ]

[imported_adsarf]

The move was originally to flank an element that was very dead by the time the photo was taken. I'm not sure if it wound up in the river by group conforming or by a single element move.

Either way the rule doesn't forbid the move. As you say, what move I could legally have made next is a little unclear, perhaps more so than I realised at the time.... Good thing it turned out to be the last bound

I don't feel very guilty about this one - about on a par with the misaligned road we had in a previous battle report.

[imported_adsarf]

Clarification: what I mean is that the element in the river had just entered the river in the last bound of the game, he hadn't been marching down the river. I suppose I could have continued to cross at the rather oblique angle that implies, claimed that the rule didn't apply as I'd never *started* to cross and therefore couldn't 'continue', or just spent the pips elsewhere...

[David Crowell]

Yet again something works fin in friendly play, but can't be justified without a lot of hair splitting of the rules.

I think that the rules are clear that movement in a river must occur in the context of crossing the river. If an element enters the river in order to give combat, then when the combat is over any surviving elements still in the river should seek to leave it. Marching along a river seems to be right out. I think we all can tell when an element is trying to cross the river and get out and when it is using it as the Via Azur.

Not being allowed to turn around or back up out of a river makes some sense if you think about the size of body represented by a DBA element and the size of a river worth depicting as such on the table.

[cpagano]

Originally posted by David Crowell:
Yet again something works fine in friendly play... There is no reason why all play cannot be friendly smile.gif

[Badger]

Originally posted by Ares:
I s'pose we better find out what he meant by "continue" and "crossing." :D :mad: tongue.gif :rolleyes: :( :confused:

Tongue firmly in cheek,
Eric... and yet, there's substance here. I move we stop inquiring what The Barker meant by thus and such, and simply interpret it in light of the dictionary definitions of the words he chooses. If we need to be picky and specify WHICH dictionary, let's say the full 13+ volume version of the Oxford English Dictionary just to choose a source The Barker will have a hard time arguing against.

[GAZMAN]

version 1 and 1.1 specifically state - movement along a river is not possible.
this is not the case in 2.0 although it may return in 2.2
'Marching' up a river seems a bit daft but wasn't it a favourite trick of the Batavians?

In this situation the Indian line was forced into the river by complying with the line it attacked. Please remember that these are not rigid blocks of troops. In this case there were some getting a little wet and some standing on the bank.

[xeswop]

So much discussion from my little comment. Gazman is correct about the rule in the 1 series. This led to many problems so Phil changed the text for 2.0.

"Troops that enter a river must continue crossing at the same angle or line up in close combat with an enemy element that is defending the opposite bank. "

Phil was later asked if this applied to a an element that recoiled into a river and he said yes. It must continue to move backwards in the river until the front edge is out.

Thus no backing and forwarding, keep going in one direction.

The rule seems clear to me.
If a player moves an element into a river (as a tactical move) he must continue to move it at the same angle it started. This can be a very small angle so the element is in the river for a number of bounds. Or it can be at 90degrees to the flow and move with as few bounds as possible. The move must be in the same direction until the front edge is out of the river. Or until the mover changes the angle to engage in combat with an element defending the OPPOSITE bank.

There is no entering a river except to cross, no attacking an element on the same side. Given all the comments below, I think the Indians should not have entered the river in the way described. Was it to get an overlap on an element in a line, anchored on a river. What does that mean to anchor a flank on a river if not to keep the enemy away from your flank there. An element could come across the river from the other side to attack such an anchored element.

I can find nothing to suggest that this does not apply to a paltry river.

There will of course be strange situations that may occur when troops are fighing around a river. (I hate rivers, they are not worth all the trouble they cause.) These situations must be worked out by the players involved, following the principles in the rules.

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by Bob.:

(I hate rivers, they are not worth all the trouble they cause.)Rivers can be a lot of fun in scenario games, or goofing-around games with no time constraint. But even there, lots of times they just screw things up. And in any tournament game I agree completely with you. When running tournaments, I've seen an awful lot of games with a river fail to finish within any reasonable time limit.

I like rivers the same way I like BUAs -- for special historical scenarios only.

[orca]

IMHO, I would rather rivers stay off my battlefield, in the same box with BUA's. Take it from someone who spends alot time in and around rivers - the way rivers are simulated in DBA is woeful at best. Just do without, or always make it a 'paltry'. The best way to simulate a 'typical' small river or creek is to treat as paltry for movement, and aids defence on a riverbank. This choice is not one found in the terrian rules.

[APHooper]

Rivers increase the level of friction in a game, but then so does any body of terrain that is not classed as good going (Rivers are neither good nor bad going, one of my favorite Barkerdoxes). But the very great majority of rivers end up oriented perpendicular to the battle lines, since few attackers willingly set themselves the task of attacking directly across a river. And under the current wording of the rules, a river becomes a functionally impassable anchor for a unit's flank. They CAN'T be overlapped there -- the only way to hit that river flank is to cross the river, then cross back oriented directly at the unit's flank. And this applies, as correctly stated below, to paltry rivers as well.

In the illustrated example of being nudged into the river by re-alignment for combat, wouldn't the case be the same as if the line were anchored on the board edge, placing the burden upon the attacker to conform to the defender's frontage without extending into prohibited terrain (like a waterway)?

I used to think that Psiloi, Aux and Bows ought to ignore paltry and average rivers in the same way they do bad going, but now that Warband have joined that fraternity, I'm less enthusiastic about the idea. But the river rules, as currently written, are an example of the game trying to favor the most rigid, linear tactics of the ancient and medieval world, over the skirmishing and sallies which comprised a significant percentage of even set-piece field battles. Some units ought to be able to move obliquely in the bed of a river, just as they transit steep slopes and forests without penalty. But it's also reasonable that many units that require more rigid formations to be effective should treat a river much as they would a zone of control. Certainly it would be POSSIBLE to wade your troops down a stretch of river to flank the enemy, but the act would expose to to attack in the same way trying to tiptoe acros a zoc would.

I'm comfortable dealing with rivers as they are written, but I think it is also fair to quote the rule that prevents a unit from reversing its crossing of a river when an opponent asks to lay one on the field.

Happy New Year from the Republic of Fremont,
Andy Hooper

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by APHooper:
the very great majority of rivers end up oriented perpendicular to the battle lines, I agree with everything that Andy says, except for the one line above. Even if the attacker tries to avoid a parallel river, 1/3 of the time a parallel river will result. That makes perpendicular rivers the majority (2/3) but not the great majority, and certainly not the very great majority!