Two DBN rules issues

[Bob. (and his dog)]

The following two rules always result in extended discussion each time they come up.

7.13 Zone of Control (ZOC). All units have a ZOC to their front one base width wide and 40mm deep. No enemy Unit may move into this Zone for any purpose other than to engage the Unit, whose ZOC it is, in Combat.

1. Any idea why this is not a base width deep, instead of 40mm deep. Do they mean 40mm for 25mm figs?
2. We have assumed that "engage ... in Combat" can be either shooting combat or close combat. There is no moving "toward" combat. If you move into the zone you must either shoot at the element or contact it.
3. Otherwise once in the ZOC, an element can do anything, move sideways forwards, backwards. Moreover, if an enemy unit puts an element in the ZOC from the side or rear, the element can just ignore it and move out. The rkule refers People in my group want to read the rule as written, and not add a lot of DBA/DBR baggage to it.


7.14 Unsupported Units. Any single Unit, except Commanders, Jagers, Irregular Cavalry, Skirmishing Cavalry and Guerrillas, that are more than 300 paces from any other friendly Unit are deemed to be ‘Unsupported’ and as such cost an additional CAP for movement.

This is a silly rule, all it does is require units to move in pairs. A unit only needs to be 300 paces from any other unit. I can put LC Unit 1 1000p away from the CinC on the right and Unit 2 1000p away as long as 1 and 2 are less than 300p apart. How do two Musket units, 300p apart support each other?

By the way, we cannot find a rule that says it takes a CAP for a CINC to move. Is this what the rule in 7.5 means
"The CinC ... are classified as Units"

Thanks for comments.

[David Bostwick]

Hi Bob,

I too have discovered some DBN anomalies/ambiguities. I will address your first issue, of the ZOC. The first thing that struck me was that, as written, this means I can angle a number of units (elements) to deny an approach to contact by overlapping ZOCs. (Approach to the target is denied by the ZOC of another non-target unit, which the enemy cannot enter because he is not attacking that element) I am sure that isn’t the intent of the rules authors, but it is the result of their wording.

I also agree with the silliness of the support rule, which seems to me a superfluous attempt to discourage a sort of behavior already discouraged by the CAP/PIP system.

Still though, it looks like a good game, and the pictures are certainly impressive. I have started rebasing my modest collection of Napoleonics that have been collecting dust for a number of years.

Dave
The One True Bostwick
who doesn't have a dog

[David Crenshaw]

Bob,

We've always played the ZOC rules ala DBA. I would assume the 40mm depth refers only to 15mm figures. Whenever we find any ambiguities we just fall back on DBA and that seems to solve the problem.

I believe it does cost a CAP to move the general.

We haven't played the unsupported rule in our games, but I actually think it sounds quite reasonable. Napoleonic armies I believe tended to stay pretty compact in a battle situation, and the rule keeps Jagers and hussars from running around willy nilly. I think it would be fun to try it that way, but we have not delved into the attrition system or optional rules. Is that one of the optional rules or have we been cheating?

David

[David Bostwick]

We haven't played the unsupported rule in our games, but I actually think it sounds quite reasonable. Napoleonic armies I believe tended to stay pretty compact in a battle situation, and the rule keeps Jagers and hussars from running around willy nilly.

David, Jagers and Hussars are excluded from this rule, so they expressly ARE allowed to run around willy nilly!

[Xavi]

About the ZOC issue, I emailed the DBN guys, and they said that they had tried to rewrite the DBA ZOC rules so they were comprehensible, but that they do work EXACTLY like those of DBA. They seem to have failed in the clarifgication bit, though. I will try to get the email and post it here tomorrow.

Cheers,

Xavi

[David Bostwick]

About the ZOC issue, I emailed the DBN guys, and they said that they had tried to rewrite the DBA ZOC rules so they were comprehensible, but that they do work EXACTLY like those of DBA.

That makes me wonder how they interpret the DBA version. I have read posts by some (in England) who understand it to mean that you can’t enter an enemy ZOC unless your move ends in frontal contact (i.e. “to contact”), or parallel facing and aligned squarely at the corners with the ZOCing element (“line up facing”).

[David Bostwick]

I have just checked the actual rules (a novel idea, to be sure!):

7.13 Zone of Control (ZOC). All units have a ZOC to their front of one base width wide and the same deep. No enemy Unit may move into this Zone for any purpose other than to engage that unit in Combat. If a unit is ‘caught’ in an enemy ZOC and wants to move away, it must first move directly away and out of the ZOC.

So it does say the ZOC is “a base width wide and the same deep”
I have v. 2.1 which I bought and downloaded as a PDF when I saw Chris was planning to run a game at Historicon. Perhaps you have an earlier version, Bob?

[Bob. (and his dog)]

David, thanks much for the up date. I guess the authors listened to players, just did not announce widely the changes. I downloaded my rules in late October to be ready for Fall-In.

Still much vagueness regarding multiple zones and what happens after you move out. Is "directly away" the same as "straight back?" Can you then turn and do other actions? Do we agree that a unit cannot just move toward combat? However, what if I move into a ZOC with the "purpose", that is the intent, of doing combat, but I will do it in a later turn?

Is this what the rule is supposed to mean? "No enemy can move into this Zone unless that enemy unit ends the bound in Close Combat with or shoots at the stationary unit. "

I wonder if rule owners can download new copies or have to do the old cut and paste.

Now I will have to check the "combat support" rules which try to combine overlaps and flank attacks. poorly

I appreciate the comments that you "can play it like DBA." However a number of people in our group do not play DBA and they do like to take my word for what the rule is supposed to mean. Heck, even people who do play the game don't take my word for what a rule means :) Rules need to stand on their own.

[Kontos]

"7.12 Retiring. A Unit may retire, (ie, move backwards away from an advancing enemy but ends the move facing the enemy) but for troops, other than Skirmishers, Guerillas, Skirmishing and Irregular Cavalry, to do so and remain as a formed body it involved a relatively complex series of drill movements. Movement rates are therefore reduced as follows:
7.12.1
7.12.2
7.12.3
7.12.4"

This all looks pretty straightforward to me as to what can be done to leave an enemy ZOC. That's just me, of course.

"7.13 Zone of Control (ZOC). All units have a ZOC to their front one base width wide and 40mm deep. No enemy Unit may move into this Zone for any purpose other than to engage the Unit, whose ZOC it is, in Combat."

Again, for me, pretty straightforward. Not "I'll attack later." Not "I will attack after lunch." Not "I intend to scare them off with my bravado." Someone suggested angled multiple ZOCs. Since you can engage ALL of those units in a fire combat, the move is legal albeit outnumbered unless you can bring in more supporting fire. Cavalry doesn't have the luxury of standing off and shooting so it would, in my opinion, have to contact the enemy that FIRST exerts a ZOC upon it. My interpretation only.

Rule 8.17 Close Combat Support deals with the DBA version of Overlap. DBN calls it Outflanked and is separate and distinct from Attacking a Flank which is dealt with in 8.18. I read these both without question being raised. Again, that's just me.

If I recall the game played at Fall In correctly, these particular issues did not give us any grief whatsoever when seen on the table. Now, BUAs were a totally different story.

That's my take on all this.

Frank

[Little Caesar]

For whatever it's worth:

I don't have a problem with the 3" rule for 'unsupported' elements. I think it's important to not overthink these rules too much. I think of it as a minor yet effective way to differentiate DBN from DBA.

In DBA, there are no 'orders' and troops can and will do whatever you have the PIPS for them to do. In DBN this rule, in an extremely abstract way, reminds us that the vast majority of all units in Napoleonic warfare were given orders to follow and so can't just run off to do what's needed when an opportunity presents itself.

Very absract of course, but just adds a modicum of military procedure in an unobtrusive way. Even if two or more units decide to go off together to get around the rule, it's still as if that group (brigade?) has orders to do so, so I think it works. In fact, it is these little subtle nuances that make the game for me.

Remember the whole idea behind KISR (Keep It Simple). When we start discussing the effective firepower at distances and specific roles for voltigeurs vs. chasseurs vs grenadiers within the same regiment, then we've crossed over into an area that requires another rules set.

My two shekels,
Steve

[Bob. (and his dog)]

First, Frank and Steve, get the new edition, November, 2008. Lots of things fixed. ZOC is clearer. The retire rule more explained. Lots of changes we suggested. Cross BUA combat discussed, and more about being in BUA's covered. Move in only a occupier, need to throw a 6 to garrison, less as bounds go by. How to recoil out of BUA. Huge improvement. I got a couple things clarified and will post those later.

Second. I agree fully that things should be simple, so my comment on the 300 distance rule. Two elements can go off or there can be a leap frog effect, one 300 from one and then one 300 from that one. Not very simple. No big deal however. The penalty for lack of support should not be movement CAPS but some sort of morale penalty, or minus in combat. There is already a rule for being at a far distance from CinC.

There is a nice Albuera scenario on the DBN web site. Was it there in December?
http://www.qualityseasidehotel.co.uk/game/Albuera%20v2.1.pdf

This is too small for our Cold Wars game, I think. We might end up with 6-8 players, with 12 units each. But a nice map.

[Little Caesar]

Second. I agree fully that things should be simple, so my comment on the 300 distance rule. Two elements can go off or there can be a leap frog effect, one 300 from one and then one 300 from that one. Not very simple. No big deal however. The penalty for lack of support should not be movement CAPS but some sort of morale penalty, or minus in combat. There is already a rule for being at a far distance from CinC.

There is a nice Albuera scenario on the DBN web site. Was it there in December?
http://www.qualityseasidehotel.co.uk/game/Albuera%20v2.1.pdf

This is too small for our Cold Wars game, I think. We might end up with 6-8 players, with 12 units each. But a nice map.

Fair enough. (Your 300 observation.)

BTW, I am now iffy for Cold Wars as my daughter's high school musical is that weekend. Not sure what to do or how it will all play out.

Steve