Consensus on Good Things in 2.2+

[Kevin Boylan]

Recent debates concerning certain aspects of 2.2+ should not obscure the existence of a broad consensus that it is a definite step in the right direction and contains many great improvements over 2.2. This consensus seems to include most of those who have questioned some specific choices. Significantly, no real debate has arisen concerning most of the 25 changes listed below -- which account for the vast majority of all changes -- since the 2.2+ rules first went public in February.

Raiders: A new element badly need to inject more historical accuracy into certain periods.

Light Spear: Another new element type that is essential for simulating historical behavior of loose-order spear-armed troops that were able to fight in bad going far better than their close-order cousins -- but were more fragile in good going.

Pavise: This too has a sound historical foundation and is needed to simulate those missile troops that fought in mixed-weapon units.

Cataphracts: Yet another historically credible new element type.

Light Camelry: Seems reasonable although the historical evidence is thinner than for the preceding four. One of the best features of DBA has always been its generic simplicity, but it has suffered from squeezing too many different troops into too few element types. The 5 new types overcome much of the problem at the price of only a modest increase in complexity.

Litters: Rating Litters as War Wagons was obviously wrong.

War Wagon Base Size: Having single elements that could deploy with their long axis facing the enemy caused war wagons literally to loom far too large on the battlefield and made it needlessly difficult to launch and resolve attacks against them.

Rough Terrain: How can you do Agincourt without it?!

Extra-Steep Hills: Additional terrain options are always a good thing, even it's unclear how they impact play (what effect do Extra-Steep Hills have anyway?).

Front Corner Movement Measuring: Both simplifies and speeds play, and also fixes problems arising from the exaggerated depth of standard bases relative to that of the real-life formations they depict. For example, an 8-rank hoplite phalanx packed as close as possible front-to-back would be only a fraction of 15mm deep in real life.

Single Elements Always Conforming: Resolves one of the longest-standing, most ahistorical, and just plain ‘gamey-est’ problems in DBA.

Psiloi Line Group Moves in Bad Going: Allowing open-order foot skirmishers to do this is a no-brainer -- especially when the bad going in question can now be merely a plowed field (Rough).

War Wagon ZOCs: This change seems reasonable and is easily implemented.

Dismounting Only at Deployment: Dismounting is easy enough, but forming up afterwards, and having your squires close at hand to lead away that oh so valuable mount and its trappings is quite another.

Shooting Into and Out of Overlap: Only those troops in immediate proximity to an overlapped enemy unit’s flank would become engaged with it, while the vast majority remained free to shoot to their front.

Scythed Chariots Ignoring Corner Overlaps: They either broke the enemy or died before flanking enemy units could become engaged.

Pike Combat Modifiers: Allowing Pike to be +7 vs. Mounted made them virtually impervious to frontal attack. No element type should ever be effectively invulnerable.

Blade Fire Combat Modifier: The -1 when shot at helps simulate historical Blade (many of them relatively lightly unarmored) who suffered considerably from archery.

Combat Outcome Tables: This actually embraces quite a number of good changes, since although there are so many alterations it would be tedious to detail them all here, there’s nothing to argue with in the lot.

Supporting Elements Not Destroyed: Seems eminently reasonable and makes for a more competitive game since the player who double-ranks is already penalized by having a shorter frontage that leaves his flanks exposed.

Pursuit into Bad Going: Impetuous troops should do impetuous things even if they are foolish.

Turning to Face When Shot on Rear: Requiring a target element to recoil towards the shooter was simply asinine.

For a variety of reasons, the following three 2.2+ changes are classified as generally showing promise rather than as definitely for the good.

Terrain Repositioning: This can cut both ways. Sometimes it gives the defender a decisive advantage that can determine a game’s outcome all on its own. Yet, sometimes the defending army is so weak compared to the invader that its only chance for victory lies in fighting on “ground of its own choosing.” Historically, weaker/less mobile/outclassed armies (e.g., Greeks at Thermopylae) often employed this tactic. Perhaps the die roll necessary to adjust a particular piece of terrain could be influenced somehow by the relative values of the Invader's and Defender's aggression.

Flank and Rear Contact Restrictions: As 2.2+ is currently written these new restrictions are necessary, though mainly due to the new movement distance and breaking off from close combat rules.

Standard Recoil Depth: Although this was mentioned as a 2.2+ change in a number of posts, it seems to appear nowhere in the Beta rules draft. Has this change been dropped or was it never formally adopted in the first place?

[Pavane]

Kevin, thanks for that. It is too easy to dwell on the negative. Extra Steep Hills should be read as Additional Steep Hills (over and above any mandatory steep hills).

As for the last three categories:

The terrain repositioning rule is to stop the Defender from having complete control over terrain placement in order to mitigate geometric placement and billiard tables. There are lots of ways to approach this, 3.0's semi-random placement for one, but this is as small a change as possible to the core 2.2 rules.

I would support the flank and rear contact constraints regardless of the movement rates, but you are right that the further elements move the more this is required. I think that a fast element starting to the front of the enemy and being allowed to circle it and attack the rear in one bound is unreasonable. I can still be done in 2.2+, but over two bounds so that the enemy is able to react.

I disagree with fixed recoil distances. If I have a mixed line of 4Sp and 3Sp and they all are recoiled then they will no longer be one group. This is not the case with "one size fits all" recoil distances. 2.2+ better reflects the command control issues of mixing troop types by maintaining base depth recoils.

[Redwilde]

Originally Posted by Pavane

Extra Steep Hills should be read as Additional Steep Hills (over and above any mandatory steep hills).

Cliffs were legal impassable terrain for hill edges in 1st edition if we did want to bring back extra steep hills in that sense. Like lakes, I have no idea why they went away.

[mdsanderson]

I disagree with a number of the changes but since it sends the 2.2+ crowd into a rage when you don't agree with them what is the point of offering counter arguments.

Mike Sanderson

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by mdsanderson

I disagree with a number of the changes but since it sends the 2.2+ crowd into a rage when you don't agree with them what is the point of offering counter arguments.

You're the same guy that wrote the following:

Originally Posted by mdsanderson

You guys have fun and carry on with what you were doing and pay me no mind. I am not really trying to convince any one to follow my way of thinking, I was just expressing my opinion.

I reviewed your last few posts and they are invariably negative and never offer advice or alternatives. Each just reiterates how much you dislike changes. You are entitled to your opinions, and you can even post them here. Just don't be surprised if nonconstructive comments are ignored or rebuked by someone who is also entitled to their opinions.

[mdsanderson]

The authors of DBA2.2+ have developed a variant to DBA that reflects what they want the game to be. All I am saying is do not assume a lack of discussion from the larger DBA community to represent an agreement with the game vision of the 2.2+ authors. Most players will play whatever the GM says his vision of DBA is. They are not saying they agree or disagree with him they just came to play. If they choose not to play in any given event then they are expressing an opinion. Both the DBA 2.2+ authors and Phil have visions of what they want DBA to be in the future. Both have devoted many hours to refining their visions and truly believe the product they are presenting is what is best for the DBA community. Unfortunately their visions produce a game that I am not interested in playing. You can call they negative or whatever you like but arguing with either the DBA 2.2+ authors or Phil will get you nowhere.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by mdsanderson

since it sends the 2.2+ crowd into a rage when you don't agree with them

Chris Brantley, in particular, is widely known as the Ticking Timebomb of Fury.

[Redwilde]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

Chris Brantley, in particular, is widely known as the Ticking Timebomb of Fury.

A veritable incarnation of Dr. Bruce Banner.

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by mdsanderson

I disagree with a number of the changes but since it sends the 2.2+ crowd into a rage when you don't agree with them what is the point of offering counter arguments.

Mike Sanderson

I myself have and continue to disagree with several of the major changes made in 2.2+, but also find much to like. Since most threads necessarily deal with matters of dispute, I thought it would be helpful to have one that addresses what we like. These are ultimately my likes only, though the vast majority of them have not become a subject of dispute on this forum.

[kontos]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

I myself have and continue to disagree with several of the major changes made in 2.2+, but also find much to like. Since most threads necessarily deal with matters of dispute, I thought it would be helpful to have one that addresses what we like. These are my likes only.

Thanks for adding balance to the discussion. Constant negativity loses sight of the positive changes put forth in 2.2+. Add to that - personal preferences - and nothing will be universally accepted. That leaves us "choice". Play it, or not.