Fanaticus Forum  

Go Back   Fanaticus Forum > Rules > v2.2+

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-20-2012, 02:47 PM
Xavi Xavi is offline
Centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 269
Default

+1 to winterbadger.

I don't see why this needs to be a project for the future. You just remove the current silliness and can think of an improved flank movement in the future. Easy.

Also, a lot of the littoral armies are "always attacks" armies, so it does not matter much: the vikings will almost always face the saxons in the interior grassland, not the coast. The agression factor is another factor that would benefit A LOT from a total revamp, since currently it does not make much sense (marian romans always attack for example, when in reality they tended to select the battlefield in their battles vs gauls Numidians and others), but that is another issue.

The explanation of the changes is something I have been asking for for weeks, and only managed to get partial responses by making myself truly annoying. Knowing WHY the changes are there is quite important to get acceptance, so I do not consider those explanations secondary but as important as the actual rules changes. SO thanks for DS for his explanation on camels, very appreciated. DK already posted something similar in another thread, but this is quite comprehensive. The 2.2+ effort has been great and good, but the communication campaign would profit from a document that looked at the whole changes, even if it was more cursorily than that kind of message above

Cheers,
Xavi
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-20-2012, 03:01 PM
winterbadger's Avatar
winterbadger winterbadger is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Takoma Park, MD, USA
Posts: 1,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavi View Post
I don't see why this needs to be a project for the future. You just remove the current silliness and can think of an improved flank movement in the future. Easy.
I see the smiley there, but just to make the serious reply: for the future because + is supposed to be a limited list of tweaks, not an overall change to the game's structure and play (especially the lists). Of course, people will jump all over a statement like this and say that X.Y. and Z are not limited changes from their POV, and that maybe true. But while I'm not one of the GM Listers, I am fairly confident in saying that X,Y, and Z are more or less limited to the GM List, but wholesale changes like eliminating entire terrain *classes* would not be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavi View Post
Also, a lot of the littoral armies are "always attacks" armies, so it does not matter much: the vikings will almost always face the saxons in the interior grassland, not the coast. The agression factor is another factor that would benefit A LOT from a total revamp, since currently it does not make much sense (marian romans always attack for example, when in reality they tended to select the battlefield in their battles vs gauls Numidians and others), but that is another issue.
Yes, it is. And while, yes, having a high aggression means the other guy gets to pick terrain, the attacker still has significant influence over the axis of set=up and over what part of the table the battle is fought in, so I'm not sure that the Romans are getting messed about too much. And the vikes, yes, are only going to fight on the shore on rare occasions. But again, I think that's fits fine with what little I know of their field battles (as compared to a "one longship loots the village" skirmish scenarios).
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-20-2012, 04:36 PM
Pavane's Avatar
Pavane Pavane is offline
Prefect
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Picton, ON Canada
Posts: 818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pozanias View Post
I think this is only partially true. My read was that most people agree that littoral landings should be removed, but I think the idea is that they should be replaced with flank marches (or something like that). And that's going to take a little work.

My personal view is that littoral landings are almost completely ahistorical (there are one or two legit examples), but they are really fun. So, my only request was that we wait until we have a better replacement before we take away the LL.

But maybe I'm misreading where we are going with this... (it wouldn't be the first time).
I believe that you are correct Mark. I support replacing littoral landings with a flank march rule.
__________________
Will M.
Another Proud Supporter of DBA 2.2+
http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-20-2012, 04:49 PM
Tony Aguilar's Avatar
Tony Aguilar Tony Aguilar is offline
Augustus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 1,576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavane View Post
I believe that you are correct Mark. I support replacing littoral landings with a flank march rule.
So do many people on the GM list, myself included.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-20-2012, 04:53 PM
Pavane's Avatar
Pavane Pavane is offline
Prefect
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Picton, ON Canada
Posts: 818
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavi View Post
+1 to winterbadger.

I don't see why this needs to be a project for the future. You just remove the current silliness and can think of an improved flank movement in the future. Easy.

Also, a lot of the littoral armies are "always attacks" armies, so it does not matter much: the vikings will almost always face the saxons in the interior grassland, not the coast. The agression factor is another factor that would benefit A LOT from a total revamp, since currently it does not make much sense (marian romans always attack for example, when in reality they tended to select the battlefield in their battles vs gauls Numidians and others), but that is another issue.

The explanation of the changes is something I have been asking for for weeks, and only managed to get partial responses by making myself truly annoying. Knowing WHY the changes are there is quite important to get acceptance, so I do not consider those explanations secondary but as important as the actual rules changes. SO thanks for DS for his explanation on camels, very appreciated. DK already posted something similar in another thread, but this is quite comprehensive. The 2.2+ effort has been great and good, but the communication campaign would profit from a document that looked at the whole changes, even if it was more cursorily than that kind of message above

Cheers,
Xavi
Xavi, I hope that you appreciate the amount of work required for the Designers' Notes. This is especially tiresome for a beta project where things may change before the final product, possibly making some sections obsolete. In spite of that we have started, but don't expect anything for a while. Completing 2.2+ takes precedence IMHO.
__________________
Will M.
Another Proud Supporter of DBA 2.2+
http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-20-2012, 04:56 PM
Redwilde Redwilde is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dicemanrick View Post
Caesar invades Britain, Battle of the Eurymedon, Viking landings didn't happen? There are many more...why eliminate the possibility?
The few and far between historical examples are entire armies landing in one spot. I don't believe there are any historical examples of a waterborne flanking force supporting a full field battle until the Sicilian campaign of WW2.

Because the historical examples of full contested beach landings are so few and far between, they are better treated as special scenario rules. Otherwise they become the norm.

And Caesar's landing, perhaps the best known contested beach landing in our game period, is not even possible without a special scenario rule anyway. Roman armies aren't rated as littoral and are not eligible.

Viking landing raids are not the large field battles they fought.

And as written, the rule is whacky as well as ahistorical. Why should it be so common for an army defending its home littoral territory to have 1/3 of its army off on a sailing trip?

Removing littoral landings is not a major rewrite. It's a very simple line deletion. Just like BUAs. Removing it improves the historicity of the game.

For any future consideration of adding flank march rules, they should be just the opposite of what we have now. Any army that is flank marching can choose to come in on a flank other than one marked by a waterway. A littoral army can land on the beach, only if that's their own baseline, right where the rest of the army landed just before them.
__________________
"Hasta la vista, Baby!"
Battlecry of the Velites
-----------
Goblinhall
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-20-2012, 05:43 PM
david kuijt's Avatar
david kuijt david kuijt is offline
Propraetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 2,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwilde View Post
For any future consideration of adding flank march rules, they should be [....]
It's fun to talk about this stuff. But (as you know, Maureen, although many readers won't know) we (the GMlist) decided not to consider it at this time. The consensus opinion was that it was a bridge too far.
__________________
DK

2.2+ is where it's at.

V2.2+ final version playsheet available at: http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-21-2012, 12:32 AM
peleset's Avatar
peleset peleset is offline
Primus Pilus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 547
Default

Don't forget this one.

In the same vein as Caesar the numbers and importance may have been exagerated but it was obviously a significant action.



Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-21-2012, 12:55 AM
winterbadger's Avatar
winterbadger winterbadger is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Takoma Park, MD, USA
Posts: 1,458
Default

And this one!

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-21-2012, 04:11 AM
Doug's Avatar
Doug Doug is online now
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,268
Default 2.2+

I don't want to start a flame war, but to be honest, many of the changes in 2.2+ are very reminiscent of DBMM. (Things like new troop types, rough going, scythed chariots not counting overlaps and so on.)

So I guess my puzzlement is that many of the criticisms of DBA3 seem to be that 'it is aiming for DBMM Lite' - but the same criticisms could be levelled at 2.2+
__________________
Cheers

Doug

DBA 3, excellent!!! (and Officially Approved)
A Lead Odyssey
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.