Consensus on Good Things in 2.2+

[Xavi]

+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

[winterbadger]

Originally Posted by Xavi

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.

Originally Posted by Xavi

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).

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by pozanias

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.

[Tony Aguilar]

Originally Posted by Pavane

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.

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by Xavi

+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.

[Redwilde]

Originally Posted by dicemanrick

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.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Redwilde

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.

[peleset]

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.

[winterbadger]

And this one!

[Doug]

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+