Fanaticus Forum  

Go Back   Fanaticus Forum > Rules > v2.2+

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-13-2015, 10:20 AM
David Schlanger's Avatar
David Schlanger David Schlanger is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 1,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterbadger View Post
Thanks for putting this together (which must have been a huge amount of work) and sharing it!

However, I'm getting a "Page Not Found" error. I was able to find the page by going through the website. I think you may have misspelt the URL in your hotlink.
Weird... it worked last night, but stopped working. Thanks, I have fixed the link in the original post.

DS

Last edited by David Schlanger; 03-17-2015 at 08:05 PM. Reason: Fixed link
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-13-2015, 11:03 AM
Tony Aguilar's Avatar
Tony Aguilar Tony Aguilar is offline
Augustus
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 1,825
Default

Very cool.
I will definitely be using this next time we put together some 2.2+ games.
__________________
The end times are fast approaching. Have you registered on the "new" site yet?
http://fanaticus.boards.net/forum

http://tonyaguilar.wordpress.com/
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FADBAG/
DBA-RRR Renaissance, Reformation and Restoration:http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/...A-RRR%20Files/
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-13-2015, 02:40 PM
Paul A. Hannah Paul A. Hannah is offline
Centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle, Washington USA
Posts: 328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Schlanger View Post
The DBA Aggression ratings conflate two separate historical issues -- a measure of how likely a given army was to be the invader against some enemy, and a measure of how likely a given army was to be able to dictate the choice of battlefield upon the enemy.
Brilliant concept. An elegantly simple solution to a highly complex problem. Well done.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-16-2015, 08:24 PM
David Schlanger's Avatar
David Schlanger David Schlanger is offline
Praetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Glenwood, MD
Posts: 1,016
Default

We have now added the Flank March rules information. So you can try Invasion and Maneuver and Flank Marching together. Or just trying Invasion and Maneuver: http://www.wadbag.com/rules/maneuver.html

Flank March is intended as a more historically relevant alternative to Littoral Landings. When used in conjunction with the Maneuver rules it can provide a commander with some very interesting decisions!

Give it a try, remove littoral landings from your games and replace them with these Flank March rules... we would love your feedback.

DS
__________________
Triumph!
****************
Washington Grand Company
http://www.wgcwar.com

Last edited by David Schlanger; 03-17-2015 at 08:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-17-2015, 08:29 AM
Viking Viking is offline
Evocati
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 156
Default

Love that waterways are now something you use to -protect- your flank from e.g. flank marches, not something you use to deliver a beach landing in the midst of combat. So it actually makes sense now

Some questions:
Why only arriving on the first bound? Were there not enough examples of flank marches arriving after combat maneuvers were initiated?
As the elements can be placed up to 4 MU from the edge, can't this create strange situations if the opponent moves towards that edge in his/her first bound (e.g. the flank marchers can appear behind or between the opponent's elements or in combat with them)?
Am I understanding it correctly that the flank marchers can also move in the same bound as they appear?

Last edited by Viking; 03-17-2015 at 08:48 AM. Reason: Thought of questions
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-17-2015, 09:47 AM
david kuijt's Avatar
david kuijt david kuijt is offline
Propraetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 2,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking View Post
Some questions:
Why only arriving on the first bound? Were there not enough examples of flank marches arriving after combat maneuvers were initiated?
I'm glad you asked, because we put quite a bit of thought into this issue. There are all sorts of mechanisms for delayed entry possible, and we considered some of them. But the real issue is this: what is the "Start" of a battle?

In the real world time is continuous, not discrete (split into turns starting from "1"), and the level of military interaction between two hostile forces varies, raising, lowering, skirmishing, etc. continuously as well. Some battles happen over several days. Some conflicts are more or less continuous, and the idea of dividing the multi-day conflict into separate "battles" with non-battle periods between them is largely an effort of historians attempting to organize their data rather than a reflection of what actually occurred. Note that there were many occasions in history where armies faced each other for days without fighting -- several days of waking up in the morning, having breakfast, forming up in lines of battle within sight of the enemy, posturing, then not fighting, heading back to camps in the evening, repeating. In some cases they ended up never actually fighting. In others they would then maneuver (strategic maneuver, out of sight of enemy) for reasons that are out of the scope of DBA -- try to get water or cut the enemy off from it (Hattin, 1187 being one case where it made a huge difference), or try to winkle an enemy out of a secure position, or try to convince the Senate you were actually doing something without getting your army destroyed (several Roman commanders were in this position against Hannibal), or draw the enemy to a battlefield of your choosing (Mongols did this a lot), or try to disengage (get out of contact completely, as the English were trying in the weeks before Agincourt), or a million other motivations.

Consider the First Crusade battle of Dorylaeum. The Crusader army split into separate columns. Soon afterward one column came under attack, pitched camp, the attack intensified, they responded, were driven back, fought for three hours, then the second column showed up, followed by a third group, and the Turks fled, abandoning their own camp.

So your task is this: assign the above battle a "Start" position on the Time spectrum. Take the confusion, the continuous activity and interaction, and say "This is Bound 0." It's a very thorny problem.

One natural choice is to find the last moment before major forces began to fight (or 30 minutes before the first major clash, or whatever). Even if some parts of the army are not present (on a flank march) or may never be present. That's the choice DBM/MM made.

However, consider what happens to the way people play if we go with a DBM/MM model where the flank march does not come on predictably. One side is significantly outnumbered, and must play to delay battle, either skirmishing to slow down the foe or taking a defensive position of one sort or another. Why? Because both generals know that the flank march exists, and given sufficient time, will eventually show up. Historical generals did NOT know this -- at Dorylaeum, for example, the Turks thought they were fighting the whole Crusader army, and the Crusaders had no idea that the other column was going to be able to get to the battle at all.

You could have any number of ways that late-arriving flank marches could come in unpredictably. That's fun for scenario games, certainly -- in our Embattled Isle scenario book, DS and I have something similar in the Battle of Orewin Bridge, where Prince Llewellyn (the Welsh CO) was off-map at the start of the game and his entry gives some uncertainty to the situation. But in non-scenario games, you will find that such rules tend to force the outnumbered player to "turtle up", which slows down battles (causing them often to extend much longer than the usual 1hour timeslot used at conventions) and makes for less interesting games.

Further, if you adopt a late-arrival rule, you really must require advance record of which side a flank march will enter upon. Doing otherwise gives too much advantage to the incoming flank marchers, as they can make choices that were completely unavailable to historical late-arriving groups unless they had advance satellite recon and were capable of mass teleportation of thousands upon thousands of warriors to the battlefield position where entry would give them the greatest advantage. Advance record means that the defender knows where they flank marchers will arrive (non-historical, again) which modifies how they fight. Unknown arrival means that the attackers (non-flank-marchers, who have numbers advantage) slow down their game as well, constantly worried about being caught in a bad position by a sudden arrival.

One of the design decisions for DBA was that battles should run an hour or less. Sure, some go longer, but a major factor in the success of DBA is the approximate hour it takes to play. It allows large tournaments to be run in an afternoon or evening at conventions, among other benefits.

So after some significant consideration, we decided that the best choice for DBA was to consider the "Start of the Battle" to be the moment the flank march (if any) arrived -- the moment that both generals realized that their original estimate of numbers and positions was very, very wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking View Post
As the elements can be placed up to 4 MU from the edge, can't this create strange situations if the opponent moves towards that edge in his/her first bound (e.g. the flank marchers can appear behind or between the opponent's elements or in combat with them)?
Could do. This isn't really a change -- that situation existed with Littoral Landings already, with much less justification. Nobody deploys within 4MU of the edge, so the natural play of an experienced player would be to not put himself in a vulnerable position when his enemy has only 8-11 elements on table (except, of course, for the memorable Ron Giampapa tactic of playing a whole game with only 9 elements, not realizing that he hadn't deployed 1/4 of his army at the beginning).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking View Post
Am I understanding it correctly that the flank marchers can also move in the same bound as they appear?
Nope. Except for troops allowed second-and-subsequent move ability.
__________________
DK

V2.2+ final version playsheet available at: http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-17-2015, 12:17 PM
Viking Viking is offline
Evocati
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 156
Default

Thanks for clarifying your reasoning! Makes sense to me mostly, except that I'd expect a player with more on-table elements to (at least in many cases) play aggressively to finish off the opponent before the reinforcements arrive

Quote:
Originally Posted by david kuijt View Post
Could do. This isn't really a change -- that situation existed with Littoral Landings already, with much less justification. Nobody deploys within 4MU of the edge, so the natural play of an experienced player would be to not put himself in a vulnerable position when his enemy has only 8-11 elements on table (except, of course, for the memorable Ron Giampapa tactic of playing a whole game with only 9 elements, not realizing that he hadn't deployed 1/4 of his army at the beginning).
In the 2.2 rule they're required to touch the waterway so would not end up behind enemy elements at least. I agree though that it's not likely that people would put themselves in that situation. Was there some reason you wanted to avoid deployment mechanisms where they make their entry via a tactical move starting from the board edge?

Quote:
Originally Posted by david kuijt View Post
Nope. Except for troops allowed second-and-subsequent move ability.
I see, it doesn't seem like the bullet points on the linked site mention it. And I can't find a mention of the maximum size of the flank march, though I assume it's 4 still. Unless it's just me failing at reading, maybe that would be good to put there.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-17-2015, 12:43 PM
david kuijt's Avatar
david kuijt david kuijt is offline
Propraetor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gaithersburg
Posts: 2,930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking View Post
Thanks for clarifying your reasoning! Makes sense to me mostly, except that I'd expect a player with more on-table elements to (at least in many cases) play aggressively to finish off the opponent before the reinforcements arrive
I'd expect the same, but our experience was that the "turtling" factor (slowing down the game by one player taking an unassailable position to wait for his flank march, if he could) outweighed the urgency of the other player, and even when one player was aggressive, games tended to take longer . WAAAAY longer in the cases where the on-map advantage player wasn't aggressive, due to fear of the arrival of the flank march.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking View Post
In the 2.2 rule they're required to touch the waterway so would not end up behind enemy elements at least.
I won a game once by deploying an artillery on a 2.2 littoral landing and shooting the enemy general in the ass. The other player was PISSED! He didn't get a single bound, and there was exactly one combat roll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking View Post
I agree though that it's not likely that people would put themselves in that situation. Was there some reason you wanted to avoid deployment mechanisms where they make their entry via a tactical move starting from the board edge?
Entry-type rules are sorta weird on relatively small mapboards (which even includes 30" boards). They give the flank-marching group even more potential for peculiar ambush-evil when they move, coming in 5MU (Kn/Aux), 6MU (Cv), or 8MU for LH. That magnifies the edge-of-the-world effect in a sense -- in the real world, most large bodies of troops would appear by "surprise" in the sense that their appearance would be unexpected, but that doesn't mean that they would be in combat before the enemy would even see them. So the enemy would have at least a bound (or more, if the incoming troops were slow) to react.

The Littoral Landing "deployment" rule had a few problems as well -- an evil player can use the Littoral Landing rule (start with two elements touching the waterway) in some startling ways, ending up with a line extending 6MU from the waterway. There was a period where my Ugarit army went 18-1, including winning a couple of Open tournaments. During that stint I assure you, some of my victories were purely created by adroit (mis)use of the Littoral Landing rules.
__________________
DK

V2.2+ final version playsheet available at: http://www.wadbag.com/V2.2+/
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-17-2015, 01:06 PM
Viking Viking is offline
Evocati
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 156
Default

I see, good to know, and thanks for sharing the amusing anecdotes I think my comparison to the littoral landing rules was a bit misleading, those rules were IMO so ridiculous in themselves that nearly anything (such as just forbidding their use) is better. So I'm not trying to make a comparison to those rules but rather looking at the flank march rule in separation. Seems like you've playtested it well, I'll certainly try it out!
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 11:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.