Breaking Off From Close Combat -- Take #2

[Alex Bostwick]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

You will not receive any sort of summary of the discussion or of the results -- not until someone donates $50,000 to fund a full-time staffer to do that.

I would like to submit my resume for this position.

I have references.

[Lobotomy]

Originally Posted by Alex Bostwick

I would like to submit my resume for this position.

I have references.

Yes, I am one of the references. Oh well, I guess you don't get the job, Alex.

[Alex Bostwick]

Originally Posted by Lobotomy

Yes, I am one of the references. Oh well, I guess you don't get the job, Alex.

Watch closely as the lawyer defeats his own client!

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by snowcat

Hmm... the edit function doesn't seem to allow me to add images...
Well, I guess if we can all imagine that four little figures are actually a mass of 1000 warriors, then people can successfully imagine a pout icon in my earlier post...

[dicemanrick]

Kevin (and all) I can assure you I read all the posts on Fanaticus as I check in most days. I'm also a member of "the Cabal"

I haven't posted because I have nothing to add to the discussion. I believe that the results achieved at Cannae can be duplicated by dice rolling (not MY dice as Hannibal will lose 4-0 as the Gauls WILL die instead of recoil), as the center is pushed back steadily as the dice odds should predict.

As Larry C.points out, the current break-off rule means you move TOO far back to replicate what happened historically.

I personally am inclined to dismiss any suggestion that Hannibal ordered a fighting retreat with semi-drilled foot but can accept that he would anticipate the results and plan on that as a strategem (DBMM lingo thrown in).

In short, I really don't see a need to change the break-off rules as they now stand to try to model battle occurrences which the game still allows to happen normally. If the dice cooperate, you can say "Damn, that plan worked well!", if not, then say "Remember the victor always writes the history."

I'm not being dismissive of your idea, Kevin...I just think it's a complication we don't have to consider in the DBA rules. Besides, think that if we provide rules for it that EVERY war-leader in history can be just as good as Hannibal and that untrained mobs can be just as effective as Roman legionaries or Greek Hoplites in battlefield maneuver...and I don't really want to go down that path at all.

[Dangun]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

The consensus I'm refering to is not the ancient authorities themselves, but modern historians who have analyzed the battle. The key evidence is that Hannibal's army is described as being arrayed in a forward-arching crescent with its weakest units(the Gauls) closest to the Romans (his army's chin was sticking out, to borrow a boxing term). The only reason for Hannibal to have used such a risky deployment was because he intended to provoke an attack on his center -- though he hardly intended to fight and win the battle there. In game terms, purely random combat outcomes would have caused Hannibal's line to become hopelessly disordered as some Gauls pushed their enemies back, while others held in place, and yet others were driven back. Thus a deliberate, concerted, retreat seems the only way to explain how Hannibal intended for the Gauls to survive long enough for his complex battle plan to achieve victory on the flanks and produce the final encirclement.

I know I am responding late. But this is bad logic.

The ONLY thing we know about this battle is what is written in these ancients sources. Give them a read! They say absolutely nothing which directly says that Hannibal ordered a "break-off." Modern authors bring no new facts to the table.

A "deliberate retreat," can far more easily be explained as an "actual retreat." It can be gamed just as easily with weaker elements in the center or rear support on the edges, and does not necessitate a "break-off" order.

[Skeptical Gamer]

Originally Posted by Dangun

A "deliberate retreat," can far more easily be explained as an "actual retreat." It can be gamed just as easily with weaker elements in the center or rear support on the edges, and does not necessitate a "break-off" order.

From a purely game play perspective, I have to disagree here...
In history, an "actual retreat" being planned for or exploited by a great general may be a very good explanation for the recorded behavior, but from a game play perspective...

Given the overlap mechanic in DBA, once weaker elements begin to fall back (recoil), their neighboring elements are far more likely to be destroyed (doubled).

Without some method of redressing the lines (perhaps a voluntary recoil as a single element move), the Romans will break through rather than push back the line. I've seen this sort of thing happen in many DBA games.

Having said that, however, I am not certain that a change of this nature is necessary at this time. Every miniatures game has a few battles that cannot be easily replicated with the existing mechanics. This may simply be one of those battles for DBA.

It's possible that this should be addressed as a scenario specific special rule rather than a general rule (at least until the rest of 2.2+ is fully settled).

[winterbadger]

Originally Posted by Dangun

I know I am responding late. But this is bad logic.

The ONLY thing we know about this battle is what is written in these ancients sources. Give them a read! They say absolutely nothing which directly says that Hannibal ordered a "break-off." Modern authors bring no new facts to the table.

Modern authors cannot create new facts, I agree, but they can analyse old facts. That's what historians *do*.

I disagree with with Kevin's conclusion that a deliberate retreat is the *only* possible explanation, but it certainly seems to be *one* explanation.

[Dangun]

Originally Posted by winterbadger

but it certainly seems to be *one* explanation.

I agree, certainly possible. But, the list of possible explanations is unfortunately very, very long.

Importantly though, the explanation that an order was given, has absolutely no basis in the historical sources.