Play test report with Seleucids

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

Simplicity is compelling. Having movement rates of 2.5 MU, or 2.75 MU, or 2.69312 MU, is not nearly as nice, neat, and clean as movement rates that are all whole numbers.

Perhaps folks who missed that lesson in 1st Grade might have trouble with a measuring stick ruled in both full and half MU increments, but I doubt that many DBA players fall into that category.

[El' Jocko]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

Perhaps folks who missed that lesson in 1st Grade might have trouble with a measuring stick ruled in both full and half MU increments, but I doubt that many DBA players fall into that category.

In my mind, it's not a question of what players are capable of. Instead, it's a goal of reducing cognitive load in areas that aren't essential to the game. I'd rather players spend their brain cells figuring out if they want to charge their Knights into the enemy Bow, not on what fraction of a movement unit the Knights are allowed to move.

- Jack

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by pozanias

* the new movement distances were unsettling when I first started playing 2.2+. I didn't find them "bad", I just found them to be awkward.
* having played a decent amount, I'm still not quite used to them, but they are definitely more comfortable than when I first started.
* I've talked with people that have played 2.2+ a lot more than me and they don't find the movement distances to be an issue.

I personally wouldn't characterize the new movement distances as either "bad" or "awkward." However, they are VERY different, particularly when the relative speeds of different types of elements are significantly altered from what they used to be. Psiloi & Aux, for example move 33% faster than in 2.2, while Heavy Foot types move only 20% faster. In retrospect, we must recognize that this is the most significant and fundamental difference -- and the precise one that caused the most discontent and complaint when 3.0 was showcased at Fall In.

[ferrency]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

Perhaps folks who missed that lesson in 1st Grade might have trouble with a measuring stick ruled in both full and half MU increments, but I doubt that many DBA players fall into that category.

Remember that game during the Two Davids successor campaign several conventions ago when you got pissed off at me for placing my Auxilia far enough away from your knight that you couldn't charge it (at least 76.2mm) but close enough that its ZoC protected the flank of an element in front of it (less than 80mm)? And then you stood up and yelled "You can't have it both ways!" and I said "Yes, I can" because I was right and you were wrong?

Well, if we were measuring with sane units such as MUs instead of stupid units such as inches, then I would not have been allowed to have it both ways and you would have been right.

So, choose your poison.

Alan

[ferrency]

Originally Posted by ferrency

Well, if we were measuring with sane units such as MUs instead of stupid units such as inches, then I would not have been allowed to have it both ways and you would have been right.

Furthermore: it was already the case that the better units used in 25mm games (40mm increments) worked the way you desired, while the inch measurements in 15mm games did not. Using MUs fixes this issue consistently across all scales.

Alan

[kontos]

Sigh. The more I read and think about it, maybe, just maybe, we should write our own rules. There certainly is enough talent and no comparisons can be made to previous versions.

Just kidding.

Or am I?

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

Psiloi & Aux, for example move 33% faster than in 2.2, while Heavy Foot types move only 20% faster. In retrospect, we must recognize that this is the most significant and fundamental difference -- and the precise one that caused the most discontent and complaint when 3.0 was showcased at Fall In.

3.0 makes huge differences in movement, and huge differences in relative movement. 2.2+ makes very minor changes in movement (13%? Seriously?). If you think the two are comparable, then perhaps you're one of the DBA players who missed a math lesson in 1st Grade?

[colinrice]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

Simplicity is compelling. Having movement rates of 2.5 MU, or 2.75 MU, or 2.69312 MU, is not nearly as nice, neat, and clean as movement rates that are all whole numbers.

The real issue is the size of the MU, which is an arbitrary unit of measure after all. Defining the MU in terms of BW seems like a good idea. A 1:4 ratio gives a finer gradation over the current 1:2 ratio that can be applied to any scale.

[colinrice]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

The more I play 2.2+ the more I come to realize that the larger movement rates make it a VERY different game than 2.2 (or 1.0 and 2.0).

I have always thought that the set of rules that is most conservative on movement would have the greatest success.

[colinrice]

Originally Posted by pozanias

I suspect you are better off just rotating them in place (for separate pips if more than one element). I've never known anyone to wheel a line of elements (or even one single element) a full 180 degrees. So you're talking about changes to things that probably shouldn't be happening in the first place.

Historically, there are two basic ways of reversing facing.

One method was used to move the unit to the rear and then change face to face in the original direction.

The second method was used to reverse the fighting direction of the unit. This required inverting the entire unit from left to right and front to back. One way would have been to wheel the unit to reverse frontage. The other was to right or left face the ranks and then counter march the unit so that it's frontage was reversed. Either way, this entailed considerable movement and meant that the unit was vulnerable during this complex maneuver.