Breaking up your battle line

As a newcomer I have noticed quite a bit of discussion about the contract coloumn manouver. Clearly the concensus is that its use should be limited.

Can I ask is it socially acceptable to break up my battle line, turning some individual elements at odd angles so that it is difficult for my opponent to engage in close combat?. I know historically archers were some times set up in zig zag pattern, but this tactic seems to be possible for all troop types.

I don't think too many folks like it when you create bendy lines to avoid contact...but it is a game and the objective is to win, so....

There are disadvantages to this though. It forces you to spend PIP's to do it and you might not have the PIP's. Your opponent probably should maintain his line and pick off what units he can without breaking up his line like you did...so it can work against you anyway. I do see it as a useful delaying tactic though.

Kinky lines is considered by some as cheese play both online and face to face. Sometime it can back fire on you though (see previous post)

I think there is a fine line.

I will angle 1 or 2 pairs of elements if they are Bws v Bds, or Ps vs any in the open - but more than a couple of such reverse wedges spoils the game.

RIII

I'd say there were two types of games and, indeed, two types of gamers: those who want to play a realistic game and those who want to play a game to win (by any means necessary).

If you're the former then "break[ing] up my battle line, turning some individual elements at odd angles" is an unlikely manoeuvre (would this happen on a real battlefield, I think not).

If, however, you're the latter and are playing a game to win, then by all means use odd angles. Perhaps you could bring this to the attention of any prospective opponents!

Originally posted by posiview:
I'd say there were two types of games and, indeed, two types of gamers: those who want to play a realistic game and those who want to play a game to win (by any means necessary).

I have to say I disagree with this absolute generalisation in its entirety mostly through fact that I do not believe I, nor many other players I know, fall into either category.

If you're not interested in historical accuracy at all then you play chess, you don't mess around with little figurines (or graphical depictions of such). If you are overcome by the desire that everything be exact and perfect historically speaking then you don't play DBA either. The fact that Bw, Cb and Lb are all equal, that Alexanders phalanx is no more powerful than those of his adversaries, the fact that an element is destroyed if it as much as touches the slightest corner of a friendly unit etc etc etc are all about as historically accurate as your average hollywood war film.

Therefore it becomes obvious that anyone who plays and sticks with DBA is someone who has an interest in history and enjoys a good strategic challenge against someone else with the same interest. Winning is the objective of playing, the historical encounter between two vaguely realistic representations of ancient armies is the setting of the game and fun and enjoyment is the reason for playing in the first place.

I agree that some players do adopt a 'win at all costs' approach to the game and this diminishes the overall enjoyment.I do not play to 'win at all costs',nor do I play to recreate in detail some battle from the history books. I play to enjoy a strategic tussle with an opponent who enjoys the same.

There will never be any absolute agreement over what is and is not acceptable. The game mechanics themselves decide what is allowed and it is up to players individually to decide upon what they see as acceptable and from there they should learn their opponents views and select those they wish to play against or adjust their style of playing these players accordingly.

Obviously a tiny kink in a line is ridiculous and plays solely on the fact that we are dealing with solid rectangular pieces rather than the fluent front line of a unit of real men but swinging two ends of a line to envelop or to create such a situation to receive an advancing line IS historically viable and poses as much threat to the defensive line as it creates a problem for the attackers.

Decide for yourself- use 'cheese' or don't use it. If your opponents play 'cheesy' moves use them back or don't (Or don't play them in future).

But if you play me and I swing the end of my line to make you think twice about charging forward mindlessly or if you send your general in amongst my troops and I recoil a unit of my own into him and BOD him do not call me a 'win at any cost' player. It might not be historically realistic but it is DBAOL and the rules are the same for us all.

When all is said and done, 'cheese' is in the eye of the beholder.

Originally posted by aleksander:
(...)

I 100% agree with Aleksander's post below. Couldn't say it better (a little less anger, may be ? )

Angling line is OK (from a fair-play point of view as wel as from a 'realistic' point of view) in some situation, and absolutly not in others.

So, IMHO, Tooley1, do as your own moral tells you to do. There are no agreement on these point, and hopefully, there will never be !

Surely, people play DBA to win! After all, it

provides unprecedented opportunity to compete with the fellow war-gamers whom you would hardly meet face-to-face

(from "About DBA on-line).

The essence of competition is winning.

When all is said and done, 'cheese' is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed, and "you say tomato and I say tomato"

Oh, no what have you started. I have a simple set of guidelines when it comes to this question of "cheese":
(1) If it is within the DBA rules for the version of DBAOL follows - it is a fair move - even if "cheesy".
(2) If it is taking advantage of a program bug - it is not fair and cheesy.
(3) If a player I am playing against puts up a big stink if I am following guideline (1) above, I no longer actively challenge that player. If he/she challenges me - then they have to assume I follow guideline (1).

So, in answer to your question, there is nothing in the rules that says you can't kink your line, so it falls under guideline (1). It may be cheesy, it may be non-historical, it may be alot of things - but go ahead and use it.

Originally posted by Tooley1:
Can I ask is it socially acceptable to break up my battle line, turning some individual elements at odd angles so that it is difficult for my opponent to engage in close combat?.

I tend to view this as the absolute worst sort of bad manners.

DBA requires a front to front contact for combat to occur. By placing elements at angles you have artificially limited the ability of your opponent to attack. Even the more socially acceptable slight bend creates the artificial situation where only one of the units at the point of the bend may be legally attacked, and a guarenteed overlap.

In the end it comes down to a matter of degree. The bend is generally acceptable. Using creative geometry to make your battleline unassailabe is not.

[ June 30, 2003, 00:49: Message edited by: Scottila ]