Breaking up your battle line

Originally Posted By Posiview:
Surely, people play DBA to win!

Of course; not much point playing at all if you're not going to try to win.

...those who want to play a game to win (by any means necessary).

This is different. When faced by a BGo army I can select a reasonably equal army and, sticking within my own standards (or the standards of mot opponent if I know them), I can try to win. Alternatively I can choose a bunch of Kn in open ground and play every sneaky trick I know to make sure I win....There is a huge difference between the two.

Originally Posted By Kachoudas:
Couldn't say it better (a little less anger, may be ? )

Sorry, didn't mean to sound angry but there are players who do feel the need to employ any and every tactic to make every game as unenjoyably impossible to win for their opponent as they possibly can. I just do not wish to be lumped in this group. Enjoyment above all else!

Originally posted by aleksander:
I have to say I disagree with this absolute generalisation in its entirety...

Well put, sir!

Oh - Oh - thinking about adding to this topic - no - resist - resist - don't do it Vince - I'll just end up regretting it - but people are saying the magic words -"if it's possible in the program then it can be done" I know, but don't rise to the bait, and for God's sake, stop talking to yourself!!!!

The Gods work in mysteruios ways, obviously - because I find myself agreeing with Vince here!

Although, an 'if you are able to, go ahead' attitude is in many ways the easiest way (because it inherently has an 'objective' referee and thus negates the need for discussion), it is, I think, not the best way.

There are things the programme allows (and indeed DBA allows) that are just plain ludicrous. I can for example set my army up in such a way that my opponent can never attack any of my elements. Ever.

Some things just should not be done. It is true that we will never all entirely agree on what is cheese and what isn't - but that's the package deal with interacting with other people! We just have to do the best we can together.

RIII

You’ve got a medieval english army, bow oriented, and you’re just waiting for the charge of your opponent’s french Kn army on the crest of a hill. The +5 / +3 odds make you think you’re likely to win the hand to hand combat, and if your opponent recoils or miscalculates the charge distance, you’re sure to “finish” the frenchies with some good shots.

Question: Are you cheating?

Originally posted by Olias of Sunhillow:
Oh - Oh - thinking about adding to this topic - no - resist - resist - don't do it Vince - I'll just end up regretting it - but people are saying the magic words -"if it's possible in the program then it can be done" I know, but don't rise to the bait, and for God's sake, stop talking to yourself!!!!

Do I want to get myself in more trouble :

I think there is a big distinction between - "if it's in the program (i.e. the DBAOL software) then it can be done" and "if it is not prevented by the DBA rules, then it is acceptable". I think the latter would be generally agreed to by the majority of players in DBAOL - whereas the former would be distained by most.

We can talk all we want about what is "cheesy" and what isn't. DBA is full of "cheesy" possibilities (kinked lines, BOD, recoils into archers front edges, map edges, ZOC extending through impassible terrain, etc, etc, etc). The question put forth is if these should be used in the course of a game. Problem with the answer to that question in general is that there are so many different possibilities, it is impossible to regulate or even agree upon what is considered proper and what is not considered proper. The only set of guidelines, for better or worse, is the ruleset. Discussion about the rules is definately worthwhile (see discussion on 2.1 ammendments); however, once the rules are set, I don't see the point in trying to deviate from them in a group as large as DBAOL and have everyone bound by them as a group.

What I would suggest is that you use your own judgement in terms of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable and seek out players that fall in line with that thinking. I generally tailor my play to the wishes of my opponents - if I can keep it straight.

Absolutely Ambiorix! I agree with what you are saying. I was only being light-hearted in my original statement, referring to what has been said before in other forums, more in reference to ctr grp but also to certain other issues. I won't bore you with my thoughts on the subject(well, only a little) - I have played over 1000 games now and the issue of cheddar/gorgonzola and other such dairy produce has been an issue in no more than 10 say? It really is no great problem at all - there can be a slight difference in emphasis on how the game is played but as you say, we tend to find out who plays in certain styles and adapt. I play with the thought in my mind of 'would this be a legitimate battlefield manouevre' this guides what I do and what I don't do - it's just my way of playing. I also tend to think - would I make this move if my opponent was 3 feet across the table. One can tend to get into a spiral of cheesiness - wherein if an opponent say, uses the edge of the board to avoid combat, or kinks lines then the argument is to just do unto others what is done to oneself, and so it goes on, with the game turning into one of blocking manoeuvres, and all the previously mentioned cheese.

The fact is that there is so much room for discussion about what the rules actually allow - interpretation is the key here - that there really is no such thing as a 'rule-set' [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Ted Lapinus:
You’ve got a medieval english army, bow oriented, and you’re just waiting for the charge of your opponent’s french Kn army on the crest of a hill. The +5 / +3 odds make you think you’re likely to win the hand to hand combat, and if your opponent recoils or miscalculates the charge distance, you’re sure to “finish” the frenchies with some good shots.

Question: Are you cheating?

No of course not. I would think what you have is a drawn battle. The French would be insane to charge up into that. Most likely you would sit there and glower at one another until time is called.

The difference between the sit on a hill and wait, and the kinked line/odd angles strategy, is that one uses the terrain and the inherent qualities of the army to gain advantage, while the other manipulates game procedures to achieve the same result. The latter is reprehensible, the former merely frustrating.

In your scenario, the English player would have to decide if he wants the win or not. The French player is under no obligation to make a suicidal charge. But now we are getting into a different realm – the deliberately drawn battle.

What a coincidence! I'm working on setting up a bendy line in DBAOL right now.

In my case, I've got Blades anchored by woods on my left, and a steep hill on my right.

My attacker is lining up Knights to charge into them. *Of course* I'm setting up a pocket for them to run into.

I would be willing to try something different, but I don't think even the pocket will be enough.

Any suggestions for what else Blades should do against Knights and Light Horse in good going?

I can't outmanouver them. If I'm lucky, I may convince them to take the battle somewhere else.

Remember, unlike a straight line, after the enemy has broken through a bendy line, the defender won't get any overlaps (unless they spend PIPs, and they're not ZOC'd).

The major problem *I* see with a bendy line is that it's very static. It takes a lot of PIPs to set up, and you can't move it anywhere. It's not going to win the battle for you. It's tough, but brittle. If you're lucky, you can concentrate the rest of your forces elsewhere. But the enemy can commit *all* their forces elsewhere -- your bendy line isn't going to move easily.

Does this reduce the cheese factor enough?


Phil Jansen

[ June 30, 2003, 18:36: Message edited by: PhilipOfOregon ]

Originally posted by Scottila:

The difference between the sit on a hill and wait, and the kinked line/odd angles strategy, is that one uses the terrain and the inherent qualities of the army to gain advantage, while the other manipulates game procedures to achieve the same result. The latter is reprehensible, the former merely frustrating.

The two tricks can be judged as frustrating, but none is reprehensible since in strict accordance with the rules.

A kinked line in DBAOL is a representation of a curved defense line on the real battlefield. In the game as in reality, a curved defensive line is much more powerful to prevent an attack but also PIP expensive to set up and quasi unmovable.

IMO, forming a kinked line is not more cheating than waiting a Kn charge with Bw on the crest of a hill [img]smile.gif[/img]