"Ancient/Medieval Gaming and Geometry..." Topic

Something I have noticed in many ancient/medieval rules is the amount of "geometry" and use of angles, etc to gain some (sometimes) large advantage. DBA, FOG and L'Art De late Guerre come to mind but I've seen it in others as well. It's something I'm not particularly fond of and find it incredibly difficult to settle on an ancient set. I just can't imagine Alexander the Great telling his cavalry to charge Radius, but make sure their front is at least 10 feet from touching the Immortals. I don't want to spend time thinking of the prime angle to move a unit so it can get the most possible modifiers and zone of control to cripple my enemy. That seems more like gaming geometry than wargaming to me.

Is this just me? I notice considerably less "geometry gaming" in games for other periods. Is it all stemming from DBA? Is it the product of people who interpret rules (thinking in a DBA mindset)? Is it because of how we interpret ancient armies.moved and fought? Thanks for any feedback in advance.

Anytime you have a limited frontage in which to "fire", or modifiers for flank and rear attacks, you are "gaming geometry". It is part of the tactical considerations of RL battle. But I agree that undue focus on advantages depending on hairline facing is annoying and distracting and results in gaming the system rather than the battle….

That's why some people are moving to grid-based games, I guess.

Yep, although by its nature, miniature tabletop wargaming must have a degree of geometry, in some rules, the geometry dominates and the wargame simulation is lost.
IMHO try out Might of Arms, going through a rewrite at the moment, might be a good time to input your ideas on the yahoo group.

Remember the 18th-century joke about Prussians with set-squares mounted between the shoulders of their coats?

Its one of the side effects of tournaments. Due to the way _some_ players interpret rules and do anything to win, designers are forced to put precise rules in the game to define what a flank attack is. It just bleeds out to the rest of us who use the rules for non-tournament gaming.

With the longer move distances in DBA 3.0 this is much less of an issue than it previously was.

I agree, the new 3.0 version of DBA finally clears up some of the more obnoxious geometric tricks. Too free-wheeling an attitude, however, can be just as bad at the opposite end of the spectrum--your block of infantry is too far away and faced the wrong way, but the rules allow a free "reform" and you JUST make it into contact with the corner of a much larger formation and voila, there is a completely nonsensical combat. Both extremes can be bad.

I agree that this is not an effect of geometry, but of the complexity of rules. The more moving parts there are in a rule set, the greater the opportunity to warp it into unintended behaviour. I tend to design games so that tactical and operational decision drive combat resolution rather than statistics, charts, and nomograms.

Wargames should require a degree of geometry, they should require a degree IN geometry. :-)

It's difficult to get away from that geometry in pre-20th Century warfare because so much of the movement involved closely formed infantry and cavalry. Wheeling and moving large bodies of men did demand that commanders know the dimensions of the units, ground and areas needed to move.

And as pointed out, on the tabletop, without rigid hex structures or other divisions of space, at least some geometry is necessary.

and you JUST make it into contact with the corner of a much larger formation and voila, there is a completely nonsensical combat.

Either the unit makes contact with an enemy unit or it doesn't. With tbe inherent inaccuracies of measurement and movement, it is fairly random as to whether it happens or not. Nothing to lose sleep over IMHO.

Bear in mind the OP is talking about Ancient/medieval wargaming. While we see units in neat little blocks, I hardly think that was the case with most armies, especially as so few were even full time. As most kings were not even literate, I doubt geometry played much of a part in their lives – the main requirement was either your inbred dad married your inbred mum or you were friends with the pope. Once battle lines were set, there was rarely much manoeuvring.
That's why I like games like Command and Colours. No arguing about whether something is in charge range or not.

The geometry of these games is not the end result but rather a means to an end. It is simply those games methods of handling movement and combat. It seems a bit odd at times, but not as bad as clipping that occurs in other games. It's just part of the game …

Mike B

This "just making contact with the corner" nonsense doesn't occur if you have stand to stand combat contact only. Only when other elements (bases/stands) in the unit make it into base to base contact with enemies do their combat values come into play. Of course, this in only possible if you design individual combat into your game, instead of multi-figurine, element basing. But I believe that such granularity is the core element in a more satisfying looking and feeling gameplay….