"DBA 3.0 AAR illustrating elephant issues" Topic

This AAR posted on the Fanaticus site, at :

link

Mark H.

I don't understand how the elephant element was contacted on the flank, to cause the turn, without the attacking element having some part of its base off the board. Never mind the elephant appearing to be fighting the central element in a line of three!
The geometry in this combat must have been "magical" , no?

Actually no; look at the second image more carefully:

1. The forward corner of the flanking elephant is clearly farther than one BW from the baseline of the playing area.
2. Thus, when the 3 mounted elements wheel left to approach the elephant, parallel to the baseline, the Persian center Cv element is the one which contacts corner of the elephant stand. It is legal to move parallel to a baseline, with the edge of the element brushing the edge of the playing area.
3. That single elephant must then immediately turn to face the Persian group, lining up with the Persian center Cv element.
4. In turn, that means that the other 2 elements in the group are flanking the elephant from left and right.
5. Hence the observed result.

MH

Here's an overall picture of the battle, to attract additional posters. MH

And that 'ha, my careful geometric play means you must turn to face my attack and if a retreat is rolled you're stuffed' is exactly why I dislike playing DBx games.

Those elephants were sitting ducks….

Any element on the baseline in games with lethal retreat results is dead meat. I always try and crowd the enemy baseline in CnC Ancients and watch them die like flies.

Gamey and unrealistic, but hey, that is what the rules say…

Ogdenlulimus, I apologize. On further examination, you are correct that there wasn't room for the entire 3-element Persian cavalry wing to wheel. It therefore must have been done in 2 parts, using 2 PIPs. First the 2 Cv would have wheeled and contacted the elephant. Then the remaining Lh would have moved up on the flank.

Temporary like Achilles, I don't think this is as you put it "careful geometric play". Instead it is an example of what happens if you attack an open flank, covered by a semi-crippled troop type (i.e. elephants). Note that I give details in the Fanaticus thread, in my initial post. If you don't play DBA, you should know that in recent versions of the rules, elephants destroy each other if they retreat into each other. In addition to this, elephants are unmaneuverable in DBA, costing an extra PIP to move, and were recently reduced in combat value versus mounted. I assume this is an over-reaction by the designer to someone who won too many convention games with an elephant-heavy army, but I don't know for sure.

Martin, the damage was done by forcing the elephants to retreat into each other, rather than into the baseline.

MH

Whatever challenges are built into the game for horses facing elephants, seem to have been easily overcome by the cavalry.

So this is the image right before the contact correct?

So here is what I see based on your account.

1) the 2 cavalry (CV) wheel parallel to the side edge and make contact with the rearmost El. At the end of movement/beginning of combat, single elements conform. Not that the other El will get nudged out of the way slightly so that the El can conform.

2) The Lh probably would not have a legal move or room to contact the right or left side of the El. Remember, conforming occurs AFTER all movement is done. On a following turn, it may be possible for the Lh to slide into the flank, assuming there is enough room between the left side of the El and the board edge, which I doubt there would be.

WATJ, you are forgetting this rule on page 9: "Unless turning to face a flank or rear contact (see p.10), contacted elements confirm at contact". Therefore the 2 Cv would wheel into contact, the elephant would conform, and then using a second PIP the Lh would move up for the other overlap. IIRC, the Lh barely made it.

I was incorrect when I informed the first poster that the flanking maneuver could have been completed with a single-PIP group wheel, however.

Note that my main motivation in posting this was to elicit opinions as to whether people thought a house rule, rolling back some of the elephant changes to DBA 1.1, might be justified. I thought the extra PIP for elephant movement added in 1.1 was a sufficient adjustment to their capabilities, and that the lesser anti-mounted capability and mutual self-destruction changes were over-kill. BTW, none of my DBA armies contain elephants…

Mark H.

IIRC, the Lh barely made it.

OK, got it. Single elements always conform. That much is certain and the third picture is perfectly clear how it went. So all fine so far. I was judging and estimating based on the picture. It did not look like the whole line could have wheeled. But no. You could not have flanked the elephant with the LH if it was part of a group with a single pip.

The following turn, assuming nobody got in the LH way (Threat zones etc) you could flank the El. In retrospect, that El is likely dead in two turns if the El behind it is not removed to allow some movement space for recoil.

So should El Rules be changed? I think they are fine the way they are. It takes 3 elements to gain an advantage over 1 El. You have your opponent in bad straights as of the last picture so it was up to him/her to set things right and keep the El from getting flanked.

The third picture.

Hiya

Reminds me of that successor battle where one side got their light cavalry round the flank and rear of their enemy's elephants.

David F Brown

A single elephant element on the flank and unsupported is a disaster in the making…

A group of elephants advancing in the vanguard is terrifying sight.

The elephant was fighting at +2 to +3…
So…it did have about a 40% chance of a good outcome.
(Kill, Tie or recoil enemy).

Joe Collins

A single elephant element on the flank and unsupported is a disaster in the making…

True. Unfortunately I think that 2 or 3 elephants on the flank are a disaster in the making as well, and this wasn't true back in 1.1. I will be licking my chops if I get my mounted on a flank covered by elephants in a future game. I think Phil over-adjusted a bit here. Ah well; it's still a good game overall…

Mark H.

I go back and forth on it depending on the day. The elephants are much more effective vs foot certainly.

Joe Collins

Very interesting.

Been planning on (and have actually started) a Classical Indian Army – my nephew loves elephants.

This will give an idea of what not to do.

"Any element on the baseline in games with lethal retreat results is dead meat. I always try and crowd the enemy baseline in CnC Ancients and watch them die like flies.

Gamey and unrealistic, but hey, that is what the rules say…"

It depends on what you define as realistic.

Using the baseline in your favour is surely the more unrealistic thing.

I always interprete leaving the table over the baseline as a flee move. CnC has no flee move, only fall back with flags. Forcing the enemy on the baseline makes him flee. Isnt that realistic?

I need to re-read the 3.0 rules on contact and confirms. But I don't think the elephant should have conformed. It is not a single element, it is in a group with the other elephant.

Doesn't a group require at least two elements to be in edge and corner contact? Tactical Moves, p.8, 3rd paragraph.

P.S. Sure would be nice if someone would translate these rules into English.

You are correct. I misread the post on Fanaticus, and thought the elephants were still on a group when contacted by the cavalry. But in fact the right-hand elephant had pulled back about half a base depth, and do was no longer in a group.

Note this is a re-post, due to the demise of the Fanaticus link in my OP.

Per OP, images below illustrate the vulnerabilities of elephants in DBA 3.0. Elephants started out being most viable in the initial DBA 1.0, with a reasonable +1 pip movement penalty being added in 1.1. Unfortunately, subsequent versions of the rules continued to add to their vulnerabilities, with 3.0 being the worst. (BTW, I have no elephants in my DBA armies). Game is Early Achaemenid Persians versus Seleucids, and rules used were DBA 3.0 as written in the rulebook.

Below, we see the Persian right flank poised to attempt an attack on the 3 Seleucid elephants covering their left flank. In the original 1.x versions of DBA, this would have been problematic, as elephants were still viable. However, in DBA 3.0 …

Below the Persians are crossing the stream. IIRC, this is the turn prior to contact with the elephants.

Finally, below we have the turn of contact, where the 2 Persian cavalry elements wheel to contact the flank elephant, which must immediately adjust to face; note that would also have been true had the elephant remained adjacent to its mate, instead of being echeloned back. The light horse then move up on the flank for a double overlap. The subsequent combat resulted in the in-contact elephant recoiling back into it's mate, destroying both; prior to DBA 3.0, only one elephant would have been destroyed.

Curious. I haven't played DBA3, barely played DBA at all, but it wouldn't have been legal in DBMM. In DBMM if the edge of the table prevents mutual front corner contact (as in this case), the "full flank edge or full front edge must be in contact." Against a shallower element this would have been possible but then it might have been able to recoil without contacting the second elephant. Is there no such rule in DBA3?

Alternatively this would have to have been initiated as a corner contact. Again in DBMM, this can only be initiated by "a group that moved only straight forward". These rules are there to prevent geometric ploys like here, pulling the elephant out on a perfectly designed angle to allow two overlaps and a "quick kill". Again, is there no such restriction in DBA?

In DBMM, the only way the Cv could have contacted the elephant was head on, overlapped on the Cv's left, but allowing a Cv or LH overlap on the elephant's left. If defeated the elephant would have recoiled up to the table edge. If already in contact with the table edge (so unable to commence recoil) it would have suffered a -1 penalty for inability to commence recoil.

While I know a lot of people don't like DBMM (their call), it has eliminated many of the geometric ploys. I would have expected DBA3 to have adopted those.

JE:

Remember the post is intended to replace the OP (at the top of the thread). So go up there, and the DBA 3.0 rule-based sequence is detailed in the third post (modified by my subsequent correction that the move-to-contact was initially only the 2 cavalry elements, with the light horse then moving up along side using a second pip). Based on your comment, DBMM handles this better than DBA 3.0.

BTW, this has nothing to do with the edge of the table, nor is it any more of a "geometric ploy" than anything else in DBX. See the 8th post up above. Instead it is the logical consequence in DBA 3.0 of attacking a flank composed of multiple elephant elements. Whereas normal elements would at most lose 1 element, elephant elements, due to poorly conceived rule changes in DBA 3.0 lose multiple elements. While in the game illustrated the Seleucid player tried to protect his flank by refusing it, the result would have been the same had they kept the 3 elephants in the line.

IMHO DBA over-reacted in limiting elephants in 2.x and 3.0. It was unnecessary from a balance perspective, as I never had problems in dealing with them, so good competition players shouldn't have had any either.

More importantly, the end result of all these limitations are of dubious historical validity, as it precludes tactics such as used at Ipsus, where the Seleucid elephant screen are thought to have prevented the return of Demetrius's cavalry to the battle.

For example, from Waterfield "Dividing the Spoils", page 154 "But it is equally likely that Seleucus's elephant drivers skillfully blocked the attempts of Demetrius's victorious cavalry to return to the battlefield and relieve his father. Demetrius's cavalry, on the right wing, had been expected to win; details of the battle are uncertain but it may even have been a deliberate tactic by Lysimachus and Seleucus to let him drive their left wing back far enough for them to deploy their elephants to block his return."

In another example, from Head's "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars", page 70, "When Demetrios tried to return he found his way blocked by Seleucus' large elephant corps, and he was unable to force a way past these to help his father's beleaguered phalanx."

MH