"Flanker Quality Not Relevant?" Topic

Just want to make sure this is correct. Please feel free to correct or comment as appropriate and thanks in advance!

Let's look at two different combats.

A. Spear vs Spear with Psiloi flanking one of the spears

B. Spear vs Spear with double-based Knights/General flankong one of the spears

Is it correct that in DBx there is no difference in combat effect/modifiers/results whether the flanking/locking/"whatever the term is" unit is a bunch of guys throwing rocks as individuals or fully armored knights in close order wedge formation thundering into the flank of an enemy engaged to its front?

As far as I can tell both have the same flanking mod and effect on combat results. Is that correct?

As far as I can tell both have the same flanking mod and effect on combat results. Is that correct?

Yes.

If the flanking unit is not engaged to its own front, then you are correct. An unengaged flanking unit modifies by -1 the combat factor of the defending unit, regardless of the type of unit it is.

If the flanking unit is not engaged to its own front, then you are correct.

A flanking unit will have the unit being flanked to its front.
An overlapping unit cannot give an overlap modifier if it is itself engaged to its front.

My bad, I was misusing flanking versus overlapping. We have been using "pinning" instead of flanking as the term for so long that I forgot.

At the time of the initial impact by the flanking element, most of the enemy troops are engaged to the front. Only a file or two know what is happening on the flank, most are attending to business to the front. As the font troops lose and begin to pull back, the ones on the side pass the word that they cannot recoil as they are fighting to the flank. Then morale breaks down and the whole element is destroyed instead of recoiling. Most of the element does not know whether there are some half naked Psiloi throwing stones or heavily armored knights attacking on the flank.

If the flanked element wins to the front, then the side troops are emboldened and press the flankers who also recoil to regroup.

Thanks for the explanation.

I guess my surprise is that there was no difference in combat effect between some guys in tunics standing off and hurling objects as individuals and close order troops crushing into the flank of the engaged unit. Seems like history and human behavior would suggest otherwise but it is just a game after all.

@Bob…I appreciate your explanation but must disagree. You're right, in the cast of some half naked psiloi, it's likely that knowledge of their presence would be limited to the outer flank files. But in the case of massed heavy cav with speed far greater than the psiloi and a prediliction to close with the enemy their presence would be felt not only by a few flanking files but also along the rear ranks as horsemen seek the path of least resistence and surround the engaged unit.

The explanation addresses the perspective of the engaged unit assuming a completely generic "enemy flanker" but fails to account for fundamental differences between skimrish infantry (trained to stand off from an enemy) and massed heavy cav (trained to close with the enemy and aggressively maneuver for advantage).

It reinforces a feeling that I often get playing DBA: tactical choice matter less than the roll of the dice (as my son has said, just play the game 3,000 times and the luck element evens out!). :-)

If you actually manage to get your double based knight/general stand into flank contact (as opposed to just overlapping), then use that element as your main combat element. It will make quite a difference to the result.

If you think that skill has only a peripheral effect in DBA, it's interesting to see the same names winning and placing in every competition. Clearly tactical choices make no difference…. not.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it doesn't require skill. It's just that the way combat resolution works you can get extreme swings in results that make tactical choices seem less important. And certain aspects are not intuitive, both interms of history and player experience. You can do something that might be expected to deliver a particular historical result or effect but the system provides a c9m0letely different result. So one can be skilled with the system but it can feel random and confusing if just going by history.

For example, there are instances when the "quick kill" result becomes a coin toss when the modifiers are equal or nearly equal. And you can hit a unit from three sides and still end up with only meager odds of a kill while the victorious surrounded element is no worse for wear (lack of carry over effects is especially wierd imo). Intuitively you have this element surrounded and fighting turn after turn but the stats make each roll a near coin toss (even with rules like the quick kill rule which does not modifiy the probability of success, only the severity of result…two different things).

I've seen archers advancing aggressively across open ground or down roads repel cavalry charges. I think the system assumes they stop to pound stakes into the ground after each move allowing them a degree of offensive capability not seen historically. Even with their firepower archers needed to be protected by stakes, terrain or other infantry such as spears to resist cav. The system is just to generous to archers, especially longbows who are preceded by a mobile front of stakes.

And new players are often dismayed to learn that their skirmish troops are required to enter "close combat" to fight. Yes, I get the abstraction. But when an abstraction runs counter to intuitive play it can make player experience a little disconcerting.

Going back to the quick kill rule and d6 v d6. Quick kill results don't modify probability of success. That's where my son's comment applies. If your sample size is just a few die rolls here and there such situations lead to a weird disconnect between probability and severity of result. So you've pinned that spear element with your spear element, fla nked him with your knights/general, but all you get is a -1 on the roll. Still pretty close to a coin flip so you'd need a lot of such rolls to "even out the results" so to speak.

So maybe the perception of randomness comes not only from the 1d6 v 1d6 combat resolution but also the disconnect between abstraction and player experience. In other words, even if a player does something that intuitively should result in a given result the system doesn't actually provide that result. This issue of spearmen vs speamen with one flanked by heavy cavalry is just an example of that. It feels like the flanked spears should be crushed but there being no difference between flanking knights led by a general and flanking guys in tunics throwing rocks.

I guess that's one element of the "tactical choices making no difference" feeling which is not the same thing as a player being skilled in the particulars and idiosynchrocies of DBA playing well. I hope that explains the feeling a little better.

lots of good comments, much to consider, but I will mention this,
new players should be told

"CLOSE COMBAT
In addition to hand-to-hand fighting, close combat includes all use of missiles by mounted troops or foot skirmishers or during a charge or melee."

"Distant Shooting" is what is done by mass troops.

Yes, fully understand about that. Have played a lot of DBx since it's a favorite of a very good friend and I enjoy playing with him tremendously.

But this weekend we introduced some completely new players to the game and it was enlightening watching them try to wrap their heads around these types of abstractions.

I'm all for abstraction in wargaming. It's necessary really and each of us has his or her own level of tolerance. I'm happy with front, side and deck armor for tank battles. Others are happy with one generic armor value for a tank and a universal flank modifier applied equally to all tanks. Still others want detail for hit locations such as glacis, turret ring, etc. To each his own.

I guess that for me DBx's level of abstraction sometimes raises that old truism in industrial design and engineering that I learned in college: "If you have to provide a user guide for your doorknob then your design has a problem".

So when I saw these new players assume that their bow-armed skirmishers could shoot just as far as their bow-armed massed troops it reminded me of why I feel that it's best to design games so that, even when abstract, they still play intuitively. Then there's no need to explain why a player can't do something he intuitively "knows" that he can do. You eliminate a lot of rules "friction" by taking that approach.

I suppose that a fix for DBx could be to allow skirmishers to shoot/engage in combat as far as their massed colleagues but maybe limit their result when doing so to recoil only no matter the die result.

DBA does not need a fix it works perfectly fine with skirmishers engaging in missile combat as part of close combat. Someone reading the rules will I hope read the troop type descriptions. If someone is teaching them, I would hope the teacher will explain all this. A person new to doors might need a door knob explained to them.

They were experienced gamers (ie they know "door knobs").

It's just that this particular door knob wasn't intuitive.

:-)

But I know this door knob and it still trips me up.

Look at 3x spears vs 1x spear. Spears are the journymen of ancient and medieval warfare. Let's say you've done your job as a DBx general and concentrated 3x spears against 1x isolated enemy spear. We Avalon Hill vets know that, consistent with real world military theory, 3:1 odds is what you need to succeed in attack.

If the two extra attacking spears are overlaps the attacker has only a 26/36 chance of winning and a 10/36 of a tie or loss. So less than 3:1 odds. If one or both flankers lock the defender through contact the odds of victory remain the same (which is counter intuitive) but the chance for a kill moves from 9/36 to 26/36. In other words, the attacker could have the defender surrounded in contact on three sides and the defender STILL has nearly a 1/3 chance of emerging unscathed and totally fresh from the attack.

Going back to the flankers being overlaps the odds are 28/36 that the defender will survive the 3:1 attack (recoiled, tie, or win). That's pretty good odds for a defender facing 3 attackers and, even if the defender is recoiled he's no worse for wear. In fact a recoil just makes it harder for one of the flankers to move into lock position. This is where my son's comment comes in and why I like the idea of recoils causing "fatigue" points on elements so they peform more like men fighting and less like bumper cars.

Actually,

3 Sp vs 1 would be a +5 to +2.
1/3 Chance of an outright kill.
1/2 Chance of an recoil.
With a flank you have 30/36 of a kill.

I'll take 5/6 odds.

Joe Collins

Wow thanks for being the voice of reason! Every time I bring this up, the 50 year old DBM veterans try and argue it's perfectly fine the way it is. No, it's really not. yoy practically need a PHD in English to read those rules and have them make sense. The only real way to learn is to have some veteran teach you, and all they will really do when you bring up rules changes is tell you to get off their lawn. One of the things that initially attracted me to FoG was that everything shot, and the game had a representation for the charge effect (like the legionary throwing his pilum, something that is highly misrepresented in DBM and I'd like to see it changed).

Overall I play DBM because that's all the 4 players in my area know and they aren't really willing to learn a different system. There are a lot of changes I would make to DBM, most are cosmetic and supply related as I give Phil an F grade on those two aspects are what hurts the proliferation of the game the most.

Spear wall mod! Yup, forgot it.

So according to your calculation with overlaps at 3:1 odds it's a 2/3 chance of essentially no effect (recoil with no damage or lingering effect, tie or loss).

I stand by my son's assesment.

:-)

Maverick,

Don't be too harsh. A lot of people enjoy DBx and some wargaming is better than no wargaming.

Like you I rely on a friend to handle the translation to english because I enjoy his company and his approach to gaming (ie fun first).

It takes works to paint figures and host a game so even if I find the results bewildering and even frustrating (eg 3:1 odds and 2/3 chance of no effect other than a 15mm push back) I still truly appreciate the effort and really enjoy the game.

In fact I wish more of us old grognards would be more tolerant of systems that might not be our first choice. Too many hide out in their basements and refuse to even consider playing games that they might disgaree with. Their loss imo!*

*One caveat there: I tried Age of Sigmar while at DragonCon..It was run by GW guys. I hated it and won't be playing again. Tic tac toe has deeper strategy potential and Justin Bieber is less annoying. I suspect AoS is an ISIS plot to render our next generation incapable of strategic thought.

Err… you can stand by any assessment you want.

I will take 5/6 chance of a kill any day.

I find it fascinating how well DBA does with historical battles.

Strange that…

Joe Collins

5/6 with a locking flanker (and remember…peasant mob with farm tools and elite royal guard mounted on barded warhorses would provide the same flanking benefit…your definition of historical accuracy is quite broad minded!) ☺

2/3 no effect with overlapers. And that's literally no effect after being savaged at 3:1 odds. Just a 15mm or 20mm scootch backwards, a tie or a win. 67% chance of breaking even or better when faced with 3 enemies is…let's say generous.

As for historical accuracy, if you can cite instances in which archers managed to advance (that's advance) across open ground and attack cavalry without the protection of terrain, stakes, or spearmen then I'm all ears. At best they could advance slowly with supporting spearmen or needed to remain far enough away to provide enough time to pound stakes before being set upon by cav.

Or if you feel there should be no differnence between a few guys in tunics throwing rocks at a unit from its flank and massed knights in full armor lead by a hero slamming into said flank and riding along the unit's rear then there really isn't a point in discussion. Our definitions of historical accuracy would be so radically different as to render discussion impossible. ☺

Lets look at the contention that historical tactics and tactical choices make no difference in DBA.

So lets take a Spear Element faced by a Wedging Knight and a Breton javelin (Ps) Element. Assuming the players knows nothing about DBA but only history, they decide to use the Knight Wedge for a frontal attack while the Javelin men harrasas the enemy flank (light troops historically are often better at this then massed foot or mounted who do not break ranks to harras flanks – so really the Ps are the right choice).

So the DBA odds are Spear +4 (-1 for Overlap) = +3. Knight Wedge is +3 (+1 for Wedge) = +4. So its +3 v. +4 and since the Knight Kills on More it merely needs to beat the Spear to win – good odds for the Knight.

But if history and manuver make no difference we should be able to reverse the roles with no change. So now the historically challenged player sends in the Javelin men to frontally attack and uses the clumsy Knight Wedge to harrass the flank.

DBA odds: Spear +4 (Overlap -1) = +3. Javelinmen +2. So now the Spear has a +3 v. +2 advantage (the Spear cannot kill the Javelin men as they will just Flee even on a Double – again as history teaches us solid Spears cannot run down skirmishers.) Clearly the player using historical tactics has come out much better.

Lets add some nuance. Suppose the Spear, fearing the Knight Wedge, goes into a Woods for protection. Again the player knows nothing about DBA only history. He knows Breton Javelin men are very good Woods fighters so decides to use them instead of the Knight Wedge.

DBA odds: Spear +4 (Woods -2; Ovelap -1) = +1. Javelin men +2 (unaffected by Woods). So its +1 v. +2 good chance to double Spear who cannot kill Javelin men on even a 6-1 (they would just Flee).

Our history challenged player ignores all this and just sends the Knight Wedge plunging into the Woods.

DBA odds: Spear still at +1. Knight Wedge +3 (-2 Woods and no Wedge bonus in Woods) = +1. So its +1 v. +1 a crazy crap shoot and much worse for the attacking player (both elements are not in an ideal situation and as history teaches us would be prone to panic – hence the low numbers which often lead to double death).

In both cases the historically minded player comes out much better.

The combat system uses punctured equalibrium as its model and this is correct for muscle powered battles. Fights between massed Spear regardless of numbers were often long drawn out affairs with one side slowly giving ground while back rankers replaced fallen front rankers. This slow process was sometimes punctuated by a sudden collapse resulting in rout and slaughter. Attrition almost never played any role in muscle battles. Winners had very few causlties and losers huge cauaslties. The system reflects this and does a very good job of reflecting pre-gunpower battles.

The type of troop on the flank is far less important than being on the flank. At Agincourt lightly armed English archers devestated armored French men at arms by hitting them on the flank while a small body of badly outnumbered English men at arms held the front (by slowly falling back). Despite being in a prolonged frontal fight and badly outnumbered English losses were very low compared to the French. The complexity of varying the flank penalty based on troop type isn't worth the bother nor justified by the known historical results.

Any veteran DBX player will tell you once you turn a flank and get both the Overlap -1 and the No Recoil flank lock – its all over but the cheering.

As to the interaction between mounted and bow its amongest the best in gaming. Bow are limited to a movement of 1 (about half speed) if they wish to shoot so certainly cannot "run" and attack anyone. As Cavalary, for instance can move 4, they literally have 4X the attack range. In any case Bow moving into contact with mounted is extremely foolish as all
mounted Kill on More so they simply need to beat Bow to kill (its +3! v. +4 when Cav meet Bow – most likely Bow will drive off Cav but if the Bow panic and roll low its good bye Bow – just as history teaches us). To survive Bow needs to hide in some terrian – than the tables are turned – again history and tactical manuver help alot.

Small numbers of archers cannot do much but massed archers (giving extra -1 to targets) regardless of terrian are devestating – again just as history teaches us.

At Najera (1367), Homildon Hill (1402) and Agincourt (1415) English archers advanced on both mounted and foot troops and engaged them (once they got in range) all were decisive English victories.

Finally it seems obvious that small numbers of skirmishers with bows (Ps) should not be as effective as massed archers (Bow) at long range. Close range is a bit different with massed archers presenting a fat target.

I've played many a medieval system and not found any to come close to DBX simulation value (and we haven't even covered DBX's excellent command control system – missing in almost all games).

TomT

Tom, you're citing the game as its own reference point rather than citing history.

Bits of DBx are historically accurate. For example light cav's generous movement make it a good choice for long ranhe flanking moves.

But longbows function more like aggressively offensive tanks and not the tactically defensive weapon system they were historically.

And we've repeatedly and frequently seen weird results like the one described by Joe in which an historically minded player sets up what should be a decent attack only to see…no result or a negative result.

You're also ignoring the facts in evidence and cherry picking topics not on the table. Key issue: flanker quality makes no difference in combat result. Let me repeat that as that's the thread's topic:

In DBx, the quality and nature of a flanker makes zero difference in combat result.

Zippier elements make it easier to flank but even then there's not a huge contrast if we're talking 2 or 3 BW move elemements. In every other medieval game I've played there's a difference between, say, poor farm hands making a flank attack and elite warriors raised from birth to fight. In DBx they conduct flank attacks the same way.

As for psiloi shooting, nobody said they shoot as effectively as massed archers. You're building strawmen.

But other games manage to simulate the difference in firepower and tactical role between skirmishers and massed archers. And they're more intuitive in that when you see a figure armed with a bow…it can shoot! Heck, even AoS is more intuitive in that department. 😆

Meanwhile in DBx we've all seen the infamous use of psiloi to break up massed cavalry formations (they work like human speed bumps im DBx). Historically they'd be inconsequential sprinkled across the front of massed cavalry. In DBx they exploit DBx's yahtzee-like action point system causing a determined charge by massed troops to devolve into confusion (make no mistake…that's what it is…an AP system that's almost completely random with only a very exceptions for AP cost…the probability of having 1 AP and 6 AP on any given turn is exactly the same).

_________

At this point I think we've reached the full potential of the thread. MajorB confirmed that yes, an element of children from the Children's Crusade has the exact same value as an element of Knights Templar with their master in the lead when flanking.

From there we've established that some who enjoy DBx think that treating a mob of children the same as Knights Templar when flanking is "historically accurate.

Meanwhile others, like me, find that treating poverty stricken children who are probably unarmed the same as professional warriors like the Knights Templar is ludicrous.

I just asked the question to make sure we were reading the rules correctly and I'm inder no illusion that I can persuade someone who sees child farmers and professional warriors as the same thing that they're not. Ain't gonna happen. ☺

Tom, you're citing the game as its own reference point rather than citing history.

No, he showed that using historical tactics works in the game.

The morale effect of being flanked is more important than the quality or type of troops doing the flanking.

Your "children from the Children's Crusade" is irrelevant since that would not be an effective fighting force and so can be ignored by both sides.

Yeah I guess I shouldn't be so critical of the game and the players. I love the guys I play with, there are just things I would tweak about the game but I feel that every player of every game has felt that in some form or another.

Again though I do highly stress how important it is that in this day and age, visualizations and well written rules set are everything in terms of drawing in new players.

The funny thing is my question is nothing new. Out of curiosity I googled the issue and found lots of threads from many forums such as this one:

TMP link

@MajorB…your reply and the response by some of the other DBx adherents might be one factor in Maverick's reaction.

You confirmed that flanker quality has zero effect on combat result. So a mob of farmers with hoes and a king's personal retinue of fully armored elite knights on barded horse armed to the teeth are treated EXACTLY the same way in DBx when flanking.

This is obviously absurd but we still have people waving their (virtual) arms in indignation and declaring DBx as THE most historically accurate ancient/medieval rules EVER made.

You don't even need a degree in medieval history from Cambridge to see how silly that is! And other rules manage to represent differences between such units when flanking and yet those are dismissed as less accurate than DBx.

That inability accept that one's favorite game might have some pretty big warts might explain Mav's reaction. It makes reasoned discussion impossible and moves debate from history and fact to something like theology where anyone can summon his own "facts". That can leave a very negative impression on those who enjoy history and might be inclined to play a given game but is turned off by being treated as some sort of heretic for questioning the faith.

What I find funny is how well straw men burn.

I will say again. I will take 5/6 chance of killing at 3 to 1 odds any day.

DBA 3.0 does the best job with historical battles of any rules I have played…warts and all.

It does so well with them that I should write a book about it.

My gosh! I am.

Should be out before Christmas… I hope.

Joe Collins

Was just looking at the Fanaticus forum.

Yikes!!! 😨

Explains a lot about these replies. 😯

Definitely not a good idea to question the faith. 😔

The DBx family of games, be it M, MM, DBA 2.2 or 3.0 are all basically a game.
In real life being having a unit being hit in the flank by Knights or half naked skirmishers with rocks may have a difference but DBx simulates this. Does it do it well, probably not but then it works well in other areas with rules and element of chance, die rolling.
Yes I agree the quality of the flanker should count but so should a lot of other things, then we would have bigger thicker rule books.
I for one prefer reasonably straight forward rules, if one can say that about Barkeresse, again is it perfect no but it works and the same can be said about a lot of other rules.

You confirmed that flanker quality has zero effect on combat result. So a mob of farmers with hoes and a king's personal retinue of fully armored elite knights on barded horse armed to the teeth are treated EXACTLY the same way in DBx when flanking.

I don't think you understand what we have been saying. AFAIAC ANY unit hitting mine in the flank will cause it serious problems – no matter whether they are Knights or half naked skirmishers with rocks. The fact that my unit is being attacked in the flank where I am unprepared and more or less unable to defend myself is enough of a threat let alone how well they are armed.

And it's not only DBx. In fact most ancient/medieval rules that I know of simply give a -ve modifier for being attacked in flank regardless of the quality of the flankers.

and declaring DBx as THE most historically accurate ancient/medieval rules EVER made.

I for one have never said that. I did say that generally speaking DBA produces historical results and encourages the use of historical tactics.

That inability accept that one's favorite game might have some pretty big warts might explain Mav's reaction.

And I would certainly not say that DBA is my "favourite game"!!

LOl… hit a nerve did I?

Perhaps your time would be better spent examining your own theories and prejudices.

Straw men burn well. They don't tend to change many minds.

Perhaps also you should play some more historical battles with DBA 3. Then get back with me.

And oh, I agree with you about Fanaticus. I do think however we disagree as to who is represented by your term "these replies".

Cheers;

Joe Collins

MajorB,

Was not refering to you. Sorry for the confusion.

re: other rules because they model slightly lower level details such as unit density and ranks "organically" or naturally they would provide often signicantly different results for different flankers. Some good examples would be Warhammer Historical, Tactica, and Might of Arms.

DBx's issue is probably attributable to its high level abstraction which makes it more difficult to represent how different units perform in specific situations without even longer and more complex conditional statements which already burden the system.

For example, differentiating flanking massed and skirmish units in DBx would require another conditional statement for combat results. Some games which actually allow skirmishers to engage in ranged combat can have one simple rule (skirmishers may not contact formed units) and allow them to shoot flanked units with their typically lower/less effective firepower.

Or archers in other rules are required to give up mobility and offensive capability by needing stakes or terrain to repel cav in close combat. The DBx abstraction means that archers dont face that limit.

@Joe…as you've been told on Fanaticus your strident tone doesn't represent the DBx community well. Taking a scorched earth approach to discussion isn't going to attract players. I've played lots of DBx with my good friend Thomas Thomas (yes, that Tom T.), we often disagree on various issues as we do here, but we both keep the topic in perspective and I suppprt his DBx activities loyally.

Gotta say though that if you represent the DBx community in general I might have to miss the official DBx events and only attend Tom's private games. The great thing about Tom is that he and I can (and do) disagree without being disgreeable. The DBx community is SUPER lucky to have him! You should follow his example.

I think the DBA is a fun game to play with toy soldiers. I never worried about the verisimilitude with history. Phil considers this pure Blasphemy but what the heck I have fun.

@Joe…as you've been told on Fanaticus your strident tone doesn't represent the DBx community well. Taking a scorched earth approach to discussion isn't going to attract players. I've played lots of DBx with my good friend Thomas Thomas (yes, that Tom T.), we often disagree on various issues as we do here, but we both keep the topic in perspective and I suppprt his DBx activities loyally.

Thanks for your opinion. I have one also. Your argument is a simple straw man. It is weak. It misrepresents DBA. If you want to find fault… try harder. There are plenty there.

Joe Collins

Strange I have been irritated by this failing in the rules forever. But had not thought too deeply in to it before. Seems like at a minimum you should count the strongest unit as the principle attack and the others as supports no matter what edge the strongest unit has contacted the defender with its front edge.

It is a major irony that the chief advantage of the DBX rules is their relative simplicity once once they have been taught to you. along with the depth of the army lists. I played DBM for years and am playing a lot of DBA 3.0 right now. They are fun games to play, very unfun games to learn. For simulation value I can't say for sure if they are any more or less stupid than any other rules set.