DBMM Forum
General Category => Rules Questions => Topic started by: landmeister on June 21, 2008, 09:35:36 PM
-
Dear all,
I've played a medieval Prussian (50 Wb (F) elements) against an arab Indian with Elephants. My opponent wheeled its group of Elephants in order to avoid my poor Prussians arriving en masse. So I contacted them as shown in diagram 1.
First problem. Element D must line up against element 2, but this is not possible without moving back the column H,L,P,T. It looks lite it can do it, but believe me, it can't :(. My opponent said that friendly elements CANNOT be moved if you're contacting (and even less moving backwards!). Conclusion, the move is cancelled :o ???. Technically it is correct, but then we decided it was in contradiction with the first sentence on page 33, so we moved the column backwards :(. Was it correct?
Second problem. Some bound later we found the situation show in diagram 2. Elephant 2 won the combat and destroyed H. It pursued and then contacted the flank of G!!!!!!! :-[ ???. Once again we moved back the column K,O,S and lined up G against 2. What do you think? I think we didn?t do it well :'(
Thank you
-
Hi
don?t know what it?s like of other computers.
On mine I can only see the 4 elephants and not the warband.
but...
Page 33, first paragraph... contacting is always possible.
There are circumstances whereby the attacked have to conform. (e.g. see Fig 7).
Remember the 40mm of free "adjustment" if you make any kind of contact (also page 33)
neil fox
-
On mine I can only see the 4 elephants and not the warband.
Sorry, you're right. I just drew four! ;D
Page 33, first paragraph... contacting is always possible.
Yes, and this is why we decided to move my frieds back! :-\
There are circumstances whereby the attacked have to conform. (e.g. see Fig 7).
Not applicable in this case. There were other enemy elements at both ends of the elephants group (not shown) :(
Remember the 40mm of free "adjustment" if you make any kind of contact (also page 33)
Sure, and we used it, but that didn't avoid my friends moving back! :-[
-
Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.
so the correct move (as far as I can see....) should have been to move up and then wheel/pivot the whole Wb group as required so Wb D lines up with el 1 using the the free movement as much as possible.
In hte 2nd case it looks to me like P and T should be moved - since they are eney elements blocking the move?
-
Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.
Ooops, you're right! Wrong move. ;D But this is not the solution of the problem, because the same situation is done with Elephant 1.
so the correct move (as far as I can see....) should have been to move up and then wheel/pivot the whole Wb group as required so Wb D lines up with el 1 using the the free movement as much as possible.
If I understand you correctly, as soon as D enters into 1's TZ, the whole goup of Wb should try to pivot and line up. This would not possible because they were 190 p away from it, far, far away. Even using the 80 p free move they would finish the move at an angle and without contact ??? Is this what you mean?
In hte 2nd case it looks to me like P and T should be moved - since they are eney elements blocking the move?
Right! I didn't see that. :o. Now let's increase difficulty. What should we do if P and T were in close combat?
Thank you very much in advance
-
I'll do the eaasy one first :)
If P&T are in combat the the elephant following up won't have rom to hit G in the flank so it won't - it will jsut stop in corner contact and stay there fighting as overlap ves P
It's hard to say exactly what the Wb might do in the first case - they can conform to the elephants TZ as soon as the first Wb reaches it - which gives them a bit of their remaining move, plus 80p. If they lack PIPs to do this then they might be in trouble and unable to do a normal move and so be forced to spontaneously advance.
-
So does 'contact front edge to front edge' mean the contact before or after the free slide/pivot?
-
So does 'contact front edge to front edge' mean the contact before or after the free slide/pivot?
It must be after the free slide/pivot looking at figure 6b (p.52) of the rules.
In that example the Wb moves as far as possible straight forward (until its frontcorner reaches the Bd), then it slides/pivots in legal front edge to front edge contact with the Bd.
Marcel
-
If P&T are in combat the the elephant following up won't have rom to hit G in the flank so it won't - it will jsut stop in corner contact and stay there fighting as overlap ves P
I find it logical, but then you're technically breaking the rules on p. 33, first paragraph... contacting is always possible. :-\
It's hard to say exactly what the Wb might do in the first case - they can conform to the elephants TZ as soon as the first Wb reaches it - which gives them a bit of their remaining move, plus 80p. If they lack PIPs to do this then they might be in trouble and unable to do a normal move and so be forced to spontaneously advance.
Ugly, but I 'm afraid that spontaneous advance is the only solution here :-[. Do you think this is the intention of the rule?
-
No it doesn't say contacting is always possible - it says contact must be possible in the game if it would be in "real life" - not the same thing at all.
If troops are positioned such that there is insufficient room to contact a flank (after moving whatever elements can/have to be moved) then the flank cannot be contacted - same thing in real life - if you can't get there then you can't get there.
As for the "intention of the rule" - I'm not quite sure what you mean - certainly it is the intention that if you don't have enough PIPs to do somethign else then impetuous troops will be forced to make a spontaneous advance.
-
On a similar thread. What do people think of this example:
Is move 2 - 3 legal?
-
No (IMO of course! :))
It is not a move permitted to an element that "will reach, enter or starts (sic) in an enemy TZ" as listed on page 32 (the only exemptions for close combat are to contact the front of an enemy element, not the flank), and there is no exemption from the TZ rules when using the extra movement to line up as per page 33.
However note that if the distance from the front of A to the rear of B was anything more than 1 TZ then the enemy element would be able to contact the flank of B without entering the TZ by virtue of contacting the entire flank of B without having to line up front-corner-tofront-corner.
this means that elements deployed to protect flanks have to be significnatly closer than they do in DBM - ie the distance from the front of the protecting element to the rear of the protected element must be <=1TZ.
-
That's what I thought, but reading the rules closely, i couldn't parse a section that actually prohibited it.
-
No it doesn't say contacting is always possible - it says contact must be possible in the game if it would be in "real life" - not the same thing at all.
If troops are positioned such that there is insufficient room to contact a flank (after moving whatever elements can/have to be moved) then the flank cannot be contacted - same thing in real life - if you can't get there then you can't get there.
Well, I will not enter into DBMM's philosophy now, but troops in real life are not limited to 4x4 cm bases ;D. Elements are an abstraction of the real position of troops on the battlefield, and that element CAN contact enemies. It simply can't CONFORM a rectangle that is too deep! A Bd (O) would be able to conform without problems!! :-[.
As for the "intention of the rule" - I'm not quite sure what you mean - certainly it is the intention that if you don't have enough PIPs to do somethign else then impetuous troops will be forced to make a spontaneous advance.
Sure, but i see sponos as the last resource once tactical moves are not possible, and IMHO an angled enemy line IS NOT the worse situation for a general to move his troops in a controlled way. I can't imagine any general losing control on his troops just because the enemy line is not exactly parallel. I think that situation like this would be sokved just allowing the enemy element moved back the minimum needed.
-
No (IMO of course! :))
It is not a move permitted to an element that "will reach, enter or starts (sic) in an enemy TZ" as listed on page 32 (the only exemptions for close combat are to contact the front of an enemy element, not the flank), and there is no exemption from the TZ rules when using the extra movement to line up as per page 33.
But on p. 33 says that a flank contact "...must end in mutual front corner contact if possible." And it is certainly possible in this case. An enemy TZ is not an impassable terrain. Breaking the TZ rules is a different thing. So, IMO, you can't contact that flank because you enter into en enemy TZ, but you can't remain in partial flank contact as you say becuse you CAN line up.
-
If it's prevented by a TZ then it's not possible - there's nothing in the wording that limits why it's not possible to only terrain.
-
Back to the first problem of Landmeister.
Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.
The move was straight forward as far as possible through the TZ of El1.
In this case it was a group move, but the the TZ rules don't specify element or group move, just any move.
So does 'contact front edge to front edge' mean the contact before or after the free slide/pivot?
It must be after the free slide/pivot looking at figure 6b (p.52) of the rules.
In that example the Wb moves as far as possible straight forward (until its frontcorner reaches the Bd), then it slides/pivots in legal front edge to front edge contact with the Bd.
So the extra 80p movement can now be used to line up in front edge-to-front edge contact.
Sure, but i see sponos as the last resource once tactical moves are not possible, and IMHO an angled enemy line IS NOT the worse situation for a general to move his troops in a controlled way. I can't imagine any general losing control on his troops just because the enemy line is not exactly parallel.
I agree. Please take a look at my picture.
I would allow this move if Wb A,E,I,M,Q were not there.
-
Back to the first problem of Landmeister.
Firstly it seems like the move into contact in the first case was illegal - Wb D must have moved through the TZ of El 1 - which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.
The move was straight forward as far as possible through the TZ of El1.
In this case it was a group move, but the the TZ rules don't specify element or group move, just any move.
I don't see your point sorry......
-
For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support
-
I don't see your point sorry......
I think that a group-move (not only an individual element-move), that is straight forward and as far as possible, through enemy TZ's is possible as long as:
a: the group doesn't make contact with any enemy or
b: the group ends in front edge-to-front edge contact with any enemy after the extra 80p line-up movement.
which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.
How I see it you forgot the extra 80p movement after the normal movement, with wich the group could come into front edge-to-front edge contact.
For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support
Only a column could bent as in diagram 16, not a group I think?
-
I agree. Please take a look at my picture.
I would allow this move if Wb A,E,I,M,Q were not there.
I agree. But they were there!! :-[ So what to do then? ???
-
For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support
I disagree. if you look at them carefully you will see that they are moved sideways and slightly forward, not backwards.
-
I think that a group-move (not only an individual element-move), that is straight forward and as far as possible, through enemy TZ's is possible as long as:
a: the group doesn't make contact with any enemy or
b: the group ends in front edge-to-front edge contact with any enemy after the extra 80p line-up movement.
Good. This was the second case, so the move was legal. Phew! :D. The question is still open: we had to move backwards the whole column to do that. Is it legal? :-[
-
My point is, see the new picture:
If this is a straight forward move as far as possible, ending after the 80p extra move, in front edge-to-front edge combat, my last example is so to.
Good. This was the second case, so the move was legal. Phew! :D. The question is still open: we had to move backwards the whole column to do that. Is it legal? :-[
I think you had to move the whole group an extra 80p to come in front edge-to-front edge combat
I agree. But they were there!! :-[ So what to do then? ???
You just hadn't enough movement, just 80p, to wheel and slide the whole group in front edge-to-front edge combat, that's why you should have left the other (left column) WB behind, where they started.
-
You just hadn't enough movement, just 80p, to wheel and slide the whole group in front edge-to-front edge combat, that's why you should have left the other (left column) WB behind, where they started.
I see. Unfortunately I'm not used to using the 80 p free move efficiently enough yet :P. Better next time.
Thank you
-
For the 2nd part - I agree, but see also diagram 16 - you may be able to stagger some of the rear ranks backwwards to fit the gap and still get rear support
Only a column could bent as in diagram 16, not a group I think?
A column is a group - and the group in question is a series of columns side-by-side.
It's not clear to me whether you can or cannot treat each column as per fig 16 or not - so I raise it as something to be discussed.
-
I don't see your point sorry......
I think that a group-move (not only an individual element-move), that is straight forward and as far as possible, through enemy TZ's is possible as long as:
a: the group doesn't make contact with any enemy or
b: the group ends in front edge-to-front edge contact with any enemy after the extra 80p line-up movement.
Yep - sure.
which is cannot do if it contacts El 2 with a corner - it can only do so to contact front edge to front edge.
How I see it you forgot the extra 80p movement after the normal movement, with wich the group could come into front edge-to-front edge contact.
[/quote]
I thought that had already been used?
-
A column is a group - and the group in question is a series of columns side-by-side.
It's not clear to me whether you can or cannot treat each column as per fig 16 or not - so I raise it as something to be discussed.
Thanks again for your reaktion Mike. I think if you start your move as a group, you have to end your move as a group. (An exception is to shorten group frontage by 1 element in the 80p extra movement)
If you see your group as a serie of columns then you will end up something like this (picture).
But in the first example there aren't any columns left (except the right one), and in the second example it don't ends up like anything I call a group. :D
So, I think a bend is only possible by a single wide column move.
-
So, I think a bend is only possible by a single wide column move.
I agree. What a strange situation! :-\
-
I'm glad you drew it - it makes it a lot easier to see!! :)
IMO the 2nd example is still a group by virtue of the fank contact of the front rank elements, and the rear elements being in bent columns which are specifically allowed.
sure it's not something we're used to.....but that's the case for much of DBMM if you came from DBM, and so it being new and unusual is not, IMO, relevant to whether it's allowed or not.
It might also allow contact where it might not happen otherwise, and so falls in the ambit of that bit on page 33 that syas that contact shall be allowed where it should be allowed.
i'm going to raise this on the yahoo list & see what reaction it gets......
-
I'm glad you drew it - it makes it a lot easier to see!! :)
I like such examples, there are easy and fast to make, and it gives sometimes more information than only words.
i'm going to raise this on the yahoo list & see what reaction it gets......
Please keep us informed. I am curious.
-
Yes, please. Tell us what is the consensus (if any) in the list.
-
no replies yet....must be too hard for people although I referenced the diagrams in this thread......
-
Well one guy thought it was fine since a deep formation si a column....so there were some posts pointing out that a column is defined in DBMM as a 1-element wide formation and no further discussion of the actual question.....par for the course I'm afraid!! :-\
-
Here's the first substantive reply as such...IMO it's still short of the mark tho - why can't the 1-element whide columns in the larger group wheel?
A column is a one-element wide group, not wider. A group cannot be
treated as a series of columns unless it actually moves as separate
columns (PIPping for each columns' move - or impetuous columns, of
course), in which case it's not a single group, of course!
P.28 Group Moves "A group is defined as a number of contiguous
elements of the same command which, **except as made necessary by
wheeling or turning a column or passing through a gateway**, are
facing in the same direction with each in both edge and
corner-to-corner contact with another of the group's elements. **A
group only 1 element wide is a column.**...
"**Unless moving laterally to form or expand from a column or
turning**, its elements must each move parallel to, or follow, the
first of them to move, or wheel through the same angles."
P.29 "Each element **of a column** wheels in succession on arrival at
the place where the first wheeled."
Tim Child
-
Thank you for your efforts Mike. I think the situation is complex enough to be considered a "hole" in the rules :-\. I hope it will be solved in future versions. :(
-
wheel through the same angles
I think that Tim Child is right, and it is the intention of the rules that it can't be done.
But a very nice thought.
-
This from Phil pretty much closes teh discussion:
A column is one element wide. A group more than one element wide is not a
column. A single file of elements can leave the group and will then be a
column. If the file next to it then moved forward to join it, the resulting
group would be two wide and not a column. If it starts as a group more than
one element wide and ends as a group more than one element wide it has not
been a column.
The idea of treating a single group as a lot of columns side by side is an
attempt to evede the rules and the author will not be and umpires should not
be sympathetic.
I think that covers all points?
Phil
-
This from Phil pretty much closes teh discussion:
[quoet]A column is one element wide. A group more than one element wide is not a
column. A single file of elements can leave the group and will then be a
column. If the file next to it then moved forward to join it, the resulting
group would be two wide and not a column. If it starts as a group more than
one element wide and ends as a group more than one element wide it has not
been a column.
The idea of treating a single group as a lot of columns side by side is an
attempt to evede the rules and the author will not be and umpires should not
be sympathetic.
I think that covers all points?
Phil
[/quote]
Phil's intention as regards the original question is pretty clear. Not sure I follow his reasoning about moving in a series of columns, however.
In some cases (e.g. crossing DGo) you have to move as individual columns and naturally end up side-by-side back in your original group.
Tim Child
-
I think sometimes we read to much exactness into Phil's post - the case in point was one where the wider group could move, and that was what he was addressing.
He often doesn't "bother" to consider other situations with his answers as "we" often do - so IMO if you're in DGO and have to move as 1-element-wide-columns then you do so and they can all wheel per Fig 16 if and when required.