"Memory"

[andrew]

I have often seen/heard the statement "DBx has no 'memory' therefore..." in justification for doing or not doing something.

I'm happy to be educated here because my wargaming experience started very late when 3.1 was in its death throes.  Where does it say there is no memory?  Can you point to any rule examples that support this?  Alternatively, can you point to any rules that seem to refute this?  Or are we relying on a  pronouncement from Phil?

Andrew

[foxgom]

Hi

DBMM does have memory:

a) see rules for moving Art(S) and then having to wait 3 rounds before being able to shoot.
b) artillery who lost a shooting exchange is unable to shoot in the following round.
c) weather rules: if it rains for x bounds, then gunpowder weapons become useless.


In general, DBMM does not have memory effects, but in detail it does.

neil fox

[MikeCampbell]

Yup.

also morale - you do have to remember that comands are disheartened/broken/shattered or not!  although it's easy enough to do so of course.

For the most part DB* has no memory - and certainly much less than many other sets (both it's antecedants and many contemporaries) - you do not have to remember (or put down markers for) troop cohesion for example, how many times it has been pushed back, whether it took casualties in a previous shooting phase this turn, etc.

Disorder is a common wargaming concept that often requires some memory - in DB* a formation is effectively disordered if the elements are actually in some disorder on the table top.

[andrew]

Right - so when people refer to memory it is things like cohesion and morale that is being considered - is that correct?  I never played DBM3.0 or 7th edition or anything else prior to DBM3.1 (other than my own rules about 30 years ago) and my FOG experience is very limited, so my knowledge of former rulesets regarding cohesion / morale and memory in general is minimal.

There is a general statement that DBx has no memory yet the only tangible thing I can see is morale/cohesion based on the discussion so far.  However, when it comes to a command being disheartened, broken or shattered there is certainly an element of 'memory' - but whether this is in the right context of memory remains to be seen.  Is there anything else (specific things like morale/cohesion) where there is 'no memory'?  I'd rather refer to the current rules than comparisons to older sets where the previous ruleset/memory has no relevance under DBMM.  So rather than being a relative concept, I'd like to be able to point to examples in the DBMM rules that support/refute this, if possible.

I can certainly see examples where there is memory (thanks Neil) plus if I look hard enough I might be able to find some more.  So I guess it comes down to a context of memory - in what context do we use this term?  Is it purely a bound to bound term?  Or can it be applied within a bound?  The more I look at the rules, more the "memory" I see.  But as I said earlier, I don't have any experience with historical rulesets where they may have been relatively more memory.

Apologies for the esoteric question but I'd like to understand what is meant by this generic statement that, insofar as I can see, seems to have a number of exceptions!

Andrew

[MikeCampbell]

"No memory" also means that it does not matter how an element got to where it is - but even that isn't really true - routing elements cannot shoot for example so it certainly matters whether a shooter is fleetng or not.

The whole "there is no memory" thing is not "official" in any sense - but I venture to suggest it's a fairly widely accepted point of view from those of us old folks wot played 7th, 6th, 5th, Newbury, gush Renassance, etc. and it is in comparison to them, and possibley a hangover from DBA - which I would enture to suggest might actually be a "no memory" game where nothing matters other than where the troops are right now.

If anyone tries to use it as an argument for interpreting DBMM one way or another then they've probably lost the argument and should receive a clip 'round the ear.

[andrew]

If anyone tries to use it as an argument for interpreting DBMM one way or another then they've probably lost the argument and should receive a clip 'round the ear.

Ha!  I think that is where I was ending up......

[andrew]

Having subconsciously thought about this for a wee while, I believe "memory" exists in many many places in the DBMM rules.  Off the top of my head (from memory?) a few more examples of "memory", in addition to the examples provided by Neil and Mike, include:

1) unreliable allies (continue to be)
2) spending PIPs to activate an unreliable ally (spent previous bound)
3) brilliant strokes (e.g. combat advantage - spent during movement; feigned flight - turning for free the next bound)
4) halting and spontaneous moves (sponno moves for non-halted troops & cannot halt troops who moved)
5) number of moves per bound (are counted and remembered for PIP cost purposes)
6) weather (can change each bound and is remembered from previous bound e.g. wind, rain)
7) time of day (is based on the previous bound etc)
8 ) rivers (their state is remembered, not retested every time you cross a river)
9) you cannot halt an Expendable that previously moved spontaneously, and
10) an element that made a march move cannot shoot
and I'm sure there must be more examples.

So personally I think statements such as "DBMM has no memory" cannot be supported by reference to the DBMM ruleset only.  It is probably a concept relative to other (dare I say, irrelevant) rulesets.  Your last example Mike of elements not having memory of how they got to where they are doesn't apply to routing elements (cannot shoot), and I would also say elements that made a feigned flight.  In addition there is memory for impetuous elements that make a flee move (from memory they turn if impetuous)), plus you cannot halt an Expendable that previously moved spontaneously.  Are there any other movement examples?  I say 'movement' because this seems to be the area in which the concept of 'no memory' is used most.

I suppose one area of contention is forming a column.  If you cannot form a complete column in your current bound, must you continue to try to form the column in your next bound?  I have seen differing interpretations of this - one of which implies "memory".  Any thoughts on that?

Any other contentious areas?

Andrew

[landmeister]

I found a point where there is no memory.

Page 27. PIP expenditure. Difficult evolutions. You don't pay an additional PIP if you group moves less than its max distance because it "ends in any contact with friends not already in edge contact with it."

You can move the element on your left and then teh rest of the group rightwards and contact it again. The group has doesn't "remember" that all of them were in mutual contact at the beginning of the bound  .

[andrew]

Very true -  a cheesy technique to get columns of elements that previously moved impetuously back into formation......

[MikeCampbell]

What's cheesy about it? 

It costs a fortune in PIPs, and represents the time and effort required to re-organise - perfectly reasonable

[andrew]

Just my opinion.  This is an example of 'no memory' which IMO is absurd given the status changed mid-bound (was in contact, no longer in contact, and yay now in contact again!).  Cheesy.

Another example of memory : columns (when expanding through 90 degrees) can extend past the rear of the column if they are reverting to a previous formation.