Author Topic: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!  (Read 28063 times)

Chad_YMG

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
    • Your Move Games
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2010, 07:41:54 AM »
What Hannibal said.  A Terror check is just a Fear check with a penalty to that roll -- there is no ongoing reduction in courage.
David Humphrey está todavía en la Colina 217.
      - From Spanish translation of Hill 218 rules

Hannibal

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4687
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2010, 04:54:46 PM »
Quote
What Hannibal said.

OMG, that's my first "what he said" from Chad!  Does this mean people will start to think I have a clue what I'm talking about?!  I don't think I can take that pressure...

*twitch*  *twitch*

 ;D

ajax98

  • Guest
Revise Skirmishers
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2010, 05:33:07 PM »
7.6 Skirmishers
Skirmishers are light troops that are generally unsuited to fighting regular infantry or cavalry units. Skirmishers use the same standing orders as other units but with slightly different effects.
A skirmisher on Close will not final rush a non-skirmisher unit unless[, Optionally it may choose to FR or not,] on a side other than the enemy unit’s front or if final rushing results in a pinch of the enemy unit. (Two skirmishers will final rush simultaneously in order to create a pinch.) Instead of final rushing, move the skirmisher normally to get as close to its nearest enemy as possible without engaging.

Reason: Skirmishers exist to skirmish, not to fight as regular troops. It is absurd to force a Skirmisher to do something that it was not intended to do just because of ‘rules’. It is absurd to force a player to expend CA just to ‘keep it simple’.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 12:38:11 AM by ajax98 »

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2010, 06:11:25 PM »
1.4.7.3 Impossible Path
If the otherwise optimal path for a unit to take under orders is permanently impossible (most likely due to terrain) that unit must use the shortest clear path instead.

This doesn’t really make any sense. If a path is “permanently impossible” then it can not possibly be an “optimal path”.

It would be better to Define “shortest clear path” or “optimal path” instead.

I.e: [, provided there is a 2.5” wide path which is clear of other
units or impassable obstacles in that direction, to reach the enemy unit that is presently the “nearest enemy”]. This route can be generally along the enemy’s main line, that could show clear intent of being able to attack present “nearest enemy”. Otherwise movement is not permitted under SO.

ajax98

  • Guest
More Skirmisher revisions
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2010, 12:14:22 AM »
Renumber 7.6 Skirmishers for Clarity
7.6.1 A skirmisher on Close
7.6.2 A skirmisher on Range
7.6.3 If an unengaged skirmisher
7.6.4 Skirmisher Recall
7.6.5 Routing Skirmishers


7.6.3
If an unengaged skirmisher is final rushed by a non-skirmisher it automatically routs during the next Courage phase. (No check is taken.)
[A non skirmisher unit attempting to FR an unengaged Skirmisher unit is permitted to move straight forward to engage or move to the present facing side to engage, the moving player’s choice.] Instead of free attacks, however, the skirmisher takes one point of damage for each unit that engaged it or two points of damage for each unit that engaged it and that has a higher MC than the skirmisher.


Reason: this prevents irrational movement of a unit that will simply chase off Skirmishers to its front rather than a forced FR move to a position that exposes the moving unit’s flank or rear to a following player’s turn, without the need to expend a ‘correcting’ Cmd Action.

ajax98

  • Guest
New Rule suggestion
« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2010, 12:37:14 AM »
Perhaps we need a new Rule:
The Unit Will Not Do Something Stupid; nor expend extra Cmd Actions to prevent it from doing something stupid.

I have been discovering some disturbing anomalies with the Skirmisher rules.

Niko White

  • Celestial Guard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • A tíro nin, Fanuilos!
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2010, 02:15:37 PM »

There's a huge difference between "stupid" from your perspective as the general, and "stupid" from the perspective of the unit leader in the thick of battle.  I think the current rules for all of those cases are just fine.

1) Skirmishers are light infantry that use their speed to engage the enemy in favorable circumstances.  While you as the player might know (reading the stats) that it isn't a good idea for them to flank certain enemies, the light infantry and their leaders know that, in general, a flank or pinch attack is a favorable circumstance to engage a heavier enemy unit.  If you didn't want them to take advantage of that kind of opening, you shouldn't have put them on Close.  This one's working as intended.

2) If you want to micro-manage position in this game, you need to spend a CA.  I don't see why heavy infantry should suddenly be able to snake all over the place just because they're getting in there with a skirmisher.  History is full of cases of troops being baited into bad positions because they took bait; there aren't a lot of cases of "we didn't go into bad position taking that bait because we could easily not and it was clearly stupid!"  Again, you can see the big picture; that's your job as the general.  Those guys don't.  You don't want them to take the bait?  Send someone to tell them not to!

3) Impossible Path: Hence the key word in the sentence, "otherwise optimal path...".  I don't feel like putting in extensive technical language is a good idea when simple English gets the meaning across just fine.

Overall "don't do something stupid": Again, I don't think there are any anomalies you've pointed out yet.  Skirmishers work like other units in that they'll do what you told them to, but not necessarily see the "big picture" or think about the context much.  This is IMO 100% as it should be for all units.  They're smart about fulfilling the orders, but don't do your job, which is thinking about the battle as a whole.  The skirmisher rules, as already pointed out on the boards, are already mammoth compared to any other special rules.  We want to keep them balanced for their points cost, sure, but I don't have any interest in expanding their rules even more in order to prevent people from having to make the kind of resource allocation choices that make Battleground fun.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2010, 06:46:31 PM »

1) Skirmishers are light infantry that use their speed to engage the enemy in favorable circumstances.

Skirmishers are NOT Light Infantry. Skirmishers are Skirmishers.
Get over it.
The two names are not interchangeable.

It is two Different jobs, with two different masses of troops and formations.

Trying to lump the two together is doomed to failure.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2010, 06:57:32 PM »

2) If you want to micro-manage position in this game, you need to spend a CA.  I don't see why heavy infantry should suddenly be able to snake all over the place just because they're getting in there with a skirmisher.

Which is clearly my point! If you care to read my concern carefully.

Presently the main line of troops is FORCED to snake all over the place to attack the present facing of an enemy Skirmisher, whipping itself around (because the enemy Skirmisher flanked a unit at the line of resistance) to present its flank (or rear) to the enemy, only to see the Skirmisher skedaddle due to Skirmisher Rout.

The Regular unit merely needs to move forward in line to 'bump' the Skirmishers out of the way.
(Thus preventing something really stupid.) Such an Option needs to be clearly stated, either
with the restatement of Skirmisher rules or a catch all No Stupid Move rule, or both.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2010, 07:02:42 PM »
3) Impossible Path: Hence the key word in the sentence, "otherwise optimal path...".  I don't feel like putting in extensive technical language is a good idea when simple English gets the meaning across just fine.

You use the terms:“shortest clear path” and “optimal path”, yet they are Undefined.
You bother to define "Impossible Path".

Please explain to me what/which is more relevant?

Niko White

  • Celestial Guard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • A tíro nin, Fanuilos!
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2010, 07:17:00 PM »
Skirmishers are NOT Light Infantry. Skirmishers are Skirmishers.
Get over it.
The two names are not interchangeable.

It is two Different jobs, with two different masses of troops and formations.

Trying to lump the two together is doomed to failure.

They were used pretty much interchangeably in the case of the Punic War, which is the only place they exist right now.  Also pretty sure they're always "light infantry" insofar as they're guys that fight on foot and are lightly armed/armored.  Some periods or factions have light infantry that aren't skirmishers; all skirmishers are light infantry.  This also isn't relevant to their job, which was to engage heavier troops in situations that they view as favorable, including attacking flanks or rears, or into pinches, which was my overall point.

Quote
Which is clearly my point! If you care to read my concern carefully.

Presently the main line of troops is FORCED to snake all over the place to attack the present facing of an enemy Skirmisher, whipping itself around (because the enemy Skirmisher flanked a unit at the line of resistance) to present its flank (or rear) to the enemy, only to see the Skirmisher skedaddle due to Skirmisher Rout.

The Regular unit merely needs to move forward in line to 'bump' the Skirmishers out of the way.
(Thus preventing something really stupid.) Such an Option needs to be clearly stated, either
with the restatement of Skirmisher rules or a catch all No Stupid Move rule, or both.

Huh?  You final rush skirmishers the same way you final rush anyone else, which means you'll go at the facing side.  When does this result in snaking all over the place?  It'll almost always results in your guy still in line with his friends and the skirmisher routing away.  (Or not routing, if it indeed flanked someone who is still there, since it only runs if it is unengaged.)

Quote
You use the terms:“shortest clear path” and “optimal path”, yet they are Undefined.
You bother to define "Impossible Path".

Please explain to me what/which is more relevant?

"Impossible path" is the name of a rule, and this section defines that rule (hence the section title).  It causes units to ignore paths they can't take rather than behaving like bad video game AIs and running into a wall forever.  The others are just English words used in their conventional sense.  We could cross-reference the section with the one about how to move guys under orders, if that'd be an improvement, but I'm leery about putting in too many cross-references just because they clog up the text, and there's a point where you have to assume people have read the rest of the rulebook...

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #41 on: March 02, 2010, 07:24:37 PM »
Overall "don't do something stupid": Again, I don't think there are any anomalies you've pointed out yet.  ...
I am right in the middle of a game, analyzing as we go along, and all these situations have presented themselves.

It is bad enough to watch a unit of Velite Skirmishers attack the front of a fresh unit of Scutarii, just because they assume another unit is about to attack that Scutarii's flank.
It is plain ugly (as in huge disbelief) to see the Scutarii destroyed, due to "Pinch Check" and bad die rolls .

Even if the "Pinch Check" is removed, the fact that the Skirmishers are permitted to attack the front of any unengaged Regular unit makes me grimace.

Niko White

  • Celestial Guard
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • A tíro nin, Fanuilos!
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #42 on: March 02, 2010, 08:04:51 PM »
I am right in the middle of a game, analyzing as we go along, and all these situations have presented themselves.

It is bad enough to watch a unit of Velite Skirmishers attack the front of a fresh unit of Scutarii, just because they assume another unit is about to attack that Scutarii's flank.
It is plain ugly (as in huge disbelief) to see the Scutarii destroyed, due to "Pinch Check" and bad die rolls .

Even if the "Pinch Check" is removed, the fact that the Skirmishers are permitted to attack the front of any unengaged Regular unit makes me grimace.

They aren't?  They can only engage the front if it causes a pinch.  You can't "game" it by assuming they'll pinch and then not doing it or something; they'll only ever final rush into a pinch, which seems totally fine.

As discussed, skirmishers don't cause rout checks in 3.0.  The changes to final rushes also mean they can't engage someone's front if that person isn't engaged, since FR's are now sequential.  So you'd FR the flank with someone, then the front with the skirmishers.  That seems to be totally "on point" for how skirmishers work, and if it isn't the "fix" would be stopping them from charging a front regardless of pinch, not giving a choice.  I guess I don't see what's problematic about that situation.

ajax98

  • Guest
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #43 on: March 02, 2010, 08:25:47 PM »

Which is clearly my point! If you care to read my concern carefully.

Presently the main line of troops is FORCED to snake all over the place to attack the present facing of an enemy Skirmisher, whipping itself around (because the enemy Skirmisher flanked a unit at the line of resistance) to present its flank (or rear) to the enemy, only to see the Skirmisher skedaddle due to Skirmisher Rout.

The Regular unit merely needs to move forward in line to 'bump' the Skirmishers out of the way.
(Thus preventing something really stupid.) Such an Option needs to be clearly stated, either
with the restatement of Skirmisher rules or a catch all No Stupid Move rule, or both.

Huh?  You final rush skirmishers the same way you final rush anyone else, which means you'll go at the facing side.  When does this result in snaking all over the place?  It'll almost always results in your guy still in line with his friends and the skirmisher routing away.  (Or not routing, if it indeed flanked someone who is still there, since it only runs if it is unengaged.)
Quote

Karasu

  • Playtester
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
Re: The Battleground Rules: Version 3.0!
« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2010, 06:15:36 AM »
In that situation I'd use a CA to move the right-hand unit towards the left this turn.

This strikes me as the sort of set-up that would only occur towards the latter part of a battle, when everything has become particularly confused and is no longer a line of battle.  If you have managed to maneouver your skirmishers in such a way as to present this situation (presumably either with a very clever deployment or clever direct control) then it seems only fair that your opponent should need to take DC himself.  Clever play ought to be rewarded.