Sunday 17 December 2023

A question about roads - asked by Vince Cholewa, 12 December 2023

Tactical moves on roads, is there such a thing? March moves on roads are at the increased speeds set out in the table on page 29. Roads are not good going because they are not an area feature, and combat counts as in the going the road crosses (page 19). As far as I can see, the rules are silent about tactical moves on roads. Does that mean tactical moves on roads are as for the terrain the road is crossing? 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/824840264342234/posts/2485828601576717/



  • Bob Smith
    yes. Unless the road counts as mud
    • Like
    • Reply
    • Share
    2
  • Anthony Reardon
    No, units don't deploy until going into combat. A single column moving along a road is in good going. Man-made terrain is made to accommodate bases so that bases can sit on it (and in this case, move astride a road).
    • Like
    • Reply
    • Share
    • Vincent Cholewa
      Author
      Admin
      +2
      Anthony Reardon do you mean elements can make a normal length tactical move on a road?
      • Like
      • Reply
      • Share
      • Anthony Reardon
        Yes. When moving along a road, an element can make a normal (good going) tactical move. When in combat, the troops spread out, hence the adjacent terrain (which may be different) counts for combat. If tactical movement and combat automatically counted as the same terrain, there would be no need for the 'adjacent terrain' rule. In other words, the rule only makes sense when roads are good going.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Andrew Bennetts
        Top Contributor
        Anthony Reardon P19: "An element in more than one type of going is treated for movement and close combat as in the type that would slow Cavalry more....." Also P19 "All roads must be approximately element width or less with elements moving astride". Should anyone claim their roads are exactly one element width I would apply the following from the DBMM 2.1 Commentary: "Any terrain deemed to be unsuitable or unsportsmanlike will be removed from play at the discretion of the umpire."
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Anthony Reardon
        Approximately element width = an element moving astride is moving in good going. I would suggest that the rule says 'approximately' to make the make the part about 'moving astride' playable; i.e. an element moving astride is clearly moving along the road and not in the adjacent terrain.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Anthony Reardon
        Andrew Bennetts While we are here and I think you are interested in the discussion, let's consider some points about mud (since Bob has already mentioned it). P25: "Mud: Converts unpaved roads into rough going, both for movement along or across..." This means roads have 'going'. Also, if mud 'converts' a road to rough, that road must have been converted from something else (i.e. good). Thus, if an element is moving along a road that isn't mud, it's making a good going move. Finally, mud only applies to unpaved roads, so paved roads must be good going at all times for movement purposes.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
        2
      • Vincent Cholewa
        Author
        Admin
        +2
        Hi Anthony Reardon many thanks for commenting, I am thinking about the
        steps in your reply and I don’t think that some roads becoming rough in mud necessarily means they were good going to start with.
        An alternative reading is that road movement starts as the first column in the table on page 29. This is not good going, it is road. If the road is mud, then the march speed is reduced to that for rough going.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Anthony Reardon
        `Vincent Cholewa Interesting, but the word used is 'convert' and there are only three types of going, so to convert into rough, it must have been good or difficult before. It also says 'for movement along or across', so when moving across it before, it was either good or difficult, regardless of the adjacent terrain. Moving on, consider fords. We have a river running over a road so one could argue that a road is not good going at that point. However, the rules clearly state that fords are good going (p.20). If a road covered by water is good going, I do not see how a road not covered by water can be less than good going.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Vincent Cholewa
        Author
        Admin
        +2
        Anthony Reardon a good discussion, thank you. The logic could also be the reason roads are not usually good going is because the rules define good going. That definition of good going is: the area features listed on p.19, the space between features, and a river when it is a ford. If it is not on that list, then it is not good going. By exclusion, a road that is not a ford is not good going.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Anthony Reardon
        Vincent Cholewa Sorry, the rules do not define good going - they only describe certain *areas* as such. Roads are, by default, good going unless the rules specifically state otherwise (such as in the cases of mud and combat) or there is possible ambiguity (as in the case of river crossings). Suggesting that roads are not good going is illogical and the fastest way to turn potential new players off the game.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Anthony Reardon
        As an aside, for you and Andrew Bennetts, an experiment you may like to try. Write definitions of good, rough and difficult in terms of (a) movement and (b) combat and see what you get.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
      • Vincent Cholewa
        Author
        Admin
        +2
        Anthony Reardon thank you for commenting, it’s good to have different opinions to discuss. At this stage I think we will just disagree. Looking at the replies to my question and what I read in the rules, my view is that there are more types of terrain than only good, rough or difficult going, with road being a case in point. I get it that your view is different, and that’s cool ðŸ˜Ž
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
  • Neil Williamson
    Top Contributor
    It's also why the guide stratagem is, almost, worthless.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • Share
    • Vincent Cholewa
      Author
      Admin
      +2
      Neil Williamson the terrain feature would have to be undefended to allow marching or be defended by elements that don't block marches.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • Share
      • Neil Williamson
        Top Contributor
        Vincent Cholewa you also have to enter the difficult terrain, at slow speed, to find the road in the first place. Then, you can march along the road if not blocked.
        If you are on a craggy hill then your guide deserts you and you can't move because its impassable.
        It's a very poorly written rule. Just like a lot of the other stratagems imo.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
    • Anthony Reardon
      I agree that guides are almost worthless when roads are not treated as good going. However, when roads are treated as good going, the guides, amongst other things, make sense.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • Share
      • Neil Williamson
        Top Contributor
        Anthony Reardon I quite agree. To me, it looks like the stratagem rules were written by someone else. Most of them are... weird.
        • Like
        • Reply
        • Share
  • James Hook
    Top Contributor
    Need to say I have never played DBMM, but a new perspective is sometimes good. To me Tactical movement on roads seems obvious. All games use roads to make movement easier, but with Strategic moves only, a road up the centre of the table would be pointless? The rules have multiple examples of roads being used in Tactical movement. pg 24 Bridges and Fords are good going, p29 Mud makes roads rough going, pg 29 Knights and chariots can avoid Mud weather disadvantage by fighting on a paved road. p33 Fast troops add 40p when traveling off road (because on road they need close formation so are like other units).pg 33 movement into difficult going is in column as troops are following a track. pg34 Spontaneous advance can follow a road. I am sure I have missed some more. The idea of War Wagons being ordered off a road into a marsh where they will be stuck for the game because they saw enemy 400p away just seems silly.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • Share
  • Vincent Cholewa
    Author
    Admin
    +2
    Hi James Hook having asked the question I have been thinking. One of the issues is ground scale. To scale, a road would be a quarter the width of an element. The picture of the Roman marching column is obviously speculative but it illustrates a formation that would never be used anywhere near enemy. If enemy were near, then maniples and cohorts would form into a fighting formation, much too wide for the road. For wheeled vehicles it would be crucial to clear enemy from the road and the area around it before trying to go through rough or difficult going.
    This leads me to wonder if roads should even be in the rules for a tactical battle. Are there accounts of roads playing a part in ancient battles? Their real value would have been strategic or for pre-battle manoeuvre.
    I think the logic in the rules starts on page 19, which says area features can be good, rough or difficult going. Roads are not an area feature, so what are they? The rest of the several references explain that during combat, river crossing, mud, and that the movement benefit is only if marching. When read together, the sections are not contradictory and say roads can be good, rough or difficult going, and can give a movement benefit depending on the situation.
    It would be simpler if all the rules for roads were written in one section. However, Phil Barker had a philosophy of writing one rule once only and not repeating it. That makes updates simpler but also means there can be a lot of cross referencing to get all the information.
    A long reply, I hope it helps ðŸ˜Š
    • Like
    • Reply
    • Share


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)