Skip to search.
soloDBAdevelopment · Solo DBA Development

Group Information

  • Members: 321
  • Category: Wargaming
  • Founded: Jan 23, 2010
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
You can search the group for older messages.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Messages 106 - 135 of 403   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages 106 - 135 of 403   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Messages: Show Message Summaries Sort by Date ^  
#106 From: "Briz" <solowargamer@...>
Date: Wed Feb 3, 2010 9:47 am
Subject: Re: Exercise in Selecting a General
brizblogger
Send Email Send Email
 
I'm sure it'll be worth the wait ;o)

I suppose that the bit I'm really looking forward to is a revision of the
tactical engine though, which is the bit of De Bellis Solitarius that is most
conspicuously 'broke'!

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

#107 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Wed Feb 3, 2010 10:25 am
Subject: Re: Re: Exercise in Selecting a General
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Jay,

"I suppose that the bit I'm really looking forward to is a revision of the tactical engine"

It is on its way, although it may need a few goes at.

Richard


From: Briz <solowargamer@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Wed, 3 February, 2010 11:47:36
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Re: Exercise in Selecting a General

 

I'm sure it'll be worth the wait ;o)

I suppose that the bit I'm really looking forward to is a revision of the tactical engine though, which is the bit of De Bellis Solitarius that is most conspicuously 'broke'!

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer .wordpress. com/



#108 From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Date: Thu Feb 4, 2010 4:42 am
Subject: New file uploaded to soloDBAdevelopment
soloDBAdevelopment@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the soloDBAdevelopment
group.

   File        : /Dale's DBAS/SelectionsForGenerals-v1.xls
   Uploaded by : dale_hurtt <dale_hurtt@...>
   Description : Excel spreadsheet showing all army lists with selection options
for their General.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/soloDBAdevelopment/files/Dale%27s%20DBAS/Select\
ionsForGenerals-v1.xls

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/groups/files

Regards,

dale_hurtt <dale_hurtt@...>

#109 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Thu Feb 4, 2010 4:45 am
Subject: Re: New file uploaded to soloDBAdevelopment
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
I have finally completed the Excel spreadsheet documenting the army lists with
options for selecting a General, the choice I would make, and why. The Caveats
column is a bit terse, but this will be detailed in version 4 of DBAS. Consider
these the "working notes".

I would love to hear your comments on where you disagree - and why! - with my
choice of selection for a General. I have been persuaded by a number of things
so far, so this is no different.

Dale

#110 From: "Briz" <solowargamer@...>
Date: Thu Feb 4, 2010 9:36 am
Subject: Re: Exercise in Selecting a General
brizblogger
Send Email Send Email
 
--- In soloDBAdevelopment@..., Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> "I suppose that the bit I'm really looking forward to is a revision of the
tactical engine"
>
> It is on its way, although it may need a few goes at.

Yes, I reckon there are a lot of complex issues wrapped up in a rather short
piece of writing as it currently stands. There's tremendous potential there
though, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you and Dale come up with!

Keep up the good work guys,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

#111 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Fri Feb 5, 2010 2:13 am
Subject: How to approach terrain placement
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
All,

I am hoping even the non-DBA gamers might be able to chime in on this one.

What would be the best way to document how to go about placing terrain? We can
set aside for the moment how many pieces, what type, etc. as these issues will
be dictated by whatever rule set the soloist is using. But, how does one go
about determining if, say, a hill should be placed 6" from the right edge or 4"?
Why one versus the other?

I know that competitive players, when they are faced with these choices, don't
simply plop pieces down and say "that looks good!" (Players that are into
aesthetics, however, often do. But we will ignore them because they are going to
chuck the terrain selection and placement rules anyway.)

Back to an earlier post I wrote (that no one responded to) about "meeting in the
middle": if that what you, as the defending player, anticipate? Meeting in the
middle somewhere? Do you then place terrain around that area in order to get a
set piece battle that you imagine in your mind?

Do you use multiple pieces of terrain symmetrically so that if you get the
baseline you don't expect, you still end up with the same set piece terrain (or
a mirror image) when coming from another direction?

Do you use terrain pieces to encourage or discourage your opponent from favoring
a particular baseline, especially Waterways or Rivers. Do you use a BUA to
lessen the odds that your opponent will be able to pick a favored side? Do you
setup terrain to your advantage if you do end up with the BUA on your side?

Do you separate terrain specific distances so that your army will fit between
the two pieces "just right"? Do you find this occurs more frequently when you
play Spear, Pike, or Warband armies, which can benefit from double-ranking (and
thus like anchored flanks)?

I know one common method is to divide the board into thirds, quarters, or
sections and then dice, but I find that:

A. It still does not tell you precisely where to place or orient the terrain
piece within an 8" square.

B. Terrain usually ends up as a hindrance to both sides (i.e. neither side can
take advantage), which I find inherently ahistorical.

I've just started on the terrain selection process and I am already thinking
ahead to the terrain placement process. In DBAS, I am working on the theory that
complementary terrain should be selected whenever possible. What those
complements are, specifically, is still being worked out. Unfortunately, most of
the examples I can think of involve BUAs, Waterways, and Rivers.

Dale

#112 From: rob young <garrisonminiatures@...>
Date: Fri Feb 5, 2010 7:31 am
Subject: Re: How to approach terrain placement
garrisonmini...
Send Email Send Email
 
Firstly, this is a solo wargaming site, so choose any method you like! One way would be to use Google Earth or Map and choose a battlefield area, then simply try and duplicate a simple form on your table. The defending army would set up as they want and the table derives from that.

As regards competitive games, I favour the you choose-I choose idea. One side chooses the terrain pieces, the other side places them idea. One side choses fractal, the other side lumps them together - though a sensible idea would be to limit the sizes and numbers of terrain pieces in the first place. Again, this idea can be taken as far as you like. How many segments do you split the board into for terrain choices, for example?

Simplest version, dice for terrain, one person places on table, other person chooses which side of the table they start from. Take it from there.

Rob


From: Dale <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Fri, 5 February, 2010 2:13:18
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] How to approach terrain placement

 

All,

I am hoping even the non-DBA gamers might be able to chime in on this one.

What would be the best way to document how to go about placing terrain? We can set aside for the moment how many pieces, what type, etc. as these issues will be dictated by whatever rule set the soloist is using. But, how does one go about determining if, say, a hill should be placed 6" from the right edge or 4"? Why one versus the other?

I know that competitive players, when they are faced with these choices, don't simply plop pieces down and say "that looks good!" (Players that are into aesthetics, however, often do. But we will ignore them because they are going to chuck the terrain selection and placement rules anyway.)

Back to an earlier post I wrote (that no one responded to) about "meeting in the middle": if that what you, as the defending player, anticipate? Meeting in the middle somewhere? Do you then place terrain around that area in order to get a set piece battle that you imagine in your mind?

Do you use multiple pieces of terrain symmetrically so that if you get the baseline you don't expect, you still end up with the same set piece terrain (or a mirror image) when coming from another direction?

Do you use terrain pieces to encourage or discourage your opponent from favoring a particular baseline, especially Waterways or Rivers. Do you use a BUA to lessen the odds that your opponent will be able to pick a favored side? Do you setup terrain to your advantage if you do end up with the BUA on your side?

Do you separate terrain specific distances so that your army will fit between the two pieces "just right"? Do you find this occurs more frequently when you play Spear, Pike, or Warband armies, which can benefit from double-ranking (and thus like anchored flanks)?

I know one common method is to divide the board into thirds, quarters, or sections and then dice, but I find that:

A. It still does not tell you precisely where to place or orient the terrain piece within an 8" square.

B. Terrain usually ends up as a hindrance to both sides (i.e. neither side can take advantage), which I find inherently ahistorical.

I've just started on the terrain selection process and I am already thinking ahead to the terrain placement process. In DBAS, I am working on the theory that complementary terrain should be selected whenever possible. What those complements are, specifically, is still being worked out. Unfortunately, most of the examples I can think of involve BUAs, Waterways, and Rivers.

Dale



#113 From: rob young <garrisonminiatures@...>
Date: Fri Feb 5, 2010 8:27 am
Subject: Re: How to approach terrain placement
garrisonmini...
Send Email Send Email
 
Random thought thrown in for discussion and which I haven't thought through myself:

Include terrain as part of the army. In other words, a hill up to a certain size  costs so many points which has to be paid for. Only certain types and numbers of terrain are allowed for a particular army, this to be included in that particular army list.

Enjoy :)

Rob


From: rob young <garrisonminiatures@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Fri, 5 February, 2010 7:31:06
Subject: Re: [soloDBAdevelopment] How to approach terrain placement

 

Firstly, this is a solo wargaming site, so choose any method you like! One way would be to use Google Earth or Map and choose a battlefield area, then simply try and duplicate a simple form on your table. The defending army would set up as they want and the table derives from that.

As regards competitive games, I favour the you choose-I choose idea. One side chooses the terrain pieces, the other side places them idea. One side choses fractal, the other side lumps them together - though a sensible idea would be to limit the sizes and numbers of terrain pieces in the first place. Again, this idea can be taken as far as you like. How many segments do you split the board into for terrain choices, for example?

Simplest version, dice for terrain, one person places on table, other person chooses which side of the table they start from. Take it from there.

Rob


From: Dale <dale_hurtt@yahoo. com>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@ yahoogroups. co.uk
Sent: Fri, 5 February, 2010 2:13:18
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment ] How to approach terrain placement

 

All,

I am hoping even the non-DBA gamers might be able to chime in on this one.

What would be the best way to document how to go about placing terrain? We can set aside for the moment how many pieces, what type, etc. as these issues will be dictated by whatever rule set the soloist is using. But, how does one go about determining if, say, a hill should be placed 6" from the right edge or 4"? Why one versus the other?

I know that competitive players, when they are faced with these choices, don't simply plop pieces down and say "that looks good!" (Players that are into aesthetics, however, often do. But we will ignore them because they are going to chuck the terrain selection and placement rules anyway.)

Back to an earlier post I wrote (that no one responded to) about "meeting in the middle": if that what you, as the defending player, anticipate? Meeting in the middle somewhere? Do you then place terrain around that area in order to get a set piece battle that you imagine in your mind?

Do you use multiple pieces of terrain symmetrically so that if you get the baseline you don't expect, you still end up with the same set piece terrain (or a mirror image) when coming from another direction?

Do you use terrain pieces to encourage or discourage your opponent from favoring a particular baseline, especially Waterways or Rivers. Do you use a BUA to lessen the odds that your opponent will be able to pick a favored side? Do you setup terrain to your advantage if you do end up with the BUA on your side?

Do you separate terrain specific distances so that your army will fit between the two pieces "just right"? Do you find this occurs more frequently when you play Spear, Pike, or Warband armies, which can benefit from double-ranking (and thus like anchored flanks)?

I know one common method is to divide the board into thirds, quarters, or sections and then dice, but I find that:

A. It still does not tell you precisely where to place or orient the terrain piece within an 8" square.

B. Terrain usually ends up as a hindrance to both sides (i.e. neither side can take advantage), which I find inherently ahistorical.

I've just started on the terrain selection process and I am already thinking ahead to the terrain placement process. In DBAS, I am working on the theory that complementary terrain should be selected whenever possible. What those complements are, specifically, is still being worked out. Unfortunately, most of the examples I can think of involve BUAs, Waterways, and Rivers.

Dale




#114 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Sun Feb 7, 2010 1:58 pm
Subject: Re: How to approach terrain placement
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Dale,

Sorry for the slow reply.

I have a strong feeling that I do not always put terrain down to my best advantage.  Sometimes what I think would look good or be interesting plays some part in my choice.  I really feel that I am not the best person to reply.

However:

  • I sometimes use an optional waterway to reduce the usable area of the battlefield and protect a flank if I have a force rich in heavy foot.  (Perhaps this should be done with caution if the opposition has littoral terrain!)
  • Frequently I prefer a battlefield that isn't too cluttered with bad going.  Sometimes put the bad going out of the way in corners.  However, I don't do this if facing a mounted or mixed army with bad-going troops.
  • Tend to avoid rivers because I don't like them.  You are never sure whether they will slow a game to a stalemate or whether what you thought would help protect your flank doesn't.

Richard


From: Dale <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Fri, 5 February, 2010 4:13:18
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] How to approach terrain placement

 

All,

I am hoping even the non-DBA gamers might be able to chime in on this one.

What would be the best way to document how to go about placing terrain? We can set aside for the moment how many pieces, what type, etc. as these issues will be dictated by whatever rule set the soloist is using. But, how does one go about determining if, say, a hill should be placed 6" from the right edge or 4"? Why one versus the other?

I know that competitive players, when they are faced with these choices, don't simply plop pieces down and say "that looks good!" (Players that are into aesthetics, however, often do. But we will ignore them because they are going to chuck the terrain selection and placement rules anyway.)

Back to an earlier post I wrote (that no one responded to) about "meeting in the middle": if that what you, as the defending player, anticipate? Meeting in the middle somewhere? Do you then place terrain around that area in order to get a set piece battle that you imagine in your mind?

Do you use multiple pieces of terrain symmetrically so that if you get the baseline you don't expect, you still end up with the same set piece terrain (or a mirror image) when coming from another direction?

Do you use terrain pieces to encourage or discourage your opponent from favoring a particular baseline, especially Waterways or Rivers. Do you use a BUA to lessen the odds that your opponent will be able to pick a favored side? Do you setup terrain to your advantage if you do end up with the BUA on your side?

Do you separate terrain specific distances so that your army will fit between the two pieces "just right"? Do you find this occurs more frequently when you play Spear, Pike, or Warband armies, which can benefit from double-ranking (and thus like anchored flanks)?

I know one common method is to divide the board into thirds, quarters, or sections and then dice, but I find that:

A. It still does not tell you precisely where to place or orient the terrain piece within an 8" square.

B. Terrain usually ends up as a hindrance to both sides (i.e. neither side can take advantage), which I find inherently ahistorical.

I've just started on the terrain selection process and I am already thinking ahead to the terrain placement process. In DBAS, I am working on the theory that complementary terrain should be selected whenever possible. What those complements are, specifically, is still being worked out. Unfortunately, most of the examples I can think of involve BUAs, Waterways, and Rivers.

Dale



#115 From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Date: Sun Feb 7, 2010 2:02 pm
Subject: New file uploaded to soloDBAdevelopment
soloDBAdevelopment@...
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the soloDBAdevelopment
group.

   File        : /Richard's Solo DBA/Solo DBA-v3.doc
   Uploaded by : richard.lee42 <richard.lee42@...>
   Description : Version 3, which includes update of the tactical engine
07/02/2010

You can access this file at the URL:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/soloDBAdevelopment/files/Richard%27s%20Solo%20D\
BA/Solo%20DBA-v3.doc

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/uk/groups/files

Regards,

richard.lee42 <richard.lee42@...>

#116 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Sun Feb 7, 2010 2:14 pm
Subject: Solo DBA v3
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello everyone,

I have just uploaded version 3 of 'Solo DBA'.  Still quite a lot to do, but it is taking shape.  Will need to playtest it a bit more.  I would certainly welcome feedback from anyone else attempting to use it.

The most important changes have been to the tactical engine.  Although I am reasonably pleased with the changes I have a nagging feeling that perhaps the tactical engine could be attempting to do more.  How do people like the look of it?  If anyone feels like using it fin a solo game and giving me feedback I would be really pleased.

Had a go with it this afternoon and the NPG beat me.

It will seem strange to new members that both Dale and myself are trying to do slightly different methods of playing DBA solo.  I am trying to leave an element of chance and non-predictability in how my NPG reacts.

By the way,  'Solo DBA' seems to be on 10 pages.  Is it getting too long?  Should I attempt to shorten it?

Richard


#117 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Sun Feb 7, 2010 2:51 pm
Subject: First Playtest of Solo DBA v3
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Hello everyone,

Here are some notes I made of this afternoon's playtest of 'Solo DBA' v3:

Human player was Italian Hill Tribes (1 x cavalry general, 10 x auxilia, 1 x psiloi).  NPG was Umbrians (1 x cavalry general, 1 x cavalry, 2 x spear, 6 x auxilia, 2 x psiloi).  The Umbrians defended.

 

 Choice of Terrain

 

Compulsory Terrain – 1 x Road

Optional Terrain – 1 x Steep Hill, 1 x Gentle Hill

 

Had I been playing the Umbrians and defending I would have made similar choices; i.e. no BUA, only 2 optional terrain features, only one bad-going feature.

 

Terrain Placement

 

Steep Hill was placed on the right near the far baseline.  So that it fell in 2 quarters of the battlefield it was placed slightly towards the centre of the far baseline, but with at least 50% in the far right 1/9 of the battlefield.  The ridge of the hill was parallel with the far baseline.

 

The gentle hill was placed wholly within the near left 1/9 of the battlefield.  The ridge ran diagonally from the near baseline to the left hand side.

 

The road ran from near to far baselines, to the left of the battlefield, over the gentle hill.

 

Again, the terrain engine made choices which I felt were suitable and would likely have made myself for a standard DBA game on a square battlefield.

 

As the human player of the Italian Hill Tribes, my preferred edge to deploy was the left-hand side (with the gentle hill on the right, the road running left to right though the deployment zone, and the steep hill on my left but partly in the NPG deployment zone).  This was the edge that I deployed on.

 

Deployment

 

NPG (Umbrian) camp was behind steep hill.  My camp was in the centre of my (Italian Hill Tribes’) baseline.

 

The deployment engine put the Umbrian cavalry and auxilia on their right flank, with the spear and psiloi in reserve. 

 

Note:   If I were playing the Umbrians I would have put all the infantry in the centre with the cavalry either in reserve or with one element of cavalry on each flank.  I would have the spear in the middle of the line, with 3 x auxilia on each side of the spear with an element of psiloi on each flank.   My intention would be to bring the spear into contact with the Italian Hill Tribe auxilia as soon as possible.

 

I deployed the Italian Hill tribe auxilia in a line.  The left-most position of the line was 3 deep and the next position in was 2 deep.  The psiloi gave rear support to the 3 auxilia elements that would be face the Umbrian cavalry.  The general was in behind the psiloi..

 

The Umbrians did not swap any pairs of elements.

 

The Game

 

The Italian Hill Tribes started moving forward as a group.  The Umbrians threw a 4 for aggression level i.e. neutral aggression level.  The auxilia engaged and the Umbrians brought up their cavalry.  There was a bit of a line fight, and the Umbrians lost an auxilia and looked as if their line would be outflanked.  They brought up their spear and psiloi.  They lost one psiloi against the Italian Hill Tribe auxilia, but their spear killed a couple of Italian Hill Tribe auxilia..  The Umbrian general pushed back their opposing auxilia, leaving one auxilia with a psiloi behind in support facing the other Umbrian cavalry element, the Italian Hill Tribe auxilia having 2 open flanks and so being on a -2 tactical factor, and so getting killed.




#118 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Sun Feb 7, 2010 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: Solo DBA v3
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> I have just uploaded version 3 of 'Solo DBA'.  Still quite a lot to
> do, but it is taking shape.  Will need to playtest it a bit more.
> I would certainly welcome feedback from anyone else attempting to
> use it.

Here is my feedback on reading through the document (no playtesting yet).

Selection of General

* -1 Elephant general when YOU have a total of four or more psiloi, auxilia, or
light horse, or at least one artillery;

----

Use the phrase "Terrain Placement" instead of "Terrain Placing".

----

Road Placement: Roads MUST not cross no more than two battlefield quarters,
rather than "should only".

----

Selection of Base Edge if NPG is Attacker

* +3 Deployment zone on that edge is clear of rivers and bad going;

This doesn't sound right. If the edge is "clear" of rivers, then the river is
parallel of your proposed baseline. If the intent is to make sure that a river
is not running parallel through the deployment zone, change the phrase "edge" to
"deployment zone". It also makes more sense with Bad Going.

Further, is the part about Bad Going a good thing if the NPG army Favors Bad
Going?

This section needs to state explicitly that the roll is to determine the
"preferred" side. You already have the statement that you still roll to see
which baseline the attacker gets.

----

Deployment Engine

2. Deploy in non-bad going troops in column if they are in, or will soon enter
bad going.  Otherwise deploy in line if space permits.

Why are only non-Bad Going troops deployed in column? Shouldn't Bad Going troops
be in column too? Deploying in line that quickly - unless this is where you
choose to stand and fight - turns the light troops into PIP hogs, doesn't it?

----

3. Deploy warband in 2 ranks, if there are 6 or more elements to be deployed in
that position.  If the warband is to be deployed in 2 ranks throw a d6.  On a
score of 4 or more then only have the warband 1 element deep on the flanks;

This can be re-written a little simpler as:

3. If the NPG army has six or more Warband elements, throw a D6: on a 1-3 deploy
the elements in two ranks; otherwise deploy one Warband element on each flank of
the group (one rank deep) with the remaining in two ranks;

Let me know if I changed the intent.

----

4. Deploy spear in 2 ranks if there are more than 6 elements in that position
and there are a total of more 5 or more spears in YOUR army. If the spear is to
be deployed in 2 ranks throw a d6.  On a score of 4 or more then only have the
spear 1 element deep on the flanks;

This can be re-written a little simpler as:

4. If YOUR army has five or more Spear elements and the NPG army has six or more
Spear elements, throw a D6: on a 1-3 deploy the elements in two ranks; otherwise
deploy one Spear element on each flank of the group (one rank deep) with the
remaining in two ranks;

Let me know if I changed the intent.

----

5. The fastest elements are placed on the outer extremities of a position except
when that will mean mounted troop facing or being deployed in bad going.  ...

You never explicitly state what to do when mounted troops ARE facing or being
deployed in Bad Going.

----

Bad Match Ups

* Psiloi faced by cavalry, camelry or knights;

This is only a bad match-up if the Psiloi is in the open.

* Hordes faced by elephants, knights, scythed chariots or warband;

Bows and Artillery shooting at Hordes QK them.

* War wagons faced by elephants

Artillery shooting at War Wagons QK them.

----

Determine Aggression Level

* +1 NPG has an army which all moves at least 300 paces in good going;

I would recommend changing that to "ten or more elements, all which move at
least 300 paces in Goog Going". A Mongol Conquest army, for example, can have a
single Artillery element, but the rest is mounted.

> The most important changes have been to the tactical engine.

I'll have to try the Tactical Engine before I comment more.

> By the way,  'Solo DBA' seems to be on 10 pages.  Is it getting too
> long?  Should I attempt to shorten it?

Good Lord. I will be lucky to keep mine under 40! :D

Keep it coming. I've working on terrain placement right now.

Dale

#119 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Sun Feb 7, 2010 6:37 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Solo DBA v3
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Dale,

Many thanks for your extremely helpful feedback.

>>"Further, is the part about Bad Going a good thing if the NPG army Favors Bad Going?"

With a bad going army I would still prefer to deploy on good going.  It may well be useful to fight in bad going but I would tend to prefer to advance towards it.  I am uneasy about allowing the enemy too much of the initiative by waiting patiently for them.

>>"Why are only non-Bad Going troops deployed in column? Shouldn't Bad Going troops be in column too? Deploying in line that quickly - unless this is where you choose to stand and fight - turns the light troops into PIP hogs, doesn't it?"

Bad going troops will need to get clear of the bad going quickly, otherwise they will be vulnerable.  Bad going troops might or might not choose to fight in that bad going, but are unlikely to suffer too great a penalty if they are a bit slow leaving the bad going.

>>"Bad Match Ups

* Psiloi faced by cavalry, camelry or knights;"

"This is only a bad match-up if the Psiloi is in the open."

Yes.  However, the paragraph above says: "Ignore any matches where there is bad going or impassable terrain between them."

>>"Determine Aggression Level

* +1 NPG has an army which all moves at least 300 paces in good going;"

>>"I would recommend changing that to "ten or more elements, all which move at least 300 paces in Goog Going". A Mongol Conquest army, for example, can have a single Artillery element, but the rest is mounted."

An excellent point that merits further consideration.  I had the Umbrian versus Italian Hill Tribes (IHT) match-up in mind.  The Umbrians have more psiloi and less auxilia than the IHT, but have 2 x spears.  The two spear elements tend to be the killers in this match-up.  I think I will adopt your suggestion but specify "eleven or more elements that move at least 300 paces".

>>"Good Lord. I will be lucky to keep mine under 40! :D"

What you are attempting is much more ambitious, IMO, than what I am trying to do.

Richard

From: Dale <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Sun, 7 February, 2010 19:11:58
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Re: Solo DBA v3

 

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> I have just uploaded version 3 of 'Solo DBA'. Still quite a lot to
> do, but it is taking shape. Will need to playtest it a bit more.
> I would certainly welcome feedback from anyone else attempting to
> use it.

Here is my feedback on reading through the document (no playtesting yet).

Selection of General

* -1 Elephant general when YOU have a total of four or more psiloi, auxilia, or light horse, or at least one artillery;

----

Use the phrase "Terrain Placement" instead of "Terrain Placing".

----

Road Placement: Roads MUST not cross no more than two battlefield quarters, rather than "should only".

----

Selection of Base Edge if NPG is Attacker

* +3 Deployment zone on that edge is clear of rivers and bad going;

This doesn't sound right. If the edge is "clear" of rivers, then the river is parallel of your proposed baseline. If the intent is to make sure that a river is not running parallel through the deployment zone, change the phrase "edge" to "deployment zone". It also makes more sense with Bad Going.

Further, is the part about Bad Going a good thing if the NPG army Favors Bad Going?

This section needs to state explicitly that the roll is to determine the "preferred" side. You already have the statement that you still roll to see which baseline the attacker gets.

----

Deployment Engine

2. Deploy in non-bad going troops in column if they are in, or will soon enter bad going. Otherwise deploy in line if space permits.

Why are only non-Bad Going troops deployed in column? Shouldn't Bad Going troops be in column too? Deploying in line that quickly - unless this is where you choose to stand and fight - turns the light troops into PIP hogs, doesn't it?

----

3. Deploy warband in 2 ranks, if there are 6 or more elements to be deployed in that position. If the warband is to be deployed in 2 ranks throw a d6. On a score of 4 or more then only have the warband 1 element deep on the flanks;

This can be re-written a little simpler as:

3. If the NPG army has six or more Warband elements, throw a D6: on a 1-3 deploy the elements in two ranks; otherwise deploy one Warband element on each flank of the group (one rank deep) with the remaining in two ranks;

Let me know if I changed the intent.

----

4. Deploy spear in 2 ranks if there are more than 6 elements in that position and there are a total of more 5 or more spears in YOUR army. If the spear is to be deployed in 2 ranks throw a d6. On a score of 4 or more then only have the spear 1 element deep on the flanks;

This can be re-written a little simpler as:

4. If YOUR army has five or more Spear elements and the NPG army has six or more Spear elements, throw a D6: on a 1-3 deploy the elements in two ranks; otherwise deploy one Spear element on each flank of the group (one rank deep) with the remaining in two ranks;

Let me know if I changed the intent.

----

5. The fastest elements are placed on the outer extremities of a position except when that will mean mounted troop facing or being deployed in bad going. ...

You never explicitly state what to do when mounted troops ARE facing or being deployed in Bad Going.

----

Bad Match Ups

* Psiloi faced by cavalry, camelry or knights;

This is only a bad match-up if the Psiloi is in the open.

* Hordes faced by elephants, knights, scythed chariots or warband;

Bows and Artillery shooting at Hordes QK them.

* War wagons faced by elephants

Artillery shooting at War Wagons QK them.

----

Determine Aggression Level

* +1 NPG has an army which all moves at least 300 paces in good going;

I would recommend changing that to "ten or more elements, all which move at least 300 paces in Goog Going". A Mongol Conquest army, for example, can have a single Artillery element, but the rest is mounted.

> The most important changes have been to the tactical engine.

I'll have to try the Tactical Engine before I comment more.

> By the way, 'Solo DBA' seems to be on 10 pages. Is it getting too
> long? Should I attempt to shorten it?

Good Lord. I will be lucky to keep mine under 40! :D

Keep it coming. I've working on terrain placement right now.

Dale



#120 From: "Dennis P. Skea" <dpskea@...>
Date: Sun Feb 7, 2010 9:39 pm
Subject: RE: Solo DBA v3
codekeyguy
Send Email Send Email
 
Yesterday we played a couple of games of De Bellis Minimus (on a 12" square board)  It is super fast, and super fun.  I'M Considering trying to "solo" it also. 

Dennis P. Skea EA
3 Neptune Road, Suite M-6
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
www.dpskea.com
(phone)845-632-3664
(fax)    888-441-0760 
                                                                                                                                                                                                     I appreciate your business
and I welcome your referrals.





 

To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
From: richard.lee42@...
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 06:14:54 -0800
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Solo DBA v3

 
Hello everyone,

I have just uploaded version 3 of 'Solo DBA'.  Still quite a lot to do, but it is taking shape.  Will need to playtest it a bit more.  I would certainly welcome feedback from anyone else attempting to use it.

The most important changes have been to the tactical engine.  Although I am reasonably pleased with the changes I have a nagging feeling that perhaps the tactical engine could be attempting to do more.  How do people like the look of it?  If anyone feels like using it fin a solo game and giving me feedback I would be really pleased.

Had a go with it this afternoon and the NPG beat me.

It will seem strange to new members that both Dale and myself are trying to do slightly different methods of playing DBA solo.  I am trying to leave an element of chance and non-predictability in how my NPG reacts.

By the way,  'Solo DBA' seems to be on 10 pages.  Is it getting too long?  Should I attempt to shorten it?

Richard



#121 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Mon Feb 8, 2010 7:28 am
Subject: Re: Solo DBA v3
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Dennis,

That sounds interesting.  Might try De Bellis Minimus myself some time.

Although (at present) I am just trying to cover basic DBA, I have thoughts of looking at BBDBA, Hordes of the Things, DBN and perhaps even DBR later.  De Bellis Minimus might be good for solo play as well.

Please let us know how you get on.

Thanks.

Richard


From: Dennis P. Skea <dpskea@...>
To: solodbadevelopment@...
Sent: Sun, 7 February, 2010 23:39:02
Subject: RE: [soloDBAdevelopment] Solo DBA v3

 

Yesterday we played a couple of games of De Bellis Minimus (on a 12" square board)  It is super fast, and super fun.  I'M Considering trying to "solo" it also. 

Dennis P. Skea EA
3 Neptune Road, Suite M-6
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
www.dpskea.com
(phone)845-632- 3664
(fax)    888-441-0760 
                                                                                                                                                             &n bsp;                                       I appreciate your business
and I welcome your referrals.





 


To: soloDBAdevelopment@ yahoogroups. co.uk
From: richard.lee42@ yahoo.co. uk
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 06:14:54 -0800
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment ] Solo DBA v3

 
Hello everyone,

I have just uploaded version 3 of 'Solo DBA'.  Still quite a lot to do, but it is taking shape.  Will need to playtest it a bit more.  I would certainly welcome feedback from anyone else attempting to use it.

The most important changes have been to the tactical engine.  Although I am reasonably pleased with the changes I have a nagging feeling that perhaps the tactical engine could be attempting to do more.  How do people like the look of it?  If anyone feels like using it fin a solo game and giving me feedback I would be really pleased.

Had a go with it this afternoon and the NPG beat me.

It will seem strange to new members that both Dale and myself are trying to do slightly different methods of playing DBA solo.  I am trying to leave an element of chance and non-predictability in how my NPG reacts.

By the way,  'Solo DBA' seems to be on 10 pages.  Is it getting too long?  Should I attempt to shorten it?

Richard




#122 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Mon Feb 8, 2010 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: How to approach terrain placement
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> I have a strong feeling that I do not always put terrain down to my
> best advantage.  Sometimes what I think would look good or be
> interesting plays some part in my choice.

I know I am still learning, in that regard. I just did a playtest for the
upcoming DBAS version 4 and the point was driven home that not all Bad Going is
created equally. That is one of the things I use solo gaming for: to sharpen the
point on my tactical play for when I do game face-to-face.

That's also why I tend to NOT use random factors when gaming solo; I usually
want to create a specific tactical situation to test out. That is why I have no
problem with lists of rules that I can discard as inconvenient, when I need to,
or use when I am just "jonesing" for a game.

> However:
>
>  * I sometimes use an optional waterway to reduce the usable
> area of the battlefield and protect a flank if I have a force rich
> in heavy foot.

See my thread on Fanaticus about using Waterways. It seems weighted (the last
time I looked) towards most people using it to narrow the width of the board and
anchor a flank. The rest talk about reducing the depth of the board so that
heavy infantry armies can get to the opposition quicker.

The Fanaticus thread is interesting in that it came from preparing for my test
game. I was trying to work out the rules for terrain selection and in the back
of my mind I was under the impression that "somewhere" I read about having a
Waterway to your back was bad. As I started thinking it through, I could not see
a disadvantage (as outlined in that thread).

In fact, I can see a lot of possibilities from that discussion.

>  (Perhaps this should be done with caution if the opposition has
> littoral terrain!)

Definitely. As the (non-Littoral) defender, unless the Waterway is behind the
(Littoral) attacker, it would force you to deploy your troops such that you
could defend a landing BEFORE seeing if the attacker commits troops to a
landing.

A non-Littoral attacker against a Littoral defender definitely has it better
than a non-Littoral defender against a Littoral attacker.

>  * Frequently I prefer a battlefield that isn't too cluttered
> with bad going.

If you have a Favors Bad Going army versus a Heavy Infantry army - say Ancient
Spanish versus Polybian Roman - why would you not, as the Spanish, put out as
much Bad Going as possible?

This was actually my test game last night, with the Spanish as the NPG. They
were slaughtered (4-0), but primarily because their PIP rolls were 1-2-3 versus
the Romans 6-5-5 for the first three turns. I don't care how good a General you
are, overcoming those kinds of PIP rolls is really hard. (It also doesn't help
when the first Psiloi combat has the Spanish getting doubled.)

But, I learned a lot...

> Sometimes put the bad going out of the way in corners. However, I
> don't do this if facing a mounted or mixed army with bad-going
> troops.

Why would you do that with a Bad Going army (facing anything)?

>  * Tend to avoid rivers because I don't like them.  You are
> never sure whether they will slow a game to a stalemate or whether
> what you thought would help protect your flank doesn't.

I hear you there. I usually only use rivers in a campaign game when I am the
underdog. I might place one in a friendly game, where you have the time. But, I
would never place one in a tournament unless I had artillery and the tournament
rules gave a full victory to whomever scored the most VP when time was called.
(Which is a poor tournament format, by the way.)

Dale

#123 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Mon Feb 8, 2010 5:18 pm
Subject: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
When I played my test game last night, I was mainly focused on terrain
placement, which is the section of DBAS I am trying to update. However, in order
to actually game it out, I needed to, at least partially, address an army's
Strategic Stance (what was called the Tactical Engine in the original DBS).

As I said in an earlier post, I think the Strategic Stance - how aggressive the
army is that turn - should be strongly based on the current PIP roll. One thing
I have noticed in face-to-face play is that almost every player becomes more
aggressive with a higher PIP roll. It is only natural; the more PIPs you have,
the more you can do. Further, you start to see combination moves. For example:

* With one PIP you might be able to push a group forward into an even (+0)
combat or possibly even an uneven (-1) combat, but with two PIPs you could flank
the end of the line, possibly starting a cascade effect of rolling up the line.
With three PIPs you might be able to flank both ends.

* With one PIP you might be able to move your Light Horse (Psiloi on the first
turn, anything on a road) up, but the position is not overly favorable. With two
PIPs you could double move and gain a favorable position.

* Your opponent is doing the PIP dance and in the process of shifting elements
around the battle line. With one PIP your Warband elements cannot contact - or
even ZOC - the opponent. But with an extra PIP you can contact the enemy,
freezing the movement and potentially catching a disadvantaged element before it
can be shifted away. (Besides, it is the barbarian thing to do. Yarg!)

All this is a long-winded way of saying that perhaps the primary determinant for
your Strategic Stance (Attack, Maneuver, Cohesion) should not be a separate die
roll with modifiers, but rather your PIP roll modified by modifiers (i.e. the
PIP roll itself does double duty: it tells you how many PIPs you have to use;
and, with modifiers, it sets your Strategic Stance).

I was thinking for DBAS something like the "morale clock" from the old Chipco
game, "Le Petite Emperor", where you start with a specific value and as you lose
elements, the number goes down. This value, modified by the current PIP roll,
should determine your aggression level. So, with a high PIP roll, you can still
be somewhat aggressive with heavy casualties and with a low PIP roll, more
cautious.

I think this area is where the DBS Tactical Engine breaks down. Although it
tells you to roll the Tactical Engine die with the PIP die, it never ties the
two together. Your aggression is completely independent of your PIP roll, which
is completely opposite of how people tend to play.

For my test game, which as I said was focusing on terrain placement, not this
concept, I used the formula "PIP roll minus the number of lost elements" as the
number of NEW combats I could initiate. Throwing in an element into an overlap
or flanking position did not count as a new combat, but moving into the ZOC of
an enemy did, even if I did not end up in contact (I was committing to an
attack). It seemed to work out well and there was no occasion in which I felt
like the system didn't let me do what I needed to do (i.e. where I needed to
initiate more combats than the Stance let me do, even though I had the PIPs).
Again, my test was a little skewed in that the Spanish could not get the PIPs
until it was basically too late.

The Tactical Engine - the mechanism to actually determine which elements receive
the PIPs and what they should do with it, remains to be pondered, in my mind.

Comments welcome, as always.

Dale

#124 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Mon Feb 8, 2010 7:35 pm
Subject: Re: Re: How to approach terrain placement
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Dale,

"Why would you do that with a Bad Going army (facing anything)?"

One of the uses of an army whose infantry is auxilia and psiloi is to out-maneuver other infantry armies and go after their flanks.  This is difficult to do if you are short of pips because of too much bad going, or you need extra pips for a flank because there is a wood or steep hill blocking line of sight and your general is over 600 paces away.

Also, if you are too obvious with having lots of bad going in prominent positions it can alarm your opponent and make them too cautious.

Richard


From: Dale <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Mon, 8 February, 2010 18:36:27
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Re: How to approach terrain placement

 

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> I have a strong feeling that I do not always put terrain down to my
> best advantage. Sometimes what I think would look good or be
> interesting plays some part in my choice.

I know I am still learning, in that regard. I just did a playtest for the upcoming DBAS version 4 and the point was driven home that not all Bad Going is created equally. That is one of the things I use solo gaming for: to sharpen the point on my tactical play for when I do game face-to-face.

That's also why I tend to NOT use random factors when gaming solo; I usually want to create a specific tactical situation to test out. That is why I have no problem with lists of rules that I can discard as inconvenient, when I need to, or use when I am just "jonesing" for a game.

> However:
>
> * I sometimes use an optional waterway to reduce the usable
> area of the battlefield and protect a flank if I have a force rich
> in heavy foot.

See my thread on Fanaticus about using Waterways. It seems weighted (the last time I looked) towards most people using it to narrow the width of the board and anchor a flank. The rest talk about reducing the depth of the board so that heavy infantry armies can get to the opposition quicker.

The Fanaticus thread is interesting in that it came from preparing for my test game. I was trying to work out the rules for terrain selection and in the back of my mind I was under the impression that "somewhere" I read about having a Waterway to your back was bad. As I started thinking it through, I could not see a disadvantage (as outlined in that thread).

In fact, I can see a lot of possibilities from that discussion.

> (Perhaps this should be done with caution if the opposition has
> littoral terrain!)

Definitely. As the (non-Littoral) defender, unless the Waterway is behind the (Littoral) attacker, it would force you to deploy your troops such that you could defend a landing BEFORE seeing if the attacker commits troops to a landing.

A non-Littoral attacker against a Littoral defender definitely has it better than a non-Littoral defender against a Littoral attacker.

> * Frequently I prefer a battlefield that isn't too cluttered
> with bad going.

If you have a Favors Bad Going army versus a Heavy Infantry army - say Ancient Spanish versus Polybian Roman - why would you not, as the Spanish, put out as much Bad Going as possible?

This was actually my test game last night, with the Spanish as the NPG. They were slaughtered (4-0), but primarily because their PIP rolls were 1-2-3 versus the Romans 6-5-5 for the first three turns. I don't care how good a General you are, overcoming those kinds of PIP rolls is really hard. (It also doesn't help when the first Psiloi combat has the Spanish getting doubled.)

But, I learned a lot...

> Sometimes put the bad going out of the way in corners. However, I
> don't do this if facing a mounted or mixed army with bad-going
> troops.

Why would you do that with a Bad Going army (facing anything)?

> * Tend to avoid rivers because I don't like them. You are
> never sure whether they will slow a game to a stalemate or whether
> what you thought would help protect your flank doesn't.

I hear you there. I usually only use rivers in a campaign game when I am the underdog. I might place one in a friendly game, where you have the time. But, I would never place one in a tournament unless I had artillery and the tournament rules gave a full victory to whomever scored the most VP when time was called. (Which is a poor tournament format, by the way.)

Dale



#125 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:09 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Dale,

I agree that how aggressive the NPG is in any bound should be affected by the number of pip dice.  As you have seen, I have kept the method of throwing 2 dice, one for pips and the other to determine how aggressive the NPG plays for this bound, but I have introduced modifiers for medium and higher numbers of pips.

Your idea of throwing one dice for pips to also act as the main factor affecting how aggressively the NPG sounds interesting.  It has the virtue of being a step towards simplification, which is good.  However, for the moment I will continue with the 2 dice method because I feel that it is easier to adjust factors.  I will be watching how your method develops and have recorded it with my other notes of suggestions that may be worth trying later.

Not quite convinced that players always act aggressively when they get lots of pips and get cautious or defensive when pips are few.  Sometimes an attack only needs one pip (e.g. the Polybian Roman infantry line attacking the Later Carthaginian infantry line).  Sometimes being defensive needs a lot of pips to prepare for a threat.

Perhaps the tactical engine/strategic stance generator ought to be considering threats and opportunities as factors to determine how aggressively the NPG plays?  That leads to the question how do you define a threat or an opportunity?  It would be fairly easy to consider any NPG elements at risk of an attack favourable to the human player in their next bound but how many bounds ahead should the tactical engine/strategic stance generator look?

Will think about that, perhaps in time for my next version.

Richard


From: Dale <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Mon, 8 February, 2010 19:18:41
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)

 

When I played my test game last night, I was mainly focused on terrain placement, which is the section of DBAS I am trying to update. However, in order to actually game it out, I needed to, at least partially, address an army's Strategic Stance (what was called the Tactical Engine in the original DBS).

As I said in an earlier post, I think the Strategic Stance - how aggressive the army is that turn - should be strongly based on the current PIP roll. One thing I have noticed in face-to-face play is that almost every player becomes more aggressive with a higher PIP roll. It is only natural; the more PIPs you have, the more you can do. Further, you start to see combination moves. For example:

* With one PIP you might be able to push a group forward into an even (+0) combat or possibly even an uneven (-1) combat, but with two PIPs you could flank the end of the line, possibly starting a cascade effect of rolling up the line. With three PIPs you might be able to flank both ends.

* With one PIP you might be able to move your Light Horse (Psiloi on the first turn, anything on a road) up, but the position is not overly favorable. With two PIPs you could double move and gain a favorable position.

* Your opponent is doing the PIP dance and in the process of shifting elements around the battle line. With one PIP your Warband elements cannot contact - or even ZOC - the opponent. But with an extra PIP you can contact the enemy, freezing the movement and potentially catching a disadvantaged element before it can be shifted away. (Besides, it is the barbarian thing to do. Yarg!)

All this is a long-winded way of saying that perhaps the primary determinant for your Strategic Stance (Attack, Maneuver, Cohesion) should not be a separate die roll with modifiers, but rather your PIP roll modified by modifiers (i.e. the PIP roll itself does double duty: it tells you how many PIPs you have to use; and, with modifiers, it sets your Strategic Stance).

I was thinking for DBAS something like the "morale clock" from the old Chipco game, "Le Petite Emperor", where you start with a specific value and as you lose elements, the number goes down. This value, modified by the current PIP roll, should determine your aggression level. So, with a high PIP roll, you can still be somewhat aggressive with heavy casualties and with a low PIP roll, more cautious.

I think this area is where the DBS Tactical Engine breaks down. Although it tells you to roll the Tactical Engine die with the PIP die, it never ties the two together. Your aggression is completely independent of your PIP roll, which is completely opposite of how people tend to play.

For my test game, which as I said was focusing on terrain placement, not this concept, I used the formula "PIP roll minus the number of lost elements" as the number of NEW combats I could initiate. Throwing in an element into an overlap or flanking position did not count as a new combat, but moving into the ZOC of an enemy did, even if I did not end up in contact (I was committing to an attack). It seemed to work out well and there was no occasion in which I felt like the system didn't let me do what I needed to do (i.e. where I needed to initiate more combats than the Stance let me do, even though I had the PIPs). Again, my test was a little skewed in that the Spanish could not get the PIPs until it was basically too late.

The Tactical Engine - the mechanism to actually determine which elements receive the PIPs and what they should do with it, remains to be pondered, in my mind.

Comments welcome, as always.

Dale



#126 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:26 pm
Subject: Re: How to approach terrain placement
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> One of the uses of an army whose infantry is auxilia and psiloi is
> to out-maneuver other infantry armies and go after their flanks.

True. Given neither side's movement rate doesn't change in Bad Going, I don't
see your point yet.

> This is difficult to do if you are short of pips because of too
> much bad going,

Big assumption there. You stated previously that the heavy infantry should enter
Bad Going in columns. The rationale for that is that a column is the only type
of group move that can be done in Bad Going, thus saving PIPs. That applies
equally to Auxilia and Psiloi as it does to heavy infantry.

Besides, if Bad Going creates PIP hogs equally for both sides, and penalizes the
heavy infantry for combat factors, I still do not see how Auxilia and Psiloi
come out losing.

> or you need extra pips for a flank because there is a wood or steep
> hill blocking line of sight and your general is over 600 paces away.

Exactly. The assumption you are making is that the General is not or cannot
maintain that distance, thus increasing the PIP drain.

Not only that, but maneuvering around LOS-blocking terrain to threaten an army
from the flank or rear often dislodges stubborn heavy infantry from their set
positions away from your Bad Going. I do this with Light Horse all of the time.
(Of course, everything else is in slow motion compared with them.)

> Also, if you are too obvious with having lots of bad going in
> prominent positions it can alarm your opponent and make them too
> cautious.

When my opponent starts reacting with alarm to my terrain setup, much less my
army, I have already beaten him psychologically.

I will give you that when you throw in woods and other LOS-blocking Bad Going,
you need to be much more careful with your command than normally. But, it can go
to your advantage just as easily.

For example, recoiling deeper into a woods or over the crest of a hill can
sometimes draw an opponent into a false sense of victory. I once watched as my
opponents' Blades went after my Auxilia and Psiloi that all recoiled or fled
over a crest. He happily tromped after them, sensing the hunt was on. When I
counter-attacked and he needed the PIPs to recover, I pointed out that he had
advanced right out of command range of his General.

I know, you can't count on your opponent making such a mistake, but the
objections you raise are essentially the same thing. You assume the player will
not take these into account if they use "too much" Bad Going.

Personally, I find that Bad Going gives light troops avenues of approach and
maneuver without the danger of being overrun by marauding mounted troops or
heavy infantry.

To each their own.

Dale

#127 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Tue Feb 9, 2010 5:49 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
> Dale wrote:
>
> For my test game, ... I used the formula "PIP roll minus the number of lost
elements" as the number of NEW combats I could initiate.

CORRECTION: PIP Roll - Number of NPG Elements Lost + Number of Enemy Elements
Lost. Of course, the number cannot be greater than the PIP roll itself. So,
killing the enemy offsets the losses you take.

I played another test game tonight and am finishing a third tomorrow morning
(lots of free time on my hands - the wife is writing a paper for school) and I
have found that this limits the NPG move maybe twice per game, so maybe it is
not string enough.

Dale

#128 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Tue Feb 9, 2010 6:19 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> However, for the moment I will continue with the 2 dice method
> because I feel that it is easier to adjust factors.

I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned that. I stopped just before the
Tactical Engine section.

I noticed the modifiers are +0/+1/+2 for 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 PIPs, respectively.
Any reason you did not make it -1/+0/+1? Not implying I think it is wrong, just
curious.

> Not quite convinced that players always act aggressively when they
> get lots of pips and get cautious or defensive when pips are few.

Nor am I saying "always". More PIPs equates to being able to do more. Doing more
could mean attacking more, setting up more, etc.

> Sometimes an attack only needs one pip (e.g. the Polybian Roman
> infantry line attacking the Later Carthaginian infantry line).

I am well aware of that, but I don't get your point. Do you equate lining up and
moving a six element group into an attack with another six elements as an
aggressive move? I do not.

> Sometimes being defensive needs a lot of pips to prepare for a
> threat.

True, but people typically "do the PIP dance" because they are out-matched
element for element and are trying to rearrange the order before the lines hit.
Whether they get three PIPs or five, they are still going to do the dance until
the line hits. They rarely setup the defense, then go on the offensive.

You bring up a good point - probably not the one you were trying to make - but
some player-army combinations will always be defensive. It is a rare person that
can go on the offensive with, say, the Early Libyans with their 11 Psiloi and 1
Light Chariot. (I did meet her though.)

> Perhaps the tactical engine/strategic stance generator ought to be
> considering threats and opportunities as factors to determine how
> aggressively the NPG plays?  That leads to the question how do you
> define a threat or an opportunity?

Yeah, that is the million dollar question, isn't it.

> It would be fairly easy to consider any NPG elements at risk of an
> attack favourable to the human player in their next bound but how
> many bounds ahead should the tactical engine/strategic stance
> generator look?

It would be incredible to look past the immediate turn. I'm not a Deep Blue
programmer.

Good stuff! Keep it coming.

Dale

#129 From: "Jay" <solowargamer@...>
Date: Tue Feb 9, 2010 7:13 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
brizblogger
Send Email Send Email
 
Fascinating discussion guys! I'm planning to run a test game of Richard's latest
ruleset this evening. It'll be my first solo DBA game in a little while,
inspired by the ideas you two are batting around on here, so thanks for that!

One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of grouping all
like elements together very limiting, and not particularly representative of the
way I tend to play. In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to
intersperse bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the
composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any easy way to
represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG set-up, but maybe this is one
to consider adding into the mix at a later stage? So far my only thoughts on
this are to revert on occasion to my previous practice of sketching 3 or more
initial deployments for the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy
composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm sure there
must be a more elegant solution than that!

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

#130 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Tue Feb 9, 2010 2:41 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
> Jay wrote:
>
> One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of
> grouping all like elements together very limiting, and not
> particularly representative of the way I tend to play.

I agree. I haven't written the troop deployment rules for DBAS, but I already
know I am going to use "quads" as has been discussed on Fanaticus and the Yahoo
DBA forum.

> In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to intersperse
> bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the
> composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any
> easy way to represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG
> set-up, but maybe this is one to consider adding into the mix at a
> later stage?

That is one of the reasons for creating classifications for an army type. It
helps you to start to create rules about "why" you would "mix it up". For
example, if you are facing a Mounted army, you might break up your Romans into
packs of 3 Blades and 1 Psiloi and deploy them in a T formation so the Psiloi
provides rear support to the 3 Blades. (Same concept if you have Auxilia or
Spears.) Another is to band 2 Bows with 2 other infantry when facing Knights, so
you can form a Teacup formation just before the lines hit.

I think this whole concept of elements and formations has yet to be explored
fully. I have started by writing up a bunch of index cards and drawing out
formations and how I would arrange the elements. I usually have about three
variations per "army composition class".

An army composition class (ACC) is a unique mixture of element types that,
unsurprisingly, repeats throughout the army lists. For example, ACC #01 consists
of:

     6 x Double-Ranked Infantry, 2 x Mounted (one is the General), 2 x
Single-Ranked Infantry, and 2 x Light Infantry

Looking down the lists you can find a wide variety of army lists that match that
description or are pretty close : Early Sumerian, Philistine, Macedonian Early
Successor - Keraunos, Low Countries. Once you realize the similarity of those
armies you start to realize that you would basically set them up the same way,
given the same opponent (or same opposing ACC).

Don't get me wrong; going this way is a tough row to hoe because there are a lot
of combinations. I believe this problem is like terrain placement, however, in
that you want to focus primarily on your army's strengths and weaknesses and
less on your opponent's. You still want to take your opponent's army into
consideration, of course, but I believe you should focus on playing your game,
not reacting to your opponent's game. That is why I believe the defender holds
the advantage in DBA. (But, that is another discussion.)

> So far my only thoughts on this are to revert on occasion to my
> previous practice of sketching 3 or more initial deployments for
> the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy
> composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm
> sure there must be a more elegant solution than that!

Funny you should mention that... I am developing drawings of game boards with
the terrain placed, deployment zones marked, etc. and showing what it looks like
from all four directions. Here is my Photobucket album of variations for armies
that Favor Bad Going:
http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx202/dhurtt/DBA-Solo/Gameboards/FavorsBadGoi\
ng/

Some of these will change over time as I test them. (I am going over the Turtle
board from all four directions using the Polybian Romans versus the Ancient
Spanish as NPG. The Spanish are 1-1 and my third game is 3-2 in favor of the
Spanish.) The Waterway Turtle board is wrong, I think, so will probably change.
I still need to provide commentary for the boards as to why the terrain is why
it is and how the NPG battle plan should utilize the setup.

I think this is the way I am going. A catalog of terrain boards that is based
upon the defending NPG's army classifications. This leads to a general battle
plan, which leads to how to break up the army into formations to place on that
board, etc.

I just need to glue all of these ideas together, throw in a couple of dice rolls
for those that like that sort of thing, and publish it up. I had been writing up
ideas of late and doing to gaming ... I mean, serious testing and analysis :)
... so I am taking a break from writing a new version of DBAS at the moment.

Dale

#131 From: "Jay" <solowargamer@...>
Date: Wed Feb 10, 2010 6:06 am
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
brizblogger
Send Email Send Email
 
Wow, that IS going to be a mammoth task. OTOH, I guess that researching and
gradually compiling the data and resources (plans of game boards and so on) is
going to be a fascinating project to immerse yourself in...

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer.wordpress.com/

--- In soloDBAdevelopment@..., "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...> wrote:
>
> > Jay wrote:
> >
> > One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of
> > grouping all like elements together very limiting, and not
> > particularly representative of the way I tend to play.
>
> I agree. I haven't written the troop deployment rules for DBAS, but I already
know I am going to use "quads" as has been discussed on Fanaticus and the Yahoo
DBA forum.
>
> > In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to intersperse
> > bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the
> > composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any
> > easy way to represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG
> > set-up, but maybe this is one to consider adding into the mix at a
> > later stage?
>
> That is one of the reasons for creating classifications for an army type. It
helps you to start to create rules about "why" you would "mix it up". For
example, if you are facing a Mounted army, you might break up your Romans into
packs of 3 Blades and 1 Psiloi and deploy them in a T formation so the Psiloi
provides rear support to the 3 Blades. (Same concept if you have Auxilia or
Spears.) Another is to band 2 Bows with 2 other infantry when facing Knights, so
you can form a Teacup formation just before the lines hit.
>
> I think this whole concept of elements and formations has yet to be explored
fully. I have started by writing up a bunch of index cards and drawing out
formations and how I would arrange the elements. I usually have about three
variations per "army composition class".
>
> An army composition class (ACC) is a unique mixture of element types that,
unsurprisingly, repeats throughout the army lists. For example, ACC #01 consists
of:
>
>     6 x Double-Ranked Infantry, 2 x Mounted (one is the General), 2 x
Single-Ranked Infantry, and 2 x Light Infantry
>
> Looking down the lists you can find a wide variety of army lists that match
that description or are pretty close : Early Sumerian, Philistine, Macedonian
Early Successor - Keraunos, Low Countries. Once you realize the similarity of
those armies you start to realize that you would basically set them up the same
way, given the same opponent (or same opposing ACC).
>
> Don't get me wrong; going this way is a tough row to hoe because there are a
lot of combinations. I believe this problem is like terrain placement, however,
in that you want to focus primarily on your army's strengths and weaknesses and
less on your opponent's. You still want to take your opponent's army into
consideration, of course, but I believe you should focus on playing your game,
not reacting to your opponent's game. That is why I believe the defender holds
the advantage in DBA. (But, that is another discussion.)
>
> > So far my only thoughts on this are to revert on occasion to my
> > previous practice of sketching 3 or more initial deployments for
> > the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy
> > composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm
> > sure there must be a more elegant solution than that!
>
> Funny you should mention that... I am developing drawings of game boards with
the terrain placed, deployment zones marked, etc. and showing what it looks like
from all four directions. Here is my Photobucket album of variations for armies
that Favor Bad Going:
http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/xx202/dhurtt/DBA-Solo/Gameboards/FavorsBadGoi\
ng/
>
> Some of these will change over time as I test them. (I am going over the
Turtle board from all four directions using the Polybian Romans versus the
Ancient Spanish as NPG. The Spanish are 1-1 and my third game is 3-2 in favor of
the Spanish.) The Waterway Turtle board is wrong, I think, so will probably
change. I still need to provide commentary for the boards as to why the terrain
is why it is and how the NPG battle plan should utilize the setup.
>
> I think this is the way I am going. A catalog of terrain boards that is based
upon the defending NPG's army classifications. This leads to a general battle
plan, which leads to how to break up the army into formations to place on that
board, etc.
>
> I just need to glue all of these ideas together, throw in a couple of dice
rolls for those that like that sort of thing, and publish it up. I had been
writing up ideas of late and doing to gaming ... I mean, serious testing and
analysis :) ... so I am taking a break from writing a new version of DBAS at the
moment.
>
> Dale
>

#132 From: "Dale" <dale_hurtt@...>
Date: Wed Feb 10, 2010 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
dale_hurtt
Send Email Send Email
 
> Jay wrote:
>
> Wow, that IS going to be a mammoth task.

A lifetime project, I suspect. :)

> OTOH, I guess that researching and gradually compiling the data
> and resources (plans of game boards and so on) is going to be a
> fascinating project to immerse yourself in...

I can always use Richard's method when I want a pickup game that is completely
different! :)

For me, it is about honing my skill and understanding what makes for a better
player, for any given game system. I know not everyone is like that. This
project has already helped me refine my thinking regarding terrain selection and
placement by challenging some of my own assumptions (or mis-reading of the
rules) and then testing it out on the game table.

For example, I always thought Dunes were Hills made of sand (in DBA), but they
are not. They do not block LOS, but they do interfere with a General's command
distance. (Don't ask me how...) Also, roads can largely nullify your attempts at
Bad Going terrain placement, if you are not careful. (General rule I've learned
is that faster armies should not place roads. It is counter-productive in almost
every case.)

So, the maps I've created are probably going to change from what I've learned.
Or maybe I will just add maps and make notes about why the old ones are
tactically challenging. Maybe my goal of trying to make a "tactically perfect"
programmed opponent is too far-reaching. :D

Dale

#133 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Dale,

> "I noticed the modifiers are +0/+1/+2 for 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 PIPs, respectively. Any reason you did not make it -1/+0/+1? Not implying I think it is wrong, just curious."

I think that the original tactical engine makes the NPG play more defensively than it should.

> "I am well aware of that, but I don't get your point. Do you equate lining up and moving a six element group into an attack with another six elements as an aggressive move? I do not."

Have to say that I do see moving a 6 or eight element block into close combat with the enemy as being an aggressive move.

> "but some player-army combinations will always be defensive."

That is why I have introduced 'Aggression Level', a level determined at the start of the NPG's first bound that affects the likelihood of each bound being defensive and aggressive.  At the moment the list of modifiers for it is not  impressive.  Hope to add a few more modifiers for future versions.

Richard


From: Dale <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Tue, 9 February, 2010 8:19:16
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)

 

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> However, for the moment I will continue with the 2 dice method
> because I feel that it is easier to adjust factors.

I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned that. I stopped just before the Tactical Engine section.

I noticed the modifiers are +0/+1/+2 for 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 PIPs, respectively. Any reason you did not make it -1/+0/+1? Not implying I think it is wrong, just curious.

> Not quite convinced that players always act aggressively when they
> get lots of pips and get cautious or defensive when pips are few.

Nor am I saying "always". More PIPs equates to being able to do more. Doing more could mean attacking more, setting up more, etc.

> Sometimes an attack only needs one pip (e.g. the Polybian Roman
> infantry line attacking the Later Carthaginian infantry line).

I am well aware of that, but I don't get your point. Do you equate lining up and moving a six element group into an attack with another six elements as an aggressive move? I do not.

> Sometimes being defensive needs a lot of pips to prepare for a
> threat.

True, but people typically "do the PIP dance" because they are out-matched element for element and are trying to rearrange the order before the lines hit. Whether they get three PIPs or five, they are still going to do the dance until the line hits. They rarely setup the defense, then go on the offensive.

You bring up a good point - probably not the one you were trying to make - but some player-army combinations will always be defensive. It is a rare person that can go on the offensive with, say, the Early Libyans with their 11 Psiloi and 1 Light Chariot. (I did meet her though.)

> Perhaps the tactical engine/strategic stance generator ought to be
> considering threats and opportunities as factors to determine how
> aggressively the NPG plays? That leads to the question how do you
> define a threat or an opportunity?

Yeah, that is the million dollar question, isn't it.

> It would be fairly easy to consider any NPG elements at risk of an
> attack favourable to the human player in their next bound but how
> many bounds ahead should the tactical engine/strategic stance
> generator look?

It would be incredible to look past the immediate turn. I'm not a Deep Blue programmer.

Good stuff! Keep it coming.

Dale



#134 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:22 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Dale,

I wish you luck with your pre-designed terrain layouts.  If you choose that method of terrain selection I suggest that you have a lot of different terrain layouts.

At one time I made 3 or 4 DBA terrain boards with hills, woods, roads, built-up area, waterway built into them.  The terrain looked better than a battlefield composed of movable terrain features.  All I had to do was add appropriate buildings and trees.  One disadvantage was that the terrain got too predictable. 

With physical boards you run into difficulties storing and transporting them.  With just the designs in a document, those problems should be insignificant.

Richard


From: Dale <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Tue, 9 February, 2010 16:41:10
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)

 

> Jay wrote:
>
> One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of
> grouping all like elements together very limiting, and not
> particularly representative of the way I tend to play.

I agree. I haven't written the troop deployment rules for DBAS, but I already know I am going to use "quads" as has been discussed on Fanaticus and the Yahoo DBA forum.

> In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to intersperse
> bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the
> composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any
> easy way to represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG
> set-up, but maybe this is one to consider adding into the mix at a
> later stage?

That is one of the reasons for creating classifications for an army type. It helps you to start to create rules about "why" you would "mix it up". For example, if you are facing a Mounted army, you might break up your Romans into packs of 3 Blades and 1 Psiloi and deploy them in a T formation so the Psiloi provides rear support to the 3 Blades. (Same concept if you have Auxilia or Spears.) Another is to band 2 Bows with 2 other infantry when facing Knights, so you can form a Teacup formation just before the lines hit.

I think this whole concept of elements and formations has yet to be explored fully. I have started by writing up a bunch of index cards and drawing out formations and how I would arrange the elements. I usually have about three variations per "army composition class".

An army composition class (ACC) is a unique mixture of element types that, unsurprisingly, repeats throughout the army lists. For example, ACC #01 consists of:

6 x Double-Ranked Infantry, 2 x Mounted (one is the General), 2 x Single-Ranked Infantry, and 2 x Light Infantry

Looking down the lists you can find a wide variety of army lists that match that description or are pretty close : Early Sumerian, Philistine, Macedonian Early Successor - Keraunos, Low Countries. Once you realize the similarity of those armies you start to realize that you would basically set them up the same way, given the same opponent (or same opposing ACC).

Don't get me wrong; going this way is a tough row to hoe because there are a lot of combinations. I believe this problem is like terrain placement, however, in that you want to focus primarily on your army's strengths and weaknesses and less on your opponent's. You still want to take your opponent's army into consideration, of course, but I believe you should focus on playing your game, not reacting to your opponent's game. That is why I believe the defender holds the advantage in DBA. (But, that is another discussion.)

> So far my only thoughts on this are to revert on occasion to my
> previous practice of sketching 3 or more initial deployments for
> the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy
> composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm
> sure there must be a more elegant solution than that!

Funny you should mention that... I am developing drawings of game boards with the terrain placed, deployment zones marked, etc. and showing what it looks like from all four directions. Here is my Photobucket album of variations for armies that Favor Bad Going: http://s756. photobucket. com/albums/ xx202/dhurtt/ DBA-Solo/ Gameboards/ FavorsBadGoing/

Some of these will change over time as I test them. (I am going over the Turtle board from all four directions using the Polybian Romans versus the Ancient Spanish as NPG. The Spanish are 1-1 and my third game is 3-2 in favor of the Spanish.) The Waterway Turtle board is wrong, I think, so will probably change. I still need to provide commentary for the boards as to why the terrain is why it is and how the NPG battle plan should utilize the setup.

I think this is the way I am going. A catalog of terrain boards that is based upon the defending NPG's army classifications. This leads to a general battle plan, which leads to how to break up the army into formations to place on that board, etc.

I just need to glue all of these ideas together, throw in a couple of dice rolls for those that like that sort of thing, and publish it up. I had been writing up ideas of late and doing to gaming ... I mean, serious testing and analysis :) ... so I am taking a break from writing a new version of DBAS at the moment.

Dale



#135 From: Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
Date: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)
richard.lee42
Send Email Send Email
 
Jay,

Thank you for your kind comments.  Hope that your solo game went okay.

Your point about wanting to deploy different types elements on the same group is a very good one.  Have started to address the issue of psiloi supporting auxilia, spear and blade, but that is different from what you describe.  Do you tend to intersperse bow with spear and/or blade?  Have a feeling that this is often done with medieval armies.

Will add a note to my working document to prompt me to have a look at the issue of mixing different types of elements withing groups.  Thank you.

Richard


From: Jay <solowargamer@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Tue, 9 February, 2010 9:13:07
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Re: Thoughts on Strategic Stance (formerly the Tactical Engine)

 

Fascinating discussion guys! I'm planning to run a test game of Richard's latest ruleset this evening. It'll be my first solo DBA game in a little while, inspired by the ideas you two are batting around on here, so thanks for that!

One observation I would make is that I find the deployment rule of grouping all like elements together very limiting, and not particularly representative of the way I tend to play. In some circumstances, for example, I would choose to intersperse bows amongst other elements in order to provide protection, if the composition of the enemy side seemed to warrant it. I don't see any easy way to represent this kind of mixed deployment in the NPG set-up, but maybe this is one to consider adding into the mix at a later stage? So far my only thoughts on this are to revert on occasion to my previous practice of sketching 3 or more initial deployments for the NPG (taking into account terrain placement and enemy composition) and then dicing to see which one it adopts...but I'm sure there must be a more elegant solution than that!

Cheers,
Jay.
http://solowargamer .wordpress. com/



Messages 106 - 135 of 403   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?
Messages 106 - 135 of 403   Oldest  |  < Older  |  Newer >  |  Newest
Advanced
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! UK. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help