PDA

View Full Version : DBA Camps & BUAs


Susan Laflin-Barker
12-15-2010, 05:28 AM
What is the main difference between a Camp & a BUA?

It seems to me that a BUA is permanent - e.g. a walled town, castle or hillfort while a Camp is a temporary structure created by an army on the move. Some of these may be quite substantial - e.g. Roman marching camps.
This should determine what models are eligible for each.

In DBA, BUAs are placed out in the middle of the battlefield and so their sizes are determined by the rules for Area Terrain Features.
Camps are on the base edge and only part of the camp appears in the table - hence the smaller maximum size (max 4 base widths not 9). The smallest size for a camp should have room for a psiloi element surrounded by a defense of some sort - probably bank & ditch and/or palisade of stakes.

Players who wish to use their DBMM baggage as a DBA camp should be able to do so - this will be 1 x 2 base widths in size and so fall well within the limits allowed.

DBMM has mobile baggage - should some camps be mobile?

If a large camp is 2 or 3 base-widths wide, should it be possible for more than one element to attack it at any one time?
Sue

TimSharrock
12-15-2010, 05:55 AM
In my case the objects I might wish to reuse are some HOTT strongholds. Not all are suitable, but some are.

David Constable
12-15-2010, 08:29 AM
Drop BUA, they are very rarely used (in the UK at least), and are not really needed.
Let people use their BUAs as camps.

Camps rules work OK, you do have a moving camp if you have two or more WWg, since you then do not have a camp, no need for a moving camp otherwise.

Do not complicate life, you only have to compare 1st to 7th, simplify when easy, write in English that a ten year old can understand.

David Constable

Paul Potter
12-15-2010, 08:51 AM
Good Morning Sue,

I have not seen a bua used in dba for at least 5 or maybe 6 years. I would drop them from the game completely.

Likewise At the scale dba represents I do not see a need for mobil camps.

Barca
12-15-2010, 08:59 AM
HI Guys There are people who use BUA, not often but they are used, I have seen them used several times in competitions. Leave them alone just because you do not use them, they can make terrain very difficult, so do have there uses.

Jeff Franz
12-15-2010, 09:01 AM
Sue, I actually love BUA. However, I am never aloud to use them at conventions because the rules are generally in question. The size of the camp should not effect the rules, in my opinion. The camp is one of the very cool avenues for ingenious modeling and diorama making that DBA provides. It allows us to be a detailed or as simple as we want. Please keep camps the same regardless of size (within the rules)

Tony Aguilar
12-15-2010, 09:27 AM
However, I am never aloud to use them at conventions because the rules are generally in question.

Which conventions that have been run in Florida are you not "allowed" to use them in?

I can think of at least three people who have used BUAs on more than one occasion at Recon/Hurricon.
We (FADBAG) don't have a problem with BUAs...rivers cause far more trouble completing a game on time/drawing the game (rivers are allowable too.)

I am happy to play with/without BUAs as the organizer of the event sees fit. However, I am not aware of ANY tournament at HMGS-South, since I started playing in September 2004, where a restriction was put on BUA use.

Don Harting
12-15-2010, 09:31 AM
Hi Sue,

BUA's serve a good purpose for representing large fixed infrastructure that existed in many battle areas. Unfortunately the rules for them as they exist places a the player who has one at great disadvantage in most games. The idea that an occupied BUA could be seiged and captured during the timeframe of a battle isn't realistic. Battles were fought around BUA's, but in a 6-8 hour long battle the idea of having it potentially change hands several times hasn't be done in history that I am aware of. Usually they were sieged either before a battle or after defeating the field army near it. Current rules give an attacking army with Blade units an easy shot of capturing one if the opponent has lighter units (Ax or Ps) occupy it.
Rather than eliminating the BUA, let it function as intended to let its mass and ZOC influence benefit the owner's side, but as long as it is occupied by a unit other than denizens, it cannot be seiged during a battle. The player with a BUA gets the benefit of the "impassable" terrain aspect for the enemy player and the ability of the owner to move through through it, plus eliminating the need to have a camp that needs active protection. In exchange, the owning player is fighting with only 11 elements on the table. If the BUA is not occupied by a friendly non-denizen unit, then it can be assaulted like normal BUA rules including sacking.
We used the above modified rules and found the BUA to be useful in more situations, but not an automatic choice and no longer a major liability in most games. It becomes a good tool for a player to choose.
As Paul stated, very few people use one in competition or voluntarily in campaign games. At RECON '10 this year a player used a BUA in the first three games of a tournament and lost all three, then dumped it and won his last game. I really like the concept of BUA and use them regularly for campaign games with the above rules modification. How about looking at changing the rules for tournament purposes, but not eliminating them all together. Cheers, Don.

ferrency
12-15-2010, 10:56 AM
The reason BUAs are not used is because the rules are complicated and present a huge risk to the player who chooses to place them.

I wouldn't get rid of them, but I would recommend "fixing" them.

A few possible solutions:
- In all respects treat them as HOTT does
- Make them impassible terrain. Except for the board edge, there is no other impassible terrain option available in DBA.

At first glance, I'm not in favor of having BUAs exert a ZOC if you can't fight against them, but I admit I haven't tried this either way.

Paul A. Hannah
12-15-2010, 11:33 AM
Sue, yes, your general summary of the differences between Camps & BUAs is spot on. Glad to see, from your post, at least, that you're not looking to dispense with BUAs; keeping them optional, per the current rules is the way to go, I think.

BTW, BUAs, such as this one (http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd69/Paul_A_Hannah/Babylonians/BabylonianBUA003.jpg) are used often here in the US Pacific Northwest & Western Canada, and even appear in tournies.

I am quite intrigued by your suggestion of adding Mobile Camps, for select armies, presumably.

David Kuijt
12-15-2010, 11:48 AM
Mobile Baggage is interesting.

As Don H says, BUAs are broken. The timescale is wrong, the physical scale is wrong, and the historical interactions between armies and siegecraft is way wrong -- the Assyrians and Mongols totally suck at taking BUAs because they have no Blade, whereas historically their siegecraft was unrivaled. Whereas the Vikings and Later Pre-Islamic Nomads are superb BUA busters in DBA, when historically they lacked the logistics, the training, the siege engines, and anything else that would allow them to take any fortified and walled city.

For those of you whose argument in support of BUAs is "they add something cool to the game," I suggest you start playing with teleportation rules for your elements -- because that, too, adds something cool to the game, and is as historically supported as BUAs are within the current rules.

As for the modeling argument -- I've got a dozen or more BUAs. They're very pretty. Some of them can become camps. The rest can become cool additions to special scenarios. But as pretty as they are, they don't change the fact that the BUA rules are broken.

Dale Hurtt
12-15-2010, 01:22 PM
I like the idea of turning BUAs into impassable terrain for both sides, and has a ZOC for the owner only if he sacrifices a unit to garrison it.

I'll have to try that out.

Dale

David Schlanger
12-15-2010, 02:03 PM
I like the idea of turning BUAs into impassable terrain for both sides, and has a ZOC for the owner only if he sacrifices a unit to garrison it.

I'll have to try that out.

Dale


All other current issues aside, BUA's just don't work on a 24" board. And even changed as above, it just takes up to much impassable space in such a small playing area.

DS

Redwilde
12-15-2010, 02:06 PM
The camp rules as they are work fine. I see no need for mobile camps.

The BUA rules are completely out of place with the scale and time frame of DBA. Historical battles that spill into villages and towns do not have civilian defenders, just either army moving through or both fighting in the streets.

As a house rule, I've always ignored the written BUA rules and instead treated them like woods.

The Last Conformist
12-15-2010, 02:42 PM
BUA's: just drop 'em. They rarely featured in field battles (and where even less often assaulted in them) and the current rules are, as various people have pointed out, broken.

Camps: I think they're fine as now, except that the requirement for a separate camp follower element is sort of pointless (and rarely adhered to, where I'm from at least). Allow them to be integral in the camp base or implicit (no-one is going to leave a camp empty anyway).

It might be worthwhile to state a minimum size for camps. I'd suggest 40x40 mm (60x60 mm for 25mm scale) as that happens to be the size of a DBMM baggage element, and I've never seen anyone with a camp smaller than that, so few existing camps would be illegalized.

Mobile baggage might be a nice touch but I think it's an unnecessary complication and I'd fear they would (like in DBMM, esp. the first edition thereof) move about much to much compared to historically.

Rich Gause
12-15-2010, 04:28 PM
All other current issues aside, BUA's just don't work on a 24" board. And even changed as above, it just takes up to much impassable space in such a small playing area.

DS

Do you think there would be a way to make BUA rules work on a 30" board or would they still be too much impassible space? I kind of like restricting them to board edges, limiting the size somewhat mainly on how deep they can extend onto the playing surface and making them impassible for everybody with no ZOC. That allows the people who want to make cool models have a way to use them in games and seems no worse than a waterway for game effects. The defender would also need a camp I suppose or every defender who could would place an invulnerable BUA instead. I think everybody agees that the current rules are totally out of scale with the rest of the game and are just plain silly.

Victor
12-15-2010, 04:47 PM
Instead of mobile camps, I would like to see the deployment restrictions for camps changed. At the moment, they must be on your table edge.

If instead you are allowed to deploy them anywhere in your deployment area, they could then also be used to represent forward defences/obstacles of an army, as at the moment, there are no rules for field obstacles. Camps I think could double up for this purpose with no changes to the rules, apart from the deployment area.

David Kuijt
12-15-2010, 05:01 PM
Do you think there would be a way to make BUA rules work on a 30" board or would they still be too much impassible space?

Note that there is a (huge) distinction between "making the BUA rules less stupid" and "making them work."

One of the problems with the BUA rules is the tremendous compression of the deployment area if they end in your deployment zone (which they do at least 1/3 of the time). That is a horror for large-element armies (with 6Kn or WWg) and even worse if a Waterway is deployed (put the BUA on a corner away from the Waterway and see what I mean).

30" boards help that quite a bit. But that is sort of like applying a bandaid to the victim of a slash-movie attack -- the blood keeps gushing from every other wound.

I kind of like restricting them to board edges, limiting the size somewhat mainly on how deep they can extend onto the playing surface and making them impassible for everybody with no ZOC. That allows the people who want to make cool models have a way to use them in games and seems no worse than a waterway for game effects. The defender would also need a camp I suppose or every defender who could would place an invulnerable BUA instead. I think everybody agees that the current rules are totally out of scale with the rest of the game and are just plain silly.

I've made maps for scenario games in the Rise and Fall of Rome representing Dara (Byzantine vs. Persia) and Palmyra (Palmyran vs. MIR), where the city walls are represented by impassable walls along one map edge. Looks great.

Rich Gause
12-15-2010, 05:45 PM
Note that there is a (huge) distinction between "making the BUA rules less stupid" and "making them work."

One of the problems with the BUA rules is the tremendous compression of the deployment area if they end in your deployment zone (which they do at least 1/3 of the time). That is a horror for large-element armies (with 6Kn or WWg) and even worse if a Waterway is deployed (put the BUA on a corner away from the Waterway and see what I mean).

30" boards help that quite a bit. But that is sort of like applying a bandaid to the victim of a slash-movie attack -- the blood keeps gushing from every other wound.



I've made maps for scenario games in the Rise and Fall of Rome representing Dara (Byzantine vs. Persia) and Palmyra (Palmyran vs. MIR), where the city walls are represented by impassable walls along one map edge. Looks great.

So maybe if a BUA was terrain that was available that worked almost exactly like a waterway, ie impassible to both sides, similiar maximum size but doesn't need to extend along the whole board edge, and counts as the edge of the board for deployment purposes but not allowing littoral landings it would look cool and the game would play fine but anything that allowed for the army to interact with the BUA other than elements dieing when forced to recoil into it is probably not going to work.

David Kuijt
12-15-2010, 06:02 PM
So maybe if a BUA was terrain that was available that worked almost exactly like a waterway, ie impassible to both sides, similiar maximum size but doesn't need to extend along the whole board edge, and counts as the edge of the board for deployment purposes but not allowing littoral landings it would look cool and the game would play fine but anything that allowed for the army to interact with the BUA other than elements dieing when forced to recoil into it is probably not going to work.

Sure.

You can even allow Littoral Landings -- a sally from the BUA. Although the number of gates any BUA had capable of putting out several thousand men quickly was small -- so a BUA sally would have to be either at a road intersecting the BUA (which would always mean a gate) or at a point where the BUA intersects the board edge (in other words, they snuck out and mustered on the far side from the enemy, and are now marching around the edge and in sight).

Of course, unlike Waterways, only the BUA-owner could do a sally.

Stephen Webb
12-15-2010, 06:28 PM
BUAs as per the current rules should be removed.

The suggestions for impassable terrain, sallys etc makes more sense, but as always should be optional.

Camps seem to work, even though the size is far too small. Maybe a camp should take up much more of the base edge?

Some armies should be allowed to dispense with them as well, as thier camps were way behind the battle, not near to it as most Roman ones seem to have been.

David Brown
12-15-2010, 09:44 PM
Hi there,

Mobile baggage / camp could add a bit of colour and not be too hard to incorporate into the rules, presumably they are not able to be occupied by other elements (maybe their factor goes up to 2? and they can recoil or flee).

About half the comp games I've played used BUAs as per the rules, about half just turn them into woods.

Maybe there needs to be a division between Fortress BUAs and generic town/city/vilage BUAs.

I'd have Fortress BUAs much as now (move the people's revolutionay committee stuff to the campaign rules) but change deployment such that the Defender can garrison them only if they end up on his side of the table or if the Invader declines to garrison one on his own side of the table.

(OK that requires a slight finesse of the deployment sequence).

Either side can choose to garrison them with Denizens rather than other elements.

Generic town/city/vilage BUAs are terrain features that do not have Denizens, but can be garrisoned by troops only by moving into them or where they fall on your side of the table.

They have the same area-defence effect, perhaps at a reduced factor of +2, but defeated defenders can be bundled out rather than always destroyed. They count only one extra element lost when the other side occupies them either by combat or where unopposed (for clarity both sorts of BUA can not be positioned over the table quartering lines).

Some ideas.

david B

Richard Lee
12-16-2010, 04:22 AM
I sometimes use BUAs but have great reservations about them. I understand that most walled cities fell by treachery or trick (i.e. before, not during the battle), or after a siege (after the battle). They seem to give the most satisfactory games with armies with reasonable numbers of spears, for example Tullian Romans against Etruscan League. However, I don't think that either Rome or any Etruscan cities got captured during the course of a major battle between field armies. Of course, one of the famous captures of Rome was by the Gauls, who would find it extremely difficult to capture a BUA against a Camillan or Tullian Roman army.

Doug
12-16-2010, 05:33 AM
As Paul stated, very few people use one in competition or voluntarily in campaign games. At RECON '10 this year a player used a BUA in the first three games of a tournament and lost all three, then dumped it and won his last game. I really like the concept of BUA and use them regularly for campaign games with the above rules modification. How about looking at changing the rules for tournament purposes, but not eliminating them all together. Cheers, Don.

But then the owning player puts Artillery in a BUA and denies his opponent half the board at no risk.

If BUA can be occupied, then it needs to be possible to attack them.

pawsBill
12-16-2010, 04:56 PM
Drop BUA, they are very rarely used (in the UK at least)

I have to disagree with you here David. BUAs are used in the UK, and some are very pretty, as good as or better than some of the camps we see.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-16-2010, 05:36 PM
Camps have existed since the first printed version of DBA and have never been subjected to the massive amount of criticism that attended the introduction of the BUA. They are a nice component of the game.

Please do not add to their complexity by making some mobile. We should not be adding bells and whistle rules when the current core rules are good and need only some tidying up and more explanation. Adding rules for mobile baggage/camps will take up much page space and playtesting time. If people want a mobile camp, they should just use an army with more than 1 war wagon (on a square base).

There are a number of problems with BUA's they exist in 2.2. There is one good thing: they are optional. That was one of the best concessions ever made by Phil to the DBA community. We could just leave the game as is with the optional BUA and get on with more important problems, for which there are no solutions. I would personally rather take them out to be replaced by a simple town-like terrain type as in HOTT.

But, I will mention a couple of BUA problems. David K acutally covered everything about them here
http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/guides/BUAfixit.html

I will add that it is strange that the BUA rules take up a page while the total battle rules take up 4 pages. The biggest problem with the BUA is that it unbalances the game. Camps exist on both sides and your camp is on your side of the battlefield. Your BUA can end up on your opponents side of the battlefield and you can be down 2 points before you even move, 3 if you put an element in the BUA. Some armies do not even have troops that can barely capture a BUA or defend one.

BUA's add too much extra time to the tournament version of DBA. Setting them up and dealing with them. DBA is a one-off field battle game between two armies that should not start with a handicap.

Now this is not to say that a BUA would not be good in a campaign. I do so hope that Richard Bodley Scott's less than adequate campaign rules will come out of the basic book to be replaced by much needed diagrams and extra text.

Then, I do so hope Sue will write the definitive DBA campaign book, with good rules and examples based on the various lists that proceed the army lists. In this campaign book, there can be a full exposition of a BUA will work and we can have some fun with them. A chapter on DBA Campaign Sieges.

Let me mention that I will play on any size board Phil puts into the rules but I do not think all problems of the game will be fixed with a 30" board. Maybe by a 2' by 3' battlefield.

ferrency
12-16-2010, 06:39 PM
Let me mention that I will play on any size board Phil puts into the rules but I do not think all problems of the game will be fixed with a 30" board. Maybe by a 2' by 3' battlefield.

Yes, there are problems not solved by a 30" board; it even creates a few. But overall I believe the 30" board solves more problems than it creates, and should be officially allowed.

Using a rectangular board instead of a square one fundamentally changes terrain deployment and selection. I think this is fine for BBDBA but not ideal for smaller games.

As far as I understand it, board size options have been discussed and thoroughly playtested in years past. The two main arguments I see these days are: "use 30 inch boards because they work better" and "play the rules as written." Clearly, adding support for 30" boards in the rules as written will make both sides happy, right?

Alan

Lobotomy
12-16-2010, 11:57 PM
Yes, there are problems not solved by a 30" board; it even creates a few. But overall I believe the 30" board solves more problems than it creates, and should be officially allowed.

Heretic!!! You shall be shunned if you ever show up again on Monday nights!!!! :silly

Bardolph
12-17-2010, 01:18 AM
Keep camps the way they are, if it ain't broke don't fix it. ;)

As far as BUA's I'm with David K and company. This sums it up pretty well:

BUAs are broken. The timescale is wrong, the physical scale is wrong, and the historical interactions between armies and siegecraft is way wrong -- the Assyrians and Mongols totally suck at taking BUAs because they have no Blade, whereas historically their siegecraft was unrivaled. Whereas the Vikings and Later Pre-Islamic Nomads are superb BUA busters in DBA, when historically they lacked the logistics, the training, the siege engines, and anything else that would allow them to take any fortified and walled city.

For those of you whose argument in support of BUAs is "they add something cool to the game," I suggest you start playing with teleportation rules for your elements -- because that, too, adds something cool to the game, and is as historically supported as BUAs are within the current rules.

Prich
12-17-2010, 04:45 AM
Here in Spain we don't use BUAs at all (neither rivers) so we would not be very affected if you remove it from the rulebook.

Camps are Ok, but I would appreciate if you could determine a concise minimum size (in centimetres, inches or base width) for camps as there is now for maximum size.

Kind regards.

David Constable
12-17-2010, 08:28 AM
I have to disagree with you here David. BUAs are used in the UK, and some are very pretty, as good as or better than some of the camps we see.

Hello Bill

I did a reply, but it seems to have got lost.

I did say they were "rarely" used.
I can only remember seeing them in three open competitions, one was by Phil Barker at the English Open (that intrigued everybody because BUA use was so unusual).
At Alvechurch Club I cannot remember a BUA ever being used in a friendly, we have had a few practise matches to try BUA out.

My army for PAWS1 has come today, so I shall start that in new year.
Have a good Christmas.

David Constable

Jeff Caruso
12-17-2010, 10:15 AM
Keep camps the way they are, if it ain't broke don't fix it. ;)

As far as BUA's I'm with David K and company. This sums it up pretty well:

My feelings exactly. Like to see the language cleaned up, more clarity, use illustrations etc. That would make it worth buying and make introducing others to DBA easier. :)

Jeff

arnopov
12-17-2010, 10:17 AM
I can only remember seeing them in three open competitions, one was by Phil Barker at the English Open (that intrigued everybody because BUA use was so unusual).
At Alvechurch Club I cannot remember a BUA ever being used in a friendly, we have had a few practise matches to try BUA out.
David Constable

I have used BUAs quite a lot in tournament, essentially everytime I have used Sung, including at the first Alvechurch. As a game ploy, I like them, but agree that they mess up with "history". Would be better off without them.

Ciao
Arnopov

David Kuijt
12-17-2010, 01:23 PM
Heretic!!! You shall be shunned if you ever show up again on Monday nights!!!! :silly

Shunned means Larry won't talk to you, Alan -- that's a win-win situation! :D

winterbadger
12-17-2010, 03:41 PM
The two main arguments I see these days are: "use 30 inch boards because they work better" and "play the rules as written." Clearly, adding support for 30" boards in the rules as written will make both sides happy, right?

Brilliant! Well reasoned, sir! :up

In passing I observe that I am always amused to see people quick to speak up and assert "This rule is never/almost never/rarely/other weasel-word phrasing used in {insert name of country}". Usually followed quite quickly by someone from the same country saying "I/my mates/our club use it all the time." It might be safer to adopt some formulation of the latter, rather than painting with such a broad brush. Even if your club is the only one in the entire country (e.g., the RLDBAC or Royal Lichtenstein DBA Club), it's probably a more accurate statement.

David Constable
12-17-2010, 03:57 PM
Brilliant! Well reasoned, sir! :up

In passing I observe that I am always amused to see people quick to speak up and assert "This rule is never/almost never/rarely/other weasel-word phrasing used in {insert name of country}". Usually followed quite quickly by someone from the same country saying "I/my mates/our club use it all the time." It might be safer to adopt some formulation of the latter, rather than painting with such a broad brush. Even if your club is the only one in the entire country (e.g., the RLDBAC or Royal Lichtenstein DBA Club), it's probably a more accurate statement.

People will speak from their personal experience, they have no other good guide, that applies to competitions, rule interpretations, etc.

Modifications have been going on with "club" rules at least since 1964.

Now I cannot see any reason for 30" boards, however I can see the potential advantages if you have a large number of LH, and open terrain is the home terrain, so STEPPE and DRY would be good candidates for optional 30" boards if the defenders terrain is STEPPE or DRY.

David Constable

winterbadger
12-17-2010, 04:09 PM
People will speak from their personal experience, they have no other good guide, that applies to competitions, rule interpretations, etc.

Just my point. I'm not sure why some folks generalise from their personal experience to speak for an entire country.

ETA:

Now I cannot see any reason for 30" boards, however I can see the potential advantages if ...

Bwuh? *cognitive dissonance overload*

David Constable
12-17-2010, 04:21 PM
Just my point. I'm not sure why some folks generalise from their personal experience to speak for an entire country.


Easy in some ways.

I go to most of the non club competitions in England and Wales, most are attended by a limited number of regulars.

Since there is only one (1) in Wales I attend 100% in that country, and probably 80% in England.
We talk during games, get asides from other players, and chat after the game is over.

Now I would be very surprised if more than a couple of people do that in America or New Zealand for instance.

David Constable

David Kuijt
12-17-2010, 04:39 PM
I go to most of the non club competitions in England and Wales, most are attended by a limited number of regulars.

Since there is only one (1) in Wales I attend 100% in that country, and probably 80% in England.
We talk during games, get asides from other players, and chat after the game is over.

Now I would be very surprised if more than a couple of people do that in America or New Zealand for instance.


In North America (or even just the USA) that would be physically impossible, or the next best thing. Driving distance between the Florida conventions and Enfilade in Seattle is 3100 miles; approximately similar to the distance between London and Baghdad, Tehran, or Azerbaijan (whatever its capital is these days).

David Constable
12-17-2010, 04:48 PM
In North America (or even just the USA) that would be physically impossible, or the next best thing. Driving distance between the Florida conventions and Enfilade in Seattle is 3100 miles; approximately similar to the distance between London and Baghdad, Tehran, or Azerbaijan (whatever its capital is these days).

I can well believe it.

If I lived in Oxford (about 60 miles South of Redditch), I would guess that I could get to all but one (1) of the DBA competitions in England and Wales by driving on Motorways for no more than 150 miles.

I would be doing an awful lot of flying to try for the same % of competitions in the America.

David Constable

Rich Gause
12-17-2010, 06:58 PM
I drove from South Florida to Historicon in PA last year and will probably do so most years. 1200 mi each way is far enough, I don't even want to think about driving 3100 mi to Seattle. I would drive to every DBA competition within 150 mi one way except there aren't any...... The two HMGS-South coventions that I also drive to are further than that. I can only envy people living in England for the short travel distances..........

David Constable
12-17-2010, 07:09 PM
I drove from South Florida to Historicon in PA last year and will probably do so most years. 1200 mi each way is far enough, I don't even want to think about driving 3100 mi to Seattle. I would drive to every DBA competition within 150 mi one way except there aren't any...... The two HMGS-South coventions that I also drive to are further than that. I can only envy people living in England for the short travel distances..........

Hello Richard

We are lucky over short distances, it means I probably know at least 90% of the players in national DBA competitions in England and Wales.

I do not have a car and rely on Scott Russell for my transport.
Say 4 hours to Portsmouth by car, however if I had to do it by train, then to be there for 9AM I would have to leave home about 9PM the day before, and might not be home till 9AM the day after (two nights sleeping on stations).

David Constable

Jeff Caruso
12-17-2010, 08:10 PM
Denver to Historicon, Lancaster, PA: 1800 miles, 23 hours of straight, non-stop driving, split between 4 of us. Although, last year we stopped overnight in Gettysburg and toured the battlefield first thing in the morning. One of the best visits to the battlefield we made yet.

Jeff

ferrency
12-17-2010, 09:51 PM
Heretic!!! You shall be shunned if you ever show up again on Monday nights!!!!

Shunned means Larry won't talk to you, Alan -- that's a win-win situation! :D

You know what they say: always leave one door open, so you know where the enemy will concentrate their attack. :o

Larry, is the next Monday on the 3rd or are we skipping a week so soon after the holidays?

Thanks
Alan

Lobotomy
12-17-2010, 11:36 PM
Shunned means Larry won't talk to you, Alan -- that's a win-win situation! :D

It means burned at the stake, so in a sense you are correct, heretic. :D

Bob. (and his dog)
12-18-2010, 12:05 AM
If we really want Sue to read our comments how about restricting them to the topic at hand and create new threads for the interesting but time consuming banter. Or maybe put the topic header as OT.

Many times people have asked why Phil does not read Fanaticus. This thread is a perfect example of why he would not want to, if he wanted a good information to noise ratio.

I admit I took a liberty of OT text with my problems solved by 30' battlefield comment and I will try very hard to stick to the topic at hand in the future.

There have been some excellent comments on the topic of camps and BUA's. Too bad that they get diluted by other stuff.

If you want to comment on this comment, start a new thread :)

Bob and his dog

Martin Smith
12-18-2010, 06:54 AM
My ten cents worth :-
I think camps work just fine as they are, but might benefit from placement option being extended to up to 600 paces forwards on the players side edge (?), not just on the rear edge/waterway/shoreline.
I like BUAs (yes, I may be in a minority) pretty much as they stand. I feel they add another 'variable' in the scope for game types, and can be a two-edged sword - many games are lost through unwise choice of a BUA at the terrain placement stage. They do, however, deter players from some army choices, which is an unfortunate side-effect... e.g. LH armies with no ability to assault a BUA and who also have high aggression, making them highly likely to be 'invader'.
If the net feeling is against BUAs as they stand, perhaps they should be reduced in defensibility, like in HoTT?
Martin

David Schlanger
12-18-2010, 10:39 AM
Bob,

I actually don't think your text regarding 30" boards was off topic to be honest. I had already pointed out that BUA's are "more" broken on a 24" board than a larger one.

The real problem here is that I don't think anyone really knows what is going on, how the comments on this board will effect changes to the rules, what Sue poking around on the forum really means for DBA 3.0, etc.

DS


If we really want Sue to read our comments how about restricting them to the topic at hand and create new threads for the interesting but time consuming banter. Or maybe put the topic header as OT.

Many times people have asked why Phil does not read Fanaticus. This thread is a perfect example of why he would not want to, if he wanted a good information to noise ratio.

I admit I took a liberty of OT text with my problems solved by 30' battlefield comment and I will try very hard to stick to the topic at hand in the future.

There have been some excellent comments on the topic of camps and BUA's. Too bad that they get diluted by other stuff.

If you want to comment on this comment, start a new thread :)

Bob and his dog

David Constable
12-18-2010, 11:49 AM
Bob,

I actually don't think your text regarding 30" boards was off topic to be honest. I had already pointed out that BUA's are "more" broken on a 24" board than a larger one.

The real problem here is that I don't think anyone really knows what is going on, how the comments on this board will effect changes to the rules, what Sue poking around on the forum really means for DBA 3.0, etc.

DS

Agree David.

PB is more likely to take note at the moment of what is on the DBMM site.
It makes more sense for him to use DBA Yahoo group, it is a format he knows from DBMM, and it allows files to be easily posted.

We now what will happen if they try to tie in HOTT, DBMM and DBA, we get a horse designed by a committee, and DBA 3.0 in four or five years.

Personally I like the asides, they give additional information, how a person is thinking, and entertainment. I now know much more about the problems of DBA players in America and travel than I ever knew before.

David Constable

Bob. (and his dog)
12-18-2010, 12:59 PM
I post this here in reply to Davids' comments

" find I cannot keep up with all the relevant discussions on both of the groups.

I do value your input and I want to give your comments their full value so I shall have to divide my input.

Fanaticus seem very good at philosophical discussion of general points, so I shall post those queries on the Fanaticus site.

Yahoo DBA has the facility to put a file on the site for discussion by members so in future I shall place the sections of army lists in a file that site.

Anyone who wishes to contribute to both will be able to join both now that you Know what I am going to do, so no-one should miss out.

My first topic on BUAs & Camps will appear shortly on Fanaticus and the next group of lists will be put on the yahoo group at the weekend. "

Sue.

David Constable
12-18-2010, 01:48 PM
I post this here in reply to Davids' comments

" find I cannot keep up with all the relevant discussions on both of the groups.

I do value your input and I want to give your comments their full value so I shall have to divide my input.

Fanaticus seem very good at philosophical discussion of general points, so I shall post those queries on the Fanaticus site.

Yahoo DBA has the facility to put a file on the site for discussion by members so in future I shall place the sections of army lists in a file that site.

Anyone who wishes to contribute to both will be able to join both now that you Know what I am going to do, so no-one should miss out.

My first topic on BUAs & Camps will appear shortly on Fanaticus and the next group of lists will be put on the yahoo group at the weekend. "

Sue.

Intention is not the same as practicality.

Yahoo DBA is far more practical, and Phil can stop most of the wanderings that you would prefer not to happen if he wants to.

It is those wanderings that make this site interesting, and better than the DBA site.

So let Sue and Phil use Yahoo DBA as their main site, with the occasional general query on Fanaticus. That then leaves Fanaticus free for discussion without needing to involve Phil and Sue (unless they want to get involved).

Could Chris set up a new heading specifically for DBA 3.0?
Or could we use just Rant and Rave only?

David Constable

Chris Brantley
12-18-2010, 03:49 PM
I haven't offered to the Barkers...but I could certainly post files and set up a dedicated discussion forum at Fanaticus for discussion of DBA 3.0. What I can't do is give the Barker's (or others) web administrator priviledges to post the files here themselves.

I still don't have a good feeling where this is going. If it looks like DBA 3.0 is going to evolve into a significant revision that generates a lot of discussion, I will probably go ahead and create a 3.0 forum to make it easier for the Fanatici to keep track and discuss (or to tune out if they wish) .

David Kuijt
12-18-2010, 04:29 PM
Phil has said (on the DBMM list) he isn't going to use yahoo or this forum for discussion.

Phil also asked people to contact him if they wanted to be on his discussion and playtest group. I have, as have others, but as far as I know he hasn't responded to anyone on this issue.

Until DBA players are part of the discussion Phil is holding, we in this forum (and the DBA yahoo group) are just spinning our wheels. Worse, until DBA players are part of the discussion, feedback to Phil is completely and only from DBMM players (since Phil is active on the DBMM list).

Sue, if you are reading this, please nudge Phil on this issue -- whether he reads the DBA yahoo group, this group, or neither (just using his own email list), he needs to open his discussion of 3.0 to feedback from DBA players. Somehow.

The Last Conformist
12-18-2010, 05:27 PM
Phil also asked people to contact him if they wanted to be on his discussion and playtest group. I have, as have others, but as far as I know he hasn't responded to anyone on this issue.
I was sent a draft a couple days ago. Apparently I was the first one to receive one - I don't know who if anyone has received one since.

Phil has specifically asked me not to disclose the changes in it, so I won't discuss any specifics. I do not think I violate his trust, however, if I confirm it's very much a revision of DBA, not a DBMM redux or something like that.

I do hope Phil will eventually take people who play DBA only into the testing group, or even better run an open playtest as was done for DBMM. Whether that'll actually happen I know no better anyone else.

Hadrian
12-18-2010, 07:13 PM
Hello Richard
<Snip>
Say 4 hours to Portsmouth by car, however if I had to do it by train, then to be there for 9AM I would have to leave home about 9PM the day before, and might not be home till 9AM the day after (two nights sleeping on stations).

David Constable

Which is a long time on UK roads. However, I make the same journey on weekdays in an average of 2 1/2 hours, including a comfort break at Warwick services. I think Scott must drive rather more slowly than I. :D

Hadrian

Hadrian
12-18-2010, 07:21 PM
My ten cents worth :-
I think camps work just fine as they are, but might benefit from placement option being extended to up to 600 paces forwards on the players side edge (?), not just on the rear edge/waterway/shoreline.
I like BUAs (yes, I may be in a minority) pretty much as they stand. <Snip>

H - Agree with both the above. I have two problems with 30" boards though.

1. Many UK competitions (the 5 I umpire/organise for a start) are played to a time limit per game and a larger board provides more opportunities for the game to be drawn.

2. Many competition organisers (me included) provide the boards, which are currently 24" square. I don't fancy having to source 30" boards (we often need 10 boards, sometimes more) as that's a cost I don't need and would have to pass on to the players.

Hadrian

David Constable
12-19-2010, 05:40 AM
Which is a long time on UK roads. However, I make the same journey on weekdays in an average of 2 1/2 hours, including a comfort break at Warwick services. I think Scott must drive rather more slowly than I. :D

Hadrian

Hello Hadrian

We allow about an hour at Portsmouth to park and get a cup of coffee etc. So actual driving time is about 3 hours.

David Constable

vonBerlichingen
12-19-2010, 11:56 AM
Going back on topic (I hope), Don's idea of BUAs that assert some control, yet which cannot be besieged seems to have some merit.

Agreed, too, with those who think that a siege (or series of sieges) of a BUA is not all that compatible in terms of time scale with a battle.

However, should BUAs be dropped, or should they be left as-is, so that they get dropped locally, it would be very nice to have an alternative terrain choice in the Arable compulsory set. As it stands, the choices are BUA or road, and if BUAs are locally shunned, then roads are all that remains.

Mobile Camps could be very appropriate for some Steppe armies, especially when they are the attackers, although they ought probably to move slowly and at some pip penalty, perhaps like WWg, but with much weaker factors.

David Kuijt
12-19-2010, 12:05 PM
1. Many UK competitions (the 5 I umpire/organise for a start) are played to a time limit per game and a larger board provides more opportunities for the game to be drawn.


I understand why you might fear that, but it isn't true. Every US competition is played to a time limit per game, and we have found 30" boards makes no difference to the chance a game will be drawn -- in fact, probably a very slight modification the other direction, as static positions are less defensible with more open flanks (it is more difficult to lock flanks on a map edge). There have been hundreds of competitions run in the last five or more years with 30" boards -- I've probably run close to a hundred competitions myself in that period, about 2/3 on 30" boards, and no change in the time limit per game has been necessary, and the chance of a game being unfinished has not gone up.

As for the cost, if you run five competitions a year in the UK and are willing to give 30" boards a real try, I will make and send you 10 painted canvas maps myself.

Redwilde
12-19-2010, 01:27 PM
Going back on topic (I hope), Don's idea of BUAs that assert some control, yet which cannot be besieged seems to have some merit.

Are there significant historical examples of townsfolk or town garrison exerting an influence on a battle? And enough examples for it to be worth including as a regular feature of the game rather than a scenario specific special rule? I'm not aware of any, but the game covers such a broad swath of time and geography, there might be something out there.

The closest I can think of is William Marshal at the Lincoln Fair -- sneaking a unit of bow into the town's keep, and while the French and English are both fighting in the town square, the archers pop up atop the keep and slaughter the French. But even in this, the town wasn't exerting any zone of influence, it was just the garrison in the keep. And I'd definitely do that as a special scenario deployment, not a standard rule.


However, should BUAs be dropped, or should they be left as-is, so that they get dropped locally, it would be very nice to have an alternative terrain choice in the Arable compulsory set. As it stands, the choices are BUA or road, and if BUAs are locally shunned, then roads are all that remains.


Treating BUA as equivalent to Woods works for this. An area terrain piece of bad going ploughed-fields/orchards/vineyards/etc. would be quite appropriate for a mandatory selection in arable.


Mobile Camps could be very appropriate for some Steppe armies, especially when they are the attackers, although they ought probably to move slowly and at some pip penalty, perhaps like WWg, but with much weaker factors.

If these armies did move their camps during a battle (I have no idea, never studied any of them!), then a Camp Wagon with it's own combat state would be a smooth fit and easy addition without doing harm to the existing rules. Actually, this could even improve the current rules if a Camp Wagon replaced the Italian and Anglo-Norman religious icon wagons. Hmm, I think I'll retract my earlier comment against moving camps especially if we can use them to get rid of religious wagons with magical firepower!

Redwilde
12-19-2010, 01:32 PM
There have been hundreds of competitions run in the last five or more years with 30" boards -- I've probably run close to a hundred competitions myself in that period, about 2/3 on 30" boards, and no change in the time limit per game has been necessary, and the chance of a game being unfinished has not gone up.

In addition to that experience, the 30" board is the equivalent amount of open space as was long the standard for the 4' board with 25mm sized basing. Actually, the 4' 25mm board = a 32" 15mm board -- 30" is slightly tighter quarters, but fits on typical standard convention tables. 25mm games on 4' boards never took longer to play or resulted in higher draw rates than 15mm.

vonBerlichingen
12-19-2010, 04:45 PM
Are there significant historical examples of townsfolk or town garrison exerting an influence on a battle? And enough examples for it to be worth including as a regular feature of the game rather than a scenario specific special rule? I'm not aware of any, but the game covers such a broad swath of time and geography, there might be something out there.


Did you read Don's post? He mentioned the option of garrisoning a BUA with one of the 12 fighting elements, to make the BUA an effectively impassable area. Perhaps, "zone of influence" was a mis-statement on my part, but then I am not a rules lawyer...

Stephen Webb
12-19-2010, 07:59 PM
but fits on typical standard convention tables

Fortunately, Australia doesn't have a standard for convention tables.

At MOAB we could cope with 36" or even 48" without any trouble, since we use 6' x 4' table tops.

Doug
12-20-2010, 06:44 AM
Until DBA players are part of the discussion Phil is holding, we in this forum (and the DBA yahoo group) are just spinning our wheels. Worse, until DBA players are part of the discussion, feedback to Phil is completely and only from DBMM players (since Phil is active on the DBMM list)..

Except that quite a few of our DBMM players also play DBA. I do - a LOT, far more than I play DBMM. In fact our national DBMM competition is two days this year so we can play DBA on the third day.

So your statement isn't strictly correct.

regards

Doug

David Kuijt
12-20-2010, 10:04 AM
Except that quite a few of our DBMM players also play DBA. I do - a LOT, far more than I play DBMM. In fact our national DBMM competition is two days this year so we can play DBA on the third day.

So your statement isn't strictly correct.


That's very nice for you.

In North America, there are very few DBMM players, and very many DBA players, and we would like some representation as well, thank you very much.

Roland Fricke
12-20-2010, 10:05 AM
25mm games on 4' boards never took longer to play or resulted in higher draw rates than 15mm.

I've run 25mm the last few years at the big east cons on 4 foot boards. Players like it a lot better than the 3 foot board and games run about the same length of time. Command distance becomes the limiting factor to the size of the battlefield. I think I had to call one game in two or three years.

As for BUAs and camps
I like the existing camp rules. I'm not sure what mobile camps add to the game but I don't think it would be a game changer like BUAs.

BUAs as written unbalance the game and would need a complete revision in order to avoid dominating any game. We tried them for a year and too many games became seiges tor avoid the BUA games making the field battle secondary. We've been perfectly happy to not use them since then and use a road instead. Of all the suggestions the area terrain feature seems to fit best without changing the game too much.

I'd really like to see river rules get revised. . . . but thats another topic.

David Constable
12-20-2010, 10:12 AM
That's very nice for you.

In North America, there are very few DBMM players, and very many DBA players, and we would like some representation as well, thank you very much.

Join the DBMM group.
I am taking up 1/300th (6mm) tanks and 3mm ACW in the New Year.

David Constable

Bob. (and his dog)
12-20-2010, 10:54 AM
--------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kuijt
That's very nice for you.

In North America, there are very few DBMM players, and very many DBA players, and we would like some representation as well, thank you very much.
----------------------------------
Who is to say how many play DBMM in their local club but
at the Fall US National Convention there were 9 DBA events -- open, themes and big battle but not one DBMM event. I see in the preliminary schedule for Winter/Spring Nationals 8 similar DBA events and again no DBMM events. Moreover there were about 3-4 DBA derivatives at those cons -- HOTT, DBA-renaissance, and DBNapoleonics. To be fair, there are a couple of DBM tournaments. DBR seems to have dropped out.

While the big eastern HMGS conventions do not have DBMM, are there other cons were this game is played or outnumbers DBA?

Anyone know why DBMM has not caught on at the big cons?
__________________
Bob
and his dog

Rich Gause
12-20-2010, 11:25 AM
--------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Kuijt
That's very nice for you.

In North America, there are very few DBMM players, and very many DBA players, and we would like some representation as well, thank you very much.
----------------------------------
Who is to say how many play DBMM in their local club but
at the Fall US National Convention there were 9 DBA events -- open, themes and big battle but not one DBMM event. I see in the preliminary schedule for Winter/Spring Nationals 8 similar DBA events and again no DBMM events. Moreover there were about 3-4 DBA derivatives at those cons -- HOTT, DBA-renaissance, and DBNapoleonics. To be fair, there are a couple of DBM tournaments. DBR seems to have dropped out.

While the big eastern HMGS conventions do not have DBMM, are there other cons were this game is played or outnumbers DBA?

Anyone know why DBMM has not caught on at the big cons?
__________________
Bob
and his dog

The Florida Cons are similiar, at least 1 DBA or derivative such as DBA-RRR all 8 sessions no DBR, DBM, or DBMM games and we also have a couple of DBA game days where it is only DBA. I think it is because DBA is such a superior convention game to anything else out there. What other game allows you a game an hour(or less) including setup with almost every game played to a conclusion(I've had 1 draw in about 400+ games)? What other game can you bring all 8 armies you need for the con packed in your small carry on bag?

Jeff Caruso
12-20-2010, 11:42 AM
I don't think anyone in our Denver club, Colorado Military Historians (CMH) plays DBMM. A few who tried it have reverted back to DBM. I put on DBA Tournaments, without using BUAs but with the Road option and it works well. I have ZERO interest in joining the DBMM Group to have a voice in the discusson on DBA3.0. :( Phil's and Sue's comments here are most appreciated. :)

Jeff

David Constable
12-20-2010, 12:15 PM
Hello Americans

Been interested to see the lack of DBMM competitions in America.
In the UK a rough count says about the same number DBA and DBMM (I think).

David Constable

El' Jocko
12-20-2010, 12:26 PM
Join the DBMM group.

I'm already a member of the DBMM group. There isn't any discussion of DBA there. And I expect that the moderators would squelch any substantive discussion of DBA 3.0 on that group. The group already has a very large volume of messages and they try to keep things on topic (except for the occasional side trip for discussions of football and rugby).

On the other hand, I don't believe that Phil is actually a member of either Fanaticus or the DBA group on Yahoo. So where does that leave us? I've got a guess. I expect that Phil will pick a few select correspondents, communicate with them via email, and the rest of us see the results when the rules are published. I hope that I'm wrong--I'd be very interested in playtesting and providing feedback. But at this point I don't see any signs that I'll get that opportunity.

- Jack

David Kuijt
12-20-2010, 12:53 PM
Join the DBMM group.


I should start playing (or participating in the online group for) a different game, as the only path to having any input in DBA revision? Give me a break.

winterbadger
12-20-2010, 12:57 PM
I should start playing (or participating in the online group for) a different game, as the only path to having any input in DBA revision? Give me a break.

Well, apparently even that won't do it, given what Jack said. But it did sound like that old story they trot out in analysis training, about the guy searching for his keys under the lamppost, instead of in the bushes where he lost them, because "it's much easier to see over here!"

David Kuijt
12-20-2010, 01:44 PM
On the other hand, I don't believe that Phil is actually a member of either Fanaticus or the DBA group on Yahoo. So where does that leave us? I've got a guess. I expect that Phil will pick a few select correspondents, communicate with them via email, and the rest of us see the results when the rules are published. I hope that I'm wrong--I'd be very interested in playtesting and providing feedback. But at this point I don't see any signs that I'll get that opportunity.


I would find it hard to believe that he would cut out feedback from one of the most active and involved DBA regions. I'm sure Phil is just busy with Holiday stuff; it's only been a week since he called for potential playtesters to contact him.

Stephen Webb
12-20-2010, 05:26 PM
In the club that I belong to, we have about 40 members.

About a dozen play ancients.

Most play DBA.

A couple play FOG.

A few play both.

None play DBM or DBMM.

At MOAB we had a 15mm FOG competition, a 25mm FOG competition and a 15mm DBA competition, but no DBM or DBMM competition.

I guess Canberra is an aberation?

Doug
12-20-2010, 06:58 PM
That's very nice for you.

In North America, there are very few DBMM players, and very many DBA players, and we would like some representation as well, thank you very much.

My representation doesn't preclude yours David, and as a National Organiser for a continent, we would like some representation too.

IIRC Oz for a long time held the record for the largest DBA comp. Our State based comps rate anything between 20-30 players. So we aren't talking about a small DBA population here.

Doug
12-20-2010, 07:05 PM
That's very nice for you.

In North America, there are very few DBMM players, and very many DBA players, and we would like some representation as well, thank you very much.

My representation doesn't preclude yours David, and as a National Organiser for a continent, we would like some representation too.

IIRC Oz for a long time held the record for the largest DBA comp. Our State based comps rate anything between 20-30 players. So we aren't talking about a small DBA population here.

winterbadger
12-20-2010, 07:19 PM
My representation doesn't preclude yours David, and as a National Organiser for a continent, we would like some representation too.

Sorry, what was this argument about exactly? :???

It's not like there's some sort of world conference of DBA players that is being formed to vote on a constitution or something.

Phil is inviting people to contact *him* if they want to participate in play-testing; who he chooses to talk to, or not talk to, is up to him, not any of us.

David Kuijt
12-20-2010, 08:22 PM
My representation doesn't preclude yours David, and as a National Organiser for a continent, we would like some representation too.


I'm sure your DBMM players can represent you.

As for your continent, I've never played DBA against one -- all my opponents have been people. But maybe we're a bit too exclusive out here.

Less facetiously, you were responding to my comment bewailing the lack of DBA players giving commentary (as yet) by saying "Oz has people who play both," with the clear implication that Oz will have some input (because of the overlap in Oz players). Again, that's very nice for you -- but there is no overlap of note among USA players, because very few play DBMM. So as yet, the players in this very large community have no input into the process.

If I was king of the world, I'd ask DBA players for feedback -- regardless of whether they played DBMM or not, whether they danced naked in their underwear or not, whether they believed in the writings of Court de Gébelin and his turgid fantasies of the origins of the Tarot deck and its connection with the mystic writings of Egyptian High Priests, or not.

But to me, asking DBMM players for feedback on DBA is going to football players for wisdom on hockey. Some may play both, but that is likely to be the exception, not the rule.

Kontos
12-20-2010, 09:03 PM
Ummm, how do you "dance naked in your underwear"? :???

:D Frank

Dancing "el buffo" to ward off the evil 3.0 spirits. ;)

Jeff Franz
12-20-2010, 09:10 PM
You dance in the 10 year old underwear, not the new ones, Frank, like you did not know that already :)

Jeff

Stephen Webb
12-20-2010, 09:35 PM
But to me, asking DBMM players for feedback on DBA is going to football players for wisdom on hockey. Some may play both, but that is likely to be the exception, not the rule.

As I have pointed out earlier, that in Australia, other than Canberra, there is very little overlap, so I agree with David that Phil should be asking DBA players to playtest DBA.

And to get a proper spread of opinions, he should be asking players in different continents, countries, clubs, groups etc.

Victor
12-20-2010, 09:57 PM
... as a National Organiser for a continent...

Not wishing to appear obtuse, but of what exactly?

In Sydney, Steve Webb organises DBA comps, in Canberra I thought it was David Lawrence & now Greg Kelleher aswell?

Doug
12-20-2010, 10:47 PM
In the club that I belong to, we have about 40 members.

About a dozen play ancients.

Most play DBA.

A couple play FOG.

A few play both.

None play DBM or DBMM.

At MOAB we had a 15mm FOG competition, a 25mm FOG competition and a 15mm DBA competition, but no DBM or DBMM competition.

I guess Canberra is an aberation?

What makes you think it's not your club that's an aberration Steven? We get larger numbers to Canberra DBA comps than you do. There are at least three distinct games clubs here. Kriegspielers, mainly DBA, Canberra Games Society, DBA, FoG and DBMM as well as Armati and Shattered Lances.

At the moment, Cancon (Australian Nationals) has more DBMM players registered (and paid to play) than DBA (8 to 5) - I expect both comps will end up about 20 players each.

FoG is rarely seen at CGS any more, there are some players but on a club night they are usually outnumbered by DBMM games, and we seem to have a very strong DBMM scene in Queensland with groups playing extensively in Brisbane and Rockhampton.

David Kuijt
12-21-2010, 12:00 AM
Ummm, how do you "dance naked in your underwear"? :???


Put the boxers on your head, Frank. DUH!

Kontos
12-21-2010, 12:20 AM
Damn I'm slow. Thanks DK! :D

Frank

David Kuijt
12-21-2010, 12:28 AM
Damn I'm slow. Thanks DK! :D


It's not the first time someone's told you to put your underwear on your head and dance around, I'm betting.

Stephen Webb
12-21-2010, 12:39 AM
What makes you think it's not your club that's an aberration Steven?




Sydney has other clubs as well. As far as I know DBM and DBMM are not played at any of them either.

I suspect Canberra having larger numbers is not just due to the DBM and DBMM players.

The point was that in the overall scheme of the entire group of DBA players, very few also play DBM and DBMM, so why ask the DBM and DBMM players only to playtest DBA.

The Last Conformist
12-21-2010, 02:17 AM
The only person who can explain that decision is Phil, who doesn't post here.

I'll note he said he didn't want testers who play DBA only "at this stage". Hopefully that means he does want them later.

Richard Lee
12-21-2010, 02:45 AM
I expect that many DBA players have different expectations of DBA. My slight concern about selecting DBA players who also play DBMM to provide feedback is that they might have a higher tendency to prefer DBMM type mechanisms than some other DBA players. This is not a criticism of DBMM, by the way; I just think that the introductory game for DBMM should be DBMM100.

David Constable
12-21-2010, 05:35 AM
I expect that many DBA players have different expectations of DBA. My slight concern about selecting DBA players who also play DBMM to provide feedback is that they might have a higher tendency to prefer DBMM type mechanisms than some other DBA players. This is not a criticism of DBMM, by the way; I just think that the introductory game for DBMM should be DBMM100.

Purely based on meeting about forty players in the UK it seems to me that in the main DBA players fall into two groups.

The DBA player who plays DBA (mainly) and might also play DBMM.
The DBMM player who plays DBMM (mainly) and might also play DBA.

Now to me they are two distinct types, and the attitude when playing DBA is different. In fact, in competition the only time I have seen in a DBA game a player told of about his attitude, it was a mainly DBMM player.

If PB uses mainly people who are DBMM fanatics, then DBA is in trouble.

David Constable

Doug
12-21-2010, 08:15 AM
Purely based on meeting about forty players in the UK it seems to me that in the main DBA players fall into two groups.

The DBA player who plays DBA (mainly) and might also play DBMM.
The DBMM player who plays DBMM (mainly) and might also play DBA.

Now to me they are two distinct types, and the attitude when playing DBA is different. In fact, in competition the only time I have seen in a DBA game a player told of about his attitude, it was a mainly DBMM player.

If PB uses mainly people who are DBMM fanatics, then DBA is in trouble.

David Constable

For one the use of the term Fantatic is pejorative... and what about people like me, who play about even numbers of each over a year?

Doug
12-21-2010, 08:20 AM
Not wishing to appear obtuse, but of what exactly?

In Sydney, Steve Webb organises DBA comps, in Canberra I thought it was David Lawrence & now Greg Kelleher aswell?

Well I organised the DBA National comps at Cancon up until last year, Greg and Mark Baker were the main organisers last year, although I did the original groundwork with CGS and SAAW for space, prizes etc. This year I had even less to do as I couldn't run and umpire the DBMM as well as the DBA.

Dave Lawrence does most if not all the main comps in Canberra these days, Jason Dickie has done a few as well, for both of whom we are all very grateful. I just show up and play other than for Cancon.

Doug
12-21-2010, 08:23 AM
Sydney has other clubs as well. As far as I know DBM and DBMM are not played at any of them either.

I suspect Canberra having larger numbers is not just due to the DBM and DBMM players.

The point was that in the overall scheme of the entire group of DBA players, very few also play DBM and DBMM, so why ask the DBM and DBMM players only to playtest DBA.

I don't believe it should be only DBMM & DBM players playtesting DBA 3.0 and I never suggested anything of the sort. I simply stated that we have some crossover between DBMM and DBA players in Canberra, and that I personally probably play about equal numbers of each game each year (if anything, slightly more DBA)

David Constable
12-21-2010, 08:46 AM
For one the use of the term Fantatic is pejorative... and what about people like me, who play about even numbers of each over a year?

I stand by what I say.

It is not based on number of games but mindset.

If the fanatics in DBMM get their way DBA will be DBMM based.
I would ask them the question, if the DBA fanatics (and I include myself) got hold of DBMM, how would they like it if we modify DBMM so it is like DBA.

David Constable

winterbadger
12-21-2010, 08:57 AM
For one the use of the term Fantatic {sic} is pejorative...

So you think the founder of this website has a negative attitude towards DBA? :silly

David Constable
12-21-2010, 09:20 AM
So you think the founder of this website has a negative attitude towards DBA? :silly

I get the feeling he thinks in black and white, no shades of grey.

So does not allow for the fact that some players who mainly play either DBA or DBMM are normal and will give and take, allowing DBA and DBMM to be individual sets, while some DBMM players want DBA to be like DBMM, and if they got their chance would change the whole feel of DBA.

Anyway I think I must stop, getting too personal.

David Constable

winterbadger
12-21-2010, 09:52 AM
I get the feeling he thinks in black and white, no shades of grey.

If you'd ever met Chris, you would know how wrong you are.

David Kuijt
12-21-2010, 10:06 AM
If you'd ever met Chris, you would know how wrong you are.

David Constable seems to have been talking about Phil, not Chris. He didn't spot that you were joking and referring to the name of this forum (fanaticus) and that you said founder of this website, not founder of this game.

winterbadger
12-21-2010, 10:22 AM
David Constable seems to have been talking about Phil, not Chris. He didn't spot that you were joking and referring to the name of this forum (fanaticus) and that you said founder of this website, not founder of this game.

You mean he replied to my post without reading it? :eek Surely not! :rolleyes

David Kuijt
12-21-2010, 10:42 AM
You mean he replied to my post without reading it? :eek Surely not! :rolleyes

He missed what you meant; you missed what he meant. Both of you are to be commended for giving the rest of us an opportunity to briefly feel smug and superior -- and isn't that sort of giving really what the Christmas season is all about? :)

Bob. (and his dog)
12-21-2010, 11:34 AM
So in the thread started for discussion of Camps and BUA, there is now argument over who should be allowed to play test DBA. When we play tested DBA 2 it was open to lots of people, there was no consideration of whether people played DBM at the time. As I recall, at a couple of the big eastern conventions I used a draft version for some tournaments. Anyone could play.

DBA 3 should be reviewed by people who play DBA, no matter what else they play -- Wings of War, DBMM, FOW, Column Line and Square or even HOTT.

By the way, I do not believe "Fanaticus" is at all pejorative.
http://dictionary.babylon.com/fanaticus/

I certainly feel both enthusiastic and inspired for DBA.

Luckily, any one who feels perjorativized is allowed to discontinue membership. Anyone who insults my group insults me, and I will now Stifle them from my reading list.

winterbadger
12-21-2010, 11:55 AM
He missed what you meant; you missed what he meant.

Well, not really. I figured it was possible that he hadn't read what I posted and just went blindly on with his personal rant about Phil. I was just trying to be nice and give him the benefit of the doubt. Clearly a mistake.

Both of you are to be commended for giving the rest of us an opportunity to briefly feel smug and superior -- and isn't that sort of giving really what the Christmas season is all about? :)

Tell the truth, David--this is really you (http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index/?cid=217831), right? :D

David Kuijt
12-21-2010, 12:15 PM
Tell the truth, David--this is really you (http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index/?cid=217831), right? :D

"...life is full of cretinous wretches" ... Ah, yes...

Kontos
12-21-2010, 04:05 PM
Let's not go off insulting Albert Finney now. Besides, DK doesn't sing that well. :D

Frank

Doug
12-21-2010, 09:03 PM
So in the thread started for discussion of Camps and BUA, there is now argument over who should be allowed to play test DBA. When we play tested DBA 2 it was open to lots of people, there was no consideration of whether people played DBM at the time. As I recall, at a couple of the big eastern conventions I used a draft version for some tournaments. Anyone could play.

DBA 3 should be reviewed by people who play DBA, no matter what else they play -- Wings of War, DBMM, FOW, Column Line and Square or even HOTT.

By the way, I do not believe "Fanaticus" is at all pejorative.
http://dictionary.babylon.com/fanaticus/

I certainly feel both enthusiastic and inspired for DBA.

Luckily, any one who feels perjorativized is allowed to discontinue membership. Anyone who insults my group insults me, and I will now Stifle them from my reading list.

I play DBA, I would like to review DBA 3.0, as I have played a lot of DBA - and very successfully too.

What else I play doesn't really matter. I don't want to make DBA the same as DBMM, there is a perfectly good DBMM 100 for that. What I would like is for the 'family' of games including DBA, HOTT and DBMM to share some basic standards so it didn't require a mind reboot to play more than one game system - so similar yet so different. I don't believe there needs to be a unquely HOTT/DBA/DBMM to handle Zones. I don't believe there needs to be a different rule for each such that sometimes a chariot can move away and sometimes it can't. I don't believe there needs to be a unique way to handle the 'edge of the world' effects.

Now, it is Phil's call which mechanisms he prefers. I just want to be able to continue to enjoy DBA, and have sme of the (very minor) issues fixed up.

Pete Duckworth
12-22-2010, 10:56 AM
I also think the issue with BUAs are the rules rather than the concept as Ferrency outlined. I would however be happy enough if they were dropped as ancient battles with BUAs are VERY rare.

I can’t think of a historical example of mobile camps affecting a battle. I would therefore favour ignoring mobile camps.

Regards,

Pete D

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 11:01 AM
I can’t think of a historical example of mobile camps affecting a battle.

What about Adrianople in 378 AD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople

They are quite rare, though.

winterbadger
12-22-2010, 11:12 AM
What about Adrianople in 378 AD?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople

They are quite rare, though.

Reading that account, I see the presence of a camp. I don't see the camp moving anywhere during the battle. Have they left out something? or am I missing something?

Even if one found one (or even two) instance of something in all of recorded ancient and medieval history, I wouldn't be a fan of including it in the rules as a regular thing, even if one restricted it to certain armies. That would sound like a candidate for a special scenario rule.

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 11:23 AM
Reading that account, I see the presence of a camp. I don't see the camp moving anywhere during the battle. Have they left out something? or am I missing something?

I would think that being called a "wagon laager" means it had the potential of moving, although it did not in this case.


Even if one found one (or even two) instance of something in all of recorded ancient and medieval history, I wouldn't be a fan of including it in the rules as a regular thing, even if one restricted it to certain armies. That would sound like a candidate for a special scenario rule.

Oh, I agree.

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 11:31 AM
What about Adrianople in 378 AD?


What makes you think that camp moved during the battle? There is no evidence of it that I can see.

You've got to be very clear in your thinking -- there were lots of camps made with wagon laagers and the like. To have a mobile camp rule in DBA, you cannot justify it based upon whether some parts of the camp had wheels -- the whole camp must be shown to have moved during the battle for tactical reasons.

Otherwise, EVERY camp is a mobile camp -- the Romans, for example, moved their camp every single marching day. But it sure didn't crawl from place to place during a battle.

winterbadger
12-22-2010, 11:35 AM
I would think that being called a "wagon laager" means it had the potential of moving, although it did not in this case.

I'd be inclined to disagree strongly. Concentrate on the word "laager", not the wagons. Laager means the teams are unhitched and under shelter, and the wagons have been positioned so as to serve as defenses.

Either that or it means lots and lots of Carlsberg. Which also means not moving very much. :silly

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 11:36 AM
Either that or it means lots and lots of Carlsberg. Which also means not moving very much. :silly

Well, not in a straight line anyway. :D

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 11:43 AM
What makes you think that camp moved during the battle? There is no evidence of it that I can see.

No, like you said it didn't move.


You've got to be very clear in your thinking -- there were lots of camps made with wagon laagers and the like. To have a mobile camp rule in DBA, you cannot justify it based upon whether some parts of the camp had wheels -- the whole camp must be shown to have moved during the battle for tactical reasons.

Otherwise, EVERY camp is a mobile camp -- the Romans, for example, moved their camp every single marching day. But it sure didn't crawl from place to place during a battle.

Fair enough.

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 11:49 AM
I would think that being called a "wagon laager" means it had the potential of moving, although it did not in this case.


See below for a 1490s era military camp illustration that fits the concept of wagon laager very closely, and is in no way a "mobile camp" in the sense of moving during a DBA battle:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Hausbuch_Wolfegg_53r_53r1_Heerlager.jpg

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 11:52 AM
I wonder what reasoning Phil/Sue used for possible inclusion of a mobile camp in DBA? Is there such an animal in DBM/DBMM?

RonG
12-22-2010, 11:56 AM
What if WWG suffered the same as ART? Cannot shoot if moved. This way it still can move, but not shoot if moved. Just an idea.

Rich Gause
12-22-2010, 12:41 PM
I wonder what reasoning Phil/Sue used for possible inclusion of a mobile camp in DBA? Is there such an animal in DBM/DBMM?

I could see it for Steppe Nomads whose camp would be a herd of cows, horses, sheep and/or goats maybe............

The Last Conformist
12-22-2010, 12:54 PM
I wonder what reasoning Phil/Sue used for possible inclusion of a mobile camp in DBA? Is there such an animal in DBM/DBMM?
Sort of. The logistical part of a DBMM army is known as "baggage" ("Bge"), and comes in a few types. Camps are classed as "Bge (O)" and are immobile. Porters, loaded (non-laagered) wagons, etc are classed as "Bge (I)" and can move, albeit slowly. Pony herds and baggage camels are classed as "Bge (F)" and can move at reasonable speed. All three work similarly to DBA camps wrt army break point.

(There is also "Bge (S)", which isn't really baggage, but things like generals in litters or standard wagons. They correspond to Lit or WWg in DBA.)


I am not familiar with how it works in DBM.

winterbadger
12-22-2010, 01:05 PM
I could see it for Steppe Nomads whose camp would be a herd of cows, horses, sheep and/or goats maybe............

and

Sort of. The logistical part of a DBMM army is known as "baggage" ("Bge"), and comes in a few types ..."Bge (O)" ..."Bge (I)" and ... "Bge (F)" ...All three work similarly to DBA camps wrt army break point.

Yes, but surely herds of anything or crowds of porters don't convey the sizable defensive benefits that DBA camps do. Again we see (IMO) the danger of trying to "fix" DBA by adopting DBM(M) solutions.

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 01:07 PM
Yes, but surely herds of anything [...] don't convey the sizable defensive benefits that DBA camps do.

Those are some vicious goats, Jan. Trained in Drunken Monkey (...er Goat) Kung Fu.

winterbadger
12-22-2010, 01:17 PM
Those are some vicious goats, Jan. Trained in Drunken Monkey (...er Goat) Kung Fu.

So these are different goats than the ones you gag people with? :silly

David Kuijt
12-22-2010, 01:21 PM
So these are different goats than the ones you gag people with? :silly

I only use sanitary goats without martial training, out of self-interest (since I request self-gagging with goats, rather than forcing goat-gags on others).

El' Jocko
12-22-2010, 03:45 PM
I could see it for Steppe Nomads whose camp would be a herd of cows, horses, sheep and/or goats maybe............

Nah, not even for Steppe Nomads. There was usually a lot more to their camp than their livestock--tents and yurts, supplies, and frequently whatever valuable goodies they've collected.

And an all mounted force doesn't mean you can't have your camp attacked. Consider a battle like Dorylaeum. The Seljuks were entirely (or almost entirely) mounted, and yet they ended up getting their camp sacked and burned by the Crusaders.

- Jack

Doug
12-23-2010, 12:21 AM
and
Yes, but surely herds of anything or crowds of porters don't convey the sizable defensive benefits that DBA camps do. Again we see (IMO) the danger of trying to "fix" DBA by adopting DBM(M) solutions.

I think you are confusing a few things here - the benefits of a camp in DBA are assumed to be because it is defended and/or fortified. In DBMM you need to have 'defences' purchased separately to claim the same bonus.

Easy solution. Mobile camps don't get the usual camp bonus. So if they can move they are less defensible, if they don't move they can be fortified and thus more defensible. A balanced and logical outcome.

winterbadger
12-23-2010, 01:28 AM
I think you are confusing a few things here - the benefits of a camp in DBA are assumed to be because it is defended and/or fortified. In DBMM you need to have 'defences' purchased separately to claim the same bonus.

Easy solution. Mobile camps don't get the usual camp bonus. So if they can move they are less defensible, if they don't move they can be fortified and thus more defensible. A balanced and logical outcome.

I'm not confusing anything. You seem to be suggesting we need an entirely new class of element, totally unlike a camp (in that it is mobile and provides no defensive bonus) to represent something that I have yet to hear any convincing evidence existed in historical terms.

Someone's confused, but it's not me.

Doug
12-23-2010, 02:23 AM
I'm not confusing anything. You seem to be suggesting we need an entirely new class of element, totally unlike a camp (in that it is mobile and provides no defensive bonus) to represent something that I have yet to hear any convincing evidence existed in historical terms.

Someone's confused, but it's not me.

No, I am not suggesting anything other than that the DBA definition of a camp includes both baggage and defences. Unlike DBMM baggage.

There are plenty of historical examples of baggage being attacked on the move. Steppe Army baggage was often herds or wagons. You can't currently replicate these using DBA as it is written.

(Whether you want to or not is an entirely different question.)

And baggage (in the DBMM sense) is not "entirely unlike" a camp. A camp contains baggage - (posessions, supplies etc). A static camp can include defences. A mobile one can't.

Seems entirely straightforward and if it was included, wouldn't require anyone to modify anything they didn't want to.

The Last Conformist
12-23-2010, 02:37 AM
Yes, but surely herds of anything or crowds of porters don't convey the sizable defensive benefits that DBA camps do. Again we see (IMO) the danger of trying to "fix" DBA by adopting DBM(M) solutions.

I doubt most camps (which are basically crowds of porters who are sitting down) conveyed the defensive benefits that DBA camps do either. They seem to portray fortified camps, which far from all were. I guess you could say that unfortified camps would be represented by leaving the camp empty of camp followes (which the rules allow you to do), but nobody ever does that because there's absolutely no upside to doing that.

Anyway, taking a DBA camp and making it mobile isn't adopting the DBMM solution. Maybe it worked something like that in DBM, but it doesn't in DBMM.


(But for the record, I don't think adding mobile baggage to DBA is worthwhile. I just suffer from SIWOTI syndrome.)

Doug
12-23-2010, 03:32 AM
Anyway, taking a DBA camp and making it mobile isn't adopting the DBMM solution. Maybe it worked something like that in DBM, but it doesn't in DBMM.

Yep.. which is why I didn't suggest that. if you feel the need to have mobile baggage in DBA, then it shouldn't get the camp defensive bonus. (And to be fair... many camps shouldn't either - but that's a whole 'nother story).

Macbeth
12-23-2010, 08:34 PM
2. Many competition organisers (me included) provide the boards, which are currently 24" square. I don't fancy having to source 30" boards (we often need 10 boards, sometimes more) as that's a cost I don't need and would have to pass on to the players.


Well said Hadrian

as a competition organiser I see a change in board size the same way that the general DBA public sees with rebasing figures. I have a number of boards that I have purchased and have to store.

What can I do with them if the board size changes?

Worse still what do I do if there are several optional sizes?

Cheers

Stephen Webb
12-23-2010, 08:45 PM
Worse still what do I do if there are several optional sizes?

Cheers

Choose the size that suits you, of course!

Or provide a number of each, if that is viable.

Depends on how many variations etc.

But you would need to publish it in your blurb.

I once played in a WRG 6th (?) competion where I discovered on arrival that the board size was about half the recommended size and I had a Parthian army.

Doug
12-23-2010, 08:49 PM
Well said Hadrian

as a competition organiser I see a change in board size the same way that the general DBA public sees with rebasing figures. I have a number of boards that I have purchased and have to store.

What can I do with them if the board size changes?

Worse still what do I do if there are several optional sizes?

Cheers

Get everyone to bring their own? And resell the 2 x 2 boards, 6 at a time to DBM/MM/FoG player s ;-)

Seriously, I like the 30" boards - they make the game more even for the Cv/LH armies -

IMO, at the moment, on 24" boards, the ultimate army is something like Early Burgundians - dismounting Kn, so the army morphs from the best mounted troops to the best dismounted troops, and has artillery to deal with any pesky elephants.

Against that - a cavalry or LH army needs the extra space to have any chance.

Rich Gause
12-23-2010, 08:59 PM
After some thought on the BUA issue I think I favor having BUAs with the current rules for size and placement but different rules for how they work. I think BUAs should be optional terrain with the following rules: If placed the defender does not place a camp but must remove one element of his choice to serve as the BUA garrison. The BUA is impassible terrain, does not exert ZOC, and the garrison since it is dispersed guarding the perimiter has no effect on the battle, cannot sally, cannot shoot. In effect you are just trading one element to have an invulnerable camp that makes part of the battlefield impassible. That's my idea anyway feel free to tell me why it is bad or not. I think camps are fine as is with the exception of specifying that a camp is assumed to have followers until taken or garrisoned by another element. Thanks.

Rich Gause
12-23-2010, 09:04 PM
Choose the size that suits you, of course!

Or provide a number of each, if that is viable.

Depends on how many variations etc.

But you would need to publish it in your blurb.

I once played in a WRG 6th (?) competion where I discovered on arrival that the board size was about half the recommended size and I had a Parthian army.

Most of the tournaments at US cons I have been to play on pieces of carpet, either 24 or 30. I have both. Pretty cheap and easy to store/transport.

Tony Aguilar
12-23-2010, 09:55 PM
IMO, at the moment, on 24" boards, the ultimate army is something like Early Burgundians - dismounting Kn, so the army morphs from the best mounted troops to the best dismounted troops, and has artillery to deal with any pesky elephants.


But no Psiloi to give the enemy army a wedgie! :D

vonBerlichingen
12-24-2010, 01:22 AM
Recently, I read a history of the Mongols, and it was implied that, at least when the Mongol expansion began, the raiding parties would be accompanied by herds of remounts, while the gers were at campsites some days', weeks', or months' ride away, with the women, children, elderly, flocks, and other herds.

Kontos
12-24-2010, 09:31 AM
I do believe it is more than implied from what I have read. Each Mongol rider had several remounts available to him on campaign. :up

Frank

Doug
12-28-2010, 07:52 PM
I do believe it is more than implied from what I have read. Each Mongol rider had several remounts available to him on campaign. :up

Frank

I was given a copy of 'The Secret History of the Mongols' by a Mongolian friend, Tseye. (Very useful for pronunciation questions.) It is very clear that baggage could be either the horse herds (when raiding or purely military) or further back, mobile wagons/carts when travelling with the whole tribe.

Don Ray
12-29-2010, 03:01 AM
Sue, yes, your general summary of the differences between Camps & BUAs is spot on. Glad to see, from your post, at least, that you're not looking to dispense with BUAs; keeping them optional, per the current rules is the way to go, I think.

BTW, BUAs, such as this one (http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd69/Paul_A_Hannah/Babylonians/BabylonianBUA003.jpg) are used often here in the US Pacific Northwest & Western Canada, and even appear in tournies.

I am quite intrigued by your suggestion of adding Mobile Camps, for select armies, presumably.

Hi Sue!
We in Calgary frequently use BUA's, and have great fun doing so. :)
Don in Calgary by the Canadian Rockies

Hi Paul!
Very interesting use of your BUA by having it at an angle! Your BUA looks more difficult to attack by locking off a corner of the board and creating difficult areas for an attacker to lock onto the BUA's sides.
Don

David Kuijt
12-29-2010, 03:04 AM
Very interesting use of your BUA by having it at an angle! Your BUA looks more difficult to attack by locking off a corner of the board and creating difficult areas for an attacker to lock onto the BUA's sides.
Don

Hi Don,

You don't need to lock onto the BUA's sides. The rules don't say you are required to get full edge contact with a BUA -- in fact, if a BUA is an oval, it is mathematically impossible to do so. Any partial contact will work.

Susan Laflin-Barker
12-29-2010, 07:20 AM
Hi everyone,

Sorry I've been missing for several days over Christmas.

Thank you for you comments on Camps & BUAs. To make a VERY brief summary of a lot of discussion, the message I am getting is that Camps are fine and BUAs are not.

Forget my question about mobile baggage becoming a mobile camp. I haven't seen any advantages suggested to overcome the disadvantage caused by the extra complexity. I won't even raise the idea with Phil.

However the problem of BUAs will need consideration. It does sound as though some changes will be needed to make them work as intended. I'll come back shortly with some suggestions.

Sue.

PS Your input is considered even though Phil is not a member of this group.

Pozanias
12-31-2010, 11:37 AM
Sue,

I think you summary is excellent and to the point. Thank you.