PDA

View Full Version : Phil on DBA 3.0


Pages : [1] 2

Chris Brantley
12-19-2010, 01:21 PM
Repost from Phil Barker's 11 Dec 2010 posting to the DBMM Yahoo group:

DBA 3.0 incorporates only changes that will benefit DBA. Some of these derive from experience with mechanisms used in DBMM and cure problems I have had playing DBA in America. For example, they tame the "buttocks of death" and stop players so placing elements as to prevent the opponent contacting any of them.

DBA is a suitable beginners introduction to DBMM because the basing and procedures are very similar and because Sue is trying to use DBA in an introduction to ancient wargaming similar to the old Purple Primer. There will be no forced conversion to DBMM by fire, sword and pretty pictured hype. I play both sets now!

My current draft of the "Fighting the Battle" section, has green bits that are rewordings to possibly improve clarity, red bits that are substantive agreed changes and purple bits to be argued over.

What it does not currently include, but could, is changing distance measurement to base width multiples (as in DBMM). This would simplify play, but make a lot of measuring sticks redundant.

I am happy to make a draft available to sensible players to test privately. If these are people who are already familiar with both DBA and DBMM that would be a help. At this stage I do not want it on the DBA site because in my opinion this would generate more heat than light. If you want to join in, contact me.

Phil

From Phil's 12 Nov. 2010 posting to the DBMM Yahoo group:

DBA is our beginners set, and Sue is doing a version of it with extra notes, colour photos and a bound-by-bound account with explanations of a sample game. There will also be a basic set with just the rules and army lists for people who do not want the trimmings.

Phil

From Phil's 2 Nov. 2010 posting to the DBMM Yahoo Group:

I have as yet only a single para change to DBA, intended to curb extreme geometricists.

Phil

Scott Russell
12-19-2010, 01:29 PM
Can anybody tell me the preferred way to contact Phil?
Scott

Jeff Franz
12-19-2010, 01:31 PM
Changing the movement measurements would blow. Before I shun it I would like to know more about it. I think it works fine but what do I know?

Jeff

Brigante
12-19-2010, 01:54 PM
Can anybody tell me the preferred way to contact Phil?
Scott

He responds to his emails quite prompty in my limited experience. I used the address on his webpage.

Adrian Williams
12-19-2010, 05:26 PM
In what sense is DBA a beginner's set? The game is so subtle

Kontos
12-19-2010, 05:43 PM
In what sense is DBA a beginner's set? The game is so subtle
Good question. IF it is a beginners' set, it better be written so a beginner can play it and play it right. We still discuss rules and their "intent" in this beginners' set. We must be slow. ;)

Frank

John Loy
12-19-2010, 07:10 PM
Good question. IF it is a beginners' set, it better be written so a beginner can play it and play it right. We still discuss rules and their "intent" in this beginners' set. We must be slow. ;)

Frank


Speaking for yourself again, Frank??:rolleyes

John

Kontos
12-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Speaking for yourself again, Frank??:rolleyes

John
I'm speaking for all the me's. :D

Frank

Chris Brantley
12-20-2010, 01:17 AM
In what sense is DBA a beginner's set? The game is so subtle

One might surmise that the small armies and fast play nature of DBA makes it an entry level set of rules suitable for introducing new gamers to Ancient/Medieval Wargaming......but I also think that misses the real beauty of DBA. It's a little like saying Go is an entry level game for Chess.

Adrian Williams
12-20-2010, 03:05 AM
It is the most sophisticated wargame I have ever played and it is now my preferred historical miniatures game after many mostly happy years with WRG 7th and Warrior etc

Richard Lee
12-20-2010, 03:18 AM
DBA is good as an entry-level game. People usually grasp most of the basic rules during their first game. Usually, someone's first DBA session includes several games, of which there is a reasonable chance that they will win at least one.

However, although the rules are simple, there is a lot of scope in DBA for skill and experience to affect the result. Games tend to be interesting and enjoyable even for people who are veteran players. DBA is, in my opinion, not merely an entry-level game, but a fully-fledged game in its own right.

Sometime in the early 1990s I started wargaming and decided to do ancients as well as the English Civil War. I was going to do DBM, but I found the rules a bit hard going to learn on my own. I heard or read a suggestion to try DBA to get me used to the concepts so decided to try a few games of DBA. I still have not got round to 'upgrading' to DBM or its successor DBMM, and have no immediate plans to do so.

aidanbz
12-20-2010, 04:21 PM
"Can anybody tell me the preferred way to contact Phil?"

You have to end in both front edge and front corner-to-front corner, or full front edge to rear edge contact.

David Kuijt
12-20-2010, 05:31 PM
One might surmise [...]

The question is not whether DBA is a good beginner's tool for learning wargaming (or playing DBMM).

It is, but that's not the point.

The point is, that DBA is a game in its own right, worthy of full and focused attention to make it the best possible game in its own right that it can be.

Any 3.0 decision made solely on the basis of improving DBA as a beginner's set will be a poor design choice.

Adrian Williams
12-20-2010, 06:26 PM
The question is not whether DBA is a good beginner's tool for learning wargaming (or playing DBMM).

It is, but that's not the point.

The point is, that DBA is a game in its own right, worthy of full and focused attention to make it the best possible game in its own right that it can be.

Any 3.0 decision made solely on the basis of improving DBA as a beginner's set will be a poor design choice.

I concur with my learned brother judge

Bob. (and his dog)
12-21-2010, 11:46 AM
From Phil's 12 Nov. 2010 posting to the DBMM Yahoo group:
DBA is our beginners set, and Sue is doing a version of it with extra notes, colour photos and a bound-by-bound account with explanations of a sample game. There will also be a basic set with just the rules and army lists for people who do not want the trimmings.



Bob's reply to the 12 November text.

Phil, please do not consider DBA a "beginners set." A beginners set to DBMM. It
has a full grown life of its own. The vast majority of DBA players do not plan
to grow up to play DBMM. DBA is no more a beginner to DBMM than American
Football is a beginner to Rugby, or HO scale trains a beginning to O scale. DBA
is a full fledged game with a large following. In the US at least, there are a
hundred or so players in the big Eastern-based national conventions, more in the
Midwest ORIGINS convention and in scores of other events around the country who
play only DBA with no intention of growing up to play DBMM.

A beginners set of rules for people who want to grow up to DBMM should be part
of DBMM or an add on to DBMM. DBM100 or such.

DBA was a tremendous break from the previous cumbersome WRG Ancient rules. You
stated this so well in the DBA introduction:

"We hoped it would prove acceptable both as an introduction for new players and
as a tonic for the jaded. In fact, it has proved the most influential wargames
rule set of recent times and, despite the introduction of its more complex large
army derivative "De Bellis Multitudinis" in 1993, still competes with DBM for
pole position as the most popular competition rules in the USA. "

However, rather than being an introduction, it has become the mainstay of most
readers. Indeed, some players do move to the complex large army derivatives but
most prefer your innovated big battle DBA as the large army game.

DBA does not need to be revised into 3rd edition with new rules based on DBMM.
Players are happy with DBA except that they want clarifications of a number of
rules that continue to plague the community. Indeed, one group of players
produced an 80 page book of clarifications. The resetting of elements to being
no deeper than wide is needed. Sue has been collecting these needed
clarifications.

So, the DBA community welcomes you devoting attention to clarifying the rules,
to creating some diagrams, to adding some examples of play. They do not welcome
DBA being turned into a beginner set that leads to DBMM. Start analysis of
change and improvement with the current text and work through it. Do not start
with DBMM and dumb it down to a beginners' book. Do not think of examples and
diagrams as trimmings but as necessary components of a full text. DBA can be,
within itself, both a beginners and experienced players rule book.

We look forward to having a Yahoo group such as this to provide systematic input
to any revision to "the most influential wargames rule set of recent times."

Spencer
12-21-2010, 04:40 PM
I joined the Yahoo DBMM group to see what I could learn and the conversations are "enlightening."

It looks like Mr. Barker is planning to attend Historicon next year.
Perhaps a DBA 3.0 demo game will be incorperated as one of the events?

I think I would be interested in attending. I also would be interested in play testing but am a little hesitant to ask.

In one of the threads Mr. Barker states that he will provide the 3.0 draft to interested play testers that have played "both" DBA and DBMM.

Greedo
12-21-2010, 05:38 PM
I'm actually in favor of making DBA a bit more complicated, even if those were "optional" rules.

I ran away from DBMM because the setup rules were quite confusing, the lookup table at the back was incomprehensible, and I did not have anybody to play with to learn. And so I turned to FoG, which has some players around here, is still confusing at first, but after a game is pretty easy.

Having said that, DBA is REALLY simple, and I use it to play with my dad/brother when we're together since it does not require them to read the rules at all :)

But DBMM does have some interesting points, dealing with weather, points costs, recon with LC to make setting up more interesting (pre battle type stuff), varying generals, and different troop types (X, O, I etc.).
I think the major problem with all the X,I,O etc. is that sometimes they are treated as different troop type entirely (when it comes to quick kills etc.), and when they aren't. I have no idea, and it was a big turn off.

DBA removes these and makes the quick kill table more accessible. So I would welcome DBA 3.0 with clarifications/diagrams, but with some extra "fluff" kicking around so that I could convince my gaming group to give it a go :)

Chris

Si@BAM
12-21-2010, 06:16 PM
The resetting of elements to being no deeper than wide is needed.

Bob
This is a very interesting point and one that I would certainly not be in favour of.

I'd really like to know why this is thought to be an essential change.
For me it would mean rebasing elements in a number of my armies and I doubt if any of my elephants or chariots could even fit on a 60mm square base...
Artillery might be ok..

I thought one of the main concepts of 3.0 was that rebasing was not supposed to be happening...

Can you give me some background as to where the support for this comes from and why it is considered 'needed'...?



Si

Rich Gause
12-21-2010, 06:23 PM
I'm actually in favor of making DBA a bit more complicated, even if those were "optional" rules.

I ran away from DBMM because the setup rules were quite confusing, the lookup table at the back was incomprehensible, and I did not have anybody to play with to learn. And so I turned to FoG, which has some players around here, is still confusing at first, but after a game is pretty easy.

Having said that, DBA is REALLY simple, and I use it to play with my dad/brother when we're together since it does not require them to read the rules at all :)

But DBMM does have some interesting points, dealing with weather, points costs, recon with LC to make setting up more interesting (pre battle type stuff), varying generals, and different troop types (X, O, I etc.).
I think the major problem with all the X,I,O etc. is that sometimes they are treated as different troop type entirely (when it comes to quick kills etc.), and when they aren't. I have no idea, and it was a big turn off.

DBA removes these and makes the quick kill table more accessible. So I would welcome DBA 3.0 with clarifications/diagrams, but with some extra "fluff" kicking around so that I could convince my gaming group to give it a go :)

Chris

While I would agree that MECHANICALLY DBA is pretty simple there is a whole lot of detail stuff to learn about how to pick an army , deploy, use terrain, manage pips and just play the game more cleverly than lining your troops up and moving them straight ahead that takes awhile to really learn well for most people. Sure you can have fun playing it with just knowing the unit factors and basic rules but there is a whole 'nother level to this game that goes beyond "simple" or "beginners game"

Rich Gause
12-21-2010, 06:35 PM
Bob
This is a very interesting point and one that I would certainly not be in favour of.

I'd really like to know why this is thought to be an essential change.
For me it would mean rebasing elements in a number of my armies and I doubt if any of my elephants or chariots could even fit on a 60mm square base...
Artillery might be ok..

I thought one of the main concepts of 3.0 was that rebasing was not supposed to be happening...

Can you give me some background as to where the support for this comes from and why it is considered 'needed'...?



Si

I don't think anybody was advocating any required basing changes from 2.2 even if the preferred/suggested base size was going to be something different in 3.0. So even if 3.0 got rid of required 8 bow, 6 Kn, 6Cv and made the base size for WW 40mmX40mm I think the idea was that units based for 2.2 and other DB_ games should still be allowed. At least that is is the general consensus of a fair bit of discussion that has taken place on fanaticus over the past few months.

Si@BAM
12-21-2010, 07:00 PM
I don't think anybody was advocating any required basing changes from 2.2 even if the preferred/suggested base size was going to be something different in 3.0. So even if 3.0 got rid of required 8 bow, 6 Kn, 6Cv and made the base size for WW 40mmX40mm I think the idea was that units based for 2.2 and other DB_ games should still be allowed. At least that is is the general consensus of a fair bit of discussion that has taken place on fanaticus over the past few months.

I can see the sense in dropping the double bases, but I can't see how 60mm square bases will work for the standard elements in 25mm; like chariots, war wagons or elephants.
Artillery you can probably squeeze on...

I don't get the reasoning behind making these big standard bases square. There's been a "recoil a base depth rule if less" since 2.2

Si

Greedo
12-21-2010, 07:03 PM
While I would agree that MECHANICALLY DBA is pretty simple there is a whole lot of detail stuff to learn about how to pick an army , deploy, use terrain, manage pips and just play the game more cleverly than lining your troops up and moving them straight ahead that takes awhile to really learn well for most people. Sure you can have fun playing it with just knowing the unit factors and basic rules but there is a whole 'nother level to this game that goes beyond "simple" or "beginners game"

Ah, I don't mean to belittle DBA as a "beginner's game", or to imply that there aren't subtleties in its substance. But the point is that I can show someone how to play DBA in about 5-10 minutes, and NOT use a lot of the trickier geometrical aspects to have a good game. You just can't do that in most rulesets which makes DBA wonderful for both beginners and not.

But I would like, especially when showing my dad who is well read historically speaking, that he thinks like a GENERAL, and not like a GAMER. Or rather, HE would rather think like a general..

So for example, he would know that putting pikes up against Cv is a good idea, sending Ps out into the open is a BAD idea unless you're up against elephants and you're on a flank etc. This is modeled well in DBA.

BUT he might also expect a unit of Spartans to generally head to head do slightly better than a unit of Athenians, or he might wish to hold his Gaul Wb in a forest in ambush to be unleashed when my legionaries walk by etc. He knows that armored knights trudging through rain and mud will be hampered and other details...

So again, although a lot what I just mentioned probably shouldn't be in DBA, some extra fun optional details I think might be nice. BBDBA was I think a masterstroke in this direction, by making the game more "detailed" in terms of zooming in and having more elements to maneuver, without actually changing very much ruleswise. Some of the things mentioned are probably too detailed to be useful for DBA, but I hope you get the idea :) Granted there are tons of house rules, and from what I read here LOTS of disagreement about what if anything should be changed, so perhaps this is moot..

Chris

Si@BAM
12-21-2010, 07:32 PM
I can see the sense in dropping the double bases, but I can't see how 60mm square bases will work for the standard elements in 25mm; like chariots, war wagons or elephants.
Artillery you can probably squeeze on...

I don't get the reasoning behind making these big standard bases square. There's been a "recoil a base depth rule if less" since 2.2

Si


I've taken a trip back in time and read some of the threads I found across the forum, and also checked back to Sue's original doc.
I think what Bob is after is confined to the 40mm wide bases only, your post above also gave a large hint.

Let's hope that a statement like:
The resetting of elements to being no deeper than wide is needed.

Doesn't get taken out of context in the new version and leave my new 25mm nellies with only two legs to stand on..

I can see Sue has left the 60mm frontage base depths as they were for chariots, El and Arty, so I'll shut up and retreat to the back. I was going to say with the other 25mm players, but I am not sure I'll get to use the plural on this site, it does seem very weighted to the little fellas.

Let's hope us large guys don't get the short end of the stick in the next revision, like we did in the last one. Where we lost nearly half of our playing area...

I'll go back to the loft and paint some more Vikings.

Si2

edited for clarity and removal orf spilling mustooks

old mucker
12-21-2010, 07:39 PM
While I would agree that MECHANICALLY DBA is pretty simple there is a whole lot of detail stuff to learn about how to pick an army , deploy, use terrain, manage pips and just play the game more cleverly than lining your troops up and moving them straight ahead that takes awhile to really learn well for most people. Sure you can have fun playing it with just knowing the unit factors and basic rules but there is a whole 'nother level to this game that goes beyond "simple" or "beginners game"

I entirely agree. My introduction to DBA occurred in the early 1990's when a mate of mine came down from Sydney to visit and taught me the basics of DBA v.1 in 10 minutes - we played three games within an hour (good on you Stan! :2up ) and he left me with a copy of the first edition rules. As has been said in another post - I hardly had to read the rules at all to get going. I started collecting armies (3 in total) but didn't play more than a few solo games over the years due to a lack of 'handy' opponents

However, years later I've had a DBA 'renaissance', of sorts, and have been playing furiously. I now see the subtle nature of the game and am constantly rereading the rules and pondering the consequences of terrain placement, army choice and tactics. I certainly won't be moving to DBM but definitely will be looking at BBDBA as an option in the future.

I offer this as an example of how a player can use the rules as an introductory set and they (the rules) are able to support more complex gaming as you becomes more aware of the intricacies - ultimately they become a very satisfying set of rules for a more experienced wargamer.

Cheers

Alan

Tony Aguilar
12-21-2010, 10:40 PM
BBDBA was I think a masterstroke in this direction, by making the game more "detailed" in terms of zooming in and having more elements to maneuver, without actually changing very much ruleswise.


BBDBA is not more "zoomed in" - it is just DBA with triple sized armies. (30,000 troops or so vs. around 10,000 in a standard DBA army)

DBM and DBMM are more "zoomed in."

Greedo
12-22-2010, 01:57 AM
BBDBA is not more "zoomed in" - it is just DBA with triple sized armies. (30,000 troops or so vs. around 10,000 in a standard DBA army)

DBM and DBMM are more "zoomed in."

Oh.. I always assumed that BBDBA was the same as DBA but having 3 elements representing the 1 from DBA. To give you more maneuvering room as it were. But I suppose it makes sense that the army would be 3:1 directly.

Either way, I think you're missing my point. I liked the addition of BBDBA as a great extension to regular sized DBA. Personally I prefer the resolution of having 3 commands, and having 36 elements to move AND using the same rules. Its a great system that can be scaled up in such a way.

Chris

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2010, 06:16 AM
Oh.. I always assumed that BBDBA was the same as DBA but having 3 elements representing the 1 from DBA. To give you more maneuvering room as it were. But I suppose it makes sense that the army would be 3:1 directly.

Either way, I think you're missing my point.


Not at all. I just was pointing out that BBDBA was representing a larger battle than standard DBA. Just because I didn't reference the whole entiretity of your post doesn't not mean I was discounting it. Actually, when responding to other people's posts too many people just re-paste the entire thing and it makes it hard to see exactly what they are referencing. (which is a major problem with the Yahoo Group style)

Greedo
12-22-2010, 08:29 PM
Ok, well the thrust of my initial post was to point out that I would welcome some things brought over from DBMM to add a bit more flavor to DBA. That however should NOT come at the expense of making the DBA rules harder to read. I use the BBDBA option as an example of a successful addition to the rules that doesn't change the real meat of the rules themselves but add a new and awesome dimension, and allows larger battles more in the size of Fog or DBMM.

I've picked up on in the DBA 3.0 area there seem to be two camps of people (highly simplified argument coming);
1) Those who want DBA to not change at all, and only the rules to be rewritten so as to be clearer.
2) Those who would like to see some rules coming over from DBMM for a bit more variety, but not making DBA into DBMM lite.
3) Yeah ok there's a 3rd one which is I think PB's idea of making DBA a scaled down version of DBMM. I'm guessing people here are against that?

Chris

Jeff Caruso
12-22-2010, 09:50 PM
...I've picked up on in the DBA 3.0 area there seem to be two camps of people (highly simplified argument coming); ...

2) Those who would like to see some rules coming over from DBMM for a bit more variety, but not making DBA into DBMM lite...

Chris

Some rules changes may be alright but importing them from DBMM??? Can't see that as the holy grail, more like the camel's nose under the tent flap. :eek

Jeff

Greedo
12-22-2010, 10:07 PM
Some rules changes may be alright but importing them from DBMM??? Can't see that as the holy grail, more like the camel's nose under the tent flap. :eek
Jeff

Fair, so perhaps not rules outright, but what about concepts such as:
- weather,
- differing troop quality,
- differing general quality,
- army specific variation (aggression and home territory goes someway to this, but are there others?).
- scenarios (not just line 'em up and fight, but with a specific objective?),
- other random factors such as poisoning the enemy general, defecting units...
- points for units

there's no end of course, but my point is are there things that could spice up a battle without making it a completely different game? The house rules section of this forum might be a good place to start, and there's plenty of them :)

chris

Stephen Webb
12-22-2010, 10:18 PM
Fair, so perhaps not rules outright, but what about concepts such as:
- weather,
- differing troop quality,
- differing general quality,
- army specific variation (aggression and home territory goes someway to this, but are there others?).
- scenarios (not just line 'em up and fight, but with a specific objective?),
- other random factors such as poisoning the enemy general, defecting units...
- points for units

there's no end of course, but my point is are there things that could spice up a battle without making it a completely different game? The house rules section of this forum might be a good place to start, and there's plenty of them :)

chris

To most of those.

Not interested.

Paul Collins
12-22-2010, 11:06 PM
Fair, so perhaps not rules outright, but what about concepts such as:
- weather,
- differing troop quality,
- differing general quality,
- army specific variation (aggression and home territory goes someway to this, but are there others?).
- scenarios (not just line 'em up and fight, but with a specific objective?),
- other random factors such as poisoning the enemy general, defecting units...
- points for units

there's no end of course, but my point is are there things that could spice up a battle without making it a completely different game? The house rules section of this forum might be a good place to start, and there's plenty of them :)

chris

Seems like one looking for these things would be better served playing DBM(M).

It is the very absence of these things that draws me to DBA.

Kontos
12-22-2010, 11:41 PM
Most of the above is not for DBA IMHO, however; I see nothing wrong with the "spice" of facing a Roman army led by Scipio as opposed to Varrus. Its an easy rule to rate commanders i.e. by command range or +1, +2 pips or some combination. Having "elite" units differed also adds to some histroical flavor as well. I think DBA can remain simple yet mature a tad as a greater game.

Frank

Jeff Caruso
12-22-2010, 11:54 PM
Fair, so perhaps not rules outright, but what about concepts such as:
- weather,
- differing troop quality,
- differing general quality,
- army specific variation (aggression and home territory goes someway to this, but are there others?).
- scenarios (not just line 'em up and fight, but with a specific objective?),
- other random factors such as poisoning the enemy general, defecting units...
- points for units

there's no end of course, but my point is are there things that could spice up a battle without making it a completely different game? The house rules section of this forum might be a good place to start, and there's plenty of them :)

chris

Scenarios are cool and already being done but without the need for rules changes. NO, IMHO to the rest of the suggestions. And absolutely no to the idea of defecating units. Ugh!!! :D

Jeff

Stephen Webb
12-23-2010, 12:41 AM
Most of the above is not for DBA IMHO, however; I see nothing wrong with the "spice" of facing a Roman army led by Scipio as opposed to Varrus. Its an easy rule to rate commanders i.e. by command range or +1, +2 pips or some combination. Having "elite" units differed also adds to some histroical flavor as well. I think DBA can remain simple yet mature a tad as a greater game.

Frank

These should all be scenario specific home rules.

The Last Conformist
12-23-2010, 02:19 AM
3) Yeah ok there's a 3rd one which is I think PB's idea of making DBA a scaled down version of DBMM.
Why do you think that? Phil's said he isn't doing it. I, who near as I understand is the only one here who has seen the draft, say he isn't doing it. So just what do you base the conclusion on?

I don't relish the role of the self-appointed defender of the powers that be, but a number of people here seem to be implicitly accusing Phil of lying about his intentions, which I think is unfair.

Greedo
12-23-2010, 02:27 AM
Why do you think that? Phil's said he isn't doing it. I, who near as I understand is the only one here who has seen the draft, say he isn't doing it. So just what do you base the conclusion on?

Fair. I mentioned item 3 simply because I had seen a number of posts that were implying that and started to believe it. But you are right, I have not seen his draft, nor read his "designer's notes" so if that's not the case, point 3 retracted and no offense intended.

Greedo
12-23-2010, 03:03 AM
To most of those.
Not interested.

Now we're getting somewhere! MOST of those, not ALL of those! :)

These were simply random suggestions more than concrete examples of change. My intention was to start a conversation about what might actually be changed.

Do people really want NOTHING to be changed in the rules except better explanation of the existing rules?

I seem to recall (and this was a while back) when 2.0 came out, Ps started fleeing a lot more from enemy troops when they were doubled instead of dying, helping the problem that Ps were being targeted to reach the magical 4 dead.

Also either Wb or Bw (I think) were not penalized for being in difficult terrain as they were originally. As far as I can tell, that HELPED the game. 2.1 or 2.2 removed BUAs as required terrain which people really liked. I don't think the aggression level was always there was it?

This is a chance to alter some things that people complain about. This is a chance to make DBA 3.0 DBA 3.0, and not just DBA 2.3.

I don't mean to just change for change sake, but I got rather excited about the prospect of 3.0 bringing some new tactical challenges to DBA. Not looking to drastically change the game. Heck, even a nice way to present the quick kill table would be cool. Its reasonably simple now (but it scaled up badly when looking at DBMM for example) but could it use a more "Explainable" feeling.

And before people jump on that particular idea as stupid, I dare you to come up with one better :)

Chris

The Last Conformist
12-23-2010, 03:19 AM
Do people really want NOTHING to be changed in the rules except better explanation of the existing rules?
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)



Unfortunately, I can't discuss which if any of these are in Phil's draft.

Richard Lee
12-23-2010, 03:39 AM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)


Amen, although I would prefer to see 30" square boards as an option rather than a requirement.

Maerk
12-23-2010, 03:44 AM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)



this corresponds pretty much with my wishlist/fixlist for DBA.

Greedo
12-23-2010, 04:10 AM
My wishlist would be something like;
Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk
Drop or fix BUA
Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)
Impetuous elephants
Larger play area (30" should do nicely)
Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)
Updated army lists
More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)
Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)
Unfortunately, I can't discuss which if any of these are in Phil's draft.

I've definitely heard about the LH complaint, and the BUAs (although actually I'm not all that clear why they are so unpopular). As well as the 30" playing area. I had heard that the geometry problem "buttocks of death" had already been fixed in 2.2. What other geometrical issues are there? But fair on keeping mum on Phil's draft.

Impetuous elephants is an interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that. And the army lists seem to be being updated on another post.

The BBDBA scale thing might depend on how you consider DBA vs BBDBA. As Tony pointed out, BBDBA isn't just DBA "zoomed in". So if it does represent a larger battle, could the difference be just a coincidence, or could it be that there is simply a limit to how large you can effectively organize a littoral landing in ancient times?

Haroldo Hic
12-23-2010, 04:36 AM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)



Ay! Yess!

please remember the big toys:
- fix the boardsize for the 25mm: 90cm is too small, groundscale-wise it's even smaller then the 60cm board for 15mm. Here in Switzerland and southern Germany we only play on a 120x120cm board, which corresponds to the 30x30inch board for 15mm.

Dear Sue, I'd like to thank you for being on fanaticus! And thanx for this great game!

best

menic

The Last Conformist
12-23-2010, 04:36 AM
I had heard that the geometry problem "buttocks of death" had already been fixed in 2.2. What other geometrical issues are there?
Buttocks of death isn't really what I mean by "geometric play". Rather, I'm thinking of exploiting the fact that elements are rigid rectangles forced to line up to fight to make your elements impossible or PIP-intensive to contact. Kinked lines etc. Also anomalies like that you can move into contact from (slightly) further away if your line happens to be aligned to the enemy's. Or the ever-favourite ploy of putting an element near the edge of the world close to the table edge slightly angled so any enemy attacking it risks recoiling over the edge of the world. DBMM has fixed or mitigated a lot of these, and many of the fixes ought work in DBA too.

MarkBB
12-23-2010, 08:07 AM
Sorry if this has been raised before - does the current quick kill by warband on blades annoy anyone else?. Should be on first contact only surely ?? - representing the first wild charge. THAT makes sense but not quick kills on subsequent bounds.

Cheers, mark

Jeff Caruso
12-23-2010, 08:24 AM
Sorry if this has been raised before - does the current quick kill by warband on blades annoy anyone else?. Should be on first contact only surely ?? - representing the first wild charge. THAT makes sense but not quick kills on subsequent bounds.

Cheers, mark

Mark,

MAybe the QK represents that loss of cohesion in the ranks.

Jeff

Tony Aguilar
12-23-2010, 08:43 AM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)



Unfortunately, I can't discuss which if any of these are in Phil's draft.

Some of those I like more than others, but nothing there I have a problem with.

It would also be nice to fix some of the abuses than can be done with Littoral Landings with respect to where (within what distance of the enemy) the landings can occur. There are some "Extreme Velveta" situations that can occur now.

Kontos
12-23-2010, 09:29 AM
These should all be scenario specific home rules.
Why not officially sanction some of them as "optional" rules in the rulebook? That gives some guidelines to home scenario designers or players who want to do something different. Leadership and troop quality do not have to be complicated additions but would lend itself to elevating DBA up a notch without ruining the elegant simplicity we all love.

Frank

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 10:36 AM
Do people really want NOTHING to be changed in the rules except better explanation of the existing rules?


Like everyone, I want a couple of important and cool fixes, and I don't want anything extraneous and silly.

And, of course, my definitions for "important and cool" and "extraneous and silly" don't match anyone else's very well.

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 10:37 AM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)



That's almost exactly my own list.

Martin Smith
12-23-2010, 10:37 AM
Sorry if this has been raised before - does the current quick kill by warband on blades annoy anyone else?. Should be on first contact only surely ?? - representing the first wild charge. THAT makes sense but not quick kills on subsequent bounds.

* In the time scale of DBA, it may be worth remembering that we are looking at 'big picture' rules here. The two elements we see facing each other can represent two bodies of trooops which battle for a while, then break apart, then clash again, and it may be that the QK occurs during a 're-engagement', when the Wb have backed off, gotten all fired up again, and charged back into the Bd with gusto, possibly exploiting a weak point they've spotted in the Bd line.
Also worth remembering that Bd in the open will regularly repulse or destroy Wb on a majority of occasions, especially with missile support from psiloi.

* My 'list' of required fixes would include a re-definition of the river rules to make them workable. Have tried a few HoTT games, and the river rules in there seemed better defined.
Martin

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 10:42 AM
Sorry if this has been raised before - does the current quick kill by warband on blades annoy anyone else?. Should be on first contact only surely ?? - representing the first wild charge. THAT makes sense but not quick kills on subsequent bounds.


Nah, it works fine as is. For one thing, it is already true that your first charge is your best charge (or to use a famous song, there's no thrust like the first thrust, for ecstasy and bliss...). Recoils and stuff will usually kill off warband if they don't bust through the first time, casualties and recoils allow the Blade wall to adjust and smack the warband on their turn -- the idea that the second charge is as strong as the first already is rarely true in real games.

Tony Aguilar
12-23-2010, 10:43 AM
Impetuous elephants is an interesting idea. I hadn't thought of that.

I am pleasantly surprised to see that on this list. Rich Gause and I have talked about this, amongst ourselves, for some time. :)

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 10:46 AM
Why not officially sanction some of them as "optional" rules in the rulebook? That gives some guidelines to home scenario designers or players who want to do something different. Leadership and troop quality do not have to be complicated additions but would lend itself to elevating DBA up a notch without ruining the elegant simplicity we all love.


I'm against that idea, Frank. Having a section on "official optional" rules opens wide a huge door that I'd prefer not opened. Especially if it has leadership and troop quality.

Scenario designers already have as much room as they choose to take, as you've seen from playing in various Two Davids events (who can forget Super Ramses at Qadesh?) and others (some still reminisce about Bob Beattie using that memorable phrase... "Special Rule, Bitch!")

Martyn
12-23-2010, 12:03 PM
For what it’s worth I would add my comment to the general discussion and more particularly on the previous posts and ideas as follows:

• I don’t like the idea of making DBA more complex with troop qualities etc, if you want that then DBMM 100 or 200 would suit;
• Generally I like the sound of the list proposed by Andreas, but, as my playing experience is limited I do not fully understand the nuances of the differences, so any support or otherwise isn’t worth much;
• Keep optional rules out, they only muddy the waters.

Otherwise, and as had been said before, please make the DBA rule book more user friendly. Follow the lead of the HoTT rule book, easier font, better page layout, glossary, index, diagrams, etc.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-23-2010, 12:22 PM
Dittos to David here.

However, I do not recall using that phrase. Has anyone ever heard me use the term cited, except when talking about female dogs.

Chris maintains a good list of home rule/scenario ideas. Maybe the Barker's new company will do something similar. Like a section of "out takes."

There is only one exception I can see to this. I believe Sue is going to do a book on campaigns. Would that not be a good place for BUA rules and take them out of the Field Battle rules. I do so hope the campaign rules will come out of the rule book and all those nice 4 pages be be used for diagrams, or to expand the text.

Was there not also a comment somewhere (difficult to keep track now) that DBA would be printed in the DBMM large size? That would be a good thing to copy. But bigger print or more space?



I'm against that idea, Frank. Having a section on "official optional" rules opens wide a huge door that I'd prefer not opened. Especially if it has leadership and troop quality.

Scenario designers already have as much room as they choose to take, as you've seen from playing in various Two Davids events (who can forget Super Ramses at Qadesh?) and others (some still reminisce about Bob Beattie using that memorable phrase... "Special Rule, Bitch!")

Bob. (and his dog)
12-23-2010, 12:31 PM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)



Unfortunately, I can't discuss which if any of these are in Phil's draft.

Why do you tease us. Does this list contain all the changes and some extra ones for confusion, or are there other changes you do not include, to tease us later.

If there is going to be Impetuous elephants (or not) then let us have a better explanation of recoiling ones.

If Phil goes to a 30" battlefield as the standard, I will chew on one of David K's beautiful canvas ones. If 30" is an option, then David will not use it, as he says "I'm against that idea"

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 12:42 PM
However, I do not recall using that phrase. Has anyone ever heard me use the term cited, except when talking about female dogs.


Everyone was using it, Bob. It was a scenario game of some sort with eight players put together (I think) by the Bostwicks, and every player had some special rule that he could put in play once in a while, and the required phrase when putting the rule in play was to say authoritatively, "Special Rule, Bitch!"

If your memory of the event has faded, I'm sure various Bostwicks can recall it to your mind. They certainly recall the event with loud cries and hooting every time the subject comes up. (Family gatherings of the Bostwicks must resemble dominance displays by trumpeter monkey clans)


Was there not also a comment somewhere (difficult to keep track now) that DBA would be printed in the DBMM large size? That would be a good thing to copy. But bigger print or more space?
I don't remember that -- I think someone ASKED for it, but I don't think anyone in a position of authority (or with the ear of anyone such) said it was likely to happen.

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 12:45 PM
If Phil goes to a 30" battlefield as the standard, I will chew on one of David K's beautiful canvas ones. If 30" is an option, then David will not use it, as he says "I'm against that idea"

I'm not against optional rules, so long as they require you to yell out every time they come into play, "Special Rule, Bitch!"

Roland Fricke
12-23-2010, 01:17 PM
Everyone was using it, Bob. It was a scenario game of some sort with eight players put together (I think) by the Bostwicks, and every player had some special rule that he could put in play once in a while, and the required phrase when putting the rule in play was to say authoritatively, "Special Rule, B****!"

I will neither confirm nor deny but I think it was the Boudicca 25mm game at a FallIn. I was on Bob's right I'm stilled scarred by what I might have heard from the respected gentleman. But I believe it had to be dragged out of him or the special rule would not be invoked. When there's thousands of screaming British coming at you'll do anything.

Roland Fricke
12-23-2010, 01:22 PM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk
Drop or fix BUA
Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)
Impetuous elephants
Larger play area (30" should do nicely)
Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)
Updated army lists
More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)
Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)
.

Add fixing the river rules and this is a pretty good list
(Don't care for the littoral landing at all so I don't care what happens to that rule for BBDBA)

Redwilde
12-23-2010, 02:02 PM
Add fixing the river rules and this is a pretty good list
(Don't care for the littoral landing at all so I don't care what happens to that rule for BBDBA)

The simplest solution for the river rule is just to eliminate the possibility of 'impassable' -- that's what I do for a house rule.

Yes, there are impassable stretches of rivers in the real world. Yes, armies sometimes glowered menacingly across them at each other. Then if they both wanted to fight, they'd march along til they could cross the river and have the battle on another day. Let's just skip ahead to the 'have a battle' part of history please!

foge
12-23-2010, 02:03 PM
FWIW, I think its fine to mostly just massage vanilla DBA. The two things that I would most like to see addressed are:
a. The ability of an opponent to clog the board with terrain.
b. Make LH armies viable in open competition.

I think there are several, straightforward ways to address the first issue.

As for the second, I'm not sure what the right answer is. Addressing the terrain thing will help a bit. I think a more interesting solution would be to allow LH/Cv to flank march, which would basically work the same way as a Littoral landing. This will give some flexibility to armies that historically should have it. It would need to be playtested, but I think it adds an interesting option to the game.

I think that you could add some additional stuff to BBDBA to further differentiate it from vanilla DBA. We've talked a bit about those things in the past. When I get a chance, I can start a separate thread.

Later,
Kevin

Paul Potter
12-23-2010, 02:23 PM
a. The ability of an opponent to clog the board with terrain.
b.





I like boards that are clogged with terrain.

Rich Gause
12-23-2010, 02:26 PM
My wishlist would be something like;

Drop LH QK on Sp/Pk

Drop or fix BUA

Fix WWg (square bases would be the simplest fix, however inconvenient for modellers)

Impetuous elephants

Larger play area (30" should do nicely)

Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help)

Updated army lists

More flexible basing (not technically a mandatory part of the rules, I know, but almost everyone treats it as such in practice)

Fixing scale inconsistencies between BBDBA and the regular game (eg. only 1/9 of the army can make a naval landing in BB currently)



Unfortunately, I can't discuss which if any of these are in Phil's draft.

I agree with most of this with the caveat that I am fine with removing the LH QK on Sp/Pk but 30" boards or something else really needs to be done to make them a little more viable.

Greedo
12-23-2010, 03:24 PM
Its sounds like we've got to a bit of a consensus on *what* needs to be changed. Might we move these items to their own threads?

- Drop or fix BUA - I think already being handled in another thread
- Impetuous elephants - New Thread?
- Larger play area (30" should do nicely) - Handled in the thread on BUAs
- Less scope for geometric play (this is the chief area where I think importing DBMM ideas can help) - New Thread?
- Updated army lists - Already has a thread
- Rules regarding flanking/littoral landing and DBA vs BBDBA sizes. - New Thread?
- QK LH vs Pk/Sp - New Thread (if there isn't already a massive amount of posts about this out there)
- Base Sizes (do to with WWg and flexible base sizes) - I think handled in another thread or on Sue's website

There was a comment on another thread that its hard for the authors to read through these comments because there is a lot of "noise". Would having a separate thread for each of these be useful to that end?

Also, do we have a "champion" of sorts who could present these ideas to Mr. Barker as sort of a "voice of the Fanaticus community" with things that we've generally agreed on. Perhaps someone who already has access to the draft rules? Has this already been tried?

I for one, would agree on a separate campaign book so that those pages could go for more explanation of existing rules. Heck, if it included the army lists as well, that gives you more room (a less serious suggestion :) ). There are those wonderful Ancient Battle Books for DBMM. It would sweet to convert them to BBDBA..

Is it too late to do any of this?

Pozanias
12-23-2010, 04:34 PM
I would add to the wish list: "fix" dismounting.

Option 1: only during deployment (or perhaps the first bound)
Option 2: 1 PIP per dismount (no group dismounting)
Option 3: eliminate the rule all together

David Schlanger
12-23-2010, 04:45 PM
I would add to the wish list: "fix" dismounting.

Option 1: only during deployment (or perhaps the first bound)
Option 2: 1 PIP per dismount (no group dismounting)
Option 3: eliminate the rule all together

I like these options, and would like to add Option 4: 2 PIP per dismount (no group dismounting)

DS

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 04:50 PM
Its sounds like we've got to a bit of a consensus on *what* needs to be changed. Might we move these items to their own threads?

[....]

Is it too late to do any of this?
Moving these items to their own threads is just going to assist the delusion that this consensus, and discussion, is moving towards some goal.

At this point the last info we have on Phil's intent is that he wants DBMM players who play DBA to be his initial playtesters. Which means, in essence, none of us (Andreas / TLC excepted). Many of us have sent Phil email requests to participate and (as of the time of this writing) heard nothing -- 10 days is not long enough to have a cow (it is the Xmas season and many people, probably including Phil, are busy), but in the light of his statements of last month wanting only DBMM-and-DBA players to playtest, it is hard not to wonder if this exclusion is by design.

I am enjoying this discussion. And I am pleased and heartened that so many people have posted such similar lists of what needs improvement. But until we (more of this forum than just Andreas) are part of the process, I don't know how much good it would do to pretend (to ourselves) that we are DOing anything. We are sitting in a corner, talking under our breath. The activity is elsewhere.

David Schlanger
12-23-2010, 05:06 PM
Moving these items to their own threads is just going to assist the delusion that this consensus, and discussion, is moving towards some goal.

At this point the last info we have on Phil's intent is that he wants DBMM players who play DBA to be his initial playtesters. Which means, in essence, none of us (Andreas / TLC excepted). Many of us have sent Phil email requests to participate and (as of the time of this writing) heard nothing -- 10 days is not long enough to have a cow (it is the Xmas season and many people, probably including Phil, are busy), but in the light of his statements of last month wanting only DBMM-and-DBA players to playtest, it is hard not to wonder if this exclusion is by design.

I am enjoying this discussion. And I am pleased and heartened that so many people have posted such similar lists of what needs improvement. But until we (more of this forum than just Andreas) are part of the process, I don't know how much good it would do to pretend (to ourselves) that we are DOing anything. We are sitting in a corner, talking under our breath. The activity is elsewhere.


Agreed. I am concerned about the summary DK has provided. Could Phil develop DBA 3.0 in a bubble of DBA&DBMM players that excludes all of the experienced DBA players, scenario designers, GM's etc. on here? If the answer is Yes, that would be incredibly frustrating.

DS

Greedo
12-23-2010, 05:28 PM
Moving these items to their own threads is just going to assist the delusion that this consensus, and discussion, is moving towards some goal.

But until we (more of this forum than just Andreas) are part of the process, I don't know how much good it would do to pretend (to ourselves) that we are DOing anything. We are sitting in a corner, talking under our breath. The activity is elsewhere.

That is why I propose a champion who can go into the activity camp and bring these suggestions forward. Should Andreas BE that champion? Is there someone who plays with Phil Barker often to be able to playtest the ideas in his direct line of sight (or zone of control if you will :) )?

I have never seen Sue Barker post on this forum before, and she's been sending posts asking what we think of army lists and other items. Thus it strikes me that there is at least *some* interest in what we think.

We may well be just sitting out talking to ourselves. But if there IS consensus, then we could well write a complete amendment to DBA (much like the gunpowder version). I would rank the people here as DBA experts who have played so many games and won so many tournaments that they know every facet of DBA, good and bad. They will have seen every house rule under the sun, and I suspect would be a naturally conservative force that wouldn't change things in the rules willy nilly. Surely altered rules agreed upon by them would be worth playing. And if it doesn't make DBA 3.0, I'd probably play the amended rules anyway.

Chris

ferrency
12-23-2010, 06:13 PM
<snip>
b. Make LH armies viable in open competition.

As for the second, I'm not sure what the right answer is. Addressing the terrain thing will help a bit. I think a more interesting solution would be to allow LH/Cv to flank march, which would basically work the same way as a Littoral landing. This will give some flexibility to armies that historically should have it. It would need to be playtested, but I think it adds an interesting option to the game.

The Two Davids used a rule like this for Mongols in the Baltic Crusades campaign at Historicon. Mongols could reserve up to 4 LH to deploy as a Littoral landing on either flank, but not on the enemy's rear. This was also on 30" boards.

The overall effect was to create additional tactical options, but with some serious risk for the Mongols. With 30" boards, deploying your flank force far enough ahead to be useful puts it out of command radius, and opens the possibility of losing in that single location.

Commanding a group of out-of-radius light horse isn't necessarily what you want to do with your PIPs in a light horse army. On the other hand, if the enemy doesn't address the threat, you can encircle them when you finally do have enough PIPs.

Alan

Greedo
12-23-2010, 07:03 PM
The Two Davids used a rule like this for Mongols in the Baltic Crusades campaign at Historicon. Mongols could reserve up to 4 LH to deploy as a Littoral landing on either flank, but not on the enemy's rear. This was also on 30" boards.

I wonder if every army had an "army flavor rule" like this, that it wouldn't make individual armies even more interesting. Even if not every army had its own rule, but there was a selection of rules (strategems?), and each army got one of those. Or better still, you could PICK one of these rules to use during the game right say before deployment so you had to stick with your choice for the game. Different armies would have preferred strategems, but you could change it up depending upon your opponent? There could be different strategems to pick from for each army book/time period, representing an evolution in tactics throughout the period in question.

Ok, getting off topic a bit, since this kind of house rule requires MAJOR play testing, but fun to chew on :)

Si@BAM
12-23-2010, 07:53 PM
Impetuous elephants


Seconded.
Although these are a hard troop type to manage already...



Larger play area

Seconded - Bring back 48 inches...

Can I ask for a new cover art too?:up

Si@BAM
12-23-2010, 08:07 PM
I wonder if every army had an "army flavor rule" like this, that it wouldn't make individual armies even more interesting. Even if not every army had its own rule, but there was a selection of rules (strategems?), and each army got one of those. Or better still, you could PICK one of these rules to use during the game right say before deployment so you had to stick with your choice for the game. Different armies would have preferred strategems, but you could change it up depending upon your opponent? There could be different strategems to pick from for each army book/time period, representing an evolution in tactics throughout the period in question.

Ok, getting off topic a bit, since this kind of house rule requires MAJOR play testing, but fun to chew on :)

The absence of fluff and army specific special rules is what draws me to DBA. The purity of knowing that blade work the same way for Spartans as Tamil Indians warms my heart.

For me, the complexity and interest I derive from DBA comes from pitting myself against an enemy general who wants to kill me within an arena I am familiar with. Not in trying to remember a list of special rules.

This market is well served already.

I think the scenario makers have plenty of scope for special recipes.

Si

Tony Aguilar
12-23-2010, 08:14 PM
The purity of knowing that blade work the same way for Spartans as Tamil Indians warms my heart.


Except that Spartans don't have any Blade.

Try Romans instead. :)

Macbeth
12-23-2010, 08:19 PM
I wonder if every army had an "army flavor rule" like this, that it wouldn't make individual armies even more interesting. Even if not every army had its own rule, but there was a selection of rules (strategems?), and each army got one of those. Or better still, you could PICK one of these rules to use during the game right say before deployment so you had to stick with your choice for the game. Different armies would have preferred strategems, but you could change it up depending upon your opponent? There could be different strategems to pick from for each army book/time period, representing an evolution in tactics throughout the period in question.

Ok, getting off topic a bit, since this kind of house rule requires MAJOR play testing, but fun to chew on :)

This style works quite well in campaign games, my campaigns have a series of "flavour" goodie cards that are dealt out at the start of each year with the most obviously disadvantaged player getting a second card.

However I would not like the same thing to be in the main rules for one offs, tournaments and so forth, my breif return to WRG7th in its Warrior form turned me off the idea (see my other post below ;) )

Cheers

Macbeth
12-23-2010, 08:28 PM
The absence of fluff and army specific special rules is what draws me to DBA. The purity of knowing that blade work the same way for Spartans as Tamil Indians warms my heart.

For me, the complexity and interest I derive from DBA comes from pitting myself against an enemy general who wants to kill me within an arena I am familiar with. Not in trying to remember a list of special rules.


I am with you Si. For years I was the co-ordinator of the Cancon Warrior competition as I did believe that the old WRG7th --> Warrior Competition at this major convention were an institution worth preserving. However the Four Horsemen went List Rule Crazy with the publication of their later army list books. As an organiser I don't play, but on two occasions I did play (once when someone else stuck their hand up to be the referee and once to make up numbers when there was a bye). I was contsantly treated to the Warrior Equivalent of Special Rule - Bitch and became quite frustated as I found that behaviour changed from troop type to troop type.

This is a rule that you call a Heartbreaker. When you read it you think it is a good idea. When you put it into practice it over complicates the game

Cheers

David Kuijt
12-23-2010, 11:24 PM
That is why I propose a champion who can go into the activity camp and bring these suggestions forward. Should Andreas BE that champion? Is there someone who plays with Phil Barker often to be able to playtest the ideas in his direct line of sight (or zone of control if you will :) )?

If Phil doesn't want to hear advice from the DBA world (not proven yet by any means), then all this would do is piss off Phil and cause Andreas' feedback to be discounted. Since Andreas' feedback (as summarized by him) all seems generally to be good and reasonable stuff, I would hesitate to have the only provably sensible person we know is interacting with Phil on 3.0 do anything to cause his feedback to be discounted.

As for playing, Phil mostly plays DBMM. I'm not aware of anyone who is active in the DBA community who plays DBA against Phil except on a once-in-a-while at tournaments basis. Recently when Phil was at Historicon (two years ago, at a guess) someone asked him how he played a particular DBA rule when he played in tournaments in England, and he replied that by and large he didn't do that. I'm sure part of that was being flippant, (or trying to avoid continuing the conversation -- the person questioning Phil was being tiresome, by my estimate) but still.


We may well be just sitting out talking to ourselves. But if there IS consensus, then we could well write a complete amendment to DBA (much like the gunpowder version). I would rank the people here as DBA experts who have played so many games and won so many tournaments that they know every facet of DBA, good and bad. They will have seen every house rule under the sun, and I suspect would be a naturally conservative force that wouldn't change things in the rules willy nilly. Surely altered rules agreed upon by them would be worth playing. And if it doesn't make DBA 3.0, I'd probably play the amended rules anyway.


So what you're suggesting is that we create our own 3.0, in defiance of being ignored by Phil?

I want to be able to give my feedback to Phil as much as anyone. But doing what you suggest would create a major schism in our community, especially since there is still a good chance that 3.0 will be a fine game -- after all, 2.0 was a fine game, and a big improvement over 1.1 that preceded it.

So yes, I want to give Phil my feedback, and I hope that Phil would listen to it. But calling for revolution right now, just because Phil hasn't included many of us in his original feedback loop? That's pretty massive over-reaction, don't you think?

Although I commend your enthusiasm...

Pozanias
12-24-2010, 12:35 PM
I think the value of having a discussion about potential rules changes is that we can flesh out a lot of the pros and cons of various ideas before Phil asks for our (the DBA community's) input. I think some of his reluctance for involving Fanaticus is that he doesn't want to be bombarded by a million different ideas and watch as people fight over their merits. [But I suspect the main reason is that he anticipates most of the changes to come from DBMM concepts and therefore only wants input from people that will "know what they are talking about"].

Anyway, I think the discussions about rules changes over the last 4-5 years have actually done a great job of whittling down in most of our minds what essential rules changes should happen.

Having said all of that, I agree with David that all of our discussions will amount to very little if Phil chooses not to solicit our input. I also agree that pressuring Phil is a very bad idea. My preference would actually be for him to involve just a small, manageable group of DBA players/leaders from different regions (e.g. David, Dave, Roland, Tony, MacBeth, Andreas, Xavi, Paul H., Pavane, etc...) -- but I'm not holding my breath. With a few exceptions, I doubt he even knows who the key players are.

Rathicus
12-24-2010, 11:51 PM
I don't think anyone has mentioned in this thread that there is nothing that says we have to switch to 3.0.

Just an observation.

Alex Bostwick
12-25-2010, 01:17 AM
(some still reminisce about Bob Beattie using that memorable phrase... "Special Rule, Bitch!")

Ah, yes. I'm afraid you DID exclaim the above statement, Bob. It was Fall-In- five, maybe six years ago? It was, indeed, at the Boudicca event.

And I do, in fact, have Bob shouting it on camera. I seriously considered taking that brief few seconds of film and remixing into a music video. I still have the footage somewhere- it's in my desk drawer, most likely, marinating with about thirty other MiniDV tapes from silly short films and convention B-Roll. I'd dig it up, but that would entail scanning through around forty-five hours of video to find a six-second clip.

How wonderful my teenage years were.


I will say that I briefly considered trudging up that shot, if only for the five laughs it would generate here. Then I remembered that I'm a busy man, darn it, with lots of nothing to do, and nothing won't do itself.

As for Bostwick family gatherings, usually they revolve around intelligent conversation on the layered approach of Proust's works, or the effects of the Reformation on Islamic life. (Okay, they typically resort to Monty Python quotes taken completely out of context with no bearing to the subject at hand. Also, we usually burn something down- my shed is still smoldering from Thanksgiving of 2009.)



Perhaps it is my rebellious nature (okay, I couldn't even type that with a straight face- I think the most rebellious thing I've ever done was try to convince my substitute teacher that my high school Chem Lab was, in fact, haunted) but the idea of the players writing a revision set appeals to me. For the record, I don't think it will ever come to that; I haven't been through all of the various versions of DBA, but Phil isn't stupid. Stubborn, probably, arrogant, perhaps a bit, but he's definitely not an idiot. He knows that the best way to sell rule sets is to appeal to the people that want to play them. Whether the next version is DBMM without a points system or not remains to be seen, but I find it unlikely.

If that ends up being the case, however, we'll just stick with 2.2, or continue with 3.0 and bitch and moan about it at conventions. It'll be a bonding experience!

-A-Bos

Greedo
12-25-2010, 01:55 AM
the idea of the players writing a revision set appeals to me. For the record, I don't think it will ever come to that; I haven't been through all of the various versions of DBA, but Phil isn't stupid. Stubborn, probably, arrogant, perhaps a bit, but he's definitely not an idiot.

If that ends up being the case, however, we'll just stick with 2.2, or continue with 3.0 and bitch and moan about it at conventions. It'll be a bonding experience!

I'm going to agree with David K that DBA 3.0 will be good, mainly because of the points Alex brings up. Though it makes me frustrated that Phil can have so many good ideas (read his designers notes to both DBA and DBMM. They are wonderful.), and yet be so against changing his language so that the players who WANT to play it are thwarted. Its equally frustrating that he seems to see people who don't "get" his rules as stupid (or worse. American ;)). I'm very glad that Sue is producing the Introduction to DBA to be released with the game (or least that's what I understand is happening).

I also wonder if perhaps he wants DBMM/DBA players to test/collaborate the game because he sees DBMM as the "ideal" ruleset that contains all the aspects he wants in an ancients ruleset. DBA becomes a simplification of this "ideal". I would consider it easier to remove/simplify ideas, rather than trying to add new ones from scratch. I am of course running on the assumption that Phil is attempting to communicate his vision of ancient warfare and has been evolving that attempt since his WRG rules set days. WRG -> DBA -> DBM -> DBA2 -> DBMM -> DBA3.

Chris

David Kuijt
12-25-2010, 02:40 AM
I'm going to agree with David K that DBA 3.0 will be good, mainly because of the points Alex brings up.

I didn't say that, Chris. I hope it will be -- and it might be. 2.0 was good. But I didn't say it _will_ be good.

If Phil doesn't involve some of the people who have put thousands of DBA games under their belt as players and GMs in the last decade, there are no guarantees.

David Constable
12-25-2010, 05:52 AM
I don't think anyone has mentioned in this thread that there is nothing that says we have to switch to 3.0.

Just an observation.

Hello

Very early on, in one of the threads we talked about a split between 2.2 and 3.0 being possible (a schism).

The short answer is yes, we do not have to use the new edition.
Competitions can specify rules version and board sizes quite easily, however this does not help newcomers.

The other possibility is that an alternative set will come out by DBA players, designed for DBA players, similar in feel, but not the same (call it CAZ).

David Constable

Pavane
12-25-2010, 11:05 AM
[Phil] knows that the best way to sell rule sets is to appeal to the people that want to play them.
I haven't seen any evidence of that. I think that creating rulesets is an intellectual exercise for Phil, and that he disdains marketing as much as "unrealistic geometric constraints".

David Constable
12-25-2010, 11:11 AM
I haven't seen any evidence of that. I think that creating rulesets is an intellectual exercise for Phil, and that he disdains marketing as much as "unrealistic geometric constraints".

I would have to agree with that.
Look at the length of time DBMM took.
This could be considered a strength, but it can be a weakness.
If DBA 3.0 was a re-write in simple English, used some information from the DBMM army lists, and did not alter DBA 2.2 in a big way then most people will be happy.
The problem is that when Phil starts he does not know how it is going to end up, he thinks he does, but not really.

David Constable

Bob. (and his dog)
12-25-2010, 01:47 PM
I don't think anyone has mentioned in this thread that there is nothing that says we have to switch to 3.0.

Just an observation.

You mean I could have just kept playing DBA 1.1???

David Constable
12-25-2010, 02:25 PM
You mean I could have just kept playing DBA 1.1???

If you can find an opponent, yes.
At my local club they still play WRG 6th.
The same could well happen with DBA 2.2, some will play 3.0, some play 2.2.

David Constable

Greedo
12-25-2010, 05:15 PM
I don't there's anything wrong with people playing different versions, although I worry about the "schism" that you guys are taking about. It was the death of Fantasy Rules! Version 2.0, everyone LOVED, then Version 3.0 came out, and everything went quiet as they didn't like the changes. It was really sad because there was such a dedicated following online.

But having said that, BUAs were very unpopular, and people still played 2.x (I can't remember when BUAs were first introduced). As I recall, people just didn't use BUAs. It was the next revision when Phil said that BUAs were "optional" which fit with what people were actually playing.

The Last Conformist
12-26-2010, 07:21 AM
Why do you tease us.
I don't mean to tease anyone. The wishlist is all stuff I've been hoping for since way before I saw the draft - I've posted substantially identical lists here on Fanaticus before.

Doug
12-26-2010, 09:57 PM
I don't mean to tease anyone. The wishlist is all stuff I've been hoping for since way before I saw the draft - I've posted substantially identical lists here on Fanaticus before.

One thing I will suggest is that trying to badger or pressure Phil is usually very counter-productive.

As a player who has won plenty of DBA tournaments, and usually places in DBMM ones, I quite like the list that Andreas came up with. I do also quite like the idea of 'optional' rules, but I can understand the reluctance.

In the meantime, I think constructive debate is good, and hope Phil will include a few more people in the v3 draft testing. I have written to Sue and Phil with no response, (unsurprisingly), so fingers crossed that a few more players get the draft sent to them now the Christmas madness is over.

Bob. (and his dog)
12-27-2010, 12:45 PM
I don't mean to tease anyone. The wishlist is all stuff I've been hoping for since way before I saw the draft - I've posted substantially identical lists here on Fanaticus before.


The tease is this
"Unfortunately, I can't discuss which if any of these are in Phil's draft"

Doug
12-27-2010, 08:54 PM
Oh well, we can just all wait. I look forward to hearing more, and Andreas has put in a lot of work, especially in commenting on Sue's proposed lists to date.

Chris Brantley
01-04-2011, 01:35 PM
From Phil on Jan. 4 (on the DBMM list)

When asked: "have you sent the draft of DBA 3 for people to test?"

He replied:

To one so far, whose comments I am dealing with, as the real world starts to seep in after the holiday...

Andreas Johansson
01-05-2011, 02:44 AM
The tease is this
"Unfortunately, I can't discuss which if any of these are in Phil's draft"

In that case I am teasing people because I do not want them to leap to conclusions about what is or is not in the draft.

Stephen Webb
01-05-2011, 04:11 AM
You better play a lot of trial games, if you are the only play tester.

Doug
01-05-2011, 06:54 AM
You better play a lot of trial games, if you are the only play tester.

I am sure Phil will be adding more over time.

Martyn
01-05-2011, 07:13 AM
From Phil on Jan. 4 (on the DBMM list)

When asked: "have you sent the draft of DBA 3 for people to test?"

He replied:To one so far, whose comments I am dealing with, as the real world starts to seep in after the holiday...

I find it a bit concerning that Phil is not actively consulting with either this, nor the yahoo forum on the play testing of the proposed amendments. It would appear that members of this forum have volunteered to play test but have not been contacted.

I appreciate that Sue is liaising with both but in a limited way asking for comment on specific proposals or suggestions.

I hope that this is a case of Phil being more comfortable with the DBMM group, having gone through a similar process and knowing the characters who get involved. Maybe he wishes to start the process within that comfort zone before exposing himself more fully to the DBA community at large with whom he has had little contact.

A few days ago I posted on the Yahoo group a question to Sue about feed back from her on the way the proposed changes were being progressed, she replied:

In due course, the revised versions will be made available. I am waiting until I have discussed these with Phil so that the version to be displayed will be close to the final version.

I realise this feedback wll be useful for but I think an intermediate version without Phil's approval could be misleading. Parts at least of section 2 should be available by the time I'm putting sctions 3 & 4 up for comments.

Which is encouraging and perhaps at that point the play testing version will be released.

Chris Brantley
01-27-2011, 12:45 PM
Latest update from Phil, from Jan. 27 post to DBMM mail group:

I am expanding the DBA 3.0 testing pool one at a time. When we have the major bugs out, I'll pass a copy to Bob to stop him worrying.

The Shrewsbury club did an interesting test on Monday with 2 identical Seleucid v Indian BBDBA games side by side, one with 2.2, one with 3.0. After each 2.2 bound, the players moved to the 3.0 game and repeated the bound with the same PIP dice. The version of 3.0 used had measurement in BW multiples (the same number as in DBMM moves). Sue says they found 3.0 simpler and got into combat a couple of bounds earlier.

The aim is to have 3.0 on sale at Historicon in July, which means finalising before the end of March.

Phil

Rich Gause
01-27-2011, 12:58 PM
Latest update from Phil, from Jan. 27 post to DBMM mail group:

I'm not so sure reducing the number of bounds of pre-combat manuver is desirable. Most of the interesting decisions of a good DBA game tend to happen before the main battlelines close; after that it is mostly rolling dice and a few fairly obvious decisions being made. If the goal is to speed up the game, and make it a simpler beginner game with less thinking and more just throwing 12 elements at each other and rolling dice that might be reasonable I suppose.

Martyn
01-27-2011, 01:25 PM
Latest update from Phil, from Jan. 27 post to DBMM mail group:

Quote:
I am expanding the DBA 3.0 testing pool one at a time. When we have the major bugs out, I'll pass a copy to Bob to stop him worrying.

The Shrewsbury club did an interesting test on Monday with 2 identical Seleucid v Indian BBDBA games side by side, one with 2.2, one with 3.0. After each 2.2 bound, the players moved to the 3.0 game and repeated the bound with the same PIP dice. The version of 3.0 used had measurement in BW multiples (the same number as in DBMM moves). Sue says they found 3.0 simpler and got into combat a couple of bounds earlier.

The aim is to have 3.0 on sale at Historicon in July, which means finalising before the end of March.

Phil


Is it just me, but, why is Phil posting on the DBMM group about DBA but not the DBA yahoo group or here :???

Is there anybody from the Shrewsbury group on this forum or are you all sworn to secrecy?

Suggesting that v3 will be finalised by end of March does not give much time for an open discussion and play testing of any amendments. Not wishing to be alarmist, but, I for one have a bad feeling. (or is that my lunch).

Chris Brantley
01-27-2011, 01:41 PM
Is it just me, but, why is Phil posting on the DBMM group about DBA but not the DBA yahoo group or here :???.

I don't think that Phil is a member of the DBA list and I know that he has never registered to use the Fanaticus Forum (although Sue was registered before the meltdown).

He has also said he planned not to post DBA 3.0 material in the "DBA group" because he felt it would generate more heat than light.

Martyn
01-27-2011, 01:45 PM
I don't think that Phil is a member of the DBA list and I know that he has never registered to use the Fanaticus Forum (although Sue was registered before the meltdown)..

It is a shame that Sue has not re-registered, but she is on the yahoo group. As Phil is already on yahoo it is not rocket science to register on the DBA group as well.


He has also said he planned not to post DBA 3.0 material in the "DBA group" because he felt it would generate more heat than light.

Yes, material is obviously restricted information but an update on where things are going would be nice.

Rich Gause
01-27-2011, 02:07 PM
The idea that all the bugs would get worked out first with DBMM players before any input is asked for from pure DBA players is what is causing people concern. A brief overview of what kinds of changes are being contemplated and what kinds are not would be helpful. It sounds like the new rules will mostly be a done deal by the time we get to see them also.

david kuijt
01-27-2011, 02:14 PM
Is it just me, but, why is Phil posting on the DBMM group about DBA but not the DBA yahoo group or here :???


Phil's approach to the DBA community baffles me. To be as fair as I can be, it seems that he is only comfortable in the DBMM group, and unwilling to devote energy where the DBA players are. Which was reasonable, until the point when he started working upon DBA 3.0


Suggesting that v3 will be finalised by end of March does not give much time for an open discussion and play testing of any amendments.

If v3 is to be finalized end of March, Phil will have two playtesters (projecting the current trend forward). At his published rate of adding new commentators (Andreas being added in November, and Phil's comment as of Jan.4 that there was still only him) Phil should have reached a reasonable playtest group size some time around summer 2012.

I see no evidence that there are any plans for an open discussion.


Not wishing to be alarmist, but, I for one have a bad feeling. (or is that my lunch).

I, too, feel like a mushroom.

teenage visigoth
01-27-2011, 02:30 PM
I sort of sympathize with the DBA 3.0 politburo.

One look around the forum and the various mods and variants we throw about (no ZOC's, PS support for all, 30inch boards, and other heresies) must chill Barker to his core.

Easier and less risky to throw it to a bunch who have no vested interest.

Still, I belong to a game culture (exemplified by Calgary gamers) that prides itself on being able to 'break' games by wrecking loopholes and exploiting poorly written ideas. I resent a little bit not being able to do this.

The Big Hammer school does work.

Kingo
01-27-2011, 02:47 PM
Latest update from Phil, from Jan. 27 post to DBMM mail group:

Any bets on when 3.01 will be released?:D

Rich Gause
01-27-2011, 02:51 PM
If 3.0 isn't adequately tested or makes too many changes that the people who actually play 3.0 don't want then I suppose it will be shortly after 3.0.

Martyn
01-27-2011, 04:14 PM
I sort of sympathize with the DBA 3.0 politburo.

One look around the forum and the various mods and variants we throw about (no ZOC's, PS support for all, 30inch boards, and other heresies) must chill Barker to his core.

Easier and less risky to throw it to a bunch who have no vested interest.

Part of the problem is that in a vacuum of comment from Phil we are all thinking of what we would like to see and this generates alot of "heat".

Where Sue has asked for comment on the army lists for example there has been some considered comment and some other suggestions that have been discussed in a measured way.

Perhaps some feedback would help limit the fevered speculation.

david kuijt
01-27-2011, 05:00 PM
Part of the problem is that in a vacuum of comment from Phil we are all thinking of what we would like to see and this generates alot of "heat".


I've acted as apologist for Phil many a time. But the underlying truth now is this -- the climate on this forum with regard to Phil is primarily a result of Phil's actions with regard to this forum.

A huge majority of the DBA players at Historicon (and 100% of the DBA GMs and organizers) are on this forum (and the Yahoo group as well). Now we hear that Phil is (perhaps unrealistically) planning to pop out 3.0 at Historicon, almost certainly without any allowance for feedback from this group and the Yahoo group (which have a large overlap in population).

Does anyone else remember the adversarial environment at Cold Wars 2001, when Phil came out to "meet the people" after the release of DBA 2.0? Bob, I know you were there; Mark was, and Jack the Butcher, and DS, and I'm sure others of our community. There was a LOT of frustration and heat. Burt Fishman, I remember you were quite upset at the time.

And that (DBA 2.0) was a good product. I have no faith that 3.0 will be anything like as good, and now it seems that Phil is setting himself up for an even more adversarial environment.

Why? Sue, if you're reading this, why? Why not open a few paths of communication? What's wrong with that idea?

Stephen Webb
01-27-2011, 05:21 PM
As has been said before, if Phil publishes DBA v3.0 without our input then it may turn out to be a totally useless exercise.

It is fortunate that Sue and he have provided a pdf of v2.2 as it may be needed for a long time to come, unless Phil starts to take into account the views of those that play DBA.

Matt
01-27-2011, 05:26 PM
Just did a read-through of the Yahoo DBMM group and was a bit surprised (shocked?) at the egos kicking up dust over the future of DBA. A lot of claims of "the DBA community wants...etc"

How is Phil supposed to know who the true speakers are? There is way too much noise and chaff to make heads or tails of what the "community" wants.

david kuijt
01-27-2011, 06:12 PM
How is Phil supposed to know who the true speakers are? There is way too much noise and chaff to make heads or tails of what the "community" wants.

Nobody is expecting Phil to develop psychic powers. The normal method for finding out what people want is called "communication."

Of all the methods Phil might use to determine the desires and interests of people who play DBA, cutting himself off from all communication with them is probably the least effective.

JLogan
01-27-2011, 06:43 PM
If v3 is to be finalized end of March, Phil will have two playtesters (projecting the current trend forward). At his published rate of adding new commentators (Andreas being added in November, and Phil's comment as of Jan.4 that there was still only him) Phil should have reached a reasonable playtest group size some time around summer 2012.

I see no evidence that there are any plans for an open discussion.

I, too, feel like a mushroom.

Yes, this latest snippet from PB on the DBMM list is quite troubling. Apart from the very good points made here by DK, Martyn, and others, it concerns me that the playtest referred to (approvingly apparently) was BBDBA, not even DBA. And I have real concerns about using BW multiples in DBA, where on a 24x24 board, changing the relative movement distances between elements surely must impact the dynamic? I realize DBMM players apparently like it, but the relative game/board size/figure/movement scales there are very different.

Are any of these Shrewsbury BBDBA playtesters on this forum? Do any of the UK based players who are on this forum know of them?

John

JLogan
01-27-2011, 06:50 PM
He has also said he planned not to post DBA 3.0 material in the "DBA group" because he felt it would generate more heat than light.

Yes, it's particularly unfortunate that Phil made this comment a few months ago on the DBMM list. It's completely bogus and the irony is too much, since the DBMM list IMO produces much more heat than light than I see generally on this forum, and at times can be downright nasty/unpleasant, which thankfully, is rarely seen here.

John

Bob Santamaria
01-27-2011, 06:53 PM
I just bought two more copies of DBA 2.2 from WRG online, just in case.

Adrian

neldoreth
01-27-2011, 07:40 PM
(no ZOC's, ...., and other heresies)


Comment noted sir! Prepare to be defeated at the noble hands of Ibn al-Joeahmar as soon as I have my new Granadines painted!

n.

Pavane
01-27-2011, 07:54 PM
Why? Sue, if you're reading this, why? Why not open a few paths of communication? What's wrong with that idea?
I suspect that as co-author of the WADBAG Guide your contributions will not be solicited.

david kuijt
01-27-2011, 08:24 PM
I suspect that as co-author of the WADBAG Guide your contributions will not be solicited.

That, and my birthmark with the number of the Beast.

Tony Aguilar
01-27-2011, 09:13 PM
I suspect that as co-author of the WADBAG Guide your contributions will not be solicited.

...even though the creation of that guide has kept much new blood from just saying "F-it" and walking away from a brilliant, yet hard to understand rule set. :???

Lobotomy
01-27-2011, 09:59 PM
I saw the post that Phil said Historicon is the target. It brought an "OMFG" from me in quite a loud voice in an empty room (and those of you who knew me know how loud that must have been, though the windows are still in place). The extreme frustration we are showing may get back to Phil, but, IMHO, will only confirm his "view" that we are more heat than light.

It only confirms my view, from at least 7th Edition, WRG, about his views on play testing. He claimed that those were the "most play tested" set of rules ever. Given that he is only showing the set to two or three people that we know, I guess 7th Edition was play tested by 6 people.

Us Stooges have written 3 sets of rules before, and published them (one for fantasy, one siege and one Napoleonic). We know how hard it is to play test because when you write rules you come with certain assumptions about what things mean. When we gave them to others to play we learned that those assumptions aren't in the rules. That requires substantial revision.

Further, if he is making this to be an "introduction" to DBMM, which has been stated elsewhere, then the mechanics may significantly change. As was noted above, using BBDBA to play test is unusual in the extreme as that is something different from standard DBA. Instead of doing that, one would get a better idea of comparing normal DBA in the manner described. It gives me less hope than I would have wanted. :sick

ferrency
01-27-2011, 11:06 PM
Revolution.

Doug
01-27-2011, 11:16 PM
Ok, I will come out of the closet, and tell you the changes are very much less substantial or DBMM oriented than people here are fearing.

Watch this space, I am sure even Bob will be pleasantly surprised, as it is evolution rather than revolution.

Tony Aguilar
01-27-2011, 11:19 PM
It brought an "OMFG" from me in quite a loud voice in an empty room...

And here I thought that was a stray cat outside...

Tony Aguilar
01-27-2011, 11:29 PM
Ok, I will come out of the closet, and tell you the changes are very much less substantial or DBMM oriented than people here are fearing.

Watch this space, I am sure even Bob will be pleasantly surprised, as it is evolution rather than revolution.

My biggest fear, which seems plausible based on what I have overheard, is if the switch is made from inches to BWD. This would alter the game tremendously especially if the size of the board is not increased as well. The equivalent sizes would be 38.4" x 38.4" (for the 24" equivalent) and 48" square (for the 30" equivalent.)

ferrency
01-27-2011, 11:30 PM
Ok, I will come out of the closet, and tell you the changes are very much less substantial or DBMM oriented than people here are fearing.

Watch this space, I am sure even Bob will be pleasantly surprised, as it is evolution rather than revolution.

It doesn't matter whether the changes are substantial, DBMM, or evolutionary. It only matters whether they suck or not.

No one is complaining about the rule changes. We're complaining about the fact that there isn't anything to complain about.

Alan

david kuijt
01-27-2011, 11:39 PM
Ok, I will come out of the closet, and tell you the changes are very much less substantial or DBMM oriented than people here are fearing.


Well, I am encouraged that Phil has added at least one more playtester since January 4th.

david kuijt
01-27-2011, 11:45 PM
It doesn't matter whether the changes are substantial, DBMM, or evolutionary. It only matters whether they suck or not.


True.


No one is complaining about the rule changes. We're complaining about the fact that there isn't anything to complain about.


Not really. We can always complain about Larry.

But seriously, the major source of frustration is taxation without representation, in a sense. Phil is King George IV, and the DBA community (in the States, the Commonwealth, Europe) is the Colonies. We have no way to communicate with Phil, and he is not telling us anything about what is going on, but he is making decisions that will have grave effect upon our (gaming) lives. All that would be necessary to calm things down a bit is some communication.

Bob Santamaria
01-28-2011, 12:16 AM
My biggest fear, which seems plausible based on what I have overheard, is if the switch is made from inches to BWD. This would alter the game tremendously especially if the size of the board is not increased as well. The equivalent sizes would be 38.4" x 38.4" (for the 24" equivalent) and 48" square (for the 30" equivalent.)

Perhaps half base width units and leave it at the two foot by two foot - which would be closest to the 30inch boards - that might be a good solution

Stephen Webb
01-28-2011, 12:18 AM
All that would be necessary to calm things down a bit is some communication.

But as Phil refuses to communicate with us through this forum, we are unable to initiate it, so we are reliant on Phil to change his approach.

Maybe if Sue is still reading the postings, she can convey our concerns to Phil.

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 12:27 AM
But as Phil refuses to communicate with us through this forum, we are unable to initiate it, so we are reliant on Phil to change his approach.


We can't force Phil to communicate. It isn't just him looking at this forum -- he's never done that, and doesn't seem interested in changing. He hasn't responded to email, either.

Doug
01-28-2011, 12:29 AM
It doesn't matter whether the changes are substantial, DBMM, or evolutionary. It only matters whether they suck or not.

No one is complaining about the rule changes. We're complaining about the fact that there isn't anything to complain about.

Alan

I love it!!!

Bob Santamaria
01-28-2011, 12:32 AM
I understand Phil once worked for British Leyland. The question is, will the rules be better than the P76?

A

Doug
01-28-2011, 12:39 AM
We can't force Phil to communicate. It isn't just him looking at this forum -- he's never done that, and doesn't seem interested in changing. He hasn't responded to email, either.

For better or worse, Phil's communication style is somewhat idiosyncratic, I posted furiously during the DBMM development process with virtually no feedback, and then was pleasantly surprised (not always - admittedly) when the comments and suggestions were incorporated into a new draft.

Phil doesn't seem comfortable with fora, and his email communication is sporadic at best - but during an intense development phase, he must be receiving hundreds of emails a day, and often he treats them as a distraction from his 'real job' of doing the best he can to redevelop rules.

I have been running some solo test games using DBA3, and these have run smoothly. I have posted my observations to Andreas, and will incorporate his feedback on my observations before going back to Phil, to ensure I haven't missed anything.

I haven't signed an NDA or anything, but I would prefer not to discuss any details of the changes, as there is every chance some of them wont make it into the final version, so there is no point in getting everyone here 'het up'.

As Phil has said, he will be expanding the test group gradually, and I would be very surprised if some of the distinguished members of this forum were not included, especially as Bob has already been mentioned.

Doug
01-28-2011, 12:43 AM
I understand Phil once worked for British Leyland. The question is, will the rules be better than the P76?

A

The Leyland P76 was a fantastic car, well ahead of it's time and only let down by quality issues.. great driving characteristics, lightweight powerful V8, huge boot, good economy (for its day), spacious interior... That and the styling was much less conservative than was popular in Oz when it was released - (have a look at the same year Falcons and Holdens..)

Now if only it had been put together properly.... and IIRC it also had Lucas ('Prince of Darkness') electrics..

The ones still on the road have had all the issues sorted and are great.

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 12:53 AM
As Phil has said, he will be expanding the test group gradually, and I would be very surprised if some of the distinguished members of this forum were not included, especially as Bob has already been mentioned.

One every month or two, but planning to be finished by end of March, I hear. I'll wait breathlessly to be included.

Bob Santamaria
01-28-2011, 01:39 AM
The Leyland P76 was a fantastic car, well ahead of it's time and only let down by quality issues.. great driving characteristics, lightweight powerful V8, huge boot, good economy (for its day), spacious interior... That and the styling was much less conservative than was popular in Oz when it was released - (have a look at the same year Falcons and Holdens..)

Now if only it had been put together properly.... and IIRC it also had Lucas ('Prince of Darkness') electrics..

The ones still on the road have had all the issues sorted and are great.


Really (raised eyebrow)

The only people I have ever spoken to who owned one said they were terrible for fuel economy and very very mechanically unreliable.

As a part time serial killer the huge boot would have to be a bonus.

I was born in 1976 so did not have the pleasure of buying one new

A

Doug
01-28-2011, 01:56 AM
Really (raised eyebrow)

The only people I have ever spoken to who owned one said they were terrible for fuel economy and very very mechanically unreliable.

As a part time serial killer the huge boot would have to be a bonus.

I was born in 1976 so did not have the pleasure of buying one new

A

If they weren't assembled with care, the aluminium V8 leaked fuel, and lost compression so had to be driven hard, that's why they had no fuel economy. The straight 6 in some was a dog though. Basically, most of them were so poorly assembled they had to be fully rebuilt to use, but when you did so, it was a pretty good car, streets ahead of the contemporary GMH and Ford offerings...

It was actually 'Wheels' Car of the Year 1973, and had a decent list of features for the time: MacPherson strut front suspension, aluminium V8 engine, live rear axle etc... it won its class in the 1974 World Cup Rally, and was generally much better than it was credited with.

Anyway - slightly OT.

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 02:15 AM
One every month or two, but planning to be finished by end of March, I hear. I'll wait breathlessly to be included.

During the couple years I've been of his (online) acquaintance, Phil has missed every deadline he's set for himself. I would not attach a great deal of significance to the Historicon date.

Richard Lee
01-28-2011, 03:18 AM
Us Stooges have written 3 sets of rules before, and published them (one for fantasy, one siege and one Napoleonic). We know how hard it is to play test because when you write rules you come with certain assumptions about what things mean. When we gave them to others to play we learned that those assumptions aren't in the rules. That requires substantial revision.

Yes. When I wrote my ancient naval rules, and also various unpublished skirmish rules, I would test big changes to mechanisms myself and with a small number of people I knew well, and usually wargamed with. However, once the mechanisms and factors seemed to be coming together, I found it extremely useful to let people I didn't play with often loose on the rules, without supervision, to see what they came up with.

Richard Lee
01-28-2011, 05:38 AM
Latest update from Phil, from Jan. 27 post to DBMM mail group:
I am expanding the DBA 3.0 testing pool one at a time. When we have the major bugs out, I'll pass a copy to Bob to stop him worrying.

The Shrewsbury club did an interesting test on Monday with 2 identical Seleucid v Indian BBDBA games side by side, one with 2.2, one with 3.0. After each 2.2 bound, the players moved to the 3.0 game and repeated the bound with the same PIP dice. The version of 3.0 used had measurement in BW multiples (the same number as in DBMM moves). Sue says they found 3.0 simpler and got into combat a couple of bounds earlier.

The aim is to have 3.0 on sale at Historicon in July, which means finalising before the end of March.

Phil


What I wonder is did the playtesters prefer base-width multiples because they were intrinsically easier, or because they are similar to DBMM, the game that they play more often? Most people I know use special rulers or measuring sticks marked in '100 pace' divisions for DBA.

If the changes in version 3.0 are a distinct improvement over version 2.2 then I don't mind where the inspiration came from. On the other hand, if the changes just bring DBA more into line with DBMM, then I have to say that I would prefer DBA to remain closer to Hordes of the Things because I do play HotT whereas it is by no means certain that I will have another go at DBMM.

platypus01
01-28-2011, 05:56 AM
I understand Phil once worked for British Leyland. The question is, will the rules be better than the P76?

Can't let that pass. My family owned a couple of P76's. Really good cars with a bad rep. Yes, you got the odd car that was put together by idiots, but there was nothing wrong with the _car_.....

Cheers,
JohnG

Martyn
01-28-2011, 06:24 AM
Thanks to Doug for the reassurance that there is not too much to be ‘het up’ about, you do realise that when the draft is released and if we don’t like it then you and Andreas are in the firing line. :D

This just goes to show how the lack of communication from Phil feeds the speculation and concern.

I don’t buy the Phil is not comfortable with fora. He is still active on the DBMM forum which at times can be a very scary place to be. If you think there are some strong characters and forthright opinions on this forum just have a look at some of the exchanges over there. It is hardly surprising that the moderators have had to step in occasionally to cool things down.

Where Sue has previously released information or requested comment on ideas the response has generally been positive and constructive, so we are not that threatening, are we?

My feeling is that Phil was in his development ‘bubble’, which is understandable. We all like to shut ourselves away at times when working on a project to cut out the interference. However, as he is now in the play testing stage he is clearly at the point where he is fine tuning ideas or testing new processes. Is there any harm in giving some indication of the way his thinking is going, or confirming which areas of the rules are/are not being revised (or maybe that would fuel even more speculation?)

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 06:30 AM
I don’t buy the Phil is not comfortable with fora. He is still active on the DBMM forum which at times can be a very scary place to be.
Phil is not active on the DBMM forum, which is anyway distinctly sedate. I believe you are thinking of the DBMM Yahoolist.

Now, why Phil won't join the DBA Yahoo list is a good question.

Martyn
01-28-2011, 06:36 AM
What I wonder is did the playtesters prefer base-width multiples because they were intrinsically easier, or because they are similar to DBMM, the game that they play more often? Most people I know use special rulers or measuring sticks marked in '100 pace' divisions for DBA.

If the changes in version 3.0 are a distinct improvement over version 2.2 then I don't mind where the inspiration came from. On the other hand, if the changes just bring DBA more into line with DBMM, then I have to say that I would prefer DBA to remain closer to Hordes of the Things because I do play HotT whereas it is by no means certain that I will have another go at DBMM.

Therein lies the concern, is DBAv3 being play tested by DBMMer because they already understand the processes and accept them, therefore easing the way for a DBA based upon a scaled down DBMM, or is that just paranoid thinking that is beginning to creep in.

In the end as long as the game works then evolution is not a bad thing, I hope that the DBAer that are included in the play test are able to influence the development to ensure that the differences in scale between the two are not overlooked.

Remember just because you’re paranoid it does not mean they are not out to get you. ;)

Martyn
01-28-2011, 06:42 AM
Phil is not active on the DBMM forum, which is anyway distinctly sedate. I believe you are thinking of the DBMM Yahoolist.

Yes, thanks Andreas. I was being sloppy in that the earlier references were to the yahoo list and I didn't make the distinction.

The DBMM forum (rather than yahoolist) is a much more moderate place with useful info on DBMM if anybody wants to check on some of the mechanisms.

Doug
01-28-2011, 07:28 AM
What I wonder is did the playtesters prefer base-width multiples because they were intrinsically easier, or because they are similar to DBMM, the game that they play more often? Most people I know use special rulers or measuring sticks marked in '100 pace' divisions for DBA.

If the changes in version 3.0 are a distinct improvement over version 2.2 then I don't mind where the inspiration came from. On the other hand, if the changes just bring DBA more into line with DBMM, then I have to say that I would prefer DBA to remain closer to Hordes of the Things because I do play HotT whereas it is by no means certain that I will have another go at DBMM.

One good thing about base widths is it reduces anomalies between different scales. For example, under v1, only one scale could legitimately 'close the door' if moving 200paces.

It makes the game easily adaptable to any size base that will play the same regardless of whether they are 40mm, 60mm 80mm or 2.73568 inches...

Doug
01-28-2011, 07:31 AM
Thanks to Doug for the reassurance that there is not too much to be ‘het up’ about, you do realise that when the draft is released and if we don’t like it then you and Andreas are in the firing line. :D

This just goes to show how the lack of communication from Phil feeds the speculation and concern.

I don’t buy the Phil is not comfortable with fora. He is still active on the DBMM forum which at times can be a very scary place to be. If you think there are some strong characters and forthright opinions on this forum just have a look at some of the exchanges over there. It is hardly surprising that the moderators have had to step in occasionally to cool things down.

Where Sue has previously released information or requested comment on ideas the response has generally been positive and constructive, so we are not that threatening, are we?

My feeling is that Phil was in his development ‘bubble’, which is understandable. We all like to shut ourselves away at times when working on a project to cut out the interference. However, as he is now in the play testing stage he is clearly at the point where he is fine tuning ideas or testing new processes. Is there any harm in giving some indication of the way his thinking is going, or confirming which areas of the rules are/are not being revised (or maybe that would fuel even more speculation?)

I think that Phil has become relatively comfortable with email groups, but the Fanaticus Forum is a step beyond that. And yes, Andreas and I can never show our faces (armies?) again. But we have been asked not to share the content more widely, and I have to respect that. All I can say is that the proposed changes are not nearly as radical (IMHO) as some people feared.

Martyn
01-28-2011, 07:59 AM
I think that Phil has become relatively comfortable with email groups, but the Fanaticus Forum is a step beyond that. And yes, Andreas and I can never show our faces (armies?) again. But we have been asked not to share the content more widely, and I have to respect that. All I can say is that the proposed changes are not nearly as radical (IMHO) as some people feared.

Yet again, thanks Doug.

It would be nice if, as you say, the changes are not radical to have some information. The lack of that fuels the speculation that there is something horrible that we will all hate. The imagination runs wild and it gives the appearance that Phil wants to present it as a fait accompli.

I appreciate that you are not able to give any details. Hopefully Phil will oblige :rolleyes

platypus01
01-28-2011, 09:02 AM
> I don’t buy the Phil is not comfortable with fora.

Phil is absolute rubbish on any fora. He has a tendency to answer the wrong questions, or go off on a complete tangent. Never put an "aside" in any question you ask him, because he will talk about that, and not answer the actual question.

I doubt Phil could navigate his way into the Fanaticus Forum if someone showed him. Even if he wanted to!

From his point of view, DBA is his creation. He can do what he likes with it. The fact you like it just means you have good taste ;-) But Phil does listen. For example I had a great deal of input on the Inca list in the new DBMM Book IV. It took about 10 e-mails and Duncan nudging Phil a couple of times to remind him to look as suggestions. It wasn't exactly what I wanted, but most of it got in, and to be frank, some ended up better than what I suggested. You have to be patient and persistent. And not too pushy. He is getting advise, which is better than none.

I think DavidK said the right thing about 5 pages back. We went from v1 to v2 and the sky didn't fall. There is no reason to believe v3 will be any different. It just won't be _exactly_ what you wanted. If I was to predict anything, about a year after v3 comes out, you might get some pressure to do some fine tuning for a v3.1 Then we'll be set for another 8 to 10 years!!! :-)

Cheers,
JohnG

ferrency
01-28-2011, 10:16 AM
One every month or two, but planning to be finished by end of March, I hear. I'll wait breathlessly to be included.

Come on, give him a break. He has only this very narrow window to enjoy the time when he knows the rules better than you and Larry..

Alan

elsyr
01-28-2011, 11:04 AM
To get back to specifics, though, I'd not at all mind having measurements changed to multiples of base widths. I'd particularly like to see this in the context of recoils, so that base depths become to a large extent irrelevant. I can't really see the need for (or benefit of) a lot of other changes, though.

Doug

JLogan
01-28-2011, 12:49 PM
Latest gem from PB over on the DBMM list. Gotta luv it. Now why do you suppose DBA players who don't play DBMM are ill-informed.......?


The testing pool has started small and is expanding one player at a time,
starting with those that also play a lot of DBMM. This is because those
players do not have an inherent block disapproval of DBMM mechanisms being
inserted into DBA where this helps improve DBA. This enables me to sort out
snags without discussion being drowned out by the ill-informed or
prejudiced, so that a later wider test pool starts from a firm base.

Phil

winterbadger
01-28-2011, 01:33 PM
If he's only interested in people who already play DBMM buying and playing DBA, that makes perfect sense.

Which really just goes to underline my long-standing belief that he doesn't look on publishing rules as a real commercial process, but just as a hobby that bring in money.

Which makes his aversion to any sort of modern, professional presentation (copyediting to make his language accessible, layout that doesn't look like a comprehensive school term paper, graphics that make the rules easier to grasp and that might add even an iota of shelf appeal) really quite understandable. He only wants to do the bare minimum to get the rules on the street (out the door, really; gettign them as far as the street is probably too much effort...)

El' Jocko
01-28-2011, 01:46 PM
Latest gem from PB over on the DBMM list. Gotta luv it. Now why do you suppose DBA players who don't play DBMM are ill-informed.......?

The testing pool has started small and is expanding one player at a time,
starting with those that also play a lot of DBMM. This is because those
players do not have an inherent block disapproval of DBMM mechanisms being
inserted into DBA where this helps improve DBA. This enables me to sort out
snags without discussion being drowned out by the ill-informed or
prejudiced, so that a later wider test pool starts from a firm base.

I have to admit, I can actually understand Phil's reluctance to open the playtesting up to a wider audience. It appears pretty clear at this point that he's going to include some of the DBMM mechanisms in the new DBA and he doesn't want to get bogged down with the expected (in his mind) negative reaction. So he brings Andreas and Doug in to serve first as playtesters and then later on as advocates.

And while I think that there are quite a few members of the DBA community who could be trusted to fairly consider the new rules mechanisms (beyond Andreas and Doug), Phil has never been engaged with the DBA community and really has no idea at this point who he can trust. Therfore is just sticks with players that he already knows.

Personally, I don't like being closed out of the process. I think that I and the other members of WADBAG could make some valuable contributions. But overall I'm not worried about the final product. DBMM has some really good mechanisms, particularly those that make it harder to avoid contact through what Phil would call "geometric ploys". If those are included (and the massively complicated my bound/your bound combat factors/results stuff is left out) then DBA will likely be better for it.

- Jack

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 01:48 PM
I confess to some sympathy with Phil on that point - we've seen a fair bit of prejudice against DBMM-derived ideas on this forum and elsewhere.

That said, I think the medicine is worse than the disease. As DK observed, Phil's distant relationship with the DBA community is part of the reason for such prejudice.


(Remind me never to acquire fans. We often seem like more trouble than we're worth.)

El' Jocko
01-28-2011, 01:54 PM
That said, I think the medicine is worse than the disease. As DK observed, Phil's distant relationship with the DBA community is part of the reason for such prejudice.

It would be nice to see Phil here on Fanaticus, acting as an advocate for his changes. But since that's unlikely to happen, it's up to you and Doug to bring us all along. That could make getting picked for playtesting DBA 3.0 both a blessing and a curse. :)

- Jack

Martyn
01-28-2011, 02:12 PM
It would be nice to see Phil here on Fanaticus, acting as an advocate for his changes.

Phil is certainly not showing any interest in joining Fanaticus nor the YahooDBA group, so we have to approach him via the DBMM group. That will lead to even more problems as I am sure that the DBMM crowd are not going to want us blocking up their group (understandably so).

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 02:15 PM
Phil is certainly not showing any interest in joining Fanaticus nor the YahooDBA group, so we have to approach him via the DBMM group. That will lead to even more problems as I am sure that the DBMM crowd are not going to want us blocking up their group (understandably so).

One of their group policies mentions that people and posts can be kicked off for discussing non-DBMM games, or something like that. But who will enforce that against Phil, if Phil talks about DBA there? :D

Martyn
01-28-2011, 02:28 PM
One of their group policies mentions that people and posts can be kicked off for discussing non-DBMM games, or something like that. But who will enforce that against Phil, if Phil talks about DBA there? :D

Maybe that will force him to join a DBA group.

Probably not, more likely to stop talking to anybody.:rolleyes

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 02:47 PM
It would be nice to see Phil here on Fanaticus, acting as an advocate for his changes. But since that's unlikely to happen, it's up to you and Doug to bring us all along.
Two problems with that - Phil doesn't want us to disclose what those changes are, and we don't necessarily like them.

JLogan
01-28-2011, 02:58 PM
I confess to some sympathy with Phil on that point - we've seen a fair bit of prejudice against DBMM-derived ideas on this forum and elsewhere.



Actually Andreas, whilst I greatly respect your comments on this forum and the DBMM list, I think this is a bit unfair to this forum.

I would characterize the comments here to date as a request to PB not to assume that just because some (innovative, IMO) DBMM-derived idea's seem to work well for DBMM, that they will transfer to DBA. That is, unless fully thought through and tested, by players who play a lot of DBA and have some passon for it; of which there are plenty on this forum (including yourself). I doubt many here, if invited to be involved, would be prejudiced in their approach to considering and testing them.

I'm very reassured that at least you (and Doug) are involved; it's just baffling that a wider DBA community is not (yet). I would argue to PB that the best playtesters for any DBMM-derived idea's that he may be considering for DBA may be DBA players who have no knowledge of them from DBMM and so have no preconceived idea's on how they should work - or don't work.

Personally, I'm less interested in the innovative idea's that may be introduced; but more so in clarifying/fixing existing ambiguities; especially around BWD/ZOC.

John

david kuijt
01-28-2011, 03:12 PM
we've seen a fair bit of prejudice against DBMM-derived ideas on this forum and elsewhere.


It is difficult to separate out anti-DBMM (rules) prejudice from the adversarial environment created here by Phil's statements (dissing DBA players and this forum) on the DBMM list.

Phil is going to have to deal with reactions to 3.0 from the DBA players eventually. His choices seem to indicate he would prefer to have to face an angry mob at Historicon, rather than waste his time with communication in advance.

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 03:23 PM
His choices seem to indicate he would prefer to have to face an angry mob at Historicon, rather than waste his time with communication in advance.

Since I'll be flying up, and they aren't allowed in carry-on luggage, I will need one of the locals to bring along an extra pitchfork for me.

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 03:35 PM
Phil is certainly not showing any interest in joining Fanaticus nor the YahooDBA group, so we have to approach him via the DBMM group. That will lead to even more problems as I am sure that the DBMM crowd are not going to want us blocking up their group (understandably so).

Then tell them to make Phil discuss DBA somewhere else and I will go there to respond.

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 03:40 PM
I think this is a bit unfair to this forum.

I would characterize the comments here to date as a request to PB not to assume that just because some (innovative, IMO) DBMM-derived idea's seem to work well for DBMM, that they will transfer to DBA. That is, unless fully thought through and tested, by players who play a lot of DBA and have some passon for it; of which there are plenty on this forum (including yourself).

There has been a number of posts here that I would characterize as going way beyond this. I would prefer not to name names, however, and further characterization in the abstract is unlikely to get us anywhere. Let me instead emphasize I think there's been plenty of constructive comments too.

[snip]

I would argue to PB that the best playtesters for any DBMM-derived idea's that he may be considering for DBA may be DBA players who have no knowledge of them from DBMM and so have no preconceived idea's on how they should work - or don't work.

I agree wholeheartedly on this. Unfortunately, Phil, for reasons I can partly understand, doesn't.

winterbadger
01-28-2011, 03:51 PM
Since I'll be flying up, and they aren't allowed in carry-on luggage, I will need one of the locals to bring along an extra pitchfork for me.

Lancaster is still farming country (a bit). Should be easy to source pitchforks locally. :D

winterbadger
01-28-2011, 03:58 PM
I would characterize the comments here to date as a request to PB not to assume that just because some (innovative, IMO) DBMM-derived ideas seem to work well for DBMM, that they will transfer to DBA.

There have been a number of posts here that I would characterize as going way beyond this.

I certainly had no hesitation in saying that I think the X-ray ZOC idea is tosh. But that's not because it came from DBMM; it's because it strikes me as nonsensical.

Personally, I'm less interested in the innovative ideas that may be introduced but more so in clarifying/fixing existing ambiguities, especially around BWD/ZOC.

I agree. Given where DBA is now, I don't really see the need to make wholesale changes for the sake of change; I'd far rather that a few things were tweaked and clarified. And for the most part, that's what I've seen here when people talk about what they'd like to see in 3.0: clarifications and a few pet changes, not entirely revamping sections of the rules.

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 04:01 PM
Since I'll be flying up, and they aren't allowed in carry-on luggage, I will need one of the locals to bring along an extra pitchfork for me.

I'm driving up, I could bring torches and pitchforks!

Andreas Johansson
01-28-2011, 04:07 PM
I certainly had no hesitation in saying that I think the X-ray ZOC idea is tosh. But that's not because it came from DBMM; it's because it strikes me as nonsensical.
Not a post a recall reading of, so a forteriori not one of those I was thinking of.

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 04:09 PM
It would be really nice if some of the things that have been debated endlessly on this forum were given consideration for being included in DBA 3....... fixing rivers and BUAs, 30" board option, terrain adjusment rules, rolling carpet zoc, etc...

I just have this vision of DBA3 being rolled out with none of the changes that most DBA people agree would be good not being included and a bunch of DBMM inspired dramtic changes being included because Phil thinks they are improvements whether they really are or not(especially if the factor that makes them an improvement is just so they conform to DBMM rather than them being an improvement to DBA). Hope that isn't what happens.

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 04:19 PM
It would be really nice if some of the things that have been debated endlessly on this forum were given consideration for being included in DBA 3....... fixing rivers and BUAs, 30" board option, terrain adjusment rules, rolling carpet zoc, etc...

I just have this vision of DBA3 being rolled out with none of the changes that most DBA people agree would be good not being included and a bunch of DBMM inspired dramtic changes being included because Phil thinks they are improvements whether they really are or not(especially if the factor that makes them an improvement is just so they conform to DBMM rather than them being an improvement to DBA). Hope that isn't what happens.

About the only thing that keeps me optimistic, is that if we don't like it we will keep playing 2.2 and or/ammend it to 2.3.

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 04:32 PM
About the only thing that keeps me optimistic, is that if we don't like it we will keep playing 2.2 and or/ammend it to 2.3.

Hope it doesn't come to that............

Rome
01-28-2011, 04:38 PM
That is the key to all this folks. We as a community are under no obligation to use rules version 3.0 if we choose not to. Let us wait and see what shakes out. Indications are that by Historicon this summer we will see DBA 3.0.

Tony Aguilar
01-28-2011, 04:56 PM
That is the key to all this folks. We as a community are under no obligation to use rules version 3.0 if we choose not to. Let us wait and see what shakes out. Indications are that by Historicon this summer we will see DBA 3.0.

Yep, if we didn't like 2.2 to begin with, we wouldn't have devoted countless hours playing the game, building the armies and posting here on this forum. :)

platypus01
01-28-2011, 05:52 PM
Yep, if we didn't like 2.2 to begin with, we wouldn't have devoted countless hours playing the game, building the armies and posting here on this forum. :)

Which is pretty much the entire point! :up

Fans of a game are the worst ones to be involved in changing it. I was in on the process of the development of Chipco's Days of Knights II, and it ended in bitter acrimony. They wanted DoK v1.1, not v2. Same here. Most people want DBA v2.3, not v3. Or at least they want a v3 which resembles v2 in a number of (different depending on the person) ways. Pretty much every DoK player who tried DoK II hated it. Because it wasn't DoK I. Exactly the same with DBM to DBMM.

Phil is a rules developer. He has said that what he wants to do is produce the best set(s) of ancient rules that are possible. Over the last decade Phil has had many new ideas which have been incorporated in DBMM, which were initially developed from DBR and the still draft HFG. These are things he is convinced are improvements to the mechanisms now in DBA. You'd be mad not to realise he wants to try and use them for v3. There is no conspiracy to get DBA players to play DBMM. Sue plays DBA, not DBMM.

The playtesters are people he trusts, and some (like Andreas and Doug) have a track record of being open-minded and (like Andreas and Doug), damn good DBA players. I trust them as well. Eventually we will see the rules and make a decision. Yes this is the internet and you'll speculate and invent perceived problems, Still doesn't change the fact you're wasting your time. Me, I should be mowing the lawn. So I'll go now. :)

Cheers,
JohnG

winterbadger
01-28-2011, 05:56 PM
About the only thing that keeps me optimistic, is that if we don't like it we will keep playing 2.2 and or/ammend it to 2.3.

Yeah, myself I'm not betting the farm on that. My impression from other game systems is that if a new edition comes out, there's huge social pressure to just buy it and adjust, no matter whether the consensus is that it's an improvement or not. And that when opinion is so strongly split that that doesn't happen, the factionalization of the fan base ends up killing its popularity. :(

Hey, where did this half-empty glass come from? :rolleyes

Doug
01-28-2011, 07:10 PM
Then tell them to make Phil discuss DBA somewhere else and I will go there to respond.

I wouldn't worry - the list has been very quiet of late - with Book 4 out now, and the latest iteration out and being extensively played, the DBMM list is as good as any other forum .. and if you are questioned - just tell them you want to ensure that DBA3 is better entry set for DBMM... ;-)

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 07:46 PM
I wouldn't worry - the list has been very quiet of late - with Book 4 out now, and the latest iteration out and being extensively played, the DBMM list is as good as any other forum .. and if you are questioned - just tell them you want to ensure that DBA3 is better entry set for DBMM... ;-)

I've posted about DBA on the DBMM list and DBA-RRR on the DBR list and never had any problem so I imagine it won't be an issue unless we flood the group with messages not responding to Phil.

Doug
01-28-2011, 07:52 PM
I've posted about DBA on the DBMM list and DBA-RRR on the DBR list and never had any problem so I imagine it won't be an issue unless we flood the group with messages not responding to Phil.

A note of caution, Phil doesn't respond well to 'badgering'. He tends to shut up shop and go elsewhere for advice and input.

Rich Gause
01-28-2011, 08:48 PM
Maybe if we could nominate 1 person to be the spokesperson for the Fanaticus community to represent us to Phil for DBA 3.0 issues it would allow us to debate and discuss the changes here out of Phils sight so he wouldn't be overwhelmed or badgered but we would still have some imput and if Phil knew that the spokesman was representing a lot of other people he wouldn't have to worry that it was just one guy trying to advance his own crazy ideas........

I would nominate David Kuijt.

I doubt there is anybody who understands DBA better who has put as much thought into the game and who is as well known and respected on Fanaticus.

Phil would have to let him in to the process of course and allow him to discuss things here also.

JLogan
01-28-2011, 08:52 PM
Phil doesn't respond well to 'badgering'. He tends to shut up shop and go elsewhere for advice and input.

And apparently he also tends to do this whether he's been badgered or not..................

John

JLogan
01-28-2011, 09:07 PM
Maybe if we could nominate 1 person to be the spokesperson for the Fanaticus community to represent us to Phil for DBA 3.0 issues ........I would nominate David Kuijt.

Phil would have to let him in to the process of course and allow him to discuss things here also.

I believe DK has already long ago offered his services and so far heard nothing (?). Similarly, PB noted on the DBMM list (and somewhat patronizingly I thought) that he would, at a later date, update Bob Beattie. Both these great advocates of DBA are specifically mentioned in the DBA 2.2 rulebook as deserving of much thanks for their part in the development/testing process of DBA 2. So they have a track record with PB; you would think he would have turned to them already for DBA 3.

John

Pavane
01-28-2011, 10:26 PM
I'm not too worried about the board size in 3.0. If it is less than 30" then we will just continue on with 30". If it is marginally larger then we will continue to play on 30". We have a physical constraint with the width of banquet tables at conventions. I am hoping that PB will continue with offering a range of acceptable board sizes as he has done with DBMM, and 30" fits in the middle.

Moosehead
02-20-2011, 03:04 AM
When are the rules due out?

Doug
02-20-2011, 03:36 AM
Phil has said early this year, but it seems unlikely we will see them much before June (if then).

Chris Brantley
02-20-2011, 02:11 PM
I think the goal is to have DBA 3.0 in print and available through vendors at Historicon 2011, which is set for 7-11 July. Could be earlier...but I recall Phil noting that his goal was to have it available at the Con (which he was planning to attend.

Bobgnar
02-20-2011, 03:36 PM
In another context, Phil wrote that he is not coming to Historicon as it conflicts with the Conference of Wargamers at which he is doing an event. He might come to Fall in.

He has also written on the HFG group that he plans to bring this to publication very soon, wrapping up loose ends now. Lets hope that there will be more study of DBA 3 than possible for release before Historicon, as that might mean going to press in May. Then we can have some play testing at Historicon, with publication before Fall in.

Chris Brantley
02-20-2011, 04:39 PM
Congress of Wargamers is indeed July 11...so I'm sure Bob's got the latest word correctly. I wonder what he is presenting at COW, which is supposedly a forum for testing out new and innovative rules, although from last year's program I see he ran a colorful British colonial game set in Afghanistan.

To be honest, I'd hate to be Phil and have to deal with a room full of confused and perhaps unhappy DBAers at Historicon. Better to publish, let the issues sort themselves out, decide what needs fixing, and come to Fall In with good news on DBA 3.0 amendments.

kontos
02-20-2011, 04:42 PM
Congress of Wargamers is indeed July 11...so I'm sure Bob's got the latest word correctly. I wonder what he is presenting at COW, which is supposedly a forum for testing out new and innovative rules, although from last year's program I see he ran a colorful British colonial game set in Afghanistan.

To be honest, I'd hate to be Phil and have to deal with a room full of confused and perhaps unhappy DBAers at Historicon. Better to publish, let the issues sort themselves out, decide what needs fixing, and come to Fall In with good news on DBA 3.0 amendments.

For a brief period I'd love to be Phil. Then we can make the changes we would like to see in DBA 3.1! :D

peleset
02-20-2011, 06:44 PM
Obviously people have great faith in the level of play testing since they believe DBA 3.0 will be released immediately followed by ammendments.

ferrency
02-20-2011, 07:05 PM
Obviously people have great faith in the level of play testing since they believe DBA 3.0 will be released immediately followed by amendments.

I think the unsarcastic great faith here is that problems will be fixed once detected by the greater population...

Alan

Doug
02-20-2011, 07:40 PM
For a brief period I'd love to be Phil. Then we can make the changes we would like to see in DBA 3.1! :D

That would be the Royal 'We' would it? Let's face it, the chances of getting a sizeable group of wargamers to agree on anything is nil.

As usual with the next iteration there will be several groups. - the 'everything is fine, don't change anything except this minor personal bugbear' group. The 'let's see some real change, and here's how it should be, based on my reading of 5 ospreys and the internet' group. And with all DBx rules, a group who play more than one set and can't see why the minor inconsistencies between DBA, HOTT, DBR, DBM, DBMM etc.. or want mechanics from one set they like, transposed to another.

I think all of them will be mildly unhappy, and mildly happy at the same time.

winterbadger
02-21-2011, 12:57 AM
That would be the Royal 'We' would it? Let's face it, the chances of getting a sizeable group of wargamers to agree on anything is nil.

Depends what you call sizable. The 30" boards are pretty commonly accepted by what I would call a sizable group of players, other innovations like axing the LH QK on Sp or limiting dismounting to first bound only by smaller but still considerable groups. Playing *without* the use of BUAs is even more widespread, despite not having the sort of active advocacy some of the other changes do.

Doug
02-21-2011, 01:51 AM
Fair point, although I suspect you will find sizeable groups playing all sorts of variations. The trick is to get Phil to see it your way.

I wont comment on the review and play-test process directly, but I will say that both DK and Bob have offered lots of excellent playtest results and feedback. So the process is working. The question, as always, is how much attention Phil will pay.

Bobgnar
02-21-2011, 02:13 PM
Snip
The question, as always, is how much attention Phil will pay.

So true, wonder what he will accept!

Rich Gause
02-21-2011, 03:03 PM
That would be the Royal 'We' would it? Let's face it, the chances of getting a sizeable group of wargamers to agree on anything is nil.

As usual with the next iteration there will be several groups. - the 'everything is fine, don't change anything except this minor personal bugbear' group. The 'let's see some real change, and here's how it should be, based on my reading of 5 ospreys and the internet' group. And with all DBx rules, a group who play more than one set and can't see why the minor inconsistencies between DBA, HOTT, DBR, DBM, DBMM etc.. or want mechanics from one set they like, transposed to another.

I think all of them will be mildly unhappy, and mildly happy at the same time.

There is a pretty wide consensus amongst the DBA community on Fanaticus that there are certain issues that need fixing. There should be an option for larger (like 30" boards), BUAs and rivers need to be fixed, dismounting elements need to be fixed. Other than that the rules could be a little more clearly written to fall into line with the rule intrerpretations spelled out more clearly in the "Unofficial Guide". There are other areas that have varying degrees of support from variable parts of the DBA community like removing some LH quick kills or adding DK's terrain adjustment rule. I have no objection to importing game mechanic ideas from other DB_ games if they are superior to the current ones for the game of DBA as opposed to just having conformity for its own sake.

Rich Gause
02-21-2011, 03:22 PM
So true, wonder what he will accept!

If Phil were to make any changes that both Bob and David agree to and not make any changes that they both thought were bad then I don't see how 3.0 wouldn't be an improvement over 2.2. I don't know Andreas and Doug but hopefully they are telling Phil the same things. If Phil has an open mind it should turn out OK if he listens to his playtesters. If he has a bad idea that he wants to see part of the game no matter what anybody says then it could be a problem.

Rich Gause
02-21-2011, 03:34 PM
Fair point, although I suspect you will find sizeable groups playing all sorts of variations. The trick is to get Phil to see it your way.

I wont comment on the review and play-test process directly, but I will say that both DK and Bob have offered lots of excellent playtest results and feedback. So the process is working. The question, as always, is how much attention Phil will pay.

The goal IMO would be to have a final product that works as written as a tournament set. Anybody playing the game outside a competitive tournament can easily make whatever house rules they like to fix whatever issue they want.

kontos
02-21-2011, 03:59 PM
The goal IMO would be to have a final product that works as written as a tournament set. Anybody playing the game outside a competitive tournament can easily make whatever house rules they like to fix whatever issue they want.

The whole premise for a set of rules, Rich, is we shouldn't have to deviate with house rules. You tend to get comfortable with the way you play locally and then, bam, you have to change your style of play to suit the tournament. Variant rules for a specific scenario is one thing; copious house rules throughout the world are another. Let the rules be stand alone and well tested for the community to play with as is.

winterbadger
02-21-2011, 04:21 PM
The whole premise for a set of rules, Rich, is we shouldn't have to deviate with house rules. You tend to get comfortable with the way you play locally and then, bam, you have to change your style of play to suit the tournament. Variant rules for a specific scenario is one thing; copious house rules throughout the world are another. Let the rules be stand alone and well tested for the community to play with as is.

Yeah, I'd really rather they not be exclusively tournament-focused. That could easily lead to DBA devolving into points lists and cheese.

Rich Gause
02-21-2011, 04:42 PM
The whole premise for a set of rules, Rich, is we shouldn't have to deviate with house rules. You tend to get comfortable with the way you play locally and then, bam, you have to change your style of play to suit the tournament. Variant rules for a specific scenario is one thing; copious house rules throughout the world are another. Let the rules be stand alone and well tested for the community to play with as is.

I agree with that. I was mainly referring to extra details that are more appropriate to a specific campaign, scenario, or tournament. That is where it is entirely appropriate to have special rules not part of the regular rules. A competitve game of DBA should play the same most anywhere in an ideal world and the rules should be written well enough(without bad BUA and river rules) and with some options (like board size, and terrain adjustment rules) built in so that people don't need to use house rules like lots of us do now.

david kuijt
02-21-2011, 04:44 PM
Yeah, I'd really rather they not be exclusively tournament-focused. That could easily lead to DBA devolving into points lists and cheese.

You might be reading some things into "tournament-focused" that aren't really there, Jan.

Why is DBA the preeminent tournament ancients game right now, at least in the conventions run on the North American continent? Because it is fast and enjoyable -- you can run a whole tournament in a four or five hour timeslot. A single-day convention usually has two or three tournaments or campaigns (which are, in essence, tournaments with an eccentric system for determining matchups from round to round); a longer convention has multiple different tournaments (six or eight in many cases).

Nothing about the above requires, or even moves toward, points lists and cheese. All it requires is a fast-play enjoyable game with a lot of variety; on that framework everything depends.

Hypercompetitiveness is a problem in any game, whether it is fast-play or not, whether it is enjoyable or not. Whether it is in a tournament or not. Some of the worst examples of reprehensible behavior I've seen have not been in a tournament at all, but in a "friendly" game where you would expect nothing of the sort. The fact of the matter is this: jerks are jerks, whether you play them at your home or at a convention, whether you play them with nothing at stake (a "friendly" game) or whether you play them in a tournament with the massive glory of being "Littoral Landing Tournament for Cold Wars 2011 World Champion" on the line.

Rich Gause
02-21-2011, 04:44 PM
Yeah, I'd really rather they not be exclusively tournament-focused. That could easily lead to DBA devolving into points lists and cheese.

I really doubt we will have points lists as at that point we would be playing DBMM 100. Heck some DBA armies would cost more than 100 points in DBMM.

winterbadger
02-21-2011, 05:00 PM
Hypercompetitiveness is a problem in any game, whether it is fast-play or not, whether it is enjoyable or not. Whether it is in a tournament or not. Some of the worst examples of reprehensible behavior I've seen have not been in a tournament at all, but in a "friendly" game where you would expect nothing of the sort. The fact of the matter is this: jerks are jerks, whether you play them at your home or at a convention, whether you play them with nothing at stake (a "friendly" game) or whether you play them in a tournament with the massive glory of being "Littoral Landing Tournament for Cold Wars 2011 World Champion" on the line.

True, but the lure of a title seems to bring the jerks out in force. I've seen more hypercompetitiveness and dealt with more people that I will never voluntarily play again in DBA tournaments than I have in club games.

I come out and play at the HMGS events precisely because I know and like many of the regular players (you, David S, Chris, Jack, and Frank) from local club play and am willing to put up with the occasional jerks that appear on the off-chance that I'll also meet more cool guys (like those crazies from Pittsburgh :) who I wouldn't otherwise encounter.

Yes, I'm probably overreacting (as I think Rich may have been overreacting to some of the recent conversations about house rules that I beleive he thought were intended to be about actual rules changes). But sentences that suggest that the game should be all about tournament play and consign historical concerns to irrelevancy have that sort of galvanic effect on me.

pawsBill
02-21-2011, 06:10 PM
Fair point, although I suspect you will find sizeable groups playing all sorts of variations. The trick is to get Phil to see it your way.

I wont comment on the review and play-test process directly, but I will say that both DK and Bob have offered lots of excellent playtest results and feedback. So the process is working. The question, as always, is how much attention Phil will pay.

Based on my DBR, DBMM & HFG experience, Phil does listen to playtest results and most reasoned argument. However, if there is too much noise, the signal can get lost and in general he is more likely to go for the historical option rather than the better gameplay option if faced with a mutually exclusive choice (though not always).

Lobotomy
02-21-2011, 09:56 PM
To be honest, I'd hate to be Phil and have to deal with a room full of confused and perhaps unhappy DBAers at Historicon. Better to publish, let the issues sort themselves out, decide what needs fixing, and come to Fall In with good news on DBA 3.0 amendments.

See, this is why Historicon this year is a problem. There will not be sufficient time to play-test, modify, play-test some more, modify and publish. Each change can have a significant impact. The thing I do not understand is why Phil is in such a hurry since he seems to only have started about 2 - 3 months ago. Writing rules, even modifying these, should not be on such a short time line, IMHO.

ferrency
02-21-2011, 10:13 PM
See, this is why Historicon this year is a problem. There will not be sufficient time to play-test, modify, play-test some more, modify and publish. Each change can have a significant impact.

Let's start a betting pool. Which happens first?


Phil brings DBA 3 to an HMGS convention
HMGS implodes and there aren't any more conventions


Alan

winterbadger
02-21-2011, 10:14 PM
Let's start a betting pool. Which happens first?


Phil brings DBA 3 to an HMGS convention
HMGS implodes and there aren't any more conventions


Alan

Wooo! :eek Now that's a tough bet. :??? But they way things are going, I'll lay odds on #2. :rolleyes

Doug
02-21-2011, 11:33 PM
Neither.

Phil will develop DBA 3 to the point he is happy, and will release. The released version will have just enough changes from the release candidate version to catch all the playtesters off-guard. There will be immediate screams and moans from 80% of the population, then 95% of these will settle down to play the new version. It will be like the Curate's egg.. good in parts, and people will get over the bits they don't like, while the 5% drift off to play a revised version of 2.2 written by WADBAG brother, and which none ever finally agree with, until eventually their multiple splinter groups die off amidst cries of idealogical purity, with most slinking back to play DBA 3.1

Rich Gause
02-21-2011, 11:44 PM
Neither.

Phil will develop DBA 3 to the point he is happy, and will release. The released version will have just enough changes from the release candidate version to catch all the playtesters off-guard. There will be immediate screams and moans from 80% of the population, then 95% of these will settle down to play the new version. It will be like the Curate's egg.. good in parts, and people will get over the bits they don't like, while the 5% drift off to play a revised version of 2.2 written by WADBAG brother, and which none ever finally agree with, until eventually their multiple splinter groups die off amidst cries of idealogical purity, with most slinking back to play DBA 3.1

It would have to be pretty bad for WADBAG to write their own revision of 2.2.

Rich Gause
02-21-2011, 11:47 PM
Based on my DBR, DBMM & HFG experience, Phil does listen to playtest results and most reasoned argument. However, if there is too much noise, the signal can get lost and in general he is more likely to go for the historical option rather than the better gameplay option if faced with a mutually exclusive choice (though not always).

That is the most encouraging thing I have heard about 3.0. With the playtesters he has being sure to give him reasoned arguments against any bad ideas and there surely can't be too much noise with around 4 of them.

winterbadger
02-22-2011, 12:11 AM
Neither.

Phil will develop DBA 3 to the point he is happy, and will release. The released version will have just enough changes from the release candidate version to catch all the playtesters off-guard. There will be immediate screams and moans from 80% of the population, then 95% of these will settle down to play the new version. It will be like the Curate's egg.. good in parts, and people will get over the bits they don't like, while the 5% drift off to play a revised version of 2.2 written by WADBAG brother, and which none ever finally agree with, until eventually their multiple splinter groups die off amidst cries of idealogical purity, with most slinking back to play DBA 3.1

Gee, bitter and cynical much? :rolleyes

david kuijt
02-22-2011, 01:55 AM
... until eventually their multiple splinter groups die off amidst cries of idealogical purity, with most slinking back to play DBA 3.1

Maybe, maybe not. Happened that way (minus the slam on WADBAG) with 2.0, but didn't happen that way with DBMM. DBM had a large US following; the upset and furor didn't involve most of them slinking back to DBMM. DBMM on this side of the pond is moribund.

pozanias
02-22-2011, 09:52 AM
Neither.

Phil will develop DBA 3 to the point he is happy, and will release. The released version will have just enough changes from the release candidate version to catch all the playtesters off-guard. There will be immediate screams and moans from 80% of the population, then 95% of these will settle down to play the new version. It will be like the Curate's egg.. good in parts, and people will get over the bits they don't like, while the 5% drift off to play a revised version of 2.2 written by WADBAG brother, and which none ever finally agree with, until eventually their multiple splinter groups die off amidst cries of idealogical purity, with most slinking back to play DBA 3.1

I'm not so sure this is how things will play out. I agree with the first two sentences, but I think everything else will depend on the quality of 3.0.

And as a side note, my recollection is that WADBAG have always been a champion of each new version. Facilitating acceptance and promoting the rules to new players. So, I agree with Rich that the new version will have to be pretty bad for them to jump ship. I'm keeping an open mind. In fact, I think I would be excited about a radically different version as long as it works, but I haven't been encouraged by the things I have heard so far. But its still early days...

David Brown
02-22-2011, 07:25 PM
I'm relaxed about DBA3

I figure the system is robust and elegant, the only way PB could do real damage is by intruducing a battery of your-bound my-bound effects, perhaps with more conditional quick-kills.

Even then it will probably still be playable.

He could do minor damage by cooking up an unbalanced terrain system.

I reckon the (known) playtesters can be relied upon to stop PB driving off a cliff.

I assume a draft will appear in good time and I'll comment then.

Regards

DAvid B

Hannibal Ad Portas
02-22-2011, 09:31 PM
My take on the coming changes are based on convention DBA games against Phil. What seemed to bother him the most about the game as it is played now was the use of "gamey" tactics and geometry. In my game against Phil, I advanced my line and as contact grew near, I went into an echelon attack to the right. I had favorable match-ups on that flank and sought to have the combat begin there. Phil wanted to flank my advancing right, but I used units stepped back to the left to prevent him from closing the door. All legal moves and quite common in DBA gaming....but Phil didn't like it. Nothing prevented him from reacting in some fashion to foil my plans...but I think Phil just prefers battle lines plodding into straight contact. To be fair, that was quite common in ancient combat. I also believe DBMM mechanics prevent the use of bendy lines as a viable tactic by having a stand contacted at any point forced to conform with an advancing group (This I see as a good fix. Echelon attacks in DBA seem to mirror actual maneuvers, but the bendy line is just straight cheese...yes such a line isn't sound and can be beat...with PIP's and time....often at a premium in a tournament game with a time limit...especially in BBDBA when one of your commands has broken and the bendy line prevents you from breaking your opponents' CinC group). I also seem to recall DBMM similarly penalizing a line with one kink in it...pulling part of that line into contact with consequent overlap penalties.

ferrency
02-22-2011, 09:56 PM
I think Phil just prefers battle lines plodding into straight contact.
Gag.

No wonder light horse are crippled, unlike their historical counterparts, and boards are only 24" wide.

To be fair, that was quite common in ancient combat.
Yeah, that's pretty much all Alexander ever did. Oh, except for the mounted wing, which he always used to either outflank the enemy or bend its line before charging into a gap... but then again, Alexander was always pretty gamey and cheesy anyway :rolleyes

I also believe DBMM mechanics prevent the use of bendy lines as a viable tactic by having a stand contacted at any point forced to conform with an advancing group
I have no problem with this in principle, it seems to work fine in HOTT and with LH/Ps in DBA.

Alan

Hannibal Ad Portas
02-24-2011, 01:18 AM
Oh Alan...I do agree that the DBMM mechanics to penalize bendy lines is a good change. I also agree that echelon maneuvers (a favorite of Alexander, by the way, and it surely inspired me!) and other such strategies are fully supported by historical occurrences, but I think it is fair to say that plodding battle lines often engaged with combat without much maneuvering. I don't prefer that strategy myself, but I can't say it didn't happen.

Tony Aguilar
02-24-2011, 06:28 AM
It seems to me, at least from what I have seen so far, that the changes in 3.0 might make an army such as the Mongols less effective than they already are in 2.2. Increasing the mobility of the footsloggers relative to the mounted elements along with keeping the same boardsize is IMO a step to correcting problems in the wrong direction.

winterbadger
02-24-2011, 07:48 AM
It seems to me, at least from what I have seen so far, that the changes in 3.0 might make an army such as the Mongols less effective than they already are in 2.2. Increasing the mobility of the footsloggers relative to the mounted elements along with keeping the same boardsize is IMO a step to correcting problems in the wrong direction.

Well, that would accord with past changes in regard to mobile armies. :rolleyes

C'mon, Tony, it's not like the Mongols made use of that vaunted mobility in combat. They just moved really fast from one battle to another and then plodded about slowly within them. :silly

David Constable
02-24-2011, 08:06 AM
It seems to me, at least from what I have seen so far, that the changes in 3.0 might make an army such as the Mongols less effective than they already are in 2.2. Increasing the mobility of the footsloggers relative to the mounted elements along with keeping the same boardsize is IMO a step to correcting problems in the wrong direction.

I suspect that even with a 24" board that having about four (4) elements that are faster than your opponents (LH, LCh, Cv) might be very useful, and four LH would be good. I fancy LCh//Sp against the opponents camp.

David Constable

ferrency
02-24-2011, 11:13 AM
I suspect that even with a 24" board that having about four (4) elements that are faster than your opponents (LH, LCh, Cv) might be very useful, and four LH would be good. I fancy LCh//Sp against the opponents camp.

Yes, 4 light horse are definitely useful. But that's not the same thing as accurately reflecting the historical effects of the Mongol, Skythian, and Hun horse archer armies. These are high aggression, (essentially) monotype Light Horse armies who crushed their enemies historically, but are not very good in DBA even against their historical enemies.

Alan

David Constable
02-24-2011, 11:41 AM
Yes, 4 light horse are definitely useful. But that's not the same thing as accurately reflecting the historical effects of the Mongol, Skythian, and Hun horse archer armies. These are high aggression, (essentially) monotype Light Horse armies who crushed their enemies historically, but are not very good in DBA even against their historical enemies.

Alan

Yes, both Ps and LH do not work properly, probably needs LF to shoot at 100 paces to work.
Ps rear support in all armies is again wrong, needs variant of element types to make work.

David Constable

Stephen Webb
02-24-2011, 05:59 PM
I think Mongols and such would be better served by a list such as 12 x Cv or LH.

ferrency
02-24-2011, 06:10 PM
I think Mongols and such would be better served by a list such as 12 x Cv or LH.

That's a fine workaround to help make an army list more competitive, but it doesn't fix LH :)

Horse archers didn't stand in a straight line and contact the enemy frontally, which is the primary tactic supported by 24" boards.

john meunier
02-24-2011, 07:37 PM
Most times this argument comes up people point out that the Mongols and others "crushed" their enemies based on strategic factors rather than victories in field battles.

kontos
02-24-2011, 08:06 PM
Most times this argument comes up people point out that the Mongols and others "crushed" their enemies based on strategic factors rather than victories in field battles.

But they had many field victories as well and against heavily armed knights - both mounted and dismounted. ;)

ferrency
02-24-2011, 11:02 PM
Most times this argument comes up people point out that the Mongols and others "crushed" their enemies based on strategic factors rather than victories in field battles.

If that is the case, which I'm not going to argue either way, then what are some strategic factors or effects that could be modified in DBA to make strategically maneuverable, high aggression armies perform more closely to their historical counterparts?


terrain selection
board edge selection
deployment order
deployment zone size and location
deployment and defender element swaps
littoral landings and/or flank marches


I don't list board size, because it's a totally artificial game effect and not a strategic factor; but clearly, LH armies can benefit from more open space on the flanks.

As an example of my last bullet point above:

I played in a themed event that allowed Mongol Conquest to perform a flanking maneuver. This was implemented as a Littoral landing, but only on the flank edges (not the rear). In the few games I used this in, it worked very well; though, I didn't actually win any of those games. It was not overpowering, because the flanking force had to be out of command distance if you wanted it to be far enough to be effective without telegraphing your punch (deploying a general on one side instead of centrally).

In actual play, it seemed to have a few effects. Since Mongols almost always attack, it caused one defender to change their deployment since they weren't sure which side might be sending in a flanking force.

If a defender deploys to defend their flanks, the Mongols wouldn't have to flank, which would start the defender off on uneven footing frontally. If the defender didn't protect their flank, then the flank march could be attempted, but a full landing force of 4 elements can also be isolated and lose the game.

In this case, the 30" boards helped prevent the flank march from being overpowering, by putting the flank forces farther away from their general, and by allowing more turns between placing the flanking force and contact with the enemy's flank.

It would require more playtesting, but overall I think it did a very good job making strategically high-aggression but highly maneuverable forces work more historically accurately, without changing any rules of combat. Adding this rule to strategically maneuverable armies and removing the LH quick kill on Sp/Pk would make these armies feel a lot more like their historical counterparts.

Also note that LH Monotype may not be the only strategically maneuverable armies; and not all LH armies may warrant this distinction. It depends on what history tells us.


Alan

john meunier
02-24-2011, 11:22 PM
It would require more playtesting, but overall I think it did a very good job making strategically high-aggression but highly maneuverable forces work more historically accurately, without changing any rules of combat. Adding this rule to strategically maneuverable armies and removing the LH quick kill on Sp/Pk would make these armies feel a lot more like their historical counterparts.



I'm all for flank marches. I think they make much more sense than the silly littoral landing rules.

I'd like them for Hannibal, too, but that's getting pretty list specific.

kontos
02-24-2011, 11:26 PM
A die roll equal to or less than your AGG could be a tool to see if you can flank maneuver. While there are exceptions, this was used by aggressive armies so tie it into that. I would also add that only mounted troop types may use the flank attack rule. Just a thought.

Rich Gause
02-24-2011, 11:27 PM
A die roll equal to or less than your AGG could be a tool to see if you can flank maneuver. While there are exceptions, this was used by aggressive armies so tie it into that. I would also add that only mounted troop types may use the flank attack rule. Just a thought.

That is kind of a neat idea..............

winterbadger
02-25-2011, 12:58 AM
Most times this argument comes up people point out that the Mongols and others "crushed" their enemies based on strategic factors rather than victories in field battles.

I've heard people make that argument about the Romans, but I don't agree with it even there (the Romans crushed their enemies strategically *and* on the battlefield), but I've not heard it made with regard to the Mongols, and I can't say I think it's a very defensible argument. The Mongols were a highly effective battlefield army. It may be hard for DBA to replicate their successes without very specialised rules, because they were IMO a uniquely disciplined army for their period, but they tended to destroy their enemies in combat and in sieges as well as operationally and strategically.

Doug
02-25-2011, 03:32 AM
IMO the problem with Mongols, and some other armies, is that they are outliers in the statistical curve.

To make them as effective as their historical counterparts given the very blunt instrument of the limited range of troop types in DBA is to give all LH the same abilities. To some extent the same is true of massed longbowmen. They are just so much more effective historically than other massed bow.

Now if you want to make them work, you either need to give some of a troop type a range of special abilities or you risk crazy effects like turning the peasant bow in other armies into superkillers, or the venetian mounted crossbowmen into the major part of the army.

Given that DBA is (and shouldn't) be as complex as other systems that use special rules and gradings for specific armies, then we will always be using elements that are representative of the 'average' of their type. It is a necessary compromise for the game to work as well as it does.

On the subject of flank marches, I have suggested this to Phil, and received some support from other playtesters, but Phil (as is his right) will make his own mind up.

nick hux
02-25-2011, 03:55 AM
IMO the problem with Mongols, and some other armies, is that they are outliers in the statistical curve.

To make them as effective as their historical counterparts given the very blunt instrument of the limited range of troop types in DBA is to give all LH the same abilities. To some extent the same is true of massed longbowmen. They are just so much more effective historically than other massed bow.

Now if you want to make them work, you either need to give some of a troop type a range of special abilities or you risk crazy effects like turning the peasant bow in other armies into superkillers, or the venetian mounted crossbowmen into the major part of the army.

Given that DBA is (and shouldn't) be as complex as other systems that use special rules and gradings for specific armies, then we will always be using elements that are representative of the 'average' of their type. It is a necessary compromise for the game to work as well as it does.

On the subject of flank marches, I have suggested this to Phil, and received some support from other playtesters, but Phil (as is his right) will make his own mind up.

As I was following this thread I was trying to think how to word a response, but I think you've got it spot on!

With the restrictions of DBA armies - few troop types, no gradings, all armies 12 elements - it is inevitable that some will not be able to match up to their real life counterparts successes on the wargames table. Infact, it is remarkable how many can!

Nick

ferrency
02-25-2011, 10:56 AM
A die roll equal to or less than your AGG could be a tool to see if you can flank maneuver. While there are exceptions, this was used by aggressive armies so tie it into that. I would also add that only mounted troop types may use the flank attack rule. Just a thought.

The reason I don't like this is because AGG represents strategic/operational aggression, and not what I'll call strategic maneuverability. These do not go hand in hand.

Some armies may be strategically aggressive, meaning they marched into other armies' territory; but were not maneuverable, or did not historically maneuver even if they had the capability. They didn't do anything other than stand in a straight line and walk forward.

On the other hand, some armies that only stayed home and defended themselves might have been strategically maneuverable: for example they set up ambushes against the attacker, or sent out flanking forces in terrain tha they were more familiar with than the enemy.

The ability to maneuver at this level is unrelated to aggression, and unrelated to tactical move distances. I wouldn't limit it to only mounted forces, because that would prevent the a defending foot army from laying an ambush for the attackers.

To push it further:

Aggression has more to do with choosing what terrain type the battle is fought on (less aggressive has more likelihood of using their terrain type). Maneuverability has more to do with placing the terrain (choosing exactly where in the terrain the battle takes place).


Regarding those who consider Mongols and Huns to be statistical outliers whose LH is unlike "normal" LH: much of the problem with these armies can be fixed from a game and historical standpoint without altering LH at all. I don't think LH needs to be more powerful, they only need room and PIPs to maneuver. Using larger boards and allowing flank marches and ambushes for only the armies that historically used them provides this.

Alan

winterbadger
02-25-2011, 11:20 AM
IMO the problem with Mongols, and some other armies, is that they are outliers in the statistical curve.

To make them as effective as their historical counterparts given the very blunt instrument of the limited range of troop types in DBA is to give all LH the same abilities. To some extent the same is true of massed longbowmen. They are just so much more effective historically than other massed bow.

Now if you want to make them work, you either need to give some of a troop type a range of special abilities or you risk crazy effects like turning the peasant bow in other armies into superkillers, or the venetian mounted crossbowmen into the major part of the army.

See, I just don't agree. You don't need to make individual LH into some sort of killing machine (which is, unfortuantely, the route that PB took when he gave them the QK on Sp/Pk instead of making the 15mm board larger). You just have to give armies that are *predominantly* LH or LH/Cv enough room to maneuver. That's VERY easy to do without making LH into something that, when they show up in 1s and 2s in other armies will unbalance them.

In as-written DBA, armies deploy in a box that's 18" wide on the 24" wide board (to use the 15mm scale). The WADBAG rule for 30" boards for some reason widens the front of armies to 24". I would suggest that the board for 15mm be widened to 30" (or 32" as the original size would have been if it were proportional) and the deployment frontage *remain* 18". The camp would be placed on the rear edge as now, but the rest of the army would have to deploy at least 3" from the back edge, but no more than 9" forward of it. This will simply place the same army setup "box" as originally in a larger space. It would not prevent, but it would make more difficult the strategy of "let's just rest our flanks on the imaginary edge of the world" and it would give armies that are predominantly fast mounted troops (LH and Cv) the ability to severely threaten a flank or flanks of slower armies, which was one of the, if not the only, trick in the Mongol (and Hun, and other steppe army) playbook.

No changes to unit types. No changes to deployment rules. No changes to topography or terrain types. Just a widening of the lens of the image of the battlefield.

david kuijt
02-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Regarding those who consider Mongols and Huns to be statistical outliers whose LH is unlike "normal" LH: much of the problem with these armies can be fixed from a game and historical standpoint without altering LH at all. I don't think LH needs to be more powerful, they only need room and PIPs to maneuver.

I agree completely.

In addition, anyone who thinks the Mongols and Huns were supertroops is ignoring some aspects of history. The Mongols and Huns didn't invent new troop types. Taking the Mongols, for example, we have a troop type used without change from pre-Mongol to the 16th century in that area, represented by half a dozen DBA armies. They conquered all before them only under Temujin and his Best Buds, and then later under Tamerlane (although he had more Cav and less LH). Everyone else using those troop types (Ilkhanid, Golden Horde, Nomadic Mongol, etc.) had mixed success, not domination. That makes it pretty clear that the troop type wasn't responsible for the success -- the Generals were, and possibly the strategic organization (for Mongol Conquest) which doesn't represent well in DBA terms.

kontos
02-25-2011, 04:36 PM
The reason I don't like this is because AGG represents strategic/operational aggression, and not what I'll call strategic maneuverability. These do not go hand in hand.

Some armies may be strategically aggressive, meaning they marched into other armies' territory; but were not maneuverable, or did not historically maneuver even if they had the capability. They didn't do anything other than stand in a straight line and walk forward.

On the other hand, some armies that only stayed home and defended themselves might have been strategically maneuverable: for example they set up ambushes against the attacker, or sent out flanking forces in terrain tha they were more familiar with than the enemy.

The ability to maneuver at this level is unrelated to aggression, and unrelated to tactical move distances. I wouldn't limit it to only mounted forces, because that would prevent the a defending foot army from laying an ambush for the attackers.

To push it further:

Aggression has more to do with choosing what terrain type the battle is fought on (less aggressive has more likelihood of using their terrain type). Maneuverability has more to do with placing the terrain (choosing exactly where in the terrain the battle takes place).


Regarding those who consider Mongols and Huns to be statistical outliers whose LH is unlike "normal" LH: much of the problem with these armies can be fixed from a game and historical standpoint without altering LH at all. I don't think LH needs to be more powerful, they only need room and PIPs to maneuver. Using larger boards and allowing flank marches and ambushes for only the armies that historically used them provides this.

Alan

While there are some valid points here, Alan, do you want to remain stuck in the mud on a potential fix? It is not perfect but we have all lived with the fact that all Blade fight as well as Roman Legionaries so why can't we invent something that makes a hundred armies in the lists a more enjoyable play? How do you propose we apply a flank attack rule to those who "historically" used it? Was there a Minoan King we missed in history that we would be slighting if he weren't included in such a list? Or do we limit it to the "big boys" like Ghengis, Belisarius and Attila? No rule would be perfect. DBA isn't perfect. Besides, maybe we should have an ambush rule separate and distinct from flank attacks. (Removes feet from mud). :D

ferrency
02-25-2011, 04:59 PM
While there are some valid points here, Alan, do you want to remain stuck in the mud on a potential fix?

Given all past evidence, I'm not hopeful for any fix to LH that makes sense.

How do you propose we apply a flank attack rule to those who "historically" used it?

Here are some poorly thought out ideas that clearly need work and can't be used as-is:

1. Every army gets a "maneuverability" (MAN) number as well as aggression. Dice off using AGG to determine whose home terrain to use. Dice off using MAN to determine who sets up terrain;. I'm not sure who the attacker and defended are, or who chooses board edge. (Those details are open for debate.) The important part: Before deployment, each side dices for flank/ambush maneuvers using MAN the way you suggested using AGG. The difference is, most armies have MAN: 0, so they can't do any flank maneuvers.

2. Define a small set of keywords that may or may not apply to each army, and list them as appropriate on the army lists. For example, the "flank march" keyword means they get to perform a "littoral landing" style flank deployment. The keyword "littoral" could be used to distinguish between armies that lived near water, versus those that actually made combat landings.

Both of these are large undertakings, because they require evaluating all of the armies. Yes, it's possible to get it wrong or miss things. However, I believe that the information we currently have for each army list is not enough to detemine which armies should be allowed to deploy on a flank and which should not.

I don't think "roll lower than AGG to deploy on the flank" is useful, because it gives an undue benefit to high-aggression armies that never did any strategic flanking moves, while penalizing low-aggression armies that did; all for the sake of fixing a few high-aggression monotype LH armies (without helping the low-aggression monotype LH armies).

No rule would be perfect. DBA isn't perfect.

That's true, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get the best rules we can.

Even if we can't have the best rules possible, defining what they are helps evaluate the relative merit of the possibilities we can have.

Alan

kfenstermaker
02-26-2011, 12:45 AM
1. Every army gets a "maneuverability" (MAN) number as well as aggression. Dice off using AGG to determine whose home terrain to use. Dice off using MAN to determine who sets up terrain;. I'm not sure who the attacker and defended are, or who chooses board edge. (Those details are open for debate.) The important part: Before deployment, each side dices for flank/ambush maneuvers using MAN the way you suggested using AGG. The difference is, most armies have MAN: 0, so they can't do any flank maneuvers.

Alan

Here is my initial, partially formed thougth. How about dicing off against each other adding your MAN number with a minimum differential over your opponent (3,4,5?)required to get a flank march. This would prevent two armies from mutually flanking each other, which could add additional complication (who wins which flank?), and it would also allow less maneuverable armies a small, mutual chance for a flank march.
Like I said, it is only a partially formed thought.:o

Keith

nick hux
02-26-2011, 08:26 AM
I agree completely.

In addition, anyone who thinks the Mongols and Huns were supertroops is ignoring some aspects of history. The Mongols and Huns didn't invent new troop types. Taking the Mongols, for example, we have a troop type used without change from pre-Mongol to the 16th century in that area, represented by half a dozen DBA armies. They conquered all before them only under Temujin and his Best Buds, and then later under Tamerlane (although he had more Cav and less LH). Everyone else using those troop types (Ilkhanid, Golden Horde, Nomadic Mongol, etc.) had mixed success, not domination. That makes it pretty clear that the troop type wasn't responsible for the success -- the Generals were, and possibly the strategic organization (for Mongol Conquest) which doesn't represent well in DBA terms.

David, I think your last point, "and possibly the strategic organization", is the critical one. When these armies did defeat all before them, how often were they fighting numerically balanced battles? Their advantage in manoeverability was used in a strategic rather than a localised tactical way. I agree they weren't supermen (although it appears that when winning they would have been the best disciplined and trained soldiers around), but neither were they just a bunch of marauding Scyths/Hsiung-Nu/generic Steppe raiders.

Some of the suggestions regarding changes to board size and deployment to "power-up" LH look as though they could cause as many problems as they solve. Take a match up like Later Hoplite Greek (II/5i) vs Scythians (I/43a). The Greeks are likely to be defending - would they march into the nearest massive open area and stand right in the middle? That's what winterbadger's suggestion would force them to do.

Nick

kontos
02-26-2011, 08:51 AM
No. That's where good terrain placement comes into play. Better yet, better terrain placement rules as suggested by many including DK on this very board. Also remember a larger board will cause command problems for LH armies where the defender would have internal lines. You have to look at all aspects before rendering a decision on change. Personally I get no great heartburn for LH QKing heavy foot. If DBA could present rules changes, that many of us are attempting to offer, that would forego the need for QK, I'm all for it.

jcpotn
02-26-2011, 11:53 AM
I agree completely.

In addition, anyone who thinks the Mongols and Huns were supertroops is ignoring some aspects of history. The Mongols and Huns didn't invent new troop types. Taking the Mongols, for example, we have a troop type used without change from pre-Mongol to the 16th century in that area, represented by half a dozen DBA armies. They conquered all before them only under Temujin and his Best Buds, and then later under Tamerlane (although he had more Cav and less LH). Everyone else using those troop types (Ilkhanid, Golden Horde, Nomadic Mongol, etc.) had mixed success, not domination. That makes it pretty clear that the troop type wasn't responsible for the success -- the Generals were, and possibly the strategic organization (for Mongol Conquest) which doesn't represent well in DBA terms.

David,

Yes, it was the discipline demanded by Genghis Khan that made the Mongols so effective. But I'll quote author Witold Swietoslawski, in his Arms and Armour of the Nomads of the Great Steppe in the Times of the Mongol Expansion in regard to the composite bow:

..."Yet even cleverest strategy and the use of innovatory tactics would not lead to the military successes achieved by the nomad armies organized by the Mongols, if they did not have effective weapons."

I've posted some thoughs and facts on the M.A.S. discussion group on Fanaticus concerning the need for a Horse Archer (HA) class in DBA.

Have fun. :D

Jeff

david kuijt
02-26-2011, 12:29 PM
Yes, it was the discipline demanded by Genghis Khan that made the Mongols so effective. But I'll quote author Witold Swietoslawski, in his Arms and Armour of the Nomads of the Great Steppe in the Times of the Mongol Expansion in regard to the composite bow:

..."Yet even cleverest strategy and the use of innovatory tactics would not lead to the military successes achieved by the nomad armies organized by the Mongols, if they did not have effective weapons."

I've posted some thoughs and facts on the M.A.S. discussion group on Fanaticus concerning the need for a Horse Archer (HA) class in DBA.


Good to hear from you, Jeff. When are you coming back East to be mocked and abused?

Witold Swski is a fine fellow, but I take issue with any inference that the weapons were the (or "a") trigger for Mongol success. The horse bow had been in use for 2000 years before the Mongols. The composite bow for nearly as long. The century before Genghis used the same bow and fighting techniques Genghis did; the centuries after him through until the final defeat of Nomadic Horsemen through advancing agriculture and farmers with firearms all used bows as advanced as Genghis did. But none of those had any more success than any other plains horse archer raiders -- only Mr. G and his picked Buds. (Well, and Tamerlane the Total Ass Kicker, about whom Colin McEvedy wrote that he "...ignored every instrument of government except terror.")

So whether or not there should be a Horse Archer class in DBA, it wouldn't answer how the Mongol Conquest did so well.

Andreas Johansson
02-26-2011, 12:49 PM
Note also that the Mongols' weapons - primarily composite bow, sword, and spear/lance - were in wide use among their enemies. They were pretty much the common military currency of medieval Eurasia. (Europeans were unusual in making little use of the composite bow.)

jcpotn
02-26-2011, 02:11 PM
David, I think your last point, "and possibly the strategic organization", is the critical one. When these armies did defeat all before them, how often were they fighting numerically balanced battles? Their advantage in manoeverability was used in a strategic rather than a localised tactical way. I agree they weren't supermen (although it appears that when winning they would have been the best disciplined and trained soldiers around), but neither were they just a bunch of marauding Scyths/Hsiung-Nu/generic Steppe raiders.


Nick

The Mongols used tactical manoeverability to destroy the last Georgian army to take the field at Tiflis. Subedei withdrew in front of George IV. Previously defeated by the Mongols, George kept his troops out of range of the Mongol archers. When the ambush under Jebe was launched by Jebe, George turned to face them. Subedei, using remounts returned to roll up the Georgian's flank, exposed by turning to face the ambush.

Timothy Mays' conclusion of the Mongol's effectiveness was their "pragmatic melding of the traditional and still effective steppe tactics with the new tactics, weapons, and forms of warfare that they encountered during their wars of conquest."

Jeff

Lobotomy
02-26-2011, 06:37 PM
Aggression has more to do with choosing what terrain type the battle is fought on (less aggressive has more likelihood of using their terrain type).

Alan

Alan,

I disagree regarding aggression. An aggressive commander was, many times, able to select the field on which he wished to fight, the less aggressive commander responding to that. I have always felt that this was the severe penalty for the aggressive commanders in DBA. But flipping it, where the aggressor gets the terrain, does not solve the problem either, just turns the coin over.

Bardolph
02-26-2011, 11:01 PM
I always kinda thought if you compared Aggression and the more aggressive army got a +1 to their 'who's the attacker' roll instead of +difference that it would be about right.