PDA

View Full Version : Could 3.0 be the end of your DBA?


neldoreth
12-27-2010, 12:47 PM
Hey all,

I remember back in 1999, Games Workshop released a new version of Warhammer. It was the second time they released a new version since I had started playing, and it was scant months after they released the Vampire Counts book. The Vampire Counts book destroyed my undead army, and the new rules made the Vampire Counts book irrelevant. That was the end of my Warhammer gaming.

The new version of DBA isn't nearly as nefarious as Games Workshop's scheme of course. DBA 3.0 is nine (?) later than DBA 2.0, and seven years later than 2.2. We've had lots of time to enjoy the current version. But the question is, if DBA 3.0 isn't what you've hoped, and if your community adopts it in full, would you leave the game? Just curious!

Thanks,
n.

RonG
12-27-2010, 12:55 PM
Have to see the ruleset and play a game or two to evaluate it. Rebasing, I don't think so. Could just stay with DBA 2.2. Have to wait and see.:up

Tony Aguilar
12-27-2010, 01:21 PM
No need for doomsaying, I will wait and see. I can see the following happening though:

1.) DBA 3.0 is better in most ways than 2.2 and the DBA community adopts it as a whole.

2.) DBA 3.0 is fraught with problems, and we revert to playing 2.2.

3.) DBA 3.0 gets ammended (by some home rules put together by the Fanaticus community) due to some unforseen changes not being thought through properly. FADBAG also adopt these ammendments as several of us go to Historicon and to create consistency.

I am placing my bets on #1.

Kontos
12-27-2010, 01:42 PM
With all its shortcomings since inception and revisions, DBA remains a popular and gratifying game. I see no reason that will change with 3.0. Possible disappointment? Yes. Possible enhancement? Yes. I suspect a little of both. :up

Frank

Pavane
12-27-2010, 03:04 PM
Any problems in DBA 3.0 may very well be corrected quickly in DBA 3.1.

DBMM had only been on the market for a year or so when it was realised that there were enough problems to warrant DBMM 2.0. I don't understand how it happened in the first place, but I have to give Phil credit for recognising the problems and taking immediate corrective action.

Jeff Franz
12-27-2010, 06:35 PM
Nope will still play. Besides I move around alot and play with all sorts of house rules.


Jeff

DBA 3.0 better be great!!!$@%#

neldoreth
12-27-2010, 07:00 PM
I don't mean to doom say... Perhaps my post is a bit biased towards that angle. Honestly though, I really look forward to the expanded book! The one with more information on armies and pictures...

On that topic, who do I talk to about donating pictures and time to take pictures? I have a few armies I can take pictures of, and battle images, and perhaps example images. And the armies I don't personally have are owned by the CCF (local DBAers). What do you guys think? Is it worth talking to them and offering?

Thanks
n.

Tony Aguilar
12-27-2010, 08:33 PM
I don't mean to doom say... Perhaps my post is a bit biased towards that angle. Honestly though, I really look forward to the expanded book! The one with more information on armies and pictures...

On that topic, who do I talk to about donating pictures and time to take pictures? I have a few armies I can take pictures of, and battle images, and perhaps example images. And the armies I don't personally have are owned by the CCF (local DBAers). What do you guys think? Is it worth talking to them and offering?

Thanks
n.

I don't think it will do any good unless Phil changes his marketing model. Many people have suggested to get diagrams to be included (a la HOTT) and the response has been that it would add another page or two to the rule book, and therefore this wasn't an option. What you are suggesting is a "Flames of War" type of model, which I would approve of to get more exposure and many others interested, who wouldn't normally pick up the rules due to its mundane appearance. Let's face it, pretty pictures help sell rules.

David Kuijt
12-27-2010, 08:40 PM
Is it worth talking to them and offering?


Not a chance. The text-only tight-packed format of the rules is a 25-yr-plus design choice of the author; for him to switch now to another format (requiring professional editing and layout work) would be virtually inconceivable.

Kontos
12-27-2010, 10:25 PM
inconceivable.
The Princess Bride. :D

Frank

Alex Bostwick
12-27-2010, 11:52 PM
It's doubtful that I (or the rest of Clan Bostwick) will stop playing altogether should 3.0 suck. If it is adopted at the conventions, however, and I genuinely hate the rules, I just won't play in the tournaments. Instead, I'll opt to hover around games in progress and annoy people- a talent I've honed over many years in Obnoxious Academy.

What would probably happen is I'll just keep playing 2.2, and adopt a curmudgeonly attitude towards the folks that play 3.0. I'll grow a thick beard, and develop a stoop, and complain about how things used to be better in the days of yesteryear.

-A-Bos

Richard Lee
12-28-2010, 03:28 AM
I rarely play in competitions. I am looking forward to version 3, and hope that it will be an improvement. However, if it is worse than DBA version 2.2 then I would continue to play v 2.2.

So far I have not come across any other simple, fast-play games of ancients that I like as much. I have experimented with more complex games (for example DBM and DBMM) and decided that the extra levels of complexity were not really worth it for me for solo games. I live in a country with very few experienced wargamers. If I show someone how to play wargames in the hope of finding a partner then I would much rather teach DBA than something more complex. To play DBMM, FOG or DBM I would want an experienced wargamer who could cope with those rules living near me.

old mucker
12-28-2010, 05:17 AM
What would probably happen is I'll just keep playing 2.2, and adopt a curmudgeonly attitude towards the folks that play 3.0. I'll grow a thick beard, and develop a stoop, and complain about how things used to be better in the days of yesteryear.

Yes, my position exactly! Well said :rotfl

Pavane
12-28-2010, 09:34 AM
If I show someone how to play wargames in the hope of finding a partner then I would much rather teach DBA than something more complex. To play DBMM, FOG or DBM I would want an experienced wargamer who could cope with those rules living near me.
Not to mention that the novice might be intimidated by the number of figures that they would have to paint for the larger game should they decide to continue with the hobby. You can loan armies of course, but winning (or losing) is always better with your own cherished figures.

David Constable
12-28-2010, 10:40 AM
People who do not play 3.0 will continue with 2.2, competition organizers might initially have to see which version for their competition.
It might even become a continent thing, as board sizes with 15mm figures seems to be.

Things will sort themselves out, they always have done.

What worries me the most is what happens if people use 2.2 and do not switch, will it be reprinted.

David Constable

Tony Aguilar
12-28-2010, 10:48 AM
What worries me the most is what happens if people use 2.2 and do not switch, will it be reprinted.


This would not be a problem if Sue posts the rules online (as she has done with HOTT) after they have been superseded.

David Kuijt
12-28-2010, 10:53 AM
This would not be a problem if Sue posts the rules online (as she has done with HOTT) after they have been superseded.

What would possibly motivate them to post 2.2 rules online once 3.0 has been published, in direct conflict with their clear motivation to have people play the newer version?

David Constable
12-28-2010, 11:15 AM
What would possibly motivate them to post 2.2 rules online once 3.0 has been published, in direct conflict with their clear motivation to have people play the newer version?

Correct DK, you just beat me to the post.

David Constable

Tony Aguilar
12-28-2010, 11:19 AM
What would possibly motivate them to post 2.2 rules online once 3.0 has been published, in direct conflict with their clear motivation to have people play the newer version?

Well, if that is the case, then the price of any remaining 2.2 rules just went up!

Swamps
12-28-2010, 01:53 PM
Not a chance. The text-only tight-packed format of the rules is a 25-yr-plus design choice of the author; for him to switch now to another format (requiring professional editing and layout work) would be virtually inconceivable.

The 'Purple Primer' version which Sue is working on is certainly intended to have photos - she showed a rough draft at the SoA Battleday this year.
I think her intention was to include some advice on painting and is using plastic figures to encourage the starting wargamer. The photos included a walk through of playing a game.

I don't know whether 3.0 will only be available in this form.

winterbadger
12-28-2010, 04:03 PM
The 'Purple Primer' version which Sue is working on is certainly intended to have photos - she showed a rough draft at the SoA Battleday this year.
I think her intention was to include some advice on painting and is using plastic figures to encourage the starting wargamer. The photos included a walk through of playing a game.

I don't know whether 3.0 will only be available in this form.

This is intended to be a separate book, not part of the DBA rules.

My current project is collecting information for the new edition of the DBA rules. ... I also have my book on "Start Wargaming" which may be included with the new edition of DBA.

and, more specifically

This is intended as a book to accompany DBA and will provide help for those who are just starting. Because DBA is so concentrated, it can be a little difficult for beginners to find what they want to know.

from SLB's Wargame Page (http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/slb.html)

Swamps
12-28-2010, 06:37 PM
This is intended to be a separate book, not part of the DBA rules.



and, more specifically



from SLB's Wargame Page (http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/slb.html)

The quote you gave says that 'Start Wargaming' _may_ be included with the rules :)
Certainly her draft bound the primer with the lists incl. new notes.

winterbadger
12-28-2010, 06:53 PM
The quote you gave says that 'Start Wargaming' _may_ be included with the rules :)

Yes. What you said suggested that you thought it was going to be *part of* the rules. It's not. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant.

Certainly her draft bound the primer with the lists incl. new notes.

??? And again in English please? :)

Swamps
12-28-2010, 07:17 PM
I meant sold with the primer and the rules in the same book.

The draft which she showed us had the guide part at the front and the rules and lists with the new notes at the back, looking as if they would be bound together.

winterbadger
12-28-2010, 07:31 PM
I meant sold with the primer and the rules in the same book.

The draft which she showed us had the guide part at the front and the rules and lists with the new notes at the back, looking as if they would be bound together.

Ah! Now I understand--momentary blindness before--I couldn't see a verb anywhere! :silly

I think that her draft was just that, a draft. I think her statement on her website is clear enough, plus it makes sense. One might want a guide on how to start collecting and painting figures that wasn't tied to a specific game. And one might want a game that didn't come with a set of instructions on how to do something you'd been doing for years. Making the starter's guide an integral part of the rulebook seems like a bad marketing move, and from the statement on her webpage, Sue seems to think so too.

Doug
12-28-2010, 07:43 PM
Not a chance. The text-only tight-packed format of the rules is a 25-yr-plus design choice of the author; for him to switch now to another format (requiring professional editing and layout work) would be virtually inconceivable.

It is worth noting that during the DBMM development process, several people offered professional layout and editing services for free, (myself included). I even reformatted the first 40 or so pages of the draft as an example of how a more modern version might look. (I currently write the occasional professional piece for newspapers, and I have a background including technical writing and editing, plus awards for 'plain English' in websites.)

It was rejected by Phil with the brief comment; 'I prefer my version', and all other offers of assistance were similarly rebuffed.

One thing to note is that Phil has an understandable and very proprietorial attitude to his work, and also sees it as narrative. While this has some advantages, the interspersed opinion and comment pieces do cause some confusion with readers who now expect a more 'technical manual' layout.

I played two games of DBMM in the last three days, and there are so many places where clarity could be greatly improved by the use of tables etc. But this is never going to happen.

In conversation with a couple of other DBA players at Christmas we discussed market pricing sensitivity, and Phil just doesn't get it.

The cost of a set of rules has increased hugely over the years as players expectations have been raised by successively higher standard publications. The cost of a set of decent hardback rules with colour photographs and extensive diagrams is barely that of a single company of tanks for FoW.

And how many of us don't have expensive rulesets sitting on the shelf that never get played? For DBA 3.0 - that I would expect to play at least 50 games a year (usually more), it would be a very small investment for the amount of play I would get out of it.

Stephen Webb
12-28-2010, 08:04 PM
I expect we will all change over to 3.0 when it arrives, just as we did with 2.0.

We may introduce house rules to overturn anything silly, just like we did with compulsory BUAs though.

Doug
12-28-2010, 08:25 PM
I expect we will all change over to 3.0 when it arrives, just as we did with 2.0.

We may introduce house rules to overturn anything silly, just like we did with compulsory BUAs though.

I totally agree. One thing that concerns me is that in DBMM Ax no longer have an automatic quick-kill vs elephants, unless specified as such in the army lists. I would prefer this was not adopted for DBA without reviewing the El interaction with other troops, otherwise we may see a glut of elephant armies.

Rathicus
12-28-2010, 10:17 PM
. FADBAG also adopt these ammendments as several of us go to Historicon and to create consistency.


Several = 2
Please don't be so quick to speak for all of us.

Tony Aguilar
12-29-2010, 12:24 AM
Several = 2
Please don't be so quick to speak for all of us.

Well, it IS true that only two of us went last year. However, 2011 will add 2 new players from FADBAG (and maybe more if we can get Marty to go and find where Jim Dundorf has been hiding)

Read my whole comment below, Dave.

No need for doomsaying, I will wait and see. I can see the following happening though:

1.) DBA 3.0 is better in most ways than 2.2 and the DBA community adopts it as a whole.

2.) DBA 3.0 is fraught with problems, and we revert to playing 2.2.

3.) DBA 3.0 gets ammended (by some home rules put together by the Fanaticus community) due to some unforseen changes not being thought through properly. FADBAG also adopt these ammendments as several of us go to Historicon and to create consistency.

I am placing my bets on #1.

Whether you realize it or not, we have been playing the way "people up North do" for some time. :eek

Swamps
12-29-2010, 07:12 AM
Ah! Now I understand--momentary blindness before--I couldn't see a verb anywhere! :silly

I think that her draft was just that, a draft. I think her statement on her website is clear enough, plus it makes sense. One might want a guide on how to start collecting and painting figures that wasn't tied to a specific game. And one might want a game that didn't come with a set of instructions on how to do something you'd been doing for years. Making the starter's guide an integral part of the rulebook seems like a bad marketing move, and from the statement on her webpage, Sue seems to think so too.

You can see from chapter 3 http://www.wrg.me.uk/SuesWebPages/Chapter03.pdf
that it is indeed tied to a specific game.
The firs words of chapter 1 are "When you set out to try playing DBA..."

It may be released alongside the rules. Since there are only three chapters listed and chapter 3 makes no sense without the rules, I would be surprised if it wasn't released with the rules included. However, I could well be wrong and anyway the rules may also be available separately.

winterbadger
12-29-2010, 09:36 AM
It may be released alongside the rules. Since there are only three chapters listed and chapter 3 makes no sense without the rules, I would be surprised if it wasn't released with the rules included. However, I could well be wrong and anyway the rules may also be available separately.

Your initial post conflated the rules with the starting guide. No evidence has yet been adduced that the two are inseparable, let alone the same thing, and specific evidence has been cited that they are intended to be separate publications.

It is possible that the rules will not be available apart from the guide. It is also possible that the Moon is made of green cheese and we have all been the victims of a massive and clever deception for the past umpty bazillion years. I sincerely doubt it, but until you've actually been to the Moon yourself, you are entitled to your skepticism, however implausible.

Rathicus
12-29-2010, 12:33 PM
Whether you realize it or not, we have been playing the way "people up North do" for some time. :eek

We know and have expressed our displeasure with it.

Tony Aguilar
12-29-2010, 04:38 PM
We know and have expressed our displeasure with it.

Don't know what you mean, Dave. You make it sound to those that don't come to our conventions that I or someone else is trying to control or strong arm you into playing a certain way, when you well know that it couldn't be farther from the truth. I always encourage all the other GMs to run their events however they see fit. :)

Swamps
12-29-2010, 05:56 PM
Your initial post conflated the rules with the starting guide. No evidence has yet been adduced that the two are inseparable, let alone the same thing, and specific evidence has been cited that they are intended to be separate publications.



You've already quoted this from Sue's site:

"I also have my book on "Start Wargaming" which may be included with the new edition of DBA. "

Doesn't sound that, if "Start Wargaming" is to be published that it is necessarily intended as a separate publication - note the word 'included' (and also 'may'!).

The rules and guide are not the same thing but the guide is clearly intended as being for playing DBA - not a general book as you suggested earlier - and includes photos to illustrate a step by step guide on playing a sample game. The photos are why I mentioned the guide in the first place. It is a step away from previous WRG etc. publications - though in the style of the old Airfix Guide.

Si@BAM
12-31-2010, 08:45 AM
What would possibly motivate them to post 2.2 rules online once 3.0 has been published, in direct conflict with their clear motivation to have people play the newer version?

2.2 is online now - in the files section of the Yahoo DBA group.
Posted by Sue herself today...

Si2

David Kuijt
12-31-2010, 11:06 AM
2.2 is online now - in the files section of the Yahoo DBA group.
Posted by Sue herself today...


But the motivation is reversed when 2.2 is needing a reprint (hard to find copies, in some areas) and 3.0 isn't available (and won't be for six to eighteen months).

Adamantius
12-31-2010, 06:24 PM
I feel very optimistic about DBA 3.0. I really like what I'm seeing so far:
a) an improved basing system that removes the need for unnecessary painting
b) helpful descriptions in the army list
c) possibly the addition of new terrain (e.g. wooded hill)
d) official clarification on areas of misunderstanding (e.g. moving "to(ward)" the enemy)
e) updated army lists

I have not read about any proposed changes that will radically affect game play, like our friends at GW have done.

Si@BAM
12-31-2010, 07:22 PM
But the motivation is reversed when 2.2 is needing a reprint (hard to find copies, in some areas) and 3.0 isn't available (and won't be for six to eighteen months).
So you think it ill be removed when 3.0 is available...?

David Kuijt
12-31-2010, 07:23 PM
I have not read about any proposed changes that will radically affect game play, like our friends at GW have done.

You haven't read anything from Phil at all -- in other words, nothing official. That gives you as much room for optimism (or pessimism, for that matter) as you could wish.

APHooper
05-13-2011, 07:59 PM
Since this general subject was raised in the fall of 2010, I've added just five more DBA armies to my muster, bringing my total to 266. They are stored in 324 storage drawers, each with an adhesive label with the army number, aggression, home errain and enemies list.

Apart from the additional figures I'll have to purchase to conform to the 3.0 lists, it occurs to me that as the order and contents of the "Books" are going to change as well, I'll need to do a new label for all 324 drawers.

And for what?

If this doesn't drive me away, probably nothing will.

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

Doug
05-14-2011, 04:48 AM
Apart from the additional figures I'll have to purchase to conform to the 3.0 lists, it occurs to me that as the order and contents of the "Books" are going to change as well, I'll need to do a new label for all 324 drawers.

What makes you think the Order and Contents of the List Books are going to substantially change?

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-14-2011, 09:50 AM
Since this general subject was raised in the fall of 2010, I've added just five more DBA armies to my muster, bringing my total to 266. They are stored in 324 storage drawers, each with an adhesive label with the army number, aggression, home errain and enemies list.

Apart from the additional figures I'll have to purchase to conform to the 3.0 lists, it occurs to me that as the order and contents of the "Books" are going to change as well, I'll need to do a new label for all 324 drawers.

And for what?

If this doesn't drive me away, probably nothing will.

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

Dymo makes nice label makers for $20 USD.

Your favorite brew likely offers a six-pack for half that price or less.

You're welcome...

Martyn
05-16-2011, 04:42 AM
What makes you think the Order and Contents of the List Books are going to substantially change?

AFAIK there is no change to the order or number of the armies in the first part of Book 1, Book 2, or the initial part of Book 4. However, the exception (there is always an exception) is an additional army in Book Three:

III/50 ZANJ REVOLT 869 AD – 883 AD

All the armies thereafter have a changed reference number.

Derek de Villiers
05-16-2011, 08:57 AM
Hello
No. I started with plastics based as 25mm. When I joined the local club (now defunct) they only played Ancients with DBM Book 2 armies in 15mm. Other periods played where WWII (WRG, Spearhead, Naval, etc.), Napoleonics and the Colonial period. We only played DBA when time was limited. Unfortunately the club did not survive losing its most enthusiastic member. He talks about returning to wargaming. I play some solo wargames. I am somewhat isolated from other wargamers because Port Elizabeth is one of South Africa's largest cities and I live at one extreme end of it - the Beachfront suburb on the peninsular of Algoa Bay. Most of the other wargamers live in the main residential suburbs which are across the city. I have a spinal injury which makes commuting difficult. I do not have the facilities to host more than 1 or 2 other gamers at a time. So I consider myself more of a figure collector than a wargamer at present. Hence most of my 15mm DBA armies are Book II DBM armies. These are now being turned into DBMM armies. I am mostly building new DBA Armies in 25mm although I have not stopped buying 15mm DBA Army packs when Essex or Museum has a sale even though the new lists are not ready yet. As finances allow these may grow into DBMM armies.
Kind Regards
Derek

Redwilde
05-16-2011, 10:54 AM
III/50 ZANJ REVOLT 869 AD Ė 883 AD

So a game system that covers 4500 years is adding individual army lists with a 14 year span?!?
:silly

Martyn
05-16-2011, 11:42 AM
So a game system that covers 4500 years is adding individual army lists with a 14 year span?!?
:silly

That's the beauty, there is Early Libyan running for 2950 or so years and then Alex Imperial running for 8. Possibly there are shorter time spans, I don't have the inclination to check. :p

Not sure why it was felt important to add this one, I assume it was added to the lists during the DBMM revamp and so now it is added to DBA?

Rich Gause
05-16-2011, 12:10 PM
That's the beauty, there is Early Libyan running for 2950 or so years and then Alex Imperial running for 8. Possibly there are shorter time spans, I don't have the inclination to check. :p

Not sure why it was felt important to add this one, I assume it was added to the lists during the DBMM revamp and so now it is added to DBA?

There is I/60b Early Achaemenid Persian, 546 BC. One year only.

Martyn
05-16-2011, 12:18 PM
There is I/60b Early Achaemenid Persian, 546 BC. One year only.

Ah, but that is a sub list, not a whole list, so it don't count :silly

Any advance on 8 years for a complete list. A special prize won't be given to the first who identifies it.

Musashi
05-17-2011, 08:34 AM
Alexander the Mediocre was 8 years. Seriously what an overrated blowhard. Proskynesis? Please....spare me!

The dude ran through paper tigers. You notice he didn't head North. There were some seriously hairy manly men up North. He only met real resistance at Hydaspes. Greed saw him through there. The Gordian Knot thing is a perfect example of his myth. That doesn't show out of the box problem solving, he just cheated. He ran around with with his own Joseph Goebbels to ensure bs like the Gordian Knot was received "properly".

Meglomania, gluttony and self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't impress me.

Oh wait what were we discussing? lol.

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-17-2011, 08:53 AM
Alexander the Mediocre was 8 years. Seriously what an overrated blowhard. Proskynesis? Please....spare me!

The dude ran through paper tigers. You notice he didn't head North. There were some seriously hairy manly men up North. He only met real resistance at Hydaspes. Greed saw him through there. The Gordian Knot thing is a perfect example of his myth. That doesn't show out of the box problem solving, he just cheated. He ran around with with his own Joseph Goebbels to ensure bs like the Gordian Knot was received "properly".

Meglomania, gluttony and self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't impress me.

Oh wait what were we discussing? lol.

Never underestimate the power of Homeboys when the (Elephant) chips are down.

His Companion Cav had his back on more than one occasion.

(And probably a little of his front as well... :eek:D )

Doug
05-17-2011, 09:24 AM
The dude ran through paper tigers. You notice he didn't head North. There were some seriously hairy manly men up North. He only met real resistance at Hydaspes. Greed saw him through there. The Gordian Knot thing is a perfect example of his myth. That doesn't show out of the box problem solving, he just cheated. He ran around with with his own Joseph Goebbels to ensure bs like the Gordian Knot was received "properly".

I wouldn't underestimate the Persians. They dealt with some fairly serious opponents. This trope of Easterners as effeminate and lazy is prevalent, but isn't supported by any evidence, (unless you consider political polemics based on current affairs or '300' as evidence.) The same trope was used of the Sasanians and other 'Easterners' throughout the Roman Empire period, and seems to have been a standard in the same way as the 'giant hairy barbarian' was a standard (which has now been reclaimed by extensive evidence of the level of civilisation of the Celtic cultures). It's a shame we haven't re-examined the 'mysterious, luxurious and effeminate 'East' in the same way.

Richard Lee
05-17-2011, 09:58 AM
From the little that I have read, Alexander seemed to want to get at least some of the Easterners into his army. He also seemed to encourage his Greeks and Macedonians to marry eastern wives.

Musashi
05-17-2011, 10:18 AM
I fear I've totally hijacked this thread ;-)

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-17-2011, 10:26 AM
Alexander would have kept playing DBA when 3.0 was released.

(But he would need more wine...) :up

Atilla the Hun...not so much.


Please don't ask me WWCD*...




(*- What Would Caligula Do?)

David Constable
05-17-2011, 11:44 AM
Alexander would have kept playing DBA when 3.0 was released.

(But he would need more wine...) :up

Atilla the Hun...not so much.


Please don't ask me WWCD*...




(*- What Would Caligula Do?)

Caligula would boot it out.

David Constable

APHooper
05-17-2011, 01:09 PM
Alexander the Mediocre was 8 years. Seriously what an overrated blowhard. Proskynesis? Please....spare me!

The dude ran through paper tigers. You notice he didn't head North. There were some seriously hairy manly men up North. He only met real resistance at Hydaspes. Greed saw him through there. The Gordian Knot thing is a perfect example of his myth. That doesn't show out of the box problem solving, he just cheated. He ran around with with his own Joseph Goebbels to ensure bs like the Gordian Knot was received "properly".

Meglomania, gluttony and self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't impress me.

Oh wait what were we discussing? lol.

Any other blowhard legnds from 2300+ years in the past that you feel like talking smack about? In contrast, will anyone remember you two hours after you're dead?

Alexander is like Jack Sparrow -- he may be the worst world-conqueror you've ever heard of, but then, you have heard of him, haven't you?

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

Martyn
05-17-2011, 01:23 PM
Caligula would boot it out.

David Constable

But only a 'little' way. ;)

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-17-2011, 03:32 PM
Any other blowhard legnds from 2300+ years in the past that you feel like talking smack about? In contrast, will anyone remember you two hours after you're dead?

Alexander is like Jack Sparrow -- he may be the worst world-conqueror you've ever heard of, but then, you have heard of him, haven't you?

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

FYI, once Oliver Stone makes a movie about you, all bets are off...

teenage visigoth
05-18-2011, 01:53 AM
Any other blowhard legnds from 2300+ years in the past that you feel like talking smack about? In contrast, will anyone remember you two hours after you're dead?

Alexander is like Jack Sparrow -- he may be the worst world-conqueror you've ever heard of, but then, you have heard of him, haven't you?

Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

Word Mr Andy. Word.:up

Stephen Webb
05-18-2011, 02:04 AM
Back on topic.

v3.0 if it is a dud, will not be the end of DBA for me.

I will do one of the following:

1. Continue to play v2.2 and run competitions for the same.

2. Play v2.3 and run competitions for the same, once it is developed by some of the fanatici.

3. Play v2.3 and run competitions for the same, developed by myself and friends.

Option 2, is probably preferable.

Filippo S.
05-18-2011, 03:16 AM
Back on topic.
v3.0 if it is a dud, will not be the end of DBA for me.
I will do one of the following:
1. Continue to play v2.2 and run competitions for the same.
2. Play v2.3 and run competitions for the same, once it is developed by some of the fanatici.
3. Play v2.3 and run competitions for the same, developed by myself and friends.
Option 2, is probably preferable.

I agree :up
option 2 or 3 are a details, surely there'll be a 2.3 developed by players.
IF and only IF.

David Constable
05-18-2011, 04:05 AM
Back on topic.

v3.0 if it is a dud, will not be the end of DBA for me.

I will do one of the following:

1. Continue to play v2.2 and run competitions for the same.

2. Play v2.3 and run competitions for the same, once it is developed by some of the fanatici.

3. Play v2.3 and run competitions for the same, developed by myself and friends.

Option 2, is probably preferable.

Option 2 for me. We need it now.

David Constable

Martyn
05-18-2011, 04:29 AM
As much as naval gazing can be fun, letís not jump the gun.

From the comments from the cats there are clearly some good points and some bad points to v3 at this stage in the development. We are, it seems, still some way off the final draft let alone the published version. So there is still a lot of time for further developments and changes.

Despite wildly fluctuating feelings about this process and a desperate need to know what is happening I can only sit back and wait. I will make no decision on the merits of different actions until then.

Hereís hoping that v3 as published is a classic. :up

David Constable
05-18-2011, 07:20 AM
As much as naval gazing can be fun, letís not jump the gun.

From the comments from the cats there are clearly some good points and some bad points to v3 at this stage in the development. We are, it seems, still some way off the final draft let alone the published version. So there is still a lot of time for further developments and changes.

Despite wildly fluctuating feelings about this process and a desperate need to know what is happening I can only sit back and wait. I will make no decision on the merits of different actions until then.

Hereís hoping that v3 as published is a classic. :up

Wait and see is correct.

A classic in what sense, DBM to DBMM, ask DBM players.
5th to 6th in my case.
6th to 7th, ask those who still play 6th.
7th to ???, well it was the end of those.

This is going to be a baddie, how competition organizers and players see it in 2012 is going to cause problems, 2013 will be clearer.
It causes problems in the UK because of the low numbers, 23 so far is the highest this year, although I dropped out to leave an even 22.

David Constable

Doug
05-18-2011, 07:38 AM
Wait and see is correct.

A classic in what sense, DBM to DBMM, ask DBM players.
5th to 6th in my case.
6th to 7th, ask those who still play 6th.
7th to ???, well it was the end of those.

This is going to be a baddie, how competition organizers and players see it in 2012 is going to cause problems, 2013 will be clearer.
It causes problems in the UK because of the low numbers, 23 so far is the highest this year, although I dropped out to leave an even 22.

David Constable

You could ask the ex-DBM players who now play DBMM (an increasing number locally).

Many people inherently resist change. Ask yourself why we are not still playing 'Little Wars' rules. (Centenary in 2013.)

david kuijt
05-18-2011, 07:58 AM
You could ask the ex-DBM players who now play DBMM (an increasing number locally).

Many people inherently resist change. Ask yourself why we are not still playing 'Little Wars' rules. (Centenary in 2013.)

Yes, by all means ask them -- if you can find any. A difficult search in my locale. I have identified one such person, playing solitaire. DBMM is approximately as active as 'Little Wars' around here, where the DBM players used to be a very large population.

There are a number of reasons why change might be resisted. Conservatism is only one of them, and often not the most important. Perception of the value of the change is much more critical; whether the emphasis should be on perception (how the change was presented) or on value (objective value of the new game vs. the old) depends.

John Loy
05-18-2011, 08:09 AM
You could ask the ex-DBM players who now play DBMM (an increasing number locally).

Many people inherently resist change. Ask yourself why we are not still playing 'Little Wars' rules. (Centenary in 2013.)

I agree with David:eek I have yet to meet a DBMM player, while I know a lot of DBM players.

As far as 3.0--- wait and see:cool

John

Doug
05-18-2011, 10:25 AM
Yes, by all means ask them -- if you can find any. A difficult search in my locale. I have identified one such person, playing solitaire. DBMM is approximately as active as 'Little Wars' around here, where the DBM players used to be a very large population.

There are a number of reasons why change might be resisted. Conservatism is only one of them, and often not the most important. Perception of the value of the change is much more critical; whether the emphasis should be on perception (how the change was presented) or on value (objective value of the new game vs. the old) depends.

It's an interesting question David. I think there are a number of factors. I can only speak locally, but I think some aspects can be extrapolated to give a general sense.

Firstly, I think to some extent there was already a trend away from large ancients battles. In the last couple of years (2005 onwards), the DBM numbers here in Oz had started to fall away. I think there were a number of reasons for that unrelated to the quality of the rules themselves.

1. People had been playing DBM for 10 years minimum. There were well understood paradigms, the players knew the rules extremely well, the same players won almost all the time, and frankly, most players were a little bit jaded as the known paradigms, the best armies, the same strategies made many games quite repetitive.
2. New and glossy games - FoW probably the best known - but many ancients players moved onto new periods.

The DBMM development process was well-intentioned but akin to a sausage factory throwing an open day. Many players who were 'Big Names' got quite upset because their opinions didn't immediately result in changes to the development process. Inevitably, some of them decided they weren't being treated with the respect they felt they deserved, and went off in a monumental huff.

The upshot was FoG. In it (IMO) they stripped down the DBM model, and made the whole thing a lot less 'historical' and a much purer test of player ability.

In the meantime, DBMM eventually came out.. by which stage, many players had already moved away, and more importantly, declared publicly that DBMM was 'broken' and they would never play it. Some of this was hubris at having their opinions ignored, some of it was deciding they didn't agree with certain things - like general qualities, or irregular light horse being made impetuous (prone to advance to contact without using PIPS).

Skip forward a few years - DBMM 2 has seen a significant increase in numbers playing DBx (excluding DBA) certainly in UK, Europe and Australia. The American market has always been more fragmented, and the game has had fewer 'champions' in that arena.

More players are playing DBMM2 (to some extent DBMM1 was a playtest version, in much the same way as DBA 1.0 being quite unbalanced.) FoG players are starting to come over to DBMM. I have my own views on the reasons for that which I wont go into here.

It still has significant critics, especially among pure competition players who complain that the game is too unpredictable, that weather, stratagems, and other 'tricks' diminish the extent to which player skill (in manouevre, match-up etc.) dominates the game.

Personally I love playing DBMM. It produces battles that have much more flavour than DBM. It is much better at representing historical tricks, traps and ingenuities through changed stratagems, weather, general grading, etc than DBM ever was. Some people hate it. For me, it is one of the best compromises between historical accounts and player skill that has ever been devised. Each game/battle is unique and different - the variety is hugely increased over DBM.

One aspect of the US scene is that relatively little of the regular gaming goes on in large clubs, most seems to be a few guys in someones basement. This is quite different from the UK & Oz model. In clubs you may have two or three guys from forty who give DBMM a go, and become advocates and champions, and drive uptake among other players. All of a sudden you have a sustainable player base. In the US - much more difficult. The one guy in the basement quite likes the idea, but everyone else has been told the rules are terrible. Barkerese is so difficult. So lets play something everyone wants to play. Innovation is much more difficult.

Sorry for being so prolix, but I felt your comments merited a serious response.

As for me, I play maybe 50 times more DBA games than DBMM. I am reasonably competent at both. They are very different. In DBMM I feel much more engaged and I can construct a narrative that agrees with my understanding of ancient battles. In DBA I feel I have abstracted so much, but it is still a very satisfying game. Each has so many similarities - but the difference for me is between a beer and a bottle of vintage wine. The beer satisfies me, it slakes my thirst, and there will be another one along in a minute. The vintage wine has so many more nuances, is more complex and takes longer. Each has it's place, and neither is better than the other, just different and satisfying two different sets of expectations and requirements.

Whewww.. what a mouthful.. of beer, and vintage wine.

david kuijt
05-18-2011, 11:10 AM
1. People had been playing DBM for 10 years minimum. There were well understood paradigms, the players knew the rules extremely well, the same players won almost all the time, and frankly, most players were a little bit jaded as the known paradigms, the best armies, the same strategies made many games quite repetitive.

Right. Stagnation is dangerous.


The DBMM development process was well-intentioned but akin to a sausage factory throwing an open day. Many players who were 'Big Names' got quite upset because their opinions didn't immediately result in changes to the development process. Inevitably, some of them decided they weren't being treated with the respect they felt they deserved, and went off in a monumental huff.


I've heard that said -- I wasn't involved, so I have no first-hand knowledge. When I've heard that said, though, it was by DBMM players, so I suspect that there are two sides to that story.

Everyone being equal is fine -- let blind logic rule. But if DBM players were treated to a development process that was arbitrary and incomprehensible, I can understand why some of them got frustrated.


The upshot was FoG. In it (IMO) they stripped down the DBM model, and made the whole thing a lot less 'historical' and a much purer test of player ability.


I know nothing of FoG -- save that around here it isn't a rival for DBM. I don't hear anything about DBM players moving to that direction either.


In the meantime, DBMM eventually came out.. by which stage, many players had already moved away, and more importantly, declared publicly that DBMM was 'broken' and they would never play it. Some of this was hubris at having their opinions ignored, some of it was deciding they didn't agree with certain things - like general qualities, or irregular light horse being made impetuous (prone to advance to contact without using PIPS).


If 3.0 comes out and is (in my opinion) broken, I'm going to say so, and I'm sure some will criticize my declaration (if it so occurs) as hubris. Right now I'm fairly sure it will be broken, because the 80mm heavy foot move is irredeemable. I guess we'll see.


Skip forward a few years - DBMM 2 has seen a significant increase in numbers playing DBx (excluding DBA) certainly in UK, Europe and Australia. The American market has always been more fragmented, and the game has had fewer 'champions' in that arena.

More players are playing DBMM2 (to some extent DBMM1 was a playtest version, in much the same way as DBA 1.0 being quite unbalanced.) FoG players are starting to come over to DBMM. I have my own views on the reasons for that which I wont go into here.

It still has significant critics, especially among pure competition players who complain that the game is too unpredictable, that weather, stratagems, and other 'tricks' diminish the extent to which player skill (in manouevre, match-up etc.) dominates the game.


Best of luck to them all -- DBA is my concern. I'm sure DBMM is a fine game; I just wish the designer of DBA would spend more time playing DBA. I think it would change his perspective.


One aspect of the US scene is that relatively little of the regular gaming goes on in large clubs, most seems to be a few guys in someones basement.


There is no (almost no) sense of a "club" in the US. Not the way it means in the UK. I suspect that is a product of larger spaces and larger houses here -- rented shared communal spaces make sense in the UK where many people live in much smaller private spaces, and where travel distances are much smaller in general. But I'm just pulling that guess out of my butt.

This is quite different from the UK & Oz model. In clubs you may have two or three guys from forty who give DBMM a go, and become advocates and champions, and drive uptake among other players. All of a sudden you have a sustainable player base. In the US - much more difficult. The one guy in the basement quite likes the idea, but everyone else has been told the rules are terrible. Barkerese is so difficult. So lets play something everyone wants to play. Innovation is much more difficult.


I'm not sure I agree -- in the US model, the mixing and trying new things happens at gaming conventions. At least here on the East Coast, there are a bunch of them, and I've been to others in Tennessee, Ohio, and Washington State. So really it works the same as at UK/OZ clubs, it seems to me -- one or two fellows with enthusiasm put together a game and get others to try it; if it is a successful experience it will snowball, otherwise not.

Barkerese has a bad reputation, but that is as true for DBA as for any other system he has developed. DBA has grown to be the largest (in terms of numbers) Ancients system in the USA because of the many interesting events that people run here. There is no real competitor.

If the combination of how Phil writes 3.0, and how Phil presents 3.0, creates a schism then that will likely change.


Sorry for being so prolix, but I felt your comments merited a serious response.


Always happy to wax prolix myself.

Rong
05-18-2011, 11:27 AM
I will not quit DBA becuase of the 3.0 ruleset if and when it becomes available. If it's broken, I'll stick to 2.2.:2up

Doug
05-18-2011, 11:44 AM
1.42 am here, and much wine consumed. Lengthier and considered response to follow after big battle (30 elephants..) DBMM game tomorrow, or maybe after the DBA comp on Sunday.. I should be painting some Communal Italians really...

cheers

Bobgnar
05-18-2011, 12:36 PM
snip

Many people inherently resist change. Ask yourself why we are not still playing 'Little Wars' rules. (Centenary in 2013.)

"We" may not be playing Little Wars, but "I" am with my local group. I have done games at Historicon. I am hoping to do a big game in 2013.

It is a great game, but in 54mm it takes much space, and is expensive to do with Britians figures.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/littlewars.html

Stephen Webb
05-18-2011, 06:38 PM
As an observation of the club I belong to, which is the Southern battlegamers based in Sydney, Australia.

Since I joined a number of years ago, DBA has remained the most popular in terms of players and games played.

A small group, led by one member of the club has moved from WAB to FOG and now to Hail Ceasar. A few used to play DBM but did not move on to DBMM.

This group enjoys playing large battles, but I think that the fact that they keep changing the rules they use indicates something is lacking in those rules.

I don't think anyone has considered DBMM v2. Probably due to DBMM v1.

Victor
05-18-2011, 10:29 PM
If 3.0 comes out and is (in my opinion) broken, I'm going to say so, and I'm sure some will criticize my declaration (if it so occurs) as hubris. Right now I'm fairly sure it will be broken, because the 80mm heavy foot move is irredeemable. I guess we'll see.

Just selectively latching onto this snippet of information, is the 80mm move for HI accompanyed with recoil by base width (rather than depth)? I think deeper recoils are needed to offset the greater move distance.

Though a 60mm move would be much better.....

dicemanrick
05-18-2011, 10:47 PM
The Princess Bride. :D

Frank

"I am Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Now prepare to die!!":D

Richard Lee
05-19-2011, 01:40 AM
If 3.0 comes out and is (in my opinion) broken, I'm going to say so, and I'm sure some will criticize my declaration (if it so occurs) as hubris. Right now I'm fairly sure it will be broken, because the 80mm heavy foot move is irredeemable. I guess we'll see.

I have not tried the new movement distances. My gut feeling is that an 80mm move for heavy foot could look a bit strange with 6mm armies. Will have to try version 3.0 when it appears, but if I don't like it I foresee three possible alternatives:-

1) Continue with DBA version 2.2;

2) Use an unofficial DBA version 2.3 if it is developed by competent persons;

3) Use DBA version 3 for my 15mm and 25mm armies and develop my own game for my 6mm armies.

What I hope is that DBA version 3 will be a good game and an improvement; it is easier getting newbies to play something 'official'.

Filippo S.
05-19-2011, 03:45 AM
... 80mm move for heavy foot ...
Bd now move at 200p (5cm) after will (may/could) move 8cm.
With the same system, LH will move: 200mm (aka 20cm) instead of 125mm, a difference of 62,5%

If this is right, with 3 PIP an LH element:
- 2.2 ->12,5*3 = 37,5cm
- 3.0 -> 20*3 = 60cm

To move at the same distance now you need 5 PIP... even with a 75cm board it's a great difference!
Inches or centimeters, it's the same: all the army will move 62.5% faster on a field 25% wider. Am I right?
Ciao

PS: I'm just talking about differences, better or worst, we will see in the final release toghether with all other changes

Martyn
05-19-2011, 04:41 AM
Bd now move at 200p (5cm) after will (may/could) move 8cm.
With the same system, LH will move: 200mm (aka 20cm) instead of 125mm, a difference of 62,5%

If this is right, with 3 PIP an LH element:
- 2.2 ->12,5*3 = 37,5cm
- 3.0 -> 20*3 = 60cm

To move at the same distance now you need 5 PIP... even with a 75cm board it's a great difference!
Inches or centimeters, it's the same: all the army will move 62.5% faster on a field 25% wider. Am I right?
Ciao

PS: I'm just talking about differences, better or worst, we will see in the final release toghether with all other changes

Nice analysis, assuming that the respective move distances are those proposed in v3, this makes a huge difference to the game, even if coupled with bigger boards.

Without seeing how it plays out, or how this change interrelates to other changes, it is difficult to see how big a difference it makes. Clearly DK as one of the cats is not happy.:(

Doug
05-19-2011, 04:50 AM
Nice analysis, assuming that the respective move distances are those proposed in v3, this makes a huge difference to the game, even if coupled with bigger boards.

Without seeing how it plays out, or how this change interrelates to other changes, it is difficult to see how big a difference it makes. Clearly DK as one of the cats is not happy.:(

I can confirm that you have a number of untested assumptions in your calculation above.

DK can make his own comments.

Filippo S.
05-19-2011, 05:07 AM
I can confirm that you have a number of untested assumptions in your calculation above.DK can make his own comments.

I assumed this:
- movement base width (4cm, as DBMM) not more 100paces (2.5cm, 1 inch)
- board 75cm or 30inches, proposal I read in this forum.

But this could be both wrong, I don't know if 3.0 will be like this.

Bd moving 8cm is like a double base width move: 4cm+4cm.
It's not possible now, move bd 2 times unless you're on a road etc...
Surely there are more things to consider. It's never been easy understand DBA rules :rotfl

Martyn
05-19-2011, 06:30 AM
I can confirm that you have a number of untested assumptions in your calculation above.

DK can make his own comments.

Ah yes, the lack of anything concrete leads to plenty of assumptions, which feeds the wild speculation which do need occasionally bringing back down to earth.

DK has already commented.

Right now I'm fairly sure it will be broken, because the 80mm heavy foot move is irredeemable. I guess we'll see.

As a general question on v3 how close do you feel you are getting to a final draft? Are there still new ideas coming from Phil or are you now in the stage of testing, fine tuning and/or rejection of existing ideas?

Doug
05-19-2011, 07:15 AM
Ah yes, the lack of anything concrete leads to plenty of assumptions, which feeds the wild speculation which do need occasionally bringing back down to earth.

DK has already commented.

As a general question on v3 how close do you feel you are getting to a final draft? Are there still new ideas coming from Phil or are you now in the stage of testing, fine tuning and/or rejection of existing ideas?

My feeling is that the bulk of it is settled, we are now down to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in a couple of areas, but there are still a couple of big areas that need resolution. And Phil being Phil, he is just as likely to stick something bizarre into a late draft. Bob, Andreas and DK have been invaluable. Unfortunately I have been overseas for 7 weeks, so haven't been able to do as much testing as I would like.

Busy painting as well, I committed to taking Communal Italian to David Lawrence's competition DBA with a twist (he has added Pavisiers and Relics to the lists) on the weekend, so some figures to churn through instead of studying the latest draft.

Martyn
05-19-2011, 07:29 AM
My feeling is that the bulk of it is settled, we are now down to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in a couple of areas, but there are still a couple of big areas that need resolution. And Phil being Phil, he is just as likely to stick something bizarre into a late draft. Bob, Andreas and DK have been invaluable. Unfortunately I have been overseas for 7 weeks, so haven't been able to do as much testing as I would like.

Thanks, interesting to know where thing are.

Busy painting as well, I committed to taking Communal Italian to David Lawrence's competition DBA with a twist (he has added Pavisiers and Relics to the lists) on the weekend, so some figures to churn through instead of studying the latest draft.

Good luck, I hope someboody does a report on how the Pv and Relic additions work.

Tony Aguilar
05-19-2011, 07:55 AM
My feeling is that the bulk of it is settled, we are now down to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in a couple of areas, but there are still a couple of big areas that need resolution.

Doug, is there any indication that Phil has given a thumbs up or a thumbs down on any of the work done by Sue on the Army Lists?

Musashi
05-19-2011, 07:56 AM
Ok, at what point did I get depressed along the way?

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-19-2011, 08:34 AM
Ok, at what point did I get depressed along the way?

Look on the bright side.

The 3.0 book may have production values that reach far into the 1980's.

Just in time for the 25th anniversary of "Top Gun"! :up

Doug
05-19-2011, 08:35 AM
Doug, is there any indication that Phil has given a thumbs up or a thumbs down on any of the work done by Sue on the Army Lists?

Nothing to date I am afraid.

Musashi
05-19-2011, 08:35 AM
PB is such a "Maverick".

Inanna'sBoyToy
05-19-2011, 09:57 AM
PB is such a "Maverick".

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p219/Keeneddie_2007/Top-Gun-movie-16.jpg

:D

Musashi
05-19-2011, 10:19 AM
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p219/Keeneddie_2007/Top-Gun-movie-16.jpg

:D

I need to get a giant blow-up made of that picture and put it above my fireplace mantle.

Macbeth
05-19-2011, 07:09 PM
I hope someboody does a report on how the Pv and Relic additions work.

I plan to provide some verbiage on the matter after Sunday :D

Certainly the bulk of the entries have embraced the idea with just over half the entries having either Relics or Pavisiers in their army :up

We even have three armies with both :2up

Cheers

Doug
05-21-2011, 10:44 AM
Well, the commies are finished and looking ok, except I stole the relic from my Condotta army, so it has handgunners protecting it. Not quite right for 1320...

Oh well.. it will be a loser anyway.

Doug
05-22-2011, 09:50 AM
Well, the commies are finished and looking ok, except I stole the relic from my Condotta army, so it has handgunners protecting it. Not quite right for 1320...

Oh well.. it will be a loser anyway.

Well... now it's all over, and the trophy is in its rightful place, on my cabinet. The Italians did all right, dice failed me vs David Osborne in the first game, but compensated by being good to me vs Mike Phillips. The horde were fun... I thought people might treat them as a target, but not so...

The real killers were the Kn and the Pavisiers, the Spear did ok too...