PDA

View Full Version : More words of wisdom on DBA 3.0 from PB over on the DBMM List


Pages : [1] 2

JLogan
07-19-2011, 02:54 PM
Message from PB on DBMM List:

I see from a DBA group digest that Sue has sent me that several of the
contributors are also familiar names from this group.

The DBA 3 panel is now largely in agreement, with the exception of 1 point. Some
of those that do not also play DBMM do not like an increase in heavy infantry
moves, intended mainly to counter an opponent hiding his vulnerable troops at
the back of the board where an infantry army cannot reach them before game end.
The new moves are the same length in base widths as those of DBMM. The objection
is that this handicaps mounted by reducing their move margin over the foot.

I would be grateful if those of you on both DBMM and DBA groups would reassure
the DBA only players (in particular Bob Beatty) that there is in fact no problem
in actual play.

Phil

teenage visigoth
07-19-2011, 03:07 PM
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2RvKVTF2S9A/TiXVRTigdFI/AAAAAAAAA3o/qVZho5lLGsI/s288/hal_9000b.jpg

Bob, everything is under control.

nikgaukroger
07-19-2011, 03:35 PM
Ah, good old Phil maing friends again :rotfl

However, he is basically right about the movement rates.

Rich Gause
07-19-2011, 04:01 PM
Message from PB on DBMM List:

I see from a DBA group digest that Sue has sent me that several of the
contributors are also familiar names from this group.

The DBA 3 panel is now largely in agreement, with the exception of 1 point. Some
of those that do not also play DBMM do not like an increase in heavy infantry
moves, intended mainly to counter an opponent hiding his vulnerable troops at
the back of the board where an infantry army cannot reach them before game end.
The new moves are the same length in base widths as those of DBMM. The objection
is that this handicaps mounted by reducing their move margin over the foot.

I would be grateful if those of you on both DBMM and DBA groups would reassure
the DBA only players (in particular Bob Beatty) that there is in fact no problem
in actual play.

Phil


The DBMM movement rate of 80mm for heavy foot simply does not work for DBA. The problem it is designed to correct does not exist in DBA. If the intent of the rule is to make it easier to switch back and forth between DBMM and DBA or to make DBA a better beginners game for DBMM then I suppose it works for that. The objection is that it makes heavy foot too fast and allows all sorts of nonsense like door closing a recoiled mounted unit with a heavy foot that overlapped it last turn being one of the worst examples.

Redwilde
07-19-2011, 04:04 PM
I am quite willing to take DBMM players' word on it that those movement rates ratios are no problem at all in DBMM.

But I play a different game.

Andreas Johansson
07-19-2011, 04:08 PM
Did I cease to exist without noticing? I play both games, I've been on the panel since the start, and I think the relative increase of HI movement is deterimental in DBA. That it works in 'MM isn't a strong argument because other rules differences modulate the impact.

Plus, the problem allegedly being addressed is a non-issue IME.

Paul Potter
07-19-2011, 04:18 PM
what is this about (I have been ignoring most of the conversation about 3.0 changes). 80mm for 15mm blades, spears and pike? Do other element types movement rates change accordingly? -Paul

Rich Gause
07-19-2011, 04:26 PM
what is this about (I have been ignoring most of the conversation about 3.0 changes). 80mm for 15mm blades, spears and pike? Do other element types movement rates change accordingly? -Paul

No, they increase but not by a proportional amount. They are identical to DBMM rates.

Ammianus
07-19-2011, 04:35 PM
Thanks Rich for translating what PB said!

Paul Potter
07-19-2011, 04:35 PM
I don't know dbmm movement rates.

I feel the stiring of rebellion in my inward parts.

-Paul

david kuijt
07-19-2011, 04:50 PM
Did I cease to exist without noticing? I play both games, I've been on the panel since the start, and I think the relative increase of HI movement is deterimental in DBA.

Your opinions have obviously been tainted somehow, Andreas. Association with the wrong crowd, perhaps.

D

Kingo
07-19-2011, 04:53 PM
Can someone post the new move distances proposed for DBA 3, so I can test it in a few games?

thanks Kingo

David Schlanger
07-19-2011, 05:17 PM
Your opinions have obviously been tainted somehow, Andreas. Association with the wrong crowd, perhaps.

D


Mine too!

DS

David Constable
07-19-2011, 05:26 PM
Hello all users of DBA3 and welcome to DBMM for beginers. :sick

To all true DBA2.2 (and earlier) players, stick with it. :2up

David Constable

Si2
07-19-2011, 05:57 PM
Hello all users of DBA3 and welcome to DBMM for beginers. :sick

To all true DBA2.2 (and earlier) players, stick with it. :2up

David Constable

I'm beginning to think this way too.
Why move in basewidths? What's the width of a base got to do with anything?

I play regularly on 4ft square boards with 25mm figures and I've manged to stomp across the entire battlefield to reign spikey death on a recalcitrant opponent many times.
I have even managed to take a camp with a pike element once. He just dawdled across the entire board and stuck one in 'em.

Surely with the little handkerchief sized 15mm boards people play on, you're in combat in bound two most games anyhow.

I've been quite enthusiastic for the army lists changes; making up new elements will mean I go back over my armies and properly finish them off and tidy them up.

But I fear for change because 'it works for DBMM'. Don't they have flank marches and stuff to increase speed? I should be glad that 25mm is affected slightly less than 15mm though. With a 60% increase over a 50% in 25mm.

Does this mean there will be a change to the shooting range for bows as well?
Currently foot are in bow shot if they can contact new bound. With the new movement rates they will not be in bow shot.
Unless bow range changes to two base widths, then the range are becomes a nice rectangle, rather than the windscreen shape we have these days. I guess that brings five elements in to range of a bow element if it faces a line that is directly in front of it.

Some food for thought.

Rich Gause
07-19-2011, 06:00 PM
I'm beginning to think this way too.
Why move in basewidths? What's the width of a base got to do with anything?

I play regularly on 4ft square boards with 25mm figures and I've manged to stomp across the entire battlefield to reign spikey death on a recalcitrant opponent many times.
I have even managed to take a camp with a pike element once. He just dawdled across the entire board and stuck one in 'em.

Surely with the little handkerchief sized 15mm boards people play on, you're in combat in bound two most games anyhow.

I've been quite enthusiastic for the army lists changes; making up new elements will mean I go back over my armies and properly finish them off and tidy them up.

But I fear for change because 'it works for DBMM'. Don't they have flank marches and stuff to increase speed? I should be glad that 25mm is affected slightly less than 15mm though. With a 60% increase over a 50% in 25mm.

Does this mean there will be a change to the shooting range for bows as well?
Currently foot are in bow shot if they can contact new bound. With the new movement rates they will not be in bow shot.
Unless bow range changes to two base widths, then the range are becomes a nice rectangle, rather than the windscreen shape we have these days. I guess that brings five elements in to range of a bow element if it faces a line that is directly in front of it.

Some food for thought.

Measuring in BW makes sense in that it no longer matters what scale you are playing in the game will play the same. The question is how many BW should things move and shoot?

Ammianus
07-19-2011, 07:14 PM
Per Kingo:
http://blog.vexillia.me.uk/2007/12/dbmm-deployment-movement.html
and
http://www.dbmm.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:official-qrs&catid=36:dbmm-qrs&Itemid=216

Lobotomy
07-19-2011, 09:25 PM
Message from PB on DBMM List:

The DBA 3 panel is now largely in agreement, with the exception of 1 point.

. . . . .

the DBA only players (in particular Bob Beatty) that there is in fact no problem
in actual play.

Phil

Bull****, to both points. Do they actually play the game when they claim to test out the concepts?! As we said locally about a game we played a long time ago (but not all that far, far away) "tantalizing, but doubtful."

Hannibal Ad Portas
07-19-2011, 09:42 PM
I have been happy with DBA 2.2. I don't want DBMM lite. I don't want to change the composition of half or more of my armies. I also don't want to hear, "Well just keep playing 2.2 then....no one said you had to change." I call BS on that stance. In a game where tournaments are the norm, a new edition to the rules virtually forces players to change if they wish to continue playing in tournaments. My only hope is that DBA 3.0, if it ends up being as bad as I fear it might be, turns out to be too much of a change for the majority of the North American DBA community. I just don't understand what was so horrible about 2.2 that it required so many changes. If it was the bendy line and other such geometric ploys, then it seems as if those issues might have been fixed with a small number of reasonable changes.

peleset
07-19-2011, 09:52 PM
Per Kingo:
http://blog.vexillia.me.uk/2007/12/dbmm-deployment-movement.html
and
http://www.dbmm.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120:official-qrs&catid=36:dbmm-qrs&Itemid=216

A nice horse colour guide there.

Redwilde
07-19-2011, 09:54 PM
In a game where tournaments are the norm, a new edition to the rules virtually forces players to change if they wish to continue playing in tournaments.

WRG 6th is still going strong as a tournament game in England.

If DBA 3 is a dud, I suspect 2.2(x) will continue strong in the US. It's too good a game to abandon.

dicemanrick
07-19-2011, 09:56 PM
The fast foot movement rate is definitely NOT good on a standard 24" board. The 'closing the door' problem radically changes how the DBA (NOT DBMM) game is played currently.

I've played hundreds of DBA games at home or at tournament conventions and NEVER saw someone "hide vulnerable elements at the back of the board"...is this an English phenomenon perhaps?

DBA and DBMM are two separate games and what works in one may not in the other. The loss of an element in DBMM means little, but in DBA it's a quarter of what you need to lose the game.

Since no one in the States plays DBMM (at least I've never seen any at all the conventions I attend) maybe someone from Europe can convince us DBA players why the movement rates are good ...IN DBA. I'm quite convinced that many of the "playtesters" never played a game of DBA with these new features or the 2.2 version.

The DBMM Yahoo group has 1710 members and the DBA group has 2502...why do they have to convince us of anything?

Above is my two cents worth, and I'm still awaiting the new rules to actually play them. If I don't like them, I'll continue to enjoy 2.2...my all-time favorite miniatures rules...and thanks to Phil and Sue for them!

snowcat
07-19-2011, 10:16 PM
I hope Phil has actually looked at this particular issue, seeing as it's been raised and explained well over a hundred times.

:???

Richard Lee
07-20-2011, 12:08 AM
I've played hundreds of DBA games at home or at tournament conventions and NEVER saw someone "hide vulnerable elements at the back of the board"...is this an English phenomenon perhaps?

As far as I am aware this is not an English (or British) phenomenon. There are people who play in far more DBA competitions than myself; I have never heard anyone report such a problem in the UK.

Mark Davies
07-20-2011, 12:09 AM
A nice horse colour guide there.
True, the visit was not all in vain!

Richard Lee
07-20-2011, 12:28 AM
Why move in basewidths? What's the width of a base got to do with anything?

The idea of using base widths is not a bad one, in my opinion. It makes both 25mm and smaller figure games play similarly. If you move an auxilia or psiloi element sideways in 25mm you move it 3x40mm which happens to be 120mm, exactly 2 basewidths. If you move a similar 15mm or 6mm element sideways you move it 3x25.5mm, which is 76.5mm, just short of two base widths.

It also makes things easier if someone wants to use different base sizes, for instance 80mm wide bases for scale creep affected 28mm figures.

I am not sure whether or not the DBMM movement rates will transplant themselves into DBA version 3 successfully. Until the final version is published and I can play a couple of games of the rules in their entirety I will withhold my judgment.

However, there are other possibilities. You could, for instance, make 100 paces equal to half a base width instead of 1 inch/40mm, and keep the movement and shooting distances the same number of 100 pace units. Alternatively you could make 100 paces equal to 3/4 of a base width (giving 30mm or 45mm per 100 paces).

David Constable
07-20-2011, 03:31 AM
PART CUT

Since no one in the States plays DBMM (at least I've never seen any at all the conventions I attend) maybe someone from Europe can convince us DBA players why the movement rates are good ...IN DBA. I'm quite convinced that many of the "playtesters" never played a game of DBA with these new features or the 2.2 version.

The DBMM Yahoo group has 1710 members and the DBA group has 2502...why do they have to convince us of anything?

PART CUT

It has been tested on a couple of occassions by one UK person, it affected set up badly as far as I remember, it has to be correct against an infantry based army.
The speed alterations makes it a different game completly.

David Constable

Andreas Johansson
07-20-2011, 04:30 AM
Bull****, to both points. Do they actually play the game when they claim to test out the concepts?!
Phil isn't accurately reporting what the testers are saying, so please don't cast aspersions on us based on his report.

platypus01
07-20-2011, 05:04 AM
I'm quite convinced that many of the "playtesters" never played a game of DBA with these new features or the 2.2 version.

You'd be wrong.

JohnG

Xavi
07-20-2011, 05:18 AM
If someone "hides his vulnerable elements at the back" I would thank him a lot for allowing me to outflank him easily and kill his "hard" elements hands down. Playing 12 elements vs 10 elements is hardly ever a good proposition in DBA.

BTW, is the game board size changing? Corner sitting has never been a problem around here, and in the only case I have played against a corner sitter in a French tournament I just went to his deployment zone and obliterated his army to oblivion in 45 minutes. Advancing at the speed of my spears and bows (late polish). Some of his elements died recoiling off the back of the board. Where is the speed problem?

What I am reading is not something I eagerly await. I do not care much about what the playtesters say. I am sure most of the playtesters are knowledgeable people, since most people that care to playtest a game are people that plan on PLAYING it when it is released. So kudos to all of you :) However, what I REALLY care about what Phil Barker THINKS the playtesters say. Both things can be worlds away and for what you are saying this is the case. Pity.

Xavi

Martyn
07-20-2011, 05:55 AM
Why does Phil insist on posting on the DBMM yahoo group about DBA? Why not on the DBA yahoo group, or, (deep intake of breath) here.

The last time I entered the discussion about DBA on the MM group the reaction was quite astounding not only on the forum but by personal email as well.

The use of language is also interesting ‘largely in agreement’ except for movement? It would be interesting how many of the play testers are concerned about this aspect, some get mentioned in dispatches, some make their point of view clear publically, some presumably make comment direct to Phil but do so privately.

The concern raised many times is the proportion of non DBA playing MMer who are play testing and therefore playing v3 as the first exposure to DBA. They are not necessarily familiar with what DBA is and therefore do not realise the affect of changes on what DBA will become. As commented on before the hiding at the back of the board is a non issue, but non players do not know this by their experience but presumably accept the truth of the statement when expounded by Phil. It raises a thought in my mind as to how much ‘guidance’ were the play testers given at the outset and do they therefore merely reflect Phil preconceived prejudices?

I do not necessarily agree that Phil is trying to make DBA into an intro to MM. The proposed changes to basing and removal of fig numbers creates a disconnect between the two. If you enter DBA and build your army with the wrong figure numbers then if you trade up to MM you are going to need to rebase (if you base your DBA Ax with 3 figs but then find in MM they are regular you have to add an extra figure). I also assume that although v3 uses some concepts and rules originally introduced in MM there are still considerable differences between the two. This to my mind makes MM100/200 an intro as they share the basic concepts. I have not seen v3 so I may be way off on this but that is my impression.

I have not seen a copy of v3 so all I know is from the public utterances form Phil and the comments from the play testers. I am still in the wait and see camp, but I doubt that I will be in a hurry to buy.

dicemanrick
07-20-2011, 11:28 AM
You'd be wrong.

JohnG
John, I said "many", not all. I know some of the Aussies and Kiwis are DBA players, and I hope that their input helps a lot.

But you're telling me that Phil chose mainly DBA players to playtest 3.0, and not DBMM players? There may be some, but I'm still of the belief that many were not regular DBA players. That must be the reason why he chooses to post everything on the DBMM Yahoo Group and not the DBA Group or Fanaticus, right?

The games are VERY different. They model combat differently. They use different representational notions. They use different size boards. Victory conditions are totally different.

A DBMM player would not be the best choice to playtest DBA, just as a DBA player should not be key in the test group for a new version of DBMM.

Rich Gause
07-20-2011, 12:04 PM
John, I said "many", not all. I know some of the Aussies and Kiwis are DBA players, and I hope that their input helps a lot.

But you're telling me that Phil chose mainly DBA players to playtest 3.0, and not DBMM players? There may be some, but I'm still of the belief that many were not regular DBA players. That must be the reason why he chooses to post everything on the DBMM Yahoo Group and not the DBA Group or Fanaticus, right?

The games are VERY different. They model combat differently. They use different representational notions. They use different size boards. Victory conditions are totally different.

A DBMM player would not be the best choice to playtest DBA, just as a DBA player should not be key in the test group for a new version of DBMM.

Unless the intent was to make DBA an introductory game to DBMM, then it would all make sense. If as many of the core concepts are the same or as close as they can be even to the point that it makes DBA not as good of a game then that is what is going on. It is fairly easy to remember different quick kills and combat values, anybody who plays multiple DBx variants can attest to that. It is a lot harder to have a good "feel" for a game when the movement rates are too dissimiliar. Actions speak louder than words. As long as the 2 BW move for heavy foot is retained then I will continue to believe that the prime directive behind the design of 3.0 is to make it a good introductory game for DBMM.

Andreas Johansson
07-20-2011, 01:42 PM
But you're telling me that Phil chose mainly DBA players to playtest 3.0, and not DBMM players? There may be some, but I'm still of the belief that many were not regular DBA players. That must be the reason why he chooses to post everything on the DBMM Yahoo Group and not the DBA Group or Fanaticus, right?
The logic here escapes me. When he wants to reach the playtesters, we writes to us directly, not any mailing list or forum. He wrote to the 'MM list this time because he wanted to reach DBMM players who are not DBA 3.0 playtesters because he (inexplicably) thinks they'll calm Bob's fears concerning DBMM-style movement allowances.

david kuijt
07-20-2011, 02:06 PM
He wrote to the 'MM list this time because he wanted to reach DBMM players who are not DBA 3.0 playtesters because he (inexplicably) thinks they'll calm Bob's fears concerning DBMM-style movement allowances.

I'm sure that when Bob receives mass spam mailings from DBMM players who don't play DBA, Bob will be quickly convinced.

Everyone else who wasn't comfortable with the 80mm heavy foot move and its implications for DBA (at various points Andreas, Doug, DS, and me) should sign up for the mass mailings as well, so that Bob is not left alone, the only DBA player convinced by incoming wads of DBMM spam.

winterbadger
07-20-2011, 02:47 PM
I have been happy with DBA 2.2. I don't want DBMM lite. I don't want to change the composition of half or more of my armies. I also don't want to hear, "Well just keep playing 2.2 then....no one said you had to change." I call BS on that stance. In a game where tournaments are the norm, a new edition to the rules virtually forces players to change if they wish to continue playing in tournaments. My only hope is that DBA 3.0, if it ends up being as bad as I fear it might be, turns out to be too much of a change for the majority of the North American DBA community. I just don't understand what was so horrible about 2.2 that it required so many changes. If it was the bendy line and other such geometric ploys, then it seems as if those issues might have been fixed with a small number of reasonable changes.

Hannibal, I can tell you now, I won't be playing 3.0. Everything about it seems to have been flawed from the first, and it has no appeal for me whatsoever. While this forum does not represent, in any kind of legislative sense, the community of DBA players, I think its size and the combined experience of its participants are considerable enough that some weight should be given to consensus opinions that evolve here. And its been pretty clear (to me at least) that there has been support for some years now for the idea of an upgrade edition (2.3?) that clarifies wording and fixes loopholes but that doesn't substantially change the nature of the game.

PB chose, from the outset, to create an entirely reworked version of the game, a new edition (3.0) that "repaired" mechanisms that no substantial number of people who regularly play the game (which he, apparently, does not) believed were broken. First big strike.

Army lists are bound to change when one opts for "big new edition" instead of upgrades. Some people are happy with the changes, some are not. That's swings and roundabouts, but it's another reason that going the new edition route was going to make at least some people unhappy.

He chose to enlist in the "playtesting" effort mostly (as far as we can tell from here) people whose primary playing experience was DBMM, not DBA, and when he eventually included some very experienced and very savvy DBA players, he seems to have alternately ignored and rejected most of the advice he got from several of them. Second big mistake.

Finally, when it seems clear that the cart has gone off the rails and the end product may well be regarded as deeply flawed from the POV of a good portion of the DBA playing community, his reaction on several occasions now has been to rubbish his critics and to blandly proclaim that all is well. That may work for David Cameron, but I don't think it works here.

Could we all buy the new edition and see what finally came out of the Black Cauldron? Yes, but that rewards an approach to the game and an approach to its community that, IMO, have been foolish and wrong-headed, in places verging on the dismissive and even offensive.

People say that PB doesn't care whether people buy the new rules or not, that all of this work is in his view just to make the rules the way he wants them to be. Grand; we'll both be happy. He'll have DBA 3.0 (and probably play it as often as he did 2.x), and I will have 2.2, with no new unintelligible gibberish to decrypt, no new army lists that put half of my figures in the boneyard, no debates about how to fix the latest "BUA denizen" disaster. Win-win! :D

Kanishka
07-20-2011, 05:30 PM
Unless the intent was to make DBA an introductory game to DBMM, then it would all make sense.

Isn't precisely that what PB has repeatedly said he considers DBA to be - an intro to DBM, originally, and now for DBMM?

Ammianus
07-20-2011, 06:41 PM
The following does NOT reflect scientific playtesting:
After Phil's most recent pouring of blood into the piranha pool; I visited:

http://blog.vexillia.me.uk/2007/12/dbmm-deployment-movement.html

and made a copy of the DBMM movement chart. I rolled out my 30x30 game map (from The Terrain Guy) and ran through a "quick" Patrician Roman vs a hardy Frisian army. PATs were running a strongly barbarian force (per the new 3.0 lists); West Roman Dux(CV), 6 Gothic foot (WB), 4 Hunnic horse (LC), 1 Gothic heavy cav (CV). I think PB may have to change "DBA 3.0" to "Lightning Quick Ancients." Even on the 30x30 both armies positively scampered & game resolved in a flash of an eye: PATs 6 to 3 victory.

Maybe this is the way to go for solitaire, one game after getting off work guys like me. I'll continue to follow with interest the comments from the professional DBA crowd.

Lobotomy
07-20-2011, 08:42 PM
Phil isn't accurately reporting what the testers are saying, so please don't cast aspersions on us based on his report.

Andreas, I apologize if you took it as casting aspersions on your group or you. I am certain you play the proposed revisions. But as for the other group, and the author for that matter, I stand by my opinions.

snowcat
07-20-2011, 08:58 PM
Cobbled together from here and the DBMM list:

2 perceived issues with DBA 3:

Q: Door closing a recoiled mounted unit with a heavy foot that overlapped it last turn...

A: Why is that a problem? Because you can't do it in 2.2? So what. I think this is a feature, not a bug. I found the BW measurement to be easy to use, and had no serious downsides. You could cover flanks and get a flank contact slightly easier, but this just means you have to be more careful to maintain a line. You got into combat faster, but that is a feature as well. It was always a grind in DBA to slog across the table, without a marching mechanism.

Q: Currently foot are in bow shot if they can contact next bound. With the new movement rates they will not be in bow shot. Why would that be for the better? It would seriously handicap Bw versus any other foot.

A: Because it isn't true. In 2.2 Bow shoot 200p and "other foot" move 200p. I don't think it is a secret in the proposed v3 that Bow shoot 200p and "other foot" move 200p. So tell me exactly where the problem is??

??

Martyn
07-21-2011, 04:04 AM
Cobbled together from here and the DBMM list:

2 perceived issues with DBA 3:

Q: Door closing a recoiled mounted unit with a heavy foot that overlapped it last turn...

A: Why is that a problem? Because you can't do it in 2.2? So what. I think this is a feature, not a bug. I found the BW measurement to be easy to use, and had no serious downsides. You could cover flanks and get a flank contact slightly easier, but this just means you have to be more careful to maintain a line. You got into combat faster, but that is a feature as well. It was always a grind in DBA to slog across the table, without a marching mechanism.

Q: Currently foot are in bow shot if they can contact next bound. With the new movement rates they will not be in bow shot. Why would that be for the better? It would seriously handicap Bw versus any other foot.

A: Because it isn't true. In 2.2 Bow shoot 200p and "other foot" move 200p. I don't think it is a secret in the proposed v3 that Bow shoot 200p and "other foot" move 200p. So tell me exactly where the problem is??

??

Therein lies the problem. Those of us who have not seen the complete v3 wording do not know the other rules and how they interact with the move distances. Accordingly we (the aforementioned uninitiated) can not know that this is bad. It may be different, but not necessarily bad.

We rely on the opinions of those that have been involved in the development process. Of those Fanatacii that we know are involved I can respect their opinions as they are experienced and committed DBA players, but not all of them seem to agree on all points. So where does that leave us (the uninitiated)?

I will reserve judgement until such time as the rules are in my hand (when ever that may be).

Xavi
07-21-2011, 04:11 AM
I think that the DBM crowd might not have noticed that losing a single element in DBA is the equivalent of losing 6 or 7 elements straight in a DBM army: a massive loss. Enough to (almost) break one of the commands of a DBM army. A single element closing your door is like sending a small command down your flank. Quite more maneuverable than what DBM has.

As I said, I am concerned not about what playtesters are saying, but about what Phil Barker THINKS they are saying. And here I am not conviced 3.0 will be an improvement.

Xavi

Andreas Johansson
07-21-2011, 07:46 AM
Isn't precisely that what PB has repeatedly said he considers DBA to be - an intro to DBM, originally, and now for DBMM?

That would be odd, as DBA predates DBM.


Plus, if he intends 3.0 as an introuction to 'MM, he's being grossly incompetent in introducing differences from 'MM that didn't exist in 2.2.

michael guth
07-21-2011, 08:01 AM
Dear Snowcat,

I will attempt to address your comment in a serious manner. DBA is an IGOYOUGO game. The PIP system serves to mitigate the inherent problem of such a game system, namely that the first player to move can get the jump on the second player. Less obvious, is that the movement rates and firing ranges also define how much of a potential problem arises from the IGYG. For example, imaging that Phil decided that he wants a REALLY quick game, and made the movement distance 50 base widths. The first player would have an overwhelming advantage on any pip roll of 4 or over. The game would be trivialized. So, there is an upper limit to the move rates to produce a non-trivial game.

Now Phil has always been proud that he compares his game results to a collection. And, I am sure there are ancient battles where generals deployed less mobile heavy troops on the flanks rather than their light troops. But, let us consider the battle of Hastings. Under the current DBA movement rules Norman knights who are repulsed in their attack on the Saxon spear line fall back, and are in relatively little danger from the stationary spears. Under the new movement rules, the Saxon spear will actually be able to surround the knights on the next bound, even after they have recoiled, achieving exactly the opposite result of history where the knights took the infantry in flank, and not vice versa. I am sure there are other examples where cavalry was able to launch attacks against an infantry line withdrawing if the attacks were unsuccessful, but without much fear of having the infantry surround them. So, this new DBA game 'FEATURE' actually produces ahistorical results and encourages ahistorical or rare or extreme historical tactics.

Increasing movement rates will also affect the speed with which a position can be flanked, increasing the luck factor inherent in the game system. Rolling a 1 for pips after an opponent's 6 is now not always life threatening. But if the enemy has longer reach, then the effect of higher pips is magnified.

The time/distance scale of IGYG games is very important. DBA 2.2 had it right.

Andreas Johansson
07-21-2011, 08:22 AM
Under the new movement rules, the Saxon spear will actually be able to surround the knights on the next bound, even after they have recoiled
FYI, the Saxons won't be able to do this, because of other changes.

Martyn
07-21-2011, 08:36 AM
FYI, the Saxons won't be able to do this, because of other changes.

I won't repeat what I posted earlier but this is a classic example of what I meant.

Andreas, out of curiosity, and I appreciate that you may not feel that you can respond, how does v3 control this?

Tony Wilson
07-21-2011, 08:47 AM
Have I missed something here?

Without condemning or condoning the change, is this even possible?

Closing the door from overlap involves a straight line move of
Square root (40x40 +40 x40) for the longest moving front corner. (56.5 mm)

Closing the door on a recoiled unit would be
Square root (40x40 + {40+ base depth}X{40+base depth})
Against cavalry (40x40 + 70x70)
1600 + 4900
6500
Square root = 80.6 (mm)

Obviously a diagram would be clearer ( but beyond my skill set).

For the rear corner it is an additional 8 mm (on my
calculator, assuming a 15mm deep base)

The proposed "Heavy infantry" move is exactly 80mm (in 15mm scale), so even if the rules return to "front corner only" measuring this would not be legal (just).

Nor (as the distance is the same) would contacting (and "peeling off" the rear rank of a pike unit which had recoiled
in the last bound (although the front rank could be flanked).

Of course I may well just be displaying my inept maths here (feel free to point out the errors).

Mike Porter
07-21-2011, 09:39 AM
Closing the door from overlap involves a straight line move of
Square root (40x40 +40 x40) for the longest moving front corner. (56.5 mm)

Closing the door on a recoiled unit would be
Square root (40x40 + {40+ base depth}X{40+base depth})
Against cavalry (40x40 + 70x70)
1600 + 4900
6500
Square root = 80.6 (mm)

Obviously a diagram would be clearer ( but beyond my skill set).



Sometimes I hate DBA... ;)

snowcat
07-21-2011, 09:44 AM
Dear Snowcat,

I will attempt to address your comment in a serious manner. DBA is an IGOYOUGO game. The PIP system serves to mitigate the inherent problem of such a game system, namely that the first player to move can get the jump on the second player. Less obvious, is that the movement rates and firing ranges also define how much of a potential problem arises from the IGYG. For example, imaging that Phil decided that he wants a REALLY quick game, and made the movement distance 50 base widths. The first player would have an overwhelming advantage on any pip roll of 4 or over. The game would be trivialized. So, there is an upper limit to the move rates to produce a non-trivial game.

Now Phil has always been proud that he compares his game results to a collection. And, I am sure there are ancient battles where generals deployed less mobile heavy troops on the flanks rather than their light troops. But, let us consider the battle of Hastings. Under the current DBA movement rules Norman knights who are repulsed in their attack on the Saxon spear line fall back, and are in relatively little danger from the stationary spears. Under the new movement rules, the Saxon spear will actually be able to surround the knights on the next bound, even after they have recoiled, achieving exactly the opposite result of history where the knights took the infantry in flank, and not vice versa. I am sure there are other examples where cavalry was able to launch attacks against an infantry line withdrawing if the attacks were unsuccessful, but without much fear of having the infantry surround them. So, this new DBA game 'FEATURE' actually produces ahistorical results and encourages ahistorical or rare or extreme historical tactics.

Increasing movement rates will also affect the speed with which a position can be flanked, increasing the luck factor inherent in the game system. Rolling a 1 for pips after an opponent's 6 is now not always life threatening. But if the enemy has longer reach, then the effect of higher pips is magnified.

The time/distance scale of IGYG games is very important. DBA 2.2 had it right.

Dear Michael,

You can always address my questions more humorously if you like. ;)

I like your example and explanation (thanks). What I don't get is how it can be slapped away as a nothing, a non-issue etc. How can such polarised views both be correct?

Edit: I've just fired this one back at Phil (as he's knocked the Bw range issue on the head on the MM list), so we'll see if he replies. It might seem a bit daft what I'm doing cross-posting these things after so many have already tried (largely in vain) but you never know...! :)

platypus01
07-21-2011, 10:22 AM
Have I missed something here?

Without condemning or condoning the change, is this even possible?

You are right. It isn't possible.

You can close the door on foot, but not mounted.

Especially since there is yet another rule change to consider. That is all mounted recoil 1 BW.

So if x = 40 and y = 80 in this case. And Phil hasn't included a DBMM EMTLU (Extra Move to Line Up) in this case.

Really, all this gnashing of teeth is a bit premature*. Unless you see the whole thing it's impossible to decide if you like it or not, what the consequences are. And he is never going to release it to a wider audience. I think the best advice was from someone a few posts back who said he's just going to forget about it until it comes out! We had all this when it went from v1 to v2, and everyone here now thinks v2 is the bees-knees. Doesn't anyone remember the washing-machine of v1.0??

JohnG
*Oh yes, it's the internet isn't it <facepalm/>

winterbadger
07-21-2011, 10:25 AM
But, let us consider the battle of Hastings. Under the current DBA movement rules Norman knights who are repulsed in their attack on the Saxon spear line fall back, and are in relatively little danger from the stationary spears. Under the new movement rules, the Saxon spear will actually be able to surround the knights on the next bound, even after they have recoiled, achieving exactly the opposite result of history where the knights took the infantry in flank, and not vice versa. I am sure there are other examples where cavalry was able to launch attacks against an infantry line withdrawing if the attacks were unsuccessful, but without much fear of having the infantry surround them. So, this new DBA game 'FEATURE' actually produces ahistorical results and encourages ahistorical or rare or extreme historical tactics.

Of course, DBA already allows some massively ahistorical tactics. Sp *can* advance into contact with mounted, even though historically they would never have attempted this. The only way that heavy foot beat mounted was to stand still and shoot the enemy to pieces or let the mounted exhaust themselves then counterattack with your own mounted. So, to be fair, what you're arguing to preserve is not a historical set of rules but a slightly less ahistorical version than the alternative.

snowcat
07-21-2011, 10:38 AM
You are right. It isn't possible.

You can close the door on foot, but not mounted.

Especially since there is yet another rule change to consider. That is all mounted recoil 1 BW.


See, we *are* getting somewhere...

;)

Martyn
07-21-2011, 11:00 AM
See, we *are* getting somewhere...

;)

Chalk up one for the uninitiated. :up

prich
07-21-2011, 12:13 PM
with this movement rates, Bd can handle Pk better, contacting the supporting Pk in one movement. (if only front corners are measured...)

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q307/prichzgz/Sinttulo.jpg

Xavi
07-21-2011, 01:11 PM
I seem to recall that now all single elements align with groups contacting them, right?

And actually in the second day of Banockburn the scottish Pk more or less did charge the Kn: advance so close that the Kn do not have space to charge (they were ambushed, right) and their "charge" was too short to gain impetus. :)

My main point of contest right now is that the only reason to massively increase the mobility of the troops in the game seems to be a tottally WRONG assumption on how DBA is played. Nobody worth his PIPs ever hides troops skuulking behind unless he wants to lose. If the move change is a design to prevent this unexistant problem, I fear that Phil does not understand how his own game is played.

Xavi

michael guth
07-21-2011, 01:23 PM
So pikes, problem, cavalry no. But it illustrates the point. Faster movement rates will change many things. Terrain is another. Often pike armies will use terrain to cover a flank as they strive to get into contact. Faster movement rates for loose order troops will change how this tactic can be used. An army in linear formation is dependent both on pips and movement rates when its flank is turned. I predict that armies of aux/mounted which can move in compact formation will have an increase their relative advantage over linear armies like spears/blades/pikes with increased movement rates since they are less 'pip' dependent to get to the point of attack.....

So, I hope it turns out to be a good game. Because we already have one.....

pozanias
07-21-2011, 01:29 PM
My main point of contest right now is that the only reason to massively increase the mobility of the troops in the game seems to be a tottally WRONG assumption on how DBA is played. Nobody worth his PIPs ever hides troops skuulking behind unless he wants to lose. If the move change is a design to prevent this unexistant problem, I fear that Phil does not understand how his own game is played.

Xavi

I agree with Xavi. It's possible that the new movement rules will be fine (or they may not). But we know that the current ones work. Why change? The reasons Phil gave make no sense. Sitting on one's base edge waiting for heavy foot just doesn't happen.

Yes, there are people that play defensively or play slowly -- but I don't think this is the appropriate answer for those problems.

david kuijt
07-21-2011, 01:36 PM
Have I missed something here?

Without condemning or condoning the change, is this even possible?

Closing the door from overlap involves a straight line move of
Square root (40x40 +40 x40) for the longest moving front corner. (56.5 mm)

Closing the door on a recoiled unit would be
Square root (40x40 + {40+ base depth}X{40+base depth})
Against cavalry (40x40 + 70x70)
1600 + 4900
6500
Square root = 80.6 (mm)


You're right, a spear can't close the door on a recoiled cavalry.

But it can take its far front corner and "elbow of doom" block its recoil (with its front edge, no less). Is that any less stupid? Cavalry who fight Spear will still find themselves trapped and quickly killed.

Rich Gause
07-21-2011, 01:47 PM
I agree with Xavi. It's possible that the new movement rules will be fine (or they may not). But we know that the current ones work. Why change? The reasons Phil gave make no sense. Sitting on one's base edge waiting for heavy foot just doesn't happen.

Yes, there are people that play defensively or play slowly -- but I don't think this is the appropriate answer for those problems.

The movement rates changed from DBM to DBMM because people would use points to buy lots of crappy foot to increase the commands breakpoint and then sit them on the board edge because once the better enemy foot contacted them they were going to die anyway and the longer it took to get to that point the better. So Phils reasoning makes a lot of sense.... for DBMM. For DBA where there are no points, you can't afford to not use elements as much because you only have 12 and as far as I can tell edge sitting is not a game winning strategy it makes a lot less sense. What does make sense is that Phil wants the DBA movement rates to be identical to the game he is really interested in but he didn't want to say that so he made up a reason that is valid in the game he is more familiar with, not realizing the reason would be so obviously wrong to anybody who plays a lot of DBA. Then when playtesting brought up lots of issues caused by the bad idea of the 2 BW heavy foot move instead of changing it(the simple solution that gave the best game result) he made all sorts of other changes that didn't work as well. That tells us that compatibility with DBMM movement rates is a more important consideration in the design of 3.0 than making DBA a better game.

Si2
07-21-2011, 02:21 PM
It takes minutes to cross the entire board if your opponent is going to do nothing. you just have to roll and shove.
I'm just a bit jaded about it all now, we're debating theories.
I was quite excited about the new army lists, but the whole rule change flannelfest is getting dull.
I'll give V3 a few months and if no ones got anything good to say about it then I'll probably turn Italian, most of my armies feature 3Bd anyway, so those should all really change to the shallower bases.
Let it happen.
Life goes on - at least no one can take V2.x away from us.

Si2

Rich Gause
07-21-2011, 02:30 PM
You're right, a spear can't close the door on a recoiled cavalry.

But it can take its far front corner and "elbow of doom" block its recoil (with its front edge, no less). Is that any less stupid? Cavalry who fight Spear will still find themselves trapped and quickly killed.

I guess now all mounted recoils will have to be increased to a BW to prevent this and then when somebody points out that heavy foot can do it to foot also even with a 1/2 BW recoil the only solution left will have to be to just increase all recoils to a BW. God forbid they reduce the heavy foot move instead.

Pavane
07-21-2011, 03:02 PM
You're right, a spear can't close the door on a recoiled cavalry.

But it can take its far front corner and "elbow of doom" block its recoil (with its front edge, no less). Is that any less stupid? Cavalry who fight Spear will still find themselves trapped and quickly killed.
Unless 3.0 is like DBMM where a blocked recoil does not cause death, only a combat TF penalty and you recoil as far as you can.

pozanias
07-21-2011, 03:34 PM
Unless 3.0 is like DBMM where a blocked recoil does not cause death, only a combat TF penalty and you recoil as far as you can.

Good point. And this is why we probably shouldn't look at any rule in isolation.

The only thing that I can say is that all of the people involved in playtesting that also post on this forum seem to be opposed to the new movement rates. And the arguments I have seen against the new rates make a lot more sense than the ones supporting them.

However, I am now fully entrenched in the: "lets stop talking about 3.0 and just see what comes out" camp.

Tony Wilson
07-21-2011, 04:30 PM
But it can take its far front corner and "elbow of doom" block its recoil (with its front edge, no less). Is that any less stupid? Cavalry who fight Spear will still find themselves trapped and quickly killed.
__________________
DK

Can it? (Base width recoil not withstanding)

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
(It can certainly put it's rear corner behind 75m forward and 5mm to the side).

To get its front far corner aligned with the back edge of the cavalry, the far rear corner of the infantry must move ; 25mm to the side and 75mm forward
or
Square root (25 x 25 + 75 x 75)
625 + 5625
6250
Square root = 79.05 (mm)

But that is not enough, it must go fractionally further, to get the front corner to the enemies rear, and the resulting pivot, however small must surely carry the rear corner beyond the 80mm limit?

Rich Gause
07-21-2011, 04:58 PM
Can it? (Base width recoil not withstanding)

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.
(It can certainly put it's rear corner behind 75m forward and 5mm to the side).

To get its front far corner aligned with the back edge of the cavalry, the far rear corner of the infantry must move ; 25mm to the side and 75mm forward
or
Square root (25 x 25 + 75 x 75)
625 + 5625
6250
Square root = 79.05 (mm)

But that is not enough, it must go fractionally further, to get the front corner to the enemies rear, and the resulting pivot, however small must surely carry the rear corner beyond the 80mm limit?

That is only to get 5mm behind a 30mm deep base that recoils 40mm. So if you want to put the right front corner of an element that was in overlap 5 mm into recoil blocking position making everything recoil 1 BW stops it. To get 5mm into recoil blocking position of a 30mm deep element that recoils 30mm the right front corner needs to move the square root of[(65x65) +(45x45)] which turns out to be 79.056941 mm. That is just one example of a fix for an issue caused by an 80mm instead of 60mm movement rate for heavy foot instead of changing the heavy foot move rate.

Pavane
07-21-2011, 05:30 PM
However, I am now fully entrenched in the: "lets stop talking about 3.0 and just see what comes out" camp.

Me too. I relaxed once DK was on the job, not that I expected miracles, but I was happy to have him as "our" DBA advocate.

Lobotomy
07-21-2011, 07:44 PM
Cobbled together from here and the DBMM list:

2 perceived issues with DBA 3:

Q: Door closing a recoiled mounted unit with a heavy foot that overlapped it last turn...

A: Why is that a problem? Because you can't do it in 2.2? So what. I think this is a feature, not a bug. I found the BW measurement to be easy to use, and had no serious downsides. You could cover flanks and get a flank contact slightly easier, but this just means you have to be more careful to maintain a line. You got into combat faster, but that is a feature as well. It was always a grind in DBA to slog across the table, without a marching mechanism.


Here is the crux of the problem with relying on DBMM players to evaluate DBA. They want a march move and we do not have it. So as a substitute to placate them, Phil has extended the movement rate for close order foot. To quote myself, "Bull****."

They want speed chess. We want chess.

snowcat
07-21-2011, 08:11 PM
I guess now all mounted recoils will have to be increased to a BW to prevent this and then when somebody points out that heavy foot can do it to foot also even with a 1/2 BW recoil the only solution left will have to be to just increase all recoils to a BW. God forbid they reduce the heavy foot move instead.

All mounted recoils are 1BW - see the previous post:

You are right. It isn't possible.

You can close the door on foot, but not mounted.

Especially since there is yet another rule change to consider. That is all mounted recoil 1 BW.
...

michael guth
07-21-2011, 09:08 PM
Rich, I was so looking forward to my first DBA 3.0 tournament where I would spring the back door corner of death on unsuspecting players and sing how much better it made the game.....

I have actually played one of the playtest versions. Probably not current. Already said it many times, Phil is nuts for not releasing this in Beta format for real testing. But that would be a paradigm shift to actually try to perfect the rules before they were released...

Phil has also been warned, the NASAMW plays Warrior. I don't know if they pay Phil royalties. I'm sure the author of Maximillian does not. There are more DBM 3.x players at HMGS east conventions than there are DBMM players (zero). I would love to hear how many copies of dBMM sold in the USA (zero?). American historical gamers are now willing to say thank you but no, unlike WH gamers who still worship at the alter of the new edition of broken rules. Phil is losing market share in the USA, people won't buy his rules based on his name and heritage alone anymore. Desktop and epublishing make widespread distribution of new rules almost trivial. Video game manufacturers know how to make money, and they beta test. I still hope DBA 3.0 in its final incarnation is great. But I won't buy a copy until I've heard that it is from people I trust.

Emo rant, over...

dicemanrick
07-21-2011, 10:54 PM
I'm beginning to wonder if 3.0 will be like "New Coke"?

To those unfamiliar I quote:

"At a bottlers' meeting in Atlanta back on April 22, 1985, Mr. Zyman announced from the stage that Coke was changing its taste. The next day Coca-Cola revealed the new, sweeter taste to financial analysts and the media. But word of the new product finally leaks out and Pepsi dispatches its own press assault on the same day claiming victory. "The other guy blinked," Pepsi says in ads saying Coke reformulated its brand to taste "more like" Pepsi.

The press hammers at Mr. Goizueta, now chairman-CEO, to explain the difference and what will happen to the old Coke, which 39% of consumers still favor. When Mr. Goizueta admits it will do away with the old formula, consumers revolt. Dazed by the backlash, management on July 11, 1985, just 79 days later, agrees to bring back the original formula, renaming it Coca-Cola Classic."

Considered one of the biggest marketing disasters in advertising, this shows what happens when you mess too much with what your consumer likes.

I hope 3.0 doesn't go there....

Rich Gause
07-21-2011, 10:58 PM
......I would love to hear how many copies of dBMM sold in the USA (zero?). ......

I bought a copy and read them along with the army lists, but I'm a rules junkie I buy rules just to read them and think about the rules mechanisms even if I have no intention of playing the any time soon.

Matt
07-22-2011, 12:40 AM
Of course, DBA already allows some massively ahistorical tactics. Sp *can* advance into contact with mounted, even though historically they would never have attempted this. The only way that heavy foot beat mounted was to stand still and shoot the enemy to pieces or let the mounted exhaust themselves then counterattack with your own mounted. So, to be fair, what you're arguing to preserve is not a historical set of rules but a slightly less ahistorical version than the alternative.

Never??? :???

Battle of Pharsalus comes to mind. 48 BC Roman Civil War.

Heavy infantry did from time to time attack mounted, and did, from time to time, defeat them. In this particular case, fighting offensively as spearmen.

Redwilde
07-22-2011, 12:46 AM
renaming it Coca-Cola Classic."

Considered one of the biggest marketing disasters in advertising, this shows what happens when you mess too much with what your consumer likes.

I hope 3.0 doesn't go there....

Not the best analogy. Actually it was marketing brilliance for Coke -- they lost sales for a year, but came back with Coke Classic made with high fructose corn syrup rather than real sugar. It's not the same and costs them less to make. but with the interlude, most people didn't notice the flavour change.

winterbadger
07-22-2011, 01:21 PM
Never??? :???

Battle of Pharsalus comes to mind. 48 BC Roman Civil War.

Heavy infantry did from time to time attack mounted, and did, from time to time, defeat them. In this particular case, fighting offensively as spearmen.

Good point. I withdraw the "never" and replace it with "rarely". So rarely I'd be inclined to make a special scenario rule for Pharsalus, where Caesar specially trained that infantry in that tactic, which was unlike anything they had done before, just for that battle.

If the English fyrd had come down off Senlac ridge and tried to attack the Norman knights, though, it would have been a different story, Oh, wait. They DID! And it was, in fact, how the Normans defeated a formation they had been unable to break until then. (Though they were very lucky not to have been doubled by any of those Sp uphill supported by Ps...)

miros
07-22-2011, 01:48 PM
Phil has also been warned, the NASAMW plays Warrior. I don't know if they pay Phil royalties.

The Four Horsemen group bought the rights to 7th/Warrior from WRG years ago. It is true that DBMM has been a failure in the US; I don't know of any events in the US using those rules.

Matt
07-23-2011, 02:09 AM
I bought a copy and read them along with the army lists, but I'm a rules junkie I buy rules just to read them and think about the rules mechanisms even if I have no intention of playing the any time soon.

I did the same. I like the army lists as references too. A lot of interesting tidbids in there that help in building DBA armies.

Hannibal Ad Portas
07-23-2011, 07:15 PM
I bought DBMM. I found the rules interesting, but with limited gaming time I have never ventured to give the game a go. If I want to play a battle with large armies, BBDBA just seems to be a better option.

dicemanrick
07-23-2011, 10:52 PM
with this movement rates, Bd can handle Pk better, contacting the supporting Pk in one movement. (if only front corners are measured...)

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q307/prichzgz/Sinttulo.jpg

Gee, a movement distance of 1 1/2 base widths fixes this with no extra rules needed...:D

Andreas Johansson
07-24-2011, 04:59 AM
Good point. I withdraw the "never" and replace it with "rarely". So rarely I'd be inclined to make a special scenario rule for Pharsalus, where Caesar specially trained that infantry in that tactic, which was unlike anything they had done before, just for that battle.

A few centuries later, charging seems to have been the usual response of Roman foot to the (rather static) Sassanid horse archers.

michael guth
07-24-2011, 02:13 PM
At Plataea the Persian cavalry was not able to prevent the advance of the Spartans and Athenians to contact the Persian foot. While there is no documentation of a 'charge' by the Greek foot against the cavalry, they were clearly able to advance in the face of cavalry.

miros
07-26-2011, 09:25 AM
Another example of Phil's limited experience of how DBA is played in the real world. If you haven't seen the 'element shuffle', you've led a sheltered life.


Re: Move commonality with DBA 3
Posted by: "Phil Barker" mailto:pc.barker@blueyonder.co.uk?Subject= Re%3A%20Move%20commonality%20with%20DBA%203 damnbarkeragain
Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:03 am (PDT)


I think the lateral arabesque might be quite rare. Cv and such have always
been able to slide over more than 1 BW, but I cannot remember seeing it
done.
I think I might quite like my opponent to spend a lot of PIPs doing multiple
sideways slides.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: johnedmundson@paradise.net.nz
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 10:15 AM
To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com ; Phil Barker
Cc: Sue Laflin-Barker
Subject: [DBMMlist] Re: Move commonality with DBA 3

I've only played a half dozen games of DBA (all of them over the last 2
Sundays
and all good fun) so my experience with the game is limited. One thing I
would
note though in relation to the proposal to change the movement rates is that
while there has been a lot of discussion on this thread about the speed at
which "heavy" infantry, which, in DBA is nearly all infantry, will be able to
cross the table, it's the ability for "heavy infantry" to move laterally that
could be the most significant change. Currently an infantry element can move just over one element width sideways to line up behind another friend. With the increased movement, it will be able to move across two elemnt widths. This is a significant change. In DBMM, with much larger element numbers, this is not a problem. In DBA, with only 12 elements, I wonder if it will become an issue, especially when several PIPs can be used to slide rear ranks all over the place.

I suspect the forward movement issue will be a minor concern, with the
caveat that, as I say, I haven't played much DBA. The sideways movement issue may have a significant impact on play. I'm writing this based not only on my own thoughts but on the observations of a couple of avid DBA players much more experienced than myself.

1.5 base widths would be less significant and still bring them into an
"element widths" based system, but might not be what you want due to other considerations.
Cheers,
John

david kuijt
07-26-2011, 10:21 AM
Another example of Phil's limited experience of how DBA is played in the real world. If you haven't seen the 'element shuffle', you've led a sheltered life.


I think Phil could be a great game designer of DBA. All he needs to do is play a couple of hundred DBA games in the wider world (outside his immediate circle), to find out how the game is really played. But he is solving problems in DBA that exist only in DBM/M (heavy foot hunkering back on the baseline), and he is oblivious to issues in DBA that don't exist in DBM/M (the element shuffle), and he stays completely within his comfort zone, communication-wise (corresponding with DBMM players about DBA, and never interacting with the DBA community directly).

I think Phil could be a great game designer for DBA. The only thing standing in the way are his choices.

David Constable
07-26-2011, 11:35 AM
I think Phil could be a great game designer of DBA. All he needs to do is play a couple of hundred DBA games in the wider world (outside his immediate circle), to find out how the game is really played. But he is solving problems in DBA that exist only in DBM/M (heavy foot hunkering back on the baseline), and he is oblivious to issues in DBA that don't exist in DBM/M (the element shuffle), and he stays completely within his comfort zone, communication-wise (corresponding with DBMM players about DBA, and never interacting with the DBA community directly).

I think Phil could be a great game designer for DBA. The only thing standing in the way are his choices.

I suspect PB does not play many games of DBA, and I also suspect that he is not that interested in input by DBA players, I still believe this is an introduction to DBMM set of rules.

At Alvechurch which is 30 mins drive for him on a Monday night we have a limited, but good core of DBA players, they include myself and Scott Russell.
Now why not come and visit, and watch?

We could and would help, but not one visit, and as far as I am aware, no attempt to try.

David Constable

Martyn
07-26-2011, 12:34 PM
A quick look at the DBMM group shows a very active discussion on the side shuffle ‘problem’.

As usual Doug and Andreas are in there trying to keep some sense to the discussion but there are an awful lot of 'helpful' suggestions from DBMM players who start off saying that they don’t play DBA so they are not qualified to comment only to carry on commenting. ;)

There are a lot of comments that give DBMM solutions to DBA problems. Some of the suggestions include; restricting lateral move distance, differentiating between regular and irregular troops (shame that DBA does not differentiate in that way) PiP penalties for lateral moves and the denying that side shuffle is or will be a problem.

So far most suggestions introduce added complexity where it is not warranted. The suggestion that 2BW moves for Heavy foot be reduced is gaining momentum.

david kuijt
07-26-2011, 12:41 PM
s to DBA problems. Some of the suggestions include; restricting lateral move distance, differentiating between regular and irregular troops (shame that DBA does not differentiate in that way) PiP penalties for lateral moves and the denying that side shuffle is or will be a problem.



Pity that Phil doesn't play FOW; otherwise he could go ask them for a solution too.

Redwilde
07-26-2011, 12:57 PM
There are a lot of comments that give DBMM solutions to DBA problems.

Well, those are the sorts of answers you'd want if you were asking questions in a room full of DBMM players.

I shall change my expectation level regarding 3.0 from 'wait and see' to 'fascinated morbid curiousity'

egstonvonbrick
07-26-2011, 03:17 PM
>>I have even managed to take a camp with a pike element once. He just dawdled across the entire board and stuck one in 'em.

That was my camp.... it still smarts! :(

Cheers
Ev

David Constable
07-26-2011, 05:39 PM
Pity that Phil doesn't play FOW; otherwise he could go ask them for a solution too.

Phil will have looked at it, worked out where all the ideas came from, and might have made a note of anything of interest.

David Constable

david kuijt
07-26-2011, 08:34 PM
Phil will have looked at it, worked out where all the ideas came from, and might have made a note of anything of interest.

David Constable

I was trying to be ironic ... Phil asking FOW forum for solutions to DBA, and still having no congress with the DBA players... it seemed funny at the time. Oh, well.

Bob Santamaria
07-26-2011, 10:58 PM
I was trying to be ironic ... Phil asking FOW forum for solutions to DBA, and still having no congress with the DBA players... it seemed funny at the time. Oh, well.

It was funny

David Constable
07-27-2011, 05:41 AM
I was trying to be ironic ... Phil asking FOW forum for solutions to DBA, and still having no congress with the DBA players... it seemed funny at the time. Oh, well.

Sorry about ironic, did not realise, Phil used to try and look at a lot of sets of rules, and I am sure he has looked at FOG.

I think you have to look from the point of view that the new version is not designed for DBA players, but DBM/DBMM/FOG etc players.

Look that way and everything might make sense.

David Constable

Xavi
07-27-2011, 06:13 AM
So he does not mind alienating the DBA crew with a DBA game and designing it for people that generally have no interest at all in DBA since they already have small scale versions of their own rulebooks (DBMM100 et al). Right....

Xavi

Martyn
07-27-2011, 06:20 AM
Comment on the DBMM group.
-----Original Message-----
From: jlogan2ia
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:06 PM
To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [DBMMlist] Re: Move commonality with DBA 3

--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimnaughton" <bayankhan@...> wrote:

>
> And as to why we are talking about this here.......
>
> Jim
>

Oh that's simple. Because Phil only brought it up here; but not on the DBA
list. I suspect many DBA players would love to be able to discuss "this" on
the DBA list; but Phil doesn't - ever. I wonder how DBMM players on this
list would feel about only being able to discuss likely significant DBMM
rules/version changes with Phil on the DBA list.........?

Cheers,

John (a DBA player who frequents this list in order to find out what's
happening with DBA :-))


I do not monitor the two DBA lists, because with DBMM, HFG and WRG Modern
lists I already have 100 emails a day and have difficulty coping with them.
However, Sue is on both and filters stuff through to me when she thinks I
need it.

Phil
It is nice to see that our discussions are monitored. It would be better still if there was some response or feed back to show that the concerns raised are being considered rather than having to go back and forth to the DBMM group. :???

Martyn
07-27-2011, 06:26 AM
More words of wisdom from Phil

There are two downsides:

1) I do not want the most common troop type of all having to measure moves
in 1/2 BWs.

2) The current short move of heavy foot, which is denied to be a problem in
DBA play by Americans, has been a problem in MY games and Sue's several
times when playing in AMERICA when the opponent facing a foot army deploys
his own foot out of reach of it before the end of the game!

Increasing Kn move to 3 BW and Cv move to 4 BW was found unacceptable in
DBMM development because of the interaction with shooting range. It would be
less of a problem with DBA, because there is a special rule for Kn charging
Bw.

Phil
Not sure what the difficulty is in measuring ½ BW, or perhaps 20mm is a bit fiddly. :???

There, you see, it is all the fault of you damn Americans. :silly

A special rule for charging Kn into Bw, hmm intriguing. What with the confusion over Bow range, what other little tricks are in store.

pozanias
07-27-2011, 07:42 AM
I have a better solution for you Phil, don't come to America to play DBA anymore. Then no one will ever have to worry about slow foot again.

How can he claim that he is monitoring this forum (via Sue) and also claim that only Americans have no problems with the current movement rates. I have never seen anyone complain about the current movement rates from any country, but I have seen concern expressed about the proposed movement rates in 3.0 by players from many different countries.

And what's this B.S.about not being able to post on the DBA list because he has so many other lists to keep up with? You've got to be joking.

I've always been a Phil apologist, defended him and tried to give possible reasons for his often rude or bizarre actions and comments. But these last two exerpts are the straws that broke the camel's back for me.

I really feel as though he has created an alternate reality to justify these things.

Martyn
07-27-2011, 08:00 AM
What concerns me is that Phil has done DBMM so he does not need to be actively involved in that group (unless he chooses to).
Phil had, in the past, identified that after DBMM v2 the next project was to be HFG.
He subsequently decided to change the running order so that DBA v3 was next, with HFG presumably to follow.
It raises the question of why is he not keeping up with the current project? To argue that he is too busy keeping up with the last project and the next project is pretty lame. I feel that it boils down to the fact that he is not comfortable with the DBA groups.

It is interesting that he appears to have a bit of a downer on the Americans (inc expat Canadians). DBMM seems to have had little impact in the USA, so presumably there is little input on the MM group. The HFG group seems to be dominated by UK members (but I may be mistaken on that). Whereas the DBA group and Fanaticus has a healthy and sizable US presence. Maybe he has not forgiven US wargamers for rejecting MM. ;)

What ever the reasons, it is clear that Phil has his own comfort zone that he is not going to leave.

I am resigned to waiting for DBAv3 to be published to see the reaction to the total package, at which time I will decide which way to go.

david kuijt
07-27-2011, 08:32 AM
Sorry about ironic, did not realise, Phil used to try and look at a lot of sets of rules, and I am sure he has looked at FOG.


Ah -- you misread. I said FOW -- Flames of War. Therein lies much of the humour.

Xavi
07-27-2011, 08:32 AM
Do you think that the rights of DBA 2.2 will be on the market once 3.0 is released?

I have never seen heavy foot totally qavoided if the player using the heavy foot had any idea on how to play DBA properly. Not even when the heavy foot faces light horse armies.

Xavi

david kuijt
07-27-2011, 08:57 AM
Not sure what the difficulty is in measuring ½ BW, or perhaps 20mm is a bit fiddly. :???


Fractionophobia. A common psychological ailment in octogenarians, although less common in ex-engineers, who are usually inoculated by the need for basic math in their careers.


There, you see, it is all the fault of you damn Americans. :silly


It is better to be reviled than ignored, I guess. Except in this case, the options are reviled AND ignored, or just ignored, or to play DBMM.

I started this process with little or no opinion about DBMM. The adversarial and arbitrary environment built by Phil has now instated in me a visceral revulsion whenever I hear those four initials.

David Constable
07-27-2011, 09:35 AM
So he does not mind alienating the DBA crew with a DBA game and designing it for people that generally have no interest at all in DBA since they already have small scale versions of their own rulebooks (DBMM100 et al). Right....

Xavi

Yes if my reading of what has gone on is correct, and I have had no reason to doubt it since circa October 2009.

David Constable

Redwilde
07-27-2011, 09:35 AM
It was funny

It was. And I suspect Phil does have a third party who follows the FOW forums and filters the stuff through to him that he needs. The FOW players on certain continents aren't too happy with the leaked DBA playtesting snippets either.

pozanias
07-27-2011, 10:03 AM
Do you think that the rights of DBA 2.2 will be on the market once 3.0 is released?

I have never seen heavy foot totally qavoided if the player using the heavy foot had any idea on how to play DBA properly. Not even when the heavy foot faces light horse armies.

Xavi

You must be very tired from travelling back and forth to America just to play DBA. I know there is a robust DBA community in Spain -- you should play with them sometime. ; )

pozanias
07-27-2011, 10:11 AM
So he does not mind alienating the DBA crew with a DBA game and designing it for people that generally have no interest at all in DBA since they already have small scale versions of their own rulebooks (DBMM100 et al). Right....

Xavi

Exactly. He prefers to have rules discussions with those that agree with him, rather than those that actually play the game.

And by that, I am not implying that there aren't DBA players that agree with most or many of Phil's new ideas.

Redwilde
07-27-2011, 10:32 AM
Not sure what the difficulty is in measuring ½ BW, or perhaps 20mm is a bit fiddly. :???

Plus we're living in Teh Internets Age, it's easy and reasonably affordable to order a custom scale ruler in Basewidths, Paces, Smoots, or whatever you units you like. With half-increments marked even: http://www.rulers-of-the-world.com/

EnglishAL
07-27-2011, 10:50 AM
Sorry about ironic, did not realise, Phil used to try and look at a lot of sets of rules, and I am sure he has looked at FOG.

I think you have to look from the point of view that the new version is not designed for DBA players, but DBM/DBMM/FOG etc players.

Look that way and everything might make sense.

David Constable

I'm also sure PB has looked at FOG.(oh yes,indeed) Richard Bodley Scott,who wrote a lot of materal for FOG also contributed a lot to DBA rules a while back.(his name is displayed right next to Phil's and Sue's inside the front cover of version 1.1) I heard that he and Phil had a falling out,and Richard went on to produce Field Of glory,which has a pretty large following in the states.(and yes,I play,but I also enjoy DBA immensly) FOG also has a large number of resource books for armies and paint guides,etc. it seems to me that Phil might be trying to grab a little of the popularity of FOG by basically pushing players into DBM/M. I was introduced to FOG by a DBA player who liked the transition from the smaller army to a much larger one.Or,maybe phl's just jealous of the sucess of FOG,lol. just a thought that I would throw that out there for consideration.....

David Constable
07-27-2011, 12:16 PM
I'm also sure PB has looked at FOG.(oh yes,indeed) Richard Bodley Scott,who wrote a lot of materal for FOG also contributed a lot to DBA rules a while back.(his name is displayed right next to Phil's and Sue's inside the front cover of version 1.1) I heard that he and Phil had a falling out,and Richard went on to produce Field Of glory,which has a pretty large following in the states.(and yes,I play,but I also enjoy DBA immensly) FOG also has a large number of resource books for armies and paint guides,etc. it seems to me that Phil might be trying to grab a little of the popularity of FOG by basically pushing players into DBM/M. I was introduced to FOG by a DBA player who liked the transition from the smaller army to a much larger one.Or,maybe phl's just jealous of the sucess of FOG,lol. just a thought that I would throw that out there for consideration.....

You might well be quite correct.

The new DBA3 strikes me as being a starter set for DBMM, and always has done.
The falling out was very bad (and acrimonious) I think, so if PB can get FOG players to change to DBMM that would be a bonus for him.

The shame about it is that he could have done a relatively few changes to DBA2.2 and brought out DBA3 under a new name for DBMM players.

David Constable

broadsword
07-27-2011, 01:41 PM
And yet PB seems to have no trouble measuring all kinds of half BW increments in DBMM. The measurements required in that game have to be seen to be believed. Oh and 80 paces equals one BW. So how far is 300 paces? Yeah, I know, dumb as all get-go.

DBMM 100 is irreparably broken as is. You can't play on a 2' X 2' board as advertised, because your deployment area is only 5 BW wide. So your army deploys at most 5 elements wide, and several rows deep.

Remember, PB claims DBMM as his magnum opus, as the system to strive for.

I used to wonder at what point an octogenarian loses the ability to function professionally as a rules-writer. I wonder no more. If he tried that crap on at GMT, L2 or Academy he'd be fired in about 10 minutes.

For those who (like me) have lost all faith that DBA 3.0 will be worth yet another credit-card billing (after seeing the results of PB's behaviour in the DBMM folder) may I suggest that if sticking to DBA 2.2 is going to be problematic (and we are one punch of the delete button away from that happening), that we consider other alternatives.

I can live with the notion that DBA is not the be-all and end-all in ancients gaming for me more easily than I can live with more screw-ups in the basic engine.

nikgaukroger
07-27-2011, 02:06 PM
The falling out was very bad (and acrimonious) I think,


Not between Phil and Richard I think - whilst Phil may be somewhat miffed, they are still on talking terms at least.

David Constable
07-27-2011, 02:41 PM
Exactly. He prefers to have rules discussions with those that agree with him, rather than those that actually play the game.

And by that, I am not implying that there aren't DBA players that agree with most or many of Phil's new ideas.

In the 70's Phil liked to playtest looking at the rules, making notes, and correcting players when nedded. If doing WRG ancients then you had a playsheet, with other rules probably not.

One night I had Eddy Ballard on my side, playing Moderns, with no rules, just my knowledge. It was hard work, but worth it, I had just done a gunnery course on a Chieftan, so Phil was surprissed when I told Eddy to stop his tanks moving when firing at the opposing Russian tanks.

David Constable

David Constable
07-27-2011, 02:45 PM
Not between Phil and Richard I think - whilst Phil may be somewhat miffed, they are still on talking terms at least.

Interesting they are on talking terms.

David Constable

Martyn
07-27-2011, 03:11 PM
Interesting they are on talking terms.

David Constable

They must be as they all agreed to release DBM 3.2 as a download on the WRG website

Gascap
07-27-2011, 04:21 PM
And yet PB seems to have no trouble measuring all kinds of half BW increments in DBMM. The measurements required in that game have to be seen to be believed. Oh and 80 paces equals one BW. So how far is 300 paces? Yeah, I know, dumb as all get-go.


Part of the problem though, of course, is "paces." I can make a ruler in BW or 1/2BW, I'm fine with that. But passing everything through the paces conversion in order to figure out how far things really move is just stupid.

JM

Bobgnar
07-27-2011, 05:23 PM
At least, as proposed for DBA3, a BW is 40mm and represents 100p. So heavy foot move 200paces = 2 BW =80mm (3.15 inches). That would be 50mm (2 inches) in 2.2. 15mm scale games. Maybe all the measurements will be given in Base Widths, so conversions not needed. Or make sticks that show paces?

For Broadsword, 300p = 3 BW = 120mm. Seems easy enough to do.

Si2
07-27-2011, 05:43 PM
Maybe Phil wants a new perspective on a set of fast play rules.
Maybe he wants new features.

We know DBA V3 is going to be radically different because V2.2 is now online and free. If it was a case of rewriting a few sentences then V2.2 could be downloaded and marked up in a few minutes.

This has to be a big change - it's going to be a new game.

You can like it or not, but it will be different.

The thing I'm happy about is that V2.2 is out there on the net for free...
There's a massive, thriving community of DBA players - there's no need to ask about copyright on V2.2 anymore - it's in the public domain.

If, as a community, those who don't go forward with V3 decide to write up some clarifications and put those on a page with a link to V2.2 then they can do that. There's certainly enough momentum to create a V2.21 competition circuit around the world. Nothing stops that organisation creating a tournament running handbook. Other active sites can be used to hold army lists.

If you discount dismounting, then there are no killer armies - DBA doesn't suffer from list envy like points based games where certain armies come and go with rules tweaks and special rules.

12 Kn is no more likely to win than 12Lh. 12Bd vs 12 Ps, etc...

DBA3 might turn out to be a blast, if it doesn't, there are alternatives.

In the meantime, we need to find out who backed his army out of the way of Phil's heavy foot and generally lambaste them in a very public way.

Si2

Still playing 2.2 in 25mm on a four footer, without BUAs and no dismounting armies - there's anarchy for ya!

broadsword
07-27-2011, 06:04 PM
Hey Bob, 300p is not 120mm in DBMM. It turns out it is 3 and 3/4 BW in DBMM. So PB arguing that DBA is preparing players for DBMM is ridiculous, unless he's playing at some weird and wacky "upscaling" game, so that a BW is 100p in DBA, and only 80p in DBMM.

Aaaarrgghhh.... Stick to BW if BW are what you want, Mr Barker.

Ah, the heck with it, what's the bloody use? So Tony, "why no more DBA for some of you?" is pretty much answered, on my behalf, by a quick read through of recent posts over at DBMM.

There are plenty of fine systems out there these days, many of them free. For those of you not opposed to attrition in your games (and with only 12-16 units per side, I think it's the only way to reflect the tension between stretching the enemy line to snapping point, and smashing through by weight in the centre), I suggest Ancients d6. It's coming along nicely, and its author is very responsive, and in tune with comments from his readers. For me, I think that system is going to be my future in ancients fastplay gaming.

Andreas Johansson
07-27-2011, 06:22 PM
There's a massive, thriving community of DBA players - there's no need to ask about copyright on V2.2 anymore - it's in the public domain.
No it isn't.

The Barkers (one assumes with the acquiescence of Bodley Scott) have made it available for download for personal use. That's nice of them, but it's not at all the same as putting it into the public domain. They retain copyright, as the WRG page indeed explicitly says.

david kuijt
07-27-2011, 06:46 PM
The thing I'm happy about is that V2.2 is out there on the net for free...
There's a massive, thriving community of DBA players - there's no need to ask about copyright on V2.2 anymore - it's in the public domain.


As Andreas says, it is most definitely NOT in the public domain.

A copyright holder may make something publically available. That does not invalidate, remove, or otherwise modify his copyright. If he later chooses to take that item out of availability, that is still his right under law.

Xavi
07-28-2011, 05:19 AM
Puting up a webpage with house rules for DBA is perfectly kosher, though.

Xavi

Martyn
07-28-2011, 06:04 AM
Puting up a webpage with house rules for DBA is perfectly kosher, though.

Xavi

As ably demonstrated on this very site.:up

Si2
07-28-2011, 07:32 AM
it's available for free. once something is on the net it's there for good. the various archive sites make sure of that, even if it's removed one day.
i'm not suggesting anything nefarious, just a link to where it is and some suplimentary data.

Si2
07-28-2011, 07:38 AM
As Andreas says, it is most definitely NOT in the public domain.

A copyright holder may make something publically available. That does not invalidate, remove, or otherwise modify his copyright. If he later chooses to take that item out of availability, that is still his right under law.

possibly i should clarify; the mention of copyright was in response to a post about enquiring about rights to 2.2, presumably to prolong it's longevity.

i think there's a pretty slim business case behind purchasing 2.2.

Andreas Johansson
07-28-2011, 07:40 AM
it's available for free. once something is on the net it's there for good. the various archive sites make sure of that, even if it's removed one day.
The argument here seems to be that hypothetical copyright violations by archive sites constitute the work in question being in the the public domain? :???

david kuijt
07-28-2011, 09:56 AM
The argument here seems to be that hypothetical copyright violations by archive sites constitute the work in question being in the the public domain? :???

I suspect that he was confusing "publically available" and "in the public domain," not making any argument with regard to the transfer of copyright.

david kuijt
07-28-2011, 10:02 AM
i think there's a pretty slim business case behind purchasing 2.2.

Unlikely Phil would sell, regardless of its business viability.

Si2
07-28-2011, 01:01 PM
I suspect that he was confusing "publically available" and "in the public domain," not making any argument with regard to the transfer of copyright.

Public domain implies the end of copyright, so in my case, yes, I'll take confusion as being the prime reason behind the grammatical slip.

The point was, semantics aside, that the very act of giving away 2.2 to those who want to play DBA now, implies that the new one will be very different.

It will need to be, if Phil wants to sell it.

I can't see what's wrong with a change myself. 2.2 is there if you want it, fer nothing.

Si2

Bobgnar
07-28-2011, 01:38 PM
To quote the words of a famous sergeant, "I know nothing" about DBMM, that is. My comments are only about DBA.


Hey Bob, 300p is not 120mm in DBMM. It turns out it is 3 and 3/4 BW in DBMM. So PB arguing that DBA is preparing players for DBMM is ridiculous, unless he's playing at some weird and wacky "upscaling" game, so that a BW is 100p in DBA, and only 80p in DBMM.

Aaaarrgghhh.... Stick to BW if BW are what you want, Mr Barker.

snip

broadsword
07-28-2011, 01:54 PM
Bob, (and dog too!) your comment was perfect. IF PB actually paid attention to who played what, he might actually get somewhere that didn't kill off DBA 3.0 as a viable game. This is what you get when you get DBMM players to work over DBA.

I think those who still care about DBA should join DBMM yahoo, and start giving feedback about DBA moves in the context of DBMM. When people question you, say "oh well I only play DBA, so I'm not qualified to comment on DBMM, .." but then comment away.

See how they like that!

david kuijt
07-28-2011, 02:29 PM
I think those who still care about DBA should join DBMM yahoo, and start giving feedback about DBA moves in the context of DBMM. When people question you, say "oh well I only play DBA, so I'm not qualified to comment on DBMM, .." but then comment away.


I will quote the following excerpts from the DBMM List Yahoo Group Description:

Comparisons/reviews of and comments about other rulesets are NOT acceptable.

No DBX/Phil Barker bashing will be tolerated.

Bob Mcleish
07-28-2011, 03:07 PM
This is what you get when you get DBMM players to work over DBA.

I think those who still care about DBA should join DBMM yahoo, and start giving feedback about DBA moves in the context of DBMM. When people question you, say "oh well I only play DBA, so I'm not qualified to comment on DBMM, .." but then comment away.

See how they like that!

I too find PB's apparent lack of respect for the DBA community frustrating, and with each of his comments I read I become increasingly less likely to buy into DBA v3. That said, I don't think pi$$ing off the DBMM community is the best way to change things (Although, from pretty early in the process I've felt that our chances of influencing any meaningful change have been low to nil!!) - after all, they're not to blame for Phil's playtester selection process.

I like DBMM - a lot. Much more than I liked DBM. They're a great set of rules, if that's the kind of game you're after. I don't however, want DBA to become some kind of DBMM-lite and don't know who Phil thinks such a game will appeal to - if MMers want a smaller game, surely they would play the 100 or 200 variants?

Happy gaming!!

platypus01
07-28-2011, 04:53 PM
DBA will not become DBMM "lite". I'm surprised that Andreas hasn't commented on this, given he knows both systems quite well. There are many mechanisms in DBMM that are not in the playtest versions I've help test. The keys to DBMM are Reg and Irr classes, S, O, I, F, X grading, my bound/your bound mechanisms, Commands, PIP distribution rules and multiple morale stages. I've not seen any of them in the v3 drafts. Anyone who wants to move from DBA to DBMM is still going to have a steep learning curve. DBA v3 is substantially simpler than DBMM. Phil isn't changing this.

Phil brought DBA up on the DBMM list himself, and is probably only being tolerated because, well, it's Phil, and we know he isn't very computer literate, and some of the DBMM-list members are also DBA playtesters. At least he is talking somewhere about it. It would be a hard call for a moderator to chuck the author off the list for being OT!

Those that have read the DBMM-list might also like to comment that pretty much 100% of the feedback is to stay with the shorter HI move. I'm probably the only one who thinks it isn't a problem, and I've actually not told Phil that. So if he sticks to his original idea for this, it isn't the DBMM players fault. Phil's major gripe is people base-line sitting. People have told him this isn't a problem. Which is odd, because I've seen it in every DBA tournament I've played.

So if you end up not liking DBA v3, it's all Phil. There's no conspiracy of DBMM players trying to destroy your rules. We never asked him to post on the DBMM-list. He's quite capable of ignoring us as well....

Oh, and 1 BW = 100p in DBA v3. 1 BW = 80p in DBMM.

Cheers,
JohnG

Andreas Johansson
07-28-2011, 05:04 PM
DBA will not become DBMM "lite". I'm surprised that Andreas hasn't commented on this, given he knows both systems quite well.
Because I only have the energy to repeat myself so many times. Those who didn't believe me before wouldn't believe me now.

pozanias
07-28-2011, 05:30 PM
DBA will not become DBMM "lite". I'm surprised that Andreas hasn't commented on this, given he knows both systems quite well. There are many mechanisms in DBMM that are not in the playtest versions I've help test. The keys to DBMM are Reg and Irr classes, S, O, I, F, X grading, my bound/your bound mechanisms, Commands, PIP distribution rules and multiple morale stages. I've not seen any of them in the v3 drafts. Anyone who wants to move from DBA to DBMM is still going to have a steep learning curve. DBA v3 is substantially simpler than DBMM. Phil isn't changing this.

Phil brought DBA up on the DBMM list himself, and is probably only being tolerated because, well, it's Phil, and we know he isn't very computer literate, and some of the DBMM-list members are also DBA playtesters. At least he is talking somewhere about it. It would be a hard call for a moderator to chuck the author off the list for being OT!

Those that have read the DBMM-list might also like to comment that pretty much 100% of the feedback is to stay with the shorter HI move. I'm probably the only one who thinks it isn't a problem, and I've actually not told Phil that. So if he sticks to his original idea for this, it isn't the DBMM players fault. Phil's major gripe is people base-line sitting. People have told him this isn't a problem. Which is odd, because I've seen it in every DBA tournament I've played.

So if you end up not liking DBA v3, it's all Phil. There's no conspiracy of DBMM players trying to destroy your rules. We never asked him to post on the DBMM-list. He's quite capable of ignoring us as well....

Oh, and 1 BW = 100p in DBA v3. 1 BW = 80p in DBMM.

Cheers,
JohnG

John,

I think the gripe about "DBMM lite" is that Phil seems to be changing DBA to be more like DBMM in order to make it more like DBMM (not because it will add value to the game). Or put differently, that Phil's primary motive does not appear to be creating a better game for the current DBA players, but rather to move DBA more in-line with DBMM because he believes in the DBMM concepts and with the hope that players can then move more easily between the two games. I don't think anyone believes DBA 3.0 will have anywhere near the complexity of DBMM.

IMO Phil had the same idea in the past with DBA and DBM, but it wasn't really a problem because the two started out very similar. So they could grow and evolve together much more easily.

Personally, I think he ought to adopt any idea from DBMM for DBA 3.0 that will make DBA a better game (which would then have the added bonus of making the two games more similar). But he seems to have it the other way around, he wants to make the two more similar with the hope that it might also improve DBA.

And anyone that would blame DBMM players for their involvement in the development of DBA 3.0 is a fool. Unless someone misrepresented themselves or provided dishonest feedback, they should not be blamed for anything.

teenage visigoth
07-28-2011, 05:40 PM
Again. I show up to say,

'Well said pozanias'.

mdsanderson
07-28-2011, 05:43 PM
Who are all these people that are hiding on the back line? Granted I have never played in an East or West coast DBA tournament but would say that almost every game I have played the opposing army starts at least 4 to 6 inches in. Now I have seen troops that don't get moved because of pips or tactical considerations but I have never encountered an opponent that cowers with his back edge along his side of the board.

Mike Sanderson

Rich Gause
07-28-2011, 06:02 PM
Who are all these people that are hiding on the back line? Granted I have never played in an East or West coast DBA tournament but would say that almost every game I have played the opposing army starts at least 4 to 6 inches in. Now I have seen troops that don't get moved because of pips or tactical considerations but I have never encountered an opponent that cowers with his back edge along his side of the board.

Mike Sanderson

and even if somebody did it isn't like cowering at the back edge of the map with a big chunk of your army 1 recoil away from being eliminated is a battlewinning tactic. If somebody does it they are allowing you to fight the rest of their army with a numerical advantage. Now if somebody is so unimaginative as to be stumped by this tactic so that it actually works I can see how they might think it is a problem................

david kuijt
07-28-2011, 07:29 PM
Who are all these people that are hiding on the back line? Granted I have never played in an East or West coast DBA tournament but would say that almost every game I have played the opposing army starts at least 4 to 6 inches in. Now I have seen troops that don't get moved because of pips or tactical considerations but I have never encountered an opponent that cowers with his back edge along his side of the board.


The poster who said he has seen that (lots) is from Canberra. I've never seen it in more than a decade of East or West coast (USA) tournaments. Actually, not quite never -- one game played by someone clueless against Mark Pozniak at Fall In 2002 or 2003. But that is close enough to "never" as makes no mind.

Paul Potter
07-28-2011, 07:55 PM
The poster who said he has seen that (lots) is from Canberra. I've never seen it in more than a decade of East or West coast (USA) tournaments. Actually, not quite never -- one game played by someone clueless against Mark Pozniak at Fall In 2002 or 2003. But that is close enough to "never" as makes no mind.

I have seen it happen 1 time. it was the year I went to historicon which might have been in 02 or 03. It was some sort of medieval Scandinavian army. I believe it was David Kuijt I saw beat him. if I remember right David had a med port army. other than this I have never seen this happen in a dba game. -Paul

Tony Aguilar
07-28-2011, 07:58 PM
and even if somebody did it isn't like cowering at the back edge of the map with a big chunk of your army 1 recoil away from being eliminated is a battlewinning tactic. If somebody does it they are allowing you to fight the rest of their army with a numerical advantage. Now if somebody is so unimaginative as to be stumped by this tactic so that it actually works I can see how they might think it is a problem................

This tactic makes about as much sense as reserving a Littoral Landing Force composed of four of your weakest elements and purposefully NOT landing them just so those four elements couldn't be killed. :rolleyes

Macbeth
07-28-2011, 11:33 PM
The poster who said he has seen that (lots) is from Canberra. I've never seen it in more than a decade of East or West coast (USA) tournaments. Actually, not quite never -- one game played by someone clueless against Mark Pozniak at Fall In 2002 or 2003. But that is close enough to "never" as makes no mind.

Said poster - (who I will first mention is a very nice chap who has done a lot for wargaming of all stripes in the ACT for many many years) has not competed in a DBA Tournament in Canberra (and there are now 4 every year) since January 2007 (unless he played at Cancon 2009 where the records were lost when Doug's laptop fried ;))

Based on the results that I have for him (4 competitions between November 2002 and January 2007) I don't think opponents baselining affected him too much as he performed creditably in all of these competitions.

I will admit to playing an "aggressive forward defence" against him when using Sung Chinese against his Italian Condotta back in 2006 but I swear that my boys still started well forward of the baseline and did move up to get a bead on his troops with 2xArt. Fair enough we did not just march our Bd out into the open against his Kn - for shame :rolleyes

I have not see much baseline sitting at any of the Canberra tournaments that I have run over the past 10 years (yes Landwaster X is coming) and less so that that sort of tactic has led to a drawn game.

But we live in a world where one cannon exploding and killing the king is enough to cause a rule to be created for it (WRG 6th and on) so it only takes one baseline sitting draw to require the creation of a negating rule :silly

Cheers

Victor
07-29-2011, 12:12 AM
I have not see much baseline sitting at any of the Canberra tournaments that I have run over the past 10 years (yes Landwaster X is coming) and less so that that sort of tactic has led to a drawn game.

In all the MOAB comps I've been to (in Sydney), which has many Canberrans in attendance, I can't ever recall seeing "baseline sitting".

Rich Gause
07-29-2011, 12:23 AM
Said poster - (who I will first mention is a very nice chap who has done a lot for wargaming of all stripes in the ACT for many many years) has not competed in a DBA Tournament in Canberra (and there are now 4 every year) since January 2007 (unless he played at Cancon 2009 where the records were lost when Doug's laptop fried ;))

Based on the results that I have for him (4 competitions between November 2002 and January 2007) I don't think opponents baselining affected him too much as he performed creditably in all of these competitions.

I will admit to playing an "aggressive forward defence" against him when using Sung Chinese against his Italian Condotta back in 2006 but I swear that my boys still started well forward of the baseline and did move up to get a bead on his troops with 2xArt. Fair enough we did not just march our Bd out into the open against his Kn - for shame :rolleyes

I have not see much baseline sitting at any of the Canberra tournaments that I have run over the past 10 years (yes Landwaster X is coming) and less so that that sort of tactic has led to a drawn game.

But we live in a world where one cannon exploding and killing the king is enough to cause a rule to be created for it (WRG 6th and on) so it only takes one baseline sitting draw to require the creation of a negating rule :silly

Cheers

Apparrently it is not enough that it is not a gamewinning tactic that there has to be a rule that messes up the rest of the game to make it even a worse idea...... Losing if you do it isn't enough of a penalty? Maybe we should have a rule that you can't put an elephant at the head of a road column and march it right up to an enemy bow line too?:silly

Bob Santamaria
07-29-2011, 12:36 AM
I am not sure I have ever seen it. If I have, I don't remember it being a problem. I find it hard to imagine a situation where it would be a worthwhile tactical approach. If there are such situations, I imagine they are rare. When such situations arise, and if such a tactic is used, I would hesitate to see it as a problem.

One of the things I like about DBA is that there really is nowhere to hide, and that played by normal people there is almost always a timely result.

Adrian

Stephen Webb
07-29-2011, 01:44 AM
The only time I have seen it was when I was using a Visigoth army against a Imperial Roman one.

My opponent tried to go for a draw by setting up as far away as he could.

Didn't work though, I managed to cross the table and then kill four elements well within the time allowed.

Si2
07-29-2011, 08:06 AM
if he's sitting and you're moving, it doesn't take long to cross the table.
If he's wasting time pondering what to do whilst actually doing nothing, in the hope that time runs out, then that has as much afffect for a long move as it does for a shorter one.


I saw someone playing 15mm stuff deploy into a corner around his camp during a game in the English open at Farnham a good few years ago, might even have been a semi-final. The attacker lost that encounter.

Getting there quicker would have meant he would have lost quicker.

But refusing is a classic historical tactic (fabius maximus), why try to prevent it?

A longer move will do nothing to make a Ps/Ax heavy army move out of BGo, not a Bd/Sp army go in.

If you want to stall the game to gain a draw, there will still be plenty of opportunity.

Si2

David Schlanger
07-29-2011, 08:19 AM
I think it is safe to say that baseline sitting is something seen in less than 1% of DBA games.

Within Phil's 3.0 playtest group, several long time DBA players (including myself) pointed out to Phil that this was not a common problem in DBA. Phil seems to think he has a better understanding of the situation, as the advice he received on the issue did not seem to impact his thinking.

It is possible that his perceived baseline sitting problem in DBA is just his easy excuse for using DBMM movement, regardless of the true nature of the problem. This would be similar to the way he uses "too much space in the rules" as his easy out way of dismissing other peoples' ideas without much bother.

DS

Andreas Johansson
07-29-2011, 08:22 AM
It is possible that his perceived baseline sitting problem in DBA is just his easy excuse for using DBMM movement, regardless of the true nature of the problem. This would be similar to the way he uses "too much space in the rules" as his easy out way of dismissing other peoples' ideas without much bother.
Tangential, but Sue told me a while ago that the new edition will be perfect-bound, and that therefore all pagecount-related limits are lifted. I can't help but wonder if Phil is aware of this happy state of affairs! :silly

Martyn
07-29-2011, 09:01 AM
Tangential, but Sue told me a while ago that the new edition will be perfect-bound, and that therefore all pagecount-related limits are lifted. I can't help but wonder if Phil is aware of this happy state of affairs! :silly

I’m glad to hear that the artificial page count restriction has gone.

Now I am concerned over the format of the rules and army lists. Are we going to loose the simple single book format which includes rules, lists, BBDBA and campaigns? I would be disappointed if DBA goes down the route of separate rule book and numerous army list books and supplements.

At least DBMM followed the previous example of rule book and four army list books (even if at some cost, £16 plus 4x £15) and did not fall in to the FOG with rule book and numerous army list books (at huge cost, £25 plus how many supplements? at £12 - £21 a piece)

Pavane
07-29-2011, 09:21 AM
Baseline sitting is is not a flaw in DBA, but rather tournamant scoring systems. Incomplete games should not score higher than a loss. Those that use the NASAMW system are surprised baseline sitting is an issue at all.

Andreas Johansson
07-29-2011, 09:23 AM
I’m glad to hear that the artificial page count restriction has gone.
I don't feel any confidence it actually has gone, as far as the rules are concerned at least. The principal issue has always been Phil's aversion to what he sees as excessive length, not printing limitations, and Phil hasn't given any hint that he's changed is mind. The latest draft uses the same number of pages for the rules as does 2.2.

If increased pagecount goes to incorporating Sue's largely lifted-from-DBMM notes, my enthusiasm will know limits.

Martyn
07-29-2011, 09:40 AM
I don't feel any confidence it actually has gone, as far as the rules are concerned at least. The principal issue has always been Phil's aversion to what he sees as excessive length, not printing limitations, and Phil hasn't given any hint that he's changed is mind.

Yes that is what I understood; no real reason except for Phil's preconceived notion on what is an acceptable length.

The latest draft uses the same number of pages for the rules as does 2.2.

Oh Poo!

If increased pagecount goes to incorporating Sue's largely lifted-from-DBMM notes, my enthusiasm will know limits.

Yep, a wasted opportunity.

Rich Gause
07-29-2011, 09:48 AM
I don't feel any confidence it actually has gone, as far as the rules are concerned at least. The principal issue has always been Phil's aversion to what he sees as excessive length, not printing limitations, and Phil hasn't given any hint that he's changed is mind. The latest draft uses the same number of pages for the rules as does 2.2.

If increased pagecount goes to incorporating Sue's largely lifted-from-DBMM notes, my enthusiasm will know limits.

His aversion to excessive length doesn't prevent him from wasting plenty of wordcount on the broken BUA rules.......... Instead of just saying impassible terrain on the board edge.

David Schlanger
07-29-2011, 10:18 AM
Tangential, but Sue told me a while ago that the new edition will be perfect-bound, and that therefore all pagecount-related limits are lifted. I can't help but wonder if Phil is aware of this happy state of affairs! :silly


Yes, so the only limit is the one inside Phil Barker's mind! Given the number of times he has said "takes too much space", that clearly over-rides any removal of the purely physical limitations.

DS

pozanias
07-29-2011, 12:51 PM
The poster who said he has seen that (lots) is from Canberra. I've never seen it in more than a decade of East or West coast (USA) tournaments. Actually, not quite never -- one game played by someone clueless against Mark Pozniak at Fall In 2002 or 2003. But that is close enough to "never" as makes no mind.

Except that the game to which you refer doesn't really qualify. When Phil refers to these incidents, he talks about players leaving their vulnerable (to HI) troops hiding on the baseline (presumably while the non-vulnerable troops go on to fight). This is a VERY common DBM tactic that one truly never sees in DBA. With the possible exception of a few horde being left behind. But that's usually as much a PIP issue as it is a hiding tactic.

I am not calling Phil a liar, but I don't believe him when he says that he and Sue had this happen to them in DBA games in America. Perhaps he meant DBM. Perhaps he is misremembering.


But as others have said, in a 12 v 12 game -- leaving vulnerable elements behind does not usually cause much grief for an opponent, as they now have an important numerical advantage. So even in the unusual cases where it may happen, its not really a problem.

The bottom line, though, is that 99+% (my guess, not an actual statistic :)) of DBA players do not think this is a problem. Whereas it seems clear that at least a majority of players think that the new movement rules could be a problem.

I agree with DS, Phil wants to make this rule change to bring movement rates in line with DBMM and is essentially making up reasons to justify it.

Doug
08-09-2011, 04:21 AM
Because I only have the energy to repeat myself so many times. Those who didn't believe me before wouldn't believe me now.

Testify Andreas!!!

Doug
08-09-2011, 04:25 AM
Said poster - (who I will first mention is a very nice chap who has done a lot for wargaming of all stripes in the ACT for many many years) has not competed in a DBA Tournament in Canberra (and there are now 4 every year) since January 2007 (unless he played at Cancon 2009 where the records were lost when Doug's laptop fried ;))

Based on the results that I have for him (4 competitions between November 2002 and January 2007) I don't think opponents baselining affected him too much as he performed creditably in all of these competitions.

I will admit to playing an "aggressive forward defence" against him when using Sung Chinese against his Italian Condotta back in 2006 but I swear that my boys still started well forward of the baseline and did move up to get a bead on his troops with 2xArt. Fair enough we did not just march our Bd out into the open against his Kn - for shame :rolleyes

I have not see much baseline sitting at any of the Canberra tournaments that I have run over the past 10 years (yes Landwaster X is coming) and less so that that sort of tactic has led to a drawn game.

But we live in a world where one cannon exploding and killing the king is enough to cause a rule to be created for it (WRG 6th and on) so it only takes one baseline sitting draw to require the creation of a negating rule :silly

Cheers

I have seen it relatively frequently, there is usually one in every comp. But usually the more clueless players, or ones who have set up a very strong defensive position and invite their opponents to immolate themselves against uphill Ax in bad going. It's not usually a game-winning tactic, but it can be very frustrating to counter.

David Constable
08-09-2011, 04:41 AM
I have seen it relatively frequently, there is usually one in every comp. But usually the more clueless players, or ones who have set up a very strong defensive position and invite their opponents to immolate themselves against uphill Ax in bad going. It's not usually a game-winning tactic, but it can be very frustrating to counter.

I would agree with Doug regarding U.K. competitions.
Strong defencive armies as the Sung can be in good hands (sepecially with 2xArt), or defencive players with secure flanks does occur, but are not common, and it is clearly done for a reason.
I would not count holding one flank back while attacking with a more mobile one, that seems a good military tactic.

I did have a Hindu Indian virtually stand on his start line (shame you all shout), but in his defence he did throw five ones in succession for his first PIP dice.

David Constable

Bob Mcleish
08-09-2011, 07:56 AM
I did have a Classical Indian virtually stand on his base line (shame you all shout), but in his defence he did throw five ones in succession for his first PIP dice.

David Constable

David, it was my Hindu Indian army and in my defence they did in fact deploy the maximum distance in. My static posture during that game was purely down to my dearth of PiPs rather than any cheesy-baseline-sitting-ploy. Frustrating for both sides, but short of suicidally advancing elements piece-meal and gifting you the win, I had few options.

In 100+ games with this particular army I have never had such a bad run of PiPs - unfortunate that it occurred in the first round of of a tournament, but c'est la vie...:eek

In over 20 years of playing DBA I can count on 1 hand the number of games where I, or an opponent, have sat far back (as a tactic, rather than due to a PiP shortage). It can work but more often than not I've seen it backfire, usually leading to a more aggressive strategy by the player in subsequent games!
Introducing potentially game-breaking movement rates (affecting door-closing etc..) to counter such a rare "problem" seems more than a bit mad to me!!

I'm not an MM-basher - I played, and really enjoyed, a game of DBMM last night, and have another game lined up for next week. I don't have any major problems jumping between both rule sets and actually quite like the differences between them and the different challenges they present. I feel that even small changes to make DBA more DBMM-like may just make things more confusing for people who play both - better VERY different, than VERY similar, but not quite...
Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see...

Happy gaming!!!

David Constable
08-09-2011, 10:26 AM
Sorry Bob, you are quite correct, I did mean start line, have now amended.

David Constable

David Constable
08-09-2011, 10:30 AM
I think with the faster movement in DBA3 I can see use of the base line as a starting point becoming frequent.
Added to which mess up the centre to slow your opponent would not be a bad idea, but with die throwing to determine terrain position, a road comes in handy.

David Constable

pozanias
08-09-2011, 11:00 AM
I think with the faster movement in DBA3 I can see use of the base line as a starting point becoming frequent.
Added to which mess up the centre to slow your opponent would not be a bad idea, but with die throwing to determine terrain position, a road comes in handy.

David Constable

I think you are absolutely right. That's not necessarily an inherently good or bad thing I suppose. But, the reality is that if players don't deploy further back, there will be very little opportunity to maneouver.

I saw somewhere that Phil wanted to take the "chess" element out of DBA. I'm not sure if that's actually his intention, but the increased movement rates would certainly help to do that.

For me, the "chess" aspect of the game is actually its most appealing quality.

winterbadger
08-09-2011, 11:09 AM
I think you are absolutely right. That's not necessarily an inherently good or bad thing I suppose. But, the reality is that if players don't deploy further back, there will be very little opportunity to maneouver.

I saw somewhere that Phil wanted to take the "chess" element out of DBA. I'm not sure if that's actually his intention, but the increased movement rates would certainly help to do that.

For me, the "chess" aspect of the game is actually its most appealing quality.

Yes, this seems designed to make the lines rush together as quickly as possible. For some armies this would make sense, but they are armies that have so little variation that maneuver isn't likely to be an option to begin with (e.g., one heavy-foot army facing another heavy-foot army). But it would also allow one army that has no real maneuver options rush quickly in on another one that does (e.g., a heavy foot army versus a msotly-mounted army). That doesn't seem as if it makes sense.

ferrency
08-09-2011, 11:12 AM
For me, the "chess" aspect of the game is actually its most appealing quality.

I agree.

This is more evidence to me that even with DBA 2.2, Phil and his cohorts are playing a different game than I am, and that I don't want to play their game.

Alan

pozanias
08-09-2011, 11:26 AM
I agree.

Great minds think alike.


This is more evidence to me that even with DBA 2.2, Phil and his cohorts are playing a different game than I am, and that I don't want to play their game.

Alan

Be careful about using anything I say as evidence. : ) I have not been involved in the 3.0 playtesting. And I didn't hear (or see) Phil quoted directly.

Bob Mcleish
08-09-2011, 11:59 AM
but with die throwing to determine terrain position, a road comes in handy.

David Constable

hmmm, it will be interesting to see how that works..
What are your impressions of it David??


happy gaming!!

Redwilde
08-09-2011, 12:42 PM
This is more evidence to me that even with DBA 2.2, Phil and his cohorts are playing a different game than I am, and that I don't want to play their game.


If I recall right having seen them play some years ago, both Phil and Sue just shove their lines straight forward and don't try to correct for any deployment problems.

Rich Gause
08-09-2011, 01:15 PM
If I recall right having seen them play some years ago, both Phil and Sue just shove their lines straight forward and don't try to correct for any deployment problems.

That is what I saw when I played Sue, she didn't even make obvious defender swaps to correct setup mismatches.

winterbadger
08-09-2011, 01:20 PM
That is what I saw when I played Sue, she didn't even make obvious defender swaps to correct setup mismatches.

Taken with some of the previous comments about trying to make it harder to swap elements in a battle line, I wonder if they think this (rearranging elements to improve matchups) is gamey/cheesy?

I wonder how common it is for a large community of gamers to play a game in a way that the designer(s) simply didn't intend/never expected/think is wrong. It would certainly explain a lot, both in terms of design choices *and* development) if the designers strongly deprecate the way most people play the game.

David Constable
08-09-2011, 04:24 PM
hmmm, it will be interesting to see how that works..
What are your impressions of it David??


happy gaming!!

I like it to some extent, not against or for at the moment, need to see the resulting terrain in at least six or more games.

It introduces a random element, but if you end up with all the bad terrain on your half of the board, and you have a Greek hoplite army you might not like the idea.

I suspect that it might result in armies being deployed on the base line frequently to draw an enemy on, and alternatively to stop a high speed attack across the board.

David Constable

David Constable
08-09-2011, 04:27 PM
If I recall right having seen them play some years ago, both Phil and Sue just shove their lines straight forward and don't try to correct for any deployment problems.

In the U.K. I have seen Phil do it, Sue tends to be a bit more inventive, a few years ago she gave me problems in a game using Ancient Britons if I remember correctly.

David Constable

Roland Fricke
08-09-2011, 05:48 PM
I wonder how common it is for a large community of gamers to play a game in a way that the designer(s) simply didn't intend/never expected/think is wrong. .

.
No plan (ruleset or scenario design) survives first contact with the enemy (players). I think it happens a lot.:)

Doug
08-09-2011, 06:16 PM
I agree.

This is more evidence to me that even with DBA 2.2, Phil and his cohorts are playing a different game than I am, and that I don't want to play their game.

Alan

Who are Phil's Cohorts? I don't think Andreas, Bob, Dave or myself could be described as Phil's 'Cohorts' or that we play a different game.

ferrency
08-09-2011, 09:57 PM
Who are Phil's Cohorts? I don't think Andreas, Bob, Dave or myself could be described as Phil's 'Cohorts' or that we play a different game.

I don't know. I never claimed any particular individual to be one of his cohorts. I have only heard stories of people playing "line em' up, knock em' down" maneuverless games. I don't know if the stories are true or not, but they describe a game I don't want to play. That's all.

Alan

David Constable
08-10-2011, 05:03 AM
I don't know. I never claimed any particular individual to be one of his cohorts. I have only heard stories of people playing "line em' up, knock em' down" maneuverless games. I don't know if the stories are true or not, but they describe a game I don't want to play. That's all.

Alan

I have not heard in the U.K. of either Phil or Sue belonging to a club, or going to one regularly, and nobody I have spoken to since DBA3 was officially announced has either.
If they do then my guess would be Shrewsbury, they do not play each other, so unless PB has gone back to having a few testers around, no idea.
But since he has until recently relied upon DBMM players in matters, then I would ask the question on the DBMM group.

They have not attempted to contact Alvechurch Templar club, and they know we are 30 mins down the road, and can field six players at a push.

I very very very strongly suspect that as PB is only really interested in writing rules that he has done very little, or even nill proper testing himself.

David Constable

OzarkOrc
09-10-2011, 12:25 PM
But Sock Puppets?

OzarkOrc
09-10-2011, 12:31 PM
And "Manouevre"; Well, OK, maybe; But I tend to side with PB on this one, my reading of the sources, you (Ancient General, One ea.) were kind of stuck with your deployment plans. It is gamey/cheesey to see people who only manouvre a few mounted elements.

I never thought of/saw swapping elemets in the battle line as a viable action.

Mind you, there are armies that depend on manouvre; Early Hebrews?

But an Alexandrian Macedonian army where only the mounted element(s) ever manouvre? That's just plain wrong.

What is needed is some mechanic which encourages players to move into the (Clear, good going) in the middle of the Board.

kontos
09-10-2011, 12:56 PM
What is needed is some mechanic which encourages players to move into the (Clear, good going) in the middle of the Board.

Its called a death wish. There are many, many armies that should not be in the "Clear, good going" anywhere on the board! Should they be enticed to do so by a "mechanic"?

JLogan
10-17-2011, 04:36 PM
--- On Mon, 17/10/11, Phil Barker <pc.barker@...> wrote:

> From: Phil Barker <pc.barker@...>
> Subject: Re: [DBMMlist] Re: Bosporan DBA
> To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, 17 October, 2011, 11:31

The question is when the citizen cavalry changed to Sarmatian style. Had it
happened by 310? I have come across several bits where the DBMM lists may
now need modifying.

Although Sue wished to abolish the numbers in the DBA
lists, there has been a backlash against this, so the number is going back
in where it is critical. One instance is Hd (S) and (F), which have to be
treated in DBA as Wb, but look better with the larger number of figures.

Yes, wrong list, but sometimes I have to go to the DBMMers to get a wider
pool of knowledge.

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: The Bruce
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 5:03 PM
To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [DBMMlist] Re: Bosporan DBA

> Think this is the wrong list but while we're here
> why is the general Cv? Can't remember any Cv
> in this list

Nope, there's no Cv anywhere in the Bosporan list .... generals are Kn (F),
&
the only other mounted I'm seeing are LH (F) horse archers, which turn to Kn
(F)
after 100 b.c.e.

Also, in the DBA list Mr Barker asked us to look at, one element is listed
as
"4Ax." Shouldn't that just be "Ax"? I thought we were doing away with such
things as 3* & 4* & so on.

Note also that in the DBMM list, while the CinC is always Irr Kn (F), both
subgenerals have the option of being Reg Ax (S).

Could you give this a look over please?

Phil

II/25 BOSPORAN 310 BC - 107 BC & 10 BC - 375 AD



This list covers the Bosporan kingdom of the Black Sea from the civil war of 310
BC until its fall to the Huns, excluding a period of Mithridatic rule after
which it joined the Roman sphere. Earlier armies are covered by II/5l. Mounted
nobles started as shieldless Greek cavalry, but changed to Sarmatian-style
lancers on unarmoured horses. Citizen foot started as hoplites, but changed to
armoured thureophoroi (thorakitai). Sindi and Maiotian farmers fought either as
unarmoured thureophoroi or as archers and slingers. A mobile force of
bolt-shooters on mule carriages was used effectively against Goths in the 4th
century AD. References: Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars D. Head, Armies
and Enemies of Imperial Rome P. Barker, The Army of the Bosporan Kingdom M.
Mielczarek, Tyrant series C. Cameron (novels).

II/25 Bosporan Army 310 BC-375 AD: 1 x General (Cv or Kn), 2 x hoplites (Sp) or
noble lancers (Kn), 2 x hoplites (Sp) or thorakitai (4Ax), 1 x lancers (Kn) or
Skythian horse archers (LH), 2 x Thracians or Sindi and Maiotian javelinmen (Ax
or Ps), 2 x Sindi and Maiotian archers (Bw or Ps), 1 x archers or slingers
(Ps), 1 x bolt-shooters (Art) or lancers (Kn).

Terrain Type: Littoral. Aggression: 0. Enemies: I/43a, I/43b, II/24, II/25,
II/26, II/48, II/56, II/58, II/67b. Allies: I/43a or II/26 or II/58.



II/5l Black Sea Greeks 410-311 BC, 1 x General (Cv or Sp), 1 x Greek cavalry
(Cv), 4 x hoplites (Sp), 2 x hoplites (Sp) or Skythians (LH), 1x Thracians (Ax)
or Skythians (LH), 3 x Sindi or Maiotian archers (Ps).

Terrain type: Littoral. Aggression: 0. Enemies: II/51l, II/15, II/25, II/26.
Allies: I/43.

winterbadger
10-17-2011, 05:39 PM
--- On Mon, 17/10/11, Phil Barker <pc.barker@...> wrote:

Although Sue wished to abolish the numbers in the DBA
lists, there has been a backlash against this, so the number is going back
in where it is critical. One instance is Hd (S) and (F), which have to be
treated in DBA as Wb, but look better with the larger number of figures.

"where it is critical"? So, the point of having no figure requirement listed (that any size base/number of figures be accepted) is jettisoned. And yet the hopes of those who want to keep a figure count for all troop types is also dashed, because only "critical" types will have the # indicated? And what determines where it is "critical"? Bsed on that example, it has nothing to do with the rules (base size, etc.), just with what "looks better" to the author.

Say what you will, he has an unerring instinct, even when trying to compromise, of finding the solution that is the most illogical and will please the least number of people. :rolleyes

pozanias
10-17-2011, 06:37 PM
Say what you will, he has an unerring instinct, even when trying to compromise, of finding the solution that is the most illogical and will please the least number of people. :rolleyes

Ha, ha. :D That is really funny.

I have to say, though, I am happy that he's listening.

As for his unerring instinct -- I've always wondered if it was intentional or accidental. The best example of this was the debate over board size. A comprehensive argument was put to Phil that 15mm board sizes should be increased in size to match the relative board size of 25mm games. Phil apparently agreed with the logic, but his solution was to shrink the size of the 25mm board. :rotfl I can't help but laugh every time I think of that. And to this day, I don't know why he doesn't just list board sizes as 24 - 30" sqaure (15mm) and 36-48" square (25mm) -- or whatever the mm or BW translations would be. Deployment distances can all be measured from a center line for consistency.

But there are lots of other examples as well. I remember a brilliant comment by David Constable on this forum about how the best way to get Phil to change something is to arrange for the problem to occur in a game he plays and then let him think the solution was his idea.

Anyway, I think he wants to be responsive to the DBA community, but can't help feeling bitter when we disagree with him. I don't know if the "if I'm not going to get what I want, then you're not going to get what you want" result is from the subconscious, or intentional, or bad luck, or bizarre thinking,....

Redwilde
10-17-2011, 09:05 PM
> From: Phil Barker <pc.barker@...>
> Subject: Re: [DBMMlist] Re: Bosporan DBA
> To: DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Monday, 17 October, 2011, 11:31

Yes, wrong list, but sometimes I have to go to the DBMMers to get a wider
pool of knowledge.

Phil


Sometimes?!?
I suppose a relatively large variable of 'sometimes' = 'always'.
:???

Doug
10-17-2011, 11:04 PM
Sometimes?!?
I suppose a relatively large variable of 'sometimes' = 'always'.
:???

To be fair; when you have people like Duncan Head on the DBMM list, but not on the DBA one, then it is probably reasonable to go to the DBMM list.

winterbadger
10-18-2011, 02:40 AM
To be fair; when you have people like Duncan Head on the DBMM list, but not on the DBA one, then it is probably reasonable to go to the DBMM list.

How many "people like Duncan Head" are there who are one one list and not the other? Are these people more likely to be found on a game-specific list than a historical one like ANCMED? Again, this just sounds to me like rationalising looking under the lamppost.

Doug
10-18-2011, 02:58 AM
How many "people like Duncan Head" are there who are one one list and not the other? Are these people more likely to be found on a game-specific list than a historical one like ANCMED? Again, this just sounds to me like rationalising looking under the lamppost.

Phil has membership of a limited number of lists. For whatever reason, and I was offering one, he seems to think he will get a better spread on one list than another.

If you want to argue who has the most degrees on each, then I am sorry I don't have the data.

And you should consider getting a chip on the other shoulder, just to balance that one up.

david kuijt
10-18-2011, 08:29 AM
Phil has membership of a limited number of lists. For whatever reason, and I was offering one, he seems to think he will get a better spread on one list than another.

If you want to argue who has the most degrees on each, then I am sorry I don't have the data.

And you should consider getting a chip on the other shoulder, just to balance that one up.

Duncan Head is a scholar of great note. Asking him for feedback on army lists is critical to getting good army lists.

Phil's attendance on lists, and asking for feedback on them, has everything to do with Phil's comfort with the list. I'm sure Phil has Duncan Head's personal email, if he wanted some focused criticism by a scholar.

And you can say "chip on your shoulder" all you want, Doug, but anyone on any of the DBA fora who is unhappy with Phil's complete disregard for the DBA fora in all the phases of development of DBA3, and unhappy with Phil's consistent interaction with the DBMM fora during the same development of DBA3, has a legitimate grievance, not a "chip on their shoulder."

Doug
10-18-2011, 08:41 AM
Duncan Head is a scholar of great note. Asking him for feedback on army lists is critical to getting good army lists.

Phil's attendance on lists, and asking for feedback on them, has everything to do with Phil's comfort with the list. I'm sure Phil has Duncan Head's personal email, if he wanted some focused criticism by a scholar.

And you can say "chip on your shoulder" all you want, Doug, but anyone on any of the DBA fora who is unhappy with Phil's complete disregard for the DBA fora in all the phases of development of DBA3, and unhappy with Phil's consistent interaction with the DBMM fora during the same development of DBA3, has a legitimate grievance, not a "chip on their shoulder."

I don't doubt that Phil using a group he has more experience with has left people aggrieved. But some of the intemperate language is occasionally very childish. It simply comes across as whiny and churlish. And yes, Phil, I am sure has Duncan's email, but there are many other people on that list that Phil appears to listen to.

I just want the thing published, and then players can see what has been getting them so worked up, and hopefully, realise that their worst fears are exaggerated.

david kuijt
10-18-2011, 09:05 AM
I don't doubt that Phil using a group he has more experience with has left people aggrieved. But some of the intemperate language is occasionally very childish. It simply comes across as whiny and churlish.

It does. And I say that as one of the ones who sometimes uses intemperate language.

On the flip side, your constant defence of Phil's every idiosyncracy and sometimes idiocy (and asking DBMM players on the DBMM list for feedback on DBA rules, which he has done in the past and is explicitly illegal by the DBMM list rules, and while resolutely ignoring any feedback from the two lists where DBA players congregate and discuss DBA, counts as idiocy by any reasonable measure) is equally as wearing.


And yes, Phil, I am sure has Duncan's email, but there are many other people on that list that Phil appears to listen to.

Sure. Nigel and Nigel, for ex.

But the DBMM list is not where the elite meet. And the DBA list(s) are not where the hoi polloi wallow in ignorance. The DBMM list is where Phil plays, and he won't change that, even if Duncan Head (in his scholarly wisdom) were to drop his participation on that list and sign up on ours.


I just want the thing published, and then players can see what has been getting them so worked up, and hopefully, realise that their worst fears are exaggerated.

I want the thing published as well. So I can decide whether to try to take a grinder to its warts, if it is ugly but saveable, or burn Phil in effigy and deny that 3.0 ever existed if it is ... as I expect.

Bobgnar
10-18-2011, 04:46 PM
The full set of DBA army lists were published on the DBA Yahoo site and on Fanaticus, numerous times, with lots of comments. They were not published on the DBMM site. So now Phil wants to get some more opinions on one list and he is again viewed as some sort of anti-DBA player ogre? i do not get it? Philaphile that I am.

Redwilde
10-18-2011, 06:28 PM
It's that he never personally seeks input directly from DBA lists but yet passes off his query as 'sometimes' needing to go to an outside group. Intentional comment or not, it's still a snub.

Bobgnar
10-18-2011, 06:33 PM
How is someone so personally involved in his hobby that he worries about being group snubbed by a person he may not even or hardly know? DO people take this stuff personally??? Wow.

Do we think that Phil is intentionally insulting us, or just thinking about other things than our personal feelings.

I play the game of DBA and try to take none of stuff personally.

A I said, he got lots of input from the DBA lists. Sue is his alter ego. They are partners. She watches the DBA lists, he does other ones.

winterbadger
10-18-2011, 06:38 PM
The full set of DBA army lists were published on the DBA Yahoo site and on Fanaticus, numerous times, with lots of comments. They were not published on the DBMM site. So now Phil wants to get some more opinions on one list and he is again viewed as some sort of anti-DBA player ogre? i do not get it? Philaphile that I am.

Perhaps I missed something, but the lists were posted and comments solicited. No substantive discussion with the author took place, no opportunity to engage, just "Make your pleas, and they will be laid before the throne of the All Highest." The scuttlebutt, possibly true, possibly not, is that pretty much all the changes brought forward by Sue were rejected out of hand by Phil, who has been rummaging around making whatever changes suit him. And, apparently, discussing them with people on the DBMM list. But nary a peep here or in the DBA Yahoo list.

I don't know what that can be but a sign that he doesn't give a toss what most DBA players think about DBA.

Swampster
10-18-2011, 06:59 PM
Phil hasn't exactly bombarded the DBMMlist with questions about the DBA lists. The only ones I can remember before the Bosporan question were one asking for advice on sources to reccommend for one list and aksing whether two armies should count as enemies.
The Bosporan list discussion went beyond his original question, partly in an effort to get him to split it into an early and a late version.

Africanus
10-18-2011, 08:11 PM
20 pages of repetition....

If that doesn't force PB come to his senses I don't know what will!:rolleyes
He does not listen,he does listen, he listens to the wrong group, he listens to parts of the right group....
Schoolyard to and fro'ing , whilst amusing at times , really accomplishes, hmm....what?
I think we could compress this thread into 2, 3 pages max and still convey the message in depth to the general population.
All of this bs changes nothing. Some will buy, some will not. Some will play, others will not. Fact!
Roll on 3.0!!

David Schlanger
10-19-2011, 08:55 AM
A I said, he got lots of input from the DBA lists. Sue is his alter ego. They are partners. She watches the DBA lists, he does other ones.

You have such a sense of humor, Bob.

DS

Bobgnar
10-19-2011, 12:48 PM
You have such a sense of humor, Bob.

DS

I guess I am a Sueaphile too.

David Schlanger
10-19-2011, 01:11 PM
I guess I am a Sueaphile too.

That doesn't have quite the ring to it that Philaphile does... But what you said, if not a joke, was a complete misrepresentation of reality.

DS

Bobgnar
10-19-2011, 02:50 PM
Sue and Phil are not partners? She does not tell him what she finds on Yahoo and Fanaticus? He does not get input from her? ???


"A I said, he got lots of input from the DBA lists. Sue is his alter ego. They are partners. She watches the DBA lists, he does other ones." Bob


snip But what you said, if not a joke, was a complete misrepresentation of reality.

DS

Bobgnar
10-19-2011, 03:00 PM
You really have been missing something. The lists were offered for comments, changes were made, new versions posted, much discussion. I think there were at least 3 iterations. Indeed, Phil has been checking over the lists but you are way off base to suggest anything was rejected out of hand. Some changes have been made to better reflect the rules. Discussing one list on the DBMM site -- criminal, string up the guy is your response???

Why do you even play the game with such a harsh attitude toward the authors. Phil's games have given me hours of enjoyment and I have nothing but respect for him.

I forgot to mention they are spending $100's ($1000's) to come to the US to solicit US player opinions.

Perhaps I missed something, but the lists were posted and comments solicited. No substantive discussion with the author took place, no opportunity to engage, just "Make your pleas, and they will be laid before the throne of the All Highest." The scuttlebutt, possibly true, possibly not, is that pretty much all the changes brought forward by Sue were rejected out of hand by Phil, who has been rummaging around making whatever changes suit him. And, apparently, discussing them with people on the DBMM list. But nary a peep here or in the DBA Yahoo list.

I don't know what that can be but a sign that he doesn't give a toss what most DBA players think about DBA.

Rich Gause
10-19-2011, 03:23 PM
Perhaps I missed something, but the lists were posted and comments solicited. No substantive discussion with the author took place, no opportunity to engage, just "Make your pleas, and they will be laid before the throne of the All Highest." The scuttlebutt, possibly true, possibly not, is that pretty much all the changes brought forward by Sue were rejected out of hand by Phil, who has been rummaging around making whatever changes suit him. And, apparently, discussing them with people on the DBMM list. But nary a peep here or in the DBA Yahoo list.

I don't know what that can be but a sign that he doesn't give a toss what most DBA players think about DBA.

I also commented on the proposed lists several times at this site, on the yahoogroup, and directly to Sue in person via email. I have yet to get any sort of feedback from Phil or Sue about any of my list comments. Also missing was any kind of substantial discussion about what what the lists should be or any guidlines for the lists. I just sort of assumed that the 2.2 lists and the new DBMM lists would be guiding documents. I saw a comment from Sue that Phil thought the lists were not restrictive enough while I thought they did not offer enough choice.

David Schlanger
10-19-2011, 03:44 PM
Sue and Phil are not partners? She does not tell him what she finds on Yahoo and Fanaticus? He does not get input from her? ???

As I said, he got lots of input from the DBA lists. Sue is his alter ego. They are partners. She watches the DBA lists, he does other ones.

Do you really think that Sue actively watches the DBA lists on yahoo and here on the forum? And even if she does do it to some small degree, then you think she reports back to Phil about it?

There is signficant evidence that Sue worked on the DBA 3.0 army lists in a Phil-less state for 8ish months, posting some stuff on here and the yahoo list (when she remembered how to login). She did not provide any real feedback on input that she received or join in any discussion about it. Either the feedback showed up in the newest version she released... or not. Providing feedback was kind of like throwing rocks into a deep well and waiting to hear the splash.

Now we have Phil doing his revision of the army lists, and I suspect he is undoing half of what she did.

DS

winterbadger
10-19-2011, 04:35 PM
You really have been missing something.

I stated that, as far as I knew, "no substantive discussion with the author took place, no opportunity to engage (with him)". Nothing you have listed suggests otherwise, so I sincerely doubt I missed anything at all.

Discussing one list on the DBMM site -- criminal, string up the guy is your response???

Please quote exactly which post of mine said he should be strung up. It's really terrifically easy to argue with people when you make up not only your side of the discussion but theirs as well.

Why do you even play the game with such a harsh attitude toward the authors.

I have exactly the opposite question. Why do you accept everything he does, every snide remark, every snub that's thrown at us, his fans and supporters, just because he wrote a game you like?

I play the game because I enjoy the game and because I enjoy the company of the people I play it with. Nothing about PB's authorship of the game immunizes him, IMO, from having BS called on him when he disrespects the community of gamers that has put money in his pockets and worked to promote his commercial endeavours. Nor, even if he were the nicest person in the world, does it mean that if he proposes some silly and wrong-headed changes to the game everyone should just meekly accept them and thank him.

I forgot to mention they are spending $100's ($1000's) to come to the US to solicit US player opinions.

:rotfl You really are a comedian!

Doug
10-19-2011, 06:23 PM
Do you really think that Sue actively watches the DBA lists on yahoo and here on the forum? And even if she does do it to some small degree, then you think she reports back to Phil about it?

There is signficant evidence that Sue worked on the DBA 3.0 army lists in a Phil-less state for 8ish months, posting some stuff on here and the yahoo list (when she remembered how to login). She did not provide any real feedback on input that she received or join in any discussion about it. Either the feedback showed up in the newest version she released... or not. Providing feedback was kind of like throwing rocks into a deep well and waiting to hear the splash.

Now we have Phil doing his revision of the army lists, and I suspect he is undoing half of what she did.

DS

I think Phil was badly bitten by the DBMM list development process. He would make changes, there would be screams from players and lengthy submissions, and if he engaged there would be interminable debate. (My own 'pet' army II/69 Sasanian Persian is a classic example). In the latter stages, about armies where Phil did not feel he had enough personal knowledge, he would let debate rage on the DBMM Lists list, and then make changes.

I suspect the process is similar, and Phil already feels most of the arguments were already hashed out in the DBMM development process. The real question is about how to convert the DBMM lists to DBA, and I am confident there will be screams about that, as they will appear to be inconsistently applied depending on how Phil thinks the list should play. (Even minor changes in a 12 element army can make a substantial difference to how it plays as we all know).

Doug
10-19-2011, 06:26 PM
I play the game because I enjoy the game and because I enjoy the company of the people I play it with. Nothing about PB's authorship of the game immunizes him, IMO, from having BS called on him when he disrespects the community of gamers that has put money in his pockets and worked to promote his commercial endeavours.

Ah - I see the problem, you think Phil does it for commerical reasons... whereas I believe he actually makes very little money from writing wargames rules, and his occasional commercial work for industry and the army subsidises it.

David Schlanger
10-19-2011, 07:54 PM
I think Phil was badly bitten by the DBMM list development process. He would make changes, there would be screams from players and lengthy submissions, and if he engaged there would be interminable debate. (My own 'pet' army II/69 Sasanian Persian is a classic example). In the latter stages, about armies where Phil did not feel he had enough personal knowledge, he would let debate rage on the DBMM Lists list, and then make changes.

I suspect the process is similar, and Phil already feels most of the arguments were already hashed out in the DBMM development process. The real question is about how to convert the DBMM lists to DBA, and I am confident there will be screams about that, as they will appear to be inconsistently applied depending on how Phil thinks the list should play. (Even minor changes in a 12 element army can make a substantial difference to how it plays as we all know).

I think we mostly agree here Doug. I will point out though that during the recent "Sue" period of army lists development it sure felt like there was no process in place for conversion from DBMM army list to DBA army list.

This DBA 3.0 round of conversion builds on the previous conversion of DBM army list to DBA 2.0 army list a decade ago which was a boon to DBA but lacked some consistency. Let's face it, it's a huge and difficult job. One that really demands a very systematic approach and clearly defined conversion rules to go along with a little bit of hand waving.

DS

Bob Santamaria
10-19-2011, 08:32 PM
I don't want my DBA lists to just be a conversion of the DBMM lists. I want them to be the best DBA lists available for DBA. The two are not necessarily the same thing, even if often there won't be much in it.

It is very hard for anyone to meaningfully comment on draft lists in any event, given only very few know what the new rules consist of, and therefore what the real functional meaning of a given troop type will be under DBA 3.

The process sucks, but I am pretty sure DBA 3 will still be at least pretty good. It would be hard to muck up DBA too badly

Adrian

Doug
10-20-2011, 12:29 AM
I don't want my DBA lists to just be a conversion of the DBMM lists. I want them to be the best DBA lists available for DBA. The two are not necessarily the same thing, even if often there won't be much in it.

It is very hard for anyone to meaningfully comment on draft lists in any event, given only very few know what the new rules consist of, and therefore what the real functional meaning of a given troop type will be under DBA 3.

The process sucks, but I am pretty sure DBA 3 will still be at least pretty good. It would be hard to muck up DBA too badly

Adrian

Hi Adrian,
not sure what you expect the new lists to be?

As far as Phil is concerned the DBMM 2 lists are the best distillation of our knowledge of ancient armies into the DBx model. He was always going to use them as a basis for the DBA 3 lists. And I don't think there can ever be hard and fast rules about conversions from a points based to a 12 element based list. So there is always a 'fudge' factor.

But essentially the element model doesn't change between the two... a LH is still a LH regardless of whether it is DBA or DBMM. Phil has always stated that DBx elements are defined by function (debatable) so essentially they are functionally identical.

Anway, I am sure it will still give an excellent game.

Rich Gause
10-20-2011, 12:53 AM
I think Phil was badly bitten by the DBMM list development process. He would make changes, there would be screams from players and lengthy submissions, and if he engaged there would be interminable debate. (My own 'pet' army II/69 Sasanian Persian is a classic example). In the latter stages, about armies where Phil did not feel he had enough personal knowledge, he would let debate rage on the DBMM Lists list, and then make changes.

I suspect the process is similar, and Phil already feels most of the arguments were already hashed out in the DBMM development process. The real question is about how to convert the DBMM lists to DBA, and I am confident there will be screams about that, as they will appear to be inconsistently applied depending on how Phil thinks the list should play. (Even minor changes in a 12 element army can make a substantial difference to how it plays as we all know).

If you want a good example of what it would look like if the DBMM lists were converted using a consistent process look at the DBA-RRR lists that are converted from the DBR lists by Tony Aguilar following a consistent methodology. They work great and are one of the really great things about the variant. Players have a lot more choices about what 12 elements they get to include in their army.

Bob Santamaria
10-20-2011, 01:31 AM
Hi Adrian,
not sure what you expect the new lists to be?

As far as Phil is concerned the DBMM 2 lists are the best distillation of our knowledge of ancient armies into the DBx model. He was always going to use them as a basis for the DBA 3 lists. And I don't think there can ever be hard and fast rules about conversions from a points based to a 12 element based list. So there is always a 'fudge' factor.

But essentially the element model doesn't change between the two... a LH is still a LH regardless of whether it is DBA or DBMM. Phil has always stated that DBx elements are defined by function (debatable) so essentially they are functionally identical.

Anway, I am sure it will still give an excellent game.

Broadly, I spurn the DBMM dog wagging the DBA tail. I see DBA as the main event. I want DBA as an end in itself.

I would be surprised if Phil, or any sane person, saw any set of wargaming lists in the elevated terms you use.

Doug
10-20-2011, 04:45 AM
Broadly, I spurn the DBMM dog wagging the DBA tail. I see DBA as the main event. I want DBA as an end in itself.

I would be surprised if Phil, or any sane person, saw any set of wargaming lists in the elevated terms you use.

So after years of development of the DBMM lists based on a massive amount of input from some very knowledgeable people, Phil should just throw them away and start from scratch for DBA? That's a non-starter.

And the 'elevated terms' were chosen very carefully. I do not resile from them. Frankly, they are in all likelihood the best researched and peer reviewed set of ancients lists ever developed (admittedly it's a small basis for comparison..).

winterbadger
10-20-2011, 07:48 AM
Ah - I see the problem, you think Phil does it for commerical reasons... whereas I believe he actually makes very little money from writing wargames rules, and his occasional commercial work for industry and the army subsidises it.

Nope, I don't think that at all.

But I also don't see Phil giving any of his rules away for free. I'm not saying that he should (obviously, but if I don't make that caveat I'm sure some idiot will suggest that I am). But there's a huge community of people around the world that play his game. We give him money in order to have a copy of DBA to play. Every other rules author I know treats that relationship with respect; he doesn't seem to see the need. And the time and effort that most of us have invested in the game, especially that some people (not me!) have invested in clarifying his sloppy writing and teasing out his atrocious grammar and punctuation, let alone the huge amount of time proselytizing for new players and presenting tournament and campaigns and other manifestations of DBA...all of this adds up to a massive promotional effort for his work. Which seems for the most part to rate a sneer, at worst a bitter, angry attack, and at best more or less complete disregard from him during development of a new edition.

In short, I see the effort that other people (not me) have made on his behalf, people I appreciate and have respect for, and I see their efforts, and them, ignored and disrespected. And that makes me think he must be a very small, small man.

And that's my last word on the subject.

Doug
10-20-2011, 09:22 AM
Nope, I don't think that at all.

But I also don't see Phil giving any of his rules away for free. I'm not saying that he should (obviously, but if I don't make that caveat I'm sure some idiot will suggest that I am). But there's a huge community of people around the world that play his game. We give him money in order to have a copy of DBA to play. Every other rules author I know treats that relationship with respect; he doesn't seem to see the need. And the time and effort that most of us have invested in the game, especially that some people (not me!) have invested in clarifying his sloppy writing and teasing out his atrocious grammar and punctuation, let alone the huge amount of time proselytizing for new players and presenting tournament and campaigns and other manifestations of DBA...all of this adds up to a massive promotional effort for his work. Which seems for the most part to rate a sneer, at worst a bitter, angry attack, and at best more or less complete disregard from him during development of a new edition.

In short, I see the effort that other people (not me) have made on his behalf, people I appreciate and have respect for, and I see their efforts, and them, ignored and disrespected. And that makes me think he must be a very small, small man.

And that's my last word on the subject.

You've made an effort on his behalf? Hmm.. no, you have played his rules, you have given him a nominal sum for his work, and for that you expect gratitude? Frankly; the impression I get, and it's been reinforced by others, is that Phil doesn't really care that you play his rules, it is about (for him) producing something he is proud of, and if others play - it's a bonus.

And no, he doesn't use atrocious grammar. There is no single place in any of his rules where you can point to bad grammar. There are complex sentence constructions, old-fashioned punctuation, and very precise meaning. It is difficult to parse for many people brought up with a less rigorous or 'old-fashioned' English education. In all fairness, he is now approaching 80, so his education is old-fashioned, from 1940's England, A very different environment.

pozanias
10-20-2011, 09:47 AM
I don't have any problem with the DBA lists being based on the DBMM lists. In fact, I think it would be foolish not to do so.

And I'm not all that bothered if the translation methodologies are inconsistent as long as the resulting lists are sensible. In other words if the Medieval armies use a rigid formula and the Biblical armies use a loose formula with some tinkering, what do I care --- assuming the final product makes sense. I don't think there is only ONE way to make a reasonable translation. Having said all that, as a *general* rule -- its probably better to be as consistent as possible.

Blackadder
10-20-2011, 12:49 PM
I don't have any problem with the DBA lists being based on the DBMM lists. In fact, I think it would be foolish not to do so.

And I'm not all that bothered if the translation methodologies are inconsistent as long as the resulting lists are sensible. In other words if the Medieval armies use a rigid formula and the Biblical armies use a loose formula with some tinkering, what do I care --- assuming the final product makes sense. I don't think there is only ONE way to make a reasonable translation. Having said all that, as a *general* rule -- its probably better to be as consistent as possible.

I actually think it would have been better if Phil had just said right from the start that the DBA 3 army lists were going to be based on the DBMM lists and people would need to suck it up and rebase if they wanted to play. I mean, we're talking about 12 elements (usually less) for Pete's sake. So you have to paint another 8 or 9 Gauls for your warbands - so what? It would have been much preferable to all of the backing and filling and toing and froing with the army lists, ending up with a compromise that's probably going to leave pretty much everybody unsatisfied and be inconsistent.

At this point I think I'll be sticking with 2.2. The "Chinese fire drill" surrounding the 3.0 army lists has given me a bad feeling about the rules as a whole. :sick

pozanias
10-20-2011, 01:02 PM
At this point I think I'll be sticking with 2.2. The "Chinese fire drill" surrounding the 3.0 army lists has given me a bad feeling about the rules as a whole. :sick

My plan is to continue to play 2.2 and also play in 3.0 events that allow 2.2 armies. If 3.0 is an improvement over 2.2 and the U.S. community heads that way, then I will rebase as needed. If not, then I will just keep playing 2.2 until a better version is produced.

Bobgnar
10-20-2011, 01:28 PM
Strange that the DBA 2.0 lists based on DBM were much more changed than are the DBA 3 lists, based on research since 2000, yet there was very little complaint about the changes back then. True, Jeff Caruso had problems with the Punic war armies, but very little, that I recall, from anyone else. As I recall, too, we moved to the 2.0 armies quite quickly.

I will play and run 3rd edition events but will use and allow 2.2 armies (and third edition ones too).

david kuijt
10-20-2011, 02:34 PM
Strange that the DBA 2.0 lists based on DBM were much more changed than are the DBA 3 lists, based on research since 2000, yet there was very little complaint about the changes back then.

You are confusing complaints about the army lists with complaints about the process, Bob.

The process back then was completely different.

And the process this time has been, as Blackadder just said, a 'Chinese Fire Drill' which involved forcing an unnecessary and damaging global change (dropping all numbers from the army lists) down our throats, and then a year later it has become clear that Phil neither approved nor paid much attention to that idea when Sue put it forward as canon, and now as he is looking at the army lists for the first time, he has reverted from that global change in most of the cases where it would have applied. So you shouldn't be surprised that some players have been alienated.

Bobgnar
10-20-2011, 04:07 PM
Not sure where you get the idea that dropping figure numbers for elements is not as Sue proposed, except in a few cases where Phil thought the number of figures had some game relevance, such as double deep Bows or Spears, or to differentiate 5Wb as a different type than 3/4 Wb. Or he just liked the look of them. Here is his most recent draft for Indian and Alexander Imperial armies. The only figure numbers are for the Indian chariots, He did add descriptions to some elements for clarification.

II/3 CLASSICAL INDIAN 500 BC - 545 AD
This list covers the Indus and Ganges basins and Deccan from the development of a more practical view of warfare than that depicted in the Vedas until the fall of the Guptas. Elephant crew sat astride on a padded caparison and consisted of a driver and a single noble archer, accompanied if he was a leader by a parasol or standard bearer. Larger crew mentioned in the Mauryan period may have sat on a fighting platform. Tower were first used and probably invented by Pyrrhos of Epiros. Elephant escorts, although advocated in Indian literature, are not mentioned in Poros’ army - if desired they can be represented by adding extra bow or blade figures to the elephant base, where they will add colour but have no effect on fighting ability. The large 4-horse 6-crew chariots were mentioned only by Curtius as part of Poros’ army and manned by 2 javelin-armed drivers, 2 archers and 2 shield-bearers. Other rulers used 4-horse chariots with a crew of a driver & two archers. 2-horse chariots are also depicted in art, so continued to exist, but possibly not in a military context. Indian chariots were used as a main combat break-through arm against all types of enemy troops and either preceded or deployed separately from the rather ineffective javelin-armed but initially unarmoured cavalry, who were used either on the flanks, to pursue broken enemy or to cover a retreat. After 178 AD, chariots were progressively replaced by extra cavalry and by 320 had been entirely replaced by men with lance and bow on armoured horses. The Indian bow was long, but not especially powerful, though it shot heavy arrows. Archers and javelinmen carried a heavy two-handed sword for those occasions when they could not avoid close combat. Good infantry were provided by hereditary warriors or mercenaries, which were usually had to be supplemented with a massed horde of often similarly armed levies.”Wild tribes” of hillmen or jungle-dwellers could provide skirmishers. A favoured deployment was to have the elephants in the centre, the chariots on their flanks and the cavalry on the wings. References: Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars D. Head, Ancient Indian Warfare S.D Singh, History of Alexander and Indica Arrian (and other histories of Alexander), The Arthashastra Kautilya.

II/3a Classical Indian Army 500 BC-178 AD: 1 x General (El), 2 x elephants (El), 2 x 2-horse 2-crew (LCh) or 4-horse 3- or 6- crew chariots (HCh) or archers (Lb), 2 x cavalry (Cv), 1 x swordsmen (Bd) or archers (Lb), 3 x archers (Lb), 1 x levies (Hd) or skirmishing bowmen (Ps).
Terrain Type: Tropical. Aggression: 0. Enemies: I/43b, I/60a, I/60c, II/1, II/2, II/3a, II/15, II/19a, II/19b, II/19c, II/36a, II/36b, II/37, II/42a, II/42b, II/46b. Ally: III/2.

II/3b Classical Indian Army 179 AD-545 AD: 1 x General (El), 2 x elephants (El), 1 x javelinmen (Bd) or archers (Lb), 2 x 4-horse 3-man chariots (HCh) or cavalry (Cv) or light horse (LH) or archers (Lb), 2 x cavalry (Cv), 3 x archers (Lb), 1 x levies (Hd) or skirmishing bowmen (Ps).
Terrain Type: Tropical. Aggression: 0. Enemies: II/3b, II/37, II/42a, II/42b, II/46b, II/80c, II/80d.


II/15 ALEXANDRIAN IMPERIAL 328 BC - 321 BC
This list covers the army of Alexander the Great from his invasion of India until its dismemberment after the murder of the regent Perdikkas. The administrative base of his new empire was now Babylon. The prodromoi scouting cavalry had been drafted into the Companions together with the pick of the Persians and replaced by Asiatic light horse while the hypaspists were now pike-armed and had become the “argyraspids” (silver shields). The Thessalian and Greek cavalry had gone home and the Greek infantry used as garrisons for Alexander’s newly-founded cities. The elephants surrendered by Poros are not mentioned as being used in battle by Alexander, though they would have been useful for familiarisation and future campaigns. They are described as manned by an Indian mahout with a Macedonian pikeman sitting astride behind him. When Alexander died prematurely, he was planning to attack Carthage. References: Armies of the Macedonian and Punic Wars D. Head, Alexander the Great’s Campaigns P. Barker, Alexander the Great R. Lane Fox, An Elephant for Aristotle L. Sprague de Camp (novel), A Choice of Destinies M. Scott (novel).

II/15. Alexandrian Imperial Army: 1 x General (Kn), 1 x companions (Kn), 1 x Asiatic light horse (LH), 6 x argyraspids and phalangites (Pk), 1 x artillery (Art) or elephants (El), 1 x Thracians, Illyrians or Agrianians (Ax or Ps), 1 x archers or slingers (Ps).
Terrain Type: Arable. Aggression: 4. Enemies: I/43a, I/47, I/48, II/1, II/2, II/3a, II/5b, II/5d, II/5e, II/5i, II/6, II/14. Allies: II/2 or II/3.

Here is another
I/45 Neo-Assyrian imperial army: 1 x General in 4-horse 3-crew chariot (HCh), 3 x charioteers (HCh), 2 x cavalry (Cv), 1 x foot guards (Bd) or from 704 BC (Sp), 2 x line and feudal spearmen (Ax), 1 x archers (Ps), 2 x dikut mati levies (Hd) or tribal levies with bow or sling (Ps).

Here is one where he did indicate that the General looked better as a 3Bd. Is he not entitled to add his own preferences without alienating players???

I/1c Great Sumerian Revolt Army 2250 BC: 1 x General on foot (3Bd) or in battle car (LCh or HCh), 1 x battle car (HCh, 5 x spearmen (Pk), 1 x spearmen (Pk) or archers (Bw), 2 x skirmishers (Ps), 2 x levies and emergency reserves (Hd) or skirmishers (Ps).
Enemies: I/11a. Allies: I/4a or I/5a or I/6a or I/9 or I/10.

david kuijt
10-20-2011, 04:27 PM
Not sure where you get the idea that dropping figure numbers for elements is not as Sue proposed, except in a few cases where Phil thought the number of figures had some game relevance, such as double deep Bows or Spears, or to differentiate 5Wb as a different type than 3/4 Wb. Or he just liked the look of them.

Sure, he has kept it exactly as Sue proposed.

Except for 5Wb, which (as you mention) Phil realized must be distinct.

Oh, and 6Kn.

And 6Cv, too, of course. So the change to Cav is ... no change.

And 8Bw. So the change to Bw is ... 3Bw on 20mm bases and 4Bw on 20mm bases may now be either one on 20mm bases.

and 4Kn, too. So the change to Kn is ... no change.

Not only that, but he even seems to be introducing a new troop type (8Sp), which will naturally require specific troop numbers in the description.

In other words, the total revision is what? Turning 3/4Wb into Wb, turning 3/4Bw into Bw, and turning 3/4Aux into Aux. All the currently 20mm base stuff. Plus dropping the "7" in front of Horde and the "2" in front of LH and Psiloi (big deal). The only substantial change (such as it is) is removing the distinction of 3Bd and 3Sp. And even there you report him as waffling.

Which is nothing like the original proposal, Bob.

David Schlanger
10-20-2011, 04:41 PM
I am disappointed because he is now mixing up the style of presentation.. In some cases he has preserved the supertype-subtype relationships, and in other cases eliminates them leaving only the supertype per Sue's original proposal. It's a half way solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and just creates bad data.

DS

El' Jocko
10-20-2011, 04:52 PM
In other words, the total revision is what? Turning 3/4Wb into Wb, turning 3/4Bw into Bw, and turning 3/4Aux into Aux. All the currently 20mm base stuff. Plus dropping the "7" in front of Horde and the "2" in front of LH and Psiloi (big deal). The only substantial change (such as it is) is removing the distinction of 3Bd and 3Sp. And even there you report him as waffling.

It looks like he's not even changing that much. 3Bd and 3Wb are still listed as troop subtypes. While 4Bd become Bd, 3Bd are still 3Bd. And while 4Wb become Wb, 3Wb are still 3Wb.

The only real change is that 3Sp go away. And 8Sp make their appearance.

Everywhere else, as with blade and warband, he just removed the number from the most common subtype, but left all the other subtypes unchanged. To be honest, this is good news. But it's most definitely not what Sue had in mind.

- Jack

Lobotomy
10-20-2011, 09:13 PM
You've made an effort on his behalf? Hmm.. no, you have played his rules, you have given him a nominal sum for his work, and for that you expect gratitude? Frankly; the impression I get, and it's been reinforced by others, is that Phil doesn't really care that you play his rules, it is about (for him) producing something he is proud of, and if others play - it's a bonus.

And no, he doesn't use atrocious grammar. There is no single place in any of his rules where you can point to bad grammar. There are complex sentence constructions, old-fashioned punctuation, and very precise meaning. It is difficult to parse for many people brought up with a less rigorous or 'old-fashioned' English education. In all fairness, he is now approaching 80, so his education is old-fashioned, from 1940's England, A very different environment.

Again with the straw man. I suggest you go back to see what Winterbadger said and answer his comment about the people, NOT him, how spent extensive time parsing out the language and promoting the rules to new players or running tournaments or campaign, etc. Winterbadger is standing up for them (not that they need his help as they do it well enough themselves) who have been spurned and disrespected. Take some time to parse what he said instead of making the arguments YOU want to knock down.

Doug
10-20-2011, 09:51 PM
Again with the straw man. I suggest you go back to see what Winterbadger said and answer his comment about the people, NOT him, how spent extensive time parsing out the language and promoting the rules to new players or running tournaments or campaign, etc. Winterbadger is standing up for them (not that they need his help as they do it well enough themselves) who have been spurned and disrespected. Take some time to parse what he said instead of making the arguments YOU want to knock down.

I answered his comments from his original post, and yes some people put in a lot of work to develop guides, run tournaments etc, and introduce the game to other players, (myself included), but this says more to the quality of the game - and nothing about the author. Does everyone who ever ran a comp expect a letter of gratitude, or an invite to consult on the new version?

'Spurned and disrespected' is a harsh statement, and I am not sure what you expected. People's opinions are not being 'spurned or disrespected', but as I said at the start of this thread, Phil tried an open development process with DBMM 1 and rapidly discovered it simply didn't work - it actually deterred so many players who felt their opinions didn't carry as much weight as they expected them to.

(Frankly there were some people who had read an Osprey and a couple of novels who felt they were qualified to argue with Duncan Head & Nigel Tallis. Not to mention those who seemed to see their role as special pleading to get their armies improved - regardless of the historical precedents.)

For version two he moved to the 'Stavka' - with a selected group who acted as the sounding board and test panel. This seems to be a model he is much more comfortable with, and does seem to work much better. Now you can reasonably and substantially argue about the composition of that group, but it is a much more focused and reliable model than opening it up to the 2700 members of the DBA list for example.

JLogan
10-21-2011, 03:06 PM
Oh, and 6Kn.

And 6Cv, too, of course. So the change to Cav is ... no change.

And 8Bw. Not only that, but he even seems to be introducing a new troop type (8Sp), which will naturally require specific troop numbers in the description.



So 6Cv/6Kn are back in? And even more deep based elements (8Sp) are to be introduced?

Can anyone tell me then if those army lists with 6Cv/6Kn elements will be given the option to use just 3Cv/3Kn? I have a Thematic Byzantine army; whilst I love the look of my 6Cv elements, IMO it is very unhistorical to force Thematics to have to use 6Cv, since especially in DBA with only 12 elements and a smaller board size (might be different for DBMM/DBM) it hamstrings manoeverability, when in fact, most Byzantines were noted for their flexibility. If anything, I would argue 6Cv/6Kn are more appropriate to certain "barbarian" type mounted armies e.g. Goths, Vandals, Lombards,etc?

And if you are going to justify 8Sp (who would these be?), then surely you need to have 8Wb?

Thanks.

John

JLogan
10-21-2011, 03:54 PM
'Spurned and disrespected' is a harsh statement, and I am not sure what you expected. People's opinions are not being 'spurned or disrespected', but as I said at the start of this thread, Phil tried an open development process with DBMM 1 and rapidly discovered it simply didn't work - it actually deterred so many players who felt their opinions didn't carry as much weight as they expected them to.


For version two he moved to the 'Stavka' - with a selected group who acted as the sounding board and test panel. This seems to be a model he is much more comfortable with, and does seem to work much better. Now you can reasonably and substantially argue about the composition of that group, but it is a much more focused and reliable model than opening it up to the 2700 members of the DBA list for example.

Hi Doug; I certainly have no desire to get in the middle of this 'debate', but there are a couple of things I would like to point out.

Whatever about "spurned and disrespected", I think it is fair to say that for the most part, most peoples opinions have simply not been sought. And I think that is unfortunate. And even where it (rarely) has been, i.e. outside of the small playtest group, it has often been on other forums (or is it fora....I never know :)) - not DBA ones.

As to the development process of DBMM v2, I'm not sure it was quite as you say? I don't play DBMM, but I do follow the DBMM list fairly regularly - have done since it's inception (almost exclusively as a lurker). It can be (through all the noise), sometimes a useful source of information, either on historical army research, game mechanics, and frankly, to find out what PB plans for DBA (!). My recollection is that PB did put out several, indeed many, drafts of DBMM v2 for the general forum population (I believe I may still have one)?

Towards the end, he did then stop doing this, and created the "STAVKA" as you say, for final develoment; but until that point, it seems to me he shared ideas, and canvassed feedback, particularly through requests for playtest reports (I have several good DBMM friends in Dublin who actively participated in so doing). That is the model I was hoping for with DBA 3.0; and indeed, Sue's notice on the WRG site about DBA 3 seemed to indicate initially, to me at least, that this was the original intent for DBA 3?

Either way, bottom line is that if PB had taken the same approach with this forum and it's members on DBA 3 that he did with DBMM v2, I think most here would feel much better about it. They would still gripe and complain of course - that's in our nature. But there would likely be less comments to the effect of feeling "spurned and disrespected"

Finally, as I've said before here, thanks for all the work you and the other valiant playtesters (both current and former) have done for the broader DBA community on DBA 3. I plan to reserve final judgement until I have seen the finished product and played several games of it, hoping that your and others contentions that the good outweighs the bad will turn out to be the case. However, that does not mean that in the meantime, albeit with very limited information available to us, I do not share many others concerns around some of the direction it may have taken.

Cheers,

John

david kuijt
10-21-2011, 04:26 PM
So 6Cv/6Kn are back in? And even more deep based elements (8Sp) are to be introduced?


"Back in" isn't accurate statement. That's the frustrating thing -- 6Cv and 6Kn were never out. Sue wanted them to be out, and Sue wrote them out, but Phil was working on the rules (not the army lists) for that year and all the sound and fury of that year-long debate was ... mere sound and fury, signifying nothing. When Phil started looking at the army lists, he decided he did not fully accept Sue's concept of abandoning all subtype numbers -- in fact, as Jack pointed out, it seems that Phil has accepted almost none of the concept of abandoning subtype numbers.

So yes, to an external observer, it might look like 6Cv and 6Kn (and others) were out, and are now back in. But that is an illusion, based upon the assumption that they were ever out in Phil's mind, and it appears that they were not.

As for 8Sp, all I know is that I've seen part of the preamble on the "Spear" troop type in the rules (not the army lists), and it includes a sentence saying something about 8Sp being representative of the deep formations used by the Thebans. Since 8Sp did not exist in any form in DBA 2.2, the inference is that Phil has introduced them (probably for the Thebans, at a wild guess).


Can anyone tell me then if those army lists with 6Cv/6Kn elements will be given the option to use just 3Cv/3Kn? I have a Thematic Byzantine army; whilst I love the look of my 6Cv elements, IMO it is very unhistorical to force Thematics to have to use 6Cv, since especially in DBA with only 12 elements and a smaller board size (might be different for DBMM/DBM) it hamstrings manoeverability, when in fact, most Byzantines were noted for their flexibility. If anything, I would argue 6Cv/6Kn are more appropriate to certain "barbarian" type mounted armies e.g. Goths, Vandals, Lombards,etc?


I can't help you.


And if you are going to justify 8Sp (who would these be?), then surely you need to have 8Wb?


Can't help you there, either.

pozanias
10-21-2011, 04:47 PM
And the process this time has been, as Blackadder just said, a 'Chinese Fire Drill' which involved forcing an unnecessary and damaging global change (dropping all numbers from the army lists) down our throats, and then a year later it has become clear that Phil neither approved nor paid much attention to that idea when Sue put it forward as canon, and now as he is looking at the army lists for the first time, he has reverted from that global change in most of the cases where it would have applied. So you shouldn't be surprised that some players have been alienated.

Although the ways of Phil are inscrutable, in this particular case we are actually getting what we wanted (at least what most of us wanted), so lets not complain too loudly. :D

Redwilde
10-21-2011, 05:22 PM
Not to mention those who seemed to see their role as special pleading to get their armies improved - regardless of the historical precedents.

The volatile arguing in defense of a single army is a phenomenon of large army games like DBMM where players have a large investment in their army. It's not particularly an issue for DBA. Even for players who only have one or a few armies, it's not a big hardship in time and money to add more. That's not a development battle that needed avoiding with DBA.

Doug
10-22-2011, 12:46 AM
The volatile arguing in defense of a single army is a phenomenon of large army games like DBMM where players have a large investment in their army. It's not particularly an issue for DBA. Even for players who only have one or a few armies, it's not a big hardship in time and money to add more. That's not a development battle that needed avoiding with DBA.

I am not sure that's the case. I think Phil may have decided that he didn't want the pain of an open debate. I note what was said by JLogan, and yes, the intial development process for DBMM was open, but closed later.

And it is amazing what special pleading occurs for people's favourites - I take your point that in DBA you would expect people just to use a different army, but people get funny about favourites.

Redwilde
10-22-2011, 12:03 PM
but people get funny about favourites.

I think the biggest complaint around here has been the possibility of Libyans being promoted to useful :silly

Doug
10-22-2011, 07:37 PM
I think the biggest complaint around here has been the possibility of Libyans being promoted to useful :silly

I think there will always be the option to have them as useless... ;-)

neldoreth
10-26-2011, 03:13 PM
I just wish this whole thing was over... It's been too hard to ignore, and far too long in the coming... Please, I beg the gods of gaming to just deliver the new rules and be done with it! DONE WITH IT!!!!!!

Thanks
n.

PS. No, I don't believe Phil is one of the gods of gaming... he's more like a... well, better not put that in writing....

teenage visigoth
10-26-2011, 03:24 PM
I think the biggest complaint around here has been the possibility of Libyans being promoted to useful :silly

Sir, As the self appointed representative of the Libyan Anti-Libel League, I take umbrage to your comments and fling my phallus sheath down in challenge.

El' Jocko
10-26-2011, 04:26 PM
Sir, As the self appointed representative of the Libyan Anti-Libel League, I take umbrage to your comments and fling my phallus sheath down in challenge.

I'll gladly concede any point you like. All I ask in return is that you restore your phallus sheath to its former station.

- Jack

Redwilde
10-26-2011, 06:01 PM
I take umbrage to your comments and fling my phallus sheath down in challenge.

Umm, I'll let my second pick up that challenge while I go put on my dark glasses :cool

Doug
10-26-2011, 08:11 PM
Umm, I'll let my second pick up that challenge while I go put on my dark glasses :cool

I am still waiting to hear how the DBA big battle went, and how Phil and Sue got on.

Bobgnar
10-26-2011, 08:39 PM
I am still waiting to hear how the DBA big battle went, and how Phil and Sue got on.

Well, I get to Fall in on Thursday night. The Giant game is Friday night so a bit longer to wait. I get home late Sunday night so unless someone else reports, as I am sure they will, you won't hear from me until Monday.

Doug
10-26-2011, 08:50 PM
I obviousl have my dates wrong, lucky I wasn't plannng to attend

Bobgnar
10-27-2011, 08:39 AM
No problem, you just need to wait a little longer :)

JLogan
10-28-2011, 07:49 PM
Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:27 am
--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Barker" <pc.barker@...> wrote:

I have a small advisory group of 12 known experts on DBA. Sue is on the two
DBA lists but I am not. This is because DBMM, HFG and WRGmodern lists
already overwhelm my inbox.

Phil


I thought a few of these "known experts on DBA" were in fact some players who had played little or no DBA before?

John

Bobgnar
10-28-2011, 11:42 PM
all but 2 are active regular Dba players. So what's your point here? Are you going to send a note to that group stating that Phil is lying ?Fri Oct 21, 2011 4:27 am
--- In DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com, "Phil Barker" <pc.barker@...> wrote:

I have a small advisory group of 12 known experts on DBA. Sue is on the two
DBA lists but I am not. This is because DBMM, HFG and WRGmodern lists
already overwhelm my inbox.

Phil


I thought a few of these "known experts on DBA" were in fact some players who had played little or no DBA before?

John

Bob Santamaria
10-29-2011, 05:51 AM
all but 2 are active regular Dba players. So what's your point here? Are you going to send a note to that group stating that Phil is lying ?

How many play DBA as their principal game?

How many do not also play DBMM?

Adrian

winterbadger
10-29-2011, 06:32 AM
"12 known experts" vs. "all but 2 are active regular Dba players". That sort of spin is worthy of BP.

Bobgnar
10-29-2011, 07:28 AM
What's the point? Is Phil allowed to only take advice from people who only play DBA? People need to get on with their life and not worry about who he commicates with. He was at Fall in but but not very engaged by players with questions or suggestions. Any one with a comment can send him message.How many play DBA as their principal game?

How many do not also play DBMM?

Adrian

Bob Santamaria
10-29-2011, 07:44 AM
What's the point? Is Phil allowed to only take advice from people who only play DBA? People need to get on with their life and not worry about who he commicates with. He was at Fall in but but not very engaged by players with questions or suggestions. Any one with a comment can send him message.

I don't care who Phil consults with in and of itself. But obviously he is trying to give a particular impression about the process with respect to this new edition. I am exploring what the reality is. My concern is that DBA should be developed as an important end in itself, and not as a department, or auxiliary of DBMM, which I have no interest in. I am not alone here in that regard.

So far everything I have heard, and I make no claims as to its accuracy, suggest that the process is very dominated by DBMM types, and that there is a concern with a sort of comity between DBMM and DBA. I see that as a totally irrelevant aim.

I will still judge the new edition on its own content, and I really hope that I am wrong about the impression I have of what is happening.

Xavi
10-29-2011, 07:57 AM
Since we are using berkerese, a definition of what consitutes "regular play" would be handy. Around here we play minimum 4 games of DBA per week each. IN tournament months that might rise to 10 games per week or so. How many weekly games do those "regular players" sport? One game per year might be considered regular after all if it is performed roughly in the same month of the year, for example :)

Cheers,
Xavi

david kuijt
10-30-2011, 01:48 PM
What's the point? Is Phil allowed to only take advice from people who only play DBA? People need to get on with their life and not worry about who he commicates with. He was at Fall in but but not very engaged by players with questions or suggestions.

The point is, Bob, that you missed the point. Phil can take advice from anyone he wants. But if Phil represents the people from whom he takes advice as "12 known experts," he is either deluded or attempting to delude. I would be happy to consider four of the current commentators (DS, Andreas, Doug, and you) as known experts (although I might say rather "experienced and knowledgeable players"). Even though you play very little DBA in the format of the rules (12 elements on 12 elements), you spend lots of time and effort on the wording of the rules.

But that's four. Not 12. All of the other eight -- no. I find it impossible to believe that more than one or two of them play as many games in a year as everyone in Xavi's group averages in a month, just to choose the most recent example response. And I guarantee you that I will never grant the title "known expert" to anyone I've never heard of -- because I've posted something on the order of 8,000 times in a dozen years on this forum alone, probably another 8,000 on the DBA Yahoo Group in the same period, and I read every single post that anyone has ever posted on either of those, so if it is someone that I've never ever heard of -- then that is someone who is completely unknown (as an expert) on either of those fora, and by strong implication, in the greater DBA community.

So to represent such a person as a "known expert" only works if your definition of "known" is completely contrary to the implication that many DBA players in a fairly large pool of them would consider this person an expert.

Maybe many of the other eight all form a pool of expertise that is renowned throughout upper Shropshire (and completely unknown outside it). Might be so.

But if Bob S., JLogan, Xavi, Jan, or anyone else takes issue with the characterization of "12 known experts", you shouldn't try to defend Phil's words. Because if Phil wanted to be accurate, he should have said "4 people who might be characterized as known experts, and another 8 whose expertise is completely unknown to DBA players in the greater world."

So yes, Phil may ask anyone for advice. But that doesn't instantly promote such people to "known experts."

Alex Bostwick
10-30-2011, 04:35 PM
To be fair, I think that good ideas can come from people outside of a situation. Even if this supposed Quorum of Twelve doesn't play DBA on a regular basis or only has a passing familiarity with the rules they can still propose solid advice, either based in knowledge of historical accuracy or gamesmanship.

For example, I had an amazing idea concerning perpetual motion with only a passing knowledge of physics.

Satirical anecdotes and remarks about validity aside, it is unsettling to have Mr. Barker listening intently to a (relative to the community) small group of individuals whose knowledge of the matter at hand is (to me) uncertain. I like Phil. I've met him twice at Historicons over my decade or so in attendance. He seems like a perfectly reasonable fellow. I just think he's being a bit naive or- dare I say- shortsighted in his approach.

If I were writing a new version of an existing set of rules, do you know what I would do? I would write it as best I could. Then I'd find someone who plays- a lot. I'd give him the rules and say, "Break this game. Then tell me how you did it." Once he's broken the game- and he will break it- I'd consider his feedback and revise, clarify and otherwise tighten the rules as necessary. What I wouldn't do is kludge together a patchwork of other, sillier rules to un-break my broken game.

I fulfill a role in my circle of friends. I'm the advice guy. People come to me with problems, and I offer solutions- sometimes it's something innocuous, like a choice of hats. Other times its something deadly- and I mean that literally- serious. Now, do you know what has happened to a few friends who kept asking for my advice, yet never took it? I stopped giving it to them.

Asking someone for advice or opinions and then summarily rejecting them or otherwise rationalizing the irrationality of a concept so absurd that it makes parachute pants look like a really suave fashion decision is self-defeating, shortsighted and unnecessary.

My problem is that Mr. Barker has kept up a pretext of an advice-seeking individual without following through.

It seems to me that he would do better to just stop pretending that he's listening.

That said, I still have hope that 3.0 won't suck. Sort of like Windows 7.

-A-Bos

david kuijt
10-30-2011, 04:43 PM
For example, I had an amazing idea concerning perpetual motion with only a passing knowledge of physics.


The world awaits with bated breath, Alex.

Speaking of which, you missed a totally awesome Unleash the Viking Fury campaign, and an even more awesome Embattled Isle scenario event (Boudicca, dude), and a totally awesome HotT Huge Battle between Ice Barbarians and Fire Elementals (with an Earth Elemental ally). And we would have loved the opportunity to crush you and your Pa in Big Battle Doubles as well.

Alex Bostwick
10-30-2011, 06:19 PM
The world awaits with bated breath, Alex.

Speaking of which, you missed a totally awesome Unleash the Viking Fury campaign, and an even more awesome Embattled Isle scenario event (Boudicca, dude), and a totally awesome HotT Huge Battle between Ice Barbarians and Fire Elementals (with an Earth Elemental ally). And we would have loved the opportunity to crush you and your Pa in Big Battle Doubles as well.

And we would have enjoyed our nearly ritualistic trouncing immensely, as we have on a number of occasions.

Unfortunately, Fall-In wasn't in the cards again this year. There were a number of factors; work schedules, my own class schedule (which is currently treating me as though I were a cheap hooker), sleep (I'm told that's a necessary thing) and the fact that I had to already miss a few days because of my newly-born niece. All of these things aligned like planetary bodies, in a vast conspiracy to prevent me from having a mini-vacation.

TL;DR- I suck.

I know how difficult it is for you to have fun without a Bostwick to slap around (or understand you when you speak), so I know how hard this was for you.

-A-Bos

Jeff
10-30-2011, 06:30 PM
He was at Fall in but but not very engaged by players with questions or suggestions. Any one with a comment can send him message.

Bob,
I am pretty sure he was not engaged because most of us that talked about 3.0 during FALL IN had nothing constructive to say. I personally had the opportunity to talk to both Sue and Phil during the RRR tourney as well as when they arrived. When I asked questions I got befuddled looks from Phil and heard Sue tell him that "we will see after he completed his editing.". I pointed out that Italian wars French in his own DBR had all KN and his new 3.0 has them as CV. This is just one conversation and one topic of many. The man, although very nice and polite, did not seem to have all his faculties together about what was written in the 2.2, 3.0, or DBR rules set, respectively.

I will wait and see what Phil WANTS to publish just like the rest of the folks. No sense in chattering about 3.0 until it is published so we can fix the issues with it after it is in print.

Until then 3.0 is far from my thoughts anymore.

Lobotomy
10-30-2011, 08:57 PM
Bob,

You and I sat there and engaged them regarding several important issues, particularly the conforming rule. It appeared to me that Phil was not even certain of how the rule works. Also, the more I thought about what it attempts to do the less it works. I realized that hitting the corner of the group (line) of elements, if kinked, will penalize the kinked group as Phil intended. But you can hit the corner of a straight group without the kink and then, as the rule is written, will supposedly force the straight line to conform to the angle hit. It all goes back to the comment made many, many months ago that Phil, when confronted with a kinked group, just pushed his group in and expected all the elements to fight. I think this rule, for example is subject to significant abuse.

I raise this just to say that I attempted to engage Phil but received little feed back. I did not want to start debating him about the merits of the problems I see in the rules as it would not get us anywhere. It would detract from your efforts to get him to make changes we suggest.

What I did learn was that, in my impression, Phil is writing for a historical simulation, NOT a war game. He said several times that he wants things to happen in a certain way because to happen otherwise would not be in keeping with history as he sees it. I think that is why he has now removed the swapping of elements by the defender at the start of the game completely. It is the set up and go gaming both Sue and he seem to prefer. I believe that is also why things move so rapidly across the board now, to prevent the pre-contact maneuver that can occur in the games currently. I have the impression that this is seen as ahistorical so does not meet with the requirement for the historical simulation he is attempting to present.

Anyway, the other problem with engaging Phil and Sue is that they scheduled themselves to be available only during the time of a tournament. Certainly you cannot expect players to decline to participate in a tournament for which they travel hours to play to spend time talking to them about the rule and worrying about saying something that could potentially result in hard feelings that occur from time to time when debating these things.

That said, Phil had the opportunity to solicit opinions from players in the Friday night game, which while he could not do it on Friday due to jet lag, he certainly could have done on Saturday. I did not see him make the effort as one would expect if this was a two way street.