PDA

View Full Version : Bob's call for assurance


Bobgnar
07-20-2011, 03:55 PM
This is what I posted to the DBA Yahoo group. (Do note that the group is largely -- but not entirely -- in agreement on all except one point = movement. All members who also do Fanaticus are not in agreement)
----------
Thanks for posting this to the DBA group. I am glad that Phil has shown the community his plans for DBA 3 regarding movement.

Indeed, I am concerned that the big increase of movement in DBA 3 will not be well accepted by our community. By our community, I mean those who play DBA and not DBMM.

Now that Phil has brought up this situation, we can discuss it in the group. In order for people to reassure me, or actually assure me in the first place, we do need to know what it involves. The new rules that Phil refers to makes 15mm scale movement as follows.
400 paces (4 BW) If Light Horse or Scythed Chariots (no double move) moving only in good going, or Light Horse on a road.

300 paces (3 BW) If Cavalry or Camelry moving only in good going, or if any except Light Horse if entirely on road.
250 paces (2 BW) If Knights or Elephants moving only in good going, or if Auxilia or Psiloi off-road.

200 paces (2 BW) If other foot moving off-road, or if mounted troops moving off-road in bad going.

For those accustomed to the old measurements, we have

400 paces (4 BW) New = 160mm or 6.3 inches old(500p) = 125mm or 5 inches

300 paces (3 BW) New = 120mm or 4.73 inches old(400p) = 100mm or 4 inches
250 paces (2 BW) New = 100mm or 4 inches old(300p) = 75mm or 3 inches
200 paces (2 BW) New = 80mm or 3.15 inches old ( 200p) 50mm or 2 inches


So, can you who play DBA but not DBMM, assure me that you will like to have movements increased by such amounts. Do a play test or two to see what it feels like to increase your heavy foot by 30mm per move.

Note that a number of pure DBA players who have seen this feel that the BW concept is fine, but just not so much of it. Consider a reduction by 1/2 BW. Thus Heavy infantry would go 1 1/2 BW or 60mm (2.4 inches). That does not seem so bad. For those who do not know this, the DBMM board is much larger than the DBA board so are equal moves appropriate?

Now is the time for folks to speak up. Go for really big moves, or use the BW concept but shorter than proposed?

Thanks

Bob Beattie

On Jul 20, 2011, at 7:53 AM, gavinm_pvale wrote:

Phil has posted this on the DBMM group:

"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"

david kuijt
07-20-2011, 04:31 PM
Phil was asking the DBMM players to reassure you. Now that is pretty stupid on the face of it! Since when should DBMM players have any input on DBA?

But it sounds like you are now calling for a ground-swell of opinion to be aired here (where Phil never treads, and Sue rarely does) rejecting the 3.0 movement rates. Are you calling for rebellion?

I think the 3.0 movement rates are stupid, don't get me wrong-- they were one of the broken rules that caused me to leave the DBA playtest group, since Phil completely ignored me on all input to the contrary, and had clearly decided to go the way of 80mm heavy foot move.

But I'm not sure you are doing Phil any service by calling for a vote here, where Phil has already built up a reservoir of frustration. Did Phil approve this? If not, how do you intend to present this information to Phil, Bob? Can we vote on other problems in 3.0 as well? Will Phil respond to those, too?

And what are you going to do, Bob, if this population rejects the idea of 80mm moves in a 65%-35% way? Suppose Phil still goes with the big moves, then. When 3.0 comes out, does that mean you're going to reject it? Or support it, in spite of this community having spoken with a strong majority?

I can't help but wish that the whole process was over, so Phil would move on to other projects, and we could look at the whole set of finished rules and decide whether they were crap, and proceed from there. I'm really not sure that your call for a vote is going to help at all. And it certainly won't be fair to anyone not active here -- polling a self-selected population of respondents from a bulletin board is not anything like a representative sample.

ferrency
07-20-2011, 04:53 PM
I can't help but wish that the whole process was over...

Apparently it is, and now Phil is trying to convince us it worked?

Alan

michael guth
07-20-2011, 05:15 PM
1. How will the ZOC change with the new movement rules? Increased movement with the old ZOC will mean that moving into range of the enemy may become fool's errand when the enemy can reshuffle multiple elements and still move into contact?

2. The new movement rates allow an infantry in overlap to close the door on a recoiling infantry element. This is NOT possible under the current rules, where even an overlapping infantry element front to front corner does not have the movement in 15mm scale to 'close the door'.

Phil should be assured that this will drastically alter play, no if's ands or buts. Some armies will be winners, some losers with this new capability. Pike, for example, will have their back rank peeled off by blade elements starting outside of their ZOC (whatever that is). Wholesale rule changes would be needed to prevent this.

Oh, and one of the Chinese lists in book I is dramatically overpowered, the one that now gets knights, blades and two warbands. And, I don't buy the 'research' saying that Assyrians would field fewer formed troops and more Psiloi than ancient Chinese, or always had more hordes.

In 25mm heavy infantry is modestly more mobile, it can close the door by normal movement from front corner to front corner contact. But, movement is still NOT in BW but is in 40mm increments as against a 60 mm frontage.

I see big trouble with the movement rates, and agree with DK that voting is pointless.

David Schlanger
07-20-2011, 05:49 PM
I see big trouble with the movement rates, and agree with DK that voting is pointless.


Actually, I think assuring Bob is pointless. There have been plenty of people on the play test group to voice their opinion (over a period of months) against the significant increase in heavy foot move, and it hasn't seemed to impact Phil's thinking. And when I say significant negative feedback, I mean LOTS of it. Initially, Bob was not the one to push hard on this issue. Others ran out of energy over time, or just began to view it as a waste of energy. Despite this, there are still some play testers that like the increase and the rules that Phil has added to "control" things. So, what is the point of this thread?


DS

david kuijt
07-20-2011, 06:10 PM
So, what is the point of this thread?


Bob is calling for rebellion.

Pavane
07-20-2011, 06:16 PM
Bob is calling for rebellion.

...democratically.

Hannibal Ad Portas
07-20-2011, 08:35 PM
Rebellion should probably wait till the finished product is out. However, I am sharpening my pitchfork and storing up on torches;).

The movement rate changes will ruin the current dynamics in DBA and that is without factoring in the proposed changes to moving to the rear of flank of an enemy...and other fixes for bendy lines and geometric ploys.

I would prefer DBA 2.2 with a change incorporated from HOTT to fix the bendy lines problem, and perhaps allow the new army lists in competitions alongside the 2.2 lists (shudder). Maybe getting rid of the double sized bases and converting war wagons to 40mm square as well....

Jeff
07-20-2011, 08:43 PM
AhHHh! so refreshing. Just what the Forum needed, more frustration. Great, another point of view to look at and voice to deaf ears. Good golly, I wish they had just published it and told us at the book signing. We never had input anyway so why make us all wring our hands and jump around in frustration? Looking forward to seeing the rules for 3.0, 2.3 and 3.1(because I am sure its coming). Weew Whooo good times to be had by all.

Jeff

Lobotomy
07-20-2011, 08:56 PM
rules for 3.0, 2.3 and 3.1(because I am sure its coming).
Jeff

You know, this reminds me about purchasing a new model vehicle. Do not all the experts say to wait for the 2nd model year? So we should all wait for 3.1. Except there probably won't be one if 3.0 does not sell out. Ah, maybe Phil will hit a low price point where it will be like purchasing two rule books for the price of one. Fat chance, eh?

Redwilde
07-20-2011, 09:09 PM
A riot is an ugly thing. Und, I think that it's just about time that we had one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5pmDgWMaU

teenage visigoth
07-20-2011, 09:52 PM
A riot is an ugly thing. Und, I think that it's just about time that we had one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw5pmDgWMaU

:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl:rotfl:rotf

dicemanrick
07-20-2011, 10:51 PM
My useless vote is to kill the speed increase. 1 1/2 would be better if it MUST be increased.

In the roughly 10 games or so played with the new movement rates, it creates a whole new DBA...and I had not even considered what Mike said about peeling off supports!

Waaah...my DBA is broke and won't be fixed:sick

Xavi
07-21-2011, 06:28 AM
So, shooting ranges are increased as well?

And ZOC areas?

Xavi

Martyn
07-21-2011, 06:56 AM
So, shooting ranges are increased as well?

And ZOC areas?

Xavi

Unfortunately there are so many parts of the rules affected by what appears to be a change in the ground scale from 25mm = 100 paces to 40mm = 100 paces.

The translation of that appears to be variable when applied to movement rates, according to Bob, with movement rates changed for different elements presumably to limit the change in board move distance. However different types have been treated differently so now we get heavy foot moving quicker compared to other types.

What happens to recoil, is that still base depth or has that been translated into BWs?
How about board size is that proposed to change, if so what about command distances, etc, etc, etc.

David Constable
07-21-2011, 12:18 PM
PART CUT

What happens to recoil, is that still base depth or has that been translated into BWs?
How about board size is that proposed to change, if so what about command distances, etc, etc, etc.

As far as I am aware the recoil has been altered, it takes into account the differing depths of foot bases, so is half a base width, if I remember correctly mounted was a full base width, max still one base width.

The 24" board has had 30" added as well. So in U.K. we can stick with 24".

Command is much more complex, we shall have to wait for the final rules for that I think.

David Constable

neldoreth
08-10-2011, 04:02 PM
Bob is calling for rebellion.

Oh David, you're such a counter-revolutionary!

I agree with you though; I'll wait until it's over to see what I think of 3.0. That being said, I'm pretty much done with 2.2 already since the 3.0 thing started, so it's possible that if 3.0 sucks, I'm done with DBA all together! Who knows though, gamers' interest's vary radically, and I'm no exception!

n.

dicemanrick
08-10-2011, 04:34 PM
As far as I am aware the recoil has been altered, it takes into account the differing depths of foot bases, so is half a base width, if I remember correctly mounted was a full base width, max still one base width.

The 24" board has had 30" added as well. So in U.K. we can stick with 24".

Command is much more complex, we shall have to wait for the final rules for that I think.

David Constable

David,

As a 24 inch board conservative in the US (it's the rules dammit!!:D), I'll say you may want to consider the 30 inch boards. The new movement rates make that 24 inch board seem awful small now!! If the rules change I will change to 30s....if I play them (sniff, sniffle, waah!!!)

david kuijt
08-10-2011, 04:59 PM
(it's the rules dammit!!:D),

Yup. Like ... BUAs...

dicemanrick
08-10-2011, 07:02 PM
Yup. Like ... BUAs...

BUAs are optional for arable, so I choose to ignore them:D

And they are stupid rules, too:rotfl

winterbadger
08-11-2011, 03:02 PM
That being said, I'm pretty much done with 2.2 already since the 3.0 thing started, so it's possible that if 3.0 sucks, I'm done with DBA all together!

To each his own, but that sounds rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you were happy playing 2.2 until people started talking about 3.0, why are you unhappy about it now?

Tony Aguilar
08-11-2011, 03:49 PM
To each his own, but that sounds rather like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you were happy playing 2.2 until people started talking about 3.0, why are you unhappy about it now?

Very true.
I happen to take the opposite tack.
Once I started playing DBA in Sept. 2004 I haven't wanted to play any other miniatures.

winterbadger
08-11-2011, 03:55 PM
I happen to take the opposite tack.
Once I started playing DBA in Sept. 2004 I haven't wanted to play any other miniatures.

Well, that certainly is the opposite tack. :) Seems just as extreme to me, but if it's what makes you happy...

mdsanderson
08-11-2011, 06:51 PM
I am of the same opinion. DBA and variants are the only miniatures rule sets I am interested in playing. I long ago gave up the notion that wargaming has anything really to do with actual warfare, and from what I have seen in my long years of gaming most wargamers actually know very little about the business of warfare. Therefor a quick, relatively simple rule set with small armies and games that can be played in about an hour seem perfect for me.
So when the set of rules that I like is under attack from it's author who wants nothing more than to turn it into something else, it may be time find another hobby.
Mike Sanderson