PDA

View Full Version : 3.0 Fall In participants


Snoopy
10-30-2011, 09:25 AM
Fall In is over so:
I would like to start a new thread by DBA 3.0 Fall In participants. Anyone who played the new rules, their likes and dislikes. Their assessment of what worked and what didn't. I believe this will benefit all those who couldn't participate, while listening to everyone who did.

Thank you in advance, Snoopy

david kuijt
10-30-2011, 02:00 PM
I was surprised to see how few people went over to talk to Phil and Sue about 3.0 at their table. I hope they weren't disappointed with the response.

Alex Bostwick
10-30-2011, 02:40 PM
That actually is surprising, DK.

I, personally, would have loved to actively engage with Generalissimo Barker about the new version. How else can we be expected to poke logical holes in his reasoning if we don't show him?

-A-Bos

jcpotn
10-30-2011, 03:24 PM
I was surprised to see how few people went over to talk to Phil and Sue about 3.0 at their table. I hope they weren't disappointed with the response.

DK,

Did you personally visit with Phil about 3.0? Any comments?

Jeff

Snoopy
10-30-2011, 03:36 PM
Actually that is exactly what happened the last time there was a major overhaul in the rules. It was either 2000 or 01 when on the Sunday morning you had a choice to play in the 4 book tourney or play against PB. Most opted out to play the tournament.

Snoopy

david kuijt
10-30-2011, 04:37 PM
Did you personally visit with Phil about 3.0? Any comments?


About what, Jeff?

There was no secrecy about what the current draft version looked like -- Bob had mimeographs of the critical pages (12?) taped to the wall so that people could look at them. But I had no need to look at them -- DS sends me copies of the 3.0 versions he gets, so I'd already seen it.

I'll leave it to others to bring up any points or concerns with the rules -- I just wish it was over and published. This whole process has been very damaging.

I talked briefly with Sue a couple of times; I was very busy most of the time (DS and I running and playing Big Battle Doubles all Friday; playing a huge HOTT game during Bob's big Hydaspes thing Friday evening; setting up and running the seven Embattled Isle scenario events Saturday; setting up and running Viking Fury Saturday evening) and didn't get the chance to talk to Phil. Phil was not busy, but looked tired or jet-lagged.

Paul Potter
10-30-2011, 06:55 PM
Any good reports about 3.0?
-Paul

Jeff
10-30-2011, 07:09 PM
Any good reports about 3.0?
-Paul

Absolutely. It has not been published yet

Rome
10-30-2011, 07:56 PM
Jeff, as usual a brilliant observation. We all will have to wait tell the time of publication. Which I hope is soon.

Lobotomy
10-30-2011, 09:16 PM
I would refer you to may comments here: http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=11508&page=25

It would be hard to give any real comment about how they work beyond the fact that everything moves much further than in 2.2 which means the lines hit much quicker. It will allow for much less reordering of lines. But since the troops were lined up essentially table edge to table edge on the Indian side, there was little room for any real maneuver. Alex refused the right flank and doubled up the mounted commands on the left so we overwhelmed them there (and it did not hurt that one one of the Indian commanders against the mounted commands seemed only to have a 1 or a 2 on his die). We did not get a chance to use the LH command control rule (2000 paces without consideration of line of site) because we could not get enough pips to try it.

Since there was little if any room for maneuver, it makes it difficult to say how they would play in a one-on-one game from the game that we played on Friday night, except for what I have said above and on the other post and what is below.

Two significant changes from the July version were there is no longer any swapping allowed for the defender following set up (in the July version it was permitted when the defender took the first move of the game with the use of pips) and Cv is now permitted to move 4BW, the same distance as LH. As I understand it, the Cv change was made because of the problem with close order foot moving 2BW and were able to pin Cv when they move 3BW.

There were no situations that I am aware of where the rule on conforming came into play. I also believe that El have become too powerful at +5 vs foot making it almost impossible to kill them unless you overlap/flank them and the opponent rolls horrible (as did happen). Admittedly they do follow up but with a group of El they will all probably do that. Also Pk do NOT get any support against El so only fight as a +4. Note that Sp and Bd will get +1 for Ps support, so it is actually better to have an Sp/Ps vs El than Pk. It will also make it that much harder for Ax/Ps group to kill El at +3 vs +5 instead of +3 vs +4. Because of the lack of support factors for the Pk, we doubled them up very little in this game except where the Indian Bd were.

Xavi
11-04-2011, 06:51 AM
The more I read, the less I like it :( it looks like a really bad version of Armati instead of DBA.

Xavi

john svensson
11-04-2011, 07:04 AM
"....it did not hurt that one one of the Indian commanders against the mounted commands seemed only to have a 1 or a 2 on his die..."
O.K.- It was me.
"...almost impossible to kill them unless you overlap/flank them and the opponent rolls horrible...."
O.K.- me again!
I'll withhold my judgement until I have played more in the way of one-on-one games as Larry suggests and used all the unit types to which changes have been made. I think Roland commented that the game may be slowed down somewhat...besides everyone not being completely familiar with the rules...by a degree more of decision-making to be done..like the recoil distance to make. I can't say that is a bad thing, unless it actually leads to more geometric gamesmanship. John

JLogan
11-04-2011, 05:35 PM
That actually is surprising, DK.

I, personally, would have loved to actively engage with Generalissimo Barker about the new version. How else can we be expected to poke logical holes in his reasoning if we don't show him?

-A-Bos

Alex; I completely agree with you here.

In fact, I have to ask of those who were there (and this is intended in the nicest way possible, please understand), was there some sort of conspiracy of silence going on that folks did not engage PB about 3.0?

I can see from the photo's PB (and Sue) were present at the game; was he engaged in following it? Was he interested? Did he care? Did people point things out to him? Ask if specific results/outcomes that were odd or different from 2.2 during the game were intended by him?

Or was there perhaps a feeling that out of respect for his age and not wanting to seem to be confrontational, that it was better not to engage him too much? Or did folks simply shun him to an extent?

It just seems odd that more would - apparently - not be made of the opportunity to discuss 3.0 with him (though I can understand that folks may have been concerned not to want to get into any conversations that could become too animated and/or unpleasant).

Thanks,

John

Inari7
11-05-2011, 12:41 AM
I agree from the posts I have read so far no one seems to have engaged him about the 3.0 rules, stating that they thought playing or hosting games was more important.

What is one session compared to the next 10 years worth of sessions you will have to endure if 3.0 is a bad rule-set?

This was everyones chance to let him know what they thought of the rules, and it seems know one did.

I guess on the flight back, he probably thought everyone liked his changes since it seems no one took him to task about the changes he has made so far.

Kind of frustrating to see everyone complain about 3.0 then no one seems to want to defend against the changes before it goes to print........


I guess when 3.0 comes out and you don't like the new rules that you could have argued against, you have no right to complain.

Jeff
11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
I agree from the posts I have read so far no one seems to have engaged him about the 3.0 rules, stating that they thought playing or hosting games was more important.

What is one session compared to the next 10 years worth of sessions you will have to endure if 3.0 is a bad rule-set?

This was everyones chance to let him know what they thought of the rules, and it seems know one did.

I guess on the flight back, he probably thought everyone liked his changes since it seems no one took him to task about the changes he has made so far.

Kind of frustrating to see everyone complain about 3.0 then no one seems to want to defend against the changes before it goes to print........


I guess when 3.0 comes out and you don't like the new rules that you could have argued against, you have no right to complain.

No actually....some of use told him what we thought about it...We pointed out some of the major issues.. And in typical humph humph (insert British accent here) he did not seem to care. Why waste anymore time talking to the man who writes the rules without playing the bloody game. 2.2 is fine with me. 3.0 might be fine, but it will be published the way Phil wants it regardless of what anyone has to say. Oh, and WHAT EVER to the folks that think they have input on the game system, because you do not!. I have worked in government for long enough to recognize a YES man when I see one.

Wait with the rest of us.

Haardrada
11-05-2011, 06:23 AM
Would it not be more prudent to save 10 years of a bad rule set and possibly quell some of the controversy (or possibly cause more!) to ask Phil or one of the rule testing assistents to publish explanations/interpretations of the changes in 3.0 when it is published? This could possibly save a lot of time and effort explaining the rules on forums or at conventions and give a single and direct rule interpretation.

This should show gamers what the changes are and most importantly, how they should be played?

David Schlanger
11-05-2011, 08:07 AM
Would it not be more prudent to save 10 years of a bad rule set and possibly quell some of the controversy (or possibly cause more!) to ask Phil or one of the rule testing assistents to publish explanations/interpretations of the changes in 3.0 when it is published? This could possibly save a lot of time and effort explaining the rules on forums or at conventions and give a single and direct rule interpretation.

This should show gamers what the changes are and most importantly, how they should be played?

Bob asked Phil to provide an explanation and reasoning for significant rules changes in DBA 3.0 during this development cycle. This was one of Bob's best ideas.... however Phil denied the request. He stated that when DBA 3.0 comes out, he will be done with DBA 3.0 and that he has other things he needs to work on.

Providing a "guide" as to how the rules should be played would definitely be useful, just look at the success of the WADBAG Guide for DBA 2.2 in creating a standard approach to play. However, Phil has told us that there should not be a version of the Guide created for 3.0. In fact this was one of his motivating factors for actually doing the new version - making the Guide OBE. He told us all of this during a discussion of the Guide two years ago at Historicon.

DS

jcpotn
11-05-2011, 10:37 AM
Bob asked Phil to provide an explanation and reasoning for significant rules changes in DBA 3.0 during this development cycle. This was one of Bob's best ideas.... however Phil denied the request. He stated that when DBA 3.0 comes out, he will be done with DBA 3.0 and that he has other things he needs to work on.

Providing a "guide" as to how the rules should be played would definitely be useful, just look at the success of the WADBAG Guide for DBA 2.2 in creating a standard approach to play. However, Phil has told us that there should not be a version of the Guide created for 3.0. In fact this was one of his motivating factors for actually doing the new version - making the Guide OBE. He told us all of this during a discussion of the Guide two years ago at Historicon.

DS

Another motivating factor for a new version was that there was an alledged pirated copy of DBA 2.2 being circulated. Same Confused General on the cover but inside a couple of differences that were recognizable when they pointed them out. This discussion was at Historicon in Lancaster two years ago also, last time I was able to attend.

Jeff

david kuijt
11-05-2011, 11:19 AM
Another motivating factor for a new version was that there was an alledged pirated copy of DBA 2.2 being circulated. Same Confused General on the cover but inside a couple of differences that were recognizable when they pointed them out. This discussion was at Historicon in Lancaster two years ago also, last time I was able to attend.


Your memory is correct, Jeff -- they were concerned about that at the time.

But they quickly discovered that it wasn't a pirate copy at all -- just another reprint run off by their publisher partner, without telling them. So that had no impact on their decision to go forward with 3.0.

It did, I believe, have an impact on their decision to separate from their publisher partner. They said at the time of the discussion with me, DS, Chris regarding the Unofficial Guide that they had no sales or publication stats on the 2.2 rulebook. Which made their argument that the Unofficial Guide had hurt their sales sort of ... based upon emotion rather than anything measurable.

Tony Aguilar
11-05-2011, 11:20 AM
Another motivating factor for a new version was that there was an alledged pirated copy of DBA 2.2 being circulated. Same Confused General on the cover but inside a couple of differences that were recognizable when they pointed them out. This discussion was at Historicon in Lancaster two years ago also, last time I was able to attend.

Jeff

That is the one that has "De Bella Antiquitatis" at the top of the first page.

jcpotn
11-05-2011, 11:51 AM
Thanks for that info DK. I'm relieved to know that it was not a case of pirating the rules. :) Still sad that they view the Guide as a negative and not a positive for the clarity it brings to DBA.

Jeff

Lobotomy
11-05-2011, 05:47 PM
Alex; I completely agree with you here.

In fact, I have to ask of those who were there (and this is intended in the nicest way possible, please understand), was there some sort of conspiracy of silence going on that folks did not engage PB about 3.0?

I can see from the photo's PB (and Sue) were present at the game; was he engaged in following it? Was he interested? Did he care? Did people point things out to him? Ask if specific results/outcomes that were odd or different from 2.2 during the game were intended by him?

Or was there perhaps a feeling that out of respect for his age and not wanting to seem to be confrontational, that it was better not to engage him too much? Or did folks simply shun him to an extent?

It just seems odd that more would - apparently - not be made of the opportunity to discuss 3.0 with him (though I can understand that folks may have been concerned not to want to get into any conversations that could become too animated and/or unpleasant).

Thanks,

John

John,

You are incorrect about us engaging Phil about the rules. See my earlier post in this thread and the link to my other post.

Phil and Sue did not last through the end of the game due to jet lag and time differences. The next day we had a long tournament and few, if any, had time to engage them. Some of what Jeff said in response to you is also correct about how he responded to concerns.

That all said, we are working on the major issues and have hopes, even if they are faint.

peleset
11-05-2011, 09:28 PM
I would refer you to may comments here: http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=11508&page=25


There were no situations that I am aware of where the rule on conforming came into play. I also believe that El have become too powerful at +5 vs foot making it almost impossible to kill them unless you overlap/flank them and the opponent rolls horrible (as did happen). Admittedly they do follow up but with a group of El they will all probably do that. Also Pk do NOT get any support against El so only fight as a +4. Note that Sp and Bd will get +1 for Ps support, so it is actually better to have an Sp/Ps vs El than Pk. It will also make it that much harder for Ax/Ps group to kill El at +3 vs +5 instead of +3 vs +4. Because of the lack of support factors for the Pk, we doubled them up very little in this game except where the Indian Bd were.

I'm curious as to what those who have read version 3.0 of the rules think of more powerful elephants and weaker opposing pikes. It seems a pretty big change to the way they interact now.
I'm all for monsters on the battlefield, but I prefer them to be restricted to Hott.

pozanias
11-06-2011, 09:25 AM
There was definitely no conspiracy to avoid Phil. I think there are many different reasons why his table wasn't busy. But he also wasn't ignored.

When I first arrived, Phil was engaged in a conversation with Larry and Bob regarding a recoil rule, so I listened in. I thought they comprehensively presented their case and he just shrugged them off. I feel confident that his purpose was to give us a sneak peak at the rules and not to debate them.

As for my purposes, I went to Fall In to play in all the fun DBA events that had been organized. I'll wait for 3.0 to be published and will give it a fair shake I am confident David, Dave, Andreas, Bob and others have already presented any arguments I might have to Phil. He either listened to them or he didn't. I didn't see much point in trying to pound those same points home.

JLogan
11-06-2011, 11:52 AM
No actually....some of use told him what we thought about it...We pointed out some of the major issues..

Good man yourself. Thanks for doing that - and to all the others who apparently did also.

Btw; hope all is going well for you out east. We missed you at Fall Recuits.:)

John

JLogan
11-06-2011, 12:06 PM
John,

You are incorrect about us engaging Phil about the rules. See my earlier post in this thread and the link to my other post.

Phil and Sue did not last through the end of the game due to jet lag and time differences. The next day we had a long tournament and few, if any, had time to engage them. Some of what Jeff said in response to you is also correct about how he responded to concerns.

That all said, we are working on the major issues and have hopes, even if they are faint.

Lobotomy/Larry(?); many thanks for that. It just wasn't clear to me from your previous post, which seemed to be more about one or two specific 3.0rules issues, if there had been much general engagement of PB on the rules. Obviously, from your post here, and others, there was, in so far as it was possible. So again, thanks for that and to all the playtesters (primary and secondary) who have been trying to "help" PB with 3.0 :) Keep up the good fight.

John

JLogan
11-06-2011, 01:04 PM
There was definitely no conspiracy to avoid Phil. I think there are many different reasons why his table wasn't busy. But he also wasn't ignored.

When I first arrived, Phil was engaged in a conversation with Larry and Bob regarding a recoil rule, so I listened in. I thought they comprehensively presented their case and he just shrugged them off. I feel confident that his purpose was to give us a sneak peak at the rules and not to debate them.



Indeed; sadly true it would appear, and very unfortunate IMO. Thanks Mark.

It will be interesting to see if PB makes any comments/references to this visit (if so, probably on the DBMM list or Slingshot). He has in the past sometimes seemed to have portrayed such experiences slightly differently from others who were present.

John

JLogan
11-06-2011, 01:16 PM
I'm curious as to what those who have read version 3.0 of the rules think of more powerful elephants and weaker opposing pikes. It seems a pretty big change to the way they interact now.
I'm all for monsters on the battlefield, but I prefer them to be restricted to Hott.

Whilst this may prove to be problematic, this is actually one of the area's of potential change to 3.0 that I can live with, as it involves the authors perception of how these interacted historically. Even if I disagree with the interpretation, it is far less an issue for me than the changing of basic core game mechanism's and interactions, which currently work very well in 2.2.

In fact, on the specific issue of Pike v Elephants, there was a very interesting article in the current issue of Slingshot that would suggest perhaps Elephants should be quite effective v Pike. Whether these draft changes make them too much so, remains to be seen.

John

david kuijt
11-06-2011, 01:38 PM
In fact, on the specific issue of Pike v Elephants, there was a very interesting article in the current issue of Slingshot that would suggest perhaps Elephants should be quite effective v Pike. Whether these draft changes make them too much so, remains to be seen.


I'd be interested in seeing that article; Slingshot isn't very available here across the pond.

Kingo
11-06-2011, 03:27 PM
I'd be interested in seeing that article; Slingshot isn't very available here across the pond.

Splash your cash and subscribe, I get mine ok in Melbourne. :D

Jeff
11-06-2011, 03:45 PM
Good man yourself. Thanks for doing that - and to all the others who apparently did also.

Btw; hope all is going well for you out east. We missed you at Fall Recuits.:)

John

Doing well! I missed being at recruits as well. The DBAers are a great bunch out there.

Take care

John Loy
11-06-2011, 08:54 PM
If you want Elephants to be stronger agains Pike; you don't have to change Elephants at all, just remove the rear support from the Pikes - like Cavalry.
Very simple, IMHO

John

Richard Lee
11-07-2011, 02:46 AM
I'd be interested in seeing that article; Slingshot isn't very available here across the pond.

Slingshot is the journal of The Society of Ancients, and is not normally sold to non-members. Members get 6 issues per year. I understand that there are a reasonable number of US based members, but that is probably irrelevant if you don't know any.

Scott Russell
11-07-2011, 04:36 AM
I'd be interested in seeing that article; Slingshot isn't very available here across the pond.

Well worth a look. "Legion, Phalanx and Pachyderm", by Patrick Waterson, [I]Slingshot issue 278 (September 2011 p 3-9)[I].
The two assertions are that the term "double phalanx" refers to density rather than depth, and that when legions faced a phalanx with each man having half the normal frontage, it (the legion) stood no chance of breaking the phalanx frontally. With reference to Heraclea, Ausculum, Beneventum, Cynoscephalae, Magnesia and Pydna, the author expresses the view that the crucial factor in all of these cases was the elephant and its effects on the phalanx and legion.
Scott

Bob Santamaria
11-07-2011, 05:45 AM
Was there any broad perception that the interaction between pikes and elephants was wrong? I don't recall any handwringing over the issue on here over the years.

Are we to expect more of this sort of change out of nowhere?

Adrian

Xavi
11-07-2011, 06:45 AM
We all know that elephants move near pike, throw javelins and move back in a fluid formation, only engaging in close combat when their missiles are spent.

Indeed.

Xavi

david kuijt
11-07-2011, 09:19 AM
Was there any broad perception that the interaction between pikes and elephants was wrong? I don't recall any handwringing over the issue on here over the years.

Are we to expect more of this sort of change out of nowhere?

Adrian

Hey Adrian,

The two points that came to my mind when I read your note above are more than a little in conflict. With each other.

First, any perception of wrongness on this board, whether it existed or not, would be irrelevant to changes in 3.0. 3.0 has many changes that have no origin in this board (and as far as I can tell, no origin in any part of the DBA community), and many things that were suggested or supported on this board (or other parts of the DBA community) do not appear in 3.0. I could probably say that even stronger -- BUAs, for example, are opposed or disliked by a strong majority here, and Phil has expanded the rules for them.

Second, in Phil's defense (in the defense of any game designer), game design is not and really should not be a democratic process. The path to the best game isn't driven by the tyranny of the majority.

With that said, issues that come up strongly on this sort of focused discussion board should always be examined by a conscientious game designer. But that doesn't mean that it should be the designer's main source for change. And it is important (IMO) to involve your constituency, and Phil has not done that (and has sometimes actively tried to piss them off).

ferrency
11-07-2011, 11:17 AM
I'm curious as to what those who have read version 3.0 of the rules think of more powerful elephants and weaker opposing pikes. It seems a pretty big change to the way they interact now.


I haven't thought about this in a while. However, if I'm remembering correctly, the draft version I read spec'd elephants something like this... I don't know if they've changed:
- +5/+4
- No QK against spear/pike
- Pike received no rear support against elephants
- Impetuous elephants

The combined changes had several implications:
- Pike are slightly weaker than elephants instead of slightly stronger
- However, pike no longer need to play in double ranks near elephants, so you can extend your line and get overlaps
- Impetuosity can get elephants into big trouble when they win, and it costs PIPs to back them out. With fewer quick kills, it's a lot easier to get a double overlap on the impetuous elephant.
- However, impetuous troops with a 40mm base depth are great for rolling up the end of a line without spending any PIPs.

Interaction with other troops also changes:
- Bows are not a great way to hold off elephants anymore
- However, supported spears now face them at even odds (with no quick kill)
- It's slightly less possible to kill elephants with Ax/Ps, and slightly easier to kill them with LH
- Supported blades are less effective at holding them off

In the end, I don't think the "new elephants" are a killer troop, but they're very different than the old elephants. They'll kill things they didn't previously, but also die in new ways. I think the impetuosity will make them even more difficult to use than they were previously, because of the PIPs required to keep them out of trouble.

Alan

Xavi
11-07-2011, 11:44 AM
Is the 2no QK vs Sp/Pk" the final draft? That would change A LOT of my original impression on the "new elephants"

El' Jocko
11-07-2011, 11:58 AM
I think the impetuosity will make them even more difficult to use than they were previously, because of the PIPs required to keep them out of trouble.

I'm still on the fence on this one. Impetuous elephants take extra PIPs if you want to hold them back, but they don't take any PIPs if you want to get them into combat and let them rumble forward. Two or three elephants together in a group can be particularly effective this way. DK did this to me in a game when we were playtesting the impetuous elephant rule--a couple of elephants in the center of his line just ground forward bound after bound.

Is this a realistic portrayal of elephant combat? Is it unbalancing? I think the jury is still out on that.

- Jack

miros
11-07-2011, 12:12 PM
I'd be interested in seeing that article; Slingshot isn't very available here across the pond.

They are very efficient at sending them, I've never missed an issue. The subscription price is worth it.

Redwilde
11-07-2011, 03:28 PM
In general, I've always preferred the idea of impetuous elephants. They get up to about 20mph in a charge, and at a wild guess, my feeling is that you can't rein them to a halt in short order once you get them all going like that.

I hadn't considered the issue before, but the general idea that pikes would be a little weaker against elephants also seems right. The aforementioned 20mph charge isn't going to be slowed like horses when facing pikes/spear set into the ground. Extra rear ranks of infantry with pointy sticks is only going to make it easier for the front ranks to be converted into toe-jelly cause they'll be fenced in.

But, I've never done any real study of the topic, so that is just my fanciful musings and happily ignorant opinions :p

Bob Santamaria
11-07-2011, 06:01 PM
Second, in Phil's defense (in the defense of any game designer), game design is not and really should not be a democratic process. The path to the best game isn't driven by the tyranny of the majority.


I am against anything being a democratic process - as anyone who knows me would realise.

My point is more that it seems to be an answer to a question noone asked.

Adrian

dervel
11-07-2011, 06:19 PM
In the 3.0 demo “big battle” game we played (Alexander vs. Classical Indian) I commanded the Indian center. We had grouped our 15 Elephants into one huge Elephant line.

We marched across the center straight into the Macedonian Pike line. Basically we ended up in a giant rugby scrum between the pike and the elephants. We were killing some pike, but the recoil and impetuous rules meant our single unit of Elephants was soon a bunch of individual elements. Eventually the pikes overlapped our flank and turned the elephants on either end of the line. Then recoiled Elephants into other elephants…..

Ultimately the Elephants did chew up the pike, however the pike had no other support in this area of the battlefield. This was pure pike versus Elephant battle.

I can’t speak to the actual combat impact (I was not there).. However my impression is that Elephants had trouble with loose formations that could weave about and poke or shoot at them without giving them a solid target. Pikes would be a very solid target. One could argue that an Elephant might impale itself on a hedgerow of grounded pikes.. however would the impact still bust up the pike block anyway? What if the pikes are not grounded in time or if the Elephant hit at a slightly skewed angle?? Then they are potentially a very tight group of bowling pins?

In the game we played I thought the impact of the Elephants felt right without being overwhelming (IMHO). The pike were originally drawn up in two ranks (for support – based on old rules I believe).. if the Macedonians had originally extended their line I think it would have been a lot tougher for the Elephants. The flank wrapping would have happened a lot sooner. It could have ended very badly for the Elephants.

Rich Gause
11-07-2011, 06:46 PM
Seems the elephants worked pretty well. I like the idea of elephants being impetuous and not having a quick kill on Sp/Pk. The only thing that is not so good IMO with the new El rules is vs Ax. They either need to flee if doubled or have their facttor vs mounted increased to +3 IMO.

david kuijt
11-08-2011, 12:59 AM
My point is more that it seems to be an answer to a question noone asked.


If anyone had asked the question here on this forum, Phil wouldn't have heard it anyway.

Bob Santamaria
11-08-2011, 01:14 AM
If anyone had asked the question here on this forum, Phil wouldn't have heard it anyway.

Bishop Berkley had an answer to that didn't he

JLogan
11-08-2011, 03:59 PM
They are very efficient at sending them, I've never missed an issue. The subscription price is worth it.

I agree; Slingshot subs work very well even for those of us here in the US; I usually get mine same day or or just a day later here in Iowa than friends of mine in Dublin (Irl.) get theirs.

Except for several years during my wargaming hiatus in '90's, I've been a subscriber for 30 years now. Whilst some issues can be duds, most are very worthwhile. If you enjoy your DBA, and are at least partially into the historical aspect, not just purely the gaming aspect, then I would highly recommend it - although one of the things I like about Slingshot is that it focuses quite a bit on the gaming aspect too; not just the historical.

John

David Constable
11-08-2011, 04:58 PM
Would care to point out for non members that there is a very good DVD with past Slingshot in, worth buying.

David Constable

Lobotomy
11-08-2011, 09:02 PM
We all know that elephants move near pike, throw javelins and move back in a fluid formation, only engaging in close combat when their missiles are spent.

Indeed.

Xavi

Quite cheeky!!! :up

larryessick
11-11-2011, 01:12 AM
Was not at the con, did not test 3.0 rules. Truth is, I've only just started to show interest in DBA again after many years and the prospect of 3.0 has caught me somewhat by surprise.

Will comment on elephants with caveat that I only know what I've read about proposed changes from this thread.

a) Alexander's greatest fear when invading India was the elephants. He especially was worried about their effect against his pike phalanx. For this reason he went to great lengths to attack the elephants with skirmishers well before the pike engaged. Even with the prep, the elephants proved hard to stop. Increasing the combat factors against foot and removing pike support is probably an accurate replication of the pike/elephant interaction.

b) Scipio was likewise concerned about elephants when facing Hannibal. He also made sure to attack with skirmishers. When the elephants trampled forward he had the legions open ranks so that the elephants could pass through.

c) I'm not a fan of impetuous rules as Phil has adapted them because I typically view impetuous as implying uncontrolled and uncontrollable charges. However, as a game mechanic -- if I divorce myself from the word itself and just look at the effect on the game -- it does have some validity. In the case of elephants, once they were moving it became very difficult to control them. This was certainly true at Zama (referenced in b above). It may not have been true in all armies -- particularly in Indian subcontinent armies where elephants were long-standing parts of the army. But, it is likely true enough to accept as a mechanism requiring intentionality to keep them in check vs intentionality to use them.

Larry

colinrice
11-11-2011, 10:34 PM
I held the right flank for Rich and Larry in the 25mm game against two other commands. I found the 25mm scale a little large and I understand why I prefer 15mm. I moved backwards for the first couple of turns to play for time and then counter attacked one command with my pikes and quickly demoralized it by bumping off both elephants and knights and some good die roles. I had also inflicted some damage on another command. The upshot is that I do not think the outcome indicates that elephants have an over whelming advantage in the new rule set.

I did not talk to Phil or Sue a lot because I was more intent on playing than chatting, but I did have a lively discussion with both of them on the intent and wording of a specific rule about bows firing at each other in woods. They were receptive and open to my comments. I also had a discussion with Sue about her painting and terrain. And I did hand in all of my annotations on the rules.

Things I do not like in the new set are the prohibition against withdrawals from contact and the higher movement rates for "heavy" Infantry.

My thought on the withdrawal from contact is that it is unnecessary. If you do need to withdraw then you are probably in lots of trouble anyways so the restriction is somewhat irrelevant and creates extra noise for little value.

I understand the move to base widths as a unit of measure to overcome the metric vs. imperial measurements split. However I would really like to see more use of 1/2 base width increments so that movement is somewhat similar to that of the current game. I would like to see most of the heavy infantry move at 1.5 BW rather than 2. The game is fast enough that it can be played quickly, but is in general slow enough that you can actually track the development of the battle.

You can guess that I don't like the multiple moves for psiloi and particularly for light horse. I think the first move rule in DBA 2.2 for psiloi is good as an ambush simulator and serves to keep the initial deployments careful. For light horse it just seems hokey.

I also mentioned that some tactical guidance (game tricks and tactics) would be a good extra chapter for the book, especially for new players.

In general I think DBA is a great game of and by itself. I would like to see the new rules be a general clean up of the current DBA set. I am not looking for it to be an intro to DBMM.

In general I find the WADBAG clarifications a lot of paper for little clarity. Some of the conventions are helpful, such as the ZOC carpet convention, but I find the rules themselves the best reference, although they could be a little better organized. For example the rules around recoils and interpenetration as a result of combat are in two different locations.

Some additional clarification verbiage, especially around shooting, would be appreciated.

More than that I cannot comment because I have not read the new rules in their entirety.

So that is my attempt at shedding more light than heat.

dicemanrick
11-13-2011, 12:04 AM
The Stooges chose General Colin to hold the flank as we knew he was just the man for the job! A fine new kingdom was promised for his victory!!

"We're not idiots, we're morons!!" Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk:D

Brodbeck
11-13-2011, 01:41 PM
I had intended to attend Fall-In but a previously planned family vacation to Gettysburg interrupted plans. Wrapping up our visit with some shopping in the gift shop area late Sunday morning I was surprised to discover a shop called the Tar Pit. The shop specializes in high-quality 54mm painted figures. In discussion with the owner of the shop I told him my preference is 15mm figures for DBA play. The proprietor proudly announced the he knew the Barkers and they were indeed due to visit him within moments. Within a minute the door opened and in walked the Barkers. I was pleased to spend some time with both, introduce my family, and detail our appreciation of DBA. Sue proudly showed me her working copy of the detailed 3.0 rule set. This chance encounter made missing Fall-In almost worthwhile!