2.2 is good enough for me.

[Paul Potter]

after playing and multiple readings of the new propsed rules I find that I just don't care for them. I have tried to keep an open mind about the changes but for the most part the few changes I do like are not worth the headache of switching over to all the new variations of the rules and adjusting to the crazyness of some of the new rules.

As far as 2.2 goes I was hoping for a few small changes such as doing away with buas (which are complete sillyness in my opinion) putting war wagons back on square bases and taking double based elements out of the lists, and some appropriate changes to some of the lists-all of which I am capable of doing on my own.

I will probally buy a copy of 3.0 mostly for access to the lists.

I don't have intrest in playing 3.0. To be polite I will play it when I am places where that is the only thing being played.

To all of you who were involved in play testing and developing 3.0 thanks for your efforts but the whole thing has gone terribly wrong and a perfectly (for the most part) good game is being destroyed.

for those of you who want to play 3.0, have fun, enjoy it. my intrest at the moment is in supporting those who have an intrest in continuing to have access to 2.2.

-Paul

[kontos]

I agree in part, Paul. I don't mind DBEs (they look cool) but they need better rules to reflect what they really were used for and that can't be the same for every DBE.

Sadly, the BEST version of DBA may never happen - the merging of the improvements from 3.0 (yes, there are some) with the best of 2.2. I hope I am wrong in this assumption.

Keep 2.2 alive and well. I hope to make it down your way someday and will need opponents! :D

[Xavi]

I would consider that 2.3 might happen on a local scale if 3.0 is not popular. The problem I see is that different people would want to change different things about 2.2, even if everybody agrees on removing BUAs and on a few other things.

Cheers,
Xavi

[Redwilde]

At this stage, have to agree.

"Our original intent was to provide the simplest possible set of wargames rules that retain the feel and generalship requirements of ancient or medieval battle."

The complexity has crept enough past that intent that it's too much of a different game than the type I want to play. The continued refusal to use full English explanations in simple sentences, bullet points, and diagrams certainly doesn't help. it's not even a rules book now that I even want to try to learn. It's tipped too far onto the DBM side of brain-hurting for me to bother parsing it out.

I wouldn't refuse to play in 3.0 if somebody else was organising it and I had free time (Heck, I even enjoyed a game of DBM 200 at a small convention where there was no DBA. But didn't enjoy it so much that I was going to try to actually learn and remember all the complications of those rules to play it on my own without help!)

I'll be sticking with 2.2x.

And as a tonic for the jaded, HotT :D

Now the ponder is, start tinkering with 2.2x, or Historical HHotT. Hmm....

[Xavi]

Aince I consider HOTT to be the best DBx family game by far (better than DBA, yes) I might advocate such a move. Just remove the fancy stuff (wizards, ninja wizards, bears shooting laser beams...) and you get a perfectly playable engine for a historical game.

Cheers,
Xavi

[dicemanrick]

Quite sadly, I'm coming to the point where 3.0 will be a "no-go" for me.

Most of you guys on the list know me from face-to-face or from my postings.

I love to play DBA! Since I was "converted" from WRG 7th ed I never looked back. I have tons of armies and play DBA with a lot of fun gamers. I travel to many conventions and events around the country. I like some things about 3.0 to be sure, but many more changes I don't like.

I was hoping that 3.0 would be a "cleaned-up" version of 2.2, but those hopes were killed while I was play-testing 3.0. Admittedly, some of the things we discovered were changed by Phil. Others were adamantly vetoed, as is his right as the writer.

The obtuse language that this near 60-year old has a problem with deciphering (and just TRY to have a 8 year old read it:D) still exists even in these days of word processors. Witness the current debates raging on Fanaticus and the DBA list to see how many people can't read what Phil writes. Perhaps reading comprehension has declined with the more current generations, or perhaps its a British English versus American English thing, but I pity those who are not native English speakers!

BUAs still exist and waste "precious paragraphs" when no one uses them (although I did see one last Summer....one in hundreds of games played!).

I am quite happy with 2.2 and will continue to run 2.2 games at conventions. I will continue to play DBA with friends of a like mind. I will buy 3.0 when it is published to get the lists and may even play in 3.0 events, but I don't see these rules as any improvement on the ones we have been enjoying for so long. DBA 3.0 is a DIFFERENT game from 2.2.....I just don't care for it.

Sorry, /rant off:sick

[pozanias]

I would consider that 2.3 might happen on a local scale if 3.0 is not popular. The problem I see is that different people would want to change different things about 2.2, even if everybody agrees on removing BUAs and on a few other things.

Cheers,
Xavi

Here is a list that I think 90% of DBAers would like to see in 2.3:

BUAs - either eliminate them or make them simple (e.g. impassable terrain)
Dismounting Knights - first bound only, at deployment only, or not at all
LH quick kill on Sp/Pk - do away with this (although I have to say the opposition to this has lessened over time)
Board Size - allow for 24 or 30" squares
BBDBA - use NASAMW deployment and victory condition improvements
Cleanup the language - particularly around things like ZOC (e.g. make the words reflect the choice most of us have made for the "flashlight" method)


If all these things were done, then I think we could get broad support for a few of the new bells and whistles in 3.0 such as:

Updated army lists
Random terrain placement
New combat modifiers

And then as a the final cherry on top, I would like to see new rules to eliminate some of the gamesmanship that occurs with kinked lines or awkwardly positioned elements. I appreciate that Phil has attempted to do this in 3.0, but it looks to me as though he didn't get the fix right and that the medicine may be worse than the disease. Getting this right would take some smart, technically gifted writers that possess skills I lack. Or perhaps just use the HoTT rules. I haven't played it enough to know, but I seem to recall people being pretty happy with how HoTT handles this problem.

Of course at this point, its all just talk. I'm happy to wait and see how 3.0 plays out first. If 3.0 is broadly accepted here on the East Coast of the US, then I will probably jump on board. If not, I wouldn't mind someone carrying forward with the 2.3 banner.

[ferrency]

Random terrain placement

I'm not against modifying terrain placement to reduce gamesmanship, but I don't like the way 3.0 tries to do it (at least in the version I playtested, in summer 2011).

Specifically: the 3.0 terrain rules make it easy for someone who wants a pool table to get a pool table despite the randomness. Arable doesn't even require a single piece of bad going. But the randomness does not make it possible to consistently get useful bad going if your army prefers it.

Besides the "random quarter" placement, it's illegal to place bad going centrally on the board (or on a board edge). While I have seen some degenerate use of centrally placed terrain, it's nice to have it as an option.

Compared to 2.2, this is essentially no change for good going armies, while making it harder for bad going armies to get the terrain they prefer. I don't consider this an overall win.

New combat modifiers

What did you have in mind?

Alan

[pozanias]

Alan,

I don't have specifics in mind just yet. It's more the ideas that I like, rather than the wording in 3.0. In other words, I like the idea of adding a bit of randomness to terrain placement -- I don't necessarily like the exact 3.0 rules on the subject.

However, my real point is that I think 6 months from now, the majority of us will probably agree that 4-6 ideas in 3.0 are really good ones -- and it would be nice to incorporate those ideas into 2.3. If it ever gets to that point, that is. I'm still open to the possibility that that 3.0 may become broadly adopted.

[Bobgnar]

It is back to 1.1 for me, with Third Edition terrain, for local games. I did not like the BUA, well it is optional now. That stupid Ps support rule as not needed, multiple moves just add extra complexity. Too many outcome changes, why should a Kn destroy a Bd by beating it. Destroying an element by shooting it on the rear is too extreme. SCh should count for game loses and Hordes are not needed (unless like HOTT). DBA 1.1 was the purest game I ever played, I could teach people how in 10 minutes, 2 takes at least 1/2 hour. I do not like my Indians losing an Elephant. My favorite WWg got put on big bases and reduced in combat factors by 1.

I do not know how anyone could enjoy 2. 1.1 did not need any Guide, too.

There did need to be a terrain placement component and 3.0 works.

[pozanias]

It is back to 1.1 for me, with Third Edition terrain, for local games. I did not like the BUA, well it is optional now. That stupid Ps support rule as not needed, multiple moves just add extra complexity. Too many outcome changes, why should a Kn destroy a Bd by beating it. Destroying an element by shooting it on the rear is too extreme. SCh should count for game loses and Hordes are not needed (unless like HOTT). DBA 1.1 was the purest game I ever played, I could teach people how in 10 minutes, 2 takes at least 1/2 hour. I do not like my Indians losing an Elephant. My favorite WWg got put on big bases and reduced in combat factors by 1.

I do not know how anyone could enjoy 2. 1.1 did not need any Guide, too.

There did need to be a terrain placement component and 3.0 works.


Bob,
I'm not sure if you are being serious -- or if you are making fun of us. Either way is fine with me. I don't mind be jabbed by someone like you who I know has a good heart. And I cetainly don't mind if someone prefers 1.1 over 2.2 or 3.0. Who can argue with personal preferences?

If you are making fun of us, though, your point seems to be that people objected to 2.0 when it came out -- but somehow the world kept turning and today many of us think 2.x is far superior to 1.x. And therefore, all this handwringing about 3.0 is unnecessary -- because one day we will look back and realize it is better than 2.2.

The only problem with your analogy is that I (for one) was excited when 2.0 came out. I immediately saw it as 2 steps forward and 1 step back. And with the changes through 2.2, I consider it to be 10 steps forward and 1 step back (as compared to 1.1). I'm not one who opposes change because its different. But I just don't feel that same excitement for 3.0.

However, I haven't even played a test game yet! So, I still reserve hope for 3.0.

[Redwilde]

The only problem with your analogy is that I (for one) was excited when 2.0 came out. I immediately saw it as 2 steps forward and 1 step back. And with the changes through 2.2, I consider it to be 10 steps forward and 1 step back (as compared to 1.1). I'm not one who opposes change because its different. But I just don't feel that same excitement for 3.0.


Make that two at least. 2.2 solved more problems than it created, and was overall a good improvement. Could tell by reading them that the BUA rules were a horrible intrusion and needed no playtesting to confirm that.

It looks like the only pre-existing problems that 3.0 is changing is putting warwagons back on square bases. And it looks like the 24" board is now just classed as 'standard' but despite the snide comments can be treated as optional.

Existing problems from 2.2 still remain: BUAs, dismounting, rivers, DBEs that are deeper than wides, big battle deployment.

Then there are the new problems, which whatever the final count is, will definitely outnumber the fixes.

[michael guth]

Because a man with a 24 inch sword is basically dogfood for charging cavalry with a lance on an armored horse riding boot to boot no matter what the size of his shield....

Version 1 was indeed pure, but at the cost of there being only a couple of playable armies, the Indian/Viking championships-IMO, but Bob Luddy and I have the trophies from the old tdays to back it up. Puting the Warwagons back on the square bases is fine by me, as long as you make them 5-4 like they used to be!!! But I digress....

Do you really 'like the rules Phil writes,' or do you like some of the concepts behind his rules?

[kontos]

Because a man with a 24 inch sword is basically dogfood for charging cavalry with a lance on an armored horse riding boot to boot no matter what the size of his shield....

Version 1 was indeed pure, but at the cost of there being only a couple of playable armies, the Indian/Viking championships-IMO, but Bob Luddy and I have the trophies from the old tdays to back it up. Puting the Warwagons back on the square bases is fine by me, as long as you make them 5-4 like they used to be!!! But I digress....

Do you really 'like the rules Phil writes,' or do you like some of the concepts behind his rules?

That is a loaded question, Mike. Obviously we like something about DBA or we wouldn't be playing it. Do you want to call it his "concepts" or his "rules"? I await your point. ;)

[ferrency]

However, my real point is that I think 6 months from now, the majority of us will probably agree that 4-6 ideas in 3.0 are really good ones -- and it would be nice to incorporate those ideas into 2.3.
I think many of us, even those who don't like the entirety of 3.0 as it stands, already agree with this.

If it ever gets to that point, that is. I'm still open to the possibility that that 3.0 may become broadly adopted.

Here is where I am coming from, w.r.t. DBA:

I play a lot of games. I have well over 200 board and card games in my collection, not including games I've traded away or sold; over a dozen miniature rule sets I've played at my house (not mentioning conventions), and probably a dozen more that I have on hand just to read. I have some pretty horrible games, but I also have some really brilliant ones.

Out of all of these games, DBA 2.2 is hands down the game I've played the most number of times over the longest period of time, and the one I've put in the most time painting, planning, and preparing for.

This is because of all the games I've played, DBA 2.2 is the best at providing me with an appropriate reward for the effort I put into it. Some of this is because of the rules themselves, and some of it is because of the high quality, friendly community of players I have access to.

I am a good player, but not a great one; but I know that if I play more and learn more, I will become a better player. At the same time, I don't need to read a hundred years of strategy texts before having a chance to win a tournament.

Realistically, if DBA 3.0 were a good game, I might play it a few times before moving on; that's what I do with most of the games I play. But DBA 2.2 is a Great Game. I want to continue to play a Great Game, I don't want to settle for a good one.

These are the high standards I will use, to decide what game I'm going to play.

Alan

[Crocus]

Rousing words Mr Ferrency! I stood to attention without realising during that last bit!

I think you have it in one: DBA 2.2 is a GREAT game. I haven't had a chance to read 3 yet but would be surprised if I am swayed by it, given the feedback here so far.

Have you thought of a career in politics, motivational speaking?

[larryessick]

Because a man with a 24 inch sword is basically dogfood for charging cavalry with a lance on an armored horse riding boot to boot no matter what the size of his shield....

Which is fine if all blade are men with 24" swords and all knights were charging cavalry with lance on armored horses -- but they are not.

Knowledge of history is a bit useful to these discussions. For example, as Rome moved eastward and encountered more mounted opponents legionary equipment changed. By the time of the Eastern empire they cease to be much like blade at all and more like spear -- spear with missile weapons and often backed by archers....

Meanwhile, Vikings had no trouble dealing with charging cavalry on armored horses -- forcing the French to cede them Normandy....

And, medieval polearms developed (and pikes were reintroduced) in response to charging cavalry that not only rode armored horses but that was also itself heavily armored.

DBA in all its versions mashes a great deal down into grossly over simplified unit types and then uses those to describe thousands of years of warfare. In doing so it mostly results in pretty decent interactions among historical opponents and doesn't do too badly in allowing us ahistorical battles either.

People are going to have their preferred versions of the rules and they are going to have their preferred house rules for their preferred versions of the rules. To me it is a lot like beer. Some people really do prefer Coors.

I guess that's their right. ;)

[ferrency]

Have you thought of a career in politics, motivational speaking?

Thanks! But no thanks :)

I mean no offense to anyone, but I'm of the mindset that anyone smart enough to be a good politician is smart enough not to be a politician at all :)

Alan

[pozanias]

Knowledge of history is a bit useful to these discussions.

I'm not sure if you meant this as an insult, but I think this is the kind of comment that starts us down the path to incivility (to steal the thought from another thread). My inference of the comment is that you think Mike (and presumably anyone that believes knights should be "quick killed" by knights) doesn't have a knowledge of history, but that you do and you'll set him/them straight. I don't know if that is what you meant, but that's how it comes across (to me anyway).


For example, as Rome moved eastward and encountered more mounted opponents legionary equipment changed. By the time of the Eastern empire they cease to be much like blade at all and more like spear -- spear with missile weapons and often backed by archers....

But when legionnaires stopped acting like blade and starting acting like spear (with Psiloi support?), shouldn't they start being classified in the army list as spear and not blade and then are no longer relevant to Mike's point.

Also, during the transition, psiloi back blade are generally able to stand up to knights.


Meanwhile, Vikings had no trouble dealing with charging cavalry on armored horses -- forcing the French to cede them Normandy....

Hmmmm... okay. I'm not sure its quite so black and white, but I am willing to concede this to you. I'm not much of an expert on Vikings, but perhaps they are the exception and not the rule.


And, medieval polearms developed (and pikes were reintroduced) in response to charging cavalry that not only rode armored horses but that was also itself heavily armored.

But aren't these troops are generally classified as spear or pike in DBA and not blade? And if troops fighting in the style of DBA characterized blades were so good at fighting mounted knights, why would history have had so many non-blade style troops. My assumption is that these other troop types were better at combating mounted, so why would should DBA characterize blade elements as the best anti-mounted foot?

Anyway, I do agree there is a valid argument for blade NOT being quick killed by knights. For me, though, the deciding factor is play balance. When blade were not quick killed by knights, DBA was a boring game at conventions. I played against a LOT of Marians and Vikings. So if its reasonable (from an historical perspective), and I think it is more than reasonable, to have Bd quick killed by Kn and it vastly improves the game, then I support it.

[Alan Saunders]

Out of all of these games, DBA 2.2 is hands down the game I've played the most number of times over the longest period of time, and the one I've put in the most time painting, planning, and preparing for.

This is because of all the games I've played, DBA 2.2 is the best at providing me with an appropriate reward for the effort I put into it. Some of this is because of the rules themselves, and some of it is because of the high quality, friendly community of players I have access to.



If you take out 'DBA 2.2' and put in HOTT this pretty much sums up my experience of the last 15 years or so.

I'm not that familiar with DBA - I've played an owned various editions of v1.0 and v2.0, and I love the concepts (which is why I play HOTT, of course), but the game has never excited me much. I wasn't really sure why, until now.

I started playing HOTT with v1.0. There were bits in it that weren't clear, but we worked out what we thought the intent was, and interpreted from there. Differences of opinion were discussed and thrashed out on the old DBM mailing list, and the HOTT Yahoo Group when I set that up in 1999.

Then, in 2001, we got a new version of HOTT. The ambiguousl rules were thrashed out and then written in a form which made them, for the most part, clear and easy to follow. It was possible to read HOTT 2.0, play a few games and learn the rules to a level where you could play without the book. But, if you needed to look something up, it was relatively easy to find and quickly understand the rule you needed.

To me, DBA doesn't have this. Sure, I can learn the rules - even the bits that differ from HOTT - but if I need to look something up in the heat of a game I have to parse a concise, precise sentence and tease out what I'm trying to find. This is not a matter of reading comprehension skills; it's a matter of being able to quickly comprehend something in the middle of a game.

Sadly DBA 3.0 carries on with Phil's desire to be accurate whilst still being concise. I'm sure that for the most part the rules convey complex interactions in a few words as possible. But they don't *need* to be like that.

If DBA 3.0 had half the clarity of HOTT 2.0 I would probably start playing it regularly. I think there's some interesting ideas in it that I'd like to try out. But I can't help thinking that life's too short to try and tease the game out of the prose.

(I like the semi-random terrain placement - I rather like the idea of something similar for HOTT, although it would have to deal with the fact that ultra-flexible HOTT army concepts don't really fit the idea of Home Terrains. I also rather like the idea that elements close to the board edge count as overlapped, although for HOTT this would have to be limited to side edges, as a certain amount of activity necessarily takes place on each player's base edge with certain element types.)

[pozanias]

Here is where I am coming from, w.r.t. DBA:



Alan, I don't disagree with anything you said. My only point was that I can't predict the future. In my mind, its still at least possible (however unlikely) that 3.0 will be an improvement over 2.2. It may mean that a few "house rules" have to be adopted (like when most of us agreed to make BUAs optional after 2.0 came out).

Anyway, if 3.0 (presumably with some widely accepted fixes) produces a better game than 2.2, then I think it will be adopted in our region. If it doesn't produce a better game, then it won't -- in which case I would like to see 2.3 introduced. And IMO, if we get to that point, 2.3 should fix 2.2 problems and also introduce a few new ideas.

[ferrency]

Alan, I don't disagree with anything you said.

To be clear: I wasn't trying to disagree with you, either. It might have been considered a nonsequitor :)


In short: there are plenty of games with big, friendly communities built around them that I don't have any interest in. There are plenty of games with good rules. But DBA 2.2 is something special, to me. I don't want to lose what makes it special, even if some dispassionate outside observers might decide something else is just as good.

Alan

[michael guth]

"Knowledge of history is a bit useful to these discussions. For example, as Rome moved eastward and encountered more mounted opponents legionary equipment changed. By the time of the Eastern empire they cease to be much like blade at all and more like spear -- spear with missile weapons and often backed by archers...." LE

In other words, in order to meet mounted opponents the spear is better than the blade, and should be reflected in DBA, as it now is. In every edition of the WRG rules written by the famous historian Phil Barker, knights were able to break blades frontally in one bound, only in DBA 1.0-2.0 were unsupported blades considered equal to knights, in fact actually better, since DBA knights also pursued into double overlap and were thus inferior to blades in combat in open ground.

Returning to 'History' , early Carolingian 'knights' without stirrups and using light spears, wielded overhand and even thrown would be cavalry. The Vikings did so well with their blades against these troops that they decided to evolve into even heavier mounted heavy cavalry themselves, the irrisistably charging Normans of the Alexiad.

I have 324 volumes on ancient military history in my personal library, and another 50 on 'Pike and Shot' era warfare. My interpretation of Arrian is that the Romans were very concerned that infantry armed with swords and short throwing spears could be broken by charging armored cavalry. I think it fair to summarize DeVries work on Infantry warfare in the early 14th century by stating that infantry, with or without longbows needed the advantage of terrain to successfully meet charging knights.

There are numerous examples from the early 16th century of blade armed Italian infantry being broken by charging gendarmes. Although the Swiss were victorious at Arbedo, the difficulty of facing enemy mounted with halberds, 'blades', led them to begin a transition from the halberd to much larger numbers of pike.

I think there is plenty of historical evidence to support the idea that close combat infantry armed with short weapons or halberds without advantage of ground were in severe danger from charging mounted knights. In DBA this is reflected by the quick kill....(When I proposed this to Phil B over a decade ago I argued for a quick kill only in the knights bound, or preferably only in the knights bound and only if they moved into contact that bound....).

Oh, and Larry, I disagree with your comments on the DBA forum about the importance of examining matchups in the DBA rules system.

[michael guth]

Dear Frank,

Would we both agree that DBA is poorly written and hard to understand, and that the draft of DBA 3.0 is not much better? Thats what I mean by rules.

One concept that I agree with from DBA; most ancient wargame rules feature games in which there are about a dozen units a side, the units run into each other and combat ensues.

Another concept: attempts to model ancient warfare by the movement and clash of a dozen units a side is not improved by adding page after page of rules micromanaging the movement and combat capabilities.

Another DBA concept, also in Lost battles but missing from FOG: ancient generals chose to fight and arranged their battle lines as much as possible so as not to be overlapped on both flanks by the enemy....

A concept which I think is debateable, a holdover throughout the WRG rules and extending now into DBMM: infantry with swords beat infantry with long spears.... Or, more generally, the specific weapon and armor determines the combat outcome between groups of infantry (give me 2HCW with JLS please...).

A concept with problems: add a d6 roll to a combat factor between 1 and 6, if the loser is doubled, he dies. The problem is the math, a difference of one combat factor-the smallest change possible, can produce a 50% or more change in the likelihood of a result. An example would be spears versus blades. One factor difference versus foot, and yet the spears CANNOT kill the blades...

Concepts from non-DBA games which I find of interest:

Command and Colors Ancients: Infantry is heavy or light, cavalary is heavy or light, just like in ancient military manuals.

A Failed concept from Command and Colors Ancients: cards can replace pip dice without producing a luck-fest game....

FOG: narrative based combat, I forget the long lost creator from Slingshot. 'Because my infantry is Veteran, is more heavily armored than your infantry, and has a weapon which they throw to disorder you on combat I will have an advantage when I charge in.' BUT 'because your infantry has had to move through difficult terrain, and my troops have a pike which allows them to hold you at a distance, your attack will not be as good as you thought'. All encapsulated in their POA system....

FOG and LOST BATTLES: The pushback of DBA/WRG is a myth. The term for troops pushed back more than few feet is ROUTED.....see Spartans at Leuctra....

LOST BATTLES: the perpetual combat of FOG is a myth. Close combat resembles urban riots and consists primarily of small groups of men engaging peacemeal along a front. Soldiers can only fight for about 15 minutes in several hours before they become useless, even unable to defend themselves...

I hope that clarifies how I think about miniature wargame rules. I'll put more time into learning a set of rules if I like the concepts, even if the writing is terrible.

[snowcat]

How about Impetus (or Basic Impetus)? Any thoughts on that system?

[ferrency]

How about Impetus (or Basic Impetus)? Any thoughts on that system?

It's a fine enough game, but it isn't DBA.

It has a bit of a combination of the reductionist weapon/armor view that some rule sets take, combined with unit based combat stats and die rolls, instead of figure based combat and attrition.

Feom a DBx player's perspective, probably the weirdest aspect of the rules is that units should never line up the way they do in DBA close combat, but instead should always be offset.

Alan

[michael guth]

Dear Alan,

I pronounce you rules guru! Vis Bellica uses more figures than DBA, a dozen units a side which just happen to be size of four DBA stands tied togethor. Any experience? They had army lists and everything....

[snowcat]

Dear Alan,

I pronounce you rules guru! Vis Bellica uses more figures than DBA, a dozen units a side which just happen to be size of four DBA stands tied togethor. Any experience? They had army lists and everything....

You don't say...

(even if you did mean Impetus)

;)

[michael guth]

Which never got much press, but seemed interesting, a dozen units a side and supposedly easy to remember rules...

[snowcat]

Which never got much press, but seemed interesting, a dozen units a side and supposedly easy to remember rules...

VB wasn't a dozen units a side (Basic Impetus is closer to DBA in that respect). VB used a points system for tournament games, and scenario games could be any combination of units players agreed to. VB also had its own peculiar basing system which some objected to, and so used 4 x DBA bases for units instead (whereas Impetus unit bases are generally exactly 4 x DBA base sizes). VB had some good ideas, but some of its mechanisms were broken.

[larryessick]

I'm not sure if you meant this as an insult, but I think this is the kind of comment that starts us down the path to incivility (to steal the thought from another thread).

Well, the comment wasn't directed at anyone or a comment about anyone. It wasn't lacking civility. It was what it was -- a statement that we need to look at history because it helps. The initial example of men with 24" swords against cavalry on armored horses is a gross oversimplification of what both Blade and Knight mean in DBA.

All the other examples are intended to point to the fact that Blade is more than this and a Knight is more than this. And kludging all the varieties of troops that are Blade and that are Knight will lead to some simplifications that might not always seem appropriate -- but they work in the bigger context of the game.

As to whether troops should be Blade or Spear, the simple fact is that in many cases they were transitional. This is true of the Romans as they expand eastward as an easy example. In some ways they were blade-like and in some spear-like. List writers have the responsibility of deciding which best depicts them.

Larry

[pozanias]

Well, the comment wasn't directed at anyone or a comment about anyone. It wasn't lacking civility. It was what it was -- a statement that we need to look at history because it helps. The initial example of men with 24" swords against cavalry on armored horses is a gross oversimplification of what both Blade and Knight mean in DBA.


Not being a jerk and a moron is useful when trying to be a valued member of an on-line forum.

[pozanias]

Now let me ask you a couple of questions Larry:

When you read my last psot,
1. Did you think I was referring to you (even though I didn't specifically call you out by name)?
2. Were you offended and/or did you consider the comments rude?

If "yes" to either, then you may want to go back and see what you originally posted to see if it wasn't rude to imply Mike knows little about history.

Also, I will now apogize for my post. I only said those inflamatory things to make a point. I'm not really trying to insult you.

[larryessick]

"Knowledge of history is a bit useful to these discussions. For example, as Rome moved eastward and encountered more mounted opponents legionary equipment changed. By the time of the Eastern empire they cease to be much like blade at all and more like spear -- spear with missile weapons and often backed by archers...." LE

In other words, in order to meet mounted opponents the spear is better than the blade, and should be reflected in DBA, as it now is. In every edition of the WRG rules written by the famous historian Phil Barker, knights were able to break blades frontally in one bound, only in DBA 1.0-2.0 were unsupported blades considered equal to knights, in fact actually better, since DBA knights also pursued into double overlap and were thus inferior to blades in combat in open ground.

Returning to 'History' , early Carolingian 'knights' without stirrups and using light spears, wielded overhand and even thrown would be cavalry. The Vikings did so well with their blades against these troops that they decided to evolve into even heavier mounted heavy cavalry themselves, the irrisistably charging Normans of the Alexiad.

I have 324 volumes on ancient military history in my personal library, and another 50 on 'Pike and Shot' era warfare. My interpretation of Arrian is that the Romans were very concerned that infantry armed with swords and short throwing spears could be broken by charging armored cavalry. I think it fair to summarize DeVries work on Infantry warfare in the early 14th century by stating that infantry, with or without longbows needed the advantage of terrain to successfully meet charging knights.

There are numerous examples from the early 16th century of blade armed Italian infantry being broken by charging gendarmes. Although the Swiss were victorious at Arbedo, the difficulty of facing enemy mounted with halberds, 'blades', led them to begin a transition from the halberd to much larger numbers of pike.

I think there is plenty of historical evidence to support the idea that close combat infantry armed with short weapons or halberds without advantage of ground were in severe danger from charging mounted knights. In DBA this is reflected by the quick kill....(When I proposed this to Phil B over a decade ago I argued for a quick kill only in the knights bound, or preferably only in the knights bound and only if they moved into contact that bound....).

Oh, and Larry, I disagree with your comments on the DBA forum about the importance of examining matchups in the DBA rules system.

Let's start from the bottom and work upwards.

You are entitled to disagree with me, both here and there. I don't know particularly what the observation has to do with the present conversation unless you mean that irrespective of what I post you intend to disagree. Since that isn't what you said I will not take it as an inference. And, consequently I'll try to address the other points you make.

I don't disagree with your analysis. And with that I'm not sure that I understand the point you are trying to make. It seems to be that blade should be quick killed by knights in the open and that you are frustrated that they are not. Which confuses me significantly because they are.

So, I must be wrong about what you are trying to say and instead you are trying to say that blades are not able to withstand knights in the open and instead should be able to do so. But that doesn't fit what you've posted either.

It leaves me with the notion that you are somehow trying to tie ability or inability of blade to withstand knights to reasons to retain 2.2. But that also makes no sense as there is no change to the knight/blade interaction between 2.2 and 3.0.

Library size aside, I don't think I understand where you are coming from.

Moving upward again. Yes, spear should resist better than blade. They do in 2.2. In 3.0 they do as well, but less well than they did in 2.2.

Now, to my original point. Blade did resist knights. They did not do so as well as spear. But, they were not entirely incapable of doing so. The 2.2 rules and the 3.0 rules are the same concerning blades in this regard. When the task became overwhelming they transitioned to a more capable form -- spear in the case of Eastern Rome (Byzantium), knights in the case of Vikings, pike in the case of later medieval armies.

Lastly, the only thing I can decipher from your two posts that gives coherent meaning to what you wrote is to deduce that you are upset that the combat factors between blade and knight can, if the blade have psiloi support, actually favor the blade. Psiloi support turns a 3v3 with blade being quick killed into a 4v3. Blade are still quick killed but the knights have to work harder for the win.

My point about Eastern Rome -- selected because you seemed to be implying Romans with the 24" sword comment -- is that integrating missile power into the legion was the first major step taken by Rome to neutralize the effect of cavalry against legions in the open. In other words, shifting the advantage to the blade but with the consequence of still being quick killed is an acceptable game mechanic for replicating this combat.

If you didn't mean you wanted blade to be quick killed (which it is) and you didn't mean you don't want blade to be quick killed (which doesn't seem to be your meaning) and you aren't trying to make a pitch for keeping 2.2 (which might be possible but doesn't seem to flow) and you aren't commenting on knights having a lower (potentially) combat factor -- then I really don't know what it is you're trying to say.

[ferrency]

Dear Alan,

I pronounce you rules guru! Vis Bellica uses more figures than DBA, a dozen units a side which just happen to be size of four DBA stands tied togethor. Any experience? They had army lists and everything....

Nope, sorry.

I played Impetus once with the Stooges, but it was before I had a regular chance to play DBA often. Now that I have, it's my choice.

Alan

[larryessick]

If "yes" to either, then you may want to go back and see what you originally posted to see if it wasn't rude to imply Mike knows little about history.

Also, I will now apogize for my post. I only said those inflamatory things to make a point. I'm not really trying to insult you.

The difference between our posts is that you intended the effect to be insulting whereas I did not. I'm not going to apologize for unintended consequences. I'm especially not going to do so when I've been making special effort to not be insulting both here and on the Yahoo list.

[kontos]

The difference between our posts is that you intended the effect to be insulting whereas I did not. I'm not going to apologize for unintended consequences. I'm especially not going to do so when I've been making special effort to not be insulting both here and on the Yahoo list.

Why should it be an effort not to be insulting? Don't get me wrong. You apparently have some kind of reputation, deserved or not, I cannot judge. From your posts of late, they have been...well thought out albeit a tad judgmental IMHO but not insulting. Some people do not translate well from the oral to the written. One disadvantage of online communication is the lack of seeing the body language of the poster. Another is the lack of inflection or tone. I find myself to be an excellent written and verbal communicator in my personal and professional life, however; for some strange reason I lose the ability to make succinct points and logically support my positions on these forums when my passions rise up. Funny. That takes effort. Not being insulting shouldn't be so hard.

[mdsanderson]

To get back to start of this thread I too believe DBA 2.2 to be a brilliant game. The problem is that there is a large number of people that want some minor change to make it better, except they cannot agree of what that change needs to be. I could live with no changes myself but I believe the fact that there is no consensus dooms most of us to drift away into something else. I did not play ancients before DBA and I do not have any burning desire to continue playing ancients after DBA. For me it was a great game, colorful, quick, short and interesting as a game. I do not have any favorite army to claim I know a great deal about and get into multiple boring posts about. I did not worry about kinked lines as that seemed to me to be just another problem to solve. I will morn the passing of such a rare gaming opportunity.

Mike Sanderson

[larryessick]

Why should it be an effort not to be insulting?

Some people are insulted irrespective of how much effort is made. Some are insulted even though the rest of the people are not.

We have choices about how we write. I can choose to be insulting and intentionally post that way. If I don't choose to be insulting and don't intentionally post that way that does not remove the risk that someone will be insulted.

There is a limit to my responsibility to avoid every possible chance that someone will take what is written as an insult.

What I wrote was not an insult. It was an introduction to my follow on which tried to chronicle some examples of blade that did resist knights. It also contained, as Mike observed, hints that the final development of responses were something other than blade.

I cannot be responsible for those who see insults where the were not intended and where, to my mind, they did not exist. And so it is important to note that there is a difference between intended and unintended insults.

For what it is worth, I think that pretending it takes no effort is naive.

[snowcat]

The difference between our posts is that you intended the effect to be insulting whereas I did not. I'm not going to apologize for unintended consequences. I'm especially not going to do so when I've been making special effort to not be insulting both here and on the Yahoo list.

Folks on the Yahoo list who initially didn't understand the new Terrain rules lacked university education. Folks on the Yahoo list who discussed Bd/Wb match-ups with the new rules were being so unimaginative. Smug and condescending. Even in this thread some have taken exception to your tone. This is just in the last few days. The pattern here is *you*.

For someone so ready to point out the shortcomings of others (either directly or by implication), you seem to be a particularly slow learner when it comes to online communication. I remember you from the DBM List, and I remember what happened when your behaviour got out of hand there. Why do you think it's OK to be smug and condescending? You don't? Then don't.

[pozanias]

The difference between our posts is that you intended the effect to be insulting whereas I did not. I'm not going to apologize for unintended consequences. I'm especially not going to do so when I've been making special effort to not be insulting both here and on the Yahoo list.

Intent is difficult to know. I was trying to point out that some of the language you use and some of the ways you say things come across as harsh -- whether you intend them to or not. I was only asking you to read what you wrote from Mike's perspective. Anyway, my intent was actually to be helpful (not hurtful), and perhaps my methodology was not the best.

As for the knight quick kill of blade, Mike's comment was in response to Bob's statement that he would like to go back to v1.1 when knights did not quick kill blade.

[larryessick]

Folks on the Yahoo list who initially didn't understand the new Terrain rules lacked university education. Folks on the Yahoo list who discussed Bd/Wb match-ups with the new rules were being so unimaginative. Smug and condescending. Even in this thread some have taken exception to your tone. This is just in the last few days. The pattern here is *you*.

For someone so ready to point out the shortcomings of others (either directly or by implication), you seem to be a particularly slow learner when it comes to online communication. I remember you from the DBM List, and I remember what happened when your behaviour got out of hand there. Why do you think it's OK to be smug and condescending? You don't? Then don't.

I'm not sure that the people on the Yahoo list, or here either, yet understand the terrain rules. I don't think they are convoluted as written. I think that failure to understand them, in particular by native English speakers, is a good indicator of a weak math background. I think that with a good math background people ought to understand them. I think it is an indicator of a general decline in education quality worldwide. And, I think the shoe fits most contributors to the Yahoo list under the age of 50.

I would provide reasons for why I think those things are true but I don't think anyone particularly cares to hear about it. However, the consequence of those thoughts is that, IMO, failure to understand the rule as it is written is a direct consequence of insufficiency of education. Saying so does not lay the blame on anyone, it is in large part an institutional and national problem exacerbated by failures to address the real problems and compounded by the increasing amount of time spent on non-academic administrative tasks by teachers -- something that is forced on them -- and the influx of electronic gadgetry which often distracts from rather than enhances learning.

However, in some cases it is personal faults and where that is the case it isn't particularly wrong to note it.

The question becomes whether we should expect Phil Barker to take the approach that media has taken and reduce the complexity of what he writes so that it is understandable to a less well educated audience. US media, and I would be surprised if it isn't the same elsewhere, intentionally simplifies what is in print and what is presented via radio and television to a vocabulary and sentence/paragraph structure intended for elementary school children. They do this out of necessity in order to ensure they are understood.

Phil Barker, to the contrary, writes in a style developed for technical writing and in doing so assumes a high level of education and the corresponding ability to parse and understand what is written. These things are facts. If you doubt this you should run 3.0 through a readability checker and see what the expected grade level is for the reader. The Introduction itself measures 10th grade 4th month and it is one of the easiest sections. You and others can be personally offended by these facts but it doesn't alter the truth of them.

On my part, I did put the information out in a confrontational way. I could explain why and go back to show examples of what prompted this, but I don't think you really care. I'll leave it as this: I respond to people the way I perceive they are dealing with me.

My tone in this is more confrontational than it has been over the last couple of days. It is because I perceive your post as being intentionally personal and confrontational.

And, while you might have very valid points, posting them in public forums is not likely to engender a response from me that will take those into consideration. Consequently, I've used PMs with some posters when I thought the postings were getting too far out of hand or when I thought continued public discussion had become pointless.

That is worth noting, especially for those who know me from some other form of past life, because I don't generally back away from confrontation. I seldom intentionally start it, but when I think it is there I almost never back down from it.

Regarding blade/warband matchups, testing in a vacuum doesn't demonstrate a whole lot. Unless the matchup is what most people experience in a game it paints a false picture. Pointing out that the lack of imagination, as you put it, skews the results seems to be a point worth making. If you'll go look at the exchange between Nik and me in the Yahoo forum you'll see that there is room for discussion in what I wrote and that what was written wasn't personal, just an observation about the validity of the testing method.

Am I smug? Maybe. I am certainly confident. Does that appear condescending? Perhaps. Is that part likely to change? No, I don't think so, any more than I think it is likely to change for a number of people.

What I will say is, if I haven't set out to be deliberately confrontational in a posting as a response to what I see as a personal attack by someone, my intent is not to convey smugness or to be condescending. However, like people who take things insultingly when insult wasn't intended, I'm not going to spend inordinate time or effort to worry about all those who might find fault.

Lastly, I seldom point out personal shortcomings or faults. My comments are normally general in nature. If they hit too close to home then it might be a case of the shoe fitting -- or hat as was pointed out to me elsewhere. But, unless I say, "Larry, you are a blithering idiot," then observing that people are prone to be blithering idiots is not personal. Even quoting you doesn't make what I say personal or directed at you. I quote in order to give context to what I write, especially in a threaded discussion where many posts may intervene between what I am responding to and the information I am presenting.

When I call you out by name and make an observation -- that is when you'll know I meant you.

[larryessick]

As for the knight quick kill of blade, Mike's comment was in response to Bob's statement that he would like to go back to v1.1 when knights did not quick kill blade.

Mark, thank you for clarifying that. I need to go back and reread it.

[larryessick]

Anyway, I do agree there is a valid argument for blade NOT being quick killed by knights. For me, though, the deciding factor is play balance. When blade were not quick killed by knights, DBA was a boring game at conventions. I played against a LOT of Marians and Vikings. So if its reasonable (from an historical perspective), and I think it is more than reasonable, to have Bd quick killed by Kn and it vastly improves the game, then I support it.

Mark,

This part of your post confused me when I read it and it wasn't until just now when you clarified that Mike was responding to Bob who had said he (Bob) didn't like knight quick killing blade that it made sense.

This is probably my failing. It is the reason why I quote the post I'm replying to so that when others read it they can trace the discussion. I find it necessary in threads like this one that have overarching themes but tend to jump from topic to topic.

When I read Mike's post, because there was no quote of Bob, I understood him to be talking about the thread topic -- that is, 2.2 is good enough for me.

There are two posts between what Bob wrote and what Mike wrote and like others I'm not clear on whether what Bob wrote was in total seriousness or was a tongue-in-cheek parody of the thread's on-going discussion.

Larry

[snowcat]

Larry

I want to believe you; it just doesn't come across that way (well intended) when you do it.

I'm one of the university-educated for what it's worth - and a good number of us find PB's wording more than a little user-unfriendly, despite what we learned at any level of our schooling. :(

[Mark Davies]

How about Impetus (or Basic Impetus)? Any thoughts on that system?
One thing I like about Impetus, and I've not played it, is the larger base sizes, which give scope for more diorama-like elements.

There are two reasons why I think this is good, though inertia keeps me from trying to base any DBA armies in this way. Firstly, why use figures over cardboard squares if you don't maximize the possibility of making the figures look great? Secondly, it'd be great to have more room on DBA bases, as they are so crowded. Often you can't align cleanly and elements get accidentally moved by overhanging weapons. Unfortunately accurate measurement matters for DBA, so this is irritating.

Anyway, it's something that I'd like to see changed, if it weren't so massively disruptive.

[Nick]

I'm glad I am not the only one who feels this way. My companions and I will happily continue with 2.2. There are enough issues interpreting that, let laone learning a brand new version.

[Redwilde]

I'm one of the university-educated for what it's worth - and a good number of us find PB's wording more than a little user-unfriendly, despite what we learned at any level of our schooling. :(

Yea verily!

My math skills are a bit weak, but my language skills are way up there. I taught myself Attic Greek, and from that went right into a graduate program in Classics at Harvard University. I find Barkerese bordering nigh unto unintelligible. And certainly in many instances it absolutely lacks the clarity the author proclaims.

I'd much rather translate Homer's speeches of King Alkinöos.

For those who don't read ancient Greek, imagine if you will a poet laureate who could capture the full tortured syntax of our most recent President Bush and render his speech with all its convoluted glory in shining dactylic hexameter all while using a poetic blend of dialects and chosen archaicisms. That's Homer's portrayal of Alkinöos. I find translating that into English easier than trying to parse Barkerese. Seriously.

[Inari7]

If an author has failed to communicate thoughts or concepts to his audience through writing then that author has failed at his task.

Plain an simple, PB is a bad author. He either does not know his audience or does not know how to write. His writing style screams that he is a pseudo intellectual.

If he was able to write effectively their would be no need for multiple threads here on this forum or an "unofficial guide" puzzling out what he means.
Which begs to question, if his writing is bad, what about his research?

[david kuijt]

Which begs to question, if his writing is bad, what about his research?

Phil writes like the engineer he was. There is no significant correlation between writing skills and research skills. I don't always agree with Phil's research conclusions, but his research is far better than his writing.

[Inari7]

There is no significant correlation between writing skills and research skills. I don't always agree with Phil's research conclusions, but his research is far better than his writing.

Perhaps not his writing, but his unwillingness to change or listen to people. When researching does he incorporate new ideas or does he think he is right all the time based on previous outdated research.

The fact that he writes as an engineer to an engineers and not his audience lends credence to my statement that he is unwilling to change or make changes. both are attributes of bad writers or researchers.

[david kuijt]

Perhaps not his writing, but his unwillingness to change or listen to people.

I'm unsure whether that is age or personality. But either way, his communication skills haven't changed this last decade. He was a curmudgeon in the late 90s, and he's a curmudgeon now.

But curmudgeon and "poor researcher" don't necessarily go together. My PhD advisor was a total curmudgeon, and a widely respected researcher in his field. Same for my father.

[larryessick]

If all that is being written about Phil Barker's failures as an author are true, then why is it that we buy and play his rules?

My point is that it takes a high degree of education to understand him and noting that isn't a bad thing. But that doesn't automatically imply that PB is a bad author.

I would suggest he knows his audience -- and that they will buy his rules. And, he knows the market -- gamers will buy almost anything if it is new and even peripherally associated with even a stray interest they may have. ;)

PB also understands economics -- he knows how much it will cost to produce what he's written and what the expected return on investment is.

Having said all of that doesn't change the fact that it takes a university education to decipher his games most of the time -- or that it would be better if that education were an honors program in England studying technical writing. Those are just part and parcel of the package that is PB and DB games.

But knowing your enemy is half the battle, often more. :up

[arnopov]

Having said all of that doesn't change the fact that it takes a university education to decipher his games most of the time -- or that it would be better if that education were an honors program in England studying technical writing. Those are just part and parcel of the package that is PB and DB games.


PB's style has very little to do with technical writing (for a decent textbook see http://www.amazon.com/Craft-Scientific-Writing-Michael-Alley/dp/0387947663).

It's idiosynchratic and quite horrible. Oh, it certainly can be deciphered, it just requires time and patience (the obsession with university degrees is frankly weird incidently).

Ciao
Arnaud

[elsyr]

My point is that it takes a high degree of education to understand him and noting that isn't a bad thing

Horsefeathers.

I've successfully taught, at the university level, the logic that would putatively be needed to decipher the more abstruse passages in Phil's rules to students who probably had to take their shoes off to count beyond ten, and I was not some paragon of math-teaching virtue. You do not need exceptional intelligence or education to understand such things. All you need is the proper set of tools to apply to the problem and some experience with how to use them.

The bigger problems, in my opinion, occur when applying that tool set properly leads to conclusions (as in the road move quandary on another thread) that are clearly logically correct but clearly wrong in all other ways. Such situations can be laid squarely on the author's doorstep, and go beyond stylistic choices.

Whether or not making familiarity with that particular bag of tricks a requirement in order to understand the rules of a game (and a game whose author professes it to be of the simplest mechanics possible for the intended effect, at that) is a wise or good choice is debatable, but PB's choice seems abundantly clear on the matter. Personally, I would prefer that the rules be both simple AND simply explicable. The two are not mutually exclusive, but in order to achieve both, the author would necessarily have to abandon the minimalist style of which he is so fond.

Doug

[arnopov]

The fact that he writes as an engineer to an engineers and not his audience lends credence to my statement that he is unwilling to change or make changes. both are attributes of bad writers or researchers.

Engineers haven't written like this for a long time, if they ever did.
In the real world, people could die if/when serious stuff is written in such an obnoxious style, and the responsibility of the writer has been recognised.

These days, engineers have to write way way better than PB.

Arnaud

[elsyr]

PB's style has very little to do with technical writing

A very good point. Imagine, if you will, a frantic crew in the control room of a nuclear power plant about to melt down trying to decipher an emergency operations manual written in Barker-ese. :eek

Doug

[pozanias]

If all that is being written about Phil Barker's failures as an author are true, then why is it that we buy and play his rules?



The mechanics of DBA are simply awesome. However, the clarity of PB's writing is horrendous. PB is a brilliant historian that had revelutionary ideas for games. I think the last versions of DBM, DBA, and HoTT were the full fruitions of all his best ideas. I'm not sure he still has the magic touch. I think its the same with all of my favorite bands -- at some point they stop making good music.

[Gascap]

My point is that it takes a high degree of education to understand him and noting that isn't a bad thing. But that doesn't automatically imply that PB is a bad author.


I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Kuijt for translating the rules for all of us humble plebes so that we might enjoy the passtimes normally reserved for the elite.

Having said all of that doesn't change the fact that it takes a university education to decipher his games most of the time -- or that it would be better if that education were an honors program in England studying technical writing. Those are just part and parcel of the package that is PB and DB games.

But knowing your enemy is half the battle, often more. :up

After reading some of PB's stuff, I've felt like this guy:

http://suvudu.com/files/2011/01/face_melt-300x300.jpg

I never considered that the underlying cause might be stupidity or lack of education. I'm glad that's been cleared up. Knowing _is_ half the battle! :up

JM

[larryessick]

I'll remind people that PB is ~80. How he learned to write and the audiences he learned to write to date to the 1940's and 50's. Things in 2011 are significantly changed.

It may be true that people can be taught to decipher Phil's writing provided with the right set of tools. And, it might even be true that they would otherwise not be considered very well educated. That is something of a false argument since we have no training facilities practicing that and we don't require people to attend and pass a proficiency exam before allowing them to play DBA.

It doesn't matter how we slice things, it regularly comes up the same way. Phil's writing is 10th grade plus in it easiest places. Testing of high school students in the US indicates at graduation this is higher than the typical reading ability. You'll find some interesting facts in this paper (http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/nhsc_highschoolliteracy.pdf). Other studies indicate that 50% of American adults are unable to read an 8th grade book.

I know everyone reading thinks I'm being smug, condescending and mean. But I'm just trying to explain some simple truths about our ability to read and understand stuff. We can pretend it all isn't true. Or, we can recognize that there is a real issue and use that to inform the play test group and impose on them to make every effort with Phil Barker to change how things are written.

Let me ask you all, why is there an unofficial guide to DBA? Does it exist because DBA is clear and easy to understand by everyone who plays it? Or, does it exist because when we read what is written we cannot understand what Phil meant without further explanation.

[pozanias]

I'll remind people that PB is ~80. How he learned to write and the audiences he learned to write to date to the 1940's and 50's. Things in 2011 are significantly changed.

It may be true that people can be taught to decipher Phil's writing provided with the right set of tools. And, it might even be true that they would otherwise not be considered very well educated. That is something of a false argument since we have no training facilities practicing that and we don't require people to attend and pass a proficiency exam before allowing them to play DBA.

It doesn't matter how we slice things, it regularly comes up the same way. Phil's writing is 10th grade plus in it easiest places. Testing of high school students in the US indicates at graduation this is higher than the typical reading ability. You'll find some interesting facts in this paper (http://www.betterhighschools.org/docs/nhsc_highschoolliteracy.pdf). Other studies indicate that 50% of American adults are unable to read an 8th grade book.

I know everyone reading thinks I'm being smug, condescending and mean. But I'm just trying to explain some simple truths about our ability to read and understand stuff. We can pretend it all isn't true. Or, we can recognize that there is a real issue and use that to inform the play test group and impose on them to make every effort with Phil Barker to change how things are written.

Let me ask you all, why is there an unofficial guide to DBA? Does it exist because DBA is clear and easy to understand by everyone who plays it? Or, does it exist because when we read what is written we cannot understand what Phil meant without further explanation.

I think what gets you in hot water is that you blame the readers for their inability to understand Phil's writing. I think you have a point to an extent -- but there are many very intelligent, very well-educated people on this forum that struggle to understand Phil's writing. Many of them are 60, 70+ years old and many of them were raised in England (i.e. raised in a similar time/environment to Phil himself).

So, although I do agree that reading comprehension is weak in the U.S. -- the problem of comprehending Phil's writing extends across many continents, age groups, and education levels. So much so that the only reasonable conclusion is that Phil writes in a cryptic and confusing manner. His writing may be technically correct, but that does not make it clear.

Having said all that, Phil is not going to change at this point. I think the only thing most of us wanted was for him to use more bullet points and diagrams. Not too much to ask for.

[Mark Davies]

This is a thread that has been done over many times before, but good writing does not need to be cryptic, and there are plenty of ways to ensure that one is understood without ambiguity. It's just that DBA as presented makes almost no use of any of them: bullet points, diagrams, indices and a glossary of definitions are some. Another would be to put all aspects of a topic in the same place. Why are aspects of combat covered in the terrain section?

It's got nothing, in my opinion, to do with the, usually exaggerated, differences between English on either sides of the Atlantic; it is entirely the idiosyncrasy of the author. I have to read difficult texts as part of my work; it's not something I want to do voluntarily for my hobby. DBA could reach a wider audience if its presentation was improved. I think the Unofficial Guide did this.

[john meunier]

Just for kicks I copied the draft rules into Word and ran a readability test on it.

This is based purely on things like sentence length and word length, so it does not get at the issue of clarity of meaning, but it comes out as 6.5 grade reading level (an 11 or 12 year old).

That test uses the Flesch-Kincaid system.

The Gunning Fog Index for the draft comes in at 13.11. An index of 12 is a high-school senior.

So, we have a nice indication of the variation in readability tests. :) Not sure what any of this says about the rules.

[Bob Santamaria]

I find I can nut out what the rules mean - but then I have been playing Barker rules since I was about 12, starting with WRG 1685-1845 and WRG 7th edition.

The point is not that they are incapable of imparting their intended meaning, but rather that they do it in an opaque fashion. The meanings should be more accessible, and more use of diagrams and bullet points would be helpful.

To be frank, they are not much worse than aspects of Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which I spend much of my life considering and applying. But then, one should need experience in statutory interpretation to play wargames.

[winterbadger]

I am an editor and technical writer. I have, as colleagues, a number of British editors and technical writers, some of whom are close to PB's age. Once or twice, I have shared (as a "can you believe this?" exercise) some Barkerese with these colleagues. They have universally boggled that someone would put their name on a published product that was so confusing and poorly written.

PB's writing style doesn't have anything to do with his profession, his age, or his nationality. It's a very idiosyncratic personal style. He's always written like this, and he always will (may he live long and prosper).

Not being able to understand his writing isn't a sign of poor education or poor English language skills or being from some English-speaking country other than Britain. It has to do with not thinking the way PB does.

I find it frustrating that he won't let someone help him make his writing more accessible to others, but I don't think his style defines him as stupid. No more does not understanding it. I don't see the need to insult one's audience to win a notional point in a debate that isn't going anywhere anyway. PB is not going to change the way he writes.

[Paul Potter]

I don't think we need a 2.3
unless perhaps 2.3 could make reference to the continued use of 2.2
We will never all agree as to what should go into 2.3

For example, I don't like bua's but I will still play a game with someone who wants to use one. I have my war wagons on square bases but if I were playing with some one who does not like this I would use a different army. I think all these differences can be worked out in a friendly manner at the time of the game. plus tourney organizers should be able to call the specifics about which variations are being used - most of us are doing these things already.

-Paul

[Inari7]

Other studies indicate that 50% of American adults are unable to read an 8th grade book.

Let me ask you all, why is there an unofficial guide to DBA? Does it exist because DBA is clear and easy to understand by everyone who plays it? Or, does it exist because when we read what is written we cannot understand what Phil meant without further explanation.

I would hazard to guess that the average player of DBA has a higher reading ability of an 8th grader, but that is only a guess.

The guide to DBA was written because , it is not clear or easy to understand, and when we did figure out what he has written, we need a further explanation for what he meant.

Don't get me wrong DBA is a GREAT game, but it's so hard to find it in that mish mush he calls sentences.

As to how good a researcher he is.....

How much research did he put into 30" boards? How did he come to the conclusion of longer games and more draws.

From what I have read, on these forums he does not even play the game, much less actively play-test it.

As for him knowing his audience, as far as I know he does not even come to the biggest DBA site on the internet, to read posts or offer opinions.

So how much research has he put in to his target audience......... NONE

Are these the marks of a good researcher?
He sure has not done much research on the game he plans to sell.

[Doug]

I think there are a number of issues here that get conflated.

1. Phil is a product of an educational system long gone...
2. Phil writes using English terminology that does not always translate well
3. Phil thinks what he writes is perfectly clear
4. Phil has set himself an arbitrary target for page numbers and length.
5. Phil believes in a narrative structure for his rules, and often includes guidance and background instead of actual rules.
6. Phil also dislikes diagrams in the text and eschews publishing tricks like coloured boxes, breakouts etc.

1 & 2 are closely linked, so for example - the use of terminology like 'astride' a road, which is unclear to an audience for whom this is an archaism. His sentence structure is also often unfamiliar to a 'modern' audience.

I don't think this is going to change radically. Although there have been several constructive changes in clarity in DBA 3, (and indeed between DBMM1 and DBMM2)

4. Is a belief in an economic reality - which is limited by old publishing technology - of the optimum size for a rulebook.

I think he is being badly advised about the economic model for publishing. But he is again - unlikely to change.

3. 5. & 6. Will never change, and means offers of help by qualified tech writers, (myself included) are not considered, and will never be considered.

Alll of which is a good set of reasons why the WADBAG Guide is very useful.

As a Brit of a certain age, educated in a particular kind of school, I suspect that DBA is clearer to me than many others, but I certainly don't see it as being a standalone set of rules that could be handed over to a 12 year old and expect them to play.

[Alan Lauder]

To be frank, they are not much worse than aspects of Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which I spend much of my life considering and applying. But then, one should need experience in statutory interpretation to play wargames.

I laughed ... out loud. :rotfl Yes, too long spent trawling through legislation has provided my introduction to Bakerese 1.0 (well... 3.0 now!).

[broadsword]

FWIW i think Phil's writing style is excellent, sublime, inspired and entertaining. It's just not very clear that he always means exactly what he writes!:D

[Redwilde]

And with the perennial excuse that he's a product of an older educational system... does anybody know what his grades were like? Is this a good or a bad example of the old writing style based on its own merits? :D

[Doug]

And with the perennial excuse that he's a product of an older educational system... does anybody know what his grades were like? Is this a good or a bad example of the old writing style based on its own merits? :D

Do you think it is easy to make an objective judgement as to the merit of a piece written in a particular style? Donne vs Shakespeare Sonnets - compare and contrast. Dickens vs Victor Hugo.

All the above share one thing in common - the prevailing viewpoint that these are 'worthy' writers, and the difficulty of reading them for contemporary (to us) readers. :D

[winterbadger]

And with the perennial excuse that he's a product of an older educational system... does anybody know what his grades were like? Is this a good or a bad example of the old writing style based on its own merits? :D

It's not an example of an "old writing style"; it's just his idiosyncratic way of writing.

[Doug]

It's not an example of an "old writing style"; it's just his idiosyncratic way of writing.

It's a combination of a number of things - see my post #68 in this thread.

[Xavi]

To sumarize:

1. For one reason or another (I will not go there since it is totally irrelevant) it sucks how DBA is written.
2. Current rules writing in the game industry is generally much better than that of DBA. the definition of "better" beiong something along the lines of clear and understandable to most gamers without external help or long hours dedicated to "break the code" in the rulebook.
3. The writing of the DBA rulebook could be improved. Generally that would mean a longer rulebook as well as some cleanup of the current rules.
4. Phil Barker or anyone taking over DBA when he is gone is unlikely to do that rewriting.

Now this is (fairly informed) opinion:
A. This impacts negatively on the sells of the book.
B. The unofficial guide (and the Beattie explanations before that) that PB despises is what made DBA popular in quite a few places (the whole of Spain, at least). No unofficial would have meant no DBA in a lot of places.
C. it is unlikely that DBA 3.0 will see a guide.

Cheers,
Xavi

[Doug]

I don't think C is impossible. I think it is not likely it will be WADBAG.

[broadsword]

The guide was what I needed to get me going in HOTT all those years back. You don't need the guide if you have people who can walk you through a game or two, and that really may be the way PB intended DBA to spread out. But in some parts of the world, you are teaching the game to yourself and a couple of mates. For THAT you need a video, or the WADBAG guide, to get you going...

[Pillager]

I would like to see new rules to eliminate some of the gamesmanship that occurs with kinked lines or awkwardly positioned elements. I appreciate that Phil has attempted to do this in 3.0, but it looks to me as though he didn't get the fix right and that the medicine may be worse than the disease. Getting this right would take some smart, technically gifted writers that possess skills I lack. Or perhaps just use the HoTT rules. I haven't played it enough to know, but I seem to recall people being pretty happy with how HoTT handles this problem.


DBMM 2.0 has fixed that quite nicely.

The wording in the Dec rev of DBA is consistant with the somewhat more detailed DBMM rules:

Pg9

cannot make front corner-to-front corner contact because other enemy, part-element spacing between enemy, or a terrain feature prevents this, that enemy element must pivot and/or slide sideways into such contact or fight as if in full contact and overlapped.

Extra wheeling, pivoting and/or sliding sideways movement of less than 1 BW that is the minimum necessary for a group or single element to line up in contact as required above is free.

[Doug]

The guide was what I needed to get me going in HOTT all those years back. You don't need the guide if you have people who can walk you through a game or two, and that really may be the way PB intended DBA to spread out. But in some parts of the world, you are teaching the game to yourself and a couple of mates. For THAT you need a video, or the WADBAG guide, to get you going...

I tend to agree. The density of DBA is a real problem unless you have someone to show you the game. (To be fair it is not unique in this.. I read and re-read the Force on Force rulebook, but I only 'got it' when someone showed me the game on a table and took me through it.)

A video is actually an interesting suggestion. You could put it online, include the link in the rulebook and show a couple of things. So maybe - setting up a game, how to do movement, and how to do combat, then advanced bits on 'choosing an army' - some good tactics etc. Persuading Phil to set up a youtube channel might be challenging though!