PDA

View Full Version : Where are the battle reports?


larryessick
12-17-2011, 11:43 PM
Lots of hand wringing about how horrible things will be with blade now pursuing. But I'm not seeing much in battle reports.

Five games by me reported in the Battle Reports portion of the forums, two others there as well, and one that I can see in this section of the forums. In those 8 games the blade pursuit never got tested or when it was tested it ended with blade side victories 4 out of 5 times.

I think it worth observing that the testing that is getting reported doesn't seem to be supporting of the hand wringing that is going on.

Alan Saunders
12-18-2011, 03:37 AM
Lots of hand wringing about how horrible things will be with blade now pursuing. But I'm not seeing much in battle reports.

Five games by me reported in the Battle Reports portion of the forums, two others there as well, and one that I can see in this section of the forums. In those 8 games the blade pursuit never got tested or when it was tested it ended with blade side victories 4 out of 5 times.

I think it worth observing that the testing that is getting reported doesn't seem to be supporting of the hand wringing that is going on.

I'd test some games, but every time I try and read the rules with a view to doing so I get a headache, and just play HOTT instead :)

But I will persevere. It's so long since I played DBA (possibly 10 years), that I can pretty much treat 3.0 as a new game, rather than a new edition of an existing game. I'd say I'd have no preconceptions, but I can see myself comparing it to the One True Set :)

Richard Lee
12-18-2011, 03:48 AM
Lots of hand wringing about how horrible things will be with blade now pursuing. But I'm not seeing much in battle reports.

Five games by me reported in the Battle Reports portion of the forums, two others there as well, and one that I can see in this section of the forums. In those 8 games the blade pursuit never got tested or when it was tested it ended with blade side victories 4 out of 5 times.

I think it worth observing that the testing that is getting reported doesn't seem to be supporting of the hand wringing that is going on.

Doesn't mean that people are not trying the rules. Maybe not everyone who plays a game feels the need to write it up. Maybe people feel that if other people have already made a relevant point then it is superfluous to repeat it at length.

Si2
12-18-2011, 07:42 AM
I played three games this week - didn't post a full battle report but have posted pics of the set-up (the bit Sue specifically asked for comments on...)

All three games were very short...

Si2

Bob Santamaria
12-18-2011, 07:48 AM
I got a game of FOG in this weekend but no DBA. Had to complete the FOG for a round robin I am in with friends. Made me keen to play even what may turn out to be bad DBA. It will still be quick.

jcpotn
12-18-2011, 08:06 AM
I played three games this week - didn't post a full battle report but have posted pics of the set-up (the bit Sue specifically asked for comments on...)

All three games were very short...

Si2

DBA 3.0 = Nasty, Brutish, and Short? :??? :D

Jeff

Ammianus
12-18-2011, 10:16 AM
Along with reports I'd like to hear others opinions on the revised movement allowances. Just how short are the games involving cavalry armies?
Over at DBA, Yahoo Group,, the blades/warband controversy is raging.

larryessick
12-18-2011, 11:33 AM
Many good comments.

Some observations.

First, if reports are not posted then while information may be getting back to the Barkers it isn't reaching the remainder of us who are struggling in some cases to decipher what certain things mean.

Second, if reports are not posted then the ideological debates about the evil of 3.0 and virtue of 2.2 will continue as there is nothing to provide substantive evidence for either point of view.

Third, if reports are not posted then the hue and cry over the end of the world occurring due to blade pursuit will continue as facts will not intrude on religious fervor.

Fourth, if reports are not posted then real changes like the challenges of reduced deployment or increased movement speed will not be discussed and their merits will not be obvious.

So, battle reports are necessary and they should be posted. Even if it is not a post per game, some sort of summaries should be made with key observations being noted.

mdsanderson
12-18-2011, 11:41 AM
I believe that there has been more than enough already posted for people to decide. You either are going to accept the changes and move forward or not. 2000 more post of bickering will not convince anyone nor will battle reports. The lines are already being drawn and have been forming for some time. For those of you moving forward with V3.0 good luck to you, it was fun while it lasted.

Mike Sanderson

Doug
12-19-2011, 05:41 PM
I believe that there has been more than enough already posted for people to decide. You either are going to accept the changes and move forward or not. 2000 more post of bickering will not convince anyone nor will battle reports. The lines are already being drawn and have been forming for some time. For those of you moving forward with V3.0 good luck to you, it was fun while it lasted.

Mike Sanderson

So you already gave up a game not even finalised yet ?

mdsanderson
12-19-2011, 07:18 PM
There seems to be no reason to believe that Phil will take under advisement the need for clarification. He may give a verbal answer but that will be subject to change. He most definitely will not add verbiage to his perfectly written rules manuscript. The diagrams that some seem to think are going to be published will be no more detailed that what is in V2.2. He as already stated in the past he does not believe in diagrams. The gaming book by Sue with a game played between Jack and Jill will also be very generic and unhelpful. I have seen enough of V3 to convince me that it is not the game for me. It may satisfy others who are looking for a different game than V2.2 and I wish them all the best.

Mike Sanderson

kontos
12-19-2011, 07:37 PM
So you already gave up a game not even finalised yet ?

Do you believe it will change sufficiently to convert those that do not like it now into something they will?

Just a question.

Doug
12-19-2011, 08:00 PM
Do you believe it will change sufficiently to convert those that do not like it now into something they will?

Just a question.

Well, Phil has already agreed to some changes to the playtest draft. And I am prepared to bet he has something up his sleeve for the Final version. I would say - wait and see.

My feeling at the moment is that there is a group of players who have decided they don't like it, period, and nothing and no change will ever convionce them.

kontos
12-19-2011, 08:33 PM
Well, Phil has already agreed to some changes to the playtest draft. And I am prepared to bet he has something up his sleeve for the Final version.

I don't know whether to be hopeful or scared. :D

Lobotomy
12-19-2011, 10:13 PM
Third, if reports are not posted then the hue and cry over the end of the world occurring due to blade pursuit will continue as facts will not intrude on religious fervor.

Larry - I believe you overstated the point. The comment about impetuous blades is one in a long list of issues. And it was only added in the edition Sue posted. It has never been in the rules before so attention was drawn to it. Please do not misstate what the issues are, as the blade is minor, IMO, compared to many other issues.

Lobotomy
12-19-2011, 10:17 PM
Well, Phil has already agreed to some changes to the playtest draft. And I am prepared to bet he has something up his sleeve for the Final version. I would say - wait and see.

See, Doug, that is the problem, "up his sleeve." It sounds like he is a magician who will pull a rabbit out of his sleeve. Is that really necessary?

Doug
12-19-2011, 10:46 PM
See, Doug, that is the problem, "up his sleeve." It sounds like he is a magician who will pull a rabbit out of his sleeve. Is that really necessary?

No, it isn't. It is just I have seen it in other development processes so I would not be prepared to swear it wont happen.

But he is making changes based on the feedback to date, and the issues register, so that's very positive and encouraging.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 12:11 AM
Larry - I believe you overstated the point.

Well of course I did. Everyone seems to be so dramatic over everything it seemed appropriate.

Being relatively new to the discussion concerning 3.0 I am observing that a lot of the objections really just come down to "I don't like it." I can't say that this is an unfair criticism, it is the one I level at DBMM and FoG so I can fully support it.

What I have trouble with is the necessity of people to constantly chime in with that refrain. If people don't like the revision and don't intend to play it then what is it that they are adding to the conversation by constantly reminding everyone that this is their position? Is it a battle for hearts and minds?

I am certainly not prestigious enough to sway entire sectors of the DBA community by my mere position on an issue. Perhaps some people think that they are and so find it necessary to continually remind us that they have rejected 3.0 -- I don't know.

There are some people who are looking at 3.0 and trying to find fault, simply generating faults where none exist. They are throwing crap at the wall and trying to see what sticks. That is not helpful either.

What is helpful is identifying real issues with the rules -- issues of unclear wording, issues of broken mechanics and so on. Everything else is just noise that drowns out the meaningful discussions.

You state that there are several issues. What are they? Is there a list, is it enumerated, have we seen it?

My observation is that those claiming massive faults are overstating their point. Are there 20 problems with 3.0 that you can list and which are not of a "this is different" or "I don't like it" nature? Are there 10?

As I watch the discussion I see the following areas as ones of concern:

1. Terrain placement.
2. Troop types.
3. Movement speed.
4. Deployment.

I find the terrain placement rather clever but horribly bad. I think it would do well for HotT with some adjustments but believe it does nothing to encourage historical battlefields. I've referenced this elsewhere in the forums.

I find the troop types debate pointless. I think it is wrong to count DBE as two elements lost and that it is right to give them adjustments in combat. I think those adjustments need to be more specific to the type of DBE. Again, I've referenced this elsewhere in the forums.

I think the movement speed is a red herring. People will adjust to the speed changes. It does have an impact though because combined with the deployment changes it can make for very fast games. I see this as a problem as I don't know if 1 and 2 turn games will generate enough excitement for players. I do believe that what will happen is that players will everywhere opt for larger boards in order to gain more maneuver room.

I think the deployment issues are also a bit of a red herring in that what is mostly happening is people are not able to do as they've done in the past. On the smaller boards it mostly results in reserves. On larger boards it has no real impact. Like with movement, I think the players will respond by moving to the larger board sizes. Each of these two points I've made elsewhere as well.

Other than these, everything else is a matter of testing out wording to see how badly we can twist it out of shape. That may seem wrong but the years have taught me that this is exactly what people will be doing and the "good" players will have every trick uncovered and ready to spring on their opponents come the first 3.0 competition.

So, playtesting is needed to find these things and, hopefully, minimize those cases where only the "good" players have the information at hand.

If you have a larger list of issues, I'd like to see it. I think measuring the legitimacy of the concerns will be enlightening.

Doug
12-20-2011, 12:51 AM
1. Terrain placement.
2. Troop types.
3. Movement speed.
4. Deployment.

1. I much prefer the 3 version to the hackneyed and sterotypical v 3 terrain - win the dice roll as a mounted army ? Billiard table.. as an Auxilia army.. no good going anywhere to be seen. Result.. games won or lost on the aggression roll.

2. I am happy with these. Some tweaks needed to clarify things like warband moving a second time.

3 & 4. I think larger tables will become de rigeur - but players will also not deploy as far forward as possible, and reserves will become more important.

And yes - wording does need to be ironed out.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 12:59 AM
1. I much prefer the 3 version to the hackneyed and sterotypical v 3 terrain - win the dice roll as a mounted army ? Billiard table.. as an Auxilia army.. no good going anywhere to be seen. Result.. games won or lost on the aggression roll.

A legitimate point.

My son and I were talking today about the balance between DBA being a way to replicate history and it being a game. There are times when, for the sake of enjoyability, the game side has to take a bit of precedence.

This could be one of them.

mdsanderson
12-20-2011, 01:16 AM
As you mention liking and disliking are a matter of taste. I am sure the list that I have for not moving on to V3 is somewhat different than the next guy. I have found that some of the reasons people have stated for liking the new set are completely incomprehensible to me. You, for instance, have stated that you find the placement of terrain to be better in some ways. In another thread you stated that most ancient battlefields are relatively flat. Most wargamers generally take the point of view that the carpet piece they are playing on represents flat surface with no features. In my part of the world is the state of Kansas. It is renowned for its flatness and indeed if you drive through it appears flat and great place for sending your knights and blades to crush your lesser enemies. Gamers who have knights and blades generally feel you are cheating them if you put terrain in their way. But the truth is that even flat Kansas has gullies and ravines and undulations and brambles and thorn-bushes and prairie dog villages and creeks. It is not flat and marching your heavy foot across it is not the same as marching across a Wal-Mart parking lot. In the level of the game such as V2.2 there is all kinds of friction caused by the dice and command control and it all happens inside the base and is invisible to the gamer. Allot of gamers do not like the control the defender has on the setup of the terrain, it interferes with their ability to send those knight and blades to crush the lesser armies. To me the ability of the defender to use his knowledge of his land to give his lesser troops a fighting chance was a great feature. That is just one for your list. I have a number of others but like you said it is all a matter of what you personally think is important.

Mike Sanderson

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-20-2011, 01:42 AM
I agree that the terrain placement for 2.0 and 2.2 was too predictable, but I think 3.0 has swung the pendulum too far the other way. There has to be a happy medium.

dicemanrick
12-20-2011, 01:51 AM
Lets get real, guys...the changes from 2.2 to 3.0 are a LOT longer than the few cited by Larry and Doug:

(In no particular preference)

Double based elements (now count as half the requirement to lose a game with no better performance against mounted, bows or psiloi)

Supporting psiloi killed if anyone they support dies.

Change in basic victory conditions to 4 total dead and enemy has less.

New terrain generation which still can have a board with NO bad going.

More BUA rules...sally and gates (There was a real clamor for more BUA rules, I'm sure!)

Camps now destroyed if taken

Deployment now mandated to areas (regardless of the terrain!) and allowing combat on the first move of the game

Greater movement speeds which change 2.2 dynamics (and measurement from front corners which means that DBEs are not as clumsy as before)

All single elements conform to groups if in open (when one element represents a sizable amount of men)

Break off only by mounted

Shooting arc and eligibility changed

New combat factors for troops (elephants, horde, blade)

Recoilers will ALWAYS be caught by pursuers (20mm deep aux caught by 15mm warband or blade)

Elements only flee off their own base edge (troops landing on Waterways will not flee into the water, mounted on sweeps will not be forced off the board)

Increased command control for Light Horse (essentially the whole board on 24" board)

Element pursuit rule changes for blades, pikes, and elephants

Larger boards may minimize some of the problems, but Phil's snide comments about "American" larger boards seem to indicate that he thinks the game should still be played on a 24" board.

I'm sure there are more, but these are significant differences for me. 3.0 is a DIFFERENT game than 2.2. We all have to decide if it's a BETTER game.
It's good to discuss the changes, but we all know we'll have to wait and see what the final printed version is like. Until then, we can go round and round discussing Phil's writing style and the proposed rules changes, but the outcome is still in the air for many of us.:sick

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-20-2011, 02:11 AM
Oh yeah Diceman....you are right. I hardly recognize this new version as the DBA that I love. I wouldn't have minded a few tweaks to DBA 2.2, but this new version has far too many changes for my taste thus far. I want to give it some more playtests, but the issues were easy enough to see before you even gave the game a test spin.

winterbadger
12-20-2011, 10:24 AM
Well, Phil has already agreed to some changes to the playtest draft. And I am prepared to bet he has something up his sleeve for the Final version. I would say - wait and see.

So he is, as before, going to add previously untested material to the rules at the last minute, just before publication? What a clever idea!

My feeling at the moment is that there is a group of players who have decided they don't like it, period, and nothing and no change will ever convionce them.

I think you are right. Some have read drafts of rules and gotten to that point. Others have played one or more drafts and gotten there. You seem convinced that it is some sort of deep moral failing to decide that one doesn't like a game until one has played it dozens of times. Thanks, but I can smell Limburger; I don't have to eat it to know I won't like it.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 11:09 AM
You, for instance, have stated that you find the placement of terrain to be better in some ways. In another thread you stated that most ancient battlefields are relatively flat.

Fair criticism.

With respect to terrain I think that boring is historical (for the most part) and that when terrain wasn't perceived as at least neutral most armies opted to avoid battle if at all possible.

I'm reminded of the wars between medieval French and English where English armies marched all around France but there were very few actual battles. Or, the Carthaginian invasion of Italy which lasted for years but with few major battles during the entire time. War in our period was often a matter of strategic maneuver and pitched battles were avoided unless forced by having been out maneuvered.

This is why, as I see it, most battles take place on boring terrain that is mostly closed on one or both flanks and open in the middle. That does not describe every battle. But, more battles fit that description, as far as I can tell, than any other.

Does that mean such terrain is good for DBA as a device for recreating historical conflict? I think it does. If we are replicating history then being mostly history like in army structure and battlefield design seems prudent.

Does that mean such terrain is good for DBA as a game? I can be persuaded that it is not. My personal feeling is that it is too simplistic and should be more complex. But, that doesn't necessarily fit the goal of DBA which is to provide a simple game. Maybe, for its intent, the terrain rules are adequate.

Rich Gause
12-20-2011, 11:15 AM
A legitimate point.

My son and I were talking today about the balance between DBA being a way to replicate history and it being a game. There are times when, for the sake of enjoyability, the game side has to take a bit of precedence.

This could be one of them.

I think when the core of you game system is every army has 12 elements, no more, no less it is pretty obvious that the game side has taken priority over the history side. I am fine with that; I play DBA because it is a great game(with some historical flavor). I don't like it when somebody tries to push an inferior game mechanic because he thinks it is "more historical" when in most cases we just don't know to the level of detail needed to say with any certainty whether it is or not. If I wanted to play a wargame where history trumps game I would do Lost Battles, which looks interesting but not as much fun as DBA. It is ludicrous to claim history when playing a game where ahistorical opponents representing huge disparities in numbers and military technology fight on roughly equal terms. How can a Chinese imperial army representing 50,000 or more get beaten by a Dark Age Viking army representing 5,000. How can a New Kingdom Egyptian army fight with any sort of equality with a late medieval army? Because it works to make DBA a great game, thats why.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 12:38 PM
Double based elements (now count as half the requirement to lose a game with no better performance against mounted, bows or psiloi)

Yes. I agree this is a problem. I think you'll find it in my observation about element types.

Supporting psiloi killed if anyone they support dies.

I don't know that this is particularly disastrous. I have to test this some to see if the worry matches the practice. By my own admission it doesn't seem intuitive and we have been playing as if it only applies to the Ps if the element in front is killed. Same for pursuit.

Change in basic victory conditions to 4 total dead and enemy has less.

Except for an army not losing if its general is killed, this is exactly the same as 2.2. You seriously consider the change allowing armies to continue if their general is dead to be that serious? I think it was the Siege of Tyre where, when the Macedonians thought Alexander had been lost in the assault, they went mad with anger and slaughtered nearly the entire populace in response.

New terrain generation which still can have a board with NO bad going.

Well, I just responded to another post concerning the preponderance of historical battlefields. But, I will point out that what is typical does not equate to each and every time. That it is possible to have no bad going is not automatically a bad thing. That players might abuse this in tournaments could be a bad thing. I see the concern but not the evidence. For what it is worth, I've now played 6 games using the posted rules. Only one had no terrain and I set it up that way intentionally. Only one other had possibility for no terrain and my son instead opted for a WW and a Rough to go with his compulsory road.

More BUA rules...sally and gates (There was a real clamor for more BUA rules, I'm sure!)

BUA is permitted in 2.2. It is prohibited in tournaments not by the rules but by the community. Inclusion of BUAs is part and parcel of DBA being both a game and a tool for replicating history. The Catalan Company fought entire battles inside of cities. Towns and villages lend their name to many well known battles being nearby or part of the battlefield. Inclusion of rules for BUAs is reasonable. What will almost certainly happen is what took place with 2.2 -- for tournament play they will be outlawed just as BUAs are now.

Camps now destroyed if taken

Name any 20 battles where camps were sacked and tell us in how many of those the camps were retaken. I can only think of one and I can't even remember with certainty the combatants or the name of the battle. The fact is that in history if you lost your camp you were screwed most of the time. In fact, most of the time if you lost your camp you lost the entire battle -- it would be reasonable if loss of a camp was an automatic defeat like losing a stronghold is in HotT. Why is it wrong for the rules to take this historical fact into account?

Deployment now mandated to areas (regardless of the terrain!) and allowing combat on the first move of the game

I can sympathize with this. My observation is that when looking at a battlefield from our era the deployment area is always centered on the maps. If a terrain feature is the focal point it shifted to the center, as it were. As I've observed elsewhere, the deployment rules and some of the terrain rules seem designed to do two things. First, to better enable cavalry armies. Second, to break gamers of ahistorical deployments and force them to do as real commanders did in maintaining reserves. I can understand disputing the way in which these goals are accomplished.

As to first move combat, that is in the player's control. Nothing forces them to deploy so far forward. If they choose to do so then that is a possible consequence. No different from a half-dozen or more other games for this same time period. If it is something you don't want to have happen in your game, don't deploy forward. This is hardly a rules problem. It is a people problem.

Greater movement speeds which change 2.2 dynamics (and measurement from front corners which means that DBEs are not as clumsy as before)

Yes it does. But so what? Isn't this really a "it isn't like 2.2" complaint? It doesn't have anything to do with the game per se and it doesn't have anything to do with history or replicating history. It just has to do with what you've identified as "dynamics." Although you may not remember it, the "dynamics" changed dramatically when DBA was introduced in the middle of the WRG7.5 heyday. And, the "dynamics" have changed in various ways thru revision and update to the original DBA rules.

All single elements conform to groups if in open (when one element represents a sizable amount of men)

Is there some particular reason that you would think that only certain types of units would conform to larger bodies? This is entirely a game mechanic. In a "real" situation it wouldn't matter that half of Company A and half of Company B make contact -- both would engage the enemy. It is just a rule needed to make elements conform to one another so the rest of things work.

From a "real" perspective, the smaller body will in fact conform to the larger as I've observed thru many field maneuvers while in service and as those who have been to war can attest. The only time this isn't the case is when the smaller unit is dug in or occupying a "BUA." These modern analogies are a bit misleading. But, when caught in the open smaller bodies do in fact conform to larger ones in the "real" world (usually just long enough to break, be destroyed or be captured).

[to be continued....]

larryessick
12-20-2011, 12:39 PM
Break off only by mounted

At Hastings (Senlac Hill) the Norman infantry broke off from the English and took turns with the cavalry (and with the shooters -- mostly bow) in attacking the English lines. The break offs from combat took place not only by infantry but by infantry that nominally had the same movement rate as those they were attacking.

OTOH, this isn't a typical event and doesn't seem to be attested to in many battles through our period. Except for skirmishers, foot mostly seems to have been stuck in and stayed in once committed. The notion of greater speed for things like warband or auxilia is mostly a game mechanism as historical evidence doesn't seem to show much real difference. Only skirmishers, psiloi for DBA, actually seem to have been routinely able to pull this off. What we term auxilia -- or Greek Ekdromoi detached from hoplite formations to drive off skirmishers -- were fast enough to scatter psiloi but not fast enough in return to avoid heavy infantry if forced to battle.

Breakoff by mounted, OTOH, is well attested to throughout history when fighting infantry. The rules should probably allow Ps break off and mounted break off. But, restricting it to only mounted isn't a big deal since Ps flee from heavy foot -- a close enough simulation.

Shooting arc and eligibility changed

Yes it did. Maybe it was wrong in 2.2. There are entire groups playing the changed shooting mechanics in other rules not set in this period. People playing HotT have been playing very similar mechanics forever.

New combat factors for troops (elephants, horde, blade)

Yes there are. And, to be brutal about it, it is about time. The current combat factors are out of kilter with respect to what we know about history.

Recoilers will ALWAYS be caught by pursuers (20mm deep aux caught by 15mm warband or blade)

As I mentioned before, history seems to indicate that there is not enough real movement difference for infantry types that this not be the case. A human stepping backwards cannot move further than a human stepping forward can. It has to do with the way legs work. Recoil is not rout. Auxilia don't turn and run from the blade or spear to their front. There is no historical and no biomechanical reason that auxilia should recoil further than blade or spear can pursue. Since element basing is artificial to start with there is nothing special about base sizes concerning ability. Base sizes are a remnant of WRG7 and used with figure counts for visual information to players more than any other purpose.

Elements only flee off their own base edge (troops landing on Waterways will not flee into the water, mounted on sweeps will not be forced off the board)

The board's edges are an artificial boundary to start with. The scope of DBA is such that boats are not really part of the formula. Fleeing to the water is suicide if boats are not there. This is evidenced by many battles. The natural inclination of units is to run towards friends. Enabling them to flee to their own base edge does not seem particularly ahistorical.

Element pursuit rule changes for blades, pikes, and elephants

A lot of history gets uncovered in 10 years. Even more in 20 years. The mechanics that seemed appropriate in DBA1 and continued on thru DBA2.2 have been, in some cases, shown to be inaccurate presentations of historical actions.

Secondly, from a game perspective, changes in some mechanics necessitate balancing changes in others. A change driven by new understandings of history might make some mechanics obsolete. But changing the mechanics might derail the entire game. So adjustments are normal.

These pursuit changes fit one or both of these situations.

Larger boards may minimize some of the problems, but Phil's snide comments about "American" larger boards seem to indicate that he thinks the game should still be played on a 24" board.

Well, the observation about "snide" comments is mostly irrelevant to the discussion. As I understand it, you are a champion of the larger table sizes. If the changes in 3.0 result in the larger table sizes becoming standard why is it that you are objecting?

I'm sure there are more, but these are significant differences for me.

I have observed that many of the objections being raised are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. In my responses above I have used color to highlight some of them. If the answer is highlighted in dark red like this is then it is something that I think is just crap thrown at the wall.

The other objections are serious ones that deserve some further discussion and that might have merit in terms of trying to obtain clarity from Phil Barker or in trying to convince him to take an alternate approach.

I will note that Phil Barker is generally disinclined to take alternate approaches -- something I observed in DBMM development. From observation the best remedy is to play test and demonstrate that something does not work well in the game.

I do not expect Phil Barker to change what happens with DBE, psiloi support or terrain selection and placement. I think he might be convinced regarding psiloi break off but suspect he'll respond that their fleeing is sufficient. I think he might be convinced to loosen deployment restrictions if the result is that players will opt for larger tables -- but I suspect this will have more to do with preserving his stand on appropriate table size than on changes in his views on deployment.

I think that the players will handle the deployment and the movement speed changes by playing on bigger boards. I personally think the 18BW square suggested by another poster is probably ideal. I can see players pushing for as much as 20BW square.

Lets get real, guys

Yes, let's. You have hardly any objections that are genuinely serious. You make a whole host of objections to make it seem as if there are major issues.

You do a disservice to the entire group by wasting our time on trivial things and hindering the discussion of serious issues.

And, you don't seem to be playing any actual games to demonstrate that even one of your concerns has any legitimacy.

Get real indeed. I think you should. :up

larryessick
12-20-2011, 12:52 PM
I think when the core of you game system is every army has 12 elements, no more, no less it is pretty obvious that the game side has taken priority over the history side.

Rich, I hear you, I empathize with you, I think what you wrote has some merit, I also think it is mostly just a bunch of hooey.

What we think about DBA from a game or history stand point is almost totally irrelevant. We are not the authors.

What Phil Barker thinks is what is important. And he clearly thinks that the effort to replicate history most normally has the higher priority.

Everything you've observed can be applied to every ancient/medieval rule set Phil has authored from WRG1 to the present DBMM and DBA revision. And, it could equally apply to every other rule set that we know about regardless of author.

It is a fine sentiment and one I can understand. But it also means very little to the discussion.

pozanias
12-20-2011, 01:16 PM
Yes, let's. You have hardly any objections that are genuinely serious. You make a whole host of objections to make it seem as if there are major issues.


I didn't read his list as "objections", but rather as differences. Rich's point was that 3.0 is very different from 2.2 -- whereas others seem to have been saying the opposite. But he very clearly concluded that different is not inherently better or worse, just different.



You do a disservice to the entire group by wasting our time on trivial things and hindering the discussion of serious issues.

I have NEVER found Rich's posts to be a waste of my time. Speak for yourself, but I value his input.

I know Rich personally, and I have talked with him about 3.0 -- and I can absolutely assure you that he entered this whole process with an open mind. In fact, although he seems to have a slightly negative stance on 3.0 as it exists now -- I think he would be quick to embrace it if certain fixes were made.


And, you don't seem to be playing any actual games to demonstrate that even one of your concerns has any legitimacy.


It has been stated before that Rich was part of one of Bob's 3.0 test groups and has played many games.

pozanias
12-20-2011, 01:21 PM
I think when the core of you game system is every army has 12 elements, no more, no less it is pretty obvious that the game side has taken priority over the history side. I am fine with that; I play DBA because it is a great game(with some historical flavor). I don't like it when somebody tries to push an inferior game mechanic because he thinks it is "more historical" when in most cases we just don't know to the level of detail needed to say with any certainty whether it is or not. If I wanted to play a wargame where history trumps game I would do Lost Battles, which looks interesting but not as much fun as DBA. It is ludicrous to claim history when playing a game where ahistorical opponents representing huge disparities in numbers and military technology fight on roughly equal terms. How can a Chinese imperial army representing 50,000 or more get beaten by a Dark Age Viking army representing 5,000. How can a New Kingdom Egyptian army fight with any sort of equality with a late medieval army? Because it works to make DBA a great game, thats why.

This is mostly my position as well. DBA should be as historical as possible, but ulimately its the game play that matters most. Or put differently, I would much rather play a fun, intellectually challenging game with historical flavor than a boring game that is perfectly true to history.

john meunier
12-20-2011, 01:39 PM
I'm sure there are more, but these are significant differences for me. 3.0 is a DIFFERENT game than 2.2. We all have to decide if it's a BETTER game.
It's good to discuss the changes, but we all know we'll have to wait and see what the final printed version is like. Until then, we can go round and round discussing Phil's writing style and the proposed rules changes, but the outcome is still in the air for many of us.:sick

Great list.

As you and others point out, some of the changes are "tweaks" and some are fundamental shifts in the way the game will play. My brief play testing on the draft has convinced me that I'll need about 15-20 real games (against other humans) to come to enough understanding of the changes to decide whether I like the game.

New players will make this decision much more quickly because they are not carrying around the baggage of "but that's not how 2.2 works" whispering in their ears all the time. New players will play a couple games and either be hooked or decide its not for them.

Doug
12-20-2011, 05:18 PM
I think you are right. Some have read drafts of rules and gotten to that point. Others have played one or more drafts and gotten there. You seem convinced that it is some sort of deep moral failing to decide that one doesn't like a game until one has played it dozens of times. Thanks, but I can smell Limburger; I don't have to eat it to know I won't like it.

Nope, when did this ever become a moral thing? I wouldn't presume to comment on anyone's morals. I am genuinely just trying to offer as much information as I can, as I have through the whole process.

If you like 3.0 fine, if you don't, that's no moral failing.

All I have an interest in is seeing that misinformation is not widely circulated and that some people's attempts to poison the well by doing so are not entirely unanswered. So for example, I have posted clarifications where they were available.

Rick has given a pretty good summary of the changes - if they are too much for you, don't play DBA3.0.

Alan Saunders
12-20-2011, 06:02 PM
I find the terrain placement rather clever but horribly bad. I think it would do well for HotT with some adjustments.



I'm working on it :)

(Indeed I've tried a couple of games using it, but I can't really add to the DBA 3.0 discussion regarding it, as I'm using my own ideas with regard to size and availability of terrain. All I can say is that I'm getting battlefields no stranger than you get when you use HOTT's current 'free-form' terrain.)

Lobotomy
12-20-2011, 10:22 PM
Yes, let's. You have hardly any objections that are genuinely serious. You make a whole host of objections to make it seem as if there are major issues.

You do a disservice to the entire group by wasting our time on trivial things and hindering the discussion of serious issues.

And, you don't seem to be playing any actual games to demonstrate that even one of your concerns has any legitimacy.

Get real indeed. I think you should. :up

I have known you for many years Larry, but you have not been around for tournaments in many a year (decade or more?). But who the **** do you think you are responding to Diceman in such a manner. You have less than no clue about what you are talking about when it comes to his knowledge regarding DBA. When was the last time you played in any tournament in DBA. I know I have not seen you and I have not heard anyone saying they have seen you.

We have been playing 3.0 since the May 6, 2011 edit. At least 3 major changes have been made because of our observations (primarily by Diceman). I know you have not had the opportunity until this version. We have played more than enough games to know what are the changes (NOT objections are as you classified what Diceman has said). I have let a lot pass about you commenting to others and myself. But this was too much. Diceman is a former NICT winner and knows the rules as well as many and better than more. I would not suggest you put your knowledge of RULES up against him at any time (having been the author of 3 sets of rules, though in the '80s and early '90s).

What you may believe it trivial is NOT in our opinion. But, instead of treating Diceman with the respect he deserves you show your true colors in how you responded as quoted above. You have further shown yourself beneath contempt.

I suggest you find another forum to troll as your opinions have been demonstrated as unworthy of consideration by the overwhelming majority of the participants here. And please, do not show up at any East convention as, IMHO, you will not be welcome.

I know that this violates the recent posting by Chris regarding civility, but you have forfeited any right to civility with your response to Diceman. Of all the players I know, he is one of the most respectful of other players who I have ever seen. Yet you only show distain. I hope this post has returned your distain 4 fold, as you have earned it.

If Chris decides to ban me for this response, so be it. Diceman deserves this defense.

Larry Chaban

larryessick
12-20-2011, 10:44 PM
If Chris decides to ban me for this response, so be it. Diceman deserves this defense.

He ought not. Defending people is a meritorious thing to do, especially when you feel they are unfairly slighted.

I am aware that many games have been played prior to this and that many things have been raised to Phil Barker as a result. That does not mean it is unfair to ask what the basis of the complaints is.

You are correct that I have not been on the DBA tournament scene in years. A decade or more is quite accurate. But, I am not different from anyone in that who I am does not automatically cause me to be right.

I know that in a world where things are decided by popularity and emotion it is difficult to discuss things based on their merit. But, my objections to his observations are based on their merit and not on who is making them.

There is nothing wrong with defending your friend, even vigorously as you have done. But after it would be beneficial if you could focus on the merits of the items under discussion.

This is all that I am trying to do. That I think many of the observations are without or with very little merit is not entirely immaterial. But, what will sway those who are looking at this as something other than a popularity contest or an emotional response is to know the evidence and merit of each point.

dicemanrick
12-21-2011, 12:09 AM
Wow, tempest in a tea pot!

I'm sorry, Larry (E), but you misconstrued my post. I did not say that I objected to any of the points I listed (although I do with some of them) but I just listed some of the differences between the versions.

If you feel I'm wasting your time, feel free to put me on ignore. I won't cry....

I've played many games during play-testing as part of Bob's group, and Phil has listened to some of our findings. This last "open" play-test version had some differences from the last, and will have to be gamed more for better judgement. I don't really want to list credentials and say that I've played more 3.0 games than you have, but I will if it helps.The games I played were against good opponents well-versed in DBA 2.2 or DBM.

Right now I find myself more in the camp of the "2.2ers", perhaps because I enjoy that game so much. My current opinion may well change once the 3.0 version is finalized. As I said in the post, 3.0 is a DIFFERENT game. Still, it's only a game, and I'll play which ever version I find friends to play it with.

If worst comes to worst, I can always play DBM with my friends or go back to Napoleon's Battles and Spearhead.

I will, like you and everyone else who enjoys DBA, have to decide on that individually.

I don't know if you play computer games, but one of my past favorites was Micropose's Master of Orion. When version 3 was released years later it was a different game and it flopped with a great crash. I just hope 3.0 doesn't do the same.

Rich Gause
12-21-2011, 12:23 AM
Wow, tempest in a tea pot!

I don't know if you play computer games, but one of my past favorites was Micropose's Master of Orion. When version 2 was released years later it was a different game and it flopped with a great crash. I just hope 3.0 doesn't do the same.

Sorry Diceman but MOO 2 was the version that improved on MOO 1 and was a great game that is still played today, I played it less than a week ago myself. MOO 3 was the one that changed greatly from the previous successful versions and was a flop.......... I hope that isn't a bad omen or anything for DBA............

david kuijt
12-21-2011, 12:29 AM
If Chris decides to ban me for this response, so be it. Diceman deserves this defense.


If Chris bans anyone, Larry C., it wouldn't be you. Not if I have anything to say about it.

I recommend to you the ignore button. It is almost cheery, looking at the twenty postings a day I don't have to read. Even though I object to the concept of letting one person flood the forum with badmouthing blather without response, it has really helped my blood pressure not to have to read it.

dicemanrick
12-21-2011, 12:31 AM
OOPs. you're right, Rich! I'll correct the typo...I was trying to show it was the THIRD edition, just like this one for DBA.

:D

Kingo
12-21-2011, 12:33 AM
Played three games of 3 today V Alex Novakov.

Two Successor V Successor and one Successor V Roman.

All games went six to eight bounds,

We are happy with these rules, but have a few suggestions.

Alexandrian type Companion Cavalry should be DBE Cv NOT Kn.

Scythe Charriot should keep the new factors, but have the double move as in 2.2

Elephant should be 4 V inf 5 V Cav.

On a personal note I would like to see Macedonian type pike be optional DBE as well.

Kingo

David Schlanger
12-21-2011, 12:56 AM
If Chris decides to ban me for this response, so be it. Diceman deserves this defense.

Larry Chaban

Larry - if you get banned, then I want to be banned too. I have never been tempted to use the ignore feature of this forum until now. I have always looked forward to reading the wide variety of opinions and perspectives that this international DBA community can provide. Now I am torn between wanting to entirely ignore all of Larry E's posts and at the same time wanting to look on kind of like I am driving by some massively horrific car crash or something. Both choices have impacted how I feel about participating on this forum.

DS

snowcat
12-21-2011, 03:22 AM
Alexandrian type Companion Cavalry should be DBE Cv NOT Kn.

Scythe Charriot should keep the new factors, but have the double move as in 2.2

Elephant should be 4 V inf 5 V Cav.

On a personal note I would like to see Macedonian type pike be optional DBE as well.

Kingo

Why, why, why and why?
Interested in the reasons for these suggestions...
:)

Alan Lauder
12-21-2011, 04:50 AM
I recommend to you the ignore button ...

I feel better already :up

Kingo
12-21-2011, 05:21 AM
Why, why, why and why?
Interested in the reasons for these suggestions...
:)

Alexandrian type Companion Cavalry should be DBE Cv NOT Kn.

Because they are armed like their opposition, but fought in wedge and moved fast. (compared to say Persian cav)

Scythe Chariot should keep the new factors, but have the double move as in 2.2

Because in 2.2 it was a "Micky Mouse" troop type, in 3 its not a "terror" weapon unles it gets the double move.

Elephant should be 4 V inf 5 V Cav.
In 2.2 it worked fine, why change it.


On a personal note I would like to see Macedonian type pike be optional DBE as well.

Sometimes Pikes deployed 32 ranks deep on the battle field, if Theban hoplites can get DBE so should pikes.

I personally would always base Pike in 8 figures blocks, they look so much better on the table top :up and find wheeling harder.

Kingo

snowcat
12-21-2011, 05:31 AM
I thought Companion cav were used as shock troops, not cavalry equally suited to skirmishing and shooting to disorder their opponents first.

Kingo
12-21-2011, 05:50 AM
I thought Companion cav were used as shock troops, not cavalry equally suited to skirmishing and shooting to disorder their opponents first.

Agreed, shock cavalry V Persians, so DBE Cv, move faster gain +1 support. Look better on the tabletop.

winterbadger
12-21-2011, 09:08 AM
Agreed, shock cavalry V Persians, so DBE Cv, move faster gain +1 support. Look better on the tabletop.

But the look isn't the thing--it's how they fight.

The Hetairoi are one of the defining types of Kn element. They didn't skirmish, they carried no missile weapons; the way they beat their opponent was by the morale and physical shock of a concentrated charge, not by a combination of shooting and attacks against troops disordered by shooting. They fought in wedge, but not in the *deep* wedges represented by DBE.

If 3.0 has changed Kn so that Cv are more powerful, then something is wrong. But I don't think that that is a fault anyone has laid at its door. Game mechanics should determine what elements represent what troops, not look.

Martyn
12-21-2011, 09:29 AM
Had an opportunity for a couple of test games, Polybian Roman vs Gallic. (5-4 and 2-6)

What I felt was as follows:
• The armies meet very quickly even if one stays still, this makes deployment more critical.

• Wb and Bd pursuit makes for a lively game, once combat is initiated it soon gets messy.

• Do Bd become disadvantaged by the pursuit rule? I don’t think so, on the whole the Bd line wins en-mass so pushes the Wb about and can use single line over laps if Wb are doubled up. In my tests I had no Bd kills due to pursuit into rash positions (the pursuits did happen but maybe the dice gods were favouring the Romans).

• Pip management is still a problem in the middle of the combat. Poor pips hamstring the ability to take advantage of opportunities that the pursuits can create. Also elements that have defeated opponents can be left isolated and bypassed if pips are not available.

• Closing the door is easier, the longer move enables an element left behind by a pursuing colleague to move up a base depth and still close the door.

• Wb subsequent move is more powerful. Although the move has not changed in relation to other movement, it has in relation to the board size. A double Wb move is a quarter of the board, so they can sit on a hill for example and charge a long way to hit an enemy element or sit back a bit further as a reserve and still hit a breakthrough without cluttering the area directly behind the battle line or getting caught up in recoils etc.

Going to try some other match ups to see how Pyrrhic impetuous Pk and El work against Bd.

Doug
12-21-2011, 10:15 AM
Had an opportunity for a couple of test games, Polybian Roman vs Gallic. (5-4 and 2-6)
<snip>

So did you enjoy it? Was it challenging? Was there anything that felt egregiously wrong and needs to be changed?

Kingo
12-21-2011, 11:30 AM
But the look isn't the thing--it's how they fight.

The Hetairoi are one of the defining types of Kn element. They didn't skirmish, they carried no missile weapons; the way they beat their opponent was by the morale and physical shock of a concentrated charge, not by a combination of shooting and attacks against troops disordered by shooting. They fought in wedge, but not in the *deep* wedges represented by DBE.

If 3.0 has changed Kn so that Cv are more powerful, then something is wrong. But I don't think that that is a fault anyone has laid at its door. Game mechanics should determine what elements represent what troops, not look.

If Alexandrian Companion cav are Kn, then they need to be allowed to move at Cv speed.

The one size fits all approach of the rules cannot catch the flavour of different troops of similar types. This is where much more could be put into the lists to give individual character to the different armies.

Martyn
12-21-2011, 01:41 PM
So did you enjoy it? Was it challenging? Was there anything that felt egregiously wrong and needs to be changed?

Only a couple of games with very restricted element types (will be trying with Pyrrhic and Later Carthos which should produce a very different feel), also the games were played solo.

On the whole it was an enjoyable game (I didn’t expect anything else). The pursuits did take away some of the decisions needed in combat (not necessarily a bad thing playing solo) but there were plenty of other things to concentrate on. This is probably a reflection more on the army choice, with 15 impetuous elements on the table, than on how the game would normally play.

The game works well and if coming to it fresh I would have no problem with it, but it does work differently than 2.2. In particular the changes make it move much quicker. I can see that could cause problems for some. In my position, trying to teach youngsters, it is probably a benefit even if temporary.

So far the experience is positive, it is just different. I do not have a hugh emotional investment in 2.2, but I can see why some may not like the changes.

broadsword
12-21-2011, 03:45 PM
Set victory at 5 elements, not 4. We played about 30 games that way last summer. They were extremely... interesting. I think with DBA 3.0, 4 elements dead can come up really fast. That 5th might allow the opposition to still make a game of it?

Kingo
12-21-2011, 04:19 PM
Set victory at 5 elements, not 4. We played about 30 games that way last summer. They were extremely... interesting. I think with DBA 3.0, 4 elements dead can come up really fast. That 5th might allow the opposition to still make a game of it?

+1 :up:up "Perfik"

snowcat
12-21-2011, 06:31 PM
If Alexandrian Companion cav are Kn, then they need to be allowed to move at Cv speed.

The one size fits all approach of the rules cannot catch the flavour of different troops of similar types. This is where much more could be put into the lists to give individual character to the different armies.

Sorry but you can say that about all kinds of troops that get the broad brush categorisation that is the essence of DBA troop types. And the DBA definition of Kn is more apt for Companions than Cv. You want Kn(F)? There's another game for that... ;)

winterbadger
12-21-2011, 07:35 PM
If Alexandrian Companion cav are Kn, then they need to be allowed to move at Cv speed.

The one size fits all approach of the rules cannot catch the flavour of different troops of similar types. This is where much more could be put into the lists to give individual character to the different armies.

But the "one size fits all approach of the rules" is what makes DBA DBA. Start adding special rules to every army list, and you have something like Warhammer, but without the diagrams, pretty pictures, and (comparatively) clear rules.

Kingo
12-21-2011, 07:46 PM
Sorry but you can say that about all kinds of troops that get the broad brush categorisation that is the essence of DBA troop types. And the DBA definition of Kn is more apt for Companions than Cv. You want Kn(F)? There's another game for that... ;)

If I want to play big battles, I play WRG 6th. Still the best. I have a yahoo group,

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/WRG6th/

Kingo
12-21-2011, 07:47 PM
But the "one size fits all approach of the rules" is what makes DBA DBA. Start adding special rules to every army list, and you have something like Warhammer, but without the diagrams, pretty pictures, and (comparatively) clear rules.

If we are going to have one size fits all, then DBE must go, :D

Kingo

Doug
12-21-2011, 07:55 PM
If we are going to have one size fits all, then DBE must go, :D

Kingo

Its a balancing act, and the same people who want special features added for some things often complain bitterly about new complexity in other areas. I say keep it simple, there are other games for players who want the extra bits. The DBE rule is suitably simple, but even so has been criticised from boths ides (as being both unnecessary and being not sophisticated enough).

winterbadger
12-21-2011, 11:48 PM
If we are going to have one size fits all, then DBE must go, :D

Kingo

You'll get no argument from me! :up

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-25-2011, 02:27 PM
Two more play tests last night.

Ottomans vs Wallachians in the first game. The Wallachian player wanted bad going everywhere. He chose largish terrain and it all ended up in quadrant 1 and 2. Since the pieces were large, no more than one would fit in an area and abide by the rules. We figure you now need smaller pieces or place the first piece near the quadrant corner in the board center if you want more terrain to fit. Of course, this left one side of the table wide open space. I chose to invade from the side with the woods to deny it to my enemy. It was all over rather quickly in 3 turns....the Wallachians needed some terrain and did not have any. The old first bound psiloi multiple move (more than 2 moves) might have helped a little. Might need to bring that back.

Marian Romans vs Spartacus. My opponent tried again for max terrain and ended up with only one patch of woods in a corner. He put his cav general and a psiloi on his flank farthest from the woods. I took the roman cav on that flank. I killed a psiloi and his general flanked and killed a cav. Then my opponent decided to try and cram his troops into the area of the bad going. I used danger zones to mess up his effort somewhat. Eventually, his forces were contained within a large Roman "L.". Battle was joined and the game played itself again and blades advanced into bad going to die and war bands followed up to their doom. Spartacus and his cav eventually died when a blade killed a war band and Spartacus faced a double overlap. This game took longer, as Spartacus ran to the wood in an effort to face the Romans on favorable ground. Again, the terrain rules hurt my opponent who felt he needed the terrain....but I think if I were Spartacus I would have faced Rome in the open...and pray for good dice when the battle joined. Still my opponent only lost 4G-3 since blade pursuits helped put them into bad positions for relatively easy kills as the game went on autopilot.

My opponent and I still don't prefer 3.0 to 2.2. It is a totally different game. The terrain rules are interesting, but hurt the low aggression armies. I would prefer a less drastic terrain rule change. Maybe let the defender place terrain as in 2.2 and then give the invader a chance to remove some features and then choose his board edge?

Doug
12-26-2011, 12:13 AM
My opponent and I still don't prefer 3.0 to 2.2. It is a totally different game. The terrain rules are interesting, but hurt the low aggression armies. I would prefer a less drastic terrain rule change. Maybe let the defender place terrain as in 2.2 and then give the invader a chance to remove some features and then choose his board edge?

Thanks for the report. I think people will start using smaller terrain pieces. The terrain rules don't 'hurt' low-aggression armies in my opinion, they do hurt people who want to bring a low aggression army optimised to fight in bad going, and then complain when they have to fight on a billiard table, equally the cavalry armies who face a board with virtually no clear space.

I personally think we need a balance where the game is not won or lost on the defender/attacker roll, and both sides have some chance to fight.

Alan Saunders
12-26-2011, 12:49 AM
We figure you now need smaller pieces or place the first piece near the quadrant corner in the board center if you want more terrain to fit.


I've been trying a facsimile of the DBA 3.0 terrain system in my HOTT games recently, and have also come to this conclusion; if you want lots of area terrain, it needs to be small, otherwise you risk losing most of the pieces you choose.

I chose to invade from the side with the woods to deny it to my enemy.

A viable tactic, but I have found that if the defender is quick they can catch you before you get out of the terrain. Obviously this may only work with certain army combinations.

I should say that in my HOTT variant, the terrain is laid using the DBA random system, but I still use the HOTT 2.0 method of determining which edge the attacker gets - 4, 5, 6 on one edge, 1, 2, 3 on each of the other three.

Rich Gause
12-26-2011, 12:51 AM
Thanks for the report. I think people will start using smaller terrain pieces. The terrain rules don't 'hurt' low-aggression armies in my opinion, they do hurt people who want to bring a low aggression army optimised to fight in bad going, and then complain when they have to fight on a billiard table, equally the cavalry armies who face a board with virtually no clear space.

I personally think we need a balance where the game is not won or lost on the defender/attacker roll, and both sides have some chance to fight.

I think the draft 3.0 rules do a pretty good job of doing that for bad going adverse armies, in the process they pretty much make bad going dependent armies non-competative unless vs another bad going dependent army. As a defender you can almost guarantee no relevant bad going, which was the same as in 2.2, what is differerent is that as a defender you can't dictate that there will be relevant bad going which makes armies with lots of Ax and Ps very disadvantaged.

Doug
12-26-2011, 01:48 AM
I think the draft 3.0 rules do a pretty good job of doing that for bad going adverse armies, in the process they pretty much make bad going dependent armies non-competative unless vs another bad going dependent army. As a defender you can almost guarantee no relevant bad going, which was the same as in 2.2, what is differerent is that as a defender you can't dictate that there will be relevant bad going which makes armies with lots of Ax and Ps very disadvantaged.

Should bad going dependent armies be an army of choice though? It's a serious question, as my concern is that most armies did not fight battles in the middle of woods or a marsh. As a defender in 3.0 you can ensure there will be some bad going - but you are very unlikely to get the complete extreme you can guarantee in 2.2.

From a 'game' perspective I think it is very bad for a game to be decided on the aggression roll. Under 2.2 if you took an Auxilia army and won the roll, you could absolutely guarantee either a draw or a win. That to me is unequivocally a 'bad thing'.

Under 3.0 you are very unlikely to get a terrain that entirely suits one player rather than another. You are much more likely to get terrain that doesn't suit either perfectly. I personally think that is a good thing.

Doug
12-26-2011, 01:53 AM
As a defender you can almost guarantee no relevant bad going

Sorry Rich, I missed this bit.. which is the same as currently exists. But as defender you can not quite guarantee bad going everywhere. Which I personally think is better for the game. You would have to be very unlucky not to have at least two quarters containing substantial bad going.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-26-2011, 02:07 AM
If we don't like games dependent on an aggression roll, then why have aggression ratings at all? How about having tournament organizers set up terrain and randomly choose each round what table a pair of combatants will fight on? This new terrain system will simply lead to fewer appearances by auxilia and psiloi armies and an even stronger showing from traditional tournament tigers. With the old system, at least the auxilia/psiloi armies would get a chance at throwing a wrench into the plans of the players who favor the power armies.

I am in favor of some changed to the terrain rules, but the new ones don't seem balanced. The low aggression army that has arable terrain is guaranteed to get good going and can choose his enemy's approach route by road placement.

Alan Saunders
12-26-2011, 03:08 AM
The one size fits all approach of the rules cannot catch the flavour of different troops of similar types.

I regard this as the thing I like most about things like DBA and HOTT - All Knights Are Impetuous And All Warband Brittle. One size fits all.

Doug
12-26-2011, 03:46 AM
With the old system, at least the auxilia/psiloi armies would get a chance at throwing a wrench into the plans of the players who favor the power armies.

I am in favor of some changed to the terrain rules, but the new ones don't seem balanced. The low aggression army that has arable terrain is guaranteed to get good going and can choose his enemy's approach route by road placement.

I agree with your first point, but the concern is 'extremes'. Why should one player be able to win one die roll, and then force his opponent to commit suicide or call a draw. It makes for a nonsense.

Xavi
12-26-2011, 09:01 AM
Auxilia/psiloi armies (and warband-heavy ones as well) only tended to appear if they had a low aggression. Catalan company, agression 3 warband armies and similar were almost unheard of in our open tournaments (Catalan company being somewhat of an exception since like everybody else we are somewhat chauvinists and some people have this army in their arsenal).

Xavi

Rich Gause
12-26-2011, 10:51 AM
Sorry Rich, I missed this bit.. which is the same as currently exists. But as defender you can not quite guarantee bad going everywhere. Which I personally think is better for the game. You would have to be very unlucky not to have at least two quarters containing substantial bad going.

They need to be opposite corners to be relevant.................

Rich Gause
12-26-2011, 10:57 AM
Should bad going dependent armies be an army of choice though? It's a serious question, as my concern is that most armies did not fight battles in the middle of woods or a marsh. As a defender in 3.0 you can ensure there will be some bad going - but you are very unlikely to get the complete extreme you can guarantee in 2.2.

From a 'game' perspective I think it is very bad for a game to be decided on the aggression roll. Under 2.2 if you took an Auxilia army and won the roll, you could absolutely guarantee either a draw or a win. That to me is unequivocally a 'bad thing'.

Under 3.0 you are very unlikely to get a terrain that entirely suits one player rather than another. You are much more likely to get terrain that doesn't suit either perfectly. I personally think that is a good thing.

I think the 3.0 rules would work fine if you allow the defender to "call" any one terrain placement die roll. That would ensure that a BGDA(badgoingdependentarmy) would have a chance to win the battle, otherwise I just can't see using them unless in some sort of themed event.

Rich Gause
12-26-2011, 11:01 AM
I agree with your first point, but the concern is 'extremes'. Why should one player be able to win one die roll, and then force his opponent to commit suicide or call a draw. It makes for a nonsense.

I think a big part of the problem might be your scoring system. If a draw is better than a loss that is probably why people try to get them when they feel disadvantaged. We avoid draws like the plague here, and that comes into effect in terrain placement as well, put too much out and you make it more likely that you will lose which is what a draw is scored as.

Rich Gause
12-26-2011, 11:04 AM
I agree with your first point, but the concern is 'extremes'. Why should one player be able to win one die roll, and then force his opponent to commit suicide or call a draw. It makes for a nonsense.

but that is exactly what happens in 3.0 except it is just for the good going armies and it is even worse than 2.2.........

If there was a requirement to have 2 pieces of bad going it might work.

winterbadger
12-26-2011, 11:58 AM
A number of people have insisted that all ancient/medieval battlefields were predominantly flat, open, featureless terrain. I would beg to differ.

I think the impulse when making broad, sweeping statements like that is to think of all the Edward Creasy-like Great Battles--the famous ones fought by Greeks and Macedonians and Romans. All of them, of course, armies with lots of heavy foot, who of course fought battles, when they could, on pieces of flat, open, featurelesss terrain because that was where their armies fought best.

But even if we look at Creasy's The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, while there are battles like Marathon and the Metaurus and Chalons, there are battles like the Athenian defeat at Syracuse (which invovled fighting across a river), the Teutoberg Forest (one of the best asncient examples of Bad Going), and Joan's battles at Orleans (the fights at St Loup and Les Tourelles, which made her famous, were essentially assaults of BUAs).

And that's just in Creasy. Most of the armies of the ancient and medieval world did not show up in his history, nor in the other Top Ten Ancient Battles books that everyone reads in high school. There is more to the history of this period than the armies of the Greeks and Romans, or the Hundred Years English and French. There are the Illyrians and Thracians, the Early Franks and Early Slavs, the Georgians and Armenians, the people of the Eastern North American forest and the Tupi of the Amazon. To say that these peoples all fought their battles in flat, featureless terrain is simply to ignore history.

john meunier
12-26-2011, 12:37 PM
A number of people have insisted that all ancient/medieval battlefields were predominantly flat, open, featureless terrain. I would beg to differ.




And just as important here, when you are in mostly flat terrain even a small rise can become a significant piece of terrain.

There are not many pieces of the Earth that are habitable by large numbers of humans that had any given square mile with nothing that would count as terrain in DBA.

winterbadger
12-26-2011, 12:48 PM
And just as important here, when you are in mostly flat terrain even a small rise can become a significant piece of terrain.

True. Now, some of them may not count as terrain that would be represented in DBA, But take, for example, the field at Chalons, also referred to as the Catalaunian Fields. "Fields" certainly suggests an absence of Bad Going; but even here, a steep ridge was accounted by most to be the central feature of the battlefield and something that gave the possessor a marked advantage--certainly not flat, featureless terrain!

jcpotn
12-26-2011, 12:51 PM
but that is exactly what happens in 3.0 except it is just for the good going armies and it is even worse than 2.2.........

If there was a requirement to have 2 pieces of bad going it might work.

How about reducing the requirement of 2-3 pieces of Optional terrain to simply 2? That way the max number Bad Going terrain pieces are reduced, their presence still felt but some open space still available.

Jeff

winterbadger
12-26-2011, 12:54 PM
How about reducing the requirement of 2-3 pieces of Optional terrain to simply 2? That way the max number Bad Going terrain pieces are reduced, their presence still felt but some open space still available.

Jeff

Not sure, but I think Rich is going in the opposite direction, that there's not enough Bad Going for BGo-dependent armies, not that there's too much.

jcpotn
12-26-2011, 01:03 PM
Not sure, but I think Rich is going in the opposite direction, that there's not enough Bad Going for BGo-dependent armies, not that there's too much.

I am perhaps guilty of not reading all the posts lately on many of the threads:o, trying to dodge the baboon shyte as it were. Now that the filters are working I'll try harder.

Of course, I am refering to DBA 2.2 as it stands today. Don't know what 3.0 says.

Jeff

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-26-2011, 01:15 PM
I think you could go with the 2.2 terrain set up by the defender, then allow the attacker to attempt to remove each piece he wants to with a die roll. More terrain, more chance it is removed. Yet, if the die roll is say a 5 or 6, some of the terrain is very likely to remain.

Rich Gause
12-26-2011, 01:21 PM
Not sure, but I think Rich is going in the opposite direction, that there's not enough Bad Going for BGo-dependent armies, not that there's too much.

Its not so much how much there is as where it is. If you have 4 small pieces around the board edge it doesn't really matter. How close the BG is to the middle of the board is what is important. One medium(3x2BW or so) piece in the middle of the board might be all you need, except now you can't even do that. Two medium pieces in opposite corners 1-3 bw or so from the center is enough also, except to get that I am going to have to take the max pieces of BG and even then I might not get it or I might wind up with too much BG which might mean the game doesn't finish in time and ends with a double loss(what people using broken scoring systems refer to as a draw).

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-26-2011, 01:30 PM
In my 3 playtests so far the defender only got the gaggle of terrain he wanted once. I ended up the invader in every game. In one game, the defender got one piece of terrain in one quarter and attempted to make his stand there....unsuccessfully. He actually could have faced me in the open (Spartacus vs my Romans) though. In our game of Wallachians vs Ottomans, Vlad got two pieces on one side of the table and I duly chose to invade from that side. The Wallachians had little chance on that featureless terrain. He sure could of used that old first turn psiloi ambush!

larryessick
12-26-2011, 01:54 PM
Its not so much how much there is as where it is.

This is certainly true but I don't know that the associated complaints are valid.

Present terrain rules do not favor exceptionally large terrain as there is a high probability that at least some of it will not be placed. And, there is a reasonable chance that not every quadrant will end up with terrain and that can be bad for armies depending on the terrain as part of their tactics. As this tactical consideration governed army composition, it seems appropriate that the terrain should favor the defending army to a non-negligible but also non-overwhelming degree.

I have two proposals to address the challenge this presents, each being exclusive and precluding the other.

1. Allow the defender to designate the side of the board they want to defend rather than allowing the invader to designate the side of the board they want to attack from. This simulates the defender's greater knowledge of the terrain. This is my preferred solution as it is the easiest change.

2. Allow the defender to reserve 1 piece of optional terrain until after the attacker selects their base edge. Defender can now place that 1 piece of terrain in either of the two quadrants nearest to them, a gentle hill can span both quadrants IAW the rule on gentle hills. This is my less preferred solution as it requires writing some additional rules.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-26-2011, 07:00 PM
Well Larry, your suggestions would be improvements. #1 would have helped my opponent in one game and #2 would have been helpful to my opponent in two of the games we played.

David Brown
12-26-2011, 07:21 PM
Hannibal said.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about having tournament organizers set up terrain and randomly choose each round what table a pair of combatants will fight on?

>>>>>>>>>>>

The rules mention pre-set terrain as an option.

I like it for comps;

a) it can set up interesting tactical problems by making up a table that a diced system can never build.

b) it saves time

c) it stops formulaic terrain

d) can guarantee a level of terrain quality and presentation

e) can ensure that there are fewer dead games where either or both players think the terrain means they can't win.

However you need to have a v experienced player set up the terrain to ensure there are no blunders.

For many years (20?) I used pre-set terrain at 6th/7th/ DBx comps. I had the luxury of setting terrain the night before and then on the morning of the comp review the terrain and imagine how I'd fight a battle from each side.

david b