PDA

View Full Version : 2.2 vs 3.0


herr zinnling
12-18-2011, 04:31 PM
Do you think it is possible that the majority of the DBA community will keep playing version 2.2 and 3.0 will be rejected?

Do you know of a wargame that has been more popular in its older version than in its newer version?
(I started playing wargames 6 years ago, so my experience is limited.)

I'm asking because my friends always prefer the newest edition of a given rule set, no matter what.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-18-2011, 04:36 PM
Hard to say. I think the supporters for 3.0 are fewer, but more vociferous in its defense. I will give 3.0 more play testing, but I don't care much for the fast foot moves and the impetuous blade and pike. My next test will be a foot army versus a mounted heavy opponent.

david kuijt
12-18-2011, 05:15 PM
Do you know of a wargame that has been more popular in its older version than in its newer version?


Every game ever played has a life cycle. There is a time when nobody played the game because it hadn't been invented yet; there will be a time when nobody plays it in the future. During the life cycle of a game, there will be a time when it is most popular; times when its popularity rises, and times when its popularity falls. All of that is obvious when you think about it.

New versions of a game can cause a resurgence of interest -- that's what happened to DBA when v2.0 came out, eleven or so years ago. Very successful. New versions of a game can damage interest in a game. If you look at the history of WRG, of DBM, of any long-standing wargame with many editions, you can find many examples that were successful (interest rose) and unsuccessful (interest dropped).

External factors also have an impact -- most usually, the creation and popularity of other games. DBM was a game that was created (having a major impact on the existence of WRG 7th at the time), became arguably the most dominant ancients game of its era, and died after 15 or 20 years of popularity. The major factors in its demise were the disagreement of its two authors, each of which went on to create his own game (DBMM for Phil Barker, FOG for the other guy).

When a major change occurs, the risks are higher. But it still might be successful, or it might do serious damage to the game's popularity (the number of people who play the game).

bork
12-18-2011, 05:42 PM
Do you think it is possible that the majority of the DBA community will keep playing version 2.2 and 3.0 will be rejected?

Do you know of a wargame that has been more popular in its older version than in its newer version?


I'd say the Wadbag guide helps to make that quite possible. I haven't tried 3.0 yet, but among my friends consensus is that dba is such a simple and self-contained system, that it'll be preferrable to stay with the older version if it turns out to be the better version.

Games Workshop had a third core system called Epic or Space Marine back in the day. Small scale (6mm?) mass combat. Loads of fun, reasonably popular, but quite complex. Then they updated it and renamed it Epic 40,000. It was the most horribly boring, bland rulesystem imaginable, so the oldtimers abandoned it, and no new players picked it up. It pretty much died overnight.

Haardrada
12-18-2011, 06:03 PM
I think there is always resistance to change as most people find it unsettling at the very least. Phil and associates have made the changes to reflect what they see as the neccessary amendments to Dba 2.2. The real test of how good version 3.0 depends on how far the new rules redress the failings of 2.2.

We must not forget that version 2.2 has its flaws (so too will 3.0 when the rules are picked over!) and the forums are testimony to this and that my friends is part of the joy of the hobby!

I too am suspicious of the persuit rule for blades and pike but do understand that if all goes well the impetus will provide success or otherwise, possibly lead to defeat. So victory is not so scientifically guaranteed and old lady luck can change the game.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-18-2011, 06:12 PM
DBA 2.2 was already a very popular game. It truly needed no changes.

DBA 3.0 (so far) has MASSIVE changes and is no longer the same game. The army lists also seem to be on their way to experiencing similar massive changes. It really seems that this has a lot more to do with DBMM than DBA, no matter how much the proponents of DBA 3.0 protest that it isn't the case. It is on course to dividing the DBA community. I am hoping that in North America at least, DBA 2.2 will be able to remain the game of choice. We have a fabulous DBA community here and I would hate to see it go away.

mdsanderson
12-18-2011, 06:38 PM
The problem will be to get people to stay with V2.2 as written or will they add their own fixes and play inside a small group. I think it will lose its universality and then will fad away. V3.3 will die by virtue of being on auto-pilot and also its new shortness.

Mike Sanderson

PubliusTerentius
12-18-2011, 06:57 PM
Have you ever considered that the army lists are more work than the rules?

The things we should be unquestionably grateful to Phil for are creating a core set of rules that allow people to play against strangers. Phil's rules, from the earliest WRG (I started playing WRG 4th edition after I bought the Purple Primer) to the DBx series did just that: they allowed us to compete and build armies in a shared community.

But those rules have changed over time. 7 Editions of WRG Ancients. 3 editions of DBM. 4 published editions of DBA. DBMM. Not to mention the Renaissance Rules.

What has been remarkably stable and pretty much universally valuable has been the WRG army lists. These puppies are a true asset. Even folks who play FOG and Might of Arms refer to the DBM army lists. The 2.2 lists are ported directly from these lists.

There is a lot more work that goes into the army lists than into the rules. I am really glad Phil has done and appears to continue to revise those lists. I am happy to award Phil the title of Listifex Maximus High Priest of Army Lists. Vale!

But I have also played Phil at DBA several times. There are NASAMW irregulars who only play once in a blue moon and usually while drinking that understand the rules better than Phil. We should acknowledge him as a great innovator for coming up with the system and a great scholar and synthesizer for collating the army lists. But I don't hold Phil as an expert in DBA at all.

When DBM arrived on the scene, development and work on WRG 7th stopped. A community of players wanted to stay with the pre-DBM style system and kept playing it for twelve years after the last update. Eventually these players who played regularly and really understood the rules took over a new edition called Warrior that incorporated their experience as amateur historians and game players. (see for yourself at http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/history.htm)

Yes, you can continue playing 2.2 for another dozen years. Or more.

As I have suggested elsewhere, I encourage those who may be perturbed by all the 3.0 kerfuffle to play games and paint lead. I am happy to play whatever version you like (hey my Scots-Irish were Warband in 1.1 not Aux!) My choice is 2.2 plus the now "normal" modifications that have been made by our community of amateur historians and players.

We have a good thing now. No sense wasting it.

Alan Saunders
12-18-2011, 06:57 PM
Games Workshop had a third core system called Epic or Space Marine back in the day. Small scale (6mm?) mass combat. Loads of fun, reasonably popular, but quite complex.

The problem was not that it was complex - the mechanisms were simple and very effective - but that each new army or range of figures they produced had exceptions or additions to the rules that didn't always tie in with earlier releases. There was no organisation or co-ordination of how particular troop types interacted. Stuff was released willy-nilly and had obviously not been properly tested (or the testers used a lot of house-rules that they never saw fit to pass on to lesser mortals).

Strangely the new version was obviously an attempt to deal with the problem by streamlining everything. I didn't find it bland - I just couldn't follow how it all worked, although I recall there were some interesting mechanisms in it (I liked the blast markers, for example).

I based all my Epic stuff for HOTT, and have had far more use out of it since I did so.

Bob Santamaria
12-18-2011, 08:45 PM
When DBM arrived on the scene, development and work on WRG 7th stopped. A community of players wanted to stay with the pre-DBM style system and kept playing it for twelve years after the last update. Eventually these players who played regularly and really understood the rules took over a new edition called Warrior that incorporated their experience as amateur historians and game players. (see for yourself at http://www.fourhorsemenenterprises.com/history.htm)

.

Once you had learned to play it Warrior was a very very good game. I still don't miss it. Too much intellectual effort required for peripheral things.

larryessick
12-18-2011, 09:28 PM
I watched the development of DBA, DBM, DBMM. I watched the revisions to DBM and now DBA.

The opposition to new mechanisms and new ways of doing things is always very strong. Mostly, it disappears once the new version appears.

Fractures seem to take place not with versions but with changes in titles. DBMM failed to carry the DBM player base with it. Warrior has carried the WRG7.5 player base because FourHorsemen bought the rights to WRG7 -- it is essentially the same group of players.

The only time that I've known a previous version to maintain a hold on players is the change from WRG6 to WRG7. There remain to this day WRG6 players who organize and play WRG6 tournaments having never transitioned to 7th edition.

My guess is that the DBA community will ultimately transition to DBA 3.0 for purely pragmatic reasons. DBA 2.2 will be out of print, 3.0 will be in print, the new players will be coming with 3.0 in hand, it will be more troublesome trying to move them backwards than it will be for the 2.2 players to move forwards.

All told, the differences between 2.2 and 3.0 are actually very minor even though there are a lot of people acting as if they are of epic proportions.

Terrain placement is different.
Deployment is different.
Movement rate is different.
Some combat interactions are different.

Most of the rest of it is pretty trivial.

Of these, deployment and movement rate will probably be mitigated by the community moving to the larger sized tables. This will also have an impact on the terrain placement changes to some degree.

So, I think that the players of 2.2 will adjust pretty easily actually. Some are just so busy complaining that they haven't actually made an attempt to play the game yet. Once they do and put their efforts to understanding the changes and what to do to win with the changes in place, I'm pretty sure that the amount of whining will decrease.

Africanus
12-18-2011, 09:57 PM
Terrain placement is different.
Deployment is different.
Movement rate is different.
Some combat interactions are different.

Most of the rest of it is pretty trivial

What exactly is "the rest"?
The only phase remaining is the stage where we remove units from the field of battle.
Trivial indeed.

mdsanderson
12-18-2011, 10:42 PM
You start on top of each other because of the deployment and movement rules. The game goes on auto-pilot if you have much heavy infantry. The game last 3 or 4 turns max. It takes more time to set up than play. Sounds slightly different than V2.2 to me.

Mike Sanderson

Bobgnar
12-18-2011, 10:56 PM
My local group did not like all the complications added by 2.0, to what was a relatively simple game. We had played DBA 1 and mostly 1.1 for 9 years. We never really got back to DBA as a group after 2 was released. I moved on to 2 because it seemed that others, especially, on the east coast USA where I ran events, liked it. Some things were clarified in 2, but still lots of undefined things -- how to form a column, for example.

The locals like 3 less than 2 but did some test games with me. On a scale of 1 to 10 for complexity, 1.1 was about a 2. I could teach people how to play in 10-15 minutes. DBR was a 6/7, DBM seemed to be an 8 (and DBMM). Empire and the WRG ancients approach 10. DBA 2 seemed to me to be a 3/4. It took me a half-hour to explain the game. Third Edition is approaching 6. It takes me 40-50 minutes to teach newbies who have never played any version.

The irony is that almost all of the rules in 3 are clearer than in any other version. People understand all of the rules, they just do not like the changes.
And there are more rules to understand.

I have played a Napoleonic game called Column Line and Square since 1968. Pretty simple game compared to Empire, LaSalle, Black Powder. About 10 years ago there was a revision published that was terrible compared to the original. Few, if anyone, I know, switched.

dicemanrick
12-18-2011, 10:56 PM
Do you think it is possible that the majority of the DBA community will keep playing version 2.2 and 3.0 will be rejected?

Do you know of a wargame that has been more popular in its older version than in its newer version?
(I started playing wargames 6 years ago, so my experience is limited.)

I'm asking because my friends always prefer the newest edition of a given rule set, no matter what.

I believe it's quite possible. 3.0 is a different game than 2.2. People will play which ever version they prefer.

There's still a bunch who play DBM at all the major East conventions in the US.

Kingo
12-18-2011, 10:59 PM
Being that a lot of the rules in this draft version of 3, were new to the play testers of the "magic circle", there may even be a new draft version before 3 gets put to bed. I must admit I like the draft version,
but I'll just be happy when its all finished. :D

If the worst comes to the worst 2.2 is always there.

WRG 6th is great, so sad that the game was not improved to 6.1.

Kingo

larryessick
12-19-2011, 01:24 AM
You start on top of each other because of the deployment and movement rules. The game goes on auto-pilot if you have much heavy infantry. The game last 3 or 4 turns max. It takes more time to set up than play. Sounds slightly different than V2.2 to me.

You only start on top of each other if you choose to do so. What I'm seeing is that my son is setting up far forward because he's eager to get to contact. I'm setting up far back because I'm not. Most of the time the turn or two this buys me lets me get longer lines providing outflanks. The result is that he's becoming less aggressive.

I'm expecting that as the lessons build up he'll deploy rather far back as well and that will mean maneuver to contact.

Taking heavy infantry is a choice not a requirement. Even with some elements on "auto-pilot" not all are.

Games do seem to be shorter and the complaint about set up taking as long or longer than the games is one we've expressed to one another at home.

I have not heard from people playing on larger tables what the effect is. My suspicion is that people are going to gravitate there. An unintended byproduct of the faster movement and constrained deployment is going to be more widespread use of the bigger tables is my prediction.

snowcat
12-19-2011, 02:55 AM
Another reason why the setup may be taking longer is purely because it's new.

Richard Lee
12-19-2011, 03:42 AM
My local group did not like all the complications added by 2.0, to what was a relatively simple game. We had played DBA 1 and mostly 1.1 for 9 years. We never really got back to DBA as a group after 2 was released. I moved on to 2 because it seemed that others, especially, on the east coast USA where I ran events, liked it. Some things were clarified in 2, but still lots of undefined things -- how to form a column, for example.
[snip]


Very interesting observations, IMO.

[snip]
The locals like 3 less than 2 but did some test games with me. On a scale of 1 to 10 for complexity, 1.1 was about a 2. I could teach people how to play in 10-15 minutes. DBR was a 6/7, DBM seemed to be an 8 (and DBMM). Empire and the WRG ancients approach 10. DBA 2 seemed to me to be a 3/4. It took me a half-hour to explain the game. Third Edition is approaching 6. It takes me 40-50 minutes to teach newbies who have never played any version.
[snip]


I like simple games where knowledge of detailed rules is not more important than a sense of tactics. I like DBR, but lately have been using DBA RRR for my ECW armies because the rules are simple, and not very different from ordinary DBA. One of my worries is that successive versions of DBA may eventually lose the simplicity that was its hallmark.

john meunier
12-19-2011, 08:05 AM
Once you had learned to play it Warrior was a very very good game. I still don't miss it. Too much intellectual effort required for peripheral things.

I started playing Ancients when WRG 6 was out. When WRG 7 came out, I liked the rules because of the things it fixed that I did not like about 6. I liked DBM for the same reason. It made somethings that were broken (or maybe just exploited) in WRG 7 better. It changed the list of armies you could play and win with. For all its flaws, ARMATI was an interesting game because of the things it fixed in the WRG - DBM line of games.

DBA came along and fixed a whole different set of problems. Not long after DBA had gained a following, it sprouted Big Battle variants for people who still wanted larger games.

The rule writers may not have been developing these various rules to "fix" problems in previous systems, but that is certainly how I experienced their virtues. It is why I enjoyed moving from one to the other.

DBA 3.0 -- it seems to me -- addresses one problem that I wanted addressed in 2.2. It makes terrain placement less predictable. (I am fully aware that this new terrain system will have flaws, too.)

Most of the other "improvements" do not feel like fixes to problems at all.

When I started playing DBM, it was great that troops that were classed as Sp were again viable, compared to their utility in the world of WRG.

With DBA, I do not have a sense of "gee, that is broken" with many of the game mechanics or troop types, so it is harder to experience 3.0 as solving problems I had with the game.

Things that I experience as "broken" in DBA and would have liked "fixed":

Terrain placement
Psiloi support for heavy infantry
Cute moves my elements that make contact impossible
The BUA rules
Mandatory general elements

I imagine some things in 3.0 that do not address items on this list will still be good changes. But my list of complaints with DBA 2.2 is pretty short, so I find 3.0 at lot of bother without a lot of reward.

That said, if the GLADBAG and other folks in my area adopt 3.0, I will likely go along -- to the extent I get to play at all these days.

kontos
12-19-2011, 09:28 AM
I must say all the sniping back and forth within the DBA community is disheartening. The arguments (discussions) over the realistic aspects of 2.2 v 3.0 are "interesting" but mean absolutely nothing to the root cause. All games come down to whether the player likes it or not. The reasons are unimportant and varied. Phil has produced a set of rules that mimics his perception of ancient warfare. From a top down view they may very well be realistic. However; as I've stated in a previous post, there should always be a realism v playabilty balance to produce the best games. Maybe Phil has achieved this as well in the eyes of some. But, again, the final virtue of any game is the enjoyment factor. I have tested 3.0 a lot lately. Admittedly solo but with an open mind. I do not enjoy 3.0. It is not what I want in my DBA. That does not make me resistant to change or a whiner as some dolts have accused anti-3.0 members of being. Maybe we just don't like it. Is that arguable? I don't like liver either. So back off everyone. If you want to enjoy 3.0, make it happen. If I don't like 3.0, leave me the hell alone. Harsh but true. ;)

DaveB
12-19-2011, 10:02 AM
The possible enduring popularity or interest in WRG version 6 is apparent that it has been recently released.

Warrior has a core following but my main compliant is the constantly evolving special rules/ experimental rules that have been introduced over the years. You would think a rule system as complex as Warrior would not need additional complexity. My other gripe has been the authors unwillingness to explain list decisions.

I know that others will disagree but from me the DBA evolution from 1 to 2.2 was incremental, nut most of the concepts were maintained. From what I have read and heard of 3.0, it is not a similar evolution of the system.

john meunier
12-19-2011, 12:11 PM
If I don't like 3.0, leave me the hell alone. Harsh but true. ;)

I'm not sure who this comment is direct at, but you are aware, I trust, that no one is forcing you to read a thread called "2.2 vs. 3.0."

I think most of us who are talking about these issues had no intention of forcing people who do not care for such topics to pay attention. I, for one, am happy to leave you "the hell alone" on this issue.

kontos
12-19-2011, 12:23 PM
I'm not sure who this comment is direct at, but you are aware, I trust, that no one is forcing you to read a thread called "2.2 vs. 3.0."

I think most of us who are talking about these issues had no intention of forcing people who do not care for such topics to pay attention. I, for one, am happy to leave you "the hell alone" on this issue.

Actually, John, I do believe I posted my feelings to the wrong thread. Doesn't change my post; just where it belonged. This has been a friendly thread; no accusations. My comment you quoted above is directed at those who are trying to belittle and badger non-3.0 lovers. I think if you had understood that, hopefully, you would not have posted your comment. I have no issue with you. ;)

winterbadger
12-19-2011, 03:58 PM
Actually, John, I do believe I posted my feelings to the wrong thread. Doesn't change my post; just where it belonged. This has been a friendly thread; no accusations. My comment you quoted above is directed at those who are trying to belittle and badger non-3.0 lovers. I think if you had understood that, hopefully, you would not have posted your comment. I have no issue with you. ;)

Zagloba needs his head ducked in the horse trough to cool him down again! Too much brandy! :silly

john meunier
12-19-2011, 04:27 PM
Actually, John, I do believe I posted my feelings to the wrong thread. Doesn't change my post; just where it belonged. This has been a friendly thread; no accusations. My comment you quoted above is directed at those who are trying to belittle and badger non-3.0 lovers. I think if you had understood that, hopefully, you would not have posted your comment. I have no issue with you. ;)

My apologies. Thank you for clarifying.

Doug
12-19-2011, 05:38 PM
No-one is forcing you to play anything - :-)

Like or not Like 3.0

The only thing that I would ask people is to actually give it a fair try yourselves rather than listen to some of the doomsayers.

Lobotomy
12-19-2011, 09:56 PM
Once they do and put their efforts to understanding the changes and what to do to win with the changes in place, I'm pretty sure that the amount of whining will decrease.

I would refer you to the post Diceman put in another thread about his rejection of 3.0. We have been playing it since early May and you see his vote. I am still open minded regarding it, but I have expressed several times that things are "broken." So the whining my reduce but only because people have become disillusioned with the result.

Hannibal Ad Portas
12-19-2011, 10:03 PM
I do abhor that those of us that are not happy with 3.0's proposed changes are tagged as "whiners" or "doomsayers." I haven't seen similar derision of those whose 3.0 glasses are way past half full as "fan boys." If the game is a good one, it will stand up to criticism. DBA is my favorite game of all time and I truly value the DBA community. However, the game was virtually perfect in its 2.2 form. Big changes didn't seem necessary.

winterbadger
12-19-2011, 11:32 PM
I do abhor that those of us that are not happy with 3.0's proposed changes are tagged as "whiners" or "doomsayers."

I'm finding that I really like the forum's "ignore" function. :up

kontos
12-19-2011, 11:35 PM
I'm finding that I really like the forum's "ignore" function. :up

No wonder you don't answer my posts! :D

pssst. Someone tell WB I posted . :up

winterbadger
12-19-2011, 11:38 PM
No wonder you don't answer my posts! :D

pssst. Someone tell WB I posted . :up

:p

(Extra characters added to make up the required length of a reply.)

herr zinnling
12-20-2011, 10:14 AM
I'm open to DBA 3.0. I will buy a copy of it when it's finally published, try it and if I like it better than its current version I will, of course, play 3.0 from then on. Otherwise I will play 2.2. I think that is a brilliant game.

My question was if a game or edition of a game that looses the support of its author or publisher has a chance to survive or can get a "life" of its own these days.

The examples you gave are very interesting.
I didn't know anything about WRG 6, WRG 7 and Warrior.
My friends used to play EPIC. I think Epic Armageddon is the 4th edition of the game and available as a download for free. If I'm not mistaken the army lists were partly written by the online community.

It would be interesting to see if a game like DBA will be played in 50 years from now on.

Redwilde
12-20-2011, 11:13 AM
My question was if a game or edition of a game that looses the support of its author or publisher has a chance to survive or can get a "life" of its own these days.

Blood Bowl is still going strong and is in yet another period of abandonment by Games Workshop.

I never bothered playing 3rd edition and stuck with my house mods of 2nd. Both 2nd and 3rd had a good strong life under the radar after GW dropped it. Years later, out of the blue White Dwarf published a slap-dash 4th edition. That issue sold twice as many copies as WD had been selling at that point! GW suddenly realised lots of people where still playing BloodBowl without official say so, and that re-opened their interest in supporting the product a little bit.

4th ed was universally hailed as crap, and the author tries to pretend it doesn't exist. No one played it beyod a few test games. He rebooted the numbering system and the next version was Living Rule Book (LRB 1.0). The LRB was developed over a period of years with systemized player input via a rules committee comprised of dedicated players from various continents/countries, and the author. Each version of that was a steadily building improvement based 98% on player feedback and desires. Maybe 2% on the author's whims. Each edition had a 2 year cycle -- 1 year of suggesting rules changes, then the rules committee would select the ones which would go into the official 1 year testing period. No new suggestions would be incorporated during the 2nd testing year. The next edition incorporated any changes that were accepted (and possibly polished) from that set. The author retained full veto power. LRB 6.0 was the final one, and GW once again dropped support.

Blood Bowl is still going strong around the globe, and the 2nd player-organised World Cup was just held in Europe -- with player teams from North America and Australia competing!

Rich Gause
12-20-2011, 11:18 AM
Blood Bowl is still going strong and is in yet another period of abandonment by Games Workshop.

I never bothered playing 3rd edition and stuck with my house mods of 2nd. Both 2nd and 3rd had a good strong life under the radar after GW dropped it. Years later, out of the blue White Dwarf published a slap-dash 4th edition. That issue sold twice as many copies as WD had been selling at that point! GW suddenly realised lots of people where still playing BloodBowl without official say so, and that re-opened their interest in supporting the product a little bit.

4th ed was universally hailed as crap, and the author tries to pretend it doesn't exist. No one played it beyod a few test games. He rebooted the numbering system and the next version was Living Rule Book (LRB 1.0). The LRB was developed over a period of years with systemized player input via a rules committee comprised of dedicated players from various continents/countries, and the author. Each version of that was a steadily building improvement based 98% on player feedback and desires. Maybe 2% on the author's whims. Each edition had a 2 year cycle -- 1 year of suggesting rules changes, then the rules committee would select the ones which would go into the official 1 year testing period. No new suggestions would be incorporated during the 2nd testing year. The next edition incorporated any changes that were accepted (and possibly polished) from that set. The author retained full veto power. LRB 6.0 was the final one, and GW once again dropped support.

Blood Bowl is still going strong around the globe, and the 2nd player-organised World Cup was just held in Europe -- with player teams from North America and Australia competing!

This is what I would like to see for DBA. Too bad it ain't gonna happen.

pozanias
12-20-2011, 12:16 PM
My question was if a game or edition of a game that looses the support of its author or publisher has a chance to survive or can get a "life" of its own these days.



Yes, but I think its difficult to infuse new players into the game's player base -- so that there is a slow, but inevitable erosion of players.

I would be more hopeful for DBA version 3 if I thought there would be a 3.1 and 3.2 to follow. But between Phil's age and his other interests, I think the necessary fixes will never come. And the game in its current version (3.0 draft), though not bad, does not excite me. So, unless the majority of players in my area switch to 3.0 -- I am unlikely to give it much of a go.

I think we will be left with two sets of rules, neither of which has a promising long-term outlook. But this is really just a guess.

My hope is that there will be a viable alternative to both of these options:
* something that retains the game feel of DBA 2.2
* but can be produced and sold in order to continue to attract new players
* and will have on-going support so that continuing improvements can be made over the next decade or more.

Perhaps the answer will be historical HoTT, perhaps 2.3 (although this doesn't resolve issue #2 above), or perhaps it will be something entirely different.

Inari7
12-20-2011, 05:16 PM
I think the closest analogy would be the paths (pun intended) that D&D has taken. D&D = Dungeons and Dragons.

When D&D 3.5 was discontinued, Wizards of the Coast brought out a 4th edition that was radically different from D&D 3.5. So a company made a game called "Pathfinder" pretty much the same game as D&D 3.5 with improvements like no BUA's :)

Now Pathfinder in some markets outsells D&D 4th edition.

Now I think the best way 2.2 can live on would be someone securing the rights the game, or making a "clone" of the game.

Remember you cannot copyright rules mechanics, so with terminology and name changes someone could make a "Clone" of DBA that would be legal.

Doug
12-21-2011, 08:56 PM
Remember you cannot copyright rules mechanics, so with terminology and name changes someone could make a "Clone" of DBA that would be legal.

It might (note, might) be legal, but I would not consider it to be ethical. Suppose someone released an empire building Game called 'Cilivisation' and didn't get agreement from Sid Meier, or released a big battle ancients game called Flames of Glory and didn't get agreement from Osprey ?

I think that you might also find that your assumed legal protection applied in only a limited range of countries.

Suffice to say if someone distributed a DAB 2.3 or similar, then they better get it legalled first, and I would like to think that most of the playing community would see it as a pretty shabby trick to play on Phil & Sue.

Inari7
12-21-2011, 09:10 PM
Suppose someone released an empire building Game called 'Cilivisation' and didn't get agreement from Sid Meier, or released a big battle ancients game called Flames of Glory a ?


There are plenty of empire building games, that are not owned by Sid, and plenty of ancients, and WWII games out there that have similar game mechanics.

I am just saying if 3.0 is so bad, then why not make a game similar to 2.2?

BUT I would prefer if someone could acquire the rights to 2.2, expand the game to include rules explanations and diagrams.

That would be ideal!

Kingo
12-22-2011, 03:10 AM
There are plenty of empire building games, that are not owned by Sid, and plenty of ancients, and WWII games out there that have similar game mechanics.

I am just saying if 3.0 is so bad, then why not make a game similar to 2.2?

BUT I would prefer if someone could acquire the rights to 2.2, expand the game to include rules explanations and diagrams.

That would be ideal!

Write to Phil and ask him to sell you the rights to DBA 2.2

I'll chip in some cash if he say yes. :D

Kingo

Richard Lee
12-22-2011, 03:17 AM
I would be pleasantly surprised if Phil gave permission for someone to write a DBA version 2.3.

If a new game wasn't very close to DBA it would be another game, so there would be no problem. If it was DBA v2.3, then I think that Doug would have a very good point.

Have a feeling that the best that could be done would be a list of some commonly accepted modifications for DBA version 2.2, and the existing (or slightly modified) WADBAG guide. An example might be to have built up areas as either bad going that you can't see through (like woods), or impassible terrain. The longer the list of modifications the more likely it is that there would be multiple variants of '2.3' being used in different locations. For instance, I am interested in some of the ideas about new troop types for what are now 3Spear, 3Blade, but many people may not choose to accept them.

Kingo
12-22-2011, 03:26 AM
The chances of getting the rights are "Buckley's and none" :D

tonybanks
12-22-2011, 03:42 AM
Hi all,
This is my first post. I have been reading Fanaticus and playing DBA here in Sth Korea since my first games with a gentleman named Jeff of Little Hordes fame when he was in Sth Korea. He taught me to play DBA and was a great player, too. I'm not sure if it would have been that easy to get a handle on everything by myself without help. Thanks, Jeff! I, too have some misgivings about some of the new lists, but more so about some of the new rules...I just thought DBA 2.2 provided me with the kind of game I had been looking and hoping for. I am open to new things (wouldn't have settled in Sth Korea if I wasn't!!!), but still prefer the play balance of 2.2. I'm not an experienced, or even very good "player", but I did love the game as it exists in 2.2. I would love to contribute something towards a new version of 2.2, 2.3 or something similar. I, too would want to do it properly, however...
Regards,
Tony Banks,
Sth Korea