PDA

View Full Version : Is it Good?


Inari7
12-20-2011, 10:48 PM
Is there ANYONE who has played-tested 3.0 think it's an improvement over 2.2?

I am not talking about an odd rule here or there.

Would you rather play 3.0 over 2.2?

There is alot of negativity here on the boards about 3.0 (and I am not talking about the writing)

If there is not a soul that thinks this is an improvement, perhaps we should write a petition to Phil Barker bearing the names of ALL the play-testers and all who have played the game requesting a reprint of 2.2 instead of another incarnation of the game.

I think he should hear from the players whether a new game is wanted.

If he wants the money that a new edition of the game will bring perhaps a version of 2.2 with rules clarifications can be sold. If he is not in this for the money then he should have no problem with our suggestion.

larryessick
12-20-2011, 10:57 PM
Larry Chaban rightly notes that I've not been part of the DBA scene for pretty much the entire life of 2.2. I find the version Sue Barker posted to be easily playable and enjoyable with only some minor complaints. My saying this probably will solidify all others against 3.0.

My biggest concern is that the games usually play very fast. Too fast. But, I just managed a 1.5 hour game tonight which would easily balance the 35 minute games that are seeming typical. And, I haven't played on larger boards meaning I haven't seen the effect of playing on more space.

As to a petition. Even if every single player of DBA signed on, it would mean absolutely nothing to Phil Barker. Don't take my word on that. Instead check with the multitude of others who have also tried working with Phil over the years. He does what he intends to do irrespective of public opinion.

But, don't let that stop you from trying.

Kingo
12-21-2011, 12:52 AM
Played eight games of 3, I like it better :2up

Kingo

Bobgnar
12-21-2011, 01:03 AM
I have played 8-10 Giant 25mm scenario games, with 4-5 armies to a side. These are the games my group likes. All were better than 2.2 for various reasons. 4 of these were with complete newbies to the game. They all liked it. It did, however, take much more time to explain than did 1.1 or 2.

I have played about 5 one on one 15mm games, all on 24" battlefields. I liked how the game went. More things were changed than needed to be changed but if this game was released today, with no prior versions, it would be the best ancients game in existence. Not as simple as 1.1 which is still my favorite, but I like the clarifications and terrain rules. I do look forward to diagrams that remain undone. The army lists will benefit from much more explanation, and 10-20 more years of research over 2 and 1. I will play 3 over 2.2.

ferrency
12-21-2011, 10:38 AM
Played eight games of 3, I like it better :2up

Thank you for answering the question that was asked, whether I agree with your answer or not. Liking 3.0 just enough to play the game is one thing. Liking it better than 2.2 is another thing entirely.

Liking 3.0 more than 2.2 is the only thing that justifies playing it, to me. Really, the game shouldn't exist if no one likes it better than the old one.

Some people like 3.0 better than 2.2, to be sure; but be careful not to misinterpret other cases of "I liked it" as "I liked it better."

Alan

Inari7
12-21-2011, 12:04 PM
Thats, great.

With all the people complaining about 3.0 it seems like nobody liked it.

I am glad there are some that do think it's better.

broadsword
12-21-2011, 03:23 PM
A few things are nice: Bd vs Bd might be more decisive now, with mandatory followup. Also Bd are no longer 'all but immune' to archery. Concentrated bowfire could kill them off.

I don't like the fact that double-based Sp effectively cause Theban lines to become LONGER rather than shorter! (You now have the luxury of peeling off troops to outflank the enemy, while still maintaining your +1 for support - hardly what Thebes was known for.) At the same time, deep, dense formations strike me as more rather than less durable in battle (8Sp=2 elements lost!) I think DBA 3.0 has changed hoplite combat for the worst, as far as 8Sp is concerned. Allowing Thebes to stack Sp elements 3 deep for a +2 would have achieved the right effect, IMHO, forcing the player to trade that option for vulnerable flanks.

Xavi
12-21-2011, 07:53 PM
JUst to pint out that for all the rantings in the rulebook about thebes being 8Sp, in the book 2 army lists Thebes has no such element.

Cheers,
Xavi

Doug
12-21-2011, 07:58 PM
I like it better. For various reasons, but for me the changes to the terrain rules and an end to the absolutely stereotypical setup are enough.

platypus01
12-22-2011, 02:51 AM
I like it better. There were a small number of things that I didn't like about 2.2, which was the reason I stopped playing dba comps. I will play a lot more dba with v3.

JohnG

Kingo
12-22-2011, 03:28 AM
DBA is like sex, 2.2 or 3, its still good lol

broadsword
12-22-2011, 09:53 AM
AFAIK Book II isn't finished yet, so I can't be sure the 8Sp isn't going to find its way into the Theban Army. On the other hand, this may be PB running something untested up the flagpole to see who salutes it.

In my view 8Sp is a terrible idea. From a game design PoV, having DBE is troubling (HotT manages just fine without them). If they are just the same as their SBE counterparts, they are more fragile (having bigger buttocks). So you have to give them something to compensate for their increased 'death buttocks' (in the case of 8Sp). Thebans are better-modeled by allowing them to stack three deep and gain +2 TF say, as a scenario/period special rule.

Their success ultimately spawns "copying", and then the Pk fence, so over time the advantages disappears.

Alan Saunders
12-22-2011, 07:03 PM
In my view 8Sp is a terrible idea. From a game design PoV, having DBE is troubling (HotT manages just fine without them).

Actually HOTT has its own equivalent, in that it has elements that are worth more towards your defeat than others. Indeed they cost you more to have in your army as well; with a Hero or Magician you have the equivalent of two standard elements, in terms of cost and casualties, packaged into one. What HOTT does is make those elements generally worth having for that cost and risk.

Also, of course, armies in HOTT have a higher breakpoint - 50% of elements, effectively.

Bob Santamaria
12-22-2011, 07:15 PM
DBA is like sex, 2.2 or 3, its still good lol

I can think of plenty of kinds of sex that are not good.

Rich Gause
12-22-2011, 07:25 PM
Actually HOTT has its own equivalent, in that it has elements that are worth more towards your defeat than others. Indeed they cost you more to have in your army as well; with a Hero or Magician you have the equivalent of two standard elements, in terms of cost and casualties, packaged into one. What HOTT does is make those elements generally worth having for that cost and risk.

Also, of course, armies in HOTT have a higher breakpoint - 50% of elements, effectively.

Also if you don't think the element is worth the cost you can have whatever other element you want instead. Nice flexible army lists.

Tony Aguilar
12-22-2011, 07:46 PM
I can think of plenty of kinds of sex that are not good.

Reminds me of one of my sayings, when things go awry - especially at work:

If know you're going to get screwed, at least let me pick the hole. :eek

Bob Santamaria
12-22-2011, 08:01 PM
Reminds me of one of my sayings, when things go awry - especially at work:

If know you're going to get screwed, at least let me pick the hole. :eek

And I suppose there is always s79 and s81C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Victor
12-23-2011, 07:21 AM
OK, I've now played a number of games using DBE's, Spartans vs Thebans with 8sp, Thebans vs Macedonnians, and Early Persians (8Bw) vs Athenians.

In the Spartans v Thebans game, the Thebans had 2 DBE's. The Thebans did win, but did so with their cavalry. The 8Sp (only ran 2 of them), were resilient and stubborn, but not game winners. Both 8Sp survived, but they also didn't destroy anything.

In the game vs the Macedonians, again the 8Sp stood up to the pike, with their +5 factor, and mostly got recoiled back. The Macedonians won through their Kn destroying the Theban cavalry on the flanks and then turning in for a friction kills on the foot.

The EAP's were quite interesting with the 4x8Bw. Games I've had and seen in the past with early hoplite Greeks vs EAPs have always been a walkover for the Greeks. Here the 8Bw was quite resilient, and even doubled a spear in close combat. The game was locked at 2 all, and the Greeks then managed to destroy an 8Bw to get the win. Even though the 2 element loss on the one 8Bw won the game for the Greeks, in an earlier melee, one of the 8Bw survived being doubled by virtue of it's additional +1. The 8Bw that survived managed to double the spear attacking it in the next turn. If it had been a normal Bw element, the game would have been over a lot sooner for the Persians as the Greeks would have punched a hole through the lines. So the trade off for a 2 element loss worked out about right.

Overall, I found that DBE's added a lot of colour for having quite simple rules, and historical end results were acheived in each of the three games. Though one thing that didn't come into play was DBE's vs mounted.

I'm not sure what all the hand wringing is about with DBE's, as their impacts in each game wasn't what I would consider to be of major concern. Those who have strong opinions about DBE's should at least give them a playtest.

winterbadger
12-23-2011, 01:14 PM
If know you're going to get screwed, at least let me pick the hole. :eek

Interesting choice of pronouns. :silly

Tony Aguilar
12-23-2011, 01:26 PM
Interesting choice of pronouns. :silly

Sense not it makes in translation lost it is. :D