PDA

View Full Version : Colorado 3.0 test games & player survey


Pillager
01-24-2012, 12:16 AM
Surprised this has not yet been responded to on Yahoo:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/message/30627

pozanias
01-24-2012, 01:15 AM
That's a nice review. Kudos to the Colorado gamers for what obviously took a lot of effort.

Bob Santamaria
01-24-2012, 06:35 AM
Thanks for that analysis - very very interesting

Martyn
01-24-2012, 06:48 AM
Great work and a very interesting analysis.

Noted that BW movement did not create a problem being generally supported.

Macbeth
01-24-2012, 08:26 PM
Great work and a very interesting analysis.

Noted that BW movement did not create a problem being generally supported.

With a score of 6.7 I would call it skating on the edge of generally supported.

I would be interested to see a breakdown of the individual scores for that one :)

Cheers

Martyn
01-25-2012, 11:12 AM
With a score of 6.7 I would call it skating on the edge of generally supported.

I would be interested to see a breakdown of the individual scores for that one :)

Cheers

I was looking at the score combined with the following comment

The resultant increase in movement was warmly received,
however. It sped play, and allowed heavy infantry such sensible capabilities as
forming a column to flank or extending by two unit frontages to the flank.

Yes, it is not exactly a ringing endorsement, but two thirds were accepting of the change to BW measurement with a greater acceptance of the repercussions of that change (not sure what score 'warmly received' gets).

Dangun
01-26-2012, 12:48 AM
I was struck by the support for "more realistic requirements for conformation when contacted (9.0)."

I am surprised that they all understood what the rule meant. Or perhaps PB spent some time communicating his intentions.

Dangun
01-26-2012, 12:51 AM
Maybe Fanaticus should run a similar survey? :)

Even a list of all of the proposed changes would be a helpful addition to our understanding.

Rich Gause
01-26-2012, 02:08 AM
Maybe Fanaticus should run a similar survey? :)

Even a list of all of the proposed changes would be a helpful addition to our understanding.

I wonder how much difference there would be between the Yahoo group and Fanaticus in poll results?

Dangun
01-26-2012, 02:39 AM
I thought for the purposes of discussion that the results of the Colorado survey of changes to DBA 2.2 were worth repeating.

Responses were an average of 11 respondents who could rate each change with from 1 (Hate It!) to 10 (Love It!).

General Game Mechanics
1. Measurements in BW 6.7
2. Furthest Moving Front Corner Measurement 9.0
3. Partial Bad Going and Command Distance 6.3
4. Denizen/Camp Follower Sallies 6.7
5. 0 PIP Road Move 7.5
6. Dismounting Stipulations (Kn//Bd, Mtd Bw, etc.) 7.3
7. Danger Zone Rule (not to own rear unless aligned) 8.2
8. Contact to Flank/Rear versus Start Position 9.2
9. Contact and Conformation Stipulations 9.0

Shooting
1. Within ½ BW of Directly in Front, ½ BW of Target 7.7
2. Priority of Fires (DZ, Shooting At, Other) for Bw, WWg 9.0
3. Shooting at or by an Overlap 9.2
4. Art, WWg, Mtd Bw cannot Move and Shoot 8.7
5. Visibility to ½ BW for Difficult Hills/Woods/Oasis/Dunes 9.4
6. Can€™t Shoot from River or Marsh 7.8
7. Shooter/Non-Shooting Target/Third Party Shooter 7.8
8. Shot from Behind Turns to Recoil 8.9

Close Combat
1. DBE at +1 in Close Combat with Foot (except Bw,Ps) 8.9
2. More Pursue (El, Pk, Bd) (Ps moves, dies with Bd) 8.1
3. Breaking Off (Kn, Cv, LH, Mtd only) 8.9
4. WWg with 2nd Element Overlap 8.7
5. Battlefield Edge ½ BW Overlap 8.1
6. Recoil/Flee Partial Move versus Destroyed 8.7

Such Element Specific Changes as Pertain to:
1. Elephants (4-5 to 5-4, No QK Pk, Sp, Wb) 6.5
2. Knights (QK by Cm) 6.0
3. Light Horse (Command Radius) 7.0
4. Scythed Chariots (4-4 to 3-4) 7.1
5. Camelry (2-4 to 3-2, but QK Kn) 5.2
6. Spears (no Rear Support) 4.1
7. Pikes (no Rear Support vs El, +1 vs Kn) 4.7
8. Blades (4 if shot at) 9.1
9. Psiloi (Move on line in rough, 2nd Move in Rough) 9.3
10. Warband (Rear Support survives, 2nd Move Straight Ahead) 9.5
11. Hordes (3-2 to 2-2) 5.6

Winning and Losing
1. DBE counts as 2 6.9
2. General counts as +1 8.4
3. Camp counts as 1 8.4
4. BUA count as 1 with/2 without Camp 5.8

Anything look odd?
I guess they weren't asked about blade speed?

I thought that the comment "The survey (was) supported by verbal explanations," was interesting. I'd love to know what the content was.

Tony Aguilar
01-26-2012, 05:11 AM
You left off the following...

Game Set-Up

1. Random Terrain Generation 7.6
2. Non-Requirement for Difficult Terrain 4.6
3. Changes to Terrain Mixes, Stipulations 7.0
4. Attacker Side Selection (including road stipulation) 6.6
5. Defender Set-Attacker Set- Defender Move Sequence 7.3
6. Deployment Conventions (2BW back, 2/4 BW in) 7.4

Kingo
01-26-2012, 04:08 PM
Maybe Fanaticus should run a similar survey? :)

Even a list of all of the proposed changes would be a helpful addition to our understanding.

After the next draft has been tested maybe?:up

Kingo

Martyn
01-27-2012, 05:42 AM
After the next draft has been tested maybe?:up

Kingo

Phil has promised that the next draft will be available on Monday, make that Tuesday for you. ;)