PDA

View Full Version : DBA 3.0 Latest Draft


Martyn
01-27-2012, 01:16 PM
The latest draft (dated Jan 27th) of v3 is now available on the Yahoo Group.

Kingo
01-27-2012, 01:44 PM
Any interesting changes?

Martyn
01-27-2012, 01:52 PM
Any interesting changes?

Not really had a chance to look in detail (I am supposed to be working :o).

I did notice that:
As Trailed Hordes combat factors have been reinstated and Ax, Ps, Kn & El movement increased to 3BW
Ps support has been removed completely :eek
Ax combat values increased to 3/3.

There do seem to be a lot of changes throughout.

Kingo
01-27-2012, 02:04 PM
5 am here...need my PG Tips before I can wade through it :D

Martyn
01-27-2012, 02:12 PM
5 am here...need my PG Tips before I can wade through it :D

6pm here, I'm in need of something much stronger. :beer;)

Kingo
01-27-2012, 02:15 PM
"Spears, Blades (except Lit) or Auxilia add +1 if fighting mounted troops or Warband or attacking a BUA or Camp while
supported by a single friendly element of Psiloi lined up in contact directly behind them or directly behind a friendly
element of the same type in both side edge and front corner-to- front corner contact with them"

DELETED INTOTO :eek:eek

Martyn
01-27-2012, 02:23 PM
"Spears, Blades (except Lit) or Auxilia add +1 if fighting mounted troops or Warband or attacking a BUA or Camp while
supported by a single friendly element of Psiloi lined up in contact directly behind them or directly behind a friendly
element of the same type in both side edge and front corner-to- front corner contact with them"

Yes, I don't fancy taking on those Wb with no support, QK'ed and pursuing.


DELETED INTOTO :eek:eek

Isn't that Africa :silly

Kingo
01-27-2012, 02:30 PM
No M'toto is child in Key Swahili,

no rear support from Ps is "Takataka"

Martyn
01-27-2012, 02:41 PM
The more I look the more I see, there do seem to be a lot of little changes which are going to need some careful thought and testing to see just how much affect they have.

I am glad it is the weekend. :)

Richard Lee
01-27-2012, 04:15 PM
Some of the changes seem interesting. Increasing the auxilia combat factor to 3 against cavalry and removing psiloi support may make auxilia a better infantry option than previously.

If it wasn't for the movement rates I would be very tempted to playtest this version of 3.0.

Ammianus
01-27-2012, 04:54 PM
That loss of psiloi rear support falls like a thunderbolt on my Late Romans!
On the flip side all my warband armies even more ugly to mess with.
Factor in the new movement rates and I'm pushed ever closer to 2.2+ ....
should generate a bit of discussion. I look into TMP & Yahoo DBA but I don't recall seeing this psiloi issue discussed? Well, interesting days ahead at any rate.

SteveW
01-27-2012, 05:37 PM
I started from the rear (and no, I do not read my newspapers like that to read the sport first!).

BBDBA deployment can be one of two options (all defender and then all attacker, or alternate commands).

Only the first DBE lost counts as two elements lost.

peleset
01-27-2012, 06:18 PM
Why remove options? I would much rather my options for the tactical use of my little lead men were expanded instead of limiting them further.

I do recall someone arguing (maybe Yahoo?), something like, that at the scale of DBA rear support was not appropriate. If I wanted to play an historical simulation I wouldn't be playing DBA! What I want is a bloody game with some ancients flavour.

I assume it's the guys who want to play twenty minute games that want to wash all the colour out of DBA. :(

Martyn
01-27-2012, 06:57 PM
Had a chance to read a bit more and noticed that Wb now pursue 1BW. So if single ranked they pursue a destroyed element out of overlap support of thier neighbour.

There seems to be lots of these little changes: Art range, Camelry combat outcomes as Knights, mounted recoil distance choices, etc.

broadsword
01-27-2012, 07:17 PM
Guys, I urge ALL of us to get playing and testing this. And rather than play one or two games, and write an in depth AAR about it, play a dozen or more, and get reliable data. This is our chance. Phil is actively soliciting email correspondence from the game's fan base. :eek I am almost speechless,.... wait, ... no (whew) it's back.

Now my inner nature is cynical and pessimistic, but I feel I owe it to my enjoyment of DBA, and to my arguments against 3.0 as I last played it, to give this a serious go, and give Phil serious feedback. ;)

That way, if we email Phil, (and cross post those emails here?), we'll know what the majority of us suggested, and that both empowers Phil to make changes we want, and empowers supporters of 2.2+ in their cause, ...should DBA 3.0 not turn out to be what we want to play. At least then no one at any forum can accuse you of being reflexively anti/pro DBA 3.0!

snowcat
01-27-2012, 08:28 PM
Picts and Thracians might breathe a sigh of relief!

Pavane
01-27-2012, 09:12 PM
Picts and Thracians might breathe a sigh of relief!
Yes, it is an improvement

EDIT: I still wouldn't take 3.0 Picts to a tournament, yet I have taken 2.0 Picts many times (BBDBA as well).

snowcat
01-27-2012, 11:22 PM
- albeit an essential one with the removal of Ps support.

Bobgnar
01-28-2012, 01:21 AM
Warband also pursue 1/2 BW :) Perhaps one is a typo.

Did someone mention the removal of the "Type 6" river.

Flees are changed a bit. The old bug-a-boo shooting on the rear edge has a little quirk added.

BUA, for those who care, now get attacked by multiple elements who give a -1 to attack

As Martyn says, lots of little changes. However, the big one remains the same.


Had a chance to read a bit more and noticed that Wb now pursue 1BW. So if single ranked they pursue a destroyed element out of overlap support of thier neighbour.

There seems to be lots of these little changes: Art range, Camelry combat outcomes as Knights, mounted recoil distance choices, etc.

snowcat
01-28-2012, 03:08 AM
"Only the first DBE lost counts as two."

That's the reverse of my suggestion. My idea was that the loss of the first DBE could be absorbed by the army's morale like a single element – but the loss of any subsequent DBEs would have severe repercussions on morale (counting as two).

snowcat
01-28-2012, 09:34 AM
Phil's pointed out that there might only be 1 DBE in an army, so that's why the first DBE lost has to count as 2 elements - fair enough.

dicemanrick
01-28-2012, 11:57 AM
I still cannot understand why the loss of a double-based element has the same value versus defeat as the loss of a general....

Double-based elements do not fight like two elements so why count them as such? Are they the elite guard troops of the army? If so, I would say the rule fits. If not, the rule doesn't work well and should be changed.

Two cents as usual is my stake...:D

kontos
01-28-2012, 12:07 PM
I still cannot understand why the loss of a double-based element has the same value versus defeat as the loss of a general....

Double-based elements do not fight like two elements so why count them as such? Are they the elite guard troops of the army? If so, I would say the rule fits. If not, the rule doesn't work well and should be changed.

Two cents as usual is my stake...:D

If they are the Elite Guard, they should be in the General's Element. That is why it fights better. :up

Haardrada
01-28-2012, 01:03 PM
I still cannot understand why the loss of a double-based element has the same value versus defeat as the loss of a general....

Double-based elements do not fight like two elements so why count them as such? Are they the elite guard troops of the army? If so, I would say the rule fits. If not, the rule doesn't work well and should be changed.

Two cents as usual is my stake...:D

I agree. This rule should be deleted.

Ammianus
01-28-2012, 03:12 PM
I just tried the 3.0 (Draft#2) with the new movement rates & non psiloi rear support; with Phil's "Taste" army list: LIR(W) vs Visigoths. No fooling around here, game over on turn three; WBs totally blew the legions (3 BDs) into the hereafter. Flanking action by the Roman auxilia squeezed out a 4 to 3 victory in the nick of time. My incompetent Roman LH continued their streak of total failure to make any contribution. These movement rates and the deployment scheme just doesn't seem right to me.

Doug
01-30-2012, 03:52 AM
Guys, I urge ALL of us to get playing and testing this. And rather than play one or two games, and write an in depth AAR about it, play a dozen or more, and get reliable data. This is our chance. Phil is actively soliciting email correspondence from the game's fan base. :eek I am almost speechless,.... wait, ... no (whew) it's back.

Good advice, and I would urge anyone genuinely interested in improving DBA3 to follow it through.

Phil will pay more attention to genuine playtests than any arguments, since he feels that the nature of a complex system is that you cannot argue any single change in isolation.

Giving feedback via playtest is your best chance to influence/change the development process.

john meunier
01-30-2012, 07:43 AM
I just tried the 3.0 (Draft#2) with the new movement rates & non psiloi rear support; with Phil's "Taste" army list: LIR(W) vs Visigoths. No fooling around here, game over on turn three; WBs totally blew the legions (3 BDs) into the hereafter. Flanking action by the Roman auxilia squeezed out a 4 to 3 victory in the nick of time. My incompetent Roman LH continued their streak of total failure to make any contribution. These movement rates and the deployment scheme just doesn't seem right to me.


The Romans won a bloody battle.

Did you try to deploy farther back? The deployment rules are a limit for how far forward you may deploy, not a requirement.

Ammianus
01-30-2012, 04:13 PM
Right you are John; I deployed further forward than normal just to see how that rule changed worked. Still investigating.

Hannibal Ad Portas
01-30-2012, 09:06 PM
Why allow for closer deployment in 3.0 and then encourage players to deploy farther back to avoid those fast games and quick contact? I thought Phil was trying to encourage players to avoid sitting on the end lines...a problem I virtually never encountered in hundreds of DBA games.

snowcat
01-30-2012, 09:09 PM
Might be to hide the effects of the new movement rates...

(Look over there!)

;)

Rich Gause
01-30-2012, 09:50 PM
I still cannot understand why the loss of a double-based element has the same value versus defeat as the loss of a general....

Double-based elements do not fight like two elements so why count them as such? Are they the elite guard troops of the army? If so, I would say the rule fits. If not, the rule doesn't work well and should be changed.

Two cents as usual is my stake...:D

If DBE had a +1 in all circumstances that a general did, ie everything but shooting without being shot I could see the count as 2 elements lost thing.

snowcat
01-30-2012, 09:55 PM
For every DBE lost or still just the first in that case?

Doug
01-31-2012, 08:07 AM
Why allow for closer deployment in 3.0 and then encourage players to deploy farther back to avoid those fast games and quick contact? I thought Phil was trying to encourage players to avoid sitting on the end lines...a problem I virtually never encountered in hundreds of DBA games.

I think it is a choice where one player might want to deploy as far forward as possible, whereas another more mobile army might want more time to manoeuvre before main-line contact.

I don't mind the addition of a further element of player choice, but if both players deploy as far forward as possible then obviously games are going to be over quickly.

One interesting aspect not being reflected on, is the increased option to deploy in depth.

kontos
01-31-2012, 08:31 AM
I think it is a choice where one player might want to deploy as far forward as possible, whereas another more mobile army might want more time to manoeuvre before main-line contact.

I don't mind the addition of a further element of player choice, but if both players deploy as far forward as possible then obviously games are going to be over quickly.

One interesting aspect not being reflected on, is the increased option to deploy in depth.

IIRC Hannibal was one of the first Generals to deploy in two lines creating the use of reserves. DBA is all about matchups and overlaps and hasn't rewarded armies for deploying in depth. What advantages do you see in the game for depth, Doug? 2.2 or 3.0 - the game moves too quickly for it. Am I missing something?

Doug
01-31-2012, 09:06 AM
IIRC Hannibal was one of the first Generals to deploy in two lines creating the use of reserves. DBA is all about matchups and overlaps and hasn't rewarded armies for deploying in depth. What advantages do you see in the game for depth, Doug? 2.2 or 3.0 - the game moves too quickly for it. Am I missing something?

I have used depth in the past to create killing grounds by tempting an enemy in who would not have come in facing overlaps. I haven't tried it in DBA yet as the move distances weren't sufficient. So this is currently just speculative.

The other use of multiple lines is to allow elements to break through or push back a line to the extent that they can then be mobbed by reserve elements, but you don't need too much depth to do that, and it is high-risk with the 12 elements in DBA.

I will have to give it a try.

Martyn
01-31-2012, 09:33 AM
In my test games I have found that a second line is helpful particularly with the increase in the number of types that pursue. If the reserve can be positioned so that it has the pursuing element in its TZ/DZ/ZoC then it stops the closing door. It can also engage the element with double over laps.

The down side is that the flanks are more vulnerable due to the reduced frontage. So what you gain in limiting the central breakthrough you lose to collapsing flanks. :up

snowcat
01-31-2012, 09:36 AM
Terrain would help with the outflanked problem, but that's problematic (and rightly so to some extent) with the randomised terrain generator.

Martyn
02-03-2012, 03:05 PM
For those who are interested there is a new draft available on the Yahoo Group.

Something for the weekend. ;)

Matt
02-06-2012, 01:17 AM
Somehow missed this on Friday.

Just did a cursory look - I believe Ps improve a bit vs. Elephants and SCh, Wb second move is more limited than before, couple of other clarifications.

Stephen Webb
02-06-2012, 05:48 AM
One interesting aspect not being reflected on, is the increased option to deploy in depth.

If I was the attacker and the defender had deployed in two lines, I wouldn't as far as possible.

Then whilst he tries to expand, you attack the flanks and win.

Doug
02-06-2012, 07:34 AM
If I was the attacker and the defender had deployed in two lines, I wouldn't as far as possible.

Then whilst he tries to expand, you attack the flanks and win.

except that the attack on the flank isn't so deadly in 3, plus you may need to move out to the flank, and if you turn the end element without getting the PIPS to hit the frotn as well, the second line can catch you - it's a balancing act, and isn't the lay down misere of 2.2 where flanks are the be-all and end-all

jacar
02-06-2012, 05:48 PM
In my Pyrrhic v Rome test game, my Kn Gen was in reserve. A Roman Bd was driving some Sp backward. I was waiting for it to drive far enough so that I could gain a flank and destroy it. It never happened unfortunately. The dice gods warmed to the Sp!

One of the cool things about DBA 3.0 is that you can win in the center before the flanks fall apart. I believe that was a major gripe with all of the previous DBx style games.

John