Why not a minimalist approach

[john meunier]

I noticed on another thread a couple of the 2.2+ advocates acknowledging that they would have preferred an update that included the minimal amount of line edits to fix long-discussed problems.

That, obviously, is not what the GM group decided to do.

I'm curious to know how it was decided to go beyond that into more substantive changes to the 2.2 game. What was the thinking behind that?

[david kuijt]

I'm curious to know how it was decided to go beyond that into more substantive changes to the 2.2 game. What was the thinking behind that?

There was quite a bit of discussion about that issue; it is a general design choice that has a broad impact.

I'll try to find some of the relevant posts tomorrow; right now I'm going to bed.

[pozanias]

John,

I'm not sure if you're referring to any of my comments or not, but just in case I will clarify my position:

If I had been in sole control of 2.2+ I would have adopted a more conservative/minimalist approach (i.e. Just fix commonly identified problems) And I think my version of 2.2+ would be far less controversial. BUT having played the actual 2.2+ a number of times -- I think it is BETTER than what I would have produced on my own. Its just more interesting and built for a longer shelf-life.

I have wondered if these changes should have been phased in over time (to lessen the shock), but that approach has many pitfalls.

[john meunier]

Mark, your comment was one that caught my eye.

As a total outsider to the process, the draft reads more like 2.3 than 2.2+ to me. That is not a critique of the work the GMs have done, but I was surprised when I read it because I was expected a more conservative approach based on some of what I had read before the beta was released.

So, I'm interested to understand the process behind the curtain.

[David Schlanger]

As a total outsider to the process, the draft reads more like 2.3 than 2.2+ to me.


John - We can't call this DBA 2.3... it looks like it and plays like it, but we can't call it that. Calling it 2.3 represents it as an official modification.

DS

[Pavane]

John - We can't call this DBA 2.3... it looks like it and plays like it, but we can't call it that. Calling it 2.3 represents it as an official modification.

DS
How about: II.II magis? :D

[david kuijt]

As a total outsider to the process, the draft reads more like 2.3 than 2.2+ to me.

Very much so.

As DS suggests, you're reading far too much into the name. 2.2+ is not synonymous with 2.21, which seems to be what you're thinking the name represents. If you think about it, you'll realize we couldn't represent this as DBA 2.3, 2.4, or whatever version number because version numbers (in people's minds) are associated with official revisions. Phil (in our opinion) should have written 2.3 rather than the 3.0 he is working on -- but that wasn't his vision. No problem. But we can't claim "DBA 2.3" as a name, just because he isn't using it.

[lkmjbc]

John:

I'm not privy to any of the development info or part of the team. They can speak for themselves... but I will answer your question.

First, 2.2 could have been modified to a minimal level quite easily.

Cut out BUAs, make dismounting at deployment, single element conform, and clarify some wording.

This would have probably satisfied those who play at tourneys. I suspect however that most DBA players do more than play at tourneys. I use DBA to refight historical battles. In some cases I use rules as written. In some cases I use BBDB. In some cases I use historical terrain (best guess anyway) and uneven sides.

Playing DBA this way doesn't work well. Various periods are broken and require modification.

The 2.2+ mods address these situations (Dark Ages, Rome vs Parthians,
Burgundians vs Others).

The real question is "What does everyone want?" I'm glad of the mods. I think they make DBA more historical. Others will no doubt feel that 2.2 was fine as is... with a few modifications that most were using anyway.

Joe Collins

[El' Jocko]

I noticed on another thread a couple of the 2.2+ advocates acknowledging that they would have preferred an update that included the minimal amount of line edits to fix long-discussed problems.

That, obviously, is not what the GM group decided to do.

I'm curious to know how it was decided to go beyond that into more substantive changes to the 2.2 game. What was the thinking behind that?

This was discussed extensively even before the GM List was formed. And I'm afraid that I was the one who pushed strongly to go in the direction that we did--you and Xavi can blame me. :o

We spent a lot of time talking about many different changes that could be included. Some were changes that were familiar to the whole community, like dropping BUAs and the LH QK on spear and pike. Others were ideas that had been discussed on Fanaticus, like the Pavise and Raider element types. And a few were things that we'd liked when playtesting DBA 3.0.

Most of the discussion focused on how these various changes would be received. Would too much change drive gamers away? Would adopting ideas from DBA 3.0 upset gamers? How much change was too much? Personally, I found this to be a very difficult and frustrating process. I felt we had identified a number of changes that we thought would significantly improve DBA, but we were hesitant to include them--how would people react?

Finally, my frustation boiled over and I made a plea to just work toward creating the best rules that we could and let the chips fall where they may. Here's an excerpt from an email that I sent at the time:

But I'm not going to be worried about how the rules are perceived--whether we borrow from DBA 3.0 or whatever. I just want to make the best rules that we can within the time we have. If we put together a set of rules that really rock, then enough people will come along to make it worthwhile. The reality is that no matter what we do, there are going to be people who complain. So let 'em. We'll just make a wicked good set of rules, run some awesome tournaments, and have some fun.

I think that last sentence really sums it all up. It's what I went back to whenever I had doubts about what we were doing, and it's still sets my criteria for sucess:

Make a wicked good set of rules, run some awesome tournaments, and have some fun.

For me, that's what it's all about.

- Jack

[David Schlanger]

This was discussed extensively even before the GM List was formed. And I'm afraid that I was the one who pushed strongly to go in the direction that we did--you and Xavi can blame me. :o


Make a wicked good set of rules, run some awesome tournaments, and have some fun.

For me, that's what it's all about.

- Jack

Everything that Jack stated is true, especially the part where he says to blame him :)

however...

2.2+ still has some significant constraints, and I must point out that we remain focused on staying true to the feel of DBA 2.2. So, I would like to slightly modify what Jack has above to:

Make a wicked good set of rules, run some awesome tournaments, and have some fun, all while remaining true to the feel of DBA 2.2.


DS

[Xavi]

Just posting a comprehensive post about WHY the changes were introduced and what was intended would have eased a lot of the ruckus about 2.2+. We had to extract that with pliers instead since the first impact was not what was hoped from something that by its name seems like it should be DBA 2.21 ;)

I would say that you still have to work on the littoral landings, more support for normal spear (greeks were not morons) and rivers as well as allowing non-WADBAG systems to be usable (24" boards), but the changes look less dramatic and in quite a few places more appealing when the explanation of why they are there and what is the intent of the 2.2+ project is provided.

Cheers,
Xavi

[david kuijt]

Good post, Jack.

As Jack says, up until that point, we were trying to do several things at once, and constantly worried not only about whether rules were good or not, and whether they added too much complication for the benefit, and all the other things we needed to be worried about, but after everything else we were asking the question: "okay, but how will players react?"

After Jack's revelation we rose up, threw down our shackles, and danced naked under the singing stars. Or maybe that was just me. But regardless, we all bought in to the Jack Revelation. We drank the Jack cool-aid. We smoked the Jack weed. And so on.

So from then on, we still asked all the other questions -- "is this an improvement?", and "is this adding too much complexity?" and all that. But we no longer worried about whether we were cleaving to some unknowable standard of "Keeping Everyone Happy." Because "Everyone" doesn't have an opinion, so that standard was unreachable anyway. For one individual, change X might be fine, but change Y might be "a step too far" -- and for a second person, change Y might be fine, but X is "a step too far."

We tried to make the best set of v2.2+ rules we could, keeping the look and feel of play as DBA 2.2. We did not try to make the least offensive set of changes we could. And that is why.

[david kuijt]

I would say that you still have to work on the littoral landings, more support for normal spear (greeks were not morons) and rivers as well as allowing non-WADBAG systems to be usable (24" boards), but the changes look less dramatic and in quite a few places more appealing when the explanation of why they are there and what is the intent of the 2.2+ project is provided.


What do you suggest for littoral landings?

Rivers are a big problem -- if you look in the Rivers thread HERE (http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=12609) you'll see some explanations by Jack and Alan Ferrency as to why it is difficult to come to a solution.

The majority of people using 30" boards are not WADBAG, but I see what you are saying.

[john meunier]

John - We can't call this DBA 2.3... it looks like it and plays like it, but we can't call it that. Calling it 2.3 represents it as an official modification.

DS

Fair enough.

I appreciate Jack's post, too. I see how his language about making the best rules possible made it into the design philosophy.

As an outsider, I urge the group to publish a version of Jack's post with the final version of the mods. Give people an understanding of the history and discussion that led to them -- and help them understand why you did not do less or more.

[john meunier]

The majority of people using 30" boards are not WADBAG, but I see what you are saying.

I would urge making 24" boards a standard option as well -- as many people do play on them now. You could even include a Phil-like admonition that people who do so have weak moral character and questionable parentage. :)

[Xavi]

I said that this needs to be looked upon, not that I have a definitive answer.

For landings, I would remove them. I have not seen any historical battles pre-WWII that did that on a consistent way AND the battle was fought ion the beach. Battles on the edge of a waterway for sure, and landings for sure, but NOT both at the same time. There might be a case or 2, but it certainly was not a common tactic of people with a navy to do that in the middle of an engagement. At least I am not aware of such a ploy.

Now from the top of my head an alternative:
- All littoral armies become arable. Arable terrain already includes a rough now IIRC, so adding marshes there should not be a far stretch.
- Instead of littoral landigs you can introduce a "flanking" manoeuvre" available to everybody.
- Up to 3 elements (2?, 4?).
- At least one of them must be mounted.
- The group deploys on one side edge determined at the start of the game paying 5 PIPs (2 PIPs per element? 6 PIPs?).
- You must deploy them the first time you roll a 5 or 6. Or something like that.

Just from the top of my head :) As said, I just find the current situation to require a review if you are into making such changes to the game, but not necessarily that I have a solution ready to handle.

Cheers,
Xavi

[Xavi]

As an outsider, I urge the group to publish a version of Jack's post with the final version of the mods. Give people an understanding of the history and discussion that led to them -- and help them understand why you did not do less or more.

I could not agree more :)



Cheers,
Xavi

[Redwilde]

What do you suggest for littoral landings?

I've been thinking that a little later down the road, we should do an appendix of suggested optional rules for all the rare historical cases that usually bring out the 'that would be a good scenario specific rule'. Littoral landings and dismounting after deployment would both be good candidates to move into this category. The historical rarity of contested beach landings (and the dearth of DBA Littoral rated armies actually involved in them) is a big case for just classifying them as scenario-speciifc options (as well as any other changes that might improve them).

[ferrency]

I would say that you still have to work on the littoral landings


What is the problem with littoral landings that you believe needs to be solved?

more support for normal spear
What are you looking for here? Spear providing rear support to other spear against elements other than Kn/Sp?

Alan

[david kuijt]

You could even include a Phil-like admonition that people who do so have weak moral character and questionable parentage. :)

not our style, John. We ply others with caramels, then crush them with Elephants. Or wait -- maybe that was just you...

[david kuijt]

I've been thinking that a little later down the road, we should do an appendix of suggested optional rules for all the rare historical cases that usually bring out the 'that would be a good scenario specific rule'. Littoral landings and dismounting after deployment would both be good candidates to move into this category. The historical rarity of contested beach landings (and the dearth of DBA Littoral rated armies actually involved in them) is a big case for just classifying them as scenario-speciifc options (as well as any other changes that might improve them).

I don't know about having this be an "official" appendix -- a plethora of optional rules often degrades the common understanding.

But I agree with the idea -- perhaps this (as a set of historical scenario special rules) could be combined with the Campaign Rules document that DS and I have been planning for a long time. The one that would encapsulate the campaign theme rules we've developed and refined and been running for four or more years now, and include all the different examples we have run ("Falls A Titan" for death of Atilla, "When Things Were Rotten" for the HYW England and France, and all the others, with the special rules for each one. Given the historical-gaming focus of that sort of document, it would seem to fit well with the sort of special historical rules you're thinking of.

[Xavi]

What is the problem with littoral landings that you believe needs to be solved?

What are you looking for here? Spear providing rear support to other spear against elements other than Kn/Sp?
Alan

1. As I post above, I so far have failed to find evidence of pitched battles that included up to 33% of an army fighting potential making a Normandy-style landing. As such I find littoral landings suspicious. On the other hand, flanking manoeuvres were uncommon, but not THAT uncommon. As such I would like to see a broader flanking method that replaces the littoral landings. Another issue is that littoral armies defended in non-waterway terrain quite commonly.

2. Spears were deployed in deep formations against more opponents than the current rules incentive you to do. This could be solved increasing the number of elements where the second spear supports. The German phalanx against roman blades, the greek dudes getting nervous for their thinned centre at marathon (you do not support against bow, you morons! And neither do you support against the Cv that you are facing with double depth!!) et al. As such I think Sp would benefit from extra supports like Pk or LSp do. The shorter and the longer Sp do get better support options, so I fail to see why the NORMAL spears do not get the same treatment.


Easy enough :)

Cheers,
Xavi

[pozanias]

I would urge making 24" boards a standard option as well -- as many people do play on them now.

John, this is another point that I argued for in the test period which I have subsequently changed my mind about. It seems as though most of the points you and Xavi have made, I made at some point. So whether you knew it or not your views were being represented. :2up

I preferred 30" boards in 2.2. With 2.2+, I REALLY prefer 30" boards. BUT, I argued that "what would it hurt if we just included lanuguage to allow 24" boards as well -- for those people that do prefer the smaller boards" even though I knew I would never use them myself. The argument back which won me over (I think it was from Alan) was that, to be effective, rules need to be clear and decisive. Giving choices only increases the potential for disagreements.

To give a comparable example, when I played 2.2 I used to ask my opponent if it would be okay to play front corner measurement only (as opposed to furthest moving any corner) because I had a strong preference for it. If he said yes, I was happy and all was good. If he said no, I would concede -- because that's how the rules are written. No argument. In fact, I would actually prefer the rules to say "measure furthest any corner" than for them to say "measure furthest any corner OR measure only furthest front corner". Its just better to be clear.

Having said that, there is nothing stopping people from playing 2.2+ on 24" boards (or from measuring any furthest corner). Just like there was nothing stopping us from playing on 30" boards in 2.2 (or measuring furthest front corner). And I think we even agreed to throw some statement like that in the "introduction" of the final version.

[Redwilde]

I so far have failed to find evidence of pitched battles that included up to 33% of an army fighting potential making a Normandy-style landing.

Historical examples are exceedingly rare. The big one is Caesar's first landing fought on the beaches of Britain. Note that neither side is DBA Littoral!

[Redwilde]

But I agree with the idea -- perhaps this (as a set of historical scenario special rules) could be combined with the Campaign Rules document that DS and I have been planning for a long time.

Yes, that would certainly be a very good combo pack.

[pozanias]

2. Spears were deployed in deep formations against more opponents than the current rules incentive you to do. This could be solved increasing the number of elements where the second spear supports. The German phalanx against roman blades, the greek dudes getting nervous for their thinned centre at marathon (you do not support against bow, you morons! And neither do you support against the Cv that you are facing with double depth!!) et al. As such I think Sp would benefit from extra supports like Pk or LSp do. The shorter and the longer Sp do get better support options, so I fail to see why the NORMAL spears do not get the same treatment.




I 100% agree with you. However, in our group discussions, I agreed to put this off for consideration in the future. I don't know if that's something you would also find acceptable.

[Xavi]

Given that there are 3 new elements present in the game I am unlikely to concede that not addressing a mistake in the 2.2 rules like this one is a good thing.

ANd speaking of elements and moves, I do not see anything about rear shooting being adressed. Or perceived as a problem, in fact. FYI, bows doing all kind of ahistorical moves to reach a position where they can shot you in the back and/or preventing recoil by half-pace positioning arithmetics has become a staple feature of Spanish tournaments.

Cheers,
Xavi

[pozanias]

Given that there are 3 new elements present in the game I am unlikely to concede that not addressing a mistake in the 2.2 rules like this one is a good thing.

Well, I suspect you are a better negotiator than me. So have at it.


ANd speaking of elements and moves, I do not see anything about rear shooting being adressed. Or perceived as a problem, in fact. FYI, bows doing all kind of ahistorical moves to reach a position where they can shot you in the back and/or preventing recoil by half-pace positioning arithmetics has become a staple feature of Spanish tournaments.

Cheers,
Xavi

There should be something in the play sheet along the lines of: elements shot in the rear that are beaten but not doubled first turn 180 degrees before recoiling. No more death if beaten. This change was made for precisely the reasons you give, grossly ahistorical behavior in the game.

[Xavi]

Quite irrelevant, really. The most common trick around here works like this:

- You move a Bw so that a negligible part (half a pace) of its front is just behind the rear corner of the enemy element. If it recoilsfron the shot, it hits your front and is destroyed.

Adding what you say only requires an element to move into the ZOC of the element that is going to be shot for it to keep working. He just turns around ahnd hits the front of the OTHER element. Generally there is already a bow or 2 in that area (to ensure negatives for the guy being shot, like a spear or blade), so this is far from difficult to do.

I do not know how to correct it, but right now it is quite a-historical and gamist. Around here bows are used as hunter-killer teams, navy seals style.

A possible option would be that the bow that shots in the rear is pushed back to leave space for the element to recoil, or something like that. One of those areas where I know something is wrong, but am not aware of a clear answer :)

Xavi

[pozanias]

Adding what you say only requires an element to move into the ZOC of the element that is going to be shot for it to keep working. He just turns around ahnd hits the front of the OTHER element. Generally there is already a bow or 2 in that area (to ensure negatives for the guy being shot, like a spear or blade), so this is far from difficult to do.


Xavi

I think it is now waaay more difficult to pull this stunt. Firstly, the shooting edge has to be entirely behind the rear edge of the target. Secondly, you now need a second element to block the recoil. That's a huge difference.

By the way, I think the language to which I'm referring is on the last page under a section called "recoil".

[david kuijt]

A possible option would be that the bow that shots in the rear is pushed back to leave space for the element to recoil, or something like that. One of those areas where I know something is wrong, but am not aware of a clear answer :)


Won't work, Xavi. That just requires that you block the recoil with some other element, not the bow. And anything that adds "pushed back to leave space" is a HORROR in rules -- it can (and almost always does) create a whole bunch of special cases that are usually even worse than the problem you originally were trying to fix!

Shooting at an element from the rear is always going to be a bad thing. For one thing, it means the element's flank is terribly exposed. Consider it similar to a flank attack in close combat, where lose means death.

The 2.2 rule (lose means death) handled that, but was too severe, leading bow players to zip their front edge just behind the line extending the rear of the enemy so they could shoot it and kill it. As you say, the results were gamey and didn't look historical.

The v2.2+ rule is more moderate -- now not only do you need a shot from behind to kill something, but you also need something blocking its recoil -- which is absolutely no different from a front shot, where something blocking its recoil will kill it now. Sure, sometimes a single element will be able to both shoot and block the recoil. But it won't be nearly as easy for a single shooting element as it is now in v2.2, and an element that is that close (close enough to block the recoil and shoot) is going to be close enough to be attacked, if it does NOT roll high enough to get the recoil result. As compared to the old rearshot rule where you could do it from a million miles away and still get a QK.

[Xavi]

I think I did not explain myself well enough. let me grab a few elements and the camera. BRB

[johnpap]

For landings, I would remove them. I have not seen any historical battles pre-WWII that did that on a consistent way.

Xavi

I totally, totally agree. My very strong opinion on the subject is that littoral landings is the most unrealistic and out-of-place rule of 2.2. The BUA rule seems much more realistic compared to it. It represents... well it represents nothing. Or, maybe, an army excecuting a telepathetically co-ordinated combined-arms operation, assaulting the beaches of its own homeland and crushing the enemy with its littoral elephants...

[Tony Aguilar]

I totally, totally agree. My very strong opinion on the subject is that littoral landings is the most unrealistic and out-of-place rule of 2.2. The BUA rule seems much more realistic compared to it.

I think they are both a terrible representation of anything "historical."

[El' Jocko]

1. As I post above, I so far have failed to find evidence of pitched battles that included up to 33% of an army fighting potential making a Normandy-style landing. As such I find littoral landings suspicious. On the other hand, flanking manoeuvres were uncommon, but not THAT uncommon. As such I would like to see a broader flanking method that replaces the littoral landings. Another issue is that littoral armies defended in non-waterway terrain quite commonly.

I'm going to agree with you on this, Xavi. I think that a flank march rule would be much more interesting (in terms of game play) and accurate (in terms of history). Frankly, I'd get rid of Waterways while we're at it--besides allowing littoral landings, they only serve to make the board smaller.

But. I'd put this in the category of big changes that are just too big a reach for v2.2+. Especially because doing it right could mean changes to the army lists and that's definitely out of scope. I'm sympathetic to making the change, but I just don't see it happening in the short term.

- Jack

Edit: Having just taken a peek at the photos of the great waterway that Tim in Saskatoon just posted, I'd feel bad about removing the waterway rule. I don't think it fits in terms of game play, but I'm really liking what he did with his new terrain pieces.

[david kuijt]

I'm going to agree with you on this, Xavi. I think that a flank march rule would be much more interesting (in terms of game play) and accurate (in terms of history). Frankly, I'd get rid of Waterways while we're at it--besides allowing littoral landings, they only serve to make the board smaller.

But. I'd put this in the category of big changes that are just too big a reach for v2.2+. Especially because doing it right could mean changes to the army lists and that's definitely out of scope. I'm sympathetic to making the change, but I just don't see it happening in the short term.


I'm agreeing with Jack and Xavi, in general terms. I don't think there were no battles involving littoral landings -- but they were bleepin' rare, that's true.

I like the concept of flank marches -- because those did happen, all the time. Mohi, for example, 1241 (Kingdom of Hungary vs. Mongols), and lots of others.

BUT, as with Jack, I'm not sure this isn't too big a change for v2.2+. In the fullness of time, perhaps. But as Jack says, anything that involves significant changes to the army lists is out of scope. (Saying "these 5 examples of Lit are to be X/Y/Z instead is not a significant change, in 581 army lists).

[Xavi]

OK, the Bow situation I tried to illustrate. Excellent miniatures from my crusaders and Umayyad Arabs by Paul Potter and Mike Porter :)

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x181/xrequejo/DBA/IMG_0403.jpg

The Cavalry cannot recoil and will be shot. If he loses will die WITHOUT it being shot in the back technically. It is just that a corner will prevent recoil.

The Cv cannot charge the flanking Bw either, since there is no space to do it without the Cv base stepping on the other Bw base.

If he survives he can charge forward, but he is likely to die anyway since his recoil is impeded. This is his best chancew anyway since he QK the other Bow. If it was a spear (should have thought about that, he would be pretty much doomed.

If he kills the bow, he will be shot in the rear next turn anyway.

This situation is far from uncommon around here. Ther eis always space to bring a bow to such a position if you move carefully and you use your other (faster) foot to cover the Bw approach. Or at least this is how we play.

I find this to be highly debatable from a historical POV.

Cheers,
Xavi

[pozanias]

Okay Xavi, I got it now. Although your point is actually better made if the 2nd bow (the one in front of the cav) isn't there. Otherwise this same problem exists in close combat as well (having some element use 1mm of its front edge to block a recoil) -- and I'm not sure its a "problem". Having an enemy to your front and flank/rear is a bad position to be in.

To fix the single bow partially behind the Cav, we may need to change the language to read "...if any part of the shooting element is directly behind the target's rear edge, then the target first turns 180 degrees and then recoils". I think that would work, but I'll have to think about it.

[Rich Gause]

I don't think that is one of those problems that can be fixed without making something else worse or without an unacceptable level of complexity. Maybe if we went the not killed if can start but not complete a recoil which I really don't like. Still it is not like you can't see a bow moving towards that position from a long way away and its not like there aren't plenty of elements that are deadly to bow so it isn't one of those problems that the opponent can spring on you so quickly that you don't have a chance to react. I'd say leave it as is and don't let your Cv get in such a situation if you can help it.

[david kuijt]

I don't think that is one of those problems that can be fixed without making something else worse or without an unacceptable level of complexity. Maybe if we went the not killed if can start but not complete a recoil which I really don't like. Still it is not like you can't see a bow moving towards that position from a long way away and its not like there aren't plenty of elements that are deadly to bow so it isn't one of those problems that the opponent can spring on you so quickly that you don't have a chance to react. I'd say leave it as is and don't let your Cv get in such a situation if you can help it.

As Rich says above, Xavi -- the situation given is not something easily fixable. Or even that should be fixed. The blocking bow in your example could as easily be a Psiloi -- so the only way to "fix" that is to make death-by-failed recoil go away. And that is a DISASTER, with all sorts of changes -- I no longer know if 3.0 has that, but it did for a long time, and it really messes up an awful lot of things.

If you want to be able to recoil, don't let things get into your backfield and block you. Shooting isn't really the important part of that.

[john meunier]

You don't have to change the army lists to get rid of littoral landings. You can still have littoral armies that always defend near a waterway for some unexplained reason. You just cross out the rules allowing littoral landings.

My favorite army is Later Carthaginian. I would happily get rid of the landings.

(Giving Hannibal flank march rules is a whole different thing, and I would cheer for that.)

[Rich Gause]

You don't have to change the army lists to get rid of littoral landings. You can still have littoral armies that always defend near a waterway for some unexplained reason. You just cross out the rules allowing littoral landings.

My favorite army is Later Carthaginian. I would happily get rid of the landings.

(Giving Hannibal flank march rules is a whole different thing, and I would cheer for that.)

You could keep littoral and WW and sort of get rid of littoral landings by adopting a flank march rule and allow only littoral armies to have their flank march enter from a WW edge. Think of it as a flank march by boats. Maybe make flank marchers eligible for arrival as per the current LL rules for one pip on any bound with the caveat that they can only come in if you pip roll was 6+ if the slowest mover in the flank force was 3MU, 5+ if the slowest mover was 4or 5MU or on a waterway edge, and 4+ if the slowest mover was 6MU. Or somethingsimiliar.

[Redwilde]

Sadly for the sake of purely entertaining games, I don't think there's a single example of flank march by boat until you get to the Sicilian campaign......
in WW2!

Waterways as a terrain feature are still tactically fun if used to provide a non-linear board edge. And a waterway would prevent flank marches on that side!

[Xavi]

That sounds sensible. No flank march entery through a waterway. :)

Xavi

[Xavi]

As Rich says above, Xavi -- the situation given is not something easily fixable. Or even that should be fixed. The blocking bow in your example could as easily be a Psiloi -- so the only way to "fix" that is to make death-by-failed recoil go away. And that is a DISASTER, with all sorts of changes -- I no longer know if 3.0 has that, but it did for a long time, and it really messes up an awful lot of things.

If you want to be able to recoil, don't let things get into your backfield and block you. Shooting isn't really the important part of that.

I know. THe picture is confusing because I put a Bw in front of the Cv (it should have been a Sp to simplify things). It still annoys me that it creates a QK situation just by moving a corner of a Bw past the enemy Cv when it is supposed to be a full rear shot what should be lethal. . That situation is fairly easy to achieve, but yes, it is irking, heh.



About the landings and changes to the lists, we are introducing 3 freakin' new troop types and changing how others like litters, ellies and camels work but you cannot say "littoral armies and arable armies have the same terrain options"? LOL :D

Xavi

[david kuijt]

About the landings and changes to the lists, we are introducing 3 freakin' new troop types and changing how others like litters, ellies and camels work but you cannot say "littoral armies and arable armies have the same terrain options"? LOL :D


Everybody has their own priorities, Xavi. For you, littoral landings are obviously a huge buggaboo but you don't want 30" boards. For someone else, it might be the reverse, where they don't care about littoral landings so much but think 24" boards are broken and need to change. We can't make everyone happy, and we can't make every change.

We're not going to make any changes right now. You don't make changes at the start of beta testing.

However, we (the GMlist) are going to be taking all the feedback we get from the beta testing and evaluating it. That is the time when a change might still make it in, if you make a strong enough case for it.

That won't be until some time after Cold Wars; not sure when.

I would like to point out, however, that you seem to have evolved your reactions -- your first reactions were all "Ohmigod, look at all these frightening changes -- too much, too much!" :eek

And now you are saying "Oh, but add this other change in as well." :D The title of this thread is "why not a minimalist approach" -- it is difficult for us to simultaneously defend ourselves against accusations that we have made too many changes, and also justify why we shouldn't implement another new change, another addition. When the same person is saying both things, it is ironic!

[john meunier]

The title of this thread is "why not a minimalist approach" -- it is difficult for us to simultaneously defend ourselves against accusations that we have made too many changes, and also justify why we shouldn't implement another new change, another addition.

Just to clarify, the thread was not started as an accusation but as a question that arose out of the release of the beta test.

[Xavi]

I thought you (I think it was ferrency) already said "we discussed a minimalist approach and decided to screw it and go for the big stuff since this is what we wanted". As such we are past the point. What I (and others) are saying is that you have left important stuff out and left the 2.2+ halfway, neither here nor there in your changes.

For a 2.2+ I already said I would have preferred minimal changes. But if the plan is to go overboard and throw caution to the wind creating your own version of what 3.0 should have been (and this is what 2.2+ ended up being) I would make more changes than you suggest. Even though I am not convinced we need 3 new element types. ;)

BTW: thanks for cherry picking me over and over again among all the people that is posting constructive criticisms and ideas for 2.2+. I feel honored.

Xavi

[david kuijt]

Just to clarify, the thread was not started as an accusation but as a question that arose out of the release of the beta test.

Sure. But my point was that those of us involved in this project are simultaneously taking flak for doing too much, and for doing too little. This is difficult enough to handle politely when the flak is from different people.

[david kuijt]

What I (and others) are saying is that you have left important stuff out and left the 2.2+ halfway, neither here nor there in your changes.


Everybody has a different favorite "Oh, do THIS, too!" rule, Xavi. That doesn't mean that they can all be put in, or should be. If your idea has a lot of support and is a good one it might get in; if there is resistance to it, it might not, or at least not at this point.



BTW: thanks for cherry picking me over and over again among all the people that is posting constructive criticisms and ideas for 2.2+. I feel honored.


And so you should. :rolleyes

[Redwilde]

It still annoys me that it creates a QK situation just by moving a corner of a Bw past the enemy Cv when it is supposed to be a full rear shot what should be lethal.

That may be a common tactic around your place, but it seems like the harder way to get that kill. Me, I'd be happy if my opponents were trying to take the slowest unit they have to try to get the flanking kill. There are no units that move slower than bow.

Any unit that moves faster than the bow will likely get into killing position around the rear corner quicker. Instead, put that bow unit in front and shoot. Target recoils and dies regardless of what type of element snuck around it's corner.

And if players regularly allow the slowest units in the game to get even a corner around their back, then those players are just crying out to Darwin to smite them for their folly. :cool

[Xavi]

We enter the realm of tactics here, but "bow speed" is a common expression (created by Gorgoroth) about moving you army at the speed of the slowest element. Far from a world shattering concept, but something that is quite commonly lost in the heat of battle. But it works. Since there is no turn limit in DBA it is perfectly fine to move at the speed of the slowest element in your army. That means that in a lot of battles the Bow reach the front line at the same time that the rest of your forces (including most of your mounted) do. Or sooner if you are using the bad going highways. :) By the time battle is joined and melee ensues, it is rather common to have a bow trying to slip between the battle in Bad going and the lines in good going to win the backside of the battle line. It requires 2 turns to get in position, hardly a really difficult move.

But well, we already knew that there are regional differences in how people play DBA. Italians Spaniards and Frenchmen play quite differently and have different types of armies as well. No idea about the wider world since I have never played there. In general, people that frequent the same tournament circuit tend to develop similar playing styles.

In any case i rest my case about corner shotting. :)

Xavi

[winterbadger]

And if players regularly allow the slowest units in the game to get even a corner around their back, then those players are just crying out to Darwin to smite them for their folly. :cool

Agreed. I looked at Xavi's photo and thought, "Any Cav that lets an enemy get into that position *should* die--no need for a fix here." JMO, of course. But if the element in front of the Cav were to move to contact and beat the Cav, the Cav would still die, whether that rear element is a Bw or not. Your flank hasn't just been turned--your army is becoming surrounded by that of the enemy. To quote King Henry in Lion in Winter, "To these aged eyes, boy, that's what winning looks like!"

In fact, all other things being equal, it's harder to get the rear element where it is than to just get it into front edge to side edge contact with the Cav. Do that when the front element closes to contact, and you not only guarantee killing the Cav if you win, you also inflict the -1 factor on the enemy. Yes, Bw don't have to enter contact to do this, but that's their metier--shooting.

The "you only have to get a tiny bit of an element into position" concern is, IMO, a red herring. *Everything* in DBA is "just a little bit"--it's a geometrical game that (for the most part--excepting the amoeba rule for movement) resolves everything in very stark terms. It doesn't matter how little of your base is in ZOC--if any of it is, you are ZOCed. It doesn't matter that you are only a few mm short of having room to recoil--if you don't have room, you are punished. It doesn't matter if the friendly Elephant element only just barely touches you when it recoils--if it does, you are dead.

[Doug]

While examples of a Littoral landing are hard to find, battles where a fleet cooperated with a land army are relatively common from Darius to the Arsuf Campaign.

I also have a strong recollection of an incident from one of the classical period (successor?) campaigns where a naval landing was done in conjunction with a land assault. Can't find the reference at the moment however. I have also in the past been pointed to Chinese examples by a chinese speaking friend.

I think DBA would benefit from a Flank march rule (I have in the past advocated the equivalent of a littoral landing on flank edges only, for steppe armies). But the current (0-4) easy no-risk landing is much too common to be historical. At the very least it should be a risky exercise.

[Dangun]

I also have a strong recollection of an incident from one of the classical period (successor?) campaigns where a naval landing was done in conjunction with a land assault. Can't find the reference at the moment however. I have also in the past been pointed to Chinese examples by a chinese speaking friend.

We might be stepping outside of what DBA simulates well. Might be a bit house-rule or scenario-like?

[johnpap]

I always believed that the introduction of littoral landings (and BUAs) was due to Phil Barker's over-ambitious plan to include every aspect of ancient warfare - sieges, ambushes, naval superiority - in a simple set of rules. Even if they worked fine, in a game focused on set-piece battles (which I think DBA should be, and I guess the intention of 2.2+ is) they just add unnecessary complication - and comfuse newcomers.

You don't have to change the army lists to get rid of littoral landings. You can still have littoral armies that always defend near a waterway for some unexplained reason. You just cross out the rules allowing littoral landings.


That's why I house-rule "WW and/or road" as compulsory for littoral armies (and no landings of course). No change in the lists. They still have the choice to use a wide river or the sea to protect a flank (which was common), or move inland and fight the invader there. In Zama, for example...

[winterbadger]

I'll add my voice to the chorus of those who would like (either now or in the future) to flank marches rules in place of littoral landing rules.

I think that LL didn't come up as an item to be fixed because (for the most part) the *rules* for it are pretty straightforward. People came to understand how they worked pretty fast, and they didn't have the *mechanical* problems and obvious time-scale issues of the BUA rules. On the other hand, I think they're as much or more out of place than BUAs in terms of historical examples (outside the latest Robin Hood movie :) ). And flank marches, which surely formed an important part of some battles, are entirely impossible (flanks marches away from the battle area as a whole, not wide flanking movements that are part of the battle).

Unless, of course, one is playing a campaign game, and then one can suddenly get not only a flank march, but three extra elements!

So, maybe not for 2.2+, but at some point I would be happy if littoral landings were replaced with a flank march rule that, as a scenario special rule, could be used by littoral armies.

[broadsword]

It seems to me that unless a littoral landing is an integral part of a field battle (for instance Caesar's opposed landing in Britian, in which the 10th secured the beachhead) then, as it is written, a flank march achieves the same effect.

I think Littoral landings should be opposed, or they should be a flank march. if opposed, set up the invading army with its back to the water! Otherwise, make it a flank march!

And BUA - my vote is with a WTF!! Or just a large piece of bad going!

[Redwilde]

I have also in the past been pointed to Chinese examples by a chinese speaking friend.

And also note that like the Romans, the Chinese armies aren't DBA Littoral.

[Doug]

And also note that like the Romans, the Chinese armies aren't DBA Littoral.

Yep.. most of their battles were fought inland, but they had huge naval contingents for river battles. And those rivers were pretty substantial. The Sui and Early Tang periods saw some massive engagements IIRC.

[david kuijt]

Yep.. most of their battles were fought inland, but they had huge naval contingents for river battles. And those rivers were pretty substantial. The Sui and Early Tang periods saw some massive engagements IIRC.

The Yuan mounted naval invasions, as far as Japan and Java. Some of their battles could well be described using littoral landings -- in one case, against Vietnam, the Viet seemed to be doing the littoral landing!

The Ming funded seven fleets in the early 15th century to the Indian Ocean and had regular contact with Western Africa -- there is a Chinese painting from 1414 of a giraffe that had been brought back from Africa.

[Paul Potter]

Back to the minimalist approach.
Nothing stops me or anyone else from going the minimalist route. As much as I like 2.2+ it just is not going to go over at our club because of the change in board size and increased movement. I'll get a few games in with David. I have enjoyed 2.2+ and am particularity fond of the Cataphracts and camels, both of these play very well.
I suspect what I'll do occasionally with my regular opponents is to ask permission to use some of the changes in 2.2+. there are some things I like about 3.0 and will probably use these, like the lists and the increased command range for light horse.
I'm viewing all of this like a big play box to pick and choose which rules I like, promises to be some fun. -Paul

[mdsanderson]

Back to the minimalist approach.
Nothing stops me or anyone else from going the minimalist route. As much as I like 2.2+ it just is not going to go over at our club because of the change in board size and increased movement. I'll get a few games in with David. I have enjoyed 2.2+ and am particularity fond of the Cataphracts and camels, both of these play very well.
I suspect what I'll do occasionally with my regular opponents is to ask permission to use some of the changes in 2.2+. there are some things I like about 3.0 and will probably use these, like the lists and the increased command range for light horse.
I'm viewing all of this like a big play box to pick and choose which rules I like, promises to be some fun. -Paul


I like that idea. The "make it the best game we can" approach should be cultivated in all groups so that each of us can have our own version of "the best game". We will already have at least 3 variations of DBA played why not more. As long as some have decided to make a bunch of unneeded tweks we all should.

Mike Sanderson

[Pavane]

I like that idea. The "make it the best game we can" approach should be cultivated in all groups so that each of us can have our own version of "the best game". We will already have at least 3 variations of DBA played why not more. As long as some have decided to make a bunch of unneeded tweks we all should.

Mike Sanderson
That already exists now. I am sure that many, and perhaps most, people do not play DBA exactly as written. In spite of this the WADBAG Guide and NASMAMW have gone a long way to create a set of conventions that have been widely accepted in N.A. for tournament play.

Do you have something constructive to suggest or are you just cranky?

[Skeptical Gamer]

I like that idea. The "make it the best game we can" approach should be cultivated in all groups so that each of us can have our own version of "the best game". We will already have at least 3 variations of DBA played why not more. As long as some have decided to make a bunch of unneeded tweks we all should.

Mike Sanderson

Yes, I think we should.
The thing that a lot of people seem to miss is that we're all in this to have fun.
If a little tweak to the rules (or ten for that matter) will make the game more fun for you, then you should do that.

Looking through my game books, the vast majority of them contain some version of "feel free to play this however you like, it's your game". The DBx books are unusual for including text telling us not to do this.

Some people prefer to play the game as written, either to avoid arguments or to be able to more easily play with people outside of their own playgroup, or just because they are purists. Good for them! I usually fall into this group myself. But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to play with house rules.

Despite my preference for playing RAW, my group has been playing DBA with house rules for some time now (no LH QK on Sp, WWg on square bases, and a couple others). We all thought these changes made the game play better. This didn't stop me from playing the rules as written when I went to another venue or played with someone who didn't want to use our house rules.

It also did not stop us from using our house rules in the few tournament we ran. They were posted well in advance, so no surprises, and people had the choice to play or not. No one complained, even the couple people from out of the area. Everyone understood that they were just our local house rules. Everyone had fun.

WADBAG have come up with a very good set of house rules that they think improve the game. What we have to remember is... that's all they are, house rules. They just happen to have a bigger house than most of us. If you play with the people who made them or in one of their tournaments, they will probably want you to use their house rules.

Like any group of people who have a set of house rules that they really like, they hope others will share their vision and adopt the same house rules for their own local groups. Whether this happens or not is entirely up to us gamers. We don't have to play with them. If enough of us decide we don't like 2.2+ enough to change over to them, then it will stay a local phenomenon or just fade away, just like any other set of house rules.

We can all decide that we want to play DBA 2.2 instead (or 1.1 or 2.0 or 3.0 or DBMM100 or Basic Impetus or HotT or Mighty Armies or whatever...).

The point is, they aren't breaking anything. They aren't forcing anything on us. We can take what they're offering or leave it.

[mdsanderson]

I may be incorrect but I do not believe there is a "WADBAG Guide" for 2.2+ and as a believe in the "Law of unintended consequence" there is at least several years of working out anomalies the changes create. I know that it is claimed that they have been thoroughly play tested and there will be a minimum of problems but I have noticed that my playing style is significantly different then most of the game reports I see posted. That leads me to believe that there are consequences that have yet to appear once a wider audience tries the changes. That is not even addressing the players who do not want to change at all since they are casual DBA players at best. I know I am in the minority here but i would have preferred a less aggressive approach with the "want list of have to have changes" relegated to perhaps optional status. I am not interested in getting into a "Yahoo DBA Group" argument here. I do not personally know any of the key poster here and I am unlikely to every come in contact with any of them but I still have no need to insult people on the inter-net. I had once hoped to make it to the big Cons on the east coast and test my skill against some of the fine and accomplished players there, I no longer feel that this is likely to occur as I am unsure of what the rules will be by then but am very sure that I will still be playing 2.2.

Mike Sanderson

[david kuijt]

[....]
but am very sure that I will still be playing 2.2.


More power to you, Mike. There's certainly nothing to be upset about in continuing to play 2.2 -- I may have read your post wrong, but it seems like you would have preferred if everyone was going to do that. That's a normal thing to think.

We can't apologize for not going that way, because we thought it was the best way forward. But nobody is forcing you to do anything, of course!

A week or so ago we had Jeff Franz over playing v2.2+ at DS' house, and he seemed to like it quite a bit. I think he mentioned that he used to play DBA with you when he was stationed out in Missouri? Or maybe I have confused you with someone else.

[mdsanderson]

That was me. Tell Jeff I said hi.

As it appears that most people play with house rules I don't actually care how people play locally. I would have preferred a less aggressively changed set of rules for a national standard but I am apparently a minority in that aspect. I run two tournaments a year or I should say I ran two tournaments a year as that will cease after the Spring Recruits. Except for BUA the tournaments were always run from the rules as presented in the rules book with the assistance of the Guide. It seemed to me that using the rules as published was the best way to create a level field for people who might play different house rules.

Mike Sanderson

[Pavane]

As it appears that most people play with house rules I don't actually care how people play locally. I would have preferred a less aggressively changed set of rules for a national standard but I am apparently a minority in that aspect. I run two tournaments a year or I should say I ran two tournaments a year as that will cease after the Spring Recruits. Except for BUA the tournaments were always run from the rules as presented in the rules book with the assistance of the Guide. It seemed to me that using the rules as published was the best way to create a level field for people who might play different house rules.

Mike Sanderson
Mike, I think that we all share your disappointment over rule set fragmentation but I don't think that it is as bleak as you seem to be painting it. Wouldn't it have been nice if DBA 3.0 hadn't taken such a dramatic turn toward DBMM/Lite, thereby alienating so many players? It would have become the new standard. I would be happy to play 2.2 vanilla, 2.2+ vanilla, or anything in between because 2.2+ still feels like the DBA we all love.

People will always try to find a compromise in order to play face-to-face. I think that DBA 2.2 is that common ground for 2.2+ and 3.0 advocates. Just as we still have tournaments using 25mm, I am sure that DBA 2.2 will still be played for years to come as boutique tournaments, in clubs and in homes.

[mdsanderson]

I fully agree that V3 is such a train wreck and still tumbling that is it not even worth downloading the newest test version. For me it has not been a consideration since I read or struggled through the first beta version. Unfortunately V2.2+ has also taken a direction that, while not as insanely deviant as V3, it is still more than I care for in my gaming. I guess I have the luxury of not being a veteran ancient gamer. I don't have nearly as much baggage as most ancient gamers that I have meet carry around with them. I just liked DBA because it made a great game. Therefor fixing things that drive ancient gamers crazy never concerned me. It often appears that most discussion revolves around tweks that fit some gamers understanding of a particular army, usually one they like to use in games. In a set of rules that covers such a long period of history a change that reflects a correction for one army may have adverse consequences to an army that appears 3 hundred years later. Then a new discussion arises on how to fix the later army by it's adherents. But that is just me. You guys have fun and carry on with what you were doing and pay me no mind. I am not really trying to convince any one to follow my way of thinking, I was just expressing my opinion.


Mike Sanderson

[Doug]

Wouldn't it have been nice if DBA 3.0 hadn't taken such a dramatic turn toward DBMM/Lite, thereby alienating so many players?

For the record, DBA3 is NOTHING like DBMM. And getting less like it with every iteration.

[Skeptical Gamer]

I run two tournaments a year or I should say I ran two tournaments a year as that will cease after the Spring Recruits. Except for BUA the tournaments were always run from the rules as presented in the rules book with the assistance of the Guide. It seemed to me that using the rules as published was the best way to create a level field for people who might play different house rules.

No, seriously, keep playing 2.2 and organizing 2.2 tournaments. I can't imagine anyone turning up their noses at a "vanilla" 2.2 tournament just because you aren't using the 2.2+ house rules.

I'll probably buy 3.0. I'll probably play 2.2+. But, I'd play in a 2.2 tournament in a heartbeat. 2.2 is a good game and I would have no problem enjoying such a tournament.

Keep supporting 2.2! Keep having fun and helping others to have fun too!

[Pavane]

For the record, DBA3 is NOTHING like DBMM. And getting less like it with every iteration.
OK, DBA 3.0 is more like Frankenstein's monster. :silly I based my comment on Yahoo where we have been assured that the movement rates are DBMM-like, work perfectly, and are a joy to play.

[Doug]

OK, DBA 3.0 is more like Frankenstein's monster. :silly I based my comment on Yahoo where we have been assured that the movement rates are DBMM-like, work perfectly, and are a joy to play.

Hmm.. nothing like DBMM movement rates, and it doesn't matter what you do with rules, there will always be part of the audience who don't like it. As far as I can tell, no one in the playtest group is saying anything is 'perfect' :D

Here's the DBMM Movement rates in Base Widths... first for good, then Bad (difficult)

Light Horse. 4 2
Cavalry, Camelry or Expendables. 3 1
Elephants or Knights. 2.5 1
Auxilia or Psiloi. 2.5 2
Spears, Pikes, Blades, Warband, Bows, Shot or Hordes. 2 1
War Wagons, Artillery except (S), land Baggage. 0 1

I know you wont actually care, but I thought it was interesting.

[Pavane]

Hmm.. nothing like DBMM movement rates, and it doesn't matter what you do with rules, there will always be part of the audience who don't like it. As far as I can tell, no one in the playtest group is saying anything is 'perfect' :D

Here's the DBMM Movement rates in Base Widths... first for good, then Bad (difficult)

Light Horse. 4 2
Cavalry, Camelry or Expendables. 3 1
Elephants or Knights. 2.5 1
Auxilia or Psiloi. 2.5 2
Spears, Pikes, Blades, Warband, Bows, Shot or Hordes. 2 1
War Wagons, Artillery except (S), land Baggage. 0 1

I know you wont actually care, but I thought it was interesting.
Actually Doug, it is mildly interesting. I am surprised that Phil used 1/2 BW. I can see why though. With Cv at 3 BW and Sp at 2 BW he boxed himself in.

It is also interesting that Cv is only 50% faster than Sp in DBMM, when it is 100% faster in DBM and DBA. That is quite a change.

Although DBA 3.0 does not duplicate the DBM movement rates, it is fair to say that 2.2+ rates are closer to 2.2 than 3.0 or DBMM, and that 3.0 rates are closer to DBMM than 2.2+ or 2.2.