DBM v.s. DBA

[imported_The Paper General]

Hello all, my previous thread bout BBDBA got me thinking(a dangerous thing), and I know its probably been asked a few times already, but why can't DBA be more like DBM in troop choices and such, but still keep the simplicity of the rules as opposed to the more complex DBM set?
Would lov to play a game somewhere between the size and complexity of DBM, and DBA. Any thoughts?
Alex smile.gif

[Ares]

Originally posted by The Paper General:
...why can't DBA be more like DBM in troop choices and such, but still keep the simplicity of the rules as opposed to the more complex DBM set?
Would lov to play a game somewhere between the size and complexity of DBM, and DBA. Any thoughts?
Alex smile.gif In my opinion, because the DBM troop choices (and the resultant detailing) are mostly what make the DBM rules what they are, and DBA simply wasn't made or intended to accommodate that. There is a DBA variant somewhere called "DBA/M" which uses small DBM armies and DBA (or perhaps modified DBA) rules. An in-between game? You'll probably have to write that one yourself!

Eric

[Kanishka]

Not sure about the current rules, but in earlier versions of DBA there were some optional rules for accounting for some characteristics.

Are they still in hte latest version?

Things like adding or subtracting 1 from a final result in some circumstances?

[David Kuijt]

Play Big Battle DBA. It's excellent.

[Pozanias]

I don't think there will be a published version of what you want. I think it's a great idea -- I just don't think it will happen. But you can always make slight modifications to either set to get what you want.

You could play 200 pt DBM and ignore the silly details like wind, rain, sunrise, etc.

You could play BBDBA and allow army lists based on the DBM books. Because you are using the DBM army list, you might also want to add the concepts of superior, ordinary, inferior, etc. Possibly even Regular and Irregular, perhaps just for PIP allocation, not for tactical moves.

I think there may be something called DBA100 that attempts to do this. Do a search on fanaticus and you might find it.

[xeswop]

Warmaster Ancients has promise of a game between DBA and DBM.

[imported_JamesLDIII]

I think you are just fine with playing BBDBA. However, if you would like to go down the road of more variety, I can offer up my variant rules and army lists. The variant rules account for inferior and superior troop types, double based elements, and some of the fast troops (3Bd and 3Wb). The army lists are based directly from the DBM lists but reduced in size to produce roughly BBDBA sized armies (30-40 els). They are also written in DBA speak, so you see elements of 4BdO) or 3Cv(S) instead of Reg Bd(O) or IrrCv(S). Here's the link to the file on the yahoo groups:


http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBA/files/DBA%20Variant%20Rules%20and%20Lists/

If there are army lists you would like that aren't shown, send me a note. I am starting my first semester teaching monday, (while working toward ABD and PhD, etc.), but I should be able to work out specific army lists if the number isn't too great.

[markind]

Originally posted by Bob.(& his dog):
Warmaster Ancients has promise of a game between DBA and DBM. Ahhh! Cover my ears to avoid head explosion!

Bob mentioned a "GW" game!! :eek:

Actually, I took a close look at WMA and found the streamlined simplicity, and the fast and decisive nature of DBA to be more my game. The 'hidden power' of the PIP system is hard to match, and WMA mimics it with a more complex method that basically has the same function.

Our group has yet to try BBDBA but we are looking forward to it. Having to resolve a battle with that many elements is less daunting with a DBA rules set than with any other I can think of.

Players that like very long, drawn out games should go for like, well, maybe Shock of Impact, or Tactica? Warrior? Shield Wall?

I can only spend a couple hours a week gaming, so being able to churn out a complete micro-tournament or at least a couple rounds in an evening is appealing to me.