Newbie Help

[<KingBob>]

I have just received my first copy of DBA and am anxious to play. I thought everyone was exaggerating as to how confusing the language and grammar was in the book. It is very VERY confusing. I have two questions which are probably answered easily but I cannot figure it out on my own. If elememts are moving as a group, do they each element reguire a PIP or does the group (as a unit) require a PIP. Also, is there a difference between Longbow, Crossbows, and Bows as far as combat factors and distance are concerned? To me it seemed that there was no distinguishing between them and they all count as Bw. Thanks for any and all help.

[Dave Crowell]

The group move together for a single PIP.

Longbows, Crossbows, Bows, Arquebus etc all function identically as Bw.

Bob Beatie"s commentaries on DBA should help you a lot in understanding the game. The link from the resources section of Fanaticus is giving a file not found error at the moment though.

Posting here, and teh Yahoo group for DBA should turn up lots of friendly folks to help you.

[<KingBob>]

Thank you very much for your help. This still bothers me though, what is the point of distinguishing between Lb, Bw, and Cb? Shouldn't Lb have plus to range and Cb have plus to attack or something? Isn't it the duty of the player to research what kind of bow element his army contained? Does anyone have custom or house rules that help to show the might of English longbowmen?

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

King Bob wrote:
"Thank you very much for your help. This still bothers me though, what is the point of distinguishing between Lb, Bw, and Cb? Shouldn't Lb have plus to range and Cb have plus to attack or something? Isn't it the duty of the player to research what kind of bow element his army contained? Does anyone have custom or house rules that help to show the might of English longbowmen?"

I think the Lb, Bw, Cb thing is probably a nod to other larger scope/more detailed DBX games. It is annoying that they are listed differently in DBA, but all act the same. Nevertheless, they all work pretty well against mounted and light troops in DBA....especially when massed!

[Bill Sumruld]

Dear KingBob,

I think there are two reasons. The first is, just as Hannibal wrote, to maintain a continuity with DBM. I think that secondly it helps provide a rough sort of modeling tip. Troops armed with an crossbow, selfbow, longbow, arquebus, etc. will all look different.

Big parts of the of the reason for the existence of DBA are simplicity and speed. The idea was to have a game that could easily be played several times in one evening and yet give some of the basic feel of commanding a Medieval or Ancient army. Things that Barker thought commanders would not waste much time thinking about were simplified. Much was made generic to avoid complication. The idea is not perfect recreation of ancient battles but an enjoyable quick playing game that gives some of the feel of being an ancient commander.

I hope this explanation helps your worries. :D ;)

[xeswop]

Good Newbie questions. The authors do not seem to want to make it too easy for new players to understand what is going on. I hope you have the Jan. 2004 issue of the rules, if not send it back for for the newest version. Lots of things fixed up and only a couple of things worse. Here is a link to some explanations of various rules that might be helpful
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~beattie/dba/bobcmts04.html

You are right about the different types of bows. They all have different effects in real life but in the "scale" of the game they are the same. The different types are listed so players can get historically accurate figures for their armies. Psiloi can have bows too, and Warband and Light Horse but they only shoot up close so it counts in Close Combat phase.

Post any questions here, people love to find answers. Sometimes we even argue about the answers:)

Originally posted by &lt;KingBob&gt;:
I have just received my first copy of DBA and am anxious to play. I thought everyone was exaggerating as to how confusing the language and grammar was in the book. It is very VERY confusing. I have two questions which are probably answered easily but I cannot figure it out on my own. If elememts are moving as a group, do they each element reguire a PIP or does the group (as a unit) require a PIP. Also, is there a difference between Longbow, Crossbows, and Bows as far as combat factors and distance are concerned? To me it seemed that there was no distinguishing between them and they all count as Bw. Thanks for any and all help.

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by &lt;KingBob&gt;:
Does anyone have custom or house rules that help to show the might of English longbowmen? Well, army IV/62 100 YW English is pretty mighty vs knight armies with up to 8 bow. Its a pretty tough army as it stands. But for house rules, there's always room to salt to taste.

The different types of bow stands just look cool.

To my mind the more annoying factor is distinguishing between 15mm and 20mm depth of stands within the same troop type, if its 3 or 4 figure stand of spear, blade or warband. That's a minor distinction in DBM and has no bearing on DBA (except recoil distances which have no historical basis, just a mechanical quirk of the system).

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Bob.:
Sometimes we even argue about the answers:)Once in awhile. Everyone needs a hobby ;)

But new folks around here should be aware that when we do argue over sometimes trivial nuances of the rules, we're only hashing them for tournament interpretation. Everyone's in agreement that house rules and scenario-specific rules are perfectly appropriate, and even encouraged, for non-tourney play.

[<KingBob>]

I'm really sorry for sounding so stupid. I appreciate all the help you guys gave me. I am doing my best to translate the rule book and Mr. Beattie's page is very helpful. I'll probably be making more posts as I go along. One question though, does anyone like the skill involved using an auxiliary based army. My brother is playing as 100 Years War English and I'm playing Medieval Irish. (We're prtending the Irish have invaded England and the English have rcalled troops from France.) Does anyone have advice as to how to properly lead an auxilary army to victory?

[Paul A. Hannah]

Originally posted by &lt;KingBob&gt;:
Does anyone have advice as to how to properly lead an auxilary army to victory?In a word: Bad Going. --Okay, that was two words. ;)

Of course, I don't mean to be flippant, but, in general, a player whose army is largely made up of Auxilia elements will want to maximize the number of bad going terrain pieces he or she places on the board. If you're facing terrain not of your choosing, life becomes a bit more difficult, however.

Still, try to play to your strengths, utilizing what woods, rock piles, etc. you can.

Also, try to get the match-ups that are favorable to Auxilia, such as facing Elephants, Psiloi and Bows. Avoid Knights and Blades in good going.

Lastly, remember that Auxilia are actually relatively fast. (I had this epiphany only recently, when using Incas against slow-moving Amazonians and Tupis.) They're 50% faster than close order foot. --Handy when you have to "get out of Dodge".

[ April 18, 2004, 17:20: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[Bill Sumruld]

Paul is exactly right. Like my Spanish Iberians, your welshmen need to use speed and badgoing. Terrain placement can be important. Some large badgoing right in the middle can be a very useful thing. Hit and run. Pick off units that you use your speed and bad going to isolate and as Paul advised watch for the best matchups. :D

[Bill Sumruld]

Sometimes us old guys have brain freeze. I should have remembered you are doing an Irish invasion.

[imported_adsarf]

I've done some time fighting against bow heavy armes with Auxilia (100YW vs Thracians, realy historical stuff like that). You'll find that if you leave your Auxilia lying around in shooting range of the bows then they will die quite quickly as your opponent concentrates fire against them. OTOH if you can close quickly and get into hand-to-hand you have the advantage because of better factors and longer movement. This means you need to be ruthless about spending your pips on closing with the bows, and try to avoid spending pips on running away from the knights, blades and other stuff in the 100YW English army. If you are aggressive enough, you may be able to win there before you lose anywhere else.... But its a very tough match-up for the Irish, I wouldn't normally expect to win.

Hope this helps

Andrew

[Badger]

Originally posted by &lt;KingBob&gt;:
I'm really sorry for sounding so stupid.You don't sound the least bit stupid! We all started out where you are now, and most of us (I think it's probably fair to say) sympathize with your finding the rules rather opaque in many places.

To address what you asked regarding house rules for English longbows. My inclination (never play-tested, mind you) is to give them a range of 300p, and I've muddled thoughts on combat factors. I would certainly make them at least +3 versus enemy foot troops (vs. the +2 they get in the standard rules), but I've also toyed with the idea of giving the various troop types a separate "when shot at" combat factor from their melee combat factors (typically +2, or +3 if heavily armored as with many Sp, Bd, and Kn). This gets into the realm of moreso being my own game rather than just a "house rule" for DBA, though, and I haven't fleshed it out enough to try playing it yet.

One other "house rule" thought: if they're fighting mounted from behind "pointed sticks" (i.e. the stakes they're said to have used at Agincourt), maybe the Lb should get a chance to recoil if beaten, rather than being destroyed if beaten, given the difficulty for the mounted to follow up so quickly.

Yes, the above changes make Lb extraordinarily powerful -- but frankly, they were, when you look at what they accomplished. There was good reason for the English relying on the longbow as much and for as long as they did.

[<S'me Again>]

I have been playing quite often as of late. I really appreciate all of the help and advice given to me. My auxilary based army tends to outmanever my blade laden brother's. I have a few more questions though.

If both player's tie after "dicing", what happens? I know scythed chariots are destroyed but what about everything else? Do the players roll again? Do they just stay as is and combat is resolved in the next bound?

One more question, in England do they call turns bounds and rolling dice dicing? Are all these terms common in other historical wargames? I have never heard of them before while playing other games.

[Pozanias]

Originally posted by &lt;S'me Again&gt;:

If both player's tie after "dicing", what happens? I know scythed chariots are destroyed but what about everything else? Do the players roll again? Do they just stay as is and combat is resolved in the next bound?
There is no further rolling (this bound). The elements just stay where they are. If they are still in contact in the following bound after movement, then dice are rolled for combat again.

[Dave Crowell]

Dicing" I think I have seen used elsewhere. "PIPS" and "Bopunds" seem to have originated with WRG and DBX games, at least I never heard them before I started playing DBA. I have noticed that they have creapt into the wargames venacular, at least locally, and we will call any sort of action points "pips" and often call turns bounds.

[El' Jocko]

Originally posted by &lt;S'me Again&gt;:
One more question, in England do they call turns bounds and rolling dice dicing? Are all these terms common in other historical wargames? I have never heard of them before while playing other games. Bounds has been in use since at least the mid 70's. I remember playing a Napoleonics game back then called Frappe! that used bounds. It's one of those terms that some game designers use and others don't.

- Jack

[<Bob.>]

Note that in the original DBA there were no PiPs. That came later, maybe with HOTT1 or DBM1. THe spots on a die have been pips for a long time. Player Initiative Points was almost a reverse definition for the dice pips. Dicing is just a short way of saying throw dice. 6 letters vs 10 and we know how Phil likes to conserve space smile.gif

I thought Bounds was an english sports term, like in Cricket or some other such sport.

Isn't "element" for a stand of troops new in DBA. Before it was stands or trays or bases.

Going back to the original question, besides not re-dicing in a bound for tied combat, if an element pursues into contact, that is also resolved next bound.

[Martian]

I had to go look it up.

DBA March 1990 pg 7 Sequence of Play

"1. He dices for tactical movement, then makes up to the number of moves his score permits."

HOTT Oct 1991 pg 10 Sequence of Play

"1. It dices for player initiative points (PIP)...snip"

[imported_adsarf]

Originally posted by &lt;Bob.&gt;:
I thought Bounds was an english sports term, like in Cricket or some other such sport.
Not cricket. Cricket takes place in a series of innings. I'm not aware of any British sport that happens in Bounds - but it could be one I don't follow, such as Bowls.

Andrew

[Paul A. Hannah]

Webster's Dictionary (not the be all and end all source for the Queen's English, mind you, but it's what I have handy) offers a "specialty definition" of bound: "In land warfare, a single movement, usually from cover to cover, made by troops often under enemy fire."

That would seem to be the meaning of bound that Mr. Barker had in mind.

But, of course, we DBA-ers know that troops are shot at; they are never under fire. ;)

[ April 27, 2004, 06:22: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]

[Badger]

So given all of this, would what SPI used to call "the phasing player" be, in DBA, "the bounder"? ;)

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by Badger:
So given all of this, would what SPI used to call "the phasing player" be, in DBA, "the bounder"? ;) Hmm, that would make the "non-phasing player" "the boundee". By ZOC, I think you're on to something here. :cool:

[Badger]

Originally posted by Redwilde:
Hmm, that would make the "non-phasing player" "the boundee".That could work! smile.gif Alternatively, I was thinking that maybe the "non-phasing player" might instead be designated as Currently Acting as Defender, which is a mouthful, so perhaps simply use the acronym.... tongue.gif

[<S'Me Again>]

When an element is being attacked by two elements (being flanked), whose attack factors are used? The one in front edge to front edge contact or the one with side edge to front edge contact? Is there a choice?

[Chris Brantley]

Use the factors of the elements in front edge to front edge contact.

The element properly aligned with front edge to side edge contact (i.e. the flanking element) serves only as an overlap to the combat, reducing the opponent's combat factor by 1.

[xeswop]

Chris is right on target with the intent of the rules. I only jump in here to be strict about the meaning of terms in the rules.

Chris uses loose language when describes a flank edge contact as an "overlap."

"The element properly aligned with front edge to side edge contact (i.e. the flanking element) serves only as an overlap to the combat, reducing the opponent's combat factor by 1."

In the rules "overlap" has a very specific meaning that does not apply to a front-to-flank position. May I suggest a stricter wording:
"The element properly aligned with front edge to side edge contact (i.e. the flanking element) provides only a tactical factor to the combat of minus 1 to the opponent, thus in effect reducing the opponent's combat factor by 1."

It does not really reduce the combat factor by 1, it subtracts 1 from the opponent's overall score. But this is really getting to unecessary nit picking for a newbie. The crucial things to remember is what Chris said about whose factor to use and that flank and rear attacks and overlaps SUBTRACT from the enemy not add to your score.

[<abc123>]

How big is the camp supposed to be? I have been using a paper one that was 4 base widths by 4 base widths. Is this correct? I would like to know before I get crackin on my nice camp element.

[xeswop]

"The camp is the logistical element of the army. It is not used if the army has a BUA or more than 1 war wagon. It must fit into a rectangle the length plus width of which totals no more than 4 element base widths and is depicted by a simple earthwork and / or palisade, a wagon laager, a brush boma, a group of medieval tents with interlaced guy ropes, Mongol yurts with tethered ponies, kneeling camels or anything else appropriate to the army around space for a single troop or camp follower element. It must be in good going on its side's battlefield, waterway, or beach base edge."

You can see from the rules that the camp must fit into a rectangle no more than a total of 4 base widths length plus width. If that were a square it would 2 in length and 2 in width. Not 4 length and 4 width.

Is this wording unclear on the dimensions? How could the text be clearer? People have been after Phil to make this clear and this is his 4th try:)

Note that a camp need not be square (2 by 2) or even rectangle (1 by 3) but could be a circle which is why there is that funny "fit into a rectangle" wording. You could have a camp that is a 2 base diameter.

[<abc123>]

It was a little unclear to me. I'm a highschool honors student taking college history and english and the meaning of some text escapes me. It is written a little odd. What I found confusing was "length plus width of which totals no more than 4 element base widths". Who talks like this? Width of which totals than number of base widths? That doesn't sound odd to anyone? I've played other wargames and the text was not as confusing. I would like to have more diagrams too. Couldn't he just give a perimeter? Make a camp with a perimeter of 160mm for 15mm and 240mm for 25mm scale. That seems so much simpler to read and understand.

I aprrecaite the game as I enjoy it thoroughly. I really do enjoy history and wargaming and this is the first time I've been able to combine those interests. I am really glad to be able to play but why must the language be so difficult? Its like reading instructions to Ikea furniture.

[Dave Crowell]

Using the pericmeter dimensions will not always work to achieve what Phil wants. Circles and squares of the same perimeter have very different areas.

A square or rectangular camp can have a perimeter of 8 base widths (320mm for 15mm scale, 480mm for 25mm). Length+Width = 1/2 perimeter.

It took me a bit to figure out what Phil meant by his camp size rules as well. Eventually I just started drawing rectangles and making Camps to fit inside them. A rectangle 1 base width by 3 base widths is fine. As is one 1/2 base width by 3 1/2. Much narrower than 1/2 base width and a camp will have trouble meeting the requirement of being around a space large enough for an element of troops.

And as Bob points out the Camp just has to fit inside a properly sized rectangle, it can be any shape you like. I find that having camps (and BUAs) have sides that are multiples of 1 base width long helps in game play but it is not neccesary to make them this way.

We all wonder why the language has to be so difficult, and why there can't be more diagrams.

[ April 29, 2004, 22:47: Message edited by: Dave Crowell ]

[Redwilde]

Originally posted by &lt;abc123&gt;:
I am really glad to be able to play but why must the language be so difficult? Its like reading instructions to Ikea furniture. No, Ikea instructions are easier to read. But DBA is more fun than Ikea once you hammer through the Barkerese.

Sadly, Phil has prided himself for decades for the clarity and conciseness of his writing and he really can't understand why everyone else disagrees with him on his ability to communicate.

Personally, I'd like to translate it into Latin. Then we'd have a world-wide edition. And then folks could debate things like, "Is that an ablative of accompaniment or separation?" :cool:

[xeswop]

Rather than into Latin, how about a translation into English. We take up a subscription from Players around the world to create a fund of $2000 and offer it to the person who creates the best translation of the game into english. Just Terrain and Battle rules. We give to WRG for them to publish and keep the profits. Our translator just keeps the reward. No copyright problem.

Or, consider a group effort to rewrite the rules, as a Yahoo group project.

[Paul A. Hannah]

Originally posted by Bob.:
No copyright problem. Big copyright problem. The authors and WRG would be under no obligation to adopt or publish the "translated" rules. --Love the idea, though.

[ April 30, 2004, 13:56: Message edited by: Paul A. Hannah ]