|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2023 16:12:28 GMT
Any system that has a dice to determine an outcome isn't going to create a historically accurate result. It doesn't matter which rules system you use, if you role badly your likely lose. Oh I don’t know skb777…if recreating the Battle of Agincourt, and the English roll loads of ‘6’s’, or the French roll loads of ‘1’s’, that would pretty much simulate an historical result (and if the situation were reversed, it would simulate Bannockburn ) ALL wargames are abstract simulations, and use dice to abstractly simulate the many variables and uncertainties of actual combat. I suppose you could have a loooong flowchart showing whether the men had a big breakfast or not, how hot it is that day, how far they have marched from their camp, is it windy or not, is the local commander popular or hated, is he distracted because he recently had an argument with his wife, how long its been since he had sex, plus a myriad of other trivial minor details instead of a die roll… …but it wouldn’t be quick or much fun.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 22, 2023 16:31:05 GMT
Any system that has a dice to determine an outcome isn't going to create a historically accurate result. It doesn't matter which rules system you use, if you role badly your likely lose. I suppose you could have a loooong flowchart showing whether the men had a big breakfast or not, how hot it is that day, how far they have marched from their camp, is it windy or not, is the local commander popular or hated, is he distracted because he recently had an argument with his wife, how long its been since he had sex, plus a myriad of other trivial minor details instead of a die roll… …but it wouldn’t be quick or much fun. …but thereby getting closer to DBMM, perhaps (or Newbury Fast Play Rules, 1980’s 😶). I strongly believe that DBA works extremely well as a game, but that no game is ever even vaguely close to history…though some are better than others. Fine tuning the details involves forcing a change in the rules to reflect one’s own view of history - and getting the different readers of that history to interpret what they read into agreed game rules. But this comes back to my idea that if you ask 100 gamers what they’d change you’d get 100 different answers. I have my own ‘views’ on what may not be ‘accurate’ in the world of DBA, but I feel that just because I think I’m right doesn’t mean the world has to change to suit me. YMMV, as they say across the water.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 22, 2023 16:33:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 22, 2023 17:15:20 GMT
[Oh I don’t know skb777…if recreating the Battle of Agincourt, and the English roll loads of ‘6’s’, or the French roll loads of ‘1’s’
All I can say is, I’d quite like to be able to buy those dice please.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2023 17:44:15 GMT
That’s good link Martin. 👍 My own alternative to dice skb777 is to use two packs of ordinary playing cards. See fanaticus.boards.net/post/33487 . There is still luck...but at least you'll know that your bad luck will end, and your good luck won't last forever...
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 22, 2023 18:03:52 GMT
Yes I saw that Stevie and really liked the idea. Have you thought about kickstarting the idea and get some packs made up for wargaming?
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Sept 22, 2023 18:22:51 GMT
Hmmm…well, sort of. Although nothing more than an April Fool jest, have a look at page 5 of this: ibb.co/Mks6Xng
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Sept 22, 2023 20:26:42 GMT
Please don't lose sight of the fact, folks, that this is the HOUSE RULES board. It's not the DBA 3.0 board. So if people want to come up with ideas for house rules in the HOUSE RULES board, they probably shouldn't expect to be told to just play the game as it is. That's fair enough, snowcat, but with the announcement of plans to produce a new ruleset, much of the discussion isn't just - or even primarily - about house rules as I understand the term. I use one or two house rules myself (although I try to be gracious when an opponent insists on applying the rules as written). But getting back to the topic in hand, I believe introducing superior and inferior troop types would unbalance the simplicity of a 12 elements-a-side game
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2023 2:38:30 GMT
Please don't lose sight of the fact, folks, that this is the HOUSE RULES board. It's not the DBA 3.0 board. So if people want to come up with ideas for house rules in the HOUSE RULES board, they probably shouldn't expect to be told to just play the game as it is. That's fair enough, snowcat, but with the announcement of plans to produce a new ruleset, much of the discussion isn't just - or even primarily - about house rules as I understand the term. I use one or two house rules myself (although I try to be gracious when an opponent insists on applying the rules as written). But getting back to the topic in hand, I believe introducing superior and inferior troop types would unbalance the simplicity of a 12 elements-a-side game Re your last line: that's okay, that's your opinion. (You may very well be right.)
But here it is again:
Board
House Rules 'A place to propose and critique House rules or variations to the DBA rules designed to enhance or extend game play.'
That's what it says on the tin.
This thread was created, following on from a separate House Rules thread, to discuss ways to add some variation/flavour (e.g. Superior/Inferior) to the troop classes in DBA.
It produced some interesting, very simple and potentially workable ideas in the first 2-and-a-bit pages. Whether folks choose to implement any of the ideas into their games is up to them. Whether they serve as the basis of rules for a future or variant edition of DBA/DBx is up to the designers of those systems. It was just an opportunity to brainstorm some creative ideas.
Then someone decided to march in on page 3 and in their frustration throw a hand grenade, stating with some authority that the game wasn't designed to have such extra faff/chrome added to it and it should just be played as-is.
Never mind that DBA 3 has various dubious bits of added faff/chrome:
-Rear support for LH (don't get me started) -4Bd side-support for 4Bw - seriously?! Just to give HYW English a leg-up! -Fast Pike - aaaargh!!! Plus a whole bunch of added '+/- for this vs that in this vs that situation' chrome that actually does make more sense...
That's all OK.
But when someone starts a thread (in the House Rules board) that brainstorms some very simple mechanisms to add a little extra historical flavour (or just extra flavour) and added fun to the game...private games only or otherwise...
Oh no! That's added faff and chrome not in the RAW! Can't have that! Quick, lob a grenade at that one!
Seriously?
Well then you might as well shout 'Leave it alone!' and throw RAW-grenades in every House Rules thread. Just on the off-chance you might hit some random bit of new faff or chrome!
[There's a difference between constructively critiquing a particular house rule vs marching in with a RAW agenda and just chucking a grenade.]
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2023 3:31:22 GMT
🦵🏼 …..🐝 ……………🐝 …………………….🐝 ……………………………🐝 🙃 Look out Martin!
They appear to be heading back your way!!!
Oh dear.
Anyway...
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 23, 2023 7:45:53 GMT
That's fair enough, snowcat, but with the announcement of plans to produce a new ruleset, much of the discussion isn't just - or even primarily - about house rules as I understand the term. I use one or two house rules myself (although I try to be gracious when an opponent insists on applying the rules as written). But getting back to the topic in hand, I believe introducing superior and inferior troop types would unbalance the simplicity of a 12 elements-a-side game Re your last line: that's okay, that's your opinion. (You may very well be right.)
But here it is again:
Board
House Rules 'A place to propose and critique House rules or variations to the DBA rules designed to enhance or extend game play.'
That's what it says on the tin.
This thread was created, following on from a separate House Rules thread, to discuss ways to add some variation/flavour (e.g. Superior/Inferior) to the troop classes in DBA.
It produced some interesting, very simple and potentially workable ideas in the first 2-and-a-bit pages. Whether folks choose to implement any of the ideas into their games is up to them. Whether they serve as the basis of rules for a future or variant edition of DBA/DBx is up to the designers of those systems. It was just an opportunity to brainstorm some creative ideas.
Then someone decided to march in on page 3 and in their frustration throw a hand grenade, stating with some authority that the game wasn't designed to have such extra faff/chrome added to it and it should just be played as-is.
Never mind that DBA 3 has various dubious bits of added faff/chrome:
-Rear support for LH (don't get me started) -4Bd side-support for 4Bw - seriously?! Just to give HYW English a leg-up! -Fast Pike - aaaargh!!! Plus a whole bunch of added '+/- for this vs that in this vs that situation' chrome that actually does make more sense...
That's all OK.
But when someone starts a thread (in the House Rules board) that brainstorms some very simple mechanisms to add a little extra historical flavour (or just extra flavour) and added fun to the game...private games only or otherwise...
Oh no! That's added faff and chrome not in the RAW! Can't have that! Quick, lob a grenade at that one!
Seriously?
Well then you might as well shout 'Leave it alone!' and throw RAW-grenades in every House Rules thread. Just on the off-chance you might hit some random bit of new faff or chrome!
[There's a difference between constructively critiquing a particular house rule vs marching in with a RAW agenda and just chucking a grenade.]
Cheers I hear what you’re saying, but these things do not exist ‘in isolation’:- Were you playing when v2.2 was being changed to v3? There was a FIVE YEAR period where every last man waded in to add their version of ‘the right rule changes’ which MUST be made to ‘correct’ everything that was ‘wrong’ with the previous version (as far as they were concerned…different personal views which were often contradictory). And there were SO many versions of what needed to change that it was a REAL mess:- the player-base reduced and reduced, rules were not in print so it put off new players, there was serious uncertainty as to whether DBA would continue as a popular rule set once the carnage was over etc etc. and the player base was also split further when one group of play-testers decided their version was best (and published commercially a plagiarised set of rules, now going under the name of T****ph). What I see with certain inputs to this forum is a perception or presupposition that the rules are inherently broken…that they do not reflect history…that Mr Barker has ‘got it all wrong’. What I genuinely fear is, with rumours of ‘future versions’ of the rules becoming stronger by the week, that there will be a return to the chaos that very nearly killed the rule set and its vibrant community a decade ago. That community has never recovered to its previous state. Players spend a lot of effort expounding the worth of their changes (‘house rules’ or not), but no-one seems to recognise that DBA as produced is an EXTREMELY effective set of rules, given its remit of providing a fast play set covering close on five millenia. Many other rule sets fail to come even close. I guess that’s just me being an old reactionary, and pulling the pin on another grenade. Ready for the torrent of s*** heading my way…just not planning to duck 😶
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 23, 2023 7:56:46 GMT
Martin, I agree with a lot of that, and I see your POV. ('Yes I was' in answer to your question. 'And before that.') I just thought your grenade lob on pg 3 was out of context and unnecessary (for this particular thread). Of all the threads to air your frustration, you picked this one. Odd choice, but I suppose one's as good as another for such concerns that you raise. I may come across as too negative re DBA 3. It's actually because I admire it so much overall. I guess that's a bit odd too.
|
|
|
Post by martin on Sept 23, 2023 8:35:28 GMT
Martin, I agree with a lot of that, and I see your POV. ('Yes I was' in answer to your question. 'And before that.') I just thought your grenade lob on pg 3 was out of context and unnecessary (for this particular thread). Of all the threads to air your frustration, you picked this one. Odd choice, but I suppose one's as good as another for such concerns that you raise. I may come across as too negative re DBA 3. It's actually because I admire it so much overall. I guess that's a bit odd too. Fair comment. Odd choice indeed…it’s just one more of the ‘change everything’ threads, not specifically singled out. Add it to the LH, 3Pk, Wb, Bw threads etc as well. My comments could just as easily gone into those. Grenadier Smith (looking forward to v9.99)
|
|
|
Post by skb777 on Sept 23, 2023 9:56:09 GMT
Maybe I read between the lines a little too much, but I didn’t see it as saying ‘just leave the rules alone’ but more of if you are going to introduce ‘house rules’ don’t just cherry pick ones from DBMM.
I still think you can introduce optional rules that don’t have to be used in competitions such as superior/inferior. You can simply just swap on a like for like basis. ie if you upgrade one Cv to (S) you have to downgrade one Cv to (I)
What I have noticed is I can’t find anyone who plays DBA near me, though I think I’ve rustled up a game on Monday. Clubs do play ancient warfare roles such as MeG etc and other assorted sci-fi/fantasy 🤮 WW2 etc skirmish rules. They all follow the same pattern - they can be played in an evening 2-3 hours and often have other extras added (cards etc) that add another layer to the game. The one thing I have noticed, rather sadly, is no-one cares about historical accuracy. (I care so don’t shoot the messenger)
|
|
|
Post by snowcat on Sept 24, 2023 0:14:25 GMT
'Grenadier Smith' I like that.
|
|