|
Post by lkmjbc on Oct 6, 2023 2:33:57 GMT
Very cool... Chaeronea is also very worth visiting. The Lion Monument is huge! The museum is small but interesting.
You can drive the roads across the battlefield. We didn't have time to visit the Tumulus... and we were worried it was on private land.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 23, 2023 13:11:33 GMT
I think you are remembering DBA 1.0.
In that version, recoiling while contacted in the flank didn't kill you.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 21, 2023 21:13:02 GMT
That was difficult. Flickr has various pieces of code/links all smashed together. That got it though...
Epic fight between the dragon and the hero dwarf general!
Both were mutually destroyed!
The Alliance of the Free peoples won the battle, though they struggled a bit a first. We have some fine tuning to do with the Element costs and spells.
More from Tom's game soon!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 21, 2023 20:07:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 28, 2023 20:10:39 GMT
No it didn't.
The balance of DBA 3 is much better than 2. The narrative (and the game as well) generated is superior in almost every way. I produced a book reproducing 12 historical battles that all play well under DBA 3. Many of these battles would not have played well under DBA 2.
DBA 3 is extremely successful. It has sold more I think than any other version of DBA... and that with it being for most of its life as an expensive hard cover book.
I realize that you don't like DBA 3, but to be honest, I find your comments without reason or cogent argument.
Look I understand your preference for 2.2. That is fine. Different folks will have different preferences. But, DBA is not poor and the "balance" is not broken.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 21, 2023 18:11:35 GMT
Well, it looks as if we will have to disagree.
Fast Spear simply isn't in DBA 2.2. It is simply Spear.
Your observation about "slapped together" is demonstrably wrong. The development of DBA 3 took many years of careful consideration and many compromises between competing interests. I participated in most of it.
The appellation of Fast vs Solid to Mounted is an interesting idea. We did consider it. The reasons it was discarded are complicated. I am onboard with you dpd (and was onboard during the development) on this one.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 21, 2023 15:30:38 GMT
No, the Fast vs Solid split was needed to produce a more believable narrative from the game.
Is Fast spear in 2.2? No, it isn't. This is just a name to allow earlier WRG based armies to play 2.2. The reclassification to 3Pk is to synchronize the rules with other DBX rules.
Should Fast Pike be melded into Aux? No, the fighting style and psychology of these troop types is completely different.
Fast Blade isn't a warband and didn't fight as such. Again, the evidence we have shows these troops fought in very different ways.
We considered simplification. It greatly decreases the capability of the game to produce a believable historical narrative.
I suggest you check out "Great Battles of History for DBA3".
There you will see DBA used to refight historical battles. It does an excellent job at this. I would argue a better job than most other ancient rules.
To answer Stevie.
"I do wonder if the current ‘Fast’ and ‘Solid’ classifications are nothing more than an artificial distinction created merely to justify the difference between 3 figure and 4 figure bases… …which is nothing more than an old ‘fossil’ basing convention left over from the WRG rules created way back in the 1980’s."
Wonder no more. Yes, that is correct. However, in those old rules, the basing difference was a design to produce the correct results from troops on the table.
So, this basing differences were designed to model different battlefield behavior. The problem with early versions of DBA is that we didn't model these.
Therefore, you had really bad results in certain historical matchups.
We attempted to correct this.
My historical refights show that we did a good job, though these is more to do.
Stay tuned to this channel.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 30, 2023 1:51:54 GMT
I am not sure I understand this thread.
5Wb was a way to use the Hordes(Fast) element in DBA2. Phil evidently thought it best classified as Warband as DBA2 had neither Fast nor Solid designations.
The element in DBM was represented with 5 figures if my memory serves me correctly. Phil wanted to maintain some level of compatibility between the rule sets and their armies.
I never remember a 6Wb ever used. It didn't play all versions of DBM, so I might have missed 6Wb.
They differed in combat in that Horde used the Horde rules and Warband used the Warband rules.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the issue?
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jun 8, 2023 0:34:06 GMT
Ok, you have suitably teased us.
Hurry with the photos of the finished product!
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 14, 2023 17:48:33 GMT
Oh Lord Brian Boru...
Now you have gone and given Stevie a lot of new ideas.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 14, 2023 17:46:44 GMT
The long and short...
This is a balancing decision for the game. You can justify it however you wish. Phil likes to do such justification. He is not wrong for liking this. It adds color and depth to the narrative. However... in the end, it is for balancing the element types.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 9, 2023 1:09:12 GMT
Lovely stuff, Carl.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 9, 2023 1:08:20 GMT
Crap... I hate this...
Now I have to go paint my Sassanid Army.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Mar 3, 2023 3:42:06 GMT
Try cutting down the Command Distance as you mentioned. Suddenly deeper formations seem a better idea and the triple battle line makes more sense.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 26, 2023 0:46:19 GMT
2.2 still has a few players. Some are folks that were turned-off by the often sour split in the community that occurred during DBA 3's long development. Some however simply didn't like the changes. Some haven't bought the new rule book till this day. (I ran into a fellow some time back that wasn't even aware there was a new Version.) The folks that split wrote their own set based on DBA and took most of the US tournament scene with them. Their rule set competes directly with DBA. They were as one would imagine very negative concerning V3. The pros of V3 are many. The first I think is that it has a vastly superior historical flavor. Many classic battles were difficult to recreate with V2. (Of course it is a game of 12 elements per side meant to be played to completion in an hour!) We developed V3 with this in mind. In that regard I feel like we did a good job. I wrote a book with this in mind! www.lulu.com/shop/joe-collins/great-battles-of-history-for-dba-3/paperback/product-22698172.html?page=1&pageSize=4The second is that DBA 3 eliminated many of the geographic tricks available under 2.2. I used many of these to win major tournaments. You really can't do this under DBA 3, though many have claimed them possible. I put a challenge in 2014 for someone to show me some. I still wait. The third is Phil's expanded army lists and historical background. That itself is a masterwork and even the competitors and all but the most obstinate detractors agree. The fourth is the clarity of the rules. Yes, I said that. It is true. DBA 2.2 despite being simpler and shorter took many years to shake out in the community and produce a common agreement on how to play the game. This didn't occur with V3. The greater clarity of the rules plus the added diagrams allowed the community to all play a common game within the first year from publishing. I will add that the FAQ has helped this as well. One nay-sayer assured me that DBA V3 would take years to troubleshoot. He was wrong. The fifth is that DBA V3 is more fun I think. The greater movement distances have produced a more free-wheeling game. Gone were the slow advances and micro-moves of DBA 2. This did take some changes in thinking I admit. But I find it more exciting. There are more pros... and of course, plenty of cons... All for now. Joe Collins
|
|