|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jul 10, 2016 7:48:49 GMT
I am just getting into DBA 3.0 having started with DBA 2.0 and recently been using DBA 2.2+ I thought I would give it ago. Expect lots of questions being posted here! Many in the idiot category!  |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 10, 2016 9:59:57 GMT
I am just getting into DBA 3.0 having started with DBA 2.0 and recently been using DBA 2.2+ I thought I would give it ago. Expect lots of questions being posted here! Many in the idiot category! Welcome to 3.0 : ) |
|
|
|
Post by ammianus on Jul 10, 2016 18:53:21 GMT
I made that same switch and glad I finally "converted."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Jul 11, 2016 6:08:03 GMT
Played 2 DBA 3.0 games yesterday. Early imperial Roman V Parthians and Early Imperial Roman V Ancient British.
Very enjoyable games I expect I made mistakes with the rules but nothing serious.
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Jul 11, 2016 6:40:41 GMT
…we use DBA22 as well as DBA22+. The organiker tell us what rules for that day. As DBA3 is sold out nobody use it but the army lists are valuable sometime. A few of us did play test version 3 in Germany but it is an other game…
|
|
|
|
Post by davidconstable on Jul 11, 2016 7:23:04 GMT
From my own experience use a 30" or 800mm square board, it gives a better game.
David Constable
|
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Jul 11, 2016 8:22:42 GMT
…we use DBA22 as well as DBA22+. The organiker tell us what rules for that day. As DBA3 is sold out nobody use it but the army lists are valuable sometime. A few of us did play test version 3 in Germany but it is an other game…
DBA3 was unavailable for a spell earlier this year, but there has been a new print run and you should be able to buy a copy now.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Jul 11, 2016 14:50:57 GMT
Played 2 DBA 3.0 games yesterday. Early imperial Roman V Parthians and Early Imperial Roman V Ancient British. Very enjoyable games I expect I made mistakes with the rules but nothing serious. We are here to support you as best we can! I have been playing DBA since it first appeared more than 25? years ago. I still make mistakes. Ooops... I think I may have just undermined my own offer of support. LOL... Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Jul 12, 2016 12:08:26 GMT
We are playing DBA using 15mm figures on the 25mm basing scheme. You go a bit lighter on the heavy foot (front rank only 5, rear rank 3) so overall, we double the number of foot, and add 1 horseman. It looks pretty good, and we find the extra size eliminates some of the fiddliness of the WRG 15mm basing scheme. Try it with an army or two. You might like it!
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 13, 2016 23:39:02 GMT
While there are more rules in DBA 3 than there were in 2, the text is easier to understand. Moreover the new rules add a bit to make the game more interesting. If DBA 3 were released a a new game today, with no previous history, it would be acclaimed the best ancients game ever  The author, whose game it is after all, gets new ideas and so want to upgrade it. Glad to know people are taking it up. Between the rule book, and Sue's primer, plus the very exciting colorful Battles in History for DBA 3, we have a complete gaming system. ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/download-great-battles-of-history/This is the place to get questions answered as we are all DBA players here. |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jul 13, 2016 23:40:23 GMT
While there are more rules in DBA 3 than there were in 2, the text is easier to understand. Moreover the new rules add a bit to make the game more interesting. If DBA 3 were released a a new game today, with no previous history, it would be acclaimed the best ancients game ever The author, whose game it is after all, gets new ideas and so want to upgrade it. Glad to know people are taking it up. Between the rule book, and Sue's primer, plus the very exciting colorful Battles in History for DBA 3, we have a complete gaming system. ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2016/06/04/download-great-battles-of-history/This is the place to get questions answered as we are all DBA players here. Remember there are no dumb questions, just interesting ones. |
|
|
|
Post by gilnocky on Feb 20, 2018 7:08:58 GMT
I havn’t played since 2.0 years ago. I purchased a copy of 3.0 and was looking through the army lists and checked one of my favorites the Attalid Pergamene. I noticed the “ traditional light armed peltasts” are rated as (Ps). Is this a mistake? Previous versions of dba and other rules rate them as auxilia or light infantry. Why the difference in 3.0?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Feb 20, 2018 17:01:01 GMT
I don’t have a full answer for you gilnocky, but I strongly suspect it’s because of the following:- Phil Barker wanted the II/34 Attalid Pergamene foot to fight like peltasts, throwing javelins at close range and running away and ‘evading’ enemy heavy foot charges. The problem is, the only troops in DBA 3.0 that have this capability are Ps. So that’s what he made them…Ps. Had 4Ax troops been given similar capabilities, which they had in reality, then it would have been more historical to use them instead. Many people over the years have complained about the Ax class not being correct in DBA. Some possible House Rule solutions can be found here: fanaticus.boards.net/post/10034/. (Mind you, Ps are still quite useful against many of Pergamon's traditional enemies,
such as the Seleucid 4Pk, Galatian 4Wb, and Late Macedonian 4Pk.
Just don't let them be caught by enemy Kn or Cv in good going!)Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, such as the “Quick Reference Sheets” from the Society of Ancients,
and the new “Army List Corrections” file: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
And this is the latest January 2018 FAQ: fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ_2018
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Feb 20, 2018 17:48:17 GMT
I can give this a shot...
When Phil updated the army lists in DBA 3 he re-rated quite a few troops from Ax to Ps...
This comes part and parcel with the changes to Ax and his views on Ax.
Ax have become less skirmishers and more standard light troops filling the gap between the heavies and the mounted.
Ps have become quite a bit more powerful in some ways (they ignore corner to corner overlap, they can group move in bad going, etc...)
So, the changes in troop types necessitated a change in the lists. (Yes, I noticed this as well when I saw the development copies of the lists.)
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by strelnikov on Feb 20, 2018 19:29:19 GMT
I havn’t played since 2.0 years ago. I purchased a copy of 3.0 and was looking through the army lists and checked one of my favorites the Attalid Pergamene. I noticed the “ traditional light armed peltasts” are rated as (Ps). Is this a mistake? Previous versions of dba and other rules rate them as auxilia or light infantry. Why the difference in 3.0? In DBA 3.0, you can have allied troops. The Attalid Pergamenes could replace some (3) of their plentyful Ps with either certain Ariarathid Kappadokian or Hellenistic Greek (Achaian) allied elements (though, the allies have to operate either as single elements or in seperate groups). |
|
The author, whose game it is after all, gets new ideas and so want to upgrade it. Glad to know people are taking it up.
