|
|
Post by jim1973 on Nov 21, 2017 11:08:13 GMT
It amazes me that so short a rules set that was tested for so long continues to create discussion and debate. I know that infuriates some people but I don't mind it. I play games to socialise and talk about ancient military history so discussing how "real troops" would react to our table top scenario is kind of fun, in a masochistic sort of way!
People decry Phil Barker's writing style but in most situations his rules are quite clear. We are lucky in that we seem to have many of the playtesters and group of thirty on the list. It also seems as though some of the discussions have identified some situations that were not raised during development. I understand that it would be virtually impossible to change Phil's mind on topics that were discussed and I completely understand Phil not be involved and commenting on every query online. But if there were some things that slipped through, would we be able to have one of the playtesters provide a list to Phil for clarification? I don't think that list would be long as the knowledgeable people on this list point out that the rules actually cover the situation most of the time. But there are occasions where there is enough ambiguity to ask for clarification. We can only ask and the worst thing will be that he'll say no.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by goldenhord on Nov 21, 2017 12:10:29 GMT
I tried many times to write to Phil and WRG group with the emails given at the end of the book rules... no reply !
Having said that, I used this forum, and guys are very quick to reply and clear and competent with this rules writing.
The main point is not for us is to claiming the writing (we are not native English btw !), the reality of the simulation but to play the same rule with teh same understanding.
To play right or left is not important as long as everybody is playing in the same way.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 21, 2017 14:01:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by wjhupp on Nov 21, 2017 14:14:18 GMT
Jim,
Of course we want to talk about how our games of DBA compares to the history it is meant to model. This is a DIY hobby, and unlike fantasy games, we want to understand what the games model well and what they model not so well. While I might disagree about the writing style I completely agree that the game model is elegant and simple and allows us to spend more time discussing history and less time managing the game. That is a big plus for me.
Right now I am turning over in my mind the 4 element victory condition. It doesn’t seem like enough of the army gets into the fight often enough and it hurts certain armies and eras that are more all out fighters. (Example, slow heavy infantry that never gets into combat before the battle Is decided by the lights. This is not just a DBA problem.) I am thinking about trying out some house rules for extra pips early on in the game or double moves or increasing the number of units required for a win (50%).
Bill
|
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Nov 21, 2017 14:31:36 GMT
...i did start with DBA 1 & also the larger DBM. But i like also the french Rule: Art de la guere. The latest version is also in english available. Now i am preparing my armies for Triumpph...
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 21, 2017 16:09:34 GMT
Jim, Of course we want to talk about how our games of DBA compares to the history it is meant to model. This is a DIY hobby, and unlike fantasy games, we want to understand what the games model well and what they model not so well. While I might disagree about the writing style I completely agree that the game model is elegant and simple and allows us to spend more time discussing history and less time managing the game. That is a big plus for me. Right now I am turning over in my mind the 4 element victory condition. It doesn’t seem like enough of the army gets into the fight often enough and it hurts certain armies and eras that are more all out fighters. (Example, slow heavy infantry that never gets into combat before the battle Is decided by the lights. This is not just a DBA problem.) I am thinking about trying out some house rules for extra pips early on in the game or double moves or increasing the number of units required for a win (50%). Bill Bill... 6 elements is too much in my opinion. 5 elements plays well. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 21, 2017 16:17:22 GMT
Jim, Of course we want to talk about how our games of DBA compares to the history it is meant to model. This is a DIY hobby, and unlike fantasy games, we want to understand what the games model well and what they model not so well. While I might disagree about the writing style I completely agree that the game model is elegant and simple and allows us to spend more time discussing history and less time managing the game. That is a big plus for me. Right now I am turning over in my mind the 4 element victory condition. It doesn’t seem like enough of the army gets into the fight often enough and it hurts certain armies and eras that are more all out fighters. (Example, slow heavy infantry that never gets into combat before the battle Is decided by the lights. This is not just a DBA problem.) I am thinking about trying out some house rules for extra pips early on in the game or double moves or increasing the number of units required for a win (50%). Bill Hi Bill, I have noticed a similar effect. I would caution that in some cases, a victory over enemy Lights and Cavalry is the only feasible way that an army like Thracian or Illyrian may win against a Roman Republican Blade-heavy army. To me this represents the likely "moral victory" such a win would represent, and reflects more of a "guerrilla" type action in the surrounding hills, i.e. there were certainly potential casualties in the legion, but not enough to break any of the maniples. To be sure, it is no Teutoburger Wald, but it is perhaps enough to see the Roman Consul recalled to Rome in disgrace, and losing his villa and state pension... Oddly enough, there are a few who feel that HI already move too fast, and should be reduced to 1.5 BW in good going... |
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Nov 21, 2017 16:44:39 GMT
It amazes me that so short a rules set that was tested for so long continues to create discussion and debate. I know that infuriates some people but I don't mind it. I play games to socialise and talk about ancient military history so discussing how "real troops" would react to our table top scenario is kind of fun, in a masochistic sort of way! People decry Phil Barker's writing style but in most situations his rules are quite clear. We are lucky in that we seem to have many of the playtesters and group of thirty on the list. It also seems as though some of the discussions have identified some situations that were not raised during development. I understand that it would be virtually impossible to change Phil's mind on topics that were discussed and I completely understand Phil not be involved and commenting on every query online. But if there were some things that slipped through, would we be able to have one of the playtesters provide a list to Phil for clarification? I don't think that list would be long as the knowledgeable people on this list point out that the rules actually cover the situation most of the time. But there are occasions where there is enough ambiguity to ask for clarification. We can only ask and the worst thing will be that he'll say no. Jim LOL... doesn't amaze me at all. Phil's rules are treated in somewhat of a unique fashion by the gaming community are large. This isn't surprising as that they are perhaps the most widely played rules over the years and used for tournaments that seem to be unique in the wargaming world. Though others have followed ....LADG and FOG as examples... Phil's rules remain a mainstay. Phil's style is ... interesting. To be blunt, he isn't interested in explaining ever nuance of every situation. He is more of an old style gamer... a style where opponents work out odd situations between themselves... even in a tournament. So, we don't have exact rules for what happens when an element enters a threat zone. We don't have exact rules explaining all weird contact situations. Phil expects us to work them out ourselves...between opponents... rather than have 80 pages of explanatory text that still leaves large gaps and perhaps creates more. Now, this is not to excuse some of the more opaque passages... the elephant recoil rules.... egads! This works for the vast majority of gamers. Because a great many of us take the rules very seriously, and because the tournament orientation of the game, we tend to put the rules under much greater scrutiny than most others... I can't imagine Rapid Fire!, Spearhead Moderns, Volley & Bayonet, or Command Decision being put to such close examination. Now, this doesn't mean we shouldn't examine the rules closely. Let us face some self examination. We are all wargamers... we are all touched a bit by the autism. This a good thing..lol. Stevie's in depth parsing of the lining up and turning to face rules are (frightening....lol... just kidding) fascinating... I meant to type fascinating. It helps us to completely understand the situation. It will help us in the future to write better rules. As to your query about Phil answering questions. I am afraid that ship has sailed. Phil will be 85 I think this coming summer. His health is as can be expected- not great. I doubt we will hear from him. Joe Collins |
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 21, 2017 21:47:47 GMT
Phil considers these rules to be perfect as written. There's no need to answer any questions about them. He just thinks you should read them, they mean what they say and they say what they mean. It's like professor Harold Hill says about learning music, you just think it. And you can do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Nov 22, 2017 6:50:04 GMT
Phil considers these rules to be perfect as written. There's no need to answer any questions about them. He just thinks you should read them, they mean what they say and they say what they mean. It's like professor Harold Hill says about learning music, you just think it. And you can do it. , does that mean that all those players that have for years insisted that troops in front-edge contact to an enemy flank or rear do not pursue have been playing it wrong, and such troops should pursue? Because page 11 paragraph 4, “Combat Outcomes”, last sentence, specifically says:- “A supporting element in close combat against an enemy element’s flank or rear recoils if the friendly element in combat with that enemy’s front recoils, flees or is destroyed.” And page 12 paragraph 9, “Pursuing”, first sentence, also specifically says:- “This represents following up a retiring close combat opponent or panicked survivors of a destroyed element with the intention of continuing to kill them. (And) an element whose close combat opponents recoil, flee or are destroyed must immediately pursue.” So troops in front-edge contact to an enemy flank or rear are in close combat, and some close combat troops will pursue. After all…”the rules mean what they say and they say what they mean.”  Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest June 2017 FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on Nov 22, 2017 17:11:23 GMT
Read closely/ “A supporting element in close combat against an enemy element’s flank or rear ..." A special case of "close combat" The examples on page 12 do not reference anything about "supporting". This is the only reference to Supporting in close combat, a special case. General close combat " occurs when an element moves into, or remains in, both front edge and front corner-to-corner contact with an enemy element or at least partial front edge contact with a city, fort or camp." supporting elements in close combat do not pursue. Except "(and all elements in a column behind such an element) " supporting or not Indeed, …”the rules mean what they say and they say what they mean.” |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 22, 2017 18:04:46 GMT
As the guy tasked to umpire the US National Championship, I find confidence and ingnorance in equal measure can carry me through.
Seriously, Phil is a fantastic idea man who writes rules in a stream of conciousness manner. He quickly gets bored with details and implementation and wants to move on to the next big idea. He let the playtesters help a lot with working out the details of ideas in DBA 3.0 - but restricted to tight space constraints. And we missed stuff.
He has not answered any of my rule querys in a long time and don't expect him to ever do so in any detail. The FAQ committe works by consensus and often cannot reach it. So as an ump I just have to rule as best I can as even the "experts" cannot agree. I try and float my views here first to get some player feedback. As Joe points out in all fairness to Phil most rules do not have the stress test of tournament play - and few, even classics like Command Decision, could withstand it. That said recently some inferior games to DBX like FOG and the the French Game, have better withstood tournament pressures and so have displaced DBX as the main tournament system.
Which brings us round to the 2nd major consideration - simulation value. I have long expounded the view that the basic mechanics of DBX better portray medieval battle better than any other system including far more complex ones (WRG 7th for example). But I, to some DBX purists distress, also point out areas that need improvement or are too abstract. Fans of the French Game feel its both more rule-lawyer proof and a better simulation than DBX. A view that seems to be gaining wide spread acceptance.
I don't agree and feel that though the French Game borrows heavily from DBX, some features are inferior to basic DBX concepts. BUT and this is a big BUT, the French Game can innovate and we seemingly cannot. Part of the issue is that over the years DBX has become more and more tournament oriented amoung the player base. DBMM was an attempt to improve simulation value (about which neither DBA 2.2 or DBM 3.0 presented our best efforts). But the resulting complexity repelled most. Along comes Phil and his determination to improve DBA's simulation value with 3.0. It did not go over all that well. DBA with its artifical 12 element set up had become essentially an abstract chess game over the years of heavy tournament play. Despite emotional protests and the eventual split in the US (with DBA getting the smaller slice) much was still accomplished. But the effort it took....no one esp Phil wants to do it again. And these were relatively minor innovations - nothing on the scale of the French Game - which is far better than FOG which easily trounced DBMM in player interest.
So I'm leaning heavily to just leaving DBA 3.0 alone - whatever simulation warts we live with but maybe we can work out some consensus on how the rules should work in a tournament environment. So for tournament play we are done.
But to compete in the wider market and evolve as a simulation (not to mention improve user friendly presentation), we still need to innovate. Just not by driving tournament players crazy with constant tinkering. And esp not driving the US Umpire crazy...!
For Big Battle, campaigns, at home play, introducing new players Innovate! I do it all time (and am doing it). To survive in this market we need to. But tournament play is rigid, set in stone and never changing. If new players are interested in tournament play than they will just have to get used to that environment (which in any case is still lots of fun). But lets use innovation to bring in new players and let them know we can and do solve problems, add new ideas and work toward a better (and easier to understand) DBX.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Nov 22, 2017 18:53:13 GMT
Drat, forget to get into the innovation discussion on this very thread. When should a game end?
Here's what we do:
VICTORY AND DEFEAT
An Army is Broken when, at the end of a Bound, it has lost Stands equal to the number of Stands it still has on the board.
A Stand is lost if it is:
(a) Destroyed or
(b) Captured or Fled off the board and not yet returned to the battle.
A LF Stand counts as ½ a Stand. A Captured Character counts as 2 Stands. A lost or Captured General’s Stand counts as an additional lost Stand. A sacked Camp counts as 2 lost Stands and a sacked Castle counts as 3 lost Stands.
Once Broken all Stands in an Army get a -1 Combat Modifier in both Ranged and Close Combat. The only Group moves a Broken Army can make are “Holds”. It costs 1 CP to Hold a Group or single Stand. The Held Stands cannot move but will not Rout at the end of Movement Step. A Hold counts as a move for Command Control. The Army can make Individual Stand moves as normal. Any Stand that was not Held or did not make an Individual Move, Routs at the end of Movement Step. A Routed Stand is picked up and removed from the board.
Once all Stands in an Army have been Destroyed, Fled off board, Routed or are currently Captured that Army is Defeated and has lost the battle. A game can also end if players agree to a set number of Turns, a set time limit or one Army is Broken and the other isn’t at the end of a Turn.
Victory Level
Major Victory: Opposing Army Destroyed and your Army is un-Broken.
Minor Victory: Opposing Army Destroyed and your Army is Broken. OR
Opposing Army Broken and your Army is un-Broken.
Draw: Any other combination.
This system is designed for Big Battle and a point system (so both sides may not have equal numbers of Stands).
In short when your dead pile equals the number of Stands (Elements) on the board you are Broken (or lose). In other words you have to have more living than dead to keep going (at least at full strength). Big horde armies have a bit more staying power.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Demko on Nov 22, 2017 22:08:08 GMT
As someone who is trying to get into ancients, but prefers the lower bar to entry of painting a 12 element army to painting one numbering in the 30s or 50s, I'm quite happy DBA exists as an option. It's small enough that I may even be able to coerce some gaming friends into joining up. I'm not aware of sane alternatives at this scale, despite claims that point-based systems for larger battles can "scale down".
|
|
|
|
Post by primuspilus on Nov 22, 2017 23:54:10 GMT
Michael, you pretty much nailed it. For me, I was first inspired by the "small game" thing playing Victory Point Games' brilliant "Napoleonic 20" series of games, focusing on big Napoleonic battles using at most 20 game pieces in total. It was a surprisingly effective game series, putting you in the general's seat. I think there was even a "Bulge 20" version and maybe one for Barbarossa!
DBA for me scratches that itch. I thoroughly enjoy the chess-like concentration and ease of management involved in the small game. I think the 12 element game is subtle in ways BBDBA just isn't. Perhaps double-sized armies are for me the perfect "big game", but there is something about that small game as well. And you make brilliant points about the barriers to entry for miniatures. I spent 12 years wanting to get into minis, but dreading the prospect of all that painting!
As I aged I finally did it, and got into bigger bases, for my bigger armies, but I have always loved the ease of play and challenge of the "few elements" game. A miniature miniatures game!
|
|
