A Call for Play Testing

As far as I recall it, Joe, Cannae was more like 7-0! ...

We need to be careful about tossing around the idea of an offical 3.1. I occasionally correspond with Sue Barker and she reports Phil cannot entertain DBA questions (let alone participate in creating a 3.1 version). So I'm not sure who would authorize such a version. Even the author created 3.0 caused a massive split let alone a "semi-authorized" version. Perhaps a 3.1 that fixed some typos and made minor changes would be accepted as a reprint (easier now that Sue has gone Lulu) but substantive changes would be another matter - I may be misreading the community but I want to avoid the open warfare that occurred between 3.0 advocates and 2.2 dead enders.

Stevie most of the HOTT stuff was considered - at the time I played a lot of HOTT (Phil didn't) and pushed for inclusion of several HOTT concepts. The ones not adopted were for various (mostly good) reasons. DBA is NOT dumbed down HOTT though I freely admit that HOTT was a much better game even for historical match ups than 2.2; it is far inferior to 3.0. In particular I hated the HOTT shooting system and is one of the main reason I don't play it anymore (and am attempting to prevent it being re-imposed in 3.0).

I did HYW battles and reported some of the problems with Navarre's Aux based armies - but I didn't push the matter and it got lost in the usual play test noise. Because of the restrictive "troop type" system of DBX the only real solution to most problems is creating new troop types and as I think David C. commented this is almost always a bad idea with lots of playability problems. Many of DBX's ideas have been copied and reused but significantly not the troop type system. The solution is to stop any additional troop types but instead alter by ability (the Fast concept is an example). Eventually we will understand that we need a +4 v. Foot "Aux" type (be it a Blades version of Aux (so +1 v. Foot -1 v. Mounted) or a Fast Spear). Half way measures will not solve the Aux problem. One HOTT like idea to consider though is break off - but tied to Recoil. Hence Ps convert double results into Flee IF they have a higher MA in the terrain occupied (this allows +4 "Aux" that move 2BW and so can't run down Ps - perhaps add in giving Cry Havoc to Aux v. Ps though - Ps too dumb or not quick enough to run away). I've come to appreciate Joe's idea of a Breakoff Ability (you can Recoil 1 BW or 1 Base Depth) and think it should be added to Ps and Aux (Mounted already have it).

Don't like at all Pikes having an advantage on Equals which represents sustained close combat something they are quite bad at (Blades being quite good at). Better idea is to give Pike better numbers but give Blades Cry Havoc v. Pike.

Despite much commentary to the contrary the woe begotten DBX troop type system has never been based on behavior but mostly weapon. The two concepts are connected but separate and need to be so in the game so you need "behavior + Weapon" to make stuff work (historically).

TomT

Carthage vs Rome:
Game 6-
3-3
Roman victory...
5-3

Cracking good game. The Ax retreat worked 4 times. It definitely extended the Ax vs Blade. In this game we substituted an El for a LH.
Carthage lead with its Spearmen and Elephant. The Elephant could not be stopped, pushing the Ps and Blade behind it all the way back to the Roman Camp.
The game was won on the right flank with the Roman commander abandoning his center for a flanking move. A string of low pip rolls prevented Carthage from countering. The fight however was touch and go with Carthage attacking the opposite flank.

Rome won in the end.

Joe Collins