|
|
Post by Roland on May 8, 2020 14:04:01 GMT
Having played 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and now 3.0 I notice how the shift from "paces" ( inches) to BW for movement has had a pretty strong impact on aspects of game play. I still use a 2'x2' pre-made game board to play on and notice that things move awfully quickly using current movement rates. Do others prefer a slightly bigger board for their 3.0 games? Have others combined 3.0 game mechanics with the older ( slower) movement rates for the smaller boards?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendor on May 8, 2020 21:56:20 GMT
We usually play on 28-30 inches boards. It works nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on May 9, 2020 3:08:40 GMT
It really depends on personal preference.
The change the BW movement was controversial early in DBA 3 development. Quite a lot of folks complained about it. I had by accident been playing a close proximity for years. I had found it preferable. A bunch of folks however complained bitterly. From reading their posts, I quickly ascertained that they had never played with the changes.
This was born out later when some disguised the change in movement in their games. Some of the those complaining played in those games and praised them.
Oops.
The above being said... larger boards are preferable for LH armies. We pushed early in DBA 3 development for a larger board being part of a LH armies "Terrain picks".
This of course was somewhat untenable.
I do however still favor a LH army being able to pick a larger board as a terrain choice in friendly games.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by bob on May 11, 2020 21:37:20 GMT
I was one who complained much about the change. Mostly on the grounds that it was not needed and would serve to distract people from the good changes in the game. Phil was adamant about the change. Once it was inevitable I sat back and enjoyed it  I now use Base Width moves for HOTT too. The two games seem so slow without it. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 13, 2020 20:31:44 GMT
Base Width movement took some getting used to by many players - and some never did (or never tried it).
I have played in 25mm since 1.0. In that edition Heavy Foot moved 4" (100mm) and boards were 4X4 - a fantastic game. Then it got changed to "paces" so foot moved 80mm and board shrank to 36". We quit playing.
So when we worked on 3.0 suddenly in 25mm we got 120mm of Foot movement and the possibility of 4X4 boards again. So 25mm was back.
I had done a lot of DBMM playtesting (and have the scars to prove it) including flying Phil to the States so we could play demo games (and discuss the good bad and ugly of DBMM). So I had encountered Base Width moves in 15mm also and come to like them (but I was always up for new ideas one reason Phil came over to try and convince me about DBMM - he failed but I appreciated the effort).
For the US NICT, I put in the rule that the Defender could decide between 24"X24" and 30"X30" (which had already become standard in US). Most seem to go for 30X30 so I recommend giving it a try in 15mm. With 24"X24" I'm less bothered by the swift movement (which I rather like) than the cramped deployment area.
Very strongly recommend Base Width movement for HOTT.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on May 13, 2020 20:47:21 GMT
I must admit playing HOTT after DBA takes a bit of getting used to.
Oh that's not actually in range to shoot at, no I can't get that element over there to support because it's movement is so tiny compared to DBA, etc however the one argument I've heard against using base widths is that it would give the 1200p aerials far too much movement?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on May 13, 2020 21:33:27 GMT
For the US NICT, I put in the rule that the Defender could decide between 24"X24" and 30"X30" (which had already become standard in US). Most seem to go for 30X30 so I recommend giving it a try in 15mm. With 24"X24" I'm less bothered by the swift movement (which I rather like) than the cramped deployment area. TomT You sure you don't mean the attacker decides? I have played in every NICT since 2006 and that is what we started doing in all the games we run and have been in. The defender has enough advantages already. |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 14, 2020 19:25:24 GMT
I must admit playing HOTT after DBA takes a bit of getting used to. Oh that's not actually in range to shoot at, no I can't get that element over there to support because it's movement is so tiny compared to DBA, etc however the one argument I've heard against using base widths is that it would give the 1200p aerials far too much movement? This is fixed in D3H2 where I have adjusted some of HOTT's longer movement allowances to reflect Base Widths so that players can move easily between the two games. TomT |
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 14, 2020 19:27:04 GMT
For the US NICT, I put in the rule that the Defender could decide between 24"X24" and 30"X30" (which had already become standard in US). Most seem to go for 30X30 so I recommend giving it a try in 15mm. With 24"X24" I'm less bothered by the swift movement (which I rather like) than the cramped deployment area. TomT You sure you don't mean the attacker decides? I have played in every NICT since 2006 and that is what we started doing in all the games we run and have been in. The defender has enough advantages already. I thought I let Defender decide - does it work better if Attacker decides? But in any case the principle is the same so that both formats can be used. |
|
I now use Base Width moves for HOTT too. The two games seem so slow without it.
