I am personally waiting to back Stevies kickstarter
"Massively over complicated DBA"
They have already beat me to it...it’s called DBMM.
-------------------------------
And fear not
Jeffreythandcock...I am working on it (mainly for my own use).
You’re right: much of the complexity in DBA 3.0 comes from the ‘free measuring’
style of play, which requires rules for groups moving sideways when in a Threat Zone,
rules to limit contacting an enemy flank, rules for making legal contact, rules for
ending a move phase in legal positions, free sideways slides when making frontal
contact, rules for who turns when charging an enemy column, and much more.
Much of this would be unnecessary when playing on 1 BW squares.
(I have already written an article about playing on a grid, but the focus of that relied
on bending over backwards in order to eliminate any distortions, so it’s not simple:-static.wikia.nocookie.net/fanaticus-dba/images/9/9e/Playing_DBA_and_HoTT_on_a_Grid_%28v1%29.pdf/revision/latest?cb=20200327194301 This time the aim is different, and to just focus on simplicity)And I do agree with you about wheeling...see
fanaticus.boards.net/post/29812 One of the things that puts people off of playing on a grid is the visual appearance.
So I am working on a fix for that, which I call ‘
a virtual grid’, played on a normal board.
Basically, all elements must be lined-up frontally to each other and the table edges,
and all measurements must be made in whole 1 BW units, with no fractions.
In other words, you either move a whole BW or not at all.
(I’m currently simplifying the details of this with playtesting)
Another thing that ‘
a virtual grid’ has shown is the overly-complicated plethora of base depths.
15mm deep bases, 20mm deep, 30mm deep, 40mm deep, 60mm deep, and sometimes more.
Why are we still using this old fashioned and unnecessary system?
Is it because it’s more realistic? Is it because it’s more expedient?
No...the only reason we still use it is because of something that was thought up in the old WRG
days, over 50 years ago (!), that has no relevance nowadays, but people don’t like re-basing.
I plan to have just two base depths: 20mm deep for most foot and 40mm for all the rest.
(You could have 80mm deep bases for double-based mounted, but the simplified version
won’t be using double-bases). Two 20mm deep bases is a column that fills a 1 BW square.
And no need to re-base either...just place a thin green piece of card under your existing
bases, held in place with double-sided sticky tape. That way you can remove these grid
bases when you want to play in tournaments.
Last of all the sections in these simplified rules will be designed to be modular...
...so players can use the simple version of that section, or replace that particular
section with the full normal DBA 3.0 rules, or even replace that section with a
House Rule that they like.
This way everyone can have the amount of complexity that they feel comfortable with.
Obviously, if they replace every simple section with the full rules, then they’d end up
playing by the full DBA 3.0 rules...and if they replace every section with a House Rule
then they’d be playing a completely different game altogether.
All I can say is “leave it with me”.
LATER UPDATE
For those of you interested in a serious simplified version of DBA,
see fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3154/new-simple-ancient-battle-rules 
