|
|
Post by gonatas on Aug 19, 2022 12:44:25 GMT
Hi
I had a thought which I felt I should put to the forum.
The thought is based on the assumption that, at some point in the future, the Intellectual Property of some or all of the rules owned by Wargames Research Group Limited will be put on the market.
This is only an assumption but it does seem a plausible one. If anyone knows different please say so.
If this were the case it struck me that it would be very neat if the DBA community could be organised in some way to acquire the IP of the DBA rules themselves.
I appreciate that I am making another assumption namely that wargamers of any description might be amenable to such a level of organisation - but I digress.
I am not going to rehearse here the arguments in favour of such a scheme but the possibility of an updated version 4 and a bit of marketing to spread the word would both become possible.
I do have an idea or two about how it could be done under the laws of England and Wales but, first things first. Is there any appetite for a discussion?
Cheers
Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by paulisper on Aug 19, 2022 13:24:47 GMT
Hi Stephen
Just PM’d you about this topic…
P
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian Ború on Aug 19, 2022 15:22:12 GMT
Hi!
As far as I know remain all rights up to 75 years after one's death with the heirs.
After that it is common property.
Cheers, Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Aug 19, 2022 15:38:30 GMT
It will take that long for people to agree on new rules for rivers, LH and aux.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tony Aguilar on Aug 19, 2022 20:43:47 GMT
I have no plans to play another rule set that requires conforming the way DBA 3.0 (or earlier versions of DBA) do it.
There is also nothing on the market that I will be going over to.
I'm either sticking with DBA 3.0 or making something else (which would be free mind you) that is WAY EASIER to teach to new players but still the same scope of game DBA is. I can also see the army lists for such an endeavor to remain the same so that you still will have to give PB the credit/money (which is not my purpose.)
With that said this is not a priority at this time since I don't find rules creation a relaxing activity.
I've mentioned this multiple times on my YouTube channel.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 20, 2022 10:33:33 GMT
I'm either sticking with DBA 3.0 or making something else (which would be free mind you) that is WAY EASIER to teach to new players but still has the same scope that the DBA game has. I’ve already had a go at this Tony, and it works fine for my little gang and me.  See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3154/new-simple-ancient-battle-rules |
|
|
|
Post by jim1973 on Aug 20, 2022 12:07:07 GMT
I think we all know that there will be no DBA 3.1 or DBA 4 under PB and that's OK. PB has more than done his bit. But it would be a travesty for his work to be lost to the future. Simply, DBA gives a fantastic game based on historical warfare with minimal outlay. I can't see army level games survive without DBA or similar to allow players to get playing early. Otherwise skirmish games will continue to grow and dominate.
Ideally, the DBA 3 engine continues on either with WRG or with other parties (something I would support if it was possible). Perhaps under a new name as DBA is PBs legacy. Certainly with a different writing style to allow further spread of the rules.
As for the army lists, they are an enormous resource and WRG (PB) deserve to profit from them. It seems that others have profited from them (with due compensation?). But they will long outlive the rules.
For me, if this is the last edition then I will play DBA3 for a long time to come.
Cheers
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by lkmjbc on Aug 20, 2022 14:41:20 GMT
Some quick thoughts.
WRG consists of more than just Phil. There are other partners. They will in the future either continue the project or sell it. I highly doubt such a franchise will be allowed to languish till the proscribed 70 year period expires.
I do believe that their will be a DBA 3.1 and perhaps a 4.0. The game has some more room to growth and be perfected. I hope to be a part in both.
In the meantime, we have Knights & Knaves, and other sets to enjoy. We can also playtest rule changes and ideas (Stevie rejoices!).
I do find it frustrating that we can't do a 3.1 update anytime soon. I think it would reinvigorate the community (especially in the US... it needs it here). The time however is not right.
Joe Collins
|
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Aug 20, 2022 15:50:22 GMT
No matter what the future holds for DBA I'm sure it can count on enthusiastic support from all its players...now and into the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by diades on Aug 21, 2022 15:21:04 GMT
Dear Mr Gonatas
For one, I am all ears on the subject of your ideas, please share by means you see fit, but for two…
In terms of the future and longevity of the game, I fear parliamentary lobbying is required to assure that the National Curriculum is adapted to include
Learning the rules by heart from an early age
Compulsory tests first thing every morning on Army list composition
Twice weekly Essays on situational interpretation of the letter of the rules
Wednesday afternoons devoted to playing.
Etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by brasidas19004 on Aug 23, 2022 4:27:46 GMT
I have no plans to play another rule set that requires conforming the way DBA 3.0 (or earlier versions of DBA) do it. There is also nothing on the market that I will be going over to. I'm either sticking with DBA 3.0 or making something else (which would be free mind you) that is WAY EASIER to teach to new players but still the same scope of game DBA is. I can also see the army lists for such an endeavor to remain the same so that you still will have to give PB the credit/money (which is not my purpose.) Wouldn't the game be MUCH simpler if it was just put onto a grid? 40mm squares and about 15 x 15 [equals the 600mm board size]. Then everything moves and fights on the grid. You can ditch about half the rules, including many exceptions and explanations. Also, most people will understand playing on what is pretty much a double-sized chessboard with "pieces" that are more realistic in how they move and fight. Has this every been tried? Actually, I'm going to try it... A. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Aug 23, 2022 5:30:24 GMT
Wouldn't the game be MUCH simpler if it was just put onto a grid? 40mm squares and about 15 x 15 [equals the 600mm board size]. Then everything moves and fights on the grid. You can ditch about half the rules, including many exceptions and explanations. Also, most people will understand playing on what is pretty much a double-sized chessboard with "pieces" that are more realistic in how they move and fight. Has this every been tried? Actually, I'm going to try it... A. Actually, some of us have come to the very same conclusion. They say great minds think alike.  See fanaticus.boards.net/thread/3154/new-simple-ancient-battle-rules |
|
|
|
Post by gonatas on Aug 23, 2022 6:27:19 GMT
Thank you everyone who responded to my original post.
I think I take away a couple of things.
From those who posted it seems to be - wait and see.
Looking at comparative paucity of replies I assume that the vast majority feel that there is no need to do anything, at least at the moment.
Putting aside Diades' fine suggestion that DBA should be on the school curriculum (which clearly deserves a thread if it's own) I do think that the fine minds on this forum and elsewhere do need to consider and plan for the need for the continued development of these rules.
I am not suggesting change for the sake of change.
I am saying that eventually, without freshening things up from time to time, the game will be played out - as DBM was.
Mention has been made recently of playing variants such as Collision Course. This is refreshing. But it only works if the players are familiar with the rules. (As an aside - wouldn't it be great if Collision Course could find its way into the rule book as a variant?)
If the rules are not fully available - and by this I mean in the DBA rule book, we will see a fragmentation of the DBA community.
In my view this will be a great shame.
The answer is to try to reach a position where the rules can be freshened up and developed from time to time in a way that is accessible to all players, existing and new.
Right. I have got that off my chest. Time for breakfast.
Toodlepip.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
Post by brasidas19004 on Aug 24, 2022 19:30:59 GMT
Hey Gonatas,
I have been thinking about your OP, as in "what is the future of DBA" and here's some thoughts:
- the present reality of wargaming is that basing and figure scale needs to be "agnostic".
- Many gamers I know won't even playtest or try out a set of rules if it requires certain types of basing.
- the mechanics of DBA are closely related to space, proximity and orientation and basing, often in an unnecessarily over-engineered sort of way. For example, another set of rules I use just says that any contact results in melee, and you are allowed up to one enemy Unit in contact per side of the rectangular unit. And...that's about it.
- Maybe none of the time spent on the elaborately engineered game mechanics is really worth it - the relationship between generals and unit activity wasn't as precise as the DBx mechanics make it out to be, e.g. recoiling is not historically always half of the unit frontage back, or equal to unit frontage, or whatever.
Ergo, I don't see a bright future ahead for the DBx family of rules. Here we are at 3.0, and there still appears to be a number of issues, disagreements, etc. DBA and DBM flourished for a while as tournament rules but were never really used much for people who wanted to recreate history. Eventually, the constant attempts to close loopholes opened new ones, and repairing the mechanics with a new edition somehow always results in more of the same issues.
Frankly, I find the combat mechanism so brilliant that I'm considering using it, simplified, with my own mechanics that are much easier to deal with. And I doubt anyone has made such a simple and challenging [if luck-driven] command and control system. But the movement and contact rules and the geometric issues are to 1980 for this time period.
|
|
|
|
Post by medievalthomas on Sept 8, 2022 21:08:13 GMT
Have sent out feelers re acquiring IP but so far not much response.
In the meantime I emphasize that the system is fully supported. We do rule inquiries on a regular basis. I've updated HOTT to DBA 3.0 standards and combined the two as D3H2 (and fully support that system).
Also have done an introductory version to all DBX type gaming (the basic game of A Game of Knights & Knaves) and a full high medieval specific historical variant (the advanced game of A Game of Knights & Knaves). Pondering now an Ancient Historical version.
So in now sense is the excellent 3.0 engine which we literally worked on a near daily bases for 2 years going to be allowed to go to waste.
I'm aware there is some panic about non "Phil" approved. Nothing I can do about that as Phil is no longer able to approve anything even fixing typos.
Let me also say I disagree with brasidas19004 and find the DBA 3.0 system works quite well regarding alignment, the command control system reflects historical reality and Recoiling represents (abstractly) disorder a key element in medieval battle.
I use DBX mechanics for historical battles all the time (we just did one at NashCon). I have written an historical scenario for Joe Collins "Great Battles" and have several as programed learning games in A Game of Knights & Knaves - so yes you can use these mechanics to produce excellent historical results.
The problems in reflecting history are the rigid troop classification system not the basic mechanics. But as anyone who has a copy of A Game of Knights & Knaves, we have already addressed and fixed this problem. Also we made a concerted effort to close loopholes and improve user friendly aspects of the rules (most of the "loopholes" over the years have stemmed from misunderstanding the rules - which are NOT a model of clarity). The rigid system also greatly increase complexity particularly how its presented in the rules but that too is a "solved" problem.
Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games
|
|
