|
|
Post by medievalthomas on May 11, 2017 19:35:52 GMT
I agree with Joe that there are far more important combat issues than set-up to tinker with. I produced a whole set of period specific rules for medieval battles and deconsructed the Element Types to have uniform rules for creating Troop Types (think of it as DBX Lego set). This stuff really helps to sell DBX mechanics if your recruitng from a non-tournament oriented crowd like I am.
Most games have variants, opitional rules and scenrio specific rules. Only tournament games such as most of DBX have an obsession with stict uniform adherence to the (supposed) rule intent. Variants are very healthy - most new good ideas grow out of variants. Even in tournament environment we have theme tournaments which at least limit army types.
But since we must provide for strangers meeting and needing a common core of rules, its reasonable to focus on handful of set variations (mostly for period detail/flavor).
But to the problem: I would not use the overwrought Wadbag rule. Instead: Aggression - Scouting Points + 1d6. (Scouting Points = #LH + 1/2#Ps). Low score acts as Defender. You could for campaigns add: Sneaky/Smart General -1 or -2. (Yes I know LH heavy armies would almost always dictate the battlefield - but shouldn't they? If this bothers you roll 2d6.)
This does not help the English HYW army much but its not clear they picked Agincourt - the French actually choose the site by blocking the English path to Calais. Likewise the French picked the field at Vernuil.
TomT
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 11, 2017 20:43:48 GMT
Strangely enough, although I started this thread, I too am coming round to Joe Collins point of view, but for different reasons. It all boils down to terrain dominance. Who ever gets to choose and place the terrain has an advantage. This could be through a simple system like the Aggression Factor currently used in DBA 3.0, or through a more detailed system like WADBAG’s ‘Manoeuver Rating’, where each individual army has it’s own special factor. But why have a complex system that has the same effect as a simple system? Whoever wins the right to choose and deploy the terrain has the advantage, no matter what the method of selection. Ah, but there is an alternative…’terrain compromise’, where both sides has some influence on terrain placement. I am speaking of an adapted version kaptainkobold’s suggestion… …let the defender choose the terrain but the invader places it!. Now I really, really like this idea. The current Aggression system currently used in DBA 3.0 is seriously flawed in that high aggression armies have no say whatsoever about the terrain they will have to fight over (which is unhistorical) and the only way to avoid having your troops fighting on unsuitable ground is to not have a high aggression! (a bad game mechanic). But if the invader places the terrain (subject to the existing placement die rolls of course), then the invader does have some influence as they can place terrain towards the centre if the are an auxiliary or psiloi army that needs delaying terrain to survive, or place the terrain along the table sides (1 BW from the table edge remember, unless a BUA) if they are a mounted or pike army that needs good going in the centre. Oh, the defender of a hilly or forest region will still probably choose 5 large pieces of bad going…but it’s in the interest of the invader to try to get as many of these discarded as possible because they won’t fit, and the rest placed out of harms way as best he can. ‘Terrain Compromise’…the invader gets some good going, and the defender has some bad going. Nice and fair. There is only one slight problem: roads. Why would the defender ever select a road if the invader can place terrain and choose the deployment areas? Actually, it’s worse than that, as a river without a road is pretty much useless (the invader, even under the present system, can pick a deployment area so that the river runs parallel with a table side edge and not between the opposing armies. Only a road crossing a river can force an army to cross it, because the invader must choose one end of the road to deploy in). So I’m afraid roads will have to be an exception: “Invaders place all terrain, except for roads”. If all this sounds complicated, here is a simple sequence of events for terrain placement with the new ideas in red:- 1) Both players roll a die and add their aggression factor. The highest score is the invader. 2) The defender chooses the amount of terrain, its type, its size, and its shape. 3) The defender rolls for each terrain piece (waterways first, then compulsory, then others), to determine which quarter the invader must place it in. Those that won’t fit are discarded. 4) Any roads are now rolled for and placed by the defender. 5) The invader now chooses his base edge , which must be one end of a road if present, and cannot be opposite a waterway. The defenders base edge is that opposite the invader. Now I ask you…what could be simpler. Compared to the present Aggression system, high aggression armies do get a say about the terrain they have to fight over (historical inaccuracy fixed) and you no longer have to avoid high aggression armies as they will have some suitable ground to fight in (bad game mechanic fixed). What’s not to like!  (There is one more thing that I have referred to in this thread but have not yet described …random terrain selection.
I’ll do that in my next post so that everybody can see what I’m talking about and make judgements on it.)
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 12, 2017 0:46:57 GMT
I don't see the value.... Our club games rarely use the aggression rules now. Joe Collins Of course, if you don't use the aggression rules, it is logically consistent that you wouldn't see any value in changing them |
|
|
|
Post by Dangun on May 12, 2017 1:04:52 GMT
‘Terrain Compromise’…the invader gets some good going, and the defender has some bad going. Nice and fair.
Your comment about "fair" betrays a problem in this discussion. Before changing anything, perhaps we/you/the guardians of 3.x (Joe et al.) should decide on what the objective of the terrain system is... 1. Should the objective of the terrain system create a "fair" battle?An admirable game objective, essential balancing the advantages/disadvantages of each army's element mix by allowing the generals to add or subtract terrain 2. Should the objective of the terrain system create a historical battlefield?An admirable historical objective, but you would end up with a far less terrain and those armies loaded with Ps and Ax really would be screwed, particularly when out of period Home field (aggression rating) would determine the type of terrain elements 3. Should the objective of the terrain system allow the historically more maneuverable army to determine the battlefield?An admirable historical objective, but you would logically end up with battlefields that exaggerate the advantages/disadvantages of each army's element mix You cannot achieve all of these goals with the current system. It is probably impossible to achieve all 3 objectives with any terrain system. The current system seems to give the greatest weighting/importance to goal 1, and no weighting or importance to goal 3. If you want historical terrain you'll prefer goals 2 and 3, if you want a tournament system you'll want goals 1 and a bit of 3, if you are doing a historical.refight than you'll ignore the terrain system anyway. But this discussion might run at cross purposes until a goal is agreed upon. |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 12, 2017 4:34:51 GMT
Can I point out one thing that has been missing in this discussion.
The Defender chooses terrain - Advantage
Attacker choses the side - very minor advantage which can be counteracted by clever setting of terrain (assuming that all pieces do not finish up in the one quarter leading to several being discarded)
Defender deploys and this is fixed (no more two element swap)
Attacker then deploys - Advantage
So whilst the defender can dictate the terrain, the attacker can dictate who fights who - I wouldn't say that it is all fair and balanced, but I would say that in DBA3 the defender's advantage has been reduced significantly.
|
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 12, 2017 4:45:08 GMT
And who here on the board is old enough to remember WRG7th
We could adapt that system to the DBA to get a terrain setting that might be fairer
1) Players roll a die and add aggression, the lower score is the defender - the battlefield is fought using their topography
2) Defender chooses up to 3 terrain pieces - 1-2 compulsory, and 0-1 optional pieces
3) Attacker chooses up to 1-2 more optional pieces - they can choose to replace one of these pieces with an Open Space which follows the same rules for dimensions as area terrain features.
4) Defender rolls to place the compulsory pieces
5) Attacker rolls to place their first optional piece
6) Defender rolls to place their optional piece
7) Attacker rolls to place their second optional piece (if applicable).
The order of rolling for pieces needs to be tweaked if the attacker chooses a Waterway (this can happen in Arable) in that case the Defender places the compulsories and their optional after the Waterway is placed and then the attacker places their final piece (if applicable).
An open space is treated exactly like an Area Terrain feature - I am still mulling about whether it should be entirely in a single quarter or like plough it should always be across two quarters.
8) Attacker then chooses their side
So - do we think it would work??
Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by kaptainkobold on May 12, 2017 5:47:19 GMT
Strangely enough, although I started this thread, I too am coming round to Joe Collins point of view, but for different reasons. It all boils down to terrain dominance. Who ever gets to choose and place the terrain has an advantage. This could be through a simple system like the Aggression Factor currently used in DBA 3.0, or through a more detailed system like WADBAG’s ‘Manoeuver Rating’, where each individual army has it’s own special factor. But why have a complex system that has the same effect as a simple system? Whoever wins the right to choose and deploy the terrain has the advantage, no matter what the method of selection. Ah, but there is an alternative…’terrain compromise’, where both sides has some influence on terrain placement. I am speaking of an adapted version kaptainkobold’s suggestion… …let the defender choose the terrain but the invader places it!.
That's certainly something I thought of, but thought that it pushed things maybe a step too far in the other direction. I still like the idea of there being uncertainty about who gets to place the terrain. My original thoughts had it right at the start. I was thinking that it could be built into the placement rolls. So: Terrain choice is made by the defender. Each piece is then rolled for, again, as in the rules, but with the change that on a 5 or 6 the attacker gets to place the piece. So, on a 1-4 the defender places the piece in the appropriate sector, if they can. On a 5, the defender chooses a sector, but the attacker decides on the placement. On a 6 the attacker gets to choose a sector and place the terrain (including being able to choose a sector where the placement isn't allowed, just as they currently can). In this way the defender has some certainty about their terrain choice an placement, but it's less certain that at present. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 12, 2017 21:17:01 GMT
Medievalthomas:-
Some good ideas there.
Maybe have the scouting points as: Cv, LH, Cm, Ax, Ps = 1 per element.
In hilly or forest terrain it’s the Ax and Ps that would be the better scouts…
…of course, we don’t know what the region’s terrain is yet, that’s why we are dicing.
However, this still doesn’t tackle the fundamental problem of giving one side ‘terrain dominance’…it’s just an alternative method of deciding who gets that ‘terrain dominance’.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dangun:-
Ah…I may have confused things a bit with the word ‘fair’.
I didn’t mean it as ‘making it fair’ for the players. I meant it in an historical sense, as in ‘making it fair for the armies’.
Both armies, whether invading or defending, would presumably want to fight in terrain suitable for their troops.
In reality an invading mounted or pike army wouldn’t try to make a full frontal assault against a wall of bad going (the defender has placed a road remember). They would instead march off and threaten one of the defender’s cities or strategically go around the defender’s position to cut their lines of supply. Either of these commonly known and often used tactics would force the dug-in defender to leave their entrenchments and the battle would be fought in some other place, hopefully one in which the good going army has a chance or they will just do the same thing again.
And it’s unfair that this real life option is denied to the invader.
Likewise, auxiliary and psiloi armies know full well that in order to survive they need bad going. And if they were the invader, and the defender only offered a totally flat open and barren battlefield, then they too wouldn’t oblige in committing suicide but would also march off, this time sticking to any bad going terrain they can find in the invaded county while they search for a better spot in which to deploy for battle.
And it’s unfair that this real life option is denied to them.
This what I meant by being ‘fair’. And if being fair to the armies means having a mixed ‘Terrain Compromise’, so be it.
By the way, I love your summing up of just what is the objective of the terrain system.
You hit the nail right on the head. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Collins:-
Dungan is quite right you know.
How can you be sure that the current aggression system is working correctly if you don’t use it?
I think that the real problem is one side or the other having total ‘Terrain Domination’, where they and they alone decide on the number, type, size, shape, and placement of all the terrain (oh, and in case all this isn’t enough, they can also have a road as well just to make absolutely sure that the invader attacks from the right direction!).
And there ain’t a damn thing the invader can do about any of this as he has no say whatsoever in the matter of terrain, even though he is supposed to be the ‘invader’ and one would have thought he could choose just where and which part of the defender’s lands he wanted to invade.
So the only way to avoid having a high aggression army fighting in unsuitable terrain is…don’t have a high aggression army!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Macbeth:-
I remember WRG 7th edition (oops, I’m showing my age!).
And yes, the system you propose could work. It would be a mix of terrain types, both bad and good, which would break the ‘Terrain Domination’ monopoly of the defender and lead to a fairer ‘Terrain Compromise’ situation.
But it is a bit complicated.
Allowing the defender to choose the terrain but having the invader place it is a lot simpler.
(But please see the reply below)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaptainkobold:-
That’s another good idea…you must travel on trains a lot!.
Yes, your new suggestion would lead to more uncertainty…but I wonder if I may adapt it slightly.
(Sorry, that’s the second time I’ve altered one of your ideas. I promise I won’t do it again…well...a politician’s promise at least… )
How about combining your and macbeth’s ideas together:-
The defender chooses the terrain.
1-4 the defender places it.
5 and the invader picks the quarter but the defender still places it.
And on a roll of 6, the invader replaces it with another of his own choice from that same region, and picks the size, and the quarter, and places it, even if it was a compulsory piece! (terrain maximums would still apply of course).
This is similar to macbeth’s suggestion, would result in a slight ‘Terrain Compromise’, and is relatively simple.
It would give the poor weak invading auxiliary/psiloi armies a place to hide in if an arable defender picks two useless compulsory plough, a 1 BW wide waterway, and an extra piece of plough (which is as flat and open a battlefield as I can think of).
And as the the invader would be able to pick the quarter on a roll of 5 or 6, he could cause the piece to be discarded if it won’t fit…which is equivalent to macbeth’s suggestion of having a new ‘Open Ground’ terrain feature.
True, it won’t happen often (the fewest terrain pieces is 3, so there would be a 50% chance per battle, or more than that if there is the maximum of 5 terrain pieces to be deployed).
It could even sometimes get rid of one of them damn roads that the defender always seems to carry around with them. On a roll of 6, the invader can transform it into something else, and then discard it won’t fit in the quarter that the invader picks.
I like it. This has become my favourite now. 
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by arnopov on May 12, 2017 22:15:26 GMT
So the only way to avoid having a high aggression army fighting in unsuitable terrain is…don’t have a high aggression army!
For what it's worth, for "open" tourneys I will now only use Agg0 armies with a good topography. For themed tourneys (like the PAWS), occasionally armies with attractive combination of troops might trump low Agg, but still, as a rule I'll always try to have as low an Agg as possible. This being said, I know several good players who prefer to be attacker. |
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 13, 2017 5:37:44 GMT
So the only way to avoid having a high aggression army fighting in unsuitable terrain is…don’t have a high aggression army!
For what it's worth, for "open" tourneys I will now only use Agg0 armies with a good topography. For themed tourneys (like the PAWS), occasionally armies with attractive combination of troops might trump low Agg, but still, as a rule I'll always try to have as low an Agg as possible. This being said, I know several good players who prefer to be attacker. Thanks for that little confession arnopov, which does sort of prove my point about the defender having total ‘Terrain Domination’ can put high aggression armies at a severe disadvantage (it almost made DBA unplayable amongst my little group of wargaming friends, but not necessarily for the reasons you may think… …I’ll tell the whole story in detail in my next post about ‘Randomly Generated Terrain’ when I get home from work today…yes, I know it’s a Saturday, but I’m a money grabbing bastard. ) Mind you, even if you have a zero aggression army in a tournament, your opponents may also have the same or nearly the same, and you still have to roll to see who will be the defender. But then a tournament is a special kind of environment in which not all the rules are used, at least not all the terrain rules. After all, a player that plonked three difficult hills, a river, and a road on a table during a tournament can expect a severe frowning from their opponent…if not worse! Maybe that’s why your friends can get away with having high aggression armies. The inevitable ‘win-at-all-costs’ attitude in tournaments means they are unlikely to face the ‘bad-going-wall-of-death-at-the-end-of-the-road’ that can occur so often in normal friendly games of DBA, where use of the aggression factor and terrain placement can be fully exploited and pushed to such absurd limits. Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
|
|
Post by twrnz on May 13, 2017 8:06:16 GMT
But then a tournament is a special kind of environment in which not all the rules are used, at least not all the terrain rules. After all, a player that plonked three difficult hills, a river, and a road on a table during a tournament can expect a severe frowning from their opponent…if not worse! I think a point to consider here is how does the competition scoring work? A player who places the terrain you describe is likely: (a) Seeking a draw to maintain his place in the pecking order or; (b) Has an army that can not stand against his opponent in the open and believes he will defeated easily or; (c) Hopes his opponent will make a series of rash decisions or; (d) Seeks a combination of the above. In my view a player using such terrain frequently, and is therefore possibly seeking draws, should not be rewarded. This is where a competition organiser has an important part to play. He can reduce the impact of this type of terrain selection by ensuring that draws are worth similar points to a loss. After a couple of games where the points gained amount to those gained in a loss the player will likely have dropped down the pecking order. If the terrain is only one game then perhaps he has outwitted his enemy, who has not made the correct element selection and should have selected some Ax instead of so many knights? |
|
|
|
Post by macbeth on May 14, 2017 7:10:23 GMT
But then a tournament is a special kind of environment in which not all the rules are used, at least not all the terrain rules. After all, a player that plonked three difficult hills, a river, and a road on a table during a tournament can expect a severe frowning from their opponent…if not worse! I think a point to consider here is how does the competition scoring work? A player who places the terrain you describe is likely: (a) Seeking a draw to maintain his place in the pecking order or; (b) Has an army that can not stand against his opponent in the open and believes he will defeated easily or; (c) Hopes his opponent will make a series of rash decisions or; (d) Seeks a combination of the above. In my view a player using such terrain frequently, and is therefore possibly seeking draws, should not be rewarded. This is where a competition organiser has an important part to play. He can reduce the impact of this type of terrain selection by ensuring that draws are worth similar points to a loss. After a couple of games where the points gained amount to those gained in a loss the player will likely have dropped down the pecking order. If the terrain is only one game then perhaps he has outwitted his enemy, who has not made the correct element selection and should have selected some Ax instead of so many knights? Here in the ACT we don't reward draws, in fact we give a point to the loser for finishing the game. By the time the pecking order is established, a draw is a very poor outcome for anyone with their eyes out for the main chance. There was a character years ago who would put down a wall of bad terrain and play slowly. When the time was almost up he would send out a couple of detachments with a view to killing 1-2 elements. I heard that he complained that the scoring system was biased against his, perfectly valid, playing style and would mumble a couple of Sun Tzu quotes to back up this assertion. (it was never done directly to me - the author of the scoring system) however. Cheers |
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on May 14, 2017 7:41:03 GMT
Here in the ACT we don't reward draws, in fact we give a point to the loser for finishing the game. By the time the pecking order is established, a draw is a very poor outcome for anyone with their eyes out for the main chance. There was a character years ago who would put down a wall of bad terrain and play slowly. When the time was almost up he would send out a couple of detachments with a view to killing 1-2 elements. I heard that he complained that the scoring system was biased against his, perfectly valid, playing style and would mumble a couple of Sun Tzu quotes to back up this assertion. (it was never done directly to me - the author of the scoring system) however. Cheers Which Sun Tzu quotation?
Something with 'Cooked Duck' in the text?
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 14, 2017 18:07:26 GMT
I have mentioned several times in both this thread and others my intense dislike of the ‘shopping basket’ approach to terrain selection, as if the defender were simply walking down the aisle of a supermarket picking exactly the items they want (“Oh look, marshes are on special offer in this region, I’ll definitely pop a couple of those in my shopping trolley!”).
Armies in reality did not have such luxury.
So I created the following “Randomly Generated Terrain Chart”.
My friends and I have been using it for over a year now and it has greatly transformed our games, making them both more realistic, more challenging, and helping to make the ‘bad-going-wall-of-death-at-the-end-of-the-road’ less likely, although it is still possible with the right amount of luck with terrain selection and placement.
Some of you may have already seen this chart, but for those that haven’t the original can found and downloaded here (it’s on the first page of the crib sheets, in the ‘bureaucratic grey’ section):-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:DETAILED_CRIB_SHEETS_for_DBA_3.0.pdf
The chart should be self-explanatory; the numbers in square brackets [ ] refers to the page & paragraph in the rules, the rounded brackets ( ) shows the maximum number of that terrain type allowed in normal 12 element games, and the names at the top of each column under the die roll number are purely arbitrary.
‘Or’ in each box means (obviously) the defending player has the choice.
I have deliberately included a slight bias towards Ax & Ps armies as, lets be honest, they need all the help they can get! So an Arable roll of ‘5’ gives a choice of a Difficult Hill (for bad going armies) and a Gentle Hill (for those that need good going).
Many players find wading across rivers a bit tedious, so I have where possible given the choice of a road instead.
Note that it’s possible to manipulate this chart into increasing the chances of getting a particular terrain feature, and indeed players are encouraged to do so. For example, should a player in a Forest region desperately want a marsh, they can select two compulsory woods, and a roll of ‘2’ or ‘3’ would give them a third wood. Any further rolls of ‘2’ or ‘3’ cannot give them another wood, as they have already reached the maximum of three, and there is no alternative offered, so they get to choose any other eligible terrain feature allowed for in that region and can pick a marsh if they want one.
Likewise, you can’t have two BUA’s, so if Arable picks a compulsory BUA any throw of ‘6’ gives them free choice.
This chart may look complicated, but actually you just throw the dice and take what’s offered:-
Basically, if Stevie wants a road, he has 1 chance in 6. With 3 optional die rolls, there’s a 50% chance on average.
When he gets one he is all happy and jovial.
When he doesn’t, there is much gnashing of teeth!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevie on May 14, 2017 18:48:28 GMT
How The Above Chart Came Into Existence
Well, it’s all my own fault really.
As my Ancient Spanish are so weak and helpless in good going, I wanted to maximise their chances of survival. So, being the good rule lawyer that I am, I found that the rules allowed my low aggression arable auxiliaries to choose an Edifice ‘Sacred Grove’ BUA, two Difficult Hills, and a Road, in every defensive battle (and with an aggression of zero, that is just about EVERY battle). Sometimes the terrain placement roll would be off, or one of the pieces would be discarded, but usually I could form the dreaded ‘bad-going-wall-of-death-at-the-end-of-the-road’, and any good going army of mounted or pikes had no chance of breaking though.
I didn’t win many battles (hey, it’s not my fault that Ax armies don’t have no ‘punch’), but I didn’t lose many either.
The enemy wouldn’t enter my bad going, and I wouldn’t leave it, so after a hour of ineffectual PIP rolling the game was abandoned and we went to the pub early.
DBA had become almost unplayable…at least when a bad going army is defending against a good going army.
But then my enemies ‘friends’ started playing the same trick on me, and you you know what, I didn’t like it either!
So I devised the “Randomly Generated Terrain Chart” posted above so that the dreaded ‘bad-going-wall-of-death-at-the-end-of-the-road’ was less likely to happen.
This worked fine for a good while…battles were fought, armies won and lost, and everything seemed settled.
DBA was playable again.
But then one player had to go too far (ok, I admit it, it was me again), and decided that if it was perfectly legitimate for an invading good going army to refuse to to attack a ‘bad-going-wall-of-death-at-the-end-of-the-road’ as that would be suicide and not what would happen in reality, and the only thing to do was abandon the game and re-roll for new terrain, what is there to stop that same player from doing the same thing on ALL of the battlefields that the invader didn’t like the look of?
There is nothing in the rules that says that an invader must attack.
You can force him to deploy his army, but if he simply says ”no thanks, I’m not going to advance”, what do you do?
Attack him instead you might say…but if the defender has an auxiliary army and the invader has a good going army, that is exactly what he wants, as it’s suicide for the auxiliaries to be in good going.
So instead of the ‘dictatorship of the defender’, we now have the ‘dictatorship of the invader’!.
The invader has in effect got the ability of vetoing the battlefield.
Once again DBA becomes unplayable…at least when a good going army is attacking a bad going army.
We tried a ‘three-strikes-and-you’re-out’ rule, where the invader can veto the first two battlefields if they wish but must fight in the third…but it didn’t work. My mates still won’t march into suicide. And being told that you have lost because you’ve had your three tries just doesn’t feel like a loss…it’s a sort of ‘technical’ loss or ‘a loss on paper’, not a real loss.
So once again going back to the drawing board I created the “Time Of Day Display” and the “Mapless Wars” system, both of which can be found here:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/File:TIME_OF_DAY_DISPLAY.pdf
The “Time Of Day Display” at least gives us an idea of when the invader is going to stop farting around and we can get to the pub before closing time, and the the “Mapless Wars” system gives the the invader an importunity of refusing to fight but at the cost of losing ‘strategic points’ and possibly losing the war.
And now DBA, at least among my little group of friends, is playable again.
Final Conclusion
DBA 3.0 is still a great gaming system.
The only problems that occur are when bad going armies face good going armies.
But it could be that the only real problem is ME…yours truly.
Perhaps it’s me that is causing all the problems, not the DBA Aggression system.
Maybe the the only rule changes needed are that if playing against stevie, enforce the following extra rules:-
“Randomly Generated Terrain”
“A Time Limit To Each Battle”
and “Mapless Wars”
…or he will bugger-up the game!
Some potentially useful player aids can be found here, including the latest FAQ and the Quick Reference Sheets from the Society of Ancients:-
fanaticus-dba.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Reference_sheets_and_epitomes
|
|
