Help support TMP


"Newesy Version of DBA 3.0 posted" Topic


24 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the DBx Message Board


964 hits since 5 Aug 2012
©1994-2014 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Ammianus05 Aug 2012 3:57 a.m. PST

Look in the Yahoo DBA group, titled DBA3.0July but has an AUG posting date.

Lou from BSM Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2012 5:51 a.m. PST

Cool… now we just need the Army lists!!!

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2012 1:39 p.m. PST

Well, in looking at the "move to contact rules" they have been completely revamped and read clear as a bell!

Elements or groups contacting a group conform to the group with the shortest possible move!

I still dislike the side support and the fast/solid definitions. But, it is easy enough to strip away that and use a combat system from an older version.

Personal logo elsyrsyn Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2012 6:05 p.m. PST

Well, in looking at the "move to contact rules" they have been completely revamped and read clear as a bell!

Has the sky fallen in the UK? wink

Doug

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP05 Aug 2012 6:38 p.m. PST

Has the sky fallen in the UK?

Or it got much colder in the nether-regions. evil grin

ashill4 Inactive Member06 Aug 2012 1:49 a.m. PST

Every time I click on the file my system says that it has to cut the connection to the site and it closes IE. This happens with a lot of pdf files that I try to access.

Scott Kursk Inactive Member06 Aug 2012 7:03 a.m. PST

As a former GW gamer, I do not understand this. A new version of the rules is out and I haven't had to pay $100 USD for the new rules and it's not looking like I'm going to need to massively change anything.

This must be what East German's felt after the wall fell and they came to a West German shopping center. I can see what is happening, I like it, but I am having trouble processing it.

Time for a Bitburger.

Personal logo elsyrsyn Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2012 8:49 a.m. PST

As a former GW gamer, I do not understand this. A new version of the rules is out and I haven't had to pay $100 USD USD for the new rules and it's not looking like I'm going to need to massively change anything.

Well, the rules are not actually out yet, and the jury is still out on how massively you'll have to change things. You're certainly not likely to have to pay $100 USD for the new edition, though.

Doug

The Beast Rabban Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2012 9:19 a.m. PST

I downloaded it, and am reading it now. I love the Steady/Fast inclusion, and am actually enjoying reading it. I'm thinking I may not need a 3.0 WADBAG cheatsheet ten times its length to figure this one out.

The Beast Rabban Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2012 10:52 a.m. PST

Well, in my excitement, I may have spoke too soon. There are still many parts that look like they were dictated by Yoda. I just don't get the inside-out sentences. For instance:

"Rear support factors:

Pikes add +3 and Warband +1 when in frontal close combat against enemy foot, or Pikes +1 when in frontal close combat against Knights, Elephants or Scythed Chariots; if in either case they have another friendly element of the same type lined up directly behind facing the same direction, and both are in good going."

Why the heck does the whole (incredibly long) sentence not LEAD OFF WITH the post semi-colon part? It's the qualifier.

That, and the still-hatred of bullet-points.

Oh, well, it's still better than before. Now I can actually play without the need to wax-on, wax-off for Mr. Miyagi.

Thomas Thomas06 Aug 2012 1:15 p.m. PST

We have been working very hard on improving lanaguage/clariy. Still have a ways to go but I'm happy people have noted the progess.

We value playtest games and input. Both Fast and side support actually work very well but take a bit of getting used to. (Note the term Solid is meaningless – its just means "normal".)

TomT

The Beast Rabban Supporting Member of TMP06 Aug 2012 2:50 p.m. PST

Don't get me wrong- I am very happy with the overall progress. I just find such phrasings weird and more often than not confusing. Try reading them out loud and see! grin

I applaud the efforts of you and everyone else working to bring us all a whole new edition of these rules after all this time!

Ammianus07 Aug 2012 4:45 a.m. PST

I fear many of my units should be classified Nebulous or Sluggish.

Yesthatphil07 Aug 2012 12:40 p.m. PST

Sad to see from that TBR quote that the clumsy old rear support stuff has been brought back. The version without it played extremely well and was more plausible for 12 element armies.

Ah well, we shall see. I coped with DBM version 1. Of course 'fast' works … it is a tried and tested DBM mechanism. I was glad to see the back of it. Side support I do like.

Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP07 Aug 2012 7:43 p.m. PST

Beast, Does this really read better

If in either case they have another friendly element of the same type lined up directly behind facing the same direction, and both are in good going; pikes add +3 and Warband +1 when in frontal close combat against enemy foot, or Pikes +1 when in frontal close combat against Knights, Elephants or Scythed Chariots.

I like to know what troop types I am dealing with, the factors, against what enemy and then the limits.

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2012 6:55 a.m. PST

Sad to see from that TBR quote that the clumsy old rear support stuff has been brought back. The version without it played extremely well and was more plausible for 12 element armies.

Phil,

The rear support has always been there in 3.0, at least in every iteration I've seen. Much of the rear support was removed except for Wb and Pk.

Side support is a relatively new edition from June I think.

John

Personal logo elsyrsyn Supporting Member of TMP08 Aug 2012 10:04 a.m. PST

To Phil's point, though, side support does seem to make more logical sense in a 12 element game than rear support. I've said all through this process, though, that it is apparent that Barker believes that the choice between going wide or going deep is one of those critical elements of ancient generalship that has to be in the game. Therefore, it will stay in the game, regardless of whether or not it makes sense at the scale of the game.

Doug

Yesthatphil09 Aug 2012 3:28 a.m. PST

Who asked this joker …

Yes rear support was almost gone by the June version (only Pikes IIRC).

I have been eliminating it from my historical (and public shows) games for some time already (if the army used deeper lines, with noticable effect, then I just increase the factor appropriately, but still give 1 element it works better and gives a more authentic army footprint).

Pike depth can be simulated better under the current philosophy by double-depth elements.

I can scarcely think of an example of pike or warband armies sacrificing width to get deeper formations (which is the generalship dilemma DBA gives you): Hellenistic armies got their frontage covered first, then had depth as a bonus (if I had noted the references I could point to some useful stuff from Phil Sabin on this*).

Of course, the one army that does (often decisively, for _and against) sacrifice width for depth is the Republican Roman army (commonly outflanked because of its penchant for multiple lines of heavy infantry) yet this is not reflected in DBA at all: it has always seemed to me if you have depth rules but they encourage vast Hellenistic armies to deploy on a narrow frontage and Republican Roman armies to deploy in a single wide line, you have a complication you could easily simplify away without any harm to the historical model.

Hence I'm sad to see it creeping back in. Especially for Warband: I really don't think that most commanders of historical tribal armies fretted as much over the depth of their battlelines. Really. Especially not against infantry enemies.

Phil

*the one exception might be Alexander, say at Gaugamela but he wasn't less wide by being deeper, he was less wide by being comprehensively outnumbered in a way the standard DBA game can't represent: NB, of course … he _does _not 'go shallow' to compensate his pike form up in their standard depth because that is their standard depth.

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP09 Aug 2012 6:14 a.m. PST

I have been eliminating it from my historical (and public shows) games for some time already (if the army used deeper lines, with noticable effect, then I just increase the factor appropriately, but still give 1 element it works better and gives a more authentic army footprint).

What factor are you giving Pk and Wb. I played around with this testing Pk at +5 and +6. I felt that +6 was a bit strong and +5 seemed just about right.

Hence I'm sad to see it creeping back in. Especially for Warband

I am with you on this though to be fair, later warbands used swine array/pigs head/boars head/cuneus (and assault column by any other name!) which might be why the +1 support was originally put in. It was probably put BACK in because the side support was making Sp TOO powerful.

Yesthatphil09 Aug 2012 8:26 a.m. PST

What factor are you giving Pk and Wb. I played around with this testing Pk at +5 and +6. I felt that +6 was a bit strong and +5 seemed just about right.

Hellenistic period experiemnts to come. Medieval 'pikes' I have been treating as double-based spear, but allowing the + against mounted as well as foot. So that's 5 grin which might answer your question anyway.

That gives Men-at-Arms achance against them (sort of), so I was tempted to up it to 6 (but in play tests of Bosworth, I've not had a single Knightly win over the 'pikes' – so I suspect there's nothing needs fixing) …

Warband have been a component in the Early Libyan army in Lords of the Nile. They do fine in a single rank against the NK's mix of chariots, Blades and Bowmen. Especially taking advantage of terrain. The deal against side supported Spear in the open may be a tougher one, though.

The historical background might be an issue though …

Cheers

Personal logo Who asked this joker Supporting Member of TMP09 Aug 2012 11:00 a.m. PST

Hellenistic period experiemnts to come. Medieval 'pikes' I have been treating as double-based spear, but allowing the + against mounted as well as foot. So that's 5 grin which might answer your question anyway.

That gives Men-at-Arms achance against them (sort of), so I was tempted to up it to 6 (but in play tests of Bosworth, I've not had a single Knightly win over the 'pikes' so I suspect there's nothing needs fixing) …

Sounds about right to me! One thing to look out for is to penalize them well in the bad going. -4 would put them on par with how they are penalized in current set, giving them a 1 CF for Bad going. Maybe should be -3 which would give a CF of 2 similar to Sp in BGo.

Warband have been a component in the Early Libyan army in Lords of the Nile. They do fine in a single rank against the NK's mix of chariots, Blades and Bowmen. Especially taking advantage of terrain. The deal against side supported Spear in the open may be a tougher one, though.

The larger problem with side support is the fact that adding +1 Cf sometimes leads to an unbalance elsewhere. Instead of this, side support (lets call it phalanx instead. Sounds much better!) do the following…

If a Sp, Pk or Bd are not in Phalanx (isolated?) they can be Quick killed by those units that can quick kill them in that situation (Kn Qk Bd in clear for example). If not, the quick kill becomes a recoil instead.

For other match-ups (Bd vs Pk or Sp) you could say Bd loses ties when fighting these units formed in a phalanx.

Those were a few ideas I've kicked around but have not tested yet.

John

Thomas Thomas10 Aug 2012 1:41 p.m. PST

Side support for Spears actually works quite well as it makes them something other than mini-Pikes and allows a reasonalbe deployment depth (in scale).

By breaking up the shield wall you undermine Side Support making Spear vunerable (but powerful in an unbroken Shield Wall) – just as it should be.

Warband rear support restored due to playbalance fears. General consesus amoung tournament types is that Warband hard put now and loss of rear support would drive from table. Denses masses of screaming barbrians also look cool.

Reserves are more important and more useful in 3.0 so you may see Romans formering second lines. Loss of cheesy Ps "corner" support makes breakthroughs and therefor second lines more likely.

TomT

Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP13 Aug 2012 9:26 a.m. PST

All good points by Tom. These rules are all good.

Problem however with second ranks is that a single enemy element can now put all elements in front in the threat zone because of the "x-ray TZ" now no element can block the TZ., except one in combat.

When I can understand all new grading rules and how to shoot I might enjoy the new big DBA .

I note in the new version that an element uncovered during shooting cannot be a target. However there is no rule about shooters being uncovered or targets or shooters being covered as a result of outcomes. I don't like inconsistency.

The terrain feature size rule is still pretty much of riddle. I don't think a newcomer to the game understands about pieces fitting into rectangles. It would be simpler just to give sizes. How do other rules described terrain sizes?

Yesthatphil13 Aug 2012 12:17 p.m. PST

FoG defines terrain size by the rectangle you can fit in it and the circle it can fit inside.

I think the rectangle tests are a good way to define the size. And dead easy to check. The older style of 'sizes' was much abused.

Denses masses of screaming barbrians also look cool

Double base them then, if you think it is appropriate!

I'd be interested to know which are the ancient battles in which the advocates of warband support believe the warband army's commander had an explicit and manageable choice and _decided to deploy his infantry on a narrow frontage in order to increase their fighting effectiveness (which is what the rule allows the player to do).

I'm not saying there aren't examples but I'd be surprised if there enough of them to justify a universal option to do this running right through world history from the ancient Libyans into the armies of the Dark Age …

Phil
PS several test games of Bosworth over the weekend using double-base Spear for the 'pikes' who were present on both sides (to avoid the 'support' rules, as neither commander had any choice over pike depth as far as we are aware).

I think you could argue that 'spears' in this period are still 'shieldwall'-y type troops, and 'pikes' are offensive enemy 'fixers' (if those are different types of troops) … There's no real difference in the weapons. Double basing (with the + applying against mounted as well as foot)completely does the job for this period. No need to have a separate 'pike' type at all.

Sorry - only trusted members can post on the forums.