Help support TMP


"Historical Wargames Podcast Episode 20 is Available" Topic


13 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 Podcasts of War Message Board

Back to the Ancients Media Message Board


Action Log

31 Dec 2016 9:14 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from Ancients Discussion board
  • Crossposted to Ancients Media board
  • Crossposted to Podcasts of War board

03 Jan 2017 5:49 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from DBx board


827 hits since 19 Apr 2014
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

The Membership System will be closing for maintenance in 13 minutes. Please finish anything that will involve the membership system, including membership changes or posting of messages.

Socalwarhammer Inactive Member19 Apr 2014 10:36 p.m. PST

In the episode, I am joined by David Schlanger and David Kuijt, two of the guys (members) behind the Washington Area DBA Gamers (WADBAG)- and the vastly popular Unofficial Guide to DBA. We discuss the history of DBA and Unofficial Guide to De Bellis Antiquitatis 2.0 (DBA), and the eventual release and thought process behind the modification and publication of the revised/expanded modification which are commonly known as DBA 2.2 +. If you are interested in DBA or wanted to find out more, this is definitely the episode for you. As always, we hope you enjoy the show!

historicalwargames.org

MajorB20 Apr 2014 4:50 a.m. PST

That seems a bit behind the times with the imminent publication of DBA 3.0

Wargamer Blue20 Apr 2014 7:42 a.m. PST

I heard there is a war between the 2.2 guys and the 3 guys.

Who asked this joker20 Apr 2014 8:34 a.m. PST

I heard there is a war between the 2.2 guys and the 3 guys.

Meh. More of a parting of ways.

Yesthatphil20 Apr 2014 9:45 a.m. PST

I had some figures to undercoat so listened to the podcast (not generally a podcast aficionado) … I thought it was quite interesting and reasonably balanced yes, there was an inbuilt prejudice against V3 (but how was that not going to happen, interviewing the 2 Davids ..)

My own experience with V3 is that it is not more complicated than 2.2 and, on balance, is quicker contra to the 2 main assumptions behind the prejudice. Then again, Lowinger admits he hasn't played V3 so nobody is really being misled.

Phil
Ancients on the Move

Socalwarhammer Inactive Member20 Apr 2014 11:30 a.m. PST

Thanks Phil. I guarantee when 3.0 comes out, I will cover it with someone well versed in it. I still have my reservations after my read-through, but the podcast is about discussing the hobby and not about bashing anyone/thing needlessly. I hope you will keep listening. Be assured we will be broadening our topic base to cover what the listeners want to hear and suggest. If you have any ideas…

email@historicalwargames.org

Yesthatphil20 Apr 2014 11:58 a.m. PST

I will certainly listen again, Socalwarhammer (though my engagement may well be topic dependant wink) …

Phil

Delbruck20 Apr 2014 3:04 p.m. PST

Some of the comments in the podcast talk about new troop types that WADBAG was advocating – but these seem to have been adopted in 3.0. Raiders are fast blades, pavises are solid bows, light spear are (it seems) fast pikes.

Ivan DBA20 Apr 2014 7:07 p.m. PST

Yeah, we are seeing what may become a long-term schism in the DBA community, with orthodox adherents to Phil adopting 3.0, while heretic followers of WADBAG switch to 2.2+.

At this point someone will chime in and say they are sticking with regular 2.2. While this will no doubt happen here and there, I remember similar pronouncements were made when 2.0 came out, and within a year or so 1.x was dead and forgotten be the overwhelming majority of players.

Personally, I will buy 3.0 when it comes out, and will try it. I know the main DBA organizer here in central Texas has already declared for 2.2+, so I will be playing that too, at least at the annual tournament. From what I have seen so far, both look like good, and ironically both have taken DBA in a similar direction: more detail, more troop types, and faster movement.

Yesthatphil21 Apr 2014 2:37 a.m. PST

Well, Ivan, that remains to be seen.

There are a number of pundits happy to predict that V3 will cause a schism despite not having played V3 that has the ring of a self-fulfilling prophesy …

Sensibly, wait and see seems the majority view.

However, the wait has certainly been too long and it is inevitable that enthusiasts will fill that delay with speculation (and unfortunate, though equally inevitable, that some of it will be polarised)

I hope DBA organisers will follow what players want rather than impose their own views on the the community: this will be a challenge for some, perhaps …

Phil
Ancients on the Move

Socalwarhammer Inactive Member21 Apr 2014 6:43 a.m. PST

In all fairness Phil, some members of the Community are merely responding to the extensive delays in the release of 3.0, some of which were unavoidable, such as P.B.'s health issues.

Even with many who are 'playing' 3.0, I too have a copy which is not yet official and may or may not (depending on who you speak to)contain additional changes, deletions or additions. Also, until everyone can get a look at the final Army Lists, it is a moot point to be advocating it as a complete and finished game.

With that said, I know that 2.2+ is here (in the now) and appears to be a better refinement of 2.2 IMHO. If the final and eventually released version of 3.0 is superior than 2.2+, I am sure the community will gravitate to it. Regardless of the myriad of reasons for delay, much of the anticipation for the release of 3.0 has turned to apathy, and that is unfortunate, and has even affected myself to some degree. But your comments above do have much merit.

Personal logo Bobgnar Supporting Member of TMP21 Apr 2014 1:19 p.m. PST

"I hope DBA organisers will follow what players want rather than impose their own views on the the community: this will be a challenge for some, perhaps …"

I wonder if this is the way things should work. it seems to me that organizers offer an event with a specific set of rules, and then the players participate if they want. If I like Hail Caesar or Armati or DBA III then I run that event. I do not say that I am running an event and then let those who show up vote for what they want to play.

Maybe I am misreading your comment.

Personal logo Dervel Supporting Member of TMP Fezian21 Apr 2014 1:55 p.m. PST

Thanks Socal, I thought it was interesting…

As a fairly new player, I started DBA with 2.2 with a Demo tournament, got hooked bought a copy of the rules. I really do not know if I would have continued trying to play though without the WADBAG guide… It was very hard to look up questions in the original rules even though they are relatively short.

When 2.2+ was published online some of the guys in the area decided to try it. We went to Hotlead in Canada and spent about two days trying the modifications. Once we tried 2.2+ we all agreed that we liked the changes, so we have been pretty much playing 2.2+ ever since both at the local conventions, in Canada, and recently at Cold Wars.

Regarding version 3.0 or III, I tried several test versions of the game which were put on at local conventions about two years ago, all of them were big battle games. Each time we tried it, the rules were slightly different owing to the ongoing development. It sounds like there are now several new troop types in 3 as well since last time I looked at the draft rules, fast and solid troop types for example. These did not exist in 3 when I tried it. I really did not see that much difference in the rules at the time, but from what I read piecemeal online there have been a few changes since then.

My position on 3 is quite simple, when it is published, I will be happy to purchase a copy and take a look at the final version. Until it is published, there is not much reason to get excited.

Yesthatphil21 Apr 2014 2:28 p.m. PST

I wonder if this is the way things should work. it seems to me that organizers offer an event with a specific set of rules, and then the players participate if they want. If I like Hail Caesar or Armati or DBA III then I run that event. I do not say that I am running an event and then let those who show up vote for what they want to play.

Maybe I am misreading your comment.

Maybe … You have certainly rewritten it wink

I wouldn't recommend waiting til they turn up (nor did I, indeed, suggest that)..

However, this is a thread about an interesting podcast which I hope people interested will listen to.

Phil

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.