"Nature of DBA?" Topic

Jovian1 once said of DBA:

…it is really rock, paper, scissors with a die roll at the end.

Do you agree?

DBA was an inovative Classic. It lead to DBM, That mechanism (DBM) has been used by us to play a large percentage of the English Civil war battle. For so simple a set its answers were astonishingly accurate for the parameters it modelled. Just as a precurser to DBM it is a worthey game. It does have tactical nuances given its simplisity. Clearly the commentator had no real understanding of games and game theory. That fdortunately is his losss not ours.

I play DBA a lot, and it frequently raises difficult tactical challenges for players. That's good enough for me!

I'd say it's a good game for its intended purpose: it provides a quick reasonably plausible simulation of large ancients battles. You can argue particular tactics and values, but I think if you design a game to fight Magnesia or Cannae after dinner, it's going to look and feel a lot like DBA. A larger, slower game would look nicer, involve more players and let you roll mote dice. But it might not lead to more historical outcomes or give the commanders a more historical range of options.

Good quick games in a reasonable time frame.

Just don't try and play 10 games in one day (yes, I have, and was brain-dead after number 6).

There is some rock, paper, scissors element to it, but it's not random like rock, paper, scissors. Instead you have the chance to manoeuvre to get your rock facing the opponents scissors, your paper facing his rock, whilst avoiding his scissors facing your paper.

Its a different style of game – different than skirmish and different than mass battles – some in our club call it miniatures chess

Disagree.

The "this unit beats that unit but lose to those guys" is the definition of rock/paper/scissors isn't it?

I don't see it as a bad term, its part of how the player interacts with the game.

'The "this unit beats that unit but lose to those guys" is the definition of rock/paper/scissors isn't it?'

Having gone into combats with a +2 advantage then lost it doesn't quite work that way. Best way to win is get your people on a flank or rear for the kill on a pushback – rolling up a flank is a pretty good way to do that in real life as well.

Some types of troops are likely to defeat other types, and likely to lose to others, but it's never guaranteed. So calling it "rock-paper-scissors" is unfair.

There are over a dozen different types of unit in DBA, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I think this gives is a subtlety and realism that escapes games that just have heavy, medium, and light infantry, with a few special rules slapped on.

Completely agree with Ivan DBA. His observation about other ancient rules is quite astute.

Over many, many years of playing DBA, and literally hundreds of battles (we used to play two or three games of DBA every weekend for several years) successful players tended to think in terms of a battle plan for the entire army, and definitely not so much as a tactical "rock, paper scissors" game.

Does it have to be guaranteed to be "rock paper scissors" ?

I've always understood the term in a gaming context to be one where specific units are strong or weak against specific enemy units, like a lot of board game uses, not that it's an automatic win or lose.

I suppose I may be wrong though :-)

It is as much "rock, paper, scissors" as any other set of wargame rules.

It is as much "rock, paper, scissors" as any other set of wargame rules.

I disagree. Many stat based rules have little or no element of "rock, paper, scissors". Units are either strong or weak depending on their stats. WAB would be an example of such a game.
In game with a "rock, paper, scissors" element, units have strengths and weaknesses and are better against certain troop types than others. This creates a much more interesting game as there is a reason to manoeuvre your troops in an attempt to get the best match-ups.
As it has no points system, and each element type is supposed to be roughly equal in overall value, DBA is about the most "rock, paper, scissors" you can get in wargaming.

Actually it's quite a subtle system of combat. Where units have a low factor it is easier to score double over them with a dice roll, where factors are high you a liable to get into a stalemate – you have to work for overlaps or flank attacks to get a meaningful result. Also, rock/paper/scissors you don't expect to go over several rounds or for the 'loser' to come back – plus, of course, you have to have skill to get your paper facing the opposing rock while avoiding their scissors!

In game with a "rock, paper, scissors" element, units have strengths and weaknesses and are better against certain troop types than others.

You are just contradicting yourself here. Units have strengths and weaknesses against other units. HOW they have strengths and weaknesses might be different but ultimately, you have the same net effect in the end. There are some subtle differences but in the end, you are doing exactly the same thing.

Knights vs blades is a match-up you look for because knights quick kill blades.

Strength 4 vs strength 1 is a match-up you look for because strength 4 clearly can dominate strength 1.

The strategy is the same. The result is the same. How you qualify the match-up is different.

For so simple a set its answers were astonishingly accurate for the parameters it modelled.

I'd say it's a good game for its intended purpose: it provides a quick reasonably plausible simulation of large ancients battles. You can argue particular tactics and values, but I think if you design a game to fight Magnesia or Cannae after dinner, it's going to look and feel a lot like DBA.

I know any number of folks have similar feelings about DBA/DBM. I've played both, read the designer's notes for DBM, but I have never seen any designer discussion of what or how history was meant to be modeled with the rules. The designer's note talk of the mechanics, but nothing about the history it portrays.

Does anyone know where Barker and company might have discussed it?

Weasel, by that definition real war is rock-paper-scissors. I think most people view it in more absolute terms.

McLaddie, the introduction to DBA has just such a discussion. If you've never read it, I commend it to you.

No successful general ever said, 'Attack the strength! They won't expect it!"

A successful general will look for the weakness in the opponent and exploit it.

Ivan – But for some era's of time, that's true though?

Squares defeat cavalry, cavalry defeats lines etc.

I think part of this debate hinges on whether "rock, paper, scissors" is a bad thing or not?
I never took it as such, but I sort of get the impression that it's viewed that way, in which case I understand the opposition :)

For the more advanced players, there is rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock… ;-)

The nature of DBA is that it is a simple, fast game with decent tactical feel for when you're in the mood. Not unlike a good pub burger instead of a 3 course dinner.

That's a pretty good analogy, Vincent. +1

I once likened it to Chinese food. You can eat a lot of it but somehow never feel satisfied and want more.

McLaddie, the introduction to DBA has just such a discussion. If you've never read it, I commend it to you.

Ivan DBA:

I have the original rules. In a newer edition?

Hi McLaddie,

Yes, if you ever have the opportunity, check out the Design Philosophy on page 2 of the Second Edition, and on page 2 of the Third Edition. I really think there was a similar section in First Edition, but don't have my copy handy.

In short, these sections explain that "Wargamers pay more attention to weaponry than did real commanders. [For example], [s]urviving ancient manuals lump all foot skirmishers as psiloi whether armed with javelins, sling, or bow, defining them by function rather than armament."

"Moral and training distinctions have also been discarded as linked with function. Thus, most knights are rash, all warbands are fierce but brittle, all skirmishers are timid."

In fact, the lengthy "Troop Definitions" found in every edition of DBA offers examples of each troop-type, and describes how they were used (and would interact with other troop-types) historically.

For example:
"KNIGHTS, … Massed bows could shoot them down as at Crecy, or steady spears or pikes stop them with a dense array of shields or weapon points, or sword or axemen kill horses in standing melee. Other foot were likely to be ridden down." DBA 3.0, Page 3.

There's a lot there that explains why DBA works the way it does, but people rarely bother to read it.

"Ivan – But for some era's of time, that's true though?
Squares defeat cavalry, cavalry defeats lines etc."

Well, DBA proper doesn't cover the 18th century. And even within that period, the "rock-paper-scissors" relationship you describe is not really accurate. Infantry in line could and did defeat cavalry by either sustained shooting, or by maintaining an unbroken front of bayonet points.

There was one instance where Frederick the Great's infantry were charged from the rear… the rear rank simply turned about, and drove the cavalry off with shooting.

Right, but as we discussed above, there seems to be two interpretations of what "rock, paper, scissors" means.

One is that it is absolute (this unit always beats that unit and never beats the third unit)

The other is that it is approximate (This unit almost always beats that unit and almost never beats this unit).

Given nearly all war games are played with dice, I figured the latter was the manner in which it is used.

If it is the former (it is always absolute) then no game I can think of is in fact "rock, paper scissors" and we'll have to devise a new term for a game structured so certain units fare well against specific enemy but are in turn weak to other enemies.

Weasel, I see what you're saying, and it makes sense.

For most time periods, any good set of rules should have the approximate/relative version of this effect.

I.e., some types of troops will, in certain circumstances, be more likely to prevail over some other types, but will conversely be relatively vulnerable to other types. I'm happy to call that a "rock – paper -scissors" effect for short-hand, but the problem is that term is always being thrown at DBA as perjorative, as if DBA is somehow a flawed game for having the same effect.

Everybody who puts down a set of rules has their favorite denigration. Back in the day war gamers shied away from the idea of playing with toy soldiers. Now many of us have adopted it. Let's do the same with rock-paper-scissors.

Ivan (and its tripping me up, because my name is Ivan) – I get ya. If its used as a derogatory term, then that'd get old pretty quick.

I agree its probably inherent to a lot of time periods.

DBA suffers from being very abstract (which makes some people mad) and being very popular (which makes some people mad), so it seems to attract a lot of unfair attacks.

"…it is really rock, paper, scissors with a die roll at the end."

Not a die roll at the end. You have a opposed die rolls each modified by multiple conditional statements, a division calculation, and then more conditional statements to get to the result.

And sometimes its makes sense when scissors cut paper but too often weird stuff happens that mean your super sharp scissors aren't allowed to cut paper because Phil thinks they shouldn't (eg. guys with swords give flank support to shooters but guys with pikes or spears don't…they never heard of pike and shot or bill and bow I guess…). And other times paper slices through scissors (e.g. longbows move and fight offensively like tanks).

Were the DBA boards axed?

Factors, my friend, factors!