Chris K is in contact with the team behind the recent fantasy derivation of DBA called DBF. It wasn't a DBA game for a number of reasons and was more of a replacement for HOTT. It included a points system rather than the simple 12 element structure of DBA. Since its publication (and during its development) there was speculation as to whether the changes made would form the basis of DBA 4. Some of the writers (well, one mainly) has recommended on DBA groups that some of the changes should be routinely adopted.
Chris has since received a copy of a proposed update to be called DBA (F) and for this week's session we got together to try out the rules with the changes. The drive of the changes is to modify the role of Psiloi, Light Horse, and Auxilia to make them "more realistic". "Psiloi" are now called "Skirmishers" BTW as it is a more generic understandable term, but "Auxilia" remains.
Flicking around between DBA 2.2, DBA 3 and DBA(F) the changes aren't as major as those from 2.2 to 3, and it's really just tinkering round the edges. Some combat values have been shifted by +1, some movement rates have been reduced, the light horse command range has been reduced, and there are some tweaks to the outcomes. The major one is Solid Auxilia can be Quick Killed in certain circumstances.
We all turned up at CK's with out armies rammed full of Ps/Sk, LH and Ax. I was running late, so Steve and Chris were at it already. Phil and I had taken a couple of matched armies each, so we set up and got on with it.
Phil had brought Slavs (III/1c) and Thematic Byzantines (III/29). I got the Slavs.
I had 8 x 3Ax, 2 x Ps, 1 x Cv and 1 x Cv Gen. Phil had 3 x LH, 3 x Cav, 2 x Cv, 2 x Sp, 1 x Ps and 1 x Cv Gen.
I was defending, and put out a lot of woods. I then realised that it would take me for ever to move out of them. Hmm. Then I rolled a six for my first PIPs, which seemed to be a sign that I should get on with it. Accordingly I move my right wing out of the woods, with the aim of turning Phil's left. (If I was to suggest a change for this version of the rules, I'd let Fast Auxilia do group moves in RG/BG like Psiloi).
I think I was playing into Phil's hands.
Phil quickly took advantage of what I'd done, and intercepted my Auxilia with his cavalry. In the centre
he engaged my cavalry that I'd pushed up. I'm not sure why I'd done that.
I won the Ax v Cv fight, recoiling Phil's chaps, but my cavalry was made to flee. I then rolled 1 for my PIPs, which rather left everything hanging in the air.
Phil got loads of PIPs, flanked my General and then 6:1'd him. That's three elements down, and me with a command penalty.
So far we haven't really tested the changes to the rules.
In my turn another PIP problem - remember I now need 2 PIPs to move anything - so I decided to kill Phil's Psiloi if I could to at least get on the score sheet.
I then had a disaster in the combats top right, and lost a combat I could have won. Phil wins 4:1.
A definite hmm. The changes made very little difference, except they slowed the contact between the armies, which isn't a positive for me.
Next game was my Siamese v Khmer. Phil chose the Khmer. He has a load of 4 Ax, plus solid bows and elephants. My Siamese are mostly 3 Ax, couple of elephants, and some fast bows. I'd normally chose the Fast Blade option for the Siamese.
I was defending again. The brown thing is a marsh.
Phil then moved a full turn towards me, which meant his Artillery couldn't shoot. To his surprise I immediately charged home. Why? Well, artillery are Quick Killed in Close Combat, so it was a chance to get on the scoreboard.
Luck turned my way. Starting from my right, as I had an overlap, I killed a 4Bw unit, and then with an overlap destroyed the artillery too. That's better. Phil was a bit stunned.
Not enough time for me to gloat. Phil had lined up his Psiloi with my elephants, lucked out with another and killed my Elephant General. Unfortunately for me I'd forgotten it was my General, so didn't add the +1. I don't know if that would have made a difference. By way if exchange, I killed his reserve elephant, who bad unwisely taken on my Auxilia (yeah - I got lucky).
Having forgotten I'd lost my General, I rolled 6 for my PIPs, and attacked with everything everywhere if I could. This included flanking Phil's elephant general, an attack which was decisively bounced.
interesting, thanks. as I play DBA very casually, I am almost entirely unaware of the discussions around it - does DBA3 have issues which a large number of players think need to be solved? The only thing I recall ever being made aware of was some dissatisfaction around the BUA rules?
ReplyDeleteI guess there must be. It nay be the case that those who play it a lot have issues I don't see. Now Phil B is out of the picture for the most part there's no single guiding gand, so everyone in the design group is probably having a say. The conditions under which the new drafts have been shared means I can't comment in detail,but there does look to me to be deigns of hobby horses being ridden. Some of the changes are adding extra rules and hence complexity to what needs to be a simple system.
DeleteInteresting stuff - do you think 3rd Edition is better than 1st and 2nd ( assuming we can define 'better'..)?
ReplyDeleteFor context, I have 1st Edition and have played it a grand total of once.. Quite liked it, though!
I've played more DBA 3 than earlier versions, and so I understand it better. It dealt with some of the cute moves developed by people who played DBA 2.2. I have no reason to go back to 2.2.
DeleteA very interesting post - especially considering I am so far out of date with the DB* game system (My last experience was with HotT, 11 years ago. The one constant that led me away, though, seems to be there still: rules lawyers. Too bad: in principle I thought rather highly of the DB* game systems, especially DBM, despite the occasional weird mechanics (especially in respect of retrograde moves). In my view, though, DBR was wanting in development - or something. Of course, Phil B and co-authors(?) efforts to align DBR armies by location in time and geography were flatly ignored, with the accompanying howls of outrage with each departure from players' 'historical' expectations.
ReplyDeleteI guess the hobby-horse cavalry is still riding into battle...
Cheers,
Ion
There will always be an issue with historical outcomes in generic rulesets. My hobby horse for DBA would be the way South East Asian Armies are dealt with. Even playing "in period" having the same rules for elephants in Asia Minor as for South East Asia seems to me to be wrong, as they are used in different ways. And that's just one example.
DeleteThanks for the post, Graham…it’s a tough one, playtesting changes like these, as the situations envisaged by the proponents of various rules amendments are usually/often rare occurrences, so seeing one transpire on your own table is not so likely.
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly quite a few ‘personal preferences’ being heralded as ‘must haves’ by certain of the trio of potential amenders of DBA, some of which I seriously disagree with. However, it puts one in the awkward situation of having to decide whether to engage with them, and end up in a losing battle, fighting tooth and nail to prevent v3 being trashed, or not engaging and being handed a ‘definitely not what I wanted’ v4 at some point in the future. V3 ain’t perfect, but some of the amendments do nothing (IMHO) to add much historical reality to a basically sound rules set. Quite the contrary, in fact.
But glad to see you got some games in, and to hear Phil is still a force to be reckoned with, as he always was!
I think, if given the opportunity, it is best to engage with the process. I have notes I need to write up properly and send them off to the writers. I agree with you that so far nothing really adds that much to the rules. In trying to squeeze in "historicity" for some armies you can push it out of shape for others. My main concern at the moment is what has been done with the Auxilia/Warband dynamic. The loss of one co-ordinating figure in PB who had final say, to writing by committee will probably lead to horse trading over what goes in and what doesn't.
DeleteIndeed - giving the warband ‘quick kill’ against solid Ax in the open seemed completely at odds with Auxilia as envisioned by Phil B.. He had made them a lower fighting power troop type to legionaries, but NOT quick killed. The whole point of the 4Ax in Imperial Roman armies has/had always been to be able to stand up to Wb and act as a buffer, preventing Wb from breaking the 4Bd legionaries. (Rant over….temporarily, at least…).
DeleteThat's pretty much what I've fed back to Paul M. The challenge for those working on DBA (F) is that each previous iteration of the rules has had fundamental changes and despite grumbling at times players have gone with it. Are they going to make fundamental changes for DBA (F). If they do it may break the basic model, like here, if they don't then what's the point?
DeleteI quite like DBA3 especially in the big battle variant. I thought the changes from v2 made sense and (especially for early medieval shield wall armies) gave some additional historical feel. I struggle to see any need for significant changes in the combat mechanisms. For me the main issues where with the 12 element fixed army size and TBH I routinely ignored that (its a benefit of solo gaming my opponent doesn't complain). I might fiddle with the victory conditions so that Psiloi losses are less important than formed infantry and cavalry losses, but without ignoring them entirely as is the case for Hordes. Most of which would be dealt with by a point based army selection and using those same point values to set the break point. Which seems to be what DBF is doing in whole or in part from what I have read. I really should get hold of a copy of DBF I suppose.
ReplyDeleteThe DBF points system will help you out for sure. We will have to part company here. I like DBA because it produces a playable historical feeling game, with an army that looks like an army on a manageably playing area that anyone can have. In my opinion the compromises to make it work, mainly PIPs and the 12 element limit, don't scale up well to larger games or transfer other systems with the same beauty and elegance of design. Over a longer game the annoyance caused by rolling PIPs is just a pain. At least in basic core DBA you know it will all be over in under an hour and you haven't wasted an afternoon. The desire to expand it to cover everything just irritates me. Of course, what you do in your own home on your lonesome is entirely up to you.
Delete