Pues una de las cosas buenas que está teniendo este tema es que el Sr. Barker ha entrado al yahoo group de DBA y está contestando preguntas directas de la gente. YA ERA HORA.
Muy interesantes los post donde explica los motivos de los cambios del DBA 3.0 con respecto al 2.2. Algunos son interesantes. Otros son... bueno.... muy de su estilo.

Os pongo algunas cosas de las que dice, que no tienen desperdicio.

CitarThe most obvious difference with 3.0 is measuring in multiples of base widths. There are two reasons:

The first is that it is far more convenient in practise. All testers quickly got used to it and preferred it (even those currently wishing to kill 2.2). All our other rule sets have already routinely used it for years.

The second is that in 2.2 it is far too easy to prevent heavy infantry advancing into combat. Especially if you were using the bigger playing areas often found in the US, it was possible for a player opposed by an army mainly of other foot to stop that foot getting into frontal contact until late in a game, simply by deploying all their vulnerable troops near the rear edge of the board. The possibility of this was denied by some, but try it for yourself. I had it done to me at Historicon 3 years back, even on the standard 24" board, when I was using an Athenian hoplite army in honour of an Athens-based figure manufacturer who had sent it to me just before he died. By having 100p = 1 base width instead of 1", that becomes much less of a problem, especially when as now in 3.0 deployment zone is measured back from the centre line instead of forward from the board edge.

There were initially complaints that the movement margin of cavalry over heavy foot had been diminished proportionately. This was cured by increasing the cavalry move to 400p, the same as light horse. Light horse now have the same move as cavalry, but since they keep the ability to make extra moves still have a manoeuvring advantage over them. This actually improves realism, since ponies are not faster than horses in real life; longer legs make the horse faster, and the effect of the weight of a part armoured rider on a horse is about the same as that of a light rider on a pony. Both still have an advantage in speed over heavily armoured riders and horses we class as knights.

Another problem in getting into contact was the use by players of tricks such as kinked lines to prevent an opponent making contact. Our basic principle now became that troops that would make contact in real life must be able to do so in the game. There had been a similar problem in DBM which we cured in DBMM. Rules on conforming were changed to achieve this. The aim was that the player using such tricks should be disadvantaged, not the player he was doing it to. Players that previously used those tricks are likely to complain. Sympathise with them if you will...

Another 2.2 ploy was for the defender to place terrain to set up a Maginot line across the whole board. This is hindered in 3.0 by making terrain positioning random. In real life, a general has to accept the terrain nature gives him and make the best use of it he can. The defender still gets to choose all the features, but dice decides in which quarter of the table he has to place each of them. Since a dice has 6 faces and there are only 4 quarters, he may throw a 6 and get to choose the quarter, or a 5 and have the choose it. If the defender chooses only maximum sized features, it is quite likely that if more than 1 lands in the same quarter, 1 will be impossible to place and forfeited. We have also now limited very small pieces to 1. No existing piece is made obsolete, but you can only have 1 postage stamp at a time.

It is also more difficult to reduce the combat area with rivers down the edge. You also cannot trust a river to be an obstacle.

Another 3.0 feature to prevent Maginot lines is not allowing any element to deploy near the side edges and the outermost part of the deployment area to be deployed in only by cavalry and light troops. This encourages historical deployments with the cavalry on the flanks. A player can move out to the edge later if he wishes, but cannot safely rest a flank against it, because any element within a base width of the edge counts as automatically overlapped on that side.

CitarBUA were introduced after in one Historicon competition my opponents camps
were a pyramid, a Greek temple and a Norman keep! These are obviously not
portable or temporary structures. I did not want to handicap players
modelling ingenuity, so I accordingly introduced the BUA to permit such
structures and also include the cities that featured in many real battles. A
blanket ban must be recent, because no one even in American competitions has
ever objected to my Athenians having the Acropolis on a hill behind them...
When I heard that some players were exploiting BUA unfairly to restrict
opponents' deployment, I changed the 3.0 rules to make it impractical.
Their placing is now restricted to corners, the board quarter they must be
in has to be diced for, and the effect of artillery shooting out from BUA
reduced. BUA are now also much easier to assault and their loss penalised.
If anything, it is the owners of BUA who now complain! There is absolutely
NO reason to ban them in 3.0, because of a perceived potential problem in
2.2!

Another blanket ban sometimes imposed in 2.2 is on dismounting during the
game. In 3.0 it costs a lot more PIPs to dismount after the start of the
game because dismounting each element replaces a full move and still costs a
PIP. It is now very dangerous to do near the enemy, because you can be
jumped on before you finish. The new lists also limit it much more
stringently. There is also now a mounted infantry type which move as if Kn
but fight as foot. There are very few lists with these; but one example is
Elamite Kallapani. These are depicted as if a chariot, but shoot as archers.
Previously in 2.2 they were allowed to swap between LCh and Bw! The only
other mounted infantry allowed so far by the new lists are small numbers of
Medieval English or French Ordonnonce mounted longbows. However, in our
latest version not yet on this site, we assume that mounted troops defending
or assaulting BUA are assumed to be dismounted (but without exchanging
figures). This is because horses are not good at climbing ladders and
stairs... They keep their normal CF, but count to the enemy as a foot
opponent.

Knee-jerk blanket bans like these are dumbing down. There has been a
recurring tendency for the entire history of wargaming to regard the use of
intelligence by an opponent as somehow unfair. These people forget that we
are dealing with a wargame, not just a game. If something happens in a real
war, it should be able to happen in the game.

CitarThere has been a recurring tendency for the entire history of wargaming to regard the use of
intelligence by an opponent as somehow unfair.

hay que probarlas entre ejercitos historicos y luego cruzar ejercitos weird , a ver que pasa!

Revisando nuevamente las listas de DBA3, me topé con una sorpresa bastante agradable (al menos para mi). La lista II/33 Polybian Roman ya no es 100% rígida, ahora se pueden cambiar hasta 2 Bd por Ax, eso le da algo más de flexibilidad en tableros más densos en BGo.

Aunque aún me rechina un poco eso del "movimiento gratis" cada turno para 1 elemento individual o una columna. Ya veremos cómo funciona finalmente, pero a mí me suena demasiado a pataleta por las veces que perdió con su ejército de LH

Está mal redactado (añadido de ultima hora) pero el movimiento gratis de elemento o columna sólo se puede hacer por carretera. Estaba puesto sólo para columnas. Los playtesters dijeron que era raro que una columna pudiera hacer el movimiento de carretera y un elemento individual no, y el sr PB añadió lo del elemento individual para que tambien pudiera mover por carretera, pero sacó pifia en el redactado.

Xavi

Cita de: Elmoth en 24 ene 2012, 10:00

Está mal redactado (añadido de ultima hora) pero el movimiento gratis de elemento o columna sólo se puede hacer por carretera. Estaba puesto sólo para columnas. Los playtesters dijeron que era raro que una columna pudiera hacer el movimiento de carretera y un elemento individual no, y el sr PB añadió lo del elemento individual para que tambien pudiera mover por carretera, pero sacó pifia en el redactado.

Xavi

Yo pensaba que ese hombre sacaba pifia solo con acercarse a cualquier cosa que sirviera para escribir...

Pues a mi me gusta como escribe. Hace falta estar concentrado en el texto para poder entenderlo pero es el reglamento más claro y conciso que he leído (DBA 2.2). Normalmente las dudas, con una lectura adecuada (mirando bien donde están las comas, sobre todo), se resuelven. El problema que yo le veo es que no organiza bien los temas y cosas como la escenografía está en varias páginas repartida...

Un saludo.

Uno defendiendo la forma de redactar de Barker....¡ Lo que me faltaba por ver!

Cita de: bohemundo en 25 ene 2012, 00:47
Uno defendiendo la forma de redactar de Barker....¡ Lo que me faltaba por ver!

+1

El ejercito asirio continua siendo el pobre de la epoca? es que en la 2.2 le ponian DOS hordas!! Que verguenza ... Jugabas contra un babilonio o elamita ( sus dos principales adversarios)  que lleva arcos a casca porros y tenias que esconder las hordas ya que morian al simple y jugar con solo 10 elementos.
Ah, y agresividad 4, o sea que el mejor ejercito del periodo biblico en DBA es malo de narices! quizas perdio con su ejercito favorito y cambio la lista de Asirio para ganarle siempre. Ja ja ja

El ejército Neo-Asirio de DBM y el de DBMM pueden llevar entre 20 y 50 hordas; que clasifican como Irr Hd(O). Teniendo en cuenta que el DBA toma de lo más representativo de cada ejército, que lleve 2 hordas es bastante lógico (aunque sea una putada de cuidado)

Estoy bastante de acuerdo con Gorgoroth (ya somos dos! Jajajaja). Lo unico que le falla a Barker es que no hace la prueba de leer sus frases en voz alta despues de escribirlas. Cuando empezara a asfixiarse se daria cuenta de que los puntoyseguido y el uso de dos puntos mas guiones, son mucho mejores que las frases con multiples conjunciones consecutivas, coordinativas, copulativas, adversativas, disyuntivas, explicativas o distributivas.

Cita de: Megadoux en 25 ene 2012, 02:24
El ejército Neo-Asirio de DBM y el de DBMM pueden llevar entre 20 y 50 hordas; que clasifican como Irr Hd(O). Teniendo en cuenta que el DBA toma de lo más representativo de cada ejército, que lleve 2 hordas es bastante lógico (aunque sea una putada de cuidado)

Si , pero esas 50 plaquetas son opcionales y solo en la version sargonida final.
En DBA le puso dos hordas  en el neo assirio clasico y solo una en el sargonida! Lo que intento decir es que este señor hace lo que le da la gana y los jugadores tragamos...
Alguien jugo a Armati?
Es un juego realmente bueno ! Lastima que lo bueno nunca tiene el exito que se merece!

Bueno, ya han sacado la nueva versión beta actualizada con algunos cambios. Disponible en yahoo groups

Cambios menores, pero algunos muy importantes, como que se elimina el apoyo de Ps. Los Ps ya no dan +1 si van detrás.
Las Ax son 3/3. Los camellos 3/4
Han mejorado algo el tema de ríos y BUA
En fin, cositas que a algunos gustarán y a otros no.

Como bien dices, cambios que gustarán a a algunos y disgustaran a otros. La Ax 3/3 y los Ps que ya no apoyan como ejemplos de ambas cosas en mi caso.