strategic ideas on a new ruleset

[paolo_paglianti]

Hi guys,
I'm still lacking the possibility to do the first game (I'm waiting my "pair" receives, signs and sends back the NDA).

here some toughts on the design philosophy on the overall project.

Well, the first feeling is that AoW is a bit too complex.

In DBM, you've got two phases of combat (shooting and melee) and one of movement.
in AoW, you've three phases of combat and four of movement ("assault" movement. proper movement, break off and inter bound).

In DBM, you've got 10-12 troop types (Kn, Cm, Sp...). They all fight the same, even if their classification (irr o reg, (S) or (I)) affects combat results.
In AoW, you've much more types, and noone is really similar to another. a "heavy infantry" under Romans is completly different from the
almost-the-same type under Carthaginian.

In DBM, you've to roll once for fight. the result is more than the one of the enemy? recoil. More than double? you kill it. some troops fastkill others, and that's it.
in AoW you've to roll lots of dice. then, you can reroll some. than you hit with an adjusted table, that changes everytime (ie the Pk has the AOP if they combat in the melee, not the impact, and if they are not disrupted) and for every opponent. You can "hit", the enemy tests, can reroll again. then you must study if the enemy got too many hits, he loses one level or two level of "status". and this just for two units clashing. Trying to understand the table at page 44 is a sure headache!

In DBM, the troops are ok or broken. and the latter disappear really quickly.
In AOW, four "states" of being: normal, Disrupted, waving or broken. you can pass from one to the other thru terrain, thru shooting, thru combat; and you can even recover status, throwing other dice.

and, with all this complexity added, the movement is simplified: you can't do smart things like detach a base to cover the flank, or similar things. all is "blocked" and sticked in big units - I did some counts, and an 800 points army should have 20-30 of them (am I right)? And you can't even invest on fast moving reserve, since you can't do more than two moves each bound.

now, the big question: why have you choosen to follow a completly different way from the DBM? A way already used in rules that are now generally disliked by the people who plays DBM, like Warmaster, or even Warhammer?

I fear we've got a powerful single-shot weapon for your game: all DBM players, especially the ones disappointed by the last three years of
non-evolution of the game, will give AoW at least a try. we need to anchor them to us, and convince them this is the next big game.

a similar thing happenend in videogames: When Westwood did Dune 2, they invented the RTS style of strategy PC games. From them, all software houses (almost all of them) began to do similar games, and nobody accused them of "copying" Westwood games.

now, I think we are in a similar situation: we can decide to do a completly new game, with scratch built untested mechanisms, or evolve DBM in something more complete. something that will allow you to craft your army, to manouvre in combat, to do "things" that are not only "move the Legion against something soft and roll lots of dices". a new DBM with new army lists (the
idea of six books is fantastic) where you will not be able to do "dirty tricks" because this is what the less experienced players don't like of DBM: lose because they don't study to the school of lawyers of DBM.

and, more importantly, we should not fear to be judged as "copyiers" of DBM mechanics, no more than Blizzard copied Westwood, or all RPG paper-and-pen games copied D&D.

especially since our team is composed by one of the guys who did DBM.

maybe, if other playtesters see what I saw, maybe is worthwhile to engage the reverse for a while and study a fast-modern-set of rules like DBM is even now.

I think that what all the DBMers, especially the ones who stopped playing recenty (= in the last three years), would just dream of a new set of DBM rules close to DBM, with the same mechanism and same ideas (the PiPs, the combat, the commands), some tweaks and - IMPORTANT - new armybooks. Not an entirely new set of rules, with completly different mechanims, but something they can easily understand and play immediatly. DBM 4.0, or NEW DBM or DBM EVOLVED.

and a "comittee" (you at Slitherine) that tweaks any problem, not only the job of Riddley Scott, who until now was alone in this work.

as always, sorry for my English, hope you'll understand me and dont' find me too harsh.

cheers
Paolo P.

[IainMcNeil]

Hi Paolo,

thanks for the feedback. It looks like you were expecting an extension of DBM, whereas we have started from scratch to try and create a fresh new set of rules that are faced paced, realistic and fun. As you had expected something very different I can see it has come as a disappointment for you.

The design philosophy gives you an idea where we are coming from. It may not be for everyone, and if we tried to please everyone we would probably end up with a design by comittee that pleased nobody!

All we ask is that you try to come at it with an open mind. If you still don't like it let us know why and we'll see if we can address your concerns. After all, the only way we can improve the rules is with negative comments! Don't worry about being too harsh on us - we can take it!

Cheers

Iain