First readthrough feedback

[adrianc]

Hi All

Having just joined this group I'm posting some thoughts on the rules prior to playing them for the first time, as requested. I've been wargaming on and off for 35 years in a variety of periods but my main interest in the last 10 years has been with DBM, particularly in competition play.

For obvious reasons I'll try to avoid making comments about details of the rule mechanisms until I have played with them. For now I'm more interested in the way the ruleset presents to a fresh pair of eyes and in my anticipation of how it might work out to play with.

My initial impression is positive. I'm interested in historical research and there is plenty of scope for historical detail in these rules. The rules are presented very clearly and there's very little I did not understand at first read despite absence of diagrams in this testing version, which is a pretty good omen.
I'm also interested in elegance (and simplicity) of play mechanisms while maintaining a high skill level. I would regard Chess and Go as the gold standard in this respect. From what I saw at Usk, simplification where possible of this ruleset has been a goal. Now it??™s in my hands, though, there are one or two bits of DBMese where the legal style of language gets in the way a bit. Rules that are robust without legalese may be an impossible goal though??¦

It is absolutely inevitable that any substantial new ruleset will be compared with its forerunners. Comparison of this set with DBM is clearly appropriate but I recognise many mechanisms from other rule sets. In many ways this set seems to me like an amalgam of DBM and "Warfare in the Age of Reason", which suits me fine as I think they are both great rule sets.

Under design philosophy I wonder if an acknowledgement might be included about previous rule sets that have inspired this set and perhaps a bit more clarity about whom you hope the rules might appeal to though I presume you have done a fair amount of market research. The language is addressed (commendably enough) to the less experienced wargamer but much of the detail will appeal to veterans transferring from other rule sets. Some of the preamble is written as for a complete wargaming novice - how realistic is this? If I was starting wargaming for the first time I would not be picking up a ruleset with a word count of over 32,000! The initial read through took me over 2 hours.

One possible way of addressing this is to design a drastically simplified subsidiary version of the rules for beginners. I know Richard and Phil are insistent that DBA is not a "beginners' DBM ", but the reality is that DBM is pretty much DBA2 and many people must have moved on from one to the other before DBM had the substantial following (and Web presence) it does now. I presume also that there are many people who enjoy PC-based tactics/strategy games whom you might wish to interest in modelling and tabletop gaming. For them, I think that simplicity and speed of absorption of the rules is going to be at a premium. In my many attempts to (re)write wargaming rule sets over the years I've done my best to simplify and amalgamate mechanisms as far as I can get away with. From my initial impression of these rules I would have thought that the chief simplifications here could be to the movement rules and to restrict battle groups from attacking multiple enemy battle groups.

As I hope to transfer to this ruleset from DBM, this seems like a logical place to list my likes and dislikes of DBM with hopes for any replacement ruleset.

Likes

??? Very strong emphasis on historical realism
??? Elegant play mechanism subsuming combat and morale outcomes
??? Ruleset robust enough for competition play
??? "Continuous quality improvement" ethic with discussion forums and evolution of rules through several editions
??? Scope for amusing rarities. Where would I be without Elephants (x), however effective they were in reality?
??? Absolutely no record-keeping required during the game at all

Dislikes

??? Elegant though it is, the element versus element approach forces too much attention down to small level detail. Pedants swarm round this like bees around a honeypot. Perhaps this is why DBM players are seen as "serious" by other wargamers (which they may only sometimes be!)
??? The classic 500 point double player DBM game last a little too long. It is possible to force a draw in competitions by playing slowly.
??? There is no scope for unequal value (not sized) armies in competition play. Developing this would require a robust set of flexible victory rules, which would add still further to the element of historical realism.

Hopes for any replacement ruleset

??? Historically realistic
??? Quick to learn, slow to refine
??? Quite simple basic rules, especially around movement and conformation of playing pieces.
??? Game skill based on a sense of balance, possibility and timing within the army/environment (opponent + terrain + weather) structure. People should not win games consistently purely because they have learned the rules with obsessive care - an interest in tactics is a bit different from interest in the rules themselves (cf Chess and Go, as above).
??? A philosophy of ongoing development of the rules with plenty of discussion group feedback.
??? Odd or rare troop types allowable (in an appendix, perhaps?)
??? Usual game time for a full 6x4 tabletop of 15 mm figures should be about 2.5 hours, including deployment.

To aid reader engagement with a rather substantial ruleset, I would suggest that the order of presentation could be changed slightly. I wonder if Appendices 1-4 should really appear quite early in the rules themselves. I think it's easier to absorb new game concepts if you have a clearer idea of the pieces will be playing with first. It also sets a healthily historical context as early as possible in the ruleset.

We'll be playing our first game in a few days' time and I'll post some more detailed comments after that. At this stage it's worth mentioning that it would be really handy if a points value for each troop type base could be included within the army lists. As I see it presently, you have to calculate the value of each troop type from first principles (and write it into the Army List yourself, no doubt).

Well that's enough thoughts from my armchair for now. Hell I haven't even played a game yet!

Bye for now....

Adrian Clarke

[shall]

Thanks Adrian. Its always good to get that first taste and then see what people think after playing a few games. As we have mentined we are now largely into packaging mode and working hard to put our minds fully onto that challenge.

Cheers

Simon