NOTE: this is being written before the final version of 2.0 has gone to press. It is intended to give an idea of what is to come but does not necessarily represent what is exactly in the final version. Hopefully, there will not be many changes. Whatsoever there are will be addressed in the next issue of The Courier. We hope this will be a satisfactory compromise among waiting months for the next magazine, getting a heads up before Cold Wars, and having the best possible DBA sent to the printer. In addition, the comments below assume some knowledge of DBA. After publication it might be appropriate to give a summary and review from scratch. Since December of 1999, I have been helping with the development of 2.0 by doing playtesting. This was done by members of my local group amid frequent cries of “how do I do (fill in the blank) now?” The playtesting was also done by getting DBA fans to play with new rules at Conventions. Some at Cold Wars and many at Historicon. I ran a duplicate tournament and a national championship at the latter in which the players got to read the rules for a few minutes before they actually played. I have also posted certain parts of the rule on the internet and asked gamers to play with them. Many suggestions were forwarded to Phil on the basis of these activities. I tried to capture all the ideas but knew some would not “fly.” Going to a 3 foot by 2 foot board was a common request, and also Warband in Bad Going not getting a minus 2 factor, as were others that would lead to much complexity.. Many of the testers likes and dislikes were taken to heart by Phil. Perhaps not, however, adding more diagrams and explanations of basic concepts to make the game clearer, especially to newcomers. But the last version of the rules does have a tremendous amount of user input. Take for example the new concept of a Built-Up Area (BUA). In the terrain rules, Phil wanted to add the idea of a city or fort in the battlefield area. He started with this anywhere on the board defended by any element, but early playtests showed that with an Artillery element in it would dominate the whole game if it were placed in the center of the board. A change put it in a position that it could be too easily captured by the enemy. Over the months, it was moved to the edge, not allowed to have Artillery, and made difficult to end up close to the enemy. It is now a quite interesting but not an over-powering aspect for either side. So what is really new about 2.0? There are 5 important components of change: complete terrain rules, bringing DBA closer to DBM in some ways (but far from adding DBM complexity!), some specific rules changes unique to DBA, addition of Big Battle rules, and a fantastic new list of armies. There are as well, the tightening up of and clarification of some rules that posed problems before. Let me address each of these in a general way. Terrain Rules The original terrain rules left much to be desired. Phil was using a working assumption that players would make squares for boards with fixed terrain and then pick one for a particular game. There were some statements of terrain being placed in certain parts of the board but all terrain was pretty much the same, either bad going or good going. Rod Burr noted this in his original review and complained that, “I don’t know of any clubs or individuals in the U.S. that use (this system).” He thought most players have flat squares on to which they place loose terrain pieces. Indeed this was common practice at US tournaments. The organizers would lay out 2 foot squares and place various sizes and colors of felt on them to represent the bad going, hills, roads, or rivers. At some regional cons, the hosts would make boards to represent historical battles, and sometimes even provided the appropriate armies. The terrain rules for 2.0 are much more complete and better integrated to armies. Each army is given a topography. Romans, and most armies, are Arable. Some other examples have Athenians as Littoral, Classical Indians as Tropical while Germans are Forest. The possible topographies and what features they have is shown at the bottom of this page. Each of the specific features is explained in detail in the text, including allowed numbers, size, shape, and impact on the game. An important aspect is that the player designated as the defender provides the terrain and sets it up. No longer at a tournaments, does one have to face the sparse and crude looking pieces of felt terrain. A player can either provide a pre-made board, as was expected in the original rules, now tailor made to suit the army; or place terrain on a board provided by the organizers. Each army has an aggression factor from 0 to 5 which is added to a die roll to determine who is the defender. Thus if you want to depend heavily on terrain, come to a tournament with a low aggression army. Phil likes small terrain, sizes are from a base width square to 3 base widths square but he likes quite a few. The last version allowed up to seven. The Built-Up Area is a special feature. It replaces the defender’s camp if used. It has a defensive factor of 4 plus a troop garrison or local inhabitants called denizens. If taken it is worth 2 elements. This is like a camp except a BUA may end up on any board edge, including the invader’s, even with a defender element in it. Phil commented to me in correspondence: “My additions have been aimed at making wargaming more like the real world. For example, BUA are compulsory in Arable because Arable is defined by large scale agriculture and large populations exploited by and serviced by urban communities. Such countries have large and often standing armies with expensive troop types. They have a lot of flat farmland which has replaced most of the forest and marsh.” The effect of other features is well explained such as when Woods and Hills block shooting, or when an element is in or out of a feature. River crossing is well defined, as is defending a river bank. River types are determined when a player wants an element to cross. A die roll of 1 or 2 yields a “paltry” river” that has little effect on the game while a 6 gives a river difficult to cross. Many features take on a role in command and control distance. All in all terrain can now take an important part in the game. Phil says, “As generalship is definable as the skill with which generals adapt their troops’ movements to those of the enemy and to the battlefield, varied and realistic terrain is essential for interesting battles.” DBA and DBM Commonalties A number of features of the new DBA make it compatible with DBM. It is a long way from the situation some commenters feared when suggested that there was getting to be no difference between the two. The place where most of the links are found is the troop types and basing. Hordes are now in DBA to facilitate the armies that need this type. They move like regular infantry, fight like Auxillia, but are destroyed if beaten by shooting. They do not, however, recoil, but do pursue like Warband. A second tangent between the two games is the new similarity of base size. Phil hopes that DBM players will be able to use their armies to play DBA and DBA players can build up to DBM. It is my experience that that there are many DBA players will not be taking on DBM (especially with the advent of Big DBA). Most DBM players are not able to make the shift to the more simpler game, either. In either event, DBA 2.0 has parallel listing of DBM troop types and DBA troops types so players can make the transition. Most are a one to one match but certain esoteric DBM types need a special translation. The DBA Horde (7Hd) covers the DBM Horde (O) while the DBA 5Wb (Warband) represents the DBM Horde (F & S). The number in front of the DBA type is the recommended number of figures. DBM types have a suffix representing their “efficiency” as Ordinary, Superior, Fast, Inferior, and eXception of some sort; with the capital letter giving the key. The DBM Horde (I) is not needed for any DBA army. The DBM Auxilia(X) becomes a DBA Spear (3Sp). Certain types that are on double bases in DBM end up on deeper, but still single, bases in DBA. In DBM are the Bow(X), the Blade(X), and the double Kn(I) and Cv, where DBA has a Bow(8Bw) , Blade (6Bd) both on a square base and a Knight (6Kn) and Cavalry (6Cv) both on a base twice as deep as typical horse mounted troops. The new rules, by the way, do not have different sizes of bases for figures smaller than 15mm but these are to go on the 15mm base with larger numbers. The only other major base size issue is that War Wagons are now on a base that is double the frontage deep so 40mm by 80mm in 15mm scale. Besides some base changes there have been a few rules modifications to maintain compatibility between DBA and DBM. The most widely sought after by players is the destruction of Blades if beaten by Knights and the reduction of War Wagon combat factor against mounted to +4. This is still not as low as that factor is in DBM. A change in language to match DBM, more than a rule change, is the use of term “Player Initiative Points” (PIPs) for what in 1.1 was called move points. These are the number on a die (or a dice as it is now called) that indicates how many tactical moves a player may take. Other Rules Changes Besides changes to keep DBA and DBM close, there are some unique to DBA. There are as well many changes of the text to make the rules very clear as to meaning. Dennis Frank once compiled a 3 page clarification sheet for DBA 1.1 to give complete meaning to many unclear aspects. For example, 1.1 did not make clear where an element faced if hit in both flank and rear while 2.0 clarifies it faces the first one that contacts. In 1.1, players were not sure if a second rank of Warband followed up a victory, 2.0 says they do. Many players thought an element could be the target of more than 3 shootings in a bound. DBA 2.0 clearly states the maximum is three. The new rules explicitly allow elements of a group to contact but not combat single elements, as long as some element in the group is in combat. Many such small points are addressed. There are a few new additions. One of the biggest is the extra move options for some elements. Some elements can take second and subsequent moves. Psiloi (light infantry) in the first bound may make as many moves as a player has PIPs. Light Horse may do likewise in any bound as long as they do not start or go within an element base width of the enemy. Any element on road can also make multiple moves as long as not ending in combat with enemy. Warbands and Scythed Chariots may take one extra move as long as they DO end in combat or support thereof. A second major change concerns the supporting ranks of certain elements. Pikes and Warband now do not get second rank support against types that the second rank would not help against - Psiloi, Cavalry, Bows, and Light Horse or Scythed Chariot. Spears get second rank support from a like type only against other Spear and Knights. Auxilia have gained second rank support from Psiloi, like Spear and Blade, if fighting mounted. Also, a second rank of Pike is not lost if the first one is. A third area of improvement concerns deployment. In the old rules, both players threw a die (or in the words of the game: “Both players dice.”) The low scorer picked a terrain board. The high thrower got two chances out of 6 to pick either of two sides via another dice throw or got one of the other two. Then both players set out camps and the high one deployed all troops. Then the low thrower deployed and moved first. So in exchange for a slim chance of getting a preferred side, the higher score player got to set up first and let opponent see the layout and then move to attack it. In 2.0 there are some interesting changes. First, each army has an aggression factor that is added to the dice score. The player with the low score (called the defender) sets out all of the terrain according to the army typography. The high score is the invader who can assign 1-2-3 each to three board edges and 4-5-6 one preferred edge, but not the one with a BUA. The number on a thrown dice is thus the invasion side. So, invader gets 50% chance for selection. It might still have the defender’s BUA on it. The defender deploys first and may put an element in the BUA, then the invader sets up. Both are within 600 paces of their edge (100 paces = 1 inch for 15mm and -NEW- 40mm in 25mm scale) and - also NEW- inside 400paces of the side edges. The invader moves first but a very interesting suggestion in the last draft I saw was for the defender to be able to switch up to two pairs of elements after the invader has set on. A number of points in Distant Shooting are changed or clarified. Artillery, which now takes two PIPs to move like Elephants and War Wagons, fires in its owner’s bound if the Artillery did not move. The target edge, order of fire, eligibility of target, and number of times an element can be shot at are clearer. There are lots of fixes in close combat, river movement, actions in front of an enemy element, break-offs and interpenetration. You cannot get a tactical bonus for defending your enemy’s camp. You do not need to pursue off the board. Groups are defined independent of moving and must be in both corner and edge contact. Individual Psiloi and Light Horse must conform to a group that contacts them. There are perhaps a dozen more such small but important changes. The combat outcome table has some useful changes too. A number of kills by Artillery are now limited to Artillery shooting. Camelry and Cavalry now flee when beaten or doubled to better reflect their non-impact function. Elephants destroy more foot types. No elements are destroyed by close combat with artillery, except maybe Scythed Chariots. More types in general flee and that is now a recoil plus a normal move. Losing a game is not effected anymore by losing camp followers or Scythed Chariots. These are most of the changes. There are many more minor language changes to make comprehension simpler. I still do not think it can be picked up and played by the average person anywhere, let alone that mythical 7-year old British school kid. We still need a “Beginners Guide to DBA” for him or her. I can still teach it to someone in 15 minutes and have them beating me in 30 minutes. Yet, terrific improvement has been made. Some complications are added that take the game from the realm of its previous simplicity, yet I would suggest it retains enough to still be classified as “DBA-like.” Topography Compulsory Features Optional Features ARABLE BUA River, Steep Hills, Gentle Hills Woods, Road, Waterway FOREST Woods River, Marsh, Gentle Hills. HILLY Steep Hills River, Woods, BUA, Road. STEPPE Gentle Hills River, Rough Ground, BUA. DRY Rough Ground Dunes, Steep Hills, Oasis, BUA TROPICAL Woods River, Marsh, Rough Ground BUA, Road. LITTORAL Waterway River, Either Steep Hills or Marsh either Woods or Dunes, BUA. More DBA: 10 Years Introduction My Personal Voyage into DBA DBA in the Wargame World World Wide Acceptance of DBA in the 90s DBA and the Internet Preview of DBA 2.0 Big Battle DBA (BBDBA) Conclusion DBA: Review from Courier Vol IX No. 4 Back to Table of Contents -- Courier #81 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 2001 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com