Aloha State, http://cariboo.own.cz/index118tww--.php?kaaolID=07vÑž

Hi Richard:  On topic perhaps.....I just received a copy of the "Rally Round
the King" rule set from 2 Hour games....and noted that Dale H. had commented
on them.  Has anyone looked at incorporating any of their solo gaming
concepts into your DBA efforts?  Without adding a whole lot of bells and
whistles to the mix, I must say that I like their "scouting" rules when it
comes to initial deployment over typical DBA.   John Svensson

-----Original Message-----
From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
[mailto:soloDBAdevelopment@...] On Behalf Of Richard Lee
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:01 AM
To: Solo DBA Development
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Possible Spam - be careful



There has been a posting on this group that looks like spam.  It has a
couple of words of text that do not make sense, followed by a link that I do
not recognise.  I understand that malware can send spam messages without the
account holder knowing.  Please do not blame Garrison Miniatures, it is
unlikely to be their fault.  However, I strongly recommend that you do not
open the link.

Regards,

Richard Lee

Richard:  Sometime next week I'll make a scan of the relevant pages from
RRtK and email them to you direct.  You can see if there is anything that
sparks your interest in there.  I will be introduced to DBA 3.0 next Friday
evening, as least the most current version of it.  I'm sure we'll be talking
about it on Fanaticus.    John

-----Original Message-----
From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
[mailto:soloDBAdevelopment@...] On Behalf Of Richard Lee
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:58 AM
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] "Rally Round the King" was "Possible Spam - be
careful"



Hello John,

I haven't got or seen 'Rally Round the King' so I haven't considered using
the scouting rules from it.  Don't know whether Dale is considering using
any mechanism from it.  [Dale and I are doing separate, independant methods
for playing DBA on your own.]


To be honest, I have been waiting for DBA version 3 to be published before
continueing development of Solo DBA.  Unfortunately, the latest that I have
heard is a suggestion of December this year.

Regards,

Richard

________________________________

From: "Svensson, John H." <john.svensson@...>
To: "'soloDBAdevelopment@...'"
<soloDBAdevelopment@...>
Sent: Friday, 21 October 2011, 18:19
Subject: RE: [soloDBAdevelopment] Possible Spam - be careful

Hi Richard:  On topic perhaps.....I just received a copy of the "Rally Round
the King" rule set from 2 Hour games....and noted that Dale H. had commented
on them.  Has anyone looked at incorporating any of their solo gaming
concepts into your DBA efforts?  Without adding a whole lot of bells and
whistles to the mix, I must say that I like their "scouting" rules when it
comes to initial deployment over typical DBA.  John Svensson

-----Original Message-----
From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
[mailto:soloDBAdevelopment@...] On Behalf Of Richard Lee
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:01 AM
To: Solo DBA Development
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Possible Spam - be careful



There has been a posting on this group that looks like spam.  It has a
couple of words of text that do not make sense, followed by a link that I do
not recognise.  I understand that malware can send spam messages without the
account holder knowing.  Please do not blame Garrison Miniatures, it is
unlikely to be their fault.  However, I strongly recommend that you do not
open the link.

Regards,

Richard Lee

I've offered my views of the effects the current draft of DBA 3.0 will have on
solo gaming, especially my set DBAS, on my blog. (If you have already read the
article in the last few days, please note that I have continued adding to it as
I had accidentally published it before it was complete.)

http://dales-dba.blogspot.com/2011/12/implications-of-dba-30.html

Comments here or on the blog are welcome.

Dale

> Richard Lee wrote:
>
> Thank you to Dale for an interesting and informative article.  By the way, I
am
> increasingly using 30" square boards for my games, and I have never even set
foot
> in North America.

LOL! Yes, I thought that was a funny comment for a set of rules. Also that it
will lead to more draws...

> I am aware that the test version is not the final (published) version. 
Nevertheless,
> I suspect that it is fairly close to what the authors intend the published
version to be.

If only we could discern what the intent was, in some cases. :^)

> however, I think a proportion of DBA players may well continue playing version
2.2.

People are still playing WRG 6th edition too.

> Given that I feel that Solo DBA was close to being finished, I am inclined to
re-start
> work on it for use of those players who prefer DBA version 2.2.  Later, when
DBA
> version 3.0 is published, I will produce a revised version of Solo DBA for
version 3 of
> DBA.

A sensible approach.

> This project has been dormant long enough.

Hear, hear.

Dale

I have been delinquent of late in reading Fanaticus, and only relying upon the
DBA forum on Yahoo, and it seems like the discussions on Fanaticus mention more
that two rule changes - the inability to break off with most troop types, and
Blades and Pikes now pursuing - has taken quite a bit of control out of the
hands of the players.

From a solo gamer view point, this would seem more ideal. People on the Solo War
Game forum on Yahoo are always touting the superiority of the THW games and
their 'reaction' system for solo play.

So, does taking control out of the hands of the player make for better solo
play? Even when the lack of control applies equally to both sides?

Just curious what others think about this.

Dale

Good to hear that you are pushing on to finish the 2.2 version Richard.
From your playtest of the currently known 3.0 rules, perhaps taking on the BUA
clutter was a bit much for a very first test.
Also, I recall that you started at the minimum distance from the center line. 
That seems to be almost by rote now in most of the 2.2 games that I play here in
the U.S.
It seems to me that Phil tried to introduce a bit more "decision-making" for
want for better term, into parts of the game where maybe it has been lacking. 
At least
that is something we noted in the Fall In playtest back in October.  Anyway, it
will be interesting to finally see the final product.  I'm a little hesitant to
do much testing
of it myself until it is released and some common understanding of his new
language is agreed upon!  Look forward to your final 2.2 version in the interim.
John


-----Original Message-----
From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
[mailto:soloDBAdevelopment@...] On Behalf Of Richard Lee
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 2:03 PM
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Subject: Re: [soloDBAdevelopment] The Implications of DBA 3.0 on Solo Gaming



Thank you to Dale for an interesting and informative article.  By the way, I am
increasingly using 30" square boards for my games, and I have never even set
foot in North America.


I have tried the test version DBA v3.0 against an opponent.  I wrote a very
brief write-up on the Fanaticus site a few days ago.  From reading accounts from
other people, it seems that my experience was not unusual.  I am aware that the
test version is not the final (published) version.  Nethertheless, I suspect
that it is fairly close to what the authors intend the published version to be.

When DBA version 2.0 was published, as far as I am aware, most players adopted
the latest version, and later continued on to version 2.2.   (There were
exceptions - there are people who have recently publically expressed a
preference for, I think, version 1.1.)  Version 3 seems to have a quite
different feel to previous versions of DBA.  I am sure that many people will
take to it enthusiastically; however, I think a proportion of DBA players may
well continue playing version 2.2.

Given that I feel that Solo DBA was close to being finished, I am inclined to
re-start work on it for use of those players who prefer DBA version 2.2.  Later,
when DBA version 3.0 is published, I will produce a revised version of Solo DBA
for version 3 of DBA.  This project has been dormant long enough.


Richard Lee



________________________________

From: Dale Hurtt <dale_hurtt@...>
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Sent: Friday, 16 December 2011, 16:42
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] The Implications of DBA 3.0 on Solo Gaming



I've offered my views of the effects the current draft of DBA 3.0 will have on
solo gaming, especially my set DBAS, on my blog. (If you have already read the
article in the last few days, please note that I have continued adding to it as
I had accidentally published it before it was complete.)

http://dales-dba.blogspot.com/2011/12/implications-of-dba-30.html

Comments here or on the blog are welcome.

Dale

Richard: I will try to give it a go with a couple pairs of armies, including
Bk4, this upcoming weekend and let you know the results.  My mother-in -law
will be back in town
and some solo DBA out in the den may just be the ticket!  You are in a
unique position there in Bulgaria; I would imagine that war gamers are
pretty sparse.    John

-----Original Message-----
From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
[mailto:soloDBAdevelopment@...] On Behalf Of Richard Lee
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 10:44 AM
To: Solo DBA Development
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Feedback for Solo DBA for DBA version 2.2



This message is just to remind everyone that feedback from solo players
using Solo DBA for DBA version 2.2 would be most welcome.  I don't have
every army in the DBA lists, and am missing some element types, for instance
warwagons, so your thought and experiences might help refine Solo DBA in
areas that I have little experience of.  Most of my armies tend to be
infantry based, from Books I and II.


I will not be looking to change the structure, or add too much to the scope
of, Solo DBA.  I am more interested in making adjustments to what I already
have.


By the way, I tried Solo DBA today after a long gap.  I have decided to move
'Reckless Attack' to below 'Aggressive  Manoeuvre' in the list of permitted
moves for the 'Aggressive' NPG Tactical Stance, in the Tactical Engine.

Richard Lee

"It seems to me that Phil tried to introduce a bit more "decision-making" for
want for better term, into parts of the game where maybe it has been lacking."

GMS ???
To me it seemed just the opposite; the game now "plays itself".
(easier for solo engines)
1. Dice place terrain,
2. Close deployment and faster movement=less maneuver decisions,
3. Defender no longer can decide to swap 2 pairs in response to attacker,
4. Less opportunity to break-off battle
5. etc. ,

Just line them up and roll the dice in 3.0...

Thanks for the rebuttal Dale (it's good to hear the reasons for 3.0 changes).

As to your:
"Also, it does not mean fewer maneuver decisions,
only less time to react. "

The number of playtest games that are completed in
just a few bounds makes 3.0 seem more like the lightning
fast fencing tournaments than the protracted Hollywood swordfights.

Maybe more "realistic" but I prefer the back-and-forth
longer game as being more fun.
Game time should exceed setup time…

'This Sceptered Isle'


Reading the Solo DBA rules, it's apparent that the NPG Aggression Level is a
pretty important component of this system. I have a game of which some of you
may be interested that has another interesting spin on changing aggression
levels. It is: 'This Sceptered Isle' by Rob Markham (Markham Designs 1998).
Basically, in the game, each sides's forces are divided into three 'battles',
each of which has a leader. Leaders are of three types:

Aggressive
Controlled
Timid

There are five order types, one of which each leader's 'battle' is currently
assigned and operating under. Each order confers and has various
doctrine/requirements and advantages:

Attack
Advance
Stand
Reserve
Choice

This is how leaders change their command status:


Changing Command Chits
During the orders phase of each turn, the players check each leader for
adjustments to their position on their COMMAND TRACK. Each leader has a command
track (see below) consisting of twelve boxes labelled from 1 to 12, and has a
marker on one of the boxes denoting his current position. Each leader's command
'type' and 'Command' are cross-referenced on the following matrix, and a value
is determined. For example: if an 'Aggressive' leader is currently under RESERVE
orders, then his chit would be moved down two boxes, say from 6 to 4. The
leader's chit will creep up-or down-depending on the changing circumstances of
the battlefield:

________________________________________________________
                          Commands
             Attack Advance  Stand  Reserve  Muster
Leader:
Controlled   +1       -         -        -      -1
Aggressive   +1       -        -1       -2      -1
Timid        -2       -1       +1       +2      +1


_____________________Command Track___________________________
|  1  |   2  |  3  |  4 |   5  |  6  |   7  |   8  |  9  |  10  |  11 |  12 |
____________________________________________________________



Checking Command Chits For Possible Change:
Each player then rolls a die and compares it to the leader's box number. If the
roll os equal or less than, the order stays. If greater, then the leader rolls a
D10 on the COMMAND CHANGE TABLE for a possible new order:

          COMMAND CHANGE TABLE
                     Leader Type
Orders:    Aggressive   Controlled   Timid
_____________________________________________
Attack      1-4            1-2         -
Advance     5-6            3-4         1
Stand        -             5-6        2-7
Reserve      7              7         8-9
Choice*     8-10           8-10       10

* Pick any order you want.


The beauty of this system, is this rather simple and elegant mechanic that shows
the underlying personalities of the leaders which tend to revert to form over
time and assert themselves amidst changing circumstances. Gradually the game
player will lose the direction of the battle, as it tend to take on a 'life' of
it's own. I think Markham has some good ideas here that could possibly be
incorporated in the Solo DBA rules, or at least I'll experiment with.


Michael Connor

Michael,

Interesting thoughts, and a great first post. I look forward to hearing how you
translate the order types into PIP allocation and specific moves, which is the
heart of the problem I have been having with playing DBA solo.

Thanks,

Dale

Well, you could probably allocate PIPS to the respective "Battles" with the
Aggressive leader getting priority and the Passive leader getting leftovers.
Split amongst 3, the Passive commander would probably only have a movement
PIP every second or third turn!
Of course, I'm not sure I would automatically want the force artificially
split three ways. Interesting ideas though....maybe 2 "Wings" to the NPG
army?  John

-----Original Message-----
From: soloDBAdevelopment@...
[mailto:soloDBAdevelopment@...] On Behalf Of Dale Hurtt
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:59 PM
To: soloDBAdevelopment@...
Subject: [soloDBAdevelopment] Re: Changing' Aggression Levels' from another
system..



Michael,

Interesting thoughts, and a great first post. I look forward to hearing how
you translate the order types into PIP allocation and specific moves, which
is the heart of the problem I have been having with playing DBA solo.

Thanks,

Dale

Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the
soloDBAdevelopment group:

Hello everyone,

I would appreciate your opinions on this issue.  There is a DBA variant called
'DBA RRR' which extends DBA though to about AD 1700.  Is it worth trying to
include direct support for it in Solo DBA?

How widely known and used is DBA RRR?  Personally, I enjoy playing it.  However,
I cannot support many extensions of DBA, otherwise Solo DBA will get complicated
and hence probably unusable.  As you are aware, I am trying to finish Solo DBA
for DBA version 2.2 fairly soon.  If I try and include procedures specifically
for DBA RRR then the probability is that they might not be fully tested. 
Currently, the only armies that I have for the period AD 1500 to 1700 are for
the English Civil War.

DBA RRR has additional troop types, and also rules including flank support, for
instance, pike and shot adjacent to each others are stronger against mounted
than if they are not  The deployment section would need amending to make Solo
DBA to be DBA RRR friendly.

Do I:

1) Include additional procedures for DBA RRR, even though they may not be tested
thoroughly?
2) Produce a sheet of amendments for DBA RRR and other period variants that I
choose to support?
3) Let solo players make their own adjustments?

   o Include additional procedures for DBA RRR
   o Produce a sheet of amendments for DBA RRR
   o Let solo players make their own adjustments


To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/soloDBAdevelopment/surveys?id=13121346

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.

Thanks!

I am not sure what DBA RRR would require that is different, but I think it will
be interesting to see an amendment.

I've read that you are not yet keen on DBA 3.0, but I think it will be very easy
to use your rules for both. From the solo gaming rules viewpoint, I think the
major difference will be that the terrain placement rules can be simplified for
3.0. At least it will be for the way I am approaching the issue.

Dale

--- In soloDBAdevelopment@..., Richard Lee <richard.lee42@...>
wrote:
>
> I have started a poll asking whether you think that I should support the
period variant DBA RRR within Solo DBA.  Please feel free to give me more
detailed responses if you wish to.
>
> Richard Lee
>