Acknowledgement to DBA?

[David Kuijt]

No problem. I met up with some of them today and they're more settled on the issue. In fact they're interested in trying the rules in 2 weeks time. (So will let 'sleeping dogs lie' for now.

Cool. More than that -- I expect when they actually try the rules, they'll realize that it isn't DBA at all. Opposed dice rolls, command points, and small scale makes people who haven't played Triumph think DBA -- but there are more differences than similarities when you actually play the game. We've heard "DBA" comments from grognards who haven't played Triumph before, but we rarely hear that from people who have played the game a few times -- especially in games in the Biblical period, or that use a lot of shooting, or games that don't focus on 4-pt stands where the illusion of similarity to DBA is stronger. There are still lots of differences even in the High Medieval period, but they are more subtle (ZOC is totally different; how ZOC is used is totally different; etc. etc. etc)

We don't spend much time and effort on comparing Triumph to DBA because we aren't actively trying to convert DBA players -- catching the people who once played DBA, or who currently play 3.0, is not our market model. More power to them if they like 3.0 -- no damage to us. We're trying to expand the pool of players by having a good game, with good graphics, and good online support, and aspects (like Meshwesh) that had never even been conceived of before in historical gaming, and a bunch of products in the pipeline, and marketing it to people who haven't played miniatures (or historical miniatures) before. Fighting for a diminishing small pool of DBA players is not the way forward.

We think we have a much better product. But there's lots of room in the world for other opinions too. The Dutch eat salted licorice and raw herring smeared in chopped onions -- more power to them, but that isn't to my taste. But I'm not going to try and fight them and get them to eat Poutine. (I'm only half Dutch).

[skc]

True. I've yet to play & study the rules, but noticed on your 'basics' video I was watching this morning, already significant differences. i.e. Flank attack not turning, no rear +1 for Light Horse, all troops follow up skirmishers etc.

As I did for DBM/DBA, I'll make up a DBA/Truimph! differences List, to help smooth the transition for myself and others.

At Klub yesterday, I was watching a 4 hour Mortem-et-Gloriam that a guy is trying hard to promote, and was thinking of the differences. It seems in Meg, each Group is a Unit. It is like 'zooming' into the battlefield whereas the DBA/DBM/Truimph! style with each element being a Unit, is more like 'zooming' out, and for me, gives a better feel of a C-in-C standing on a hilltop trying to control it all. The latter also 'flows' much better. (Meg also a lot more complex. Yesterday with Meg, he forgot his Effects cards and had to borrow 50 (!) correctly coloured, Dice from us. (shades of Warhammer!)

On the PC wargaming side, I have online, 4 x Fog PC and 2x JTS on the go at the moment. My main issue is TIME! (definitely not learning a radically new ruleset like Meg!)

[greedo]

I played a bunch of WHFB back in third edition. The buckets of dice, and "everything is 4,5,6 on a d6" +/- 1 started getting irritating after a while

The no turning for flanks and almost everybody following up on doubles I found to be real differences that make the game better. That, and ZOC don't block you, you just move slower.
That no +1 for rear support Light Horse I think is taken care of in a more elegant way by having lots of different "flavors" of lighter horse. Bad Horse, Bow Horse, Jav Cav, even Chariots have a Chariots and Battle taxi. And they all react slightly differently (and have slightly different stats), so there's no longer need for the weird rear support thing. Only Warriors, Pike, and Light Spear get rear support (or Later Hoplites), and that feels right.

I like the many different troop types, and completely different names was a really smart move. I grow tired of "Veteran swordsman", "Raw swordsman"

[skc]

Pike...Also rear support.
Yes am looking forward to getting it out on the Table. After watching that MeG mishmash last Saturday, I've realised how well these games from the DBA/DBM/Truimph! stable actually "flow," and give one the true feeling of "being a C-in-C on a hilltop trying to control it all."

[David Kuijt]

Buckets of dice games -- that's a design mechanism that I really don't like. Maybe for a skirmish game, where linking a figure to an attack would make some sense -- no, even then, I would want to roll each dice individually. Because if you are pretending that each die represents the attack of a single figure (the only excuse for that mechanism, in my mind) then why not roll each combat figure by figure, so attacks and results have a spatial dimension? The bucket of dice mechanism goes oddly half-way down that rabbit hole -- dice corresponding to figures as a measure of active unit strength, and damage corresponding to "hits" in some sense on a target unit, but not in any specific sense. It's really a very old-school Napoleonic wargaming mechanic -- casualty caps by another name. I hate games with casualty caps.

[David Kuijt]

The no turning for flanks and almost everybody following up on doubles I found to be real differences that make the game better. That, and ZOC don't block you, you just move slower.

You have a good eye. Those three, plus making movement in base widths (changes to movement caused by throwing away the legacy use of two different measuring systems in the same game -- using both inches and millimeters? Seriously?!?) don't look like big differences to a casual glance, but cause a myriad of subtle add-on effects that combine to be major differences vis-a-vis the various DBx systems. I've had many players at East Coast USA conventions who come from DBM, DBMM, DBA who try Triumph (which has massively similar basing and largely similar army size) and the first thing they would say after the game was how much they liked the fact that all movement was in base widths (or half base widths) -- making measuring sideways movements to fill a gap a trivial intellectual exercise, rather than a complicated ruler evolution.

Greedo, have we met? I don't have a real name for you on this forum, but there was a player from the Bay Area who used to come out to the East Coast conventions back ten or fifteen years ago that I knew...

[greedo]

Pike...Also rear support.
Yes am looking forward to getting it out on the Table. After watching that MeG mishmash last Saturday, I've realised how well these games from the DBA/DBM/Truimph! stable actually "flow," and give one the true feeling of "being a C-in-C on a hilltop trying to control it all."

Pike! Of course. Totally didn't edit my earlier post... or anything...

[greedo]

You have a good eye. Those three, plus making movement in base widths (changes to movement caused by throwing away the legacy use of two different measuring systems in the same game -- using both inches and millimeters? Seriously?!?) don't look like big differences to a casual glance, but cause a myriad of subtle add-on effects that combine to be major differences vis-a-vis the various DBx systems. I've had many players at East Coast USA conventions who come from DBM, DBMM, DBA who try Triumph (which has massively similar basing and largely similar army size) and the first thing they would say after the game was how much they liked the fact that all movement was in base widths (or half base widths) -- making measuring sideways movements to fill a gap a trivial intellectual exercise, rather than a complicated ruler evolution.

Greedo, have we met? I don't have a real name for you on this forum, but there was a player from the Bay Area who used to come out to the East Coast conventions back ten or fifteen years ago that I knew...

Actually, I watched Rob's videos, and they were great to figure out the big advantages Agreed that the move to Base Width (1/2 BW) allows the board, and bases scalable so much more easily.

We have not met directly David. My real name's Chris Milne. You were in fact the person who guided me from Fantasy Rules! to DBA (and thus historicals) back in like 2000 if I remember correctly .
I've only managed to attend Historicon (and NJCon) a couple of time in the past 10 years when I was living in NY. I Think I saw you at a distance running a tournament.
You and I have chatted on Fanaticus forum. Before Bob stepped down, I found Fanaticus to be a great resource for learning about the game, and having a place to contribute all kinds stuff to the community, which I think could be a model for wargaming communities. FB is ok, but too much of a feed where things get lost.
Forums like this also help a great deal.

[Justin Swanton]

I'm the chap who played two games of Triumph! with Shawn on Saturday at the Durban Club.

Just to let you I don't really make an issue of Triumph's DBA roots (though one or two SoA members do, sort of). The game definitely feels very DBA-esque but it has some interesting innovative mechanisms that improve on Phil Barker's system, notably the terrain setup rules, the points systems for armies and the more variegated troop types. I obviously need to play a few more games to get a better idea of the finer aspects of the system but so far it's good fun and made for interesting gameplay. Gauls definitely don't have a chance against Romans in open terrain - their mounted units as well as their infantry are outmatched by the Roman horse and foot and their greater numbers didn't really help. But, again, that's only two games.

[David Kuijt]

Welcome, Justin!

Thanks for the positive review. I'll be interested to see your take when you play in the Biblical thematic areas and when you see the shooting system in play -- which is completely absent in the Roman/Gallic matchup you were looking at!