Re: [OT] DBx was: Hidden Units

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Lambshead" <pjdl@nhm.ac.uk>
> DBA was a little competition game written for a meeting. It was fun
but I
> would not consider it especially realistic.DBM was an attempt to turn
DBA
into a real WRG style wargame.

There is a lot that could be said about the quality (or otherwise) of
DBA/DBM as games or simulations, but it's not really on-topic.

Just two remarks:

> There have been so many modifications that it is difficult to keep
track
...

It has always been WRG policy to keep their rules up to date in terms of
gameplay issues and historical accuracy. Every few years, they provide
fully
updated versions at quite reasonable prices.

Consider commonly used alternatives:
- No updates to rules, perhaps not even errata, even if flaws are known
and
acknowledged
- A series of supplements and rules updates scattered over numerous
booklets.
Are they to be preferred ?

> ...(the errata alone is colossal).

I don't think this is an accurate statement, actually. The official
errata
for the present DBM v.3.0 at
http://www.richardbodleyscott.btinternet.co.uk/official.htm is about an
A4
page.
Nor can you call the errata to the several 100 army lists colossal:
http://www.richardbodleyscott.btinternet.co.uk/errata2.htm

What you are probably referring to is the discussion paper for
playtesting
the changes from 2.1 to 3.0:
http://www.richardbodleyscott.btinternet.co.uk/amend3x0.htm
This includes not only the changes, but extensive explanations and
designer's notes.

Greetings
Karl Heinz