Older Versions of Games

[Piyan Glupak]

Does anyone else find that sometimes they prefer the older versions of games to the new editions?

In the 1990s, when I took up wargaming, after trying to get to grips with DBM, I discovered that DBA suited me much better.  The copy that I first bought was version 1.1.  After a few years, someone at the club gave me a downloaded amendment sheet to make it v1.2.  I assumed that it must have been better, so updated my 1.1 rulebook in pencil.

Version 2 came along so I bought that, again thinking that it must be better.  Some aspects (such as the army lists) were; some I didn’t like quite as much as 1.1.  I wanted to play the latest edition because most other people would do so.  Some things I accepted at the time, but came to dislike (such as the v2 built-up areas).  I adopted the 2.1 amendments when that sheet came out, and bought version 2.2 in turn.

Gradually, I found that I was using an increasing number of house rules, many of which were to deal with some of the shortcomings introduced in version 2.

Version 3 was announced.  Initially, I was enthusiastic, until I tried a draft version.  I have to say that many people seem to be very happy with version 3, but it turned out to be a game that I do not want to play, and seemed to me to be going in directions that I didn’t want for DBA.

Some others who were unhappy with version 3, who were mainly based in America, did a comprehensive set of house rules for version 2.2, that they called “2.2+”.  I found that they gave a very good game, and that the new movement rates they introduced were far better than those of version 3.  However, instead of playing from 1 rulebook, you need the original DBA 2.2 rulebook and the printed downloads of changes.

I had been beginning to look for other simple sets of rules that need a small area.  Recently, on a whim, I tried playing version 1.1 solo using the version 2 army lists.  It gave a very simple, elegant game, which is what I prefer.  The rules tend to be a bit closer to Hordes of the Things than later versions.  The terrain rules give a lot more scope for solo games, although I believe that the 2.2 terrain rules are better for reducing cheesy play, for instance, at tournaments.  All it cost me was 20 Stotinki (about 10 Eurocents) for a rubber to erase the 1.1 amendments that I had written into my 1.1 rulebook in pencil.

[Angel Barracks]

I don’t own that many games or their iterations, but having said that I did prefer the original Space Marine to the last version of Epic I played.

[willz]

I much prefer the original version of “Rapid Fire”, don’t get me wrong I enjoy playing version 2 but the first version seemed to play simpler.

[Phil Dutré]

When I was younger, I tended to buy the newest versions of whatever rules we were playing.

After so many years, you realize it doesn’t really matter. Most changes between editions are smallish: a few modifiers here and there, but usually nothing that truely affects gameplay. So now I usually do not upgrade to a newer version, and just keep on playing the old version.

Unless of course you are a follower of the cult of the sanctioned army lists. But even then, does it really matter if you only play in your own gaming circle? I can imagine if you play in tournaments all over the country, you want to play by the agreed rules; but if you only play with your local friends, what’s the point?

[Sane Max]

IMHO the vast majority of subsequesnt editions of wargames are worse than the original.

BKC1 was a piece of cake, but they added needless complexity. I played the first one for years and never had to look up a thing.

AK47 was lovely to play. The 2nd edition is awful.

WAB was a good game, spoiled by letting random people write the expansions, WAB2 ruined everything by trying to fix the mess they had got themselves into.

So, enough moaning – subsequent editions that WERE better – 40k and WHFB were both messes, 3rd 40k and 3rd-5th WHFB were better. I adored the Epic 40k rewrite of about 16 years ago, the original gave me a headache. And 2nd edition spacehulk was superb.

[Piyan Glupak]

@Phil Dutré – Over the last 10 years or so, I have begun to believe that army lists for ancient armies sometimes include a lot of guesswork and unproven opinion.  Playing mainly on my own, I am a lot more likely adapt army lists or have a go at trying my own out.

@Sane Max – There might be a lot going for your opinion.  A certain well-known rules writer has stated that wargames rules tend to become more complex over time as later editions are produced.  It certainly seems to be true of most of his rules, although HotT has largely avoided excessive ‘enhancement’.

By the way, It was interesting to hear about AK47.  If I remember correctly, a lot of the people in the Sheffield club were playing it fairly frequently some years ago.  I seem to remember having a go with it, and enjoying it, although later 20th century is not really an interest of mine.

[Sane Max]

First edition AK47 is a cracking little game. It has of course all the Peter Pig Rule Issues I have a bee in my bonnet over (inhale. exhale. You can’t change them Pat, they are what they are. Inhale. Exhale.) But once you work through that problem the game istelf is fun, simple, does not take itself too seriously, rewards the better player mostly but with enough luck to allow prats like me a chance, can be learnt in an evening… really it’s a perfect set for a period most people would not otherwise be inspired to play.

I liked it so much I knocked out a set of my own – ‘Negative Waves’ so we could play WW2 with the basic mechanisms. I just had to add a few layers of complexity to reflect the differences in tanks, guns etc…. and as a result they are not fun at all 🙂

It takes very little to spoil a good game is what I am saying.

Pat

[Not Connard Sage]

Piyan Glupak wrote:

A certain well-known rules writer has stated that wargames rules tend to become more complex over time as later editions are produced. It certainly seems to be true of most of his rules, although HotT has largely avoided excessive ‘enhancement’.

I believe RBS still had input into the production of HotT v2. Just sayin’ 😉

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Piyan Glupak]

I do believe that you are correct, Not Connard Sage.

[Piyan Glupak]

Sane Max wrote:

…[snip]… It takes very little to spoil a good game is what I am saying. Pat

When I was having a go at writing early medieval skirmish rules it would be a regular thing that one of the playtesters would suggest an additional rule for special cases.  They tended to last through the next session before I quietly dumped them for the session after.

[Noel]

BKC1 was a piece of cake, but they added needless complexity. I played the first one for years and never had to look up a thing.

 

This is the game I thought of when I saw this topic.

[Ivan Sorensen]

I prefer older versions of 40K.
Warhammer FRP (the rpg), I like both but marginally prefer the original.
White Wolf’s RPG’s I far prefer the 2nd/3rd edition “era” to the “new world of darkness”.

With some games like Battletech or Call of Cthulhu, I guess the differences were small enough that it basically doesn’t matter.

On the flipside.. and delving into RPG’s a bit here so forgive me, but GURPS 4 is far superior to 3.

[McKinstry]

We still play BKC v1. Newer certainly didn’t translate to better.

We played the heck out of AK47 v1 but I haven’t seen an AK47 game in years which may speak volumes about v2.

 

The tree of Life is self pruning.

[Shaun Travers]

Well, if we are going to RPGs, I always thought MegaTraveller (the second iteration of Traveller) was much better than the first.  That is, until the last 6 months or so where I have been re-reading the LBB version and I think I really do prefer the simpler version of the 1st edition!

On rules, the one that comes to mind is I prefer DBM 2 over DBM 3, but do believe DBM 2 is an improvement on DBM 1 (yep, DBM, not DBA; I don’t really play DBA but I really like v1.1).

[Ivan Sorensen]

Our Traveller game is a hellish mix of Megatraveller character creation and most of the tables, classic traveller starships and Striker combat.

More often, we just play GURPS or BRP instead.

[Shaun Travers]

Could never get into GURPs, although it does look like a great system.  BRP always = d100 in my mind. and d100? I have troubles with using d20 in games!  Admittedly a lot of d100 systems go up in 5% increments and so could be a d20.  But then we are back to d20 🙂  I will use them if I have to; I played Tractics for a long time and there is about 5 sequential d20 rolls involved every time you fire and hit a vehicle.  And loved it!  I really need to play Tractics again – it has been 20 years and at least if i play it again I will know if I still enjoy it or I can never touch it again.

[Kaptain Kobold]

Not Connard Sage wrote:

Piyan Glupak wrote:

A certain well-known rules writer has stated that wargames rules tend to become more complex over time as later editions are produced. It certainly seems to be true of most of his rules, although HotT has largely avoided excessive ‘enhancement’.

I believe RBS still had input into the production of HotT v2. Just sayin’

And the other authors had very little input in the move from HOTT 1.0 to HOTT 2.0. It was mostly driven by the players and RBS.

I love HOTT, which is basically DBA v2.0 with more complexity, but never got on with any of the DBA v2.0 iterations. I like DBA 3.0 though.

The age of sail rules, ‘Form Line of Battle’ have actually got better with each edition. I’ll admit that I’ve not seen v5.0 in the flesh, but the online playsheet doesn’t look any different to that for v4.0, so I assume that any changes weren’t too radical. Each version has made the game more detailed, and v4.0 is more complex than v1.0, but the game has improved by it each time. It can be done 🙂

 

The Stronghold Rebuilt: http://hordesofthethings.blogspot.com.au/

[Piyan Glupak]

@ Kaptain Kobald, I take notice of your point on the origins of HotT version 2.0.

Must admit that I see a lot more parallels between Hordes of the Things (HotT) and DBA versions 1 and 1.1 than versions 2.0,  2.1 and 2.2, but perhaps that is just how it strikes me.  It might well be that I pay much more attention to some aspects than others.

Against that, I am sure that the highly contentious built up areas (BUAs) of versions 2, 2.1 and 2.2 are based upon HotT strongholds.  Strongholds, in my opinion, are fine for HotT, but I hold a different opinion on the v2 BUAs.

If I was trying to merge DBA and HotT (which is not necessarily as good a thing as it might at first seem) then I would be using DBA version 1 as the DBA version to merge HotT with.

[Not Connard Sage]

As the current HotT has barely evolved from its original incarnation as a DBA v1.0 variant would probably be the best plan. Although there’s nothing wrong with HotT as it is.

I like HottT, and I’m not usually a big fan of fantasy. It doesn’t take itself too seriously and it works very well as a game. I don’t like DBA as much. For what it purports to be it’s far too abstract.

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[PaintingLittleSoldiers]

I still play command decision 2 (shock horror)

[Author]

Posts