On Tue, 7 Oct 1997, John Campbell wrote:

> DBA IS still in print as far as I know. The web-site indicates the next
> edition has just gone to the printers.

My error then. I thought it was permanently out of print and had been
supplanted by DBM.

> How is "Battlesystem" better for important battles or ones with PCs in
> them? Who makes "Battlesystem"?

I refer to TSR's BattleSystem rules, which seem to be better for allowing
AD&D characters to involve themselves in the battle. They are not
inherently superior, but are better designed for this purpose (i.e.,
allowing single figures to impact the battle) than systems such as DBA
would. Consequently in situations were PC's may wish to directly
influence the battle or interact with the battle on a 'personal' level I'd
prefer to use that system. But for battles were this level of detail is a
hinderance I'd go for something more abstract such as DBA.

Actually all of this leads me to another point I meant to bring up
earlier. One other misfortune of using more detailed combat systems is
that the player's skill and knowledge begins to supplant the character's
skill and knowledge. I game with many people but I am the only one among
the FRP crowd who plays a great deal of wargames, hence if the mass combat
system approaches the level of a typical wargame, most of my players have
the habit of getting wiped off the map (I know this from experience in
using the Battlesystem rules). As a result even when a _character_ with
superior Generalship and troops takes the field, the _player_ has to
conduct the battle. This is not a problem if the players and GM are
aware of it, but can lead to frustration if not taken into account.

Robert Hammond

"Chemists do not usually stutter. It would be awkward if they did, seeing
that they have at times to get out such words as methylethylamylophenylium."
-William Crookes, 1865