General

[mike_bennett]

I am a bit nervous commenting without playing, since it is easy to get the wrong end of the stick. On first reading I remeber thinking with DBM that no quick referance sheet was a pain, but amazing how quickly we learnt speeds, factors and quick kills v push back etc.

Initial reaction:

PRO
Great to see something new, since DBM is in danger of dieing

Do not get the impresison skirmishers will be as powerfull as DBM/7th in bottling up parts of he battlefiled, or forced marched to centre to constrain opponent

Ideas on combats when units are not parallel are a great step to overcome a frequently quoted DBM problem

Like the fact that troops near the table edge have some disadvantages. They do not know it is safe!!!

CON

Units: Not sure I like the return to units, what is the benefit. I liked the fact that DBM often gave long battle lines which "looked right" to me. Also what is a unit. eg. to use modern language battalions have platoons, companys and sections and they can be split off if appropriatte.

Cohesion Tests: Do not think I will ever go back to 6th type systems, roll 3 dice, add lots of factors, take off lots and get back close were you started. A bit concerend that this is a bit in that direction, although not that extreme

Language: some currently still a bit confusing/maybe inconsistent/inappropriattte (although probably OK once you are used to it, but we do not want to put of newbies), eg. Heavy, medium and light foot (which smacks of armour to me) then protected, unprotected etc. If Hv/Md/Lt is formation would Close, loose and open not be better, and very obviously differnet from armour

Victory points ssytem: I want one which rewards wins, but this is too extreme. Even more than the Italain DBM system I experienced were you got the % you killed. It seems wrong, looser broken and kills 10% gets you more ponits than drawing with no kills. That is the effect that the French 3-1-0 and % kills eliminates, which is why I took it for Ghent. More exterme than 10-0 or 32-0, but less so than this system or straight % kills only.

Combats: seem overly complex to predict. I do not think rules should reward those with extensive stats skills or access to computer simulation programmes to the detriment of players who get roughly the right troops supporting each other and doing reasonable things.

Will it still allows players to set up "swinging battles" by misaligning centres (2nd deployer puts punch on oppossite flank if he thinks he cannot win face to face). I do not think this was historically too common. Armies roughly lined up centres as they manouverred/deployed before battle