Slitherine

The rules certainly provide a fun game, but despite the fact that we've been playing with this set (5.01) for a couple of months the game still progresses rather slowly with much rule consultation (we have never yet finished a game!). We therefore decided to play three games in a row using exactly the same forces so that, knowing the troops better, we could get a better feel for the effects of differing terrain and the scope for variability that the rules provide.

The sides chosen were 14C medieval French invading Italy with lists based on the DBM medieval French and Italian Condotta lists, to just over 1000 points. The French knights were superior but undrilled; their Italian counterparts average but drilled. Both sides had a pike block, the Italian Swiss mercenaries being superior. There were assorted crossbowmen both light and medium foot on either side with a few other medium foot fighting infantry. Both sides also had a sprinkling of crossbow armed light horse and the French chose to take an impressive looking Artillery Park.

All three games were played in 25mm scale, the final one at the Weymouth wargame show as a demonstration game. Only the final game is described here (in pictures – follow the link below!) but comments are based on experience in all three games.


http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dorchesterwa ... report.htm



Points arising:

Without doubt the rules produce a game that is fun to play, though it will be interesting to see how the skill level required compares with DBM or DBMM. We have never once played a game to his natural conclusion though. Either we are very slow learners or the rules are too detailed. Making them less detailed would presumably increase the fun factor still further. We vote for fun over skill, for what it’s worth.

These appear to be ideal rules for a demonstration game. They do not require nearly as much mental concentration as DBM and it is easy to break off from play, chat to a passer-by and go back to the game without any difficulty. It is not easy to get DBM players to break off from their game to talk to anyone in the outside world. Is this a feature of the rules or the players - who knows? The layout of the troops on the table allows for a much clearer instant understanding for an observer of what is happening, unlike DBM.

There are one or two specific points. In all the games so far which in which we have used artillery (4) it has proved dramatically effective. There may be a clever way of dealing with artillery but we haven't discovered it yet. Was artillery so effective at this time that only skilled opponents could deal with it? Maybe not.

Although the infantry combat was decided fairly quickly, the knights seemed to go on and on without result. They are not allowed a fall-back move against other horse, thus denying them extra impact, and there is no allowance for fatigue. A reasonable supply of generals on either side (4 in our last game) certainly prolongs things substantially.

We had a situation in which a knight base could act as an overlap on both sides. The rules didn't seem to cover this explicitly. We gave the owning player the choice as to which side the knight should employ his dice.

We weren't entirely clear about expanding units already in melee. If the melee is offset on one or both sides can the spare bases on the open-side be moved across into combat, this not strictly being an expansion, rather a translocation:

eg:

xxxx
__yyyy


becoming:

xxxx
_yyyy

This seems desirable to us as it prevents units in melee blocking movement excessively around their flanks even though only one or two bases are in contact.

We presume that this ruleset will be pitched somewhere into the chasm that currently exists between DBM and WAB. It can never be both, obviously. It's not really going to be possible to decide how best to pitch these rules until DBMM has had an airing. To that end we have decided that our next game will be played in DBMM with exactly the same sides as for this game. We will report it on this site as a comparison between the two rule sets.


TTFN

The Dorset Irrregulars

Graham
Roger
Adrian
Martin

Thanks for the feedback team Dorset....

Without doubt the rules produce a game that is fun to play, though it will be interesting to see how the skill level required compares with DBM or DBMM. We have never once played a game to his natural conclusion though. Either we are very slow learners or the rules are too detailed. Making them less detailed would presumably increase the fun factor still further. We vote for fun over skill, for what it’s worth.

We are finding the competition players are seeing lots of skill in it after a few games. As authors we are finding that too. The skill is a rather different one to DBM however - more big picture strategic skill than rule skill. See what you think as games evolve.

We had a situation in which a knight base could act as an overlap on both sides. The rules didn't seem to cover this explicitly. We gave the owning player the choice as to which side the knight should employ his dice.

This is exactly how it works. Clarified in the new version. If there is anything equal, players choice.

We weren't entirely clear about expanding units already in melee. If the melee is offset on one or both sides can the spare bases on the open-side be moved across into combat, this not strictly being an expansion, rather a translocation:

eg:

xxxx
__yyyy


becoming:

xxxx
_yyyy

This seems desirable to us as it prevents units in melee blocking movement excessively around their flanks even though only one or two bases are in contact.

You were not the only ones to find the use of the expansion, cotraction language a bit confusing. This section is now called simply "feeding more troops into an existing melee" as non of the mechanisms are really expansion or contractions. The above is fine and simply rpresents more and moe trops getting stuck in.

Without doubt the rules produce a game that is fun to play, though it will be interesting to see how the skill level required compares with DBM or DBMM. We have never once played a game to his natural conclusion though. Either we are very slow learners or the rules are too detailed.

Interesting. This bit I would like to help fathom a little more. One question as it came up once before. Have you played a game straight through in full-play mode (just do it and discuss afterwards) or are you debating as you go? One set of players did find they took a long time and in fact it was their enthusiasm for talking abot the pros and cons of the rules throughout that took most time.

Loook forward to hearing about the DBMM comparison.
Si

I cant get the link to work, are ther any typos?

JDM

No it's just because the link must be with url balises. Try this

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/dorchesterwa ... report.htm

Great report guys. Just had a good luck through it.

Si

shall wrote:

We have never once played a game to his natural conclusion though. Either we are very slow learners or the rules are too detailed.

Interesting. This bit I would like to help fathom a little more. One question as it came up once before. Have you played a game straight through in full-play mode (just do it and discuss afterwards) or are you debating as you go? One set of players did find they took a long time and in fact it was their enthusiasm for talking abot the pros and cons of the rules throughout that took most time.

Loook forward to hearing about the DBMM comparison.
Si

This puzzles me too, Si. We've played 8 or 9 games now, most with the full rules, and we're all experianced players. We're pretty disciplined about leaving the discussion to the end - I just write down any issues arising on a pad as we go. Brief discussion about how we'll play it "for now" doesn't take longer than a few moments. We usually agree one of our number to be rule head honcho and play a diminished role in play, or even stand out. If we can't find something in the rules within a minute or so we give up! It often appears at the end of the evening, I admit!

I guess I can remember taking a couple of years to get into DBM, and in particular, going to my first few competitions with a few notable misunderstandings about the rules, so I'm quite prepared to be patient. Competitions and conventions are the best way of standardising understanding and practice, I should think. A good QR sheet with intuitive game flow is important. I still feel there is a bit too much detail in the CMT and combat factor sections of the rules and I would consider cutting out one of the cohesion levels. (Sorry!)

It will become apparent over the next year or so how DBMM will impinge on the development of FOG. At a first look DBMM seems pretty Byzantine in its complexity, but it's built on a previous experiance with DBM (in my case, at least).

The core decision you have to make is do you want to compete with DBMM or complement it. There is surely room for 2 sets of historically accurate rules, especially if they have clearly distinct design goals. If I end up playing both sets, I think I'd use FOG as a faster play, more visually attractive set, probably by supporting your noble cause and purchasing a ruleset, then creating my own ruthlessly cut down QR sheet which will override the full rules where there are clashes. Two complex/historically accurate rulesets covering the same period need not necessarily detract from each other's fanbase. I'd like to see them evolving into complemetary niches. Simplicitity and lack of skill need not concurr. What could be simpler or more elegant than the rules of the Chinese game Go, but it's a real brainbender to play!

We're playing our DBMM game later this week in 25mm. I might just take some pictures to compare the visual effect, as I think it's going to be significantly different in that as well as many other ways.

Cheers

Adrian

Great.

When we did the games at Leeds - which were 3 1/4 hours - there were 16 tables if my memory is correct. On average 8 suffered army breaks in the time limit. 4 had significant results. 4 draws/minor results. So in general of the 30 people there the timing was working pretty well.

Another possible which JD and I especially find is that as we know each other too well, we are just to good at neturalising each other, which make big wins slower to get. This gets even worse if we use the same armies repeatedly as we know where all the weaknesses and strengths are, so there are no suprises anymore onthat front either. Other than that I find it hard to guess a reason.

Its hard to judge without seeing a game in action. I am likely to be down in Dorset in July - maybe I could come along for a game? Plus I would like to take a shot at a bit more 25mm stuff - the big figures look good. I have always wanted a 25mm Early Imperial Roman army and FOG is giving me the desire to get painting....

Its intriguing me, and one I would like to figure out if possible. Keep up the helpful feedback.

Cheers

Si

If you come in the southof France, you will be wellcome

Now that's a good invite....whereabouts?

Si

shall wrote: I am likely to be down in Dorset in July - maybe I could come along for a game?

We'd be delighted to have you along - we'd learn a lot, I don't doubt. Our club night is on the third Thursday of each month in Dorchester, but we could fix up a game at any time - let me know when you're going to be around.

Cheers

Adrian

Will do Adrian

Si

I live in Toulon ( French Riviera)