Slitherine

Having decided to have a bash at the DBMM rules we thought it would be instructive to write up our first game on this site as a comparison between the rule sets.

We took Italian and French medieval sides, as closely matched to our previous FOG game as possible. 500 points in DBMM equates to about 1000 points in FOG. As can be seen from the enclosed pictures, that means a lot less troops on the table. The Italian side came out as a three command DBMM army, the French as a four command with somewhat less infantry than in the FOG list in order to bring the points value down to 500. This establishes our first observation – you need more figures to stage a FOG game than a DBMM one.

We recreated the scenery as best we could and the game played as depicted, reaching near conclusion about three hours. Another move or two would have seen the Italians break completely.

This is not the place to go into details of the DBMM rules but, broadly speaking, as the basic rule mechanisms of DBMM are very similar to DBM any DBM players are going to pick it up without too much difficulty. DBMM gives a game of significantly different feel to FOG. There are a lot less troops on the same size table (compare the photos). Although much of the obsessive exactness of element placing in DBM has been alleviated (thank heavens), the fact that the troops types are so thoroughly intermixed in the army organisation gives the game a much more complex appearance to onlookers. It also gives the game an “epic feel” that many commentators have noted is missing from FOG, though.

It's a very difficult to wheel large bodies of troops under DBMM and this seems entirely reasonable – maybe a thought for FOG, though I suppose large bodies of troops per se are an alien concept to FOG, which is basically a unit based game.

DBMM is certainly going to give a game that is decisive, but it is complex and will probably not be that accessible to non-DBM players – or at least people without a DBMM playing friend.

I think DBM and DBMM are going to turn out to be different enough to make FOG/DBM comparisons redundant – I should focus on FOG/DBMM comparisons. I agree with the sentiment that competition players will follow the majority decision over which ruleset to follow, which leaves the majority of gamers making a decision on a historicity* or fun basis.

I believe that the army lists will probably clinch the first issue, and without doubt FOG is fun to play, especially in 25mm, as it provides a better visual spectacle. DBMM does contain some features missing in FOG though (stratagems, weather, naval and the currently unassailable level of colour in the full DBM army lists).

We’ll certainly be playing a bit more DBMM before we make any firm decisions, but we enjoyed our first game and none of us are in any doubt that we’ll choose either FOG or DBMM as our sole ruleset in the long term.

In the meantime, take a look at the pictures of our comparative games under the following:

FOG:

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

DBMM:

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

It's easy to pore over rule minutiae, but don't underestimate the visual impact of the game - I think FOG wins out there.

Cheers

Adrian Clarke




* the correct term, I gather!

Hmm... the top link is dud, try this, or failing that start with the DBMM link and navigate to the FOG one via the Dorchester Home link at the bottom of the picture page.

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

Adrian

adrianc wrote:Having decided to have a bash at the DBMM rules we thought it would be instructive to write up our first game on this site as a comparison between the rule sets.

Very cool, not sure it ultimately belongs on the beta forum here, but I found it very interesting to read as, like most people, I'm looking at what's next after DBM.

DBMM is certainly going to give a game that is decisive, but it is complex and will probably not be that accessible to non-DBM players – or at least people without a DBMM playing friend.

One major flaw with FoG is that it has managed to make the most fun part for newbies (the getting stuck in, rolling dice and inflicting casualties) a complex nightmare. I'm a pretty bright bloke and have been gaming for a few years but I still find trawling through the POAs and which units are inflicting casualties on which other units and who loses how many dice and from where, a real headache. How is it possible to have spoilt dice rolling?

I'm not saying DBMM is better here, I can't comment as I've had a brief look at it's my bound/your bound stuff but only a brief look.

Your comment on dice rolling is a surprise. We use a couple of dozen small dice of several colours. At the start of any melee we just place dice behind the bases. When BG's are fighting against more than one opponent the bases get different colour dice. Since nearly everything gets two dice unless it has some form of disorder this has proved remarkably easy. After that, we start at one end and roll the dice, removing those that do not cause hits. Far from being a problem, this has proved to be one of the easiest and most entertaining parts of the game.

We adopt a DBM type approach in that we roll opposing groups of dice simultaneously. Instead of the DBM "3-2", "4-1" type calls it's now "4's v 5's" or "4's each". Rolling for hits seems more dramatic than DBM factors. The amount of player moaning and spectator commenting has increased. All good fun.

rogerg wrote:Your comment on dice rolling is a surprise. <snip> Far from being a problem, this has proved to be one of the easiest and most entertaining parts of the game.

One man's fair is another man's foul I guess, this is an area that consistently is criticised while we're playing, clearly your experience is different.

[/quote]We adopt a DBM type approach in that we roll opposing groups of dice simultaneously.[/quote]

Yeah, we roll groups that are facing each other, you still need to work out all the dice that are lost (due to disorder or whatever) for the whole units or those parts of units that are effected before you can do the individual sections of the fight that are unit vs unit. It would improve things greatly IMO if the combats were done element frontage at a time (and feed the disorder etc.. into factor changes).