"DBMM more interesting and deeper than FOG?" Topic

I have been invited to play a few games of DBMM (for which I will use my FoG armies – EIR, Seleucid and Republican Roman) in about two weeks time. The guy that invited commented as per the title of the thread when I asked "FOG or DBMM"? He is also a long time FOG player but is playing more DBMM of late.

Down side is I don't own these rules and, reluctant as I am yo get yet another set of rules to learn, I am happy to take up the invite but am interested in the comments. Not really keen on starting a "X is a crap game" type discussion but, particularly where people have played a good deal of FoG and DBMM, do you find that DBMM is indeed more interesting and deep and if so why?

He also made the comment that while FoG is deep enough in terms of troop differentiation and combat he finds it too much of a mechanical grind and very "retro and 70s" in play style. I have to admit that I have also found it a bit of grind at times (hoping v2 will fix that) and don't look forward to it quite as enthusiastically as I used to. I have heard people I know that are ardent FOG fans comment more recently "Oh well, another game of FoG", again like it's a bit more of a chore than it should be. But then again no set is perfect. That said I never felt like that about WAB (which I also played a lot of before) and don't about Impetus, but there's always the novelty factor to consider with any set of rules you learn which again may wear off.

My main reason for not getting into to DMB (and as such DBMM) previously were that:

1) It always seemed more like a game of geometry which happened to use wargame figures than counters.

2) It seemed to get won by using game/geoemtry tricks rather than historical tactics/strategy

3) Romans always seemed to do poorly and RR could never be deployed or used accurately (few games do this well but WAB and FOG do a reasonable enough job IMO)

4) Bizarre/obscure armies than historically impacted the world about as much as the Amstrad E-Mailer seemed to do well just because they had access to the relevant "super troop' types that did not seem to match the success/use of those troop types historically

5) As ever, rules written in an atrocious style that made reading them a headache!!!

6) People never seemed to look like they were having much fun playing them!!!

My bookshelf is already withering under the weight of rules and before I buy and learn yet more (esp written in this style!!!!) I'd like to make sure it'll be worth the effort. I've read more posts about people dumping DBMM for FoG than the other way round. My pal is happy to play FoG if I REALLY want but I prefer to be accommodating as possible, even if we split the weekend 50/50 :-)

While I hate to 'go with the flow' or 'agree with the masses' on any topic if I can help it, I have to say most of the Cons you list above I agree with. however I will retort with guarded responses.

1) And yet many people whose Wargaming Chops I respect regard them highly.

2) Thing like 'Butocks of Death' can be overstated. The games LOOK like what I imagine an Ancient Battlefield to look like.

3) EIR Romans do badly – but then, apart from Other EIR Romans, who of any quality did they ever actually do well against?

4) The "Later Swong, Dec 351bc-Dec 20th 351bc" appeal to the loonies who LIKE these things because they have an obsessive interest in the wars of Northern Korea during the 6 Harmonious Badger Period. They tend not to do that well in actual games. As a WAB player, I can only say 'I should have that sort of choice of armies'.

5) errr….. errrrr…. reading them cover to cover is a good exercise in self-discipline. It's lovely when you stop. errrr…

6) I used to think that – but increasingly I get the feeling that they ARE having fun. They are just the sort of people who only smile briefly where you or I would bang the diner table and scream 'Oh Yesss! Yes! Yes!' in much the same way Cricket fans used to clap politley rather than scream and wave rattles. I for one find that mildly admirable.

Personally, I find FoG as exciting as eating wallpaper paste. QED you therefore might like DBMM.

Next week – Black is White.

Pat

4) Bizarre/obscure armies than historically impacted the world about as much as the Amstrad E-Mailer seemed to do well just because they had access to the relevant "super troop' types

I'm no great lover of DBMM, but this is not even remotely true. It's more a concept of what you, personally, find obscure, either through personal reading or through lack of literature in your language.

It would be rules that have all the old favourite armies winning (Romans, Greeks, English Longbow) that would be suspect.

The Huns are famous world conquerors. Yet they did no better than the Magyars of a few centuries later, say, for whom only the most geeky could name their rulers. They just happed to ride in at more literate time. But try telling a Hungarian that Arpad is obscure and see how far you get!

My view from Oct last year – bit.ly/e6Dsyn

--
Martin Stephenson
blog.vexillia.me.uk
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia
twitter.com/vexillia

Thanks for comments, some of which i agree with, some not. But that's life.

@Martin, thanks, forgot about that, actually remember reading when I did consider buying DBMM to try. Not sure I feel that inspired to take the plunge but we'll see. Not as easy to learn as Impetus for instance!!!!!

@KH Likely I'm too much of cheering type than Spock eyebrow type LOL!!! :-)

It might be for you, it might not. I like it a lot and I was not a DBM fan. Have a look at the Tagmata blog for a bit more flavour of DBMM2.

DBMM2 Romans will do well enough if that's your thing.

It is a personal preference when all is said and done.

And its good to see the Harmonious Badger Period get a mention here. Lest we forget.

"Buttocks of Death"?

He also made the comment that while FoG is deep enough in terms of troop differentiation and combat he finds it too much of a mechanical grind and very "retro and 70s" in play style. I have to admit that I have also found it a bit of grind at times (hoping v2 will fix that) and don't look forward to it quite as enthusiastically as I used to. I have heard people I know that are ardent FOG fans comment more recently "Oh well, another game of FoG", again like it's a bit more of a chore than it should be.

Couldn't agree more with this assessment. I'll still play the occasional game of FoG but I am looking to concentrate on Impetus this year, I'm even getting a 25mm army for it.

To be fair to FoG though it was never going to live up to the pre publishing hype, a lot of which was not of the authors making.

I also agree with what you said about DBM but some games were fun and you didn't need a book the size of a Haines car manual to play it. They actually fixed the problems of the "super skirmisher" towards the end of its life but by then people were ready to move on.

Totally a matter of choice. I personally enjoy the game and find it deeper and less open to abuse than DBM.

The rule book is still a chore to work through. However playing a game with someone who knows the rules will sort that quite quickly.

Romans do "work" under DBMM.

"Buttocks of Death"

When an element facing backwards blocks the retreat/recoil path of an enemy element resulting in the death of one or both elements…depending on the version of DBA/M you have. DBMM does not have buttocks of death.

nothing to do what car sharing with a DBM player on the drive home from a tourney weekend then…

I played a lot of DBM and liked it. DBR was a further step down the path to "fizbin" and when I looked at DBMM in the playtest editions it was headed that way too. When I moved to FoG it was a welcome relief and am not looking back. But different strokes for different folks. Try DBMM, you may like it.

Hi

I think that MM is fun, but badly presented/finished. I like the "managing the uncertainty" approach that it presents as I find that challenging as a player. I think it is more decisive and rewarding of historical tactics than DBM ie reserves are more important, breaking through a centre is more likely, geometry is tamed a lot. The extensive army lists are of course a fantastic asset.

I think the options for 100AP (1-hour), 200AP (2-hour) and full-sized (3+hours) are fantastic for both learning and supporting things like a 3-round campaign in a club-night.
This week we did Caesars (un)conquest of Gaul with 8 players in one club night – great fun (the Barbarians won overall but Caesar was the highest scoring individual army)

rgds
rob

I've read v1 of DBMM and FoG but have not played either. My impression is that both have a great deal of complexity but in very different ways.

FoG has complexity in layers. It takes, for instance, 3 dice rolls per player to resolve a single combat. It is a buckets of dice method followed by 2 single rolls. There are also dice rolls for maneuvering (CMT) as well. You will roll many dice a few times to resolve all the combats in a turn. You will also roll a single or pair of dice a few times to complete the combat.

DBMM on the other hand can handle a single combat with a single die roll from each player. The complexity comes in where you have to look up the result on a table to see the effect of a matchup. You will roll 1 die many times to resolve all the combats in a turn.

You might say that FoG has complexity in layers while DBMM has has complexity in the breadth of one broad layer.

I think it really boils down to how you like your complexity.

"retro and 70s," must be why I like the FoGs, A and R. Although my experience was limited, can't say I liked the DBs.

DBMM may be better than FoG – and by that I mean more enjoyable to play. However I think the relative value of either set of rules does not make much difference. Is DBMM a good set of rules to play, period?

Lots of new ancient rules in the pipeline and when anyone gives me a good reason, I will try them.

I have played almost every Ancients set there is since 1975. While I admit that some were more to my taste than others, I could not truthfully claim that the rules set had a huge impact on how much fun I had. Pushing lead with like minded people is fun. Good rules are, well, secondary to fun.

I own and have read DBMM, but can't get anyone interested in a game. Lots of people will play FoG. I play lots of FoG and have fun.

It is rare to get a "quick kill" in FoG. It takes some getting used to in this regard. BUT, IMO, you see units on the table and the level of abstraction with one stand being a "unit" was a turnoff to me and the DBX games. I like seeing units disrupt, lose stands, etc. Probably a retro-70s feel from your statements. Abstraction is in every game but you need to decide what level works for you. I like to see ranks and depth to a unit, pure and simple, there is a pagentry to having units in multiple ranks.

So, in a continuum of 1:1 scale all the way up to 1 stand/chit/gamepiece is an army, FoG is one or more steps closer to 1:1 scale.

Contrary to what most people think, ancient and medieval warfare WAS a scrum. But I understand wanting to get a quicker result. Heck, I even like DBA for what it is and would think that big battle DBA would work as well. But for me, I like units that feel more like units, hence I play FoG. Oh, and least I forget, I like shooting, reactions to shooting, etc. I also like morale. Like has been said, different strokes for different blokes.

I play DBMM regularly but have only read the FOG set and not played any games. FWIW I really enjoy DBMM and despite largely playing just points game with only the odd scenario, every game has markedly different terrain and the strategems etc lend to the rules a great deal of variety.Certainly have not found DBMM to be a "mechanical grind". I'd agree with Rob about presentation but Phil is Phil! Enjoy whatever you use.

cheers

Thanks for comments. Might give them a go at least. Not as enthusiastic about it as i might be but hey ho.

I have been invited to play a few games of DBMM (for which I will use my FoG armies – EIR, Seleucid and Republican Roman) in about two weeks time. The guy that invited commented as per the title of the thread when I asked "FOG or DBMM"? He is also a long time FOG player but is playing more DBMM of late.

Down side is I don't own these rules and, reluctant as I am yo get yet another set of rules to learn, I am happy to take up the invite but am interested in the comments.

Taking the last comment first – I hope your friend is very good and very patient at explaining rules to you as DBMM is more complex and just as badly written as DBM. Be thankful DBMM is now at v2 (I assume you'll be using that) as v1 was even more woefully written. Be prepared to give it a few games because of this – it is complex and you'll miss much to begin with (as with any complex rule set).

Your armies suit DBMM as its strengths are based very much in the classical period in the Graeco-Roman world (this is after all Phil's area of strength). IMO it falls apart quite badly outside that as an historical representation – of course if that side of things isn't so important to you then it won't be an issue.

A big plus compared to DBM is that many of the geometric silliness from that game has been legislated away (although some of the rules doing so need a close reading to get right) – although a few new oddities have crept in but I don't think they are as bad as the worst of the DBM ones.

Ultimately it will come down to how much you like the DBx model IMO – liking rules is subjective, but if the DBx model doesn't ring your bell it just won't work.

Best of luck – hope you and your mate can find something you both enjoy.

No reason why you shouldn't give the set a go. As most people have said, DBMM has dealt with most of your points about DBM, except from #5 (though I'd argue DBMM is better written than DBM. Just not as good as it could have been).

Nik has the best point. Basically, if you don't like the DBx model, then you won't like it. For me I really like DBMM, it gives me fun and interesting games. I've tried other sets (and better written ones) and I keep coming back to it.

Not wanting to buy the rules cold is reasonable. There are a number of things you can download that can help you. There are a lot of resources on the DBMM yahoo group. For example I'd recommend you download the QRS from this site;

dbmm.org.uk

Martin has got some usefull PDFs, you can find them here;

link

This is an excellent summary of the set-up procedure

link

And you can get the "Re-phrased DBMM2.0 Combat Results Table v01.1.pdf" off the DBMM Yahoo Group, but you will need to join first.

With the QRS, the re-phrased combat results and the set-up summary off Tagmata, you should be able to follow most of the game with your friend, without having to grab his copy from him all the time.

Hope I've helped.

Cheers,
JohnG

I don't agree with Nik's comment about the weakness of non classical battle representations, DBMM works well also in dark age and renaissance settings.
Apart this, my suggestion is always to give a try to a ruleset. You could find something you really like.
Rgds
Lorenzo

tagmata.it

Thanks for the latest comments. In all fairness I'm not looking to change from FoG which I'm quite happy with as I prefer, for one thing, the differentiation of troop types etc. I do hope though that v2 takes some of the drudgery and mechanical grind out as at times it gets a bit tiresome. I hope the index is better too!!! The game is VERY popular and is easy to find an opponent for. This is very much a case of I have an invite for a game and am happy to oblige, just a little put off by the fact that it's using a rule set I don't own/know. and that that rule set happens to be a DBx set, with all the problems associated with its writing style.

Of course whether you like a game is subjective but I find it is always useful to ask for people's opionons as the reasons they like/dislike a set may strike a chord, esp if they have played and you haven't. Others take a different approach to choosing a rule set, matter for them. My decision, my choice of how I approach it.

I never really played DBM much but own it, read it, watched it and was never that struck, albeit that was as much down to the pain of reading/learning the rules as much as anything else. It did always seem more of a game to me though, but once you take a dislike to something it can be hard to shake.

I suppose I'd be happier to try it if it was Impetus or something, it's just the dread of learning that puts me off. Not exactly the kind of thing I can buy now and be up to speed with in 2-3 days I suspect!!!!

It is rare to get a "quick kill" in FoG. It takes some getting used to in this regard. BUT, IMO, you see units on the table and the level of abstraction with one stand being a "unit" was a turnoff to me and the DBX games. I like seeing units disrupt, lose stands, etc.

They are not units in FOG, they are battle groups! Lol! We had a big discussion about this on the SoA group. I'm with you though it does feel like you are playing with units in FOG, hence the 70's WRG 6th retro feel.

I actually quite like the BG concept, it does seem to feel more like units who are equipped and fight in a similar way being grouped and fielded appropriately rather than the whatever you like wherever you like that some sets will allow. I always felt that while that may suit some RULE tactics, it perhaps fails to represent historical tactics so well.

I prefer a much more historical approach and is all honesty will not play ahistorical match ups. If the match up is SLIGHTly out, maybe, but no Teutonic Knights v Carthaginian etc.

I suppose I'd be happier to try it if it was Impetus or something, it's just the dread of learning that puts me off. Not exactly the kind of thing I can buy now and be up to speed with in 2-3 days I suspect!!!!

Really? You can learn FoG and can't learn Impetus? Impetus is an easy game to learn. Start with the free version and play a few games. If you like it, purchase the full version. Not too much difference between the two on a basic level. The advanced game adds troop discipline for evading as well as for reacting to the enemy moves.

John

Funny John but I took Empgamer's comment exactly opposite to what you understood. I saw his dread at learning new rules specifically related to trying to understand DBMM or more specifically understanding Barkerese.

As an aside, I would highly recommend Impetus. It produces a very fun and historically satisfying game and is superior to both rules sets in question (IMHO!)

And while John makes some good points about Basic Impetus for me the full game is so much better that I would invest in the full version.

I have not played FoG so I won't compare. In DBMM real world tactics work, play your troops that way and you should do fine.

Yeah, not quite sure how that got confused?? MB is right. To clarify, I have and understand FoG, also Impetus (full), and Crusader for that matter. Impetus was a relatively new set for me but picked it up very easily. The same will not be sure of DBMM I'm sure, hence a bot of a sense of dread :-(

A certain sense of dread is in order when approaching FoG or DBM(M). I would just stear clear of it and try something simpler. Armati or, indeed, Impetus might be a good choice.

For the topic: I believe I would prefer DBMM to FoG, mostly because of the slightly quicker play and the charts actually being less intimidating.

I have played DBMM, FOG and impetus

Fog I like to checkers, DBMM chess and impetus poker

Impetus I found is very clever in the need to plan, organize and press in. Not suitable for those who plan the game before hand which seems to be the case in FOG.

DBMM my main opponent and I have over 100 25/28 armies between us. WE just turn up with a random armies and have had some super games.

FOG we could never get gauls to beat Romans.

Funny John but I took Empgamer's comment exactly opposite to what you understood.

Yeah. After your comment I re-read the post. Not sure how I screwed that one up. Learning Impetus: I'd still recommend giving Basic Impetus a try before buying. Some folks are just more interested in complex game mechanics.

Ming, I'd compare Impetus to Backgammon. The better player wins more games over the long haul but in any given contest even inferior players can win. Which seems to me to be true of ancient warfare.

Armati is one of the best written rules I've ever played but it is very boring.

Funny John but I took Empgamer's comment exactly opposite to what you understood. I saw his dread at learning new rules specifically related to trying to understand DBMM or more specifically understanding Barkerese.

I have always found that my experiences with WRG rules have helped me read legal documents – and on one occassion that really mattered, how HM Pollution Inspectorate handled licenses, loophole found and used.

I have always found that my experiences with WRG rules have helped me read legal documents – and on one occassion that really mattered, how HM Pollution Inspectorate handled licenses, loophole found and used.

Have I read this correctly? The inference is that you found a loophole in the pollution license system and used it to pollute the environment. I hope this wrong as it's nothing to be proud of. Do tell me this is wrong.

--
Martin Stephenson
blog.vexillia.me.uk
amazon.co.uk/shops/vexillia
twitter.com/vexillia

i suspect he found that the legislation did not apply to him, but getting a council jobsworth to agree to it would be a problem without specific reference to why it did not apply. Its the world of the tick box checklist, not reasoned evaluation.

From my own experience of enviromental works, at least 50% of it is inappropriately done, often with an enviromentally detrimental impact or is protecting something from a non-existant threat while introducing a much bigger threat to something else. It gets really interesting when you get two bodies arguing for exactly the opposite thing. Hence, It helps to read the legislation

A good question Martin.

I would say that if your friend wants you to play you should give it a go. I would not dash out and buy the rules though until you have tried it and decided if you like it.

DBMM has 'removed' some of the geometrical issues but there is still a lot of precise placing that can do unexpected things. What it cannot do is stop troops getting into contact which is a good thing.

Having played a LOT of games of DBM I was very excited about the prospect of a new fresh version of the game I loved. Sadly in my case DBMM did not deliver anything that I really wanted. There are plenty of people who really like DBMM but as an ardent DBM fan it did not do it for me. As you didn't like DBM then perhaps the changes made will mean that you will like it.

I am still a firm believer that someone who knows the game will win any DBx battle against someone who doesn't know the game regardless of the relative level of historical tactical knowledge. The whole DBx system IMO rewards good gameplay but I now have realised that good gameplay and good wargaming are not the same thing.

'The whole DBx system IMO rewards good gameplay but I now have realised that good gameplay and good wargaming are not the same thing."

Well said, Hammy. That was essentially my feeling with rules written in the ancient Barkerese, but in his defense, I often feel this way about many Ancient rulesets that I try. I suspect it has something to do with the very tournament based nature of ancient wargaming in many locales, but that's merely a guess on my part.

-A.

but I now have realised that good gameplay and good wargaming are not the same thing.

Better late than never, I guess.

I'm the inexperienced Ancients gamer in my club. My introduction to it was a few games of DBA, followed by a couple of DBM, one of Strategos and then a couple of Vis Bellica.

DBA felt too small.
DBM was much more fun to play for me – until you hit a complicated bit and suddenly two small actions took 15minutes to go through – however this never happened more than once a game, was generally something clearly weird or situational so unlikely to happen again. It was irritating in that it happened but good that there was a resolution method.
Strategos was unusual but was fun.
I have to say Vis Bellica was a great game to play but I saw a limitation on being able to use it with my figures due to basing, but really it did what I wanted in a game.

I went and got me Commands and COlours and love it.

THen along came DBMM – which our experienced ancients player played for a week or two and then pretty much ditched. They were universal in their dislike but very, well, arcane in their reasoning – by which I mean they gave long detailed heartfelt reasons for my dislike that were buried in technicalities which totally went over my head. It lasted such a short period of time I never bought the rules and never got a handle on it to see why it was so different from DBM – the games I participated in felt the same. I suspect my lack of familiarity with DBx specifically and Ancients in general meant I had no expectations or re-learning to so

Along came FoG. Played it. Followed it, loved it, actually went and bought an army – Maccabeans. In long standing wargaming tradition, its currently only basecoated in the pile of lead. It introduced me to pouring over pictures of figures to make my bases and army. Fog was the only Ancients played for more than a year.

Then I read Impetus, not played it yet but my reading of basic impetus made me feel I could play the game although it left me feeling that I would have a lot to learn to play it well – that's attractive to me – I like stronger learning curves in gameplay compared to rulesets.

FoG still dominates but DBMM reappeared recently, amongst the same players who were very negative with it, Justified and Ancients was played.

So I have come away with the impression that having an army is important and so portability of basing is the core of it.
Rules come and go and beyond rules that are broken they each have their own features that will attract and repel the one thing that is constant is that I enjoy gaming with my clubmates, so so long as I have lead to put down thats more important than exactly which rulers we are using today.

I'd say play DBMM with your inviter because its the aim of the invite but just arrange a FoG rematch for another day.

I plan to give it a shot but haven't opted to purchase. People complain about the expense of FoG and all its books. Full set of DBMM will set you back £75.00 GBP though.

am still a firm believer that someone who knows the game will win any DBx battle against someone who doesn't know the game regardless of the relative level of historical tactical knowledge. The whole DBx system IMO rewards good gameplay but I now have realised that good gameplay and good wargaming are not the same thing.

Whereas a rules novice with better tactical sense can do embarrassingly well in FOG, or Impetus.

I'd compare DBMM to a King Tiger – impressive, covers a lot of ground, but the engine has a hard time carrying the weight (the engine being the system pioneered in DBA). I loved DBM once, until the revisions wore me out. I have played some DBMM and it is fun (with someone else to navigate the rules and explain what's pertinent), but prefer FOG for a sizable battle and Impetus (Basic, or slightly enhanced Basic) for DBA-scale battles.

Full Impetus (coincidentally) parallels FOG in a lot of areas, but the combat mechanism is quite different and though it has some nice aspects doesn't allow the discrimination among troop types and situations inherent in the multi-layered POA-based FOG combat system.

DBMM2 has gotten my group back into ancients. The main thing is to have a good time.

The best thing about our national championships this year (Cancon) was a lot of people back playing ancients DBMM2, FOG and DBA. Great to see.

Full set of DBMM will set you back £75.00 GBP GBP though.

That's quite a lot cheaper than a full set of FoG though and the DBMM lists have been extensively revised. FoG lists appear to be based on the old DBM lists.

"the DBMM lists have been extensively revised. FoG lists appear to be based on the old DBM lists."

Presumably the DBMM lists are also based on the old DBM lists ? Otherwise what have they been "revised" from ?

Presumably the DBMM lists are also based on the old DBM lists ? Otherwise what have they been "revised" from ?

Sorry badly worded. Based on as in very, very close to. The new DBMM lists are in some cases quite changed from the old DBM lists in the light of new information. Comparing the DBM and FOG lists I reckon you could construct the the FOG lists most of the time by simply transposing the DBM list into FOG terms.

I tried to love DBwhatever, honest I did. I really gave them a good go. All of what you wrote is true. Plus DBetc seems to attract the more anally retentive beardy wargamer who like to play competitions….. (ducks quickly)

I visited a show recently and noticed that all the DBM players were looking really really serious and glum. And all the Warhammer AB guys were having a whale of a time. So instead of DBMM I went into WAB, and it was great for the first few armies I built up, then the terrible integration of the various editions of supplements just got to me. I remember looking for an elephant rule somewhere, and couldnt be sure if it was in the original main rule set, in the mods, in the Indian book, or somewhere else. gave up until they get something that is at least of modest standard of document organisation and all the 'chrome' rules gathered together for common perusal!! (.. Also the shooting: morale rules are diabolical – half your unit disappears to shooting and you just shrug it off and keep moving!!)

I actually went back to DBA, and although I hate DBM etc DBA is really a very good game, and wont have you getting a Phd in Wargaming to learn.

So I do play DBA. I also, eventually, returned to a set I was surprised to like after 20+ years – WRG 6th. They are back in print, and well worth a go. I use those for 25mm games. The other set Im about to try is Warmaster Ancients for 15mm, but havent got there yet!