"DBMM more interesting and deeper than FOG?" Topic

Having played 7th Edition, DBA, DBM, WAB, FOG and DBMM a few comments:

First, though I play in lots of tournaments, my main interest is in historical battles set in the middle ages and games that can represent such battles but with a minimum of rule fuss.

DBM was the first set where general historcial knowledge was more important than knowing rules. I finished 2nd in my first tournament before I'd read the rules (I had played DBA), just using my knowledge of the army I was playing.

Everything worked great until DBM 3.0 but thats another story.

Tried FOG but found it too mechanical and too dependant on the weird "battlegroup" concept. Just did not look or feel like a medieval battle – better for Napolonics perhaps.

DBMM had a much better look and feel but in the first edition was impossibly complex with near inscrutable rules. Nevertheless the system allowed English HYW armies to be fielded and operate as they did historically so that was a big plus. Spent a fairly frustrating year trying to get the author to improve rule organization from his stream of conciousness approach and reduce complexity.

Eventually he did produce a much superior v2 (be aware that much of the negative buzz around DBMM comes from v1) though it was not all one might have hoped it was a big improvement. Bear in mind that many "insiders" tried to convince the author that there was no need of a second edition let alone that dynamic improvement was needed. To his credit Mr. Barker did listen to some minority reports and though he did in the end withdraw behind a palace guard, a much better version did emerge. I'm always amazed at how fiercly players will guard some slight adavntage for a favored troop type regardless of the playablility costs.

While the rules are a plough, stick with it and you will be rewarded by one of the best games for recreating medieval battle around. The rules are underwritten and overwrought but actual play is great. (Learning from an experienced player can ease the transition but thats no excuse for not improving rule presentation.)

Like healthy eating, its hard at first but well worth the effort.

TomT

TomT

Hi

Dbmm = Chess
FOG = Draughts (Checkers for our colonial cousins)

Both fine games in their own right but one definately 'deeper' than the other IMHO

:-)

Dbmm = Chess
FOG = Draughts (Checkers for our colonial cousins)

…and, apparently, SGT Steiner=Troll.

Hi Nikator,

I actually think that that represents Sgt Steiner's view – I know him IRL and he enthusiastically plays *both* systems.

rgds
rob

DBM(m)(2)…big long lines across table irrespective of period

Fog…..'played to "bring on the dancing horses" by echo and the bunnymen

Hi Rob

Maybe he has just seen my photo ? :-)

I will try again (although I (stupidly as it turns out) thought original was clear ?) hopefully more nuanced subtle version (ie a bit like Dbmm vs FOG)

FOG = tasty light lunch but leaves gluttons wanting more

Dbmm = full 4 course dinner very satisfying but sometimes hard to digest

"Dbmm = Chess
FOG = Draughts (Checkers for our colonial cousins)"

I have played both and they are very different games.

My view of ancient warfare is based on units battling it out with limited ability to move all over the place, i.e. more like draughts. Some have said here that is its weird to have units, I think a game without units is weird. Each to their own.

DBMM might be a 'deeper game' but for me anyway it doesn't resemble anything like how I would expect a real battle to occur. If deeper means tricky moving and positioning of individual bases then I would agree with the deeper statement.

let the market decide which is the better game, after all if DBMM is the better game it should outsell FOG and all the tournaments will drop FOG for DBMM.

My view of ancient warfare is based on units battling it out with limited ability to move all over the place, i.e. more like draughts.

They are not units in FOG they are battlegroups! And there is not much stopping you moving them all over the place provided you have a general handy!

Hi

"let the market decide which is the better game, after all if DBMM is the better game it should outsell FOG and all the tournaments will drop FOG for DBMM."

I suspect a lot of gamers like myself own and possibly play both sets but don't see that sales and especially tournament status directly correlates as to whether one set is 'deeper or more interesting' (to stick with topic) than the other merely an indication of popularity (and possibly simplicity/playability).

To each their own……………..

Dbmm = full 4 course dinner very satisfying but sometimes hard to digest

Based on our game last weekend it is more like fast food :-)

Hi Nik

DBMM = powerful laxative ?

Indeed rocket propelled elephants against dancing & prancing Knights with nowhere to go !

Of course I can lose nearly as fast in Fog or any other ruleset you care to name :-)

Cheers

Well, I'll get to see to a degree this weekend. I'm not sure how deep and interesting it can get really? Ancient and medieval battles for me were quite simplistic affairs and whilst there were clearly those that were better at deploying the troops and using the tactics of the day, the battles themselves were not so complex.

For my idea of reality it's more around how the troops were trained, equipped, professional or not etc etc and as such it's the rules that provide (albeit some may say overly assumed) this type of granularity that appeal. As such I like WAB and FoG. The DBx series have always appeared too abstract for me and while I suspect there may be a depth to them, is it a meaningful depth or just overly complicated (as opposed to complex) as a result of geometry and mechanisms that to me make it more of a game like chess? Not saying that's how it is but that's how DBx always made me feel. I could never get excited about the prospect of game with DB and may as well have been going to a chess tournament. Personal preference. Like I prefer rugby over football.

There are lots of other games out there that attempt to simplify the whole equation even more, some focussing on different factors that writers see as being important at whatever level the game is pitched (e.g. army, division, corps or battalion to use Napoleonic examples). Some of these though are far less interesting to me given that the army level games all get a bit boring, I feel no period flavour with them and may as well be using blocks of wood on a map.

All a question of tastes and to me it's perhaps not whether a set is better or not. Different rules appeal to people who have different views of what is important and what THEY like to focus on.

IDK, I still miss our old DBM 3.0 games back in the day, still have all my books and will never part with them. Even though I don't play it anymore, I still prefer a good ol' DBM style game over anything else.