That's a better link – although I'm sure Pete Berry didn't mind the free advertising!
Looks like even a small game seems to have played enjoyably, which is a positive sign for most rules. I have played a lot of DBR, but only in the TYW, Huguenot Wars and Venetian/Turkish wars. I've also played the old version of Polemos GNW and much more recently the Napoleonic set.
I liked the GNW rules. Wasn't too keen on the Napoleonic set (the divisional level; I understand the Corps level plays better?).
So I can't really compare the two sets like you are asking about. One of these we'll get around to painting up some ECW; there have been constant threats made around the club to that effect over the years.
DBR isn't a bad set of rules at all, although it may suffer from trying to do too much by covering the entire world from the introduction of gunpowder handguns to the bayonet. It's a bit fiddly when it comes to combat. You've really got to pay careful attention to the combat modifiers.
That said, we've always enjoyed our DBR games, so I guess that says something!
"Stuart Asquith's view that the best place for an army list is to prop up a wonky table-leg"
I've never heard that quote, but I love it!! We were just discussing that issue, in reference to the new Aurelian set from Mustafa. Prof Mustafa commented on the almost complete lack of any evidence about Palmyran military organization, and yet we have detailed army lists about an extremely short lived breakaway state.
worries about not losing his rules stuff.
