 Editor in Chief Bill   | 26 Jul 2018 6:37 p.m. PST |
platypus01au once wrote: It is a not true that DBMM can only be used in tournaments. It is far better when used with historical opponents. Do you agree? |
| YogiBearMinis | 26 Jul 2018 6:42 p.m. PST |
All of the DBx rules are better against historical opponents. The bad rep they have with some gamers is from their use in tournaments against ahistorical opponents. |
| McWong73 | 26 Jul 2018 7:53 p.m. PST |
Arguably a truism for all popular competitive play rules sets for historical gaming. |
 Bobgnar  | 26 Jul 2018 9:35 p.m. PST |
The question should be can DBMM be used for large historical scenario games, with multiple players? Tournaments can be played with historical opponents. I have not done DBMM, but have run many DBA games with matched historical pairs. Has anyone done this with DBMM. It requires players to have two matched enemy armies. Maybe not so easy with a big game. DBA is also excellent for doing large historical scenario games. I have done these with 5-6 armies and players on a side. |
| langobard | 27 Jul 2018 2:40 a.m. PST |
I confess I simply prefer historical pairs for historical games. For whatever reason Arthurian Brits vs Samurai would make a great game of HoTT, but I wouldn't bother setting up a DBMM game. It is simply a personal prejudice (and therefore completely unreasonable on my part), but I find 'fantasy' rules work better on what seems to me to be fantasy encounters while historical rules seem (to me) to work better between armies that actually fought each other. |
| platypus01au | 27 Jul 2018 4:18 a.m. PST |
Bob asked; The question should be can DBMM be used for large historical scenario games, with multiple players? Absolutely. In Canberra we have played many of these. I've run my Clontarf scenario many times, and we have played multi-player historical scenarios over the whole range of history and continents. These have been the best times I've ever had wargaming. It fact, I'd say that DBMM plays even *better* as a multi-player scenario ruleset. Cheers,
JohnG |
| YogiBearMinis | 27 Jul 2018 5:50 a.m. PST |
Arguably a truism for all popular competitive play rules sets for historical gaming DBx gets by far the most flack for this. The majority of complaints I see posted about the set(s) relate to ahistorical matchups. Part of that is a predilection for DBx players actually to PLAY many ahistorical matchups, but I still constantly see comments suggesting Set A is better than DBx because it is designed for historical play. DBx WAS designed for historical play, it is just that the mechanisms allow for ahistorical play (with likely ahistorical results). |
| LorenzoMele | 27 Jul 2018 8:03 a.m. PST |
I agree.I played many campaigns and historical battles, and it works well. |
| Thomas Thomas | 27 Jul 2018 10:41 a.m. PST |
At home we play exclusively historical or at most fantistorical match ups (from the same fantasy world). But in tournaments everyone brings their favorite army from whatever period so non-historical match ups are inevitable (if you want to built a Samurai army – how many historical match ups are you going to get?) That DBX can do a reasonable job of pitting Marian Romans against English Yeoman archers is to its credit not determent. That said as I've always found DBMM much too complex for general use in campaigns, historical battles or just pick up games I developed a medieval specific version of DBX mechanics A Game of Knights & Knaves just for this purpose (and to have a very simple human readable intro game to match the approach of 1 hour Wargames). Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games |
| Benvartok | 27 Jul 2018 1:42 p.m. PST |
Either historical or not DBMM 2.1 is working very well! Pitted my Vikings against other Vikings and my Norman's against Bretons recently, very good games. Crusaders took on new kingdom Egyptians and that also worked. Next weekend the Vikings will head to Wellington for a tournament. There will be mostly ahistorical matches – seluclid, samurai, Florentine biscuit, more seluclids….. |
| Swampster | 30 Jul 2018 1:46 a.m. PST |
I've taken part in a number of the Society of Ancients battles using DBMM. The games have been IMHO even better than when playing fixed point games. Most of the games have been about double the size of a typical competition game and had around 3 or 4 players on each side. The disadvantage for multiplayer games is if you are the commander of a reserve or always get the lowest command points. But that is a feature of historical and multiplayer games rather than a failing of DBMM.
I have played historical games which don't have a limiting command system and there is a tendency for the attacker to throw everything forward at once, which can result in a very different battle to the reality. |
| TodCreasey | 30 Jul 2018 9:04 a.m. PST |
We do this all of the time – it is our default Ancients ruleset for 15mm (the basing is impossible for 28mm) and with matched pairs you are using far less of the rules as well. |
| Thomas Thomas | 30 Jul 2018 1:43 p.m. PST |
I've made standard DBX basing work for 28mm. Modern Perry's come with 60X45 which is legal for modern DBX (not sure about DBMM which may have clung to the old 40mm depth). Foot a bit of a tight fit but I've gotten it to work (even with GW figures). For examples go to DBA/HOTT Facebook as I post pictures there. You can always do the one less figure trick. Thomas J. Thomas
Fame & Glory Games |
