"DBN and Horse, Foot and Guns" Topic

What is the difference between these two sets of rules? Is DBN perhaps a mod of DBA and published by someone other than WRG or Phil Barker and HFG the set by Phil Barker?
If so, what is the differences in the rules? Which one is better? (obviously subjective)
What are pros and cons of each? Can't seem to find anything on the web comparing the two.

Yes. Completely different authors. DBN are just Napoleonic wars. HFG were done by Phil Barker, but he never finished them, and probably never will. There was, or are, a group of playtesters that might still be trying to develop it. Haven't heard much lately about that.

HFG also covers the entire black powder period, right up to 1915 if memory serves.

Others may disagree, but I think HFG was too ambitious, attempting to cover too long a span of time, and the entire globe's wars. When we tried it for Napoleonics it just seemed too bland. No real interaction between the holy Napoleonic Trinity of, well, horse foot and guns.

Just my two cents, but I'd prefer playing DBN.

Agree with Tony. Have and will continue to play DBN.

I'm not sure of the intricacies here, but I thought Barker/WRG had finally released/published Horse, Foot and Guns. You can buy version 1.1 on Lulu, and a 2.0 is supposedly in the works.

link

Both are fun for different reasons. DBN with its step reduction is a fun game with a ton of Napoleonic flavor, but isn't much good for recreating battles. HF&GS has less flavor, but is better for recreating battles.

I find HFG better actually for ACW and SYW. 1859 and 1866 are quite fun as well. FPW sees the game break down for reasons I won't go into here. Phil before his retirement wanted to extend it to 1914, but never really fixed the issues with the later periods(time/scale issues).

Both HFGs and DBN are cheap. Buy both. If you prefer DBN for Napoleonics, then you still have HFGs for ACW and earlier.

Joe Collins

DBN is similar to DBA, & has the same combat results (recoil, flee, destroyed). However, the newer version (2.1) has an optional attrition system where each element takes "hits," a unit becoming shaken after 2 hits and destroyed after 3.

HFG, while having DBx mechanics, has a lot of differences with DBA and many new combat results (rout, repulsed, disabled, silenced, spent, etc.). Cavalry can break through infantry, pursue defeated enemy cavalry, and fight a second combat. Artillery can be used to provide rear support for infantry & cavalry (up to 4 elements) or fight as a single grand battery.

The main problem with HFG is the lack of a QRS and since the game covers such a long period, there are many things in the rules that may not be relevant to the period you are playing. I made up my own QRS for just Napoleonics, which is helpful by eliminating any references to non-Napoleonic periods. The HFG Yahoo group may have some other QRS's.

I recommend you play both & see which one you prefer.

Here are two links to my blog with articles on our HFG games:

link
link

I enjoy HF&G, but only use it for WSS and SYW.

FPW sees the game break down for reasons I won't go into here.

Intrigued. Do tell!

I've played a lot of HFG over the years, mainly Napoleonics, APW and FPW. For 1914 it is OK, but suffers from similar problems to the V&B 1914 variant, it is just a bit creaky.

I did have a look at DBN, it just seems to be DBA for Napoleonics (and as such, bears considerable similarities to HoTT).

DBN works just fine for battles. Big Battle DBN gives plenty of latitude for setting orders of battle.

I'll be honest. I misread this….

My project after next is DBN Horse Artillery. I meant Dutch Belgian Netherlands, for DBN, however.

The Perry Figures arrived today. Bit of conversion needed. They are well cast….

Attalus -- thanks for posting the links.