"DBM 2, DBM 3 vs. DBMM 1 through 2.1" Topic

As DBM was a bit before my time, I always wondered what the differences were between these two rules. I guess Phil thought they could be improved and I have had nice games with DBMM and now with 2.1 I think they have reached their zenith. Still, part of me wonders what could have been and after reading some sentiment about the schism which seemed to take place around 2000 with the coming of DBM 3, I wonder how DBM is as a game relative to DBMM. I already know that it didn't use stratagems or brilliant generals or the turn based modifiers. I guess people really liked DBM 2 and when 3 arrived it may have struck a negative vibe with tournament players. I have never been a tournament player so perhaps Phil was trying to make the simulation more historical with 3.0 and then branched off into DBMM.

Sorry for duplicate post!

I guess people really liked DBM 2 and when 3 arrived it may have struck a negative vibe with tournament players. I have never been a tournament player so perhaps Phil was trying to make the simulation more historical with 3.0 and then branched off into DBMM

In my experience there has never been a contradiction between 'more historical' and 'tournament players' (a concept which seems to have some currency amongst enthusiasts who don't actually play in tournaments). Despite some glitches and some issues of clarity, DBM remained popular for a very long time, but players increasingly wanted something different. For many players, that something was Field of Glory.

But mostly what happened was diversification. And desk top publishing etc. etc. We have many more choices today than when DBM was the big kid on the block.

For what it's worth, having played most of them, and been through most of the DBM cycle, my ancients game of choice is V3 of DBA.

Phil
Ancients on the Move

Phil, honored to receive a response. I just want to let you know my book shelves are full of "the latest rules" most of which fade after a few tries. The ones that don't acquire dust are the DBA, DBMM, and DBR publications. Timeless; and the 4 DBMM army list books are worth their weight in gold. To get that much information on armies of that stretch of time would take several serious academics a lifetime and many volumes.

I'll take your advice and have a go setting up my Italian themed campaigns from the start of John Julius Norwich's "Normans In Italy" circa 1050 through to the days of Barbarossa, Communal battles, Condotierre, The Italian Wars using DBA 3. If I want tables full of troops I'll use the "Big Battles" option:)

I'm still trying to figure out how to get units of Pike and Shot and battalia's in checker board formation that resemble period engravings to work in DBR, but don't plant to quit trying anytime soon!

Finally, I agree that much is due to the age of fragmentation in which we live. I'm not yet convinced we're richer for all this illusion of choice but not to be negative.

I'll take your advice and have a go setting up my Italian themed campaigns from the start of John Julius Norwich's "Normans In Italy" circa 1050 through to the days of Barbarossa, Communal battles, Condotierre, The Italian Wars using DBA 3. If I want tables full of troops I'll use the "Big Battles" option:)

I wasn't really offering advice – just indicating where my own journey through all these options has led me (for now) …

… but I think BBDBA would be agood choice (it gets less 'press' than it deserves). For the period, ADLG seems to work well also.

Phil

We played DBM 1.1 through 3.0 regularly every month, but didn't make the switch to DBMM and eventually moved over to DBA 2.2, the. 2.2+, now 3.0. We are very happy just playing DBA, and play BBDBA when we want more of a visual spectacle. The days of wanting 3+ hour games is now past.

I still prefer DBM when playing ancients. I feel it gives more options while not being too complicated.

Phil always said that he had simulation uppermost in the games he designed. The creation of DBMM and the abandonment of DBM was more to do with him being convinced that there were other mechanisms that he thought produced a better, more accurate game than there were in DBM. I also believed he was happier designing new mechanisms than the step-wise iterations of DBM 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2, 2.1, etc, etc; mostly being forced to plug loop-holes exploited by the more cunning tournament players on the UK circuit.

Anyone who has played DBM, DBR, DBA and HFG (Horse, Foot and Guns) can see how many of the mechanisms in these rules ended up in DBMM. However there are big differences in all of them.

I think many people were disapointed with DBMM because it was _more_ complicated than DBM. IMO there always was a sweet-spot for a set of rules that was between DBA and DBM. Both BBDBA and ADLG seem to fill that spot, which explains the popularity of both sets.

However I prefer DBMM because of the complications. My usual descripion is that DBMM is a game with which you can have a battle between two armies, at night, in winter, in a blizzard, on a frozen lake. The rules cater for this straight out of the box, which is rare. But if you just want to slam two armies together on a open plain, you can do that too. I'm happy wih them.

Cheers,
JohnG

It's nice to hear the views of more experienced gamers in this area. I found a copy of the 2nd ed. of DBM on ebay and got it just for reference. I do have to say I like the scaling of around 200 to 250 infantry per element in DBMM vs. the more grand tactical approach of the scaling of DBA.

Wealdmaster,
Scaling is somewhat arbitrary in games like this using stands and elements.

A stand of figures represents a maneuver unit and a proportion of the armies fighting strength.

For example if using an army from the classical period you might have one stand is thousands of men, from the dark ages one stand might be hundreds.

So if you are playing any element based system how many guys per stand is relative to how many stands you choose to put on the table. I played both DBM and DBA before switching to Triumph. I found DBM had a lot more gloss but did not necessarily give a "better" game. If you want less "grand Tactical" scaling out of DBA, use more elements and play triple sized armies what DBA players call BBDBA (big battle DBA).

I find some of my most enjoyable Triumph games are playing with 144 point (or triple sized armies), I can play the same battles with smaller armies, but it definitely looks better in the larger scale.

Also, DBM players are few and far between these days, in the UK I think DBMM is going pretty strong, both have sort of died out in the US. So it also depends on your local group.

For example this is Qadesh with 4 commands per side or 192 points in Triumph.

We also ran this as a 48 point two player game as one of the scenarios at Historicon. So each player had 12-18 stands of figures to represent the two sides. An Egyptian sub command had a stand of chariots in stead of 4 stands.

Same game just different zoom level on the battlefield.

It doesn't matter so much how many men per stand, it's the number of maneuver elements in the army that changes the feel of the game.

Horses for courses I suppose. I've not played much DBA (and only after playing DBM) so for me, it has always seemed to lack something. For me, troop grades (S, O, I, F, X) add a lot to the game and I was never one of those people who wanted to ditch weather or other variables. So DBMM for me was a simple choice and although I don't get to play much now, I don't remember a game that wasn't fun, and didn't have something unexpected and interesting crop up, making for a great "story". I'm not going to try to talk anyone out of their preferred set but DBMM works for me.
Cheers,
John

To answer the OP question MM was basically DBM that went a different direction than the previous editions.

For me I liked DBM , got into it towards the end there and still play now. Once the authors wanted to go separate ways , one assumes they disagreed – but I don't know that, you can see who wanted what in the next version of DBM hence we all got FOG and MM, both radically different from each other.

For me I didn't like either. DBM at the end there all the tournament tigers knew the answers at deployment and or which armies were used, so no real surprises any more basically for people.

MM is still big in the U.K. , used to be in the US here, even had one guy tell me how elegant MM was and why didn't more people play it, and that I was ‘rabidly biased against MM' . I just didn't like it that's all. Last year I was asked to fill in for someone in a team tournament, with same the same person, at an ADLG event ,

It's all what you prefer and who plays what around you. DBA 3 is to DBA2 as DBM is to MM I think. I personally have never been keen on DBA due to it being 12 elements v 12 elements or any multiples of that ( 24v24 or 36v36 ), you don't get a Gallic army bigger than the historical Roman armies- but that's just me.

Also with the advent of the internet, getting rules out there is a lot easier today. With that being said I believe the main game of the day now is ADLG.

I play both DBM and ADLG and if I have time also the Triumph! (done a few demo games I throughly enjoyed ). So am not sure one can say which rule set is better, historical or popular where ever someone is.

Some of the issues with DBA/DBM also encompass what sort of games people play and reflect those choices rather than the merits of the rules themselves. Ancients/medieval players often have a penchant for making ahistorical matchups even if not tournament players. A simpler set like DBA can work for that because the inherent troop types may be different, while if you play games in-period then the duplicative nature of troop types means that you likely need more granular distinctions to provide flavor.

For example, if you play Roman legions against medieval knights or late medieval Indian armies, you may not feel the need for granular distinctions because legionnaires and knights and elephants and peasant infantry are all so different. But if a medieval French army squares off against a medieval Burgundian force, you would want to distinguish between more impetuous or more brittle troops of the same general type.

We play DBA now for the most part, but if I ever started focusing games on a single period then I would likely want to reintroduce Superior, Inferior, Irregular, Regular, etc., and start playing DBM or DBMM even if with lesser points than the standard.

You make great points on the need for granularity between similar armies in the same period. "Dark Ages" armies are about the worst for this. I really like the unique double basing options in DBx for pavisiers, special Knights, etc. For me the only downsides to any DBx system are single rank bases which look a little thin/understaffed to me but this can be fixed by an alternative basing sytem of which many options exist. The other thing that comes into play later starting with the Italian wars is trying to make a battlefield of actual units rather than just lines of elements. Pike and Shot formations for example. Not as easy to fix. I'm learning a lot from some of these posts. Many years experience here…. Recently Slingshot had a really neat idea to eliminate any wheeling and keep all infantry straight after combat and he backed it up with very believable primary sources on how the Greek units if drilled actually wheeled. Greek and Roman units would be able to wheel 90 degrees only, no more wheeling until the 16th century! Wow, now that would change the feel and look of many a battle!

After a gap of several years i am begining to get back into ancients. A quick question, I have DBMM v2.0 and wanted to know if the basing had changed in any manner. Or specifically, if my forces are based for DBMM 2.0, will they be ok with DBMM v2.1.

I assume yes, but these days it best never to assume.

I will probably pick up a copy of v2.1 and put it next to my copy of 2.0 and 1.0 and DBM v3.0, I suppose i better get the new army lists as well as I only have the 2007 army lists.

for what it's worth, my group still plays DBM1 with 1/72 plastics on a 6x4 table (though we largely ignore the terrain rules because we mostly play scenarios)

We've looked into MM, and I have the rules, but I can't get into it. Too many exceptions mixed with the difference in ground scale (MM has move values based on 80p rather than 50p) make the rules too different to bother learning.

My experience is the same. Learning DBM was hard enough, i am uncertain what the real benefits with DBMM are, however the army lists are different. I will pick up the latest DBMM army lists when i get a chance.

In my opinion DBMM is a brilliant set of rules. Basing has remained the same. You will find that there are still some people who see any mention of it as their cue to jump in and disparage it. If you are interested give it a go. The learning curve is high – the rules are in Barkerese, that some people don't like, but in my opinion they're worth the effort. In the end it's your call. And that of your potential opponents . . .

There's a list at dbmmlist@groups.io that you could join to ask any questions or seek advice.

Where are you based?

Cheers,
John

For what it's worth, this thread, especially Erzherzog Johann's last comment have got me reading DBMM, and I see the value in some of the changes and the exceptions. Of particular note is the "spent" combat outcome. A common complaint of DBX is that in historical match ups some units tend to just hang around too long. This seems to address that complaint.
I think I might give it a spin and report back

aapch45
Rules are a very personal thing, but at the same time what others are playing is a factor. I have some real disagreements with ADLG but they are less significant than the enjoyment of getting a game. It's still fun despite my reservations, but I much prefer playing DBMM and have found that a few of the ADLG players at my club are keen for a game. I predict we'll end up playing both because there are some great people there who aren't interested and, to be honest, I think would find the back down too hard to bear . . .

I'm on the DBMM groups.io list and I'll grizzle about aspects of the rules with the best of them. But I can honestly say that I've never had a dud game.
The player group is aware of the barrier created by the writing style so we tend to advocate buddying with a more experienced player to learn it if that's possible but if it isn't (or even if it is!), I do recommend joining the dbmmlist@groups.io list or the FB DBMM rules group. Also there's a clarifications document that, while unofficial, is widely used. It's readily available as an aide. Also, feel free to ask me anything you like.

I hope this isn't too off-putting! I hope you love the rules.

Cheers,
John

In my opinion DBMM is a brilliant set of rules.

I have DBMM and have studied it and am very familiar with Barkerise. I will give it a more serious go one day. My main issue right now is getting new players to get into the hobby. I am getting some traction with rules such as Lost battles, but i have decided to rebase my ancients and that will go on the back burner for a few months. This was the reason for my original post. I created a video on basing ancients using DBM basing (or DBx I suppose). youtu.be/PRz8aVYkRiY

One thing that i am considering is Philip Sabines LEGION, using figures. The hexes turns me off, but i suspect it will be a winner for new players. But for experienced game i will probably gravitate towards DBM/DBMM, based on what other players are using. I have no interest in teaching anyone those rules – too hard – so i need players who already know the rules.

I understand the reasoning behind grids (whether hex or square) but I agree with you about them. They don't appeal to me either.

All the best with getting more players into the period.

Cheers,
John