"WHY ARE THE DB SYSTEMS POPULAR WHEN THEY ARE SO AWFUL" Topic

"educated beyond their intelligence" Oh boy breaking windows with ginueas. I really do think this is too much-sorry I lit the blue touch paper now..... At least some guys are having the sense to have a good laugh about this- well done the badmash the captain and polynikes but maybe we,ve all been intelligenced beyond our education. to repeat myself lighten up guys slacken the sphincter man....

Seems to me that Zarquon is the only one taking this really seriously...and I'd really like to understand why. Why should he (or you, HairyBeast) care that lots of people like rules that he doesn't? I don't!

As for peace-keeping forces - good idea, but surely including American troops would only make matters worse, as usual...

Oh, dear... well, it's been an interesting thread.

If I could be bothered to hand out prizes for seriousness Both Zaquon and Mr leigh would get a first place tie!!!. It doesn't matter which side of the line you stand on. As for CARING I don't ,but it DID interest me and some others who have posted worthwile stuff from all sides. Sniping at the USA is pointless and impolite. Its time for me to come clean. I'M ENGLISH but spend some considerable time in the USA so perhaps I have a slightly different take on the Yanks- some of mr Leighs posts have made me squirm especially the last. I have found Mr Leighs and Zarquons attitudes arrogant ,patronising and self serving in equal measure- for both sides of the pond assuming Z is a Yank!!
Stop being so serious.
For the record and hopefully finally I'm still not convinced the DBs are good historical miniatures games. I have become convinced that they do however suit a good number of people. Whats more I now know why-which was my objective. I also know why lots of people won't play 'em and I'm pretty near cured of EVER wanting to play competitions EVER.
For a thread that was intended to be both informative and a bit of a laugh most contributors are due my thanks- THANK YOU GUYS. I now know more about the DBs and their players than Idid-maybe too much !!! Some of you have made me maybe want to try 'em again BUT a few of you certainly haven't

Now I really am hurt, being equated with Zarquon. Sorry for my little joke - no offence meant! For the rest, though, nothing wrong with discussing a hobby seriously and as far as I can see I haven't tried to put anyone down (except Zarquon). Perhaps you're the one who needs to lighten up and enjoy the hobby.

HairyBeast -
As you may have noticed, one characteristic of some of the more ardent DBM supporters is that they seem to have a very strong compulsion to get in the 'last word' in a discussion. Since by now everyone seems to agree that there isn't really anything new or useful to be added to this discussion after some 150+ posts, my advice would be to just allow them to do so. Then (well, possibly after someone has relieved their compulsion to get in the 'last word' following my post), this moribund thread can at long last RIP.

How did I miss this party?

There appears to be a side of gaming culture similar to religion at work here. There exists a doctrine (rules), a dogma (why ours are better and more historical), a socially binding group religious experience (the game or tournament), good vs. evil struggle (the battle), a messiah-like figure (the rules author), and a goal of enlightenment or salvation (winning the game or tournament). Discussions around gaming often devolve into which religion is better..whoops, I meant to say rules ;)

I play Ancients and Dark Ages. I currently use Classical Hack and Medieval Warfare...You all must try them. Here, take a free pamphlet, I'll be sending some folks over to your house later to educate you on the rules ;)

Gee, maybe this thread should be the one titled "Oh, What a Lovely War!" :-)

Now, my take on DBA (I have no experience with DBM/R):

Interesting, very simple system. I can see that it offers the opportunity for inexpensive armies, quick set up and play, very balanced forces (too balanced?) and a variety of outcomes.

Having said this, it is *very* poorly written. The language is obscure, the writing is cluttered, and the style is atrocious. Furthermore, the rules' almost vehement insistence on details having no bearing on play leave an impression of inflexibility that leave me cold. But, that too has no bearing on play, so it's a minor nit. (It is also an impression left by the writing style, which may be quite different from the author's actual personality... I mean no criticism of Mr. Barker, whom I have not met.)

The PIP concept is simple, but I don't think it produces realistic command and control results even within the scale of the game, as it has no relationship that I can see to game events or situations.

The "rocks, paper, scissors" aspect, while intriguing, is a little too simplistic in approach and too complex in execution-- reminds me of nested IF-THEN-GOTO loops you find in bad BASIC spaghetti code: too many instructions, too many exceptions. A simpler approach would be to assign combat capabilities and damage/result probabilities to the different elements and let these determine the results when differing elements meet. But that would be a different game...

I also think that there are some oversimplifications of troop types in the game; for example, equating long bows, short bows, and crossbows as tactically equivalent may be convenient but it is hardly realistic or historical.

On the positive side, the vast array of army lists and campaign suggestions is remarkable. They certainly leave the impression of extensive research (although it would *take* extensive research to establish their validity, and who has the time? ;-) ).

Now, one might gather from my post that I have not *played* DBA. True, I have not. And my interest in playing it is limited because of the above points-- and that is a very significant statement. A *good* set of game rules should leave the reader eager to play, with an "I can't wait to try this" attitude. DBA does not do this; it *could*, if the author would submit the rules to reasonable rewrites (or at least editing) by someone more skilled with the written word. It is possible that if I had been introduced to DBA through a playing experience, where someone took me through a game without my reading the rules first, then I might have a different level of interest in the game. But the rules themselves make me only wish to look elsewhere.

I was sitting on the fence reading this heated debate. Ive played DBR and enjoyed it alright but I wish there was another rule set out there our local group would use. I have no great axe to grind either way though.

I was very sympathetic to JohnGraham Leigh's arguments until he wrote this:

****As for peace-keeping forces - good idea, but surely including American troops would only make matters worse, as usual...***

That sorta shot has no business in this discussion IMHO when we are all supposed to be talking 'toy soldiers' and games.

Quite right. I apologise - off-topic and uncalled for.

Hi,

I've recently started playing DBA after acquiring the rules and Bob Beattie's handy commentary. I chose it due to the fact that most of my gaming buddies and I prefer enjoyable, pick-up games that can be completed in half a day at most. I also wanted to try my hand at painting multiple classical era armies in a short amount of time. In these respects, DBA fits the bill for me.

Scope and scale is another reason I like this game. DBA is played at a grand tactical level which I enjoy. There are subtle nuances to the game nonetheless but it is obvious that this is not everyone's cup of tea. Some people prefer games which focus on a different scale of the battle (down to skirmish level). To each his own.

If I ever decide to go to a convention or if my buddies decide to get into another system, I would be very eager to try WAB or any of the other rulesets out there. I most of all play these games to have fun through competition. From what I've read, a good majority of these ancient rules sound fun to me and would enthusiastically try them, given the time.

What I don't think is fair is some of the anti-DBx posters on this string badmouthing the system without having played the game (y'all know who you are.) I have to agree with the points made by Mr. Leigh, who has handled the whole discussion with more tact (other than the peacekeeping wisecrack) than the anti-db'ers. The only experience I have had with anti-anything on this board (yet) has been this string. My first impression is that the anti-DBxers are more cantankerously venemous as a whole.

So for my personal response to the first post of this whole crazy string is: I play DBA bacause it is enjoyable due to the simple elegance of the rules, the fact that a conclusion can be reached in a short amount of time, and the fact that I can delve into all these different eras with the limited amount of time that I can devote to gaming.

JP

I'm greatly releived by teh last 70 or 80 messages on here - for a while before that I was worried that Zarquon might be reaising that it's people that are the problem, not rules, and so he might start hanging out with DB* players - whether they play other sets or not.

Now I feel safe knowing there will always be somewhere where I can avoid him - since IMO he's exactly the sort of person that causes the problems!

I've spent the last five miutes looking back over these posts. Just to clarify my position, I've played DBA/M since they came out. They are not my favourite sets of rules. HB started this thread with some fairly inflammatory language in order to start discussion. That's succeeded - since then all his posts have been reasoned and interesting. Zarquon's first post, apart from his attack on DBX gamers, was also sensible and reasoned. There are only four (I think) comments against DBX from people who have never played it. It only became personal after Bombard's attack on Zarquon (since deleted) which substantiated Zarquon's anti-DBX players comment. JGL's posts contained god arguments, but also attacked Zarquon. Tarzan has now also posted something which actually does nothing except strengthen Zarquon's point about DBX players. I think Mike Lewis answered the original question long ago. From a relative outsiders point of view, the DBX players are slightly ahead on points from the anti-DBX posters, with the DBX partisans way in the rear thanks to gratuitous rudeness. Don't bother attacking me - I'm off on holiday today, and by the time I visit this site again the thread should have dropped off into limbo.

Don't bank on it...

"Don't bank on it...." . Absolutely ;-)

I've played DBM since before it came out (interesting, but true). And have also contributed to the lists (which are the best I've seen) and occasionally commented on the trial rules. The original game was superb and simply written, with simple misunderstandings being sorted out sensibly. The rulesystem was an extremely nice change into abstraction from the detailed math-like nature and model of 7th Ed. And I think it was this essential simplicity which caught gamers imagination, including mine. And it is still this which is the essence of a good thing (see the SG post earlier).

BUT given their use in competitions and massive use the authors have had to rewrite sections to be only capable of being interpreted in a single way, to avoid misunderstandings and advantageous but unwarranted rules-edge-walking, and to try and control the use of super-armies. And this arose because the rules are some of the most well-tested and used sets around: a victim of their own success. It is primarily that, and the competition attitude (I play, not fight), which has put me off using them generally, not the fundamental mechanics and ideas.

DBA and HotT, though, are fun, useful for a quick, game and as an introduction.... even my wife's played HotT.

The systems are sound, and can be developed or specialised to give better in-period flavour and feel: I still use them occasionally but only amongst non-competition friends, and occasionally modify and simplify the rules. IMHO I think it's probably worth separating the systems from the way they are (ab)used. Wouldn't the same be said for WAB if that ended up being used as much in competition than DBM?

boring boring boring boring, you have heard it all before!

As a side note will there be a gang fight by the DBM'ers and Anti DMB'ers at the next con?

DBM'ers seem to be (from what I have seen in the flesh) old and fat, non DMB'ers seem to be young and fat. The old guys will have experience the youngins will have the amphetimine power of V energy drink.

Who will win the grudge match of the heavy brigades?

I for one cant wait to find out.

This is great. I have had more fun reading this flame war than I do watching a comedy. We all should really keep the length of the war going. How about suddenly shifting eras and start bashing over Napoleonic rulesets?

Yes, I did mean if a unit was already engaged to the front. Sorry I did not make that totally clear.

Main point I was trying to make is that there are specific bones of contention, some people are prepared to tolerate them (ie they are happy with the game system) but there are valid points to be made about how DBx does things.

Hey! I'm old and fat but,don't play DBX.

Hmm. The current Canadian DBM champ is not old and fat. In fact, he looks exactly like the Western perception of Christ.

The current British DBM champ is old but slim. The previous champ, just displaced, is young and slim. I previously pointed out that 3 (out of 22) of the DBM players in the last tournament I attended were under 17.

Still, "Scurvy Bartella III" won't want to be bothered by mere facts, even if he stays awake long enough to assimilate them.

So, DBxers are Christ-like now, are they?

They'll be saying WABbers have horns next!

thats why I added (from what I have seen in the flesh) John. I guess that made it fact. Or are you telling me you know what I saw at the con I went to better than I do?

buy yeah this whole thread is moronic in the extreme. So I would say if I ever bothered to read the whole thing I would be asleep.

Those of us who are middle aged and spreading aer yet again left out of all the good fights!! ;)

John Watts I'm not sure how you figure my last post strengthened Zarquon's position - I'll hang out anywhere I can avoid mindless tossers - whether they play DBM or not.

Mindless tossing does not depend on playing a certain rule-set - rather it is somethign that comes from a certain mind set.

Welcome Cold War Soviets – I am hijacking this thread for our Cold War Gone hot discussion.

Clever

THE MAP

Here is a picture of the battlefield. Soviets enter from the east (bottom of the image) while the US/NATO deploys anywhere behind the first (smaller) river. Terrain notes:
<ul

The individual trees in the photos are for effect only and have no effect on game play except the lines of cypress looking trees along a few highway spots do block LOS. The other single trees scattered across the table are just for looks.

Yes very Clever, But can I not just search extra crispy and . . . . . not needed as we will crush the capitalist.

So question is what are our forces.

and Nato does not matter as Soviet we just carry on untill victory.

Indeed.

-what is our order of battle to include off board support?
-Intel on enemy composition and disposition?
-is this a hasty (ie attack from March column) or deliberate attack?
-any possibility for off board movement to flank attack?
-are the rivers foldable? Are both rivers the same?
-what is the effect of the fields, orchards, farm houses, etc?
-day time or night time? Any weather of note?

I'm sure will have more questions based on the responses to these.

Thanks Mark!

Man, I wish people around here played historical wargames.

Is that the cleanest and most effective thread hijack I've seen on TMP? I think so!

What is Barkerese I keep reading about? I know it's something to do with how Mr Baker communicates his explanation of the rules to the players, might this be a difficult read for someone new to the wargaming hobby who only played DBA (and for that matter, any wargame rule set) less than a dozen times a good few years ago?

Thank you

My cat likes Marmite on toast!

@Michael – You've lost me

I`m lost as to why someone would bother to highjack this thread.

However, the fact remains that my cat is very keen on Marmite on toast.

Barkerese(DBA version 2. Combat outcomes):
Psiloi.
"Destroyed by Knights, Cavalry or Camelry in going these count as good. If not, flee."

Hmm. I don't get it. But I also don't like how this old, old, old thread still works, yet our recent one on bows and crossbows got shot in the gut by The Bug. I want justice….

@Michael – thank you for the example

If DBA is so awful, why is it now, and for 25 years, so popular?

Bobgnar, I think you just repeated the OP's question, no?

The statement: WHY IS DBX SO POPULAR WHEN IT IS SO AWFUL – assumes a fact not in evidence (that DBX is awful). Merely shouting a statement (by putting it in all CAPS) does not increase its veracity.

More correctly the question is: Why is DBX so popular when I don't like the rules. A question that no outside observer can answer as we need to know what in the questioners personal background makes this so.

As to my background, I too as a history major (and re-inactor) with a passion for the late medieval period and draw my knowledge from reading sources and the works of current scholars (I can recommend Jonathan Sumption brilliant multi-volume work on the Hundred Years War, Anne Curry's work on Agincourt and Clifford Rogers work on Edward III).

I've played (and still play) a wide variety of ancient/medieval wargames (since WRG 4th) and find on balance the DBX system to be better at portraying late middle age warfare in a playable enough manner that non-specialists can also enjoy (this helps when looking for opponents).

I write mostly to persuade those on the sidelines to not be put off by the tenor of the debate and give the DBX family of games a try.

The reasons for their success:
1) A reasonable command control system based on "PIPs". The system encourages battle lines and limits the CC assets of commanders. The system is apparently random but this reflects the uncertainly of how quickly the enemy responds to your actions and gives a good overall effect over the course of a game. DBA uses the system in its simplest form, DBM and DBMM add additional rules for "regular" armies and brilliant generals.
2) Good representation of the basic troop types used in "muscle power" battles. Troops are represented by function rather than obscure details of method and equipment. As dismounted men at arms and Roman legionaries produced similar effects on contemporary opponents they can be classed the same though they achieved these effects by different methods. This allows a vast array of armies from 3KBC to 1500AD to be represented. So you can fight battles between Caesar and Henry V – allows players to find opponents outside their limited areas of interest. So you get a much wider player pool than just medieval enthusiasts (like me).
3) Good interaction between types of troops. Knowing the historical strengths and weakness of the various troop types is very important (really helps historically oriented players like me). But the system is simple enough that a non-specialist can pick up why Pike work well against mounted knights but not as well v. bow armed Cav etc.
4) Can be used for both historical battles (we call this Big Battle in DBA) and tournaments were "balance" is essential. Do not confuse these methods of play. Historical battles are not balanced. There were for instance lots more French at Agincourt than English. But a lot more Swiss than Burundians at Morat. The battles were not balanced but can still produce interesting games that reflect the historical possibilities of different outcomes. I've played lots of Hundred Year War Battles in DBM2.0 and found the game did a very good job reflecting the possible historical outcomes but not in a robotic you must make the same blunders manner (DBM 3.0 – not so good but that's another story). Recently I've had the pleasure of running several historical battles using the new DBA3.0 and have marveled at the great improvement over prior versions of DBA2.2.

This is not to say the DBX systems do not have some weakness but only top say compared to other game systems it gives a very good representation of medieval battle with a minimum of muss and fuss. I have played many others including WRG, WAB –fantasy & historical, the French game, Might of Arms, Newberry, Tactica, Armati and many many others. Have not found any of them able to match the look and feel of DBX for representing a medieval battle.

The principle drawback is the author's writing style (liked by some loathed by others), however, the recent edition of DBA3.0 is bit easier to read has full set of diagrams explaining key points. In addition the author's wife has recently published the rules with a full example game played out with pictures. An excellent place to start with DBX.

And I should mention that I play mostly in 28mm. The new basing schemes allowed in DBA 3.0 allow the newer firgues a bit more room. Great game in both scales.

TomT

Why is this thread so popular etc.

Because it's not really awful?

I am not a fan but…
They don't take much table room to play.
They don't take a lot of figures.
Games don't take a lot of time to play.
Rules are fairly definitive (MHO.)
Because of all of these the work well for tournaments.

My trumps smell of banana.

Those of you who are members of the Society of Ancients will have seen the poll posted on the SOA Forum

Which Rules do you Use?

link

(hope the link works)

There were 23 rule sets used plus 'others'

DBA 28
Others 22
FoG 19
Hail Caesar 16
DBM 13
DBMM 11
WAB 11
Warmaster 11
Armati 10

The list is a couple of years out of date but DBA stands out as being the most used.

Brilliant post Tom T

Thanks BrianNZ.

Seems to have been essentaily the last word in this "discussion".

TomT

Maybe it's a matter of semantics to some degree?

Here in Atlanta I play DBx games with Tom when he runs them. Other than that I don't see DBx being played at all in the metro ATL area. I see Bolt Action, BtGoA, Dust, X-Wing, Kings of War, 40K, and WarmaHordes at our FLGS. Saga seems to have trailed off a bit but it was fairly common last year. There's a smattering of Infinity too.

The last time I saw a DBx game being played here that wasn't run by Tom was many years ago at Atlanta's War Room's OLD location before it moved and then closed its doors. Nothing since then besides the DBx tourneys at Siege of Augusta and Tom ran a great GoT event well attended by vets and newbs too. As far as play at Atlanta's FLGSs is concerned, DBX is a truly dead parrot.

So I would say that DBx has a VERY dedicated following that has stood the test of time, especially for tournament play. But I wouldn't call it popular in the sense of being able to easily find a DBx game at the FLGS. Meanwhile the games I cite above can be routinely seen in action on any given Saturday or Sunday at our FLGS, Giga-Bites.

I would define "popular" as easy to find games at the FLGS. While not "popular" in that sense I would say that DBx is definitely "resilient" with a dedicated core of tournament players who will play the game until to old to roll them bones! :-)

BTW…one great selling point for DBA: small army size. I think that many of us are at a point in our lives where business and family time weigh heavily on game time. DBA's small armies allow one to get on the table with minimal cost and painting time. Maybe if not for the opaque writing and lack of "sizzle" DBA's small force approach could be truly "popular".

One of the great ironies of DBx is that while WRG is truly one of the great Grand Daddies of the wargmaing industry it's the Internet that has probably done the most to keep DBx alive! The community focuses on organized tournament play, primarily at conventions (there are some dedicated events). The internet binds the community together during the extended "down times" between competitions. That speaks well of the community and the rules. At the very least DBx's meta is rich enough to sustain the community between competitions.

I've not read through the myriad of posts and do not intend to. But my two cents is yu might as well be asking how long is a piece of string. It boils down to "Different strokes for different folks" – or the same reason we have chocolate and Vanilla.

If you don't like it, then don't play it, but no need to bad mouth it and also it is overly redundant to even ask the question. Wasn't the fiasco caused by 3.0 enough trauma, so why stir the pot again.

Terry