|
Post by dpd on Oct 29, 2022 1:26:26 GMT
Why do you prefer the one and not the other?
How would you compare DBA's 2,3,4,5,6 figure units with DBM's F, X, S, P, I units?
|
|
|
Post by Baldie on Oct 29, 2022 6:31:17 GMT
I prefer DBMM
1. I have not played DBM
After that concise explanation of my point of view I will add that me and my regular gaming chum have played DBMM three times. We found it a bit of a slog because nobody else at club plays it so we ain't got an "expert" to quiz whilst we play
We are considering the 100 points version
Still prefer DBA cos it fits the description of myself, slightly simplified but beautifully put together.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 29, 2022 7:14:31 GMT
...i did begin with DBM and for shorter games with DBA 1. Im DBM we had every year a new rules update, changingthe balance of the game In 2004 DBA startet with a 2 version and shortly after that version 2,2 using the new army lists of the 2 version. In 2006 PB introdused DBMM and a bit later DBA3. From that moment i played the old version of DBA 2.2. For larger games i used Art de la Guerre. Now i did stop using DBA. Triumph is now the prefered ruleset for shorter games and ADG for lage battles...
|
|
|
Post by Cromwell on Oct 29, 2022 8:11:18 GMT
I have never played DBM but have dabbled with BBDBA which I found worked well for me.
|
|
|
Post by vodnik on Oct 29, 2022 8:33:54 GMT
...i did forget to mention it. big battles using DBA work quite well. You can enjoy the fog of battle...
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 29, 2022 8:35:41 GMT
Although I have bought DBMM 2.0 (the 2010 version), and all the Army List Books, I must confess to not being fan…far too complicated, and unnecessarily so, what with certain things happening only when it’s your or your opponents bound, except on a Tuesday, unless it’s a leap year, and only before midday, except when there is also a full moon… (Ok, I exaggerate…but only slightly)I dislike rules with exceptions to a rule, then exceptions to that exception, and so on. For me ancient wargaming is all about moving my little metal or plastic soldiers around on a table in a reasonably realistic manor that roughly simulates the historical accounts. If this can be done simply and quickly, then why make it complicated? It’s the effects on our wargames tables that is important… … not the mechanisms that are used to generate these effects. This is why I think DBA is superior (although even that could be made a bit simpler without distorting the effects too much: see fanaticus.boards.net/post/37843/ ).However, I do see the point Dpd is making in his original post. The conversion of the the troop classes from DBMM to DBA could have been done better. I think DBA’s 3Ax should be the equivalent of DBMM’s ‘ Irr Ax(O)’ class, and DBA’s 4Ax the equivalent of DBMM’s ‘ Reg Ax(S)’ class…not necessarily using the same mechanism, but somehow make them a little tougher in close combat and not be massacred so easily by heavy foot. This alone would make the battle of Cannae possible and extend a pike army’s battleline, thereby negating the need for the invention of 8Pk elements to prevent outflanking.
|
|
|
Post by Les1964 on Oct 29, 2022 8:37:02 GMT
Triumph is now the prefered ruleset for shorter games . That's OK if you can get the rules from the USofA , without paying an arm and a leg for them .
|
|
|
Post by sheffmark on Oct 29, 2022 9:18:40 GMT
Started with 5th Edition, never got on with 6th, moved to, and played a lot of DBM, after brief flirtation with DBR, but agree with Stevie (what's going on here?!!) found that the introduction of DBMM had too many variations to factors depending on whose go it was etc, etc. It seemed to me that the fairly simple workable system of DBM had been amended and complicated in the name of increased accuracy and become less enjoyable. It also divided the playing community which meant fewer players and made it more likely that you'd end up playing the 'serious gamers' at a competition.
I now prefer DBA where the participants are great fun to play, you can play 6 games in a day rather than it taking a whole weekend and you can collect 3 or 4 small armies instead of one big one.
|
|
|
Post by menacussecundus on Oct 29, 2022 10:45:25 GMT
DBA was meant to be a gateway drug to tide me over while I painted an army for DBM. However, DBM fell out of favour at my local club and DBMM never caught on (for the reasons stevie and sheffmark describe). After a dalliance with FoG, L'Art de la Guerre is the Ancients rule set of choice on club evenings, although there are still a few DBA players and a few who play Triumph.
My first DBA army was Celtiberians (the v2,2 one with 6 elements of Wb); only 12 elements to paint too, so no need to worry that I had chosen the wrong option. On its first outing, it lost three games in short order (against Polybian Romans, Carthaginians and the (a) list Ancient Spanish). If I had spent a year or so painting a DBM-size force, I think I'd have been so disheartened that I'd have looked for another period and set of rules to play. As it was, I just painted another army - again one of only 12 elements - and carried on.
|
|
|
Post by oriel on Oct 29, 2022 11:16:33 GMT
We adopted a grid based DBA here in Munich last year - I started to look around for alternatives after numerous "discussions" over millimetres with my opponent Out of interest i just bought a copy of DBMM. On page 5 it says "The player should have to demonstrate skills - not of an accountant" Well in my opinion the rules do just that! - and are boring to boot! Grid based gaming has huge advantages, for instance i can post my opponent a gridded map of the battlefield beforehand so that when he arrives we save time setting up. Another "time saver" instead of stroking one's beard on deciding how to allocate ones pips/move one's elements we have adopted a new movement system - At the beginning of each bound, flip a coin to determine which side begins activation. The side that begins, rolls a die for activation and may move only ONE unit or group or continue ONE ongoing melee. Then the other side does the same. This continues, until one side declares it has finished or rolls "1" for activation after which only the opponent may continue until he also rolls a "1". If after the final activation neither side has "activated" an ongoing melee, (from the previous bound) then both sides take turns to "adjudicate"one each. Also we allow a unit already engaged to its front to turn and face a flank attack -which can happen at any time.
|
|
|
Post by stevie on Oct 29, 2022 11:36:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by oriel on Oct 29, 2022 11:37:10 GMT
As a reminder as to which elements have been activated ie have moved shot or "meleed" (shooting precedes movement in our variation) - each unit is placed with its rear edge resting on the back of the square it is occupying before the beginning of each bound, and moved to the front of the square after it has completed its move or shot etc. Also units that have assisted in overlap or fought a melee cannot move again for the rest of the bound. our units are 4cm square - and each square 5cm.
|
|
|
Post by Haardrada on Oct 29, 2022 11:55:41 GMT
I started with WRG 5th edition and moved on to the 6th edition with Great enthusiasm...although the casualty calculation was long-winded the rules were basically sound and actually showed how massed missile fire could slow or stop a charge(apart from Impetuous Swiss!😁),the rules were universally popular in our club.7th edition never really got a second look and DBM also got the same treatment.The only changes made was a look at converting 6th edition casualty results to single figure casualties and re-basing armies to DBA sizes to allow more room for figures up to when I moved and worked away.DBA did get a look in,but is still not very popular.I champion DBA and get a few games with some of the lads from time to time but they still are not too enthusiastic...their loss.lol
|
|
|
Post by oriel on Oct 29, 2022 12:29:37 GMT
Just watched Tony Aguilar - yes a great improvement - but a lot of fiddling around with measuring - and once again one player "looks on" while being outflanked - in my system the opponent can respond immediately...
|
|
|
Post by dpd on Oct 29, 2022 13:49:23 GMT
Is there an "official" method for comparing DBA's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 figure units with DBM's F, X, S, O, I units?
|
|