Ironically, this is where many people say DBA fails. That a chariot-era "knight" is not the equivalent of a classical period "knight" or a high medieval Knight. These are just ratings that work within their own period. But I sometimes feel that DBA fails in this regard because the homogeneity loses the "flavor" of some periods and I think this is where my dissatisfaction arises. For example, where are the Hammipoi during the Classical Greek period? I have these great figures and yet when I asked on the Fanaticus forum how to rate them in DBA the best answer was "as a cosmetic addition to a Cavalry element".
So, across my desk come a few articles about DBMM. I read a review or two and it sounds pretty good, so I explore more. I join the Yahoo group DBMMlist and within a few days Phil Barker publishes another draft of (what will one day be) DBMM version 2.0. So, I can actually read the rules and get a sense of it before actually committing to buy a copy. I download them, print them (44 pages withOUT any army lists) and my jaw drops.
Combat Factors: 1/3 of a page
Close Combat Rear Support Factors: 2/3 of a page
Tactical Factors: 2/3 of a page
Grading Factors: 1/3 of a page
That is two full pages just to calculate the number added to a D6 roll! The my jaw hits the floor again: two full pages for the Combat Outcomes "table". 2 1/3 pages to describe recoiling, fleeing, pursuing, etc.
Man, do I feel old. My mind just kept saying over and over "you'll never wrap your head around all of this".
There are some good ideas in there though. I like the idea of Psiloi (Hammipoi) providing rear support to Cavalry against enemy Cavalry and Knights. Maybe just taking that one rule and applying it as a period-specific, scenario special rule is all I need to do. Either that, or I need to try and wrap my head around Hoplomachia again. :)
I sympathise
ReplyDeleteI am in DBx hell, I have been for the past ten years
I like DBA and part of me thinks its purpose is to give an idea of historical feel to a period and leave it at that
The six player mini-campaign format is a classic and great fun
Plus there is a realistic chance to paint a pair of antagonist armies, it is "wargaming essence"
However the rules are written in such cryptic fashion that breeds confusion in all but saints
This is amplified in DBM and still present in DBMM. DBA preceded DBM and people tend to forget that
I believe as many others, that DBM extrapolated too far the pure and simple ideas of DBA
That's why I am turning to Fields of Glory to avoid the better part of the base quibbling that goes on with DBM/DBMM
I'll get off my soapbox (sorry)
I'm fairly recently back into ancients having played a little 5th or 6th years ago and even less DBM. I agree the DBx writing style can be a problem to get around. However, I have somewhere around a dozen DBMM games under my belt - most with draft rules, and it's actually pretty straight forward when you are playing. The pages of multipliers condense down pretty rapidly into just those for the troops on table and the combat results also become second nature. I wouldn't call them intro rules, but 1.0 is a good solid set.
ReplyDeleteThe draft rules are just that and are perhaps best left alone by all but madmen and crazed colonials. It is intriguing to see the development process but much like sausage making, best not watched by the squeemish.
And I resent GW style marketing ploys to increase revenue every time a new army comes out - no matter how pretty the product.