Having played my first DBM game a couple of weeks back, I thought I'd get some impressions down along with a conparison between DBM, ARMATI, and WRG 7th.

The DBM game took about as long as a typical WRG 7th gene, what with set up and terrain placing even though the actual game turns nere faster with no paper work, tests to take, combat charts to mull over, etc. Though the turns were quicker and the battle fought (which was loosely based upon Northallerton in 1138 A.D.) corresponded roughly to the historical outcome. I cannot say that I enjoyed the gene nearly as much as a WRG 7th one. Afterwards I tried to determine why.

First of all, the terrain generation was not at all to my liking. My opponent, Gary Comardo, had played quite a few DBM games and managed (as the defender) to satisfy the rules requirenent of tterrain establishment using only two small pieces on a 6'x4' table.

I would never play an irregular loose order foot army against a knight army with these rules. Phil would have been well advised to stick with the WRG 7th terrain generation systen or something other than the one illustrated.

As for the play itself, I was uncomfortable with the ease in which elements can 'shift' positions, i.e. turn in place to face an enemy hitting them in the flank. Now flank attacks had a very deleterious effect in actual medieval battles, but is seemingly thought of as having no conseguence in DBM (and DBA as well).

Besides that, the whole 'unit' factor is gone. The size of a 'body' of troops or warband did have an effect on morale as well as hand-to-hand combat and missile effectiveness. In DBM, each individual element (or double element if mounted thus) can uove, fight and react as a unit. While again simplifying play, and to many ganers this see~s to be the prime reason to play DBM, to my mind the lack of the unit character if historically a detriment.

Probably my biggest regret about DBM is in respect to dicing for movement PIPs as a deterninant of tactical outcome. I don't care how good your plan of battle is, how great your army seems, what superior tactics you've studied, developed and worked at perfecting, because when you roll those canned dice for movement, everything immediately goes out the window. Period.

I've played enough DBA and big battle variations of it to resent this type of simplification of orders, aorale and fog of battle. In DBM it's the same. Now I understand the reasoning behind it (simplicity) and the objective (quickness of play and no paperwork/bookkeeping) but I don't like it. How can you make a plan of battle (and many Medieval/Dark Ages leaders DID devise ingenious battle plans, Oman and Delbruck to the contrary) when you cannot determine if any of your troops (with the exception of the CiC and elements with him) can do anything? It perhaps would not be too bad except that in the particular game I played, my warbands ended up in difficult terrain--woods (a smart move historically, I rationally figured, considering they were facing thirty or more 'elements of knights).

When in the 'difficult' terrain, I was forced to spend a PIP per column, effectively staving off any attempt at moving most of the Galwegians at all. Troops who should have had little problem historically thrashing though the woods, brush and scrub are hindered the same as heavy foot and cavalry by the restrictions of the PIP die rolls. Unacceptable.

The combat system I do like. It is quick, effective and results in an element by element elimination instead of having to keep track of losses on paper. Though I miss the weapons characteristics of some units (why the Pre-Feudal Scots thegns are not classified as Blades is unclear and Lowland spears are classed as Ax (x) instead of Pk(I)...). Though a bit arbitrary in some results, this systen is clean, quick and decisive. Major cooplaints are that certain troop types cannot be killed by certain others. This is a valid point and should be addressed at sooe point, perhaps in a newer edition.

Another problem is in respect to period specific periods. All Ronan legionnaires are the sane, no matter what the period. Preferably each period should reflect the differences in troops.

Another aspect of DBM that I like are the demoralization of command, where you have to retire, if you can, fighting all the way. A good touch!

I guess the biggest problem at the end of the game was that I didn't feel that I had played an accurate replication of a Dark Ages battle. I know that this flies right in the teeth of most of the prevailing conventional wisdom which appears in my mailbox, but I felt like the game could have been any period, Romans vra. Carthaginians, Greeks vrs. Persians or Japanese vrs. Koreans...there was no real period feel to it, no specifics--psiloi? What wore they in the 11th century? Blades? Axemen please! Too stylized in terminology and not period specific enough for the 450-1200 A.D. time frame to give ne a sense of battle in this period.

Okay, how do I compare the three major rules sets being used in our U.S. tournaments? ARMATI has the advantages of ease of play, period specific rules (in the advanced rules), a quick game (less than an hour normally), variable sized formats and a fairly sinple (and yet fun to play) combat and missile system. Units can fight for some time and the battle sways back and forth, a realistic assessment of Dark Age warfare, yet others may break upon contact. Flank attack are devastating--perhaps too much so--and the restrictive, already established aroies (TACTICA style) are valuable to the casual gamer but a bane to the historical enthusiast who wishes to build his own army. This has and will continue to be my major problem with ARMATI, which I helped playtest and continue to regard as a fairly good historical simulation.

Tournament wise, armies from different periods cannot fight each other, necessitating theme tournaments--not a bad thing--but cutting down on the number of players to those with armies specific to this theme. Also, the terrain generation system should be redone. There is too little terrain and what there is has hardly any effect on the battle. All told, Arty's rules should continue to be a viable alternative for tournament players who dislike DBM and WRG 7th.

The WRG 7th system is still ny favorite. Advantages are the chess-like control you have over your troops and the ability to use your intelligence to achieve victory--IF YOU KNOW THE RULES!!! The tactically-intensive combat rules are geared toward weapons/armor and the morale of your troops, both of these combined with your tactical prowess uill determine victory, but a good die roll still can wrest success from a lost cause or likewise spell disaster.

The main disadvantage of 7th is the rules themselves. They are written in such a way that many don't want to try then, as being overly complex and others (many current DBM players) never cared for the many exploitable aspects which rules lawyers so often irritated us with early on.

The army lists are now hopelessly outdated and the atteopts at recriting then have had mixed reviews at best. Yet any army can be brought to a tournament and can fight any other--a real advantage.

Also, most all of us have the rules and still do play then...though some less and less as DBM has gained in popularity. We can design our armies and go to most regional tourneys and have a game, a real plus.

As far as DBM goes, are they are a simplified version of WRG 7th...or are they are complex version of DBA? The army lists are very good for the most part (don't ask me about Pre-Feudal Scots, though). Large numbers of players have switched from 7th to DBM to get away from complexity and ambiguity. Thus it is easy to find opponents and also teach the game to new players. Ease of play, no bookkeeping, a simplified yet satisfying combat system and a comfortable length of play (2-4 hours) per game are somewhat offset by the terrain generation system and simple but frustrating movement dice. Yet DBM has taken the ancients community by storm and looks to be the wave of the future. WRG is heartily promoting it, allowing 7th to slowly fade. This is a pity, but stalwart 7th players are continuing to play and keep the system alive and popular in several areas, including upstate New York and Canada.

As I sit here thinking about all of this I find myself looking forward to a game in a couple of weeks featuring over 1000 25mm figures on a 16 table. The rules? WARHAMMER, adapted for Dark Ages historical miniatures. A trend? In the March issue of SLINGSHOT, heed the small blurb on page 18 entitled Beware the Tides that March which notes "Keep watching, be vigilant, prepare...", re: WARHAMMER being used at Partizan in the U.S. Also note the articles in WARGAMERS ILLUSTRATED by Jervis Johnson on historical army lists for WARHAMMER. Could this be a new movenent? Time, as they say, will tell.

Responses: Tyrell (Saga 50)
Responses: Barker (Saga 50)