Advice sought on big-battle DBxish games: ADLG, FOG, DBM, DBMM, BBDBAA, etc.

[Hobgoblin]

Following on from this thread, I'm wondering about escalating some of our Hordes of the Things games to a 'bigger battle' ruleset. We've had lots of fun with really big HotT games (up to 48AP per command), and I don't think the system breaks down at all. But I'm interested to see what similar games that are designed for bigger battles can offer.

I have the PDF rules for ADLG and DBM 3.2, but I'm open to picking up another ruleset. DBMM? Field of Glory? The newest iteration of DBA, which I gather has a bigger 'big-battle' option than standard HotT?

Now, none of those rules is exactly an easy read, from what I can see. So, rather than pick through a couple of rulesets to see which works best, I thought I'd consult the forum to see what the recommendations are.

What I'm looking for is a 'next step' from our HotT games - something that would be significantly different from them to justify the effort put in. I'm happy to abandon wizards and dragons for the time being, and to count trolls and dinosaurs as elephants, so a historical game is fine. We also play Brent Spivey's Mayhem, but I'm specifically interested in what the various branches of the DBX family have to offer.

At present, we have something like the equivalent of 100 points in HotT, and our friends have about the same - and all the armies are growing steadily. In HotT terms, we have a mix of blades, warbands, hordes, behemoths, spears, shooters, knights and beasts/riders (plus magicians, heroes, dragons and gods). And we've got plenty of unpainted historical and fantasy troops, so knocking up elements of psiloi or whatever could be easily done. We use 28mm basing with 1/72 figures and play on a 6' x 4' table.

So ... of the various 'bigger battle' rulesets (DBA bigger battles, DBM, DBMM, FOG, ADLG plus who knows how many others), which would you recommend, and why?

Many thanks in advance!

[pogo]

ToTheStrongest by BigRedBat
Elegant, simple, fits any basing, scales well to very large multi player
Alex

[LazyStudent]

Hi Hobgoblin,

See my reply in the other thread

But to add here, if you like the HOTT movement rates etc, it is probably worth giving DBM or DBMM a go. Or I would suggest jumping to ADLG or Giant Battle DBA v3 (Larger than BBDBA). Both give a good game that moves faster and are less pace (millimeter) specific than DBM.

TTS are not DBX based in the conventional sense. They are a very good game, but grid based and played with cards.

Cheers,
LS

[Hobgoblin]

Great - thanks, both (and, LS, for the great reply on the other thread)!

Does DBA v3 contain the rules for BBDA/GBDA? I'm wondering whether I should get hold of the DBA rules in any case (I gather there is an unofficial D2H3 ruleset that combines HotT and DBA v.3).

I'll probably put To the Strongest to the side for now; it sounds similar to Of Armies and Hordes, which I really enjoyed the few times we played it and am meaning to resurrect. But that (for me) is a 28mm project, whereas this one is for my 1/72 armies.

The appeal of DBM(M) is probably familiarity and the distinctions between (e.g.) different types of warband; we have a a lot of different warbands.

So the next question is, what are the pros and cons of DBM (the free version available online) and DBMM?

Thanks again!

[Polkovnik]

Following on from this thread, I'm wondering about escalating some of our Hordes of the Things games to a 'bigger battle' ruleset. We've had lots of fun with really big HotT games (up to 48AP per command), and I don't think the system breaks down at all. But I'm interested to see what similar games that are designed for bigger battles can offer.

So ... of the various 'bigger battle' rulesets (DBA bigger battles, DBM, DBMM, FOG, ADLG plus who knows how many others), which would you recommend, and why?

How about Sword and Spear Fantasy ?

Here are some previous threads on the subject:

https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=100086.0

https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=114021.msg1426974#msg1426974

https://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=129859.msg1646915#msg1646915

And a review:

http://www.thewargamespot.com/first-playtest-of-sword-and-spear-fantasy/

[Hobgoblin]

How about Sword and Spear Fantasy ?

Oddly enough, I dug out the Sword and Spear Fantasy rulebook yesterday and gave it a bit of skim. We played it a few times a few years back and enjoyed it (and still have lots of tiny dice floating around). I was thinking that the kids and I should certainly get another game in over the holidays; I doubt they remember much about it from the first time around.

For the purposes of this thread, though, I'm really thinking about games that are in the DBx lineage. We've got some regular games going at the moment with friends who live nearby (and some other neighbours who have done skirmishing with us are potential opponents too!). As all the younger players have absorbed the HotT rules well, I'm looking to build on that for bigger and more varied games rather than try something completely new.

So, I've got Sword and Spear in the same category as Mayhem and Of Armies and Hordes: games that I'll play with my kids over the coming weeks, but not with the wider gaming group - initially at least. I do also have a slight preference for games that have a minimum of dice and tokens on the table - especially for big, multiplayer games. The HotT one-die-per-player/no tokens setup works well from that perspective.

My current thinking is that my next step is probably to get DBA 3.0, play that a few times, then look at how it can be integrated with HotT. And then, perhaps, I'll look at DBM(M).

[SteveBurt]

DBM is a bit simpler than DBMM, but the latter is better written and has many nice features such as stratagems, disheartened commands, better morale system and so on.
Both are quite complex rules, though. Unless you play them pretty regularly they are a bit of struggle.
Field of Glory is OK.
Sword and Spear is good, but we find ‘To the Strongest’ sits at the sweet spot allowing a big battle in 2 hours or so with lots of interesting tactical decisions. My figures are all based for DBx, and I put 2, 4 or 6 of those bases on a sabot for TTS (for small, normal and deep units)

[Cat]

Our group plays a lot of DBA, and half the time we do big battles. It plays so much quicker than the various others, and we can remember all the rules. 

We've also stuck with 2nd edition since the 3rd added some more levels of complexity that made it tilt a bit more to the DBM-ish side of the scale; but that's a matter of personal taste and tolerance for complexity.

[Hobgoblin]

Thanks, both!

DBM is a bit simpler than DBMM, but the latter is better written and has many nice features such as stratagems, disheartened commands, better morale system and so on.
Both are quite complex rules, though. Unless you play them pretty regularly they are a bit of struggle.

Yes, when we get to one or other of those systems, I suspect we'll either stick with it or jump rapidly back to HotT/DBA.

Our group plays a lot of DBA, and half the time we do big battles. It plays so much quicker than the various others, and we can remember all the rules. 

That's a very good point. I find big games of HotT to be extremely enjoyable, and the only rules that we need to check are the various combat outcomes (and then only when it's a more obscure combination of units). The itch to try something slightly different is really just to see if there's more that we can do to distinguish between unit types, given the preponderance of warband and blade in our armies, and to find a use for the many 1/72 camels I appear to have acquired.

We've also stuck with 2nd edition since the 3rd added some more levels of complexity that made it tilt a bit more to the DBM-ish side of the scale; but that's a matter of personal taste and tolerance for complexity.

Interesting. I'll be getting hold of the DBA 3.0 rules today, and Thomas of Fame and Glory Games very kindly sent me the D3H2 supplement yesterday (essentially a way of combining DBA 3.0 with HotT).

One thing about DBA 3.0 that appeals are the 'fast' and 'solid' categories of troops. When I survey all the 1/72 stuff I've got, there's a surfeit of warbands in particular: lizardmen, orcs, Celts, Vikings, Arab-style nomads, generic barbarians, etc. So I'm interested in ways of differentiating those. We're using the Brute and Phalanx rules (3AP for a permanently double-ranked warband or spear element) for ogre-sized creatures (Brute) or massed pikemen (Phalanx), but it would be nice to be able to distinguish between the half-naked orcs with huge axes and the more disciplined-looking ones with more armour.

I think the 'fast' option is particularly useful for 1/72, as designers tend to do a lot of running figures that make it easy to identify 'fast' elements.

[RSDean]

Running figures would certainly work, but the usual method of differentiating fast from solid is to have bases of 3 vs 4 figures…

[Hobgoblin]

Running figures would certainly work, but the usual method of differentiating fast from solid is to have bases of 3 vs 4 figures…

Yes, I've been absorbing the DBA and D3H2 rules over the weekend and thinking about how to handle this. The obvious thing would be to use base depths - treat (for example) my current three-man warbands with 30mm base depth as 'fast' and make some new ones with 20mm depth to act as solid. But they will then look like blades in pure games of HotT (which I'm sure we'll continue to play). So perhaps putting together a few four-man bases as 4Bs is the answer, so that they'll look the part in the original game too (where base-depth recoil, rather than half base width, is the rule). And, with the new Caesar orcs, I'll necessarily have to avoid running ones to fit four on a base.

The synthesis of DBA and HotT entails some quite interesting changes. I think the fast/solid division is really useful. I was looking at my son's lizardmen and thinking that they might in fact be fast blades - making them tougher than they were as warbands to account for their size and natural armour, but more vulnerable to warbands to reflect their low numbers (they only fit two to a base).

The other changes I've noted so far are that behemoths and hordes are less manoeuvrable (two PIPs to move), warbands are weaker against cavalry, and hordes are better against foot. That last point suits my Dark Alliance orc hordes, which are quite fierce-looking.

[LazyStudent]

Sounds awesome! Personally I have not tried the D3H2 rules, but I would like to one day.

A point about fast blade. They can be very tough against foot. So perhaps not all of your son's lizardmen would be fast blade, some might still work as 3Wb or 3Ax. But if you wanted to add some extra punch to them, then you can always have 6Bd, which is double based fast blade. It is even tougher against foot types, but can get ridden over by knights.

[Hobgoblin]

Sounds awesome! Personally I have not tried the D3H2 rules, but I would like to one day.

I'm impressed with how they and DBA broaden the game.

A point about fast blade. They can be very tough against foot. So perhaps not all of your son's lizardmen would be fast blade, some might still work as 3Wb or 3Ax. But if you wanted to add some extra punch to them, then you can always have 6Bd, which is double based fast blade. It is even tougher against foot types, but can get ridden over by knights.

Thanks - good points. We'll see how they go. One base will work as psiloi, as those have darts and blowpipes and others are shooters or bows. A 6Bd base (or two) is a great idea!

With the 1/72 stuff, I'm always conscious of what would work with 28mm figures (in case the opportunity of a game arises). A 6Bd base of big 1/72 but small 28mm lizardmen would be a decent 28mm horde, while the psiloi and shooters/bows look the part as skirmishers in 28mm.

I got hold of the marvellous HaT Andalusian Infantry box yesterday from a local shop, along with the Moorish Cavalry sampler, as I'd realised we were a bit short of spear elements. We now have more than we're likely to need, plus plenty of bow, blade and psiloi too. I'm going to paint up a 'straight' historical army from the DBA list and may add the Spanish Infantry as opposition in due course.