Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Found a stack of FoG books somewhere (surprisingly small rulesbooks), been wondering if the rules are any good/popular. Is there any preference on which of the 3 systems to play with? Are all books within each system balanced to each other or only made for set historical eras?

I've played FoG a bit -- about 30 or so games on the table, maybe 100 online. On the whole I like it a lot though I'm afraid I haven't 'era matched' on the tabletop, only online and the online game is a bit different (and I think slightly flawed by a superficially laudable desire to include some of the tabletop rules that don't work so well on a hex grid).

It has the merit of being a fairly simple system that encourages historical tactics without resort to 'forcing' and models ancient and medieval combat quite well, probably as well as any wargame to date. I'd recommend it on the whole, and I prefer it to the DBA rules which seem to me (though I have only played a couple of games with them to be fair) to be more cumbersome and gimmicky without giving greater flavour or accuracy.

Field of Glory is widely played though it doesn't seem to have achieved the dominance that the WRG Ancients, DBA and DBM rules managed in their time.

DBA is still widely played even though it is now an old system (1991?) because it uses small armies and plays quickly. You can get a complete DBA army with options for £35-40 in 15mm scale. Compare that with GW prices!

DBM has been replaced by DBMM, which directly rivals FoG.

The good thing about all these rules (and nearly all other Ancient/Mediaeval rules except WHAB) is that the base widths are the same so you can switch an army between rulesets without any real difficulty.

Having played both DBM and FoG I have to admit that I prefer FoG.

Having said that watch your matchups as B&S said, otherwise games become very boring very quickly for one side. If you can find a 'historical' group then all is fine, however if it not a 'historical' group, and by that I mean everyones army is from different eras try to avoid a medium foot army. Heavy impact foot or lancers are a good way to go as a general rule.

Cheers

Andrew

DBM or DBMM?

I've got all the systems including DBA, DBM, FoG and DBMM, but my most extensive experience is with WRG 6th and 7th. What an old fart, eh!

I've played FoG and found it quite playable.

I would be happy to play any of them again.

Hm. I have the ancients rulebook and Legions Triumphant. I may have to make a Principate Roman army and Early German army my next project.

Kilkrazy wrote:DBM or DBMM?

DBM, I went quite a length of time between groups when I moved from Germany (DBM) back to the UK (FoG) so I seem to have missed DBMM. Now that I've moved countries again UK (FoG) to here (Nothing) the rules sets will have probably moved on again by the time I get back.

Cheers

Andrew

DBMM is still going. There is a revised edition available.

I doubt there will be a major system change in the near future, so you would be safe with FoG or DBMM, I reckon.