Saturday 23 May 2020

DBN test game - some thoughts.

 I found myself with time on Saturday morning to play through 8 full turns of DBN. This was my first time playing the rules so I took things slowly to try not to miss anything. rather than do a full in depth write up I want to record some of my initial impressions on how the game plays.

Overall I found the game to be slightly slow to develop, the French rolled to attack but consistent low rolls for Command Action Points meant the British were able to get into a better position and took the fight to the enemy.  Movement rates are modest, 200 paces for infantry in good going, but it's possible to use additional CAP's to double up the pace and on roads the 200 paces is also doubled, useful for moving up columns fast. Attackers get an additional 2 CAP's on the first turn, but with the French rolling a 2 it did not help much especially as the British rolled a 6 in the same turn. On the whole though I liked the movement and activation system

It took a few turns to get anything within shooting range, ranges are short, (200 paces for muskets which equates to 3" on my measuring stick), and it took time to get artillery into a firing position and within range. I found artillery fire to be fairly ineffectual against infantry which was frustrating. When it came to infantry exchanging volleys I found the shooting process to be straightforward, establishing the basic factor and then adding or subtracting tactical factors to give a score that was then added to by a dice roll. The results can be a hit, two hits are shaken and 3 hits destroyed. A unit can be destroyed if you double your opponents score, only a single dice per side is used throughout this game. Shaken units require an additional CAP's to activate and get a minus 1 when firing or in hand combat which works well.

Close combat is resolved in much the same way but with the ability to force a losing unit to recoil  a base depth. I found the process a bit 'fiddly' fighting individual unit to unit combats, counting support from units to either side in base to base contact and it seemed to take time to resolve. I was unsure if a unit that has lent it's support to a friendly unit in combat can then fight it's own combat in a situation for example where you have two formations of say 4 units each in line and facing off together. I decided against this but may have got this wrong. What I could not find was any mention of infantry forming square when threatened by cavalry, it's possible I missed this somewhere. Edit: 11.14 Infantry v cavalry optional Response Test rule.

I overloaded the table (3x3') with terrain features which meant that it was difficult to get the British into any sort of defensive firing line with artillery support, this is something I must reconsider next time. I managed to deploy the 60th Rifles in a village, but not a single Frenchman came within their 400 paces range! I think the very short firing ranges are one thing that really bothered me, I would be very tempted to increase basic musketry range to 300 paces, and all other ranges accordingly. I think this would really open up the game and allow artillery a chance of becoming more effective, I will experiment with this in my next run through.

Conclusions. 
I will definitely persevere with DBN. There are a couple of tweaks that I will make next game:

1. I'm going to increase the ground scale so that 2" represents 100 paces. This just means making a new measuring stick but easy enough to do. In essence the standard 200 paces move of infantry in good going will be 4" and on roads 8". As I'm using a bigger board anyway everything remains in proportion.

2.  I'm going to increase musketry range to 300 paces (6"). So the range of line infantry muskets becomes the same as the lights, same weapon after all. 'Jagers' (British Riflemen) have a range of 400 paces in the rules, so 8".

3. Reduce the amount of terrain items to open up the battlefield slightly and allow more room for formations to deploy. For example in the battle the fields were more of a hindrance than anything else, I could not get the light infantry and rifles to deploy in there as I wanted to. Removal of those fields alone would have improved the deployment of the British, much as I like them as features they are impractical in a game of DBN.

I think that the  increased movement and firing range will open up the action slightly and make things a little less 'fiddly', and by simplifying the terrain layout a more open battle can be fought.

Pictures below show  the 8 moves played in sequence. Frustratingly I don't seem to have taken photos of the final combat resolution! Both sides suffered losses and recoils, the British losing 1 unit and the French losing 2. At this point I had a few questions about the rules that I needed to read up on around close combat supports and order of resolving the combats where there is an extended line v line situation. Next run through I will do a French attack column v line and introduce some cavalry action, but it was an excellent and useful learning experience and introduction to the practical playing of DBN rules.

Deployment. The French infantry are in march columns and are the designated attackers.


 


Turn 2 (Below) Both armies advance. 






Turn 4. (Below) French & British infantry trade volleys.





End of Turn 5. (Below)


Turn 7 (Below) Melee ensues as the French attack.




Below: Enthusiastic Ney (AB) confers with a BM Marshall, a good match.  I do plan a couple of circular multi figure command bases.



28 comments:

  1. What a nice looking table. I too have recently been trying DBN (although I have had the rules for years) and will be interested to see how you get on with them. I intend to try a few more games before changing anything and, as I find it useful to set up on a 2' x 2' space, will probably stick with the rules as written. Looking at some of the games on Youtube, I had questions and found Alex to be very helpful. Looking forward to your next post. Best wishes.
    Jim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jim. I have watched most of Alex's videos and really enjoyed them as they explain the rules in play very well. As written I can see they work best on that 2 x 2 space, but my base sizes are bigger and I want to play on a modest 4 x 3 board eventually. I just find a standard infantry move of 2" and musket range of 3" won't work on my planned 3 x 4 area. Let's see where this goes when I try my next run through :)

      Cheers,

      Lee.

      Delete
    2. I like S&A products as well. You would need a bigger area with bigger bases I agree. I was just pleased that my 1.5" bases would work and I wouldn't have to rebase! I agree with JBM that sometimes you have to go with what feels right rather than is technically accurate.

      Delete
  2. Really “crisp” looking board there mate. I overloaded my reduced size gaming area with terrain initially as well. It looks very nice but it does seem to get in the way. Perhaps we’re still unconsciously trying to fill a 6 x 4 space? Not sure if muskets had improved much since the late ECW (which is all I know about) but those pre amended ranges do seem a little short to me. Sometimes ground scales have to be adjusted to look or feel right, a bit like the footprint of buildings. Anyway nice game and interesting tweaks for any of your DBN readers I’m sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello JBM, hope you are keeping well? It's funny, I feel uncomfortable with the square gaming board, must be something ingrained from 40 years of wargaming. Certainly less scenic pieces next game, I think I just wanted to pack as much on as I could because I like the S&A products so much! The fields will have to go for starters. 300 paces for musket range might well be over generous, but in terms of look and feel that will only equate to 6" when I mark up my new measuring stick at 2"= 100 paces, which is what I personally prefer on the larger table.

      Delete
  3. "I'm going to increase musketry range to 300 paces"
    If anything you should be reducing the range, not increasing it. Muskets were really only effective to about 100yds (say 125 paces).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mike, thanks for commenting. I know that you are correct of course, I'm looking at this more in terms of traditional wargaming movement/firing range ratios and the practicality of having a 3" musket range on a 3 x 4 table, but I certainly take your point.

      Delete
  4. A very interesting first game report. I really like your table and would probably be tempted to keep the terrain for visual appeal, but ignore it (or move it around) for game purposes.

    since DBN is working at the army level, I imagine the ranges and movement ranges are quite proper, however, there is likely a visual thing going on with the increased table size and the 15mm figure scale that makes it not ‘feel right’ to you. You are probably wanting a more tactically feeling game, where musket ranges look right with the figure scale, so I think you adaptations will be fine, since the system is solid and you end up with a better aesthetic relationship with the game - a sort of bath-tubbing.

    We quite often upscale our rules, so that we fight a big battle with a representation of regiments, you are just doing the same thing in an opposite direction.

    Anyway, all good, a fascinating journey and one that is producing good pictures :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Norm. Well, I have to say that it's been a long time since I actually got something on the tabletop and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience, it's reminded me of why I started in this hobby decades ago.

      I'm sure the rules are indeed sound and I am now wondering (after reading the comments) if I should just go with increasing the ground scale from 1" = 100 paces up to 2" = 100 paces and leave the musket range as it is, that way nothing really changes does it? it just allows me to play on the larger - but still modest - 4 x 3 table.

      Terrain - I had a problem with deploying the light division in the field, to gain the 'support' factor in fire combat bases have to in contact, edge to edge, probably better to place a flat piece of cloth to represent fields which would at least break up the bare green and be far more practical.

      Delete
    2. Timecast do some really useful latex fields, which look the part and are pretty flat with good texture.

      Delete
    3. Lee - "increasing the ground scale from 1" = 100 paces up to 2" = 100 paces" that sounds the ticket for your setup.. DG and I have now played 2 games and I would say we're beginning to get to grips with it.. as he said to me, at any one time 80% of the rule set is irrelevant depending on the troop type/nation/period of the war so the secret is condensing the bits that you actually want as the rules are quite dense.. in your combat example, troops can't provide support if they are in combat themselves.. as any DBA player will tell you, as attacker, because you decide order, you want to start the melees at the end of the lien where you can count a support and then hopefully you roll up the line by getting a support in each subsequent round .. if the dice play ball! 8 moves, wow, in our games we have been done and dusted at turn 5, in the last game it was 6:1 to the British by end turn 5, BUT, we are playing on the 2x2 set up with standard 12 point armies..

      Delete
    4. Norm, thanks for that, I have seen those Timecast latex fields, could be just the job.

      Steve, cheers for the clarification, makes sense now. I am using a playsheet that contains only what is relevant to the Peninsular games I want to play and strips everything else out, just two sides of A4. Future games I'll just up the table with flat cloth fields for contrast (as you do), nice as my small fields with hedges looked they proved impractical and unnecessary. Hope to give it another shot this week.

      Delete
    5. Lee and Steve. I must have been playing this wrong as I thought in fire combat any unit in range without a more pressing target could give support and did not have to be in contact. Thanks for the help.

      Delete
    6. Jim - think/thought the issue was close combat, rather than firing?

      Delete
    7. Steve - I read Lee's post as saying fire combat being difficult when deployed in the field.

      Delete
    8. Actually it was both! The fire combat in the field was tricky as I could not get the units into base to base contact. The field was only really there to break up the green but it just got in the way.
      The close combat caught me out as I could not get my head around the rules for multiple combats where you have two opposing lines of bases and the question of supports. Got it now though :)

      Delete
  5. Looks great, first run out with a rule set is always a learning experience, plus I usually get something wrong!
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers Iain, I'm enjoying finding my way round a new set of Napoleonic rules, only ever played Commands & Colors for the last 10 years or so!

      Delete
  6. It certainly was a pretty game - I thought a base in DBN represented something like a Brigade of infantry or a Regiment of cavalry so that would be why ranges look short, also not sure that column vs line means much at that scale - am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rob, yes, you are correct. I just found it all a bit fiddly and cramped! By increasing ground scale to 2"= 100 paces it allows more wiggle room in play and just looks better to my eye.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. Cheers Ray, I'm still wearing my L Plates but it's good fun.

      Delete
  8. Oddly enough my instict would have been to change the scale which would make the ranges and moves longer but in proportion.
    We actually did that with DBA long, long ago. Doubled the base sizes (twice as wide and twice as deep with 4x figures per element) and doubling all ranges, moves etc but all in proportion so not changing the game, just the look.

    Anyway your game looked great!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ross. That's what I have decided to do, just double the ground scale to 2" + 100 paces and keep everything else in proportion.

      Delete
  9. brilliant looking game, great figures and terrain, impressed mate, well done
    cheers old John

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brilliant to see your lovely figures on the tabletop Lee and great that you have a set of rules worth persisting with. Looking forward to the next installment!

    ReplyDelete
  11. many thanks James. I think I have achieved just the clean look I wanted and must now resist the temptation to tinker with things!

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for leaving a comment, it will be published as soon as I have read it in order to avoid spam.