When I returned to regular wargaming in the later 80s I quickly made the transition from DBA to DBM. I then followed the masses to DBMM and on to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval (FOG AM). I also played DBR switching to Field of Glory Renaissance (FOG R) when FOG AM palled.
I stopped playing DBA when the twelve element format started to get repetitive. I moved on for a more complex game. I certainly got that with DBMM: perhaps too complex!
When I switched to FOG AM in 2010 I was looking for a "cleaner" set of rules with more structure and fewer conditional clauses. Until recently I thought I was playing a game far, far removed from DBA. I was wrong. Let me show you why.
DBA in its simplest from uses twelve elements armies on a small table roughly two feet square. DBM, DBMM & DBR (DBx) all use many more elements than DBA on bigger tables. Likewise FOG AM & FOG R but elements aren't the same in FOG as they are in DBx.
Whilst FOG armies certainly contain lots of elements they contain far fewer game pieces. Elements in FOG are combined into battle groups, usually of 4-8 elements, and it is these that are the independent units in the game. In effect a FOG battle group is equivalent to an element in DBx games
I'd been blinded by the high element count into thinking FOG games involved lots of pieces. A check of my army list databases quickly proved that most of my FOG armies involved 10-13 game pieces: not that different from DBA!
|FOG Average Battle Groups||Army Points|
|War Of The Roses||10.0|
|Italian Wars French||11.0||13.0|
This has radically changed my view of FOG armies. If you focus primarily on the number of game pieces then they are just larger, scaled up DBA armies.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.