I really enjoyed it, I thought it was very cleverly designed. I used it to-refight Degastan c.606 AD, with a Bernician army taking on a Scots confederation, based on an article written by Guy Halsall for Miniature Wargames #3. The Scots confederation consisted of 10 Spearmen elements, plus an element of Psiloi (skirmishers) and Light Horse. The Bernician army consisted of 7 elements of Warband plus an element of Psiloi. In accordance with the suggestion of the article, I gave a +1 bonus to all the Bernician rolls to reflect their better morale and equipment. I can see that there is a lot of subtlety to the system which only more experience in using all the different troop types can give. I didn't find it that hard to understand the rules, although I did have to concentrate properly upon a couple of sentences.
|The initial set-up: Bernicians to the south (bottom), Scots' Confederation to the north of the stream.|
|Initial position with different angle, to include the last Scots' spearmen and some Bernician archers.|
Interestingly, it played out a lot more quickly than Neil Thomas' One Hour Wargames, probably because of the attritional combat system he uses, whereas in DBA all the results are essentially either retreats or destruction. I liked the simple 'command pips' system, I thought it gives interesting choices (especially as both sides were rolling very low scores!) but I'm familiar with the idea from Horse, Foot and Guns and in slightly different form, the Polemos system (pips plus bidding).
My initial reaction is that DBA is the (slightly) better game by having more period richness, but I need to play more of both games to be sure. The design idea is different anyway, with OHW being firmly aimed at beginners, who will appreciate the more conversational writing style, the wide variety of periods covered, the extra simplicity and all the scenarios. More experienced wargamers might prefer the extra substance and detail in DBA,