Dreadfleet and Man O'War: how do they compare?

[Ironmonger]

The title says it all. If you've played both systems a few (or more!) times, how do you feel they compare to one another?

I think they feel very similar to one another, but at the same time DF seems to be more an immediate decendant of BFG (probably due to size of ships and orders). BFG was itself a child of MoW, so there does exist a continuity of similarity there.

Thoughts?

[Pacorko]

They really don't compare much more than they both are naval battle games, in my mind.

You see, MoW was nicer-yet-clunky in terms of certain specific rules, whereas DF is quite direct while it does away with many of the rules that made certain MoW fleets interesting--but a bit long-winded to play--, and most importantly it can be played to a satisfactory conclusion within a nice period of time... where as BFG or MoW do/did take their time to generate enough in-game effects to decide a game.

I do believe that the core rules remain there, but DF is far more streamlined and thus makes effective use of many nice ideas while implementing them with ease and quickness in mind.

Some are already ranting that DF isn't as "tactical" as MoW ever was... which goes on to show just what a pedantic bunch of whiner most "vets" are because DF was never designed nor thought-of as MoW V2.0, really--even if that was what they hoped for it to be.

For such grown-men, they can be really dense and silly with their tantrums.

So, yes, minimal similarities are there... but play style and feel are just so different, I believe we cannot really compare them in a "strawberries and apples" sort of way.

[Karak Norn Clansman]

@Pacorko: I've got nothing to say on topic, but my impression is that Dreadfleet has been welcomed by a lot of veterans. They seem to like it just as many younger wargamers do. We could have hoped for MoW, but we struck gold with Dreadfleet. It's quite fast and slim playwise, and seem friendly enough to invite non-hobbyist friends and relatives for a game. The wild variety of ships is a good thing, especially since this is a one-off box game.

Now we only have to mob together, rub our brain cells and start invent rules for larger battles and more ship types.

[Pacorko]

I whole-heartedly agree, Clansman! When people let go of preconceptions and get to know the game, they get all excited about how fun and easy it is, at whta great "replay value" it has going for it.

I am only commenting in those few, very low and seemingly very blind "vets" who just want to see what they want and not what great opportunities for mayhem they've been handed out.

I'm already thinking about creating more dwarfen escort ships and a few sillier things to add to it...

[sigur]

In my experience, it's not specifically the "vets" (who are not a group altogether. "Vet" is a term as wobbly as "tabletop level painting". Even more so really.), critizism for DF's rules seems to be rather equally spread across everyone who knows of it.

DF is indeed kind of random but that's what MoW was as well and that's what all GW games are. That's GW's design philosophy at its very core. I like Dreadfleet. I like how it's random and I'm fairly sure that people who actually play it most likely like it as well.

Compating Dreadfleet with Man'o'War really is no use in my opinion. It's two completely different things. Mostly, Dreadfleet exists outside of GW's age-old company strategy (releasing more and more stuff for people to buy) which left the designers with great opportunities and can only work in favor of the game. It's a different time and last but not least, Dreadfleet is kind of aimed at a different target group simply because the old "fantasy wargamer" of the days of Man'O'War doesn't exist any more.