Dear Editor,
Thank you for the way in which both articles that I contributed to the last issue were presented in particular the addition of Adam Stones photographs to the post MOAB report. However, in regards to the French army in North America article, I must point out that Seven Years War (SYW) figures, except perhaps Hussars, are not suitable for the American War of Independence (AWI) period. In researching the article it was clear that the French army went to America in 1779 was visually very different to the one defeated in the SYW approximately 20 years earlier. The reason they were so different was due to the major changes in the design of uniforms. To suggest the use of French SYW infantry figures in an AWI army is a bit like suggesting the use of 1914 uniformed German figures to build a 1943 PanzerGrenadier battalion, it doesn't really work.
Out of critical mode, thanks to Doug Walsh for his comment about to much terrain on some of the tables at MOAB 99, and his thoughts on formats for MOAB 2000. 1 may have gone a little 'over the top' on a couple of the tables, but one thing I wanted to avoid was the 'one hill in the middle of the table' style of game and present players with a variety of terrain problems. One of the issues concerning the WRG 1685- 1845 rule set is the length of the time period they cover. This is a period of history which sees an expansion of European influence in areas such as the Americas, India and the islands in the West and East Indies with this comes further variations in terrain fought over. So for MOAB forests and swamps that were common in America were introduced to complement the more traditional scenarios such as river crossings or 'the town'. Had there been more players there would have been scenarios covering desert terrain as well as rocky hills common to India.
In regards to MOAB 2000, indications from the organisers are that it will be changed to another weekend to avoid contest with the Olympics. Moving it to another weekend will mean that it will be reduced to a 2 day event. Horse and Musket at MOAB has traditionally been a 25 mm event and will remain so for this year. However, the format will be different to previous years with at least 1 day set aside as a pre-Napoleonic day. The idea of a pre-Napoleonic competition was considered, but such a comp may alienate those players who only have Napoleonic armies. Depending on player numbers a traditional competition may not be held, rather multi-player games or a 2 day 'big bash' maybe held instead.
Before this editorial letter gets to article length proportions, I have attached an article. The article involves a short description of the Northern invasion of England in 1066 with army lists and objectives for a DBM scenario.
Thanks Mark for your excellent little article for DBM on Harald Hadrada's invasion of the north that has been included in this issue. Don't know about your WWI-WWII Germans analogy with regard to uniforms. French uniforms although the coats were certainly of much different (ie. less voluminous) cut. Of course, if you wish to build an totally historical French AWI army then you must use figures made specifically for this period as produced by a number of companies like Dixon and First Rank etc. However if you wish to portray the army in general (& I'm thinking of cheap 20mm plastics in particular here) without necessarily being a stickler for accuracy, then you could get away with using some SYW figures. With regards to MOAB '99 - it'll be interesting to see how it pans out this year, particularly in view of the Olympics. Your suggestion for an Age of Reason clash has also been raised by several Cumberland players here in Canberra who are AWI or SYW armies that they would field. Interestingly, the heard comment that WRG itself is quite a good rule set for this period - there appears to be little of the frustrations that can plague WRG with the Napoleonic period.
Following, Joe Marmellic'c article in the last issue has had sereral other readers also write in with their views about various aspects of DBM, DBR etc. --ED
A FEW AMENDMENTS FOR DBM
These are a few observations /anomalies that I have found with the current DBM set of rules. They have been sent in to the authors, but I have not had a reply to date. What do others think? Am I on the right track, or am I just being too picky?
Well, here are my views:
Skirmishers should have a shooting range of 100 paces. They should use their shooting ability the same as Bowmen at a factor of 2 (but with no rear rank support) and only affect the front rank of the unit shot at (as per Bowmen).
Skirmishers that are in combat with non - skirmisher troops (apart from mounted), should be killed if doubled and flee as normal if beaten by less than double.
The above would make skirmishers more like their rear fife counterparts. If they are stupid enough to get into contact with other troops, then they stand the chance of being killed. Also, if they are allowed to shoot, then they may actually inflict casualties on the enemy front rank (as in real life). This would make the enemy have to decide whether to stand and take the casualties (recoil or die) or charge the skirmishers (and have a chance to kill them).
Mounted troops should be the same as foot troops who don't pay a penalty unless they are actually in rough/difficult going terrain.
I also strongly disagree with the rule that mounted troops who are fighting enemy who are partially in rough/difficult going should have to pay the penalty of -2 by being made to fight as if they too were in the same terrain. If the mounted troops actually venture into this sort of terrain, then fair enough, but some people have the rear corner of their element just touching the rough/difficult going and the mounted troops are not actually in that terrain but still have to fight as if they were. They should be the same as foot troops are in that type of terrain.
Artillery should be able to shoot over/through Psiloi ..and actually have a chance to inflict damage on the main body of troops behind them.
It should be allowed to fire at the end of the enemy bound as well as at the start of a friendly bound. This would prevent enemy from march moving troops up to 4" from the artillery before it got a chance to fire.
Warband should have the initial impetus bonus on the first bound of contact and kill enemy if the Warband roll up higher.
It would then revert to fighting like normal troops (as the main strength of the Warband was its initial charge) and it would have to double the enemy to kill them. This would better reflect what actually happened in real fife (because if the Warband didn't win on the initial chaige, it would bog down and eventually be ground down by the better-trained and disciplined troops).
Early Roman Blades should be classified as Bd (S) due to their being extremely well trained, loyal, and almost unbeatable in the Republican/Early Imperial periods until their later demise.
If anyone wants to agree, dispute, argue or if they have
any observations or ideas of their own, write to me care of
Kriegspieler, or email me at home on:
soldier@barrelrider.net.au
Dennis is The President of the Brisbane Independent warGamers (BIG), one of the largest wargaming clubs in Queensland (or in Australia for that matter).
DBM into the New Millenium
By the end of calendar year 2000 the popular WRG's De Bellis Multitudinis (DBM) ancients rules will have been played in more than 5000 competition games worldwide.
The total could easily reach 10,000, the 5000 is my estimate given the number of ancients competitions played in Australia, the US, UK, Canada, NZ, South Africa, France, Holland, Germany, Italy, Portugal and other European countries.
Indeed there are probably other areas playing the game that I have not heard about.
The rules will go into a new version during early 2000 constant review of the rules is one of their strengths and weaknesses.
A sensible desire on the part of the author's to further clarify meaning, promote historically accurate outcomes and stamp out dodgy tactics has to be balanced against the frustration for casual players keeping up with the latest fine tuning.
I believe the authors have got it broadly right - keeping troop types an balance and outlawing cheesy play is at least one reason why the rules go from strength to strength with little evidence of player fatigue.
The other great attribute of the DBM system is the support of its anny-lists books.
The army fists second editions have been released during the year, with the final one in the four-book series, the new Book-1 (chariot period armies) due for release early 2000.
The army lists represent latest research often with suggestions from professional historians and archaeological experts in their field.
Perhaps counterintuitively the earliest armies are often those about which new evidence is found. N ew archaeological and textural evidence seems to crop up quite regularly - to an amateur outsider there seems to be an endless supply of clay tablets and writings in obscure sources coming to fight.
For players of bronze-age armies there should be additions and changes to old favourites and interesting new armies to contemplate.
Items heard on the grapevine include Skythian and Greek allies for the Early Achaemenid Persians, Vedec Indian chariots graded as Cv(S), new troop types for various Assyrians, re-grading of Hittite and Mediterranean bronzeage infantry.
On the local scene both NSW and Victoria now support a healthy competition circuit encompassing the traditional event at the long weekends and two-day competitions on various weekends - as seems standard in the rest of the world.
One difference in Australian DBM compared with overseas is the local lack of pairs competitions and almost universal open-book format rather than "themed" or time-limited competitions - we'll have to see if there is any player demand for these things.
Perhaps if player numbers continue to climb at CanCon a
division into time periods might be called for - assuming
players show an interest in such a division - see you in
Canberra.
--
I wonder how "The Evil" went at Cancon? The DB comps were without doubt the largest of the historical gaming comps by far. DBR alone had nearly as many as the rest combined, including the H&M and WAB comps and seriously rivalling the huge Warhammer fantasy competitions in numbers. The numbers continue to grow every year, testament to their enormous appeal for miniature gamers.
We have had comment about the DB rules systems, some of it quite pointed, since we reintroduced "Kriegspieler" with issue #5. It's good to see that the magazine can provide a forum for healthy debate. We have endearoured to be as balanced aspossible; presenting all sides of the issues debated. In Kriegspieler #6 Scott Niibolas of the Nunawadding Wargame Assoc. put pen to paper taking great umbrage at the Diceman's comments on DBM and made a few good points in reply. Last issue (#7) we publisbed Joe Marmellic's 'critique' about the lack of historical realism in DBR competitions which was itseff in response to questions posed by Richard Sisson in his article on Renaissance wargaming (issue #5). This issue we put another side of the argument in regard to just how historically accurate such gaming is or should he with 'Spieler contributor ("DBR Battle Report" issue #6). Paul Turner's following article.
Back to Table of Contents -- Kriegspieler #8
To Kriegspieler List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Kriegspieler Publications.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com