DBA and its siblings must surely provide a large section of the planet's wargaming experience making the Bergster's Great Balls of Hire series look rather puny by comparison. But do they make a moment's sense?
[ED: and why should they do this eh?]
One of the wonderful things about the Internet is the possibility of linking up with others with similar interests. [But that is enough of smut and back to DBA].
I recently downloaded a whole load of DBA/DBM sets for a swift gander, particularly as to how they function using the same model across a number of periods.
A quick description of this simple but effective rule system is as follows. Command is handled by means of a die roll, each "pip" allowing units or blocks of units to move. If you endeavour to use fancy formation changes the result will be that they take longer to achieve than advancing with an infantry centre and two wings of cavalry.
Combat consists of generating scores with 1d6 each plus modifiers and comparing these final scores. The results are graded based on the degree to which you outscore your opponent. Outscoring one's opponent (but not by twice or more) will usually causes recoils (retreating facing the enemy) unless one has a particularly effective opposing type of weapons in which case destruction or flight usually results. A score of double or more than the opposition usually causes death. The size of modifiers not only has an effect on victory but whether a double score is possible. Two sets of modifiers of +5 vs +5 (for example) would see no score able to double the other (max score is 11, which is not double the lowest score of 6) whereas a +1 vs +1 clash sees six combinations per side able to double others. A full third of the results could be fatal. This adds a degree of asymmetry to the system that can usefully be used to achieve different effects.
I started with a simple test, a unit of missile armed troops are slumbering when rushing towards them comes (a) a Warband (wild infantry who tend to rush their target) and (b) some Heavy Cavalry (charging cavalry). What are their chances of escaping with their lives (assuming I can read rule properly)?
DBA (March 1990)
A band of Mad Wends charges a stand of English longbows (though I miss the advantage of longbows over other bows in DBA): The move is the same as bow range so the fire occurs when the two sides are adjacent, but with no negative effect on the firer. Except, I suppose, in that he will then face a melee if the fire is not successful. The modifier is +2 to the bows and +3 to the Warband. The results (after any follow-up Melee - 72% chance of one of them) are shown below. The same calculation for Knights charging the bows is +4 for the bows and +3 for the Knights (follow-up melee is 41% of cases). Because Knights are very prone to destruction by bows one can immediately see why the French dismounted at Agincourt. If this is meant to be a short bow then I have to assume the rules have changed……! See below for the DBM incarnation. Why have knights? Well they can destroy Warbands, skirmishers and "auxilia" by simple outscoring. You just need to be careful where you employ them. However bows can be destroyed by any mounted troops (be they javelin-hurling Moors or plate-armoured knights) outscoring the archers. So such combats tend to the bloody.
The results for the Warband show the clear view of the game system that bows main effect is injuring the horse rather than killing targets. Infantry are assumed (it appears) to be able to march through the arrow-storm without too much difficulty compared to their mounted cousins. The effect of being faced with onrushing Gauls, Wends or Gurkhas with only a short-bow is clearly demonstrated. One really needs a few units of Blades (the DBA category that cover Roman swordsmen to English Bills) to protect the archers. The DBM improvements make the stand-off rather less one sided, but especially with the further gradations available in that system.
| Result | Warband | Knights | DBM Knights |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dead Warband/Knights | 5% | 87% | 5% |
| Recoiled Warband/Knights | 43% | - | 61% |
| Continuing Melee | 10% | 5% | 10% |
| Recoiled Bows | 30% | - | - |
| Dead Bows | 12% | 8% | 24% |
DBM (February 1993)
The speed of Warbands has dropped in DBM (the big brother of DBA) so that getting to the target in one move is not possible. The factors remain the same for combat between Bows and Warbands. The battle with Knights has changed though to a +4 for the Bows and +4 for the Knights, and the destruction of Knights by simple outscoring is limited to only Bowmen (S).
[DBM uses finer gradations than DBA, though they can be retrofitted. An (S) unit (for superior) would be a longbowman. An (O) ordinary unit might be a Roman auxiliary archer. Whereas an (I) inferior Bowmen represents the equivalent of the Chorus, lots of men, no desire to fight and plenty to keep their distance. There is also a (X) Exceptional category for bow-and-shield units, such as the Persians.]
So Knights facing common or garden archers need not tremble quite as much. Bowmen though are just as susceptible to any cavalry they do not shoot down. Note the changes above to reflect the position of an attack on simple bows as between DBA and DBM. If the target had longbows they would boost the Knight recoils to destructions, a 66% kill rate (compared to the old 87%), but a ten fold increase compared to the archer who draws but to the breast. Perhaps we can excuse the Crecy tactics if the French had not read their new rules.
DBR (1.1) Renaissance DBM/DBA
This is not really the era of the Warband, but if we sent a mass of Azabs (Warband (S)) to attack ordinary muskets the factors are +4 to the muskets and +3 to the Warband (see the effect in De Bellis Indica below). So the stopping power of the gun (in the designer's mind anyway) over the arrow is once more demonstrated. However the rather clumsy musket can suffer destruction if outscored by the Warband in a way the Bowmen were not. I am not sure that I can rationalise this fully, a clubbed musket is a fearsome thing! Shot firing at Lancers (say the French at Pavia) will have +2 factors to the cavalry +3, and the Lancers will destroy them if they outscore, whereas shot will not return the compliment.
The cavalry appear to have come back into their own, but a unit of Pistols (the more common Reiter or Ironsides) while having the same factors will not destroy with an outscore, they will need a doubled score. The worried musketeer has a solution though, support the shot with a unit of Pikes and the factors jump to +4 versus +3. This is a simple but effective design feature to encourage Pike and Shot blocks (these can be flank supported so you can have the Musket-Pike-Musket formation so beloved of the period). Although I am not sure I entirely agree with this overall treatment it shows a degree of richness to the system.
De Bellis Indica: 18th-19th Century India (Gary Preston)
Let us now move to a stand of Ghazis charging a stand of Sepoy muskets. The move will require that the incoming infantry suffer one fire. These rules use a Fire and a Combat modifier, with the target using the latter. The modifier is +4 to the Muskets and +3 to the Ghazis. The results are shown below, if Ghazis get home they can destroy muskets simply by outscoring them (lots of slashing). The game shows a satisfying improvement in firepower for our Sepoy compared to the archer facing onrushing Gauls. The same calculation for Heavy Cavalry charging the muskets is +4 for the Muskets and +3 to the Cavalry. The same position as with Ghazis. The major difference between DBA and this version being that Heavy Cavalry can recoil if outscored (but not doubled) whereas the knights died in heaps. I prefer this treatment, as the knights seem to have few advantages for their courageous charges. Firepower is now encouraging us to consider cavalry for flank attacks.
| Result | Ghazi | Cavalry |
|---|---|---|
| Dead Ghazi/ Cavalry | 16% | 16% |
| Recoiled Ghazi/ Cavalry | 64% | 64% |
| Continuing Melee | 8% | 8% |
| Recoiled Muskets | - | - |
| Dead Muskets | 12% | 12% |
La Grande Armee (Vae Victis)
This Napoleonic system (which seems short of a few rules, like offensive fire) would treat an infantry attack against formed infantry as +3 versus +3 (see the ACW system below for a similar approach). The Melee if it occurred would be the same factors. A Cuirassier Charge would be +3 vs +6 (because it receives a +2 charge bonus). Neither side has a particular weakness from the other so that if the cavalry do not recoil they will kill 25% of the time. (They cannot die if in contact because the charge bonus is too great to allow doubling, though they can die at a distance without the charge bonus! "Close up you chaps, it's safer.") . But if the infantry are in square this reverses the Charge Bonus back to +3 versus +4. Only an 11% kill chance but watch that horse artillery. Although I think the cavalry is overstated the structure still encourages the "correct solution".
DBA for American Civil War (Wrexham and District Wargamers)
In this example, a stand of musket-armed Confederates charges a stand of Union troops armed with Enfields. The move will require that the incoming infantry suffer two fires. As I understand it the moving rebels must return fire (and can do so after their first march as they are then at their 200 paces range). The modifier is +4 to the Rifle-Muskets and +4 to the Rebs, both sides having the score of 1d6 and the missiles suffer no nasty effect. I have assumed that a recoil will end the attack on either side, though they could return to the advances infinitely until they break or get to close quarters.
The results are shown below, basically most attacks breaking up early with no advantage to the defender unless the muskets mess up the approach march and spend three turns in fire range. The lack of vigour from fellow infantrymen compared to the charging Warband has rendered the combat symmetrical. The readiness to fire is taking away the charging mentality (should Lee's Rebs be Warband one wonders?). The same calculation for Rebel Cavalry charging the Enfields is +5 Rifle-Muskets and +3 to the Rebs. However the cavalry only face one round of fire and are not as tough as their medieval ancestors.
Oddly enough the chances of the cavalry succeeding have increased over DBA, but the fact that they no longer charge boot-to-boot has improved (slightly) the likelihood that they will survive. But in general the position remains one of slaughter, rather more believably in this case than the DBA above. I was not sure if the effect of the newer weapons was very obvious, but that's what Paddy Griffith has always argued.
| Result | Foot | Cavalry |
|---|---|---|
| Dead Foot/ Cavalry | 3% | 79% |
| Recoiled Foot/ Cavalry | 47% | - |
| Continuing Melee | 0% | 1% |
| Recoiled Rifles | 47% | 20% |
| Dead Rifles | 3% | - |
Colonial DBA (Neil Laird)
A stand of Warband charges a stand of Regular Rifles: The move will require that the incoming infantry suffer two fires. The modifier is +5 to the Regulars and +3 to the Warband. The results will be even more crushing than the DBI shown above (as they should be with magazine rifles) although, once again, if the Warbands survive they can destroy rifles simply by outscoring them. Only numbers or surprise is likely to prevail though against this degree of firepower. The line may bend but it will not break without some finesse. Osman Digna knew this, and so does the gamer. The same calculation for Irregular cavalry charging the muskets is +5 for the Muskets and +3 to the Cavalry. Once again a difficult task to handle. Run the same combat with a Gatling gun section and you have +7 versus +3 for the Warband! You can begin to see the slaughter. The only chance the benighted 'eathens 'ave is to see a 1 rolled and the guns jammed. Then they can get home and knife the shocked crew.
Back to Perfidious Albion #101 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
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