Bruce A. Meyer

Here I was, all set to put my two weeks of conceptualising into a letter titled "Hey Terry, give DBM a break", and issue 44 shows up. Your request for coexistence is both timely and reasonable. The Hong Society of Wargamers has a simple creed. When someone invites you to a game he tells you what rules he will be using. It's his home that he is inviting you to, mostly his food he is offering, his wife who is locked in the bedroom for the afternoon or evening, and his time setting up the playing surface. Very few say no because they hate the rules chosen. Besides, you can invite the guys over to a refight using your rules at your place next time. Poker players change the rules every hand and board gamers learn a myriad of rule systems. So you're right, what's the big deal? My hardest conceptual change coming from board gaming was the idea of non historical confrontations and lack of modular distinctions for specific historical periods.

Much bile has been spent on the non historical engagement's question, I won't touch that argument but I think that period specific module, tweaking a basic set of rules, still cries for investigation. A DBM type system, could probably do it with a simple page or two, unlike the well conceived but cumbersome ANCIENT EMPIRES. In fact, isn't allowing Roman Psiloi to support blades in certain armies the logical equivalent of a variant for a specific period and army?

We've given over a couple of meetings to pitting opposing armies against each other, first one rule set and then another. The idea was to create a test of generalship. We put the commanders head to head, not the rule sets. The conclusion was, when given equal levels of experience the same generals consistently played strong games regardless of which of the three rules set used. Interesting aside, some of our newcomer DBA to DBM players exhibited a sounder understanding of the application of tactics to a variety of battlefield situations than a few our grizzled 7th veterans who have been playing only the same one or two armies for the last five years. More than a few times the vets were reminded that scouting should not be an abstract concept. Don't anchor your flank on a wood without clearing it first if you don't want a nasty surprise.

Flying on an airline of an obscure Asian carrier with no magazines, no movies, no stewardesses and probably no preventive maintenance gives you plenty of time to think. Scott Holder's comment about a similarity developing after two dozen DBM games had caught my mind. We've battled 5 times that in Hong Kong and what was different? Initially, to get the feel of the basic rules, we had played on relatively open tables and frankly avoided time and weather constraints. Very quickly it became apparent that one of the not so subtle points of DBM was that many times the only solid chance for victory within certain pairings was the ability of the weaker(on a toe to toe spear vs. shield basis) to fight on terrain advantageous to that particular force. The same thing goes for mobile vs. immobile or hard to command armies. The terrain selection does not immediately make one force the front runner and the other an object of despair, it simply shifts the odds slightly. That in turn requires a shift in tactics from one field to another. Add time and weather and a commander who would like to simply march to contact may not have the time or vision to do so.

But, that's not too different between the rules sets. Perhaps Scott is referring to the idea that no matter how you come to blows the combat results are determined by lines slugging it out. We never really got stuck in that phase. With reference to the comments on ambushes in the previous paragraph practiced 7th players seem much more likely to march to combat looking to establish a breakthrough using local superiority somewhere within the matchups. DBA DBM raised gamers love ambushes, flank marches, catching opponents crossing rivers and popping the light horse around the flanks after the baggage. Most of our games more often than not turn on the success or failure of these moves. These are not always fatal in themselves but set up a situation where the opponent finds himself at an ever increasing tactical disadvantage. A spirited counter punch, strategic use of reserves, or a surprise of their own may yet carry the day but the fact remains it is not usually the slugging match that begets the decision. I totally agree that hoplites; vs. hoplites on an open plain has a continuing sameness just as it did in Pelopenesia. I'm sure the ancient Greek commanders wracked their brains for a way to break the inevitable deadlock. They in effect stood there rolling incessant dice for an outcome.

On the other hand if you look to recreate battles where Alexander crosses upstream, and attacks an unready foe from the flank, finally breaking the entire army without the main battle lines ever coming to contact, battles where it is touch and go until the horse bursts from cover at the moment of crisis, or battles where the over confident foe marches through a canyon only to be decimated by the cross fire of the previously undiscovered enemy then use a game system that allows it to the fullest.

I enjoy reading articles showing how close the various rules' sets come to creating 'historical' results. At least no one seems to have anywhere near a monopoly on that. We should recognise that differing rules encourage different styles of play. Play what you want and don't denigrate someone else's choice. If new rules bring more people to the hobby or bring some back, then great. Haven't you noticed some of the great new figures that are available because of the need to fill some of the gaps in the DBM lists? It's an ill wind that blows nobody good?

Jim McDaniel

Dear Terry:

I enjoyed talking to you the other night as always. As a small way of saying thanks for all the help which you've provided to me in the past, hope the enclosed might prove of some interest. You have my permission to edit the article, if you need to do so.

My memory's either going or gone, so excuse me if this point is a rerun but on the first of last month, the Post Office changed my post office and zip code. So my community has become Antelope, CA 95843, not to be confused with Antelope Valley down south in our desert area. Locally we have a really cute habit of not incorporating communities but finally allowing them to take on their own name as an unincorporated part of Sacramento County when the locals start to get thoughts of revolting

I've just sent in an order for some sample figures of the 25mm Wargames Foundry early and late Roman imperial troops. Which reminds one of how times and conditions do change. When I recently started to get going again after last playing third edition WRG, I never thought 25mm could be any kind of viable alternative to the 15mm figure. Unfortunately/fortunately though the Wargames Foundry figures are so appealing that 15mm doesn't look as attractive as before.

A local DBM gamer. Jeff Kroon, and I were talking about Arty Conliffe's new 'Armati' set of niles. Jeff really likes DBM and even is an organizer of local tournaments, but he raised a very interesting point about Phil Barker vs Arty Conliffe on the subject of philosophies, He feels Conliffe's approach of drastically restricted maneuver and similar factors is beg applied to a phalangial army. Whereas Barker's approach is more suited to armies which lived or died by flexibility in maneuver like late Roman armies.

Presuming Jefrs analysis is proven to be right, this "plains why gainers disagree over which rules set is best. When a set is attuned to an author's very specific view of the nature of ancient warfare, then it won't be equally valid when applied to armies with a dramatically different approach.

Phil Barker

Dear Terry,

Book 4 of the DBM lists has bow out for a few weeks, but I have only just got mine. A review copy is now winging as way towards you.

DBM competitions now bound over here and entries exceed those for 7th competitioins. Richard Bodley Scott entered the two of us in a pairs competion as the Rule Writers team. The format was 500 AP including one reliable ally. Richard took his Ottoman Turks and handled the Crimean Tartar allies, the idea being that I would occupy the attention of a large part of the enemy army with a dozen elements, mainly light horse, while he jumped on the rem with the main body.

It worked after a fashion in do I held down much larger form, but in retrospect, the Turkish army was not the sort of out and out offensive form that could force a quick decision on its wing. I am accordingly building up a Patrician Roman Army with Hun allies to do the job propely. We only had one big win, two marginals; and a draw, ending up half way up the final list. In a Swiss Chen competition you need big wins to get you to the top, destroymg the enemy centre as well as his wings. We did get the Best Terrain prize as consolation.

I was kept so busy on the defensive wing that I had little appreciation of bow the main battle was going on. I asked Richard later on occasion who had won. I did have some interesting experiences, though.

In our first game, against Late Hungarians, I was opposed by advancing war wagons supported by columns of horse ambers and Polish knights. I was saved by my opponent's inability to decide what to push through the gap his wagons left -- his horse ambers, who were inferior to mine, or his knights who might charge to disaster.

The second game against Palmyrians was our great victory. My opponent was so keen on putting his few camels into action that his masses of far more effective cataphracts waited impatiently in the wings until all was lost.

The third game against Maurikian Byzantines was the most fraught. Our opponents jumped right down our throats early on leaving us with no room. I managed to kill off a force of Gothic Optimals, but lost heavily to Byzantine cavalry and went demoralised, though my rearguard kept them in play to the end of the game so that Richard could equalise on his wing.

The final game was against Late Romans with a few Huns on their far flank. The advanced their infantr center until its flank rested on a patch of rough ground, then most of his cavalry then started moving off behind his centre, leaving a few refused behind the rough ground to keep me busy. There was obviously no reason for me continuing as the defensive wing, so I left a few light horse to amuse the infantry and enveloped the enemy flank.

This breach of orders concerned the Mighty Sultan, who was a little prone, as such great men are, to back seat driving. However, he calmed down when the great column of enemy cavalry about to reach him awned found and headed back, doing a Grouchy and failing to engage anywhere. I chased the remaining enemy cavalry without catching, but relieved my feelings by slaughtering baggage. Unfortunately this was not enough to demoralise the enemy army, much of which had still not got into action, so the result was a draw.