After seeing SAGA #43 and so many of my by-lines, I wondered whether I should sit out for an issue before my next submission in order to give folks a break, or ask for my own column. If I'd known you would print my letter, I wouldn't have been so obnoxious about Phil Barker. But when a person is smarter than the general populace he tends to get arrogant when challenged, which I do, too, because I am also, and that is why he and I butted heads. The key element in this argument is; which of us is selling thousands of wargames rules, and which of us is buying them. The plain truth is, there isn't an editorial I've read or a person to whom I've spoken that hasn't said Phil Barker is an arrogant schmuck. But if the world beats a path to your door, who cares!

I originally intended to write a review of DBM, but since Richard Bodley Scott is doing so, I decided to philosophize further on ehese games. I am also submitting a battle review of one of my few games, (with no new battles in the offing, I may as well relive the old). There are a number of points about DBM I felt should be addressed.

Here in Dallas, the leader of one of the local groups presented DBA to his eighth-grade "West Point Candidates" for study. They concluded that there was no difference between troop types of different eras and that, but for the mix of troops, many armies were essentially the same! I was prepared to congratulate these young military geniuses for their astute observations validating the conclusions of Martin Van Creveld in his book, "Technology and War." They then went on to say that "this game was too dumb. " So, maybe they're not budding martial masters, but simply belaboring the obvious. Their teacher lauded them for teaching him something new, and concluded that he could not subject his students to a dice-fest, (so they play "They Died for Glory" which is not? Come to think of it, in which miniatures game are there almost no dice rolled? Is anyone willing to play a game of 7th and a game of DBM, counting every die rolled, and see for themselves just how die-intensive each game is and reporting their results. I believe you'll find them to be the same).

Another player here in Dallas complained that his beloved Roman legionaries were reduced to a paltry generic called Blades, which wasn't much different from other heavy infantry types. I love these troops, too. Let's face it, the Romans were THE BEST! History proves it! But what made them the best? Was it the mighty legionary with his armor, scutum, pilum, and gladius? I can name a half dozen battles where these troops were just slaughtered like sheep. They were, in fact, heavy infantry, and not much different from others in their ability.

I've heard players say that Seleucid armies were killer, while Republican Roman armies were usually meat at tournaments. If the Seleucid army was so great and Roman army so mediocre, why did the former kingdom disintegrate while the latter became the greatest empire in history? Wars are not decided on the battlefield, Hannibal proved that. He was a master tactician. His battles were won before a sword was drawn, but he lost his war! A great strategist he was not, Scipio was! (The difference between Arausio and Aquae Sextae was not the legionary, it was a Marius.)

I argued with Phil Barker about the Blades class. In my view, legionaries, huscarles, and billmen are nothing alike. if the three met on the battlefield I don't see any way they could be the same. But since they never did, the point is moot. Mr. Barker asserts that each functions against other troop types as they did historically. How can I argue against that when it's exactly what I want?

The point is, throughout history there have been four basic divisions of soldiers; Heavy/Light Foot/Horse. Within each there are further sub-divisions depending on to what level of detail they are reduced. In DBM the is heavy foot: pikes, spears, blades, warbands, and war wagons; light foot: auxilia, bows, psiloi, hordes, artillery: heavy horse; elephants, knights, expendables, cavalry; light horse: light horse and camelry. If you sub-divide further you get into individual armor and weapons variations. Further still you would have individual skill and morale.

There are many factors in wargames which become submerged beyond a certain level of detail. This can be seen in their complexity. Consider -- The meat of the rules in DBA consists of four pages and each figure represents about five hundred troops; in DBM, ten pages and sixty troops; in 7th, twenty-four pages and fifty troops; in 6th, thirty-six pages and twenty troops; in Ancient Empires, fifty pages and twenty troops.

Now, it becomes clear that there is a correlation between scale and the bulk of rules. Both 6th and Ancient Empires are thick rulebooks of very detailed troops. The biggest problems here is trying to learn the games, and the small number of troops represented on the table. (Three hundred figures are only six thousand troops. The average ancient army was five times that. Try extending the frontage of every unit five times and dance around the table with that!) At the other end of the scale, DBA has little detail, a few figures representing a cast of thousands, and can be learned in one sitting. I could write a set of rules where each figure represents a thousand men, and then even the divisions of De Bellis would be immersed.

DBM and 7th represent the same scale with differing levels of detail. After my introduction to miniatures through DBA, I got bitten by the big army bug. I played 7th a few times just before DBM came out. In my third game I was still referring to the rules frequently and needing help with some of the vagaries of the combat tables. The main reason I like De Bellis so much is because I was able to learn the rules in one game and can concentrate totally on tactics. Movement styles make little difference to me, whether it be simultaneous, alternating, or counter movement. Working within the framework of the game is the primary consideration. And the lack of multiple tables to calculate combat results is, in my book, its biggest plus. (If I found numbers that exciting, I'd be an accountant.) After a few games of DBA and one in DBM I have the combat tables memorized.

7th is a great set of rules, and if you want the detail, don't give it up, but quit complaining about its shortcomings. The more complex the system, the more room for ambiguity. The only reason De Bellis exists at all is because of player's discontent with complexity--making games unpleasant to play. (So quit griping about it. Everyone's tired of hearing the same old arguments. Try complaining about something new... like DBM!)

And I'll say one more time for those who haven't heard it... one of my chief objections to WRG rules is that armies are arrayed in Napoleonic fashion with commensurate maneuvering. De Bellis formations are as described in ancient texts, appearing and playing in a much more authentic manner. I don't desire to fight Napoleon's battles with bow and sword. Ancient armies just couldn't move like that.

And what really makes a player a master gamesman? Is it his ability to assimilate a voluminous set of rules, or is it the tactics he uses on the table? Let me offer as a comparison the game against which all other strategy and tactics games are measured -- chess. The rules for chess are two pages and takes thirty minutes to an hour to play. (It is also boring for its lack of detail.) I rest my case.

Back to being critical!

I pointed out the flaw of Knights (I) vs. Light Horse in my first article, to which I continue to adhere (surprise!). It is not what they do, as Phil Barker describes, that I argue, but their effectiveness in the game against light horse. Light horse has a twenty-eight percent chance of killing them, and are most effective in use against them. You can "aim" these knights at whatever you want, but light horse have the initiative because they move twice as fast. Were I to replay the Battle of Manzikert, there would quickly be a hole in my line where these bow-armed cataphracts used to be. I don't want to gold-plate these troops, just enable them to stand up against historic opponents as they did. I tried playing them against LH(s) without the destroyed by recoil result, and the knights were the ones pushed back! (At least the DBM lists don't require their use and there's only one or two which are not obliged to be generals.)

In my second article I mentioned Viking Berserks should be in the Warband class. In the army lists, Viking Berserks were indeed made Warbands (applause). Difficult going, I have come to recognize, is blocking terrain, as are rivers. (And Mr. Barker, in his letter to Spearpoint, is quite correct... he and I have not been in similar terrains. An orchard to me is an apple orchard where trees are bare-boled and thirty feet apart, and the canopied woods of Georgia have very sparse undergrowth, unlike New Jersey and England.)

Now I have something new to complain about. Byzantine Thematic Skutatoi are Pk(i)!?! This is taking poetic license too far. There is nothin that could qualify these troops as pikes. They should have been spears. (Don't bother to explain it. Any reason you have would be self-righteous justification!)

I once complained to Phil Barker that in 7th edition you couldn't duplicate the battle of Pydna, and in DBM the same applied to Hastings, but not vice-versa. He said of course you can. I elaborate: The turning point at Pydna came when the legion was pushed onto rough terrain. The pursuing phalanx became disordered and the maniples penetrated the formation and ripped it to shreds. In 7th, if a phalanx pushes a legion onto rough terrain, both become disordered, but the phalanx still fights with all ranks .while the legion is reduced to other weapons, and continues to lose. In DBM pikes are +6, blades +5. When pushed back into rough going blades are +3, pikes are +1 and very easy to destroy. Likewise at Hastings. The battle ended when Harold got an ultraclose view of a descending bolt. Bows shoot at foot with a +2. Harold's Huscarles are blades, with a general, on a hill; +7. The best that can be done is a tie, forget doubling. In 7th there the possibility of killing a general at anytime.

Pet Peeves

This is one of my pet peeves. The fact that certain element are incapable of destroying others unless they can surround them or get in flank contact, such as cavalry versus pikes. I would like to recommend the following; If a player loses a roll 1:6 but his element is not destroyed, both should roll again. If in the second roll the player again loses or suffers a 1:6 result, his element is destroyed regardless of stated outcomes. It should always be possible that any element can be destroyed by any other. Sometimes even psiloi could be caught by heavy infantry and chopped up.

Perhaps I am being redundant in writing about DBM (I hope not), but the plain fact is, were I playing, I wouldn't be writing. As I told Terry, my purpose is not to tell players not to play other systems. My main desire is to convince players to pick up this game and try it! Its so simple, what have you got to lose? Perhaps I can eventually find some opponents. Hell, if someone comes up with a way to play this by mail or e-mail, I would be incredibly grateful (no, that doesn't mean taking showers together). You see, it doesn't matter how much I snipe at Phil and Richard. The plain truth is, I wouldn't be so vocal about this game if I didn't just love it! Because when you love something, you can overlook the little things that bother you (being tactless, I'll still mention them) and enjoy what it does for you.

So when it comes to the bottom line I'd like to say, "Thank you Phil and Richard for all the extraordinary work you have put into your games for the past twenty-five years. WELL DONE!"