While the games we play are supposed to represent history, do they when we play in tournaments? Are all the army lists actually historically accurate? In the first place, who knows? Historic data is sketchy at best. In the second place, who cares? As Tom Coveney pointed out in a letter to S.A.G.A., rules like De Bellis are designed, not to recreate history, but for tournament play.

Re-creation of history is fun when you're learning to play If you've studied history then you know what to expect, how the battle will develop, and what works. And they always try to replicate minute details of combat. Once you've assimilated this, fighting historic battles becomes redundant, and the minutiae becomes a tedious process of refering to tables and calculations. If you re-create the elements of a battle, there's little chance you won't recreate the results. Where's the challenge? I'd rather play tournaments and campaigns to test MY skill, MY luck.

So, if DBM is designed for a tournament format, why are the lists for the game published with such detailed historic restrictions? The diflerences in most of the lists, and within them, consists chiefly of differences which occured in specific historic battles. It would take only one book of lists if only general information and compostions were included, detailing the 'typical' characteristics of the armies. The armies of the Successors are virtually identical, differing only in minor details based on geography and the commander's persona. And armies such as the Wars of the Roses English, if fighting foreign or ahistoric opponents shouldn't be hobbled by whether they are Yorkist or Lancastrian or Tudor Armies were composed firstly of whatever type of troops were available. They were then redesigned to better cope with whatever opponents they faced, against which they were weak.

Only a very few empires lasted long enough to adjust to a variety of enemies. They eventually learned the lesson of mission specific force structure. There are few military theorists who have understood war well enough (Sun Tzu, Frontinus, Mauricius, Leo VI, Basil Liddell-Hart, Mark Leonhard), to try to teach strategy to others. Most theorists focus strictly on the mechanics of war and have no understanding of the psychological, moral, or 'artistic' aspects, (Clausewitz, Trevor N. Dupuy), and are best kept on the gaming table where the physical relationships can be studied. This is what we do in tournament play. The moral factors are kept to a minimum so that we can maneuver against one another in a giant chess match featuring the random factor of battle.

In playing tournaments we should be restricted by neither geography nor persona. Even Alexander adjusted his army's structure when facing different opponents. If I'm going to be chained to a particular list during a tournament. I would like to structure my army in such a way that I feel they can fight whoever is set against them. Otherwise, tournaments should be formatted so that only historic opponents fight. Better yet, have the armies assigned to the table. and players must compete with whatever army is set before them. Now THERE is a test of generalship! I believe I will try that. Two double elimination tournaments. One using DBM100 Freestyle where players get a general, a camp, and 100 points of their choice in a DBM game on a 3'x2' table. The second, a DBA tournament where there are a number of matched army pairs set-up for players to use that are fairly equal in strength. Here will be a set of tournaments that will challenge the contestants in a way the 'fantasy' tournaments oF the past have not.

Luck

There is no doubt, either in the games we play, (nor, if you study the careers and wisdom espoused by the Great Captains of history), that luck playa a very large part in battle. The reason; when on the battlefield with thousands of participants, you never know when someone become will become a hero or a coward, and lead their unit to glory or destruction. This is something with which every general must deal. It is lack of control, and it is part of life.

Some players think that larger games with more die rolls will "even out" the luck factor. This is false. The die may average out, but the moment at which you roll a one and your opponent rolls a six may take place at a point which is decisive (such as when your general is involved) or not (such as when a psiloi is engaged).

Because of its small size and lack of complex combat tables to distract players from their die rolling, it is much more obvious in DBA when the 'Luck Gods' strike! For all its seeming to be 'die-intensive', DBA (and DBM) has no more die rolling than other WRG products or any other wargame. (Don't believe me? Try counting every single die rolled for combat, morale, and orders transmission in any game you choose and compare the totals.)

My DBA record is 35:12. The army I've fought most with, and against, are Normans. My record as Normans is 15-2, against Normans it's 6-3. I can state for a fact that two of those three defeats were flat out bad luck. I was against a player who didn t have a clue as to how to maneuver his elements to advantage, but had no trouble rolling high when I rolled low. Likewise, my biggest victory, 9 prestige points, occurred through pure luck when a cavalry and light horse facing their counterpads on one nank blew them away, allowing me to surround the enemy general and take his camp on the same bound.

Sometimes there are people against whom you are helpless. I look at it this way;

Chances are you can roll high (5-6), medium (3-4), or low (1-2). Your opponent can do the same. That leaves you a one in nine chance that you roll low when he rolls high. With twelve elements, chances are you'll have four or five combats each bound, so every full turn someone is going to get pasted. The trick (if you want to call it that) is to MAXIMIZE YOUR ODDS AND MINIMIZE YOUR OPPONENTSI That is the name of the game in any battle. And the final outcome, if you planned and executed your maneuvers well, may be defeat, but will not be a slaughter.

There is one fact that pervades all of military history which is this - of all the generals who retired undefeated, not one fought more than a handful of battles. The more you risk battle (and that's the very reason for the term "risk battle.) the greater the chances are that you will no matter how phenomenal your tactical skill (e.g. Hannibal and Napoleon) you wili eventually suffer defeat. The point of this is that your dice are not going to average out during a battle, large or small. But your overall record ('winning the war') will tell the story.

But, if you can't lose as graciously as you win, just pick up your toys and go home. Otherwise, let's have fun!

DBA: Rating Players

I have seen numerous times, players asking if there was a way to have ratings for players in wargames like they do in chess using something like the Elo Rating System. The major drawback to doing this in wargaming is the inherent disparity between the quality of armies, and the few number of games played (Luck being something that essentially will balance out over a large number of games).

With the advent of DBA with which a great many games can be played, the question has again arisen. Though many would not wish to be rated (mostly because they don't really want to know how badly they play, they just like to fool themselves) that shouldn't deter those who are interested in trying something like this (like chess players). Whether you are good, bad, or indifferent shouldn't make a difference if you just enjoy the game. If you're playing to be "the winneh then this is not for you, you have a bloated opinion of yourself.

I have developed a system for rating players in DBA which I believe will work. It involves handicapping weak armies against strong through a point system. I would like to test this system and ask the assistance of players around the country in doing so. What I need is the following;

Players send me their record of games. This includes the armies used, the optional elements (if any) used (I must know the exact composition of the twelve elements if deviations are allowed from the lists) and the results (win/lose, number of elements lost on each side, whether a general or camp were lost). It doesn t matter who set up first or how the terrain was set-up. I need twenty games to make an approximate rating fifty for a tentative rating, and one hundred for a qualified rating.

Players who only wish to be involved in the test can send me this info by e-mail Players who would like to be included in an actual rating list send me this info by snail- mail along with the name and signatures of both players. (If involved in the second method I must add that if none of your opponents becomes rated, then you can t be either. At least one player against whom you compete must be in this also.

I would greatly appreciate players help in testing this and perhaps getting it started. If it works as well with a large sample as it has for a small group then I will explain it in detail, and publish the list of those who snail-mail me their data. The snail-mail system is only to ensure the validity of the data (this would not produce a bogus list like Avalon Hill's 100). Thanks for your assistance, and good gaming to all!