I found your article in the last SAGA on the current state of rules intriguing. In it, I didn't hear any criticism of De Bellis that I haven't heard before. At first, I was going to write an article presenting all the arguments I've heard and blowing holes in them. This would be as easy to do as criticizing the game (which, as you know, most of my articles have been my own critiques of the game's mechanics and my ideas on improving them). There's not a single criticism about the game's overall philosophy and design, however, that holds water.

For example: I've heard one person who fancies himself a professor of military history boast that even his eighth grade history students could see how stupid DBA's troop classes were. They reasoned that Alexander's Companions, Roman cataphracts, and Medieval knights were all the same, that troops from different eras should be different and that this was too dumb. The same guy raves about Armati. Obviously, neither he nor his highly intellectual students have figured out that these troops are also identical in Armati. They can't see beyond the names. His other rave is that he plays with double-sized units. In fact, Armati is not much different in size from DBA when it comes to functioning combat elements. The proof of this is that in Armati, units function exactly the same in both the intro and epic scheme.

I think that Jamie Fish getting angry with a kid because the boy knew nothing of the troops in the game he just played is pure miniatures elitist conceit. So if the kid had just played Armati and said he wanted Viking Huscarles, when asked what armament he wanted them to have, would Arnie rip his head off when he answered "Various?"

The same kid, had he just played a WWII game or Napoleonics would go ask for Panzer Grenadiers or Fusiliers, and when asked what armaments he wanted, would still not have a clue. It's called being an ignorant beginner, which we all were at one time. The kid couldn't help being ignorant, and it was just plain rude of Jamie to use it against him. I know the arms and armor of the troops I play with, not because the game tells me about them, but because I've researched them in history books. Beginners tend to let the game teach them history until they realize how little there is to learn from them.

Your own argument about nomenclature in the DB system I find curious. You ask which sounds more ethnically historical in describing Huns; DBM's - LH(S), or WRG's - Irreg C class LC, JLS, bow, shield. I have to answer, neither. Both describe the fighting classification of a particular troop type in regards to the game's mechanics. How is the classification "HI, HTW" any better than 'blades?' How does it tell you anything of the ethnic differences of the troops and their heritage, or are all Romans, Spaniards, and Franks the same?

How do you refer to your troops when you're playing with them? When I play, I'll look at the combat chart and say, 'I have blades vs. your spears." When I move them on the table I say, "I'm going to attack your hoplites with my Romans." When I played 7th, I 'd move my Romans into my opponent's hoplites, I refer to the combat chart and say, "I have HTW against your LTS." Does this sound more ethnically historical?

You describe how you became angry when using the "better researched DBM" because it didn't give exact details as to a troop's armament. How does HTW describe the differences between the pilum, angon, and fransisca? Of course, the blades class also lumps 2HCT and 2HCW together with HTW.

It sounds silly (I complained about it, too). But if they all function identically, what should be done? It would be redundant to have three categories for heavy infantry whose weapons have similar effectiveness. Perhaps it would be more appealing with better nomenclature. Personally, I much prefer Armati's term skirmisher to DB's psiloi, and light infantry to auxilia. How about, rather than calling them blades, they are termed "shock infantry?"

After all, that is what they were Spear and pike-armed heavy infantry were made to hold off opponents. Warbands I would count as shock light infantry. But those armed with pila, halberd, and battle-ax were structured to close with and destroy the enemy. I think it makes a much better statement of what the general troop classification is than that currently used.

But if you want details on the equipment of the troops with which you play, a game is not the place to look. To help you find those details, though, I would rank the DBM army lists as the number one place to start for one simple reason. It is the most well researched list available for ethnically historically correct reference. It calls your troops by their names. Legionnaires. Falxmen. Varangians. Agema. Huns. Millets. DBM lists have the most complete reference of names of historic troops. Compare it to Armati. And if you want to use terms that are ethnically historical, these are them. The historic names of the troops themselves, not game classifications.

As for die rolling for movement, that's a matter of detail preference. I've had games when no one would get their orders in 7th and then stood there. But, frankly, there are plenty of games when I wished we used an average die plus one. I think 3-6 pips sounds much better. There are plenty of times when my fragmented battleline needed more than six pips to carry on the fight. But then, a general can't be everywhere and order everyone simultaneously.

In terrain I couldn't agree more. That was one of my first complaints in DBA. Players could put bad terrain in the center of the board. And it just made warbands weaker. At least Armati makes them strongest in this terrain. But it doesn't make Auxilia, the Roman answer, better than any other troop against them.

A long time ago, I suggested making warbands a minus one in bad going to correct this. Even skirmishers are superior to them in the woods. But it doesn't matter much since in DBM they don't destroy opposing foot in difficult terrain on recoil, and it's far too restrictive to move in that terrain in the first place. Essentially, it is designed to be blocking terrain. Two or three psiloi can stop anything moving through it. It's just another game mechanic I wanted to see changed in DBM to allow more options that I see as historic possibilities. (You have those possibilities in Armati, though, in fact, how many stand-up battles were fought in such terrain? Generally, they were ambushes. I don't know what to say about it overall, it's a design choice on the part of the authors. On a separate track, another plus in Armati is that elephants have impetus and can run over pikes if they get lucky. While DB says elephants and pikes fought on equal terms, a +4 vs. a +7 is hardly equal.)

I will explain two of the things I like and dislike most about Armati. I love being able to shoot all missile troops at a long distance and attire enemy units after a fashion. And I like the fact that their strength lies in their missile fire, while they are highly vulnerable in close combat. I think bows in DBM are too powerful against cavalry and too weak against foot. I feel they should have a one point lesser melee factor against mounted in contact, and a greater shooting factor against 'shock infantry' because of their strength.

Tne thing I dislike most about it is the complete restriction on movement. A division cannot split to send a unit out to stop an enemy maneuver which you can see coming from miles away. If you didn't plan for it, an enemy can swing around and hit you in the flank. And a unit struck in the flank by a heavy unit is dogma.

In DBM, when a line is struck in the flank, the end element will turn to face the attacker. If forced to recoil, the line can be rolled up. (In this, I believe the game mechanics should have the turning element put its back against its friends rather than moving to against the attacker. It's not fair that foot can recoil once or so, while mounted troops cannot. And at different scales, there are more recoils.)

This looks and acts much more realistically than Armati. I ask you, why is it that most miniatures players think soldiers on the battlefield would stand as stupidly as their toy soldiers and be hit from the side rather than turn to face the attack? Are they so unimaginative that they cannot visualize what is happening in battle beyond what they see their toys doing on the table? Even Bodley-Scott suffers from this handicap when he complains about "the buttocks of death" in DBM. They should try playing boardgames where you must use your imagination. It may expand their horizons.

ln closing, I'd like to say that I've played WRG 7th, DBM, and Armati and believe each to be an excellent game. Each has its own design philosophy and emphasizes different aspects of ancient battle. Each is flawed and doesn't properly represent other aspects as well. Which you choose is dependent on your personal philosophy of what you want emphasized to give you the most pleasurable feel of generalship. None is wrong, and our efforts would be better spent promoting them rather than criticizing those that do not fit our personalities. And a rose. . .

(Editor- Dusty's assertion that the use of the terms "heavy infantry, heavy throwing weapon" is no better than "blades" is spurious at best. A blade can be anything from a kitchen utensil to a switchblade knife...not an inspiring example for a Viking huscarl!. The nomenclature aside, I agree wholeheartedly that the terrain rules are lousy. So far as the missile troops go, I feel that Armati's javelin range is much too generous, but on the whole, the missile troops ranges and the effect of fire are well balanced.

I guess in the final analysis, I don't like grand tactical rules anywhere near as much as a straight tactical set. Somehow, I lose the feeling of the period with each figure portraying 40 to 100 actual men. Things become too stylized and a sense of real-time I control is lost. Perhaps that is why I have such a hard time understanding the appeal of DBM. At any rate, I wish to thank Dusty for his thoughts).

Back to Saga #53 Table of Contents
© Copyright 1996 by Terry Gore

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