Letters from: Phil Barker, Stephen Phenow, and Vince Solimine

Dear Terry,

I see from various items in the last SAGA that 7th edition hold-outs are pushing the view that DBM is less historical than 7th. This was certainly not the intention. The main driving force behind the development of DBM was that the super-simple DBA was producing more realistic looking battles than 7th. True, there is less detail in DBM than 7th, but how did the detail in 7th get there?

Unlike academics, a rule writer cannot sweep doubtful definitions under the rug by ignoring them. The rules have to be complete to be playable and it is sufficient if the definitions are consistent with what evidence there is. Where, as often, there is a gap in the historical evidence, it is necessary to make a more or less educated guess. So when someone says a set of rules does not have enough "period flavour" to satisfy knowledgeable gamers, it may be that some of what the later are knowledgeable about is spurious detail that had to be invented for completeness! The only real way to judge the period flavour of wargames rules is to refight historical battles and compare the game to contemporary accounts of the real battle.

On internal Society of Ancients politics, it barely has any. One editor of Slingshot some years ago had a wargames agenda of his own which he pushed to the point of losing much of the membership, but all others before and since have followed the principle than controversy attracts readers, condemning or ignoring trends loses them.

I hope even dyed in the wool traditionalists can visualise what is meant by Knights, Light Horse, Pikemen, Spearmen, Bowmen, Warband, Artillery and Hordes! "Skirmishers" includes mounted as well as foot, so cannot replace "Psiloi", which is a contemporary technical term for the exact troop type. "Blades" is the best we could find to cover all those foot that fought individually in fencing style with edged weapons rather than relying on speed of impact or huddled up to neighbours. We thought of "Fencers", but that sounds too much like construction workers or MiG 29. "Shock" will not do, since it better describes the impetuous warband or steam-rollering pikes.

Bob Beattie did not mention that he very kindly provided superb 25mm English Civil War armies for our DBR demonstrations at Hamilton last year and ended up running some of them so Sue and I could play in the DBA competition. However, condensed scale is mainly for historical battles too large for normal scale. The ground scale is doubled and the troop scale usually quadrupled, since each element now represents twice the frontage and twice the depth.

What are these people that take 4 hours for a DBM game doing? We play 500 AP pairs games to a 2 1/2 hour time limit including set-up and finish nearly all our games sooner.

Our latest news is that DBM is reprinting as Version 1.3 in March 96. We hope this will last out the millennium.

Terry,

Thanks for the newsletter, I forgot that you edit SAGA. I'm also glad that you and other people do not like the "DB" series by Barker, or what I call: "High Die Wins." I thought everybody loved it. Personally I still dally with my set "Sarissia & Elephant" for 25mm, a set you might find interesting.

I also found it fascinating that Manipular Romans was your theme as well as mine in the "Messenger." I do cordially disagree about your comments about tactical ancient battles. The problem as you see it is loss of control and ability to run the little fellows. Terry, that is what ancient warfare was about, no control. That is why drilled and trained troops won most of the time, they were in control, while the other side was not. Also with the small scale, the army proportions as listed in the handbooks are way off.

Particularly interesting was Dusty Koellhoffer's remarks about flank attacks. If you are hit in the flank, you are "dead meat." And who can see them "from miles away?" The flank unit that was struck usually does not see the hit coming, they are looking at the threat coming straight ahead, while if they do see it approaching, they usually respond by running away from danger, not turning toward.

As an example, I was in a body that was hit in the flank. It was at a "war" in Arizona. My SCA unit "The Abbey of Lang" was hit while we were still bracing for it. The initial shock alone of 20 guys hitting 10-15 men from the side, knocked many of us off our feet. I think Arnie in "Armati" got it right. In my game "S&E" the suggestion of a flank hit alone is pretty devastating to morale. As for responding to flank attacks, Mr. Koellhoffer must plan better, Alexander III of Macedon knew that the Persians would out flank him at Gaugamela, and prepared for it, that is what made him a Great general instead of a mediocre one as many game players are today.

First, ancient troops did not have radio telephones, yet we like the idea of telepathic control over our troops. That is why I gave up on commercial ancient rules, and wrote my own. I have never been comfortable with concepts of a tournament. But that's my hangup. If I had to fight in a tournament, I'd play "Armati." The game is well laid out and nothing is left to rule interpretation. Of course this makes for a very sterile game, but you are not exploiting rules or troop types.

As I said in an earlier article on control in the Messenger (Issue #27), gamers who want to keep the battle under control, and have their troops respond to their every whim, there is game for them. Its called CHESS and it's at a near by store.

TO: Terry Gore, Editor SAGA

With all the articles being written about the current state of ancient/medieval gaming and the virtues of one system over another I feel it is time to throw my two cents in.

In general, I agree with much of Dusty Koellhoffer's article in SAGA # 53. His argument on fighting classifications is valid. Every rule set must group the troops into some type of combat class. DBM uses 14 troop types divided into 10 classifications by combat modifiers. It is interesting to note that WRG 7.5 uses 14 troop types and only 8 weapon types for melee and 4 for shooting to determine weapon factors. ARMATI uses 12 basic troop types with 4 different armor(protection factors) with 10 different combat modifiers (0 through 9).

Of course many troop types will fall into the same combat classifications for example in WRG 7.5 Aztec Warriors, Dacian Falxmen, Irish Bonnachts, and some Viking Bondi Raiders are all Irr C LMI 2HCW. Is this any better than Irr Bd(F) or WB 5[1]3 +1 prot Various?

This in itself does not make any rule set more "Historical" or better then another. How it feels and are the results they produce believable within a historical perspective should be the issue. And amidst all this we should not forget that this is a labor of love and not work, these are supposed to be games playability and enjoyment are the ultimate goal.

Mr.Koellhoffer does make some comments about ARMATI that I feel deserve comment. First, he states that Alexander's Companions, Roman Cataphracts and Medieval Knights are identical in ARMATI. A quick look at lists shows the Companions as 5[1]0 +1 prot Spears, Cataphracts are 6[2]0 +3 prot lances and English Medieval Knights are 6[2]0 +2 prot lances. In addition the Companions are not subject to obligatory charges due to their high degree of training. They are clearly not identical, but they do all function similarly as Heavy Cavalry as they should in any rule set.

The second issue I feel deserves a response is Mr. Koellhoffer's thoughts on flank attacks. It would appear to me that a soldier standing in ranks during a battle would have his attention fixed on his immediate surroundings, and not looking off miles away and thinking of enemy deployments and how best to counter them. The average soldier would leave that to his leaders and worry more about the upcoming confusion, noise, and death that may be upon him at any time. To say that a unit should just be able to turn 90 degrees or turn about in formation is an over simplification of what is actually happening during a flank attack. There are examples in history where the rumor of enemy troops approaching from the flank or rear have been enough to cause a rout.

The psychological impact had a great effect. In the battles we try to represent on the table top there are also enemy forces to the front. In most cases where the main battle line (usually the Heavy Infantry) are about to be flanked one of three things have happened:

1) Their flank guard has been destroyed or driven from the field

2) The main battle line has over extended itself without adequate support, or

3) The enemy have performed a successful ambush or flank march that was not anticipated. I feel most of the soldiers would not stand stupidly and be hit from the side, but throw down their weapons and run for their lives adding to the confusion of other soldiers in their formation who cannot immediately see their fate.

That said, it is probably clear that the rule set I prefer is ARMATI. However, there are things I dislike and feel can be fixed. The first is the inability of mounted units to break-off or recoil from melee with foot troops. A house rule I have been using is, in addition to taking a hit, to allow mounted who have been out-scored but not doubled by foot in melee to make a recoil move their full movement allowance straight back. Only in rare cases where good infantry rolls extremely well and the mounted are unlucky will the mounted unit be stuck in a melee that they are at a disadvantage in. Any skirmisher in the path of the recoil is dispersed. All other units will block the path and end the mounted units recoil. The mounted unit ends facing the enemy, but must spend a full turn reforming if it wishes to charge with impetus again.

Another thing I feel is missing are morale grades for the troops. Although I have not play tested this idea yet, it might work. Assign all troops a morale grade A through E--the WRG lists are most helpful in providing a guide. When a particular troop type reaches its break point (for example 4 BPs for HI) it is not automatically broken but must roll a d6 and score equal to or less than their morale number which would be: A-5, B-4, C-3, D-2 and E-1 to avoid routing. The only modifiers would be -1 drm for each SP sustained over the limit and +1 drm for general attached. This would not guarantee any unit would stand, but would allow for troops with higher morale a better chance of standing longer than those units with less enthusiasm.

I look forward to hearing any comments on these experimental ARMATI rule modifications from your readers.

Back to Saga #54 Table of Contents

© Copyright 1996 by Terry Gore

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web), available on the Internet World Wide Web at http://www.magweb.com