From David A. Perry:

Dear Terry:

In response for your request for letters I offer thie following, started a year ago but only finished recently. Sorry for the delay, but since many of the issues addressed below are still being discussed I thought my contribution might still be timely. I always look forward to tbe arrival of SAGA, devour it in one evening and can hardly wait another two months until the next one comes. I have been following the various DBM debates by certain individuals within SAGA with some interest and wish now to contribute my own two cents.

(See also Nikephorian Byzantines by Perry.)

On Terry's article "A Question of Choice: A Rules Comparison", I found your article to be very interesting. Obviously we have different views over the relative merits of 7th vs. DBM. The one point I wanted to raise was your complaints about the dice controlling movement and how that so often frustrated your plans.

I must agree with you that Oman and Delbruck definitely do not do justice to the Medieval/Dark Age period. Military leaders in this period did make "quite ingenious battle plans." The problem I have with your analysis is that Oman and Delbruck reached their conclusions for a reason; all too often, the ingenious battle plans of Dark Age leaders came to naught because their army was incapable of carrying out the plans the leaders had formulated.

How many battles of the period feature bodies of troops which would not mow when they were supposed to, or advanced before they should have, or did not do what they were ordered to?

To be a brilliant general and have ingenious plans is not enough if the army one is commanding is incapable of implementing the plan. Part of the reason men like Alexander and Caesar stand as great captains of history is that they commanded superbly trained and disciplined armies which were capable of implementing the plans that their leaders formulated. How many potential great captains of history were present in the Medieva/Dark Age period whose genius was frustrated by the inability of their arrnies to adequately carry out their orders? Perhaps men such as Robert Guiscard, William the Conqueror and Richard the Lionheart deserve even more credit then they are given; not so much for what they accomplished, but even more for having accomplished it with military systems which left so many of their contemporaries frustrated.

In DBM, the way command dice are distributed for irregular commands combined with the rules for spontaneous advance provides the Medieval/Dark Age commander with many of the same challenges faced by his real counterparts. Simply wanting your Huscarls to advance against the enemy does not make it happen, and wanting your knights to hold-up their advance till the archers have softened the enemy up will not necessarily keep them stationary.

This was a problem real leaders faced, and it is a problem DBM players face. DBM thus gives a good feel for command in this period. K.I.S.S. is the watchword. (As in Keep It Simple Stupid; editor-in-training) Intricate plans can be attempted, and might even work, but you cannot rely on your troops to do exactly what you want when you want it. I am sure the French Marshall at Agincourt would have liked for his knights to have waited until all of the elements of his battle plan had been set in place. But they did not; they went off on their own before the C-in-C was ready, and what resulted was a disaster.

In DBM the same thing could very easily happen, in 7th it almost certainly would not. Contrary to the main thrust of your argument, I think you actually summed up the superior realism of DBM over 7th when you claim that the advantage of 7th is the "chess-like control you have over your troops." Chess-like control makes for a very good game, but it makes for a rotten historical simulation. In the entire ancient and medieval period (truly in all periods, even today), "chess-like control" of troops is not the way it was, is, or probably ever will be.

Thus, we agree and disagree. WRG 7th is a great game. it provides a good contest of wits and provides excellent opportunibes for a test of gamesmanship. However, as far as providing historical realism goes, it is trash in comparison to DBM.

If you really want a feel for what it must have been like being a Medieval commander, take a C-in-C and lots of irregular knights and spearmen and play DBM. It may not be a very fun "garne" as you watch your ability to control both events and your troops erode under the pressures cf combat; however, it will provide a much more historical "feel" for the period than the ahistorical "chess-like control" provided by WRG 7th.

As far as Armati goes, I have been playing it lately and I am most irnpressed. The friend I usually game with and I, both lawyers in real life, (now there is a problem... unless of course they are licensed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky; which sagely requires all members of the bar FIRST to swear not to fight duels, then to uphold the obvious... editor-intraining) are farnous for our rules arguments in 7th. We have even found plenty of ambiguities to argue about in DBM. However, we have yet to have a rules argument while playing Armati. I agree with you, the rules are sirnple and fun. I would add for my part that there i5 a much greater degree of subtlety in the system than appears at first, especially subtle are the rules for support charges. I would also heartily recommend that one use all of the advanced rules as these add greatly to the game. Armati has become an even better garne with the recently released Advanced Armati supplement. The combination of new advanced rules with the new arrny lists whichallow some room for choice make for an even better game.

One more plus for Armati that you did not mention is the command and control system. The use of divisions to control movement does two things. It provides greater control over one's troops than in DBM: at least one knows from turn to turn who will be able to move. At the same time, it constrains the commander with the tactical flexibility of the army he Ieads. It seems to provide a happy medium between DBM and 7th. It provides a more assured level of control that would make a 7th player feel more secure while still limiting that control which is one of DBM's strongest points. I for one plan to play a lot more of Armati.

From Lance Runolfsson:

Dear Terry:

Thanks for translating my letter. Did I really say Elephants? I meant Elements and I should have said Warwagons not camels. I'm in the midst of a major painting and figure sculpting spree. Mostly Grand Itallian wars and thirty years war stuff, which gave me an idea I'd like to float out to the west coast readership.

What if I were to put on a DBR tourney here in southern oregeon sometime next year? I provide all the preset 25mm armies on preset terrain you run a different atmy on a different table each of the four rounds in the two-day event. First place is your choice from the 350 to 400 pt armies used in the tournament.

I'd need about 10 players or teams (participate as a single or a team) at $60.00 a team or single to make this thing fly, with $30.00 of the entry fee would be rebated as unpainted figures with assorted other ptizes. It's a thought and I think a year's lead time is about right to start thinking about it. So I could use some feed back on this idea especially from people interested in participating.

From Drum Barrack's Battle Group:

Terry:

Just got back from Nashville were I was fortunate to speak with several Civil War rules designers. Sorry that I have not been in touch but three cons, and three events in the last 3 months has occupied my time. I now intend to spend some time on our project. Even though I have been busy, that has not meant that I have not playing MLW, we have played over 12 games. A report follows.

I thought though as SAGA editor you would be interested in the Armati Renaissance tournament. It was divided into 2 periods early and late "optimal" armies. I had a War of the Roses army that I had been finishing so I made it into a early Tudor, by adding the necessary troops. Although for my demi-lancers, I used barded war of the roses figures. I tried to make my border horse look correct, my feudal knights also were correct riding armored horses. I used a Turkish gun, gave it trunions and took crew from my scrap box for my heavy artillery.

I was matched against a Scots army (shades of Flodden!) which had rolled up woods and gentle rise for terrain. I myself had rolled a steep hill, and a gentle rise. (After playing exclusively the Ottomans, I must admit I wasn't sure what to do with a steep hill, having never seen one before. I ended up putting my great gonne on it.)

King James (Paul Beggins) put his woods in the center, and occupied its edge with highlanders. His pikes were placed on either side and his horse was placed behind his lines in the center I believe. I deployed my knights and border horse on my left in fairly open terrain, my demi-lancers were on my right congested by the steep hill and my own battle line. The center was one big division longbow in the center, bills on either flank.

The battle opened with his pike beginning to advance while the highlanders cowered in the woods. My five longbow units had put two break points apiece on the two highlander units before they left their cover attempting to close. I shot them down, they broke, and I shifted targets to pike block next to them. I had inflicted 2 bps per unit, 3 were in the block, before I engaged with the bills.

Meanwhile the other pike block engaged my bills and longbow. It was here that I took my loses, he broke I longbow, and inflicted bps down the line. Pikes are tough on bills. On my left I was advancing with the border horse, and the knights. I kept the border horse in the line of sight of the knights, so that they wouldn't "see" the pikes, and be forced to charge. When the knights got behind the block, they wheeled and charged the flank and rear. The next round of melee I broke all three units for the win. I only describe this battle as this was the first Armati game where I only took one unit loss.

The rest of the rounds, a French army, a Moor army, fell pretty quickly though my victories were no where as overwhelming as the Scots. Then I ran into the Hussites. My cavalry was useless, I had not thought to bring any dismounted figures, as the Tudors are not allowed to dismount in normal battles. My longbow were pretty ineffective against wagons, and his gunfire was deadly annoying. I lost.

All in all, I came in third in the Early Renaissance tourney. In the final championship round my Tudors now reinforced by Landsknechts, and trained bands, were routed by a later Spanish army, but with still with Colunelas rather than Tercios as the player wanted the flexibility. Still I won a Moghul army for my third place finish, so I can't say my time was wasted.

From Shawn Ledford

I hope you can find the enclosed battle report of some use. I have included both a Windows and ascii formatted file. While I usually find SAGA to be a very useful and informative newsletter, I have to say I was somewhat irked by the last issue. It had a general overall anti-DBM tone, particularly Steve Phenow's letter. All I can say is that one of his editorial comments on an article about DBM Repulican Romans in an issue of the local HMGS newsletter was something along the line that Roman auxilia didn't carry axes, in reference to them being listed as Ax(S)! Take this into consideration when reading his remarks about DBM included within this last issue of SAGA.

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