First of all, some things I especially like about the current rules although like all rules they are certainly not perfect...The use of the PIP system produces a command control oriented game and models very well in some respects some of the command control issues facing the ancient or medieval commander. The way irregulars and impetuosity are worked into the PIP system is naturally intuitive and is one of the best overall design concepts in the game even if it suffers in the implementation details. The concentration on battlefield roles as the key issue in troop types, relegating weapons and armor details to the background while still making use of them, is yet another breakthrough even if there are some problems particularly with cross-period matches (which I don't care for anyway). The use of elements as the basic tactical unit of maneuver, while maintaining intermediate and higher command structures, is excellent and is handled very well without extra complication. And the proposed changes...

I concentrated on real changes to the system and things other folks weren't saying anything about. Hence, I have no suggestions for terrain rules which are never the less in need of work. I have not commented on the need for clarification in the impetuosity rules or the (X) troop types. I also have stayed away from bickering about particular die-roll modifier factors since there is already enough of this going on to which I have really nothing to contribute. I have even held back from commenting on the mishandling of what missile troops can provide rear support against mounted. Furthermore, I have made suggestions which maintain the play-ability of the system and do not do violence to the concept. The following is simply the proposal itself, with the most important rules presented first and those which are most inter-related presented consecutively. The questions regarding some details, the supporting arguments and the preliminary play-test results are compiled at the conclusion.

1. March movement versus tactical movement

Only a single move may be made in a bound. Since this means there is no difference I am aware of between march moves and tactical moves I am just calling them moves.

2. Retreat morale

Each recoil or flee except by skirmishers generates a "-1" die-roll modifier to the recoiling or fleeing element's (and any elements pushed back by them) future close combat die-roll totals if those future totals are less than or equal to the enemy (like "I" troops). One modifier may be removed each time an element spends a turn halted by PIP expenditure (the halt may have been from a previous bound if still in effect), spends an additional PIP for the removal (this may be done on a one-PIP-per-valid-group basis) and does not engage in shooting (shooter or target) or close combat.

One modifier may also be removed each time an element wins (higher modified final die roll result) in close combat, including the instant it provides rear or overlap support to a winning close combat. These "-1" die-roll modifiers are represented by placing some marker (casualty caps, rubber bands or pipe cleaners for instance) of any color except red or green (yellow is recommended but white or even blue might be common as well) on the castings of the element.

3. Shock momentum

All land elements which moved into close combat (or, if mounted, or foot against other foot, whose enemy moved into close combat) except light troops and Bw, Arty or WWg and those uphill from their enemy or even partially in any non-good-going terrain feature or fortification must (this is not an option) follow-up one base depth and advance after enemies recoiling from close combat. This includes any other elements of the types listed above giving overlap support to such victorious elements. Any element listed above (not overlap support- they perform as for recoil above) whose opponent flees or which actually destroys its opponent in close combat is required to follow-up one base depth and then may (optionally if regular, required if irregular) make a normal tactical move less that base depth subject to all the normal restrictions, possibly flanking an adjacent enemy element.

4. Command control momentum

Elements or groups which have a PIP expended to move them straight forward (or a column of elements along a road) at full speed and spend their entire bound moving through good going are required to continue doing so without further PIP expenditure until...

a. the instant ordered to make another maneuver (wheel unless in a column of elements along a road, oblique, move less than full speed, move any portion through non-good-going) through PIP expenditure,
b. the instant each and every element in the group's front rank contacts the enemy (in this case obliquing or wheeling certain elements slightly to conform is not only permitted without further PIP expenditure but required),
c. the instant the element or group (or any element within the group) is involved in shooting (as a shooter or target) or close combat,
d. the instant any portion of the element or group (or any element within the group) enters any kind of terrain which is not good going or
e. the instant halted, either free of PIP expenditure to simply end the command momentum or by the use of PIP expenditure to additionally prevent spontaneous advance by impetuous elements.

The PIP cost to initiate this is the same as any other advance. Such an element or group is represented by placing some marker (casualty cap, rubber band or pipe cleaner for instance) of a green color on the castings of the element. Impetuous troops are still impetuous. Whenever they are required to spontaneously advance under the current rules they will lose their command momentum marker, and all its effects, and unless PIPs are expended to move them normally or (as below) to halt them they will spontaneously advance. The +1 PIP for irregulars moving is now changed to a +1 under any circumstances in which PIPs are expended on irregulars moving.

5. Command control inertia

Elements or groups which have a PIP expended to remain stationary are required to continue doing so without further PIP expenditure until...

a. the instant they are ordered to move through PIP expenditure,
b. the instant the element or group (or any element within the group) is involved in shooting (as a shooter or target) or close combat or
c. the instant a new cause occurs for impetuous troops to spontaneously advance.

Such an element or group is represented by placing some marker (casualty cap, rubber band or pipe cleaner for instance) of a red color on the castings of the element.Note the +1 PIP to halt irregulars remains in effect.

6. Groups as intermediate command structure

Only multi-element groups specified in (revised) army lists are allowed. In order for an element to be considered part of a group that group must legally include any and all remaining non-destroyed elements specified as parts of that group.

7. Flank and rear attacks

When attacked solely from the flank and/or rear the defender remains as-is and they defend without the benefit of their normal troop type modifier (it is effectively "0"). They do, however, receive any other tactical modifiers except for overlaps, multiple ranks and rear support. If such a flanked defender wins or ties (higher or equal modified final die-roll result) they turn to face their attacker prior to any post-combat movement. If such a flanked defender loses (lower modified final die-roll result) they are immediately destroyed, just like any flanked element.

8. Roman manipular legions

Camillan and Polybian Roman (they will have to be penalized in AP costs to compensate) Ps may pass through their Bd and/or Sp to the rear, even in recoil (behind Bd and/or Sp in the first unoccupied base depth facing enemy) or flee (behind Bd and/or Sp, in the first unoccupied base depth at least 300p from starting position, and facing away from enemy), and have no effect on the Bd or Sp if destroyed. Note this is not new, nor is the indication that the "-1" retreat morale modifier will be applied only against the recoiling or fleeing Ps, not against the Bd and/or Sp being passed through. The new rule is that the same applies for their hastati Bd to pass through their principes Bd or Sp or their Triarii Sp, or for their principes Bd or Sp to pass through their Triarii Sp. Note the Triarii Sp still doesn't pass through on a recoil or flee and all the normal effects apply.

9. Skirmisher representation (a low priority)

Light Horse no longer destroy Knights whom they defeat in close combat. All skirmish troops close combat die-roll modifiers are reduced by a further -1 in good going. All bow troops (bow, some light cavalry, some cavalry and some psiloi- a new troop type distinction is required unless someone knows how to decipher the troop classifications to determine this already) are allowed in their own bound to fire on a valid target without effect out to 250 paces.

Certain enemy troop types (all mounted and all impetuous-prone infantry) fired upon in this manner or the normal manner have the choice to recoil (with the -1 to future close combat for recoil/flee) or become impetuous, in addition to all the other effects of being fired on (the entire target element's group experiences loss of command momentum as represented by the single leader casting).

10. Commander personalities (a lower priority)

An optional rule (mandatory for all commands when any participating player has more than one command)- Each commander is given a negative PIP die roll modifier. Ranges and particulars for some commands in some years are specified in army lists. Minimum adjusted PIP die is a "1".

Questions and Supporting Arguments

WRG is fundamentally against any form of record keeping, including markers. Call them eccentric if you will, but there is no chance whatever of them ever using a system requiring markers - they hate them with an unreasoning hatred. [I don't know if it is unreasoning hatred. Perhaps rational hatred against creating an "accounting mentality"- Fish]

Unfortunately, can these mechanisms be simulated without any kind of markers? The basic problem with this is that if the simulation is static with no "memory" of any kind then basically all troops are fresh, happy and awaiting orders all the time. This, and the response it evokes from those who do not play DBM, is a shame since DBM has implemented a lot of ingenious ideas as stated at the very beginning of the proposal. It was therefore sought to continue to avoid off-table record-keeping altogether and to make the markers as aesthetically pleasing and unobtrusive as possible.Furthermore anyone's suggestion on how to model these effects without the use of markers or record-keeping is most welcome.

The overall effect is all that DBM is currently concerned with. And given a valid model this should be adequate. Unfortunately there are irksome and apparently minuscule details whose effects are all blown out of proportion when not considered adequately in the model. Still, the attempt has been made as I have stated repeatedly to keep the play-ability of the current system intact. This is done by maintaining focus on the changes required in the effects that actually are modeled in DBM, and finding ways where these are discontinuous with what is seen by the DBM general on the table-top to bring them into alignment and thereby produce a more accurate, not necessarily more detailed or complex, simulation. As an example, the practical result of the PIP system (according to Richard Bodley Scott) is that troops can indeed advance steadily provided that they are deployed in the simplest of formations. As soon as the complexity of their formation increases, delays start to occur as PIPs are insufficient to move all troops. This simulates confusion arising from complicated orders or attempts to change orders.

Unfortunately, complex formations were used by some very tactically sophisticated and flexible armies. Furthermore, formation complexity is only one of a number of factors which need to modeled even for the effects shown in DBM. The attempt has been made only to model in this proposal the additional factors which affect what the DBM general sees, and to correct some of the errors in the current model, all while adding the smallest amount of complexity possible, preferably none. As another example WRG according to Richard Bodley Scott maintains that what happens in each individual turn is relatively unimportant because so many turns are in fact played during a game compared with other sets of rules.

For instance they state that the overall effect of the existing PIP system adequately simulates the constraints of maneuvering a force to contact the enemy over a number of turns without the necessity of allowing troops moving to continue their move on subsequent turns without PIPs etc.This then avoids record keeping or clutter they find so irksome. Once again unfortunately this simply is not the case. Any player who looks at it honestly will agree that the situation on any single turn, right down to the millimetrics of troop positioning, is extremely important and that the geometric space and time relations modeled in this way are the core of any miniatures rules including DBM.

Finally many thanks to the responsible parties for the suggestions on leader castings (perhaps somewhat tongue-in-cheek) and on LH needing to recoil or flee without the morale modifier. Both have been adopted and great appreciation goes out for the added aesthetics of the one and the probably proper simulation model of the other.

And now to cover the rules changes in detail.

March movement versus tactical movement

The paradigm expressed here is that ancient and medieval troops often averaged faster, and at least not slower, movement when drawing near the enemy. The current system is a carryover from a bad rule in WRG 7th (and, in WRG's defense, many other rule sets) and is a bad rule in DBM as well. Stopping to dress ranks was simply a means to lose momentum to say nothing of disordering all those non-cadence troops every time they stopped or started. Fear increased as troops drew nearer to the enemy but comfort was obtained by remaining with the group which was, usually and especially for close-order troops, advancing. The idea that troops can march at high speed behind or around other troops simply because the other troops happen to be near the enemy is a Napoleonic, not ancient/medieval, concept. [Hmm seems to me "human nature" is to shield yourself from the unpleasant. So while you might be timid with a clear view, if something blocks your view you can cheerfully ignore it. -Fish]

Skirmishers can break this up a little bit but not by slowing the enemy marching speed per se but rather by possibly (and not nearly as often as they would like) causing a temporary breakdown in command. In DBM currently skirmishers slow the enemy greatly no matter how much command effort is put into keeping them going. What should happen is causing the enemy to spend PIPs, if enough can be had, to keep the troops moving at the same speed.

DBM currently runs on an assumption that confusion and indecision will override momentum every time, and that decisive movement comes only from a commander devoting overriding attention to the troops in question. Confusion and indecision are however factors that affected march movement far from the enemy, not tactical movement near the enemy once the decision was made to close.

Therefore, the case could be made that the current system is exactly backwards. Instead of enemy proximity what allowed flank marches and marches behind the lines to occur was the inactivity of the troops without advance orders around which the maneuvering was occurring. For instance, the successor phalangites who would sit like this and wait for the cavalry to win the battle on the wings were well enough out of reach of the enemy so that if he started rolling forward they could respond through their command lag and still be moving with forward momentum (and past the initial disruption experienced by formed troops beginning to move) when the bodies collided. The halt is simply a halt, not due to enemy proximity and in fact deliberately well out of enemy proximity. There are plenty of times, for instance, in DBM where opposing lines sit unwilling to be the first to jump in and expose themselves to enemy overlaps and such. Moving behind the line or around the flank at normal tactical speed accomplishes the same effect under the right circumstances without the distortion between march and tactical moves.

WRG's own DBA does not allow multiple march moves in a bound, only the extremely rare case of adding to a general's movement along a road, and I have seen many occasions in DBA where these dramatic marches occur anyway. This will also fix some of the difficulties with impetuous advance. Yes the games would take a little longer in the approach but battle will eventually still be joined, only now with the proper relationship between movement near to and far from the enemy.This rules change does take away this rather ridiculous facet of the advantage of regular agile troops.

This is compensated by the command momentum and inertia rules decreasing the PIP expenditure especially for regulars properly used and by forcing historical groupings of elements. The advantage of agile, regular armies is not raw speed but agility. The multiple march moves do not reflect agility, they simply reflect raw speed. Irregulars can march just as fast but they are harder to maneuver, or to get moving or keep moving (or halted) under certain circumstances. Admittedly there is no way that to call even this "properly scaled."

For example Vegetius advises a march speed of 20,000 paces in five hours for footmen. Five hours being twenty fifteen-minute DBM bounds, foot should rationally be able to march 1,000 paces in a single bound. The DBM scales give 100 or 150 paces for foot movement near the enemy (50 paces more for "F" troops), and over five hours even the current march rates in DBM would average 350 or 525 paces per bound. Since the proposal drops march rates to tactical rates, it actually severely exacerbates the existing problem. The solution is to fix the relationship between tactical and march movement first, then address the time scale issue, for which the answer is simply to make each bound two minutes, immediately sending a shock-wave through the wargaming community accustomed to Napoleonic day-long engagements.

Retreat morale

One of the great things about DBM is that you don't have to try to remember the unit history on the tabletop. In fact, remembering it would be impossible. And, just like some kind of separate orders determination, it would do violence to the simplicity and play-ability of the rules. But placing "-1" casualty caps does not involve any more mental anguish than figuring out the results in the first place. Admittedly casualty caps are ugly and a nuisance, and any better suggestion for how to more aesthetically model the semi-long term effects of recoil like this would be most welcome. One could also borrow the excellent system used by "Legendary Battles" of dropping individual castings off an element or column of elements to the rear to signify stragglers (eg, the number of castings dropped off is the number of minus one's). This would, however, require one to base the castings individually and then use movement trays (something I have done with my 25mm Normans).

Should skirmishers be exempt from this rule? I'm torn on this one and the skirmisher exception is still being pondered. One has to look beyond the few immediate bounds and realize the skirmishers will recover while all their friends surround and wear out the pursuers. Look at it with the suggestion for skirmish effects. But it may be a good point anyway. In either case skirmishers and especially LH obviously need to remain a viable weapon and by all means nothing should be done to change this without some kind of compensation allowing them to remain effective in some manner. [ACK! The one gripe I have with all of Phil's rules is the inordinate strength of skirmishing troops. In DBM they simply cannot be killed or dispersed by some other troops in straight up fighting. PUULLLEEESSSEEE! - Fish]

Shock momentum

For shock troop types, operating in situations which required them to use forward momentum to be most effective, if the enemy recoils, flees or is destroyed they surge forward after them. For the troop types mentioned as shock types, all this would be actual hand-to-hand combat or, if victorious against skirmishers, chasing other troops away. In either case the victorious troops should be pushing forward. Close formation troops do not withdraw to dress ranks in the middle of melee or fail to follow up against other foot.

Contact is only broken on fleeing or if open, loose or mounted are recoiling from close foot or if mounted are recoiling from open or loose foot. The base depths actually work very nicely with this since contact is broken as mentioned above but other combinations result in maintaining contact in a continuing hand-to-hand melee. The eternal DBM question- should Cv be treated as missile troops or shock troops here? Maybe different kinds of Cv (even versus different kinds of opponents) treated different ways? I believe the answer is already present in the current troop type descriptions, it merely needs to be sorted out. Are the remainder of the troop types grouped properly here as shock types depending on momentum or other types?

Command momentum

The paradigm being expressed here is that ancient and medieval troops, regular or otherwise, recognized the need to maintain forward momentum (or at least, recognizing it or not, operated under a formal or informal doctrine which did) and were therefore very likely once set in motion straight forward over open terrain to keep moving full speed ahead until something happened. That something could have been another order to change direction or a temporary halt (in games terms not moving full speed straight ahead). It could have been encountering some terrain. It could have been receiving fire or shooting. Or it might not have happened until the enemy was finally reached and bodies collided.

Therefore to make any maneuver such as wheeling (except following roads) or moving at only partial speed or obliquely cancels the momentum. As does non-good-going terrain, shooting or close combat.

The intuitively excellent PIP system stays. It just now represents what it was intended to. This would be the use of command control to cause units to move by a mechanism resembling that used by the armies being represented. One still needs PIP's to initiate any movement, keep impetuous troops halted the first turn, do either of these after shooting or close combat, move less than full speed, make a wheeling maneuver unless by a column of elements along a road or move any portion of a move through non-good-going terrain.

The PIP cost for a momentum-initiating move is the same as any other move or halt, and necessarily so since all that is being represented is the tendency for these orders and doctrine to remain in effect until something happens to alter the situation. The point is that the order is delivered or signaled or somehow enacted one time only (a single expenditure of some number of PIPs). If properly used this will slightly economize, for regulars at least and even for irregulars under the right circumstances, on the already slightly high degree of control a general has. However, this is somewhat canceled out by the restrictions placed on groups and the much greater difficulty experienced, especially by irregulars, in making a large number of micro-maneuvers.

Although a similar mechanism is employed the effect is much different than that for impetuous troops, which would still of course be impetuous and act like it. This is because the main effect of their impetuosity is the loss of group structure as an intermediate level of command and the correspondingly much greater difficulty in keeping impetuous troops under control.

In addition impetuous troops may not remain halted. This rule is not about spending an extra phase or decision process working out what all the units will be told to do (if anything). This is not an orders system at all. As stated earlier such a system would do violence to the simplicity and play-ability of the rules. Simply indicate units one already decides to spend PIPs on which move straight forward in good going full speed or along a road full speed. One does all this in DBM anyway, now just use a leader casting to make the momentum last between turns under the right circumstances.

I retain some concern for the practicality of the single leader casting representation, here and with command inertia, when used with individual elements as it certainly inevitably must be. It gets to be a bit much to have an extra leader figure for each element so ordered although depending on how often this would have to be shown, particularly for single elements, it might not be a big problem. Keep in mind shooting or combat or maneuver (changing speed or direction) cancels this momentum out. Aesthetically it is very pleasing and it is also remarkably functional. It represents what seems for the moment to be the least intrusive means of representing this mechanism. Suggestions are welcome. It does however need some serious play-testing for many reasons.

Should irregular skirmishers be exempt from the +1 PIP cost for irregulars to move or avoid spontaneous advance, or both? Should skirmishers require any PIPs to move at all, or is there a better mechanism to simulate their detachment from normal command control?

Command inertia

Basically all the same points apply here as applied for command momentum. The exceptions if any would be due to this being basically a mechanism to keep impetuous troops halted.

Groups as intermediate command structure

The paradigm being expressed here is that currently group moves in DBM represent a lower command structure than a general's command but a higher one than a single element. This is a very well-done mechanic in itself and congratulations go to the designers. Unfortunately, these things were organized (to use the term loosely in some cases) prior to and not during the battle at best, and in some cases were a culturally and / or bureaucratically ingrained feature that the army commander wasn't going to mess with on the battlefield.

As a less dramatic change, and one more immediately play-testable, allow groups to be assigned prior to the battle (although the army list approach is far superior especially when allowances are made for options in the army list allotments and campaign years). Compensation for army lists disadvantaged by this will have to be found in things like terrain placement rules and troop costs. What are some examples of how this would be presented in the army lists? What kind of balancing factors would be appropriate in terrain placement and /or troop costs?

Flank and rear attacks

The problem and solution here are somewhat self-explanatory.

Roman manipular legions

This rule allows Roman manipular legions if properly deployed to fight in relays and maintain a higher morale as a result while their successor phalangite opponents, for example, are slowly worn down. The Romans bend, the successors break (unless of course Pyrrhus' or Hannibal's cavalry decides the issue on the flanks first).

Do these relay tactics apply for Marian or later legions? The deployment was still in three lines, of all heavy infantry, in Caesar's time, but was the relay concept still valid (as I suspect it was given the tendency to deploy in customary manipular fashion) or were these more like other examples of reserves?

Skirmisher representation

It is thought that this will simulate skirmish tactics better. What is the proper maximum / non-effective range for this? Turks opened up on crusaders at over 400 yards (also about maximum for longbow) to no effect other than annoyance. That would be lots of paces, probably too many. The most important question is when does this become dangerous for unarmored horses (at least in the perception of the target to the point that they start chafing to charge)? For reference a longbow can penetrate chainmail at 200 yards, certainly enough to scare the knightly types. It would be interesting to balance this out with, for certain skirmisher sections of certain non-skirmisher armies, the PIP-less movement suggestion under command momentum as well as (for PIP-less elements only) a reduced demoralization effect.

Commander personalities

A matter of personal taste perhaps. An argument certainly could be made for a player representing all the traits of the commander he is playing. But when a player controls multiple commands this distinction is somewhat less clear. In any case Alexander will always need to be Alexander to some. A dramatic change not immediately play-testable. Skip this for play-test unless you want to agree on some historical leadership for each side. What are some examples of how this would be presented in the army lists? What kind of balancing factors would be appropriate in troop costs for generals?

Preliminary Play-test Results

Thanks go to Grant for the play-test and subsequent report and question /answer summarized below. He was using an early version of these rules changes culled from his memory of several e-mail messages. His report on his re-match with the compiled rules is eagerly awaited. Grant had just finished a game in which they attempted to play-test these modifications with Mongol Conquest against Scots Common. It was truly surprising someone actually tried them. The momentum rules as utilized by the players created a situation where both players were spending PIPs at a slightly higher rate. They also had an amazing rash of bad PIP rolls.

They found that performing many micro-maneuvers as they were accustomed became incredibly difficult, and that the perfect situation would be to line up directly opposite one's opponent and charge, which should be simplest and easiest. Trying to outflank and circle around behind the enemy in the manner they attempted either just cost way too many PIPs (even for their regular Light Horse and Cavalry) or the dice just weren't co-operating.

A pair of terrain items (combination hills(G) & woods) were just to the Scots side of halfway in the flank sectors. The Scots moved forward quickly (more PIPs) and took up a defensive position between the two pieces. This is somewhat surprising since the march moves no longer existed and the Mongols were mounted. The reason for this might have been the lack of march moves were supposedly definitely to the great advantage of irregular troops. But then once battle was joined the Mongols claimed they wouldn't have had enough PIPs to march move reserves anyway.

It is suggested to make reserves a separate command or keep them real close to the front. Time and space factors make it real difficult to exploit temporary passing situations with reserves unless they are right at hand. The result was the Scots nicely filled the gap between the two terrain pieces and had enough spare to provide a rearguard. Sounds like terrain, an opponent wise enough to take advantage of it, and bad PIP rolls did the Mongols in, although it also sounds like there was room to move around the terrain to the rear- and the irregular Scot infantry should not have had an easy time responding to mounted threats on both flanks. In order to descend on the flank of the Scots the Mongols had to split the flank commands up to go around and through the terrain. The troops that were continuously wheeling and changing direction were no problem. But the ones heading around the back would often speed up when the Mongols had an affluence of PIPs and then (as happened three times) all four commands would roll a 1 on the PIP dice. All of a sudden they couldn't be stopped and off they'd go.

The question is in a rapid flank march where the Mongols were trying to hurry along and encircle an enemy (who was much slower anyway since doubtless he had much fewer Light Horse) why did the Mongols want to keep stopping the troops? Also why were some of them continuously wheeling and changing direction, a big drain on PIPs? The problem here was that when the flanks would run off the Mongols would have to divert the good PIP dice (when he got them) to them to regain order. It was a choice between taking them from the reserve or the main line.

The way he used the army was to split each command into small groups so that he could attack at different points (hopefully the weak ones) of the line. These tactics had worked before, sometimes. Anyway taking PIPs from the main line he felt would most definitely been disastrous as elements would have quickly been without support. One of the intents of the command momentum and the recoil morale/advance systems together is for one to spend PIPs first to march to a point from which to launch an attack, then deploy if necessary, then attack.

Once combat is joined one is maintaining contact usually so PIPs which can no longer be used in the melee (one basically loses control until the melee is resolved) can be used instead on any reserve movement etcetera. All in all, if one operates like this without too many micro-maneuvers (just important ones) it is hoped one will wind up spending fewer rather than more PIPs. Next time the Mongol player thinks he will make a conscious effort not to move the troops full distance (a bit gamey but it doesn't induce momentum) to create a more tactically flexible flanking force. Of course, using the momentum properly is supposed to give one an advantage. One gets to move most of one's troops free and spend one's PIPs on the important maneuvers. If one depends on continuos adjustments one may have to spend more PIPs.

Move to where one wants to attack from, then attack. The way the momentum is supposed to be used is to pick a spot to move to (or an intermediate point) and head there. If one depends on doing a lot of adjusting one is going to spend PIPs at the same rate as current DBM, plus have the problem on a bad roll of not being able to order one's troops to stop marching along. Keep it simple even if regulars. For irregulars it is going to get to be even more difficult to do much tactical adjusting.

The retreat morale system actually (to the players' great surprise) was playable. They never really had enough PIPs to remove all the "-1s" but both sides were so handicapped. They did tend to get a few results of 2 doubling 1 (and on one occasion 8 beating -1) but all in all it did work. The battle took about twice as long as usual but most of this was trying to remember the new rules. Overall, it definitely needs more play testing, but this is the beginning of a workable system (just not DBM according to the play-testers).