I'm sure there are plenty of people who are glad to hear that. Thought any suggestion I make can be ignored, I make them in the hope that the rules questions will be re-examined. The truth is, no set of rules can be everything that everyone expects it to be. No wargame can perfectly simulate historic battle. No player will look at entire sets of rules with an unbiased opinion (they like to see their favorite army powerful). And no rules writer can write the very best rules without feedback. Otherwise, he incorporates his own biases.
Before I get into this, there are two things I'd like to say. One is a response to a statement made by Phil Barker regarding players' suggesting rules and army list modifications. Phil stated that 90% of the suggestions, complaints, and proposals he receives are by players seeking to 'tweak' their armies to make them stronger.
While I have argued one point repeatedly (the strength of Byzantine klibanophoroi against light horse), most of my proposals have been regarding the rules in general. Still, there are a number of arguments that can be made regarding individual armies and the choices made by the authors in representing certain troop types. One of these I present here. A principle reason players contest they army they use is obviously because that is the army with which they are most familiar. So there is some justification for the questions.
The other statement I wish to make is to point out that no matter how much I criticize or protest anything in these rules, I believe they are the finest set of rules for pre-gunpowder miniatures battles I have seen. They offer the very best combination of playability, historic accuracy, simplicity, and feel for ancient generalship. Armati comes a close second.
Of all the games I've played, there are three Age of Muscle games I love so much, I wish my name were on them: Empires of the Middle Ages, Imperium Romanum II, and DBA/DBM. Now, if someone would just make the definitive siege and naval rules, life will be complete. Siege of Jerusalem was a good set until Avalon Hill got a hold of it and made it incredibly complex. Perhaps it'll show up some day on the computer, which would make it much more playable. I have yet to see an excellent set of ancient naval rules.
So, no matter how I criticize these rules, don't get the impression I think they're anything less than the best of what's available. Perhaps my next article should be a comparison of DBM and Armati. Armati is an excellent game, but has more shortcomings, in my opinion, than DBM. And though I know others have similar ideas, I write these to instill those ideas in others who may have the ears of the authors. If they don't want to listen to me because they think I'm just whining about my armies, maybe they'll listen to others. I have noticed several changes which I previously suggested. Whether these were taken from my writing or someone else makes no difference. I'm just glad to see them. These are just proposals which may improve the rules or not. That is up to the judgment of those that write and play them. With that said, here's my next subject.
Byzantine Thematic Skoutatoi
Of all the troop types in DBM, none go through the transition that Byzantine heavy infantry do in the six army lists: even though they historically changed very little during the period. In their first incarnation, they are represented as BD(I). In their second, they are Pk(I). In their third, they are Bw(X). And lastly, they are Sp(I).
In the sixth century, Byzantine Skoutatoi were armored with a large shield, stood in close formation, and armed with spear, sword, and sometimes darts. Typically, they fought in eight ranks with two ranks of archers supporting them from the rear. Against cavalry, they stood with spears against the charge. Against foot, they threw their spears at contact and then used swords. Against light horse or missile troops, they stood in a shield wall while archers poured arrows over their heads. In all three cases they act in a different manner, which makes them very difficult to represent in DBM terms.
In DBM terms, against cavalry they would be spears with psiloi support. Against foot, they act as blades. Against missile troops, they act as exceptional missile troops. Occasionally, they would use very deep formations--12 spear and four archer (which is where I suppose the Pk(I) comes from). This was only used when the troops were shaky or to allow others to pass through their formation. Early in the sixth century, they used shorter spears, adopting the 12-foot kontos after the Italian wars, which would account for their blade designation in a period when they were weak against cavalry. But in the Maurikian list, they are still Bd(I).
This troop type is very difficult to pin down.How do you reconcile its various aspects? If you make it a spear, then it is weaker against foot. If you make it a blade, it is weaker against horse. If you make it a bow, it is much weaker versus foot. As exceptional bows, it has some of all attributes, but it is still weaker against foot than an inferior blade would be and excessively expensive to boot.
While I like the Bw(X) category, there is no historical evidence to support designating Skoutatoi as this troop type anymore than they can be classified as pikes. Their long spears weren't long enough to be considered pikes and they didn't have enough archers to be classed as massed bows. Besides this, as a double-based element, Bw(X) is too expensive and too weak. They fight in close combat the same as a single element Bw(X). Unfortunately, giving them a plus in close combat for a supporting rank would probably make them a super-troop.
The best representation of these troops would be a double-ranked Sp(I) with Ps(O) support. In this way, they are +6 versus mounted and warbands, which makes them very powerful against both--almost the same as pikes. Against other foot they still retain a +5 and are +4 against shooting instead of +3. The inferior subclass hurts them, but then, they are foot in an era when mounted men ruled.
I would like to see Skoutatoi in all lists changed to Sp(I), with a Ps(O) for every two spear. These should include instructions stating that the Psiloi (Ps) cannot be used in front of spear against historic opponents. There should also be an exception as in the Maurikian list wherein excess psiloi can be made Bw(I). It's rather funny that in his previous game, Byzantine archers also served as loose-order troops for bad terrain, or in DBM terms, as Auxilia. These are the type of questions that come up with new systems of troop classifications.
As an aside, I'd also like to see Byzantine kataphraktoi all made the same. Where 7th Edition WRG had them identical in all eras, DBM makes them too different in every list. I do wonder why they are reclassed as Cv(O) and (I) in the Comnenan list. Were they (S) and (O), that list would be almost perfect. I am also disgusted with the changing of names, giving the kataphraktoi a name that is just bastardized Greek for the word cavalry (kavallarioi).
Question: What does one do who has nothing original to present regarding a subject, but wants to be recognized as a contributing authority?
Answer: He changes their names. :)
LH Destroys Kn on Recoil
Here's one that has driven players away many times. Light Horse (LH) destroys heavy Knights (Kn) on recoil results. Those who know history understand the manner in which light horse archers were used to draw impetuous medieval knights into ambushes to be destroyed. Because of game mechanics in DBA, this could not happen. Knights cannot be lured out of formation and into a trap. Light horse cannot double knights unless they have an overlap. Consequently, they would just be slaughtered.
The game mechanism used to simulate impetuous knights being lured to their destruction is the 'Kn destroyed by LH on recoil' result. This basically boils down to a die result instead of the events that would have to transpire for the knights to be ambushed. If they roll so much lower than light horse, they are assumed to be lured into an ambush and destroyed. In this case, a low die roll versus a high die roll means much more than one side inflicted more casualties than the other. A great deal of battlefield movement is presumed to take place.
With the advent of DBM, there is now a difference between impetuous and non-impetuous knights. There is also a difference between light horse and light horse archers. In DBM, irregular knights, subclassed superior (fully-armored elites), ordinary (fully armored), and fast (lightly armored but aggressive) are impetuous types. They are harder to control and will pursue enemy relentlessly.
Historically, these were the men who were lured into ambushes and destroyed. Regular knights, inferior type, and cataphracts were not ordinarily impetuous. Cataphracts were under strict orders not to participate in pursuits which would disrupt their formation. Byzantine klibanophoroi fall into this category historically, though in DBM they are double-based inferior knights because of their wedge formation.
Likewise, light horse is classed as superior (lance and bow aggressive),ordinary (lance or javelin), inferior (camels or crossbow-armed), and fast (bows). Here too, there is a great variance between the actual classifications. Ordinary and inferior light horse were primarily scouts, while bow-armed light horse were the ones used to lure knights. The reason? Horse archers can fire at a significant range to strike down knights' horses. Javelin- and lance-armed light horse would have to get into charge reach to do the same. Horse archers, when pursued, could turn in their saddles and continue firing, harrying pursuing knights. Spear-armed light horse could not (unless someone would like to demonstrate how to effectively throw a javelin backwards from a galloping horse).
When Crusader knights met the various light horse troops in the Holy Land, they had varying success depending on their tactics. Against horse archers, they were at a complete loss. They could not catch them. They suffered under their rain of arrows. If they pursued to stop their firing, they would continue to be shot at and lead into traps. Unless the knights could catch them in a vise as they did at Dorylaeum, they had no answer. Only foot archers could counter the horse archers.
Against light horse armed with a javelin or lance, there is an entirely different story. When Kerboga battled the Crusaders outside of Antioch, he used the same tactics that had swept away others before, relying on the fanaticism of his men. When his lightly-armed, unarmored horsemen met the heavily armed and armored knights in a straight-up fight, they were slaughtered. The knights easily rode them down (despite the super high morale, it is another case of technology over morale). Only a 1,000 knights were on the field with 15,000 foot against an estimated 75,000 enemy. The army was known to be so huge that the Byzantine Emperor Alexius, on hearing of their approach, withdrew rather than reinforce the Crusaders.
These examples demonstrate a great disparity in the rules of DBM regarding these troop types. As they are now, even javelin-armed light horse can destroy knights--even the regulars. Rather than have all knights be destroyed by light horse, here is what I suggest: Impetuous knights are destroyed on recoil by bow-armed light horse.
Of course, this would cause cost changes in both categories, but I believe it would more accurately reflect the historic performance of each of these troop types.