"Anything in a wargame can be rationalized--with practice." -- Phil Barker
DBA v1.1 DBM v1.2
Phil is once again producing amendments to stop players from doing things in DBM that are 'ahistorical' and, actually, downright silly looking on the table. DBM v1.2 amendments have been published, making many sweeping changes in the game. DBA v1.1 is also in print, bringing the game more in line with DBM, but not completely so.
It is unfortunate that Phil Barker and Arty Conliffe are at such odds. Both have excellent ideas to produce in their respective games: De Bellis and Armati. The problem with Armati is the strict (almost stifling) movement rules, while DB tends to be freewheeling. There is one area in particular that Phil could have benefited by taking his cue from Arty, and that is implementing a smaller scale DBA game.
I believe all players agree that DBM is a much finer system than the original small format and they enjoy the added refinement of the rules. Version 1.1 of DBA, while taking much from DBM, does not bring the game in line with DBM as much as it could. It would perhaps had been better if Phil had redesigned DBA as DBM using 100- or 150-point armies, and produced an army list book instead of revamping DBA. All that would be necessary is any modifications to the rules for use of the very small armies.
One of the changes that DBA desperately needed was the weakening of elephants. These are so powerful in the rules that they are worth almost two elements. The change was made to restrict their movement by requiring more command points for them. They have also been made more vulnerable to more elements, notably auxilia and light horse. This, I believe will help immensely to curtail the popularity of elephant armies used in DBA tournaments because of the elephant element's strength.
Another change was in war wagons, which were far too weak to begin with, but may now supplant elephants as overly powerful. They are now far stronger, being able to shoot and only being destroyed on recoil by elephants and artillery, and not recoiling against anything else. I hate to say it, but it appears that Hussites have become more powerful than any elephant army thought of being. With a +5 shooting factor against mounted troops, +4 against foot, and such high factors that it is extremely difficult to double in close combat, they may make elephants look like pussycats.
Changes made in DBM v1.2 that did not cross over to DBA were that cavalry flee rather than be destroyed if doubled by pike or spear, and blades are destroyed on recoil from knights. While these changes have made DBM a better game, omitting them from DBA simply makes for a conflict in tactics between the two games that is irreconcilable.
And lastly, one change that Phil doggedly refuses to make in DBM (just to irritate me, I'm sure [:)] ) is to enable double element KN(I) to receive rear support against LH. It is still ridiculously simple for LH to destroy these expensive elements because they lose on tie die rolls. LH have a 60% better chance to destroy them than a single element of other knights. And they move twice as fast, so can easily intercept them. ([sigh] Maybe v1.3?) Frankly, I think the Byzantine Klibanophoroi would be better represented as cataphracts. They were heavily armored, fought boot to boot, and had archer support. KN(X) are considered superior against LH.
Movement
The changes wrought in DBM are much more dramatic than the last revision. Cavalry and blades and movement are all very different. I'd like to take a look at the new version and why Phil did what he did. In Spearpoint volume X number 5, he describes four such instances of players making moves that looked bad on the table, or in some way violated the rules as written.
1) Heavy foot cannot move from corner to corner overlap to a flank contact because of the Pythagorean theorem and the way the rules are written: elements may not use sliding to align elements as a means of increasing their move distance.
The same argument has been made against Psiloi interpenetrating spear to their front and attacking cavalry in the flank. Do you measure from their starting point, or must you move them straight until they complete their interpenetration and then measure? In which case they too fall into this category. I wonder how psiloi are envisioned as a unit.
One rule amendment I laud is saying that if an element has overlaps on both sides, it cannot penetrate the formation to flank contact. I agree heartily. There should be a real hole present, and an element having an effect on both sides should remain in a position where it continues to do so. But why shouldn't this element move from overlap to flank contact in one bound when it is heavy, regular foot? Because the distance is too far to complete the move by 6mm. The idea that these elements have a front of men in a perfect line I find obtrusive.
Back in old WRG rules, players could take individual figures and move them around each other's flanks. Why are DBM elements so much more restricted just because they are elements? Isn't the game abstracted to begin with? Do psiloi march through spears in perfect formation, then wheel into the enemy? Or do they rush through in a mass, then turn and rush the enemy? And regarding the difference between this move and the shift of an element moving two inches forward and then sliding over half an element width is 2mm. Two! Talk about microscopic nitpicking. In my opinion, if you can't see it from the table edge, it's too close to count.
This argument also has to do with item number four, so I will bring it up out of turn.
4) Phil's pet peeve is players who move an element slightly behind an enemy piece with their rear facing the enemy's line of retreat. "No real commander would deliberately force an enemy to back into his own rear." Actually, on the DBM web page, he says it was Richard that was really riled when it was done to him: "mooning," alias "the buttocks of death."
"I dislike it because it is just plain silly to back into the enemy. It only takes one bound longer to go through completely and then turn head on."
The problem with this is that players (and apparently even the rules writers) are now looking at these individual elements as having a perfect front/flank/rear. They are suspending their statement that we envision these elements as 'representative' of the actions depicted. In 'representative' action, an individual element is permitted to move anyway it wants, rather than having to wheel. An element contacted to rear is permitted to turn and face. A group of light horse can turn swiftly while maintaining its 'formation' and be said to be shooting skirmish fire, but on the table it is in physical contact with its opponent.
I've never had a problem with this logic because I can see the elements as tactical groups of men functioning in ways which cannot be depicted at the scale used. They are not a single line of troops standing shoulder to shoulder regardless of what goes on around them. They are regulars who maintain their formation in small groups. They are trained to maneuver.
Warband, psiloi, and lighthorse are actually mobs. I do not envision a line of light horse being a hundred men lined up stirrup to stirrup wheeling around the battlefield in complex evolutions. I see a mob of horsemen gallivanting about in a amass, scattered about with those bringing up the rear taking their movement cues from those in the front. If each element is about company strength, it's easy to envision a platoon-sized group peeling off to form a new front on one of its flanks or rear.
So why shouldn't an element whose rear is behind a retreating enemy be able to check the enemy withdrawal effectively? A platoon peels off and turns to face them. When an enemy contacts an element in the rear, the entire element does an about face. Is this supposed to be the entire troop executing a counter march just before contact, or the immediate rear ranks making an effective about face? If we are going to restrict an element's combat ability on the basis of how it looks on the table, shouldn't they be unable to turn when struck in the rear and have a 0 combat modifier instead? Do we need rules that go into the minutiae of company maneuver to explain what a platoon is doing?
The element on the table represents the overall action of the company. It is not the two-to-four figures on a piece that dictate what it is doing, but it's relationship to other elements. These elements represent a few hundred men (unlike previous WRG rules which were 20 to 50 men--too small for any effective action that is not depicted on the table) and are capable of a little more than a painted and glued element is capable of achieving. Boardgamers have never had a problem with this as we use cardboard counters that can be an entire division. We don't need to see a battalion in action to know that is why the enemy counters are influenced and slowed when trying to move past its 'zone of control.'
If a player is moving a group of elements forward, and an enemy element comes up to face their flank, does the entire group stop because of it, or does the player peel off one element to face the obstructing troop while the remainder forge ahead? Is it so much more difficult to envision this on a scale smaller than that represented on a table that a single element couldn't do the same? Isn't that what we're doing when light horse are engaging an opponent, or troops fighting in overlap?
As for the Pythagorean theorem, if we are going to be limited in this fashion, then rather than say a heavy foot element cannot make the swing in one bound because it lacks 6mm of movement to make direct contact with something that already contacts, let's utilize another rule from the boardgames of the 70s from which this game is developed.
'An element cannot contact the flank of an enemy unless it starts its turn beyond a line extending the element's front. It cannot contact the rear unless it starts its turn beyond a line extending the element's flank.'
In other words, you have to be past the element's front to be eligible to move against its flank. Then, a heavy foot which is in side-to-side contact with an element, and not in contact to one on its other side, can move into flank contact in one bound (actually, it's already in contact, it's just turning to face). Then, there wouldn't be this argument and two turns moving to face something with which it is already in overlap. You also wouldn't have mounted elements charging from in front, making an instant wheel, and smashing into the flank. They would have to get into position to turn, then charge the flank.
The other two arguments are about groups being offset to the frontage of approaching groups. This involves something I brought up on the net about English longbow herce formations which would be rolled up by an approaching pike block--but it turned into a ridiculous discussion of the effectiveness of the longbow. The rules state that a group must conform to the front of another group. So a player could place two lighthorse elements together before an infantry group, offset their angle, and force the other player to break up his formation to attack them.
Another amendment which came out in v1.2 is that elements could not be forced to face an attacker at an angle in which retreat would push his back into friends not facing the same way. All of this may lead to a situation in which elements must face one of the four compass points. De Bellis may become an actual boardgame with all the restrictions of facing in squares.
The simple solution, in my opinion, would be to just say, 'A group may move into contact with another group up to its maximum move or until all elements of the other group are in contact, all elements of each group lining up to face each other.' There is also a new set of rules to keep players from pushing the opponent back onto his own elements at an angle which would destroy them. Unfortunately, this rule forbids attacking them and putting them in this position. This combat result would be better implements by taking out that rule entirely and just pushing everyone back unless they are being pushed back onto an element's flank (i.e. they must be behind a line extending the element's front).
It is clear from these proposed rule amendments that Mr. Barker intends that games be decided by superior match-ups, die rolling, and tactical maneuver. As it is now, the way to win now is by finagling your opponent's elements so that they recoil into something that would destroy them. I do not wish to play unrealistically and sadden Phil Barker. We have been playing within the framework of the rules. The rules need changing so that 'tricks' don't work. But moving from overlap to flank is no trick. Why should three troop types be prohibited from doing so? Regular spear, pike, and blades should be able to do maneuver better than irregulars.
Here's another proposition. What if, rather than be automatically destroyed by recoiling into an element facing a different direction, the element suffered an additional minus to their die result for being unable to retreat adequately? Wouldn't that be a little easier to write up in the rules than restricting players from moving into these positions?
And finally, just for the hell of it, what about Scottish schiltrouns? It is possible to represent these in De Bellis. Historically, they were pike-armed troops formed in circular formations to fight off English knights. They were virtually immobile, which is why they didn't run over the longbowmen. In DB, they are Pk(I) and form linearly. If they formed in a circle, or even a square, they are extremely vulnerable to being pushed back into flanks and each other.
Obviously, not all troops can be represented in DB as they can in other games. Byzantine skoutatoi infantry fall under three different element types in the army lists, yet historically, they were the same throughout this period of dramatic changes. Is there another solution for these without having to make special exemptions in the army list books?
Combat Factoring
There have also been sweeping changes in combat. Cavalry cannot be destroyed on recoil from pikes or spears--they now flee. This makes them indestructible in frontal combat with these elements, just like light horse and psiloi. Pikes and spears are likewise virtually indestructible to them. This change may make a little more sense in the game, since cavalry could not have hoped to stand up against these troop types before. But it still leaves a sense of eternal indecision in the players' minds. It's like the two blades that meet each other alone. With +5 factors, neither can ever break the other. A spear can never kill a psiloi and visa-versa. You must get the flank contacts to achieve decisive results.
On the net, Phil has said, 'before the change, spears and pikes didn't destroy cavalry because no one was fool enough to move the cavalry into reach. More cavalry now die because they do move in, occasionally get a level score and then get caught in the flank next move. This most often happens to generals whose +1 keeps them there where others recoil or flee. It takes two overlaps for cavalry to have any chance of destroying spears frontally. I wonder, with the Pythagorean rule, how do regular spears and pikes move into flank contact quickly enough to be effective--unless they are irregulars who advance after combat and therefore are closer to the corner-to-corner overlap?
Why shouldn't there be a way for every element to kill every other element in the game? It is possible that the spearmen will change forward swiftly enough to catch the psiloi. It is possible that the psiloi will whittle them down with sporadic missiles over time. The problem comes in the fact that this game does not allow attrition within single elements. What solution could there be if there is one? Allowing an 'automatic kill' rule will solve the inability of one element to single-handedly kill another (such as a roll of 6 vs. 1). The problem is that it could occur on the very first roll. If you made it require a second roll of 6 vs. 1, it might never happen.
What about an effect for not just doubling, but tripling an opponent's die roll, so that rather than flee, it will be destroyed? What about an effect die roll, so that when psiloi of light horse (for example) push back spears, there is a possibility [the spears] break? Roll a second die, and on a 1, they go. There are any number of possibilities with which to experiment.
Such a change may be too much for these rules to bear unless they went to an attrition system like Armati (which is very good, but does detract from the aesthetics of the game by placing markers on the figures). There does not seem to be any solution to the problem of element attrition than what Arty Conliffe [Armati] uses. The only other answer is to ignore it and accept it as is. After all, it does work quite well.
Blades have also changed for the better. They are now +3 versus mounted troops and can receive psiloi support versus warbands. Also, they have been made more vulnerable to knights. This brings them more into line with other heavy infantry instead of being the little powerhouses they are against all troop types. Previously, they were as good as spears against knights because they were not destroyed on a recoil. Now they must have a second rank and psiloi support to be equal to them, which makes a lot more sense.
Halberds, et. al, I think, should not be classed with blades. They were designed as anti-cavalry weapons: a long spear to hold them off, a hook to pull riders from the saddle, and an axe to cut through heavy armor. This does not seem to be the type of weapon that would be very effective at close quarters against infantry swordsmen, but I could be wrong. The rule that no heavy foot are destroyed by being doubled by light horse has been removed. This was a bad rule to begin with. The chance of LH doubling heavy foot is minuscule unless they are strung out and then they should have a chance of killing them. Otherwise, you should say that skirmishers' missiles are not dangerous (tell it to the Romans at Carrhae!).
Warwagons and elephants in DBM are much better represented than in DBA, with their cost commensurate with their combat ability. Personally, I wonder at the inclusion of war wagons as a troop type. I see them as big chariots and these quickly faded from the scene as their battlefield effectiveness deteriorated.
Of the Hussites, what little I read of them indicates that their wagons were always used as a defensive base of operations from which raids were conducted until the enemy was forced to attack them in what was essentially a mobile hill fort. But I don't know everything about these troops. I've been told that there was an occasion in which they did charge forward with their wagons. This seems like a ridiculous tactic to me. Kill one or two of their horses and the rest can't run dragging them around so the wagons are stopped.
Baggage is now very significant. They are no longer added to the total elements for the army or commands, but count double towards the army total for each one lost. This makes them almost four times as important as they used to be. So now, defending the baggage, possibly with a fortified camp, takes on much greater import as it is in DBA.
Dreaming of Playing De Bellis Every Day
Most of these changes improve the game. Cavalry, blades, and baggage all needed the changes. How much more appending need be done? Who can tell? There's not much except double-based KN(I)! The Pythagorean rule is trash and I expect to see it ignored or trashed in the near future. I intend to ignore it. It is inconsistent in the overall premise based on the game's ideology.
The same can be said for 'mooning,' though there is some justification for doing this: one being that elements should not be able to penetrate the first line and move to surround it before the second line can be brought to influence their ability to do so. There's also the fact that there may be occasions where the player will sacrifice an element by this maneuver, perhaps to nail the opponent's general.
I will conclude with a personal statement. I live in Dallas, where the two largest local clubs have rejected DB utterly as a game to play. There are six of us here who play maybe three times per year, generally at a tournament. We all have such odd work schedules, plus families, that we almost never get together. I play a number of computer games, some by e-mail, and as simple as DB is with its turn-based system, you would think that someone would put it on a computer to play as pbem.
I would dearly love to be able to play, as Phil Barker says he does, 70 times a year. I haven't even played a total of 70 games of DBA,let alone DBM. Perhaps, someday, the game will have a larger following in Dallas (I'm working on it). But until then, it sure would be nice to be able to play DBA over e-mail. Ed Allan, who maintains the DBM Home Page came up with something on it. I'm going to take a look.