DBM Rule Modifications

This page last modified: May 6, 2001

Presented here are some rule modification that I think ought to be introduced into DBM to make the game more accurate without unduly complicating it. See also my section on Troop Type Modifications for more troop-type specific modifications.

Bow contacting LH
Naval and WW dicing
Flank Marching
Foot impetuously charging into mounted
Speeding up frontal combats
Generals' combat bonuses
Generals' support
Kinked lines

Bow contacting LH

At present Bw can't in general contact mounted troops frontally. I quite like this rule, with one caveat - it shouldn't apply to LH. At present, two LH elements working in tandem can hold up a huge block of Bw essentially indefenitely - by moving one element up each alternate bound: they can never be destroyed by shooting, and the Bw can never contact them to finish them off in close combat. The end result is that LH are more vulnerable to Ps, Ax, Sp or any other troop you care to name than Bw, when in in real life, massed archers were something they couldn't cope with at all. Witness Turkomans, graded LH (S), so the best possible, proving so ineffectual against Crusader crossbowmen. The Turkomans dared not close to short range, and sat off at extreme long range firing their arrows to no great effect.

If Bw could contact LH frontally, this would mean any skirmishing LH would eventually have to spend PiPs to withdraw them (assuming they didn't flee all the time), or risk having them shot at close range (contact) and destroyed.

Return to the list at the top.

At the moment, to place a WW when invading, an attacker must field at least half their possible naval elements; a defender must merely dice, with no reference to naval elements. The upshot of this is that armies with potentially large fleets find it harder to invade along a WW (since their half-allowance naval requirement is much more expensive), which is clearly contrary to expectation; while an invader with no navy is prohibited from following a WW at all (despite many real-life examples to the contrary) unless their enemies obligingly provide them one; likewise a defender's naval strength (and thus the importance of their coastline in terms of needing to defend it) bears no relation on their ability to successfully place a WW.

Kevin Donovan has come up with the following idea:

If either the attacker or defender wish to place a non-compulsory WW they must roll a die and subract one. If the player has at least twice as many naval elements as the die roll (minus one) then they get their WW.

Thus the following is the minimum number of naval elements to get a WW on the corresponding die roll:

Die		Minimum Naval Elements
Roll		Required for WW
1		0
2		2
3		4
4		6
5		8
6		10

Return to the list at the top.

Currently, if two sides flank march on the same side of the battlefield, the chance of both turning up increases markedly, which can have some pretty weird consequences. For instance, if you suspect the enemy is likely to flank march with a considerable force, there is no point in using a delaying force of your own to try and slow it down (ie a small flank march of your own) - it will in fact speed its arrival up! Examples of such delaying forces abound in history - perhaps the best-known being the detachment of Phokians guarding the (off-table) flank appoach at Thermopylae, but you are crazy to try this in DBM.

I would change the current rules so that when it is revealed that both sides are flank-marching on the same side, if the side that rolls the 6 is determined to be the smaller, this does not cause the flank march to arrive immediately. (If the sides that rolls the 6 is the larger or the same-sized, then the normal results happen). Instead, the larger flank march will only arrive when it scores a six, not when the smaller forces scores a six.

Furthermore, if the smaller forces does roll its six first, as a reward, the larger flank marching force must declare how many elements it has of train, mounted and infantry - the smaller delaying force has managed to delay the enemy in good order and successfully sent back a brief message about the rough composition of the enemy force. This informaton would not be revealed if the larger force threw the six - the delaying force has had to retreat precipitedly, so no message would arrive in time.

Return to the list at the top.

At the moment no mounted charge impetuously into elephnats. I think this should be extended so that no foot may move impetuously into contact with any mounted. I can't think of any instances where impetuous foot troops pursued into any mounted (Hasting has foot 'pursuing' fleeing horse - but the horse soon turn around and charge them - and besides, the horse ween't demoralised, so in DBM terms the foot wouldn't be impetuous anyway).

For instance, a primary role of Greek cavalry in classical times was to stop victorious enemy hoplites pursing beaten friendly ones - this rule would model this nicely as the Cv would be able to interpose themselves and halt the pursuit. At present demoralised Greek cavalry have NO chance of stopping victorious enemy hoplites (given they will in all probability be fighting at factors of -1 compared to the hoplites at factor 5).

Even if there are any examples of impetuous foot charging into mounted, it could easily be accounted for I suspect in a DBM sense by expending PiPs. At the moment foot charge willy nilly into enemy mounted (demoralised or not), and I don't think this is on. An impetuous charge is a disorganised charge, and that means disaster against mounted troops, which is why such charges didn't happen - and yet they are not only commonplace in DBM, but inevitable in many circumstances.

Return to the list at the top.

In DBM, flank attacks are rightly quite deadly. However, because it is difficult for troops with high combat factors to defeat each other frontally, this means that flank attacks have a proportionately more deadly effect than they should. A fix for this problem I have extensively play-tested is that if two elements in frontal combat BOTH have a final modified tactocal factor of 4 or more, they BOTH take an final additional -1 combat factor. This considerably speeds up frontal combats, so making the use of second lines much more neccessary. Further to this, if two undemoralised generals' elements engage each other in frontal combat, NEITHER should gain the usual general's + 1 combat factor - generals often sought each other out for single combat, and such affairs were usually quite quickly over; in DBM they take o very long time to resolve unless 3rd parties intervene, and, in some cases, may be impossible to resolve. Eg, Leuctra 371 BC, the Theban sacred band gaiast the Spartans - multiple-ranked Sp (S) with general against multiple-ranked Sp (S) with general - try getting a result out of that at first impact...

Return to the list at the top.

The disdavantages of losing a general in DBM is usually far outweigh the advantages of leading from the front. As a consequence, players rarely put their generals in the front line, especially regular CinCs. Kevin Donovan has proposed that generals should give their +1 bonus to not only their own element, but also to any friendly element in contact with the general who are also in frontal close combat with enemy. This will certainly give generals a much larger effect on a melee. If the power was found to be too extreme, perhaps it could be restricted to just the CinC (this would of cousre make generals even better AP value than they are now - and they are already too cheap. IMO all generals should cost more; this would mean they should probably cost at least another 10 AP extra IMO)

Return to the list at the top.

A general can only give their +1 bonus when their element is personally involved in a combat. However, generals, invariably influenetial CinCs, sometimes eitehr pushed their way through the ranks into a combat, such as Caesar at the Sambre and Eumenes at Paraitakeni, or had enough influenec to directly affect their troops withoout fighting in the front rank, but being still close to the action - such as Ptolemy at Raphia or Antigonos at Ipsos. I would allow CinCs to add their +1 to a front rank element, even if their element is not in the front rank, but is contiguosly behind it, or another rear-rank element entitled to give the front rank element rear rank support, conditional to their element either being foot/dismounted, OR, the same type as the element they are supporting. In any case, they would count as supprting the front rank elemnt (though not with 'ranks'), so would be destroyed if the front rank element is destroyed.

Return to the list at the top.

Virtually all the major rule problems in DBM stem from the issue of conforming - which is in turn a problem that arises because DBM elements are geometrically rigid, and the rules dictate that combat can ony occur when elements are line up properly conformed in edge to edge and corner to corner contact.

This leads to some bad problems - of which the worst is the "kinked line". Now it is possible to play DBM without ever conforming for combat, so treating corner contact as sufficient for combat purposes (much like virtually all other wargame rules such as Armati and Volley'n'Bayonet allow) - this however requires a radical rewriting of the concepts of 'overlap' and such like that the DBM public (let alone the authors) aren't quite ready for.

Karl Heinz Ranitzsch has come up with the following idea to get rid of the kinked line problem (even this one is a bit different, and unlikely to find acceptance...):

Elements may recoil through friendly elements (can be more than one) through the rear or side edge of the friendly elements recoiled into, so long as the total distance recoiled is less than the recoiler's tactical move distance. However, no intervening elements may be displaced (as they can be now), so if the recoiler can't finish its recoil it is destroyed.

[This means that a shallow kinking lines can't cause extra casualties, since the recoilers can now be pushed back through each other even though they are at somewhat of an angle. The rational for this is that the majority of troops in the element will be crowded into the first few paces' depth of the element - ie. the sides and rear are empty, and shouldn't pose any barrier to friendly troops recoiling through them].

Any element following up a recoiling enemy who in their pursuit contact fresh enemies at a rear edge or corner automatically destroy these enemies (this not counting as in close combat however).

[This makes proper flank attacks more deadly, at least for those troops that pursue, which will offset the slightly less deadly nature of pseudo-flank attacks that would now kill enemies due to bad recoils, but under this proposal won't.]

However, recoiling troops cannot recoil through the front edge of friendly troops (unless allowed to do so now), this would still destroy them as it does now.

[In this case they would be really moving through the other element's formed men rather than through the empty space in the base's area.]

Return to the list at the top.

Return to my wargaming index.