This page last modified: January 30, 2001
Many wargaming rules fail to live up to expectations not because of the rules themselves, but because of troops are often inappropriately classified under those rules. DBM is better than most in this regard, not least because because its official army lists are by far the most accurate and detailed yet produced for any set of ancients wargaming rules.
However, the troops classifications given in DBM are not without their faults. DBM has been around a long time now, and it is I believe high time to reevaluate, in the light of this experience, some of the troop types - but without adding too much in the way of complexity: too many troops types can be as bad as too few.
Clearly the DBM 'elephant denstity per element' does not represent these formations, although if you imagined that the beasts were somehow spread out over the adjacent elements as well, the situation improves markedly.
Kevin Donovan has suggested to me an extremely elegant method of representing this. For the purposes of combat outcomes on p23 ONLY (ie. not for tacical factors or anything else), any element in contact with an elephant (friendly or enemy) is considered to be in DGo.
What does this mean? Effectively, Kn or Exp can't quick-kill Ax, Wb or Ps, or LH or Cv quick-kill Ps that are touching an elephant element. At the moment, if a line of Kn (F) charge a line of El interspersed with Ps, given average combat outcomes, there will be more dead Ps than dead Kn; yet in reality such El and foot combinations were essentially immune to mounted attack (except for one account where some elepentns of Eumenes were roughly handled by some horse archers attacking their flank - which is adequately represented by this rule, since an accompanying Ps will, after being forced to conform by any flank attackers, be no longer touching their elephant).
With this rule in place, such elephant screens will be historically effective at truly neutraslising any enemy mounted wings that try and engage them. An interesting outcome of this rule would be that Cv who are fighting Kn (or anything lese for that matter) while in contact with an elephant will flee rather than recoil - which may not be such a bad thing. Poros' cavalry moved to their elephants for 'protection' from Alexander's Companions - and against Kn (F), a flee is probably a better combat outcome for Cv (I) than a recoil!
If this rule makes dispersed elpehants work better, what of massed elephants? In Kautilya's Arthashastra, it is stated that armies relying principally on archery used a deployment scheme in which the interval between infantry archers was a dhanus (7'3" or 2.2 m), with triple that between horses (that is 21'9" or 6.7m) and that between elephants or chariots 36'4" or 11.1m. Clearly such a deployment scheme was adopted by Poros' army.
However, for other armies, it is recommended that elephants (and chariots) be placed just five samas apart (3.9' or about 1.18m, referring to the gap between the animals). There were provisions to double or triple these distances for dispersed arrays. This is even tighter than the current DBM basing scheme, especially if the elephants were not deployed in a single line. Earlier Kautilya in the Arthashastra seems to imply that the key to victory on the battlefield is the elephant assault. He does not seem to contemplate using them as a screening force but rather in a shock role. One of the prime roles of elephants is "breaking up, scattering or trampling down the hostile force", a scheme that fits in admirably with the denser formations used.
Accounts of armies relying on such elephant shock tactics tend to emphasise nobles and the like fighting each other on their elephants while oblivious to the infantry struggles around them. In particular, such massed elephants do not seem to have been vulnerable to enemy light infantry - no doubt due to the virtual absence of space between the animals for enemy light troops to infiltrate into.
To cater for these elephant types, I would advocate the creation of an El (F) class. El (F) would normally move 200p rather than 150p, so that coordinating them with any foot will be very difficuly, if not impossible. They would not be quick-killed by light troops, but they would however be impetuous, and so follow-up recoiling enemy which would go some way to making them far from invulnerable to such troops.
Who would get El (F)? Classical and Hindu Indian armies would have the option of being all/0 El (F) - they could still chose the disperesd (O) or (S) options. Muslim Indian armies used their elephants in a dispersed role with foot escorts and so would not get the choice. Ghaznavids should probbaly have only El (F) since they used them is such great numbers; others I am unsure about through lack of evidence. Any definition of El (F) should include a reference to their being more animals per element - up to 40 animals would give two ranks of jumbos which might not be unreasonable, even more might be possible. I would probably cost El (F) at 18 AP. They will be much less vulnerable to light troops, than other elephants, but being impetuous will provide a challenge to use - especially when trying to coordinate them with the rest of the army.
Finally, one feature that used to be in DBM v1 was that when elephants were destroyed they produced a double-depth kill zone. This should be reintroduced (and for expendables too) - especially if the above proposals go through. When things went wrong for these troops, they went wrong in a bad way, and usually caused as much damage to their own side as to the enemy. An alternative would be to have any El or Exp element that is destroyed make an immediate flee move before it is taken off th table; this hould provide a degree of nervousness about their fate should they panic.
Return to the troop list at the top.
Elephants
Knights
Cavalry
Light Horse
Camelry
Expendables
Pikes
Blades
Warband
Auxilia
Bowmen
Psiloi
Artillery
War Wagons
Hordes
Galleys
Ships
Boats
Elephants are treated a bit oddly in DBM. At 16 elephants per element, Elephants are clearly quite densely packed on to an element only 60m or so wide, and yet in many ways they fight like they are supposed to be spread out. Hellenistic armies fought with their elephants spread out in a dispersed formation (they never had enough in one place to amass them - except at Ipsos, and even here they were spread out), usually interspersed with light troops (typically 100 or so psiloi per elephant). In this they copied Poros the Indian, who also spread his elephants out right across the front of his army with 10 or metres between each animal.
Knights
I think Knights are handled quite well in DBM now that chariot Kn pursue, and the v3.0 grading changes have come into effect.CavalryReturn to the troop list at the top.
I think there are currently two problems with cavalry in DBM. The first is really an army list complaint: too many types of Cv (S) are allowed Cv (O) support. For instance, in the Later Achaemenid Persian army list, Cv (S) are eithe Satrapal guards, like Cyrus the Younger's, or Skythians. As guards they fought separately as guards, and not as front ranks for other Persian contingents, as Skythians they couldn't even speak the same language as any possible Median or Persian Cv (O) supports, let alone fight together. This has important consequences for historical matchups, for without this restriction, these cavary will almost certainly beat their Thessalian opponents rated (IMO entirely correctly) as Cv (O); with this restriction in place, Thessalians two deep will beat them.Light HorseA similar case can be made for the Ahl Khurasan Cv (O) of the Abbasid Arabs supporting their Ghulam Cv (S). In reality, these two groups were bitter political enemies, and were always deployed seprately in battle. Needless to say in 95% of DBM Abbasid armie seen on the tabletop, these two work in close copertaion, since they are allowed (and therfore do) support each other.
The second problem is much more deep rooted - and I have yet to find a solution for it. Cv in DBM are essentially assumed to be missile armed, yet capable of charging home when the enemy is disordered though being softened up through from eithr their missiles, or their loose formation.
Not all troops rated in DBM as Cv carry missile weapons though - 11th century Syrian lancers for instance. It is hard to justify such troops 'skirmishing' in ront of enemy shield walls since they lack the missile capability to do so; and yet clearly they did not charge with the same effect as troops graded as Kn however... a similar problem exists with lance armed 'LH'. Perhaps here there is a case for a Cv (X) troop type, but I am not familiar enough with the troopss concerned to define its properties.
Return to the troop list at the top.
Kevin Donovan has pointed out that the DBM definition of LH (F) doesn't seem to be relevant to classifying them as faster than other light horse. Many sorts of light horse had remonts: Mongols and Torkomans could be mentioned amongst LH (S), Philipoeman's and some of Antigonos Monopthalamos' Tarantines amongst LH (O) - never mind such remounts are a strategic asset not a tactical one - tropers did not change mounts in the midst of combat, but on the march. Similarly, an unwillingnes to fight in close combat seems an odd reason to give LH (F) an extra 50p move that is all to often used to intiate close combat...CamelryIt has been suggested therefore that al LH should ove 300p a turn. My objection to this is that it is them impossible for Cv to engage LH unless the LH desire it - since LH can move away as a group and never be contacted. If al LH moved 250p a move, Cv can eventually catch them, since every group move backwards, the LH lose a base depth's worth of istance, which is, at least in 15mm scale, marginally gretaer than 50p.
I would propose that all LH currenty graded (F) become LH (O), and those that are graded now graded LH (O) should become LH (X); thus elimating the LH (F) class but introducin a LH (X) class. LH (X) would be counted as LH (S) when in frontal combat with LH and CV, and as LH (O) in all other circumstances.
They would be (S) against LH because that is the situation in which their javelins and (usually) shields are most useful, and against Cv because while such types as Numdians couldn't beat equal numbers of Cv (O) like Italians, they weren't easily beaten by them either - a situation quite well modelled by factors of 3 (O) vs 2 (S).
AP cost would remain 3 AP for LH (I); LH (X) would be 5 AP, the same as they are now graded as (O) (so relatively somewhat improved in terms of AP value), LH (O) would be 4 AP (the same as they are now being LH (F), - better in combat, since they are graded (O), but not a fast as before; while LH (S) would have to be reduced to 6 AP. this is because while LH (S) are lareday somewhat overpriced (specially in numbers), thy are too ood for 6 AP, but under this schem, their nromal opponnts, other LH, will have improved in combat ability relative to them, so 6 AP will be a realistic value.
One remaining problem with LH in my opinion is the inclusion of types without missile weapons (rather like Cv) - troops like Serbian hussars and Macdeonian prodrmoi sarissophoroi. hese troops we not skirmishers in the same sense other light hrse were - at Gaugamela the macedonian prodromoi proved quite effective against Bactrian Cv (S) for instance. It is tempting to make them Cv (F), but this would make them fearsom LH predators - and the one account we have of prodromoi fighting Skythian horse archers has the prodromoi failing to catch the Skythians until the Skythians were upset by the Macedonian archers and then charged successfully at short range by the Macedonian horse; it seems Cv (F) won't do alas.
Return to the troop list at the top.
I have no problems with the current Cm (S) and Cm (O) categories, but the Cm (I) category is a worry since it combines two essentially different types of troops - on the one hand camelmen who are not particularly good (such as Cyrus' improvised cameelers), and on the other, infantry who fight behind a wall of dismounted camels, such as later Moors. The current Cm (I) class models this first category very well but not the second - not least because their supposedly stationary kneeling camel lines are able to move along at a good 200p a turn...ExpendablesA straight classification of their camels as TF might be one easy way around the problem, although this wouldn't model the much greater effectiveness of the camels against mounted attackers compared to infantry - especially infantry archers.
A better solution would be to borrow a leaf from DBR and introduce the concept of portable obstacles (PO). Such PO would also be applicable to other sorts of troops - 15th century Persian, Turkish or English archers for instance; troops with kneeling camels would be infantry with both PO and mounted on camels. Since PO in DBR are removed if their defenders are beaten, this nicely simulates killing the camels; they are also only really effective against mounted.
Return to the troop list at the top.
At the moment there is just once category - (0). One could introduce various different categories, but the extra complication probably isn't worth it. I have had no great problems with expendables until recently. However, having payed 8 games against a Mithridatic army using scythed chariots over the New Year break, I have become convinced that while nobody should provide overlaps for friendly expendables, no enemy should count as overlaps against expendables either.SpearsExpendables didn't prove useful very often in real life, but occassionally yielded good results - it is virtually impossible for them to acieve anything at the moment in DBM, and the reason is that they get overlapped too easily by elemnts beside the target element - overlaps that shoudn't IMO have any effect. Overlaps simulate support from friends - but friends wouldn't 'support' an expndable's target - they would be getting out of the way themselves in all probability! (Expendable combat is by defnition melee, so missiles on the way are discounted - these are already modeled by long-range shooting for Bw, and the quick-kill ability of light troops for short range shooting). Removing overlaps from BOTH sides will give expendables achence to work properly - even if it still isn't a very good one. At th moment expendables are a complete liability to an army rather than just the potential liability they really were.
One feature that used to be in DBM v1 was that expendables that were destroyed produced a double-depth kill zone. This should be reintroduced (and probably for elephants too) - especially if the above proposals go through. When these things went wrong, they went wrong in a bad way. Look at the confusion engendered at Magnesia - without some special 'scythed chariot rule', The Pergamenes' feat at taking on the Seleucid left wing at Magensia is simply impossible to replicate on the tabletop.
Return to the troop list at the top.
No complaints here.PikesReturn to the troop list at the top.
There has ben a lot of talk about pikes being 'no good' (or worse) in DBM - but in my opinion that mainly comes about from using incorrectly scaled armies. Alexander didn't deploy the equivalent of 24 pike elements, he deployed 60, and 60 pike in a block are nothing to be sneezed at. Except by massed bow...BladesPike ARE too vulnerable to bow. At the battle of Stoke, the armoured Geman pikemen were noted as being much less vulnerable to the English archery than the unarmoured Irish - but Pk (O) and Ax (O) both are factor 3 vs archery, while the Ax will get shot much less often due to their greater speed, and so they are in fact less vulnerable than the Pk.
Polybios mentions that the sloping pikes of the rear ranks of a pike block acted as a missile shield. I would suggest that a 4th rank of pike adds a plus 1 tactical factor against Bw (only) shooting. this has the effct of making historical deep deployments more atrcative, while at the same time simulating the fact that teh front anks were usually better armoured than the rear ranks - shoot away the front rank, and the rear three ranks become much easier to kill.
Return to the troop list at the top.
Blades seem fairly well modeled to me at the moment.WarbandReturn to the troop list at the top.
Warband, warband, where art thou warband? This is such a big topic, I will direct you to another page - click here!AuxiliaReturn to the troop list at the top.
Rather ironically named given that many people think Roman auxilia don't belong in the DBM Ax class! The main beef I have with Ax is that Ax are supposed to be some sort of skirmishing troop that can also fight hand to hand, but that they can't actually skirmish in DBM! Cv at least can flee from Pk and Sp, and Ps and LH get a group move to their rear. In my opinion, Ax should also be allowed to conduct group moves to their rear - but only if a single rank deep. This represents them skirmishing. If they are massed for combat however (2 or more ranks deep - and this includes Ps support - Ps support IMO means they are not skirmishing) they shouldn't be able to withraw like this.BowmenThere are a number of anomolies with the current definitions of Ax in the rules and the troops as used in the army list books - look at later Roman auxilia pseudocimitatenses, or the troops in the Khmer list. I woud redifine Ax (S) troops like this:
(S): Confident of fighting hand-to hand by virtue of a combination of either high morale, armour or close combat weapons suitable for such combat, and with large shields or exceptional discipline, such as Spanish scutarii, Catalan amulghavars or Dailami.(O): Other foot relying only on javelins or short spear and shield such as mountain tribesmen.
(I): Other foot with javelins, but who either lack shields or confidence, or who would be psiloi were they not too numerous to skirmish effectively.
I also think that regular Ax (X) should be able to fight 4 ranks deep. At 4 AP an element, these are too expensive for filler, and can't fight anybody effectively, except in RGo. The only bones they get other Irr Ax (X) at present (for a 33% increase in AP cost) is to march more quickly - but no-one in their right mind would march regular Ax (X) anywhere since there only present role is to cower on the baseline or stay firmly lodged in RGo...
Fighting 4 ranks deep will give the regular version of Ax (X) some advantage for their formal training, and will also make sense in that Akkadian Pk (I) will fight in the same width of formation when classed as Ax as Pk - the ranks would bunch up from the rear, not the sides when called upon to fight. (Of course, that begs the question why Pk (X) only fight 3 ranks deep - another undereffective troop type...)
Return to the troop list at the top.
See my discussion on Cm (I) about the need for PO (portable obstacles). In my opinion, Bw (S) shouldn't quick-kill knights. English bowmen caught unprepared were routinely ridden down by French knights - this is very hard to do in DBM however. Prior to Agincourt, they carried no stakes at all, and had to be very careful about where they fought from - on hilltops or behind hedgerows, etc. With PO, they will certainly be deadly enough (factor 5 (S) is no laughing matter to knights, even Kn (S), but without them, they had better have the advantage of the ground. removin the quick-kill of Kn would mean that Reg Bw (S) should be 1 point cheaper, Irr Bw (S) would still be reasonable value at 5 AP. I think Bw (X) should retain their quick-kill (and AP price) - thye don't need PO since they have their own integral anti-Kn protection in the form of their spearmen/pikemen.PsiloiOf course, one could argue that many Bw (S) are incorrectly classified. Indians are the primary case. Phil Barker insists on this because of a passage in Arrian's Indica stating their bows were unusually powerful - but the very same passage also say that these archers were unwillinging to engage into hand-to-hand combat - which is of course the other defining characteristic of Bw (S)...
Return to the troop list at the top.
I like the way Ps work in v3. There perhaps should be less emphasis on shield automatically making you (S) rather than (I), but that is really not a great issue.ArtilleryReturn to the troop list at the top.
Art (O): Gunpowder artillery are currently excluded from the Art (O) class - they must be either (I) or (S). Art (I) are multi-barreled organ guns - of limited range, but capable of destroying troops at short range (ie. in contact) due to their high rate of fire. In contrast, Art (S) are all but immoveable bombards, large pieces capable of blasting through city walls. By the later half of the 15th century however, organ guns had all but disappered, replaced by equally light, but longer and single-barreled field guns with a much longer range, such as those that were so popular amongst Charles' Burgundians. Classifying these as organ guns is as wrong as classifying them as bombards. The capabilities of Art (O) fits them to a tee however, so the definition of Art (O) should be broadened to include such better 15th century field guns.War WagonsReturn to the troop list at the top.
I like these under v3, except for the reduced recoil distance when WWg (S) fail to assault a fortification. Hardly a major gripe though!HordesReturn to the troop list at the top.
No complaints here now that Hd (F) aren't impetuous.GalleysReturn to the troop list at the top.
There should be no such thing as Gal (F) in my opionion. Penteconters were not faster then trieres: on the contrary from what little evidence there is, it seems they were slower if anything. It has been suggsted that trieres should be Gal (F), with penteres a sGal (O) and hexeres and larger as Gal (S), but I am not convinced that trieres were any faster than penteres - the Romans copied a fast Carthaginian penteres as their standard pattern ship in th first Punic war, and 'The Rhodian' ran his blockades in a penteres, not a trieres.ShipsI would regrade all Penteconters etc. as Gal (I). hese smaller galleys, buy the time trires became standard were considered far less suitable for the battle-line than their DBM status of (F) would indicate - (F) isn't really that much of a penalty compared to being (O) - especially if they are only 2/3 the price! Reg Gal (F) are far too much of a bragain at 2 AP compared to their (O) or (S) equivalents - at 2 AP and (I) they would be more fairly priced too. Being (I) will mean they really will be second string types compared to Gal (O) and (S). Additionally, I would not allow such Gal (I) to shoot. None of them carried any artillery at all, except for the Medieval Scandanavian skyttebader - which would be better classified as Bts (S) like their Italian counterparts given their guns and suitability for in-shore work; and they didn't such small galleys as penteconters didn't have enough marines to fire anything worthwhile in terms of missiles - the ones that did have lots of crossbowmen, like Medieval Italians, also had these guys rowing, so the crossbowmen were only of use once disembarked.
This contrasts with trieres and the like, which are noted as influenceing on-shore combats with archery shooting from their marines in several battle accounts, such as at Gela in 405 BC, and Thermopylae in 279 BC. Although classical Greek trieres routinely carried ony small contingents of marines in their normal fleet work, sometimes less than 20 men a shp, it is apparent from Thucydides and Xenophon that these numbers were considerably expanded when used in conjunction with land armies - marine contingents of over 100 a ship being reported. Since DBM galleys by definition are those supporting land battles, they will have such augmented marine contingents and be capable of shooting effectively. Penteconters et al., lacking covered decks as well as being smaller, could not operate as missile platforms in the same manner.
Being unable to unable to shoot, Reg Gal (I) will be the second string option they were historically regarded as; at 2 AP each they will be fairly priced - unlike the current Gal (F) which, mainly due to their ability to shoot, are a fantastic bargain.
Return to the troop list at the top.
No problems here - other than Shp (S) are introduced far too early in the Medieval army lists - cogs were introduced circa 1300 AD, not 1150 AD.BoatsReturn to the troop list at the top.
No complaints here, except that only Shp (X) should get the ability for disembarking elements from another element to pursue across them, and not all naval elements (last sentence of 'storming fortifications, p25).Return to the troop list at the top.
Return to my wargaming index.