Army Lists for DBM 4 and Beyond

Originally published in Slingshot Issue 228, the
Society of Ancients, 2003

By Rob Brennan (brennanr@iworg.com)

Version 1.00

This article seeks to present some new (and old) suggestions for future DBM
army list revisions. Rather than focusing on specific issues of historical
research I instead deal with broad issues that could be characterised as
an army list methodology. The genesis of this article can be traced to Phil
Barker’s call for suggestions for DBM 4 in Slingshot, discussions on
the DBM mailing list on the Internet and gentle prodding by our good editor.
Many of the suggestions herein have been made by others on the DBM mailing
list and I present them as collator rather than originator. Nonetheless I
take responsibility for bringing these suggestions to print and thus any
criticism should be aimed at me.

Since mid 2001 I have been archiving discussions about specific army list
questions on the DBM mailing
list in order to provide a resource for competition list checkers or
players who are having problems interpreting their own list requirements.
This work attempts to provide both consensus answers to common questions
and to present different interpretations where consensus is lacking. This
has been necessary, as there is quite a large volume of army list questions
on the DBM mailing list and to the best of my knowledge the rules authors
are reluctant to enter into discussions about the interpretation of specific
lists, preferring to leave that to competition umpires or list checkers.
Essentially this document is an "Army List FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)"
for the DBM mailing list and it can be found at the following address:

http://www.iworg.com/ratings/listguide.html

It is descriptive rather than prescriptive in nature and seeks to inform
people about the debates rather than to establish case law. More recently
the BHGS have formally recognised the issue of grey areas in the army lists
and they have published a shorter list of "army list clarifications" which
detail the way in which particular contentious issues will always be interpreted
for their competitions. It is available on their
website.

The work of compiling these list questions has given me some insight into
problems with the current structure of the army lists and this is the basis
for my suggestions here. This relates to any potential DBM 4 as there is
a body of opinion on the DBM mailing list that there are several issues with
DBM 3 which could be dealt with more effectively by changes in the army lists
rather than the rules themselves. Hopefully the ideas below will also encourage
debate on both these topics and army lists in general.

Issues/Suggestions

Separation of list special rules from background text in list notes

Many list questions relate to the special rules given in the list notes for
a given list. Currently these list-specific rules are intermingled with
historical notes. This can cause confusion as to whether a specific piece
of text is a game rule or historical background. For example in the Marian
Roman list (II/49) there is a sentence in the list notes which reads: "The
option to use a Roman ally represents the temporary alliance of rival leaders
in a civil war, such as Cassius and Brutus,…". It is unclear to many
if this means that the Roman ally-general is thus compulsory if the list
option for "Only alliance of Cassius and Brutus in 42BC" is used. Remember
as well that historical arguments mean little to many competition organisers
who require any interpretation to be supported by specific wording in a list.
This is on the basis that they cannot be experts in all of the periods covered
by the list books.

Leaving aside the specifics of this case, the lists could be made much clearer
if the list author was required to separate background text into one section,
perhaps titled "Notes" and game rules into another section perhaps titled
"List Special Rules". This would provide a clear separation of precisely
worded game information and perhaps more general background.
Standard style for common list features

The current lists are the work of many authors and this has led to differing
styles when presenting some of the less common list features, such as the
provision of Psioli support for some troops. This lack of standardisation
in presentation leads to difficulties and differences of interpretation when
the lists are used. The editors should attempt to document these less common
features and proscribe a format that all list authors should use. This
documentation will have another use, see my next point.
A glossary or notes on common list structures is required

In order to ease list interpretation and ensure common interpretations there
should be some sort of description of various common list features at the
start of the army list booklets. This would include definitions of specific
terms and language constructs as they are used in the lists.

For example, one of the most common questions on all lists is on the options
for picking troops that are classified something like "Infantry, Reg Bd(F)
or Reg Sp(O)". Many people wonder if a mix of these troop types may be picked
or if it is an all or nothing choice. One may argue that a trivial application
of grammar leads us to the conclusion that any mix of the troop types is
allowed. However that is not the point, people still have difficulty determining
this and thus if it was explicitly specified the lists would be more user
friendly. Perhaps more importantly there is no way, other than by examining
multiple lists, that people can determine that the opposite case (an exclusive
or) is almost uniformly represented in the lists by the construct "all Reg
Bd(F) or all Reg Sp(O)".

Another, perhaps better, example of where uniformity and explanation is needed
in terms of list structures is the current use of the words "Replace", "Replace
all" and "Upgrade". Do these have separate, specific meanings in relation
to troop types or even lines in army lists or do they all have to be read
in context and are they sometimes or always synonyms? How do multiple instances
of these terms interact in a list that gradually evolves troop types in different
time periods? A well-defined list methodology and terminology would make
this clear to both list authors and list users.
Greater use of proportions in lists

The current lists have come a long way from the shopping list of special
troops approach of earlier rule-sets however there is still a tendency to
allow huge flexibility to players when picking an army. For example, in 15mm
competitions mounted contingents are typically maximised and foot minimised
to produce unhistorical proportions. If there was a greater use of fixed
proportions between the various arms or types of units then perhaps armies
more representative of their historical counterparts could be encouraged?
This is of course problematic due to the relative scarcity of sources for
many army lists however I would suggest that in general greater use of
proportions or somehow more restrictive lists would be a good thing.
Specification of bow armed mounted troops

The current rules on the type of element that mounted elements dismount as
is dependent on whether or not the mounted element is bow-armed. In many
cases it is not clear if the elements could or should be bow-armed or not.
The lists should specify this important piece of game information. This is
especially important for DBM version 3 as mounted generals of otherwise infantry
commands may now dismount at all times. In addition this new capability has
led to some interesting anomalies such as Hoplite Greek generals dismounting
as Irr Wb(S), these should be cleaned up by specifically noting how generals
should dismount for all lists.
Greater consistency in level of detail for lists with a consideration
for play balance

This is perhaps impossible given the wide range of armies, amount of supporting
evidence and availability of specific scholarship available. However specifically
this refers to instances where play balance will be affected. It is obvious
that some lists have available very specific options referring to individual
historic events that dramatically alter the nature of the list when used
in competition whereas other lists are painted with a much more general brush
and lack the benefit of the doubt. An example of this is the Medieval Portuguese
list in which the author allows for one year a regular command structure
whereas in the War of the Roses list a second sub general is never allowed
despite there being a number of battles where this could be argued to better
represent the historical situation.

If the lists are genuinely "mainly intended for competition games" then
consideration of these sorts of play balance issues should be a concern.
Army performance as a basis for command structure

Many lists seem to have their allotment and types of generals based on historical
personalities or incidents rather than an appreciation of the game effects
of the resulting command structure and its implications for the army involved.
For example the Later Achaemenid Persian army has access to four regular
generals, implying an unusually high level of battlefield control, whereas
their opponents the Alexandrian Macedonians receive the more standard allotment
of three regular generals. It seems unlikely, given their relative historical
performances, that the Persians should enjoy this advantage over Alexander.
Once again strong guidelines for list authors in terms of the possible command
structures and their likely tabletop implications is merited here.

Of course many of these issues of play balance would not arise if the AP
system was perfect at capturing the real relative abilities of DBM armies.
However given the merits of having a relatively simplistic system and the
dependence of army performance on many complex and inter-related factors
such as combinations of troop types it is unlikely that this will ever be
achieved. Thus a more top-down evaluation of command and control structures
would be a good thing.
Specification of a scale for lists

One of the great strengths of DBM is its ability to model many of the major
battles of the period covered by the rules. However the currently opaque
and flexible scale of the lists is seen by some as limitation when desiring
historical encounters. Many players already use the army lists as a basis
for their own research for historical re-fights and this information would
be of great use to them. Even competition wargamers could make use of this
information by limiting particular events to armies of a given scale (perhaps
as well as sub-period) to encourage more historical troop dispositions to
be deployed. This approach would also facilitate the formulation of multiple
lists to represent armies that campaigned at multiple scales. Luke Ueda-Sarson
has already done pioneering work in this area with his
own
army list research where he has both an army list for an Alexandrian
expeditionary force of a few thousand troops and another list for the full
Alexandrian army numbering in the tens of thousands. Both variety and historicity
would thus be encouraged by this approach.
A general reduction in the number of skirmishing troops

DBM is almost unique in its ability to represent the crucial nature of
skirmishing troops to determine the precise location and pace of battle.
However many feel that the current allocations of these special skirmishing
abilities, which were historically greatly sought after, to large numbers
of troops distorts game-play. The current use of lines in the lists such
as "Misc. foot Irr Bw(I) or Irr Ps(O) 0-24" should be re-evaluated on a case-by
case basis. In many cases elimination of the skirmishing option or a proportional
restriction like "up to 1/3 Ps(O)" would give more historical results.

In fact the current troop definitions for Bw(I) and Ax(I) include similarly
armed troops that are "too numerous to skirmish". I would contend that many
of the troops currently specified as skirmishers in fact fall into this category
of being too numerous or poorly motivated and trained to take on this specialised
battlefield role. In addition the classification of Cv(I) should be broadened
to also include some of the mounted types currently classified as light horse
that are "too numerous or ineffective to skirmish".
Elimination of AP values from the army lists

Each edition of the army lists is likely to last through several rules versions.
Each change in the rules brings changes in the capabilities of various troop
types. Sometimes this may mean a change in AP for a troop type is required
to reflect their new capabilities. The current presence of the AP in the
army lists makes any such AP changes very difficult to implement. This has
on occasion made rules changes to alter troop capabilities seem preferable
to altering the AP values. Surely this is a case of the cart being put before
the horse?

The simple solution of removing the AP values from the army lists has been
proposed before. It is still a good suggestion and the authors should implement
it for the next version.

Conclusion

This article has tried to make some constructive suggestions for future versions
of DBM army lists. Many of the issues discussed could be amended in alternative
ways but the main purpose has been to try and identify issues with the current
structure of the army lists and encourage debate on ways forward. Once again
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of many members on the DBM
mailing list to the ideas set out in this article.

IWorg.Com The Irish Wargaming Homepage

Navigation

User login