|
MY
THOUGHTS ON DBM
a critique of the version 3.0 rules
by
Jeff Herbert
I
started wargaming with Napoleonics and moved on to ancients with WRG 6th
edition, which I enjoyed. I
didn’t like the 7th edition rules and just couldn’t get into
them but have greatly enjoyed DBM. No
set of rules, are perfect but DBM give a very good feel of large battles.
There are one or two things I would like to see different and these
are my views of these.
Fast
I
do not think that Fast need be a distinct troop classification but merely
the ability to move faster. Troops
with a ‘F’ classification adding 50 paces to their move and nothing
else. This would then allow for
a full range of class type, Superior, Ordinary and Inferior.
For instance Norman knights were universally accepted as the best of
their day and whereas many Western countries adopted their style few could
show their élan. Playing within
period would not be affected.
Mounted
and Psiloi Shooting
Skirmishers
should be allowed to shoot, I accept that at extreme range they would be
unlikely to do so, but at closer range this would be their preferred means
of combat. I would suggest that
skirmishers fire at their present factors if within 100 paces with PS (o)
armed with bow capable of firing in two ranks, i.e. rear rank support.
No Psiloi should be allowed to voluntarily frontally contact
un-demoralized mounted and movement into combat against spears, pikes,
blades and warband in good going should cost one extra pip.
Note that this would allow light horse to shoot.
Skirmishers
need pips to move in all circumstances, this in my opinion does not reflect
the cautious nature of such troops to maintain their distance.
In large skirmisher based armies such as Scythians it becomes
difficult to use the army to its historic effect.
I suggest that skirmishers should always be able to move straight
back, if there is an enemy element within base reach of the enemy elements
movement, without expending pips. It
would also make a nice difference between regulars and irregulars and
therefore points cost if irregulars had to do so if pips were not paid to
hold or move them in that bound.
A
new troop type of Warband X should be created for warbands that fired
missiles before charging, such as American Indians etc.
Again they would fire at warband factors counting rear rank support.
Taking in the change of FAST (see above), this would make Warbands S,
O, I or X. with some moving at F speed.
Note I have added I for warbands, which provides continuity between
DBM and DBR and allows for a greater range of types.
Knight
v Light Horse
Under
the recent rule changes knights fare badly against light horse.
In a recent battle my light horse Mongols charged boldly into the Teutonic
Order with the knowledge that they would probably only be recoiled but stood
a good chance of destroying the knights.
Which they did. Is it
right that knights are destroyed in all circumstances where they score less
than light horse ?. I believe
that this should only be the case where they have been surrounded , this
being simulated by being overlapped on a flank which the light horse could
turn on. For example 3 light
horse charge 3 knights, matching up each element.
In the first round the light horse go first with the player choosing
the centre element. The light
Horse score more forcing the knights to recoil.
The other two elements of knights are overlapped but cannot be
attacked on the flank as the knight that recoiled is within a base depth of
the light horse to its front. The
two knights would count overlap but would only suffer recoil if scoring
less. A second example is where
5 light horse charge 4 knights. On
one flank the light horse would overlap and if there were no enemy within
base depth ahead could move onto that flank, in that circumstance the knight
would be destroyed instead of recoiling.
I think this more accurately reflects the slow wearing down of
knights and their gradual isolation and destruction.
War
Wagons
When
I based my Pechenegs I did so on two single elements of 40mm depth, placing
the team on one and the wagon on the other.
I did so in order to use either option, i.e. as war wagon or
temporary fortification. At the
time Wwg were very strong although they have been toned down since to combat
their use as panzers. Reflecting
on it I believe that all Wwg should be on two single elements, one
comprising the team the other the Wagon.
If the team is destroyed the Wwg would remain in situation until also
destroyed. Horse teams with
greater protection could be graded O those without as I.
This would prevent them being used as tanks but would reflect their
defensive/rallying capabilities better particularly if the Wagon element was
given its previous rating.
Regular
Generals/Irregular Elephants
When
a Regular General clambers onto an elephant command and control go out of
the window, despite him being in an elevated position surrounded by
retainers and couriers. I
believe that whilst the elephant element should be Irregular the Regular
status of the General should not be affected.
Regular
General Cost
Where
a side has only one regular general the extra point cost is unfair and he
performs no differently than an irregular general.
I believe the first Regular General should cost the same points.
The additional cost of Regular Generals is fine due to the advantage
of moving dice around the table.
Well
that’s about it, nothing earth shaking.
back to
despatches
|
