More on Ancient gaming and lists

Blogging sometimes sends me off in unexpected directions.  I like to pretend that I have some sort of idea about what I intend to write about in my next couple of posts and then one thing leads to another (or to be more accurate its more a case of  one post leads to another) and I'm off down a different rabbit hole!  So it is with this post.  My last post on army lists and balance in DBA got me thinking about the development of the DBx family of rules and how they represent a complete change of direction from the older WRG Ancients rule sets.  So I dug out the copies of the WRG  rules I have (4th Edition through to 7th) to remind myself of how they worked.

Barney looking for me down that rabbit hole or possibly digging out the rules from my filing system!

I should say at this point that I have a soft spot for the WRG ancients rules.  Like many gamers of a 'certain' vintage they were the first proper rules I used.  Before WRG I had rules by Charles Grant and John Tunstall which were as much tutorials on how to write rules as they were a fully formed set of rules.  WRG were different, from the start they were written as a set to use in competitions so had to be full and complete, or at least complete enough to not need house rules for competition use.  Second they tried to cover everything needed for the period they covered, weather, time of day, troop definitions the whole nine yards as they say.  With WRG rules an opponent and I could buy a set of rules and use them exactly as written by and large, although there was always the small matter of Phil Barker's writing style to give rise to some points of debate on interpretation.

Those rules were pretty much the only game in town, as it was a couple of years before competing rule sets arose.   Those I tried were no improvement and were often worse than WRG.  At best some were Ok but for whatever reason they came and went while the WRG sets soldiered on year after year.  I started playing using 3rd edition and as each new edition appeared switched to the new set.  The core mechanisms stayed pretty much the same right through to 6th edition.  They were detailed and often slow to play and most games I played struggled to come to a natural conclusion in a single session.  Part of the after game ritual was the discussion which usually started with 'well if we had time to play another turn I would have....'

It was 7th edition that made dramatic changes to core mechanisms.  Basing as elements and no figure removal (as with DBx) came in with that set, although the weapon and troop classes remained the same.  The command rules became more detailed and there was less scope for changing things on the fly.  One of the issues that confused me was that although units were based as elements some formations required troops to be based in part elements (such as wedge or rhomboid) which partially defeated the element concept.  For a lot of gamers the 7th was too different to earlier editions and it simply wasn't WRG ancients anymore.

Phil Barker's original concepts had stayed unchanged from 1st through to 6th edition ancients and similar concepts were used by scores of other sets as well.  Combat focussed on the armour type of the target unit and the weapon system used by the attacker.  Units lost figures once the casualty calculation reached multiples of 20 casualties (as each figure represented 20 actual men).  This had drawbacks as units tended to contract along their frontage which isn't how things worked in reality as casualties would be replaced from the rear ranks to try to maintain a units frontage.  In 7th the actual number of casualties was determined but was then used to determine if the unit became fatigued and influenced immediate reaction to the combat.  Then the casualty slate was wiped clean. Instead fatigue carried forward and impacted on the unit's performance in future turns.  No figures were (or could be) removed so frontages stayed intact.

WRG didn't develop their ancients set any further then 7th edition although others did (Warrior were, I think, developed from WRG 7th edition).  Instead Phil Barker wrote DBA.  Then he bolted on additional chrome to DBA to create firstly DBM and then DBMM, in effect he started to move back to something like a simplified 7th edition but from the other direction.

About the time 7th edition were published I drifted out of figure gaming for a while due to the usual reasons, young family, change of job and my gaming group breaking up to take new jobs in different places.  I bought a copy of 7th, read it and made notes on the mechanisms, but never played it.  To be honest I couldn't get my head around the newfangled idea of basing as elements and the lack of figure removal as that had been at the mainstay of every other set of rules I had ever used until that point.  My 25mm collection stayed based for 6th edition and didn't morph into DBx armies.

My 25mm Late Imperial Romans based for 6th Edition.  These are a mix of Hinchcliffe, Prince August hand casts, Irregular miniatures plus a few Essex

My 25mm 6th edition armies went to a good home when I downsized. The video shows them as they were when I was checking them before they went to their new home.  They hadn't been out of storage for a decade at that point which explains the loose spears and shields. The unpainted stuff had been that way for about 20 years at that point!

Having looked back over the old rule sets I can see what the design objective with 7th edition was.  I even wish I had had the chance to play them as there is a lot of good in them.  Strangely when I came to write my homebrew ECW rules many of the concepts from 7th solved design issues I had and addressed some of the playing decisions I wanted to focus on.  Looking back I can see the first glimpse of DBM, DBMM and related games like ADLG in those rules.   Personally I think that Phil Barker recognised that there was tension between detail and playability and wanted to address it with 7th.  I don't know that he achieved that  to the satisfaction of players.  The fact that he turned to DBA as a new starting point and them developed rules more akin to 7th with DBM and DBMM suggests that he was close to what he wanted but couldn't quite get there with the mechanisms of the previous sets.  None of which really matters when looking at whether DBA and it's further developments deliver a good game or not, but it is interesting to see how we got to the place we currently occupy with WRG rules.  I suspect DBA 3.0 is the last hurrah for WRG ancient and medieval rule sets but 1969 to date is a damn good run by anybodies standards and many of the current rule sets for the period owe a lot to the work done by WRG.

Over 20 years gaming right here in one place - WRG 4th - 7th editions

Comparison of army lists

Following on from my Roman v Persia DBA game over Easter I got to thinking about the balance of the standard 12 element games of DBA.  So as an exercise I converted the two armies to DBM, DBMM and ADLG equivalents using the closest matches to the DBA element choices I could find.  The results confirmed one of my views about DBA's 12 element selections which is that the armies don't give balanced match ups, even between historical enemies. DBA doesn't distinguish between Inferior, Ordinary or Superior troop categories  as DBM or DBMM do (shown by the initial after the type in brackets so (O) is an ordinary example of the type).  It doesn't have points values either as selections are made assuming all troop types are of equal value.  What the comparison did was show that this simply isn't true.

The closest match is DBM as there is almost a 1:1 equivalency in the element types if we assume all DBA troop categories are equivalent to Regular  and Ordinary troop classes in DBM.  The Army lists for my game were: 

Early Sassanid 
General (Cv), 5 Asaravan (Cv), 1 horse archer (LH), 1 elephant, 1 Daylami (4Ax) and 2 Levies (7Hd).

Western Late Imperial Roman
General (Cv), 1 Equites (Cv), 1 Cataphract (4Kn), 2 Equites Illyricani (LH), 2 legionaries (4Bd), 3 Auxilia Palatina (4Ax), 2 Light Infantry (Ps).

DBM equivalents
The DBM armies are (based on my admittedly elderly copy of DBM (1994) and equally old army lists (1993)) as follow.  All troops are solid unless noted as (F) for fast or (X) for exception.

Early Sassanid (all irregular troops)
General (Cv (S)), 5 Asaravan (Cv (O)), 1 horse archer (LH (F)), 1 elephant (El (O)), 1 Daylami (Ax (O)) and 2 Levies (Hd(O)).

Western Late Imperial Roman (all regular troops)
General (Cv(O)), 1 Equites (Cv (O)), 1 Cataphract (Kn (X)), 2 Equites Illyricani (LH(O)), 2 Legionaries (Bd(O)), 3 Auxilia Palatina (4Ax(S)), 2 Light Infantry (Ps(O)).

The points totals are interesting the Sassanids cost 90 points but the Romans are 97pts.  There isn't an option for 4Ax (O) in the DBM Late Roman list, but using the raw point cost it would only reduce the total by a further 3pts to 94.  It seems like Phil Barker considered that the Roman army is actually worth between 4.5% and  10% more than the Sassanid when he wrote the points for DBM.  Which reflects the outcome of the DBA game.  It might be argued the true cause of the discrepancy is the difference between regulars and irregulars and that does account for the points difference within DBM itself.  The way to test it is to replay the game using DBA but with DBM points values which would give the Sassanids an additional 9 pts to spend for at least one more element.  That would allow an extra Asaravan or LH element for example.

DBMM equivalents
DBMM points are identical for the Romans but has differences for the Sassanid Persians as they have to take Cv (S) for Asaravan which brings the totals to a close match of 99pts Roman and 100 pts Sassanid.  This will be something I might refight using DBMM 100 (the 100 pt DBMM light variant).

ADLG equivalents
ADLG has a different set of troop definitions although the points values are broadly similar to DBM/DBMM so I have gone back to basics and tried to replicate the troop types in ADLG terms.  I used the DBM/DBMM descriptions as they give more detail than the DBA list and make it easier to compare troop types to get the closest match possible.  In ADLG ordinary generals don't have a points cost, it is only the better generals who have to be paid for.  As result I based the list on the (stay with me here the next bit is a bit convoluted) the DBA list converted to DBM ordinary category troops and then looked for the nearest ADLG equivalent.  It isn't possible to match the DBA list exactly due to the slightly higher points costs for some troop types.  What we get is:

Sassanid (pre 430 AD)
1 x General, 5 x Asaravan (HC- Bow), 1 x Cataphract, 1 x Horse Archer (LC - Bow), 1 x Elephant, 1 x Javelinmen (LMI - javelin),  2 x Levy (levy).

Late Imperial Roman
1 x General, 2 x Equites (HC), 1 x Cataphract, 2 x Eq Sagittarii (LH - Bow), 1 x Eq Illyricanii (LH - Javelin), 2 x Legionaries (HI- Sword), 3 x Auxilia Palatina (MI-Sword, Impact), 2 x Light Infantry (LI - Bow)

I considered comparing the relative values of the two armies under the old WRG ancients rules using the 1982 6th Edition Ancient's lists.   However, the rules are so different that it wouldn't really add anything other than remind me how much I miss my triple armed legionaries!  I have a set of 7th edition but have never used them in anger, they would be closer to the DBx rules family as they are element based.  Short of trying out 7th solo, the next step is to refight the action under DBA using the DBM list and then doing it again under ADLG rules.

After all of this I have kind of reached a conclusion.  Which is that DBA as written is fine as a basic introduction to wargaming in the period prior to 1500 AD, but.....   The but being that the lists don't really provide the incentive to play some of the weird and wonderful armies that live out ot the fringes of playability because of the 12 element format.  In future I may very well simply play games using DBA rules but selecting 100 pt armies from the lists for DBM/DBMM to give a bit more balance.  That way it might actually be interesting to see a match up between lets say Italian Hill Tribes and Burgundian Ordonnance.

Proxy Dark Age troops - The Welsh Princedoms

By the late 8th century the Welsh had been pushed back to the area of the modern principality and the south west of England (Dumonia).  Wales itself was made up of a number of small princedoms although for short periods they would be unified under a successful leader such as Hywel Dda. Originally Romano-British in outlook by the late 8th century they had reverted back to something closer to the military organisation and tactics of the tribal societies who had replaced the Romans throughout Western Europe.  Each Welsh King had a small band of personal retainers and relied on the land owners (Uchelwyr) to raise their own retainers (Teula) for military service.  Kings seem to have had a military house hold of around 50 men but may have hired mercenaries to boost numbers.  A Teula may have been a unit of 300, but given the fixation in early Welsh literature with multiples of the number three that can't be guaranteed.  There was also a unit called a nifer which may have been a subdivision of a Teula or it may have been an alternative name for the same thing.  What we can tell is that the welsh were never able to field huge forces and small raiding forces of between 50 and 300 would have been the norm.  These would have been drawn from the Uchelwyr and their retainers and service by bondsmen tied to the land seems to have been rare.

Period accounts speak of their raiding over Offa's Dyke in hit and run attacks.  There was some use of light cavalry for scouting but the bulk of their forces were infantry.  These are described as fearsome in the initial charge but liable to fade away from a determined resistance.  They would precede their charge with showers of javelins but were only a serious threat to a shield wall if it broke.  They were fleet footed and little slowed by rough terrain and often based tactics on the use of that terrain to disadvantage more closely formed foot.

This suggests that they were not fighting in close order bodies themselves but were more akin to what the old WRG ancients rules termed Light Medium Infantry (LMI).  DBA 3.0  treats them as Warband, DBMM as fast warband and ADLG as MI sword.  Personally I'm not fully convinced by the ADLG definition and feel that they could be better represented by using LMI Javelinmen as the standard type but giving an option to upgrade to MI Sword.

Welsh Infantry or Moors in disguise perhaps?

No one does figures specifically for Welsh viking age figures in 6mm so its back to looking for a good proxy.  I have chosen to use Baccus Moorish Infantry as these are nicely animated in a variety of poses that suits the less regimented style of combat formations I imagine these troops to have fought in.  Phil Barker suggests the Welsh troops of this period were armed with swords and targets so there may be an option to use Irregular Miniatures Scots Irish swordsmen figures for them.  For their mounted troops I have used the ever popular Gothic Medium Cavalry from Baccus 6mm's Roman Range.

Uchelwyr (No I can't pronounce it either)

They give opposition to and a different tactical style to the Anglo-Saxon and Viking forces which form the bulk of the forces in play during the period.  I just need more of them so I can field a decent force and probably some sheep and cattle for them to steal!

It's been a busy few days.

Over the weekend just gone I received my copy of DBA 3, had a day with my Sealed Knot regiment at Thorpe Mandeville and managed to do some painting.  So what to write about?

Lets start with DBA, I ordered the rules from Black Hat Miniatures as they actually had stock.  I have to say that the way they dealt with my order was a pleasure to behold.  Email updates on the order progress and a fast turn around. If only all internet shopping was as good.  I'm not going to bore you with yet another personal review of the rules they have been out long enough now for better writers than me to have done the job.  All I'm going to say is that Phil Barker's rules seem to evoke a Marmite reaction in people.  You either love them or hate them.  I like them and don't have any issues with "Barkerisms", now that might have something to do with my job which involves dealing with tax legislation which means that I have experience in dealing with text where not a single word is wasted or used without purpose.  mind you I have been using Mr B's rules since WRG 2nd Edition Ancients.

What I do like is the side support rules for spears it seems to me to help replicate Dark Age shield wall combat.  I can see my Middle Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Pics getting a run out to test the rules.  Which in turn means I better finish painting my latest batch of Baccus 6mm Vikings.

On the painting front I have managed to paint some 2mm EVW foot and have some horse to do next.  I have tried several styles of painting these blocks.  the latest is to undercoat grey dry brush white and use a wash for the main colour finishing by picking out some details.  usually faces, hats and muskets. I will post some pictures of each stage in a few days.

Last but most definitely not least I managed to squeeze some Sealed Knot action into the weekend.  I didn't have chance to take any pictures as I was busy training musketeers but one of my friends did and once I get hold of some of his pictures I will post them.  I find them useful to show me what level of detail can be seen at a distance.

Note for non Brits - Marmite is a yeast based dark brown spread with a strong taste and smell that you will either love or hate.  Me? I love it especially on toast.