Jeff's Farewell Game Day

Jeff and Ryan at Battle

Jeff Franz has been the orchestrator of our DBA games in Seoul, and he gathered the largest group yet for one more game day.  We had six experienced players, and Tony's daughter Erin also gave DBA a try with a few games, using my Galatians.

The seven armies:

• Warring Chin Chinese (II/4A) (See the Army on Jeff's Blog) --Jeff
• Late Ottomans (IV/55b) --Ian
• Kommenan Byzantines (IV/1)--Tony
• Late Imperial Romans (II/78)--Ryan
• Late Persians (II/7)--me
• Kappadokians (II/14)--Rob
• Galatians (II/30b)--Erin

A few snapshots follow.

I didn't manage to track all of the results, but Jeff once again dominated his games.  He also helped teach Erin, playing his Chin Chinese against the Galatians.

Chin Army engages Galatians

Ian and Tony's game resulted in a major engagement on the Kappadokian's flank. The Kappadokian camp is the yellow square.

Kappadokians battle Ottomans

Ryan lost three games against Jeff, Tony, and Ian, but he beat me. Roman Blades chopped up the Persians rather quickly. 

Persians and Romans advance

Ryan eventually lost to Ian's Ottomans; however, his Light Horse managed to impel a flank attack during the bout.

Ottoman Horse Recoil from Roman Light Cavalry

My Persians lost against the Romans and Byzantines, but I managed to beat Rob in a difficult match, thanks to great dice rolls. Rob places a river down the center of the board, rated as ordinary.  It really complicated maneuver. 

Kappadokians Cross the River

Ian aggressively engaged Tony's Byzantines, but I didn't catch the final result.

Byzantines Vs. Ottomans

Jeff, we will all miss your extensive DBA knowledge, organizational skills, inspirational painting, and sportmanship.  Best of luck in San Antonio!

Two DBA Duels

Ryan and I met Jeff today and played two DBA 2.2 games.  As he works on his painting, Ryan has assembled a Thessalian army from my Spartans and extra Macedonian figures.

Late Thessalians (II/5d) versus Galatians (II/30a)

Thessalians on the Left: Psiloi supporting Hoplites

Ryan played the first game against Jeff's recently painted Galatians.  This matchup turned into a slug fest between the two infantry lines.  Jeff had sore luck with the dice.





Jeff moved a Cavalry around Ryan's flank, placing the supporting Psiloi in its Zone of Control (ZOC).  This move prevented it from moving forward in the contact with the Warband line.

Jeff opened up the attacks on his right flank, using a Scythed Chariot to turn a Thessalian Cavalry element.  He lost the bout.

After the lines met, Ryan used his cavalry to flank a Warband, killing it.

The game quickly ended as the Spears outmatched the Warbands, resulting in four elements lost in the first round of melee.

Final Result: 4 Galatian Losses to 0 Thessalians

Demetrios Early Successor (II/16b) versus New Kingdom Egyptians (I//22)

I have not had any luck with my Macedonian Morph army yet.  I continue to under-utilize my Pike.  For this game, I decided to try a list with an Artillery element.  Jeff, always the good sport, tipped me to several weaknesses in my initial deployment that could have cost me the game right away.  I still made a few key mistakes as the game progressed.  Two elements were often out of command range, and my artillery "pinched" my line, preventing me from using my Knight (Gen) and Elephant.

I pivoted my artillery in order to fire on the line, but the placement along a waterway resulted in a bunching up of units.  I also placed my Pikes are risk of recoiling into the Elephant.  Fortunately, I had a millimeter to spare in the recoil, which happened right away thanks to accurate Bow shooting by the Egyptians.

We fought several rounds of melee between the Pikes and the Egyptian line, composed of Blades and Bows.  Units would recoil or lock, but it was slow going in terms of kills.

I didn't get photos of the action on my right flank, but Jeff effectively kept my LH and one Aux tied up with a Bow element and supporting Cavalry.  The Bow continued to force the Light Horse to recoil.

I rolled low PIPs many times.  During the last round, I moved my artillery forward to shoot at two Cavalry lurking back near the camp.  Moving too far forward, the artillery was killed in close combat by the Cav in the next turn.  Jeff finally killed one of my Cav that covered the Pike's right flank.  Soon after, he turned my flank and took out three Pike elements.

Result: Five Demetrian Losses to 0 NKE Losses. Ouch!

Latest DBA test run

We finally moved into our condo and received a small shipment of our belongings.  Typhoon Bolaven hit Seoul, so I came home from work early and managed to play a game of DBA.  A new version of DBA 3.0 was posted in early August, so I tested it out solo. Lacking my game board, I marked off a 32 inch square on our dining table.  This is the first time I have played on a larger field, and the extra space was noticeable.

The Kappadokians fought with Knights as the mounted choice because of their strength against warbands.  The Army list provides a choice between Cavalry or Knights.  I also deployed one spear element.  The latest version of DBA includes two foot classes: fast and solid.  I played the Kappadokian auxilia as fast.

On the other side of the field were Galatians with a Lt Chariot General.  I played the war bands as solid foot.  It will be interesting to see how the final Army lists represent Galatian warbands.

The Kappadokians defended.  My basic strategy for the Kaps was to hold a line along the bad going terrain as long as possible and use the Knights to take out warband elements.

 

For the Galatians, I planned to attack the Knights with Cavalry and push the Warbands into rough going, aiming to destroy the auxilia units.

The Kappadokian Knights tried to maneuver to the right flank to engage the warband elements, while Galatian cavalry tried to check them.

For several turns, the Galatians rolled low PIPs, so the Knights were eventually able to engage thanks to a flanking move by the Kappadokian Light Horse.

I won't begin a rant on the terse wording of the DBA rules, but I am not entirely sure that I moved the LH elements correctly on this flanking move.  I have included a play-by-play of the move to contact the Galatian LCh General.

I moved the LH forward, and then flanked the Gen with the right element.  On further review, I think the Gen should have turned to face the first LH that made contact, and the second LH move to flank appears legal.   Welcome feedback.

The combat resulted in the LH recoiling.  Eventually, the General destroyed one LH element.  However, Kappadokian Auxilia flanked a Galatian cavalry element and destroyed it.  The remaining Galatian Cavalry and Auxila fought several more rounds of combat that resulted in tied rolls, so there were no effects on either force.  I was surprised at the resilience of auxilia in the current rules version.

The Galatian warbands on the Kappadokians left flank engaged Psiloi in the woods, but two rounds of combat only resulted in the Psiloi recoiling. 

 This final photo depicts the situation right before the Kappadokians Knights, who had finally moved to contact with the Warbands, finished them off, killing three Warband elements in a row.

It was good to play again, although playing a new rules version solo isn't the most exciting or fastest method.  It did give me a chance to learn the new differences, and I don't really have much criticism.  Of course, several of the new features in DBA 3.0 didn't come into play given the element types in the two armies.  The movement rates allowed for fast movement to contact, but the combat factors (and the dice rolls) resulted in six solid rounds of combat.  It wasn't over quickly until the Knights hit the Warbands and got lucky with the dice.

I was introduced to another DBA gamer here in Seoul via the Yahoo list, so we plan to meet in September.

Battle of Broken Stick - DBA 3.0 Play Test

Ryan and I completed our third test of the DBA 3.0 rules.  The Kappadokians faced the Galatians.

Kappadokian Light Horse

Unlike the first two tests, these armies represent historical foes.  I played the Kappadokians (II/14), and Ryan commanded the Galatians (II/30b).  In terms of army element options, we both chose Cavalry Generals.

Kappadokian General Element

In this game, the Kappadokians played as defender in hilly terrain.  This was the first playtest game that involved terrain without a road.  I chose relatively small pieces of terrain, including hills, woods, and a patch of rough (rocky ground).

Terrain and Deployment Rules
Ryan and I agree after three games that the new terrain placement rules work fine.  However, the only drawback is the constraints placed on terrain distance from the end of the board edge, when combined with the limited deployment area for the armies. 

In all three games, I have found myself stymied by the deployment area rules.  Terrain must be placed at last one base width from the board edge.  If rough going terrain ends up in your deployment area, it can force choices that do not appear to represent historical situations - either bunch your forces in a narrow area or deploy forces that extend into bad going.

As a newby, I have struggled with the logic on the terrain placement rules regarding the board edges.  My review of ancient battles shows examples of generals using hills and other rough terrain to protect a flank.  Rough terrain often define the battle side edges, so I don't appreciate why DBA requires positioning of terrain away from the edge.  I can only surmise that this rule is meant to address practices observed in competitions.  I struggle to find a good reason for the restriction, particularly considering the constrained deployment area.

On to the battle!

Given the terrain constraints, I decided to try a Light Horse run toward the Galatian Camp, understanding the risks related to being cut off.  Taking the risk paid off.  Not only did the Light Horse advance quickly to the camp, the move pulled Galatian Warband units off the main group in a futile attempt to counter these light forces.

Two turns in, the Galatian general plans his next move - dealing with a LH run at his camp.

Light Horse elements move fast, but they lack punch.  Once the two LH elements reached the camp, one element protected the rear of the attack.  The Galatian camp followers were resilient; the camp didn't fall for four turns.

While A few Galatian Warbands tried to address theKappadokian Light Horse charge on their camp, the main battle developed with a cavalry duel - Three on Three.


Galatian Psiloi later moved out of the rough to provide support in the form of an overlap. The Galatians gained the upper hand, flanking and destroying a Kappadokian cavalry unit. 

Kappadokian Auxilia support Cavalry

Kappadokian auxilia moved forward to fill the gap on the cavalry's left flank.

On the Galatian left flank, the dice gods favored the Light Horse, resulting in a lost warband unit.


The main Kappadokian auxilia force engaged the Galatian Warband main body, defeating one

In a nice change from the norm, I actually won a game; 4 to 1.  The Galatians lost their camp and three elements.


Hot Wash

Overall, we have made the transition to 3.0 with few problems.  My main concern is the limited deployment area, in terms of the limitations to use the sides of the board for deployment.  I am tempted to use a larger board instead of the 24 inch board if this rule stays the same.

Following the discussion on the Yahoo Group, we have not tested aspects of the 3.0 rules that appear most controversial - namely the introduction of double elements and Blades-vs-Warband face-offs.

As a new player, I still wrestle with the terse, complex sentences in the rules.  DBA rates at the top of the scale in terms of potential to encourage the next generation of wargamers to get involved in historical games.  However, the rules rank at the very bottom in terms of clarity and utility.  I would have never considered DBA if I hadn't stumbled upon the Unofficial Guide on the Fanaticus webpage.  The structure and editing of the rules is a major barrier of entry.  When my son demonstrates DBA to his 11-to-12 year old friends, they unequivocally are fascinated by the game and love playing.  I hope that the Barker family works with the DBA community, and a good editor, to address shortcomings of the writing of these rules.

One of my goals for this blog is to review wargames rules with my kids, and their friends, to understand why game design features are valued by young gamers.  DBA features that appeal to younger people include the rapid play, balance between unit types, and the impressive list of Army options.  The low figure count needed to assemble an Army is a huge plus.  However, the rule's dense writing style is a major entry barrier.  Using tables and examples would make the rules more accessible.

After my business trip, I'll return to painting my Hellenistic Morph Army, so we will try out 3.0 with a Pike-heavy force later this month.

The Battle's Name

With the change in pace measurement from inches to base width, I made a measuring stick that marked off 40mm paces and 1/2 BW measurements before our Game 2 test.  The stick was a casualty of the game, proving too weak to be sat on.  A little blue masking tape held it together!

Writing from Waikiki...

The Spartan's Prevail - DBA 3.0 Playtest

Today, we tried out DBA 3.0, pitting the early Spartans (1/52b) against Galatians (II/30b). Ryan played the Spartans, choosing 12 Spear elements. 

 
Once again, the dice roll placed me in the position of the defender with the Galatians.  I chose a road, two small woods, and one gentle hill as the terrain pieces.  Based on our last game, I went with smaller terrain pieces in case the dice required placement of multiple pieces in the same quadrant.  I also benefited from a comment, learning that a roll of six results in the attacker choosing only the quadrant for placement, not in the attacker placing the terrain. I had missed the distinction in the rules.
 
For the Galatians, I fielded 1x General in Chariot (LCh), 2 x Cavalry, 8 x Warband, and 1 Psiloi.  I initially tried to field the mounted forces on the right flank, in front of a small wood.  However, the measuring stick proved that this wouldn't be possible, it placed my forces to close to the center of the board.  So, I settled for placing the force in reserve.  My Warbands and Psiloi formed a large group, deployed in the center of the board.

Ryan deployed his Spartans in three groups, with one dispatched to his left flank in column, near a forest.

The dice didn't favor me again today.  I rolled very few PIPs in the first turns, resulting in my Psiloi being isolated.  Trying a new tactic, I moved them twice in the first turn, finishing the move in the wood between two Spartan groups.  I intended to advance the Warband group forward in order to engage the Spartan force on my left. I also started moving my mounted group to the right flank. 

Before my plan developed, Ryan advanced and flanked the Psiloi. After a few successful melee rounds, with the terrain advantage saving its skin, the Psiloi was destroyed.

When playing DBA 2.2, I had used a rule and tape measure, since movement distances were in inches.  I created a measuring stick, seen on the table, for DBA 3.0.

As the battle progressed, we ended up with two engagements.  One fight occurred between a Spartan group, four Galatian warbands and the Galatian mounted forces.  The other fight involved six Spartan spear elements in two groups and four Warbands.  After six rounds of melee between these groups, with numerous recoils and pursuits, Ryan won the game 4 -3.

Intrepretations

We had to carefully review the rules on several points.

Pursuit - We were unsure if supporting Warband elements pursue along with the unit in combat.  I interpreted the following statement on page 12 as meaning "yes." 

"An element of any of ........Warbands (or that could provide rear support to any element of these even if not providing such support against current opponents) that is fighting foot,..."

Effect of destroyed unit on rear support- If a Warband element that is being supported is destroyed, what happens to the Warband element providing rear support?   If both elements have been flanked when the element in combat is destroyed, is the rear support unit also destroyed? 

Since the paragraph on destroyed elements doesn't address the effect on a rear support unit, we didn't destroy rear support units.

A Puzzler

During the last turn, Ryan flanked a Warband element that had rear support.  While another Spartan element is engaged with a neighboring unit, the Warband element had no enemy to its front.  I rotated both the flanked element and its rear support element to face the Spartan.  I remain unsure if we maneuvered the forces correctly.   The game ended before this melee occurred.   Thoughts?

I have made numerous notes on the 3.0 rules.  We are playing one more game - Kappadokians versus Galatians - before I submit my comments to the Yahoo DBA Group. 

I'm busy painting elements for a Hellenistic Army Morph plan using the 3.0 draft Army lists. When those units are ready, we will take another run at the rules with some Pikes in the action. 

Getting Started in DBA

I took up De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA) in May of this year.  After two years of painting American War of Independence and Napoleonic miniatures, but rarely having the time, or opponents, for long games, I stumbled upon www.fanaticus.org, a fan site dedicated to the game.  DBA was appealing due to the short play time and small army size.  I was also attracted to the abstract nature of the rules which capture the essence of Ancients battles while using a small number of miniatures.  My son Ryan, age 11, is my principal opponent in gaming, and he found the game appealing, too. I started with paper miniatures as a test before committing  to buying and painting figures.  We tested out DBA playing a Macedonian Imperial army, Marian Romans, and Late Spartans.  I first taught myself the rules while on a business trip, and we then had a go at several games with the paper figures.

My timing was not great.  I couldn't find any copies of DBA 2.2 for sale. When I joined the yahoo group for DBA (DBA@yahoogroups.com), I found that the authors, Phil and Sue Barker, had posted the 2.2 version of the rules on the group site during the interlude between publication of 2.2 and the latest version 3.0.  Sue also posted draft army lists for 3.0, allowing me to get into the game.

When it came time to buy some Armies, I went with my heart and available internet bargains, picking up Essex 15mm early Spartan (I/52b), Galatian (II/30b), and Ariarathid Kappadokian (II/14) armies, from Wargames LLC (www.wargamesminis.com.) The service was great.  In fact, my Spartan DBA army pack was one command figure short, and Baxter at Wargames LLC threw in another figure for me when I ordered some more miniatures a month later. 

I chose the Galatians and Kappadokians based on two factors: the types of units in each army and the fact that the armies were listed as enemies.  The Galatians are primarily a Warband army.  The Kappadokians represent a light, combined arms force with an emphasis on Auxilia. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Helmed_Hoplite_Sparta.JPG

On the other hand, the choice of Early Spartan is not an obvious fit with the other two armies.  However, can any reader of Herodotus and Xenophon not want a Spartan army for DBA?  While the monothematic force proved easy to paint, I have found it difficult to win with the Spartans against their anachronistic foes.

Phil and Sue Barker have made progress on the new version of DBA, version 3.0, with the help of numerous playtesters.  The rules are now posted in the yahoo group, and DBA players have been asked to test them out.  Based on the detailed and passionate feedback on the yahoo group site, active testers appears to have much experience playing the game, and very strong opinions as to the pros and cons of the game versions.  I've decided to do my part, playtesting the rules as a bonafide newby with Ryan.
I just finished painting my third army, the Kappadokians, but the bases are not completed yet.  However, we tried out the new rules first with the Kappadokians fighting the Spartans.