Designing DBM Armies
by Marcus Watson mjwatson@powerup.com.au

(Marcus Watson has twice won the Australian DBM national Cancon championship and dominates the local tournament circuit in Melbourne & Brisbane, Australia. Marcus submitted the following series of articles to the DBM mailing list prior to Cancon  2001)

 

I have now seen enough DBM vs3 to say I am very happy with the balance the authors have developed. Except for a few minor problems with Elephant, Camels and Artillery, I think the rules are getting as historically accurate as you can get (considering the time period and geography they cover).

What I would like to examine is some of the armies I am reveiwing for CANCON and study the 'hows' and 'whys' that would help in my selection. Currently alot of beginners are doing poorly because of their army selection and command design. This is not a ruse to throw people off, rather a chance to help inexperienced player make better army selections. These will tend to come in a random order but I will try to cover six or seven various armies.

My starting questions when designing any army are:

1. What is my control going to be like? Determine by the number of generals and type; the proportion of Reg and skirmishers; the aggression of the army and its terrain relevant to its troops types
2. What is my force projection capacity? Mounted troops, Artillery and Bowmen
3. What is my punch? Kn, Wb, El, Cm(S) and Pk and to a lesser extent Bd
4. How much rigidity does it have? Pk, Sp, are highly rigid, Bw(X), Bd, Kn(X) Cv and Cm I rate as firm, however any troops that can hold ground including Ax in rough and difficult also count towards this.
5. How plastic is the army? Reg Kn, Reg Bd(F), Irr mtd Bd(F), Cv and light troops
6. How much endurance does it offer? What the army break point going to be?

For the purpose of this article I have added a scale to rate these:

4 = Exceptional
3 = Above average
2 = Satisfactory
1 = Minimal
0 = None

When I design an army I try to gain a balance between the above categories and I advocate that new players try to do the same. My one exception is I am heavily influenced by the fact that many good players are happy to play for a draw against me so I have to focus on control to take the battle to them. Less well known player need not have such a heavy focus on one area. You can trade off one aspect for another if you believe it suits your style. I do not recommend taking armis that trade-off more than two of the above for exceptional strength in one area.

Army sizes will be based on 400AP since that appears to be the standard for most tournaments. The first army I will talk about are my Sicilians, this must be an A grade army because it just won the LOA competition (2000).

Silicians

• When you look through the list nothing stands out as exceptional. This was the first thing that attracted me to the list, because it meant I could make a large army out of it [F=3].
• Second it offered excellent control 3 Reg general a high aggression and very few spontaneous troops that could all be placed in one command [A=3].
• It has good projection from the massed Bw(I) [B=3]
• The list offers punch with a controllable knight group [C=2].
• It has some rigidity with Reg Sp(I), Bw(X) [D=1].
• The list offers good plasticity due to the large number of light troops, although it has minimal effective (i.e. can engage them) manoeuvre troops against mounted [E=3].

My first run at the list look like this:

CinC command 1 Reg Kn(S) General 2 Irr LH(O) 6 Irr Ax(S) 16 Irr Bw(I) 5 Irr Ps(O) 6 Irr Bg(I)

Sub general 1 1 Reg Kn(O) General 3 Reg Bw(X) dbe 3 Reg Bw(O) dbe rear 6 Reg Sp(I) 12 Irr Bw(I) 5 Irr Ps(O)

Sub general 2 1 Reg Kn(O) General 5 Irr Kn(O) 5 Reg LH(F) 6 Irr Ax(S) 15 Irr Hd(O)

Most players when they design their armies focus on what it is good at, THIS IS THE WRONG APPROACH!!! Identify what it is poor at and look at how you will beat those armies. If you come to the conclusion that you cannot beat a certain type of army then change your list. This army only has limited rigidity and therefore is susceptible to heavy foot armies. The possible counters to this are the Kn to punch through and the skirmishers to delay. However as it currently stands my Kn can only threaten one enemy command (you must be able to destroy 2 enemy commands as a minima to win) so I need more punch or threat of punch. Secondly the Bw(I) commands are vulnerable to projection from LH, Art and Bw(S) and therefore this also needs to be countered.

My final list looked like this:

CinC command 1 Reg Kn(S) General 2 Irr LH(O) 2 Reg Bw(X) DBE 2 Reg Bw(O) DBE rear 2 Reg Sp(I) 12 Irr Bw(I) 5 Irr Ps(O)

Sub general 1 1 Reg Kn(I) General 1 Reg Kn(I) 6 Irr Ax(S) 16 Irr Bw(I) 7 Irr Ps(O) 6 Irr Bg(I)

Sub general 2 1 Reg Kn(O) General 5 Irr Kn(O) 5 Reg LH(F) 6 Irr Ax(S) 15 Irr Hd(O)

The subtle change of the Bw(X) for a Kn(I) db general and 2 more Ps gave me the ability to handle heavy foot armies better. The command change allowed me to dismount my general as 2 Bd(S) which also effects the commands ability to fight both heavy foot, artillery and Bw(S).

Classical Indians

Now for my Classical Indian design under v3. I was going to cover Republican Indian as it is a potential contender for CANCON however the CI shares many of the same problems.

CinC 1 Irr El(S) gen 2 Irr El(S) 4 Irr Cv(I) 2 Irr Bd(I) 2 Irr Bw(X) DBE 2 Irr Bw(S) DBE rear 12 Irr Bw(S) 2 Irr Ps(O) 6 Irr Bg(O)

Sub gen 1 Irr Kn(S) gen 3 Irr Kn(S) 11 Irr Hd(O) Ally gen 1 1 Irr El(S) gen 1 Irr Cv(I) 1 Irr WWg(O) 4 Irr Bw(X) DBE 4 Irr Bw(S) DBE rear 3 Irr Hd(O)

Ally gen 2 1 Irr El(S) gen 1 Irr Cv(I) 1 Irr WWg(O) 4 Irr Bw(X) DBE 4 Irr Bw(S) DBE rear 3 Irr Hd(O)

• This army suffers from a control problem (RI has better control) 2 Allies and a spontaneous Sub general, however by minimising the groups per command (i.e. one manoeuvre group per command except the CinC [A=2].
• This army does have a good ability to project; with the Bw however changes to the LH flee rules have hampered archers performance without LH or a large number of Ps(O) in support. [B=2].
• The Kn(S) block allows some ability to break up heavy foot and combined with the El scares Wb and other Kn [C=3].
• The Bw(X), WWg offer some firm troops to work the other two command in between [D=2].
• This army is poor at any attempt to redeploy if you do not get your set up right from the start you can expect your opponent to enjoy an easy game once you lose the first command [E=1].
• Although not the biggest army I have played the troops it fields in the front line are hard to kill therefore reaching its break point is difficult [F=3].

This has always been my hardest army to reach a balance with, in the past I have dropped the Kn because of pursuit/recoil problems leading to flank attacks against them. Also having 2 groups in the Ally command was a big problem. V3 has fixed both of these, so the early version of CI is now viable for an open comp. It is just a pity that the Bw(S/X) are a lot weaker now.

Feudal Spanish 

Someone requested Feudal Spanish so here it is. I love this army because it is pain in the butt for anyone to kill, although it can have problems killing massed Bw armies.

CinC 6 Irr Cv(O) 4 Irr LH(O) 1 Irr Bd(O) 16 Irr Sp(I) 8 Irr Ps(O) 9 IrrPs(O) 6 Irr Bg(I)

Sub gen1 1 Irr Kn(F) 6 Irr Kn(F) 1 Irr LH(O) 8 Irr Sp(I) 4 Irr Ps(O) 7 Irr Ps(I)

Sub gen2 1 Irr Kn(F) 6 Irr Kn(F) 1 Irr LH(O) 27 Irr Ps(I)

This army can suffer from a control problem, two spontaneous sub generals, no regular dice and a terrain list unfavourable to Kn. Luckily the CinC can have a non-spontaneous command.

• If the generals do not go into combat early this army is not hard to play [A=2].
• This army does have a good ability to project; with a reasonable amount of fast moving mounted [B=2].
• The 2 Kn(F) block allow you t attack heavy foot with ease and are effective against most mounted. The fact that you can loss all your no general mounted troops with uot breaking means your puch last until the last man [C=3].
• Although the heavy foot are Irr Sp(I) with Ps support, the shear size of the army a the ability to deploy a suitable reserve behind them means this army offers a good level of rigidity [D=3].
• This army is poor at any attempt to redeploy , however it dose offer very good local reserves with the Ps and the Cv provide an army reserve[E=2].
• This army does not have the biggest front-line, it does offer depth and large commands. [F=3].

 

Medieval Portuguese 

Unlike most armies I tend to play this one a little more historically; few nobility and lots of peasantry. I do not use the British mercenaries, although four Reg Bw(S) would not be unreasonable at 400 AP but heck who needs more foreigners?

Personally I find this army very easy to play and the only thing that it has so far struggled against has been massed Wb(S) (it is a pity that Malay is so close in historical seeding). There are very few other armies that scare it, possibly Early Samurai or Serbs, which might offer the right combination of troop type to give it a hard run. It is very similar to my last year CANCON army only the Bw are tougher.

CinC 1 Reg Kn(S) general 3 Reg Kn(S) 1 Irr LH(O) 12 Irr Bw(O) 6 Irr Ax(O) 3 Irr Ps(O) 6 Irr Bg(I)

Sub gen 1 1 Reg Kn(S) general 3 Irr LH(O) 12 Irr Bw(O) 4 Irr Ax(O) 3 Irr Ps(O)

Sub gen 2 1 Reg Kn(S) general 5 Irr Kn(O) 2 Irr LH(O) 4 Irr Ax(O) 7 Irr Ps(O) 6 Irr Hd(F)

• It offered excellent control 3 Reg general a high aggression and very few spontaneous troops that could all be placed in one command [A=3].
• It has good projection from the massed Bw(O) and a good number of LH to work with them [B=3]
• The list offers punch with two controllable knight groups [C=3].
• It has little rigidity with dismounted Kn, double rank Bw and Ax it’s major method of holding ground [D=1].
• The list offers reasonable plasticity due to the large number of light troops with the small reg Kn(S) providing an excellent reserve [E=3].
• It just has enough endurance to classify as above average [F=3].

Overall it is my most powerful army I own and it suits my style – attack, attack and then well attack. It is also one of my best-looking armies, however this year it does not top my to-play list for CANCON for various reason including the other dates for VIC team players.

So in conclusion the way I design armies might not suit all players, I want balance, surprise and excellent knowledge of the army's  strength and weaknesses. The last point is the most important for any player and hopefully the questions I have posed above will help some people when designing their armies. Lastly Design is heavily influenced by terrain and set up, two subject that are better covered with diagrams rather than words, so I will not attempt to cover them here.

Regards,

Marcus Watson