Messages

1

Competitions / Re: Cancon 2022 - Saturday 22 January - Sunday 23 January

« on: January 16, 2022, 03:30:57 AM »

This event has been cancelled due to a lack of entries.

2

Competitions / Cancon 2022 - Saturday 22 January - Sunday 23 January

« on: January 06, 2022, 01:26:37 PM »

This Cancon’s DBMM v2.1 15mm competition is for armies of 400AP (including stratagems).

There will be four rounds of 3 hours 30 minutes (+/- 10 minutes) on Saturday and Sunday.

Armies permitted are all those within the years 3000BC to 1525AD, one list only.

Please send your list to the tournament organiser by Saturday 15 January for checking.

Late lists will be made available for viewing.

If you have any questions please ask me (peter DOT barritus AT yahoo DOT com DOT au)!

Online entries at https://cgs.asn.au/cancon/cancon-tournaments/

3

Rules Questions / Re: Weather changes

« on: January 03, 2022, 01:39:30 AM »

I never quite understand weather changes.

LOL.

Don't worry, those of us who've been playing for years still have problems.

Every army starts the game with 4 PIP-dice including dummy dice.

Correct.

During the game the dummy dice will be removed.

Correct.

The odds that a weather change will take place with 4 dice are much smaller that that it will take place with 3 or even 2 dice.
So during the game the odds that a weather change will take place grow.

Correct.

Is that the intention of the rules?

Good question.

It might be better to consider it a consequence of the rules rather than an intention of the rules.

I'd call it an unintended consequence, but others might not want to see things in such a negative way.

I'm quite sure this issue was pointed out in the earliest discussions of the rules back in the late-noughties, but I don't remember what Barker's view was at the time, or what conclusions were reached.

But yes, as the PIP dice disappear in the course of a game, the likelihood of weather changes increases.

4

Rules Questions / Re: Combat in Rivers

« on: November 01, 2021, 01:09:19 PM »

Hi folks

I've had a bit of a read of this situation, and with respect I think I disagree.

As I understand it, the philosophy of the rules is something along the lines of that what is allowed is only that which is specifically mentioned as being allowed. That is, if a rule provides specific cases for its application it can't be applied to other cases. Therefore, for example, the rule specifying which elements don't turn to face when contacted in the flank only applies to those elements and isn't to be expanded to apply to other elements.

For what it's worth, my interpretation would be that the two LH elements turn to face the Bd element, and the Bd element backs up until both LH elements are clear of the water. The LH then take a -1 in combat for not being able to recoil.

My logic is as follows:

- The LH can turn to face because the Turning to Face rule on p35 specifies that any element contacted on the flank turns to face; and the LH do not fit any of the exception provided to the rule (not train or Boats or Expendables, and is not in frontal contact).

- The LH can't be allowed to remain in the River facing the Bd at that angle to the flow because of the condition of crossing a River off-road on p20.

- Therefore the Bd must be moved backwards in accordance with the Moving Into Close Combat rule on p33 until the LH elements are clear of the river; the Bd element is the element preventing the LH from legally lining up. (I don't see the forward movement of the LH out of the River as movement contrary to p20 as I think it's effectively another form of EMTLU, and EMTLU allows a range of movements which aren't otherwise allowed in normal movement - for example, a group of elements can't slide sideways in normal movement but can do so as EMTLU.)

- The LH are now sitting with a back corner touching the river and can't recoil as that would involve entering the River at an illegal angle, hence the -1 in combat.

I don't think turning to face while in the River is possible, as the only case for that being allowed is by waders being contacted by Boats.

(Having said all that, I'm happy to be shown where my reasoning is wrong.)

= = = =

FWIW, these sorts of situations could easily occur with elements in the vicinity of a craggy hill. So it might be an idea for the Brains Trust to investigate these sorts of cases for the next edition of the Commentary.

5

Book 2 / Winning with Late Imperial Romans

« on: September 02, 2021, 10:51:35 AM »

How do you do it?

It's a list with tremendous variety and plenty of potential, but I've never worked out how to make a successful go of it.

Does anyone have any ideas, clues or suggestions? Has anyone had success with one in an open competition?

Cheers

Peter

6

Book 2 / Re: Some Book 2 errata

« on: September 01, 2021, 10:25:54 AM »

Quick question
Planning on playing Polybians against Seleucids tomorrow and figured 190BC the best date historically
I note at Magnesia the Romans were allied with Pergamon
In the list in bk 2 however you cant get a Pergamene ally until after 171BC
Is this an errata? Certainly seems like it as it looks to me should read after 191BC!

Yes, it may well be a mistake.

I checked the first edition list books and in that book the Pergamene allies were available from 198BC. In fact everything currently available from 171BC was previously available from 198BC except the Macedonian volunteers.

It's not something I'd noticed before, and I don't know why it changed.

7

Book 2 / Re: Late Romans and African Vandals

« on: February 09, 2021, 10:14:57 AM »

At Ad Decimum, the Vandal cavalry performs well, but are let down by their commander.

Fair point.

But my concern is that the combination of rules and troop classifications as they exist at the moment don't re-create those Byzantine-Vandal battles as we understand them.

In particular, with an Inert general leading Irr Kn (F) if the generals get few or no PIPs then the Irr Kn (F) simply go charging towards the enemy.

What I'm reading of the battles against Belisarius is that when the generals (in particular Gelimer) failed to actively lead their cavalry, what the cavalry did was to stand around scratching their backsides, rather than charging wildly at the enemy.

In other words, if we want to re-create the behaviour of the African Vandal army when led by Gelimer, then either the rules for the behaviour of impetuous troops led by inert generals need to change, or the classification of those troops needs to change.

I'm open to either change - as I've pointed out in another thread the inert classification might be usefully replaced by two classifications: one for generals who make normally non-impetuous troops impetuous, and one for generals who make normally impetuous troops non-impetuous. And Gelimer could easily be placed in that second category while still leaving the Vandal cavalry as Irr Kn (F). Alternatively, it might be argued that massed Irr Kn (I) led by an inert general is still a scary fight for an Early Byzantine army as the Kn have a quick kill against all the Cv and Bd in the army.

8

Book 2 / Re: Ancient Spanish- rubbish or simply misunderstood?

« on: January 13, 2021, 06:20:00 AM »

Let us know how the games go, in case we can offer you some more tips.

9

Book 2 / Re: Ancient Spanish- rubbish or simply misunderstood?

« on: January 09, 2021, 12:55:16 PM »

Happy New Year to everyone. Let’s hope that 2021 can’t be any worse.....

I haven’t been having much luck with my Ancient Spanish army, ever.... and wondered people’s opinions on them as an army. We only ever play historical matchups, so they namely form up against Carthaginian and Roman opponents.

My experience of playing against them (in open competitions) is that they're nearly impossible to beat and that they can easily overwhelm a range of armies.

I’ve tried Ax S as the main troop type, which seem unable to pack a punch against historical opponents (Romans and Carthaginians) and when I tried a switch to BdF they got murdered by Carthaginian Ax S...

I know the lack of sub generals stops people using them in competitions as too much chance of an unreliable ally but how do people find them in non-competition?

See above. Even in open comps they can threaten a range of opponents. Having three allies is less of an issue than you might expect.

The key strengths of the army I've faced are (a) its main troop types are cheap, meaning you can have large commands, (b) aggression 0 means you should be defender most of the time, meaning you should be able to clog up the table with terrain you can dominate with Ps (S), and (c) the (S) advantage for the Ax is really useful against foot.

Can an Iberian commander have Celtiberian Allies? Can Sertorius have Iberian or Celtiberian allies? It’s not stated in the lists that I can see....

No to the options above. You have to take one of the three ethnic groupings.

Any tips on how to play them much appreciated. I love them dearly having spent so many weeks painting them but the relationship is sadly souring....

Cheers

The guy who used Spanish (Ax (S) version - is that Iberian?) successfully was a master of exploiting the advantages of the army. He took four commands, all around the same size, with Ax (S) dominating the three allied commands, and the C-in-C managing the Bd (F). Each command had a few Cv, LH and Ps, with one command having a fairly decent number of Ps (S). His army size was close to 100 ME.

He always placed a lot of terrain, including the largest 1 FE BUA */** he could field. By placing a road he had a lot of flexibility about where to place the BUA to clog up the table as needed. He also tried to place terrain in such a way that something difficult landed somewhere in the middle of the table, so his opponent didn't have a large amount of open space to deploy a large block of heavy infantry or Kn. Instead, opponents would usually have to break up their heavy infantry/Kn forces and deploy them either side of the difficult terrain. He would then place his commands such that he could control that large piece of terrain with his largest group of Ps (S), or perhaps Ps (S) from two commands. That way, if his opponent tried to advance past that difficult terrain to attack his Ax or Bd, he could be threatening their flanks with the Ps.

He wasn't afraid to advance against his opponents, even when they had Kn. He had a number of ways of neutralising Kn, such as the Ps flank threat mentioned above, relying on numerical superiority to overwhelm opponents with overlaps and occasional lucky dice rolls, and sometimes by using the expendable flaming ox carts.

The only time I came close to beating his army was when I tried a Papal Italian army against him at the club. I managed to get the match-ups of Sp (S) and (O) (supported by Bge (S)) against his Ax (S), and Kn (F) against his Bd (F).

Against Polybians and Carthaginians, I'd recommend the tactics summarised below:

- all the terrain you can field, including taking a road and BUA and trying to break the battlefield up into narrow channels separated by difficult terrain you can control with Ps (S);

- take plenty of Ax (S) and possibly a group of Bd (F) in the C-in-C's command, give one command around 10-15 Ps while the others get around half a dozen each, and spread the Cv and LH around;

- deploy the Ax/Bd in the channels between the terrain pieces in 2 or even 3 ranks, and the Ps ready to dive into the terrain;

- consider using the Ambush stratagem to place some Ax right out on a flank where they can block an enemy mounted advance from marching, or develop a threat of their own on the enemy's flank;

- get the Ps into the terrain first, remembering Irr Ps are clumsy in difficult terrain, so you'll need quite a few PIPs to move them into flank-ready positions;

- if you have an unreliable ally, use the C-in-C's PIPs for what you need him to do each bound, and only save 3 PIPs for an activation attempt if it won't stop you from doing things you need to do (there are a number of ways to activate an unreliable ally, there are some things an unreliable ally can still do even while unreliable, and most times your opponent won't be able to do much to exploit the unreliability anyway); and

- advance the Ax/Bd into the channels and prepare to receive the enemy's attack, keeping in mind very few troops in either Roman or Carthaginian armies have a quick kill on either the Ax or Bd, and use your PIPs to send Ps into the flanks of the enemy infantry blocks.

Given the historical opponents, you may wish to consider using the flaming ox carts to lead an advance (don't just throw them out ahead of a stationary army). Because they can be deadly against massed heavy infantry, your opponents may be tempted to spend a lot of PIPs moving Ps and Ax into their path - PIPs (and Ps) that can't be used to contest your control of the difficult terrain. And if your Ax/Bd are right behind the ox carts they can take on those enemy Ps and Ax for some easy first-up casualties.

Against Romans you don't need to fear his Bd, remembering in your bound even a single overlap on the Bd is 3(S) v 3(O), so you should be able to attrition his Bd away.

Against Carthaginians any Sp he takes are vulnerable to Bd, so try to anticipate where he might place his Sp and deploy the Bd to face them.

Good luck!

* Actually it might have been the largest 0.5 FE BUA he could field. I'd have to check the rules.

** Remember that the perimeter of a BUA is good terrain, up to 20mm in from the edge (which just happens to be the depth of Ax and Bd (F) bases). Ps can hold a BUA pretty much all of a battle unless your opponent is willing to spend a lot of resources on taking it, but otherwise its straight sides make it a useful piece of difficult terrain to place a three-rank group of Ax/Bd in that can advance straight out as a group.

10

General Discussion / Re: Help with Seleucid list interpretation

« on: October 06, 2020, 06:47:16 AM »

In the process of putting together a shopping list for Seleucids.

G'day Mars, and welcome to the forum.

Years since I played DB games at that was DBM so I've yet to get my head round the changes with DBMM.

Well, welcome back to this part of the hobby. Don't worry about getting your head around DBMM - those of us who've been playing for years have the same problem...!

I'm very tempted to build a list for around 200 BC thus allowing me to take Antiochus III as a Brilliant General. One of my considerations is the cavalry upgrades.

After 205 BC the generals may be upgraded to Kn (X) but I'm not sure that's a good idea, I don't really intend throwing the generals into infantry battles and if attacked by mounted I think I'd rather have the generals as Kn (F).

This is one of the great conundrums of DBMM in my experience. There are good reasons to upgrade and to not upgrade. For one thing, is this an army you'd only be using for historical encounters, or would you be planning to use it in an open competition?

While you may not intend throwing generals into infantry battles, don't write it off straight away. For one thing, generals who destroy their opponents in combat provide a combat bonus to the elements either side. For another, seeing as you're interested in using a brilliant general, consider the benefits of charging into combat with a combat brilliant stroke. In this case, you can actually seriously contemplate the idea of charging a phalanx frontally with cataphracts led by a brilliant general.

As there are no other changes listed for generals before 205 BC I'm assuming that, while the 205 change merely calls them Kn(F) generals, they will remain as Reg Kn (F) in single element wedge?

Yes.

The Companions I think don't change at all from the look of it.

Correct.

All the Agema however must change to Reg Kn(X) which would have to be Cataphracts I guess.

It's listed as 'All/none', so you have the choice.

In terms of the Line Cavalry, post 276 BC they will all have become Reg Kn (F) but as a 200 BC list is not long after their optional upgrade of Kn(F) to Kn(X) in 205 BC (again which I assume will HAVE to be Cataphracts), it probably gives me some justification to retain up to 1/2 of the Line Cavalry as R Kn (F).  While Kn(X) are OK against infantry I tend to prefer Cv(O) or Kn (F) overall given that, IIRC, Kn(X) fight as Kn(I) against other knights?

Yes, Kn (X) count as (I) when fighting other Kn (and Bd and Wb). But they count as (S) against Cv, LH, Bw, Pk, which is pretty useful.

Again, the deciding issue may be whether you intend to create an army to fight historical opponents or all comers. Against all comers you may prefer to hedge your bets by having a few of each of Kn (F) and Kn (X). Keep in mind also that having a brilliant general gives you access to the Change Deployment stratagem, which gives you some flexibility in managing match-ups against your opponent's troop types.

The only thing a 205 BC list prevents is the use of Roman Argyraspides which I thought might be useful in making the heavy infantry less of a one trick (pike) pony and give them a bit more flexibility.  Only problem with going that late is that the Brilliant General is not available and also, thematically, I guess pretty much all the Line Cavalry would have to be represented as Cataphracts.

An alternative to the Roman Argyraspides which is available to Antiochus is the Galatians - a bit cheaper and a whole lot scarier against heavy infantry.

As for the thematic issue of how many line cavalry to upgrade to cataphracts, that's entirely up to you.

Any thoughts / comments welcome.

I remember someone once describing Seleucids as a golf bag army - you have access to ideal troop types for just about any situation, but the danger is that in trying to get troops to cover each of these situations you end up with not enough of anything.

This is where having a brilliant general can be so useful. I've had one game with such an army where I had Kn (F) on one flank and Ele (O) on the opposite (and Pk in the middle). After deployment I found myself with the elephants facing massed Ps, and the Kn facing a slightly larger number of Kn. So I used the Change Deployment stratagem to switch the flank commands, and had my Kn facing Ps and my Ele facing Kn. In the end my opponent was able to keep his Kn away from my elephants, but it cost him a lot of PIPs, and gave my Pk and Kn commands enough time to win the battle.

Also, wondering if these would be suitable for Line Cavalry Kn (F)?  I do like the look of FiB Prodromoi but they are LH AFAK so likely less suitable.
https://www.museumminiatures.co.uk/heavy-cavalry-bell-cuirass.html

I'm guessing not as they look too early and having checked the page again they are actually listed as Bronze Age.  Not an awful lot around from the manufacturers I've been looking at for Line Cavalry that are thus not Light or Cataphract or Companion.

Maybe these Bactrian Greek?:

https://www.forgedinbattle.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=614&search=heavy+cavalry

From my experience most people aren't going to be too concerned, as long as the figures are armoured, Greek/Macedonian, and with something like a spear or sword in hand.

However you may also wish to check out Xyston Miniatures as they have some pretty nice-looking figures too from the Hellenistic period. I'm pretty happy with my Xyston Macedonians.

As an aside, is there still a DBMM commentary document available updated for DBMM 2.1?  I know it used to be in the Yahoo Groups Files but IIRC Yahoo Groups are dead now.

There's a fairly recent thread where someone asked for exactly this document. I think it might be somewhere else on this site.

Give me a moment to look.

ETA: Here: http://dbmm.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=17698.msg23827#msg23827

11

General Discussion / Help interpreting lists

« on: October 01, 2020, 01:40:12 PM »

There are a couple of cases of inconsistent wording in the lists, and I was wondering if anyone might have some insights into how we should interpret the wording.

1. One troop type "replacing" another.

In the lists, upgrades are usually well explained, such as upgrading All/none Toltec-Chichimec Bd (I) to Bd (F).

But changes to troops labelled as "replacing" are less easy to follow.

For example, in the Romanian Frank army, from 1312, I can have 5-12 Irr Kn (O), but I can "replace" 0-10 of them with Reg Kn (O). Okay, I'm reasonably sure that means I can have 0-10 Reg Kn (O), and can then take some Irr Kn (O) as well, to the number of (5-12) minus the number of Reg Kn (O) I've taken. So, for example, if I take 8 Reg Kn (O), I can then take 0-4 Irr Kn (O).

But what about the Anglo-Irish? I can take 4-12 Irr Kn (O). From 1293 I replace 2-6 of them with Irr Cv (I). Does this mean the entry for the Irr Kn (O) is deleted and replaced with the Irr Cv (I) entry? Or (as I suspect is the case) is it that I have to take 2-6 Irr Cv (I), and however many I take is deducted from the number of Irr Kn (O) I can take? So, for example, if I take 3 Irr Cv (I), I can then take 1-9 Irr Kn (O).

The reason I ask is that, in ordinary English usage, when you want to be precise in what you're writing about, different words will have different meanings. But in these lists different words are used with what appears to be the same meaning. For example, in the Anglo-Irish list the word "downgrade" is used in a way which appears to mean exactly the same thing as "replace": from 1328 you downgrade 1/2 to all Irr Kn (O) to Irr Cv (O).

Why the different word? Why are some Irr Kn (O) "replaced" with Irr Cv (I), but other Irr Kn (O) are "downgraded" to Irr Cv (O)? Is there a difference other than the word used? If so, what is that other difference? If not, why use the different word? It simply causes confusion.

2. Number of Bge elements available.

The rules say ('Baggage' page 9) that each general has 0-2 baggage elements plus any Baggage (S) its army list permits. Thus, for example, the Communal Italian army can have 0-2 Bge (O) per general, and also has a Bge (S) Carroccio.

But there are other armies where a Bge (S) that is available only at the apparent expense of normal baggage elements. For example, in the Arab Conquest list 0-1 Bge (S) is available, but only by replacing one of the army's normal baggage elements. The same goes for the Norse Irish Cathach reliquary and clerical escort Bge (S) element, which replaces a normal baggage element.

First thing, how does this work with the rules, when the rules say Bge (S) is in addition to the normal baggage. Can I ignore the list and take 2 baggage elements in addition to the Bge (S) element? Or do I have to ignore what the rules say about having 2 baggage elements plus the Bge (S) element?

Second, if the list is to take precedence over the rules, how does it work in practice? Does this mean the Bge (S) element is required to be allocated to a baggage command with the rest of the baggage elements, or can it be allocated to the command itself, and thus provide its combat bonus to adjacent troops as well as its enhanced ME to the command?

Thank you!

12

Rules Questions / Artillery shooting from a PF tower

« on: September 06, 2020, 01:18:23 PM »

On page 11 it says that Art in a PF which are to shoot out must be in a tower.

On page 12 the costing example strongly suggests towers are square.

On page 34 it says that any edge of an element in a PF tower can be the shooting edge, and that an element is a valid target if any part of it is visible within half a base width of straight ahead of any part of the shooting edge.

Put all this together, and it appears that elements approaching from a 45 degree angle towards a tower's corner are pretty much untouchable by shooting until they come within half a base width of the tower, at which point they're only one move away from contacting.

Something about that doesn't seem right.

Have I got the rules right, or is there something I'm missing?

Cheers

Peter

13

Rules Questions / Re: Threat Zone one more time

« on: September 01, 2020, 01:39:05 AM »

I've read what Fon Tok Nak said, and realise he's right and I'm wrong.

In particular, moving blocking elements out of the way only happens after contact has happened, in order to allow contacting elements to conform.

Given the situation outlined in the OP, there are two possible solutions for Alexander to get to Darius:

1. This bound, move Alexander backwards in accordance with the TZ rules until he's well out of Darius's TZ; next bound, move Alexander into contact with either the Hd element or the Ps element; after destroying that element, move into contact with Darius (if he's still around).

2. This bound, move a group of elements into contact with either the Hd element or the Ps element in such a way that when it conforms to the group it widens the gap enough that Alexander can move through the gap this bound to contact Darius.

As Fon Tok Nak says, there has to be a space rule, and the rule is a base width.

It may be worth taking a step back and considering the broader tactical situation. Alexander's facing three elements, and he wants to get to the one that's behind the other two. If he wants to do it all himself, then it's going to take time by going through the one of the elements in front and then getting to Darius (if he's still hanging around). Otherwise, if he wants to get to Darius this bound, he's going to need some other friendly troops to help him.

So regarding your questions 2 and 3, I don't think an extra rule is required beyond what's already there. The issue is not so much that the arrangement of Persian elements has set up some sort of impenetrable TZ that prevent Alexander from attacking at all. Instead, the arrangement of Persian elements has set up a situation that requires Alexander to back off this bound and come in next bound at a different angle (or call in some friends to help open the path this bound). Given the tactical situation Alexander is in (outnumbered 3 to 1) I think that's a reasonable pair of alternative resolutions.

14

Rules Questions / Some thoughts on Inert generals

« on: August 28, 2020, 03:30:19 PM »

I've always enjoyed using armies with Inert generals - a good way to place lots more troops on the table and make your army much more of a visual spectacle.

But as I've been contemplating the rules over these last few gameless months, I wonder whether the category of Inert generals might be worth looking at again, with a view to splitting it in two - Rash and Cautious.

The basic business of Inert generals is that the C-in-C loses his special PIP, and all PIP dice are reduced by 1 (fewer stratagems too, but that's not affected by this discussion). Fewer PIPs means it's harder to move lots of troops, but also harder to prevent impetuous troops from going spontaneous.

And here lies the problem: for some armies with Inert generals, letting the bulk of the troops go sponno is just fine. You use the available PIPs to move the Sp and Bw in your Later Crusader army, and let your extra Kn available to Inert Guy de Lusignan go haring off towards the enemy for free. Conversely, the list notes suggest the Caledonians under Calgacus sat around instead of charging impetuously, yet under the rules, taking Calgacus as the Caledonian C-in-C makes an impetuous charge more likely, not less.

So what I'd like to suggest for a future version of the rules is to replace Inert generals with Rash and Cautious generals. Rash generals are just like the current Inert generals, except that all troops under them (except perhaps Hd (O) and (I) and Art) are impetuous. Cautious generals are just like the current Inert generals, except that all troops under them are not impetuous.

Current Inert generals in lists would then be re-classified as one or the other. For example, I'd say generals like Rameses the Great, Varro and Charles the Bold would be Rash, while generals like Nikias, Darius, Lepidus and Calgacus would be Cautious.

Rash generals: This doesn't automatically mean that you'll have massive regular armies swarming across the table like crazy warband armies, because you'll have large groups of troops who are still quite cheap to hold or to move in the ordinary way. But it does mean that the occasional bad PIP dice will result in groups being moved forward when the player might prefer to keep them in place, or individual elements moving into disadvantageous contact. This would seem a good way to re-create the disasters the named generals above experienced, with otherwise well-trained armies moving forward into combat perhaps more eagerly than tactical circumstances would have recommended.

Inert generals: This would re-create the lumpish behaviour of armies led by the named generals above, such as the Athenians sitting around on their backsides at Syracuse, or Calgacus's Caledonians passively awaiting a Roman charge when they could have instead been doing good warband things to the Romans.

I'd be curious to hear your comments and criticisms of any flaws with the idea.

Cheers

Peter

15

Book 2 / Late Romans and African Vandals

« on: August 28, 2020, 03:04:37 PM »

I've just finished reading Michael Kulikowski's "Imperial Tragedy". It's not only given me some fascinating new insights into the final century of the Western Roman Empire, but suggested some changes to Late Roman and African Vandal lists for next time someone is inspired to update the lists.

Patrician Roman (Western): The steady disintegration of the Western Empire suggests that by around the middle of the 5th century (say, after the death of Aetius) that Western Patrician Roman armies should have a limit placed on the number of regular elements, perhaps no more than 20 regular elements. That way the player is forced to use either a lot of foederate foot or allies. The problem at the moment is that, even though the list notes talk about the need for Patricians to use allies, even an army of Odoacer can be fielded at 400AP with an entirely regular army of three generals, Kn, Cv, LH, Bd, Ax, Art and Ps.

African Vandal: Kulikowski points out that after the death of Gaiseric the Vandals suffered a series of defeats at the hands of both Goths and Moors, which suggests that from about 480AD all Vandal Kn (F) should be downgraded to Irr Kn (I). Frankly that's still fairly formidable, and will give Cv opponents plenty to sweat about, but they'll also be considerably more fragile. It would also make Gelimer's Inertness all the more of a problem, as he's going to have to pay PIPs to move those great lumps of Kn anywhere.