Help with Seleucid list interpretation

[Mars]

In the process of putting together a shopping list for Seleucids.  Years since I played DB games at that was DBM so I've yet to get my head round the changes with DBMM. 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).  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?

The Companions I think don't change at all from the look of it.  All the Agema however must change to Reg Kn(X) which would have to be Cataphracts I guess.

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?

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.

Any thoughts / comments welcome.

Also, wondering if these would be suitable for Line Cavalry Kn (F)?  I do like the look of FiB Prodromoi but they were LH AFAIK 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 not either Light, Cataphract or Companion.

Maybe these Bactrian Greek?:

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

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.

[Barritus]

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

[Mars]

Thanks so much for such a comprehensive and thoughtful reply.  I was actually a member of this group a while back but blowed if I can remember the user name or the email address I used so, start again LOL.

I get what you mean about the golf-bag army.  It's appeal is the variety of the troop types making it, for me, a more interesting army to play vs say Romans which I like but I used to find somewhat limited in terms of units, deployment and tactics.  Double edged sword though as taking too many tools from that box and you end up having to keep to many moving parts in sync. Competitively there's likely no way I'd take Scythed Chariots, Elephants possibly, but I'd have to be putting both on the table in all honesty LOL.  I will be using the army mostly against historical opponents or, at the very worst, mostly Book 2 so no Seleucid vs Teutonic Knights etc.  For later book encounters I'll be using Later Crusaders, Fatimid/Ayyubid and French 100YW.

No idea how I missed the Agema 0-All.  What I think I might do is use Agema figures from FiB (not the fully armoured but still pretty well protected) allowing me to play them as Kn(F) or Kn (X) but for the line cavalry, use some suitable heavy cavalry figures again to be able to play them as Kn(F) alongside some Cataphracts for the Kn (X) upgrade.  As you say, good idea to have a mix, and a very good point about the stratagems too.

Good point about the Galatians too, some of these units I tend to skip over when looking at lists, at least at first, when I see they are 1/2 infantry and 1/2 cavalry, certainly more scary for infantry as you say, I'll probably pick up some Roman style anyway, just to have the option. I'm probably not going to fret too much over what percentage of the line cavalry should have been cataphracts given we don't have that much by way of concrete evidence anyway.  I'll have a look at Xyston, I can't recall if Xyston is one of  ranges bought out by Plastic Soldier Company with planned releases yet to come.  Quite surprising really that Forged in Battle don't really do any Macedonian / Greek cavalry unless Companion, Cataphract or Agema, not unless you look at the Bactrians.  Have to be careful a little though as living in SE Asia, using too many random companies for single unit purchases gets prohibitively expensive with the postage.  I do need some figures from Museum though so I'll look at their older Macedonian offerings too, much as I like the look of the figures the Bronze Age cavalry are a no no.

Was there ever any errata published for DBMM army lists?  I'm also doing an Ayyubid/Fatimid army and it's quite surprising to see Abid al Shira classified as Reg Bd even if they are (I).  Was more expecting them to be Sp, Ax or even Wb, maybe with Ps support but Bd(I)?  Might be better to start another thread given this is a about the Seleucids LOL.

Thanks for the link to the Commentary

[Fon Tok Nak]

Where in SE Asia are you? If in Thailand, Chris at Battlefield Bangkok can put you in touch with the local DBMM players.

Anthony

[Mars]

@ Anthony, thanks for the info but I'm not based in Thailand.