Advice for beginner & Mantras

[foxgom]

Hi

Dave Ruddocks advice for beginners and Mantras on the home page is very nice but unfortunately no longer up to date. Some of the tips are at best misleading when playing DBMM2.0.


neil

[toby]

I've just run through everything in the Starting DBMM section (except Phil's article which I have marked as being v1) and updated them all to reflect v2 rather than v1. If you spot anything that is still wrong could you let me know?

[Orcoteuthis]

Not wrong, but I was a bit surprised by this:

A popular dice assignment arrangement is to give the centre command the highest PIP dice and give the flank commands the average of the 2nd and 3rd highest PIP dice.

Depends on what you have in the commands, of course, but for a classical infantry centre with cavalry wings deployment, it's usually the later that does the clever stuff while the former mostly trundles straight forward. What's the idea behind giving the centre the highest PIP die?


Also, I think refering to Sp as a "cheap bow killer" undersells them. Against most opponents in the open, they're as good or better than Bd at a lower cost.

[toby]

Its an opinion rather than tablets of stone, but I guess I could remove popular and add possible.

[Orcoteuthis]

I don't particularly want it changed - I don't know whether it's popular in the grand scheme of things, only that it would raise eyebrows in my local little pond - but I'm curious about the ideas behind it. What sort of army expects to need the most PIPs in the centre, and why?

[Barritus]

Not wrong, but I was a bit surprised by this:

A popular dice assignment arrangement is to give the centre command the highest PIP dice and give the flank commands the average of the 2nd and 3rd highest PIP dice.

Depends on what you have in the commands, of course, but for a classical infantry centre with cavalry wings deployment, it's usually the later that does the clever stuff while the former mostly trundles straight forward. What's the idea behind giving the centre the highest PIP die?

This was particularly the case with armies led by inert C-in-Cs. Several such armies were popular in the early days of DBMM when I wrote the article. The C-in-C needed the highest PIP dice to help overcome his lack of a general's PIP. This was particularly the case in armies such as the Claudius Early Imperial Roman, in which about two-thirds of the troops were in the C-in-C's command.

But I also used this arrangement with my Nikephorian Byzantine army, led by a brilliant general. The C-in-C in the centre had the infantry and two Kn (X/I) wedges, and he needed lots of PIPs to control the infantry, particularly when they were back-pedalling. The mounted commands on the flanks did little other than charge ahead, so didn't really need high PIPs.

Also, I think refering to Sp as a "cheap bow killer" undersells them. Against most opponents in the open, they're as good or better than Bd at a lower cost.

I mostly agree with your sentiment, but I wrote this at a time when most DBMM pundits thought Sp were just about useless.

[Orcoteuthis]

Thank you.

[Barritus]

You might also like to have a look at some of my Nikephorian and Late Imperial Roman battle reports on this forum, particularly those from 2007. These were occasions where I gave the big dice to the centre command and averaged the next two dice on the flanks, and sometimes faced opponents who used the same sort of allocation.

[LawrenceG]

I don't particularly want it changed - I don't know whether it's popular in the grand scheme of things, only that it would raise eyebrows in my local little pond - but I'm curious about the ideas behind it. What sort of army expects to need the most PIPs in the centre, and why?

My guess is one that intends to punch through the centre and then exploit through the hole.

It might also be useful if you intend to move troops from a central reserve to support an attack on one flank, then use other troops from the centre to finish off the enemy centre supported by troops from the victorous flank.

[Tim Child]

Also, I think refering to Sp as a "cheap bow killer" undersells them. Against most opponents in the open, they're as good or better than Bd at a lower cost.

Against mounted, I would agree.  Against Bw or light troops I agree.  Against Bw(X/x) Bd are much better.  Against Wb Bd are much better.  Sp other then (S) don't have much chance against Pk (other than Pk(F)), but Bd can cope (or die!)  Against Bd, Bd are certainly safer, but Sp might be able to get a result quicker - but it might or might not be the result the Sp want!  Against other Sp, results will normally go with grade, but depth is important, particularly if you have to concede first impact.

So, whether Sp are better against "most opponents" in the open is certainly true in terms of the categories of troop-types, but whether they're better than "most" in practice depends upon what armies your opponents are using.

Let's not forget, too, that (a) Sp are almost always deployed at least 2 deep and lose a lot of their effectiveness if only 1 deep, so a strong formation of Reg Sp(O) costs at least 10 and probably 15AP per file.  Bd on the other hand are normally deployed no more than 2 deep (because against foot they only need one rank to function properly), so a strong file of Reg Bd(O) is usually no more than 14AP, and
(b) we are only discussing effectiveness in the open.  In rough, Bd rock.

Tim Child

[foxgom]

Hi

I noticed the following after a quick read through.....


"Different speed impetuous troops in the same command are a complete No-No"
DONT AGREE


"If you are irregular and not moving straight ahead, you are paying an extra PIP, even if you move into contact."
NO COMPLETLY TRUE


neil

[LawrenceG]

Hi

I noticed the following after a quick read through.....


"Different speed impetuous troops in the same command are a complete No-No"
DONT AGREE

Me too. If you put them all in the same group, the whole group moves at the same speed (for no extra PIPs).

Having impetuous foot and impetuous mounted in the same command can lead to rapid loss of contol, however.

"If you are irregular and not moving straight ahead, you are paying an extra PIP, even if you move into contact."
NO COMPLETLY TRUE


neil

[Doug M.]

I don't particularly want it changed - I don't know whether it's popular in the grand scheme of things, only that it would raise eyebrows in my local little pond - but I'm curious about the ideas behind it. What sort of army expects to need the most PIPs in the centre, and why?

My guess is one that intends to punch through the centre and then exploit through the hole.

It might also be useful if you intend to move troops from a central reserve to support an attack on one flank, then use other troops from the centre to finish off the enemy centre supported by troops from the victorous flank.

having a high PIP die in the centre can be effective if your wings are just there to delay, often people give low pips to an infantry centre, and when the lines start to fragment, the high pips can be very useful to take advantages of overlaps and any holes. Often an opponent will be unable to respond.

[william]

Hi

I noticed the following after a quick read through.....


"Different speed impetuous troops in the same command are a complete No-No"
DONT AGREE

Me too. If you put them all in the same group, the whole group moves at the same speed (for no extra PIPs).

Having impetuous foot and impetuous mounted in the same command can lead to rapid loss of contol, however.

"If you are irregular and not moving straight ahead, you are paying an extra PIP, even if you move into contact."
NO COMPLETLY TRUE


neil

Agree that a mixed command can loose control but it can be handy to have impet foot and Knights, foot at the front knights behind because if the knights go sponno through the foot at leat they do not spend them.



William