Big Battle DBA: Dacians vs Rome - Is Bigger Better?

 

I have recently started playing DBA again after a break of 30 years. I find DBA v3.0 better than version 1. The v3.0 battlefield feels less compressed than the earlier version, probably because element moves seem to be longer.

I had spotted BBDBA at the back of the DBA rulebook. My main go-to rules for larger battles are TTS (To the Strongest!), and I wondered how the two compared. I challenged Martin Smith to a game, and we agreed that it would be an SOA league game, the maximum second game allowed in the year.

I played Dacians with Sarmatian allies, while Martin took Early Imperial Romans with Armenian allies. A historical match-up, putting our battle somewhere around AD 101–105.

The Battle

King Decebalus sat on his mount, feeling it shift eagerly beneath him as he watched the Romans march onto his chosen battlefield. As the defender, he had been able to shape where the battle would be fought, although the Romans' direction of approach was their choice.

Although Dacia is a land of steep hills and heavy woods, he had chosen an open battlefield to allow his warbands and allied Sarmatian knights a clear, unrestricted run at the Roman lines. The only terrain of note was two steep hills and a wood on the far left, on the Roman side of the battlefield.

Each side had three commands, each roughly equal in size. Decebalus watched as each command marched onto the field, more or less in alternating order.

On his right flank, his Sarmatian allies faced a command of Roman auxiliaries, cavalry and light horse. His plan was to punch through the auxiliary troops while holding off the swarms of light horse. The Roman general had come up with a cunning plan and placed some of the Armenian light horse on this flank, no doubt intending to swarm the opposing Sarmatian knights.

He had given the centre to the Bastarnae tribe. They brought a mix of warbands and fast blades to face the Roman legionaries, archers and ballistae. The hope was that the resilience and aggression of the fast blades would stand up to the Roman missile fire, allowing the warbands to attack and break the legions while the blades dealt with the Roman missile troops.

The left flank was the largest command and was under the direct command of King Decebalus himself. The plan was to sweep swiftly around the Roman flank. Decebalus knew that his warbands were slightly better than the Armenian auxiliaries in the open and about the same amongst the rough terrain of the woods and steep hills. His one fear was the two elements of Armenian knights, as his warbands would be vulnerable to their charge. His plan was to shield the warbands with his own cavalry.

The battle started well, with a low rumble of hooves as the Sarmatian knights swung onto the right flank to face the Roman cavalry and light horse. The Sarmatians adopted a two-deep formation to allow for casualties in the forthcoming battle.

Hordes of Sarmatian farmers advanced on the Roman auxiliaries. In retrospect, I should have extended the line and advanced some of the knights into the auxiliaries, but I became distracted by the Hordes being expendable, not really appreciating that their loss still counted towards the overall army break point.

The centre advanced, shouting war cries at the Roman legions. In retrospect, maybe I should have held them back for a bound to allow the wings to develop further. However, I knew I would have to advance soon, as the best way to deal with the ballistae was to close the range. The alternative of standing still and being shot at did not seem like a particularly good plan.

Decebalus advanced his wing towards the Armenians, hoping to close with and then defeat them, putting pressure on the Roman centre. The Armenians were sluggish in responding, and we should have gone harder, but the command range into the thick forests slowed down the advance.

The Roman ballistae started to fire, breaking up the Bastarnae formation but not causing significant casualties.

The Hordes of Sarmatian farmers demonstrated that, despite their slow speed, a straight line is the quickest route between two points, and they slammed into the Roman auxiliaries. Two auxiliary cohorts folded in the initial assault. The Sarmatian general was shocked but happy with the result.

Then it started to go wrong.

In the centre, the Bastarnae tribe floundered against the Romans. The firepower of the archers, combined with the ballistae, started to break element after element. On the left, the Armenians held the King's warbands. Only on the right did things continue to go well, with the knights and Hordes fighting hard, but too often merely pushing back the Roman troops rather than destroying them.

The battle hung in the balance. The Romans facing the Sarmatians became demoralised, but a superb command roll kept them on the field and fighting.

Then disaster…the Bastarnae broke and fled the field.

This tipped the army's losses past the point of survival, and King Decebalus had to order a general retreat.

If only the Sarmatians had had one more bound to break the Roman wing...

If only the Bastarnae had held for one more bound...

If only King Decebalus had led the attack against the Armenian knights...

If only...

Conclusion

I wasn't sure before the battle whether it would feel like a DBA game, three DBA games being fought alongside each other, or something else. Having fought the battle, it didn't feel like a single DBA game or like three separate games. It was its own thing, although with the familiar DBA mechanics.

I would certainly fight a BBDBA game again, but for a large battle I think I'd prefer TTS.

There are a number of issues with DBA that I'm happy to forgive because I can get three or four games fought on a club night. Quantity has a quality all of its own. To win a DBA battle, you have to get the tactics right and also be lucky. If you are not lucky, it doesn't matter how well you play.

Martin and I both noticed that when a command loses one-third of its elements (excluding Hordes), it becomes demoralised, and when it loses half (including Hordes), it breaks. With a typical command having 12 elements, that is a narrow margin: demoralised at four elements lost and broken at six.

Still, a fun game and congratulations to Martin.

The Armies

Dacian with Sarmatians Allies	Romans with Armenian Allies
Command#1 King Decebalus CinC General Cav  2x Cav 8x 3Wb 2x Ps Thirteen elements, demoralise at 5 losses.   Command #2 Bastarnae Tribe Sub General Cv 4x 3Bd 4x 3Wb 2x Ps Eleven elements, demoralise at 4 losses   Allied Command #3 Samatians Sub General 3Kn 7x 3Kn 1x LH 3x 7Hord Twelve element force, demoralise at 4 losses.	Command #1 C. in C. as 4Bd general. 8 x 4Bd 2 x 4Bw 2 x Art. Thirteen elements, demoralise at 5 losses.   Command #2 Sub general as Cv 2 x Cv 2 x LH 6 x 4Ax Eleven elements, demoralise at 4 losses   Allied Command, #3 Sub general as 4Kn 1 x 4Kn 4 x LH 4 x 3Ax 2 x Ps Twelve element force, demoralise at 4 losses.

To The Strongest - 15mm Post To The Smallest 2026

 This was my first game after competing in the To the Smallest in Cardiff in July and I wanted to share and solidify the rule clarifications I had learnt during the competition. The key rule clarifications I picked up were:

1. A key takeaway from the Cardiff event was that LI with javelins do not receive a free throw when included in a simple ‘advance one square’ order alongside heavier troops. To throw, LI must be given an explicit ‘advance and throw’ order, separate from the movement of other types of troops.

2. A general cannot redraw an order card on a Group Move. (He can when moving two units in a square).

Opponent: My opponent for the battle was James, who is on about his fourth To The Strongest (TTS) battle.

Battlefield: As the mini game for setting up a battlefield terrain takes 30min or so, therefore I decided to use one of the pre-designed battlefields from the competition. I picked Cannae 216 BCE as I had the terrain and I’d lost on this battlefield in the competition.

Armies:

• Mine was 160pts of Polybian Roman - 2103BC to 107BC (200BC)
• James’s had 160pts of Later Macedonian army – 227BC to 168BC

Troop Disposition and Battle plan

The Roman strategy was to:

• Rapidly advance the Veteran Legions and engage the Raw Macedonian Pike while at the same time driving off the light troops on the Macedonian left wing allowing the Roman Cavalry to envelope the Raw Pikes, charging their flanks and rear.
• The Javelinmen and light troops on the Roman left flank were to prevent the Macedonian light troops from enveloping the Roman left flank.
• The Roman Legions on the left flank were to demonstrate against the Macedonian cavalry and Infantry centre but not to engage if possible.

Progress of the Battle
The battle started to plan although the light troops on the Macedonian left provided more resistance than expected which slowed the defeat of the Raw Pike blocks. However the Romans were well ahead in medals.

Then Disaster! A veteran Roman cavalry regiment eager to charge the rear of the Macedonians turned it’s back on a unit of Macedonian Light Infantry slingers. In one round the Roman unit was destroyed and the general killed, a loss of four medals.

The loss of the Raw Pike blocks and some light troops was not enough to win the battle, and the Veteran Roman Quincunx was forced to engage the Macedonian Pike blocks who had wheeled 90 degrees and were at risk of attacking the Roman’s flank. The fight did not go well for the Romans, and they lost a veteran Quincunx and a second general, a loss of 5 medals!

The Result

Night fell over the battlefield of Cannae with the score of 12 medals out of 14 captured by each side. A draw!  In an interview the Roman general Cassius Ceramix, is reported to have said "Victoria nobis erepta est!"