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.
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. |
