Arabo-Aramaean
The correct AP cost for Nabataean horse archers upgraded to Reg LH (F) is 5
AP.
List 3-Classical Indian
To be consistent "upgrading Bge to regular@+1 AP should be revised to
"upgrade Bge to Reg@1AP extra
> Hi, a question on upgrades.In the Classical Indian list ( Bk2) it
> allows you in the Mauraya period to upgrade Irr Bg to Rg Bg@ +1 Ap
> However in the main list you can use an Irr BgS. To upgrade that to
> Rg is + 4AP if I read the rules correctly so does this mean you
> cannot upgrade IrrBgS to Rg or simply an omission of the OR + 4
> fro Bg S?
It's a god on a litter, not part of the army commisariat, so I don't really see
why it should be Regular. So it should probably read "Upgrade baggage except (S)
to Regular".
Phil, it's really an erratum whichever way we go, as the upgrade line should be
clearer. - Duncan H
Query:- The list requires that you field 1 Hd(O) per Bw(O) or per El(S). If 12 El(S) (inc generals) are fielded then there must be a minimum of 12 Hd(O) regardless of the lack of Bw(O).
Also, the maximum number of Non general El(S) is 9?
4 Warring States and Ch'in Chinese 480BC - 202BC
"Only from 355 BC:
....
Replace Reg Bw, Bd (O) or (I) and Ax with 1/2 Reg Bw (X) @ 7AP, 1/2 Reg Bw
(O) @ 3 AP based behind All/0"
and then
"Only Ch'u armies before 223 BC:
Downgrade foot to Irr @ 2AP less if Bd (O) or Bw (X) or 1 AP less if Bd (F)
or (I), Bw (O) or Ax All, or all conscripts, or 0"
A reduction of 1 AP is not correct for Irr Bw (O) that are double based with
Irr Bw (X), these Irr Bw have and AP cost of 3AP that is the same as Reg Bw
(O) double based with Reg Bw (X). Therefore, this downgrade line needs to
be changed to something like:
"Downgrade foot to Irr @ 2AP less if Bd (O) or Bw (X) or 1 AP less if Bd (F)
or (I), or Bw (O) not double based with (X) or Ax All, or all conscripts,
or 0"
There is an option to down grade the Bw and Bd to Irregular and this refers to the Bd (o & i) and the Bw (o) and the DBE Bw(x & o) – notably it neglects to mention that the Reg Bw (i) can be downgraded. In the option for the quantity of troops permitted to be downgraded to irregular it refers to “all conscripts” – I would contend that “All Conscripts” is intended to mean both the Bw and Bd can be made irregular as it makes no sense to me that conscripts of one troop type would necessarily be less organised that all the conscripts of another troop type.
List 5 Later Hoplite Greek
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/DBMMlist/message/126167
This is a summary of the points that have cropped up so far with using Spartans from this list:-
1/. Psiloi
Regular Psiloi Superior have a start date of 400BC in the list. The Northern
Campaign under Brasidas features many references to Peltasts both Thracian and
others. The others don't seem to exist in the list at all. I assume the cut off
date for mercenary Peltasts should be earlier. In list 1/54 Brasidas gets
regular Psiloi Superior when an ally of Macedonia. [i.e. before 400 BC, an estimated start date for mercenary Peltast might be 425 BC?]
2/. Minor state allies
The minor state allies don't work as intended! Chalcidian's were present in the
Northern Campaign. They are excluded from serving alongside Spartans as they are
a major state as at 432 bc. Those allies that are specified as a minor state are
worded so that only the spear can be fielded. Take both the Psiloi or the
Cavalry, they are specified as only belonging to the parent state, you cannot
field them as a minor state contingent. Army lists submitted that include allied
cavalry and Psiloi are turned down because of the wording used.
[Chalcidian Cavalry and Myrcinian Peltasts feature heavily at Amphipolis, it is unlikely that there were any Chalcidian Hoplites present. The most likely list interpretation is that the cavalry and the Psiloi should be worded that they can be fielded even though not of the parent state?]
[ Please note if it were decided that the mercenary Peltasts referred to above applied before 400 BC that would solve the Peltast part of the problem, in effect the Chalcidian’s could be assumed to be mercenary (which they might actually have been) it doesn’t so easily solve the cavalry issue mind]
3/. Thebans in 422
Not too sure on the Theban allies to Sparta in 422 BC. I think I am right in saying this represents the combined army that arrived at Megara in 424 BC?
4/. Thracians
Thracians in the main list are graded as 1/4 Auxilia Superior. The rest being
Psiloi superior or later Auxilia Ordinary. Hill Tribes in the main Thracian list itself are graded Auxilia
superior. This is specifically stated to be because of the performance against
Theban cavalry, and later increased use of the Rhomphaia.
There remains an inconsistency with the Early Persian Army list. [list 1/60] There the Thracians are allowed to be upgraded with half potentially being Auxilia Superior as Hill Tribes.
5/. Persian allies
In 408 bc the Spartans get the Persian Ally Pharnabazos. [ list 2/7] The Later Achamenid
list limits these to be Cavalry Ordinary and perhaps Chalybes. The Chalybes
would not seem appropriate for a contingent in alliance with Sparta. The
references to the contingents under Pharnabazos in Xenophon refer to the cavalry and to
mercenaries. It is likely that the latter were mercenary hoplites?
Either way the Persian Allies might need looking at. The implication is they were not a small contingent. [The list does not specify that these are a limited ally contingent (e.g. only 0-12)].
However the Persian list itself severely limits this contingent only because the Later Persians have few compulsory troop types. I am unclear if this is intentional?
6/. Buaf
The BUAf is specifically excluded to Sparta. It would probably be more correct,
and simpler to drop that reference. Many battles seem to have involved defending
near a city, often with walls, for example Torone?
7/. Allies lowering aggression
Greek contingents effectively drop to a lower aggression if fielding a "mixed"
army. So if all generals are Spartan the aggression is 3. If not the aggression
is 1. This is effective when the allies are Greek states. However when the
allies were Macedonia or Persia, the aggression still drops, even though at that
stage they were involved in aggressive campaigns? In effect Sparta in Asia in
408 bc is a low aggression army despite then being on the offensive.
The use of allies to modify aggression can also be a major handicap for these armies. If you declare aggression as three, then any opponent knows instantly that the army only has three generals. There is in fact no point at all in throwing a dummy dice surely?
8/. Edonians
Thucydides indicates that at Amphipolis in 422 BC the whole Edonian army of cavalry and Peltasts was called up. These might need to be added as a minor allied contingent within the list? I think I am right in saying the Edonians would be a lowland Thracian army at that time.
9/. Agis son of Archidamus
This is surely one of the better potential candidates for inert status? In 419 BC he successfully surrounded the Argive army near Nemea with the Spartans, Corinthians, Phliasians, Pelenians, Boeotians, Sicyonians and Megarians. He managed to achieve this before the Argive allied Athenians arrived , then declined to attack at all.
Later in 418 before the actual battle of Mantinea he managed to rashly consider an assault on the Argives who were in a strong defensive position until persuaded that he was "trying to cure one evil with another".
For Mantinea itself in 418 BC despite the advisory committee he managed to be surprised by the Argives "the Spartans were more startled than they could ever remember having been before". The manoeuvring before battle was joined left gaps. When Agis tried to redeploy, it was too late and his generals refused to follow such an order. His saving is of course the counter-attack. It could of course be argued that by Mantinea the committee were doing their job, hence he was no longer an inert candidate?
10/. Campaign Leading up to Olpai
Thucydides describes how prior to the Battle of Olpai, Eurylochus in 426 BC campaigns with Aitolian Allies against Naupaktos. When the Spartans are effectively called to help in the campaign leading up to Olpai itself the Aitolians are described as allies who were dismissed.
Aitolians should probably be allowed as allies to Sparta in 426BC.
11/. Periokoi
Lazenby in the Spartan Army makes a strong case that Periokoi did not serve in the Peloponnese, in effect only Spartiates did so, while the Periokoi were used for campaigns further afield. While I don't know how widely accepted the theory is, there does seem an argument that the minimum of eight Periokoi for the Spartan list is not necessarily reflective of all armies. Lazenby certainly argues that at Mantinea in 418 bc there were no Periokoi mentioned. Although I have some doubts on the Mantinea evidence, it does seem clear that the troops were mustered differently. Spartiates assembled and set off to be later joined by the Periokoi. For some battles it is a possibility that the Periokoi had not joined up in time. The compulsory minimum Periokoi needs looking at by someone with some expertise!
List 7 Later Achaemenid Persian
The Gaugamela option in this list no longer restricts the number of hoplites available, which is probably a bug.
List 9 Syracusian
From DBMM web page forum - The Syracusian C-in-C is marked with an asterisk, but no asterisk is included on the notes.
In hte last draft there is an asterix in front of hte last 2 lines referring to Pyrrhus -
"*If Pyrrhic allies are used, they can include their list?s full number of El and Kn (F), Pyrrhos becomes C-in-C and the Syracusan C-in-C is not used. Pyrrhos? command must include all and only Pyrrhic troops."
so either the asterix in the notes was left out in error, or the one by the CinC was left in in error.
Ptolemaic
Posted by: "Peter Barrett"
Date: Thu Dec 31, 2009 6:29 pm ((PST))
I don't know whether this has been noted before, but the Ptolemaic list allows you to field four elephants in one particular year.
Normally you can field a maximum of two elephants in this list - 2 x Ele (O) to 274BC, and 2 x Ele (I) from 274BC to 54BC.
As you may have noticed, in 274BC the two elephant options overlap.
I wonder how many other examples there are like this scattered through the lists. The problem is the use of two dating conventions in the list books: "until/after X date" and "before/from X date". Overlaps like the one described above could be avoided if only one of the conventions was used.
Perhaps someone might like to go through the proposed Book 4 to check for such problems before it's published.
It appears that you can take 2 sub generals on foot, both as Pk(S) Argyraspids. This would seem to be a mistake?
List 22 Ch'iang and Ti
has:
"Only Former Ch'in from 357 AD to 385 AD
Downgrade C-in-C (as Fu Chien) to Inert general @ reduction of 75 AP"
This probably needs a "0-1" or "0 or 1" option added.
List 25-Bosporae
Skythian allies Book 1 but no list is given
Siracae allies Book 2 but no list is given
30 Galatian
This has been discussed before but isn't on the PBNotes site, so I'll mention it
again.
Terrain has dates of "Before 278 BC" and "After 278 BC" - the second of these
dates should be "From 278 BC".
Also the "mounted attendants" in the list should probably be specified as "1-2
per non-chariot Cv (O)" because the list notes describe these as accompanying
cavalry.
has:
"Only if Achaian after 208 BC or Athenian:
Upgrade Achaian or Athenian Cv (O) to Reg Kn (F) @ 31AP if C-in-C, 21AP if
ally-general, otherwise 11AP All/0"
However the start of the list has sub-generals but no ally-generals, so this
needs to be changed to:
"Only if Achaian after 208 BC or Athenian:
Upgrade Achaian or Athenian Cv (O) to Reg Kn (F) @ 31AP if C-in-C or
sub-general, otherwise 11AP All/0"
has:
"Any except Cimbri and Teutones:
Upgrade foot skirmishers as elite to deploy with cavalry to Irr Ps (S) [can
support own tribe's Cv] 0-1 per Cv"
The AP for Irr Ps (S) is missing from the above line.
53 Ancient British
Ancient Brit Wd or Rv
Posted by: "Phil Barker" pc.barker@blueyonder.co.uk damnbarkeragain
Date: Sat Aug 23, 2008 8:18 am ((PDT))
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Campbell" <mikecampbell@paradise.net.nz>
To: <DBMMlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 11:46 AM
Subject: [DBMMlist] A few notes on lists
>
> Galatians ((List 30)
> Thessalian or Aenianian leader commanding all Thessalians and
> Aenianians - Irr Cv (O) @ 17AP 0-1
>
> - presumably a Sub general (not in the definition), and is he
> restricted to commanding only Thessalian and Aenianians? Whether he is
> or not shoud probably be noted somewhere
>
> Polybian generals - would an option for making more CinC's inert be a
> better reflection of shared command on alternate days for a 2-consul
> army? I'm not sure what examples ther are other than Canane tho.....
>
> Ancient British (list 55) - the option of one of 2 terrain types as
> compulsory (Rv or Wd) often used to confuse my opponents when I fielded
> these - they would sometimes argue that if one was used then the other
> could not be. Could this please be clarified one way or the other?
One of them must be used. If you pick a compulsory river, you can still have
a voluntary wood.
Phil
List 55, Nobades
Christian Nubian allies-Christian Nubian Book 3 but no list is given
57 Later Moorish 25AD - 696AD
has:
"Only from 373 AD to 374 AD:" [a few compulsory Roman elements for this
period]
Although no error in this, because the list has no sub-generals, if 2
Moorish ally-generals are used, the 2 compulsory Roman LH (F) for this
period will have to be split into each ally-general command. This seems
silly, so it would help to have a list note that specifies that all
deserting Romans must be in a single command.
List 61, Hsien Pi et al
There is no cost given for the False Reinforcement stratagem. This should obviously be as per the rulesbook.
Simiarily no cost is given for concealed obstacles, this should be an extra 2AP per 80p ie 4AP per 80p in total.
List 62, Abyssian
Desert Blemnye/Beja allies-list Nobade Book 2 but no list is given (list
55??)
List 63 Three Kingdoms Chinese
Enemies include 2/65 Early Visigothic.
Suspect this should be 2/75 Korean
List 64 Middle Imperial Roman.
At about the middle of the list.
Caltrops PO cost 2 AP, should read 1 AP.
Visigoths should be 'Goths and/or Germans/Franks...'
Also, you have to have compulsory Reg Kn(F) if using Eastern Armies in list 78 pre 338AD, but there is no such restriction on Eastern Armies in list 64.
List 65, Tervingi or Early Visigothic.
'Only Alaric from 395 to 399 and 403 to 407:
Romans - up to 1/2 Reg Bd(I) @5 AP, up to 1/4 Reg Ps(O) @2 AP (can support Bd(I)), remainder LH(O) @5 AP'.
(Presumably the LH are Reg?)
75 Paekche and Kaya Korean 300AD - 660AD
has for Japanese allies:
"- Uji nobles, toneri and yatsuko retainers as spearmen - Irr Pk (X) @ 3AP
*1 to 2-3 Bw (S)"
The "*1 to 2-3 Bw (S)" is garbled, and should be "1-2 per 3 Bw (S) or (O)"
(as it is in the book 1 Japanese list).
77 Silla Korean
has:
"Only after 670 AD:
Koguryo exile banner cavalry - Reg Kn (X) @ 13AP 0-3
Paekche exile banner cavalry - Reg Cv (S) @ 10AP or Reg Cv (O) @ 8AP 0-2"
Reg Cv (S) probably shouldn't be allowed for the Paekche exile banner
cavalry as the Paekche list no longer has any Reg Cv (S).
List 78, Late Imperial Roman,
Moorish allies should be list 57, Later Moorish instead of list 40, Numidian or Early Moorish
CinC options:
Are the options for CinC's compulsory or optional for the dates given as the list have an allowed number as "1" not "0-1"? This causes problems as for some date periods some armies would appear to have a compulsory brilliant and an inert C-in-C.
Adrian C-H adds:
There should be an option for the Usurper Magnentius to have Frankish and Burgundian allies/mercenaries between 350AD-353AD. There is also a disparity with the Kn(X) option in the MIR list in that the MIR list has less restrictions than the LIR list does in respect of Kn(X).
List 81 Sub Roman British
There's a bit of an oddity in the SRB list in that the Armorican version is allowed to have Hadrian's
Wall in their terrain...
has:
"Archers supporting any Ax (S) or (O) - Reg Ps (O) @ 2AP 0-1 per 2 Ax"
This allows the archers to support Irr Ax (S) foederate foot. This may be
the intention but if not, it should be changed to:
"Archers supporting any Reg Ax (S) or (O) - Reg Ps (O) @ 2AP 0-1 per 2 Ax"
Also in the Patrician list:
"Moorish allies - List Numidian or Early Moorish (Bk 2/40)"
As for the Late Roman list this should be "Later Moorish (Bk 2/57)"
The Patrician Roman list also seems to prevent armies in Spain or Illyricum
from fielding cavalry other than Hun or Alan mercenaries. The start of the
list has western armies defined as "Western (based in Gaul, Spain, Africa or
Illyricum)"
But then the first sub-heading for western armies is:
Only western armies in Africa before 442 AD or in Gaul or Italy, or in
eastern armies: [with cavalry listed below this heading]
Thus there is no Roman cavalry listed for armies in Spain or Illyricum.
There should be an option for the Patricians to field Art(F) Carroballista
84 African Vandal
has:
"Moorish allies - List: Later Moorish (Bk 2)"
This lacks the list number.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.