Army list changes from 1.1 to 2.0

[SteveW]

I have been looking at some of the campaigns listed on the site, in particular those concerning Sub Roman Britain. This prompted me to look at the older versions of the lists, as some of the armies suggested for use are different to the DBA 2.0/2.2 lists.

Some examples that I have picked up are:

Ancient British: The option to field 4Bd instead of LCh was lost.

Early German/Saxon: The 4Bd element for the General has been lost.

In addition, the Sub Roman, Scots Irish and Caledonian/Pictish lists seem to not only have been divided, but the elements substantially changed.

I know that the DBA lists are based on the DBM lists, but does anyone know why there were these substantial changes. Did the DBM lists change between 1995 and 2001? Or, did the authors decide to amend the list in the light of latest evidence etc?

[David Kuijt]

That's a question that touches on a set of long answers. I'm also not sure from reading your question if you actually have DBA 2.X?

First off, the 1.1 army lists represented 180 armies, more or less. The 2.X army lists represent moore than 540 army lists, depending upon how you count them. And they include a new element type (Horde), into which is transformed a variety of crappy troops that were Spear in 1.1. Given these changes, it should be clear that there are multiple, major transformations in the army lists.

Yes, the DBM army lists changed immensely over the past 15 years; the DBA army lists had not, and it all caught up in the 2.X army list revision. But it isn't the 'fault' of the DBM army lists -- the root of those modifications is a variety of changes in recent evidence, in perception of how the troop types interact, and so on and so forth. If you want to know about any particular change, you will have to be more specific -- there are thousands of substantial changes. And many of them have received significant discussion on this forum over the last four and a half years.

[SteveW]

I have the 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 2.2 versions. I also have the June 93 version DBM Book 2 lists.

I will have another search of the forum for information about the changes, but if there are any that are particularly useful. I would be grateful for direction.

As to specific questions, here are a couple:

Why did the 4Bd(G) elements for the likes of the Early Germans/Saxons etc change to 4Wb(G)?

Why is it cited for sub Roman British foot, that the Ax transformed to Sp because of the decay in drill, when there are many armies that field Ax, and they have no established 'drill' to make them Ax?

[ October 25, 2005, 15:54: Message edited by: SteveW ]

[David Kuijt]

Originally posted by SteveW:

Why did the 4Bd(G) elements for the likes of the Early Germans/Saxons etc change to 4WB(G)?
I suspect because there was no evidence that the immediate followers of the commander, lead by the commander, fought in a more steady, stable, less aggressive fashion than the rest of the army.



Why is it cited for sub Roman British foot, that the Ax transford to Sp because of the decay in drill, when there are many armies that field Ax, and they have no established 'drill' to make them Ax? The second part of your question is a little unfocused -- comparison to other armies in general is very difficult, because each is its own problem. There is an imbedded assumption that drill is what makes an element Ax, and that is patently incorrect -- examine all the Biblical armies (except Assyrians, perhaps) and you will find loads of Ax and no drill at all.

However, I can essay a response on the first part. My guess is this.
</font> The Late Roman army in Britain fought as Ax and Bd; the Legios were withdrawn, so that leaves Ax, and we know that they were drilled, even though they fought (at that point) with big shields.</font> The shieldmen of the later Dark Ages fighting with big shields are a very good example of a shield wall. Spear in DBA.</font> The Sub-Roman Brits are the army that follows the transition from Roman Ax to British Shieldwall (Sp). Obviously, at some point the game designer has to decide: "here they are spear", and "here they are ax". Which he did. He also mentioned why they changed -- they no longer trained and drilled.</font>It all makes sense to me. There is certainly room for debate as to when the change happened, as there would be with any change, but the fact that the change occured is clear enough unless you take fundamental issue with the DBA classifications in the first place, which is a different debate entirely.

[xeswop]

Good comments by David, I can dig it.

Let me add a small point. Note that the Sub Roman Ax are 4Ax. In DBM this means Regular Auxilia. Thus these types would be more trained than a 3Ax which are irregular. This dichotomy does not enter into DBA but is important to DBM. I wonder why not to Irregular Ax with 3Ax but the change to shield wall is a good explanation.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by SteveW:
I know that the DBA lists are based on the DBM lists, but does anyone know why there were these substantial changes. Did the DBM lists change between 1995 and 2001? Or, did the authors decide to amend the list in the light of latest evidence etc? Steve,

the most important point to remember is that the DBA v1.0 army lists were based on the WRG6th Edition Lists, not DBM, as DBA was published well in advance of DBM. Consequently it was on a 6th Edition Base that the v1.1 lists were modified, but I think only where the subsequent DBM lists differed radically from what had been the thinking on earlier DBA theories

- case in point the v1.0 Vikings were a nice list of 3x3Bd, 8x3Wb and 1x3Bw or Ps. Come V1.1 they became 12 x 4Bd (Yuk). I personally think that a Vikings vs Saxon fight works better as Wb vs Sp - the bulk of the Viking army force either carries the day in an initial charge or is ground down, unless the Housecarls win an advantage, but that is just me. ;)

But the important thing is that even if v1.1 modified the lists to match some DBM thinking, it didn't expand or renumber the lists. They match up with the old WRG6th lists in numbers. It took a complete new edition to expand the lists to meet what was available to DBM.

Cheers

[Cremorn]

Originally posted by Macbeth:
I personally think that a Vikings vs Saxon fight works better as Wb vs Sp - the bulk of the Viking army force either carries the day in an initial charge or is ground down, unless the Housecarls win an advantage, but that is just me. ;)
Cheers Me too! Arthur vs. Hengist (Sp vs. Wb) is a great and scary fight. Anglo Saxon vs. Viking is not a very convincing looking battle. Vikings like Roman Legions. Sheesh! Warband is stronger now than it was in 1.1? Change the Vikings back!

-sorry for off-topic rant,
Richard.

[SteveW]

sorry for off-topic rant, Not off topic at all, and a good example of the evolution of an army list through various rules and lists.

I have just looked at the WRG 6th edition rules Book 2 army lists to refresh my memory. The bulk of the Viking foot are loose order, unarmoured carrying javelin/light spear. Some of these could be uparmoured. The second most numerous type are the Huscarls, loose order, armoured, carrying the javelin/light spear or a two handed cutting weapon.

This army was a battle winner (I know, I lost to them often enough) if they could be made impetuous and roll over the opposition.

So, my uninformed preference would be for the 1.0 Viking list and I would use it in a campaign.

As Bob says about the rules, we can use our own interpretation, especially in our own homes/groups. If different lists enhance games/campaigns, then I am all for it.

[Macbeth]

Originally posted by SteveW:
So, my uninformed preference would be for the 1.0 Viking list and I would use it in a campaign.
Which is indeed what I do in my 1066 campaign set, but that is as much a function of having set this campaign box up in the heady days of v1.0 with an army painted by one of my talented compatriots (the mere polythene tube on his paintbrush I am not fit to loosen), as my dislike of a Bd Monotype army.

Cheers

[Timurilank]

Steve wrote: I have just looked at the WRG 6th edition rules Book 2 army lists to refresh my memory. The bulk of the Viking foot are loose order, unarmoured carrying javelin/light spear. Some of these could be uparmoured. The second most numerous type are the Huscarls, loose order, armoured, carrying the javelin/light spear or a two handed cutting weapon.

This army was a battle winner (I know, I lost to them often enough) if they could be made impetuous and roll over the opposition. Steve,

I was one such owner; six-figure wedges, Irr. A, two handed swords, etc, etc. My, my, we have evolved.

cheers,