The hex and I I don’t always play DBA, but when I do …

By George Arnold (Originally published in Lone Warrior 206)

The rule set called De Bellis Antiquitatis, better known as DBA, has a long history. First published in the

1990s, it’s been through several major and minor rewrites. The basic game mechanics, though, have

endured. It’s a popular set on the convention and tournament circuit, where it has many fervent

admirers. Now in a purple hardback version (DBA 3.0, dated 2014), it appears to have achieved its near-

final status. The primary author, Phil Barker, has stated he wants to devote his energy to other rules,

even as devotees of DBA continue to debate the finer points of “the purple book.”

I first encountered DBA back in its early days. I carried a copy of the rules with me when I attended a

long-ago convention, thinking I’d use them to study before playing in a tournament there. I needn’t have

bothered. I knew little beyond the most basic rules, had no understanding of any of the nuances, and

promptly got my head handed to me in an eight-person field, finishing dead last in the double

elimination tournament, 0-2.

It was a humbling experience, but I kept at it. I even convinced the small group I occasionally gamed

with to give DBA a try. They weren’t sure what to make of a game that claimed it could be finished in

an hour’s time. They preferred monster games, tables filled with figures, and rules that moved slowly

enough that a “game” could stretch over numerous weekends, if a conclusion could be reached at all.

That wasn’t what I was after. I was looking for faster playing games. I lacked the patience for anything

else, I suppose. Those gamers and I eventually went our separate ways, with me moving more

comfortably into solo gaming, where I had no one to please with my idiosyncrasies but myself.

DBA still had a lot to recommend it. Not only did the rules give a quick game, but they also included

ready-made army lists, spanning the ages from ancients to later medieval. It was easy enough to pick out

a pair of armies for a battle, set them up and play a game -- except for the quirks of DBA, and there were

those. Despite the brevity of the rules, there always seemed to be some exception that had to be run

down in the rule book. And therein lay a problem.

It turns out that DBA wasn’t just a quick and easy-to-grasp set of rules. In fact, for many of us, the rules

were quite hard to grasp. Mainly, because they are written in a curious form of English, often referred to

by enthusiasts and detractors alike as “Barker-ese.” Mr. Barker, the author, apparently was a technical

writer in real life and took the position that the best way to make the rules fool-proof was to write them

in a technical, often run-on, way. Consider a technical manual or set of instructions originally written in

a foreign language and translated so literally that it made your head hurt to try to sort them out. That was

DBA’s problem as well. Even the most avid proponents admitted that the best way to learn the rules was

not to read them, but to have an experienced player explain them during the course of an introductory

game.

True, there are those who claim that DBA is actually quite easy to understand. More power to them. For

me, I fully concur with the prevailing opinion that Mr. Barker is a genius at developing game mechanics.

His many original rule sets and concepts seem to support that view. But I must differ with the idea that

his DBA rules are easy to understand. To those who claim the rules are well written, I’d merely suggest

that they violate what would seem to be the most basic axiom of writing: Try very hard to make yourself

understood.

This isn’t meant to be a take-down of DBA. The rules have, as I’ve said, many good points. But their

need for so much deciphering proved a road block to me. Eventually, I drifted off to other rules. It’s

been a long time since I played a straight-on game of DBA.

Flash forward to the present. More and more these days, I find myself playing my games on a grid,

either hexes or squares. A grid does away with the need for most measuring, other than counting the

number of spaces a miniature block of figures might move or shoot. It also does away with any

questions about what type of terrain the figures might be in or not. It’s a simple way to make my games

easier to play, just the way I like things.

Not long ago, I was pleasantly surprised to find a blog that the writer had used to explain his method of

using a grid to play … wait for it … DBA.

The blogger -- nameless, as best I could tell -- stated his opinion that one of the major problems with

DBA was the movement rules. Much of the verbiage in the rules was devoted to explaining the

intricacies of movement in any number of situations, likely or unlikely. This suggestion struck a chord

with me. And a quick review of the DBA rulebook confirmed what the blogger was saying: Of the 20-

some diagrams following the rules, the great majority appeared to be devoted to explaining those

movement complexities. The blogger further opined that much of the movement difficulty in DBA could

be eliminated by using a hex-grid.

Then, in a series of diagrams of his own (lots fewer than in the DBA rules), he explained how the

movement and combat system from DBA could be transferred easily to the hex-grid that he was using.

His variant retained the most basic DBA rules. Adjacent units could move as a “group,” saving control

pips. The combat outcomes remained the same too, with recoiling units moving back a hex along the

same axis as the attack that initiated the melee. Zones of control (“Threat Zones” in DBA-speak)

included the two hexes immediately to the front of a unit. Enemy movement in such zones is limited.

Rules for units supporting other eligible, friendly units in combat, whether to the rear or the flank, are

simply explained.

That’s about it. In two printed pages, the blogger (he calls his blog “Much Too Little Time”) reduces

much of the trouble with DBA to a point that makes the rule set useable (to me) again. Throw in some

randomized selection of units in a particular army and you can even avoid the sometimes off-putting

DBA restriction to 12 units (“elements”) per side. Unequal armies are obviously more historical.

If interested, the Much Too Little Time blog can be found on-line by googling “DBA with hexes.”

Naturally, having discovered this resource and having my interest in DBA rekindled, I had to try a

sample game. It’s been a while since I brought my ancient armies to the gaming table, so I decided to

give them a go. Lately, I’ve been reading about the interplay of pikes and spears in ancient combat, so I

determined that would be the focus of this game. I opted to pit Ptolemaic Egyptians (pike-heavy) against

Later Hellenistic Greeks, Athenians this time, with their emphasis on spear-armed infantry.

I created some charts based on the DBA 3.0 army lists for these two opponents and drew playing cards

to produce each army. (I discussed my system for using cards to generate Orders of Battle in an article in

Lone Warrior No. 192, back in 2015.) Here are the units I selected for the DBA-hex battle, using

standard DBA troop categories, with further explanation if warranted:

Greeks Ptolemaic Egyptians

1 Knight with General unit 1 Knight with General unit

(heavy cavalry led by the army commander) (heavy cavalry led by the army commander)

2 Light Horse units 1 Knight unit (heavy cavalry)

5 Spear units (Greek hoplites) 1 Light Horse unit

5 Auxilia units (Greek thureophoroi) 2 Pike units (Macedonians)

2 Psiloi units (skirmishers) 3 Pike units (Egyptians)

3 Auxilia units (mercenary thureophoroi)

1 Auxilia unit (Thracians)

1 Warband unit (Galatians)

1 Psiloi unit (skirmishers, Cretan archers)

1 Psiloi unit (skirmishers, Rhodian slingers)

In this case, both armies wound up with 15 units, equal-sized forces (shades of 12-unit DBA). But such

are the vagaries of my random selection method. One unit that was allowed that the Ptolemaic Egyptians

did not draw was an elephant. I was glad enough with this result, as I wanted to emphasize the fight

between spears and pikes and an elephant would only have complicated that exercise.

Along the same lines, I decided that there would be no terrain on the playing board. The battle would be

fought on a flat plain, depicted by my desert-looking yellowish poster board with a 15x12 hex pattern

drawn on it. The battle would last a maximum of 12 turns. If neither side had scored a victory by then,

the defender would win, simply by having outlasted the attacker’s assault. Otherwise, the losing side

would be the first to have one-third of its units -- rounded up -- destroyed. So either army of 15 units

would lose the battle if it was the first to lose five units.

I also set the movement allowances for the various troop types by using the movement factors from the

Commands & Colors Ancients rule set. Once again, this was for simplicity’s sake. C&C movement is

measured in hexes, while DBA 3.0 is measured in multiples of “base widths,” or the width of a standard

unit’s base, 40mm in the case of the figures I brought to the board. Rather than re-interpret the base

width multiples into the number of hexes a unit could move, I just skipped that potentially tedious

exercise and went with C&C. It’s close enough.

A roll of 2d6’s (as in DBA) determined that the defender would be the Greeks. They would set up and

move first. The Ptolemaics would be the attackers, even though they would move second every turn.

I deployed the Greek army on the far side of my 15x12 hex board, with the hoplites forming the center

and the thureophoroi units supporting each side of the hoplites. A light horse unit was placed on either

flank, with the skirmishers in front of the main body. The general’s unit was held behind the main line in

reserve.

Opening position of the Athenian army.

The Ptolemaics were deployed with the pikes forward and the heavy cavalry, including their general, on

their right flank, ready to exploit any gap created by the advancing pikes. The lighter troops were

deployed in echelon, to the left of the phalanx and rearward.

Opening position of the Ptolemaic army. Not all units are on the board yet.

The battle, by now named by the solo player – me -- as the Battle of Spaedra, was ready to begin.

Relative positions of both armies at the start of the game.

The armies were six hexes apart at the beginning of the game, so they spent the first couple of turns

advancing toward each other. By the third turn, however, the Greeks had observed the Ptolemaic left

advancing in echelon, with the phalanx on the right closing on Greek left end of the line. Something had

to be done. So the Greek commander halted his left and center and sent the faster units on his own right

moving to attack the Ptolemaic lighter units deployed farther back from the phalanx. The Greeks had

also shifted their two units of skirmishers to the rear, where they looked to be more useful as reserves,

rather than engaging in close combat with more powerful enemy units to their front.

End of Turn 3. The Greeks are advancing their right to take on the echeloned Ptolemaics, in hopes of defeating them before the Ptolemaic phalanx and heavy cavalry can maul the Greek left. Note that at the end of this turn, the entire Ptolemaic army is now on the board.

On Turn 4, the Greeks made first contact with the echeloned Ptolemaics. One unit of Greek auxilia

(thureophoroi, a sort of medium infantry) attacked the mercenary Thracian auxilia in the employ of the

Ptolemaics. The gambit quickly showed the value of the Ptolemaic echelon. The Greek unit was unable

to attack the Thracians without exposing its own flank to another of the Ptolemaic units, in this case

some of the mercenary thureophoroi. They provided flanking support to the Thracians, who used that

advantage to win the round of hand-to-hand, forcing the Greek unit to recoil one hex and also push back

their own skirmishers, which had been deployed immediately to the rear.

Mid-Turn 4. On the left in this photo, one unit of Greek auxilia attacks the Ptolemaic’s Thracians, who are supported on their right by a unit of mercenary thureophoroi.

End of Turn 4. The Greek auxilia have been recoiled by the Thracians and thureophoroi/auxilia.

Next turn, the Greek right continued its advance, moving to outflank the Ptolemaics opposite them. In

addition, the Greek light cavalry unit at the far end of the Greek right turned to face the Ptolemaic light

cavalry, also on the far end of its line. Elsewhere, the Greek main line opted to remain in position,

delaying contact with the approaching phalanx as long as possible.

Unfortunately for the Greeks, the Ptolemaics now moved decisively on both flanks. On their left, the

echeloned lighter troops turned as a group to face the Greeks opposite them. On the right, the phalanx’s

leading three units smashed into the Greek line, while the Ptolemaic heavy cavalry, accompanied by the

general, hit the Greek light cavalry on the end of the line.

Mid-Turn 5. Both sides on the left of this photo maneuver for position, while on the right the Ptolemaic phalanx and heavy cavalry slam into the Greek line.

The results were one-sided. The Greek light cavalry unit was ridden down and destroyed by the

Ptolemaic general’s unit. Two of the phalanx’s forward units pushed two Greek auxilia units back

(recoils), while one unit of the phalanx, which was unsupported to the rear, was also pushed back. (Here,

the two phalanx/pike units with rear support were especially powerful, fighting with doubled factors -- 3

plus 3 -- because of DBA’s pike support rule.)

End of Turn 5. The left of the Greek line wavers under the Ptolemaic onslaught.

It was now Turn 6 and the Greek right wing swung its units to fully face the enemies that had

themselves turned to face in the previous turn. The Greeks then moved into contact and engaged in a

round of close combat.

Greek Turn 6. On the left of the photo, the Greeks have turned to face the Ptolemaics and have advanced into close combat.

The results were mixed. A Ptolemaic auxilia unit was destroyed, its opposing Greek auxilia unit being

supported on its left by a unit of Greek skirmishers. A second Greek auxilia unit was recoiled, but the

other units on both sides remained locked in combat.

End of Greek Turn 6. One Ptolemaic auxilia unit is destroyed; one Greek auxilia unit is recoiled. Otherwise, the fighting here is inconclusive.

On the Ptolemaic right, the heavy cavalry units, with their general in tow, turned onto the Greek flank,

while the phalanx mounted a full-blown assault on the Greek line. On the left, the Ptolemaics realigned

after the Greek assault earlier in the turn, withdrawing to re-establish a line.

Ptolemaic Turn 6. The Ptolemaic left wing has fallen back to realign, while the heavy cavalry and the phalanx on the right hit the Greeks again.

After the combats were decided, the Ptolemaics looked poised to roll up the Greek line. One Greek

auxilia had turned to face the attacking Ptolemaic cavalry and held, despite the odds. But the Ptolemaic

phalanx destroyed a Greek auxilia unit and a Greek hoplite (spear) unit. That end of the Greek line was

collapsing, with the Greeks now having lost three units to the Ptolemaics one. Since the loss of five units

would constitute defeat, the Greeks were getting perilously close to their breaking point.

End of Ptolemaic Turn 6. The Ptolemaic phalanx scores, destroying a Greek spear unit and an auxilia unit.

At this critical moment, the Greeks rolled their 1d6 to see how many units or groups they could move

this turn, and rolled a 1! Forced to decide between activating their right or left wings, the Greeks opted

for the right, where – so the thinking went – they had a slightly better chance of inflicting losses on the

Ptolemaic lighter troops there than on the heavy cavalry and infantry hammering the Greek left.

Unfortunately, the 1-pip die roll only allowed the Greeks to move the three-unit group of auxilia and

skirmishers into contact.

Greek Turn 7. The Greeks, stymied by a low die roll, manage only a limited attack on the Ptolemaic left.

The Greeks did recoil two Ptolemaic units, while having one of their units recoiled as well, a mixed

result that did nothing to change the score in the game.

End of Greek Turn 7. More inconclusive fighting on this segment of the battlefield.

Now the Ptolemaics attacked on both ends of their line. Auxilia units on the left counter-attacked the

Greeks, while the heavy cavalry and the phalanx continued to press home on the right.

Ptolemaic Turn 7. The left counter-attacks, while the heavies on the right pound the Greek line.

The Ptolemaic attacks finished off the Greeks. On the left, a Greek auxilia unit was destroyed. The

phalanx attack stalled, but the heavy cavalry units, led by the Ptolemaic general, finally eliminated the

Greek auxilia unit to their front.

The Greeks lose two more units, one on the left and one on the right. The game ends in a Ptolemaic victory.

With the Greek losses, the score was now 5-1 in favor of the Ptolemaics. Having achieved the goal of

destroying five enemy units, the Ptolemaics were victorious on the Spaedra battlefield.

Conclusions

In this battle, I set out to do two things. I wanted to play a hex-based game of DBA to see how it

worked, and I wanted to pit a spear-heavy army against a phalanx. Having played the game, I’d formed

some opinions on both of my objectives.

Let’s start with some of the DBA considerations, with some pike vs. spear thoughts invariably

intertwined. This DBA battle was a resounding defeat for the spears, even though, in this game, the

spears and the opposing pikes rarely came into close combat. The Ptolemaics won the battle mostly by

destroying Greek lighter units. The five units the Greeks lost included three auxilia/thureophoroi and

one light horse unit. The Ptolemaic phalanx did eliminate one Greek spear/hoplite unit.

Once I’d decided on playing a spear vs. pike battle and looked over the DBA rules more closely, I’d

worried that any clash of spear and pike would be a drawn-out affair. I expected that the pikes might

eventually prevail, but that it would take a while. How did I decide that? Well, the DBA combat factors

gave that indication.

Pike’s basic combat factor against other foot is a 3, while spears are a 4. However, no respectable pike

unit would go into battle without rear support by another pike unit. Their depth is the key because a rear-

supporting pike unit adds another 3 to the leading unit, giving it a combined combat factor of 6. Spear,

on the other hand, can get support from units on their flanks, as much as +1 for each flank, so a spear

unit with flank support on both sides also winds up with a total combat factor of 6, the same as the

supported pikes. With even combat factors – and fairly high factors at that, making doubling an

opponent’s die roll (and destroying its unit) nearly impossible without somehow reducing one side or the

other’s support factors – the opposing lines had the potential of fighting on and on.

Remember that one spear/hoplite Greek unit that got knocked out on Turn 6? That loss would have

tipped the scales in the Ptolemaics’ favor since the loss left another Greek spear unit isolated, without

any flank support, a sitting duck for the next phalanx-with-support attack. But things never got to that

point because the game was decided elsewhere on the field the very next turn.

In short, the Ptolemaics had fortune (dice) on their side in this game. Some critical combats went their

way and things rapidly went downhill for the Greeks thereafter.

As far as the pikes vs. spear argument goes, there is really not much to conclude from this encounter. It

was, after all, a DBA game. Played with another set of rules would the outcome have been any different,

or could I have gotten a clearer sense of which type of troops might be superior? Well, it’s only a game,

so the answers probably are that the outcome could have varied, and who knows which troop type is

superior in any particular encounter?

History seems to tell us that pikes beat spears. The Macedonian pikes certainly obliterated the hoplite-

based armies of the Greeks, so there’s that. Many hard-core DBA players contend that the rules give an

historically accurate result, so, going by that, I suppose that the result of my game was at least

historically defensible. I think I’ll just leave it at that.

One thing that struck me about my game was how much the formation of the Ptolemaics determined the

battle’s outcome. Leading off with the phalanx, with the heavy cavalry ready to sweep into the enemy’s

rear once the phalanx punched a hole in the opposing line, worked like a charm. In addition, the

echeloned Ptolemaic troops trailing off to the left put the Greeks in a further bind. As the game

progressed, the Greeks tried to attack the echeloned troops but found themselves at a disadvantage.

Because of the DBA Threat Zone rules, no one Greek unit could attack a Ptolemaic unit without another

Ptolemaic unit being able to support the one under attack.

The formation was simply a game-board recreation of what

the Macedonians under that Alexander fellow actually did:

Fix the opposing line with the phalanx, use the mounted

troops to get into the rear and use the lighter troops to slow

down any response. If it worked for Big Al, it also worked

for me. Too, I give the DBA rules credit for making the

tactics work in a game.

I can also say that I grow more and more satisfied with hex-

or square-based gaming. Like the blogger I mentioned

earlier, hexes or squares eliminate a lot of the movement

questions that might come up on an open game board. That

saves time. And a faster moving game is a more enjoyable

game.

So, as I continue to see my gaming future leaning heavily toward hexes and squares, what about DBA?

My Battle of Spaedra was an enjoyable game, but it was DBA-like instead of straight DBA. In

borrowing the Commands & Colors movement rules for this game, I also found myself remembering the

more straight-forward C&C combat rules whenever I had to look up the combat and support factors for

DBA in the heat of this battle. I probably should just quit trying to make other rules work for me when I

find C&C so much my style.

In its ancients version, C&C has no pike element, as such. In different

scenarios, it just uses the relative weight of its standard heavy and medium

infantry units to reflect what’s happening on a specific battlefield. What

troop type (heavy foot) could stand in for spears in one scenario might

stand in for pikes (or Roman triarii, for example) in another. I am aware of

a pike variant worked up by one C&C expert, with specific rules to more

fully differentiate pikes from other heavies, so I could always throw that

into the mix.

In short, I’m sold on hexes (and squares) for my games, less sold on DBA.

C&C looks to continue as a favorite rules set, although, as always, I

reserve the right to modify this or that.

To close, I’ll slightly misquote “the most interesting man in the world.” Stay hex-y, my friends.