DBA3 house rules - a personal view. Amended as of 16/2/14.

I'm looking forward to seeing the offical version of DBA 3. However

having played a dozen or so games with the 17 May & 30 September
2013 versions version and read various discussions on the forum I feel
that there are (to my way of thinking) some issues with the rules. As
the rules are nearing publication and Phil is unlikely to change them I
thought I'd put up a listing of house rules that suit my own views (or
should that be prejudices). Each comes with a very brief
game/historical rational (some of which may be mere whimsy on my
part).
Please feel free to post any thoughts or comments on them.

1. Combat changes.
Change 1. Add Limited Psiloi rear support. (Pg 11)
A "Solid" element of either Auxilia or Blade add +1 when in frontal
close combat against Knights while supported by a single friendly
element of Psiloi lined up in contact directly behind them facing the
same direction.
Rationale: In 3.0 Blade are too vulnerable to Knights. Support shooting
was useful vs knights (eg Arrian's use of supporting archers against
the Alans and Bassus' use of slingers vs Parthians). I've therefore
reinstated a restricted version of Psiloi support.
Change 2. Add New "Solid" Auxilia Tactical Factor. (Pg 11)
"+1 If "Solid" Auxilia and in close combat with Blades, Spears or Pikes
that are in going other than bad."
Rationale: In 3.0 4Ax seem underpowered (just search the forum for
'4Ax' to see numerous arguments). Auxilia have always been
contentious - to my mind one could argue that Roman auxilia for
example are at least as good as various foreign 'imitation legionaries'
(indeed isn't that what they really are ?) which in the lists are rated as
Blade. This rule improves 4Ax when in combat with other heavy foot
without having to rewrite numerous army lists.
Change 3. Change the following outcome; (pg 11)

If its total is equal to that of its opponent:

Knights or Camelry. Destroyed in close combat by any Blades or any
Bows that are LB or Cb, recoiled in close combat by other Solid foot.
4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn. Otherwise no effect.
Replace with;
Knights, Camelry or Elephants. Destroyed in close combat by
Blades, Warband or Bows if these are Lb or Cb, recoiled in close
combat by other Solid foot. 4Kn recoiled in close combat by 3Kn.
Otherwise no effect.
Rationale: This is a little complicated so please bear with my slightly
convoluted argument(s).
Firstly, let us deal with why Elephants have been added to those
elements affected and why Blade have been added to those capable of
killing them. Suffice to say that there is historical evidence to show
that Blade were capable of defeating Elephants (which in DBA 3.0
currently at +5 to +3 is highly improbable). Some examples of this are
the Roman legionaries at Thapsus and the Jovian & Herulian legions
killing Sassanian elephants during Julian's Persian campaign. Later
again Arab foot at Qadisiyah similarly defeated Sassanian elephants.
In addition there is also some evidence to show that crossbows and
arrows could do the same. Examples here include the Sung defeat of
Southern Han elephants in 971 AD with a 'barrage of crossbow bolts'
(Chris Peers) and the Western Wei in 554 AD turning back two
armoured elephants 'with flights of arrows' (Edward Schaefer). Other
instances of the succesful use of archery include the Sui against Cham
elephants in 605 AD and dismounted Mongols against Burmese
elephants in 1277 AD.
Warband have been included in the above amendment principally to
allow them to destroy Knights on a combat draw. My thoughts here
drift to Ammianus Marcellinus (AM) description of Roman Kn losing to
Warband at the Battle of Strasbourg 357AD. In DBA 3.0 the lethality of
Knights vs Warband is in the order of 19:1 (58%:3%). In other words
AM has either described an anomoly (Wb killing Kn) or DBA 3.0 rates
the Warbands chances lower than they were in real life. I believe that it
is likely to be the latter and so have given Wb a somewhat better
chance (17%) so they are not a complete (but still mostly) walkover in
this matchup.
Whether Wb can kill Elephants is difficult to answer but I am swayed to
give them a little chance (8% as against being killed by Elephants at
33%) as Wb currently have no chance vs El whereas Elephants in real
life although potent in combat were also unreliable so giving Wb some
chance probably better reflects the reality that the Elephants might

fluff it (also note that Wb were often armed with javelins and such
which Elephants distinctly disliked). Finally in regards to Wb vs
Camelry (this makes it an even chance for both at 17% kill although
the +2 vs +3 to the Camels gives them a slightly better chance of
getting overlaps.
Change 4. Change combat outcome by Warband. (Pg 11)
If its total is less than that of its opponent but more than half:
Spears, Pikes or Blades. Destroyed by Knights or Scythed Chariots if in
good going or by Warband if in any but bad going. If not, recoil.
Rationale: this change was proposed years ago in Slingshot 230/27-30
and made sense both historically and gamewise to me then.
Change 5. Changes to Spearmen vs Pike. (Pg 11)
Flank support factors:
An element of Spears or Solid Bows adds +1 when in frontal close
combat in good going against enemy foot if at least 1 flank edge is in
mutual side edge and mutual front corner contact with a friendly
element: of (a) Spears or Solid Blades if the supported element is
Spears which are not in frontal close combat with enemy Pike,
or (b) of Solid Blades if the supported element is Bows. Fast
elements neither give nor receive flank support.
Rationale: This change removes flank support for Spearmen when
facing Pike. I've never been able to fathom how a shieldwall would be
able to stand up to a Pike formation as the combat mechanisms are
similar but Spearmen would have a far inferior reach (probably only
the 2 front ranks) whereas pikes have around 5 ranks and a much
longer reach. It also helps redress the fact that Pike must follow up
whereas Spearmen do not.

Change 6. Rear support factor for Artillery

A "Solid" element of Auxilia or Blade in frontal close combat add +1 if
fighting Elephants, Knights or Scythed Chariots, while supported by a
single friendly element of Artillery that did not move that bound and is
lined up in contact directly behind them or directly behind a friendly
element of the same type in side edge and front corner-to- front corner

contact with them.

(Note this modifier is not culmulative with any other friendly +ve
tactical modifier except if the element supported is a General's
element).
Rationale: This enables Arrian's artillery dispositions against the Alans
to make sense (vs Kn anyway - Elephants and Scythed chariots have
been added by extrapolation - both being charging mounted as are
Knights). Note this is really a static defensive measure for the foot as
the artillery must remain stationary to give support.

Change 7 . Add Changes to winning and losing. (Pg 12)

a) Limited Psiloi loss.
The first element of Psiloi lost by each side counts as 1 less than it
normally would towards their total of lost elements.
Rationale: Psiloi haven't got a lot of clout so this makes them a little
better - they are after all (in most armies) a bit more expendable than
Knights or Elephants for instance.
b) Amend Elephant loss to 2 element equivalent.
'The first double element or first element of Elephants lost counts as 2
elements lost."
Rationale: Elephants have improved in combat in DBA 3.0 (perhaps
overly so) this rule balances up their potent combat skills with the
difficulty of replacing their losses compared to other elements.
So there you have it. It will be interesting to see once the official 3.0
version comes out and has been played for a year or so whether I have
correctly
(or
incorrectly)
divined
the
tealeaves
regarding
historical/play areas for tinkering.