Guys, thanks, some great responses. let me respond to some responses :)
@Pentaro – I was considering these as a possible option. These guys always seem to offer some unusual ideas. In terms of period Ironbow claims to start with Manzikert which is at the end of my period of main interest but hey, it includes Mongols and that cant be a bad thing.
@Khusrau – will definitely follow up "Shattered Lances". Thanks.
@Marcus Maximas – I have Norwich's Short History as well but thought I'd start with the fully leaded version – and its wonderful. Lots of detail – that said, he's a military historian and it isn't a military history of Byzantium but rather a full political, social, religious, military, cultural and to some degree architectural history of Byzantium. I'm waiting on Volume III in the post now.
I will try and find a copy of the WAB Supplement. I have WAB and have played them for Romans & Gauls. Was hoping for something with a bit better developed Command & Control system.
@Porthos – exactly, the combined arms, different ranks of spear and bow seems an important theme (pun intended) for the Byzantine army.
@elsyrsyn – Have a copy, a bit put off by the glitz and glamour, which probably sounds odd, but it makes me suspicious that the rules may not be fully developed if they need to shroud them in all those pretty pictures, wonderful though the are. Really looking for some substance and well designed mechanisms. Is there a Byzantine supplement planned have you heard?
@smacdowall – thanks, I'll use the link and have a look. Sounds like you're looking at the same things I like.
@Marcus Brutus – Have a copy of Impetus and have read through them. They do look interesting and may offer a quick play option for involving my children in a campaign in the Balkans or Mesopotamia. They do seem to handle the troop quality and formations needs.
Abstractions like " … no, those Mongol Light Horse Archers don't have an archery range in DBA/DBM, you have to make base-to-base contact and then their archery is factored into the comparative dice roll … " Not my speed I'm afraid. If its long range, harassing bow fire to break down cohesion and wear down morale I'd like it to actually work like that.
@Security Minister – I have thought about 6th. 7th seems to be so good it destroyed its own community. Dont know about Warrior. 6th was a standard back in the 80's at clubs I sometimes attended but did seem to allow lots of small units to dash around the field on radio control. May need another look.
@John Kelly – Thanks for the vote on Shattered Lances, will definitely look at them. DBx anything is not really the direction I want to go.
@Cardinal – fair question, I guess I want to be able to reproduce actions the way they read and have battles resolved the same way so …
- terrain and the selection of the battlefield is a key ingredient. Good armies, well lead choose to fight where they fight much of the time.
- the Byzantine Army seemed to actually develop an Officer corp and a system of tactics and fighting that made them greater than the sum of the parts WHEN well lead. As opposed to the "barbarian" hordes they encountered who largely relied on heroic, champions and chieftains fighting in the front rank to inspire and lift the men.
- Good officers and tactics seemed able to get the best out of raw recruits
- battles for this period seemed to potentially involve an element of treachery. A well led Byzantine army might be able to bribe an enemy wing to flee off the field or even turn on its own. A poorly led Byzantine force seemed susceptible to the same thing, especially with their allied contingents.
- some battles lasted all day with attrition and fatigue playing a factor
- mixed formations seemed a crucial part of the tactical formula for successful Byzantine forces
- use of reserves seems important – failure of the reserve at Manzikert (possibly for treachery reasons) appears to have been one reason that cost the Byzantines the battle
So, scouting, morale, fatigue, differing Command & Control systems, treachery, allied contingents, mixed formations, flank marches, reserves, campaign interaction all seem important elements to accurately capturing the flavour of the period.
I also hate the terms "bases" or "castings". To me my little guys are regiments and battalions and units not "bases" or "castings" – shudder. I know its just the pedantics but its all part of the atmosphere for me.
I think you have little to fear on the fully developed substance front with HC, though, despite the prevalence of eye candy. As for a Byzantine supplement, the late antiquity-early medieval army list book that's been out a while ought to cover most of the necessary ground.