"WRG v DBA army lists? Most accurate?" Topic

So if you are making an army list for your favorite obscure early middle ages which would you say would be the more accurate to base it on: WRG or DBA?

How big is your army? When you only have 12 elements, you have to simplify a bit. That said, Phil continued to to research, and updated as his conclusions changed. Is any edition of WRG lists more recent than DBA lists?

About a half dozed formed units and a couple of skirmishers.
Formed units being 24+ figures

How do the lists compare in terms of percentage of troop types? That's where I would start.

DBA 3.0 lists are based on the DBMM lists so probably the latest word from Phil and Sue Barker. DBMM lists will have more detail if you're doing a larger army. The WRG 7th lists, presumably the last word if you're talkng traditional WRG, predate DBM and DBMM for which more up to date research was incorporated.

I have always thought that any lists produced by WRG, or anyone for that matter, were engineered to favor the author's armies. Warrior, the linear descendant to WRG 7th, is notorious for this.
So "accuracy" is a joke.

Convince me I'm wrong. 🤷🙄

Accuracy is indeed in the eye of the beholder; and for the more obscure armies, the less detail there is to go on. This gets worse and worse the further back in time (and fewer detailed records) you go.

That being said, my go to reference is the DBM army books. DBM came out before DBA 2nd edition, and the 2nd ed lists were based on the DBM ones. However, some number of the DBA ones were pretty poorly translated.

DBA 3.0 is more closely based on DBM and brought all the lists into better alignment. We play DBA2.2+ regularly at the FLGS and allow army lists from any edition. Some folks still have a few 1st ed armies, and a few of the 3rd ed just play better.

For an accessible online reference, the Triumph lists are on a par with up to date research. You have to traingulate in on some of the quirky troop names. They have a nicely searchable database:
meshwesh.wgcwar.com/home

For other game list references, ADLG is pretty up to date as well.

WRG lists are pretty dated now.

I liked the DBM.

Phil's beloved Romans are not all that good under his rules …

The most recent ancients and medievals army lists from WRG are the 2016 "Revised" lists for DBMM.

You might want to know, though, that a new revision of the DBMM lists are in the works; at a guess they'll be published early next year.

The best work now is probably the DBMM lists… though new lists are evidently being worked.

DBA 3 lists are excellent as well, though they are in need of some update and revision. Lots of that has already been finished, but publishing is quite a ways off.

I would go with the current DBMM lists.

Joe Collins

I tend to use the army lists associated with "The to the Strongest" ancient/medieval rules. They seem to be more accurate and get continued updates as more research is uncovered.

link

Jim

I can't recall the ADLG rules, but then my last surgery(s) ruined what little of my memory I had :(

I also use To The Strongest lists.

You wisely used a careful use of words OFM, they shoot people who say, Prove me wrong.

Perhaps, "least inaccurate" would be a better choice. 😄

The DBA lists are intended to give a reasonable balance of the various troop types in an army and are usually my starting point for any new army. Even if I do paint two or three times as many elements as suggested…

The only way to have an "accurate" list is to make on based on a campaign or battle, IF and only IF there is reliable and sufficient information available, which for many, many armies and battles there really isn't. Coming up with an "accurate" generic list for an ancient army is guesswork at best, because while you may be able to identify troop types potentially available you will not be able to identify reliable specifics. People need to quit pretending much of this is "historical" and recognize that these are at best the concoctions of a historical fiction author or movie maker.

To answer the OP, DBA is necessarily more generalised in that the lists are designed to produce armies of a particular size and the elements are each quite large, so small numbers of less usual troops may be subsumed into the mass.
'WRG' is confusing since there were the various editions of WRG rules up to 7th edition but DBA and DBMM are both produced by WRG. The DBMM lists are more detailed than the DBA lists purely because they reflect different levels of modelling the army. Even then, some elements may be assumed to include different ranks armed in different ways, so using the lists for rules which work at a different level may not be ideal. There is also the artificial division into e.g. Blade and Spear which is a rules feature which may not fit what you are working with.

There are different levels of guesswork. With a few armies, they may be based on what is known about their neighbours. Most armies are at least based on archaeology and for some there is extensive documentation.
What is always going to affect the portrayal of armies in any wargame is the amount of interpretation used to fit presumed or known troops into the pigeon holes beloved of by rules. Relative quality, for instance. This is often going to be debateable but in my experience there has been more use of what historical sources say rather than the whim of the list writer.
Even basing a list on a particular battle is gong to have elements of this, but as wargamers most of us accept this. Some dislike using more generalised lists while others appreciate the structure that they give, with at least some assurance that an army that they field will bare a degree of resemblance to what it is supposed to portray. Some lists may attempt to narrow down the choice if certain things were only available in certain battles.