"Allied Generals Point Cost?" Topic

Maybe I'm missing it, but why do Ally Generals that are regular pay 5 more points than Ally Generals that are Irregular? All the troops under him are irregular, I am still required to throw a separate dice the entire game, everyone else in the command is still irregular, so I don't really see why I'm paying 5 points more? Could someone please enlighten me please. I am playing DBM but as far as I can tell there isn't an advantage in DBMM either.

It just is, is about the best I can do sorry. A similar thing in DBM that doesn't make a lot of sense is with Reg. Cv you pay 1 point more than Irr. Cv but you don't get anything, no extra move , that heavy foot get ( 1pip for their third move rather than the 2 pips Irr heavy foot pay ), the Cavalry don't get it or need it as they can already do it, i.e. move a third time for 1.

About the only thing you get for that extra point is being able to hold them for one pip rather than 2 when that command they are in has broken.

Hi Maverick, there are various restrictions on PIPs if you are irregular – about it. In DBMM it's very different, for example, regular generals get their own pip, though subs only.. regulars (including cavalry) don;t pay the extra PIP for a third march move, and so on.

Regular ally-generals won't change sides; Irregular ones might. Worth the extra points, I think. Last year I used a Syrian army with three ally-generals, and I was careful to make the Crusader ally Regular for that reason.

In DBM Regular cavalry can make a third move for 1 PIP, but Irregular cavalry pay 2 unless they're in column. It's easier to hold Regulars from making unwanted impetuous moves, as well as the flee moves mentioned by Aynsley.

You're right he will not change sides, that is one benefit. The other points you all have made are already factored into the base cost of the unit (in the case of knight (o) I'm paying 2 additional points for the benefits). Thanks y'all for being helpful on this topic. I did notice that in the unofficial DBM 3.3 rules they decrease the cost of a single sub general by 10 points of the rest are all ally generals. Will there ever be an official release of the 3.3 rules? Thanks!

Irregular Kn(O) are a tremendous PIP drain… pay the extra for Regulars if you can.

The points reduction in DBM 3.3 applies to any Regular general if there are no other Regular sub-generals or C-in-C in the army – i.e he can't PIP-swap. I had in mind such things as the single Reg Kn C-in-C in the Feudal English army, for instance, as he can have only Irregular sub-generals.

DBM 3.3 was approved by Richard Bodley Scott, which makes it "official" to the British Historical Games Society (who run various DBM competitions) and to the DBM Doubles League (which I run). It's now used in all UK DBM competitions.

Phil Barker hasn't replied to my emails on the subject and I'm reluctant to hassle him as I know he's busy on various projects. He wouldn't let me put the full text of DBM 3.2 on my web site (though RBS had no objection), but very decently put that text on his own WRG site. That was in 2011; I asked him to do the same for 3.3 but he hasn't answered.

I've been playing Cv wrong all these years, I knew Irr foot and Irr Kn etc paid on the third but forgot Cv, has it always been that way?

But then I rarely use mounted besides my Scythians and then I only have the min of Cv and usually leave them at the back.

Didn't know Richard had approved the changes, we didn't use the .3 changes as we have a smaller crowd and didn't want people dropping out, it's more a social thing here with our group anyway. I like the changes myself though.

Thanks John for the response. I think I'll try and get my group to move to 3.3, I read through the changes and there wasn't anything too extreme to drive people off and I think they make a lot of sense.

On a side note, I have been browsing your site and it has quite a bit of data! Very handy. I was wondering if you have ever written an article or put some thought into what makes the "ultimate list" for the respective books/periods.

I've given it some thought lately and I think using your data and an extensive background in different armies and DBM games, you could make an army that would be considered top tier. Ultimately I have found it comes down to the player, but commander aside I think there's some merit to having the best army composition and I'd be interested to hear your all's thoughts on it.

Aynsley: the rule for Irr Cv and their third move has been there since 1993, I think!

Maverick: glad you like my site. There's a lot there about how successful different armies have been under different versions of the rules, and there are earlier articles in Slingshot too.

I've used lots of different armies in competitions; the most successful have been those which may not look too fearsome, so opponents aren't afraid to attack, but have a mix of useful troops – Carthaginians, various Romans, Medieval Germans (12th-12th century). An exception is the Suevi, who've been almost invincible in 25mm games (played 8, won 7, lost 1), so much so that I don't use them any more and only lend them out.

The most fun have been Vikings and Russians, both Early and Post-Mongol. All mediocre armies, but some excellent games with not many draws.

I suppose the nearest to an ideal army is Alexander's – but as Phil Barker likes to say the genius has to be supplied by the player. A top player can win with almost any army, as Jeremy Morgan keeps trying to prove with fair success.

Great response and I like to believe that is true! My first army was Early Imperial Roman. Everything I read said they were no good, but I can only remember 2 games I have lost with them out of about 15 I've played so far.

You hit the nail on the head about diversity of troop types. I usually always take my German allied command as well as equal amounts of Auxilia to my blades. I still haven't figured out how to beat my friends completely fast knight army, that might be the Romans biggest downfall.