Ironically, this is where many people say DBA fails. That a chariot-era "knight" is not the equivalent of a classical period "knight" or a high medieval Knight. These are just ratings that work within their own period. But I sometimes feel that DBA fails in this regard because the homogeneity loses the "flavor" of some periods and I think this is where my dissatisfaction arises. For example, where are the Hammipoi during the Classical Greek period? I have these great figures and yet when I asked on the Fanaticus forum how to rate them in DBA the best answer was "as a cosmetic addition to a Cavalry element".
So, across my desk come a few articles about DBMM. I read a review or two and it sounds pretty good, so I explore more. I join the Yahoo group DBMMlist and within a few days Phil Barker publishes another draft of (what will one day be) DBMM version 2.0. So, I can actually read the rules and get a sense of it before actually committing to buy a copy. I download them, print them (44 pages withOUT any army lists) and my jaw drops.
Combat Factors: 1/3 of a page
Close Combat Rear Support Factors: 2/3 of a page
Tactical Factors: 2/3 of a page
Grading Factors: 1/3 of a page
That is two full pages just to calculate the number added to a D6 roll! The my jaw hits the floor again: two full pages for the Combat Outcomes "table". 2 1/3 pages to describe recoiling, fleeing, pursuing, etc.
Man, do I feel old. My mind just kept saying over and over "you'll never wrap your head around all of this".
There are some good ideas in there though. I like the idea of Psiloi (Hammipoi) providing rear support to Cavalry against enemy Cavalry and Knights. Maybe just taking that one rule and applying it as a period-specific, scenario special rule is all I need to do. Either that, or I need to try and wrap my head around Hoplomachia again. :)
