By David Kuijt
Spear are quick-killed by Knights and +4 vs. Mounted. Blades are not quick-killed, and are +3 vs. Mounted. The quick-kill makes Spear much worse than Blades, defending against Knights.
Examine a line of Knights hitting a line of single-ranked Spear. 28% of the time the Knights kill the Spear; the Knights only die 11% of the time. That's a better than 2:1 kill ratio for the Knights.
The same line of Knights hitting a line of Blades has much worse success. The Knights kill the Blades only 4.5% of the time, and die themselves as often (4.5%). Worse still, if the Knights recoil the Blades, the Knights impetuously advance into untenable positions with double overlaps.
Double-ranked Spear isn't much better off. The +1 for back-rank support is counteracted by the fact that they lose two elements, not one, if they are destroyed. The Knights only have a 17% chance of killing a double-ranked spear unit, and a 17% chance of dying themselves. But if they win, they kill two units, and if they lose, they lose only one. So they still have a 2:1 kill ratio charging double-ranked Spear.
So clearly Blades are the best heavy foot to fight Knights. What is the problem?
The problem is that Spear should be better than Blades when fighting Knights. First, because of common sense - the major difference between Spear and Blade in DBA is that Spear are equipped with longer weapons and fight more as a group, and Blades fight more individually, and their weapons may vary from polearms to short swords. Their equipment is otherwise identical. Historically, Spears and close formations were much preferred as anti-cavalry equipment over swords and axes and individual skill.
The DBA book describes Blades as "... including all close fighting infantry primarily skilled in fencing individually with swords or heavier cutting or cut and thrust weapons;" later it says "They were less safe than spears or pikes against mounted troops, ...". Spears are described as "... representing all close formation infantry fighting with spears in a rigid shield wall; ..."
So why, then, are Blades more durable (significantly more durable) than Spear, Pike, or any other foot type?
The solution is quite simple. Allow Knights to quick-kill Blades. They can currently quick-kill every other foot type in good going -- Warbands, Psiloi, Auxilia, Bow, Spear, and even Pike. No quick-kill against Blades is a glaring omission.
Whenever proposing a rules change it behooves us to examine the change from all angles, to determine what the various side affects of the change will be. In other words, how the change would effect the delicate balance between different troop types that is the heart of DBA.
One of the great things about DBA is how the balance of troop types usually gives results that simulate ancient combat well -- considering the speed and simplicity of the game, astoundingly well. What would happen to DBA as a result of allowing Knights to quick-kill Blades? How will this change affect army choices and interactions?
One change would be that Spear-heavy armies would be much prefered to armies that are Blade-heavy when fighting Knight armies, and any army that had a choice of Spear or Blades would choose Spear when it expected to meet Knight opposition. That seems reasonable enough -- an improvement over the current situation, where a Blade army is much tougher than a Spear army against Knights.
For another thing, armies that have dismountable Knights (3Kn/4Bd) would be far less quick to dismount them. It would not be an easy choice when facing an opponent with Knights. As it is now, an army of Blades can expect even-up matchups with Knights, so if you are the Medieval French with 6x 3Kn/4Bd, there is no reason not to dismount every single French Knight when fighting Italian Condotta, HYW English, Early Imperialist, Early Burgundian. The current situation is not historical at all -- the French never dismounted to face enemy Knights. This change would make for harder choices for armies with dismounting Knights, which seems like a good thing overall.
Against the English Longbows the French did dismount some or all of their force several times, but it was always a tough choice. At Crecy they dismounted nobody. At Poitiers they dismounted everyone, and lost when the English reserve (mounted knights) came around and hit the flank of their formation. And at Agincourt they had their first ranks dismounted in the center, but attacked on both sides of the center without mounted troops, and kept mounted troops behind the center front.
DBM is the large-battle more complex ancients and medieval rules set based originally upon DBA. It, too, started with no quick-kill Knights on Blades, but the authors altered that rule in DBM some years ago in favour of the rule I'm proposing for DBA. (DBA hasn't been changed in the intervening period.)
Right now Blades rule, and dismountable Knights have a huge advantage. Whever they have a choice to go "Blades or X", it is always to their advantage to choose Blades.
Having Knights quick-kill Blades will weaken Blades against any army with Knights in it, which includes the majority of medieval armies. This strengthens Knights as a troop-type. But Knights have a number of troop types that they have problems with: Bows of any sort, War Wagons, Elephants, Light Horse (used carefully), and Pike. Knights are also impetuous, and difficult to use well. Blades currently have no such disadvantage against any single type. So strengthening Knights in this way doesn't seem to change them much.
There is a pleasing symmetry to the rock-scissors-paper nature of armies in DBA. Blades have a severe advantage on Bows. Bows have a similar one on Knights. And Knights should have an advantage on Blades.
Last Updated: July 15, 1998
The author may be contacted at kuijt@umiacs.umd.edu Please do not use any pictures or text from this page without permission.