by
Richard Bodley Scott
In the scissors-paper-stone world of DBM, how nice it would be not to have to always worry about match-ups. For an anxiety free life, what I want is a troop-type that can face any enemy troops without qualms, with a reasonable chance of victory.
Who are these paragons, you ask? Light horse, perhaps? Well, these certainly do not have to worry too much about match-ups, as they can always get away if they don’t like what they are facing, but what I want is an ability to press forward regardless.
How about pikes? Well, these do fit the bill, but they are rather expensive in AP per element frontage, unless deployed less than four ranks deep – in which case they will be less able to defeat enemy infantry.
No, what I had in mind was spears. And not just any spears either, but spears (O) with psiloi support. These are certainly the nearest thing in DBM to the Universal Soldier, being able to face off any mounted troops or any foot, with only warbands as a killer opponent. Even then they have more chance of surviving a warband charge than other spears.
So, skimming the lists, which armies are allowed substantial numbers of psiloi-supported spears (O)?
This army is not short of a spear or two, and has light horse, a few
cavalry, chariot knights, and bowmen. The cavalry can dismount as auxilia (S)
or bowmen (O).


Han Chinese
This is the best balanced army, with light horse, cavalry and chariot knights, also bows and blades. The cavalry can dismount as auxilia (S), or, less usefully, as bowmen (O).
![]() |
![]() |
Another well balanced army, rather spoiled by the requirement to downgrade at least half the heavy infantry to (I). [And yes, that is what the list is intended to mean].


This army has plenty of infantry, and a reasonable number of mounted troops.


The ultimate supported spear army, with ample light horse to
protect the flanks or threaten the enemy’s.
It’s irregular, but you can’t have everything.


Of the regular armies, this is the best endowed with psiloi supported spears. It lacks cavalry, but has plenty of light horse and can have some knights (F) or camelry (S).


This list offers a wide range of options, as well as a somewhat unwieldy command structure.


Why bother with this sort of exercise? Surely it is the antithesis of our advice to pick an army that you have some feeling for, and which you can therefore love even when it loses?
Well, I cannot deny that this is true. However, there are other considerations. For example, I have finally come to the conclusion that no amount of historical empathy will make me really enjoy playing with an army lacking light horse. Conversely, my love for all things Byzantine is not sufficient to make me field a Byzantine army except very infrequently, as the lack of decent light or heavy infantry renders a draw inevitable against many opponents, and one thing I do not enjoy is a draw.
My interest in the Ancient and Medieval periods is so pervasive anyway that historical empathy with an army is not really an issue. I love them all – but only so long as they give me the sort of game I enjoy. To this end, I am always interested in trying out new combinations of troops, but erring on the side of manoeuvrability.
Yes, I admit it, I am a control freak. And by the way, I lied about not worrying about match-ups. Even the universal soldier needs to get the enemy at a disadvantage. That is where tactical skill comes in. However, at least the general commanding the universal soldier does not start with one hand tied behind his back.