GAME 1
I invaded, 3 areas of rough ground and a gentle hill were scattered around the edge of the board. One of the areas of rough ground was in the middle of Daves deployment zone. This forced him to deploy his phalanx further back. From his left to right he deployed his commands 1, 2 and 3. From my left to right I deployed my commands 2, 1, 3, 4.
On my left, our two cavalry wings skirmished inconclusively all game, with me losing some light horse. In the middle my phalanx brushed through some auxilia and then went head to head with his phalanx. On my right my Indian command, supported by my CinC and his knights, and the horse archers and knight subgeneral 2, attacked Dave's CinC's command.
Dave's left flank under the command of his CinC, broke as my quality troops assaulted a mix of persian archers, tribesmen and thracians. There were nevertheless some anxious moments as my elephants walking forward into his archery, and when one of his thracian auxilia killed my knight subgeneral number 2.
In the middle the phalanx battle decided the game however. I had two hoplite elements on each end of my phalanx and on one end these were flanked and killed by auxilia. Then his galatian warband chewed their way through my pike, and and combined with losses from my other commands, my army reached its breakpoint and the game was over. First game to Dave.
GAME 2
I took some photos of this one. The same terrain was chosen as in Game 1, but played little part in the battle. I invaded again, Dave chose a similar set up, but deployed his phalanx forward and in the centre. I deployed my commands in a similar fashion to the first game, but swapped the position of my CinC's command so that it was on my right flank and my Indian ally held my centre.
This setup would hopefully let my phalanx push forward against Dave's CinC's command, rather than his (S) grade phalanx and galatians. I would leave them to the Indians, hoping that the elephants would at least startle the galatian warband. My opening moves involved rushing my phalanx towards his weak left flank, and advancing the indian elephants to pin his phalanx and centre.
Once again our cavalry wings skirmished inconclusively most of the game. Eventually I destroyed 2 of his (F) grade Scythian light horse with my (S) grade Bactrian light horse, and flanked and killed some of his knights with light horse and an elephant to break his cavalry wing.
In the middle, my Indians had a rough time of it. The Indian Ally-General died to an auxilia, and another elephant to the apparantly unfazed galatian warband. Dave's Agyraspid Pk(S) turned to flank my phalanx but not quickly enough.
On my right my phalanx was disorded as it approached the seleucid lines, and two pike elements died to persian archery. However, this was not enough to stop it, and it rolled over the archers and auxilia before them. Only the Thracian Ax(S) slowed it down a little, but not enough to stop their command and hence Dave's army breaking.
CONCLUSIONS
Well in my opinion I think DBMM so far is a vast improvement over DBM 3.0. Both our games were completed in about 2.5 hours each, and we were adapting to the new rules. Combat is more deadly, and hence faster and more fun. The terrain system looks like it may provide fairer selections for competition. The pip allocation is great, time is saved through not having to allocate, yet regular generals still have a bonus, and sticking to a pre-battle plan is more likely to be rewarded.
The old problem with psiloi being able to slow heavy foot to a crawl seems to have been fixed well enough. The lower factors for infantry combat means it is more decisive, and combined with the new deployment and marching rules, heavy foot armies seem a lot more viable. Psiloi is now considerably more powerful against elephants which is good, and elephants have a chance of actually scaring Cammillan Romans and other armies they didn't have a chance against in DBM 3.0.
The grading factors have been reversed back to original scheme, making superior troops tougher and inferior troops weaker. The DBM 3.0 change in the opposite direction was good for competitions, but bad for historical accuracy in my opinion, and it is good to see it changed. I also love the new Morale Equivalents idea, where elite troops are more immune to the sight of lesser troops running. The more accurate scoring system looks great for competitions too.
If I have concerns they are very limited compared to the praise I have for this new set of rules. I think that the attacker may have too much of an advantage by being able to react to the defenders entire deployment, though Dave seemed to think it was not as much of a problem as I do, and he was the defender after all. I suspect elephants and knights may be too good against pike frontally. Pike versus pike fights are rather deadly, rather than being a drawn out pushing match as seems to have been the case historically (but I don't know whether I want long boring pike fights even if it is historical ;)).
Interestingly in both games we played, the battle was decided in the centre with the infantry. As I understand it, historically hellenistic battles tended to be decided on the wings by the cavalry (if they could be controlled after victory), more often than not. In spite of having almost minimum pike in both armies, and maximum mounted, the mounted wings were almost stalemated. My wing consisting of 5 knights, 9 light horse and an elephant, opposing Daves wing of 7 knights, 3 elephants and 3 light horse. Both these commands were recieving our second highest pip dice each round, but co-ordinating attacks for both of us with this combination of elements was awkward. We should have had psiloi in our wings to counter the elephants as was historically the case I guess.
Anyway great games, and a big thumbs up to Phil B. and the rest of the crew for DBMM!