Question: Nomenclature, Troop Types & DBA List Code

I see nothing wrong in your approach Cotedelachevre.
Whatever floats your boat as people say.
“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” as Old Will Shakespeare said.

Many years ago I toyed with the idea of putting “r” (for regular) and “i” (for irregular) in front of the codes,
so there would be “rCv” and “iCv”, although this would have no effect on their performance and behaviour,
and would merely be indicating that they looked visually different (since all Cv act the same in DBA).

But I must admit it does irritate me sometimes when Phil Barker uses fancy words to show how clever he is:-

Psiloi: apart from the ancient Greeks, nobody called their Light Infantry ‘Psiloi’. The Romans called them by
their own Latin word ‘Velites’, and I very much doubt that Dark Age and Medieval generals called them ‘Psiloi’.
Call ‘em what they really are…Skirmishers.

Knights: it’s anachronistic calling all heavy mounted ‘Knights’, which conjures up images of Medieval horsemen,
especially as not all DBA ‘Knights’ had heavy armor (i.e. Alexander’s Companions), and some of them didn’t even
have lances (i.e. Persian mounted and the Goths at Hadrianopolis in 378 AD).
Call ‘em what they really are…Heavy Cavalry (and 4Kn are Cataphracts).

Auxiliaries: Again, this is using a Roman term to cover a whole multitude of different troops from different nations.
Call ‘em what they really are…Medium Infantry, in between light & heavy (3Ax are irregulars, and 4Ax are regulars).


But do realize that all this is really rather trivial and petty.
Still, it’s nice to have a good rant now and then…