Looking from the perspective of the Chinese Army, scanning the Roman lines from left to right, facing the Chinese Left is a small band of light horse and auxillia, seven stands in total (see bellow):
The Legion(s) dominate the Center. Nobody in their right mind would run up the hill at them. Eight stands of blades (four of them superior), four psilloi, sixteen warband (the versatility of the Roman Army is on show here to pick and chose a variety of allies, massed on the right hand side of their centre as the Chinese looked at them) with the "talking point" of the Roman "order of battle" a Scorpion on a cart (Artillery[Fast] in DBMM terms). This gives it the ability for it to shoot from the rear over friendly troops (see below):
The Roman force facing the Chinese Right is another small band of cavalry and auxillia, again just seven stands, held back in a slightly 'refused position' (see below):
The Romans (like the Chinese) have paid for three commanders, one result of which is the two small Roman flank commands will need to be virtually annihilated (unless they lose their General) before becoming demoralised.
The Chinese left is a massed bow (seven stands) and cavalry force (three cavalry and two Fast light horse stands), with a token element of blade (one stand) and auxillia (one stand). Its function is to envelope the Roman flank before the legions can inflict telling damage (see below):
The Chinese Center is a massed blade (though notably of "inferior" status) and auxillia (again of "inferior" status). The Chinese have gone for the concept of quantity over quality, thinking that troops overlapping do the killing better than more expensive stand-to-stand match-ups. Will this strategy produce the goods though? (see below):
The Chinese Right Flank is a mirror of their Left Flank, bar the fact they have an additional extra "one stand" of Fast light horse. Again a swift enveloping action is hoped for (see below):
The hard part of DBMM seems to be 'building the army'. Some would say this is the curse of the 'points based army battles' as opposed historical re-fights, based on actual orders of battles.
I see it as a mini-Sudoku brain teaser myself. You never seem to 'get it right' the first time and there is always changes to be made based on battlefield experiences.It will be interesting to see how right or wrong I have got the above.