Polemos SPQR: The Battle of the Sambre

[Whirlwind]

Please see here for a re-fight of the Battle of the Sambre during the Gallic Wars using Baccus 6mm figures and the Polemos SPQR rules:

 

 

 

[Guy Farrish]

Inspirational and fascinating as ever.

These games with Polemos SPQR (and the other games on the Renaissance board with Polemos ECW) have intrigued me as you seem to get on very well with them and yet I couldn’t manage to like the WSS version no matter how hard I tried.

 

I have wondered about giving both these a go on the strength of your posts and when I saw PDF versions of the ECW set on sale at Wargames Vault for $2.99 and SPQR for $0.50 it was just too tempting.

Worth it for the read through I think – never mind whether I actually play a game (the ECW stands more chance I think as I have no standard set for the period whereas I am currently using about four sets for various sub periods of Ancient and Mediaeval).

[Whirlwind]

Thanks Guy. How come you didn’t get on with Polemos WSS (and which edition was it,  first or second?).

Guy Farrish wrote:

I have wondered about giving both these a go on the strength of your posts and when I saw PDF versions of the ECW set on sale at Wargames Vault for $2.99 and SPQR for $0.50 it was just too tempting. Worth it for the read through I think – never mind whether I actually play a game (the ECW stands more chance I think as I have no standard set for the period whereas I am currently using about four sets for various sub periods of Ancient and Mediaeval).

I see what you mean, very much so.  As far as I understand it, Polemos SPQR has quite direct competition in the form of DBA, DBM, DBMM, Sword & Spear, Basic Impetus, Impetus, To the Strongest, Art de la Guerre, Armati, Lost Battles, FoG and so on (I think of Neil Thomas, Hail Caesar and the WAB rules and derivatives as being an entirely different family of wargames, trying to do different things), whereas, for what it is trying to do, Polemos ECW is up against perhaps DBR and Basic Baroque and FoG-R…and they all seem to divide opinions quite strongly.

 

 

[Guy Farrish]

It was first edition (I think- 2005).

Tempo

I was interested in the ‘Tempo’ idea but in use it seemed rather ‘tricksy’ as a piece of game play trying to deliver some idea of how to gain initiative. It seemed to bear little or no relation to military tempo and unsettling your opponent by coup d’oeil, decisive action and maintenance of aim. It was a little gambling sub routine which I always felt gave too much to a game part of wargame and detracted significantly from the ‘war’ part of it. I have similar concerns with ‘PIPS’ but they are at least less convoluted. I was part of a very large Kriegsspiel recreation of the Sadowa campaign in Manchester University back in the early 1980s which gave rise to a commercial tabletop game using cardboard units which used ‘Impulse’ points that cascaded down through the command levels which seemed slightly closer to command effect but was a bit unwieldy for the actual impact on the game.

Did anyone ever have enough Tempo points left to ‘steal tempo? 4 times the cost?

I always think command (or rather command dislocation) should be modelled in wargames and yet one of the best rule sets for getting the feel of what happens, in large scale battles at least, is one which ignores the modelling of it almost completely – Volley and Bayonet. There are morale rules but no attempt to impose command bonuses and penalties – players make the mistakes and decisions on their own quite effectively. It seems wrong but I can’t argue with the outcomes and feeling after a game that it worked without giving overly distorted effects.

Combat system

 

Cavalry Charge Threat – using range combat table. Then Close combat  – both with different sets of modifiers 19 plus a d6 plus/minus a separate terrain modifier from a different table. Messy.

Infantry – no close combat. I know why, but the whole point of the theory of trying to fire and advance and intimidate and then press home a charge seems to be incorporated in a firefight system, which misses the point that for one school at least this was a massive failure of doctrine and intent.

Army morale – appreciate a need to end a battle but again modifiers all over the place. I confess to ignoring it mostly.

I am probably making this sound a lot worse than it was. It is a collection of little things that irritated me at the time, which individually were trivial but just added up to something that didn’t let it work.  It may be the period to be honest. I find the history of the campaigns and battles intriguing but again it seems one of those where interest in the minutiae of the weapons and tactics can overwhelm the bigger picture. The fire methods – platoon, rolling fire ,volleys by line, by whatever are fascinating but I wonder they made any real difference compared to logistics and generals keeping an idea of what they were trying to do under their political constraints. I suppose if you are not careful it becomes a generic horse and musket game, but identifying the period factors that made a real difference seems to be the difficult thing (probably true of many periods/wars/campaigns in wargaming terms).

 

 

[Whirlwind]

Thanks Guy, that was very interesting.  I have played first edition WSS too.  I think the main thing that bothered me was cavalry charges.  By far the most likely outcome of a brigade of 3 bases charging would be that 1-2 of the 3 would charge in and the others would remain stood there.  This seems pretty counter-intuitive for the WSS especially when using that “ranged combat charge” mechanism.  The army morale system was quite quirky as well (I much preferred the model in the Napoleonic rules).

As you know, I have done lots of comparison re-fights this year, some of which have used the Neil Thomas rules which generally have no command rules either.  My basic take on it is that command rules make things “a little bit” more realistic at the price of “a fair bit” of faff.  I agree that in some ways the DBx system is more simple and elegant, but I know that a lot of players don’t like it because of the premium it puts on good dice rolling!  Anyway, you make lots of good points, all of which I think I am going to cover when I do my final round-up of all these games.

 

 

[Gone Fishing]

I enjoyed reading your report and the discussion above very much, Whirlwind. The “crocodile tests” definitely brought a smile. Not usually a fan of 6mm, but I have to say yours look great – especially the massed hordes of Gaul. Thank you for sharing!

[Whirlwind]

Thanks Gone Fishing.  A lot more of this stuff to come over the next week.

[Author]

Posts