- This topic has 162 replies, 90 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 1 week ago by
.
-
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Henry Hyde wrote:</div>
Really interesting post, Doug, and much to ponder. I like your idea of a rating system.On the one hand, I agree, it is useful, but on the other, since it’s highly subjective (I’d rate DB* a hell of a lot lower than those for playability, amongst others), I’m not sure it wouldn’t just encourage arguments.
LOL!
One man’s meat…
Editor, Battlegames
http://battlegames.co.uk
Battlegames on Patreon
https://www.patreon.com/battlegames
Author, The Wargaming Compendium
http://amzn.to/leWoNO<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Nick the Lemming wrote:</div>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Henry Hyde wrote:</div> Really interesting post, Doug, and much to ponder. I like your idea of a rating system.
On the one hand, I agree, it is useful, but on the other, since it’s highly subjective (I’d rate DB* a hell of a lot lower than those for playability, amongst others), I’m not sure it wouldn’t just encourage arguments.
LOL!
One man’s meat… Quite apt, seeing as how I’m vegetarian. 😀
From what I’ve read in Sword and Spear, because not all units move at the same time, it is very likely that during a battle your battle line of Heavy Infantry will become totally disjointed, either during or after the turn. To me this doesn’t seem right at all. Command and control in ancient battles seems to have been rudimentary.
Yes, your line of heavy infantry may become disjointed. This is because I believe it is difficult to get a large body of men (say 10,000 or move) to move at the same rate and maintain a line. But it is best if you do maintain a solid battle line, so if your line does become disjointed, you should wait for the slower units to catch up.
Also, group moves are available, which makes it easier to maintain a battle line. A group move must be straight forward.
I acknowledge that the rules make manoeuvres difficult, but with the right dice throws, units can pirouette all over the place.
Well, when writing a set of rules, you can either make complicated manoeuvres automatic (which would be unrealistic, and would, as you say, allow units to pirouette all over the place), impossible (which would also be unrealistic and make for a pointless game), or restricted in some way. In Sword & Spear they are restricted, as they require a higher action dice than a straightforward move. Now as you say, with the right dice throws, in theory units can piroutte all over the place. In practice this doesn’t happen , because :
1 – you don’t tend to get dice rolls good enough to manoeuvre many units
2 – when you do get good dice, you often want to do other things with them such as giving units shooting or combat bonuses
3 – the rules reward you for maintaning a solid battle line – if you send units piroutting all over the place you will find some of them isolated and defeated piecemeal
4 – commanders have a command range which restricts the ability to activate units – if you send units off in all directions you will end up with some out of command
If you look at some of the battle reports on the Sword & Spear forum you’ll see that generally battle lines are maintained, and units don’t pirouette all over the place. Here’s an example, from a recent Hannibal vs Alexander, “what-if” battle, after two turns, just before the main battle lines engage :
And another from a similar position in a Romans vs Gauls game. You can see that one unit of Gallic foot has not kept up with the advance. Quite reasonable I think.
Both of these pictures look like what I think an ancient battle should look like.
You can see the full reports (and many other) here:
http://polkovnikproductions.freeforums.org/battle-reports-f9.html
Just another vote for Hail Caesar from the few games played so far.
Played a lot of WRG 6th in my teens (because I was unaware of much else) and concluded it was a dry, soulless set of rules – that 33 factor morale test you can keep!
Moved on to Shock of Impact which were a lot better and then gave up Ancients for a long time.
A friend then persuaded me to start a Viking army inspired by the WAB Shieldwall supplement. I had some good games with WAB but disliked the figure on figure detail so moved onto HC when it came out for the reasons well put by Scott (Lot of Gaul) above.
Played a lot of WRG 6th in my teens (because I was unaware of much else) and concluded it was a dry, soulless set of rules – that 33 factor morale test you can keep!
Moved on to Shock of Impact which were a lot better I gasped at that.
Were there two sets of rules called Shock of Impact?
Because the set I’ve got open in front of me*** has a 42 factor morale test. It also has a ‘disobedience’ test with another 10 factors, and an ‘obedience’ test with a further 9. Then there’s the cavalry 30 yard reaction test against infantry with 22 factors. When you finally get to the fighting, it’s got 19 shooting and 30 bloody melee variations. The battlefield role definitions are a wonder – Shock, Shock(M), Shock(I), Shock(C) anyone? No? OK chuck in Basic and Missile as well then. I’ll pass swiftly by the three pages of possible manoeuvres and special formations because I’m beginning to get. One. Of. My. Headaches…
Oh and don’t forget the two double-sided A4 quick reference sheets – WRG had one double-sided A5.
Essentially, what Messrs Beck and Bussey did was take WRG and bolt a load of unnecessary tat onto it. It was the wargaming equivalent of a Barry boys’ motor (Google it)
We played SoI back in the 80s. Once. I think a couple of units might actually have got into contact, but we were all longing for death by then so I could be mistaken.
***I’m working from home. Ha!
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>armchairgeneral wrote:</div>
Played a lot of WRG 6th in my teens (because I was unaware of much else) and concluded it was a dry, soulless set of rules – that 33 factor morale test you can keep! Moved on to Shock of Impact which were a lot betterI gasped at that. Were there two sets of rules called Shock of Impact? Because the set I’ve got open in front of me*** has a 42 factor morale test. It also has a ‘disobedience’ test with another 10 factors, and an ‘obedience’ test with a further 9. Then there’s the cavalry 30 yard reaction test against infantry with 22 factors. When you finally get to the fighting, it’s got 19 shooting and 30 bloody melee variations. The battlefield role definitions are a wonder – Shock, Shock(M), Shock(I), Shock(C) anyone? No? OK chuck in Basic and Missile as well then. I’ll pass swiftly by the three pages of possible manoeuvres and special formations because I’m beginning to get. One. Of. My. Headaches… Oh and don’t forget the two double-sided A4 quick reference sheets – WRG had one double-sided A5. Essentially, what Messrs Beck and Bussey did was take WRG and bolt a load of unnecessary tat onto it. It was the wargaming equivalent of a Barry boys’ motor (Google it)
We played SoI back in the 80s. Once. I think a couple of units might actually have got into contact, but we were all longing for death by then so I could be mistaken. ***I’m working from home. Ha! I have neither set anymore so I am at a disadvantage . I can’t remember anything now about SoI except it was good fun to play once you got to know them. I do remember the WRG 6th morale test was so off putting it was often said “Oh they’ll be alright”
But anyway there are much better rules around now so I am mystified why people are still using them.
But anyway there are much better rules around now so I am mystified why people are still using them.
I certainly don’t. Impetus are my set of choice, as I think I’ve already said on this thread.
Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.
I have been using Scutarii from Hoplite Research using 6mm and 28mm figures. The most recent games were Raphia and Asculum at The Pacificon Games Exposition.
The following two battles were fought with 6mm figures</p>
http://18clovehamhock.blogspot.com/2014/09/raphia-at-pacificon.html</p>
The following is Asculum from an earlier mini-convention.http://18clovehamhock.blogspot.com/2014/04/return-to-asculum.html
While both were large battles, the games lasted about 3 hours each. The rules encourage the use of historical tactics, allowing Romans to use multiple battle lines and relieve the front lines as they grow fatigued. Although Raphia and Asculum are intended for multiple players, the second battle report shows that a single player can handle the entire battle and complete it in a reasonable amount of time. The mechanisms are not complex and players know them after the first turn. The rules include a points system for equal point games and allow reasonable sized armies on a six foot table.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
