First toughts on the first quick read

[paolo_paglianti]

Hi,
here are my first toughts.

1) from what I've read about movements, I think drilled troops are too mobile. If you get one unit, add the IC general, you can move as many times you want until you fail the test under (7-1-1) 5 with two dices. This means that with some good luck you can do weird things, like move cavalry from one side of the table to the other in a couple of bounds. even only in one bound, with some good luck (while in DBM even if you are the luckiest guy in the world, you can't roll a 21!).

2) the POA system is great; however, there are too many similar troop types with slightly different POA in different phases. I think we need to have a wonderfully clear table to make sure the people will not miss some "++".

3) I've seen that in the army lists there is no indication of the cost of the troop types. JDM told me this is because we want to be able to change idea without reprinting all the books. however, to do an army list is too difficult for me (and I can only imagine a newcomer). I think we need to provide the exact cost of each troop type, since with all the classifications (A, B, C,D ) and different equipment could be a nightmare to have the right ammount of cost. we can have a "window" with the cost and a "blank window" for a correction, eventually.

4) the diagram examples, at leat in black and white, are too confusing. we should use "A, B, C, D" for one opponent and "1, 2,3 4," or "Alpha, beta, gamma" for the other.

5) I think that could be a good idea to do lots more examples. IE, we can have a melee example between heavy infantry (C), one between (B) and (C), and one between (B)++ and (C)--, to show how much the AOP can affect combats

cheers

P

[hammy]

Hi,
1) from what I've read about movements, I think drilled troops are too mobile. If you get one unit, add the IC general, you can move as many times you want until you fail the test under (7-1-1) 5 with two dices. This means that with some good luck you can do weird things, like move cavalry from one side of the table to the other in a couple of bounds. even only in one bound, with some good luck (while in DBM even if you are the luckiest guy in the world, you can't roll a 21!).

Well I fully expect my drilled A class troops led by a top notch general to fail this test at the first opportunity.

3) I've seen that in the army lists there is no indication of the cost of the troop types. JDM told me this is because we want to be able to change idea without reprinting all the books. however, to do an army list is too difficult for me (and I can only imagine a newcomer). I think we need to provide the exact cost of each troop type, since with all the classifications (A, B, C,D ) and different equipment could be a nightmare to have the right ammount of cost. we can have a "window" with the cost and a "blank window" for a correction, eventually.
P

I really feel that keeping points from being hardcoded is a good thing. Providing space to put points is fine but the moment you print the points in the lists you lock things in. One of the big issues with DBM is that the rules have been led by the AP values not vice versa. It is very easy to correct a single point value to get back game balance but if the value is printed in six or more army list books you are asking for trouble.

4) the diagram examples, at leat in black and white, are too confusing. we should use "A, B, C, D" for one opponent and "1, 2,3 4," or "Alpha, beta, gamma" for the other.
P

I think this is a good idea but bear in mind JD's comments that the final diagrams will not be in this format. I think there are plans to use photo's with explanatory text.

I am certainly looking forwards to my first game. The question is which armies to use?

Hammy

[paolo_paglianti]

Well I fully expect my drilled A class troops led by a top notch general to fail this test at the first opportunity.

this is sure

I really feel that keeping points from being hardcoded is a good thing. Providing space to put points is fine but the moment you print the points in the lists you lock things in. One of the big issues with DBM is that the rules have been led by the AP values not vice versa. It is very easy to correct a single point value to get back game balance but if the value is printed in six or more army list books you are asking for trouble.

that's fine, but we need to find a system to let the people doing an army on the train to work or in the bathroom (the usual place the people does now ). and forcing them to have both the rules and the army books, as well to force them to "sum up" basic troop values to quipment, armour, class is not a great idea. It's similar to warhammer, where you can select the equipment for the spearment, but at least there is "all in the book".

On the way back from Manchester, I suggest JD to have a single-page sum up of the troop cost in each army book (so if we decide to change the value, you can let the people download a single sheet, print it and stick it in each book). however, on this sheet we need to have the complete cost of the troops ie we need to have "protected Cavalry (C)" 10 points.

I am certainly looking forwards to my first game. The question is which armies to use?

Hammy

mine will be the classic of the classics: roman vs carthago

cheers

P

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks guys. 2 Clarifications from the design team.

1) Troops who have an Impact POA listed in the form "Offensive Spearmen/Light Spear" or "Defensive Spearmen/Light Spear" can use only one of these at a time - their player can choose which.

2) The most moves a unit may make per turn is 2. The 2nd move can only be made if the complex move test is passed. You are never allowed to make a 3rd move.

[dfmbrown]

Hi there,

AOW – initial comments

Design Philosophy page-3

“…fast moving game…” Time will tell, but there is a lot a player decisions and chrome and steps to get from A to B – I suspect it will play like 7th ed. Units will probably fight and die where they first hit the enemy and probably won’t have a serious engagement with subsequent enemy. I can't see if we have a battle-line or 'fireworks' set of rules.

“…discarded some traditional wargaming “received wisdom…” This statement can’t stand alone, the authors need to spell out exactly what they believe was lacking, and why, and what they have substituted in its place.

It’s also a big call given the rules are an amalgam of 5th/6th/7th DBM and Warmasterish mechanisms. Sometimes the mechanisms are to my memory a straight lift – OK there’s very little under the sun in wargaming rules but…

“…blank sheet of paper…” Yes on which was written lumps from the rules as above – weather it provides a good game I can’t yet tell.

“…element removal…” I think this needs major review, I’ll pick this up later.

“….weather troops would have an advantage…” I’m not sure that advantage would work this way by toting up factors/qualities, I think troops get an advantage by doing what they are supposed to be doing better than the other guy. The _effect_ of that advantage can perhaps then be determined by the list of factors.

Page-4
“…IMPACT and MELEE phases...” I guess there are any number of ways you can simulate troops that are fierce but lack long-term resilience, but what does it mean in AOW when we don’t have a time scale? (see later) it looks like an AOW charge to contact-extended melee is a single event – rather than representing a number of engagements, retires, re-grouping and re-engaging.

Page-5 Complex Move tests and generals. Hmmm, the general can influence whatever elements are in range (equally and without priority), so in effect there is _nothing_ for him to do except get in position. Although the later cohesion tests require a general to join the unit to test to remove – I wonder if removing Disrupted is something the NCOs would do (OK, that’s 7th ed too…).


<the diagrams and examples look good but need referencing at points to further explain>




Scales and Equipment Page-9. EEEEEK!!! I usually throw a set of rules without ground/troop/time scales straight into the bin. If the idea here is to create a ‘game’ with a veneer of ancient warfare feel, say so (take out the ‘fresh look at history’ out of the design philosophy) and go the whole hog.

Without a troop or ground scale how can we comment on troop interactions, units, combat interaction, command and control, or test the rules against those battles which are reasonably well documented.

BUT ALL RULES (that represent ranged shooting) DO HAVE A SCALE, even if the authors omit one – I use the method deduced by Karl-Heinz R in a Slingshot a while back.

Because we do know (roughly) the effective range of foot archers from a number of sources (call it 200-250 paces) you can work out ground scale, having done that and knowing that close formation foot formed up roughly at ?? of a Metre frontage per man you can work out troop scale.

So my v v rough calcs has AOW’s troop scale at 1 element = 320men for close formation foot (***must re-check***). The rules do say that an element represents 3-5 ranks of real men.

The draft lists show cav units of 4 elements and 6 (min) of close foot, which I reckon is at least twice the size of many historical units.

I reckon the authors should have a serious look at scales and unit sizes – these will drive so much of the playability. It might be worth just plumbing for fixed unit size (especially if the scale is not going to be nailed down). Maybe 2 for cav and 3 for light foot, 4 for close foot. Or something.

I’d also look at removing troops fighting in 2 ranks, it’s just a hang-over, by all means depict deep for aesthetic reasons but have your machinery as one-deep. A mechanism like this gives you some chance to deploy an army in 2 or 3 lines without having an unmanageable number of separate units/elements.

Playing Area – page-10

Is a 2 1/2 hour game even remotely feasible? I suspect not. (and on page-11 we have the promise of 2 hour games…)

Points Value – page -11
(Looks like you need a fair bit of lead – I knocked up an 800point Alex mak army and got to 100 elements…)

Troops Definitions – page 12 / Points Values page-14
Do you need Mobs? Aren’t they just low-morale no-skill Medium foot?
Expendables are mentioned in the rules but don’t appear as a troop type / points values

(‘Bases’ are used rather than ‘elements’ at one point here)

You probably need a thorough look at generals – can they shoot? Do they add to the element count of a unit joined, etc etc. If they are in effect markers why not just abstract them further.

Supply Train. Page 15 – I’d be tempted to use the ‘protected’ form of words and have it defined as such by virtue of fortifications, wagon laager, ditch or detailed guard not represented by a unit.

Dismounting - page 15
Scrap this dismounting scheme out of the rules and put it in each of the lists – for example Bronze-age Greek chariots, “light chariots” by troop type may carry a man in dendra armour head-to-ankle and presumably dismount as “armoured foot”

Scouting – page-19
Hmmmm, poor old Vikings cop it in 6th/7th style despite perhaps zipping about strategically on their boats. I’d be tempted to just plain scrap this whole section as time-exhausting chrome – it’s hard to tell if ancient armies did anything other than find the enemy at a strategic level. (I bet somebody else suggests the opposite, that camels should count double in Deserts, and LI count but horses don’t in Jungle…)


Ambushes – page 20
The use of dummy markers has the opposite effect than that intended of creating uncertainty – because you know that an area without a marker is free from ambushes. And caution in clearing / moving all the dummies will exhaust game turns. (What movement rules, if any, do dummy markers obey?)

If nothing else make players pay APs for up to 3 Dummies, this will create some uncertainty.

Does each enemy get to dice for uncovering? Is this a once-off test?

Outflanking Marches –page 21
Rear-marching, I can’t think of any historical examples that a standard flank-march would not work for. Players will try to drive them into an exposed rear in any case.

Why should 4 small units drive back 3 powerful monster units?

Sequence of Play – (page 23)
I think you need a full sequence of play chart here in the body of the rules to help players through (and I’d have all the charts, perhaps printed on the covers for people who lose their charts..)

During the Movement Phase is it just the moving player's troops that move or both? Do both sides shoot during the Shooting Phase?

Page-26 What does _crossing_ an enemy ZOI mean for an intercept-charger? – I think I know but the definition will be critical.

<The combat rules I’ll not comment on other than what I described earlier until I do a desk-top review, I reckon the re-roll mechanism will make B-grade hugely desirable for their AP, indeed without seeing anything actually happen on a table-top 5-element B-grade units get to lose one element before taking the -1 cohesion factor for 25% losses and auto-break at 3 elements lost, and are much better at catching evaders…must get me some…>

The Movement Phase – page 33+

Does a unit making two moves have to do both before a different unit is moved/diced for, or can they be done as separate events? Probably worth spelling out if more than a second move is allowed (I assume not????)

I take it the numbers on the Page-33 chart are movement rates in inches (for 15mm). How fast are camels?

Complex moves –page 35

Does the “extra if IC” apply to both ‘with’ and if ‘in range?’

Falling-back / bull dozering Skirmishers – page-37

There are all manner of problems with this concept – there was a catalogue on the DBM list a while back. Pushing troops away from terrain, legitimate flank –support roles – or pushed from the flank to exposed positions (where clobbered by your other troops) or pushed sideways off table.

Interpenetrating – page 37 camels should join the mounted going through LI.

Complicated cohesion tests on top of complicated combat mechanisms don’t look inviting…And they take time, the first thing players do when they just lose one is re-calculate, re-check factors, re-measure anything that might get them a factor.

Autobreak – page 49
Having your one-element remaining units removed is probably an advantage to the side that owns routing ones – because they don’t trigger tests as they run past friends, and if a unit is down to one but winning why remove it? (as mentioned earlier I reckon element removal should be reviewed)

Attrition Points – page-49
I wonder how many cheap small filler units I can afford to keep safe behind the battle-line?

Representation of Cohesion – page 50

Nope – this is pretty much the scheme that 7th ed advocated but players ignored (are still ignoring for our friendly dinosaurs) because you need something much clearer – ie marked up with tokens. In a unit-based system the difference between actually being disordered and just being messy / or troops needing to be out of line to interact with terrain or enemy needs to be cleared. Players won’t fan out broken troops because this may get them closer to friends and cause morale problems.

Triggered impulsive will also need marking, as might actual unit losses if there are similar units of different size in your army.

<The Glossary looks good, but remember to cross-reference and harmonise with the main body of the rules>

I missed it earlier but if I read things right, close formation foot will be quite reasonable at catching evading LI and can even get the odd evading Cavalry – I’d review this and take out the quality re-roll. Evaders need to be able to go in the direction faced – damn I’m remembering 6th edition fudges!!!!

Overall I can’t see any actual advances in rules design in any part of the rules - I urge the rulesgivers to try whatever wild ideas they can come up with.

I’ll play some games to see how it goes, but the simple mechanisms of DBx look a whole lot more enjoyable and I can’t yet see how there’s a better game, or a better simulation in AOW.

Regards

David B

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. Once you've played a game we'll be keen to hear what your opinions are.

[jdm]

CAn you also e mail your initial response forms

Regards
JDM

[peter777]

Here is my initial feedback. In summary I have mixed feelings as outlined below.



Point Value - The system looks good and in more flexible than DBx I assume it will be fine tuned during development.

Dismounting needs more detail like KN dismount as Hvy Foot but what weapons?

Terrain Placement is OK ??“ Try and align terrain sizes to existing DBx sizes.

Scouting. This is bad. A method based only on Cav/LH/Cam is basically flawed. I would suggest a completely new approach. We??™re back to the days of 7th Ed, with the assumption that more mounted troops in the army means better tactical awareness and superior deployment, this is not always so, some armies had lots of mounted but did not effectively scout, some armies were just plain lucky when spotting the enemy, some armies used forced marches it trick the enemy, some armies used local knowledge and contacts.
I think a scouting factor per army would be a better and simpler approach. Its could work something like an aggression factor to determine attacker/defender (terrain/weather), a scouting factor to determine who deploys first (deploy by line of march as per AOW or by commands as per DBM 3.x), attacker moves first.
The scouting factor could be based on the effectiveness of the army in scouting, the proportion of mounted in the army, the proportion of Light Infantry, home types of terrain etc. I think that all armies regardless of the number of mounted should be able to win the scouting contest, the current system to heavily favours mounted armies.
There are many cases when the armies with less mounted out scouted an opponent.

Deployment based on line of March is an good idea, it needs play testing.

Weather ??“ how is determined ?? more detail needed, suggest you just use the DBx systems.

Ambushes ??“ Seems OK

Outflanking ??“ This is bad. I hate the idea of a rear flank march when did this ever happen, it would be extremely rare indeed, so just drop it. The system you have guarantees that flanks marches will arrive which seems to generous there should always be a chance it will never arrive.

Playing the Game ??“ This needs a sequence of play flow chart.

Combat System ??“ Look interesting but may be to long and complex vs DBx styles, play testing is required. I like the idea of separate Shooting, Impact and Melee phases.

Zone of Interception / Counter Charging / Evading ??“ Look complex but play testing and experience will tell in the end.

Movement Phase ??“ CMT ??“ I am not convinced that CMT is a good solution to limiting Command and Control plus movement, it seems like it could greatly slow the rate of play, further playtesting is required.

Skirmishers automatically falling back seems overly generous to non skirmishes.

Shooting ??“ Looks OK


Cohesion ??“ I am not convinced that this is a workable system as it seem overly complex, needs game experience. I think DBMM recoiling disorder and command based break model is a simpler and better system. Representing states of cohesion is best done via counters.


General Comments

Combat system looks good but may be it is overly complex with to many dice rolls.

Movement system based on CMT is interesting

Rate of play I think will be a problem as there is to much dice rolling and to many phases.

What happens to a unit that gets broken up via combat? How do the many parts rejoin the unit?

AOW is more complex than DBM 3.x (I am not sure if this is good or bad)

AOW adds more variety, AP granularity and colour in troop types than DBx (I like this)

AOW involves more dice rolling than DBx (only play testing will tell if this manageable)

The idea of complex moves is an interesting and slightly unpredictable way to handle command control which seems more realistic but will players like the lose of control vs the PIP system only time will tell. I am also concerned it will make player conservitive but only time will tell.


Peter777

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks Dave & Peter. A lot to digest in your feedback! Once again we'll be very interested to hear how your first game plays.

One thing to bear in mind that your first few games will be slower as always with a new set of rules, especially one which is still in development and badly phrased in numerous places! We're finding games are taking around 3 hours to complete right now.

[dfmbrown]

Hi there

Can the rulesgivers knock up a sequence of play to help testers - showing where it's just the phasing player doing things and where it's both players.

I think I can see what's intended, but should i get it wrong any test game will be of little value.

Regards

David B

[peter777]

Sequence of play from JD.

Admittedly it is not clear in the rules but it is on the playsheet. We will work to improve the clarity in the rules.

MOVE SEQUENCE
1) IMPACT PHASE
Declare all charges, Intercept moves and Evade moves
Resolve impact combat & post-combat cohesion tests
2) NORMAL MOVEMENT PHASE
Make normal movement unit by unit
Complex move tests as units move
3) SHOOTING PHASE
Resolve shooting
Post-shooting cohesion tests
4) MELEE PHASE
Melee expansion
Resolve melee combat
Post-combat cohesion tests
5) BREAK_OFF PHASE
Mounted units break off from foot
CM tests for optional break-offs
6) THE INTERMOVE PHASE
Move routers/Pursuers and individual generals
Rally units whose cohesion level did not drop this move

Player 1 plays through phases 1-5, then the interbound phase 6 allows both players to move generals and attempt to rally troops. Then it switches to player 2 who then repeats phases 1-5 and then both players againt move generals and rally in the interbound phase 6. Just to be totally clear both sides fight and shoot in both players turns.

[IainMcNeil]

I'll post this as a new thread as it seems to be one of the big stumbling blocks that is not clear right now.