First Game

[marshalney2000]

Hunter Hope and I played our first 600 point practice game last night pitting Classical greeks against Alex Macedonians. Hunter went for the wall of spears approach with 8 units of 8 hoplite elements one unit of which was drilled superior while the rest were undrilled average. The macedonians on the other hand had three pike units, 2 peltast units, one companion, one thracian lh and two skirmish units.
In essence I skirmished three hoplite units out of the main fight although did not hit anything with missiles while my main line with cavalry on the right hit his main line. I was slightly lucky and broke three units reasonably quickly particualrly in one case the Thracian peltasts with heavy weapon got 5 hits on six dice with only one reply from the hoplites.
The game played well and had a real historical feel with no small units of horse dashing about the battlefield or indeed columns of pike marching about (my favourite trick in dbm). Battle lines were formed and it was clear that deployment was important as it would be much more difficult even for drilled to sort this out easily.
On the fun side, it was too early for this as we were too busy looking through the rules to check things out.
The rules were easy to use and with prectice I believe that the playsheets will be all that will be necessary for play. We would however seek clarification on a few points and indeed make a few suggestions. Please accept apologies in advance if we missed things that are already in the rules.
1 It would be helpful if the following could be added to the play sheets - VMR and reasons for a cohesion test.

2 Can a pursuit be intercepted if it enters a ZOI?

3 Have you considered ammunition expenditure?

4 Should we specify a minimum distance to which a moving unit can move to an enemy if not charging it thereby preventing tiny gaps. I would suggest one MU. Would the moving unit have to roll for a cmt if moving less than full move?

5 When a unit loses dice due to fragmentation etc is this rounded up or down? Equally do units always get one dice? (We had a situation where Hunter had one element of a fragmented command group facing 4 of my pike).

6 There does not seem to be any facility for a unit falling back fighting. We were thinking of Cannae where the gauls gave ground thereby contributing to the encirclement of the roman centre. With the rules as they currently stand a unit can only break.

7 Movement in rough terrain needs tightening particularly where the troop type is moving from one terrain type to another. We assumed that troops spending any part of their move in slowing terrain would be restricted to the slowest speed and if they had expended this before reacing the terrain then could not enter.

Hope the above is helpful but happy to clarify any points.
Second game tonight probably Abbassids versus Later Hungarians

John Munro

[shall]

Many thanks for the first game feedback John. Keep the news coming as you get a few more games and once thing get familiar see how you go at 800 pts.

Herewith answers to your questions.

1 It would be helpful if the following could be added to the play sheets - VMR and reasons for a cohesion test

Ok we'll add that to our fix list and see if we can squeeze it in.

2 Can a pursuit be intercepted if it enters a ZOI?

No only a declared charge can be intercepted

3 Have you considered ammunition expenditure?

We did and couldn't think of any easy way to represent this so left it out. If you feel it affcets the game and have a workable idea then please put it forward and we'll take a look. We have a campaign supplement in mind where we thought we might deal with such issues.

4 Should we specify a minimum distance to which a moving unit can move to an enemy if not charging it thereby preventing tiny gaps. I would suggest one MU. Would the moving unit have to roll for a cmt if moving less than full move?

Thanks for the idea and we will add it to the list of topics under discussion. May well be a good idea and certainly makes things look tidier.

5 When a unit loses dice due to fragmentation etc is this rounded up or down? Equally do units always get one dice? (We had a situation where Hunter had one element of a fragmented command group facing 4 of my pike).

Easier to think of it as written - you LOSE 1 dice every 2 or 3. So if 7 dice losing 1 per 3 you lose the 3rd and the 6th. Effectively rounds the reduction down but we've found this way of thinking of it to be easier still.

6 There does not seem to be any facility for a unit falling back fighting. We were thinking of Cannae where the gauls gave ground thereby contributing to the encirclement of the roman centre. With the rules as they currently stand a unit can only break.

If people think this would add to the game we could put something in. Kind of an option to fall back 2 MU in the movemeent phase if in melee. We would need to be careful of cheese as it might get used to pull opponents out of the line rather than in a historical way, or to unfairly ceate overlaps.

7 Movement in rough terrain needs tightening particularly where the troop type is moving from one terrain type to another. We assumed that troops spending any part of their move in slowing terrain would be restricted to the slowest speed and if they had expended this before reacing the terrain then could not enter.

Yes this is what we do but I see what you mean it isn't clear. We will fix it.

Thanks again for all the great feedback and look forward to heating how the Abbasids run tonight.

Si

[marshalney2000]

Simon thanks for your response and clarifications. Comments on the abbasid game to follow.
Re the fall back fighting situation I had not envisaged this as being voluntary for as you say this could encourage cheese. I rather had in mind a situation where the result of the combat would force the push back. As a starter for ten - units would be pushed back 1 mu if they lose two more casualties than they inflicted and at least 1 per three elements. Enemy must follow up and gain a poa in the following combat?.
Queries:
1 What happens if two units engaged
2 Can infantry folow up cavalry or just restrict to infantry v infantry
John

[shall]

Thansk John,

The concept we have is that falling to DISR is representing being pushed back with enough dent to be a problem, but there is no need to move the figures around small amounts to show it. Being pushed back in good shape matters little.

We did in fact try it the way you suggest but a POA is a lot for just a push back, so we felt it lost the balance. We also found ourselves moving a lot of bases around for little purpose really and it seemed to get in the way.

See what you think after a few games and if you think a push back would add to the game let us know and we'll kick it around again.

Looking forward to the Abbasid feedback - one of my favourite armies.

Cheers

Si

[marshalney2000]

Game 2 Abbassid v Later Hungarian
For the second game moved up to 800 points per side with 9 Arab units and 8 later Hungarian. When we ran out of time each side had lost three units and the game was on a knife edge. ( This reminds me of GMT's Command and colours where every game seems to go the wire.
Main losses were a Hungarian lh bow unit being shredded by bow fire from an armoured cavalry unit. ( I won't try that match up again.) A Skeltzer cavalry unit gradually losing to an armoured cavalry unit and two quality knight units running through two large spear and bow units thanks to some fortuitious dice. A medium foot unit with defensive spears was also destroyed by Serbian Hussars.
A much more mobile game than greeks versus Macedonian but yet again initial deployment was vital due to speed of closing.

Main points/questions were:

1 Who can fire behind - assumption was skirmishing light horse.

2 When measuring evades do you turn figures 180 degrees and measure from new front?

3 Previous answer re losing dice due to disruption etc clarified matters somewhat but if unit is in two melees do you calculate reduced dice for complete unit then divide up or per sub melee and if so who decides division?

4 Somewhat surpried that when taking cohesion tests or indeed rallying that the quality of the unit does not come into play. It is accepted that rallying any broken unit should be difficult in this period but when trying to reform or indeed not drop a cohesion level surely a drilled Spartan unit would get it's act together rather more quickly than a poor undrilled spear unit. Should rerolls be allowed on cohesion tests for superior and elite units? It is ccepted that the chances of losing a melee are reduced due to rerolls but nothing on cohesion.

As an aside both Hunter and I were amused by a comment from someone who had read the philosophy section on the website and remarked that they probably wouldn't like the rules as he thought they would be too historically accurate. Eyeballs rolled towards heaven.
John

[shall]

Game 2 Abbassid v Later Hungarian
For the second game moved up to 800 points per side with 9 Arab units and 8 later Hungarian. When we ran out of time each side had lost three units and the game was on a knife edge. ( This reminds me of GMT's Command and colours where every game seems to go the wire.
Main losses were a Hungarian lh bow unit being shredded by bow fire from an armoured cavalry unit. ( I won't try that match up again.) A Skeltzer cavalry unit gradually losing to an armoured cavalry unit and two quality knight units running through two large spear and bow units thanks to some fortuitious dice. A medium foot unit with defensive spears was also destroyed by Serbian Hussars.
A much more mobile game than greeks versus Macedonian but yet again initial deployment was vital due to speed of closing.

Thanks for getting another game in so quickly. Sounds like a good smash and cliffhanger at the close. Certainly we are finding you can't win battles with no losses! But few generals could. There have been a number of big wins in test games as well as lots of losses that have gone 9-7 for an army break (sweaty stuff). How did the game feel historically? How did it rate on the fun factor? Any interesting comparisons with the greek game beyond the mobility?

Main points/questions were:

1 Who can fire behind - assumption was skirmishing light horse.

pg 53 I think. LH and LCh can shoot backwards - but only if they didn't charge or evade.

2 When measuring evades do you turn figures 180 degrees and measure from new front?

Explaining this better is one of next weeks jobs. Basically turn the furthest figure from the charge onto the direction you have chosen to evade - so 180 degrees if to rear - and measure from this as a new front. So yes as you suggest in most casses but with a turning of the base if you are not evading to rear - note you can evade away from the charge or to rear in most cases.

3 Previous answer re losing dice due to disruption etc clarified matters somewhat but if unit is in two melees do you calculate reduced dice for complete unit then divide up or per sub melee and if so who decides division?

You can never exceed the number you would have as a single unit. So work out as a single unit and divide up per sub-melee. We need to specify the division mechanism fully but in essence what we do is divide it in proportion to the size of the sub-melees and if there is a spare dice that isn't clear this way the person owning the troops decides.

4 Somewhat surpried that when taking cohesion tests or indeed rallying that the quality of the unit does not come into play. It is accepted that rallying any broken unit should be difficult in this period but when trying to reform or indeed not drop a cohesion level surely a drilled Spartan unit would get it's act together rather more quickly than a poor undrilled spear unit. Should rerolls be allowed on cohesion tests for superior and elite units? It is ccepted that the chances of losing a melee are reduced due to rerolls but nothing on cohesion.

Assuming I read you right....you surprise would be understandable to us.......see glossary page 70 and cohesion test table. Re-rolls apply to all cohesion tests. Basically its the Death Roll they do not apply to - they may be Spartan but they bleed just like everyone else. Was that it or did I miss something?

As an aside both Hunter and I were amused by a comment from someone who had read the philosophy section on the website and remarked that they probably wouldn't like the rules as he thought they would be too historically accurate. Eyeballs rolled towards heaven.
John

I expect you weren't the only one John. Hope your enjoyment continues and keep the feedback coming. If you haven't applied re-rolls to cohesion tests this will make a bit of difference to the games for you. A good idea also is to try the game with high BG sizes (which you must have at 9 and and low BG sizes (typically about 12 BGs). Maybe you could see what you think of that as well. We are interested to see if people prefer smaller or larger BGs or if it is split with good cases for both.

Si

[jre]

Good idea, a game telling thread. Although most of the details have been covered elsewhere, I will cover our first game here. We even took photos but they are not very good, so we are not keen on posting them. This may show some tactics tricks we have learned...

Francisco has played often in DBM with Abbasids, and the 100 Year English seemed the most similar to my own usual Burgundian Ordonnance, so we played 800 points. The Abbasids had two cavalry BGs, one lance and one bow armed, two Abid BGs (defensive spearmen), Volunteers (Impact foot), one archer BG and a light horse BG. A flank march of another Light horse and Daylami foot never arrived (never send unmounted infantry in a flank march. Lesson learned). The English had four longbow BGs, a 4 base gascon knights BG, two dismounted men at arms BGs (one drilled heavily armoured and another undrilled armoured), some gascon Medium Foot and Light Foot, and Irish light horse javelineers.

The terrain drifted toward the edges, leaving an empty center. As the defender I used a village and an ambush counter to set up a longbow BG well in advance of the main battle line. The rest of the terrain was inconsequential, being far from the fighting, except the coast that blocked a short side.

The Abbasids deployed a strong infantry centre (Both Abids and the volunteers), a strong Right wing (Lancers, archers and light horse) and a delaying left wing (bow cavalry), waiting for the flank march that did not come. The English left the Left (opposed to the Abbasids Right) apparently weak, with only the Light Horse (but with the hidden longbowmen in Ambush), with a very strong centre: Knights, good men at arms and two groups of longbowmen, and a holding right, with another longbow BG, the "cheap" men at arms, the light foot at the front of the men-at-arms and the Gascon Medium Foot hidden in another ambush, mostly to keep them safe.

1st turn. The Abbasid light horse scouts forward to check the village, but does not get close enough to get a spot roll. Both main battle lines march forward with double moves. Once it is clear the flanking march is unlikely to arrive (i.e. we check the modifiers), the situation changes as the English Right outnumbers the Abbasid Left.

2nd turn. The scouts get close enough to check the village, and see the longbowmen. The Abbasid Right slows down to establish a common battle line. The Gascon Knights wheel left to support the light horse. The longbowmen exit the village and disrupt the light horse.

3rd turn. The light horse cannot run away, as the cavalry blocks part of the way, so they try to at least keep their distance. The Abbasids try to align the archers against the knights and the cavalry against the Irish light horse. Meanwhile the Abbasid centre stops while the English try to get in range. The knights fail a CMT and charge the archers. The Lancer cavalry intercepts the charge, forcing the Irish Light Horse to evade. With two generals fighting in the first rank making both BGs elite, the knights win the first round with a base lost.

4th turn. Good English shooting/bad cohesion rolls break the Abbasid Light Horse and fragment one of the Abids and the bow cavalry. Finally the knights break the cavalry but crash on the archers during the pursuit. One BG of longbowmen pass a CMT to charge the fragmented spearmen. The bow cavalry weathers a lot of fire to rally back to disrupted.

5th turn. All the unengaged Abbasids charge the closest English bows, to keep them from shooting. The Bow cavalry is lucky against their longbow BG opponent, breaking the BG, although the men-at-arms also in contact remain steady. The volunteers also break their longbowmen opponents, but once again the men-at-arms pass all the cohesion rolls and fragment the second Abid unit. The knights try once again to charge the Archers who repulsed them last turn. The broken longbowmen are saved (partially in the case of the cavalry that manages to get a base in contact) from pursuit because part of the pursuing BGs are engaged with the steady men-at-arms. The broken cavalry and light horse exit the board.

6th Turn. The Bow cavalry fragments, one of the Abid BGs breaks, the Archers suffer enough losses to autobreak, and the Abbasid force reaches its limits.

We like how the main role of the Light Horse seems to be scout and moral dampening. The -1 to cohesion from a menaced flank is a deadlier killer than the charge itself. Once they got into position, the enemy broke before they could actually charge.

From our combat tests we already knew how vulnerable small Light Horse BGs are to projectiles, so the ambush was a deliberate effort to catch the Light Horse and maul it.

The English superior units weathered a lot of cohesion rolls (as did one of the Abbasid cavalry units and the Volunteers) thanks to the rerolls and judicious use of front rank fighting generals. Certain units (superior knights, for instance) almost demand their very own TG to let them do their duty, which includes many cohesion rolls in melee, and many combat dice to benefit from improved rerolls.

The last two comments, more on "feeling" than actual rules questions:

We did not feel it was right for a unit tangled in close combat to rally, but as the rules do not disallow it... Maybe if it was tied to winning, but in this case the BG lost the combat, lost a base, passed the cohesion roll, and as they had not lost a level this turn, rallied to steady from disrupted...

On a similar vein, shooting on broken enemies only gets you the possibility of casualties, as it does not affect the rally, because they cannot lose a cohesion level. Yet it did not feel right to stop routing while still under fire, specially fire causing hits over HP3B limits.

It felt historical in that we felt compelled to use historical tactics. Morale was the big killer (the English lost seven bases in combat, the Abbasids ten, two of them from missile fire). It was not easy, but it gets easier as in a certain battle the modifiers seldom change. It was great fun for me, of course, but Francisco enjoyed also a good part of it. The rules, as mentioned somewhere else, are not easy even more so as non-native English speakers, and take some things for granted

Well, enough about this battle. Tomorrow a new one that will no longer be a first battle.

Jos?©

[marshalney2000]

Oops something I missed from my Abbassid report was the thought that high grade troops should not need to take a test for low grade troops breaking within 3 mus. For example would a Spartan unit be too worried if a helot unit broke. Not suggesting that all lower troops should be ignored but maybe two levels down. So an elite unit would test for a superior unit breaking but not for average or poor. While superior would roll for average but not for poor.
Just a thought.
John

[shall]

Thanks John,

We could change testing for routs to be within 1 quality category. Other views. One concern is to slow the game down. Another option - jsut come to mind - may be to only allow the double drop if same quality or higher so the idea is there but more mellow. Other views on this?

Thanks Jose for the battle report

One I will need to come back to when I have time to add more than a sentence. Very helpful to have the outline battle - although I appreciate it takes real time to do. Thanks.

On the rules we are working hard at every stage to make them simple and easy to pick up. Its something of an iteration process which we hope will get there after a few attempts. We are looking at putting a lot of detail into a "How to" section at the backs that rules can be picked up without the details and peopel can add the details later. Kind of like learning an intrument then - finding the right notes first, getting the timing second, adding all the nice expression last.

Si

[marshalney2000]

Thankyou for the clarifications on our game 2 questions - somewhat embarrassed that I missed some these which were covered in the rules.
Re the fun factor, we both agreed it was great fun and Hunter even remarked that was far better than DBM.
Even more importantly we felt that both our games represented a real historical representation of both periods despite the fact that one was classical greece with mainly foot while the other generally had fast moving troops albeit with infantry support of a much later period. I think this is deserving of praise to the writers as it is not easy to cover such a large period of history without losing sub period feel.
We will try a wide vary our unit sizes in the next game and feedback thereafter. Next game scheduled for Thursday.
Re my thoughts on not checking for routs of lower quality units, I also believe that this would eliminate a possible strategy of targetting enemy weaker units hoping to cause disruption in more elite bodies. I also wonder whether it should work the other way that if you are within 3mus of a higher level body breaking you should have a minus to your test. (Well if the sacred band are off then I'm off too). Could prevent a player having lots of low level units to increase the army size.
On a slightly different note, I see from Richard's wider distribution note re a trial competition that several more army lists are available. Is it possible to get copies of the Scot's Medieval and Isles and Highland lists as I would like to playtest these. Particulary the Scot's against the English longbow.
John

[shall]

Thank John,

No worries on missing the odd bit - bound to happen. Consensus seems to be that familiarity kicks in pretty fully after about 4 games - hell Terry and I mamaged to forget a whole interbound last week!. Interested to see how you find the curve.

As we say in the Design Philosophy our objective was for the game to be 1) fun 2) have good hsitorical feel. We are hoping we have managed that with a good ebb and flow and lots of difficult decisions to make.

An interesting idea on the cohesion tests. We are wary of complicating things too much but we are looking at that one right now as it will get a hearing in the next week or so. The worry the other way perhaps is that an army with superior troops can lose its weaker ones with no risk to the good ones. In the current method they have to test but with no -s and usually a general for a +, superiors and elites find the rout test easy to pass (usually need a 6 to pass and re-roll many scores below this) and even if they drop a level they often rally back if the generals are used well. Superiors seem good enough already perhaps...

See how it feels as the game progresses. Don't want to suggest too many things to try but if you could always test it out try an army with superior and average interspersed in the deployment. It would shed some interesting light on that one perhaps.

Keep enjoying the games and thanks for playing them so soon after receiving the goods.

Si