Mexican standoff and ineffectual shooting

[hammy]

In last nights test game we ended up with a very strange standoff.

I had three BG's of 6 Heavy foot, average, protected, -, light spear, sword with third rank light foot archer support and one BG of 4 Heavy foot, average, protected, -, heavy weapon, heavy weapon facing two BG's of 8 Heavy foot, average, armoured, -, defensive spear, spear and one of 6 Medium foot, average , protected, crossbow, defensive spear, - .

Alan's spear were either side of his crossbow, my heavy weapon chaps were on my right. As far as I could tell we were both in a situation where if we charged in we would be a POA down across the line. The melee POA's would probably be about even. As a result neither side did anything, we just stood and wiated for the battle on the flank to be resolved (which with Alan regularly getting 6 hits from 6 at average POA was rather one sided).

The standoff felt a bit odd but when you consider that Alan had 6 bases of crossbow shooting at me and I had 9 bases of light foot shooting back it was even more odd to realise that because of the way the BG's ended up lined up there was no way that any of the shooting could even cause a CT.

It did mean we managed a lot of turns but most of the time in a turn we were only moving one or two BG's at most.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

The next revision has foot light spear counting + vs everything which sorts out that part of the stand-off.

Heavy weapon needs a bit more thought - we need to decide whether it really should not count vs steady Pk/Sp in the impact phase. If it did, there would be no stand-off.

[marshalney2000]

Interesting situation with the stand off. Re the heavy weapon I have already indicated I think hw is overpriced just for the reason indicated i.e. being down in impact v pike etc. Should it be any different than impact foot who suffer no such handicap in impact.
John

[shall]

And some stand -offs are going to be inevitable until someone has to have a go due to suffering elsewhere on the battlefield.

Si

[hammy]

And some stand -offs are going to be inevitable until someone has to have a go due to suffering elsewhere on the battlefield.

Si

I was hoping that three BG's of four Mamluk cavalry and one of eight Armenian archer would be able to beat two BG's of four knights. I even started the first combat with me uphill!

Unfortunatley Alan's ability to get 100% hits was a bit of a problem. Even when I hit one BG of knights in the flank I only manged to scrape a drawn combat because I had a general in the front rank!!!

Had I won like I expected to then Alan's flank would have been flapping in the wind and then I could look at attacking. In some way sthe stand off was good but in order for it to be good I had to win on the flank

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

I was hoping that three BG's of four Mamluk cavalry and one of eight Armenian archer would be able to beat two BG's of four knights. I even started the first combat with me uphill!

In the new (forthcoming) points system, knights (like Stella Artois) are reassuringly expensive.

[marshalney2000]

One of the things I like about AOW is the way something that looks pretty good in your favour can blow up in your face. In my last two games it has gone for me and against me.
Last weekend, my two units of Thracian MI were heading confidently towards an 8 figure bow armed LI unit which then proceeded to shoot one of them to pieces in two rounds of bow fire while the other one went fragmented at the horror of it all.
Last night I did the same shooting trick on a spanish MI and then ran over an elite legionary unit with an average pike unit. My opponents elite troops rolled nothing but 3's while needing 4's to hit and thereby didn't even get rerolls. It then failed it's cohesion test for losing the combat and then it's next one for a flanking unit breaking. It was still fighting fragmented at the end but down to 5 stands out of eight.
Both players however thought it was one of the best games we had played out of the 8 or so up to now. The other interesting thing is that other players at the club who have given up on dbm are drifting over from their Flames of war etc to look at the action and are commenting favourably on the fact that it looks like a battlefield with something happening rather than a scattered patchwork of elements. Without them even seeing the rules, they are wanting to get involved.
Looking forward to the forthcoming changes and the chance to playtest them.
John

[nikgaukroger]

In the new (forthcoming) points system, knights (like Stella Artois) are reassuringly expensive.

Do we get to call them "Wife Beater" as well then?

[shall]

One of the things I like about AOW is the way something that looks pretty good in your favour can blow up in your face. In my last two games it has gone for me and against me.

One thing we have aimed to do is to give some chance of turnovers in all situations. It is very rare for several to go wrong in a game - trying to make it like the day your opponent draws a jack of diamonds for a straight flush on the last card in poker. But its there.

Generally on a lesser effect you will at times lose a BG that you did not expect to lose, and you will have to work to overcome the setback. As its just one BG, with good play elsewhere a win should still be well within your reach.

This has three effects:

1. It makes the whole game more tense and interesting - noe dead certs like you have in some rules
2. It gives a chance for a new player to give an experienced player a real headache
3. It feels real - no general was 100% sure they were going to win. In fact unfortunately for them the enemy didn't waltz around with "I'm superior" labels pinned to their shields.....

We are hoping that people find the risk/reward balances enjoyable and realistic. More comment on whether the current set achieves a good balance most welcome. Something we are constantly keeping an eye on.

Si

[shall]

rbodleyscott wrote:


In the new (forthcoming) points system, knights (like Stella Artois) are reassuringly expensive.

Do we get to call them "Wife Beater" as well then?

The last ones I used performed more like Reny Artois....Or should I say "The list one I oozes porfumed more lick Rennie Artois"

[marshalney2000]

Simon, in respons eto your question re the balance in the current rules, i think there is a good balance and the ability for the trend of the game to turn quite quickly. As stated before I think there is a good balance between historical accuracy and being fun to play.
Just noticed the point re spears now counting as a poa in all circumstances but how does this change the factors for other units which are currently advantaged - for example lance? I would have thought lance armed cavalry should still hav ethe advantage over spear armed equivalents?
John

[rbodleyscott]

Just noticed the point re spears now counting as a poa in all circumstances but how does this change the factors for other units which are currently advantaged - for example lance? I would have thought lance armed cavalry should still hav ethe advantage over spear armed equivalents?
John

To clarify for other readers:

As you are aware, the reference was to "light spears" (i.e. javelins), not "offensive spearmen" or "defensive spearmen", who are unchanged. The only change being that foot with light spears get an impact + vs all comers, instead of only if there are no net POAs or against elephants. Mounted with light spear still only get the + if there are no net POAs. (And yes, that does mean that HF with light spear get a net impact + vs mounted with light spear, but MF will be on evens).

However, light spear does not negate lancers POA, so a true spear phalanx is still better vs lancers. HF with light spear will thus be on equal POAs with lancers - which accords with our reading of history - it was not easy for mounted to ride down steady close order foot, whatever their armament. MF with light spear will still be at a disadvantaged vs lancers because of the extra + for mounted fighting MF in the open.


So the net impact effect is as follows:

HF defensive or offensive spearmen: Net + vs mounted whatever they are armed with.
MF defensive or offensive spearmen: Net 0 POA vs mounted whatever they are armed with.

HF light spear: Net + vs mounted with bow or light spear. Net 0 POA vs mounted lancers.
MF light spear: Net 0 vs mounted with bow or light spear. Net - POA vs mounted lancers.

Note also that this means that foot with light spear are better than (non-charging) impact foot vs mounted. This concords with our view of the development of later Roman infantry tactics.

It also rehabilitates what looked like a fairly useless troop-type under the previous rules. (HF, light spear, sword). It makes some sense of the Fatimid 'Abid equipment - for which the evidence clearly points to HF, light spear, sword.

Enough apologia. Try it and see