Thoughts & suggestions

[clivevaughan]

I've now played a game NK Egyptians Vs Sea Peoples. The Egytian superheroes won because, as is clearly shown in our art, the Pharaoh is 30 foot tall!
Seriously, I won because I won the impact combat - impact foot vs impact foot and my opponent lost his cohesion test so it was downhill from then. But winning this combat was solely down to my rolling better dice!!!

This impact fight is crutial. At present, both sides fight as if they've charged/countercharged. This seems reasonable if both have. But if one side does not countercharge (eg if it's already partly in mellee) than the charging side should have the advantage - 2 dice/element + impact weaponry while the stationary BG only has one dice/front rank elements. This is how I believe that the Republican Roman checkerboard formation worked with the front units countercharging incoming hairies and halting them, with the second line then charging into stationary opponents and doing what Romans like best. (Incidentally, a battle line is defined as being in at least partial edge contact - but isn't a Republican Roman checkerboard in fact three battle lines?)

I'm unsure about Generals. There are two broad types:
1) battle managers (Roman generals and most other Regular ones). These wander around the rear firefighting and insiring (read Caesar's Gallic War). They do join the front rank when needed to raise morale. This is the behaviour modelled in AoW. Some of these would never join the front rank to fight (eg Darius, Chinese emperors etc). This needs to be specified in army lists.
2) elite leaders - generals at the head of picked troops (Alexander, most warbandy kings, most medievals eg the Black Prince, Richard III at Bosworth, Egyptian pharaohs etc) who fully intend take part in the battle by leading the decisive charge. It seems odd to have Thutmoses's element with a unit of 6 Lt chariots, but when getting stuck in, to only be fighting with 6 elements 9with one placed behind Thutmoses' (visually not very appealing!!).

When formed up in a battle line with a general, faster troops (eg medium infantry) should be able to move at pace of the slowest (eg heavy infantry) without having to pass a CMT.

No push back for BGs losing melees. This will make it hard to recreate Cannae.

It seems quite hard for bows to hurt skirmishers. I don't think I'd like to face an arrow storm armed with a loincloth and a pointy stick!!

As with many other rule sets, there is a need to test if nearby units break. Yet many leading troops were expected to break. Consider Hannibal's deplyment at Zama in three lines with his best troops in the third line. If they were testing everytime that someone in the front broke than they'd have been back in Carthage long before they got into a fight. I don't believe that French knights at Crecy would have 'tested' for the Genoese crossbowmen breaking. When a unit thinks it is beaten is complex but largely down to fears of imminant extinction. An important element is whether they feel the battle is going according to plan - if it is than they're happy despite flight and slaughter around them.

Feigned flight - a well-used historic tactic that should be available to Lt cav and cav. A target unit would need to pass a CMT. Undrilled troops should have a -2 factor for a feigned flight. The unit feigning flight does a normal evade move with a VMD. The target unit does a charge move with a VMD. If the charge fails an undrilled unit drops a cohesion level.

Wot no navies???

[/b]

[rbodleyscott]

Consider Hannibal's deplyment at Zama in three lines with his best troops in the third line. If they were testing everytime that someone in the front broke than they'd have been back in Carthage long before they got into a fight.

As long as the lines were more than 3 MUs apart (less than a bow shot) they would not need to test at all.

I don't believe that French knights at Crecy would have 'tested' for the Genoese crossbowmen breaking.

If they did, and they had a general with/near them, then, allowing for re-rolls, they have something like a 22% chance of dropping to disrupted - which is hardly the end of the world. Provided that nothing else bad happens they then have approximately a 70% chance of recovering after each subsequent turn. In a French army I would expect each Knight BG to have its own general.

[shall]

Thanks for the feedback Clive:

I've now played a game NK Egyptians Vs Sea Peoples. The Egytian superheroes won because, as is clearly shown in our art, the Pharaoh is 30 foot tall!

Did you claim the extra +2 for every 10ft tall over the norm 6 terms and condition at the back??

Seriously, I won because I won the impact combat - impact foot vs impact foot and my opponent lost his cohesion test so it was downhill from then. But winning this combat was solely down to my rolling better dice!!!

Certianly if troops are equal then it is a matter more of dice than anything else if they hit head on - butnthen so are all rules. IIRC this was a small points game so you may have found less room to create other situations. Impact Foot versus each other can be pretty nasty. However you need to win and the opponents fail their Cohesion Test. Its about 45/10/45 on the win lose part and usually troops have about a 50% chance of passing thei CT test. Also note that DISR tropps are not done for - once they get FRAG its hard for them to makea comback but may a DISR Bg turns around a combat.

This impact fight is crutial. At present, both sides fight as if they've charged/countercharged. This seems reasonable if both have. But if one side does not countercharge (eg if it's already partly in mellee) than the charging side should have the advantage - 2 dice/element + impact weaponry while the stationary BG only has one dice/front rank elements. This is how I believe that the Republican Roman checkerboard formation worked with the front units countercharging incoming hairies and halting them, with the second line then charging into stationary opponents and doing what Romans like best. (Incidentally, a battle line is defined as being in at least partial edge contact - but isn't a Republican Roman checkerboard in fact three battle lines?)

See how it goes with more games. Cetainly the Impact Phase is important but you actually tend to fight 3x as many melee phases as impact in a game. So ...the impact phase is very important ifd you dent someone well during it...if not melee skills take over...this is part of the desing to allow different styles fo troops to reflefct their true nature. Imapct more improtant for mounted as they break off from foot.

On the countercharging it is all subsumed in the factors. You can never get 2 dice imapct vs 1 dice Melee. Both sides are on Imapct POAs the firtst time they contact each other - even if another part of one of the BGs is engaged in an exaisting melee. This reflects the size of a BG being several units in reality. If you had 200m of free frontage and someone charged you you would do what you normally do - even if your had anothe 100 yds in a melee next to you.

A replication of the chequerboard can be done explitictly if you want by having 4 base units next to each other. As Imapct foot they have chances in the charge. Throw half of them in and see if they win causing damage. Throw the others in next time and hopefully you might be fighting some Fragemented enemy and make them run away. Or you may impact DISR troops with a very high chance of a big win. Forcing more test on the enemy.

I'm unsure about Generals. There are two broad types:
1) battle managers (Roman generals and most other Regular ones). These wander around the rear firefighting and insiring (read Caesar's Gallic War). They do join the front rank when needed to raise morale. This is the behaviour modelled in AoW. Some of these would never join the front rank to fight (eg Darius, Chinese emperors etc). This needs to be specified in army lists.
2) elite leaders - generals at the head of picked troops (Alexander, most warbandy kings, most medievals eg the Black Prince, Richard III at Bosworth, Egyptian pharaohs etc) who fully intend take part in the battle by leading the decisive charge. It seems odd to have Thutmoses's element with a unit of 6 Lt chariots, but when getting stuck in, to only be fighting with 6 elements 9with one placed behind Thutmoses' (visually not very appealing!!).

We are reviewing generals but in essence you can use your generals to lead charges or to run the army. We haven't categorised generals as one or the other but rather allowed you to choose which to do with them, but set them up so there is a bias of what each is suited to. In general warrior leaders are TCs and you find the best use of their points is to lead a charge. FCs more useful to influence larger parets of the army. ICs can do either but heaven forbid he dies in combat. Commit only if its a game winner is my advice !

On the visual appeal of putting the general in front it is merely an indicator and not terribly attractive I agree. Other options as long as they are clear would be great. Maybe you could suggest something?

As far as Tutmoses goes he presumably upgraded the chariots to elites so re-roll 1s and 2s and gets to add his +2 to any cohesion tests. A pretty big influence on the fight. The issue I guess is that Light Chariots are not the strongest of combat troops. What was he up against? as long as they were not Heavy Chariots it should have been pretty good.

When formed up in a battle line with a general, faster troops (eg medium infantry) should be able to move at pace of the slowest (eg heavy infantry) without having to pass a CMT.

They can unless within 6MU of enemy. Am I miossing something. Once close they have to test.

No push back for BGs losing melees. This will make it hard to recreate Cannae.

We decided fiddling around with abses all the times with push backs actually had few benefits and took a lot of time. Cannae recreation would come about with the Gauls breaking and the African spearmen hitting the pursuers in the flank. It cannot be done by gradual pushing and shoving you are correct. It is easy to have push backs but the time taken doing it didn't seem worth the return in 95% of games. Nobody seems to feel too strrongly about it so far.

It seems quite hard for bows to hurt skirmishers. I don't think I'd like to face an arrow storm armed with a loincloth and a pointy stick!!

Bows are on a = vs skirmishers so hit on 4s. If 8 LF with bw face 8 MF with bow at close range the LF get 4 dice and if the Bw are unprotected are on a + needing a 3 to hit = 2 hits on average, if the Bw are prot = 1.5 hits . The MF bows have 6 dice needing 4s = 3 hits on average. Usualy pretty ugly for the skirmishers.

As with many other rule sets, there is a need to test if nearby units break. Yet many leading troops were expected to break. Consider Hannibal's deplyment at Zama in three lines with his best troops in the third line. If they were testing everytime that someone in the front broke than they'd have been back in Carthage long before they got into a fight. I don't believe that French knights at Crecy would have 'tested' for the Genoese crossbowmen breaking. When a unit thinks it is beaten is complex but largely down to fears of imminant extinction. An important element is whether they feel the battle is going according to plan - if it is than they're happy despite flight and slaughter around them.

I think RBS has covered this one better than I can .

Feigned flight - a well-used historic tactic that should be available to Lt cav and cav. A target unit would need to pass a CMT. Undrilled troops should have a -2 factor for a feigned flight. The unit feigning flight does a normal evade move with a VMD. The target unit does a charge move with a VMD. If the charge fails an undrilled unit drops a cohesion level.

Interesting. Can't this already be simulated by forcing a charge on enemy shock troops and evading? We could create a specific for it but if it can be done anyway with the mechanisms it might be better to avoid any extra compexity. We have set it up this way by allowing Cav to evade. I have used this tactic with pechenegs for instance. Then enemy have to charge you and get out of line.

Wot no navies???

Not yet no. Campaign supplement will include these more fully than just a few boats on a river etc. But we have deliberately tried to stay focused on the core items.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

Cannae recreation would come about with the Gauls breaking and the African spearmen hitting the pursuers in the flank.

Methinks you'll be a bit vulnerable holding that one up as there is no indication that the Gauls and Spanish broke - they were still fighting at the front when the Africans charged the flanks and the cavalry in the rear.

As Cannae is such a famous battle I'd have the arguments lined up in advance for this - it'll be jumped on.

[shall]

That is exactly what I am at least trying to say. There is no Cannae push back in these rules. The nearest equivalent is that the gauls rout and the Africans hit the flanks. It gives the same sort of end result but not by the same path if you see what I mean.

Clearly if you want a literal version you need to move all the figures back an MU or so at a time, but its a pain little benefit other than representing one or two battles. Personally I see little value in doing so as it takes up a lot of time for very little gain - but not no gain at all. WE had it in vs1 and took it out.

If you refight Cannae you find the envelopment works in AOW but it happens later after the Gauls break that's all. I am not claiming it reflects the mechanism of Cannae - just the end result.

If people want the mechanism it is a doddle to include; but I suspect most players who have now spent 6-10 games playing AOW would find it an unnecessary bind to do the push backs.

A trade-off of game mechanincs and time vs detail. Happy to hear views on it.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

Cannae recreation would come about with the Gauls breaking and the African spearmen hitting the pursuers in the flank.

Methinks you'll be a bit vulnerable holding that one up as there is no indication that the Gauls and Spanish broke - they were still fighting at the front when the Africans charged the flanks and the cavalry in the rear.

As Cannae is such a famous battle I'd have the arguments lined up in advance for this - it'll be jumped on.

True. Not that Cannae worked in WRG or DBM either.

[nikgaukroger]

Indeed and it is commented on.

[shall]

True. Not that Cannae worked in WRG or DBM either.

Indeed and it is commented on.

Well there's a leveller....maybe it works in DBMM? Si

[rbodleyscott]

The problem with Cannae is that it is, as far as I am aware, the only historical battle in which such a tactic is said to have been used.

Designing a rules system around one atypical battle causes problems. (Hmm, now where have I heard that before?)

[neilhammond]

The problem with Cannae is that it is, as far as I am aware, the only historical battle in which such a tactic is said to have been used.

Designing a rules system around one atypical battle causes problems. (Hmm, now where have I heard that before?)

Interesting. I'm in two minds about pushbacks. I take Simon's point that they are often just not worth the effort. But sometimes it did matter (e.g. the Athenians pushing back Philip's phalanx at Choroneia - which then created a gap in the allied lines).

I think it's worth attempting to model some sort of pushback mechanism, but only where it might be material. Since DISR and FRG are used to replace the old pushback / followup / combat disorder mechanisms then perhaps allow some form of combat retreat to FRG troops (with some form of risk of rout? Only if they took no hits this turn, and a retirement is an alternative to a rally to attempt to recover from FRG?). OTOH it might introduce other anomolies, such as Impact foot getting the chance to disengage from melee, where they may be at a disadvantage, and charge in again at a better factor.

[rbodleyscott]

The problem with Cannae is that it is, as far as I am aware, the only historical battle in which such a tactic is said to have been used.

Designing a rules system around one atypical battle causes problems. (Hmm, now where have I heard that before?)

Interesting. I'm in two minds about pushbacks. I take Simon's point that they are often just not worth the effort. But sometimes it did matter (e.g. the Athenians pushing back Philip's phalanx at Choroneia - which then created a gap in the allied lines).

I think it's worth attempting to model some sort of pushback mechanism, but only where it might be material. Since DISR and FRG are used to replace the old pushback / followup / combat disorder mechanisms then perhaps allow some form of combat retreat to FRG troops (with some form of risk of rout? Only if they took no hits this turn, and a retirement is an alternative to a rally to attempt to recover from FRG?). OTOH it might introduce other anomolies, such as Impact foot getting the chance to disengage from melee, where they may be at a disadvantage, and charge in again at a better factor.

We started off with push backs. It did result in assorted anomalies. In the end we decided it wasn't worth the hassle and took it out.