Free moves and CMT's vs PIPs

[hammy]

I have been thinking overnight about the different way that AoW limits what can be done over DBM and have come to the following conclusions.

In DBM there can be moments where (because of a low PIP roll) an entire wing sits there and does nothing despite all that is needed being a simple advance by two blocks of troops. Because of this restriction some good players were able to get advantages from impetuous troops because with a little care you could generally get them where you wanted and once there they would fight for free.

In AoW if you want to execute a simple plan then the only way it will come unstuck is as a result of fighting or your opponent managing to maneuver out of the way. If you want to do something clever or you find yourself needing to react to a problem then CMT's start to kick in and you may be left looking stupid.

In my first few games when I was mainly trying to understand the combat and CT system there were few if any significant CMT rolls. As I have tried to get more 'clever' with my tactics the limitations of CMT's kick in. I have now played about six games and have definitely had several occasions where passing a CMT would have made a big difference but I am still not sure that for example drilled close combat foot are worth the extra cost because so far almost all the critical CMT's I have had have been for either mounted or foot missile troops.

AoW definitely restricts what can be done but only when what you are trying to do is out of the ordinary. I have had several DBM games (including one at the IWF last year) where a string of 1's on a particular command meant that a significnat force of troops was totally unable to infliuence the battle. I can't think of many battles where a non allied force in a winning army sat there and didn't even advance.

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

AoW definitely restricts what can be done but only when what you are trying to do is out of the ordinary.

That sums up the designers' intentions nicely.

[nikgaukroger]

AoW definitely restricts what can be done but only when what you are trying to do is out of the ordinary. I have had several DBM games (including one at the IWF last year) where a string of 1's on a particular command meant that a significnat force of troops was totally unable to infliuence the battle. I can't think of many battles where a non allied force in a winning army sat there and didn't even advance.

The inevitable wargamer remembering the 1's Of course in DBM a string of 1s does not prevent an advance so lets not exagerate.

As for your last line the answer is almost every battle won by the English in the 100YW

Actually Ashdown is probably the best example where Alfred attacks and beats the Vikings whilst his brother (the C-in-C) does nothing.

[hammy]

The inevitable wargamer remembering the 1's Of course in DBM a string of 1s does not prevent an advance so lets not exagerate.

The game I specifically remember was at the WIC in Athens, I had a block of archers 8-10 elements deployed at the front of my deployment area and because of conistently poor PIPs I never had the opportunity to simply advance them.

I have had other situations where a line of troops was ready to engage the enemy but because of a 1 couldn't actually do so etc.

As for your last line the answer is almost every battle won by the English in the 100YW

Actually Ashdown is probably the best example where Alfred attacks and beats the Vikings whilst his brother (the C-in-C) does nothing.

I agree there were battles where portions of an army didn't commit but they were far from common which is why I say many not any. You could have much the same in AoW if you choose not to advance early and then are unable to get the troops into play before the game reaches a result.

Personally I don't have that much of an issue with PIPs in DBM but equallt the fact that any BG in AoW can advance if you want it to also seems reasonable.

Actually in AoW you may not be able to advance if you fail to make a CMT. Consider a BG of non missile foot facing a BG of light horse or skirmishing cavalry, if the mouted troops are within the move distance of the foot then the foot either have to charge or are forced to make a CMT to advance short. There are situations where you don't want to risk a charge which could go too far forwards and leave a gap so I suppose that AOW does have the possibility of nothing happening. To be honest when you are within 6MU's of the enemy BG's not doing anything because they don't want to do a green advance and they have failed a CT is rather common.

Hammy

[shall]

James' point is a little different as I read it....

There are few battles in history where troops stood there and did nothing other than where battles have been won on a narrow front without troops needing to get engaged. These examples are therefore rather different. Similarly the 100yrs war examples are ones where the battles were won without the reserve needing to be committed (in essence) IIRC. The only areas where this happened were unrealiable allies - a far and few between concept as far as I can tell and one which perhaps over swings a game unless playing a scenario. Perhaps his brother was one of these. I note Alfred won?

A string of ones doesn't stop an advance but it kills and attack. I think this is what James meant. Sure on a 1 you can move 2 or even 4" with foot but your attack is finished if you get a string of them.

The exact intention of AOW, once you have played a bit, is that the C&C system will not stop you doing the simple - i.e. operating under what might be seen as general orders appropriate to BG commanders. It will stop you doing anything over fancy unless you position your generals very well so they can exert local control to change the simple plan. If we are happy with this as an objective it seems to me it is a matter of calibrating it.

The DBM PIP system has a great feature in that is good fun in its own right. It does however carry a great deal of un-reality about it IMHO. Many examples including the Hammy one were in mind when creating AOW vs 001 along time ago.

At the end of the day, historical C&C is not easy to create without lots of compexity. Both DBM and AOW have abstractions of very different types to create the effect. IF the net effect is good I am less woried about the mechanism.

Nick I think we need to give you a game or two sometime so you see how it feels on table.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

At the end of the day, historical C&C is not easy to create without lots of compexity. Both DBM and AOW have abstractions of very different types to create the effect. IF the net effect is good I am less woried about the mechanism.

Seems my little aside as created more of a stir than I thought it would Hopefully it has created some useful feedback even if I didn't intend it to be a discussion point.

I agree that C&C always needs an abstraction to make a playable game and the designers have to make choices and hope that the abstraction they choose appeals to the players and makes for a good game - nad also one different from the competition, which is an important factor that must not be overlooked.

Nick I think we need to give you a game or two sometime so you see how it feels on table.

I'll be honest here and say that at present as a fairly jaded DBM player I don't yet feel inclined to try AoW out. It hasn't grabbed me with any "must play" factor and "it isn't DBM" isn't yet good enough. Maybe when it is a finished product with lists and competition games I'll change my mind.

[shall]

Nick I think we need to give you a game or two sometime so you see how it feels on table.

I'll be honest here and say that at present as a fairly jaded DBM player I don't yet feel inclined to try AoW out. It hasn't grabbed me with any "must play" factor and "it isn't DBM" isn't yet good enough. Maybe when it is a finished product with lists and competition games I'll change my mind.

Interesting. Sounding a bit wargamed-out there my friend. I felt like that about a year ago

Si

[nikgaukroger]

Here is an amusing thought given some of the criticisms levelled at some wargames rules.

The AoW model of anyone can move allows a beter representation of steppe warfare than, say, DBM. Look at Hims with a battle frontage of something like 26Km

[madaxeman]

I'll be honest here and say that at present as a fairly jaded DBM player I don't yet feel inclined to try AoW out. It hasn't grabbed me with any "must play" factor and "it isn't DBM" isn't yet good enough. Maybe when it is a finished product with lists and competition games I'll change my mind.

Nik

I know you are on a lot of email lists .....but posting for a set of rules you haven't played and don't really want to play - wow, thats dedication !!!!!

[nikgaukroger]

Oh, there are others as well ...