Slitherine

Would it be cooler if "POA"'s were called something more exciting, like "strikes" ?

"The Romans get three strikes in on the Greeks, but the Greeks respond with a single strike due to being uphill so the Romans have an advantage of two unopposed strikes going into the combat"

sounds like a bloody trade unionist to me

We're keeping a list of name ideas so we'll chuck that one in too.

Sounds a bit like baseball with lots strikes....or the UK in the 70s

Cheers

Si

POA's does sound a bit dour though - nice to hear its only a temporary thing

"Strikes" is just silly

Vantage
Superiority
Ups
Plus
Edge
Bonus
Ace
Special
Top
Excellence
Lead
Over
Prevalence
Upper
Cut
Dominance

Putting aside the visible love of strikes as word (seems I was on the mild end of dislikers)....thanks for the long list of possibles and we'll add them to the kitty for thinking later when we do a terminology trawl.

We are leaving such matters until later so we can see by which, if any, current terms have confusions or dislikes. Main focus on the game mechanics an balance at present.

So whose out there playing games at the moment?

Itching for more feedback over the weekend if we can get any chaps.....

Si

Hello,
I, finally, had enough time to read totally the rules.
in short after the first reading
I like, in disorder:
battle group; mounted fire; POA's system; terrain placement; ambush; capacity of general's, apparent historicity; glossary at the end of the rules; break-offs

I'm a bit reserved about :
Complexity of the rules and the learnig curve ( too many reference sheet)
Movement : lot less maneuver possible
Movement table: color code are BAD for vision impaired player's
Cohesion Test, I don't think it graduate enough the result of combat.

Globaly a great job done!

More reflexion with the first game.
Rgds,
Olivier

Hi Olivier,

Thanks for the initial thoughts. Looking forward to the first game report.

Maybe check out one or two other game reports for things that are easy to miss. If you have any rule queries in the run up to the game just post them and I'll try to sort them for you. It will be interesting to see what you think the learning curve is after a few games. We have some sense from the first batch of beta testers buit I'll not say too much for now.

The colours I have to leave to the rest of the team.........I am quite badly colour blind myself.

Cheers

Si

A
Quote:
llies. Perhaps rather than going back to the reliable/unreliable idea you could restrict their deployment and use. If you make them deploy together as one batch within their generals control and only be allowed to move while within the generals control this would prevent the best of the allied troops being used over various parts of the battlefield and force the allied contigent to act as one body.


Have been working out army list and as Richard said in a previous mail the number of elements works out to approx the same as a 400 pts DBM army.

Don M



Just a note on this don. Allied generals can only influence their allied troops and nobody else can do so. So really you have to put the allied deployment all together or you get in trouble. You can split them but with no pluses for generals they become a definite target. Maybe this alerady does what you mention here? Or am I missing something further in the idea?

Si

Unfortunately, then its back to the reliable/unrelaible of old. I think there should be some risk with using them. As I said previously there are too many cases when they stood around doing nothing and after all the generals are cheaper.

First game set for this friday, so hopefully report over the weekend. Steve and I have decided on Alexandrians v Sassanids in 25mm. If forum will take pictures, I'll charge the batteries for my camera.

Regards

Don

ps, have resisted the temptation to add to your words list

Just so I have this right (from another read through)
1. Once troops are in combat, they stand and fight there on the spot until one unit/side breaks
2. Generals still need to be in command range to add the CMT bonus to individual BGs even when the BGs have formed a BL ?
3. There are bonuses that apply only if you are charging in your own charge phase - troops being hit do not get them as if they were countercharging.

Will try a boring old Alex Mac vs Romulan game tomorrow. It seems the traditional way to start !

tim

Hi Tim,

Just so I have this right (from another read through)
1. Once troops are in combat, they stand and fight there on the spot until one unit/side breaks

Yes except that mounted break off from foot troops in certain cirumstances - sort of retire,rally and charge again all in one mechanism. Foot troops once committed are in for the duration so there is not too much messing about possible once you are committed. We have avoided the old push back idea as it takes time and is fiddly and out cohesion test results are what matter. A DISR is a win with enough effect to give a lasting gain.

2. Generals still need to be in command range to add the CMT bonus to individual BGs even when the BGs have formed a BL ?

Correct. In fact the BL size is limited by the command range of the general. So Cesar can have a huge BL and move them as such. A TC can only have a BL with all BGs inside 4 MU. So any BG in a BL with a general must be in his command range by definition. The general can then choose to test them all as a BL and move them accordingly in one go - or test individual BGs and move these according to individual results. Usually the former at the beginning and more of the latter as things get sticky.

3. There are bonuses that apply only if you are charging in your own charge phase - troops being hit do not get them as if they were countercharging.

These are designed to avoid the need to think about countercharging. The factors assume troops countercharge when they would and you should find the net result reasonable therefore. We have thereby avoided adding time and confusion to move counterchargers (or push backs). Hope that makes sense. Note the few updates/corrections in the sticky.

Will try a boring old Alex Mac vs Romulan game tomorrow. It seems the traditional way to start !

Sounds reasonable to me...last time I tried it it was far from boring. Look forward to hearing the view from the front.

Si

madaxeman wrote:3. There are bonuses that apply only if you are charging in your own charge phase - troops being hit do not get them as if they were countercharging.

As Simon says, most of the impact POAs apply whether the BG is charging or not. (i.e. the non-charging troops are assumed to be notionally countercharging if appropriate, but are not actually moved. They are not "charging" but the POAs are worded so that they don't need to be "charging" to get them.).

We have not reintroduced charge bonuses.

Paradoxically the "Pk or Offensive Sp if charging foot", is not to give them a bonus for charging foot, but to make them lose it if charging mounted, and to make Defensive spears lose it if charging at all. Stationary Pk or Sp get the POA anyway.

Thus if Offensive Spears charge Offensive (or Defensive) spears the POAs cancel out - the chargers get + for charging, and the enemy get + for not charging!

The only real exception is that Impact foot get + when charging non-shock mounted but not when charged by mounted.

Also lances count against charging sp/pk but not against stationary ones. (The latter being assumed to be braced for the impact with grounded spears/pikes).