Slitherine

Reading the brief description on the AoW page, it seems to me that these rules may in some ways be a retrograde step, with significant additional complexity over the commonly used current sets. The description of Cohesion and PoA suggests going back to a 6th Edition (WRG) type approach.

Just a comment.

Doug M.

The POA system is something very new and definitely a step forwards, but it will become obvious as more details are released. It is NOT a factor system as in 6th/7th edition.

There is a feeling amongst many wargamers that DBM was over-simplified, thus losing a lot of the flavour of the period. We have attempted to put back the missing flavour, which inevitably means dealing explictly with some features that were abandoned in DBM. For example we allow shooting by light foot (psiloi) and mounted troops.

However, all the features we now deal with more explicitly, including Cohesion (morale) tests, use mechanisms that are much simpler than those used in old WRG rules, and play-testers have already commented that overall AoW is significantly simpler to play than DBM.

We will continue to work on ways to simplify the mechanisms but maintain the flavour!

Hi All

The more I see the more I like. This seams to be adderssing many of the comments I have heard from my player group regarding flavour etc.

Also it will be good to have shooting from missile armed mounted and Psiloi again. It does not quite feel right when combat is done by touching bases for these "distance" fighting types.

Simplicity in play is also a great aim. Will there be a play sheet so books can be banished from the table most of the time?

Keep up the good work

Kelvin

PS third time I have tried to post this. Seams site is V slow today for submissions!

Yes there will be a play sheet.

iainmcneil wrote: There is a feeling amongst many wargamers that DBM was over-simplified, thus losing a lot of the flavour of the period. We have attempted to put back the missing flavour, which inevitably means dealing explictly with some features that were abandoned in DBM. For example we allow shooting by light foot (psiloi) and mounted troops.

...

We will continue to work on ways to simplify the mechanisms but maintain the flavour!

This sounds good. This sounds very good

In reading about DBA/M I rather got the impression that it was a bit simplified for my tastes.

I shall wait and see with interest. In the clubs etc that I play in DBM is basically buried except as the only agreed competition set for large scale battles. Most people who wuld like to play ancients/medievals are now using other sets, notable DBA campaigns, Shattered Lances and for a number DBMM is proving popular.

As one of the SAAW elected reps I would like to keep an eye on AoW.

regards

Doug M.

So, if you are going to use cohesion test I supose that you will be using groups or units like did older sets of rules like Armati or DBM predecessor WRG 7th edition?

And i'm wondering too if the game will go with that philosophy of using tons of dice.

Yes the system is unit based.

Dice wise we currently use 2 dice for cohesion tests, as we found with 1 die the results were too extreme. We are considering going to 3 dice, but will do more testing before we make such a change.

For melee the number of dice rolled depends on how many troops are involved, but how many exactly is still being balanced. Using too few dice ends up with extreme results and using too many ends up with predictable/average results.

We can't say for sure until we've beta tested the rules.

There is a feeling amongst many wargamers that DBM was over-simplified, thus losing a lot of the flavour of the period. We have attempted to put back the missing flavour, which inevitably means dealing explictly with some features that were abandoned in DBM. For example we allow shooting by light foot (psiloi) and mounted troops.

I agree up to a point. DBA was very much simplified that gave a game within its own parameters i.e 12 elements/1 hour(ish) and it was successful.

DBM however wanted to scale up the game to 60-100 elements but also increased the complexity as well... not so popular and each version is less longer lasting than its simple sibling. I will be wary of any set therefore that tries to put back into it's system much of the complexity (admittedly it might be period falvout or chrome that people want again) without streamlining the game elsewhere. Using DBM as the benchmark is fine as far as it goes but DBM turns off as as manyas it attracts. I too miss light infantry or cavalry shooting but I accept the DBM version of psiloi combat works. Put back in what needs to be put in to make the game better but not just to show how decisions were reached- we just need to know what happened really

Graham

"A feeling among many wargamers"

Who? - this certainly isn't my experience, and I am one of the Australian ancients wargamers association representatives. I am a member of the club that organises the Australian Nationals each year, and I have been playing Ancients Wargames for 30 years.

The wargamers I know are happy for the black box to work, without having to consult tables and factors and throw 'Buckets o' dice'. Some of us remember all too clearly how complex games would have to be packed up after 3-4 hours with no clear result and the only good part was at least it led to spirited discussion in the bar afterward.

One of the beauties of simple systems like the DBx family was that there was no debate. No great arguing, no reams of amendments and clarifications, no phone calls from the author. One of the most unpleasant players I ever had to play was a barrister in his 'real' job. Playing him was an ordeal.

Anyway... good luck,

what black box?

Hi

'Black Box' - I suspect he is referring to a mechanism (rules) which, by themselves, appear simple and are not necessarily historically descriptive, but give varied and historically arguable results (or at least able to be constured to be historical!)

I don't feel that AoW is retrograde, 'cause I don't know enough about it, lets just see them first eh what!

regards

Stephen

Black box is used here for a system where you don't see what is happening inside. In many detailed tactical old sets of rules, you had detailed mechanisms for any actions, with lots of modifiers applied. So when a unit did something (react, panic, took casualties...), you knew why and what was involved. In DBM types of games, the system is very simplified and only gives you a end result (that can be statstically historical), and you don't have a detailed view of what caused it (hence the black box).

One down side of the DBx series of games was that the results of combat were either only temporary (pushed back) or absolute (destroyed). Units could fight turn after turn against unit after unit, with no degradation in their status, until the sudden "Oops, bad roll", where the unit was suddenly removed from the table. The "rock, paper, scissors" results charts did little to endear the game to many of us.

The concept of gradually attritting a unit's fighting ability with each "hit" was one of the few bright spots of the old "Classical Hack" rules, although the quirky morale system had units alternately break and regroup, running back and forth, which caused total chaos on the field, and as a result looked and functioned nothing like a shieldwall. "Disorder" in Armati at least represented an intermediate status, but only happened through maneuver rather than combat. Might of Arms had a decent combat system, but the morale checks practically required a law degree to muddle through. None of the rules systems I've seen so far properly capture the flavor or mechanics of an ancient battleline.

I hope that these new rules handle all this in a credible and somewhat streamlined fashion, as the Reading Area Wargamers (Reading, PA, USA) have been looking for years for a better set of ancients rules.

honvedseg wrote:One down side of the DBx series of games was that the results of combat were either only temporary (pushed back) or absolute (destroyed). Units could fight turn after turn against unit after unit, with no degradation in their status, until the sudden "Oops, bad roll", where the unit was suddenly removed from the table. The "rock, paper, scissors" results charts did little to endear the game to many of us.

The concept of gradually attritting a unit's fighting ability with each "hit" was one of the few bright spots of the old "Classical Hack" rules, although the quirky morale system had units alternately break and regroup, running back and forth, which caused total chaos on the field, and as a result looked and functioned nothing like a shieldwall. "Disorder" in Armati at least represented an intermediate status, but only happened through maneuver rather than combat. Might of Arms had a decent combat system, but the morale checks practically required a law degree to muddle through. None of the rules systems I've seen so far properly capture the flavor or mechanics of an ancient battleline.

I hope that these new rules handle all this in a credible and somewhat streamlined fashion, as the Reading Area Wargamers (Reading, PA, USA) have been looking for years for a better set of ancients rules.

I agree, I've played quite as few rulesets since the mid 70's and I'm looking forward to testing the water with this set. I've played DBM extensively over the last five years mainly because of the number of gamers already playing the set and the huge variation in armies that are available.

regards

Stephen

I found that the recoil mechanism in DBM worked quite well, in that lines would gradually degrade in efficiency and effectiveness requiring more command input (PIPs) to keep in contact, the PIP shortage would then lead to the opponent getting an advantage, and finally winning outright. I don't think there are too many examples in period of attrition forming a significant factor (Carrhae I think is slightly different), as troops tended to be a one-shot weapon. If there are any examples of this (other than troops being persuaded to advance under fire other than stand and accept casualties), I would be interested to get some details.

I think that the problem in DBx is not that much with the recoil mechanism which indeed simulates well the disruption of the lines. Nor with the attrition being secundary.
The problem is, in my opinion, in the "all or nothing" result range.
Normally, wathever the matchup of units, you could normally depend on the enemy having to take at least some times to butcher your troops. That's why a normal general could sacrifice some units to buy time. He doesn't know how much, but he can depend on at least some times. With DBx, it is an all or nothing process.
What is simulated with attrition rules is more the time taken to trample you units down than a trickle of losses.