Third Battle Report

[bddbrown]

Game Three

Stephen and I were joined by Phil Giles for the third game. This time we decided to play 600pts in an attempt to get a conclusion to the game and record the time taken for each phase. We decided to also change armies for variety but keeping the historical match-ups. I played Later Hungarian and Stephen & Phil played Later Ottoman Empire.

From my own point of view I spent a little time thinking about this game after my last disaster. This centred around three main points:
* You have to take cohension tests. So I was unlucky in the last game, but I also fought with predominately 'C' class troops.u Maybe that was the source of the problem and so I resolved to fight with 'B' class wherever possible. On average a 'C' class unit is going to fail a test 15/36 or 57% of the time. A 'B' class get to re-roll 9 of those 15 results making it significantly less likely (my maths fails me at this point but somewhere around 25%) and 'A' class are even better.
* I'd tried a reactive deployment in the first game, a mixed deployment (different types of units in each quartile) in the second game and having played DBM at the Chester round of the doubles with a sweeping army I thought I would try the old DBM sweep in AoW. To this end I figured out a deployment that would allow me to pick a side as late as possible.
* I would keep the same number of generals. Again to allow a better chance of rallying but also to increase movement to help both of the above.

Here is my list:
1 IC General 75
1 FC General 50
1 TC General 30
6 Foot Archers LI 'C' Unprot. Bow 24 1
6 Hungarian Horse Archers LH 'C' Unprot. Bow 42 1
4 Szeklers Cv 'B' Unprot Bow Lance Sword. 48 2
6 Clipeati and Armati HI 'C' Armour. Def. Sp. 42 2
3 Shooters supporting LI 'C' Unprot. Bow 12
4 Szeklers Cv 'B' Prot Bow Lance Sword. 56 3
4 Szeklers Cv 'B' Prot Bow Lance Sword. 56 3
4 Royal Banderium Kn 'A' Lance Sword. 92 4
4 Hungarian Nobles Kn 'B' Lance Sword 72 4

This is Stephen & Phil??™s list:
1 FC General
1 FC General
4 Light Horse Archers
4 Light Horse Archers
4 Light Horse Archers
8 Azabs
8 Azabs
8 Mob
8 Janissaries
8 Janissaries
2 Qapu Khalqi cavalry
4 Timuriots
4 Timuriots
4 Timuriots


Pre-Game

19:50
The Ottomans invaded and chose Steppes to captialise on the open spaces. Stephen declared 26 scouting elements, and I had pre-decided to declare 10 (hoping to persuade them I had a Cv light army) and an IC CinC. Even with the advantage I was still out-scouted on the dice.

20:04
Terrain ended up like this:


Stephen and Phil went for maximum open (the two small bits are the compularies). I decided against rough or broken going - I wanted an open table as well so there was no where for the Janissaries (I presumed they would take them) to hide and my knights and cavalry would have a chance to attack them in the open. Instead I went for hills. It was hard to judge where I should put them and in retrospect a little further forward would have been better.

20:10
We deployed as shown below:


A couple of points immediately sprang to mind:
* Stephen and Phil's army was 50% larger but only had 2 generals. Would maneouver win over size - in DBM there is every chance it would at least provide a 6-4 when sweeping.
* A flexible deployment allowed me to get my knights opposite the Janissaries. In DBM this would be a massacre for the knights. But under AoW I hoped it would be a little better for the knights.
* His cavalry were armoured and mine where unprotected and protected. So I would have to stay in 1 rank or get shot to pieces but with lances I should win at impact. Would Stephen and Phil stand and fight in deeper ranks hoping to survive impact and hope there better armour and deeper ranks would win in melee. Or would they skirmish?
* Qapu Khalqi cavalry in units of 2 elements strike me as silly. You could take 3 units of 2 elements and use them to bulk out the deployment and skirmish, snipe, flank attack with. Feels a little like cheese waiting to happen.


20:30
Bound 1 (Ottomans)
We had agreed to try and get a result of this game and that meant playing a more aggressive and up front game than the others. Stephen and Phil moved their troops forward, hoping that the bow armed infantry would survive until the cavalry got into play. They also pressed forward on the left, hoping to turn the flank.



20:43
Bound 1 (Hungarians)
My game plan was about as simple. Anchor my flank with the heavy infantry, light horse and reserve cavalry while smashing everything is front of me with the knights and szekler lance armed cavalry. I went right with the unit of unprotected cavalry thinking I would need to cover the gap between the knights. However some inclining later on meant I could pretend this was a brilliant fake and move them to cover the rapidly collapsing left flank. However the gap between the knights gives me idea about where to put the Ottoman Qapu Khalqi cavalry in the return match.



20:55
Bound 2 (Ottomans)
The general advance continued.



21:09
Shooting - An exchange of fire at long range resulted in nothing.

21:10
Bound 2 (Hungarians)
I fell back on the left and advanced on the right and set the cavalry for a last dash against the bows. The needed to be in a single rank to survive the bow fire. I could only hope my 'B' class status would allow me to survive long enough to get into impact. I have no idea whether they should win or not - I presume the Azabs should go down and the Janissaries should be a more even fight with their extra dice.


21:24
Shooting - More exchanges of bow fire did not result in anything.

21:25
Bound 3 (Ottomans)
The advance continued as the archers stopped at 6" to maximise shooting as the knights and cavalry came in.


21:31
Shooting - The left hand Janissaries scored 2 hits on the Hungarian Nobles who just survived a cohension test - the difference being the IC general. A sweaty palms moment and the heart rate was up for a moment.

21:36
Bound 3 (Hungarians)
The rush was on, with the cavalry and knights hoping to close with the bow as quickly as possible. On the left I continued to fall back and decided that the reserve cavalry would be needed to bolster that flank. Good thing I faked that right move to lure the enemy cavalry reserve across...


21:48
Shooting - Now that the distances were closed, the right hand Janissaries scored 4 hits on the cavalry and they scored 2 hits on the Janissaries. Although no deaths were caused the cavalry needed to take a CT and rolled 3+1(3) causing them to fall to disrupted. A cold sweat broke out over by brow and memories of the last game surfaced. In return the cavalry shooting at the right hand Akinjis caused a similar result on the enemy. Even so I felt a little cheated. Other shooting was without effect - that armour investment was proving to be a good buy (and serious cause for thought for the next game).

21:58
Bound 4 (Ottomans)
Stephen and Phil decided to stop the advance on the left flank, and pushed up another unit of cavalry trying to sneak past the infantry to support the attack. On the right they stood to receive the charge.


22:08
Shooting - The Ottoman Akjinis on the right failed another test reducing them to wavering but in return aided by the Janissaries they disrupted the other unit of cavalry. Both units of 'B' class cavalry were now disrupted and would need to pass CMT to charge home. This seemed to make it even worse as the cavalry might well stand there and take another two rounds of shooting rather than charging home. Yikes. Personally I would charge home or run away - it would safer. Maybe there should be an option to charge home if you become disrupted by bow fire without a CMT? However the knights were unscathered, their better armour saving the day.

22:13
Bound 4 (Hungarians)
Time for impact! I declared charges from the knights and two disrupted cavalry units. Both cavalry units failed their CMT rolls leaving them stranded. Ah. Oh well. Fortunately the left hand unit would protected from the worst of any shooting by the knights going into contact with the Janissaries. However the unit on the right would be vulnerable to the full force of the azabs for another two rounds. Frustrating!

3 Royal Banderium (general fighting in the front rank) fought against 6 Janissaries (also with general). BANG! Two sixes and my general was dead. Both sides suffered an element loss, but the Janissaries took more casualties. They failed their CT and went to disrupted. I'd moved one of the knights back to a second rank to add flexability to the resulting melee (plus I forgot they don't get a second rank in melee).

On the left the Hungarian Nobles did not fare so well against the Janissaries. Both units lost an element, and although the Janassaries lost the combat they passed their CT.

At the end of the phase the cavalry next to the Royal Banderium took a general death CT and failed again, reducing them to wavering. I was beginning to wonder why I had bothered taking the 'B' class...

22:39
Movement - Not much to be done here. On retrospect maybe I should have moved the cavalry out of harm's way, but I hoped to charge them in next go. I didn't realise the wavering ones were unable to charge. I also moved my IC across in hopes of rallying some of the units. Again in retrospect this seems more hassle than it is worth - it takes too long and you might as well concentrate on killing the enemy by bolstering units by fighting in the front rank.

On the left I moved the infantry to "pin" the cavalry trying to slip down their flank. It felt almost DBM like. Hah, pinned!


22:45
Shooting - Amazing the disrupted cavalry on the far right caused three hits against the Azabs, forcing a CT which resulted in a disruption. Maybe leaving them there was a good thing after all.

22:50
Melee - The Royal Banderium were fine even though they had lost a general. Seeing an opportunity to close off the advancing cavalry column and improve the odds they expanded out on the spare element on the left (good planning there - honest). With a serious advantage in the melee they inflicted enough hits to cause a death and the Janassaries failed another CT causing them to rout. Yipee.

On the other side the Hungarian Nobles caused another death, but the Janassaries passed another CT. This caused the Knights to break-off and ultimately having to run the gauntlet of bow fire again. Not part of the plan.

It was at this point after 3 hours that we realised there was no chance for a result in the evening and we talked through a few ideas, questions and thoughts.


As it stood we figured no result was possible. Sure the Ottoman infantry units would be routed, but that would not be enough to take the army and the advancing knights would be swallowed by the spare cavalry and light horse - or they could just run away. By two cavalry units were looking sick and eventually the Azabs would cause enough shooting to rout them. Still this is all speculation - we really need to get a game to completition to get a thorough evaluation of the rules.

[bddbrown]

* The game itself seemed to be rattling along until bound 4 when the first real fights occured which took nearly an hour. We talked about the various reasons and I suppose a combination of not knowing the factors and the sheer number of dice involved - plus the re-rolls just takes time. Maybe this will go away with familairity.

* The game feels right and seems to work. There are still many definitions that are needed and clarifications regarding detail. Definitely looking forward to the next version to see how this is improved.

* 600pts felt a little too small and it would be nice to get back to 800pts. But given that a result seems difficult enough I cannot see how this can work in an evening. Maybe if we took a whole day or afternoon to play a game to conclusion this would be workable.

* Movement in the early phases takes a little while because all units move and decisions have to be made for each one.

* It would be great to have an opportunity to see a game being played by people who know the rules, have a chance to play them or for them to observe to see how newbies play the game.

* It seems that troops can run away a little too easily. Although it did not happen in this game, talking over the possible future bounds involved a lot of cavalry running away and even medium infantry turning tail from knights.
It seems a little strange that this can happen when it would be a silly thing for a general to do in the real world (historical references for this either way?). We thought D class troops ordered to turn around and walk away with knights to their rear might soon decide walking a little faster would be a good idea. Maybe this should force a cohension test - say if there is any enemy unit facing the unit turning to its rear or flank within 8" it should force a CT.
At the very least mounted need to be able to catch foot running away from them. And at best any army needs the time and bounds to be able to catch units that decide to use this tactic. You cannot kink in AoW but you can run away which amounts to the same thing - contact prevention. Ok, that's a little harsh - it is no where as near as bad. But it is a little frustrating.

* The CMT stuff in general seems a little broken. The ability to add a simple move to a complex one is very open to abuse (expand by 4 elements and then add an expand by 2 elements!). Just needs a little clarification.

* Small units of cavalry (2 elements) seem open to abuse - maybe flank attacking or to stop enemy charges short to negative charging advantages (impact foot versus mounted for example).

* I never got my chance to prove that bow,lance,sword armed cavalry are the best thing since sliced bread. Still I wonder whether they are the troop type of choice. I do wonder why there are not more cavalry armed with bows and lances when history louts like myself think that Sassanids and Ottomans would have been using them.

* Talking of army lists I noticed that Companion Cavalry are not 'A' class. That's going to raise a few eye-brows.

* Still having lots of fun playing the rules. They are fun to play.

[bddbrown]

1. Can you move terrain off table when sliding or pivoting?

2. Do you place terrain before rolling adjustment dice?

3. When inclining do you do it at the beginning, during or at the end of the move? This is important to determine if other troops get in the way or not.

4. Can you make multiple complex moves as march moves?

5. How do you detemrine which units shoot at which units - there seems to be no target priority?

6. What happens when a unit routs and the pursuing unit contacts fresh enemy? We presumed it would either trigger an impact result for the next phase or just stand there.

7. How do you remove casualties? It seems clear but the results are some weird formations that disadvantage. See picture at:
http://www.valinor.plus.com/ArtOfWar/Ga ... emoval.jpg
Effectiively the Janissaries are double overlapped with only two elements fighting. I am sure this is wrong. Is there a mechanism to correct this during subsequent phases?

[nikgaukroger]

* I never got my chance to prove that bow,lance,sword armed cavalry are the best thing since sliced bread. Still I wonder whether they are the troop type of choice. I do wonder why there are not more cavalry armed with bows and lances when history louts like myself think that Sassanids and Ottomans would have been using them.

Quick note - there will be no bow, lance, swordsmen cavalry. The nearest you will get is bow*, lance, swordsmen of the Byzantine Tagmata.

The troops are being graded on their primary function - thus Turks are armed with bows and lances (amongst other weapons) but are described as primarily horse archers who then charge is when the archery has done the softening up, this is compared to, say, Sarmatians who usually used their lance rather than shooting.

By doing this the rules will, hopefully, incentivise historical usage of the various troops.

Well thats current thinking anyway.

Re: Companions - why should they be Elite (A)? Superior (B) should, IMO, give the correct results. You will find Elite (A) troops quite rare.

[shall]

Thanks again for another cracking report. Herewith some thoughts.

* The game itself seemed to be rattling along until bound 4 when the first real fights occured which took nearly an hour. We talked about the various reasons and I suppose a combination of not knowing the factors and the sheer number of dice involved - plus the re-rolls just takes time. Maybe this will go away with familairity.

Its the combats that take the time. In DBM I find about 5 mins for opening moves and 20 mins when one gets stuck in heavily so some of it is natural. What we need to make sure is that it isn't too cumbersome. The extra clarity in vs 2 should assist. We will then need to assess if the balance is OK.

* The game feels right and seems to work. There are still many definitions that are needed and clarifications regarding detail. Definitely looking forward to the next version to see how this is improved.

All the team acknowledges that vs1 was very much an outline draft needing quite a bit of interpration in the spirit of the game. We can only thank you all for persevering with it so well and you will vind vs2 is heading rapidly towards the fully specified product (at lkeast we hope you will find this is the case).

* 600pts felt a little too small and it would be nice to get back to 800pts. But given that a result seems difficult enough I cannot see how this can work in an evening. Maybe if we took a whole day or afternoon to play a game to conclusion this would be workable.

We are sticking with 800pts in our test games. IMO 600pts in general will not have the same army feel and the generals consist of too large an amount in a small army so there's a temtpation to drop to 2 generals (as in your game) for extra troops. We will need to assess this as it goes but hopefully under vs2 you will feel more cormfortable closer to the 800pt mark. As a general rule we have set ourselves the idea of getting about 40-50% of games to an army destruction in 3 1/2 hours of proper competition play (i.e. without recording and without debating what might be a better rule). How does that sound as an objective? AS the testing goes into more final stages we will start to set the final points size of armies to try to meet such an aim.

* Movement in the early phases takes a little while because all units move and decisions have to be made for each one.

Improved in vs 2 as marching and early moves are much simplified and there is much incentive to keep them as solid blocks as possible too.

* It would be great to have an opportunity to see a game being played by people who know the rules, have a chance to play them or for them to observe to see how newbies play the game.

A nice idea and we'll discuss it and see what's possible over the coming weeks.

* It seems that troops can run away a little too easily. Although it did not happen in this game, talking over the possible future bounds involved a lot of cavalry running away and even medium infantry turning tail from knights.
It seems a little strange that this can happen when it would be a silly thing for a general to do in the real world (historical references for this either way?). We thought D class troops ordered to turn around and walk away with knights to their rear might soon decide walking a little faster would be a good idea. Maybe this should force a cohension test - say if there is any enemy unit facing the unit turning to its rear or flank within 8" it should force a CT.
At the very least mounted need to be able to catch foot running away from them. And at best any army needs the time and bounds to be able to catch units that decide to use this tactic. You cannot kink in AoW but you can run away which amounts to the same thing - contact prevention. Ok, that's a little harsh - it is no where as near as bad. But it is a little frustrating.

That's an interesting one and we'll put that into general discussion within the team. Perhaps we shoudl make a 180 turn harder except for LI.

* The CMT stuff in general seems a little broken. The ability to add a simple move to a complex one is very open to abuse (expand by 4 elements and then add an expand by 2 elements!). Just needs a little clarification.

Having revamped it considerably I think we would all find your comment on the generous side. It's much simplified as a table in vs 2 and much clearer now. In the new version there is no a +b =c anymore.

* Small units of cavalry (2 elements) seem open to abuse - maybe flank attacking or to stop enemy charges short to negative charging advantages (impact foot versus mounted for example).

There are very few 2 element units allowed IIRC but one for the list team in detail. Small elements are very brittle.

* I never got my chance to prove that bow,lance,sword armed cavalry are the best thing since sliced bread. Still I wonder whether they are the troop type of choice. I do wonder why there are not more cavalry armed with bows and lances when history louts like myself think that Sassanids and Ottomans would have been using them.

See nicks response.

* Talking of army lists I noticed that Companion Cavalry are not 'A' class. That's going to raise a few eye-brows.

We are still finalising the mix of troops classes so any comments like this welcome.

* Still having lots of fun playing the rules. They are fun to play.

Good news indeed as after all that is what its all about.

[hammy]

One thing that Bruce raised that also concerns me slightly is the concept of lance armed cavalry in one rank so they are less vulnerable to archery.

It was my understanding that the single rank cavalry thing was for cavalry who are fighting more like LH. While this seems fine for bow armed cavalry surely it is a touch odd for lance armed.

I was wondering if there should be different rules for single ranked lancers as opposed to horse archers. Things that apring to mind include a CMT for single ranked non lancers to charge steady foot and making single ranked lancers suffer shooting as though they are double ranked.

As I see it now lancer cavalry are probably better against archers than many knights. The fact they can charge from outside effective range and if in one rank are on a nett 0 POA makes them pretty good.

Hammy

[bddbrown]

* I never got my chance to prove that bow,lance,sword armed cavalry are the best thing since sliced bread. Still I wonder whether they are the troop type of choice. I do wonder why there are not more cavalry armed with bows and lances when history louts like myself think that Sassanids and Ottomans would have been using them.

Quick note - there will be no bow, lance, swordsmen cavalry. The nearest you will get is bow*, lance, swordsmen of the Byzantine Tagmata.

The troops are being graded on their primary function - thus Turks are armed with bows and lances (amongst other weapons) but are described as primarily horse archers who then charge is when the archery has done the softening up, this is compared to, say, Sarmatians who usually used their lance rather than shooting.

By doing this the rules will, hopefully, incentivise historical usage of the various troops.

Well thats current thinking anyway.

Re: Companions - why should they be Elite (A)? Superior (B) should, IMO, give the correct results. You will find Elite (A) troops quite rare.

Thanks Nik. Raises an interesting point though - did Sarmations skirmish? If not then they should not be allowed to benefit from the single rank - act like drilled troops, no PoA for being unprotected against Bw and being able to evade from charges.

As for Companions - it may be a romantic thing rather than say a realistic thing, but it is going to cause a real stir - especially among those like Steve Charlton who love the army. Were they really not the best and most loyal troops around of hte period?

[bddbrown]

Thanks again for another cracking report. Herewith some thoughts.

* The game itself seemed to be rattling along until bound 4 when the first real fights occured which took nearly an hour. We talked about the various reasons and I suppose a combination of not knowing the factors and the sheer number of dice involved - plus the re-rolls just takes time. Maybe this will go away with familairity.

Its the combats that take the time. In DBM I find about 5 mins for opening moves and 20 mins when one gets stuck in heavily so some of it is natural. What we need to make sure is that it isn't too cumbersome. The extra clarity in vs 2 should assist. We will then need to assess if the balance is OK.

It should be interesting to see how the original beta testers improve with time. I think the next game will be 600pts but I will not record anything. So the battle report will be scare - just questions and observations. Although the recording does not take much time (it is mostly just taking pictures) it might disrupt the flow of thinking making turns take longer. We shall see. Getting to the end of game turn 5 is the next goal.

* 600pts felt a little too small and it would be nice to get back to 800pts. But given that a result seems difficult enough I cannot see how this can work in an evening. Maybe if we took a whole day or afternoon to play a game to conclusion this would be workable.

We are sticking with 800pts in our test games. IMO 600pts in general will not have the same army feel and the generals consist of too large an amount in a small army so there's a temtpation to drop to 2 generals (as in your game) for extra troops. We will need to assess this as it goes but hopefully under vs2 you will feel more cormfortable closer to the 800pt mark. As a general rule we have set ourselves the idea of getting about 40-50% of games to an army destruction in 3 1/2 hours of proper competition play (i.e. without recording and without debating what might be a better rule). How does that sound as an objective? AS the testing goes into more final stages we will start to set the final points size of armies to try to meet such an aim.

It is a great objective. Whether it is achievable for average players using the mechanisms in the rules is another matter. I think we'll have to sit on it for a while and see how it goes. But I may add we could be looking at the way things will pan out at the first competition using AoW!

Talking of competitions, are there any plans to hold a beta-test competition (i.e. closed and before release)? Nothing like a competition to really iron out flaws and game balance issues.

* It would be great to have an opportunity to see a game being played by people who know the rules, have a chance to play them or for them to observe to see how newbies play the game.

A nice idea and we'll discuss it and see what's possible over the coming weeks.

I am sure we could film something as well. Would make a great download for the envitable AoW web-site.

* The CMT stuff in general seems a little broken. The ability to add a simple move to a complex one is very open to abuse (expand by 4 elements and then add an expand by 2 elements!). Just needs a little clarification.

Having revamped it considerably I think we would all find your comment on the generous side. It's much simplified as a table in vs 2 and much clearer now. In the new version there is no a +b =c anymore.

Excellent.

* Small units of cavalry (2 elements) seem open to abuse - maybe flank attacking or to stop enemy charges short to negative charging advantages (impact foot versus mounted for example).

There are very few 2 element units allowed IIRC but one for the list team in detail. Small elements are very brittle.

True. For me it is the combination of 'A' class and small units. They are brittle but will not auto-break (although I seem to remember something about single element units...). Maybe if the new version adds more CMT negative factors for HP3E then this would discourage this even more. A few hits could be devasting!

* I never got my chance to prove that bow,lance,sword armed cavalry are the best thing since sliced bread. Still I wonder whether they are the troop type of choice. I do wonder why there are not more cavalry armed with bows and lances when history louts like myself think that Sassanids and Ottomans would have been using them.

See nicks response.

Ah well. As a cavalry commander at heart I am sad to see this go. But I understand the need for game balance. Still if you are going down this rule I think you are going to need to make it clear in the rules or army lists. Otherwise there are going to be a lot of opinionated and confused wargamers out there (not a good combo).

[bddbrown]

One thing that Bruce raised that also concerns me slightly is the concept of lance armed cavalry in one rank so they are less vulnerable to archery.

It was my understanding that the single rank cavalry thing was for cavalry who are fighting more like LH. While this seems fine for bow armed cavalry surely it is a touch odd for lance armed.

I was wondering if there should be different rules for single ranked lancers as opposed to horse archers. Things that apring to mind include a CMT for single ranked non lancers to charge steady foot and making single ranked lancers suffer shooting as though they are double ranked.

As I see it now lancer cavalry are probably better against archers than many knights. The fact they can charge from outside effective range and if in one rank are on a nett 0 POA makes them pretty good.

Hammy

Not sure the cavalry get away with it most of the time. Sure they can stop at 5" but then the bow move to 4". Or the bow move to 6" and then either the cavalry or bows move. The bows are (almost) always going to get a single shot at maximum firepower. This is quite devasting in ost cases. Even worse if they do cause a disruption then the cavalry need to take a CMT to charge - and that is quite easy to fail.

Now lance armed LH are a different mattter. But I suspect that is a massacre waiting to happen...

[wakeful11]

Primary thing to say is that it was enormous fun to play, and the game has the right feel for a casual wargame. It seems to feel like a game, and feel like a real battle is taking place. For me this is something that was very much becoming lost in DBM, so as a wargamer of ages past it has re-enthused me for the hobby. Can't be a bad thing....

One of the major time issues within the game was the quantity of dice rolling, which was substantially increased by the number of re-rolls due to the inordinate number of high class troops Bruce had. More importantly I am not convinced that for most players games necessarily get that much quicker as time goes by.....I think perhaps that in the first few games for me I am slowed down by the lack of knowledge of the rules, in later games by cheese anticipation and avoidance. That said there seems to be little opportunity for cheese.....though there are some severe ones in the simple/complex move dynamic. I await the revised version of that table eagerly.

One specific thing...it seems to be way too easy to run away. I think that perhaps a cohesion test should be required if making a turn more than 45 degrees away from enemy when within a set distance (say 12") of them. Just a thought.

I am not convinced with the army break times that there are going to be many victories within 3.5 hours when it come to tourney play, but reserve judgement for my second game.

Phil Giles

[shall]

One specific thing...it seems to be way too easy to run away. I think that perhaps a cohesion test should be required if making a turn more than 45 degrees away from enemy when within a set distance (say 12") of them. Just a thought.

Great to hear you enjoyed it so much. WE have aimed to make it feel like a real battle and to be dominated by tactics adn strategy and not cheese and micro moves. We need to work on the time taken to finish but will see how it goes on vs 2 which is simpler. We'll be keeping a close eye on this.

On the specific of turning and getting away - we are giving that some thought right at present.

Si

[rbodleyscott]

One specific thing...it seems to be way too easy to run away. I think that perhaps a cohesion test should be required if making a turn more than 45 degrees away from enemy when within a set distance (say 12") of them. Just a thought.

You have a very valid point and we are thinking seriously about it. Whether our thinking will be finalised in time for the first Beta2 release in the next couple of days I am not sure, but we plan to make Beta rules updates more frequently from now on, so whatever we decide on should make it into a Beta release fairly soon.

[rbodleyscott]

I was wondering if there should be different rules for single ranked lancers as opposed to horse archers.

In Betav2 lancers (other than LH) are "shock troops" (see updated design philosophy) and cannot evade even if only 1 rank deep.

However, we don't deny them the benefit of reduced missile vulnerability when in shallow formation. (I can assure you they have very little chance of beating 2 deep cavalry archers if they are 1 rank deep).

The benefits of 1 rank deep formations are based on troops whizzing around in small groups with gaps in between. ("drungi" or "globi"). These were used by Gothic lancers as well as by horse archer types.

[nikgaukroger]

As for Companions - it may be a romantic thing rather than say a realistic thing, but it is going to cause a real stir - especially among those like Steve Charlton who love the army. Were they really not the best and most loyal troops around of hte period?

The Companions were certainly loyal, however, interestingly the Thessalians are stated to have been the best cavalry in Greece at the time (is Makedon part of Greece, discuss ... )

As currently shown I think the Companions will beat their contemporary opposition without needing to be Elite (A).

However, all the Makedonophiles out there will be glad to know I am thinking about whether the royal Agema might just justify Elite - which will be news to Richard