Quick impression

[donm]

Recieved the rules and army lists last night, a big thank you for completely disrupting my night. Had planned some painting and a little work and spent several hours looking for a few points of comparison between DBM and AOW.

Only managed to print off the army lists before my work supplied paper ran out. Will print everything at weekend and have a complete first read through then.

Couple of things I noticed listed below;

No different movement measurement for 25mm, should it be 40mm?

No mention or provision for double based units. (many people in 25mm have large quantities of B/D warband)

All the army lists allow everyone all the levels of commanders. Will this stay or will only certain historical commanders count for the highest status?

Haven't worked out any army lists yet, but it looks as if armies will be less overall element bases than DBM.

That's all for now, must go and do that work from last night!

Regards

Don M

[rbodleyscott]

Hello Don

No different movement measurement for 25mm, should it be 40mm?

No, it is our intention that the measured distances are exactly the same in 15mm and 25mm. We think this makes sense as most people play both scales on the same sized table. (6x4). The move distances in 25mm are thus similar to those in DBM, but those in 15mm are (relatively) rather longer. This is intended to speed up troop movement in 15mm. 25mm really does not need faster movement.

No mention or provision for double based units. (many people in 25mm have large quantities of B/D warband)

A good point. It is not our intention to ban these, they are just not compulsory. We need to put in a note that they can be used optionally.

All the army lists allow everyone all the levels of commanders. Will this stay or will only certain historical commanders count for the highest status?

A few armies with short very-specific time-spans won't get an IC - e.g. the Mithridatic army - but we hold the view that there were many unsung ICs in the period.

Haven't worked out any army lists yet, but it looks as if armies will be less overall element bases than DBM.

That is certainly not the plan. Most lists allow somewhat more troops than the equivalent DBM lists. (If you find any that don't, please point it out). The points system is not finalised yet, but the intention is that people should be able to put their DBM armies to full use.

Thanks very much for the feedback Don.

[marshalney2000]

I have also just finihed my first read through and can hardly wait for my first game. in particular i was delighted to see so many of the bugbears of DBM ironed out e.g. lining up bases , zones of death and pinning distances to name a few.
The following are some areas for development although i would caveat these by saying that with one read through i may have missed something.
Wheeling: While i was clear with wht was meant a newer player could benefit from a diagram or two to illustrate how a wheel or indeed multiple wheel would work.
Moving into a flank: Again the rules are quite clear as to when a battle group is eligible to move into a flank but again a diagram of this being done would be helpfuul particularly as this would stop on first contact and some elements of the battle group might not be behind the flank or indeed rearat the start of the move to impact.
Holding shock troops: I see that this only necessary if the route of the potential impact is over good terrain. Are there not instances of knights charging into contact over less good ground. Being a Scot I would obviously mention Bannockburn with the boggy ground but even at Falkirk, I recall that Wallace had placed his schiltrons on slightly boggy ground and had some form of minor obtacles sucha s ropes etc round the schiltrons. I seem to recall the catalans also lured knights to their destruction.
Orb Formation: I was somewhat surpised that troops firing against an orb did not receive a poa due to the mass of the enemy - Falkirk again springs to mind.
Illustration of Disordered: I see what is being attempted by the slight movement of bases but wonder if this would not make the battle untidy and could also move bases of other groups in the battle line. Would it not be better to produce markers similar to those produced for flames of war which are not only attractive but clearly visible and understandable. They would also act as a reminder of which units have been disordered that move as distinct to previous turns for rallying purposes. They would also be clear to observers and spectators something we do not always take into account. My final point is that they are an additional commercial opportunity.
Greaty effort so far by all those involved and I am really excited about this set of rules.
John

[jre]

Now that I have done some fighting tests and some army lists (one of those things that are much harder than they used to, except for Pechenegs), I can join in.

I am in a bit of a special situation, as I gamed with WRG 6th and 7th, and stopped playing for more than ten years, just missing the whole DBM experience. I have returned this year, and AoW just gives me all I was missing in DBM.

My main quibble without playing is the attrition value of small skirmish BGs (the same as BGs ten times as expensive in points).

It is clear the historical feeling is there. What remains to see is how intimidating the rules are for novices/occasional players and how quick an actual battle takes between two people not very familiar with the rules. It clearly requires reference tables, something not needed in DBM in normal play.

I suppose that is why we are here!

Jos?©

[shall]

Wheeling: While i was clear with wht was meant a newer player could benefit from a diagram or two to illustrate how a wheel or indeed multiple wheel would work.
Moving into a flank: Again the rules are quite clear as to when a battle group is eligible to move into a flank but again a diagram of this being done would be helpfuul particularly as this would stop on first contact and some elements of the battle group might not be behind the flank or indeed rearat the start of the move to impact.

Thanks for the feedback. We are working up diagrams at the moment and expect to end up with 2 or 3 times the number currently included. Areas where a diag would help are good to flag up. It is easy to dforget what its like starting out at times.

We are planning to put a number of detailed "how to" sections into the rear of the document wo how to wheel will probably go there along with the details of other moves.

[shall]

Holding shock troops: I see that this only necessary if the route of the potential impact is over good terrain. Are there not instances of knights charging into contact over less good ground. Being a Scot I would obviously mention Bannockburn with the boggy ground but even at Falkirk, I recall that Wallace had placed his schiltrons on slightly boggy ground and had some form of minor obtacles sucha s ropes etc round the schiltrons. I seem to recall the catalans also lured knights to their destruction.
Orb Formation: I was somewhat surpised that troops firing against an orb did not receive a poa due to the mass of the enemy - Falkirk again springs to mind.

On the former its a fair point and I will add it to our thought list. Maybe over uneven would not be unreasonable. Puts the emphasis on a player not to get his shock troops into such positions.

I am afraid I don't quite understand the Orb point made (but then I am not too fmailiar with it historically either) - could you expand a bit on what you mean. At present Orb is there to give some protection when "surrounded" but it will still be limited. A large block of Scots spears is not going to be an easy target frontally - size benefit comes in due to ability to soak up hits without being forced to take CTs with -s. I get the sense you mean something else though. Perhaps you could expand your thoughts a bit more so we can have a think about them. Thanks

Illustration of Disordered: I see what is being attempted by the slight movement of bases but wonder if this would not make the battle untidy and could also move bases of other groups in the battle line. Would it not be better to produce markers similar to those produced for flames of war which are not only attractive but clearly visible and understandable. They would also act as a reminder of which units have been disordered that move as distinct to previous turns for rallying purposes. They would also be clear to observers and spectators something we do not always take into account. My final point is that they are an additional commercial opportunity.

We are considering markers for DISR and FRAG as well as the on table method. Note there is no need to mark for disorder/serious disorder as the terrain already does that for you (I think you meant disorder generally as DISR?FRAG?) We may in fact allow both yet. Its nice to keep the table clear of markers but also important in competitive games to make things clear. So the jury is still out and we'll counsel the views of the testers once a number of games have been played.

Greaty effort so far by all those involved and I am really excited about this set of rules.

On behalf of the whole team,........ thanks.

[shall]

Now that I have done some fighting tests and some army lists (one of those things that are much harder than they used to, except for Pechenegs), I can join in.

I am in a bit of a special situation, as I gamed with WRG 6th and 7th, and stopped playing for more than ten years, just missing the whole DBM experience. I have returned this year, and AoW just gives me all I was missing in DBM.

My main quibble without playing is the attrition value of small skirmish BGs (the same as BGs ten times as expensive in points).

We can alter the AP to suit. See what you think when you have played a few games. It certainly stops you sqaundering away your light troops. Whether this is too much the case remains to be seen. All inpout welcome.

It is clear the historical feeling is there. What remains to see is how intimidating the rules are for novices/occasional players and how quick an actual battle takes between two people not very familiar with the rules. It clearly requires reference tables, something not needed in DBM in normal play.

I suppose that is why we are here!

We have certainly tried to give it a historical feel. While we are competition gamers many of us have our hearts in re-enactment games and campaigns and this was always in the mind during development. We have phased the testing so we constantly get new players going and also have people who have played several games. From this we hope to be able to judge whether the tables become largely unnecessary once you have played a few games and also how quickly new players can pick up the game.

We are also constantly looking now for ways to ease the reading of the rules to make them easier to absorb. We'll look forward to you feedback and see how it feels after 1,2,3,4 games etc. It a little too early to tell yet so on balance I can only second your final sentence and look forward to you getting a game or two under your belts.

Have fun.

Si

[marshalney2000]

Thankyou for your consideration of the points made.
I will now attempt to clarify my thoughts on the Orb formation which I envisaged as similar to a Scot's schiltron in that it is not only a massed formation but also has troops facing in different directions. In terms of archery fire this presents a tremendous target in that you not only have a mass of bodies but many of these are not facing with their shields protecting them. In terms of cohesion there is nothing worse than being shot at from a direction where you cannot protect yourself and indeed cannot respond to. The casualties might not necessarily be higher but the break up of the formation would be significant.
While not a schiltron situation it is interesting that in most battles where English longbows broke a Scot's spear formation they managed to get archers on the flank causing troops on that side of the formation to push in on their fellows causing disruption and then gradually to fragmentation. (See Sadler's "Border Fury" as a good source) Similar behaviour was evidenced at the Little Big Horn where Custer's cavalry when fired on from the flank bunched , lost formation and dropped in combat effectiveness.
At Falkirk, Wallace's men were in a stationary schiltrons and were destroyed by Welsh archery. Casualties were high but it was the break up of the formation which then allowed the English knights who had previously been worsted to complete the destruction. Paradoxically the men would be keen to stay in the formation as long as possible because of the mutual protection it provided. (Napoleonic square as another example) but this does not mean that the formation would not be breaking down and becoming gradually less effective.
As a Scot, who is likely to use a Scot's common army I am not sure why I am pursuing this argument at all.
By the way, happy to have a go at a Scot's Army list.
In conclusion can I apologise for thecrap typing in my previous note which I can only put down to the enthusiasm I have for the rules.
John

[rbodleyscott]

I will now attempt to clarify my thoughts on the Orb formation.....

A very good analysis of the historical situation.

We have only just put in the ORB rules and they are not finalised yet. For example, we forgot to put in that troop in ORB cannot charge - this I think is an oversight which we need to correct.

We have tried ORB formation with the current rules. Given that the troops in ORB can't really do anything much, it is not difficult to shoot them down with missile troops. (Bearing in mind that the intended effect of shooting in the rules is primarily to cause Cohesion Tests rather than lost bases. It is only necessary to get 2 hits on a 4 base deep 8 base BG in ORB formation to trigger a Cohesion Test. As the ORB cannot do anything to the shooters this will fairly soon result in the ORB breaking if there are enough missile men to get 2 hits per bound).

As a general principle, we are trying to keep the combat modifiers as few as possible. Thus, while your description is entirely valid, in practice there is no need for a modifier because the stationary (or minimally moveable) ORB formation makes an excellent "sitting duck" missile target without the need for any modifier.

[marshalney2000]

Quit happy to go along with your views particularly as I have not yet played a game. When I get some practice under my belt, I can always revisit.
John

[donm]

Going back to generals. I think it important that all types of generals are avaliable to all the armies, particularly in these rules were the generals are such an important part. It is the ability of the player that controls the troops on the table, not some rule made up to cover a particular battle or general. To limit their use would in practice reduce the army choices for competition games.

Can any general be the C-in-C or does he have to be the highest ability avaliable? Could a field commander be C-in-C over an inspired general?


When non allied generals are deployed must they be attached to BLs or are they permitted to move about the battlefield at will, joining and leaving BGs & BLs as they please?

I have not read all the way through the rules, but so far it does not appear that allies can be un-reliable.

During each batch of deployment, do the Bgs have to be deployed together, or can you deploy BGs from different batches to form BLs.

Having read up to 'playing the game' I notice there is no mention of time of day or weather, is it your intention to add these at a later date? I always felt that many DBM games were ruined by one dice throw. Rain and wind being such a disadvantage to an army relying on shooting.

You will be pleased to hear that the rules are still disrupting my work and painting.

Don

[shall]

Going back to generals. I think it important that all types of generals are avaliable to all the armies, particularly in these rules were the generals are such an important part. It is the ability of the player that controls the troops on the table, not some rule made up to cover a particular battle or general. To limit their use would in practice reduce the army choices for competition games.

Can any general be the C-in-C or does he have to be the highest ability avaliable? Could a field commander be C-in-C over an inspired general?

Although c-in-c's are often the best its not always the case so no. When we looked at Granikos we made the Persian c-in-c a TC as he was not much kop and we made Memnon - his advisor and no 2 - an FC. Some would argue Permenio was a better general than Alexander. All the lists I have used so far have full availablity.

When non allied generals are deployed must they be attached to BLs or are they permitted to move about the battlefield at will, joining and leaving BGs & BLs as they please?

They can move around as they please and join new ones to try to rescue crises etc. We find that generals have a lot to do though and if you try to move them around too much they get stuck doing too little - so important to get them in the right place at the beginning too. See what you think

I have not read all the way through the rules, but so far it does not appear that allies can be un-reliable.

Correct. Perhaps it swings a game too much to do this? Perhap it woudl add excitement? Views welcome. There is already a different type of penalty in that the allied general can only influence the allied troops.

During each batch of deployment, do the Bgs have to be deployed together, or can you deploy BGs from different batches to form BLs.

You deploy them in the order of your order of march so they go whereever you like one by one - so your centre BL may evolve over time or if you have kept all your Hoplites in batch 3 they may go donw together.

[donm]

Although c-in-c's are often the best its not always the case so no. When we looked at Granikos we made the Persian c-in-c a TC as he was not much kop and we made Memnon - his advisor and no 2 - an FC. Some would argue Permenio was a better general than Alexander. All the lists I have used so far have full availablity.

I think there are many cases when an exceptional sub-general has saved the day and also the embrassment of his C-in-C.

Correct. Perhaps it swings a game too much to do this? Perhap it woudl add excitement? Views welcome. There is already a different type of penalty in that the allied general can only influence the allied troops

.

I think there should be a risk in using them. There is too many cases of them standing around, watching others do the hard work. I have been using Swiss allies in my Med Germans most of this year and the way things are at the moment their is no risk. I assume the Swiss will be top quality troops and so being led by the worst general will not be a great handicap.

You deploy them in the order of your order of march so they go whereever you like one by one - so your centre BL may evolve over time or if you have kept all your Hoplites in batch 3 they may go donw together

I think this ia a great idea. You can now deploy your best troops in the best position on the field. Because of the DBM commands structure you tended to build commands to cope with more that one type of terrain.

Don

[donm]

Allies. 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

[steveh]

Finally managed to read the rules over the weekend. First impressions are good

I like the idea of "units"
Like the idea of being able to get into combat in most situatons
Like the combat split into impact and melee
The troop classifications seem to allow for more "variety" without being overly complicated.

Some of the terminology will take a while to get used to - but then that is no suprise, having used other systems for many years!

Do you think that the playsheet will be needed on a regular basis?

Looking forword to playing some games

SteveH

[jre]

First full game today. Abbasid Caliphate vs 100 year English. Quite fast deployment, even more so the terrain. 30 minutes on average per turn. Six turns till the caliphate breaks (a mix of heroic Gascon knights, firepower and steady men-at-arms), missing a straggling flank march.

Movement is limited, which makes it fast. Combat, once you already know the POAs involved, gets faster. We still feel we did not use the generals to all their possibilities.

The biggest mistake we made, and we committed it twice, was forgetting the compulsory break-off for mounted against steady foot.

So far we believe bows are too powerful for their cost, but we have yet to develop tactics for cavalry vs bows.

Jos?©

[shall]

Thanks Jose,

Great to have the feedback. How would you rate the game overall on the items on the sheet:

ease of use
historical accuracy
fun

etc.

We'll be looking for views on points systems at various times so keep up the good work and ideas for what feels to expensive and too cheap.

Thanks and look forward to getting more of your views as you get through games 2,3,4 etc.

Cheers

Si

[baueda]

Hi all,

just managed to read through the rules for the first time, no games yet, but I thought I'd share my first impressions too...
In a word, it looks very good. The only thing I see as a possible weakness is the extreme detail and the resulting complexity. This may scare off quite a few people, and it is certainly not newby-friendly...
I actually lloking forward to it very much right now, but this is a beta test. If I was in a shop and have to decide to buy it and look for someone else that can be lured into play, I'd be scared at the idea of having to convince someone to read through and learn all of it... IMHO a good way around this would be to have a simplified basic version (like DBA for DBM) that could introduce people gradually to the game concepts, and allow to set up a demo game before having to understand and memorize all 80 pages... it could be released first and used to test the system and fine-tune the actual full game as well maybe... I don't know... I'm sure that the most senior player and most of the DBM crowd will be fully up for it anyway, but if the intent is to extend the player's base and attract some of the WAB crowd as well as new players who may have no experience of ancients or of tabletop wargames in general, then the learning curve seems fairly steep to me... again this is just first impression, may change completely once I actually play!

Anyway, lots of great stuff in it, personally love the detail and the accuracy , I'm a big fan of the basic assumptions here and really like the way it models ancient warfare, especially skirmishers, repeatedly charging mounted, movements nitpicks... well all of it really!

BTW I think I've found a typo in the text, just a couple of words dropped by mistake I'd guess, Page 45, line 38: Bases recover immediately
(shouldn't be "as soon as"?) they are completely clear of the terrain affecting them.

Cheers,

Claudio

[madaxeman]

In no particular order

More complex than I expected
Generals seem to be there principally to allow troops (units) to do more complex maneuvers - which seems odd.
Combat + move mechanics make me think a few good quality troops will be lots lots better than a lot of poorer ones
Re-order the pages!! I had almost lost the will to live by the time I found out how to move troops, but I knew far too much about terrain placement and - oh no, bits of 6th and 7th are back! - "scouting" well before this
Charge bonuses reappear - oh no again!
"Its Written by gamers" comes across very strongly in this draft. Will need a big, careful re-write to make this saleable to non competition gamers and bring out the history more.
"Units" are actually pretty big chunky things, so thats good. Everyone can move though, so what will be the benefit to keeping battle lines..?
The combat system made wonder how many people will think "Its WarHamster Ancients, but with lots more complexity, and with fiddly movement rules!"

However, I guess I need to play a game

[shall]

A

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