Slitherine

Lance and I had our first game on Thursday - 800 points Romans vs. Carthaginians. Most of the following are joint views but some of them are just from me.

Overall impressions were good. Terrain and deployment were clear and straight forward. We played for around 3.5 hours and each had 7 bounds at the end of which the Carthaginians had lost BGs of Numidians, Spanish Cav, Balearic Slingers and a BG of Spanish Inf and Hannibal were in severe difficulty. By contrast the Romans had lost a TC General and BGs of Italian Allied Foot and Roman Cavalry were in severe difficulty.

Cohesion Tests appear to be the killer and the learning point for me was how to ensure your opponent takes as many as possible.

The game flowed pretty well given that it was our first outing and we needed to consult the rules frequently. But the troops looked like a proper battle formation and it was good to have units again. We didn't have many situations which weren't clarified by the rules but inevitably we have a number of issues and views for your consideration.

Order of Battle. Deployment seemed a bit too easy. No maps - just place the units where you like in relation to your opponent's deployment. We both kept our best units until last - why wouldn't you? To avoid this exploitation we would suggest some restriction. E.G. - the first 25% can be placed anywhere - typically your skirmish screen, but the subsequent 25%'s must be placed within x MUs of each other unless in ambush or outflanking. So subsequent troops would have to be placed in proximity to each other to provide a flank, centre, reserve etc. I seem to recall Scipio deploying his best troops on the flanks rather than in the centre to surprise his opponent? I'm not sure that would be possible with the current system?

Deploying up to the side edge is clearly deliberate. Could this encourage the base line sitters?

Cost of Generals. The Romans fielded 1 FC and 2 x TC at a cost of 110 points. The Carthaginians brought an IC and an FC - both compulsory if you go for Hannibal in Italy or Africa, and a TC at a cost of 180 points. We struggled to see how 1 IC was worth 3 X TC in points terms? For our next game I've made an executive decision that Hannibal replaces the compulsory FC. I suggested this to Nik when I saw him at Warfare as a possible list change. But for my money an IC needs to add more value in game terms or cost a lot less. Here are some suggestions: An IC adds +1 to a BG in combat, within his influencing distance, for cohesion tests - even if he's not fighting in its front rank? An IC enables any BG within his influencing distance to make a second move? An IC with a BG can enable it to make a third move?

Coming from DBR the MU at 25mm or an inch seemed very slow to me. With a game system which demonstrates and rewards the qualities of Roman legionaries I can foresee many games where they wouldn't get into combat - particularly as they have to deploy so far back. Are you set on 25mm as the MU or would you consider 40mm or even 50mm? 50mm is so much easier to work with and would make for a much faster moving game? And the heavy infantry would be extremely difficult to avoid.

The Cohesion ladder worked well. 4 bases of single ranked Spanish Cav charged into the end 2 bases of a 6 base BG of Roman Legionaries. My plan was to break off but the Impact Phase went better than expected and after a disastrous Cohesion Test the Romans were pushed back Fragmented. Unfortunately in the Melee Phase they were still 2 POAs up - no POA for mounted for fighting Fragmented foot? - and I struggled to do any further damage. Enter stage left a Roman TC who in short order (a couple of bounds) restored their Cohesion and my poor Spanish were routed! Alas, Protected Superior Cavalry Swordsmen were clearly no match for the Fragmented, Armoured, Superior, now Elite because of the TC, Skilled Swordsmen of the Legion!!

My Superior Balearic slingers were in a Field (RG) and defending a hedge but still had to take a CMT to stand when charged by Roman Cavalry. This seemed a bit harsh? But I clearly made the wrong choice as I stood no chance against them. Skirmishers dice are still halved even when in terrain and the opponents are Disrupted. Again - a learning point for me but I struggled to see the value of the slingers. They won't appear in the next game.

Troops that Charge whose opponents evade can not move in the movement phase. That is clear. But the troops who evaded can move in their next movement phase with no restrictions. That could cause problems with small units of LH getting around flanks?

P21 - BGs must comprise an even number of bases. Does this need to apply to Elephants, Chariots and Artillery? It might also be helpful to repeat this requirement under the BG heading on P5. I knew I'd read it somewhere but struggled to find it.

P32 - We had an going melee where both engaged BGs had an equal frontage. A new BG charged frontally but not as a flank charge. We assumed it moved into corner to corner with the enemy BG and alongside its friends. Was this correct? In the Impact phase the new BG diced against the enemy base it was in corner to corner with - was this correct? P41 seems to confirm this? It then fought as an overlap in the Melee Phase.

P39 - VMR. If a charger or pursuer rolls a 5 or a 6 is the additional +1 MU or +2MU compulsory?

P49 - Can a BG Shift to conform to an enemy base, and then expand?

P60 - Melee Phase. "A battle group can act as the 2nd rank behind another (1 rank deep) battle group if of the same type ( e.g. both battle groups are Cavalry, or both are Heavy Foot)...." So Gallic foot could provide a back rank to African spearmen? Or more sensibly, Campanian hoplites as a back rank to African spearmen?

Pursuers. A BG pursued a routing enemy BG with 2 bases remaining and stayed in contact. 1 base was removed in the Inter-Bound phase so the other was removed as per P 67. Is the Pursuing BG now free to Charge or Move in its own Bound? What happens to Pursuers who don't remain in contact with routers?

The rematch is on Friday - and the African spearmen will definitely get into the fight - although with just a hint of trepidation! Those Romans are damn good!

Looking forward to it though!

Pete

Lance and I had our first game on Thursday - 800 points Romans vs. Carthaginians. Most of the following are joint views but some of them are just from me.

Overall impressions were good. Terrain and deployment were clear and straight forward. We played for around 3.5 hours and each had 7 bounds at the end of which the Carthaginians had lost BGs of Numidians, Spanish Cav, Balearic Slingers and a BG of Spanish Inf and Hannibal were in severe difficulty. By contrast the Romans had lost a TC General and BGs of Italian Allied Foot and Roman Cavalry were in severe difficulty.

Thanks for the initial impressions. It will be good to see how your views progress after 2,3,4,5 games. And to see how many bounds you get in later games.

Cohesion Tests appear to be the killer and the learning point for me was how to ensure your opponent takes as many as possible.

Designed to be the focal point of the game - breaking oppsosing units will to continue.

The game flowed pretty well given that it was our first outing and we needed to consult the rules frequently. But the troops looked like a proper battle formation and it was good to have units again. We didn't have many situations which weren't clarified by the rules but inevitably we have a number of issues and views for your consideration.

Notes and here goes.....

Order of Battle. Deployment seemed a bit too easy. No maps - just place the units where you like in relation to your opponent's deployment. We both kept our best units until last - why wouldn't you? To avoid this exploitation we would suggest some restriction. E.G. - the first 25% can be placed anywhere - typically your skirmish screen, but the subsequent 25%'s must be placed within x MUs of each other unless in ambush or outflanking. So subsequent troops would have to be placed in proximity to each other to provide a flank, centre, reserve etc. I seem to recall Scipio deploying his best troops on the flanks rather than in the centre to surprise his opponent? I'm not sure that would be possible with the current system?

We have dropped back to a very simple system from one with restrictions with a view to adding things if people felt it was necessary. So thanks for the idea and I will put an authors poll up on this one in a week or so time.

Deploying up to the side edge is clearly deliberate. Could this encourage the base line sitters?

With the faster movement it seems pretty hard to baseline sit. I've tried playing for a draw and it was incredibly hard to do so in AOW. See what you think as games evolve.

Cost of Generals. The Romans fielded 1 FC and 2 x TC at a cost of 110 points. The Carthaginians brought an IC and an FC - both compulsory if you go for Hannibal in Italy or Africa, and a TC at a cost of 180 points. We struggled to see how 1 IC was worth 3 X TC in points terms? For our next game I've made an executive decision that Hannibal replaces the compulsory FC. I suggested this to Nik when I saw him at Warfare as a possible list change. But for my money an IC needs to add more value in game terms or cost a lot less. Here are some suggestions: An IC adds +1 to a BG in combat, within his influencing distance, for cohesion tests - even if he's not fighting in its front rank? An IC enables any BG within his influencing distance to make a second move? An IC with a BG can enable it to make a third move?

How much less would you say? While we could give new things to an IC they seem pretty powerful already so maybe the best route would be through the points system. If we make the IC better still will everybody want one? So if a TC is 30 what would be right in your view for an FC and an IC?

Coming from DBR the MU at 25mm or an inch seemed very slow to me. With a game system which demonstrates and rewards the qualities of Roman legionaries I can foresee many games where they wouldn't get into combat - particularly as they have to deploy so far back. Are you set on 25mm as the MU or would you consider 40mm or even 50mm? 50mm is so much easier to work with and would make for a much faster moving game? And the heavy infantry would be extremely difficult to avoid.

An interesting one to balance always, and best to see what you think it needs it after a few more games. Thoughts noted for now. A couple of thoughts we went through our heads....

The problem with 40mm is the range of effect we want in speeds - 280mm LH moves just are too big for a 6x4 table. The most important ratios are the 3-4-5 for HF/MF/LF as it makes HF much more mobile and able to get stuck in.

In terms of not getting in, the speed of heavy foot is 50% higher than DBM even if someone deploys on their base line to avoid a fight then you get 6" per move with a HF BL as long as you have a general. So your hoplites go 10", 16", 22", 28", 34", 40" in 5 bounds. They are now 8" from the enemy base edge/camp. So 7 moves to troops on opposing table edge if no-one opposes them. You have managed 7 bounds in your first game; so the questions is how many bounds would you get in thsi type of game. I'll store my view/experience for now and just leave you to form a view of that over the next few games. If we all feel it is too few bounds to force a result of some sort we may need to do something then - maybe moving deployment forward a bit.

Also bear in mind that the victory conditions we are putting in place will not do people who corner sit or base line hug any favours. Thoughts on that area most welcome.

The Cohesion ladder worked well. 4 bases of single ranked Spanish Cav charged into the end 2 bases of a 6 base BG of Roman Legionaries. My plan was to break off but the Impact Phase went better than expected and after a disastrous Cohesion Test the Romans were pushed back Fragmented. Unfortunately in the Melee Phase they were still 2 POAs up - no POA for mounted for fighting Fragmented foot? - and I struggled to do any further damage. Enter stage left a Roman TC who in short order (a couple of bounds) restored their Cohesion and my poor Spanish were routed! Alas, Protected Superior Cavalry Swordsmen were clearly no match for the Fragmented, Armoured, Superior, now Elite because of the TC, Skilled Swordsmen of the Legion!!

Feels as it should be.

My Superior Balearic slingers were in a Field (RG) and defending a hedge but still had to take a CMT to stand when charged by Roman Cavalry. This seemed a bit harsh? But I clearly made the wrong choice as I stood no chance against them. Skirmishers dice are still halved even when in terrain and the opponents are Disrupted. Again - a learning point for me but I struggled to see the value of the slingers. They won't appear in the next game.

Looks like a bug to me as its a bit harsh as you say, will add to our fix list.

On the combat there may be something of a wargaming myth about rubbish troops in terrain. In reality there is little chance a bunch of slingers could have a big advantage over Roman Cavalry in such a fight whether in the open or a forest for that matter - they would just have some chance inthe forest. The DBM 2 vs 1 is a huge edge and we have reserved such for when the Cavalry end up WAV due to terrain. We have tried to be more realistic therefore.

Putting aside the CMT and assuming 3 frontage for simplcity I just wanted to check what you did....

Romans - 6 Dice at impact ...down to 4 dice for DISR from terrain...no +s as the slingers have a + for defending the hedge ( so there is no net POA).

Slingers - 3 dice as skirmishers at impact....no reduction for terrain...at a + for defending a hedge.

So at IMPACT the skirmishers have 3 dice needind 4s for 1.5 expected, the cavalry 4 dice needing 5s for 1.2 expected. As the skirmishers cost very few points this is a bargain chance to damage acavalry unit for free IMO. In melee its better for the Cv as they get Sw and Arm for 2+ vs the hedge for 1+, so the situation reverses. If the Cav canot at least DISR the slingers they break off. Overall the cavalry are likely to win but at 4x the points I prefer having the slingers personally. So the primary benefit of slingers is that.....they're cheap!! Off to pack my 24 slingers into my Ancient British army to play Terry on Thursday Mind you I'll probably get hammered. Hope that helps.

Troops that Charge whose opponents evade can not move in the movement phase. That is clear. But the troops who evaded can move in their next movement phase with no restrictions. That could cause problems with small units of LH getting around flanks?

One to keep an eye on for sure. Not that easy to get a flank charge in under AOW - but when you do....we had our first charge in front/flank/rear least week!!

P21 - BGs must comprise an even number of bases. Does this need to apply to Elephants, Chariots and Artillery? It might also be helpful to repeat this requirement under the BG heading on P5. I knew I'd read it somewhere but struggled to find it.

"tis true we were focusing on main BGs at the time. Maybe we could allow 3 El, Art, WWg, Ch. Will add to the discussion list.

P32 - We had an going melee where both engaged BGs had an equal frontage. A new BG charged frontally but not as a flank charge. We assumed it moved into corner to corner with the enemy BG and alongside its friends. Was this correct? In the Impact phase the new BG diced against the enemy base it was in corner to corner with - was this correct? P41 seems to confirm this? It then fought as an overlap in the Melee Phase.

I agree this is what it says and what you should do. We have tended to charge if there is an open base to front and move up to an overlap in this position? This perhaps feels more realistic. Any views on preferences. The latter also avoids lot so of 2 dice support combats. I'll add it to the authors discussion list.

P39 - VMR. If a charger or pursuer rolls a 5 or a 6 is the additional +1 MU or +2MU compulsory?

Yes it's reflecting a short period of out of control fate rather than an ability to up a gear if necessary.

P49 - Can a BG Shift to conform to an enemy base, and then expand?

See update sticky. Troops are allowed to shift only if they do not change formation or double wheel (but wasn't covered in the vs2 draft)

P60 - Melee Phase. "A battle group can act as the 2nd rank behind another (1 rank deep) battle group if of the same type ( e.g. both battle groups are Cavalry, or both are Heavy Foot)...." So Gallic foot could provide a back rank to African spearmen? Or more sensibly, Campanian hoplites as a back rank to African spearmen?

It would work for troops who aren't dependant in being in 2 or more ranks to get their POA for their BG. So Sp need to be in 2 ranks to get their + and the Africans and Campanians would therefore struggle given their style of fighting and while they could support and provide dice they would sacrifice POAs in doing so. However swordsmen who fight more loosely could dive in behind each other. Hope that makes sense - its how it fits with the rest of the rules. Mind you we haven't tested that bit to death yet so maybe there is a big bug in there to be unearthed. I am going to add it to our discussion list anyway.

Pursuers. A BG pursued a routing enemy BG with 2 bases remaining and stayed in contact. 1 base was removed in the Inter-Bound phase so the other was removed as per P 67. Is the Pursuing BG now free to Charge or Move in its own Bound? What happens to Pursuers who don't remain in contact with routers?

Once pusuers are free - be it by passing a CMT to stop, killing everyone in front of it, or getting left behind it is a free agent. The Interbound rout is partly there to try to get the routers out of the way to allow the game to continue apace.

The rematch is on Friday - and the African spearmen will definitely get into the fight - although with just a hint of trepidation! Those Romans are damn good!

Good but not unbeatable...and expensive too. Go get 'em!

Pete

Thanks for coming back on the queries so quickly. Just wanted to respond on a few points:

Cost of Generals. The Romans fielded 1 FC and 2 x TC at a cost of 110 points. The Carthaginians brought an IC and an FC - both compulsory if you go for Hannibal in Italy or Africa, and a TC at a cost of 180 points. We struggled to see how 1 IC was worth 3 X TC in points terms? For our next game I've made an executive decision that Hannibal replaces the compulsory FC. I suggested this to Nik when I saw him at Warfare as a possible list change. But for my money an IC needs to add more value in game terms or cost a lot less. Here are some suggestions: An IC adds +1 to a BG in combat, within his influencing distance, for cohesion tests - even if he's not fighting in its front rank? An IC enables any BG within his influencing distance to make a second move? An IC with a BG can enable it to make a third move?

How much less would you say? While we could give new things to an IC they seem pretty powerful already so maybe the best route would be through the points system. If we make the IC better still will everybody want one? So if a TC is 30 what would be right in your view for an FC and an IC?

Probably to early to say but if a TC is 30, FC at 45 and IC at 60? Once in combat an IC or FC appear little better than a TC?

Coming from DBR the MU at 25mm or an inch seemed very slow to me. With a game system which demonstrates and rewards the qualities of Roman legionaries I can foresee many games where they wouldn't get into combat - particularly as they have to deploy so far back. Are you set on 25mm as the MU or would you consider 40mm or even 50mm? 50mm is so much easier to work with and would make for a much faster moving game? And the heavy infantry would be extremely difficult to avoid.

An interesting one to balance always, and best to see what you think it needs it after a few more games. Thoughts noted for now. A couple of thoughts we went through our heads....

The problem with 40mm is the range of effect we want in speeds - 280mm LH moves just are too big for a 6x4 table. The most important ratios are the 3-4-5 for HF/MF/LF as it makes HF much more mobile and able to get stuck in.

In terms of not getting in, the speed of heavy foot is 50% higher than DBM even if someone deploys on their base line to avoid a fight then you get 6" per move with a HF BL as long as you have a general. So your hoplites go 10", 16", 22", 28", 34", 40" in 5 bounds. They are now 8" from the enemy base edge/camp. So 7 moves to troops on opposing table edge if no-one opposes them. You have managed 7 bounds in your first game; so the questions is how many bounds would you get in thsi type of game. I'll store my view/experience for now and just leave you to form a view of that over the next few games. If we all feel it is too few bounds to force a result of some sort we may need to do something then - maybe moving deployment forward a bit.

Also bear in mind that the victory conditions we are putting in place will not do people who corner sit or base line hug any favours. Thoughts on that area most welcome.

We'll see how it goes. The danger with us playtesters I guess is that we do want to get stuck in. Your example above assumes no pesky skirmishers slowing you down to 1 move per turn.

Putting aside the CMT and assuming 3 frontage for simplcity I just wanted to check what you did....

Romans - 6 Dice at impact ...down to 4 dice for DISR from terrain...no +s as the slingers have a + for defending the hedge ( so there is no net POA).

Slingers - 3 dice as skirmishers at impact....no reduction for terrain...at a + for defending a hedge.

So at IMPACT the skirmishers have 3 dice needind 4s for 1.5 expected, the cavalry 4 dice needing 5s for 1.2 expected. As the skirmishers cost very few points this is a bargain chance to damage acavalry unit for free IMO. In melee its better for the Cv as they get Sw and Arm for 2+ vs the hedge for 1+, so the situation reverses. If the Cav canot at least DISR the slingers they break off. Overall the cavalry are likely to win but at 4x the points I prefer having the slingers personally. So the primary benefit of slingers is that.....they're cheap!! Off to pack my 24 slingers into my Ancient British army to play Terry on Thursday Mind you I'll probably get hammered. Hope that helps.

Maybe I'll give them another try - and in 2 ranks this time!! Another key learning point! I'll concede the wargaming myth - a guy with a sling really won't want to fight armed and armoured cavalry - unless his name is David of course.

P60 - Melee Phase. "A battle group can act as the 2nd rank behind another (1 rank deep) battle group if of the same type ( e.g. both battle groups are Cavalry, or both are Heavy Foot)...." So Gallic foot could provide a back rank to African spearmen? Or more sensibly, Campanian hoplites as a back rank to African spearmen?

It would work for troops who aren't dependant in being in 2 or more ranks to get their POA for their BG. So Sp need to be in 2 ranks to get their + and the Africans and Campanians would therefore struggle given their style of fighting and while they could support and provide dice they would sacrifice POAs in doing so. However swordsmen who fight more loosely could dive in behind each other. Hope that makes sense - its how it fits with the rest of the rules. Mind you we haven't tested that bit to death yet so maybe there is a big bug in there to be unearthed. I am going to add it to our discussion list anyway.

This could be me trying to exploit a cheese opportunity? African spearmen and Campanian hoplites are both Offensive spearmen so P60 appears to allow the hoplites to be the 2nd rank for African spearmen? So they would still be Spearmen in 2 ranks? If this is not the intention it might need a bit of rewording.


Cheers Pete

Thanks Pete,

Thanks for the additional points and ideas.

I'll let you know how my 24 slingers get on tomorrow. Can't say they fancy fighting much with 2 arms and legs, but they might manage to defend a hedge.

Take your point on the cheese possibility of second ranks as it isn't specific enough at present perhaps.

Noted on the generals. I'll poll this one in a few weeks time and we'll see if we can get 10+ views on the table.

On the speed note that in AOW skirmishers can't slow you down much. At worst you charge them and get a full move forward on average. So if you the skimrishers go first they can stop marching but that's about it. Difficult to pull of any cheesy clogging up of HF in practice unless you are prepared to stand and fight/die. At least that's the intent. Also the moves go

The question in my mind is:

Do you think you would have enough bounds to force a result 50% of the time if somone deploys at the back?

See what you feel the answer is after 3+ games perhaps. Terry tried to stop my hoplites with Skythians and it ended up one hell of a fight and finished 11 - 10 to the hoplites. Skythian baggage went down. Hoplites 1 move away from the enemy table edge on half the table.

We need to calibrate it so that most people can answer yes to the above of course, not just the rule writers. Hence we will be keen to get views on it from all fronts once enough players are up to speed enough.

Cheers and thanks again for everything. Keep it coming in. Look forward to hearing about the next game.

Si

petedalby wrote:Thanks for coming back on the queries so quickly. Just wanted to respond on a few points:

Cost of Generals. The Romans fielded 1 FC and 2 x TC at a cost of 110 points. The Carthaginians brought an IC and an FC - both compulsory if you go for Hannibal in Italy or Africa, and a TC at a cost of 180 points. We struggled to see how 1 IC was worth 3 X TC in points terms? For our next game I've made an executive decision that Hannibal replaces the compulsory FC. I suggested this to Nik when I saw him at Warfare as a possible list change. But for my money an IC needs to add more value in game terms or cost a lot less. Here are some suggestions: An IC adds +1 to a BG in combat, within his influencing distance, for cohesion tests - even if he's not fighting in its front rank? An IC enables any BG within his influencing distance to make a second move? An IC with a BG can enable it to make a third move?

How much less would you say? While we could give new things to an IC they seem pretty powerful already so maybe the best route would be through the points system. If we make the IC better still will everybody want one? So if a TC is 30 what would be right in your view for an FC and an IC?

Probably to early to say but if a TC is 30, FC at 45 and IC at 60? Once in combat an IC or FC appear little better than a TC?

Cheers Pete

I think these numbers are about right for sub generals.
For a C-in-C I think the numbers are TC @ 20, FC @ 45, IC @ 80
In a small ally (1 or 2 BGs) I think the numbers are TC @ 20, FC @ 25, IC @ 40
In a bigger ally I think the numbers are TC @ 25, FC @ 30, IC @ 50

Ok Pete thanks for the assessment. We'll play with the numbers in the run up to Xmas I suspect.

Si