Slitherine

Ok, I will try to explain the question here...
I started playing Historicals with WAB ( when trees were grass and dinosaurs roamed the Earth) and almoust immediately got an impression that it was a small scale game- as in a fight between some minor formations. That was due to individuality of combats, single commander structure and general brittleness of the armies. One cannot avoid
a cascade failure ala R.L.Stevenson poem when the central unit is broken or general is dead. Also with no camp and some very liberal overrun/pursue rules WAB armies tend to end up in most peculiar field positions, when some units run amok everywhere, others are locked in "jigsaw" puzzle combats with mutual flank charges...
On the other hand DBX games are usually feel more like a large encounter. However the formations look very linear, since few troops form more than 2 ranks deep and everybody are trying to advance in a single large line to prevent overlaps and flank gaps expoitation. Also, seldomly armies wheel large formations or advance in "angles" since the recoil will destroy rear units if not with same alignment... However cascade failures are very rare in DBX and general can at least attempt to prop up the disintegrating formations or try to safely withdraw. Personally, to me DBX feels a bit more like chess, where successes and failures are gradual developments ( usually).
With my very limited experience with Warrior I have to say that although units are more individually placed as in WAB, game has a feel and look of a large battle. However units are not performing all sorts of crazy maneuvres ala WAB, nor are they advancing in a linear formations ala DBX. To me, personally, Warrior has the best representation of actual
battle, but at a cost of some very lengthy record keeping. As one of my freinds pointed out one has to be a heck of a player to do 3 tournament games of Warrior in a day.
So is there a general feel so far what does the AoW is leaning to?
Thanks, Sergei

The Reading Area Wargamers (Reading, PA, USA) ran into pretty much the same situation.

Warhammer Ancient "Skirmishes" didn't capture the sense of a real battle, it played out as a 1 figure = 1 man system, with an unreasonable reliance on the combat abilities of the Generals and their bodyguards. Combats are fought as seperate attacks by each contestant on their own turn(I hit you then you hit me back), rather than a simultaneous "opposed roll". Worst of all, the "racial bonuses" for certain armies often become more important than their actual fighting abilities. The retreat/pursuit die rolls guarantee that units will end up scattered around the table.

DBx struck us as a "paper/rock/scissors" game, where certain units cannot hurt others regardless of the die rolls, whereas others are destroyed. Each unit in DBx is extremely brittle, since a unit in combat either takes no damage or is destroyed completely. The use of orders to restore a disjointed line after units have been pushed back seems to be a totally artificial game mechanism, but is fundamental to successful play.

We ended up playing a severely modified version of "Advanced Armati", after grafting an "order system" similar to DBx's onto it and making other radical changes. The unaltered game is extremely unforgiving as to your initial deployment, and you can't exploit a situation by voluntarily breaking off a single unit unless part of the formation is locked in combat. It does, however, provide for 2-4 "hits" per unit before breaking, and uses an opposed die roll between combatants. Cavalry and other specific units either can or must break off an attack under various conditions, so you don't have light horse archers standing around stupidly while getting slaughtered by pikemen for more than a single round of combat. Our house mods focused on allowing the breakoff or reforming from/onto a formation, while using a DBA/DBM style roll for orders. You can split a formation, but that gives you more likelyhood that you won't move it all in one turn.

We're hoping that AoW turns out well, the industry badly needs an ancient rules set that works.

In my opinion there is already available an ancients rule system that works, WRG 6th Edition, and it has been around for a very long time, 26 years.

It has all the things you have been talking about, but does involve a certain amount of paperwork. There are still a significant number of people playing in the UK, and it seems that there are a number of players coming back to it after years away.

Some posters to this forum seem to think that AoW will be a panacea that will unite all the ancient gamers together. In this I believe they are mistaken. Many will move on from DBM, but there will still be those who play 6th/7th/DBM/WAB/Armati etc etc, and the pool will be spread even more thinly.

Of course, when they are published the majority of players will buy the rules and maybe the lists to see what they are like. Many will move on, but a significant number will stay with their favourite set.

regards
Paul

I posted the topic not due to unhappiness with certain rule set, but more in attempt to understand how the new one will look like. Clearly there is no perfect set of rules, and more likely there will never be one. People will be always unhappy with this or that in the rules they play. Personally I am happy to play DBX, Warrior or WAB ( if I only remember all the special rules ) I do not think we should be waiting for the next set of rules as some sort of panacea of all gaming ills.
I am sure some will be unhappy with some parts in new rules- oh, well...
I am just trying to understand from game designers how the new game will look like, that's all. The fact that they plan Battle Groups sounds like they are planning a non linear type of game- more like Warrior...
Sergei