Speaking of winning . . .

[babyshark]

. . . some of the battle report postings have given scores that resembled 32-0 scores of BHGS DBM fame. How does the scoring system work?

Marc

[shall]

At present we created a 32-0 system so that it fits trhe same computer. In essence you track the difference in APs done and get a

Draw/Minor/Major/Total victory for 16 - 20 - 24 - 28 points depending on the difference and ratio
There is then another 4 for destroying the army

So a win where two sides almost destroy each other - but one wins would end up a 20-12 - i.e a near draw in damage done but one sides army gone (not so punitive as the 9-1 it might be in DBM say).

I should say it is not the final version but work under development put in place to facilitate the Usk doubles test competition. But so far it seems to have some good traits in that you can get a 28-4 without breaking an opponents army if you do lots of damage and suffer no losses, and you can also get a decent result if somebody tries to corner sit against you.

Si

[babyshark]

At present we created a 32-0 system so that it fits trhe same computer. In essence you track the difference in APs done and get a

The difference in AP killed? Hmmm. So it may be better to let the opponent rout two--or even three--BGs of cheap skirmishers than to give up one BG of cavalry or elephants (or whatever else is expensive in AoW)?

This smells like potential for cheese, but for the life of me I cannot think of what it would be right now.

Marc

[rbodleyscott]

At present we created a 32-0 system so that it fits trhe same computer. In essence you track the difference in APs done and get a

The difference in AP killed? Hmmm. So it may be better to let the opponent rout two--or even three--BGs of cheap skirmishers than to give up one BG of cavalry or elephants (or whatever else is expensive in AoW)?

This smells like potential for cheese, but for the life of me I cannot think of what it would be right now.

Marc

AP = Attrition Points not "army points"

All battle groups are worth 2 AP each when routed/destroyed. Thus yes, you can use filler, but you can't afford to be suicidal with them. Nor can they give rear support (for cohesion tests), because to do so they would have to be of at least equal quality to the front rank troops.

Light foot (DBM psiloi) are now effective shooting troops. They are not on the table to die harmlessly. They can evade enemy charges - although they might get caught. They are worth the same number of attrition points as heavier troops so that you cannot afford to use them as suicide troops. This also has the virtue of being nice and simple.

[babyshark]

All battle groups are worth 2 AP each when routed/destroyed. Thus yes, you can use filler, but you can't afford to be suicidal with them. Nor can they give rear support (for cohesion tests), because to do so they would have to be of at least equal quality to the front rank troops.

Rear support for cohesion tests is an interesting notion. Now there is a real reason to deploy quality troops in depth. Unlike in DBM we might see the triari deployed behind the legions. Does AoW create a tradeoff between advantages of deploying in depth and going for width? What are the opportunity costs?

Light foot (DBM psiloi) are now effective shooting troops. They are not on the table to die harmlessly. They can evade enemy charges - although they might get caught. They are worth the same number of attrition points as heavier troops so that you cannot afford to use them as suicide troops. This also has the virtue of being nice and simple.

I see that as being a good solution for playability. It will force players to mind their Ps and Qs with the skirmishers, and eliminates the possibility for suicide troops. But . . . back to the old question that kept arising in DBM, is it realistic to think that the heavies would ever become demoralized by seeing the skirmishers run away? I suppose it a question of balancing the simulation and playability aspects of game design.

Marc

[rbodleyscott]

All battle groups are worth 2 AP each when routed/destroyed. Thus yes, you can use filler, but you can't afford to be suicidal with them. Nor can they give rear support (for cohesion tests), because to do so they would have to be of at least equal quality to the front rank troops.

Rear support for cohesion tests is an interesting notion. Now there is a real reason to deploy quality troops in depth. Unlike in DBM we might see the triari deployed behind the legions. Does AoW create a tradeoff between advantages of deploying in depth and going for width? What are the opportunity costs?

To claim rear support you have to have at least half the number of bases of steady equal or better quality troops at least partly behind the supported battle groups.

In the case of Mid-Republican Romans this means that a legion can be represented by 2 BGs each of 4 Hastati & Principes. (Each BG representing a manipular chequerboard of both types) and 1 BG of 2 Triarii. This can give rear support to both the other BGs if it stands behind the join between the 2, within 8 MUs. (8 inches or 200mm). As the cohesion test mechanism is very finely poised, +1 for rear support will tip the balance in a large proportion of otherwise failed tests, so is well worthwhile.

Apart from Romans, most other armies have minimum battle group sizes for foot of 6 bases, so are somewhat less efficient at rear-supporting formations - but their troops are often much cheaper.

Providing rear support to a pike phalanx is usually impracticable - which is historical.

The usual trade-off for deep formations vs wide formations applies - viz. the risk of being outflanked. However AoW does (in rear support) provide a mechanism which gives appropriate benefit to deployment in depth.

Light foot (DBM psiloi) are now effective shooting troops. They are not on the table to die harmlessly. They can evade enemy charges - although they might get caught. They are worth the same number of attrition points as heavier troops so that you cannot afford to use them as suicide troops. This also has the virtue of being nice and simple.

I see that as being a good solution for playability. It will force players to mind their Ps and Qs with the skirmishers, and eliminates the possibility for suicide troops. But . . . back to the old question that kept arising in DBM, is it realistic to think that the heavies would ever become demoralized by seeing the skirmishers run away? I suppose it a question of balancing the simulation and playability aspects of game design.

Absolutely.