News from the Front II
AOW Testing at Leeds
A great turn out in Leeds and a full 15 tables in action all weekend. Many thanks to Thom for sorting out the venue, and for Bruce for organising everything. A terrific test event. All three authors had a great time.
Another great spread of armies :
Bruce Brown Later Ottoman Turkish
Alan Montgomery Late Republican Roman
David Ruddock Skythian
Nik Sharp Arab Conquest
Matt Haywood Kushite Egyptian
Damian Ranasinghe Early Achaemenid Persian
Simon Hall Classical Indian
Huw Peregrine-Young Western Hun
Richard Collins Classical Greek (Spartan)
Roger Greenwood 100 Years War English
James Hamilton Swiss
Neil Hammond Early Crusader
David Fairhurst Later Scots Isles and Highlands
Terry Shaw Neo-Assyrian Empire
Lawrence Greaves Early Scots-Irish
Gary Buckley Later Hungarian
Andy Ellis Classical Greek
Paul Cummins 100 Years War English
Linda Fairhurst Palmyran
Andy Robinson Later Carthaginian
Thom Richardson New Kingdom Egyptian
Andy McKay Alexandrian Macedonian
Clive Vaughn New Kingdom Egyptian
Phil Lewis Early Imperial Roman
Steve Clarke Pincipate Roman
Bob Amey Late Republican Roman
Kevin Johnson Later Ottoman Turkish
Keith Nathan Alexandrian Macedonian
Dave Handley Sassanid Persian
Richard Bodley-Scott Ilkanid Mongol
Steve Royale Nikephorian Byzantine
All games got of to roaring start. We had about 10 tables with near beginners on them so I stepped out of round 1 and acted as umpire and mobile helper. It was interesting how quickly everyone got up to a reasonable standard with the rules. Dave Handley managed a corker of a flank march vs Richard Collins which was a fun first game for a Greek army. What was striking was that in game 2 there were very few helper umpire calls at all ??“ people had got the gist of the rules by then.
I played Andy Ellis with my Indians in round two and got thoroughly rumble trying them out in stand up fight to see if my MF bow fire in the open could fend them off. They couldn??™t ??“ although I probably should have managed to get Andy??™s army half-way to broken before my army went down. Felt very realistic. We discovered afterwards that Andy??™s hoplites were all armoured (it was a borrowed army from Hammy) whereas we had played them protected ??“ so not only did he beat me, he beat me minus 100 pts!!
My second game was against James with his Later Swiss. I played this one in full competition mode and managed to pull James army around with a mix of a flank march threat and pressure over a steep hill. A charge of 4 elephants into an isolated swiss pike block started the real rot and while the pikes easily rumbled a couple of MF bow BGs we eventually managed to take James army down.
My third game was against Lawrence Greaves with a complete swarm of unprotected Scots-Irish MF supported by decent chariots. At the outset I figured they may as well come along dressed in targets against all my MF bowmen. I proved a lot tougher fight than I expected, and while we shot them down cohesion levels in several places Lawrence had a real knack of charging my bowmen and completely murdering them at impact. I ended up breaking his army but was 70% the way too losing my own army at the time.
Ended up with a pretty sensible 10th place (and ahead of Terry and Richard which is all that mattered
). And the end results overall
Bruce Brown Later Ottoman Turkish 112
Alan Montgomery Late Republican Roman 96
Damian Ranasinghe Early Achaemenid Persian 88
David Ruddock Skythian 88
Nik Sharp Arab Conquest 88
Matt Haywood Kushite Egyptian 88
Steve Clarke Pincipate Roman 88
Keith Nathan Alexandrian Macedonian 84
Dave Handley Sassanid Persian 80
Simon Hall Classical Indian 76
Huw Peregrine-Young Western Hun 76
Richard Collins Classical Greek (Spartan) 64
Roger Greenwood 100 Years War English 64
James Hamilton Swiss 60
Neil Hammond Early Crusader 60
David Fairhurst Later Scots Isles and Highlands 60
Terry Shaw Neo-Assyrian Empire 56
Thom Richardson New Kingdom Egyptian 56
Clive Vaughn New Kingdom Egyptian 56
Lawrence Greaves Early Scots-Irish 52
Phil Lewis Early Imperial Roman 52
Bob Amey Late Republican Roman 48
Gary Buckley Later Hungarian 48
Kevin Johnson Later Ottoman Turkish 44
Richard Bodley-Scott Ilkanid Mongol 40
Andy Ellis Classical Greek 36
Paul Cummins 100 Years War English 28
Linda Fairhurst Palmyran 28
Andy McKay Alexandrian Macedonian 20
Andy Robinson Later Carthaginian 12
Steve Royale Nikephorian Byzantine 0
Congratulations to Bruce, Alan and Damian for taking the prizes. As before some comments??¦??¦.completely unabridged to give you sense of how people found things. Naturally for those who have not played at all, some of the comments may be a bit mysterious but hopefully they give an overall sense of how the players are feeling about the rules. Much fun was had??¦??¦ Si
From Paul Cummings
Four really fun games - the troops acted as I thought they should, the rules didnt throw anything that I thought was silly
In terms of a learning curve - by the end of the first game I think I had the basics - I just needed to look up the modifiers. By the end of the second game I needed to check when things were looking bad and I wanted to find an escape clause.
The first game lasted about 3 hours the second a bit longer and not reaching conclusion - mainly to us having each destroyed a wing of each others army, and trying to get wodges of infantry in place to attack again, rather than having to look things up etc. Third game lasted an hour and half with a wall of spear grinding me under foot (hardly any refering to tables by this point) Fourth game lasted about 2 1/2 hours, by which point I would say I had most of the factors memorised - so the game ran very smoothly.
From Gary Buckley
An enjoyable set of games, with each providing a different challenge as my opponents armies varied drastically. The single most enjoyable game I've had in a while (later hungarian vs huns) where I made historical mistakes (nobles outpacing support) and paid for it in historical fashion but was almost able to claw it back before finally collapsing. Without the reliance on pips there was always stuff to do, sure the commanders focus could dramatically change things as BGs could move multiple times but there was constant activity across the board. The terrain setup and deployment stage went quickly and smoothly, I really liked the order of march approach to getting toys on the table. I was constantly trying to get clear tables and my opponents trying to clutter them up and in most cases we ended up with a mixture that allowed for an interesting game.
The DBM 6:1 is not lost, it's now the cohesion test, an unlucky cohesion test can see a once solid looking BG crumble. There is a chance to recover by getting a general into the right place and getting lucky enough to hold on until they can be bolstered so it's not so devastating as in DBM. The counters aren't as big a drawback as I thought, still a shame they're needed though. I did notice that people were using different "systems" for what each counter colour or stack meant, some standardisation on this (perhaps in the tournament rules?) would be good.
From Nik Gaukroger
I'll just chip in an observers comment. A friend of mine, Pete Reilly, went along on Saturday to see waht gives with AoW and after a couple of hours watching Hammy's first game and following it on the QFS (with a few questions) he felt that he had the basic game mechanics understood and could probably have had a good stab at a game.
I'd see this as a vote of confidence in the basic mechanisms
He did, however, think that there was a great slice of luck involved in the game - things like needing to test if losing a combat by even only 1 hit which with a poorish CT dice roll can get things going south very quickly. He noted quite a few combats in the games on Saturday which went against the side with the advantages (initial PoA advantage, overlaps, etc.) fairly quickly. Obviously spectating isn't the same as playing but Pete picks rules up very quickly in my experience.
From Clive Vaughan
While busy carving scenes of the spectacular triumphs on the temple wall, and executing as impious those suggesting that three battles out of four were lost, Pharaoh has the following observations:
Medium foot needs to avoid open terrain if heavy foot, armoured cavalry and or knights are around so put down plenty of rough or broken terrain - occupy this with bowmen and disrupt enemy by shooting out of it.
Pray to the Gods! A chariot versus cavalry combat was lost due to poor dice. Archers and the chariots had shot at the cavalry and while not disorganising them, had caused the loss of a base (element). The cav charged with an advantage in the impact phasebecause the had javelins. Chariots were not disorganised but lost a base. In the melee rounds both sides scored hits (each chariot base has two combat dice per base to the cavalry's one) but neither became disordered but sadly the chariots kept losing bases until enough had died for the battle group to automatically break. So luck was involved and a combat lost despite factor advantages - but if you want certainty in gaming then play chess! The unexpected happens, so keep a reserve to react to this.
Overall, AoW gives pacy games with lots of troop movement and generals rushing from spot to spot to affect combat outcomes and hearten wavering troops. The battle results seem fair - New Kingdom Egyptians lost to Skythians in open terrain and to two Roman armies (a nation that experienced no difficulty conquering the country). We beat one Roman army by staying in rough terrain (apart from chariots that can shoot bows and evade where necessary) and taking out units in detail. Chariots shooting at cavalry to disorder them and then charging in is effective and probably a historic tactic.
From Dave Fairhurst
As with the others an enjoyable set of games ,picked the rules up pretty well,even in the lead after Saturday.came down to earth with both sunday games,it was a bit disconcerting facing the two armies ,Sassanid and Republican roman knowing the rules well enough to know that I didn't have a hope in hell of winning especially against the Romans,I also know that I wouldn't choose the Scots in a competitive comp as well
David
From Alan Montgomerie
Four very enjoyable games. Only three generals - all troup commanders - with an Elite & superior drilled small army worked well, as I never felt short of generals, the main thing that would put me off only 2 generals is the reduction in march moves in the first part of the game. Another thing that worked well was having minimum scouting ability - I was out scouted in every game which gave the enemy the advantage in picking the terrain and deployment but gave me first move. I was never unhappy with the terrain and moving first is very usefull to a HF army. The fortified camp was usefull - in 2 games I had enemy mounted within reach of my camp and they chose not to try and loot it.
From Andy Robinson
The key issue that helped improve my understanding of the game is that battle groups (BG) are not units they are a collection of elements of a type that historically fought together. They do not have to maintain rigid formations unlike units in other rules. I like this concept, the ability to place the integral light archers in the front rank of a supporterd spear BG if the tactical situation demanded is a leap forward in the right direction IMO. The BG system allows all the tactical flexibility of the single element system without the problems of geometrical trickery and un-natural usage of troop types.
From James Hamilton
It was great to see so many people investing time in testing the rules. I had four interesting games which despite none of them being true historical matchups (actually most were nothing like historical matchups) played out from my side of the table in a most believable way.
Will I take a Swiss army to an open competition again? I doubt it. Do I think that Swiss feel right under AoW and would I take them to a period competions? Absolutely (that is if I am not distracted by one of the other really interesting medieval armies out there).
From Nik Sharpe
This was an enjoyable weekend, four good games and a good learning experience as far as the rules went. I had played before coming but had only skipped through the rules. This did not seem to matter, I could get on with the games and felt I had a good grasp of what was happening. It was good having Simon, Terry and RBS there to clarify the few things I did not understand.
The Arab Conquest carried the sword of Islam to three of the four corners of the Armouries, unfortunately Anubis did not recognise that Allah is supposed to win the war of lucky dice! I liked my army and it seemed to stand up well to some of the super troops, mainly due to its good overall morale. I liked the rules as a game. They are easy to pick up and the games were enjoyable. My observations:
Felt like seventh edition with lots of dice (an observation I heard others make as well)
Take an army of 80% plus superior troops if you want to hang around through all those CTs
Even when you think you have an opponent nailed, he can always dice his way out of it
Beware armoured cavalry with bow!
Army highlight - Average Camels beating off Superior Cataphracts in one game and Elite Knights in another
Army Disaster - MF Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Impact Foot, Swordsmen charging severley disorded Mesh Wesh in the flank in the soft sand and being routed two turns later by some fantastic dice from Matt!
Nik
From Roger Greenwood
At Leeds all four games of my games went to a finish. In all of them, at least eight of my ten units fought in melee. This may have been down to inexperience and a desire to fight and find out. AoW does makes combat more inviting than in some game systems. Troops who are at a disadvantage in the impact phase can be at an advantage in melee. This gives both sides a reason to commit. Whatever the reason, there was plenty of action. I look forward to playing more games.
There doesn't seem to be much wrong with rules.
From Richard Collins
I took along Spartans for a couple of reasons:
1. they are deathly dull in dbm so the figures had been mouldering in a box for several years
2. i reckoned in an unfamiliar ruleset having an army that fundamentally shoved a whacking great wodge of spear at the enemy would simplify things
Game 1 vs Sassanids
Despite favourable terrain, the spartans were shredded by the Sassanid cavalry, struggling to defend there flanks and being vulnerable in straight up fights. They did however slaughter elephants in short order - it does seem that armies are very hard to kill if they keep there ancillary troops out of trouble - by the end of the game I had 7 hoplite phalanxes broken, but we were still hanging on in the game
Game 2 vs Spear heavy Carthaginians
A school boy error cost me my LH and thus my baggage and so put me in deep shtuck. However we evened things up by butchering the Cartho elephants in short order and the game petered out into a draw
Game 3 vs Hundred Yrs War English
The English initially deployed very historically(!) in a very secure position buttressed by terrain. However a couple of BGs were isolated and because of scoring system we both realised that by killing those i would win 28-4 so the english were forced to take the fight to me. We won in short order as 4 man men-at-arm BGs proved no match for larger spartiate BGs
Game 4 vs Palmyran
Our main phalanx crashed into a mixed Palmyran battle line of cataphracts and impact foot. Maybe it was a sunday afternoon thing but i found the combat results extremely difficult to work out in such a big clash especially as our BLs were overlapping each other, so each BG was splitting its dice making the combats quite tricky to resolve. Eventually tho the good guys won! Interesitly me and my opponent took radically different uses for generals me putting them in the front line to add impact while my opponent used them to stubbornly rally fleeing BGs
Overall, I found using the Spartans a far more enjoyable experience than I ever managed in dbm. I thought the terrain and deployment worked really well and I was pleasantly suprised at how historical the rules seemed - but maybe thats just because I and my opponents didn't know what they were doing! I think in an ideal world the CMT test should be removed - it seems a bit of an oddity in that virtually all of the movement rules involve no dice throws or at the very least if you fail a CMT you cannot then make a simple move with the BG
Richard
From Kevin Johnson
Sadly I was only able to attend the Saturday but I played my first two games and had a thoroughly good time. Overall I was impressed with the pace of the games and the speed with which it was possible to pick up the game's mechanics. Like other correspondents I am concerned with just how quickly things can go from OK to Oh ****! My first game was looking close until a few failed Cohesion tests and suddenly my opponent's army was running away. I think more games will be needed to see if this was just a very rare occurrence or is symptomatic of an underlying problem. I did experience a number of instances where BGs that had obvious advantages lost. Again more games will be needed to see if this appears to be happening too often. I agree with other comments in this area, we need uncertainty but a game gets very frustrating if you do the right thing and lose due to pure luck too often.
