Instant comments on first read

[martinvantol]

I get my first actual game this coming Tuesday.

(1) The organisation of the rules was a big improvement from DBM. I suspect you put a high priority on this. At each point it was clearly what you were trying to say and why. Examples were good. I don't envisage many unseen consequences emanating from innocent looking sentences (such as happened under DBM).
I'd suggest that some more numbered paragraphs and sections (with cross-references used more) might make the structure a little clearer. And I suggest you put in an index at the back.

(2) Some things seem complicated to me at the moment: all the different types of morale tests and the different states of cohesion. I suspect this'll become clearer. To be fair, on first read it all seems clearer in principle than most sets of rules.

(3) Army lists at the moment look like a translation of DBM lists. I accept you don't have the time or resources for lots of extra historical research. But will you be adjusting some of the lists for playability? (I mean, ending almost arbitrary distinctions between similar lists, arbitrary free capabilities, and unplayable troop combinations for some lists)

(4) It would help greatly in the lists to put a points per base cost with each troop type. But putting together army lists has generally become a bit simpler.

(5) Smaller comments:
(a) Artillery and WWg don't conform. Wouldn't these make it easy for a player to string a load of them at odd angles out to effectively block off a portion of the board?
(b) I thought WWg in DBM were too good. As far as I can see, they still move and shoot and don't conform.
(c) On p24 "Turning 90 degrees": does this mean certain elements in the group can move significantly more than their normal move? And if so, I think there's scope for manoeuvring abuse here. A group could turn 90 degrees, and then turn 90 degrees back the next move and achieve a significant effective redeployment, couldn't it?
(d) Also p24 "Turning 180 degrees": you could easily end up with your new front (i.e. old back) rank narrower. But isn't this illegal?
(e) I couldn't find anything on dismounting. Does this mean nobody can do it any more?

(6) Possibly too early for this question, but ... the rules mechanisms seem quite adaptable to other periods. Are you thinking of producing a set for ECW/Thirty Years' War? Plenty of people have the troops but gave up on DBR.

[nicofig]

(6) Possibly too early for this question, but ... the rules mechanisms seem quite adaptable to other periods. Are you thinking of producing a set for ECW/Thirty Years' War? Plenty of people have the troops but gave up on DBR.

Oh yes, I would like that ( Thity Years' War). It will be a great idea

[shall]

other periods are certainyly a possibility on the cards and the rule system has been developed with that in mind....both rennaisance and horse and musket are well suited to it ..............but we will all need a rest for sure first.....

Si

[nikgaukroger]

(3) Army lists at the moment look like a translation of DBM lists. I accept you don't have the time or resources for lots of extra historical research. But will you be adjusting some of the lists for playability? (I mean, ending almost arbitrary distinctions between similar lists, arbitrary free capabilities, and unplayable troop combinations for some lists)

As I've been involved I can say that the lists are not just a translation of the DBM ones - although as a play tester you have access to only a limited number so can't see the current full range and, I think, those you do have are not the most up to date versions.

However, it is worth remembering that despite any faults they may have the DBM lists are probably the best researched ancients wargames lists around and so the FoG lists may not differ too much as the same base historical material is going to be used. Thus in many cases it will just look like a translation - but be assured that they have been considered.

Also I suspect that to allow ease of translation to FoG it is sensible to bear in mind the sort of numbers of figures/elements the target gamer is likely to have, and that may be affected by the DBM lists. For example if it likely that the average owner of a Makedonian army will have 24 elements of pikemen it may not be the best idea in the world to make the FoG list minimum 38 elements, say.

(4) It would help greatly in the lists to put a points per base cost with each troop type. But putting together army lists has generally become a bit simpler.

This is being done in the finalised versions you'll be glad to hear

[hammy]

I can safely say that the Medieval Welsh and Slave revolt armies (which I ended up doing the research for) while similar to the DBM lists are most definitley not straight copies of them.

The AP issue in the lists is one that really raged on and on because once the lists are printed with AP values it makes tweaking AP values a lot harder in a 2nd edition of the rules. On the other hand having AP values with the lists makes it easier to work out an army. Swings and roundabouts but in the end the final lists will include point values.

Hammy

[nikgaukroger]

I would note that the authors have categorically stated that having the points values in the lists will not stop them from making changes at a later date should it prove necessary.

I'd also note that having points in the lists is much more newbie friendly and so must be the right way to go.

[sgtsteiner]

Hi JDM/Hammy/Nik et al

Just got the Beta yesterday via email soi only skimmed thru thus far (no diagrams showing in my set)

Inital brief impressions

1. A lot more pages than I was expecting
2. That said seems to cover all one would expect
3. Went to Turn Sequence first and I like the concept of Impact Melee being different to 'normal' melee (at first glance seems very akin to Might Of Arms)
4. The concept of BGs and BLs appear straightforward, only downside vs Dbm/Dbmm is that with 12-15 units (BGs) games may 'seem' smaller (as per 7th) skimishes rather than the feel of a big battle ?
5. Evade and Charges seem a throwback too after years of Dbx but again appear straightforward
6. Similarily with cohesion states etc and apparent need for counters/markers or similar
7. Like the POA system (WWII set Grey Storm Red Steel had similar concept for its morale) for combat.
9. My version not having diagrams is bit off putting as I would have liked to have seen (for instance) how an overlap looks ?
8. There seems to be A LOT of dice rolling ! even the recommended number of dice per player is large and with combat rolls, grading re-rolls, death rolls etc I may develop sore wrists

Initial impression of rules verbage definately favourable.

Will get better read at some stage and a solo game hopefully so no doubt lots more comment from this waffling gamer

As I know there has been a lot of playtesting already is there any specific areas of rules that comments are more 'welcome' for ?

Cheers

Gary

[rbodleyscott]

9. My version not having diagrams is bit off putting as I would have liked to have seen (for instance) how an overlap looks ?

The diagrams are beautifully drawn by Claudio Berni, but there are about 70 of them and they are about 10 Mb each, so it is not really feasible to include them in the beta version.

8. There seems to be A LOT of dice rolling ! even the recommended number of dice per player is large and with combat rolls, grading re-rolls, death rolls etc I may develop sore wrists

But you won't go blind.

[shall]

Looking forward to hearing how you find your first games.

As Richard has said the diags are looking very very good indeed - if cat all the artowrk is pretty stunning.

Have fun

Si

[hammy]

Richard, JD,

Just a thought, could one or two of the diagrams be put on a website somewhere in a lover resolution just to give people more of a taster?

FWIW the ones I have seen are very nice indeed.

As to lots of dice rolling there isn't that much more than DBM and most of the time you are rolling 4 or 6 at once so it feels that you actually throw less times.

Hammy

[sgtsteiner]

Hi Richard

>The diagrams are beautifully drawn by Claudio Berni, but there are about 70 of them and they are about 10 Mb each, >so it is not really feasible to include them in the beta version.
Roger that 10mb is rather a lot

> But you won't go blind.[/
Thats a different hobby activity

Gary

[sgtsteiner]

Hi Hammy

>Just a thought, could one or two of the diagrams be put on a website somewhere in a lover resolution just to give >people more of a taster?
That would be good idea. I suggest the Overlap and Expanding in Melee

Not sure about the 'Lover' bit or am I confused about just what these diagrams show !

This is a rather smutty start to my....dare I say........entry to this list

[lawrenceg]

(5) Smaller comments:
(c) On p24 "Turning 90 degrees": does this mean certain elements in the group can move significantly more than their normal move? And if so, I think there's scope for manoeuvring abuse here. A group could turn 90 degrees, and then turn 90 degrees back the next move and achieve a significant effective redeployment, couldn't it?

If you read the detailed procedure for doing this turn and try it out I think you'll find no significant redeployment is possible. Certainly no more than could be achieved by a contraction in 1 move (although not all troops can contract without moving forward).

(d) Also p24 "Turning 180 degrees": you could easily end up with your new front (i.e. old back) rank narrower. But isn't this illegal?

No. If you read the detailed procedure and try it out, you will see that you don't just turn individual bases round. You also reverse the order of ranks so the old front rank troops are placed in the new front rank, old 2nd rank become the new second rank etc.

(e) I couldn't find anything on dismounting. Does this mean nobody can do it any more?

It's in there somewhere (or it was) and certainly in some of the army lists. However, you have to dismount when you deploy. You can't dismount or remount during the battle.

[madaxeman]

Martin can try cheesing me out tomrrow night, as we are playing Romand vs E Germans, and he has the Romans....

Now, any tips for dealing with legionaries with hairy protected impact foot ?

[hammy]

Martin can try cheesing me out tomrrow night, as we are playing Romand vs E Germans, and he has the Romans....

Now, any tips for dealing with legionaries with hairy protected impact foot ?

The key to this battle is numbers, the hairies will outnuber the R*m*ns considerably.

If you have to fight the legions (which I suppose if probable) try to get a general with as many BG's in combat as possible. Fight with your troops more then two ranks deep (the death roll is your friend) try to make sure you have rear support.

If you can find a way to overwhelm the R*m*n flanks before the main event starts it will help no end.

Hope that helps

Good luck

Hammy

[madaxeman]

Only 3 points (using the latest version of the rules)

1. "2nd moves" are not in the "move" section - we had to find it elsewhere, and did so because I knew (from previous games) that they did exist!

2. Likewise, a definition of a battle-line isn't in the glossary or in the movement section - again, maybe it should be. Took a while to find out if there was a limit to types of units, numbers of units allowed etc.

3. An angled line of 4 cavalry charged into the corner of a block of German foot - they didnt have room to do much of a wheel. At first contact the front face of one cavalryman hit the corner of the element on the front block of foot, and when "stepping forward" straight ahead we ended up with a situation where 2 elements of cavalry contacted the "corner" element of foot (one cavarlyman hitting it with its front face, one with its front corner). It wasn't clear how many elements would count as fighting on either side, or if there should be any shuffling around to conform or get a more even matchup


The game itself ended up with 2 roman cavalry units and 1 archer, 1 auxilia units dead vs 2 german cavalry units.

Both armies started offset, with the germans massing foot on their right and facing some cavalry and the weaker end ofth eroman line, and the romans facing their best and biggest legions against some skirmishers and cavalry

The germans started by piling 4 sarmations into the middle of the entire battle line of legionaries and auxilia, and getting narrowly beaten largely due to support shooting from the 3rd rank - but they hung on passing death rolls and Cohesion tests for 2 or 3 bounds allowing the rest of the germans to move up and hammer into the auxilia and bowmen in the roman line. The romans threw in cavalry to stop the rot on thrir left, but they got caught trying to run down 2 blocks of 12 warband, and were eventually overwhelmed - meanwhile some geerman cavalry on their right got caught at teh halt by legionaries rolling up when chasing off skirmishers, but again these then held on long enough to prevent the romans turning to save their crumbling left.

Both sides used generals in combat as the maneuver phase of th ebattle was pretty short, and none of the units that were breaking would have been worth saving anyway due to weight casualties

It felt pretty historical in the way the troops moved, and Martin was up to speed (and I had remembered again!!) the basic mechanics pretty well by the end - we were both at the "roll the dice and we will look at the cohesion table if we have to" stage of familiarity.

I felt the combat outcomes did feel rather "luck" dependant on occasion as there were few ++/-- POA situations and with leading the line with Superior troops bolstered by generals on either side we both failed relatively few cohesion tests - the one decisive combat was with the warband piling into auxilia and bowmen, which I suppose is fair enough!

One oddity seemd the lack of advantage to cavalry when/after breaking into (ie Disrupting) foot. Lots of combats seemed to (POA) stalemate at the melee phase.

[rbodleyscott]

3. An angled line of 4 cavalry charged into the corner of a block of German foot - they didnt have room to do much of a wheel. At first contact the front face of one cavalryman hit the corner of the element on the front block of foot, and when "stepping forward" straight ahead we ended up with a situation where 2 elements of cavalry contacted the "corner" element of foot (one cavarlyman hitting it with its front face, one with its front corner). It wasn't clear how many elements would count as fighting on either side, or if there should be any shuffling around to conform or get a more even matchup

Both sides always fight with the same number of bases in the impact phase - the lower number of bases in contact. In this case 1 base, therefore 2 dice each. The shuffling around and conforming occurs in the manoeuvre phase, between the impact and melee phases.

Of course, if there had been some room for wheeling, the cavalry could probably have contacted 2 different bases - one with front edge on the enemy corner, the other with corner on the side of the enemy rear rank base.

Note that wheeling is not permitted if it reduces the number of bases eligible to fight.

[Rich_Cork]

Both sides always fight with the same number of bases in the impact phase - the lower number of bases in contact. In this case 1 base, therefore 2 dice each. The shuffling around and conforming occurs in the manoeuvre phase, between the impact and melee phases.

But doesn't the advancing/echeloning forward that is allowed as part of the charge mean that the situation Tim describes can occur ??

[rbodleyscott]

Both sides always fight with the same number of bases in the impact phase - the lower number of bases in contact. In this case 1 base, therefore 2 dice each. The shuffling around and conforming occurs in the manoeuvre phase, between the impact and melee phases.

But doesn't the advancing/echeloning forward that is allowed as part of the charge mean that the situation Tim describes can occur ??

Yes, but both sides have to fight with the lower number of bases in contact. So if 2 bases contact 1, both sides fight with 1. If it makes a difference, the player with the higher number of bases in contact can choose which one to drop.

This rule is there specifically to stop advantage being gained from contacting the enemy in weird and wonderful ways.

[malekithau]

It looks like you forgot to break off your Sarmatians as well if they stayed in combat for so long.