RFCM rules that use zones usually use squares.
Squares are easy to create and easy to understand.
The following assumes "ancient" to cover Armies and enemies of the punic wars and armies and enemies of Rome. Basically the "Phil Barker period (PBP)" books.
Most of the battles have a centre and two flanks. The centre is usually fairly open scenery.
The centres clash and a big fight ensues.
Of course there are many variations upon this rough guide.
Therefore the central zones should be rectangles with more width than depth. As armies fought in rows rather than columns.
The flank zones should be bigger areas as the lighter troops are more sweeping in their manoeuvre.
The advent of cloths as a popular, effective and affordable choice allow rules to create special laid out grids.
Imagine this.
Four central columns of 8x 4 inch rectangles. 8 rectangles deep.
One column on each flank 8 x8inch rectangles. 4 rectangles deep.
This gives a table size of
Width (6x8) = 48 (4 foot)
Depth (8x4) =32 inches (under 3 foot)
This creates a centre which moves up and back in smaller increments than the flanks. A "4" depth allows various central lines of the army to look like they belong/support with each other.
It would require a specially marked cloth but that is no problem for most?
martin :-\
That sounds appropriately innovative, and would give a good look, with the centre grinding it out while things are faster flowing around the edges.
I'm sure it's not beyond the capabilities of most of us to mark up a cloth accordingly.
Simon
Maybe CK after PBI 2020 and enemy PBI?
martin
I had a vague idea that that would be the general direction ;)
Simon
Interesting ideas Martin. I have played many a game on a 4 x 3 gaming cloth so agree this can be a good size for a 15mm ancients game. A lot of people on here have SB cloths with 6inch squares, it would be great if we could re use these. What about restricting movement of heavy infantry ie they can only move in the cardinal directions (N,S,E or W) lights/mediums one diagonal likewise heavy and light cavalry. I think it would be a good idea to tie the rules to a more specific (no too specific) period, most ancient rules cover a vast timescale in which warfare changes considerably - Sumerian carts to full blown heavy knights. So Republican Rome expansion taking on Carthage, Gauls and Greeks would be interesting. Happy to give ideas a go once we are out of lockdown, as you know Martin have lots and lots of ancients!
Chris
I think that all makes a lot of sense, Chris.
The Ancient "period" is always problematic in terms of aligning plausible enemies. Maybe some broad-brush groupings of armies / time spans, with potentially a few rule tweaks to each to maintain flavour?
I have Huns and Imperial Romans, so have an inherent bias!
Simon
So that would be Fight for Mexico, 15mm game, PBI2022 with whatever, 15mm game, and C&K for 2023! Excellent idea Martin.
Plenty of room for new figures. Just German, Parthian, Tuareg, Egyptioan and Roman armies at present, but I don't Egyptians playing Germasn! or are these fantasy rules..............
The Web site says Ancient to Medieval, must be fantasy rules a bit like WRG 1st - ?? edition.
Never parted the covers, and never seen them on a table being played. Never seen the existing rules.
Not even available as a *.PDF. Must be an old set of rules.
Don't normally play ancients but have a Roman and a Carthage armies that I got from my Dad (I painted for him) so would be up for a few games.
Stewart
For the sake of discussion (we are obviously just chatting here and not making any wild commitments).
C+K is quite generic idea.
Hellenism
Punic wars and the greek wars
The ages of Alexander the great, Hannibal Barca and Julius Caesar.
This gives us warbands, pike phalanxes, Spearmen, elephants etc.
Units of 4 bases.
8 increments of death
12 units a side (150 figures)
Some BB ideas.
Not sure if CK can bring any radical changes to gaming ancients but would allow an update to the 1999 set.
martin
Elephants, chariots... ...flaming pigs...?
What's not to like!
Simon
Martin 1999, these must be about the oldest set?
Simon, how's the Crete stuff coming on then, have you no pictures to share?
It's still progressing, thanks Les, as and when other commitments allow. I'll do photos once the troops are done and fully based.
Simon
Indeed Les
CK is one of the oldest grid based games. It was preceded by first Square Bashing and followed by ACW Lincoln's war.
There wer a whole bunch of non gridded rules before that. Most now lost in the mists of waragmimng.
Hoka Hey
Company Rules
Fighter AD2222
.......and others I cannot remember. ???
martin :)
Quote from: martin goddard on February 28, 2021, 09:09:47 AM
Indeed Les
CK is one of the oldest grid based games. It was preceded by first Square Bashing and followed by ACW Lincoln's war.
There wer a whole bunch of non gridded rules before that. Most now lost in the mists of waragmimng.
Hoka Hey
Company Rules
Fighter AD2222
.......and others I cannot remember. ???
martin :)
I still have a copy of Company Rules and one will day hope to get round to playing it- in fact I would hope that at some point to see another RFCM sci-fi ruleset.
My first Peter Pig rule set was Lincoln's war, used my 6mm ACW also my first use of squares.
Stewart
My original C&K set was lost sometime but I remember playing it with some fondness- however my usual opponents were more competition orientated. I really liked the pre-battle sequence and it seemed really quite realistic and plausible so I hope that can be retained (largely) as it is.
Things I would like to see.
1. Pre-battle as above
2. Option to accommodate "standard" 40mm bases as that is what most folks probably already have.
3. Narrow-ish time span. Sort of agree with the Hellenistic-Late Republican rome era but in the interests of what would be popular maybe the Peloponnesian war until the end of the Western Roman empire may be more popular.
4. I know this is heresy but maybe a "play without a grid" option.
5. Some sort of campaign mechanism.
I now I am not asking for much.
Graham
I have fond memories of playing C&K at Fisticuffs when it was a 2 day show.
I also have a copy of some ancient rules called 'Oi!' by the Effing Levellers, predating the RFCM stable of rules.
Hello Graham
Some good thoughts there.
Thanks for bring them up.
C+K is up for a re-write but I am not sure when.
The ancient rules "scene" is the same today as when WRG laid it down in the 1970s.
ie. 1. Allowance of any body fights anybody. To ensure wide appeal.
2. Very detailed troop classification. To satisfy players wishes for better troops.
3. No allowance for "in war" facts. To allow samurai to fight Aztecs.
Players want all these things and they get them in the majority of current rule offerings.
That makes very good business sense.
The 40mm system was also a WRG invention.
It has been copied by most ancient rule sets despite the obvious shortcomings of it.
A new edition of CK would be in the privileged situation to be able to ignore most/all of the WRG foundations.
I would aim CK at either "Hoplite to phalanx" or "5 centuries of Rome".
These periods are still wide enough to incur some of the very criticisms i listed above.
CK would be gridded but not in the usual way.
This would of course require a cloth to be marked up.
The central areas would be wide but not deep.
The flank areas would be bigger.
This gridding would be a major turn off for many existing gamers but those would not be the main target audience.
Units of 2-6 bases. 10+ units per side.
All this "purity" is very nice but will restrict the potential audience. That would be a sacrifice worth making, otherwise it would be just anther DBx clone of which there are so many.
Hope this gives some ideas of the CK think?
At this stage it is nothing more concrete though.
I would like to avoid
1. The super army ( by using broad classifications and by using pre game manipulation)
2.Wildly out of context armies (narrower period)
3. Restrictive base sizes (by using a grid)
4. Appealing to those already enjoying competition gaming.(they are happy with what they have)
5. Skirmishes pretending to be battles.
I see the major problem for the writing team is going up against a world view by gamers based upon what they have already played "Where are the light heavy infantry". " I read that a man swinging an axe is very dangerous opponent when fighting in closed ranks".
martin :)
Thanks for sharing your outline plans, Martin. I like the emerging design ethos.
However, I think I will hold off painting anything new until the fundamental direction of whether we're heading towards Greece or Rome has been settled!
Simon
Apropos nothing, I am only missing Hoka Hey to complete my collection of every known rule set produced by the Peter Pig team.
Ancients is something I have rarely done. However out good friend the Admin here has provided me with some Huns and Tim Porter (Madaxeman) has provided me some Middle/Late Romans to use with ADLG. They will be based to the 40mm style, but for gridded games that will work.
Tim Porter really knows his stuff about ancient competitions.
He also supplies excellent statistics on rules used etc.
ADLG has a very big following.
I know little about it, but the salient features that attract players might (?) be the small army size and small table size.
That would attract me to a game.
I remember when DBA first came out.
It was such a fresh idea i immediately painted two armies that week.
martin :)
If the CK grid is "complicated" I might ask a mat print company to make mats for it.
This might require desert, grassland and ?
I think the table size would be 5x3.
Bases 3x3 and 3x4 etc.
D6 only.
None of that is new to members here.
martin
Apropos of your post, Sean, I too have Huns and Late Romans, based for DBx.
So I guess that makes it a dead certainty that Martin opts for the Hellenic theatre ;D
Simon
I need to find out what ancient armies the folk here have. Then i can choose the opposite option and make a lot of money.
Genius (?)
Also special "hero" figures that can only be bought from PP?
I have noticed from films, that the two opposing generals hack their way toward each other in order to carry out the "my speech " scene, whilst those around them fight more quietly.
martin :)
PS just don't mention factions.
Cunning idea Martin.
But if it was Hellenistics and there was a range for it.... Well, we all know what I'd be doing with my disposable income 🤣😂
But seriously, if anyone knows where I can find a copy of Hoka Hey! Let me know.
I don't normally play ancients but I have two factions that I painted for my Dad and have found their way back to me.
Romans and another group with shields and swords/spears, I think Chris did identify them but I can't remember.
Stewart
Hi Sean
I have managed to get a copy of Hoka hey from the States (with postage £14) should arrive by end of June
Stewart
Nice to see such cunning plans afoot even before the rules have been drafted!
I look forward to the ride (once MexRev, PBI2020 "the pandemic version" and PBI single-side are all done and dusted?).
Simon
You could look at covering the Crusader era (Byzantines, various Middle eastern forces, Crusader armies, Egyptians) or 11th century western Europe (Normans, French, English, Vikings, Norse Irish, Welsh, Scots and so on). I have never played the original C and K but have played various ancients rules since WRG 5th edition.
I played Art de la Guerre for the first time last week. I would describe it as a cross between Field of Glory and DBA.
John
I played "Peltast and Pila" "Hoplon" others back in 1976.
Ancients and Napoleonics are the graveyard of rule sets.
Anyone remember them ?
martin :)
Hoplon I remember, but never played.
I think a more left field subject area might be lucrative especially if a figure range is produced.
Fall of Rome
Troy
Greek City States
1st Crusades (cavalry might be useful in Longships?)
I've always been inspired by Troy, but struggled with how to game it meaningfully. Perhaps focusing on the heroic combats, with the rest of the armies as supporting actors? But then that risks turning into a skirmish...
Simon
The present PP ranges are quite small. They focus on biblical (Midianite/Egyptian) and Rome (Parthian, Roman, German).
Maybe a central rule book (including one period) with pdf supplement for each other period?
Then players would be restricted to fighting within a supplement.
Probably needs about 10 supplements. That excludes the Aztec and mound building Indians.
martin :)
Maybe try to avoid creating more sculpting work for yourself on this one, Martin? Ancients are now very well served in 15mm as it is, so you may have a partial answer to your earlier question on primary focus?
And if you do go for Early Imperial Rome and "friends", I have an excuse to paint up my Ancient Britons at last :)
Simon
One possible problem with CK is how many figures a player needs to get "on board".
Players usually get on board for various reasons.
Here are what might be the main ones.
1.Can I afford the figures needed?
2. Can i get the figures needed painted?
3. Are there enough units so that the loss of a couple is not a game ender?
4.Does it look like an army?
5. Does the table and scenery look good?
6.Will a normal army usually beat weird ones?
7. Can the game be played again and again and have new set of challenges each time?
8.Is luck a minor or major part?
9. Will my chums play it or do i need both armies initially?
10. Are there things that make it different to what is already out there?
11. Can I use my existing armies?
12. Does the title sound good?
13. Does the writing team have any idea about warfare or do they use the term faction, fast play and semi skirmish rules.
martin :)
With grids, and the ability to use any size of base, I think that many many players will have armies already. Alongside PBI, this could be your greatest "crossover" ruleset / period opportunity, Martin!
Simon
just for my 2p.
Ancients is a rabbit hole - unless you have a burning desire to produce a massive range - probably stick to what you have. So Romans vs Germans, there are plenty of things to expand it with. The best thing about PP is the game narrative and I'd stick to that ... not the enevitable line up and slog. Think more like Infamy!, Infamy! in which they spend a long time telling the story and the battle.
We don't need another WRG clone (looking at you ADLG) but what you can do is be inclusive to all those players with existing armies.
Simon
Well, I have a German and Roman army for play testing.
Stewart has armies too.
I expect that most of the play testers already have 15mm armies.
That makes it very easy/low cost to get started.
A possible problem might be if the grid is more complicated than a standard square one.
This problem is made worse by the fact that the grid itself will probably change under play testing.
This could be overcome with grouping of squares. e.g central squares are in pairs side by side. Flank squares are into 4 in a 2x2 grid.
Assuming a 5x3 table.
central zone = 3 pairs of squares side by side.6 rows from table edge to table edge.
Flank zones= 3 squares of 4 smaller squares per flank. That really is not clear. Needs a diagram.
This gives 24 zones in total.
martin
Here are pictures of my factions
Italians and something else
(https://i.postimg.cc/3WB89pWd/127703-D5-B90-D-4253-9-D4-F-E435173-DF2-FB.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/3WB89pWd)
(https://i.postimg.cc/62V9k40b/6-B6240-F5-9-BED-464-B-84-E6-1394265-BB296.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/62V9k40b)
(https://i.postimg.cc/rR88MyZV/9801765-A-DF8-C-4047-BADC-F3-AF253207-A1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/rR88MyZV)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ThG2rQdz/9-DEEFB05-D786-4-E1-A-9-D49-69-FA63815-B77.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/ThG2rQdz)
(https://i.postimg.cc/GHL21K6F/A873-AB42-4905-47-CA-A86-D-4-D2-AF7125-D70.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/GHL21K6F)
Very colourful, Stewart. There is that certain something about Ancients, isn't there?
Simon
Simon , not really my period, i can count on one hand the number of ancients games i have played.
stewart
Happily whilst I have a few "ancient" armies, I also have some without contemporary enemies so plenty of scope for me to buy and paint more figures. I do have a horse archers host gap in my collection, and a paucity of elephants too for that matter. Just saying.
For my take on this from someone whose initial entry into figure wargaming back in 197??? was with ancients (don't recall the rulesets used). Re-started in 1980s with WRG 6th Edition and played many different rulesets since.
I feel that no matter how it is broken down into specific time zones there isn't much difference between them. After all it boils down to one bunch of guys wanting to hit stab and shoot at another group trying to do the same to them. I know it sounds daft but some of the most 'funnest' games have been playing completely different period armies against each other or totally different geographical games such as Early Egyptians Vs Aztecs or medieval Europeans. With PP rules all having a certain "vagueness" quite deliberately this allows for this.
As someone who enjoys the way BB plays out it can, with tweaks for specific troop types such the highly demanded Elephants and chariots, be a good set of rules to use. On restarting playing again a few year ago my club had a preponderance of people how use FOG. As much as it is a reasonable set of rules I felt it was the rules being played rather than the game! Since then I have put my mongol horde (also cunningly disguised as various other armies such as Allans etc - it covered almost 1000+ years of history., to rest in the shed.
To be honest I felt DBA a far better ruleset and feel it is too easy to get bogged down in the minutiae of the relative merits of specific troop types. Try playing ancients using BB. I think you will find it works just as well. Ok remove the cannon and replace with ballista and Spiders . Use the elephants as the rules dictate for cavalry but have an element for them going on the rampage and you have a wonderful ruleset for almost any ancient period.
Sorry if this offends any purists out there but I would far rather have fewer different rulesets that work well rather than a plethora of mediocre products that add little not already catered for. In addition it would be one less ruleset I am trying to keep clear the 'whats and wherefores' straight in my mind.
Cheers
Derek
Derek,
I am very upset.
How could I properly field my Veteran fully-armoured Extra-Heavy Cavalry cataphracts dual-armed with lance and composite bow that win all my games for me (due to my superior generalship)?
Simon
Don't worry Simon.
That is covered under rule 8c "Ways to win without any tactics". There are 12 sections a,b,c,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m. I withdrew section d because it required covering your own army with a cloth until it got into contact. It gets stuck on the lances etc.
martin :)
CK would be different to recent RFCM sets as there would not be a defender and attacker as such.
However, the armies might have a "purpose" such as hold the line or lure them on.
I think sieges would be outside of the main rules as they were often very drawn out affairs.
A pre game can take the place of a campaign.
The armies would start a game pretty close together. This is because there was often very little pre-battle bombardments etc. In addition most of an army would be present at the game start. Although a good general will keep a reserve and use it wisely at the right place and the right time.
martin :)
I'm intrigued why you wouldn't want an attacker and defender, Martin.
Weren't many ancient battles often a matter of one side drawing themselves up at a location where they fancied their chances and daring the "attacker" (who might strategically be a defender, of course) to come and have a go if they thought themselves hard enough?
The defender might have a range of defensive options / scenarios (decided by the pre-game?) e.g. flank(s) on marsh or river; hill to line up against; hidden ditches, caltrops or similar; river at back (whoops!), and maybe a handy wood in which to place an ambush, while the attacker may have the possibility of some extra troops, better morale etc? The prospect of reinforcements - force-marching to join the fray - on one or both sides might also be a feature?
Simon
Quote from: Colonel Kilgore on June 08, 2021, 06:39:27 AM
Derek,
I am very upset.
How could I properly field my Veteran fully-armoured Extra-Heavy Cavalry cataphracts dual-armed with lance and composite bow that win all my games for me (due to my superior generalship)?
Simon
Don't worry Simon, My lone shepherd with a bit of cloth as a sling and a rock will take them on. After all God is on his side (that and very crooked dice)
Martin, I would love to see a "different" set of rules that has something unique about it. Something to set it apart. You have to admit many of the current PP rules-sets are quite similar and run into each other historically and "borrow" from each other at times. This is not a critism btw. I enjoy each of the PP rules I have so far played. Just would rather fewer but broader rules-sets rather than multiple varients of the same.
Cheers
Derek