Games today 18th December

[martin goddard]

2 games today.

game 1 = warband Germans (martin)  v late Romans (Simon)
Win to late Romans as they held most of the table.
Germans assaulted very well.  However the Germans focussed their army on a narrow 3 zone frontage. the Germans punched through but lost their battle line.
Maybe reduce the pointages for zone occupancy?


game 2= Successor pike army (simon)v imperial romans (big Mike).
Win to Successors as they held more table.
The Roman army was of such high quality it could not cover enough squares.
The successors carried out a successful flank attack.
The successors captured both wings and restricted the Romans to just  5 zones eventually.
Pike effect was a bit too erratic (?).


A nice pair of games.
The games brought up a lot of minor issues.
CK 21 out on Monday!

Thanks to Mike and Simon for coming over to PPHQ.

Thoughts. Possible actions
1. Reduce scenery to 3 per player.
2. General's risk if leading from the front . Change from 4,5,6 save to 3,4,5,6 save.
3. Sort out pike effect.
4. Wording. Change "ambush" to "Flanker" . Change "movement" general to "push" general.


A. The 6 zone by 5 zone  play table is working well. Whether the zones remain at 10 x 6 inches I know not.

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

Thanks again for hosting these games, Martin. Notwithstanding the tweaks you have mentioned, the rules are already very playable.
Things I particularly like are:
- feasible table and force sizes "for the common man" who might already have forces for one of the other popular Ancients rule sets
- everything in moderation: no massive negative on force size if being defender; no killer troop types; flank marches can work and have a local impact but won't win the game
- game length (c. 5 turns each) felt right
- fits the WRG stereotypes that many of us were brought up on (in terms of troop categories and  variables)
- considerable flexibility in army tinkering (as above) but none with an overwhelming impact so far
- straightforward mechanisms and fast play

One additional thing to consider would be official guidance on how to use non-RFCM based armies - notably for half bases and dead figures, which most other manufacturers don't make.

Simon

[Moggy]

My Mongols are FOG based and don't really want to change them. Then again I dont really need to for a gridded game. Thats one of the beauties of the system.

As long as the troop types are recognisable as to what they are it shouldn't be a problem.

Derek

[Colonel Kilgore]

How do you indicate deads and half bases, Derek?

Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Some pictures from yesterday to give a feel for the game. First up - Imperial Romans vs. hordes of Germans:

Early on as the Romans advance to contact:


The casualties mount in the centre as the highly drilled and armoured Romans keep bouncing off the Harry savages on their hill:


The end of the game, with the cavalry on the Roman right flank having swept their opposite numbers from the field of battle and claimed that important flank.


Simon

[Moggy]

Short piece of pipe-cleaner for half bases and had some casualties anyway. Can always make some up with spare figures. Press them into filler until they get about half covered and you are done. Apart from some painting if needed. Could use markers or suchlike.

Derek

Here is a marker you can use

[Colonel Kilgore]

The second game saw the Late Imperial Romans masquerading as Seleucids, against a highly professional and heavily armoured Early Imperial force.



The Seleucids brought along a full complement of 4 elephants (brittle, but add 2 dice in a fight).

The Seleucids pressured the whole Roman line. A unit of peltasts joined some skirmishers on the left flank but couldn't quite get to the far end. On the Seleucid right flank, an ambush from the hill saw off some opposition, after which some troops returned to claim that all-important edge column.



Simon

[Colonel Kilgore]

Martin,
On the possible actions, we also discussed:
- reducing the fighting power of skirmishers: with a minimum of 5 fight dice, even a single base could theoretically defeat much stronger opposition
- reducing the 5 pursuit dice for a small-difference fighting win i.e. the losers withdraw in an orderly fashion rather than being cut down as they flee.

Simon

[Moggy]

I agree with this Simon. I would say make it a minimum of 3 dice if only skirmishers

I have felt the combat system was flawed from the start. Especially if there is a minor difference in the hits scored. I doubt any unit would run away because its opponent had hit its shield hard. I still feel this should be on casualties and not hits. Otherwise you can have a fight where side A does 1 hit (not saved) and side B has 5 hits (all saved) and an undamaged side A loses despite causing damage on side b. Likewise with a force that avoids combat taking the 5 unsavable hits. Especially cruel when it is a cavalry force avoiding a foot force.

I think these are the only part of the rules I dislike. "But if thems the rules then thems the rules" Still like them overall.

Derek