Good Ancients Match-Ups

Started by steve_holmes_11, 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: mmcv on 22 June 2020, 10:45:32 PM
Fair enough, though as only two units can share a box at a time it works surely only be an issue if your grid was fairly small? What grid size are you planning on using? I'll likely be using 80-100mm grids for armies with chariots.

I'm still experimenting, but looking at 80mm squares.
Much smaller and there isn't space for the cards and tokens.


I've been away form ancients for at least 2 decades and am assessing whether it's worth giving it another try.
I have great sympathy for the rules writers, I think it is one of the most challenging periods to create a set of rules.
Consider the challenges:
* 4500 years of history (That's almost 90% of recorded time).
* A whole world to cover.
* No access to anybody who can say "I was there man!!".
* Absent, contradictory, incomplete records - leading to a need to extrapolate from scant evidence.
* The impact of national stories and Hollywood.
* Decades of prior art in the hobby.




mmcv

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 June 2020, 11:45:38 AM
I'm still experimenting, but looking at 80mm squares.
Much smaller and there isn't space for the cards and tokens.


I've been away form ancients for at least 2 decades and am assessing whether it's worth giving it another try.
I have great sympathy for the rules writers, I think it is one of the most challenging periods to create a set of rules.
Consider the challenges:
* 4500 years of history (That's almost 90% of recorded time).
* A whole world to cover.
* No access to anybody who can say "I was there man!!".
* Absent, contradictory, incomplete records - leading to a need to extrapolate from scant evidence.
* The impact of national stories and Hollywood.
* Decades of prior art in the hobby.


Yeah it's tough, especially when you have such differences in warfare between say bronze age chariots, Greek and Roman infantry and medieval warfare. There's always the difficult balance between having a broadly applicable easy to use system, vs simulating the nuances of each period. I've been working on adapting them for mesoamerican warfare, though still needs some play testing.

I recently purchased some chits to use for it, I'd previously been drawing the cards then marking the number with dice. Had also toyed around with magnetic trackers but all too fiddly. Going to use the chits for activations then cards or dice for combat.

What base sizes are you using? I've been doing 40mm frontage for getting mini grids going, maybe 60-70mm squares, with eventually maybe upping to a 60 - 80mm frontage for 80 - 100mm squares. This'll fit nicely on a kitchen table.

I regret somewhat doing my ECW at 120mm frontage as need to clear space and set up folding tables if I want a game of FK&P. So rarely get one.

All being well I'll use some of my crusades forces on a 80mm frontage on a 100mm grid in the near future to try out TtS with the chits.

Also at some point plan to play out the battle of Arsuf in three different rule sets (TtS, HC and Soldiers of God) to compare and contrast.

Make sure you pick up the latest Even Stronger supplement for TtS if you haven't already, some good clarifications and a few rule improvements from the original. Especially around routing and rallying.

Chris Pringle

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM
no interesting tactical options to exercise ...

At risk of reopening a can of very wriggly worms, I suggest that's a limitation of pre-Napoleonic warfare in general, primarily for fundamental reasons of physics and geometry. As debated on the Forum here:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11416.msg152960.html#msg152960
and my full blog post about it here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2016/04/airing-some-prejudices-on-one.html

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM
If there are no great match-ups, can you sell me a different slice of history where I can enjoy fun games.

If you mean history in general, I urge you to examine the 19th century: asymmetrical armies and weaponry producing interesting tactical challenges, loads of maneuver and depth and variety to the battles, plenty of colour on the tabletop - it's got a lot going for it.

If you just mean a different slice of ancient history, I'm not the right person to ask; I can only say from a brief encounter with TtS that if you're going to do ancients, it seems a good fun system to do it with.

Best of luck with finding what you're looking for!
Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331/



FierceKitty

If everything in ancient and medieval plays the same tactically, there's a strong inference that you should be considering a new set of rules.
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: mmcv on 23 June 2020, 01:01:39 PM
Yeah it's tough, especially when you have such differences in warfare between say bronze age chariots, Greek and Roman infantry and medieval warfare. There's always the difficult balance between having a broadly applicable easy to use system, vs simulating the nuances of each period. I've been working on adapting them for mesoamerican warfare, though still needs some play testing.

I recently purchased some chits to use for it, I'd previously been drawing the cards then marking the number with dice. Had also toyed around with magnetic trackers but all too fiddly. Going to use the chits for activations then cards or dice for combat.

What base sizes are you using? I've been doing 40mm frontage for getting mini grids going, maybe 60-70mm squares, with eventually maybe upping to a 60 - 80mm frontage for 80 - 100mm squares. This'll fit nicely on a kitchen table.

I regret somewhat doing my ECW at 120mm frontage as need to clear space and set up folding tables if I want a game of FK&P. So rarely get one.

All being well I'll use some of my crusades forces on a 80mm frontage on a 100mm grid in the near future to try out TtS with the chits.

Also at some point plan to play out the battle of Arsuf in three different rule sets (TtS, HC and Soldiers of God) to compare and contrast.

Make sure you pick up the latest Even Stronger supplement for TtS if you haven't already, some good clarifications and a few rule improvements from the original. Especially around routing and rallying.

My old ancients are 15s on a 40mm frontage (Standard WRG "Numbered" basing).
I'm planning on sticking with 40mm frontage, and using 20, 30 or 40mm depths to reflect:
* Model size (More depth if I field Elephants and Chariots).
* Formation (Deeper for the loose and open orders).
* Large / small units.

Will probably play out a couple of encounters solo using MDF bases, just to get a feel for the game.
As I've alluded earlier in the thread, I can be quite picky about rules, so have to like the feel of the game.


mmcv

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 June 2020, 02:47:52 PM
My old ancients are 15s on a 40mm frontage (Standard WRG "Numbered" basing).
I'm planning on sticking with 40mm frontage, and using 20, 30 or 40mm depths to reflect:
* Model size (More depth if I field Elephants and Chariots).
* Formation (Deeper for the loose and open orders).
* Large / small units.

Will probably play out a couple of encounters solo using MDF bases, just to get a feel for the game.
As I've alluded earlier in the thread, I can be quite picky about rules, so have to like the feel of the game.



Yeah pretty much the approach I'm taking. 40x20 for standard infantry and 40x40 for deep units or "special" e.g. attached crossbows. Cavalry 40x30 and Chariots etc 40x40. Then use number of figures and formation for some variation. E.g. standard cavalry have 4 figures but light cav only 2.

Of course there's no point playing a rule system you don't enjoy!

In ancients the interesting tactical interplay comes from the different types of units and how they handle local tactical situations.

DaveH

I've been using the DBx style basing (40mm width for 15/10/6mm figures) for my ancients, I like DBA for what it is, but am still looking to settle on a bigger battle set of ancients rules.

I see the candidates as Sword & Spear and To the Strongest really from what I've read.

Probably the best historical opponents that can beat Romans is Sassanid Persians.

mmcv

Hail Caesar is worth a go too, though it's more a flexible scenario system than a line up and fight competitive matchup like DBA. TtS fits that criteria. Can't speak to S&S.

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: Chris Pringle on 23 June 2020, 01:43:36 PM
At risk of reopening a can of very wriggly worms, I suggest that's a limitation of pre-Napoleonic warfare in general, primarily for fundamental reasons of physics and geometry. As debated on the Forum here:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11416.msg152960.html#msg152960
and my full blog post about it here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2016/04/airing-some-prejudices-on-one.html

If you mean history in general, I urge you to examine the 19th century: asymmetrical armies and weaponry producing interesting tactical challenges, loads of maneuver and depth and variety to the battles, plenty of colour on the tabletop - it's got a lot going for it.

If you just mean a different slice of ancient history, I'm not the right person to ask; I can only say from a brief encounter with TtS that if you're going to do ancients, it seems a good fun system to do it with.

Best of luck with finding what you're looking for!
Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331/

Alas I did actually mean a different slice of ancient history.
I think there's some potential around the Wrack of the Byzantine empire following the 4th crusade.

Interesting links.
My own view is that the rules and the scale of battle make the biggest difference.
Throw in a third factor, the limitations of the tabletop, which tend to thwart strategic attacking and push most battles into linear confrontations.

Ithoriel

I remain unconvinced that, whether your line stretches from Switzerland to the sea or merely the width of the Field of Gu'edina, most of warfare doesn't consist of two sides lining up and having a go with whatever technological or psychological advantage they can contrive. Nor am I convinced that there's as much difference as some believe between warfare involving troops with pokey-sticks and those involving troops with bang-sticks.

The arrival of a reliable internal combustion engine, rear echelon artillery, air power, telecommunications et al does seem to have irrevocably have changed the face of battle ... at least until WW3 puts us back to fighting with rocks and sticks once more.
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

mmcv

Late Byzantine is interesting, the Latin Empire, etc. And that fits into the broader crusades period where there's plenty of interesting options around that. Lot of options with Turks, Saracens, Arabs, Persians....

Italo-Normans is also an interesting option at the earlier end of that period. Or the Iberian Reconquista. I think anything that pits heavy European style armies against lighter more flexible armies can have some interesting options.

Huns or Mongols are another option for something a little different. Lot of horses to paint though...

hammurabi70

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 10:09:38 PM
You wish to avoid the earlier periods when they lost many battles?
No reference to other areas such as India or China.


I most certainly do..

That's fine. Nothing more irritating than people answering the query they wished you had asked rather than the one you want to ask. My preference is the Successor states and Punic Wars because I find the interplay of civic politics, economics and military topics provide an interesting setting for historical study and wargaming; for the latter I find DBA quite sufficient.


Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 June 2020, 11:45:38 AM
I'm still experimenting, but looking at 80mm squares.
Much smaller and there isn't space for the cards and tokens.


I've been away form ancients for at least 2 decades and am assessing whether it's worth giving it another try.
I have great sympathy for the rules writers, I think it is one of the most challenging periods to create a set of rules.
Consider the challenges:
* 4500 years of history (That's almost 90% of recorded time).
* A whole world to cover.
* No access to anybody who can say "I was there man!!".
* Absent, contradictory, incomplete records - leading to a need to extrapolate from scant evidence.
* The impact of national stories and Hollywood.
* Decades of prior art in the hobby.


I suggest one set of rules for the entire period is very unsatisfactory. Chariot warfare, for example, is a quite distinct entity, whatever WRG's opinion might be. I suggest that the classic four books of sub-division that are commonly used would do well and it is advantageous to have a distinct set of rules for each. SHIELdBEARER was specifically written for the Classical period, although as I have never played it it would be inappropriate to recommend it. As for TTS what are the specifics that make it interesting and how do the different armies play out. If Romans are all conquering everyone would play them; somehow I doubt they are.

Pick some opponents from armies that have a variety of interesting troop types.

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 23 June 2020, 10:54:32 PM
I suggest one set of rules for the entire period is very unsatisfactory. Chariot warfare, for example, is a quite distinct entity, whatever WRG's opinion might be. I suggest that the classic four books of sub-division that are commonly used would do well and it is advantageous to have a distinct set of rules for each. SHIELdBEARER was specifically written for the Classical period, although as I have never played it it would be inappropriate to recommend it. As for TTS what are the specifics that make it interesting and how do the different armies play out. If Romans are all conquering everyone would play them; somehow I doubt they are.

Pick some opponents from armies that have a variety of interesting troop types.

Split into 4 sub-genres is an interesting suggestion.
I was observing elsewhere that few of us understand horse riding - far less the dynamics of 2 bodies of 600 riders attempting to fight from horseback.
How much harder must it be to imagine the development of a chariot (or elephant) fight.

Off genre, but unshielded pikes are another.
Nobody can really explain how the front ranks of renaissance pike-blocks didn't all get skewered.

Even further off genre, I watched the growth of Phil Barker's Horse, Foot and Guns over the course of a decade? (Has it been that long).
His brave attempt to cover firearm warfare from matchlocks to magazine rifles was visibly sinking under the weight of the troop combinations.
(Matchlock infantry against paddlewheel gunboats anybody).
The whole thing became a lot clearer when one looked at a specific engagement and eliminated all the types that were not present form the grid.
Your 30 x 30 possible interactions suddenly reduces to 5 x 5 or 6 x 6, most of the obscure combat outcomes disappear, and there is some hope of concentrating on the tabletop action.


Perhaps a vision of the future is an electronic reference sheet that can automatically show "just the relevant stuff".

sultanbev

I too had similar thoughts about how to do ancients interestingly without Romans, came up with 12th-13th century Syrians, which then led to similar era Egyptians, Mongols, Georgians, Seljuk Turks, later Byzantines, with not a Crusader in sight.

Think that's outside your time frame but the idea would be to pick a geographical area first, then find armies in that region that fought each other when they weren't being hammered by boring Romans.

As the saying goes, the winner writes the history, so too much of our ancients history is dominated by the wars the Romans fought, when if you dig deep enough there were probably plenty enough wars going on for everyone to ignore the Romans completely and fight assorted and varied armies without them.

Mark

FierceKitty

Quote from: sultanbev on 24 June 2020, 09:31:25 AM
I too had similar thoughts about how to do ancients interestingly without Romans, came up with 12th-13th century Syrians, which then led to similar era Egyptians, Mongols, Georgians, Seljuk Turks, later Byzantines, with not a Crusader in sight.

Think that's outside your time frame but the idea would be to pick a geographical area first, then find armies in that region that fought each other when they weren't being hammered by boring Romans.

As the saying goes, the winner writes the history, so too much of our ancients history is dominated by the wars the Romans fought, when if you dig deep enough there were probably plenty enough wars going on for everyone to ignore the Romans completely and fight assorted and varied armies without them.

Mark

So if you want to do ancients without Romans, don't do ancients? @-)
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.