• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Historical Games Thread

Handigar

Member
Validated User
If you mean the WW2 naval combat game Victory at Sea that was probaly me...The club may have gone a touch too far!
Glad you found a game you like!

My Romans are done.

Been playing them for a while. I've decided that taking all the legionaries is my best option, they can fight just about anything well except knight class enemies. Unfortunately they are so expensive in point that I can only take a handful of the other stuff. The other stuff is vulnerable to being picked off so it's good I don't take too much of them.

This leaves me with a small elite army that is incredibly vulnerable to flanking, and my tactics revolve getting the legionaries into combat without being flanked, so they can break the enemy before they get flanked. Wish I could dig ditches like Caesar did to protect his flanks.
They look reat; 1st Century BC operating in Spain or North Africa?

Campaign rules are a bit much to ask for in games covering as much geographical and temporal span as most Ancient and Medieval battle-scale games, given the vast differences in operational and logistical capabilities governing strategic concerns. Even in the limited context of the Classical Aegean, the difference in capabilities between the Greek city states and the Persian Empire is incomparable, not to mention the importance of naval warfare. What I don't think is unreasonable is rules to model the rout in some way and determine actual casualties so results can be carried forwards in a sequence of linked battles.

Where scenarios are concerned, it does seem to me that ahistorical tournament play dominates and that may be the reason for the absence of "operational" scenarios. When I look for discussion of A&M games elsewhere, it seems to consist largely of "How do I make an efficient Norman Army -- I struggle against Elephants!" or "Battle Report: Hussites vs. Hittites" rather than discussion of people's fun historical battles and campaigns, which is rather disappointing. It seems a lot of the potential of the medium is going unexplored.

Putting that aside, I like the rules described above for Fire and Sword (though its outside the period I'm interested in for the moment). I'm not sure river crossings and passes need to always devolve to a boring frontal assault; they often involved significant manoeuver, deception, and other strategems, at least as often as field battles (which devolved into "Line up in standard formation and fight!" as often as any clever tacticing went on according to our sources). There must be a way to capture this sort of thing on the tabletop? Anyway, several of the scenarios I was considering are more mobile affairs. Consider something like the following (numbers are arbitrary for an arbitrary system).

Scenario: Harassment
A large army is harassed while in vulnerable terrain by a smaller enemy force. This could be detached cavalry in open terrain or light infantry occupying the hills as they march through a mountain pass or similar.

Terrain
The attacker has the greater control over terrain, having chosen his point of attack on the enemy march. For a cavalry harassment, normal terrain rules are used. For an infantry harassment, a large number of rough and difficult terrain pieces may be placed, but there must be a clear path at least of at least 2BW along the centre-line of the board.

Armies & Deployment
The defender has a normal 200pt army and slow-moving baggage, and must deploy in marching column near the centre-line of the board with the rear of the column on the left edge.

The attacker has 50pt of units, chosen from the mounted units of his army in open terrain or Light and Medium Infantry in rough terrain. He has the greater control over the battlefield chosen, and may place his units anywhere (including in ambush) as long as they don't start within shooting or charge distance of the enemy.

Victory and Defeat
The attacker wins if he routs 12.5% of the units in the enemy army, or disrupts twice this amount (representing a drip of casualties that erodes the enemy's fighting effectiveness). He wins a Decisive Victory if he manages to separate or overrun the enemy baggage, or kill the enemy general.

The defender wins if he marches his army off the right-hand board edge without taking significant casualties and with his baggage intact, at which point it is assumed that the terrain is no longer suited to harassment. He wins a decisive victory if he manages to pin and destroy his attackers, inflicting 25-50% casualties.
 
Last edited:

Scutarii

Registered User
Validated User
I like the idea of trying to get a rule set that starts waaaay earlier than the day of the battle.

Zoom out further and start several days before. Both armies coming into the general sphere of operations miles apart and both need to bring the other army to battle. Combine with objectives that can give a victory to one side or another without needing to actually break or kill the enemy army etc.
 

MonsterMash

Are you mochrieing me?
Validated User
I like the idea of trying to get a rule set that starts waaaay earlier than the day of the battle.

Zoom out further and start several days before. Both armies coming into the general sphere of operations miles apart and both need to bring the other army to battle. Combine with objectives that can give a victory to one side or another without needing to actually break or kill the enemy army etc.
Similar to the sort of things the pre-game minigames do in the Peter Pig Rules for the Common Man or a higher level version of the Patrol Phase in Too Fat Lardies Chain of Command. In rules like AK47 Republic the army composition can be changed by the results of the minigame and the objectives could also be set by it.
 

Scutarii

Registered User
Validated User
Similar to the sort of things the pre-game minigames do in the Peter Pig Rules for the Common Man or a higher level version of the Patrol Phase in Too Fat Lardies Chain of Command. In rules like AK47 Republic the army composition can be changed by the results of the minigame and the objectives could also be set by it.
Maybe. But I'm picturing a big zoomed out 6mm style table with normal game turns etc. rather than a mini game.
 

durecellrabbit

Registered User
Validated User
They look reat; 1st Century BC operating in Spain or North Africa?

Campaign rules are a bit much to ask for in games covering as much geographical and temporal span as most Ancient and Medieval battle-scale games, given the vast differences in operational and logistical capabilities governing strategic concerns. Even in the limited context of the Classical Aegean, the difference in capabilities between the Greek city states and the Persian Empire is incomparable, not to mention the importance of naval warfare. What I don't think is unreasonable is rules to model the rout in some way and determine actual casualties so results can be carried forwards in a sequence of linked battles.

Where scenarios are concerned, it does seem to me that ahistorical tournament play dominates and that may be the reason for the absence of "operational" scenarios. When I look for discussion of A&M games elsewhere, it seems to consist largely of "How do I make an efficient Norman Army -- I struggle against Elephants!" or "Battle Report: Hussites vs. Hittites" rather than discussion of people's fun historical battles and campaigns, which is rather disappointing. It seems a lot of the potential of the medium is going unexplored.
Thanks, they are 1st century BCE but that is just my generic basing style.


Modelling the rout would be interesting. It would make cavalry more important in many classical Greek battles. They are much better at the pursuit and if you didn't slaughter the fleeing enemy then how great was your win really.
 

RSDean

Registered User
Validated User
My son is a big Sienkiewicz fan, but he’d have to start painting some figures ...
 
Top Bottom