I've had long conversations with friends about designing an MMO that would address all of our concerns. In this post, I'm going to describe "World of Fogecraft", a hypothetical MMO that we can use as a backdrop for more discussions. While we will focus on issues concerning MMOs, it will also apply to all types of RPGs (pen & paper and computer).
To provide a base level for the discussion, World of Fogecraft, abbreviated WoF, will implement a fantasy setting similar to old school D&D. Its perfectly valid to assume that standard archetypes will be present: fighters, magic users, priests, and rogues. Mobs will run the gamut from normal animals (wolves, bears, etc.) to humanoids (orcs and kobolds) to undead (skeletons and zombies) to all sorts of fantastic creatures, up to and including dragons.
The world will consist of three different zones: Capital City, Dinglewood, and The Borderlands. Capital City is an area much like Stormwind in WoW (or Waterdeep or Greyhawk City in AD&D). It is a large city that provides a base area where characters go to train, buy supplies, etc. Dinglewood is an introductory area that is mostly civilized (think Elwynn Forest or the Dalelands). It has several farms, mines, woods, and a small village. Most of the quests will revolve around securing areas from predators (like wolves) or stopping incursions of bandits/kobolds. The Borderlands is located on the edge of civilization. The only settlement is a Keep, with monsters patrolling beyond its walls.
I plan to expand the discussion to include all aspects of the world, including questing, classes, rewards, and so on. Please feel free to comment on or question any of the assumptions. And if there is a particular aspect of the game that hasn't been mentioned here, I can always add a post to kick off that discussion.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
What I Want to See in an MMO
I have been playing World of Warcraft for a couple of years. I am in a casual raiding guild on a PVP server. IMO, it is one of the three best games that I've ever played (along with Magic and Advanced Squad Leader). Still, there are a number of things that would make a better game. Here are my top three items.
1. Allow players actions to "change the world".
As a player, I want to feel that my actions make a difference. I want to feel that killing bandits makes the town safer, or that I'm helping to uncover some long, lost artifact. Its disappointing when you kill the bandit leader, only to see him respawn in 30 seconds.
I'm not sure what the correct answer really is. You want everyone to have a chance to experience everything in the game, but is it really necessary for everyone to experience identical content? For example, a quest chain might have four different final encounters, but identical rewards. That solution would require some coordination between players, since it might be weird if two players are on the same step of the chain but have different objectives. If done right, it could give the players the illusion that their actions have changed the world.
2. You are what you wear, i.e., character roles.
A lot of systems have very well defined character roles in accordance with the MMO trinity: tank, heal, DPS. A lot of classes end up shoe horned into a particular role. In addition, the set of gear and skill requirements for PVP and PVE can be quite different. I think it would be more interesting if classes had the ability to adapt to different roles in different situations. Perhaps it could be a mix of gear and/or skills that allow them to easily switch between two different roles. I think its perfectly acceptable that a character geared/skilled for a particular role should be superior to a character that is set up to be a hybrid. That's the "cost" of flexibility. The key is to have the value of flexibility offset its cost.
How would I like to see this implemented? First, I would make it very easy for players to switch roles. Perhaps a change of gear would work in a pinch, but you should be able to easily re-spec for a particular adventure. Second, I would give classes interesting abilities that can be used in different ways. For example, a magic using class might have a spell that transforms them into a fighter (similar to Mordenkainen's Transformation for old school AD&D types). They would be limited in what magic they could use, if any, but they would have "magical" armor to compensate, turning them into a poor man's tank. They probably won't be able to tank a high end raid boss, but they should be able to handle a lower level instance with some play adjustments. The system should reward the players for adapting to situations.
Thinking about it a bit more, it might be possible to get rid of the trinity altogether. I played D&D for years before I knew what the trinity even was. You might be able to design a system that rewards a balanced party as opposed to the formulaic one. Who knows...
3. Remove the "Hamster Wheel".
This is my biggest pet peeve of all. I can't stand the fact that you have to run the same dungeons over and over again to get everyone all of the items that they need. World of Warcraft has taken this to a new level, so pretty much everything requires some form of hamster wheel. In addition to the gear grind, it has money and reputation grinds. As a business model, its fantastic, since it keeps that subscription money coming. For players, however, it can be very tiring.
I do understand the desire for progression, where you have to complete dungeon A before you have a chance to complete dungeon B, and so on. Players also want to feel that their characters are continuously improving. I think the key is to provide enough end game content to a) keep people busy and b) feel like they are accomplishing something. Perhaps some variation of world building, or maybe politics, or some sort of epic adventures would provide for an interesting end game.
Anyways, these are three areas that I think can be improved in MMOs. They are not easy problems, but I do think that you can create a successful game if you can solve them.
1. Allow players actions to "change the world".
As a player, I want to feel that my actions make a difference. I want to feel that killing bandits makes the town safer, or that I'm helping to uncover some long, lost artifact. Its disappointing when you kill the bandit leader, only to see him respawn in 30 seconds.
I'm not sure what the correct answer really is. You want everyone to have a chance to experience everything in the game, but is it really necessary for everyone to experience identical content? For example, a quest chain might have four different final encounters, but identical rewards. That solution would require some coordination between players, since it might be weird if two players are on the same step of the chain but have different objectives. If done right, it could give the players the illusion that their actions have changed the world.
2. You are what you wear, i.e., character roles.
A lot of systems have very well defined character roles in accordance with the MMO trinity: tank, heal, DPS. A lot of classes end up shoe horned into a particular role. In addition, the set of gear and skill requirements for PVP and PVE can be quite different. I think it would be more interesting if classes had the ability to adapt to different roles in different situations. Perhaps it could be a mix of gear and/or skills that allow them to easily switch between two different roles. I think its perfectly acceptable that a character geared/skilled for a particular role should be superior to a character that is set up to be a hybrid. That's the "cost" of flexibility. The key is to have the value of flexibility offset its cost.
How would I like to see this implemented? First, I would make it very easy for players to switch roles. Perhaps a change of gear would work in a pinch, but you should be able to easily re-spec for a particular adventure. Second, I would give classes interesting abilities that can be used in different ways. For example, a magic using class might have a spell that transforms them into a fighter (similar to Mordenkainen's Transformation for old school AD&D types). They would be limited in what magic they could use, if any, but they would have "magical" armor to compensate, turning them into a poor man's tank. They probably won't be able to tank a high end raid boss, but they should be able to handle a lower level instance with some play adjustments. The system should reward the players for adapting to situations.
Thinking about it a bit more, it might be possible to get rid of the trinity altogether. I played D&D for years before I knew what the trinity even was. You might be able to design a system that rewards a balanced party as opposed to the formulaic one. Who knows...
3. Remove the "Hamster Wheel".
This is my biggest pet peeve of all. I can't stand the fact that you have to run the same dungeons over and over again to get everyone all of the items that they need. World of Warcraft has taken this to a new level, so pretty much everything requires some form of hamster wheel. In addition to the gear grind, it has money and reputation grinds. As a business model, its fantastic, since it keeps that subscription money coming. For players, however, it can be very tiring.
I do understand the desire for progression, where you have to complete dungeon A before you have a chance to complete dungeon B, and so on. Players also want to feel that their characters are continuously improving. I think the key is to provide enough end game content to a) keep people busy and b) feel like they are accomplishing something. Perhaps some variation of world building, or maybe politics, or some sort of epic adventures would provide for an interesting end game.
Anyways, these are three areas that I think can be improved in MMOs. They are not easy problems, but I do think that you can create a successful game if you can solve them.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Field of Glory: First Impressions
I finally had a chance to read through the Field of Glory rules. At first glance, they look pretty cool, although i'll have to play them to make a final judgement.
Every troop type has five different characteristics: quality (poor to elite), training (drilled or undrilled), type (heavy infantry, knights, light horse, etc.), armor (unprotected to heavily armored), and weapons (swordsman, bows, spears, etc.). In addition, certain troops are designated as skirmishers while others are termed shock. The different characteristics help define the capabilities of the various troop types. Troops are organized into units, which contain anywhere from 4 to 8 stands. Players can organize the units into battle lines by combining battle groups.
The game is played in alternating player turns. Each turn has five phases: impact, maneuver, shooting, melee, and joint action. In the impact phase, the active player makes all charge declarations and the inactive player responds to each of them. After the units have charged, there is a special round of combat. In the maneuver phase, the active player moves his battle groups across the map. Some maneuvers are more difficult and require a successful die roll to perform while simple moves are automatic. Eligible units can fire in the shooting phase, and close combat occurs in the melee phase. In the joint action phase, both players move commanders, move routing troops and their pursuers, and attempt to rally units.
Combat is performed in a similar manner in all three phases. Each side totals the number of stands in contact or shooting, which determines the number of dice they will get to roll. To determine the score necessary for success, the system uses an interesting mechanism called "Points of Advantage" (or "POA" for short). The POA define matchups that provide an advantage for one side or the other. For example, Longbow vs Knights is a POA for the Longbows, Impact Foot gets a POA during the Impact Phase, and so on. As you can see from the examples, the POAs vary between the three types of combat (shooting, impact, and melee). This allows the system to model interesting differences between troop types. Gauls are Impact Foot, so they have an advantage when they charge, but Romans are Skilled Swordsman, and will gain an advantage if the combat drags out. On paper, it is quite elegant.
That's the game in a nutshell. I have glossed over a few details but have described the major features. The rules are fairly clear and contain illustrations that help clarify each concept. I'm really looking forward to trying them out.
Every troop type has five different characteristics: quality (poor to elite), training (drilled or undrilled), type (heavy infantry, knights, light horse, etc.), armor (unprotected to heavily armored), and weapons (swordsman, bows, spears, etc.). In addition, certain troops are designated as skirmishers while others are termed shock. The different characteristics help define the capabilities of the various troop types. Troops are organized into units, which contain anywhere from 4 to 8 stands. Players can organize the units into battle lines by combining battle groups.
The game is played in alternating player turns. Each turn has five phases: impact, maneuver, shooting, melee, and joint action. In the impact phase, the active player makes all charge declarations and the inactive player responds to each of them. After the units have charged, there is a special round of combat. In the maneuver phase, the active player moves his battle groups across the map. Some maneuvers are more difficult and require a successful die roll to perform while simple moves are automatic. Eligible units can fire in the shooting phase, and close combat occurs in the melee phase. In the joint action phase, both players move commanders, move routing troops and their pursuers, and attempt to rally units.
Combat is performed in a similar manner in all three phases. Each side totals the number of stands in contact or shooting, which determines the number of dice they will get to roll. To determine the score necessary for success, the system uses an interesting mechanism called "Points of Advantage" (or "POA" for short). The POA define matchups that provide an advantage for one side or the other. For example, Longbow vs Knights is a POA for the Longbows, Impact Foot gets a POA during the Impact Phase, and so on. As you can see from the examples, the POAs vary between the three types of combat (shooting, impact, and melee). This allows the system to model interesting differences between troop types. Gauls are Impact Foot, so they have an advantage when they charge, but Romans are Skilled Swordsman, and will gain an advantage if the combat drags out. On paper, it is quite elegant.
That's the game in a nutshell. I have glossed over a few details but have described the major features. The rules are fairly clear and contain illustrations that help clarify each concept. I'm really looking forward to trying them out.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Clash of Armor - Scenario AAR
Recently, my friend Armando and I played the Clash of Armor scenario from the Tobruk board game. The game is the first of the Advanced Tobruk Series of games published by Critical Hit. The game is an update of the original series published by Avalon Hill in the 1970's. I decided to replay the same scenario using several different game systems as a way to compare them.
The scenario pits a pits 11 MkIII G/H, two Mk III J, and two MkIV Es against six Grants. Each side gets victory points for tanks destroyed and for vehicles exited off of the map. The match up is pretty tough for the Germans, since they have very little chance of penetrating the Grant from the front. Armando got a bit unlucky and had all of his special ammunition (APCR and HEAT) shots were turret hits and could not penetrate. Once the MkIIIs got behind the Grants, they were able to get some kills. In the end, the Germans lost six tanks vs two British tanks. The Germans did manage to exit three vehicles from the board, so the final score was 6-5, a British victory.
I like the ATS armor system a lot. Direct fire results are not binary, so crews get suppressed, tanks take damage, etc. You can't really sit back and shoot, since the kill tables are not super deadly. It emphasizes maneuver over firepower, which produces a very fluid game. The "ergonomics" of the system is good, although I do have a few nits with the way some of the charts are organized. I also think that the designer could have avoided several ASL-isms that don't really add much to the game.
The next system I tried is the Mein Panzer miniatures system. Since I don't have enough miniatures for the scenario, I used the map board and counters from the ATS scenario. I reviewed Mein Panzer in my previous blog entry, so I won't provide a summary here. The game was a German Victory. The British lost all six Grants while the Germans lost two Mk IIIs, one Mk IV, and had one Mk III immobilized. The German numerical superiority was a big advantage. They were able to suppress the British tanks with two platoon and move the other two into better positions. They were helped by a serious of fortunate initiative rolls which allowed them to shoot before the Brits. Finally, everyone was in "effective range" from the beginning, so securing hits was quite easy. All of this worked against the outnumbered Grants, who were quickly dispatched.
The next system that I tried was the Panzer board game published by Yaquinto. This is an old system that is very hardware driven. It contains a lot of detail about the armor of the vehicles and their weapons systems, but is a bit complicated and very intimidating for a new player. In this system, the British scored a major victory. They had one Grant knocked out and two immobilized. The Germans lost seven Mk IIIs and a Mk IV with another Mk IV immobilized. The big difference was that the relative speed of the vehicles was less, so the Germans suffered through more shots to get to the Grants. The system doesn't have any form of suppression, so most shots simply bounced off of the Grant's think frontal armor. The Brits had better armor and better guns than the Germans, so they could simply sit back and pick off the attackers one by one. The Germans were never able to flank the position.
Next on the list was Panzer Miniature Battles (PMB) published by Lost Battalion Games. It is a revised version of the Panzer board game adapted for use with miniatures. The rules manage to keep most of the flavor of the original set but have been greatly streamlined. They provide a nice balance between playability and detail. Using this system, the Germans scored a victory, although it was fairly close. The British lost five Grants, and would have lost the last if I hadn't called the game. The Germans lost five Mk IIIs and a Mk IV with an additional immobilized Mk III. The Germans were able to close the distance fairly quickly, which minimized losses to defensive fire. The Mk IVs knocked out three tanks using HEAT. The loss of those vehicles really opened things up for the MK IIIs, which were able to flank the position and finish off the remaining Grants.
Last on the list is the game Battlefront WWII published by Fire and Fury Games. This game was a bit of a stretch for the comparison, since it is a slightly different scale and focus. It uses a "half-platoon" scale, where each vehicle represents 1-2 vehicles in real life. Also, it is really designed to emphasize combined arms combat as opposed to pure armored combat. It did an admirable job, although it felt quite different than the other systems. The biggest difference is that Battlefront uses a very "soft" combat results table. All of the long range shots simply suppressed their targets instead of killing them. To actually make kills, the Germans had to close to short range (less then 10") and focus fire on single vehicles. The first shot would disorganize which gave the later shots a better chance to destroy their targets. The Germans had a rather easy victory, destroying all six Grants while losing two Mk IIIs. One final note was that the Grants were both out gunned by and had inferior armor than the Panzers. That doesn't jive well with reality.
So, how would I rate the systems?
In the board game category, I think ATS is superior to Panzer. I think it is a much smoother system that provides enough meat to satisfy an armor enthusiast. Panzer certainly shows its age, and while the amount of detail is impressive, it really complicates things. When you play the games right after each other, you realize just how much more work is involved with each shot in Panzer. Like I mentioned before, my biggest complaint with ATS is the features that are "borrowed" from ASL. For example, gun calibers in ATS are rated as A, B, C, and D which directly correspond to ASL's LL, L, normal, and * ratings. The AFV cards already provide gun penetration vs range. The designer could have used the real gun caliber and provided the base to hit table on the AFV cards as well. That is a minor quibble I have with a really good game system.
In the miniatures game category, I have to give the nod to Panzer Miniature Battles. I like Mein Panzer a lot, and I do think that it is a better "club game" than PMB. I like the amount of detail provided by PMB, and I really like the hidden orders system. In armor only scenarios, Battlefront is a distant third. I think its CRT is too "soft" for scenarios without any infantry.
I would like to do another comparison that uses a scenario with a decent amount of infantry. That, however, will be a discussion for another day.
The scenario pits a pits 11 MkIII G/H, two Mk III J, and two MkIV Es against six Grants. Each side gets victory points for tanks destroyed and for vehicles exited off of the map. The match up is pretty tough for the Germans, since they have very little chance of penetrating the Grant from the front. Armando got a bit unlucky and had all of his special ammunition (APCR and HEAT) shots were turret hits and could not penetrate. Once the MkIIIs got behind the Grants, they were able to get some kills. In the end, the Germans lost six tanks vs two British tanks. The Germans did manage to exit three vehicles from the board, so the final score was 6-5, a British victory.
I like the ATS armor system a lot. Direct fire results are not binary, so crews get suppressed, tanks take damage, etc. You can't really sit back and shoot, since the kill tables are not super deadly. It emphasizes maneuver over firepower, which produces a very fluid game. The "ergonomics" of the system is good, although I do have a few nits with the way some of the charts are organized. I also think that the designer could have avoided several ASL-isms that don't really add much to the game.
The next system I tried is the Mein Panzer miniatures system. Since I don't have enough miniatures for the scenario, I used the map board and counters from the ATS scenario. I reviewed Mein Panzer in my previous blog entry, so I won't provide a summary here. The game was a German Victory. The British lost all six Grants while the Germans lost two Mk IIIs, one Mk IV, and had one Mk III immobilized. The German numerical superiority was a big advantage. They were able to suppress the British tanks with two platoon and move the other two into better positions. They were helped by a serious of fortunate initiative rolls which allowed them to shoot before the Brits. Finally, everyone was in "effective range" from the beginning, so securing hits was quite easy. All of this worked against the outnumbered Grants, who were quickly dispatched.
The next system that I tried was the Panzer board game published by Yaquinto. This is an old system that is very hardware driven. It contains a lot of detail about the armor of the vehicles and their weapons systems, but is a bit complicated and very intimidating for a new player. In this system, the British scored a major victory. They had one Grant knocked out and two immobilized. The Germans lost seven Mk IIIs and a Mk IV with another Mk IV immobilized. The big difference was that the relative speed of the vehicles was less, so the Germans suffered through more shots to get to the Grants. The system doesn't have any form of suppression, so most shots simply bounced off of the Grant's think frontal armor. The Brits had better armor and better guns than the Germans, so they could simply sit back and pick off the attackers one by one. The Germans were never able to flank the position.
Next on the list was Panzer Miniature Battles (PMB) published by Lost Battalion Games. It is a revised version of the Panzer board game adapted for use with miniatures. The rules manage to keep most of the flavor of the original set but have been greatly streamlined. They provide a nice balance between playability and detail. Using this system, the Germans scored a victory, although it was fairly close. The British lost five Grants, and would have lost the last if I hadn't called the game. The Germans lost five Mk IIIs and a Mk IV with an additional immobilized Mk III. The Germans were able to close the distance fairly quickly, which minimized losses to defensive fire. The Mk IVs knocked out three tanks using HEAT. The loss of those vehicles really opened things up for the MK IIIs, which were able to flank the position and finish off the remaining Grants.
Last on the list is the game Battlefront WWII published by Fire and Fury Games. This game was a bit of a stretch for the comparison, since it is a slightly different scale and focus. It uses a "half-platoon" scale, where each vehicle represents 1-2 vehicles in real life. Also, it is really designed to emphasize combined arms combat as opposed to pure armored combat. It did an admirable job, although it felt quite different than the other systems. The biggest difference is that Battlefront uses a very "soft" combat results table. All of the long range shots simply suppressed their targets instead of killing them. To actually make kills, the Germans had to close to short range (less then 10") and focus fire on single vehicles. The first shot would disorganize which gave the later shots a better chance to destroy their targets. The Germans had a rather easy victory, destroying all six Grants while losing two Mk IIIs. One final note was that the Grants were both out gunned by and had inferior armor than the Panzers. That doesn't jive well with reality.
So, how would I rate the systems?
In the board game category, I think ATS is superior to Panzer. I think it is a much smoother system that provides enough meat to satisfy an armor enthusiast. Panzer certainly shows its age, and while the amount of detail is impressive, it really complicates things. When you play the games right after each other, you realize just how much more work is involved with each shot in Panzer. Like I mentioned before, my biggest complaint with ATS is the features that are "borrowed" from ASL. For example, gun calibers in ATS are rated as A, B, C, and D which directly correspond to ASL's LL, L, normal, and * ratings. The AFV cards already provide gun penetration vs range. The designer could have used the real gun caliber and provided the base to hit table on the AFV cards as well. That is a minor quibble I have with a really good game system.
In the miniatures game category, I have to give the nod to Panzer Miniature Battles. I like Mein Panzer a lot, and I do think that it is a better "club game" than PMB. I like the amount of detail provided by PMB, and I really like the hidden orders system. In armor only scenarios, Battlefront is a distant third. I think its CRT is too "soft" for scenarios without any infantry.
I would like to do another comparison that uses a scenario with a decent amount of infantry. That, however, will be a discussion for another day.
Friday, December 01, 2006
WWII Miniatures Review - Mein Panzer
I first tried Mein Panzer at Fall In this year. I was sufficiently impressed with the demo that I bought the rules. The system is fast paced and produces reasonable results.
Mein Panzer is a squad level simulation of 20th century ground combat. Each unit is one vehicle, gun, or infantry squad. For micro-armor, the scale is 1 inch = 50 yards. The individual elements are grouped into platoons according to the correct TO&E. The core rules only cover armored combat, but the are "drop in" modules add things like Artillery, Infantry, Airpower, etc. The system is designed to allow players to adjust the complexity of the game to their tastes. There is also a basic set of rules that you can use the learn the system.
During a game turn, players alternate activating platoons. Each unit in a platoon can perform one of several actions when it activates, such as move, shoot, rally, overwatch. In addition, a unit in command can perform a bonus move, which is an additional move activation with some restrictions. Units that fire have to first hit their target, and if they do, then roll on the damage table. The To Hit roll is modified by things like firer status, target cover, target range, etc. If the firing unit scores a hit, you compare its Offensive Value with the target's Defensive Value, and then roll on the damage table. Possible results include kills, suppression, immobilization, and no effect.
Here are some typical unit values, using a Pz III J (special) as an example. It can move 4" per turn cross country, or up to 8" if you include the Bonus Move. Its offensive modifiers are +1 if stationary and -4 if it used its Bonus Move. It cannot fire on the move since it doesn't have a stabilized gun. The offensive value (i.e., penetration) of its 50L60 gun is 7 with regular AP ammunition and 13 with APCR. It has no size modifier, and its armor values are 6, 3, 5, 2 for front, side, rear, and top, respectively.
Now for a quick example of fire combat using the basic rules. Lets assume our Pz III is firing at a British Grant tank 20" away. German regulars have a TQ of 12, so the base to hit value is 12. The German tank is stationary, so its offensive modifier is +1. At 20" range, there are no range based modifiers. The Grant has a target size modifier of +1. Lets assume that its in the open and not moving, providing no other target based modifiers. The final to hit number is 12 +1 +1 = 14, so the German player must roll a 14 or less on a d20 to hit. Lets assume that he hits the Grant on its front armor. The OV for the Pz III J is 7, and the Grant's front armor is an 8. To find the effect of the shot, you would roll a d20 on the -1 row (7 OV - 8 DV) of the Kill Table. A 6 or less would kill the tank, 7-10 would result in some damage, and 11 or higher would result in no effect. If the panzer used APCR instead, he would be rolling on the +5 row (13 OV - 8 DV), which results in a kill on a roll of 16 or less. The APCR makes a big difference.
I like the rules a lot. The core game is very straight forward, and once you understand the basic rules, the advanced rules can be added on an as-needed basis. The combat results tables seem to be a bit deadly, but I think that forces the players to be a bit more crafty in how they maneuver their troops. The activation system works very well, and I do have to admit that I'm a big fan of alternating impulse systems. I have not tried any of the drop-in rules, and I'm looking forward to doing so. One final thing to consider, the game is easy to teach and plays very quickly. This is a great benefit when introducing new players or if you are interested in playing a large scenario. I would definitely recommend the rules set.
Mein Panzer is a squad level simulation of 20th century ground combat. Each unit is one vehicle, gun, or infantry squad. For micro-armor, the scale is 1 inch = 50 yards. The individual elements are grouped into platoons according to the correct TO&E. The core rules only cover armored combat, but the are "drop in" modules add things like Artillery, Infantry, Airpower, etc. The system is designed to allow players to adjust the complexity of the game to their tastes. There is also a basic set of rules that you can use the learn the system.
During a game turn, players alternate activating platoons. Each unit in a platoon can perform one of several actions when it activates, such as move, shoot, rally, overwatch. In addition, a unit in command can perform a bonus move, which is an additional move activation with some restrictions. Units that fire have to first hit their target, and if they do, then roll on the damage table. The To Hit roll is modified by things like firer status, target cover, target range, etc. If the firing unit scores a hit, you compare its Offensive Value with the target's Defensive Value, and then roll on the damage table. Possible results include kills, suppression, immobilization, and no effect.
Here are some typical unit values, using a Pz III J (special) as an example. It can move 4" per turn cross country, or up to 8" if you include the Bonus Move. Its offensive modifiers are +1 if stationary and -4 if it used its Bonus Move. It cannot fire on the move since it doesn't have a stabilized gun. The offensive value (i.e., penetration) of its 50L60 gun is 7 with regular AP ammunition and 13 with APCR. It has no size modifier, and its armor values are 6, 3, 5, 2 for front, side, rear, and top, respectively.
Now for a quick example of fire combat using the basic rules. Lets assume our Pz III is firing at a British Grant tank 20" away. German regulars have a TQ of 12, so the base to hit value is 12. The German tank is stationary, so its offensive modifier is +1. At 20" range, there are no range based modifiers. The Grant has a target size modifier of +1. Lets assume that its in the open and not moving, providing no other target based modifiers. The final to hit number is 12 +1 +1 = 14, so the German player must roll a 14 or less on a d20 to hit. Lets assume that he hits the Grant on its front armor. The OV for the Pz III J is 7, and the Grant's front armor is an 8. To find the effect of the shot, you would roll a d20 on the -1 row (7 OV - 8 DV) of the Kill Table. A 6 or less would kill the tank, 7-10 would result in some damage, and 11 or higher would result in no effect. If the panzer used APCR instead, he would be rolling on the +5 row (13 OV - 8 DV), which results in a kill on a roll of 16 or less. The APCR makes a big difference.
I like the rules a lot. The core game is very straight forward, and once you understand the basic rules, the advanced rules can be added on an as-needed basis. The combat results tables seem to be a bit deadly, but I think that forces the players to be a bit more crafty in how they maneuver their troops. The activation system works very well, and I do have to admit that I'm a big fan of alternating impulse systems. I have not tried any of the drop-in rules, and I'm looking forward to doing so. One final thing to consider, the game is easy to teach and plays very quickly. This is a great benefit when introducing new players or if you are interested in playing a large scenario. I would definitely recommend the rules set.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Might of Arms Redux
I've been itching to try this game again, and was able to get a few free hours. I set up a medium sized, meeting engagement. To add a little spice, I've added a few pictures to help illustrate the action.
I went with the same armies as the first battle, Seljuks vs Crusaders, but I went with larger armies. The Seljuk army consisted of 3 units of Heavy Cavalry, 7 units of Light Cavalry, 2 units of auxilia, 1 unit of archers, and 1 unit of skirmishers. The Crusaders had 4 units of Knights, 1 of Light Cavalry, 2 units of spearmen, 2 units of spearmen with attached crossbowmen, 1 unit of pilgrims, and a unit of skirmishers. Each formed infantry unit (spearmen, archers, auxilia, pilgrims) had 4 stands, while everything else had 2 stands.
(The opposing armies)
The battlefield was rather simple, with a small village at the edge of a valley. The terrain split the battlefield into three sections separated by rough terrain.
(The battlefield)
The plan for each side was simple. The Turks wanted to delay in the center and win on the flanks, while the Crusaders wanted to do just the opposite. Here is the initial setup of the forces:
(Crusader setup)
(Seljuk setup)
The Turks sent light horse to attack each flank. On the Crusaders left flank, they were stopped by crossbow fire and the Turcopole light horse. The Turks were not able to make progress on that flank for the entire game.
On the Crusaders right flank, the spearmen/crossbowmen unit was able to hold off the horses for a few turns, but it was then charged by a unit of auxilia. It held the initial charge, but was then hit in the flank by light cavalry. A unit of knights rode to rescue, and a swirling melee developed. (insert picture here) Eventually, both the infantry and the knights routed in the face of superior numbers, but they mauled two units of light horse and delayed the Turks for several turns.
(Action at the end of Turn 1)
In the center, the Pilgrims pushed forward. The Seljuks quickly dispatched them with a unit of auxilia and a unit of heavy cavalry. Crusader spearmen charged the auxilia, and were able to defeat them after 3 or 4 turns of battle. In the meantime, two units of knights were able to charge the heavy cavalry after taking a few hits from long range bowfire. The Turks responded by sending in their reserve, and things looked grim for the Franks. By a stroke of luck, they managed to kill the Seljuk commander, causing several units to fail their morale check. At about the same time, the spearmen finally defeated the auxilia and joined the fray. It proved too much for the Turks... their last heavy cavalry unit broke and the game was over. The Frankish knights had taken many casualites but were able to win the day.
(Climax in the valley)
The Turks lost nearly double the points that the Crusaders had lost, resulting in a decisive victory for the Franks. The Turks were unable to break through on the flanks, and the Crusader spearmen plus knights proved to be very tough. That said, the loss of the Seljuk leader was probably the turning point of the battle, since the units that failed were destroyed soon after, causing the collapse of the Seljuk center.
I definitely like the "feel" of the game. To me, it feels a lot like Warhammer, where you maneuver to get advantageous charges or to position your skirmishing units to harass and disrupt. I like the fact that you use missile fire to wear down units before you charge them. I also like the way that the different units have very different movement capabilites. I think we did the system an injustice in our Romans vs Gauls game by simply lining up two infantry lines and slamming them into each other.
On the down side, the system is more complex than DBx. Combat resolution between evenly matched units can take a long time. And finally, you need a lot of stands for the armies. I used about 70 stands for this battle, while an average sized battle would be about twice that.
All that said, I'd love to try the game again. It provides a nice change of pace from the DBx games, while not being overly complex. Knowing how the system works, I think we'd find it quite enjoyable.
I went with the same armies as the first battle, Seljuks vs Crusaders, but I went with larger armies. The Seljuk army consisted of 3 units of Heavy Cavalry, 7 units of Light Cavalry, 2 units of auxilia, 1 unit of archers, and 1 unit of skirmishers. The Crusaders had 4 units of Knights, 1 of Light Cavalry, 2 units of spearmen, 2 units of spearmen with attached crossbowmen, 1 unit of pilgrims, and a unit of skirmishers. Each formed infantry unit (spearmen, archers, auxilia, pilgrims) had 4 stands, while everything else had 2 stands.
(The opposing armies)
The battlefield was rather simple, with a small village at the edge of a valley. The terrain split the battlefield into three sections separated by rough terrain.
(The battlefield)
The plan for each side was simple. The Turks wanted to delay in the center and win on the flanks, while the Crusaders wanted to do just the opposite. Here is the initial setup of the forces:
(Crusader setup)
(Seljuk setup)
The Turks sent light horse to attack each flank. On the Crusaders left flank, they were stopped by crossbow fire and the Turcopole light horse. The Turks were not able to make progress on that flank for the entire game.
On the Crusaders right flank, the spearmen/crossbowmen unit was able to hold off the horses for a few turns, but it was then charged by a unit of auxilia. It held the initial charge, but was then hit in the flank by light cavalry. A unit of knights rode to rescue, and a swirling melee developed. (insert picture here) Eventually, both the infantry and the knights routed in the face of superior numbers, but they mauled two units of light horse and delayed the Turks for several turns.
(Action at the end of Turn 1)
In the center, the Pilgrims pushed forward. The Seljuks quickly dispatched them with a unit of auxilia and a unit of heavy cavalry. Crusader spearmen charged the auxilia, and were able to defeat them after 3 or 4 turns of battle. In the meantime, two units of knights were able to charge the heavy cavalry after taking a few hits from long range bowfire. The Turks responded by sending in their reserve, and things looked grim for the Franks. By a stroke of luck, they managed to kill the Seljuk commander, causing several units to fail their morale check. At about the same time, the spearmen finally defeated the auxilia and joined the fray. It proved too much for the Turks... their last heavy cavalry unit broke and the game was over. The Frankish knights had taken many casualites but were able to win the day.
(Climax in the valley)
The Turks lost nearly double the points that the Crusaders had lost, resulting in a decisive victory for the Franks. The Turks were unable to break through on the flanks, and the Crusader spearmen plus knights proved to be very tough. That said, the loss of the Seljuk leader was probably the turning point of the battle, since the units that failed were destroyed soon after, causing the collapse of the Seljuk center.
I definitely like the "feel" of the game. To me, it feels a lot like Warhammer, where you maneuver to get advantageous charges or to position your skirmishing units to harass and disrupt. I like the fact that you use missile fire to wear down units before you charge them. I also like the way that the different units have very different movement capabilites. I think we did the system an injustice in our Romans vs Gauls game by simply lining up two infantry lines and slamming them into each other.
On the down side, the system is more complex than DBx. Combat resolution between evenly matched units can take a long time. And finally, you need a lot of stands for the armies. I used about 70 stands for this battle, while an average sized battle would be about twice that.
All that said, I'd love to try the game again. It provides a nice change of pace from the DBx games, while not being overly complex. Knowing how the system works, I think we'd find it quite enjoyable.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
DBM 200 Army Lists
Here are the two army lists that I used for the Dorylaeum game. They are based on the DBM 200 rules commonly found on the net. Essentially, they are the basic army lists with the minimums and maximums divided by two. Also, the costs of the generals are slightly reduced.
III/73 Seljuk Turk, 1097 (Ag 3)
1st command (17 EE)
C-in-C: Reg Cv(S) x1
Askaris: Reg Cv(O) x6
Turkomans: Irr LH(S) x10
2nd command (11 EE)
Ally General: Irr LH(S) x1
Turkomans: Irr LH(S) x4
Foot Javelinmen: Irr Ps(S) x2
Foot Javelinmen: Irr Ax(O) x2
Foot Bowmen: Irr Ps(O) x2
Foot Bowmen: Irr Bw(I) x2
198 Total Points, 30 elements, 28 EE
IV/7 Early Crusaders, 1097 (Ag 4)
1st Command (21 EE)
C-in-C: Irr Kn(F) x1
Knights: Irr Kn(F) x7
Spearmen: Irr Sp(I) x8
Crossbowmen: Irr Bw(I) x2
Archers: Irr Ps(O) x2
Pilgrims: Irr Hd(S) x2
2nd Command (13.5 EE)
Ally General: Irr Kn(F) x1
Knights: Irr Kn(F) x5
Spearmen: Irr Sp(I) x6
Crossbowmen: Irr Bw(I) x1
Archers: Irr Ps(O) x1
Pilgrims: Irr Hd(S) x2
199 Total Points, 38 elements, 34.5 EE
III/73 Seljuk Turk, 1097 (Ag 3)
1st command (17 EE)
C-in-C: Reg Cv(S) x1
Askaris: Reg Cv(O) x6
Turkomans: Irr LH(S) x10
2nd command (11 EE)
Ally General: Irr LH(S) x1
Turkomans: Irr LH(S) x4
Foot Javelinmen: Irr Ps(S) x2
Foot Javelinmen: Irr Ax(O) x2
Foot Bowmen: Irr Ps(O) x2
Foot Bowmen: Irr Bw(I) x2
198 Total Points, 30 elements, 28 EE
IV/7 Early Crusaders, 1097 (Ag 4)
1st Command (21 EE)
C-in-C: Irr Kn(F) x1
Knights: Irr Kn(F) x7
Spearmen: Irr Sp(I) x8
Crossbowmen: Irr Bw(I) x2
Archers: Irr Ps(O) x2
Pilgrims: Irr Hd(S) x2
2nd Command (13.5 EE)
Ally General: Irr Kn(F) x1
Knights: Irr Kn(F) x5
Spearmen: Irr Sp(I) x6
Crossbowmen: Irr Bw(I) x1
Archers: Irr Ps(O) x1
Pilgrims: Irr Hd(S) x2
199 Total Points, 38 elements, 34.5 EE
Review/AAR: DBM
Now that we are playing DBA regularly, I decided to check out DBM and see how it compares. I took the latest rules (DBM 3.0 + 3.1 amendments) and created two 200 AP armies: III/73 Seljuk Turk and IV/7 Early Crusader. The date for both armies was 1097, which is the date for one of the first major battles of the First Crusade: Dorylaeum. The army lists are contained in a separate post.
The Franks were the defender, the Turks the invader. The board contained two steep hills, some rough going, and a road. The defender gets to place most of the terrain, although the attacker can pick one major feature (a river, waterway, or road), with the Turks going for a road. The terrain is randomly placed on the board, so no one can get a perfect set up. As it turned out, all of the terrain ended up on half of the board. Both sides placed their main command in the empty half, the supporting commands and camps in the hilly half.
The Turks got some good PIP rolls in the first two turns, and were able to position their light horse units to disrupt the Crusader's knights. The Crusaders moved forward, waiting for the right opportunity to unleash the knights, with a solid anchor of crossbow supported spears in the center.
On the flank with the smaller commands, the Turks were able to peel two knights out of formation. The light horse were able to separate them and kill them both, greatly aided by the knights impetuousity and the superior grading factor of the light horse (more on that later). The rest of the knights advanced toward the Turkish command group, consisting of bowmen, auxilia, and psiloi. The bowen managed to kill one knight, but were then run down. In the end, neither side had done enough damage to break the other's command, although the Franks appeared to have the edge.
On the other flank, the Turks broke in to two groups. One group, consisting entirely of light horse, was to occupy the knights, while the other group, consisting of the heavy cavalry with a light horse screen, was to go after the Frank infantry. The Frank pushed some pilgrims forward (classified as Hd(S)), to disrupt the charge of the cavalry, and it worked. While one element of horde was quickly killed, the other managed to hold out the entire game. Thus the heavy cavalry was prevented from attacking. The light horse drew the first wave of knights into combat, but the Frank player was able to keep a few units as a reserve. The light horse were not able break up the formation, because the fast knight's (Kn(F) move 4" instead of 3") were able to catch them.
The Frank player threw the reserve group into the fray, killing 4 light horse while only loosing 3 knights. However, one of the knights was the general. The next PIP roll would decide if the command broke, losing the game for the Crusaders, or stuck around for more action. The knights stuck around, deciding to avenge the loss of their general. The now uncontrollable knights impetously charged into the mass of light horse, killing 2 more, breaking the Turk's largest command, and ending the game in a Crusader victory. The game took three hours from start to finish.
I had a lot of fun. The game felt like a slightly more complicated version of BBDBA (which, of course, shouldn't be a surprise). Units have a very similar feel to DBA, and all of the mechanics of the game are basically the same. The biggest difference is that there is a bit more to all of the rules sections.
IMO, I like three parts the best: grading factors, impetuosity, and army selection. I think the grading factors add a lot of flavor to the units without a lot of complexity. For example, the Turkish light horse were superior, Irr LH(S), and were much more difficult to kill than LH in DBA. Also, the Frankish knights were fast, Irr Kn(F), making them slightly weaker in combat (which didn't matter much here, since LH quick kill Kn), but giving them an extra inch of movement, which made a big difference. I also think the impetuosity rules are very interesting. The units are cheaper than regulars, meaning that you get a lot of them, but once they are committed they become nearly impossible to control. If you have a group of impetuous troops, you only have one chance to commit them, so you have to make the most of it. Finally, I like the army selection. There is much more of a variety than in BBDBA. I also like the fact that you can have a big army of inferior units, or a small army of superior units, or anything in between. Again, its really the variety that I like.
There are some downsides, of course. DBM armies are larger than BBDBA armies. My two armies had 30 and 38 elements, and that was 200 AP worth. The armies in the book are for 300-500 AP, which would probably mean armies of 40-70 elements, or even more. That is a lot of guys to paint. Also, you have to keep track of different grades of the same type of troop. The Turks had Ps(S) with javelins and Ps(O) with bows, so it actually mattered what troops were on the base. Finally, the rules are a bit more complicated than DBA. Plus, there isn't an official 3.1 release, so you need the 3.0 rules and the 3.1 amendments.
Now, I don't plan on giving up DBA. I think it is a great game and has a lot of things going for it. I would like to try a few more DBM games, however, and see how the group feels about it. I don't think that I want to pursue DBMM. It is MUCH more complicated than DBM, and its not clear that its any better. Of course, I still have a half dozen other ancients rules that I'd like to try, but that is the subject of another post. :-)
The Franks were the defender, the Turks the invader. The board contained two steep hills, some rough going, and a road. The defender gets to place most of the terrain, although the attacker can pick one major feature (a river, waterway, or road), with the Turks going for a road. The terrain is randomly placed on the board, so no one can get a perfect set up. As it turned out, all of the terrain ended up on half of the board. Both sides placed their main command in the empty half, the supporting commands and camps in the hilly half.
The Turks got some good PIP rolls in the first two turns, and were able to position their light horse units to disrupt the Crusader's knights. The Crusaders moved forward, waiting for the right opportunity to unleash the knights, with a solid anchor of crossbow supported spears in the center.
On the flank with the smaller commands, the Turks were able to peel two knights out of formation. The light horse were able to separate them and kill them both, greatly aided by the knights impetuousity and the superior grading factor of the light horse (more on that later). The rest of the knights advanced toward the Turkish command group, consisting of bowmen, auxilia, and psiloi. The bowen managed to kill one knight, but were then run down. In the end, neither side had done enough damage to break the other's command, although the Franks appeared to have the edge.
On the other flank, the Turks broke in to two groups. One group, consisting entirely of light horse, was to occupy the knights, while the other group, consisting of the heavy cavalry with a light horse screen, was to go after the Frank infantry. The Frank pushed some pilgrims forward (classified as Hd(S)), to disrupt the charge of the cavalry, and it worked. While one element of horde was quickly killed, the other managed to hold out the entire game. Thus the heavy cavalry was prevented from attacking. The light horse drew the first wave of knights into combat, but the Frank player was able to keep a few units as a reserve. The light horse were not able break up the formation, because the fast knight's (Kn(F) move 4" instead of 3") were able to catch them.
The Frank player threw the reserve group into the fray, killing 4 light horse while only loosing 3 knights. However, one of the knights was the general. The next PIP roll would decide if the command broke, losing the game for the Crusaders, or stuck around for more action. The knights stuck around, deciding to avenge the loss of their general. The now uncontrollable knights impetously charged into the mass of light horse, killing 2 more, breaking the Turk's largest command, and ending the game in a Crusader victory. The game took three hours from start to finish.
I had a lot of fun. The game felt like a slightly more complicated version of BBDBA (which, of course, shouldn't be a surprise). Units have a very similar feel to DBA, and all of the mechanics of the game are basically the same. The biggest difference is that there is a bit more to all of the rules sections.
IMO, I like three parts the best: grading factors, impetuosity, and army selection. I think the grading factors add a lot of flavor to the units without a lot of complexity. For example, the Turkish light horse were superior, Irr LH(S), and were much more difficult to kill than LH in DBA. Also, the Frankish knights were fast, Irr Kn(F), making them slightly weaker in combat (which didn't matter much here, since LH quick kill Kn), but giving them an extra inch of movement, which made a big difference. I also think the impetuosity rules are very interesting. The units are cheaper than regulars, meaning that you get a lot of them, but once they are committed they become nearly impossible to control. If you have a group of impetuous troops, you only have one chance to commit them, so you have to make the most of it. Finally, I like the army selection. There is much more of a variety than in BBDBA. I also like the fact that you can have a big army of inferior units, or a small army of superior units, or anything in between. Again, its really the variety that I like.
There are some downsides, of course. DBM armies are larger than BBDBA armies. My two armies had 30 and 38 elements, and that was 200 AP worth. The armies in the book are for 300-500 AP, which would probably mean armies of 40-70 elements, or even more. That is a lot of guys to paint. Also, you have to keep track of different grades of the same type of troop. The Turks had Ps(S) with javelins and Ps(O) with bows, so it actually mattered what troops were on the base. Finally, the rules are a bit more complicated than DBA. Plus, there isn't an official 3.1 release, so you need the 3.0 rules and the 3.1 amendments.
Now, I don't plan on giving up DBA. I think it is a great game and has a lot of things going for it. I would like to try a few more DBM games, however, and see how the group feels about it. I don't think that I want to pursue DBMM. It is MUCH more complicated than DBM, and its not clear that its any better. Of course, I still have a half dozen other ancients rules that I'd like to try, but that is the subject of another post. :-)
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Review/AAR: Might of Arms
This post is a quick review of a set of ancients/medieval miniatures wargame rules called Might of Arms. It can best be described as WRG 7th lite, and it is pretty obvious that the guy took the WRG rules as a starting point and simplified them. The rules are a bit verbose, but after dealing with "Barkerese", I don't mind it. :-)
The armies are organized into units. Each unit is made up of 1-6 ranks of stands. Each rank contains 1, 2, or 3 stands depending on the size of the battle. If you use 1 stand/rank, you get a DBA sized army. Infantry units can fight in two ranks, everything else in one rank. The only reason you'd want to have more ranks is because bigger units can better absorb casualties. More on that later.
The classes of units are all the standard types: Knights, Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery. Each is sub-classed according to its armor: Heavy, Medium, Light. If a unit is armed with missile weapons, those are noted separately. Finally, each class has a morale grade, A-E, and possibly a optional ability such as elite or fierce. A Norman Knight is "Medium Knight Cavalry, B class", Roman Legions are "Elite Heavy Infantry, C class", and Turcoples are "Light Cavalry, Bow, B class".
The sequence of play in the game is as follows. First, each side rolls for initiative. The side with the lower initiative moves and shoots first, followed by the second side. Then, charges and responses are declared simultaneously. Finally, melee is resolved and morale checks taken.
Movement is limited to a few different maneuvers: Forward (includes moving obliquely up to 45*), Wheeling (up to 45* and can be combined with forward movement), Reverse, Skirmish Movement, and Formation Change. This is one area where the rules differentiate units beyond their movement distance. For example, heavy units can only move forward, wheel, or change formation, so it takes them a long time to reposition. Skirmish units can utilize skirmish movement, which allows them to "teleport" anywhere up to half of their normal move distance. Also, units can march move, which doubles their movement, if they stay beyond 12" of the enemy.
To shoot, you first look up the hit number, which is based upon the shooter's weapon and the targets type. Then, you total the number of stands shooting at the target. Each stand rolls a d6, and every value less than or equal to the hit number yields a hit. Easy enough.
Each unit that is within charge distance, which varies by unit, and charge arc, which is 45*, can declare a charge. Some units must make a morale check to charge, such as cavalry charging formed foot. Other types have to make a morale check to even charge at all, such as skirmishers charging any formed unit. There are three types of charge responses: evade, countercharge, and receive at the halt. Not all units can evade or countercharge, but all units can receive a charge at the halt. In general, cavalry can countercharge and skirmishers can evade, although there are a few exceptions. Evading does involve some risk, since you are destroyed if you are caught and must take a morale check if you are not.
On to combat... First, you cross reference the attacking type with the defending type to get a base combat value. Then you add all of the modifiers and a single d6 roll. You cross reference this number with the number of stands in combat to determine the final number of hits that you inflict.
You keep track of damage from combat and shooting the same way, using hits and fatigue points. A unit takes hits as the result of shooting and combat. When the unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of stands in the unit, the unit gets one fatigue point. When the unit has taken a number of fatigue points, it will become worn. Fatigue points and worn status both affect the unit's morale check. Note that units can only be destroyed by failing morale checks.
A unit's base morale is determined by its class: A units are best and E units are worst. A unit checks morale for a variety of reasons, such as taking losses, becoming worn, being charged in the rear, etc. Units that fail a morale check become shaken. Units that are already shaken will rout. In some cases, failing a morale check just means that a unit cannot do what it wanted. For example, if a unit is forced to take a morale check to charge, and fails, it simply means that it can't charge this turn.
That's the rules in a nutshell. In our game, I took the Seljuk Turks against Rudy's Early Crusaders. The Crusaders set up with a center of spearmen supported by crossbows with knights as a reserve. The Turks overloaded the left flank with light horse archers and using the heavy cavalry in the center.
The first few turns saw the archers and crossbowmen trading shots, with the horses taking the worst of it. The knights chased the horse archers away, but were unable to catch them. This turned out to be a bad move, since the knights were now out of position to support the infantry.
The critical moment came when the spearmen failed a morale check, making them shaken. The heavy cavalry decided to charge, but the spearmen held! They hacked away at each other, with the spearmen slowly grinding down the cavalry. The Turks were finally able to position a unit of light horse to charge the spearmen in the rear, causing the spearmen to rout. Nearby, a unit of knights charged a unit of heavy cavalry. The Turkish cavalry unwisely decided to countercharge. The Knights caused a lot of casualties, but the HC held. Things started to look grim for the Turks, but two units of light horse were able to charge the knights in the flank and rear, and the knights failed their morale check and died.
Back in the center, the Turkish heavy cavalry was able to knock out the unsupported crossbow units. The knights couldn't reach them in time, with the Turkish light cavalry harassing them with bowshots. The crusaders finally called it a day, heading back to Nicea to lick their wounds.
I thought it was a fun system. The battle seemed to flow pretty well and didn't give any whacky results. It took me a couple of turns to figure everything out, but then I didn't have any problems. The QRDC that comes with the game gives a brief summary of all of the rules, but you still need to look at charts in the book for some things. I would definitely recommend it, and would love to try out some Romans vs Gauls.
The armies are organized into units. Each unit is made up of 1-6 ranks of stands. Each rank contains 1, 2, or 3 stands depending on the size of the battle. If you use 1 stand/rank, you get a DBA sized army. Infantry units can fight in two ranks, everything else in one rank. The only reason you'd want to have more ranks is because bigger units can better absorb casualties. More on that later.
The classes of units are all the standard types: Knights, Cavalry, Infantry, Artillery. Each is sub-classed according to its armor: Heavy, Medium, Light. If a unit is armed with missile weapons, those are noted separately. Finally, each class has a morale grade, A-E, and possibly a optional ability such as elite or fierce. A Norman Knight is "Medium Knight Cavalry, B class", Roman Legions are "Elite Heavy Infantry, C class", and Turcoples are "Light Cavalry, Bow, B class".
The sequence of play in the game is as follows. First, each side rolls for initiative. The side with the lower initiative moves and shoots first, followed by the second side. Then, charges and responses are declared simultaneously. Finally, melee is resolved and morale checks taken.
Movement is limited to a few different maneuvers: Forward (includes moving obliquely up to 45*), Wheeling (up to 45* and can be combined with forward movement), Reverse, Skirmish Movement, and Formation Change. This is one area where the rules differentiate units beyond their movement distance. For example, heavy units can only move forward, wheel, or change formation, so it takes them a long time to reposition. Skirmish units can utilize skirmish movement, which allows them to "teleport" anywhere up to half of their normal move distance. Also, units can march move, which doubles their movement, if they stay beyond 12" of the enemy.
To shoot, you first look up the hit number, which is based upon the shooter's weapon and the targets type. Then, you total the number of stands shooting at the target. Each stand rolls a d6, and every value less than or equal to the hit number yields a hit. Easy enough.
Each unit that is within charge distance, which varies by unit, and charge arc, which is 45*, can declare a charge. Some units must make a morale check to charge, such as cavalry charging formed foot. Other types have to make a morale check to even charge at all, such as skirmishers charging any formed unit. There are three types of charge responses: evade, countercharge, and receive at the halt. Not all units can evade or countercharge, but all units can receive a charge at the halt. In general, cavalry can countercharge and skirmishers can evade, although there are a few exceptions. Evading does involve some risk, since you are destroyed if you are caught and must take a morale check if you are not.
On to combat... First, you cross reference the attacking type with the defending type to get a base combat value. Then you add all of the modifiers and a single d6 roll. You cross reference this number with the number of stands in combat to determine the final number of hits that you inflict.
You keep track of damage from combat and shooting the same way, using hits and fatigue points. A unit takes hits as the result of shooting and combat. When the unit takes a number of hits equal to the number of stands in the unit, the unit gets one fatigue point. When the unit has taken a number of fatigue points, it will become worn. Fatigue points and worn status both affect the unit's morale check. Note that units can only be destroyed by failing morale checks.
A unit's base morale is determined by its class: A units are best and E units are worst. A unit checks morale for a variety of reasons, such as taking losses, becoming worn, being charged in the rear, etc. Units that fail a morale check become shaken. Units that are already shaken will rout. In some cases, failing a morale check just means that a unit cannot do what it wanted. For example, if a unit is forced to take a morale check to charge, and fails, it simply means that it can't charge this turn.
That's the rules in a nutshell. In our game, I took the Seljuk Turks against Rudy's Early Crusaders. The Crusaders set up with a center of spearmen supported by crossbows with knights as a reserve. The Turks overloaded the left flank with light horse archers and using the heavy cavalry in the center.
The first few turns saw the archers and crossbowmen trading shots, with the horses taking the worst of it. The knights chased the horse archers away, but were unable to catch them. This turned out to be a bad move, since the knights were now out of position to support the infantry.
The critical moment came when the spearmen failed a morale check, making them shaken. The heavy cavalry decided to charge, but the spearmen held! They hacked away at each other, with the spearmen slowly grinding down the cavalry. The Turks were finally able to position a unit of light horse to charge the spearmen in the rear, causing the spearmen to rout. Nearby, a unit of knights charged a unit of heavy cavalry. The Turkish cavalry unwisely decided to countercharge. The Knights caused a lot of casualties, but the HC held. Things started to look grim for the Turks, but two units of light horse were able to charge the knights in the flank and rear, and the knights failed their morale check and died.
Back in the center, the Turkish heavy cavalry was able to knock out the unsupported crossbow units. The knights couldn't reach them in time, with the Turkish light cavalry harassing them with bowshots. The crusaders finally called it a day, heading back to Nicea to lick their wounds.
I thought it was a fun system. The battle seemed to flow pretty well and didn't give any whacky results. It took me a couple of turns to figure everything out, but then I didn't have any problems. The QRDC that comes with the game gives a brief summary of all of the rules, but you still need to look at charts in the book for some things. I would definitely recommend it, and would love to try out some Romans vs Gauls.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Hello World!
This is my first post here at blogger.com. I'd like to create a discussion of gaming, world events, computers, or other things of interest. Stay tuned for a few longer posts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)