New direction for my own ancient rules and 2 Megiddo reports

Introduction

This is a long rambling post on how I have moved from my Ancient Battlelines Clash rules to a new rules set, When Warriors Collide to replay ancient battle scenarios.  And two quick battle reports with the new rules.

Background

After testing out lots of fast play ancient rules sets on a 2’x2’ table, in 2012 I then decided to write my own solo fast play rules and test them out replaying ancient battle scenarios from the Peter Sides booklets.

My rules could best be described as a combination of Bill Banks Ancients and Justified Ancients  combined with the reaction-type mechanisms of Rally Round the King.  More details and design notes on these rules are on its own blog page for Ancients Battlelines Clash.

In 2018 after hundreds of games with ABC (and about only a third of the way through the Peter Sides scenarios) I became unsatisfied with some minor aspects of the rules.  This led to 3 years of ad hoc changes and revisions, some minor, some more major, some then abandoned.  Played some more games but really not feeling the love for any of these changed rules.  Liking, but not loving.  At the end of 2021 I started from scratch with Bill Banks Ancients but added in many ABC elements.  It is a different enough ruleset but similar enough to some gridded rules I did try out that combined Bill Banks Ancients with ABC.  These gridded rules are called When Warriors Collide.  So this new ruleset can be When Warriors Collide version 2.  These rules are different to BBA, ABC and WWC 1.0 but contain elements of them all and am currently enjoying playing with them.

Bill Banks Ancient to When Warriors Collide – resolutions.

At the end of 2021 I was looking at some rules I could play to play some very fast games on a small grid as I was getting interested in Imperator again.  I dug out Bill Banks Ancients (BBA) as I was thinking I could just use them.  Also, I knew there was an Ancients CyberBoard game box so it would be easy for me to playtest these on the computer.  I ended up making quite a few changes to BBA to end up at When Warriors Collide (WWC).

Bill Banks Ancients is a hex grid, ABC is free form.  One thing that I really like about Armati (my favourite Ancients rules) is that two units can frontally be meleeing an enemy unit.  Hard to do with square grids but easy to do with hex grids by units facing to a hex spine rather than another hex.  This was an early variant to the BBA rules and one I have always liked for BBA.  My first change to BBA is facing it to a hex spine.

I do like in BBA are the combat values when ordered and disordered and how that is tightly linked to the combat 1d6 CRT table (with 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 ratio columns).  My first foray in my own set replaced the CRT with JP Kelly’s 1d6 variant that replaced the 3 column CRT and ratios with modifiers to a d6 roll and have used this 1d6 mechanic that ever since in my rules.  But it is not the same and not as nuanced as the CRT.  So my first resolve was to keep the CRT (it is easy to memorise and I can reproduce it from memory even 30 years after first playing BBA) and also keep the ordered/disordered combat values where possible.

The next resolve was to keep the turn sequence.  This is basically IGOYGO (each player turn is player move, other player shoots, player melee).  ABC uses a right to left and test for group activations.

The last resolve was to minimise the unit types - keep only the BBA ones and only add any if absolutely necessary.  This should not be hard as my existing rules uses unit types very much the same as BBA.

I would then add things from ABC that I was passionate about including in an ancients ruleset that was missing from BBA.  These are mainly movement restrictions, reducing missile ranges and making light units more vulnerable.

So how did I go with my resolutions?

Keep the CRT.

I have kept the CRT.

One thing I have considered is changing a die roll result of 3 on the 2:1 table from a DD to an M.  This would then enable a single d6 type result where 1=AD, 2-5=M, 6-7=DD, 8+=DE and modifiers of 1:! Is +0, 2:1 is +2, 3:1 is +3.  Only the 2:1 die roll of 3 doesn’t fit unless changing it to an M result.  But really, I am sticking with the CRT and if I really feel that 2:1 causes too much DD I will change it.

I really like combat being based on ratios and the 1:1, 2:1, 3:1.  I have seen, and been guilty many years ago, of creating further results for 3:2, 5:2 etc but the game really works with the three ratios and I believe really manages to capture combat without having +1 or -1 combat values dramatically affecting the game.  The combat values are selected to work against different unit types and creating a more nuanced CRT seems to ruin this.  Of course, I defeat some of this argument by changing some of the combat values…

Keep the combat values

I could not help but change the combat values.

The first change I made is disordered phalanx is 3 not 2.  This brings it into line with disordered heavy infantry.  The main change is it makes light infantry just as effective against a Phalanx and Heavy infantry.   I tend to think a phalanx, even disordered would be as effective as disordered heavy infantry.

The second was to make Mixed Missile 1 not 2 whether ordered or disordered. MM at 2 is really too powerful against other infantry – these are supposed to be peltasts and skirmishes.  But what is does mean is it reduced their effectiveness against mounted units. To reflect this I gave them a * rating and so now they are doubled against mounted units.

See later but missile ranges are a lot less and once in melee a missile unit will melee, not use missile fire.  A reason to add the * to Mixed Missile is so when in combat with mounted they do as well they used to.  Well, not as badly anyway.

Due to missile armed unit meleeing against units one hex away rather than using the missile table, this also meant I needed to give the * rating to Light Archers, disordered Heavy Archers and disordered Chariots for a similar reason.  Actually, the disordered Chariots, the * rating  worked out well as in BBA Chariot on Chariot melees would end up 3:1 once one was disordered and one was not.  Now it is 2:1 like other cavalry melees.  Disordered Chariots still fare the same against infantry as in the original game.  The * rating to missile units has stood up to some playtesting.  I was concerned it would not work very well but seems Ok and I like that is was already something in the rules (the * factor) and am not adding in complexity.

Keep the turn sequence

I may go back to doing a group at a time – i.e. move a group, do any enemy missile fire at that group, melee with the group and then activate the next group.  For now, the simple first side moves, other side fires, first side melees works and is just as easy to mark a unit and walk away mid turn and come back later to take u where I left.   I can see myself going back to group activations again (where a group does everything when activated) but  all one side then the other side is keeping the rules simple.

Minimise the unit types

This section will only really make sense if you are familiar with Bill Banks Ancients.

Summary: same unit types with some tweaks.

Only one chariot type still.

MM represents my LI and SK.

Light Cavalry by default has the B attribute.

Thought about a Shock cavalry e.g. companions as Combat Value (CV) 6 but decided against it.

I changed the leader concept – units are elite and are x2.  They also are worth a lot more to panic rating.  There is now only one leader ant the only advantage to the leader is they can rally units. For a few games I did not use this and was using leaders take care of elite units that – the leaders in scenarios will start on the elite units.  So Companions will be heavy cavalry with a leader.  Leaders are not removed (see later) so this neatly managed to remove the necessity of providing for elite units.  Poor heavy infantry can be represented by CV 2 infantry, and poor cavalry by CV2 cavalry, these latter two already exist in the game.  The original BBA scenarios also did this, for example representing early Roman poor cavalry using this method.  However, leaders do not really move and if using leaders to represent elite units, why not just make them elite?

I renamed Light Infantry to Medium infantry as Light infantry sounds too light and these are really warbands, poor heavy infantry etc.

I added a Warband unit type but this already exists in BBA as a Light infantry unit that is x3 once as per BBA – I just defined them in the rules rather than as described as a optional rules. 

Movement restrictions

Movement rates are huge in BBA.  Infantry move 2, Heavy Cavalry move 5.  Most scenarios have battlelines starting 2-4 hexes away from each other.  And a unit can turn 60 degrees when moving into a hex.  So flanking is easy and moving around the battlefield is easy.

I halved movement rates – All infantry moves 1, All mounted moves 3, except Knights, Chariots and Elephants move 2.   I did for a while have Mixed Missile moving 2 but after playtesting this in a few games it did not work.

I also implemented simple turning restrictions – Heavy infantry units can move or turn, Cavalry and can move and turn (1 movement point per hex turn). Light cavalry and Mixed Missile can move or turn as much as they want.

Reduced missile ranges

Reducing movement values also meant reducing missile ranges.  Now A fire range is 2 and B fire range is 1.

Light units more vulnerable

Light Cavalry and Mixed Missile are destroyed if disordered for a second time (i.e. on an M or a DD result and already disordered).

Other changes

Leaders are not removed and replaced as per the sequence of play. A leader stays with a unit throughout the game.  However, a leader may move to another unit as per the existing rules and will DD the unit it is moving from.

I also renamed Panic as army rout and it is based on unit breakpoint values rather than combat strength.  The games ends on a Panic/army rout.

End note

Despite the numerous changes, the aim was the provide a more constrained game so units are less able to dash all over the table, and provide more nuances to the units combat values.   It is not really Bill Banks Ancients anymore, but the bones are there!

It also provides for a game with less rules and fiddly bits than my previous Ancients Battlelines Clash, and the QRS easily fits on one page.  Even going from hexes to hexless just required a few extra phrases here and there.

Bonus playtests

I began playing these rules in CyberBoard using Megiddo as the battle.  I played three full games of Megiddo using this venerable electronic play assist software.

CyberBoard game in action

All were such great fun and different and wanted to play some more games of the same battle. I thought I should really be using my miniatures. Firstly it was going to be with 6mm and I printed off a hex grid.  Then I decided it should really be with my preference of 15mm so quickly drew up a hex board on a spare piece of cardboard.  Just after completing the temporary hexboard I then thought – why not just use free measurements to see how it goes?   I should really give the rules a go on a 2’x2’ table converting 1 hex to 1 basewidth (40mm) of movement.  I like grids, hexes are ok – both regulate movement and take all the fiddle-ness out of freeform movement.  I am used to freeform movement and don’t feel like creating a special grid/hex board to play.

 

Battle of Megiddo 1457BC Scenario

 

Egyptians

3 Chariots, CH

3 Medium Infantry, MI

2 Light Archers, LA

2 Leaders

Breakpoint:  9

 

Allies

2 Chariots

2 Medium Infantry, MI

3 light infantry, MM

2 Leaders

Breakpoint: 8

 

Deployment

Game 1

The Egyptians will advance in the centre and probe with their left flank.

Egyptian chariots charge.  It will be 2:1 on the enemy chariots without a leader, 1:1 with the leader Vs leader (or the clash with no leaders).  The left flank advances slightly to bring the archers into range.

Both Chariots are armed with missiles so it becomes a melee (if only one had missile it could have had a missile attack).

Chariots clash

The result: one Allied chariot disordered, two Egyptian ones disordered (the centre and the left one).

The Allied turn has their right flank move off the hill to clash with the Egyptian left flank.  Otherwise they would just sit there and take the missile fire from the longer range of the Egyptian bows.  Disorders distributed.

The Chariot clash continues and sees one chariot from each side eliminated (including an Egyptian leader).

Overview of melee status

An Egyptian chariot charges into the flank of the remaining Allied chariot and disorders it.  On the Egyptian left flank they manage to rout the two mixed missile units.

New state of play

The remaining allied chariot in the centre is routed under the flanking attack of the opposing chariots. 

The final chariot melee

This causes the allies to break and they flee the battlefield.

The final positions

 

Game 2

Deployment

This time everyone on the Egyptian side advances.  The Chariot combat sees all of chariots disordered.

End of Egyptian turn

The Allies have to advance their flanks, otherwise the longer range light archers will just pick them off.  The light t archers on both flanks fail to inflict anything in retaliation of the advance.  The centre Egyptian chariot is routed.

One Egyptian chariot routed

In retaliation, one of the Allied chariots is routed.  All other melee result in mostly disorders.  Subsequent melees see the last Allied Chariot routed and a right flank mixed missile.

The end is nigh

The loss of an Allied left flank mixed missile sees the Allies panic and flee the battlefield.

End game.

Verdict

This second game sort of followed the first.    In one of my CyberBoard games, the Egyptians were unlucky and lost all their chariots and lost the game.  I also tried a game where the Egyptian right flank moved against the Allied left flank but that ended badly for the Egyptians as well.

I did the battle twice on the 2’x2’ table and worked OK so gone is the hex grid for now. I have begun my continuation of the Peter Sides historical battles with these rules so expect to see some blog posts with these sometime later.  I am also writing the rules out so these will get posted sometime later too.  When I started the conversion to Bill Banks Ancients I was thinking of using Cyberboard to play out a lot of historical games.  But having got miniatures out on the table that idea has fallen to the wayside.

Lol, and while searching internet to get a link to Bill Banks Ancients I came upon a thread on TMP from 2014.  In it there is a suggestion to use 10mm figures with Heroscape terrain. In 2014 I had no Heroscape  but  now I do.  I had forgotten about them when thinking hexes.  Maybe I will give the rules a go on a Heroscape but don't hold your breath :-)