Introduction
I have been playing around with writing 3x3 grid games for years but only got serious for ancients rules a few months ago. I was looking for quick rules to use for campaign games. And then just before New Year’s Day Dominion of the Spear appears at WargameVault. 3-6 units, a grid of 3 sectors and two reserves. Quick play. Got it immediately but has taken a few days to get around to playing and writing up a post.
I have been playing around with writing 3x3 grid games for years but only got serious for ancients rules a few months ago. I was looking for quick rules to use for campaign games. And then just before New Year’s Day Dominion of the Spear appears at WargameVault. 3-6 units, a grid of 3 sectors and two reserves. Quick play. Got it immediately but has taken a few days to get around to playing and writing up a post.
Note I use figures for the game. Not required at all - could just write the units down on a paper. But I have the miniatures so will use them.
Brief review
Each side has 3-6 units.
Each unit is either Infantry or Mounted, and also Melee or Missile. 4 basic units. And then you can add up to 2 abilities – Elite/Ferocious or Armoured. There are 196 armies in the army list (excellent!)
The game is played by lining up 3 unit of each side (left, centre and right sectors). Remaining units go into a reserve. Working left to right roll a die for each side. Each side adds some modifiers (about 4) and if they exceed the required score they hit the other unit. A hit results in the unit being removed. Both may be removed in the same combat. A Missile unit fires first. Losses are replaced by reserves.
Each side has 3-6 units.
Each unit is either Infantry or Mounted, and also Melee or Missile. 4 basic units. And then you can add up to 2 abilities – Elite/Ferocious or Armoured. There are 196 armies in the army list (excellent!)
The game is played by lining up 3 unit of each side (left, centre and right sectors). Remaining units go into a reserve. Working left to right roll a die for each side. Each side adds some modifiers (about 4) and if they exceed the required score they hit the other unit. A hit results in the unit being removed. Both may be removed in the same combat. A Missile unit fires first. Losses are replaced by reserves.
There is limited tactical decision making:
- At setup, the defender sets up the 3 units first and then Attacker can choose optimal units to oppose.
- When a unit is lost you can choose which reserve unit may be best to replace it.
- When there is no opposing unit, you may outflank a unit. Uncommonly but occasionally there is a choice of opposing unit to outflank.
I highly recommend these rules for anyone looking on a way to streamline ancient battles to the core, or looking for quick campaign resolution. My blog gets a mention in the design notes but that had no influence on the recommendation :-)
For this game I simply used the Battle of Heraclea forces as I am so familiar with it, I also used a historical-like deployment. I realised later this removed the Attacker’s decision on choosing opposing units in the sectors that is one of the few decision making in the game.
Setup |
Agema (Elite Mounted Melee). Right sector.
Pikes (Armoured Infantry Melee). Centre sector.
Pikes. Left sector.
Elephant (Mounted Melee, Armoured). Reserve.
Cavalry (Mounted Melee). Right sector.
Velites (Infantry Missile). Centre sector.
Legion (Armoured Infantry Melee). Left sector.
Legion. Reserve.
Green Legion (Infantry Melee). Reserve.
Right: Agema Vs Roman Cavalry, Romans win and Elephants replace the Agema
Centre: Velites fire first and Pikes rout, No replacement
Left: Pikes Vs Legion. Neither hit
End of turn 1 |
Right: Elephant Vs Cavalry, Cavalry routed, Reserve Legion (armoured) take their place
Centre: Velites Vs Elephant (outflanked). Elephant gone
Left: Pike Vs legion. No effect
Pyrrhus down to 1 unit and has lost.
Verdict
It was fun, but no decision making at all. This was all dice driven. It was interesting to play and definitely would be useful in a board driven campaign when rather than just roll 1 die to see who wins a battle you could use these rules to quickly play it out and maybe also determine losses.
Game 2 – 4
sectors, 16 points, Heraclea
The rules do suggest more sectors (and 4 points per extra sector). In some 3x2 rules I was tinkering with years ago, I allowed more units the centre and less on the flanks. So I gave 4 sectors a go.
Pyrrhus
Agema. Right sector.
Pikes, Centre sector.
Pikes (Infantry Melee, Elite, Armoured). Centre sector.
Pikes. Left sector.
Elephant. Reserve.
Romans
Cavalry. Right sector.
Legion. Centre sector.
Velites. Centre sector.
Legion. Left sector.
2xLegion. Reserve.
Turn 1
Right: Agema Vs Cavalry. Agema destroyed, Elephants replace Agema
Centre: Velites miss with missile and the pikes then rout the Velites. Legion replaces the Velites
Centre: Pikes Vs Legion. Legion routs, another Legion replaces.
Left. Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 2
Right: Elephant Vs Cavalry. Cavalry routed.
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 3
R: Elephant Vs Legion (in centre) outflanked. Legion routed.
C: Pike Vs Legion (outflanked). Legion routed
C: Pike Vs Legion (outflanked). Legion routed.
Pyrrhus decisive victory (no image as all Romans have routed).
Verdict
4 sectors does not add anything material to the game’s decision making, nor really to the narrative. It doesn’t detract anything either. On that note I will continue with three sectors.
Game 3 – 3
sectors, 16 points, Heraclea
As a key decision is replacement from reserves, I thought about increasing the number of units (to 16 points) but keeping 3 sectors. This way there will be more decisions through the game choosing what replaces a lost unit.
Pyrrhus
Agema. Right sector.
Pikes. Centre sector.
Pikes (Elite). Left sector.
Elephant. Reserve.
Pikes. Reserve.
Romans
Cavalry. Right sector.
Velites. Centre sector.
Legion. Left sector.
3xLegion. Reserve.
Turn 1
Right: Agema Vs Cavalry. Both destroyed. Elephant replace Agema, Legion replace Cavalry.
Centre: Velites shoot and miss. Pikes are successful and Velites rout, replaced with Legion.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 2
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 3
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 4
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
Armoured melee infantry units in combat need a 6 and so you can see
combat is going on awhile.
Turn 5
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. Elephant routs, replace by Pike
Centre: Pike vs Legion. Pikes rout.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 6
R: Pike vs Legion. Legion rout, replaced with a Legion
C: Legion Vs Pike (right) outflanked. Pikes rout.
L: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. Legions rout
Pyrrhus down to one unit and loses.
Verdict
I really enjoyed this game. It was fun but I did not have to make any decisions – all dice driven.
Game 4 – 3
sectors, 16 points, Heraclea
I liked Game 3 so let’s play it again.
Pyrrhus
Agema. Right sector.
Pikes. Centre sector.
Pikes. Left sector.
Elephant. Reserve.
Pikes (Elite). Reserve.
Romans
Cavalry. Right sector.
Velites. Centre sector.
Legion. Left sector.
3xLegion. Reserve.
Turn 1
Right: Agema Vs Cavalry. Cavalry destroyed. Legion replaces.
Centre: Velites shoot, miss. Pike melee but no effect.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 2
Right: Agema Vs Legion. Agema destroyed. Elephants replace Agema.
Centre: Velites shoot and miss. Pike melee and Velites destroyed, Legion replaces.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 3
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. Pike rout, Elite Pikes replace.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 4
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. Legion rout, Another Legion replaces.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. Pike rout
Turn 5
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. Elephant rout.
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Legion Vs Pike (outflank). No effect
Pyrrhus down to 1 unit and loses.
Verdict
Another fun game producing a great narrative. Still very little decision making though.
Game 5 – 3
sectors, 16 points, Romans Vs Goths (Naissus battle)
I had these forces still out after my last test game with my own rules so played a stylised game of that.
I also mapped all the Ancient Battlelines Clash (ABC) unit classifications
(same as the Bill Banks Ancients) to the Dominion of the Spear unit types. This way I can use “Heavy Cavalry” and know
that is “Mounted Melee Elite”. Made it a
lot easier for me to relate. Note I used
to use categories like missile and melee, Mounted and infantry for a few years
in my ABC rules but went back to Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry, Heavy Infantry
etc. as that is what I felt most comfortable with using.
I am also also trying out rule where the Attacker chooses 1-3 sectors for
combat (right to left). The Defender
then choose 1-3 sectors for combat (left to right). Victory is checked after Attacker and
Defender turn. I am hoping this will add a bit of decision making as likely only
combat if advantageous, or for a tactical advantage (such as possibly
outflanking) or desperate when close to losing.
Romans
2xLegions (HI aka Infantry Melee Armoured)
2xAuxila (MI aka Infantry Melee)
1xArchers (LA aka Infantry Missile)
1xLight Cavalry (Mounted Missile)
1xHeacvy Cavalry (Mounted Missile Elite)
Goths
4xWB (Warbands aka Infantry Melee Ferocious)
1xHeavy Cavalry
1xArchers
Goths are defending. They put 3 Warbands into the line with the rest into
reserve. Up to Romans to match
Warbands have +1 to attack. The Roman
Light Cavalry will get a bonus Vs Melee infantry so will deploy them and two
Legions as they will negate the +1 as the Legions are being armoured.
Turn 1
Attacker:
Left: Light Cavalry Vs Warband. Light Cavalry fires and the Warband routs. Replace with the Gothic Cavalry as the latter will get a bonus in melee against the Light Cavalry.
Defender:
Left: Light Cavalry Vs Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry fires and misses, Heavy Cavalry melee and misses
Centre: Warband Vs Legion. Legion routs. Replace with Archers.
Right: Warband Vs Legion. Warband routs. Replace with another Warband.
Turn 2
Attacker:
Centre: Archers Vs Warband. Archers miss. Warband hits and Archers routed. Replace with Auxilia.
Left: Light Cavalry Vs Heavy Cavalry. Light Cavalry missiles miss, Heavy Cavalry also misses.
Defender:
Left: HC Vs Light Cavalry. Light Cavalry misses, Heavy Cavalry melee sees the Light Cavalry routs, replace with Roman Heavy Cavalry.
Centre: Warband Vs Auxilia. Warband routs. Replace with Gothic Archers.
Right: Warband Vs Legion. Legion routs, replace with Auxilia.
Turn 3
Attacker:
Centre: Auxilia Vs Archers. Archers miss, Auxilia melees but for no effect.
Defender:
Centre: Archers Vs Auxilia, Archers miss, Auxilia routs the Archers.
Right: Warband Vs Legion. No effect.
Turn 4
Attacker:
Right: Legion Vs Warband. No effect.
Centre: Legion outflank Heavy Cavalry in Left sector. Heavy Cavalry routs
Goths are at 1 unit. Goths lose
and Romans win!
Verdict
Now that was loads of fun, and I really liked having the choice of doing combat or not in a sector. And with a variety of units in the reserve, I did have to think on what units I used from reserve.
Overall Verdict
Firstly, using the rules as written this is a fun quick game. I have spent many hours thinking on the game, and playing the game has taking much less that that though! Kudos to the author. The game really does highlights the differences in unit types very well and so Legions Vs Warbands is quite different to Pikes Vs Cavalry.
It was fun, but no decision making at all. This was all dice driven. It was interesting to play and definitely would be useful in a board driven campaign when rather than just roll 1 die to see who wins a battle you could use these rules to quickly play it out and maybe also determine losses.
The rules do suggest more sectors (and 4 points per extra sector). In some 3x2 rules I was tinkering with years ago, I allowed more units the centre and less on the flanks. So I gave 4 sectors a go.
Setup |
Agema. Right sector.
Pikes, Centre sector.
Pikes (Infantry Melee, Elite, Armoured). Centre sector.
Pikes. Left sector.
Elephant. Reserve.
Cavalry. Right sector.
Legion. Centre sector.
Velites. Centre sector.
Legion. Left sector.
2xLegion. Reserve.
Right: Agema Vs Cavalry. Agema destroyed, Elephants replace Agema
Centre: Velites miss with missile and the pikes then rout the Velites. Legion replaces the Velites
Centre: Pikes Vs Legion. Legion routs, another Legion replaces.
Left. Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 1 |
Right: Elephant Vs Cavalry. Cavalry routed.
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 2 |
R: Elephant Vs Legion (in centre) outflanked. Legion routed.
C: Pike Vs Legion (outflanked). Legion routed
C: Pike Vs Legion (outflanked). Legion routed.
Pyrrhus decisive victory (no image as all Romans have routed).
4 sectors does not add anything material to the game’s decision making, nor really to the narrative. It doesn’t detract anything either. On that note I will continue with three sectors.
As a key decision is replacement from reserves, I thought about increasing the number of units (to 16 points) but keeping 3 sectors. This way there will be more decisions through the game choosing what replaces a lost unit.
Setup |
Agema. Right sector.
Pikes. Centre sector.
Pikes (Elite). Left sector.
Elephant. Reserve.
Pikes. Reserve.
Cavalry. Right sector.
Velites. Centre sector.
Legion. Left sector.
3xLegion. Reserve.
Right: Agema Vs Cavalry. Both destroyed. Elephant replace Agema, Legion replace Cavalry.
Centre: Velites shoot and miss. Pikes are successful and Velites rout, replaced with Legion.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 1 |
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 2 |
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect.
Centre: Pike vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. Elephant routs, replace by Pike
Centre: Pike vs Legion. Pikes rout.
Left: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 5 |
R: Pike vs Legion. Legion rout, replaced with a Legion
C: Legion Vs Pike (right) outflanked. Pikes rout.
L: Pike (elite) Vs Legion. Legions rout
Pyrrhus down to one unit and loses.
End game |
I really enjoyed this game. It was fun but I did not have to make any decisions – all dice driven.
I liked Game 3 so let’s play it again.
Setup |
Agema. Right sector.
Pikes. Centre sector.
Pikes. Left sector.
Elephant. Reserve.
Pikes (Elite). Reserve.
Cavalry. Right sector.
Velites. Centre sector.
Legion. Left sector.
3xLegion. Reserve.
Right: Agema Vs Cavalry. Cavalry destroyed. Legion replaces.
Centre: Velites shoot, miss. Pike melee but no effect.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 1 |
Right: Agema Vs Legion. Agema destroyed. Elephants replace Agema.
Centre: Velites shoot and miss. Pike melee and Velites destroyed, Legion replaces.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 2 |
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. Pike rout, Elite Pikes replace.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 3 |
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. No effect
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. Legion rout, Another Legion replaces.
Left: Pike Vs Legion. Pike rout
End of turn 4 |
Right: Elephant Vs Legion. Elephant rout.
Centre: Pike Vs Legion. No effect.
Left: Legion Vs Pike (outflank). No effect
End of turn 5 |
Another fun game producing a great narrative. Still very little decision making though.
I had these forces still out after my last test game with my own rules so played a stylised game of that.
2xLegions (HI aka Infantry Melee Armoured)
2xAuxila (MI aka Infantry Melee)
1xArchers (LA aka Infantry Missile)
1xLight Cavalry (Mounted Missile)
1xHeacvy Cavalry (Mounted Missile Elite)
4xWB (Warbands aka Infantry Melee Ferocious)
1xHeavy Cavalry
1xArchers
Setup |
Attacker:
Left: Light Cavalry Vs Warband. Light Cavalry fires and the Warband routs. Replace with the Gothic Cavalry as the latter will get a bonus in melee against the Light Cavalry.
Left: Light Cavalry Vs Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry fires and misses, Heavy Cavalry melee and misses
Centre: Warband Vs Legion. Legion routs. Replace with Archers.
Right: Warband Vs Legion. Warband routs. Replace with another Warband.
End of turn 1 |
Attacker:
Centre: Archers Vs Warband. Archers miss. Warband hits and Archers routed. Replace with Auxilia.
Left: Light Cavalry Vs Heavy Cavalry. Light Cavalry missiles miss, Heavy Cavalry also misses.
Left: HC Vs Light Cavalry. Light Cavalry misses, Heavy Cavalry melee sees the Light Cavalry routs, replace with Roman Heavy Cavalry.
Centre: Warband Vs Auxilia. Warband routs. Replace with Gothic Archers.
Right: Warband Vs Legion. Legion routs, replace with Auxilia.
End of turn 2 |
Attacker:
Centre: Auxilia Vs Archers. Archers miss, Auxilia melees but for no effect.
Centre: Archers Vs Auxilia, Archers miss, Auxilia routs the Archers.
Right: Warband Vs Legion. No effect.
End of turn 3 |
Attacker:
Right: Legion Vs Warband. No effect.
Centre: Legion outflank Heavy Cavalry in Left sector. Heavy Cavalry routs
End game |
Verdict
Now that was loads of fun, and I really liked having the choice of doing combat or not in a sector. And with a variety of units in the reserve, I did have to think on what units I used from reserve.
Firstly, using the rules as written this is a fun quick game. I have spent many hours thinking on the game, and playing the game has taking much less that that though! Kudos to the author. The game really does highlights the differences in unit types very well and so Legions Vs Warbands is quite different to Pikes Vs Cavalry.
After a while you could play in your head and roll some dice. The narrative it produces is worthwhile the few minutes it takes to play. I spend hours mulling over extra rules for specific types of units and eventually discarded them all as they are really covered enough by the unit types and abilities. Of course, having said that, I did come up with one alternative ability to Elite and Armoured called “Mixed”. A Mixed unit counts as Elite Vs mounted and Armoured Vs infantry. I only use it for Pikes and Elephants. When I mapped Dominion of the Spear units to ABC units I found Pikes and Elephants were the same as HI (Blades) and Cataphracts, respectively. I did want to differentiate Pikes and Elephants so came up with “Mixed”. I played one game with “Mixed” and works fine but haven’t played enough to see if is unbalanced (it should not be but you never now).
As written, the game does have very limited decision making in the game and I did struggle with that as I wanted a little more. I was very tempted to simply use a spreadsheet to code up the rules and run lots of games (as there is very little decisions) but that would ruin getting out some figures and actually physically rolling dice. Rather than doing that, I spent many more hours thinking how to add more decision making – e.g. each side has a leader giving -1 (or maybe +1) to a combat die per turn. That seemed it may skew combat so in the end I went with limiting activation.
My own rules use a die roll to see if a unit can activate. I also thought about using a DBA type 1d3 roll for how many sectors you could combat with in a turn. In the end I went with the Attacker and Defender can choose 1-3 sectors for combat. One as a minimum so you have to choose and the game will not stalemate. Attacker and Defender so both sides get to make some decisions. Choosing the sector adds some decision making, and doing it for both sides is an extra element in choices. The last game really showed that in that I did have to think about what sector(s) to select for combat. But that it just me complicating the game but for me it gave some more decisions.
The game itself it very clever with the 4
unit types and two abilities. I am very
tempted to expand it to a 3x3 grid plus reserves. This is only because I have
been attempting to write a fast 3x3 grid set and I think the combat mechanism
in Dominion of the Spear works fine, and would work just as fine with a 3x3 grid
to add in some more decisions concerning movement. But that will have to await another day as I
think the current 3 sectors plus reserves and my rules tweaks works just fine for me. No need to add more! I am not sure I would need to change anything else. I would play more games but after a few days I am already distracted by other rules :-) I hope the author does not mind me tinkering
with his rules – I do that for almost every ruleset, I just cannot help it :-)
That looks a very interesting set, thanks for the writeup. At first it looked a bit too simple, but I really like mechanism for feeding in reserves. As you said in the post, you need some decision making, and your mod wrt number of combats looks a good one. In such a small battle a leader bonus might be very unbalancing, but one you could possibly have a leader try to save a unit which routs instead? Succeed on 5+ leader dies on a 1 or something similar. Idea borrowed from Strategos. Vary success score by leader quality.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting and has some great ideas in it.
DeleteI want to use it for the Portable Wargame Hoplite Campaign (it would work well i think) but am distracted by other rules. You idea of the leader saving a unit is a good one. I was trying to not introduce any more dice rolls bu I do like the idea of saving a unit. And deciding which sector to place a leader is a decent decision point. It may be a good thing to try out as an alternative to limiting sector combats. And like Strategos (and what you did in your hoplite campaign) you could have the option to buy a leader.
Hi Shaun,
ReplyDeleteI am Steve the author of these rules. Thank you for your kind words! Your blog has indeed been an inspiration in seeking to play ancient battles really simply. And you introduced me to the wonderful Peter Sides books. Please tinker and tinker with the rules! In 2-3 weeks I should be releasing a supplement to the rules - a book along the lines of the Peter Sides' books with 30+ historical battles for Dominion of the Spear, from Megiddo to Agincourt. I am still adding battles.
I could take the opportunity to introduce a couple of optional rules to increase the decision making. I will have to think about sector/unit activation. It does matter the order of activation as units get used up from the reserve and an attack from an outflanking unit goes in without the other unit able to attack back until it's own sector's activation.
Off the top of my head on saving throws perhaps each side could attempt to rally 6 points worth of troops in the battle. Then you have the decision do I try to save those Spearmen and Archers or do I save the points for my elite 4 points unit. Save on 5 or 6. Something like this? I will have to run the probabilities. A saved unit goes back in the reserve. Would not be many successes but successes would be memorable and add to the story!
Steve
Hello Steve
DeleteThank you for stopping by, and thank you for the rules, they are the sort of rules I love - simple but have quite a bit of depth and fun to play. I did change the activation to 1-3 because, as you say, the order of activation is very important in the game. So deciding which combats to actually do really added to my games.
I look forward to the historical battles (obviously) and any optional rules you may publish.
I did not want to tinker too much with the rules as they are mainly fine as they are. But optional rules are always useful that players could use if they wished, or if particular rules that are useful for actual historical battles. The saving throw for x points of units sounds good. As I said to Martin above, I was trying to get away from rolling any more dice and just have decisions (such as a leader adding +/-1 or limited activation). But decisions that include dice rolls are fine, as at least they are decisions!
I have an idea on terrain as I am now thinking I could replay the One Hour Wargames scenarios with these rules (OHW has 6 units a side after all and should easily translate to DofS) and test them out. An example: A hill in the defender centre sector (hill = count defending infantry as armoured). Put hill under defender unit. If attacker wins combat, hill moves to under attacker unit. If they outflank a unit while on a hill, remove hill. Another example would be defending a town. The town sits with a unit in reserve. When that unit moves into a sector, the town goes with it. If the other side wins the combat, it has taken the town and move the town to the winning unit. Hopefully this way I can play the OHW scenarios as it has hills and towns. I have not worked out rivers (yet).
Oh, and the Peter Sides are the best thing! So many historical scenarios. I have another 5 historical battles in the pipeline just waiting for me to play.
Nice review Shaun.
ReplyDeleteI will be ordering a copy of the rules (and the forthcoming supplement too) for sure. The army lists will be useful, but I can always crib that aspect from DBA anyway. I suspect that, very much like One-Hour Wargame and the Portable Wargame, you can tinker to your hearts content provided you don’t upset the balance between the troop categories. Still, it’s always good to be open to other peoples ideas/concepts. I always enjoy a battle report where the narrative of the battle tells a story, so that’s useful.
Cheers,
Geoff
Hello Geoff
DeleteAgreed. If you go in with a narrative mindset you won't go wrong with these rules. And the combat mechanism (sectors and the modifiers) are a really interesting concept that just works.
Nice overview! I like your ideas for adding more decision points to the game, especially adding troops to the reserve. I just don't have the counters to do that yet.
ReplyDeleteI realize that I played it wrong. I waited until the turn ends before sending in the reserves. Ah well, it seemed to still work fine for me.
Thankyou Kevin. You need to get busy on the extra counters :-)
DeleteAdding reserves at the end will still work but if you have more than one unit lost in one turn then it may matter. And occasionally it may allow outflanking opportunities that would not occur if replacing immediately.
Nice games and thoughts there Shaun:). I'm very much reminded of the 3x3 Portable Wargames variant that was played a lot a year or so ago.
ReplyDeleteHello Steve
DeleteThankyou. It also reminded me of the 3x3 Portable Wargame; and I am tempted to use them for some 3x3 Portable Wargame campaigns out there.
Excellent and thorough write up, Shaun. I imagine this is a very good rules-lite game that would be excellent for persitent solo campaign games where the player does not care so much about combat but wants the quick diversion.
ReplyDeleteThank John. Exactly what my thoughts were - I think solo campaigns battle resolution is its sweet spot.
DeleteI mainly use the rules and army lists to fight tournaments. I love Tim Porter's Madaxeman ADLG battle reports and his earlier battle reports using different rules. I look at the tournament results which tend to list the armies used, take the top 8 and fight a knockout tournament between them.
ReplyDeleteAlso I have over the years seen many of the "greats" of UK ancient wargaming play so I construct knockout tournaments between them and the armies that I have seen them use.
In a lazy afternoon or evening one can easily run 2 or 3 tournaments with the games generating amusing narratives as individual units and armies succeed or fail.
One also gets to see how different army types (horse archer, heavy infantry etc.) fare against different opponents which I very much am interested in.
Easy to set up and play, perhaps easier than campaigns!
Hello Steve,
DeleteSolo tournaments are a really great use for the rules, but I think the real sweet spot for the rules will be people playing solo campaigns and using them to resolve battles quickly. The 3x3 version of Portable Wargames seems to be popular right now for this (on the gaming blogs I follow anyway). The general move has been to simple campaigns rules as well so not a huge overhead anymore :-)
Tim's battle reports are amazing. I have been following his blog for many year and read the reports avidly whenever them come out.
Looks like easy and interesting rules. I think if the rules makes a good narrative story that compensates for less decision making.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing!
Thanks Roger. The narrative is generates is indeed really good, even though the decision making is limited.
DeleteVery interesting. Is there a "to hit" number each side must roll to eliminate his opponent? If a unit is outflanked and survives can he fight again against the opposing unit?
ReplyDeleteHi Spearhead,
ReplyDeleteSteve the author here. There is a hit number for a unit to destroy it's opposing unit. Typically the base figure is 5 or 6 for missile units attacking (attack first) and 4, 5 or 6 for melee units attacking. This base figure is then modified for the unit attributes (elite/ferocious, armoured), for the type of unit attacking that particular defender unit type, and any outflanking bonus.
Regarding outflanking, units activate when their sector is activated. So the unit being attacked must wait until it's sector is activated to attack back. I see it as it is being hit in the flank or rear so it's response back is going to be delayed, oh and if it still has an opposing unit to its front it must attack that unit.
Hope this helps
Steve
Great! Thanks.
DeleteVery cool idea! I love campaigns and always struggle with resolving the battles in a timely fashion. This could be used to come up with a one-evening campaign!
ReplyDeleteOh yes, very fast. You could do one in an hour, no need for a whole evening :-)
DeleteHi Shaun,
ReplyDeleteJust a quick one but one decision I find myself having to make is do I risk my elite/ferocious melee unit opposite a missile unit as my unit may well be shot up before it can get its attack in. Or do I put a less valuable unit up against the missile unit and try to get my elite/ferocious unit up against something less risky where at least I know I will get my attack in. Do I risk it or not?
Steve
Agreed. My last game above I was facing that choice, Romans in deployment and then Goth for allocating from reserve. Same for armoured units - do I risk it or not Vs missile?
DeleteHi Shaun,
ReplyDeleteCan I pinch your tweaks as Optional Rules for Dominion of the Spear? Credited to you of course. Just to make sure I understand them:
1) Increased Army Size. This is simple - increase the armies to 16 points thereby allowing more reserves and more decision making as one decides which reserve unit to move forward.
2) Change activation of the sectors with the Attacker choosing 1-3 right to left and then the Defender choosing 1-3 left to right. Shaun, I don't really understand this. Could you explain it to me please how you are playing this. In an activation does only the activating side attack or both sides? Can the defender choose a sector already chosen by the Attacker? Etc. Thanks.
I had the amusing thought of trying a game where I keep the 3 sectors but double the army lists so 24 points each. Keep everything else the same! Then each army is then feeding troops forward as units get destroyed. Little outflanking until the end, and a very different and longer game but a lot of decisions as to what to move forward. Just a random thought.
Steve
Reuse the tweaks as much as you want!
DeleteRegarding 2: The Attacker chooses 1-3 sectors from right to left. The defender then chooses 1-3 sectors from their right to left (i.e. the Attackers right to left). Both sides attack when a sector is chosen. The Defender could choose a sector chosen by the attacker. One option could be the Defender chooses from their left to right (so in the same direction as the Attacker). I only did Defender from their right to left as my own rules activate in this sequence (attacker right to left and then defender's right to left).
Note that I played a few games yesterday where the Attacker only chooses *one* sector and then the Defender chooses *one* sector. May be the same sector and both units attack. It was interesting and seemed to work fine.
24 points would be a lot! A much longer game but it would have more decisions on what to move forwards. (even 16pts extends the game a fair bit over 12pts but I think the decision making offsets the game length). I find 12 and 16 points to still seem a bit historical while I think 24 points would be seem a little more gamey with a lot more units in reserve than on the front line. Still a good game, just harder to reconcile to ancient battles.
How are points determined? 2 points per unit? +1 if armored/elite?
DeleteYes. 2 points for a unit, +1 for armoured, +1 for elite.
DeleteShaun has it right. Four basic troop types each costing 2 points. Then elite/ ferocious (bonus to attack) +1 point, armoured (bonus to defend) +1 point. A unit can be both elite/ferocious and armoured so units cost 2, 3 or 4 points each.
DeleteMany thanks for the permission and many thanks for the clarification Shaun. I think I like your suggestion of the Attacker chooses one sector (both attack) and then the Defender chooses one sector (both attack). Have to think about both can choose the same sector.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the armies and according to my quick calculations as to how many units in an army:
3 units 0.5% (only the Hussites in their war wagons)
4 units 24% of the armies
5 units 58%
6 units 18%
So 76% of the armies will have 5 or 6 units. What do you think about +2 points as then a Vandal army with 4x ferocious Cavalry gets a 1x Spearmen (Javelinmen) and a Mongol army with 4x elite Horse Archers can have a 1x Horse Archers (tribal allies) etc. Nearly all armies had a 1x Spearmen tagging along and certainly one of the four basic types. This wouldn't disrupt the army lists. If the two opposing armies both already have 5 or 6 units might just leave it as it is but if one or both has 4 then both get +2 points. Thoughts? An army of 5 units feels historically realistic to me with the 3 in the main battle line and two in reserve. Fits what I read.
24 points was just a random thought and yes would be a very different game!
Steve
i did not realise how many of your army lists had 5-6 units. I moved to 16pts to be able to get 3 units in the battleline and 2-3 units (occasionally 4 but see below) in the reserve. I do like the idea of +2pts for 4 units. If I am playing with armies and 16pts and a side would get 7 units I sometime play with 14 points. The sweet spot for me seems to be 3 in reserve, so +1/-1 on that for my armies is good (i.e 5-7 units in total). The most realistic in my mind is actually 4 units (1 in reserve) and occasionally 5 :-) But that would not be as fun :-)
DeleteThe short version of my ramble is yes, if one side only has 4 units that 14 points for each side is a great addition to the rules.
Shaun, great. +2 points each then if one side has 4 units only, as an optional rule. Regarding activation and Attacker choosing one sector and then the Defender choosing one sector. This probably makes 4 point units more powerful as their owner will probably keep activating them. One thing that I found using the original rules as they stand is that when I kept that 4 points unit in reserve, by the time it is commited to the battle the rest of its army may be or might already be falling apart around it leaving it all by itself. This happened to me a few times until I learnt I had to commit it reasonably fast otherwise it might be too late. Steve
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if i'm wrong, a mounted missile unit (hits on 5,6 if elite hits on 4,5,6) and in combat with a foot melee unit gets an additional +1. And routs the foot unit on 3+.
ReplyDeleteA mounted missile unit (horse archers for examples) attacks first against a foot melee unit with yes a base 5 or 6 to hit and rout the foot melee unit (all in one roll, a hit destroys the target). Then elite gives +1 to the dice so hits on a 4, 5 or 6 now. Missile Mounted v Melee Infantry is a horrible matchup for the infantry so yes another +1 so now needing a 3+. If it fails the foot melee unit can attack back at a base 4+. My earlier versions had foot melee unable to attack missile mounted at all! But there are enough examples of it happening in history. Elite horse archers are dangerous!
ReplyDeleteHope this helps
Steve
Yikes! The fact that mounted missle fire first... That is what destroyed the Roman army at Carrahe. Non elite mtd missle would be a better match up (hit on 5,6) against armored foot melee. But they still get the advantage of attacking first. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAnd a few years later at Taurus 39 BC the Romans came back prepared for the Parthians with lots of light troops (slingers) and they positioned themselves on a steep hill from which they could charge down and catch the horse archers!
DeleteShaun,
ReplyDeleteI have been thinking about Activation all day.
How about Attacker chooses a sector (both can attack), Defender chooses a sector (both attack), then the remaining sector is fought. Not only does this affect outflanking, it has a big affect on the reserves as they move forward immediately a frontline unit is destroyed. So for example as Attacker you have Cavalry in your reserve and the enemy has two Archer units and a Horse Archers in their frontline. So as Attacker you might choose to fight the sector with the enemy Horse Archers in, because if your unit there is destroyed it will be a good matchup for your Cavalry as opposed to the opposite against Archers. So it becomes a real decision which sector to pick. Fighting the remaining sector gets around the advantage of a 4 point unit getting picked each time. Then you have to take account of the enemy's reserve and where they might end up. Could be a real decision which sector to pick on your pick, even if both sides have one reserve only (!!!).
Attacker probably has an advantage choosing first so could alternate who chooses first each round. So the Defender chooses first on the second round etc
Thoughts? Steve
Your idea (attacker chooses one, Defender chooses one then fight the other) fits in really well with the rules. I don't mind if a side picks the 4 point unit each time because that does mean they are losing somewhere else where the other side is choosing something with a good matchup. And eventually the 4 pointer will be outflanked (maybe). It could be the 4 pointer is up against a 3 pointer but the 3 pointer has with a +1 advantage and so not choosing the 4 pointer is a good idea! Anyway, that was my thoughts about why could choose the same again and again, and the fact you don't have to remember from sector to sector what has been chosen. The game is so fast that remembering this is not a problem! Anyway, short version: Your sector activation seems the most fair and balanced and gives some more decision making. I like just choosing one that could be chosen again because I am lazy and don't have to think about which sector was previously activated :-)
DeleteAnd thinking all day on one particular rule in a ruleset - I think we have all been there!
So you can pick your sector taking into account if your unit loses, but also pick it from the viewpoint of the other side's unit losing, and deliberately seek to force the placing of the other side's reserves where they might not want to go. I'll have to try this!
ReplyDeleteHello Steve,
DeleteJust note I am away on a beach holiday for the next week. Have internet access but will be twisting your rules to do things they were not supposed to: 3x3 grid, 6x1 historical replays, tweak Ferocious so different from elite. Not really optional rules that could be used, more that I really like the unit classification and the simple combat modifiers and trying out different ideas with them. The 3x3 is I am working on a 3x3 ruleset for skirmish, ww2 and ancients and so looking at how to apply your rules to all of these.
Thanks for letting me know, Shaun. I am really appreciating our discussions. My next set after the 36 historical battles book will be the Renaissance version as that is the furthest along. Same basic rules but add artillery and tercios etc. Which type of unit get a bonus against which other type changes and I am hoping that this will change the feeling of the game. I have a lot of Renaissance battle reports still to read though.
ReplyDeleteI have played around with using these rules for Fantasy, SF, 18th Century, 17th Century naval, and 1920's Back of Beyond. I lost a lot of the work though.
What are your feelings on terrain for these Ancient rules, Shaun? For the historical battles I am using the elite/ferocious, armoured system (i.e. an attack bonus or a defence bonus). I also downgrade units where appropriate - so at Agincourt the second wave of French men-at-arms slogging through the mud lose their armoured status. In the scenarios I count any costs as part of the 12 points so each game is "fair" (although all the other factors come in such as matchups).
Enjoy your holiday and your tinkering with rules!
Steve
Shame you lost the work on the other periods - would have been interesting to see what there was.
DeleteFor the terrain rules, I have only done them once (hope to try them out during the week) but, like you, went with the "count as Elite" or "count as unarmoured" to keep it simple, and balance points accordingly. If you are on terrain and you win, the terrain shifts to the winner. If outflanking and on terrain, the terrain is removed. One thing I did think of but have not used if terrain at the rear of a battle e.g. a hill. The hill is attached to a reserve unit and when the reserve unit is moved into the battleline,the terrain piece is moved with it. One of the few advantages of going to a 3x3 grid (as you lose some simplicity) would be terrain is much easier to incorporate :-) And I am hankering to try these rules out with the OHW scenarios.
I saw your post on TWW about the complexity of 3x3 but have been thinking for days on how to keep it simple, including the outflanking issues. Introducing movement does add another level of complexity though :-( Hence just playing around at the moment to make it easier to play the OHW scenarios, and the skirmish/ww2 versions where terrain seems to be more important than mass ancient battles. Most ancient battles clashed in clear terrain (not always) but ww2/skirmish has buildings/forest, hills etc as part of the battlefield.
Hi Shaun, I just played out the battle of Dara 530 AD Sassanid Persians attacking Byzantines using an activation system of each round Attacker chooses a sector, then Defender chooses a sector. That's it. End of round and check if anyone's won. Then exactly repeat. A very different feeling - instead of almost watching the battle play out I felt more like I was the generals ordering my troops around and into battle. It was fun. Oh, the Sassanids won as their cavalry proved too much for the Byzantine cavalry and the Byzantines were left only with their Archers in their fortified camp in the centre.
ReplyDeleteSteve
I also have been playing a few battles today with the one activation a side and am finding it fun to play.
DeleteAnd just played Manzikert 1071 AD three times. Same rules as above. First two games were clear victories for the Byzantines with the Emperor and his best troops in the centre far better than the Seljuk Turks facing them. I was beginning to wonder if the Seljuk Turks need to forward deploy their elite Ghulams quicker otherwise there is no advantage for them in any sector of the battlefield. But then in the third game a couple of good hits from the arrows of the Seljuk Turks and they were in amongst the Armenian Spearmen of the Byzantines. A very different picture and a Seljuk Turks victory!
ReplyDeleteHi Steve,
DeleteSaw your comment on WargameVault on 3x3 rules. I have been playtesting some 3x3 DotS rules I can send to you. If interested, send me an email: shaun.wizkid AT gmail DOT com