Rules Criteria Addendum

In a previous post I listed out the criteria I am using to decide on a rule set.

After reading several rule sets and reading reviews for others, I realized that a major component of game mechanics is how the rules implement Command & Control of units. There are a few different "flavors" of C&C that I will try to detail in a future post, but for now here is the new formulated criterion in a similar format to my previous criteria:

"Realistic" Command & Control - The way elements are ordered to take action in the game must in some way simulate the "fog of war". Straight IGOUGO is just too abstract for my tastes. I'm not particular about exactly how C&C is implemented as long as it in some way simulates the difficulty of controlling a force in an ancient battle.

Lost Battles

After embarking on this quest to find a good rule set for Ancients wargaming, I pretty quickly realized that intrinsic to selecting a rule set was an understanding of the common vernacular used in these games.

Questions such as "why is it better to move my elements in a line?", "what exactly are light infantry useful for?", and the ever present "how do you out-flank?" stumped me early on and it seemed the rules were happy to explain the game mechanics, but not necessarily expound on the underlying assumptions.

To determine ultimate viability of these rule sets, one arguably needs a historical understanding of the era, knowledge of the different troop types & qualities, appreciation for the environmental challenges, acknowledgment of the limitations of command & control, comprehension of the psychology of an ancient warrior, and detailed analysis of the many famous battles & commanders that marked this time.

The book I found to help with these questions is Lost Battles: Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World by Philip Sabin.

Reading this book answered many of my questions and generally helped me become more knowledgeable about the era. Here is my full review on BoardGameGeek.

Gaming in Plastic

I did a little bit of second guessing early on in this process about scale. As I scanned the web for wargamer blogs and sites, the majority embraced a different scale. Very few people I could find had adopted 20mm, much less plastics.

Undeterred, I was happy to find a few key sites that supported my decision.

Here's a 9-part series from Tabletop Gaming News called Gaming in Plastic that addresses some of the more common concerns.

Why Game with Plastics?
Perhaps the most oft-cited reason to game with 1:72-scale plastics is the low cost. It is possible to get boxes of 40+ figures for $12 CDN in most historical eras. At 30 cents each, these models are significantly less expensive than metal figures. For gamers who are either exploring historical miniatures for the first time or starting in a new era, this cost saving is very attractive.

Plastics are also readily available at many local hobby stores and over the Internet. And, most importantly, there has been significant growth in the available ranges over the past five years, particularly from producers located in various eastern European countries.

...

Over the course of this series, I will address [several] concerns through the application of modeling, painting and basing products and techniques.

Gaming in Plastics

Age of Battles

Here's a rule set I was very excited about when I first heard of it and was convinced would be the top-contender early on. Having decided to go with 20mm (1/72) plastic figures, finding a rule set that was specifically designed for the scale (as opposed to having to convert everything) seemed very alluring.

Unfortunately there wasn't much info on the web about this game, so I had to cobble together what I could. The main sources of info were:

Age of Battles page on BoardGameGeek

Age of Battles Yahoo Group

Age of Battles Official Site

In summary, Age of Battles is a table-top gaming system using 1/72 scale miniatures by Zvezda, a manufacturer of plastic miniatures noted for historical accuracy. The are different versions of the rules which cover several time periods and countries, all based on historical events (Antiquity, Middle age, Shogun, Napoleonic).

The game comes as battle/era-specific boxed game sets that include everything needed to play out scenarios (rules, figures, stands, cards, accessories, etc), but you can also purchase additional figures in sets and use them in battle.

Movement and combat are performed through measurement and dice rolling. Figures are rated in a number of basic statistics (figure sets come with stats). Game flow is IGoUGo.

Here are some pros and cons:

PROs:

• Lots and lots of high-quality minis
• Designed for 1/72
• Themed boxes give you historical opponents ready for battle

CONs:

• English versions of the rules are a choppy translations at best. Michigan Toy Soldier company offers an English translation that is supposedly smoother.
• "Fiddly-ness": Each fig represents 1 combatant. Lots of touching of lots of individual figs.
  
• Stands. I thought I'd like them but they are too big and bulky in practice.

To be perfectly honest, I probably didn't give the rules the chance they deserve. Since the basic mechanics are so similar to Warhammer Ancient Battles (which is much easier to understand and has more ubiquitous support) I abandoned this rule set pretty quickly.

That said, I really am glad I purchased the boxed scenario game (I purchased the Battle of Issus set) because of the "instant armies" provided.

This rule set is a "no go".

Picking a Rules Set

Geesh, has it really been that long since I last posted???

Anyway, I promised an order to my criteria for picking a rules set. I've found however, that unlike just about every other aspect of my life I wasn't able to be purely analytical about this one...I just sort of "felt it" as to which rule sets to focus on.

Basically it came down to the following top contenders along with the primary reasons they were chosen:

• Field of Glory: Brand new system (I can get in on the ground floor) that claims to retool older rule sets and bring brand new perspective. Very high production value.
  
• Command & Colors: Ancients: Ease & speed of play and focus on historical replays.
  
• Warhammer Ancient Battles: Broad support. Lots of supplements.
  
• Warmaster Ancients: Similar to WAB but more Command&Control focused.
  

I purchased FoG, C&C:A, and WAB to assess them and will post my findings (along with posts on why I rejected other rule sets) later...really....I will.

Plastic Soldier Review

I mentioned in a previous post that I have chosen 20mm (1/72) plastics as the miniatures with which to recreate my ancient armies.

For finding the right manufacturers and sets to purchase, there is no better place online than Plastic Soldier Review.

You can keep up with industry news, search for figures by time period, see offerings by manufacturer, get detailed reviews and ratings (with emphasis on historical accuracy), and most importantly get excellent pictures of the actual figures.

In the future I'll post my personal reviews of some manufacturers, tips on tricks on purchasing, and list my favorite sets.

Rules Criteria

So I said two post ago that I would enumerate the criteria I used to decide on a rule set. In no particular order (that will be the next post), here are the criteria that meant the most to me:

• A rules system that is usable for the entire Ancients period (Biblical -> early Medieval) - basically I want to learn the rules once and be able to use them in several different periods. This obviously introduces challenges because a lot of different technologies existed during that time frame (from chariots to siege weapons to longbows), but a good system should be able to handle it all.
  
• Easy to Setup & Play - my time is precious and the sad truth is that a game that takes forever to setup and play will probably stay on the shelf.
  
• Plays fast - kind of the same point as the previous point, but more specifically turns are quick enough that you aren't bored waiting for your turn, and even that you may be able to squeeze in more than one game in a single evening (asking a lot, I know)
  
• Engaging/elegant combat system - at the end of the day, no matter how much "chrome" the rules have, the thing you will be doing most is combat. If the combat system (the way you actually attack and defend) is not engaging or elegant in some way, I'm not going to want to play. If it is boring, too "fiddly", too complex, or just intangibly "feels" awkward, it will be a big turnoff.
  
• Straightforward to translate real historic battles into game terms - a big draw for me to this time period is being able to re-fight historic battles. Do the rules allow for and/or support easy implementation of these kind of scenarios?
• High availability of army lists - goes along with the previous point and the first point. Does the system provide army lists to use for different periods/armies? I'm no history major, so having someone do the hard work of putting these lists together is a big plus. It is ok if these are supplements, as long as they are available.
  
• Point-based system - very important for game balance when creating new army lists or scenarios. I hate games where the designers have put together a system of rating combatants' relative strengths but don't give you "the formula".
  
• Good simulation of Ancient battle - this is a big one...the rules system has to "feel" like you are truly fighting an Ancient battle. The more the system allows you to think and use strategies/tactics that approximate those of an actual commander during those times, the better! If it plays more like an abstract strategy game, or clever/esoteric game mechanics take center stage, it loses the flavor of a simulation.
  
• An "accepted" rules system- what I'm getting across here is that the rules are used by a critical mass of people: enough that supplements, articles, scenarios, and interesting variants are available. I'm not necessarily looking for the be-all-end-all system or to swallow one particular manufacturers product line to the exclusion of all else, just a well respected/tested/supported system.
  
• Low entry threshold for figures - Given that figures cost money and require time for painting, the lower the number of figures needed to field an army, the better.