2D6 Ancients 2nd Playtest

 

Recently my friend and I undertook the second playtest of my homebrew rules. The pictures are a few quick snaps and are in no particular order. The real challenge of the rules was whether they could be played with multiple distractions namely in the form of a demanding and fussy child as well as a puppy. In that regard I think they were good.

I opted to set up a Punic War fight set in Sicily with Rome gaining some Sicilian Greek allies. The armies were fairly equal with Carthage having more cavalry and Rome having better infantry (see the list below). This time we tried out some deployment rules. We diced off and the highest roll had priority, then each player alternately placed units by type, firstly light infantry once both players deployed all their light infantry would they move onto the next troop type. It was simple and it worked well.

I tweaked the rules in an attempt to make the initial skirmish clashes more decisive. They felt right but in the context of the full battle they could be even more decisive. I'm considering allotting "Hit Points" to units and removing the 4 step status of each unit so skirmishers may have 2HP and cavalry 3HP, it can also be an indication of troop quality. 

Eventually the heavies came to blows and we came to the conclusion, after quite a bit of successful combat that was being rallied away by Generals, that rallying needs to be riskier and limited, either by per turn or per battle. To wrap the battle up we called that the generals had exhausted their rallies.

In the first playtest the morale tests for units breaking was punishing especially for levies, while I stripped them back for this test, I will bring them back next time and just do a single morale roll when units are lost to combat results to prevent too much cascading as there was not a lot of sympathetic routing resulting in a mutual bloodbath.

We did begin to find that quite a few combats were starting to break both opposing units, this is probably due to me changing the turns to simultaneous phases rather than each plyer completing a full turn. so I have been since working on a mechanism to prevent that so each combat will have a "winner". Of course this will bloat the rules a bit and will require testing.  

I am also thinking that command and control is too "easy" currently armies can pretty much do what they want with a few to quite a few spare commands to spend on attack bonuses. Perhaps the command points should be more restrictive since all opposing units will combat or restrict combat to individual units that can be activated, more to mull on.

There was a bit of fun with the Elephants, one unit went berserk and prompted me to tighten up the rampage rules a bit, but in game with some excellent battlefield marshalling, the elephants and the infantry units nearby managed to avoid each other before the elephants found a route away from the battle without trampling anyone! 

There was no clear winner, as the Carthaginian cavalry began to make serious progress the Legions began to make theirs. So some kind of morale or army break point is needed to discern a winner of the field. There was some great suggestions provided in the comments of the last play test post that are being carefully considered. However the game survived the stress test of many distractions, played relatively quickly with lots of figures and raised points that needed worked on for the rules to progress as well as providing entertainment. 

On the painting front there's been barely any progress. I'm working on individually based skirmisher marker bases for Strength & Honour which seems to be just about ready to release their new supplement. I'm also ready to have a solo re fight of Lost Battles Magnesia, just need the opportunity to set up and play through!

2d6 Ancients Play Test

 I invited my friend round for a miniatures table top battle, being like me a fan of Rome Total War and of ancient history. I had a bit of time before we could meet so I had set to picking up where I left off with my home brew rules. For quite some time, on and off, I have been working on the rules but the prospect of hosting a game I thought I'd better get a playable set written. There are a few hasty snaps that have been cropped to try to avoid the background furniture. Its not so much an AAR as some musings on how we found the rules. 

The main driving factor behind my homebrew rules is a way to fairly simply and satisfyingly resolve a battle within a campaign system. Its in essence a very derivate set with ideas plucked from various sets. The main being Lost Battles, the refights from that set give a very satisfying battle even as a solo play. Sabin's analysis of ancient warfare has always compelled me ever since reading The Face of Roman Battle, so Lost Battles provides the main inspiration for troop interaction and I like the use of 2d6 to resolve things. The troop types are broadly the same as Lost Battles also but units have 3 hits before they are broken and removed from the game. 

It should go without saying that it uses a grid which I have now marked out on my gaming cloth. When set up on the table it provided a 17x9 board. Its a 1 unit per space game currently and units have a simple how many spaces they can move, keeping it as simple as possible and only worrying about facings with certain troop types. Each unit also has a discipline rating and units represent large amounts of soldiers in the 1000s.

I decided that I would set up a fight based on the battle of Magnesia, that way I'd be able to get the Legions, Pikemen, Elephants, Cataphracts and Chariots. I made most of the Romans veterans with their allies being average (total of 24 units),  while I made the Seleucids mainly Levy with some average quality (29 units in all). Both sides had a skirmish line. I wanted the skirmish line to be able to close quickly have some decisive combat and then disperse not long after to allow the main fighting to occur. As a consequence Light Infantry are highly likely to take hits, and units can take up to 2 hits in a combat (unless they are cataphracts) and light infantry could easily take 2 hits.

With it set up I gave a brief overview of the units and rules. We diced off and winning the that I opted to go for the Seleucids and took the role of Antiochus. My friend therefore took the role of Scipio and had the first turn.

I opted for of a more DBA esque "PIP" system, along with command figures who provide command points in their vicinity. In essence the command points (momentum points or MP in the current version) allow the movement of troops and spares can be used for an attack bonus. If units are adjacent to each other in orthogonal spaces they can be activated as a group for 1 MP so the whole army could be moved forward which was the case for Scipio's army but he held his cavalry back. The light infantry surged forward this however while they are fresh can move without MP. There was no enemy units in reach for combat so whilst the Seleucids will get the first chance to strike the Roman advance provided the army with some breathing room for push backs. 

The Seleucids sent their levy light infantry forward using their MP free move to get into combat, the rest of the army advanced using a generals MP and the left wing cavalry could advance with their captains MP. The spare MP could be used for Attack bonus, an army also get a number of commands to be spent anywhere on the battlefield from a 2d6 roll, halved and rounded up. The Seleucid skirmishers inflicted a few single and double hits along the line but decided that to make the skirmish lines clash more decisive they wouldn't have to deal with push backs. Meaning the Roman skirmish line was in a position to retaliate from the start of the Roman turn.

The Seleucids had a couple of scythed chariots that were able to combat, again Lost Battles provided the inspiration for dealing with this, as once they attack or are attacked they are simply removed. In this instance they were a useless novelty.

Over the next few turns we got into the flow of the rules, and the skirmish lines save for a few hold outs melted away, the legions came to grips with phalanxes, elephants, cataphracts and heavy and light cavalry. Legions and phalanxes get a bonus (against heavy infantry) for being fresh and legions maintain this bonus when they have taken 1 hit (worn) but lose it when the second hit is taken (spent).  The infantry lines wore down slower but the Romans were doing well against the elephants and phalanxes. The left most veteran Legion was assailed by various light and heavy cavalry but held well. 

Scipio was hesitant to commit his cavalry and after both sides took hits eventually a unit of Seleucid Galatian horse remained but Antiochus was unable to make use of the victory, as losses were mounting against the poor quality levy troops. Firstly the use of attack bonuses and fighting levies was paying off, the poor morale meant that they were being pushed back and in the Seleucid turn their command points were being used to get back into combat instead of attack bonuses. 

As they lost heavy units and elephants (every third unit) the Army Morale was tested, 2d6 were rolled, then that score was compared to each units discipline rating any unit that didn't pass takes a hit, the first Army Morale roll didn't cause too much damage but a further rout, causing a discipline test to friendly units in the routing unit's vicinity again caused further hits and that in turn caused further routs and another army morale roll. After the morale drop cascade there was a couple of Seleucid units left so Antiochus called the retreat the battle was over. 

The battle from start to finish took 2 and a half hours but that included getting used to the rules and sequence, tweaking things, food and chatting. It would have probably lasted a few more turns if the Seleucids were better quality and the morale collapse were not so severe. 

I will have another tweak and trial of that system but, it may be redundant as it just compounds an already dire situation. The other option is to add complexity so that the first Army Morale roll is not as devastating, but complexity is what I'm trying to avoid as much as possible. I do like the Strength and Honour setback system and army morale being a set number, mainly as that system can lend itself to a campaign setting where an army's morale can increase or decrease depending on the strategic context.

Another question that came up with combat was about Elephants. I was wondering if elephants were able to retreat in order then be herded back into combat? Some of the rules that I have at home seem to allow this and it's a given that elephants have some form of stampede into your own line sort of disadvantage under certain conditions. However the impression I have of Elephants in combat is they were not just trained elephants but the family heard funnelled into combat and that would make giving ground in good order very difficult. It's not a subject I'm well informed on. Maybe making them more likely to stampede but more hard hitting might be worth trying.

Although nothing in game was negatively affected I need to tighten up the zone of control rules, they can be simplified and clarified better. Overall it felt like how an ancient battle might have unfolded. The dice threw enough uncertainty into the game and there was a Levy Skirmisher that was a thorn in the legionaries' side which provided some entertaining dice rolls! Overall for its first outing they were successful. They provided an enjoyable game with very little rules checking, save for using a QRS and gave a plausible outcome.