AARs

[terrys]

Feel free to report your test battles here....

[dave_r]

I had a game against Terry. Mongol Invastion v Phyrric.

Mongol Invastion
IC, TC
4x4 LH, Average, Bow, Swordsmen
9x4 Cv, Superior, Unprotected, Drilled, Bow Swordsmen
1x4 Cv, Superior, Armoured, Drilled, Bow Swordsmen

Phyrric (best guess)
IC, 2xTC
2x4 Cavalry, Armoured, Average, Light Spear Swordsmen
2x12 Pike
3x8 Pike
1x12 Galation
2x4 LH, JLS
2x6 LF Sling
1x8 MF Armoured O/S
1x2 Elephants
Fortified Camp

I won initiative and kept it, choosing Agricultural as Steppe wasn't available. Not much terrain, a Steep hill on the Phyrric base edge which Terry put his LF on to protect his flank.

I deployed all 10 BG's of Cavalry in a single rank with the LH on the wings. The Phyrric deployed with the pike in the middle and the mounted on the wings.

Terry won the dice roll and moved first. He largely plodded forward 8". I rode forward and eventually had a shot, which killed a base. All of the HF promptly charged and I evaded. This put me in a position where I was completely unable to fire. So I turned around. Terry then charged me again.

At this point I depressingly realised that I cannot get enough fire to cause a test, let along a disruption when the pike blocks were huge and had an IC. So I ran away. I managed it for a couple of hours until the pikes eventually pinned me down in the corner. At this point I surrendered.

Points to note:
- The fact that HF move farther than the Cavalry could shot was a massive problem
- This is a battle the cavalry cannot win
- Terrain worked quite well I thought
- The fact the HF moved first was a huge advantage as since they got a good distance across the table meant they didn't go like a firework display until they reached my base edge
- I had no opportunity to get around the flanks or concentrate fire on a pike block due to the increased move (largely because the HF moved first)

We talked about the game afterwards and agreed this was a shift too far in the HF favour. Perhaps reducing HF to move 3" within enemy might be a more balanced approach.

[terrys]

Before anyone works out the points - actual army list was:

Phyrric (actual)
IC, 2xTC
2x4 Cavalry, Armoured, Average, Light Spear Swordsmen
2x12 Pike
2x8 Hoplites (drilled)
1x12 Galations
1x4 LH, JLS
2x6 LF Sling
1x2 Elephants
Fortified Camp
11 BGs - Army size 9.5 (which effectively rounds up to 10)

Points to note:
- The fact that HF move farther than the Cavalry could shoot was a massive problem
- This is a battle the cavalry cannot win
- Terrain worked quite well I thought
- The fact the HF moved first was a huge advantage as since they got a good distance across the table meant they didn't go like a firework display until they reached my base edge
- I had no opportunity to get around the flanks or concentrate fire on a pike block due to the increased move (largely because the HF moved first)

- I'd agree that HF charging further than single rank cavalry can shoot was a problem - we will have to look at this.
- I disagree, but it would need a rethink of army design and tactics
- Nothing wrong with terrain - not that much worse than Steppe - but then my army didn't have any MF so 'open' was good for me as well.
- I don't think that moving first made a big difference - it only reduces my first double move by 1".
- One of the problems Dave had was with his army design (mostly unprotected cavalry). It meant that he had nothing that could face my armoured cavalry which were providing flank protection. I think a smaller, better equipped army would have done better. Saying that - there is no disputing the fact that this HF army performed significantly better than it would have under V2.

[berthier]

Beta Game 1: 800 points Kofu Nara Japanese w/ Korean Ally post 646 AD vs 800 points New Kingdom Egyptians

Played on 6x4 table with 3.0 hour time limit

Playtest Notes:
1. NKE player won initiative and chose Agriculture.
2. Terrain placement with clarifications posted on the slithering forum much clearer than the July proposals
3. The K-Nara had an FC and but lost the roll to move first. Both players found this roll amusing and liked the variability.
4. The 4” move for HF made movement to contact very fast. However, there were only 8 stands of HF total on the table so this did not play that big of an issue.
5. The July Beta specifically states “Superior medium foot do not get re-rolls for shooting.” This seems to have been removed in the online lists.
----Was this intentional?
6. The limitation on generals affecting combat seems like overkill. In general, both players see this as unhistorical for most “hairy barbarian” armies and several others in which commander “heroism” is an intrinsic part of the culture and their battlefield tactics.
7. The 50% auto-break rule worked fine and kept things lively.
8. Game finished in about 1.5 hours with a NKE 20-5ish victory.

The terrain pretty much all ended up on the flanks so was not an issue.

The NKE chariots never charged in as they took a beating from the K-Nara bows.

The K-Nara had no answer for the Sea-People Mercenaries so once they closed it was pretty much over.

3b) support shooting by MF with bow or bow* get a -POA if their front rank has an impact weapon or impact factor. (even if the weapon doesn't give them a POA against the current enemy - eg HW against mounted)

This beta proposal seemed a bit harsh at first blush but after re-reading it this morning, it seems we may have misapplied this change. It would not have made much of a difference as the K-Nara rolls were dreadful anyway.

Overall both felt the game was quite amusing and much faster.

[berthier]

Game 2: 800 points Kofu Nara Japanese w/ Korean Ally post 646 AD vs 800 points Philistines

Played on 6x4 table with 3.0 hour time limit

Playtest Notes:
1. Japanese won the initiative and the move first roll. Played in Agriculture.
2. The Philistine player was somewhat perplexed by the new terrain rules and was not sure it was necessary for so many caveats.
3. The Philistine player was not too keen on the player winning the initiative having to chose from their opponents terrain choices and then having to roll to see who moved first.
4. The 4” move for HF made movement to contact very fast. However, there were only 8 stands of HF total on the table so this did not play that big of an issue.
5. The July Beta specifically states “Superior medium foot do not get re-rolls for shooting.” This seems to have been removed in the online lists.
----The re-roll for support shooting came up in this game as the Japanese were throwing lots of dice.
6. The Philistine player did not like the new rules for generals in combat in general. The increased odds to loose one in combat appeared to address the increased risk fine but the other limitations seemed out of balance with the game
7. We had a protracted skirmisher battle on one flank that pitted 16 poor Japanese Emishi vs 18 Average Philistines. This battle lasted almost the entire game and drew in a Philistine sub-general so the Philistines could re-roll ones. In the end only one Emishi BG broke with the other disrupted and down 25%. One Philistine BG was fragmented, one was disrupted and two had lost a base each. Poor combat rolls and extremely successful death roles and cohesion tests played a big difference.
8. Initially, it seemed we had too many die rolls for Auto-break but on re-reading the change in the after game discussion, we were rolling it out of order.
Rolling death rolls and commander casualties BEFORE cohesion tests was interesting and creates more variability.
9. The one battle group of Philistine heavy chariots on its own was not that significant a factor as it was down to three stands before it made it to combat.
10. Chariots as a whole are still fragile. One BG of Light chariots fragmented from shooting and then routed when charged. The other BG of light chariots caught a Korean MF unit disrupted in the open and made short work of it.
11. This game took almost the entire 3 hours and ended in a 20-5ish victory for the Philistines but game length was effected by lots of discussion of the Beta proposals.

The Philistine player’s thoughts were that there are too changes for no historical reason. Many seem to be targeting player behavior. As far as the general limitations, I tend to agree.

6) TC sub-generals do not add +1 to Ct or CMTs unless they are within 24MU of the CinC.
> FCs and Allied TCs are unaffected.

This rule for example gives an advantage to drilled armies as they already have a maneuverability bonus for being drilled and now penalizes undrilled armies further.

[philqw78]

Rome got smashed, Caesar went home. IMO that's historical enough. More to follow in the morning

[paullongmore]

Phil Powell has a beautifully painted Ancient British army and he wanted to
“see if they have become useable as well as beautiful”
I likewise have an Ancient British army so was interested to see if the proposed changes had made the army competitive.
We therefore did a test of them vs Late Republican Rome (yesterday)
My army was
2 x TC
5 x 4 Full fat legion (Sup, Arm, HF, Imp foot, skilled sword)
2 x 8 Average legion (Av, Arm, HF, Imp foot, sword)
1 x 8 Spanish (Av, Prot, MF, Imp foot, sword)
2 x 6 Velites (Av, Prot, LF, LS, Jav)
1 x 6 Cretans (Sup, Unprot, LF, Bow)
1 x 2 Elephants
1 x 4 (Sup, Arm, HC, LS, sword)
Which has an army break of 11 & ½.
Phil will post his list but from memory
2 x FC
1 x 8 Elite warriors (El, Prot, MF, Imp foot, sword)
3 x 10 warriors (Av, Prot, MF, Imp foot, sword)
1 x 6 Slingers (Av, Unprot, LF, sling)
1 x 6 LH (Av, Unprot, LH, LS, Jav)
1 x 4 LH (Av, Unprot, LH, LS, Jav)
6 x 4 LCH (Sup, LCH, LS)
Phil won initiative and picked Agricultural. Neither side particularly went for terrain and there were a couple of pieces of uneven at the edges of the table that didn’t really affect the game.
The velites bravely stood vs a charge by the unit of 4 LH and despite being at half dice and – drew impact and got to melee were double overlaps and being at + meant the LH broke off fragged and a base down.
The Spanish bravely sacrificed themselves to draw off the Elite warriors from the main central clash between the legions and the Lch.
The Lch came in 3 wide (with one in the rear rank) the legion were 2 deep.
In v2 the legion are + at impact and melee so would expect to win probably after a couple of break offs.
However, under the current Fog 3 amendments LCH are at + vs foot. This means the LS becomes a tiebreaker and the Lch end up at +. (Note: This would also apply vs spears unlike lance armed Kn who would be at -).
So the Lch consistently won. After impact most of the 4 man legion units were disordered and with a base loss. Any losses to the chariots were on their rear rank base so did not affect their number of dice. The romans centre then collapsed. In the pursuit a unit of legion freshly contacted managed to out dice a chariot unit who broke off fragged but the battle was lost.
While I am happy with most of the v3 changes (I particularly like dicing for who goes first) I had my doubts about just giving the Lch a + to make them better based upon no reason. I have always felt that if chariots were any good then historically everyone wouldn’t have gone to cavalry. If the aim is get more people to play LcH armies it will succeed.
They will ride down any infantry except pikes. (Note: They are at + vs spears unlike lance armed Kn who would be at -). They can evade and back up when in a single line and if it goes wrong they break off vs foot.
Phil reckoned that the latest proposals also mean they would be at + vs the LS armed cav as they get a + vs others against whom they are not at -. From a balance viewpoint this was already in the chariots favour as the Cav at 16pts each contribute 1 dice as compared to the 2 dice that the 15pt chariots get.
At 15pts a pop (for troops who fight one deep) they are very points efficient. The romans are 28pt per frontage.
So although I would quite like to see my Ancient British panzers become a super army I would suggest that the proposed change needs revisiting if you want to even vaguely represent the historical battle effect of LCH.

[philqw78]

I only had 5x4 LCh, but that's all I needed.

Chariot Lt Sp have become super troops. Giving them a plus aginst stuff AND then adding lt spear because you are tied is way too good
Easy fix, LCh add + for Lt Sp v foot at impact. Doesn't take a lot of words to add, very simple. Makes them a bit better against pike than planned but, meh. Bow chariots don't need it as they can shoot 4 and bide their time until they have something that is disrupted

I thought the huge amount of dice at impact was great fun.

When my elites hit Paul's average Spanish we both lost 2 bases at impact. He did 7 hits I did 11 IIRC

A 10 of Warriors took out an 8 of average legio, but Paul's dice were slightly lower than average in the melee, so they still had a bit of a grind

One thing with army design: it appears neither of us think generals are worth as much anymore. He had 2 TC, I 2 FC. Since HF move more quickly double moves are not as important. Since they rarely influence combat and are much more likely to die you won't buy them to do that either. I don't like officers but they should be encouraged to fight in melee and therefore die giving the rest of us a chance at promotion

My other thought, which is also influenced by Dave's experience above. Instead of just adding 1 MU to only HF moves why not add 1 MU to everything? The HF gain most proportionally but shooters will still have a chnce to dent them before they get in, a slightly smaller chance but Dave's cavalry above apparently had no chance

[Three]

AAR – Scythian pre 300 BC v Late Acheamenid Persian
Lists
Scythian
2xFC
3x4 Noble cavalry – Cav/Armoured/Superior/ bow/sword
4x4 Cavalry – Cav/Unarmoured/Average/ bow/sword
5x4 Light Cavalry – LH/Unprotected/Average/ bow/sword
2x8 Foot Archers – MF/Unprotected/Average/Bow (front rank Lt Sp)
1x6 Foot Archers – LF/Unprotected/Average/Bow
1x6 Slingers – LF/Unprotected/Poor/Sling
All undrilled, 16 BGs, gives army total as 12.5 rounded up to 13.
LAP
FC & 3 TCs
3x4 LH – Average/unprotected/Jav/Lt Sp
2x4 Cavalry – Cav/Protected/Superior/Lt Sp/Sword
5x4 Cavalry – Cav/Armoured/Superior/Lt Sp/Sword
2x4 Cavalry – Cav/Armoured/Superior/Lt Sp/Sw
All undrilled, 12 BGs gives army total as 10.5 rounded up to 11
LAP win PBI roll and take the only option available, being Steppes. Terrain ends up with 4 Open Spaces, a gentle Hill and 2 areas of Broken. All 4 OS fall in centre area or Scythian’s left flank, the Broken Ground end up on the centre right with the Gentle Hill in between them.
Deployment
Scythians deploy with all foot on their right in and around the terrain, Block of Nobles and Cavalry in the centre, with LH ahead of them on the 18” line, then LH in a block to their left and 2 BGs of Cavalry between the LH and the table edge. All deployed in 2 ranks to maximise shooting dice. LAP deploy the LH on the left opposite the Scythian Foot, then a long line of all except 2 Cavalry BGs in a single line covering the rest of the table, the two cavalry BGs in 2 ranks behind the single line and about a foot apart. LAP win die roll to go first.
Losing the die roll for first move immediately showed that some of the Scythian LH was poorly deployed in front of the Nobles, a double move by the LAP cavalry opposed meant that the LH had to turn and bug out, which delayed the advance of the Noble Cavalry behind them.
Game
Wasn’t much of one, for the Scythians anyway, best that can be said was that it was quite quick – LAP came straight forward as fast as possible, contracting all BGs in single rank and moving the two BGs deployed behind up to cover the gaps.
Scythians moved LH on left up to shoot, then Cavalry as fast as possible forward, maintaining a roughly straight line.
Shooting was negligible, for the Scythians anyway. Only 4 tests caused, 2 failures, both of which were rallied off. Noble cavalry with 3 x 3 dice rerolling 1s failed to cause a single test in the whole game. Even where a LAP unit (all two of them) went disrupted, the Scythian shooting failed to cause any further tests, whereas one of the LAP bow cavalry shot a Scythian Noble to Broken in 3 turns of shooting.
However, combat was brutal. It quickly became apparent that losing impact meant a world of pain. The LAP were up in all impacts, and needing 3s and throwing 6 dice saw all six hit a couple of times. 4 strong average units losing a base in impact then a base in melee meaning autobreaks and failed CTS for their neighbours. There were 2 drawn impacts, with 2 hits each, with the Scythians losing a base on throwing a 1 for the death roll on both occasions. Poor CTs by the Scythians might have played a part, failing 11 out of 14 tests and double dropping 3 times certainly didn’t help, but it did show in this match-up that when it goes, it goes quickly and no chance of a comeback. There was a domino effect with a broken BG CTs causing disruptions then being charged next turn. There was only 1 combat that lasted more than 1 turn, with a Noble Cavalry unit fighting to 2 bases lost then failed the CT for half strength, which actually felt about right.
The poor deployment of some of the Scythian LH didn’t help, but certainly didn’t cause the problems as it was the Scythian left that went first, with the ripple heading into the centre.
25-0 to the LAP, who only had 2 units disrupted (both rallied) and didn’t lose a base.

[hazelbark]

I thought the huge amount of dice at impact was great fun.

When my elites hit Paul's average Spanish we both lost 2 bases at impact. He did 7 hits I did 11 IIRC

The additional dice question, other than making impact more important. Is it making it more predictable?

[hazelbark]

One thing with army design: it appears neither of us think generals are worth as much anymore. He had 2 TC, I 2 FC. Since HF move more quickly double moves are not as important. Since they rarely influence combat and are much more likely to die you won't buy them to do that either. I don't like officers but they should be encouraged to fight in melee and therefore die giving the rest of us a chance at promotion

One solution is more variety of officer choices. All a commander to be purchase as "Unit Captain" whatever unit he is attached to at deployment (or submitted army list) he always fights from the front and the unit gain the old re-reroll advantages or something like that.

[hazelbark]

However, combat was brutal. It quickly became apparent that losing impact meant a world of pain.

Did you see (and perhaps could not with army design) any advantage given this that you might opt for 6 average vs 4 superior? or 6 protected vs 4 Armored?

[philqw78]

However, combat was brutal. It quickly became apparent that losing impact meant a world of pain.

Did you see (and perhaps could not with army design) any advantage given this that you might opt for 6 average vs 4 superior? or 6 protected vs 4 Armored?

For Average Impact foot being 3 deep superior then expanding out is a massive plus. You go in with good odds and can then expand out for melee where the odds turn against you. It really changes the interaction. You should design an army with this in mind, and your opponenet should deploy and manoeuver with this in mind

[philqw78]

I thought the huge amount of dice at impact was great fun.

When my elites hit Paul's average Spanish we both lost 2 bases at impact. He did 7 hits I did 11 IIRC

The additional dice question, other than making impact more important. Is it making it more predictable?

Well I expected to win, but I didn't expect to lose 2 bases. I would say it does make who wins more predicatble but base loss not so (My chariots won an impact and lost a base elsewhere), though this may have as much to do with only getting +1 to the death roll if you win

He must have done 8 hits

[hazelbark]

I would say it does make who wins more predicatble but base loss not so (My chariots won an impact and lost a base elsewhere), though this may have as much to do with only getting +1 to the death roll if you win

So does the base loss have an appreciable game effect since you won? Obviously depending on the game and reserves. With only 8-10 Battle troops. A base loss could matter if there is an additional foe to fight head on after beating one foe. But if the games are largely resolving in the initial clash (meaning the two lines striking not just impact) then it matter less.

Does this base loss negatively effect elephants?

Will be interesting to see how the beta tests add up to answer some of these.

[philqw78]

The chariots that lost a base became a much more dodgy unit when they hit his second line. Thankfully being expensive Romans he didn't have much of a second line

[Three]

double post

[Three]

However, combat was brutal. It quickly became apparent that losing impact meant a world of pain.

Did you see (and perhaps could not with army design) any advantage given this that you might opt for 6 average vs 4 superior? or 6 protected vs 4 Armored?

The Scythians don't have an option to be protected, but I would certainly look at 6s if it was a rematch. I wanted to try out using the horse archers as cavalry rather than LH, hoping that the extra shooting would at least give the Persians some problems, it also meant that would have to be prepared to fight with them. but managed to lose every unit of them. 6s would be more resilient, but to be honest I'm not sure that this particular game shows anything conclusive - I double dropped 3 times, two from losing impact and once as a result of friendly BG breaking. I would have still double dropped whether I was in 4s or 6s. What I think is clear (to me at least) is that taking troops that will have to fight but have no impact capability in 6s looks like a better option.

I don't think that using the horse archers as a single line would work against cavalry opponents, you'd get pushed off the table in jig time unless you get lucky with your shooting die rolls, same with a load of LH. It's obviously a known risk, but if your shooting doesn't work (you are only getting 1 round in anyway), it's going to hurt.

[Three]

I thought the huge amount of dice at impact was great fun.

When my elites hit Paul's average Spanish we both lost 2 bases at impact. He did 7 hits I did 11 IIRC

The additional dice question, other than making impact more important. Is it making it more predictable?

Well I expected to win, but I didn't expect to lose 2 bases. I would say it does make who wins more predicatble but base loss not so (My chariots won an impact and lost a base elsewhere), though this may have as much to do with only getting +1 to the death roll if you win

He must have done 8 hits

I think its a +1 to death roll if you draw, still a +2 if you win.

[philqw78]

D'oh