"Impetus Battle - Parthian Ambush" Topic

The Parthians get their revenge – link

Later,
JET

Another nice report. What do those red and green counters indicate?

Excellent report. Good to see Shapur is back in form. Now that you have Maximus and Shapur, you need to get some Arminius action going on. :)

What do those red and green counters indicate?

Red counters signify disorder and the green ones mark units that have been placed on opportunity. I'd like to make small dioramas or flags to use instead, but I've been to busy/lazy to take the initiative yet.

Thanks. I guessed the red ones were disorder but wasn't sure about the green.

Haha see that is always what happens!

Nice report, but it does show up one of the weaknesses in the rules – the terrain generation system. Quite frankly, the system suggested in the rules is awful, and may as well not be there. Your comments at the end imply you have used the system from the book, and what you fought on doesn't look like a battlefield you would imagine the Romans and Parthians fighting over.

The battlefield certainly wasn't typical, I agree. However, the intent of the system is to allow the defender (i.e. player with less cavalry) to level the playing field (horrible pun – sorry). The truth is, I laid the terrain poorly, and Stu took advantage. It won't likely happen that way again.

And there certainly isn't any reason that players couldn't agree on their own set-up rules.

Thanks for the comments,
Jason

"The battlefield certainly wasn't typical, I agree"

Not typical of an ancient battle, but typical for an Impetus battle I suspect. The requirement that most terrain must be placed outside of deployment areas means that the defender can just place a line of terrain (hills to sit on, woods to obstruct the attacker, etc) down the middle of the table.

"the intent of the system is to allow the defender (i.e. player with less cavalry) to level the playing field "

Yes, the player with the most mobile army and the one with the best scouting ability is the one who gets no choice over the terrain features. IMO that is completely the wrong way round.

and the one with the best scouting ability is the one who gets no choice over the terrain features.

I think that the author's intent was to create a game rather than a simulation. The terrain system was devised that way to give either player a fair chance at victory. If mounted armies got to choose the terrain lay out, it would be quite historic, as would the outcomes I think. Then you'd have a game on your hands where everyone would choose armies like Parthians, Sarmations, and so on.

But as I said earlier, there is nothing stopping players from laying out the terrain in any mutually-acceptable way, or for that matter, devising a system that creates more historic or realistic results.

Any suggestions?

"there is nothing stopping players from laying out the terrain in any mutually-acceptable way,"

The trouble with that is invariably one player wants more terrain than the other, as one army is likely to be better in terrain. This works for other genres such as Napoleonics and WW2, where the armies are generally pretty similar. But ancients armies can be very different and terrain can have a big impact.

What do they do at tournaments ? I can't see them using the rules in the book.

Classical Ancient battles were generally fought on flat, open bits of ground, perhaps with terrain on the flanks.
Nice report, but I like to see battle lines in ancient games, not units whizzing round like a fireworks display.

Tabletop Games have published a really useful terrain generation booklet. You roll %dice to find out which one you have. Then each player chooses one of three levels: open, intermediate, and dense (the terrain, not the players…). If both choose open, that's it; if both choose dense, that's it; any other combination is intermediate. The plan is keyed according to the three levels, and you just remove the bits you don't have. The maps are pretty much symmetrical, but they do give a fair game. They're scaled for 6' by 4', but you can fiddle around with that if you want. At the most open level, very little terrain comes up in the middle of the field, other than some hills and occasionally a wood or patch of rough ground. One could always relate the three levels to areas on a campaign map.

Just a mention for a useful little product. It's also very cheap.

Paul

units whizzing round like a fireworks display.

A fairly accurate description of the way the Parthians tended to fight, I would have thought.

Cheers,
Scott

"Nice report, but I like to see battle lines in ancient games, not units whizzing round like a fireworks display."

I would say that was largely a result of the terrain. In the games of Impetus I have played the troops have been in battle lines, and remained that way for most of the game.

"But as I said earlier, there is nothing stopping players from laying out the terrain in any mutually-acceptable way, or for that matter, devising a system that creates more historic or realistic results.
Any suggestions?"

It's quite simple to come up with a better system. Here's one :
Each player gets a certain no of terrain picks (maybe a certain range like 2 – 4 or 1d6 each).
They roll for each piece, and place it as follows :
1 – terrain piece is lost
2 – furthest long edge
3 – nearest long edge
4 – right side edge
5 – left side edge
6 – anywhere on table

You could have other options as follows :
Attacker / defender or pre-battle initiative roll – each player rolls 2d6 modifed by number of cavalry (or +1/+2 for more than 2 or 4 units of cavalry say) and generals factor. Higher roll gets more choice over terrain (maybe chooses all or most of the terrain pieces which players then alternate placing).
You could allow each player to roll to move each piece placed by opponent, as follows :
1 – cannot move
2 – 5 can move it by dice roll x 5 MU
6 – can remove it

"What do they do at tournaments ? I can't see them using the rules in the book."

Always used without problems. The system has been kept simple and this allows players not to loose much time setting the terrain (as seen in other sets). Most Impetus tournament games last 1.45 mins.

Anyway the rules say:
"Players can set up terrain as they fit if they both agree. But, just in case, here is a system you can use to prepare the battlefield".

Sounds enough open to the adoption of alternative systems IMHO.

and do not forget that the "attacker" can move or eliminate up to 2 of the maximum of 6 terrain features the "defender" may place. the maximum "length" of a terain feature is 25 U (thats cm usually) on a 180 cm front. so at least 80 will stay free (after removing terrain). also remeber that in Impetus a unit only counts as affected by terrain if it is at least half in it. so effectively something like 86 cm of free terrain, which is close to half of the board.

and most armies would also have troops that can deal with terrain in some way.

""What do they do at tournaments ? I can't see them using the rules in the book."

Always used without problems. The system has been kept simple and this allows players not to loose much time setting the terrain (as seen in other sets). Most Impetus tournament games last 1.45 mins."

And do you frequently see the line of terrain across the middle of the table ? Of course it would have two terrain features removed, but still cover most of the width of the table. For example, say I'm facing lots of impetuous cavalry with my infantry based army. I lose the roll so become the defender and choose to place a line of six hills just in front of my deployment zone. I walk forward and sit on the hills, and wait for the knights to charge.

"also remember that in Impetus a unit only counts as affected by terrain if it is at least half in it. "
I must have missed that in the rules. Are you saying a unit can have it's side 3cm into difficult terrain and not be slowed down ?

p.17:
3.1 TERRAIN
'A Unit is considered to be within a terrain element, and therefore applies all effects of that terrain, when at least half of the Unit is inside it.'