"Non-"Gamey" Ancients Rules?" Topic

Where "non-gamey" shall be subjectively defined as:

1) no point-buy armies;
2) no armies of equal size;
3) rules for tournament play an afterthought, if that;
4) historical matches only/strongly encouraged;
5) big playing surface (6'x4', give or take)

Among the rules of this type, which are the most popular these days? And what distinguishes them from their peers? Why would you choose X rather than Y?

You do not HAVE to play equal points armies in any of the rules out now. It is my experience that most handle historical scenario battles quite well. In fact, they handle them far better than they do battles between Aztecs and Burgundians.

Non-gamey wargames rules? Surely a contradiction in terms.

However, taking the spirit of the thread as I think it to be.

At the end of the day its in the hands of the wargamer (or even war non-gamer).

If you like the rules mechanisms you don't need to point buy you armies which need not be of equal size. You can ignore any tournament rules and if you want to avoid non historical matches, who's stopping you? As for playing surface, you can always twek the gound scale to fit any tabletop.

There are probably only a few out there that were designed specifically for tournament play. Other than that, most rules have points 1,2,4 and 5.

Points is important for pick-up games. I take X points of Saracens vs my friend's X points of crusaders. Bam! We fight!

There is only 1 game that I know of that has armies of equal size. That one seems to be pretty popular these days.

Tables size is a matter of taste as well as a limited by available space in the house/apartment.

What acarhj said really. If you want to use a big table use larger bases, if you want to use a small one, use smaller bases.

Anyway, I like Strategos/Lost Battles, it only has historical scenarios in it, and some/many battles are very asymmetrical. I am probably in a tiny minority though.

Warhammer doesn't necessarily fit into your 4th criteria but it does into the others. I haven't played a game of warhammer that used points in a long, long time. The armies are never of equal sizes. I don't know how the rules work with tournament play really. I've only ever played in one doubles tournament and had a rather poor showing in it, although I did well in the sportsmanship part.

And it fits on your terrain table suggestion perfectly.

Another option would be warmaster if you modify the skirmisher rules or play with armies that don't have much in the way of skirmishers and don't even try to use them with hoplites.

I also like Clash of Iron as well. That rule set meets all of your requirements pretty well.

"Non-gamey wargames rules? Surely a contradiction in terms."

You said it! This HAS to be one of the silliest damn questions we've had on TMP in years. "I want a game that isn't gamey." High-larious!

Tactica

Silly question, I agree. Pretty much any set of ancients rules can fit your criteria, if you ignore points values. If a ruleset covers 4000 years but states that you are only allowed to play historical match-ups, would this make it better ? Would a set with points be improved if points weren't included ? What about if it includes the rule : on no account are you to play tournaments with this ruleset. Would that be to your satisaction ?
Rulesets intended for competitive / tournament play are, on the whole, much better playtested and written that sets not intended for such purposes.

Ruels aren't gamey, players are

Bob: "DBA'
Pierce Inverarity: "Objection that it does not meet criteria 2,3 and 5"

Bob: need to think out side the proverbial box. DBA is a tool kit for making up very interesting games.

2. Armies do not need to be equal size, but they must be close enough to give a reasonable game. The author's point with equal armies is that generals typically did not go into battle if they were badly outnumbered, unless they had some "trump card" to play. Then a good opponent would not fight either.

I have done many games that were based on historical rosters, and not points or equal armies. This game had equal armies, but not equal commands. The historical roster was pretty equal.
link

Try a game with any rules that has very unequal armies, not much fun unless you play for the "Alamo effect." That is how well does one player lose.

3. Any game can be played in to tournament format, but not all tournament games play well with scenario games with multi players on a side. DBA does this

4. The author suggests that games play best with historical match-ups. More and more tournament organizers are setting up events with matched historical pairs of armies, no more Sumarians vs Burgundians. Also, massive historical campaign games are showing up at Conventions.
link

5. The basic DBA game is played on a small – 2 foot square board -- but it can be played on any size table. I often use my 6 foot by 12 foot table
link

So, for a simple, but elegant, game, that allows for variable armies, without points, based on historical rosters, that can be played in as large an area as you want, and does best with historical match-ups. Go with DBA

6'x4' is a small table, not a big one.
8'x6' is a big table.

One persons small table might be anothers big table.

Big Battle DBA. Adjust army sizes to taste, they don't have to be equal. Every army has a pretty solid list of historcial enemies and allies. For large table battles, this doesn't bog down in excess rules details, but has lots of tactical complexities for a fun and challenging game.

Bob,

I've run many a game with unequal sides. The key is the design of the scenario. yes, if you are just going to line up and have at it, it isn't much fun, but rear-gurad, defense-in-depth, running battles, etc can be both fun AND instructive.

As to the OP's question. I like the Warhammer Historicals and rarely, if ever use the points system included. As others have said, that's there primarily for someone who wants to play in, or run, a tournament, or for the basic pick-up game. they aren't needed to play the game, and I just ignore them, anyway.

The WHH system is very flexible and gives great results. I like Impetus, too, but WHH is always my first choice.

respects,

Gamey? That could mean dice…. back in the day there were a number of good computer simulations of ancient battles, much better than the Rome Total War caca that enhances their crappy simulation with pretty (but often goofy) depictions of little men. Those older apps that ran on the Apple II made you line up your army, set a plan and watch the battle roll in real time, with minimal input from the general. Probably much more 'realistic' in some ways, but woefully BORING after a few dozen games.
In fact playing those simulations is what made me long for a game like WAB, where I can have table top control of what's happening to my playing pieces, because I realized over time that a table top miniature game is just that, a reasonable historical discourse using toy soldiers for fun, and not for some didactic revelation of ancient warfare.

Unfortunately for every game (or even a shudder, a full-of-itself 'simulation') there are rules… rules that some learn, and some don't, and advantages that players of the game can figure out at the expense of others.. that's why it's a competitive hobby. There are argumentative style games where the discourse is more important than form, but they are interesting for awhile, most people enjoy the competition and learn to figure out the odds and vagaries of dice.

That's why it's a game.

So which game is not Gamey??? None. If they are they are not gamey then they are not played much. Tactica still has dice and still has some nuanced gameplay, but it formal rules make it less replayable as a game, we will see if the second version is more fun.
JJ

Hi

ART of WAR… the army lists are dimensionless focused on percentage of type. there is an optional points system, just because people insisted. The reality is that, for me, I am better with some armies than another.

As above, "gamey" is the player.

But our stuff was designed to do historical armies by period and, really, the lists are better use in a historical campaign than "tournament matches".

In the past some DBAers used the lists for their campaigns

Rocky

any wargame played with the right people in the right mood.

i like Impetus. also Crusader might work.

Field of Glory should also be able to do what you want. The army lists published for it are generally grouped by period and geographic area and also include a set of lists from other books that belong in the same general era as the ones in that book. The points system is present but certainly not necessary to use.

Chris

Classical Hack and the rest of the Hack series fit what you are describing perfectly.

DBA can be used to do what you describe. Indeed many variant DBA lists exist to provide armies that are closer to history, at least in the view of their creators.

I have played Warhammer quite happily, just plopping down troops until it "looks right", no army lists in sight, historical match-ups and all the rest.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in our selves.

Depending on the players any rules set can produce a result that feels very "gamey" or a result that feels like a strict simulation, a hollywood movie, or anything in between.

I have had some of the best games of my gaming career playing DBAandalso some of the worst games. It all depended on who I was playing with. The same goes for WAB, Hack, etc.

What size of figure do you want to use the rules with? 6mm, 10mm 15mm or 28mm?

"What size of figure do you want to use the rules with? 6mm, 10mm 15mm or 28mm?"

The size of figures used is irrelevant unless the game is a skirmish.

Let me be clear: This thread wasn't meant as a veiled attack on DBA, just an inquiry into what else is there.

Thanks for the many suggestions. I'm going to look them up, including the DBA mods. I didn't know these exist.

The minis scale doesn't matter too much to me. Subjectively I'd say less than 28mm if the table is 6'x4'.

Everyone knows a wargame is a game. But then everyone also knows there's a whole spectrum in between point-buy Mayans vs. Nubians on one hand, near-deterministic simulations on the other.

Nobody likes unbalanced games, but I like the idea that scenario design, not point buy or predefined army size, is a major factor in producing balanced games.

That is, balance emerges from the synergy between a scenario (environment, terrain), two differently powerful forces that happen to be in the area at this historically specific moment, and player skill.

I mean something like the Skirmish Campaigns series for WWII, just on a larger scale.

Commands & Colors: Ancients deserves a plug. The entire game is predicated on historical, asymmetrical scenarios. There are no point values, and no tournament rules except those written by fans. Playable on any size table, and basing can be done however you want.

Rules and scenarios are available for free, too:
ccancients.net

Despite its rep as a competition set, DBMM also provides a great tool-kit for these sorts of games. There is a points system (easily ignored) but the inclusion of rules for weather, naval, ancient stratagems, and brilliant/inert generals make scenario design a joy.

In fact most years when the SoA does a historical re-fight using lots of different sets of rules, most people are forced to create special rules for their game-system to simulate the battle but DBM/MM have them built in.

I would also second the suggestion of Strategos as almost directly matching your criteria.

rgds
rob

I will make a third for Lost Battles/Strategos.

Forgot about CCA. I will second that as well. The game can look really nice in miniature. Does require hexes though.

John

as you see above, about any game will gfet proposed for that… even the epitomes of gameynes are found above…

fun.

"1) no point-buy armies;
2) no armies of equal size;
3) rules for tournament play an afterthought, if that;
4) historical matches only/strongly encouraged;
5) big playing surface (6'x4', give or take)"

Field of glory fails on all of these except #5 but I think it might be worth taking a look at. When I've done historical matchups it seems to capture the feel of the fights pretty well. It is the cleanest ancients game I've ever played – there isn't much room for "gameyness" in the rules. You don't really need the army lists. I'm not very fond of many of the lists but perhaps they could serve as suggestions for categorizations of some things.

I'd like someday to do some big historical battles with them.

"as you see above, about any game will gfet proposed for that… even the epitomes of gameynes are found above…"

Ask people on rpg.net to recommend a cool sci-fi RPG. Some of the responses will be very useful, others a tad surprising.

I vaguely recall a set of ruels for hoplite warfare from before "Hoplon" that fit the bill…….only Greeks, Persians & Thracians allowed…..but that was 25 or 30 years ago & memory ain't as good as it used to be….

Both Classical Hack and Ancient Warfare were both designed as a reaction to "gamey" ness in tournament based ancient rules sets. That said the fundamentals of wargaming from any rule set can be adapted to historical scenarios.
VR
James Mattes