"Impetus gathering any steam?" Topic

I originally thought the VBU system would produce bland games. It was one of the reasons I shyed away from Impetus initially. But the combination of VBU/Impetus with certain formation advantages and the fact that the game is dynamic (ie. units keep moving and fighting if they win melees) means that the game (as Brucka says) is tense and fast moving.

I've enjoyed my games.

Impetus is dynamic and rewards historic tactics.
The die rolls certainly impact the event at hand more than in FoG, but perhaps less than in WAB or the DBn series. However, my experience is that tactics win the game, not comparative luck with the dice.
Thanks to all for the interesting discussion.
BO

Fine game. I picked my copy up at Cold Wars last year for 20% off. Good deal in the states. I don't see it played here in Northern VA. I don't get out much but the times I've been to the Game Parlor they are playing FoG or some other games not Ancients.

Huzzah Hobbies has a following of DBA'ers. I know Game Parlor still has DBx night on Wednesdays though I have not been in a while.

So, the answer in Northern VA, is no.

The VBU system does have some limitations. You can tweak the missle power via the weapon class as stated above. However, you cant really increase a units staying power like you can with some other systems. So for example you may want your roman infantry to have the same combat abilities as your dacian unit but able to take more damage before breaking due to their disipline.

The key to victory in Impetus and Basic Impetus is to a) keep a reserve and b) flank, flank, flank. Because loosing units get routed automatically due to flank attacks Impetus really rewards people who work the flanks and keep reserves to protect their own. It took me time to get it, but that is the key.

Kt – the funny thing I'd that your quote is almost 100% what I'd say to Someone asking me about DBA.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't say DBA is the only way to play, even for me. Just that per this post I have never heard so much about the game at all from anyone. Some of the explanations do sound interesting.

However I've been burned buying rules that were supposed to be the 'next big thing' on a number if occasions, including WRG6, Shock of Impact (which Impetus sounds a lot like), Tactica, Armati, resisted Warrior (after all WRG came to nothing…), fell for FOG (which i can't read thru, no one here plays, sounds deadly dull, and even my pal the insurance lawyer said was a 'tough read'). Still, I don't mind rewarding the hard work of rules authors with business, so maybe I'll dig out my BI download and read it again.

Generally now I like tules that play fast and easy and have lots of flavor, but we'll see.

Forgot Terry Gore's "medieval warfare" which I really like and is a great 'nuts and bolts' wargame. Still, lots of calculations for morale/melιe made it tough to play a 3-round tournement in a day. Perfect for a full evening, my wargame group still plays it regularly after I intro'd it several years ago.

Still, wouldn't mind finding out more about Impetus online. Are there some nice tutorials/batreps on the web?

HesseCassel

Basic Impetus got me back into DBA. Since those BI armies are double the size of DBA armies I thought why not use the stuff as I paint them? DBA and BI serve two diffrent things for me:

BI/Impetus: Longer Games and Multiplayer games (since it is easier to built large Impetus Armies to accomodate many players then build the 6 DBA armies needed for a Big Battle DBA)

DBA: Fast Games, small tournaments and guide for collecting armies.

Got FOG read the rules and ran away. I thing they work for some people but not for me.

That said Reserves have no point in DBA IMHO. Then again I am a farily new player.

Yes, as I said, On the Impetus website there is a tutorial (better understood if you've read the rules though but will give you an idea of flow nonetheless). Plenty of battle reports on the Impetus blogs section as well as in the forum.

I have played a couple of times and thought the game rather bland and lacking in depth. As has been said already, there is little of the "match-up" aspect that you get in some other rulesets, and also little scope for manoeuvre.
I also think the size of the missile weapon table is a problem. Everything else in the game can be learned and played without reference to the rulebook. But every time a unit shoots you need to look up the range and weapon type in the table. The same effect could have been accomplished by having a different value for units with missile weapons (or a modifier to VBU) and a range modifier. Instead there are 19 different missile weapons and 4 range bands.
On the other hand, I did find the rulebook to be well laid out and easy to understand.

Fortunatly not everybody likes Impetus otherwise my life would be a mess! ;-)

Joking apart when I wrote Impetus I didn't intend to write the next big thing, but simply a ruleset not much complicated, with a flavour and above all a dynamic game with some drama.
When I was ready to publish the rulebook the whole Ancients scene was changing after many years, with the release of FoG and DBMM and the disappearing of DBM as the "king" of all rulsets.
This led the ancient community to the search for a new dominating set and the idea that a useful wargames set was only the dominant one. So if you play X you cannot appreciate Y etc.

As said Impetus is not for everybody. Players who want a total control over the troops and above all a certain predicatability, hardly will find Impetus as their favour ruleset. Possibly they will consider the game too related to lucky throws. Honestly I think lucky counts in Impetus no more that in real life (battlefields included).
As I wanted a fast game, something that has to be concluded within 2 or 3 hours, troops die probably faster that in other games and above all they don't die in a "regular" way. As units under pressure breaks not in a regular and predicable way.

The scissor-paper-stone effect is limited at the minimum. Probably some players need this, honestly I don't.
Cohesion of the Unit and the capability to absorb losses is the key. There are not invulnerable Units so player has to preserve even the big boys to use at the right moment.
In Impetus for example you don't have invulnerable dismouted MAA that can face longbowmen like stone can do with scissor!!

As for reports you can find a good selection here
link
and a tutorial here dadiepiombo.com/battle.html

As for question on rules I prefer to answer in the Impetus forum not to hijack this interesting thread.

Lorenzo

I'm curious about your comment Marshal about the lack of manoeuvre in Impetus? How so.

Also the Fire Table many of the weapons have two or three different grades to reflect the relative effectiveness of the missile fire. So for instance there are three grades of composite bow (A,B,C). Each represents something different. Composite Bow A represents foot armed with composite bow. Composite Bow B represents the standard horse archer. Composite Bow C is most often found with heavier battle cavalry who are bow armed. I don't see this as different from other games.

The Byzantine army that I play uses Composite Bow B and C, Short Bow A and B, Slings and Javelins. The Eastern Franks use Crossbow A and Short Bow A and B. It doesn't take long to begin memorizing the particular weapons of your forces. So for instance, a Roman Punic army often only has Javelin armed Velites. Pretty simple to keep track of.

Ok I found the tutorial and am rereading BI. It is a lot like DBA with some details/mechanics put into it. Not that this demeans the rules, DBA uses many tried and true mechanisms of game design itself. Originality isn't what makes DBA a great set of rules, it's the entire package.

That being said, it does seem like Impetus corrects some of the limitations of DBA and it's mechanisms. The dice system of DBA combat DOES prohibit certain troop types from destroying others without other factors in play. A good example of this is that English longbows cannot destroy men at arms on foot without a 3-1 shot and and the dreaded 6-1 dice off. While this can be corrected by making the longbows a '3' v foot, it shows the limits of the rules as written and how certain classic matchups of history aren't as good as others.

In any event, I get the feeling that the author – if suitably inebriated – would admit to writing a set of rules in respond to his perceptions of the deficiencies / limitations of the DBx systems. And I mean that as a compliment. Having written rules myself, I support such reactions and derivative work.

I think my pal and I are going to have to give BI a shot at least.

On missile weapons :"Each represents something different. Composite Bow A represents foot armed with composite bow. Composite Bow B represents the standard horse archer. Composite Bow C is most often found with heavier battle cavalry who are bow armed. I don't see this as different from other games. "

Yes, but it could be represented with a simple modifier to VBU to represent the difference types of missile troops, plus a modifier for range. Then a table would not be required.

"It doesn't take long to begin memorizing the particular weapons of your forces"
Some armies have troops armed with 5 or 6 different missile types (with some having up to 9). Each has three range bands (most can't shoot at the longest range) with two values for each – one vs mounted and one vs foot. So for 6 missile types that would be 36 different values to memorise.
So it's hardly "Pretty simple to keep track of".

I know WRG 7 players who memorized the casualty chart! Impetus is much simplier.

There is incredible nuance in the The Firing Table that you're not picking up on Marshal (and having only played a couple of games I wouldn't expect you to.) A simple modifier doesn't do this. The table, for instance encourages javelin infantry to close to point blank range in a way different from bow armed infantry. This seems realistic to me. Composite bow cavalry fire differently from foot armed bow through the range bands and a simple modifier can't do just to this nuance.

As far as manoeuvering in Impetus I find this a great strength in the game because units can have multiple moves in one turn. This is one the interesting command choices one gets to make. Go for more movement at the risk of disorder throught the discipline test. There is more manoeuver in Impetus than in most ancient game systems, not less.

I am finding Impetus a bit tricky to memorize.

Maybe because I am new to theperiod, but all Ancients rules AI have persued so far seem awfully complicated compared to colonial.

And DBA reads like poorly translated Chinese flat screen TV installation instructions. :(

And I think that "hitting the flank" SHOULD be the way to victory. Is't that kinda historically accurate in any period?

Marcus Brutus :"There is incredible nuance in the The Firing Table that you're not picking up on Marshal (and having only played a couple of games I wouldn't expect you to.) A simple modifier doesn't do this. The table, for instance encourages javelin infantry to close to point blank range in a way different from bow armed infantry. This seems realistic to me. Composite bow cavalry fire differently from foot armed bow through the range bands and a simple modifier can't do just to this nuance. "

Well simply giving javelinmen a shorter maximum range than bows would mean they have to engage at closer range. Quite simple really.
And I don't need to play the game to be able to interpret the table. Obviously it allows different combat effectiveness for different missile weapons. But the numbers in the table are purely arbitary anyway, as they cannot possibly be based on actual analysis of the effectiveness of different weapons at various ranges. For example, compare Comp Bow A and Comp Bow B. Comp Bow A is better by 1 factor at point blank range, equal at Short range and better by 2 factors at long range. Are you saying that those numbers realistically represent the different effectiveness of the two bow types ?
If it is thought that foot armed bow are more effective, they could just have a higher modifier and / or longer range. No need for a table.
When all of the melee combat capabilities of a unit such as weapon type, armour, training, morale level, are (in most cases) all rolled into one single number, why do we need 19 different missile weapons, including 7 different types of bow (and that's not including crossbows !) ? Since most decisive ancient & medieval combat was hand-to-hand rather than at a distance, I would have thought that it was more important to represent the diversity of melee capabilities than ranged weapons.

I am finding Impetus a bit tricky to memorize. -> Well I have that problem too, but frankly I have it with all rule=sets

And DBA reads like poorly translated Chinese flat screen TV installation instructions. :(-> that is why you get the english translation of the manual or as it is known the Unofficail Guide to DBA.

And I think that "hitting the flank" SHOULD be the way to victory. Is't that kinda historically accurate in any period?-> Not for all periods and all armies that ancient rules tende to cover. Gaul vs. Gaul, Spanish vs. Spanish, Horse Archer vs. Horse Archer, we don't have a lot of information of how battles were won and lost in those cases but at least the poor interpretations of the armies we do have would indicate fluid battle-fields were flank would make little sense.

Leaving aside the merits of the missile table (which is the most complicated part of the quick sheet, and could have been done in other ways – Lorenzo has discussed that in other threads) I have a practical way of simplifying firing.

Use square dowel, with the ranges marked in coloured bands, and 1 side for each of 4 weapons, with the modifiers written on. Measure the range and find the modifier at the same time.

Well Marshall, I've played 20+ games with Impetus and I'm still discovering the nuance of the game. What you consider a burden I find very appealing. But I would humbly suggest that reading the rules and gaining an appreciation for the system are two different things.

You mention 19 different missile weapons. 3 of them are artillery (representing 3 different types of artillery) which in most armies are never used. There are single entries for javelin, sling and musket. There are two entries for Short Bow, Crossbow and Harquebus. The A rating is generally for formed units and the B rating is for skirmish units. Frankly, if you find it a bit distracting simple copy out the ratings for your army onto a separate sheet and use it. Each weapon class has two ratings, one for firing at infantry and the other for mounted. The number on the table is the number of dice added or subtracted from the basic VBU to fire. It really is simple. Much simplier than having ratings and having to look up a chart. I've never found the Firing Table difficult to use.

Interesting idea highlandbevan.

Impetus reignited my interest in ancient wargaming. The rules play well and fast – as an example last week at our club two fairly new Impetus players were playing a 300pt game (the 28mm competition standard \ minimum points game) on a table next to two very experienced FoG players who were using the "fast play \ narrow table" options. The FoG players started half an hour before the Impetus pair, and were still playing after they had packed up. As a biased observer the Impetus players seemed to be having more fun, the game looked nicer and the battle far more coherent.

If anyone is interested, we are having an Impetus day in Hartlepool on Saturday – details on the Impetus Forum
link

I've read the BI rules which seem to use the same chart as the Impetus. compared to many othe rules sets, there're hardly any mods. Perhaps Marshal Mark I should run you through a game ofForlorn Hope which has more modifiers than the UK toast on a given morning.

And I'm not a fan, just a casual observer.

Having read lots of law Titles, I don't find DBA intimidating. It's just VERY specific, like reading laws. Not for everyone, but 2.2 makes specific and sound sense when read carefully, and the actual rules are 6 pages. Quite a feat, really. I assume Dr Barker used a medical text style since he isn't a lawyer.

I'm glad impetus does seem to always result in a clear winner – its one of the strengths of the Arty Conliffe rules I prefer.

I always found DBM games seemd to end in draws, and I hear that FoG has some rediculous percentage of games that are expected to do the same in competitions.

which I suppose supports my preception that Impetus is aimed at more social club games, and FoG at more competative tourney games.

The victory on the flanks thing, however, is one difficuly rules all seem to have in common – at a superficial level, its obvious that you turn the flank and win the battle, and games reflect that, but if you look at ancients battles, they were much more about breaking the centre.

when a flank was turned, it often (I would say usually) resulted in the victorious flanking force doing nothing more, or heading off out of the battlefield for ages. We seem to have 90% Cromwells and virtually no Ruperts these days.

tough to model that in a set of rules though.

"I'm glad impetus does seem to always result in a clear winner – its one of the strengths of the Arty Conliffe rules I prefer.

I always found DBM games seemd to end in draws, and I hear that FoG has some rediculous percentage of games that are expected to do the same in competitions."

Interesting, personally I like the idea that a game can be a 'draw' what I don't like are games that are dull draws or non-games.

Over 50% of the FoG tournament games I have played have resulted in one army breaking. That is not that dissimilar to the proportion of DBM games that ended decisively. If you are running a tournament, the last thing you want is for most of your players to be standing twiddling their thumbs for hours while others play on.

As I am yet to actually play Impetus I cannot comment on the decisiveness of the rules but I can see from reading them how a string of poor dice could leave you in a bit of a state.

I'm glad impetus does seem to always result in a clear winner – its one of the strengths of the Arty Conliffe rules I prefer.

I always found DBM games seemd to end in draws, and I hear that FoG has some rediculous percentage of games that are expected to do the same in competitions.

which I suppose supports my preception that Impetus is aimed at more social club games, and FoG at more competative tourney games.

The victory on the flanks thing, however, is one difficuly rules all seem to have in common – at a superficial level, its obvious that you turn the flank and win the battle, and games reflect that, but if you look at ancients battles, they were much more about breaking the centre.

when a flank was turned, it often (I would say usually) resulted in the victorious flanking force doing nothing more, or heading off out of the battlefield for ages. We seem to have 90% Cromwells and virtually no Ruperts these days.

tough to model that in a set of rules though.

That was one of the problems with DBM, even if your heavy infantry wasn't held up by the "super skirmishers" the battle was nearly always decided on the flanks as the high combat factors for opposing infantry centres often prevented any decisive result there. It resulted in the "hollow centre" deployment and as a man with Macedonian armies I just gave up going to tournaments; when you are advised to use pike as "flying columns" on the flanks it's time to pack it in! I have to give FoG credit for addressing that problem.

I don't find anything wrong with draws as long as you enjoy the game. I played Bayonet and Ideology Peter Pig's Spanish Civil War set last night, a great set of rules and I enjoyed every minute of what was a see saw game which ended in a draw (you roll a dice at the end of the defender's bound, when the total adds up to 21 or more the game ends and victory points are totted up). I always look forward to playing that game, I play about once a month and have never had a bad game of it. I just wish I could find it in myself to look forward to FoG games as much!!!

Whilst on the subject of Peter Pig SCW rules it is worth noting that a tournament player could drive a metaphorical horse and cart through them but because there seem to be just the right amount of rules written in plain English we just use common sense on the rare occasion when the meaning isn't clear or could be interpreted two ways. As FoG is a tournament set that tries to close all loopholes and keep meanings precise perhaps it is a little unfair to criticise it for going into 120 pages or so. I am hoping Impetus will reach a happy medium between the two extremes.

These days I'd rather play a fun set that occasionally requires common sense to be used (I'm hoping this will be Impetus, I could be wrong) than a very "worthy" set that for all its undoubted virtues is just a bit too much like hard work and just a little bit dull. Maybe it's just part of getting older and wanting more fun and less intense games. Ah things were so much easier back in the 80s when I was younger and the only game in town was a set I loved (WRG 6th). Not so easy when the big hitting rules set isn't really for me.

It is good though that we can have a discussion on this without chucking stifles around and decrying one or other rule set as rubbish compared to our own favourites. Thanks again for the input.

My friends and I at the WAR club at Reading mostly play Impetus when we play ancients.

I must stress that is my friends, many others at the club play old WRG editions, 6 and 7 mostly i think.

FOG gets played a little, not seen much warhammer ancients.

I am trying to promote Impetus as I think it is the best and most fun ancients/renaissance game out there.

Impetus copes well with shooty armies, something i don't think FOG does. Just my humble opinion of course.

"Impetus copes well with shooty armies, something i don't think FOG does. Just my humble opinion of course."

Really? Shooting in Impetus from what I have read is simultaneously very random (against skirmishers) and almost boringly predictable (against battle troops).

Shooting in FoG works pretty well, far better than in DBx for example.

"Really? Shooting in Impetus from what I have read is simultaneously very random (against skirmishers) and almost boringly predictable (against battle troops)."

I think you need to play the game first a few times Hammy before you make pronouncements on whether Impetus produces "boring, predictable" results.

Shooting is first and most importantly about disordering the enemy in Impetus. Once disorderd units become vulnerable to permament loses and reduced combat effectiveness through further fire and melee (especially the loss of impetus.) I've seen Horse Archers tear Knight units apart by first disordering the Knights and then advancing and shooting them at point blank range (once disordered units no longer get reaction charges.)

I have wondered if firing isn't a bit unrepresented in Impetus but since I'm still discovering the subtle balances in the game (and the related tactics) I'm holding off judgement (even though I've played 20+ games.)

Marcus Brutus – I understand how the table works, and I do not find it "difficult to use". It is very simple.
However, I prefer to play games where I don't have to look things up in tables, and where most rules can be memorised.
However, as you say "What you consider a burden I find very appealing". You must like looking things up in tables and find that an appealing aspect of games.

As I have commented elsewhere I am trying to find someone to play against.

My shooting comments are based on looking at the numbers and working a few things through.

If for example you shoot at a strong unit and get 1 hit it is impossible or close to impossible to cause a permanent loss but if you get a hit you are certain to cause dissorder. Hence the predictable comment.

If you shoot at a weak skirmisher unit then the result is probably going to end up as either dissordered or destroyed based on the result of a single dice roll.

In FoG shooting causes cohesion loss and base losses much like it can in Impetus. It just seems to me that the Impetus mechanic is more clunky. Should I catually find an opponent (and it is not for lack of trying) I may reconsider my possition.

Keraunos said :
"I always found DBM games seemd to end in draws, and I hear that FoG has some rediculous percentage of games that are expected to do the same in competitions.

which I suppose supports my preception that Impetus is aimed at more social club games, and FoG at more competative tourney games."

Actually I'd say that's exactly the wrong conclusion to draw.
If most games in a tournament (i.e under a time limit) end in draws then I would say it isn't a good tournament ruleset, and is better for social games where there isn't a strict time limit and games can be played to their conclusion, .e. when one army breaks.

Disorder is nearly as good as a permanent hit. Its not that easy to rally away for most troops. As it makes reactions impossible, it sometimes is better than a Loss.
However, the point that strong units will not be damaged much by shooting at them once: yes.

Hammy, in Impetus as I mentioned above firing is first and foremost about disordering the opponent. Getting an actual loss in VBU is a bonus. Because of initiative and how units rally there is a whole variety of outcomes to disorder. And it forces the commander to make some interesting choices.

Skirmishers are hard to hit because they reduce the firing by 2 dice. So if you're a unit of Bow (3 VBU) firing at Short Range you're going to rolling 1d6 with the hope of getting a 6 on the roll. That is pretty tough in game terms to get. If the Skirmisher gets hit then he's rolling a cohesion test of 2 and is more than likely eliminated. But remember it was only a 1/6 chance in the first place.

Hwarang isn't quite right about firing at high VBU units. Once a unit is disordered if it takes another damage through firing or melee it suffers a permanent loss. This might not sound like much but it is critical in Impetus because the unit is now no longer considered fresh and loses all of its impetus. I have seen many of my Knights lose their high impetus number from this effect.

Marcus, that is pretty much what I thought. If you get a hit on a non skirmish unit then it will be dissorderd as it is impossible to not do so if you get a hit (hence the predictable comment) but if you get a hit on a skirmisher then there is a high chance that the unit will just evaporate (hence the very random comment).

Shooting on FoG is more graduated in its effect or at least that is the impression I get.

Just commenting as a fan of Impetus that I would support all the comments Marcus Brutus has been making. I wonder for James if you need to get your head round the scale and speed of Impetus. The brutality of the cohesion test may be what is throwing you?

Looking at the firing example it seems so obvious to me that a weak skirmisher type unit (VBU 2) will be very vunerable to any damage, as skirmishers they then just disappear. That's it there off the table gone … and lets move on!

Conversley a unit of heavy infantry (eg Roman VBU 6) will be able to absorb damage. Thus as you have noted the first damage done will most likely result in only disorder, you therefore need to be planning for multiple attacks to really try and effect the heavy infantry from firing.

On another theme of flank attacks, I would agree with earlier posts that these can be effective; but it is more subtle than simply attacking with a flanking Light Cavalry unit into an exposed flank. The light cavalry can destroy a flanked unit, but as a relatively weak unit themselves (eg typically VBU 3 Impetus 1) also have a high risk of destroying themselves. You have to judge whether you might want to soften up the heavy infantry first with close range missle fire.

Wonder can you do a solo 300 point game yourself to practise ??

Jez

I could play a solo game but I fear that if I do so I will just end up reinforcing any problems I have from reading the rules. Having struggled so much to get through them I am sure that if I played solo I would miss something I have read or more likely miss a key point that for some reason has not sunk in on reading the rules.

The shooting thing is one area where it just feels wrong to me. Against a very tough unit (say VBU 7 or 8) then 1, 2 or 3 hits while actually quite significantly different numbers of hits will most likely do exacly the same thing i.e. dissorder the target. Thus for example shooting once and getting three hits is far less effective than shooting three times and getting one hit each time.

I appreciate that I may be over analysing things but this is the way I read every set of rules. Many sets I read don't get past some of the moments such as realising that shooting with three bases at a unit of cataphracts is actually less effective than shooting with one :O

A major plus point for Impetus from my POV is that despite seeing what I feel may be issues I am still keen to play.

Regarding manoeuvre, and why I don't think there is as much scope for it in Impetus as in some other games, there are a range of reasons :
Move rates are low compared to unit frontage (eg 5cm for heavy infantry, 10cm for heavy cavalry).
Multiple moves, whilst possible, bear a potential heavy penalty (50% chance of disorder on the second move for most troops, and as stated above this is quite severe).
A wheel and straight ahead movement cannot be combined in the same move.
Combat is quick and decisive so any manoeuvre that takes more than a couple of turns will likely be too late to influence the battle.
Without "rock-paper-scissors" type match-ups there is not as much need to manoeuvre, because there is often little to be gained by it.
As an example, consider an unengaged unit of infantry, lined up next to a friendly unit that is engaged in combat. In most ancients rules, the unengaged unit could move into a position to charge the flank of the enemy in one turn, the charge the following turn. In Impetus it takes three moves for the infantry to get in a position to charge the flank of the enemy. Even if it was cavalry it would still take two moves to wheel the 90 degrees necessary to get in a position to charge the flank. It is unlikely that the combat would still be going on after that time.
These are observations from limited playing time, and more from reading the rules, so I'd be interested in hearing views from more experienced players. For example, if the enemy infantry line has its flank anchored on a small wood, would it be worth sending a unit of cavalry round the wood to outflank the enemy ? I suspect it would not be worth it, as the battle would be over by the time the cavalry had circled the wood (given that cavalry take two moves to wheel 90 degrees, think how long it would take to circle a wood, however small).

I suspect it would not be worth it, as the battle would be over by the time the cavalry had circled the wood

you are right, in most cases it is not worth but in some case it can result as decisive manouvre. Possibly it should be planned at the start of the game and of course the success is also related to the Disciple of the cavalry, to how strong is the infantry and to how far is the target.
Risks to take.

Against a very tough unit (say VBU 7 or 8) then 1, 2 or 3 hits while actually quite significantly different numbers of hits will most likely do exacly the same thing i.e. dissorder the target.

In that case the rules give you the possibility roll 3 dice. If you roll 3 "six", so 3 hits, it is a lucky throw, not ability. The effect will be compensated by the coehsion test that will limit the lucky throw. Of course rolling 3 dice means more possibility to roll at least one hit, hence at least to disorder the target (with a 6 in cohesion test you have a permanent loss, whatever the taerget) than rolling just one.

Shooting should be coordinated with other shooting and possibly with a charge.

Taking a period where the shooting was considered very effective, the 100YW, you don't have to expect to kill a Knights unit with the sole longbow, but to make the Knights charge home after severe losses, without impetus, against your mixed line of bowmen and dismounted men at arms.
True battles were not a question of scissor/paper/stone but of coordination among the various troop types.

I'd like to address a couple of the recurring themes.
Firimg -- missile fire is to disrupt good units. Causing disorder prevents the units reacting to their zone of control, and so makes them much more vunerable to your tactics of fire, manuver, or charge. Additionally, any permanent hits removes their impetus bonus, and so weakens their future attacks. As mentioned, weak units may well be eliminated.
I don't find the large missile fire chart a weakness. Perhaps it's my age, but I need an army roster to play anyway. The roster lists all unit characteristics, which I typically refer to when firing. Finding the fire modifier is one step in calculating the die you throw to fire.
__________
As to general tactics – I try and eliminate a command by concentrating on it in attack. I worry more about protecting my flanks than flanking my opponent. Imeptus is dynamic in flow. Once you destroy units in your opponents battle line, opportunities to press your attack arise.
Destroying over half of a command goups "value" means the whole command is removed at the end of the turn. Destroying command groups without losing yours leads to victory.
Impetus rewards thoughtful aggression. Units can keep moving until disordered. So an undisorderd unit has at least two moves when you lauch an attack with it. If there is a victor in the melee, surviving losing units retreat, and the victor pursues. This sequence can continue several times. Then launch your next unit.
The impetus bonus is added to attacking and pursuing units until they have a permanent loss. Units which were historically aggressive attackers have a large impetus bonus. For example, crusading knights have a VBU of 6 and impetus bonus of 4. So as long as they are fresh (no permanent losses to VBU) they attack HARD. (Contrast to light cavalry with a VBU of 3 and impetus bonus of 1).
So my key to victory with an aggressive army (my preferred type) isn't manuver to the flank, but launching a large scale attack at the right point and in the right sequence. I think this reflects what medieval commanders did.
BO

Perhaps my problem with shooting is that it is impossible to take a hit and suffer no effect. There may be no chance of a permanent loss but looking at the Crusaders in the post above, one hit and they are auto dissorderd, one more before they can reorganise and they take a loss and all that lovely impact bonus goes away as well as 1 VBU. In effect two hits from shooting halves the effectivenes of the unit. Or am I missing something key here?

The hits from missile fire are significant. But what got halved is the number of dice thrown on their impact, not the actual unit effectiveness.
The cohesion test favors units with a large VBU. For example, the knights start with a 6. If they take 3 hits in melee when fresh, the cohesion test number is 3 (6-3). The worst possible result gives 3 permanent losses. But they are still there. Large VBU units tend to hang around, while the small ones get eliminated.
The other factor is the firing limitations – by memory most straight ahead and closest. It isn't easy to pour fire into a whole command. While you might weaken one unit, others remain fresh.

Brutus: That why I wrote "once". Repeated shooting does the trick, as it, IMHO, should.

I am glad the game gets so much defense from so many people. Apparently lots of folks really like the game. Good news.

Cheers!

Hammy wrote : "In effect two hits from shooting halves the effectivenes of the unit."
Or just one hit from shooting after they are disordered for attempting a second move. Which seems very harsh, and effectively rules out second moves if enemy shooters could come within range (30cm) of you.
This is one of the things I don't get – what the disorder on making a second move and failing a test represents ? Why does it make you so much more vulnerable to shooting ? It typically means a strong unit is 6 times more likely to suffer a permanent VBU loss from shooting (and hence loss of Impetus bonus) than when not disordered. Does it mean the troops have been pushed too hard and fallen over ? Or all dropped their shields ? Or half their horses have gone lame ? I can't see what is supposed to have happened to have made them so much more vulnerable.
I would imagine that a unit of knights would have to take a lot of punishment to mean that they cannot charge effectively, which is what the loss of impetus bonus means. In the crusades, Frankish knights could endure repeated missile fire and still charge strongly against their Muslim opponents. So how is it that they can lose their impetus bonus so easily ?

"This is one of the things I don't get – what the disorder on making a second move and failing a test represents ? Why does it make you so much more vulnerable to shooting ? It typically means a strong unit is 6 times more likely to suffer a permanent VBU loss from shooting (and hence loss of Impetus bonus) than when not disordered. Does it mean the troops have been pushed too hard and fallen over ? Or all dropped their shields ? Or half their horses have gone lame ? I can't see what is supposed to have happened to have made them so much more vulnerable."

I understand it as being rather abstract: A falter of morale, as missiles keep pouring on. A loss of cohesion resulting in a breach of the line. Men being wounded and distracting their fellow warriors with their screams before being carried to the rear (hopefully…) and so on.
In the case of movement it would be loss of cohesion, gaps in the ranks, possibly even exhaustion from running around, exposing vulnerable parts while moving too fast to cover them etc.

A Unit without Impetus still *can* charge quite mightily. Impetus is more of a nice bonus than an essential. Also it does not only represent the actual impact but also things as bravado, morale, eagerness etc.
If you feel knights should still have Impetus after two wounds or so, make a special scenario rule for that. In the general rules that would be out of place.

In the end it is about abstractions. Impetus has a lot of those. Its about ends before method and about keeping it fast and dirty.
Also, it is very vivid. With a unit of fresh knights charging into the enemy I can nearly feel the impact! If they have gotten a beating already, then it is a bit less spectacular (they are still monsters though..)

Marshall Mark and James, I understand your concerns with missile fire. I certainly try to disorder opposing melee units with a hit from range, and then advance to point blank and pound 'em with other units. Works best with light cavalry or skirmishers, who then evade when the victim unit charges them. Oh, the humanity.
But in my experience the melee armies have an advantage over the shooting armies. I've played a bunch of crusades matchups, and the shooty armies have a pronounced lead in their loss record.
I would gladly take the melee army over the shooty one.
Regards,
BO

The disorder for making a second move represents to my thinking the temporary loss of command control and unit cohesion. The unit may even be temporarily broken up as it attempts to move at a very rapid pace. Remember, units represent large groups of men. In a Punic Roman army the stand can represent between 600-1200 heavy infantry. As the line advances at rapid pace it is possible to imagine the maniples becoming separated and vulnerable.I think this representation is easily justified and it lends a nice command choice in the game.

As an aside, I rarely do a double move at close quarters unless I need the second move to a charge or need a unit to plug a gap.

I find it really refreshing that we have now gond nearly two pages with a number of people myself included making arguably negative comments and yet nobody has gone off the rails.

There are plenty of other rules sets out there that the same would not happen for. All I need is someone who knows how to play to introduce me to the pleasures of Impetus and to try to keep my predjudices at bay as they do :(

Hey Hammy, good luck in your search. Impetus may not be your cup of tea but then it might. But I can promise you a fast paced game that gives the player some interesting choices to make. The variability in outcomes means that no one can ever scope the system. I love the drama of the game. As another person on this topic said, you can feel the heat when the Knights charge home. No promises but lots of dice!

I think Lorenzo deserves some of the credit for the kind of conversation that occurs around Impetus. I don't know him but he really comes across as a nice guy on the forum who wants to make people feel heard. I think it rubs off. And he supports the rules with in time comments and corrections. Very helpful.

Possibly they will consider the game too related to lucky throws. Honestly I think lucky counts in Impetus no more that in real life (battlefields included).

Yes that is my view. Saw in the rules that a unit can suffer 5 hits and make a save on a 6, whilst another unit can take 1 hit and fail to save it. Sure enough it happened. So that takes me back to the 6-1 results of DBM. To me that is too much influence of luck over the mechanics in combat.