"Battle of Asculum, 279 BC with AMW" Topic
7 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ancients Battle Reports Message Board
Areas of InterestAncients
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article For the time being, the last in our series of articles on the gates of Old Jerusalem.
|
Trebian  | 07 Jul 2014 9:09 a.m. PST |
Following the success of refighting Pyrrhus' first battle in Italy (Heraclea) we went and did Asculum this weekend just past. Background on the set up can be found here: link The AAR can be found here: link Feed back welcome, as ever. |
| Who asked this joker | 07 Jul 2014 9:32 a.m. PST |
It's a lot of lead being pushed around for just 3.5 hours so that does say good things about AMW. Looks like a fun game even though Pyrrhus is pushing up daisies. Different meaning of Pyrrhic victory I suppose. Rome loses but the threat is dead. |
| Trebian | 07 Jul 2014 9:36 a.m. PST |
Lead? All plastic, I can assure you. If it was all lead I think my storage units would pull themselves off the wall. |
| Captain Cook | 07 Jul 2014 9:54 a.m. PST |
Great report, I wouldn't have noticed the proxies btw.
Played our first game with AMW last week and was suitably impressed, basic but subtle with plenty of scope for tweeking to suit ones own take on ancient warfare if needs be. |
| Trebian | 07 Jul 2014 10:12 a.m. PST |
Captain, I think you can hide a number of discrepancies in the numbers. AMW is very flexible, and as we demonstrate enables games much bigger than 8 units a side to be played easily. There are problem,s with some of the classifications (warbands I mentioned, Heavy Archers are another issue) and I'm not sure the phalanx rules are quite spot on. However, as you observe, the system is clear & simple enough play around with without breaking it. Trebiant |
| Just Plain Chris | 08 Jul 2014 5:53 a.m. PST |
Well done Trebian! Thanks for posting/sharing. Legion v Phalanx was a theme of a recent issue of WI. I am tempted to investigate further as I've never done a game or campaign involving Pyrrhus et al. I gather AMW translates into Ancient & Medieval Warfare? One wonders how this might be done, how this might play with a different set of rules . . . Cheers, Chris |
| Trebian | 08 Jul 2014 8:41 a.m. PST |
Chris, AMW is "Ancient & Medieval Wargaming" by Neil Thomas. Legions v Phalanx is a tough one as not all legions and not all phalanxes are equal. A good legion should beat an average phalanx and vice versa, I think, and it is no surprise the Romans eventually win out over the phalanx as they get better at what they do over time and the heirs of the Macedonian tradition go into decline. The game was taken from Phil Sabin's "Lost Battles" which is probably the best place to start for a "serious" refight if you want to use other rules. I've avoided doing such large scale games with other rule sets (eg Armati) as I don't think they'll allow the game to be finished in time, plus not all of the players are equally versed in the rules. Honestly with AMW everyone knows how the game works in 15 minutes or less and has the relevant rules in their head in half an hour. All the best, Trebian |
|
finishes his 40mm Norse Gods project.