"Sam Mustafa's "Aurelian" is done!" Topic

Hey all!

I put up a blog post about Sam Mustafa's new ancients game, "Aurelian," which is apparently finished! While Sam is known for games with guns, I've had a chance to play this one a bit, and I have to say, it is great fun:)

So come on by and take a look!

link

And I'll have more soon, as I've finished up more 40mm AWI, I've got some moderns on the workbench, and I even took a brush to my son's Star Wars action figures and space ships!

And I cross posted for the gunpowder folks, because some might enjoy dipping their toes in an ancients game that is A) made by a traditional gunpowder guy and B) are cheap, because they are only offered as a PDF!:)

Podcast: link

Samples: link

Forum: link

Been looking at the material on line at Sam's website, looks entertaining with a built in campagain game as per Longstreet/Blucher.

Game play appears to combine the card driven elements of Longstreet with the single base = one unit approach of Blucher.

Of course there's a bit more to it than that but looks like anyone who has one or both of those games will have a head start in learning and understanding what its all about. Should be attractive to those who have fancied Ancients but never tried before.

History looks sound enough to me but there are a lot of Ancients rules out there at the moment.

These are probably best regarded as a game system rather than a new rules system, although the on table part could easily lend itself to wider application than the army types included in the game for the campaign.

Personally, I'm off to buy some more ink for my printer before the PDF is released!

Have his Napoleonics rules,and rebasing my figures for it.

So how big are the armies?
A unit is a stand, correct?
So how many units?

I gather the stands can be any size/number of figures.

Great. Does R.E.Lee and Grant wear chainmail? I'm not sure why this is on the ACW list.

In deference to Bill, I'm replying to the post above his from the Ancients board. :o)

Perhaps we need a tighter Crossposting system!

Anyhow, going on information available, the armies will be around 15 – 20 stands per side. A unit is one stand and no doubt the rules will have a suggested frontage but in keeping with the authors practice, this will not be a requirement.

On that basis numbers of figures will not matter either.

Check out the "Samples" link in posting near the top of this thread.

As I had posted, since all of his previous games are gunpowder, including the fantastic Longstreet, I thought it might be nice to let those guys know they have a cheap way to try out ancients :-)

One thing I forgot to mention and had to go back and check on, is that the game system is dice free.

Yes you read that. Its not played with dice.

There is a random number system included in the card deck in which players have to risk a value on one of the cards in their hand, plus relevant modifiers, against their opponents score and this gives the result of combat or shooting on a difference between the scores basis.

Its a nice touch as you may have a high value card you want to play in combat that has other traits in the game play that you might need elsewhere. Do you go for the big win or play a long game and use the card for another reason?

Could be interesting and you can't blame rubbish dice rolls any more boys!

This is a period I love (really all of later Rome), and it's great to see a set of rules – and a campaign system – so tightly focused on it.

However … my negative experience with Longstreet, and the increasing element of pure gamism in Sam's titles, unfortunately mean I'll probably pass on this one as well, unless the campaign system can be grafted onto other tabletop rules such as Comitatus. But best of luck and good gaming to those that will enjoy them!

Cheers,

Christopher

Can I guess that any disappointment in Longstreet wasn't connected to the campaign? I swear, I enjoyed the longstreet campaign more than any other piece of toy soldiering I've ever seen. Heck, I literally painted and modified my army after each and every game to represent what happened in the campaign round!:)

As I had posted, since all of his previous games are gunpowder, including the fantastic Longstreet, I thought it might be nice to let those guys know they have a cheap way to try out ancients :-)

Okay, I can see that.

Christopher:

Following out one of the sample link provided, I read this part of the 2nd chapter of the rules:

Ancient Units, Ranks, Files, and Numbers Ancient sources are often unclear with regard to numbers and formations. The period of Aurelian also represents something of a black hole for primary sources. Some modern authors have imposed anachronistic words such as "regiment" in an attempt to standardize terminology.

Vegetius indicated that a Roman regiment might fight in as few as four ranks, while Maurice's Strategikon
indicated as many as sixteen. If we take a median position and imagine ten ranks, then a unit of
500 men would be five times as wide as it was deep. A literal representation of this on a table would
be impractical for all but the tiniest miniatures. Rather, we will use a practical rectangle shape that
allows us to display the figures in an attractive way while getting the right basic "feel" and look of
ancient units.

Is the period a 'black hole'? I don't know very much about the period, but just a cursory perusal of the internet found these primary sources:

1.Aurelius Victor Epitome de Caesaribus, xxxv "Epitome de Caesaribus" (4th century)
2.Eutropius, Breviarium historiae Romanae, IX. 13–15 (4th century)
3.Historia Augusta Aurelianus Life of Aurelian Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 [4th century?]

Why would Maurice [17th century] be used as source for the 4th Century? Rather confusing, at least for me. I know that several military works of the 2-5th century AD were used by the Dutch and others in the 16th and early 17th century to rethink military practices. But they were working off the same primary sources available to Sam.

No, it wasn't connected to the campaign at all – which is why I'm hoping the Aurelian campaign is portable. I think the recent move towards packaging rules with campaign systems is one the best developments in the hobby I've seen (I'm currently running Dux Britanniarum for instance). There are all sorts of play styles, and I unfortunately have a severe allergy to the sort of card based rules that the Honour series seem to be trending towards. My group here had a blast playing them, but I had to bow out.

I probably shouldn't have replied – I'll just wait for balanced reviews and see how things look after people have some experience with them.

Cheers,

Christopher

McLaddie,

The period is in fact very chaotic, but in this case you and Sam are referring to two different Maurices. I'm sure he is referring to the Strategikon, usually attributed to rule of (if not authorship of) the 6th century Byzantine emperor "Maurice" (Maurikios). Unfortunately, as you can imagine, the rather theoretical treatment of eastern Byzantine warfare in the Strategikon probably has as much to do with warfare in the 3rd century – still strongly connected to the traditional Roman way of war – as the 17th century version does.

For that matter, Vegetius was writing in the 5th century, and although he was tremendously influential for the next 1000 years or so, he actually seems to have been influenced by as desire to harken back to a sort of romanticized and classicized version of what the Roman army was remembered to be, after its demise.

Although I'm a classicist, I'm an archaeologist, and I specialize in the Aegean Bronze Age for that matter, so certainly don't take my remarks as gospel! ;)

However, the 3rd century was certainly a time of transition for the Roman military, as it suffered from repeated blows to a system that had been designed to fight a different style of war by formations that were no longer organized in the ways they had been, largely due to changes in recruitment, long term garrisoning, and training. But for most of the period – and certainly the beginning and end – it was still decidedly Roman, with all that entails for organization, armament, and command.

But – in gaming terms – I'm not sure how much this bears on the tabletop. Although Sam often (usually!) takes a very loose approach to defining what a *gaming* unit is in his rules, for the 3rd century he probably has good reason. The Romans were certainly the most organized, and they were in various stages of disorganization throughout the period. Meanwhile, what is a corresponding "unit" for the various barbarians? In this case, defining the gaming unit as X number of men armed in a certain way and fighting in a certain way is probably fine … of course, I have no idea what he has actually done in the rules, but I'm guessing, ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

He is referring to the Byzantine Maurice and I would suppose the "black hole" referred to be the gap in tactical thesis between Arrian in the mid 2nd Century and Vegeitus in the 5th Century. Not a chronology of events.

I've always assumed that the Romans had a lot on their minds in between times as everyone in books aimed at laymen, quotes the two above with merry abandon for all manner of "how the Roman army fought" strictly appropriate or not!

T & C:

Oh. Thanks for the explanations. As I said, not up on the Ancients stuff except for the Punic Wars to some extent. It would seem focusing on a 'black hole' in history would make it easier to work with loose definitions.

@ McLaddie
The Augustan History ( Historia Augusta ) is almost a work of fiction. Very little credence can be given to anything it claims.
The Epitome de Caesaribus is better but still a little on the untrustworthy side of things, and tries to cover all the Emperors of Rome. A translation of his biography of Aurelian is a mere 336 words. ( link paragraph 36 ) .
The Brevium historiae Romanum ( Brief/Shortened history of Rome ) is just that. A translation of his section on the life of Aurelian takes up approximately 500 words. ( link paragraphs 13-16 )

There is a lack of reliable sources for most of ancient history, but the 3rd century AD is especially bad, sources are often brief and unreliable.

xccamx;

Thanks for the info. Add that to my knowledge of ancient history. Mine was a cursory look, after all.

Yes, the lack of reliable sources is the bane of ancient history. But primary sources are primary sources… when they've actually survived until now.

3rd Century Rome is truly chaotic. It is a triumph that the empire survived and managed to run another couple centuries in the west and over a thousand years in the east.

Couldn't tell the pretenders without a scorecard. And every time a major pretender arose, troops would be pulled off the frontiers to join the revolt or put it down. Which would tempt the barbarians to raid across the frontier, which would lead to generals deciding they knew better how to deal with this and declare themselves emperor…

The author Harry Sidebottom has written some excellent novels set during the period; they are well worth reading for a little entertainment and inspiration.