MichaelCollinsHimself | 31 Dec 2015 4:27 a.m. PST |
A rule set "in development", which is to say a bunch of ideas bouncing around my head at the moment is "Grand Manoeuvre Ancients". I`m thinking on basing Romans and hordes at the moment – and hordes with particular with reference to Spartacus` army… Here are a few photos for you: photo.1.
Roman Auxiliaries (at the first stage of basing- gritting the figure bases). photo.2.
Some figures I`ve selected for conversion to Spartacus hordes. I`ll also be using some Robin Hood figures, to which will be added some Roman shields and heads. photo.3.
Illyrian Auxiliaries. These are intended to compliment an Alexandrian Macedonian army. |
WarWizard | 31 Dec 2015 6:36 a.m. PST |
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 31 Dec 2015 9:16 a.m. PST |
As for base sizes: I`m working these out for my own 1/72nd figures. I have an idea that horde "units" can made to vary in size – bases being added, giving them variable mass and therefore; variable impetus, stamina and fighting value. The base for Roman units needs to be 60x25mm – two of these comprising a cohort. Of course existing game base sizes will be ok to use… e.g. DB basing 40x15mm for "blades" will "do" also.
These Romans are on a base 60x20 – another 5mm will allow for more handling of bases. I have more Zvezda Romans, which (being broader) just fit 4 abreast on this 60mm base. |
lapatrie88 | 31 Dec 2015 7:58 p.m. PST |
Wish you great luck and progress with this. Your Grande Maneuver material was fascinating, so it will be great to see what comes of this. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 01 Jan 2016 3:43 a.m. PST |
A Happy New Year to You! and Many thanks for the encouragement! Working out how the manoeuvre elements function in the game will focus on the cohorts, so it`ll be of roughly the same level as my Napoleonic rules, with Legions equating to large Napoleonic brigades or small divisions. I`m having second thoughts that each Roman infantry base (representing 3 centuries) should be two figures deep by three wide…? As they will be seen against other elements that I have already chosen to base two deep (spears, warbands, etc.). From time to time I`ll be popping back here from the C19th – I hope to have those Grand Manoeuvre rules variants ready for late February. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 02 Jan 2016 2:46 a.m. PST |
Personally I`m coming back to the idea of basing my 1/72nd Romans in two ranks on 60x40 bases, these will match the Spears, Warbands, etc I already have done. As for base element compatibility, DBA/M basing will be OK to use; I`ll be providing different movement rates/etc. for different scale figures. Showing the game base sizes and dimensions… photo 1. Egyptian spearmen, bows & allied skirmishers – all bases are the same dimensions.
photo 2. Persian Immortals with light troops advance to meet Libyan skirmishers.
Below is a flashback to an earlier game/test of the rules… photo 3. Test game with order and morale conditions used; The Egyptians routs at the battle of Pelusium (525 BC).
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 02 Jan 2016 4:29 a.m. PST |
2 Roman cohorts:
2 Roman cohorts deployed:
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 Jan 2016 2:34 p.m. PST |
We ran a little playtest last night at the local club. I took as a historical scenario a scaled down version of Crixus` battle with Gellius at Mount Garganus. Approximately half of the forces were represented on table; one legion in "duplex acies" (two lines of cohorts) against a slave force of just over 11,000. Although I made one or two mistakes (forgetting to apply some modifiers) the test went fairly well: the Gauls assaulting the Roman first line three times. So there`ll be some minor adjustments to make in another test to see if the results can get closer to the ones described in Nic Field`s Campaign Osprey. As it was the Romans took some damage and two elements were in poor morale at the end of the game-test. In a second test it may well become necessary for the Romans to make a passage of lines and to deploy their second line of cohorts for battle. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 20 Jan 2016 5:16 a.m. PST |
Yes, I should have said that the Gauls actually lost the test game after three assaults. The army breaking in a second morale test. The command level for testing the Romans` morale could have been applied to line of battle or by legion. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 29 Jan 2016 12:18 p.m. PST |
I have another little test prepared for next Monday night club… I`ll be using Roman auxiliaries and Celtic war bands just to see how they play out. (Yes I have the auxiliaries based up now :) ) Later I`ll solo test the Mount Garganus game again with the slightly corrected support modifiers. Also on my mind recently is how infantry/hordes could directly support cavalry in an ambush-counter-attack – I suspect that Spartacus` army did this against one of Lentulus` legions. |
Maxshadow | 29 Jan 2016 8:58 p.m. PST |
interesting being able to watch the development. I like the basing |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 30 Jan 2016 11:19 a.m. PST |
Thanks Max, Stay tuned, I`ll be posting here quite regularly I think. Re. infantry support of mounted warriors – it seems that the Germans and Thracians did this quite a bit. It might be interesting to do some tests based on possible conditions for the battle of Lentulus – the battle site, or rather the area where some people believe it took place is hilly and wooded or in olive cultivation. A bit of google-earthing might help, but it`s quite likely that Spartacus`s men also had surprise on their side when combined arms attacks took place – so potentially there may be two or three extra bonuses for them in the fight. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 02 Feb 2016 11:51 a.m. PST |
Just to let everyone know about the test game played last night. This was most encouraging as it seemed to satisfy the players` expectations of how an ancient battle involving Romans (well, Auxiliaries) and Celts should go. One slight rule change was used to see how Celts and similar war bands might achieve "impetus" – Impetus needs to be a significant combat advantage as it was in the initial charges of a battle that war bands were at their most dangerous. I might add to this some modifying element of leadership/charisma to the combat calculation for all armies and types; both Roman and Barbarian. These will have to be limited to only the best of leaders however. I`m thinking of including a pre-battle set up routine which may allow the Celts a chance to play the terrain also… |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 08 Feb 2016 11:26 a.m. PST |
I`ve written up the rule changes today… Warbands test for impetus using their combat rolls +/- a few modifiers now whereas in the test game we tested the Romans instead to see if they were steady for the charge. I started to outline some rules for a pre-battle set up and deployment. The orders system will be written/map-plotted. And the rules on command and control will be much like my regulating battalions rules in Grand Manoeuvre Napoleonic rules. |
aapch45 | 15 Feb 2016 5:49 a.m. PST |
So when will we be seeing these rules, or a form of them atleast? I am really liking the basing I'm seeing, I'm also liking that I can make an army for like 30 euros out of 1/72s. Let me know I would love to playtest and provide feedback, especially since I'm trying to gain interest for wargaming here in Athens. Some of my classmates have been asking when we can get the hoplites on the field. Thanks Austin |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 20 Feb 2016 12:25 a.m. PST |
Hi Austin, They`ll be some time to come yet but if you can get the players I will send you a draft copy to playtest. I`m concentrating on Romans right now but I`ve already done some work on Hoplite manoeuvres and so maybe in the next month or so I`ll have something for you to see. Drop me a line at: contact@grandmanoeuvre.co.uk so we can establish coms ! Best Regards, Mike. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 Feb 2016 11:17 a.m. PST |
Hi Austin, Some Hoplites were involved in this game; suffering at the hands of the Macedonian phalangites at a Granicus game… I`m thinking of a slightly higher figure ratio for Hoplite warfare… but I do have some more pikemen in the paint queue!
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 29 Feb 2016 7:31 a.m. PST |
So, I have a few volunteers to play test the ancients rules. In particular, for this testing, I`ve concentrated on Hoplites. The rules will be ready at the end of this week I think. If anyone else would like to try these, let me know – email me at: contact@grandmanoeuvre.co.uk Regards, Mike. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 17 Mar 2016 3:06 a.m. PST |
I`ll be testing the rules for Hoplites at my local club on Monday night. These have more of a "damage point" thing going on, with levels of disorder which lead to possible and automatic breaking points. In addition to Austin, Fitz Brow (of FB Tabletop Commanders* plus other FB pages fame) and "Madan Mitra" of Ilford Wargames Group also have copies of my Hoplite rules to playtest. So, hopefully I`ll have some more feedback to come. Stay tuned ! Mike. * link |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 22 Mar 2016 11:48 a.m. PST |
Monday night`s tests: We played four small test battles with 12 elements or bases per side with equal unit class. In these mini-games each army was comprised of one command of hoplites for morale purposes – larger battles would probably have different contingents and classes of troops in them. Only hoplite combat was tested in the games, there were no auxiliary, peltasts, missile skirmishers, nor cavalry involved. Once the basics were learned, players tried using deeper formations for support and impetus in the charges & the initial combats. We decided upon some basic rules for hoplite pursuits. Wheeling and counter-marching rules were tested. Initiatives were tested and found to be reasonably difficult to achieve unless it was on the commanded, right flanks of the armies. Tie breaking rules were tried for situations where both sides have failed their morale tests. Test One:
Test Two:
Test Three (note: the dice show where each side has gained an advantage of greater impetus):
The players. Left to right; Chris, Everett & Andy:
|
monger | 22 Mar 2016 12:10 p.m. PST |
Excellent. I am liking this. ~K |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 Mar 2016 7:31 a.m. PST |
The next test (TBA) will be larger with maybe two contingents of hoplites on each side and use auxiliary, missile troops and some cavalry. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 27 Mar 2016 8:06 a.m. PST |
You might have noticed on the thread: TMP link that recently I`ve been concerned with hoplites manoeuvres and in particular wheeling hoplites. I did write some rules for wheeling hoplites a few years ago, but since then I have lost my notes and cannot find where I got the information on wheeling from, and so those rules are now deleted. I think that "wheeling" was carried out in a similar manner to the one that hoplite columns deployed from the march and that the routes taken by columns when deploying might not have been squared and that they took a more winding route to their positions and this is described (translated) as a "wheeling" movement. Whilst "wheeling", deployed hoplites could become "disordered"; and their sub-units and/or files may have become inter-mixed as they attempted to move obliquely to adopt the new change of face that their file leaders had taken up. Executing the manoeuvre was probably best done slowly and deliberately. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 02 Apr 2016 7:57 a.m. PST |
As mentioned on the "wheeling hoplites?" thread, I think I have worked out how "wheeling" was done and I`ve updated my rules accordingly. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 04 Apr 2016 9:04 a.m. PST |
The playtest with auxiliary troops will be tonight, so there`ll be a report on Tuesday evening if all goes well, or if not anyhow ! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 05 Apr 2016 10:43 a.m. PST |
So here are some photos and the developments tried in last night`s games. We had two test games in about 3 hours. Each side had three hoplite commands (with 6, 4, & 4 elements) all were standard hoplites with equal morale. Both sides had 4 elements of peltasts, 2 javelin skirmishers 1 slinger and 1 bow skirmisher element. Mounted troops were limited to 1 cavalry and one skirmisher light horse element per side. Generals were represented by single hoplite figures. New stuff: 1. A short range was introduced for slingers and bows – half range with better effect. 2. An overlapping elements modifier was introduced 3. Peltasts were given the option to shoot or provide overlaps to hoplites in combats. 4. New pursuit rules were tried, but these have been since been simplified and rewritten. The Photos:
First test game – the skirmishers engage. Foreground: on both sides, slingers have evaded from the charges of peltasts.
First test game; hoplites charge home – the white and yellow dice indicate where elements have "impetus".
First test game; Andy`s centre command is broken and pursued – many drop their weapons and rout off table.
Second test game; Chris advances in echelon with a deep right wing, supported by the majority of his light infantry…
Second test game: Hoplites have engaged – peltasts, skirmishers & cavalry fight on the flanks. Andy`s cavalry are about to rout Chris`s and pursue them off table – they did not rally.
Second test game; Andy`s right is crumbling and his left will soon be under pressure from Chris`s light and missile troops. Chris is shown pointing out the oblique attack tactic he was using! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 10 Apr 2016 9:17 a.m. PST |
Next steps in developing the game: For a while I`ve been thinking about how pikes would interact with spearmen in the game`s combat mechanisms, but I`m also considering now how Romans legions (Polybian & Early Imperial) and should be organised in the game and fare against hoplites and pikemen in combats. The key to all this I think is to be found in: Pyrrhus`s war with Rome, the Second Punic war, and second Macedonian war. Thinking aloud: Perhaps there`s some scope for literally having swordsmen pushed back and giving ground to pike or spear, but possibly on condition that a percentage of troops are disordered in a command in one turn… as did Phillip`s right wing did at Cynoscephalae? |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 14 Apr 2016 8:49 a.m. PST |
Game markers worked out for cavalry wedge formation today… I have made a test base to see if it will look ok. Photos to follow later. I also plan to make markers for testudo formation with 5/6 figures on them. The element scale for all periods will be 1 element = 500 heavy foot. The Romans will need some explanation regarding manoeuvres, for maniples, cohorts and lines. This you may guess, means that I do not think that Romans were an army who preferred fighting in columns! Anyhow, more later…. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 14 Apr 2016 10:59 a.m. PST |
Just a note that these cavalry wedge formations will give an impetus bonus to cavalry attacks… Cavalry wedge formation marker base.
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 20 Apr 2016 9:18 a.m. PST |
Basing in progress for some of my Roman auxiliaries… wedge formation markers are there, some stray Greek cavalry, and more single figures for both Roman & Greek cavalry wedge markers. There are also a couple of replacement shields for each units – one is mysteriously without one! Hopefully Roman command figures will be done tonight….
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 30 Apr 2016 4:08 a.m. PST |
The Romans are based now… A Roman legion shown in 4-3-3 formation with supporting auxiliary legions of six cohorts each, in two lines and these have their flanks guarded by some auxiliary cavalry.
I have some command figures and scorpion bolt throwers yet to paint and base. Some missile troops (slingers and bows) are ready to go, but these are not in the photos. Later I`m going to be adding lightly armed legionaries on skirmishig duties in to the rules and these will have two figures to a base. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 02 May 2016 4:16 a.m. PST |
Roman command figure in progress and working out how to base the bolt-throwers:
Roman auxiliary cavalry & Macedonian Greek allied cavalry wedge markers:
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 24 May 2016 11:49 p.m. PST |
Everett studying the set up at Monday night`s Watling Street test game….
The view from the Birtish side of the battlefield….
More to follow after TMP`s maintenance period. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 25 May 2016 6:28 a.m. PST |
Opening moves of the Watling Street test game…. Dave and Everett move their missile troops forward hopefully to soften the Roman`s lines before the main assault:
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 25 May 2016 6:38 a.m. PST |
The shooting begins and hits on the skirmishers are marked by yellow dice; hits (disorders) on the legions and auxiliaries are represented by blue markers…
The skirmishers give way to the main assault by the warbands.
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 25 May 2016 6:48 a.m. PST |
The main assault goes in and the Romans go to close order to receive the charges. Impetus of the warbands is calculated and in the subsequent combats the results are reasonably good for the Iceni, but the Trinovantes line is quite badly disordered:
Their initial assault not having been very successful, the Britons bounce back to regroup and regain their order…
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 25 May 2016 7:07 a.m. PST |
The Britons advance again, but the Romans are counter-attacking in close order now and they have quite a tactical adavantage against some already weakened elements of the warbands…
The British warbands break, there is a limited pursuit by some of the Roman cohorts…
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 25 May 2016 7:44 a.m. PST |
The other players: Dave (left) controlled the Trinovantes, Andy played the Romans: Everett pictured earlier, was commanded the Iceni on the British right.
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 25 May 2016 8:59 a.m. PST |
So, there`s some of the photos showing the action… But what was new in the rules? 1. Open and close order introduced for Roman infantry with modifiers for the same in combat. 2. Cavalry wedge formation was attempted by the combined legionary cavalry on the right, but somehow they couldn`t manage it in the test to form it! 3. The pursuit rules were changed – so that the combat is unopposed and a modifer for routing troops was re-introduced. 4. Pilum vollies were added for skirmishers who are silly enough to get within javelin range of legionaries. 5. I introduced a bouncing warband rule – which allows them to disengage and regroup if they do not cause damage on the Romans. In general, the chaps thought that the rules worked well, modelling the period tactics and what was expected from both armies in terms of their staying power in the fight. The end result of the battle was a Roman win, but there were some small successes by the British, but the big picture seemed to look and feel right – some good progress made I think. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 08 Jun 2016 11:51 p.m. PST |
Yesterday we discussed the rules for Pikes. Later I will add some special drill rules, cavalry rules and add Persians to this for Alexandrian battles. I have let Pikemen cause slightly different effects on enemy units in combat. There`s some provision also for the effect of the push of pikes. Photo below is of an earlier Battle of Granicus game – I`m thinking that the combat between Alexander`s pikemen and Memnon`s Greek mercenaries will be a good test for the new rules too.
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 12 Jun 2016 6:01 a.m. PST |
I`ve been working on adding three more armies to the rules (working out combat dice rolls, special unit rules). These armies are; Indians, Egyptians and Persians. So, there will be some more exotic units like chariots, elephants and camelry inculded in these armies… Indian chariots and elephants will of course make an appearance against Alexander, but I will make a version available some time later covering early Persian wars, where there is some chance of seeing camelry on table. Photo attached of my Battle of Pelusium (525BC) – The camels (in Cambyses` army) were at the far end of the table threatening the Egyptian cavalry. This too would be a good one to do again !
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 13 Jul 2016 2:11 a.m. PST |
On Monday night we tested the rules close and open order for Ancient Gauls and Germans. You`ll probably have read Julius Caesar`s account of Gallic "phalanxes" – of interlocking shields used in close anti-missile formations. These he mentions being pinned together by the Roman Pila. A modifier for close order along with a few others in the mix was used last night in a test to determine whether or not the Gallic warbands would get an impetus bonus in combat. Photo shows the first Gallic attack which later recoiled to regroup and attack again!
The session was most useful and productive in that we discussed the relative merits of open and close orders for both barabarians and Romans and we decided for the game which modifiers should be used in combat for both sides. Photo: Andy and Dave in discussion with Mick (who was seated on my right):
Also tested in Monday night`s game was the pre-battle inspirational speech rules. The Gallic commander (Dave) opted to try this out. The army wasn`t impressed however (the test failed) and the Gauls failed to recieve any combat, or morale bonuses for the start of the game. For greater player choice, I`ll be making up some more speeches suitable for Barbarians shortly with varying conditions, benefits and costs.
Above: Photo showing just a single line (simplex acies) which was enough to see off the Gauls in this test game. To be honest, the Gauls need a bigger advantage of numbers in open terrain – to give them another command with which they might be able to attack one of the Roman flanks. There are 3-4 other tactical situations in which barbarians will stand a better chance of victory, or give them some parity with an army which consists of heavy infantry and these are covered in the rules combat points. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 13 Jul 2016 2:19 a.m. PST |
I must test pikes v. swordsmen next as that was promised/mentioned earlier ! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 Jul 2016 10:03 a.m. PST |
After about three weeks working on stratagems, I have 30 stratagems, tactical ploys and battlefield tactical deceptions for players to chose from. Each stratagem or ploy has special conditions for its use and are available to differing levels of commander ability. Some of the stratagems (ambushes/dawn attacks and even the tactical ploys) do come with some risk attached – they can backfire. Anyhow, I have designed some basic stratagem cards for printing from word documents – there will also be blank cards which will enable players to bluff opponents into thinking that they`re up to something sneaky when actually they`re not doing anything at all… ;) The picture attached is a rough for the full colour stratagem cards. I hope to be testing these rules in the next couple of weeks and seeing how player`s react to the idea of the game possibly starting with some "card play".
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 27 Jul 2016 8:57 a.m. PST |
Today my friend Mick and I tested the stratagem cards for first time. Amendments and changes have been typed up from the notes I made during the tests (we tested them about 6 times). We determined that a few more cards need to be added and these will be used by the umpire to pass information or misinformation to players (player intelligence cards). If no information is available at all then a blank card will be passed to players. In one test, Mick had prepared his position overnight with defensive works, but I managed to flank march my army and surprise him with his army caught in the act of redeploying. In another test Mick, not only launched a successful dawn attack on my army; catching it disordered and not completely deployed, but also claimed to have beaten me in the previous test (which i didn`t recall) and was able to imitate friendly troops surprising my diorganised troops also … I laughed though ! Another test on Monday night – so more chance to refine these and iron out the bugs. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 04 Aug 2016 2:28 a.m. PST |
The second test of the cards was slighty delayed but Mick and Andy came around last night and we tested the Stratagem cards. These tests (seven in all) produced; a successful flank attack, a dawn attack and a goading to attack which led to an ambush. Stratagems played can fail however, and did so 50% of the time in the tests; and one or two of these failed and back-fired nastily on the players. The more advantageous stratagems do come with costs, as they divert more effort in organisation to make them happen. Some tests produced failed stratagems by both sides, but still allowed players to make special battlefield manoeuvres or smaller scale deceptions; these may not have been battle-winning moves in themselves as a lot may still depend upon the general circumstances of game and the dice of course. One change was made to the results of one of the deception cards made – which will save time and mean less information for the umpire to pass on to players. A little more work is required I think in adding some costs to the potentially big stratagems and I think we`ll be closer to finishing this part of the rules. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 11 Aug 2016 7:09 a.m. PST |
We tested some new die rolls for warbands with impetus yesterday and I continued with two more today. These show how it is posible to beat the Romans with impetus and with a significant numerical superiority… and also of course, some good die rolls.
The orange dice indicate the warbands with impetus, the green and purple dice show the element combat die rolls. The coloured counters are: blue = disorder, white = shaken & yellow = broken (routing). The purple die at the bottom of the photo is the legionaries morale test die roll – low is not good ! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 16 Aug 2016 11:40 a.m. PST |
So, a couple of tests played out last night using one of the stratagem cards as the basis of the games. We used two Gallic armies for a change. I chose the flank attack card, which can have a successful and an unsuccessful outcome. The first test was very quick and decisive. It could have last longer if Mick`s attacking army had not rolled so well when determining the deployment distance, and had Andy rolled better when trying to turn various parts of his army which was strung out on the march. Anyhow, here follow some photos from the former, successful outcome. Two dice were rolled to determine the angle of attack and the distance at which the attacking army deployed. The defender`s army was set up in with varying proportions; 1/3 deployed for battle in response to the flank attack, 1/3 on the march, and 1/3 in its original position. Also decided was where the defending army`s cavalry should be placed. The first photo: shown from Mick`s Army`s viewpoint, Andy advances.
The second photo shows the battle in full swing, with only about 1/2 of Mick`s army deployed, Andy has launched several flank attacks on his main body and pushed his slightly more numerous cavalry forward to attack the other half of Mick`s army as it moves up to deploy.
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 16 Aug 2016 11:59 p.m. PST |
Leading on from the last post, here`s a couple more photos from Monday`s game. Mick`s army is under pressure – the deployed line is staring to waver as Andy attacks the rest of Mick`s with his cavalry. In the following turn, Mick is made to check the morale of his infantry, and his left-wing cavalry have routed and are being pursued. On his right though, Mick`s cavalry counter-attack and Andy`s cavalry are either routed or made to recoil. As the session ended and we concluded that Mick`s infantry would soon fail a morale check and the result was pretty certain. The game brought up a few points which needed some attention. This was the first game played with chariots, and so their movement, fighting and missile capabilities need to be addressed. Multiple combats took place where there was no escape possible and so some warband infantry in the first game were completely surrounded, and "fighting to the death" and the modifier for that circumstance was tested. Warbands whose commands were halted in combat and not engaged or supporting other warbands were allowed to charge the nearest enemy element – that`s something which could work to the player`s advantage, but it could be dangerous if other enemy troops are hovering on their flanks. Also as a result of the games I`m making some adjustments to the pursuit rules and introducing an impetus rule and tests for cavalry. As there were many examples of one-sided combats arising (combined flank and rear attacks – sometimes with impetus) producing high points differences, a value for element destruction in normal combats needed to be introduced. Mick`s left wing under pressure!
Micks` right flank attacked and destroyed, his cavalry routed and pursued…
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 Aug 2016 11:36 a.m. PST |
Last night`s game/test combined the testing of three rules:- 1. The pursuit rules which I had re-written (hopefully making them clearer to understand). 2. Impetus tests and dice for cavalry, and 3. The heroic death or devotio for generals in desperate situations – which produced an interesting result and "morphed" into something else also! First photo: the two sides charge and counter-charge each other and impetus is determined….
Second photo: Half of the Gallic left wing is routed and pursued by Roman and allied cavalry.
3rd photo shows the rallied pursuers of both sides returning to attack the rear of their opponent`s. The Gallic right had broken through the Roman allied cavalry and this left a gap for the Gallic general & his bodyguard to attack the open flank left of the Roman cavalry.
4th photo shows the larger picture as routs and pursuits carry on the central melee has turned to favour the Gallic general, who has routed and destroyed the Romans (the Romans had been surrounded and were in a "fight to the death".
5th photo shows the end game: the "destroyed" Roman cavalry in the centre has been removed from play and the rest of the command routs (failed morale test). And as the other pursuits on the wings continue, a win for the Gallic general is determined.
We decided that the "herioic death" rules have actually produced a win by the intervention of the general`s bodyguard but under that circumsatnce the general should be removed from play. |