"LDLG: Faster, Smaller, Fewer Figs, More Units?" Topic

Writing in Slingshot magazine, Colin Evans explains why l'Art de la Guerre are now his favorite rules:

I feel they are better because they give a faster game with fewer figures but more units (as units are much smaller) on a smaller table.

Do you agree?

In comparison with what?

I agree, LDLG are Mr Evans' favorite rules ;)

V/R,
Jack

Certainly not DBA. The game is basically DBM with attrition on individual stands and no recoiling. I like it, but I am not sure about the less figures part since the units often use twice the figs as a DBA element.

I like LADG, but when I compare it to the other ancients games I play (Impetus, Hail Caesar, and DBA) from my experience it plays slower and requires more figures than these other games. This is based and what each of the rules defines as a "standard" sized game. LADG does have more units. So I disagree with two of the three points made by the author in comparison to the ancient games I am familiar with.

All his point are true when LADG are compared to Field of Glory. So it all depends on what games the author is comparing LADG to.

Well, if you prefer McDonalds to a proper restaurant then I am sure that you would prefer ADLG to a longer game.

Personally I prefer more intense flavour and a longer maturation, accompanied by the piquancy of a fine wine and an amiable companion.

"it depends", no?

I tend to prefer smaller figure counts per unit personally.
Unless its a platoon level skirmish, I'd really prefer only 4-6 "stands" per unit.

More units can add to play-time though, since you have to consider where each unit goes, fiddle with the figures and make any dice rolls that follows.