Help support TMP


"Ancients Rulesets Do Not Need to Be Serious & Complicated" 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board



Areas of Interest

Ancients

625 hits since 10 Jul 2019
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian10 Jul 2019 6:12 p.m. PST

You were asked – TMP link

True or false to do justice to the period, Ancients rules need to be complicated and serious.

85% said "false"
4% said "true"

wmyers10 Jul 2019 8:08 p.m. PST

I think one of the best ways to try to do justice to the period is those who are playing learn the period and learn the tactics, mindset, ideology, etc of those they are playing – and then play as faithfully to this as possible.

MichaelCollinsHimself13 Jul 2019 2:40 a.m. PST

Were respondents given a frame of reference; were examples given of complicated and/or serious rulesets?

JJartist14 Jul 2019 12:24 p.m. PST

I don't think it is a fair question. Some think tedious and difficult to play is most fun because only the really dedicated will play. So complicated equals serious.

I disagree. I feel a serious game need not be overly complicated. Competition is serious. If the definition that it is totally a dice and card games which can be fun even if passed out drunk- then I would say that "Lying dice ancients" could be fun ancient rules- but maybe not serious.

A lot of people used to dismiss WAB because it was a dicey game that looked to them like a "skirmish" game.

That labeling itself was a buzz word for lack of "seriousness", i.e. dismissive.

But WAB could be as serious or as simple as players wanted. As simple as a DBA two foot table "battle" with 36 figures, or as complex as an ultra detailed DBMM giant recreation of a historical battle with detailed OOB's.

Both could be fun, both could have uncomplicated rules (if they were written in intelligible language)- both could be serious and competitive.

WAB could be serious and competitive as well as being simply a skirmish game :

The biggest problem with ancient rules is that everybody wants the latest hotness to cover their own personal army and that always leads systems to get more and more watered down to accommodate or elevate obvious disparities between time periods that stretch for thousands of years. To me the only "serious" ancient game is one between actual possible combatants.

Hyborean Islander Fyrds vs. Macedonian Successor Kyrenians with chariots, is just a fantasy game. A fun game probably- but not one to take seriously.

MichaelCollinsHimself16 Jul 2019 5:14 a.m. PST

OK, so one might ask if players want a fun game, or a good, sound beating with a blunt instrument ?

wmyers16 Jul 2019 10:06 a.m. PST

WAB is the one game I hope all others will be like.

TKindred Supporting Member of TMP18 Jul 2019 1:51 a.m. PST

It all comes down to the word "wargame" and where you put the emphasis: "war" or "game".

These days, I am more interested in the "game" part. I have been wargaming for more than 50 years now, and played plenty of complex war simulations in my lifetime, both in the military, and in the 70's/80's. Nowadays, I opt for the more simple/fun rules and gaming.

In the end, there is no correct answer. It all comes down to the individual's choice as to what seems the more interesting and enjoyable.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.