"Sword and Spear" Topic

My gaming group played Impetus for many, many years. We moved to Sword and Spear about 15 months ago. I have probably played 40-50 games of S&S over this time. It has been a tough transition for me moving from Impetus but I have come to really like Sword and Spear.

What do I like about the game. Well, like Impetus it uses large, dioramic bases. So my Impetus basing works well for the system. From a rules stand point, here is what I really like about the game.

1. The overall game system is pretty simple. It is relatively easy to learn the basic principles of the rules.
2. The rules are generally written in a straightforward manner and are easy to pick up.
3. The terrain generation system for pick up games works well and produces interesting battle scenarios.
4. The combat system is based on comparing multiple dice rather than each player rolling one die. This means that equivalent 6/1 split is less common.
5. The Pip systems is very clever and gives players interesting tactical choices to make.
6. The game system is very interactive with both players involved in every step of the turn.
7. The point system seems to generally work well.
8. Sword and Spear encourages the use of low quality troops. In other games there is no incentive to use garbage troops but in S&S there are good reasons why one would pick low quality troop types.
9. Even when one is having a game of poor dice the S&S system keeps that player in the game longer than other rules.

I remember when these rules came out many years back. I was curious about them but never got around to giving them a try (I didn't need to because we liked Impetus.) Having played S&S I think it deserves a better reputation in the Ancient gaming community than it has. S&S really produces a fun, interesting game. Highly recommended.

Agreed, not sure why this game hasn't gained more traction with ancients players. Maybe due to lack of marketing?

One of my favourite games, but persuading others to try it is a bit of a slog. I like the flexibility of the basing system, which allows you to use DBA sized armies on a card table or upscale base frontage and use a 12 x6 table.
There is masses of free support material in the firm of army lists and a forum.
Of course, it's not backed by the mega companies, pretty much a one man band.

A game with some interesting mechanisms; however a criticism I and others make of it is that the battles soon split into the 'fire-works display' of scattered units that don't look like ancient armies striving to keep solid lines.

Experienced players of the system say this is less noticed in larger points and multi-player games.

Ancients over the years has been characterised by a small number of dominant systems played by large numbers / proportion of players – to break into that you need something exceptionally better or radically different.

Creating something better (whatever that might mean) also implies seducing players away from systems they have learned.

Asking players to try something radically different comes up against the inertia of expectations as to what a rules system is or looks like.

As Brennus mentions, if you want to try either of the above be prepared to back it up with time and or money in marketing.

My favorite for many reasons is To the Strongest. I have played Tactica, DBXs, Armati, and a few others. But for me To the Strongest is elegant, simple, and subtle. It also yields believable results.

A game with some interesting mechanisms; however a criticism I and others make of it is that the battles soon split into the 'fire-works display' of scattered units that don't look like ancient armies striving to keep solid lines.

I agree with your observation. I don't feel like the opening phase of a S&S game feels like an ancient battle. It is too scattered for my liking. S&S seems to get the right feel for me in the middle and late parts of a battle when command and control has frayed a bit. There are a couple of remedies to this including having more commanders which allows group moves.

My favorite for many reasons is To the Strongest. I have played Tactica, DBXs, Armati, and a few others. But for me To the Strongest is elegant, simple, and subtle. It also yields believable results.

What does your comments have to do with S&S? Have you played it?

As Brennus mentions, if you want to try either of the above be prepared to back it up with time and or money in marketing.

I agree again. The army lists are pretty mediocre and not always well thought out. We have remedied that in my group by making up our own army lists. But that won't work so well in trying to expand the reach of the game.

Sword and Spear is probably the only game since as long I can remember is the only game I did not need to immediately create house rules for in order to make the simulation of battle feel realistic and tactical choices on the table being more important than the units I choose for the game.

Not sure I really agree that S&S does not simulate initial part of an ancient or medieval battle well. On the contrary I think it simulates it quite well if we look at actual historical records.

First we have to look at the scope of the forces that S&S generally represent where a unit can represent as many as 3000 soldiers.

We also can't view a single turn as a specific amount of time but rather multiple turns to be an abstract simulation of time, fog of war and command and control.

In S&S spear it is perfectly viable to move an entire line forward but it also simulate how hard that really is as it also was from evidence of actual battles in the past.

Events in S&S must be viewed over multiple turns and how command and control will take a toll on keeping troops in line or where and when you can seize the moment and strike.

In my opinion most games give players way too much control over their forces and ease of controlling the outcome of individual engagements. This for me breaks the sense of simulation of the game and make it more of a game than me simulating an ancient battle as the general of the army.

I actually played the fantasy version of Sword and Spear more than the ancient rules and I find these rules also simulate fantasy battles in a way that make them believable, as much as you can say that. ;)

Not sure I really agree that S&S does not simulate initial part of an ancient or medieval battle well. On the contrary I think it simulates it quite well if we look at actual historical records.

I guess I'd like to know why you think this. My own feeling is that in the initial phases of a battle, the battle lines tended to move forward as envisioned in the initial orders and plans. Over time and under the pressures of battle the battle lines and the plans that went with them began to fray. I think S&S shows the challenge for command and control at the middle and later stages of battle when the plans have essentially fallen apart (because of success or failure). I am not as convinced that it represents the opening of battles very well but I live with it because I quite like the rules overall.

Because you can move an entire army forward in a cohesive line… it is just abstracted over multiple turns. A turn is not a set amount of finite time, a turn is just an abstract phase in a complete battle.

This is why it does represent quite well the realistic difficulties of moving a large battle line as there are many things that can interrupt or effect it which is difficult to predict, just as it was in real life.

But over several turns you can move an entire battle line forward cohesively. But it will likely come at a price of other opportunities.

You just can't view a turn as a specific time unit.

When you study real battles you will find that they too struggled to move very large bodies of troops in cohesive lines. Even when the ground was favorable to do so.

I guess the question is whether the movement of lines in a battle is a disjointed as S&S represents. My own feeling is that it was not. Quite the opposite. Command and control was at its highest at the beginning of the battle and then things moved towards greater chaos as the battle went forward. The lines at the beginning tended to move forward together because that was the easiest thing to do. To change facing, redeploy or change objectives would be immensely difficult to do.

Most historical battles describe that fighting took place along different places of sections of battle lines more often than not.

As I said… lines in S&S is not more fractured than what you make them. You need to view the action over several turns not just one turn.

It is impossible to mimic real life no matter what rules system you use completely.

At least from what I have read of historical battles S&S seem to accurately mimic the overall structure of battles very good. You also can move your battle line up cohesively if you make the effort to do so, but what you can do in one turn in many system will require 2-3 turns in S&S. I think S&S more accurately depict how difficult it was but not impossible to keep long battlefronts together.

In S&S you also have to view turns as phases rather than a set time that pass, so multiple turns simply is a mechanic to pass time dynamically and represent command & control and fog or war all at the same time.

My experience in S&S spear is that whoever manage to keep their army in most coherence will usually come out on top. If one side have overwhelming numbers of quality units they might want to fragment the battle more as their units are the strongest when maneuvering is needed.

Most historical battles describe that fighting took place along different places of sections of battle lines more often than not.

You did raise earlier a good point that the unit size in S&S is larger than other games. With that said, I am not convinced that your observation above is correct. I can think of lots of ancient battles where there was across the board action as two battle lines moved towards each other. S&S needs to able to represent both kinds of battles, something that it struggles to do.

But is it really… or is that generally a product of the player decision not to focus on keeping their army supported.

My experience is that it is the player that make the decision to keep their lines tidy or not and how they engage.

Once the armies do clash that is when it becomes a bit messy, but that to me seem quite realistic. Once the two armies finally clash neither side will be able to keep lines steady over kilometers of distances, thinking that is possible is just absurd.

But up until the two armies are within charge distance from each other it is relatively possible to keep your units in support of each other. After this it will be more messy, but that to me is realistic, especially when we consider the size of the units involved.

I have become an even bigger fan of Sword and Spear since my original post. I am also more sympathetic to JorgenCAB's comments. I still think the opening battle moves are a bit disjointed but there are mechanisms to get around to this to some degree.

As far as low-quality troops, Sword and Spear has forced me to go back and paint up new units for many of my armies that I had simply overlooked in Impetus.