"MIght of Arms rules, are they worth it?" Topic

Hi all,

I 'd like to know what are your opinions regarding Might of Arms rules. Any comment would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Marc

I like them a lot. In fact, everyone in my group prefers them to the DBx series. They use standard WRG basing, so there is no problem there.

I prepfer them to any others out there. They are maybe more abstracted than the DB* rules but I think you can get more authentic results with them. For instance in DBM it would be almost impossible to conquer the world with a Roman army...

I played them at the Cold Wars convention in a game run by the author Bob Bryant. My experience has been that the rules give unrealistic results. For example, I had four Knight units charge into four unprotected (i.e., no stakes, linear obstacles, etc.) Light Infantry crossbow units. All four knight units were defeated badly, so it wasn't a fluke. The melees were a grind. Instead of reflecting history and having missile troops overrun by knights (see: Monluc for example...1000 horsemen simply ride down 4000 missile troops), the crossbow were able to consistently defeat knights in melee.

The rules were clearly written. I purchased a copy (for $5.00 from the author) before the game. Afterwards, I realized that I wasted my money.

John

P.S.-I agree that they are better than the DBx rules systems.

P.P.S.-Ooops, I meant that the rules were written more clearly than the DBx rules.

MoA was the second historical set of rules I bought -- WAB was first. I thought MoA was a great deal at the time because it had very clear diagrams, making it easy to learn, and a lot of army lists.

The few times I've played it, I found it a little a slow (combat takes a while) and I hate keeping track of hits/fatigue and morale tests. There are a lot of people who swear by the rules though.

I now play DBA (much faster, simpler, & even more army lists provided, with the added bonus that I can make dozens of armies b/c they are so small).

MoA's pros, I as I see it:

+ easy to learn

+ no need to buy extra army lists

+ lots of optional/advanced rules to add complexity if you want it

+ use WRG basing conventions, which will work with most other rules sets if you want to play them too

The cons, for me:

- need a lot of figures for an army (the "miniMoA" optional rules mitigate this)

- a lot of tables to consult (orders of precedence for tests and combat charts)

- binding of the book fell apart quickly

I've played MOA a few times using the mini-MOA rules, using about two DBA armies per side. It works OK for Rome vs the Gauls. It's a change from DBA, not bad. One problem is if you roll a few bad morale dice early on, kiss the game goodbye. That's true of some other rules too.

FOr the last 5 years MOA has been my primary Ancients set of rules. I've run dozens of games at conventions and have 13 armies spread out over 3000 years of history. It's an army level set of rules for doing historical, scenario based and multiplayer type battles.

The game gives historical results. I think it's best from 1000AD to 1500BC. The problem is when DBX types play it for the first time and equate DBX to anything like real history/physics/military science. This is a different game played at a different level than DBX. It's closer to the history books.

It is a massive value for the price. It''s very extensible, you can do alot with it. The focus is on the interaction of troop types rather than the typical WRG Armor vs Weapon matrix. Think like an Army commander! The physical quality of the rules is massively better than anything from Phil, although not to WAB standards.

Like any game, you have to play it several times for real to make a genuine judgement. Check out the Might of Arms Yahoo group

I've played WRG 7th, DBx, Tactica, Armati (regular and Advanced), and Might of Arms, and for my money and time MoA is by far the best of the bunch.

I've yet to have any patently ridiculous results, although I have seen some plans go to hell in a handbasket due to poor morale rolls early on. I don't mind that, as I am not a competition gamer, and if you read your ancient history that sort of thing happened all the time. It's at the outer edge of the bell curve, but it's there, and it should be a possibility.

As to the rules playing slowly, or needing a lot of consultation of tables, I found that to be true at first. However, as I got used to the rules a lot of the things I had been referring to the rules for became automatic. I suppose you could say that while the game is indeed very easy to learn, it takes a while to get "proficient" at it in terms of speed and continuity of play. Better still, it is a rare occasion indeed when you will have to throw more than 6 dice at a time. I hate the buckets o' dice approach.

The rules do require more figures than DBA, but most skirmish games require more figures than DBA. Judging from the armies I've seen in person and in galleries on-line, I would guess that the average MoA army has about the same number of figures as the average DBM army, or perhaps a little more. As mentioned above, the mini-MoA option can be used to alleviate any figure shortage, while retaining the game's essential flavor. At any rate, the aim of MoA is to represent large battles, and if I didn't want my large battle to LOOK like large battles (with lots of figures), I'd be playing with cardboard counters on a hex map.

As far as historical ancients go, MoA is the only rules set I play anymore - the rest just sit on the shelf and look jealous. I even liked the rules so much I expanded on the work of some other MoA'ers and wrote up some draft fantasy extensions. Now ... to find time for the playtesting! :-)

Doug

Interesting opinions. Mikeah stated: "The problem is when DBX types play it for the first time and equate DBX to anything like real history/physics/military science. This is a different game played at a different level than DBX. It's closer to the history books."

I do not think that DBx or MoA rules are anything like history. MoA perhaps has certain aspects which are closer to "the history books" than DBx rules, but it still gives very a-historical results.

Going back to my original statement in the posting above, I have yet to find in any account of a Medieval or Renaissance battle (the convention game was afterall Fornovo 1495) where a group of light infantry armed with crossbow defeated an equal number of charging knights in the open! Once would be that a fluke on the outer edge of the bell curve, but four times across the board is a serious rules flaw. Query: Where's the history in that? Examples? Models from history?

In actuality, those who seek historicity or "realism" in wargames are searching for the holy grail. It does not exist. I've played, hmmm, let's see: Armati, Tactica, WRG 5th, WRG 7th, DBM, DBA, DBR, Tercio, Shock of Impact, Newbury Fast Play, Virtue 'Gainst Fury, Warhammer Ancient Battles, Legio, and a multitude of various homebrew rules. Nothing approaches the historical reality, MoA included.

Cheers,

John

John:

The (perhaps too great) strength of light infantry (which are _not_ skirmishers in MoA) in melee is one of the things that has been discussed at length on the Might of Arms list. If I recall correctly, a number of house/optional rules were proposed to deal with it. I think they were mostly concerned with the interaction between light infantry and heavier types of formed foot, but there might have been something concerning light infantry versus mounted.

On the other hand, I seem to also recall Bob Bryant mentioning on that list that he designed the game in such a way as to encourage cavalry charges on the flanks and rear of formed foot, and discourage frontal charges by cavalry on such troops. This is, to me, a pretty realistic goal for ancients. I don't play or research medievals, so perhaps it needs some adjustment for the later end of the MoA period. If it does, I don't have the historical grounding to know what it would be.

The gripping hand is that you are absolutely correct in stating that ANY historical miniatures wargame rules are going to be inherently unrealistic in one or more aspects. However, until we perfect the time machine, even with primary sources available, we really cannot KNOW what is realistic and what is not - so it comes down to a matter of personal tastes, opinions, and priorities.

I personally would not reject a rules system based on the experience of one battle, or more particularly, one set of melees within one battle. Even assuming that there were no special circumstances (rough ground, horrible dice, Gandalf blinding the enemy, etc.) in the instance you played, you would be dealing with one troop type interaction that you felt was evaluated incorrectly. Change the factors and see what happens. :-)

Doug

Doug,

I guess I was hoping for too much when I entered the Fornovo game hosted by Bob Bryant. I really wanted to find a rules set that had more of a "feel" for the period than the ever pervasive DBx games. In other words, a good alternative to DBA,R,M. I played, watched others play and followed along with the rules and charts with the object of learning the game. However, at the end of game I walked away with a sense that the rules just didn't have any more to offer than the DBx games.

While it is true that we cannot arrive at an accurate historical rules set without the benefit of time travel, I feel that a rules author should pay attention to historical examples and models from which he/she can extrapolate information about tactics, etc... The experience left me feeling that there was something wrong with the game design.

Sure, Bob has the right to design the game the way he wants. If he wants to force cavalry to attack the flanks of missile troops, then so be it. However, if this doesn't comply with my view of history, then I am not going to play, nor am I going to recommend them. If others find them to be to their liking, then play them........

Good Gaming,

John

Well... isn't the problem that all of these systems attempt to cover too much in time? I seem to remember that the very first WRG ancient rules covered a much smnaller period than they do now. Then the next edition extended this with some comment like `we cannot find any reason why these rules should not be extended by 1000 years in any direction'. Sadly, I think PoW - a good set, to my mind - is also losing it by overextension. Just does not work well for Renaissance for me. But, if you want to play NKE aginst Aztecs, you pay the price.

John Watts,

In my view, the answer to your question is both yes and no. Systems that try to cover too much do often ultimately fail in representing any one particular period or epoch well. In DBx terms, how can one justify cliaming that a Late Swiss 4Pk element fights the same as a Macedonian 4Pk element? Or, how can a 4Blade of Wars of the Roses English be seen as fighting like a Roman 4blade? Often these types of rules abstract to the point of losing so much "flavor" of a particular period that they become nothing more than an exercise in "rock, paper, scissors."

There is a case to be made, however, that certain human characteristics are fairly consistent throughout history. Fear, panic, elan, etc., can be represented, among many other things, so a game system can span the centuries, if not millenia. The trick is to not only give each epoch or era its own characterisitics (tactics, weaponry, etc.), but also to know how and when new developments occurred at which point in the great timeline of history. All rules that have attempted a "universality", which I have played over my 3 decades of gaming, failed to be, well, interesting and accurate to one period.

Enough of my ramblings.

Good gaming.

John

(hi-jack)
elsyrsyn: nice Mote reference!
(end hi-jack)

When considering universal wargames rules, does the essential mechanic of the game rules preclude flavour and chrome for a some of the periods included?

I think that whether you're using buckets o'dice or abstracted unit types (or whatever..) one period will win and one will suffer.

-Sean

Sean...good point.

Colonel Hokey asked:
In DBx terms, how can one justify cliaming that a Late Swiss 4Pk element fights the same as a Macedonian 4Pk element? Or, how can a 4Blade of Wars of the Roses English be seen as fighting like a Roman 4blade?
-----------
Well, you can't, of course.
DBx grades troops against their contemporaries, and in my experience works best for historical matchups. It makes no claims to give correct gradings when troops from thousands of years apart fight one another (any more than does WAB, or MOA)
Of course, many (maybe most) Dbx games are ahistorical pickup games between unhistorical opponents; but that's an accidental side effect of the wide span of time covered by the rules, not their main focus; it's stated in the design notes.

Thanks to all who have posted so far. I'm looking at exposing high school students to Ancients in general. I am thinking of using WAB for skirmish level and MOA for larger scale fights. As for DBA, I have played itseveral times and I am frustrated by the language of the rules / combat results chart. Great idea, but not suitable to teach high schoolers.

Marc

Pyruse,

You missed my point, or maybe I wasn't clear (which is more likely). You stated: "DBx grades troops against their contemporaries, and in my experience works best for historical matchups. It makes no claims to give correct gradings when troops from thousands of years apart fight one another (any more than does WAB, or MOA)"

However, by giving Swiss Pikes the exact same capabilities as Macedonian Pikes, (no distinction in DBA...same movement, same combat results, etc.) Phil Barker is, in effect, claiming that they are the same! No two ways about that I'm afraid. What difference does it make if we use Swiss pikemen in substitution for Macedonian pikemen in a battle against Persians? None.

I'm sure students of military history can provide many distinctions between Swiss Pike tactics and Macedonian Pike tactics. DBA does not distinguish, so it makes no difference, other than for appearance, as to whether one chooses Swiss pike elements in the battle against Persians.

Cheers.

Capt John Miller- don't neglect Pig Wars.

A useful and very fun skirmish system. 20 figs a side, uses playing cards. Best off all, the looting and stealing.

It makes for a most cogent simulation of pre-medieval european economic systems.

Hmmm, against my better judgement I'll wade into this 'troop types in DBX' debate.

What DBX does is look at how troop were used against historical enemies.

For instance, Egyptian 4 horse chariots "=" medieval knights because they were both used as mounted shock troops to punch holes in enemy lines. The tactics were similar so the troop types are equated.
Given the aim of making a playable game covering over 2,000 years odd (and let's not forget it's just a game please), this is an intelligent abstraction. It allows a 'General' to 'use' his troops in a way that approximates how it was done historically. After all, let's face it, historically no bronze-armed force could stand against a steel-equipped army any more than lancers could defeat Panzers.

As for Alexander's pikes vs the Swiss, on table they will be used very differently because the Swiss are an all (or mostly) pike army and need to strike hard and fast or lose the initiative. Alexander's pikes were one component of a combined-arms force and it is viable to use them as Alex did; namely; use them as a threat to pin large forces while your cav and light troops find and exploit gaps. Then roll them forward to deliver the coup de gras.
The rule are abstractions, as all rules are. But WRG seems to do a lot more research than most (probably an understatement) to arrive at their abstractions and (IMHO) have come up with a playable game in the process.
More power to them.
And yes, things are simplified to almost 'cartoon' level in DBA, but that is pretty much the stated aim of the rules - and I am often surprised at how game positions that arise in DBA can look like 'real' battle positions.

The experince by Formaggio Grande in Bob's game sent me back to my copy of MoA to see if Formaggio Grande's assumptions about "not being a fluke" and "consistently defeat" are supported by the probablilites involved. In Bob's system, formed infantry charged from the front by cavalry must be routed by the first round of melee or the cavalry are in a bad way. This must be what happened to Formaggio Grande. Looking over the appropriate army lists, the morale numbers, and the melee numbers, I perfomed some probablity calculations with the following results:

All 4 crossbow units pass morale on being charged = 27%
1 or more crossbow units go Shaken on being charged = 63%
Any one shaken crossbow unit routing as result of first round of melee = 72%

It only takes one crossbow unit routing to open the flank(s) of one or more adjacent crossbow units which makes a big difference for subsequent events.

You can decide if Formaggio Grande's experience was a fluke or not.

Hmmm! Does my lack of proofreading reflect on my mathematics? I can assure you it doesn't, but you will have to decide. :-)

Does MoA have a Renaissance version? I am still looking for a decent renaissance set.

Then again, remember that crossbows were outlawed by the Pope for being the superweapon that could kill the nobleman with armor. They were designed to kill armored knights on horses.

Wargamers think that Knights = Tanks. They don't. Or if you have to think of knights as tanks, you have to think of the crossbows as bazooka's. So imagine 100 tanks charging 1000 bazooka.

Charging infantry fronally with cavalry is not a great move, although it works alot more on the game table than it was ever even tried historically. Historically, cavalry was always deployed on the flanks, fought cavalry mostly, and were used against the rear when succesful against the enemies cavalry. Not on the Wargamers table!

Rules cater to the fantasys that wargamers have of how battle was. Despite the way battles were really fought, we want our cavalry to sweep all before it, our armor to make us invincble, our arrows to devistate their targets with the power of a gatling gun and we want to command everything with JSTAR precision and perfect communication.

"Historical" wargaming is the biggest fantasy of them all.

Gamertom:

Well - those are the probabilities unless I'm rolling the dice. If they're my crossbowmen, they'll have about a 90% chance of routing within one turn of melee combat. If they're my cavalry, the entire front rank of horses will break legs in suddenly appearing gopher holes and the charge will never happen at all. :-)

On a more serious note (if anything about playing games with toy soldiers can be considered serious) you are absolutely correct in stating that if cavalry charge formed foot frontally and do not bowl them over in the first rush, they can be in deep doo-doo.

They simply cannot stand up to the larger number of stands in a typical infantry unit over the long haul. In most of my games, it's 3 stand units of cavalry against 6 stand units of foot, and even if the combat factors favor the cavalry (as they usually do), the numerical edge will make a huge difference.

To me that seems perfectly reasonable, and matches my perception of how such things would happen in reality. Furthermore, in MoA, the cavalry are not necessarily obliged to remain in a disadvantageous slugging match with superior numbers of foot. They can disengage, back off, and come charging back at a later time, which seems to me what a historical cavalry commander would do whenever possible.

Doug

Formaggio Grande
You missed my point, or maybe I wasn't clear (which is more likely). You stated: "DBx grades troops against their contemporaries, and in my experience works best for historical matchups. It makes no claims to give correct gradings when troops from thousands of years apart fight one another (any more than does WAB, or MOA)"

However, by giving Swiss Pikes the exact same capabilities as Macedonian Pikes, (no distinction in DBA...same movement, same combat results, etc.) Phil Barker is, in effect, claiming that they are the same! No two ways about that I'm afraid. What difference does it make if we use Swiss pikemen in substitution for Macedonian pikemen in a battle against Persians? None.

------------
And you missed my point :-)
We're doing a good job talking across each other here.
My point is that comparing troop types from different eras is meaningless. DBM aims to grade troops according to how they fought against their contemporaries.
The fact that two troops from different time periods have the same grading is irrelevant. If the grading gives the right results *against contemporaries* then it is right.

What does it matter if it happens to be the same as some other troops? (and by the way, Siwss Pike are graded Superior, Macedonians mostly Ordinary apart from the Agyraspides, so they are not the same in DBM, though they are in DBA. Swiss also get supporting Halberdiers)
As a matter of interest, how much do these troops differ in grading under, say, Might of Arms? I bet they are pretty similar.

The single best feature of Might of Arms is the Fatigue/Worn system. In many rules one guy dies horribly, the other lives without a scratch. This is utterly bogus, I won't play that sort of system again. In MOA both sides accumulate damage that is real, permanent, and effects your staying power. It is possible to win a melee, rout your enemy and be so hurt yourself that you are effectively worthless.

The way I handle tracking Fatigue is to use wooden cubes, one yellow and one white numbered 0-5. It works well. Other folks use rosters.

mikeah:

That is what often happens to my Seleucids ... the cataphracts and companions manage to win their meless against the opposing cavalry on the flanks, but having done so they are very fragile by the time they can charge in on the enemy battleline.

Of course, this just makes it that much more critical to time the actions of each of the arms in a combined arms army. I have to make sure that the phalanx has heavily engaged the enemy and worn them down a bit before the cavalry break through and finish them off with flank or rear attacks.

This aspect of the anvil needing the hammer in the right place and at the right time (and vice versa) is one of the thing I like about MoA. I imagine Seleukos (or Alexander or Porus or whomever) would have had to deal with these same considerations.

Doug

TIMING is what Generalship is all about! If you like Selucids, we are running the Battle of Magnesia at Historicon. The game will be run 3 times, once with Classic Hack, once with Might of Arms, and once with Ancient Warfare. Same troops, same OOB, same terrain. A perfect rules comparison. This will be in the Kinderhook room (the small club room)

This is a first of it's kind event for people interested in a period but want to evaluate rules first.

The three sets of rules chosen were the best scenario driven rules available - that we had people to run - using WRG basing.

The other thing I love is that nothing takes just one turn in MOA. A fight between 2 HI units on the battleline could last 2 turns, 3 turns, as long as 6 turns. With each turn in combat the units involved grind away at each other so that there is no winner, merely a survivor! Cavalry battles are a bit faster!

Unfortunately, I doubt I'll be able to make it to Historicon. If I remember right, It's 7/24-27, which puts it two weeks before Pennsic, and TWO trips from Florida to Pennsylvania that close together would be a bit difficult. I look forward to reading the reports, though.

Doug