"Anyone play Tactica? Is it fun?" Topic

I've been reading these through and something struck me. They have strict deployment rules and units are very hard to maneuver (most either wheel or move, but not both). It takes a couple of turns to turn a unit 90 degrees. Then with the required movement, a unit that moves over 2" must continue moving at least 2" every turn thereafter. So units are, in some sense, "fire and forget" weapons (I actually think this is a great rule). My knowledge of combat of the era is limited but all this actually sounds pretty realistic.

My question is, is it any fun? Just seems like after the initial set up there's not a lot of decisions to be made – mostly about committing troops, not maneuver.

Can someone who plays the game regularly set me straight?

Does anyone still play it regularly?

I have had the set for years but have never played it. IIRC what I have heard is that initial set up is the key because, as you stated, there is not going to be any fancy manuevering of foot from the right flank to rush over and cover the center, etc. as most rule sets let you do. I, too, think that this is probably more realistic.

I liked the rules when I played them. Even with all those restrictions it was pretty realistic and tactical game. My problems witth the rules are 2.

First, you'll need large armies with fixed army lists. There is no flexibility in those army lists. They tell you how many units, how many figures in each unit (it matters, # of figures is not just for aestetics), what formations.

Second, game ends very fast. With the ammount of units/figures, only 1 unit destroyed ends the game in Biblical, and 2 units in Classical periods. That and movement restrictions just doesn't give enough time for your un-important units to defeat their conterparts and flank the important units.

Because of that games become very repetitive and boring. To invest more than in one or two armies is a major thing as armies are at least 300 figures. Also, there is no point system to all that and there are restrictions on opponents.

I played them a fair bit when they first came out. I will echo IGWARG1's comments and say that the main limitation is the fixed army lists and the total inability to redeploy most troop types. This can lead to some unsatisfying games, especially if your objective is to have a fun "game" and not a so-called simulation of ancient warfare (whatever that might exactly be). Personally, my objective is to play a fun game with toy-soldiers. Moving big blocks of units straight forward and rolling dice did not do it for me. YMMV of course.

Forgot to add that I think that Armati (also by Arty Conliffe) is a great little game in comparison to Tactica.

My two cents are that Tactica is one of the best sets out there. They are fun…and yes, deployment is key, but now you get to see why the Republican Romans were so good on the battlefield with their manipular formation.

The medieval rules truly reflect the difficulty controlling heavy cavalry once you let them loose.

I still play :)

When I read the rules, my first impression was that after you deploy, an experienced player could look at the game and say "White to mate in 3". The restrictions after deployment just seemed too … restrictive. I was used to the "free wheeling" WRG rules.
That, plus the defined army lists, which were quite frankly bizarre, and the size of the required armies, meant that I read it a few times, and threw it into the "never played" pile.

It COULD be fun, but I was never tempted to give it a try.

I agree with Hastati: go for Armati as it is a much better system.

Going back into the memory vaults I remember having fun with Tactica but it was mainly due to the personalities of our group and not the game itself. Indeed, we got to the point where we could basically look at the initial deployment and declare a winner.

Armati, while being a recognizable descendant of Tactica, is better organized, cleaner and more flexible while still recognizing the army capabilities of the period. Indeed, the division concept that Conliff used in Armati is still one of my favorite design elements ever in a historical wargame: a simple, elegant and adaptable solution to a very knotty set of problems (command, maneuver and the evolution of armies over centuries).

Played the ancient version once but never got round to the mediaeval- hopefully that'll soon be remedied when I pull my finger out and get that WOTR army sorted…
They're nicely produced and easy to follow, even for me.
My gut instinct is that they give a good 'feel' for mediaeval warfare- armies are ponderous and can't be 'swept' across the table in a Bonaparte-esque fashion. I see tghis as a plus.
Agreed that the unit loss system does limit things but that's easily tweaked.
Just a personal thing but I like the 'realistic' feel over the more 'playing games' type of rules.

Please note: 'realistic' is in quotes…

No, it isn't fun.

Cut out all of the draconian limitations and I bet it would produce a very fun game ala WAB. You still need scads of figures but with other games being released, that seems to be the trend this year.

John

Armati is the new, improved Tactica.
And make sure you get Armati II – it is a big improvemnet over the first edition. It has more flexible lists, etc.

I only played one game-Pontic versus Caesarian Roman.When te main battlelines finally clashed,it was a real nailbiter as to whether his pikeblocks or my cohorts were going to break first.I thought it was a fantastic game,but the above problems mentioned put me off.Its a great game if somebody else has the figs and runs it.

When I first played it I used Hoplites vs Archmenid Persian. It gave a great game. The Hoplites had to break through before their flanks were done in; the number of figures was daunting.

Oggie

I like TACTICA a lot – frankly all the point systems et al are not for me. I too feel the rules reflect a more realistic representation of the times and thus your deployment has to be careful. Our average medieval games last 3-4 hours after set up and it looks excellent when the armies are deployed on the table. We have large numbers of units and it is indeed at times a nail biter. Plus you can always make a few changes – we don't adhere to the lists all the time.

I played it a lot, and liked it. Strict deployment restrictions were a reality of the ancient world.

Tactica Medieval was actually a better game. It allowed for more flexibility in deployment and army composition, while enhancing the lack of control in certain areas (once a Medieval unit starts moving, it has to keep moving).

I went on to Armati for ancients, but still believe that Tactica Medieval is better for Medievals.

I have read through drafts of Tactica II, it now incorporates flexible list a la Armati.

Now they just have to publish it (seems to be in limbo at the moment…)

Milton

I bought Medieval Tactica years ago and still have the book. because they looked visually really nice and I was hoping they would be just right… the rules are certainly not simple and I would challenge anyone to understand the basic melee rules with one reading considering the die mechanism is a very basic, roll as high as you can on d6's the method emplyed to get there is muddy to say the least they were written in a period when detail and complication was the in thing.
Shame because I was rather hoping differently at the time

I bought Tactica many years ago and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Only played it a couple of times, really liked it because it produced a satisfactory illusion of realism (the most you can ask from a wargame in my opinion), but then stopped playing because life got in the way. More recently I obtained copies of Armati II and Tactica Medieval. Just from reading the rules I think I prefer the latter, if only because I liked the elegant simplicity of the original, but I plan to try both.

Yes, this thread has clearly gone cold and those of you who have contributed may not come and visit again. But I can't asking SteveJ, pull your finger out of what? If answering truthfully will put you in the DH, feel free to make something up.

Arty Conliffe has been working on Tactica II for some time. From my experience with the playtest version, it will rectify everything players objected to in the original Tactica. A points system replaces the fixed army lists and allows gamers to start out with smaller armies. Breakpoint is now based upon a % of army size rather than a fixed number of units. A lot of the mechanics have been simplified yet still retain the excite of the original rules. Battles often come down to resolution on one melee area where it can go either way. Now that Arty has Shako II issued, we hope Tatica II can't be far behind.