D6 Junkie | 10 Dec 2005 1:36 p.m. PST |
Been perusing through some of my older medieval rules sets, in anticipation of starting on a medieval project Jan 1. Tempted by the old Medieval Tactica rules, big armies, but quick bloody clashes if memory serves me right. Few modifiers to keep track up, and easy learning curve. Anyone else evey play it? |
Martian Root Canal | 10 Dec 2005 1:43 p.m. PST |
Yes, I have and still do play. The big armies give the right feel to the battle: less about maneuver and more about initial placement and timing/control. We never had a problem teaching it to new players either. Still a great set. |
D6 Junkie | 10 Dec 2005 1:58 p.m. PST |
MRC, Did you ever play with 1/2 sized armies just to start with? |
Condottiere | 10 Dec 2005 2:07 p.m. PST |
I like Tactica and Medieval Tactica. Haven't played it in some time, mostly due to lack of opponents (huge armies can be a deterrent). I think it is one of the more "realistic" rules sets out there. Not only is it playable, but it gives the right feel for combat during the Medieval period: huge blocks of troops and less maneuver. It certainly isn't "slowed down Napoleonics." 1/2 armies would probably work. Just use 1/2 the figures per unit and adjust the charts accordingly. I think it can easily work with a little tinkering. |
CATenWolde | 10 Dec 2005 4:13 p.m. PST |
Is there a Yahoo group or similar for people still playing Tactica? I stumbled across my Ancients version the other day and was wondering how to convert armies for the Late Roman period. Were expanded or variant army lists ever developed? |
CATenWolde | 10 Dec 2005 4:36 p.m. PST |
Found the Tactica Yahoo group, but there is nothing there except notes to the effect that Tactica 2 (evidently including medieval?) is in heavy playtesting and due to be released by Historicon 2006. |
altfritz | 10 Dec 2005 5:24 p.m. PST |
|
Lucius | 10 Dec 2005 5:42 p.m. PST |
I loved it. Once both sides were wound up and let loose (with mandatory movement), I thought that it gave me a pretty good idea of what it would be like to try to get a bunch of non-responsive, goofball nobles to be in the right place at the right time. |
skink master | 11 Dec 2005 1:09 a.m. PST |
I have a friend who got a free copy,and he gave it to me.Its sitting in a box in my attic. |
Goldwyrm | 11 Dec 2005 7:02 a.m. PST |
In two games I played both sides of Bannockburn with this ruleset. I thoroughly enjoyed it and found in a very large battle it gave a good feel for the lack of control once the battle started moving. For the number of figures used, it played quickly as well. |
schiltron | 11 Dec 2005 8:25 a.m. PST |
Always enjoyed the games, usually in doubt down to the last turn or melee direction roll. I don't like the lack of flexability in the army lists, but a great set of rules for fun. |
Condottiere | 11 Dec 2005 8:43 a.m. PST |
[I don't like the lack of flexability in the army lists, but a great set of rules for fun.] Yeah, I always thought that a better system for selecting/building armies could be made. |
D6 Junkie | 11 Dec 2005 10:02 a.m. PST |
Have to admit one of the most appealing aspect was the swarm of skirmishers, easy to brush away but boy they could sting! The army lists certainly lacked, but I'm thinking of just using the Armati lists as a basis to add on. |
D6 Junkie | 11 Dec 2005 10:03 a.m. PST |
CATenWolde, Forgot to mention, there was a supplement released that had late romans |
Lucius | 11 Dec 2005 11:54 a.m. PST |
The Tactica Late Roman/Hun match-up was absolutely the best pair that I played. I re-based my Late Romans and Huns for Armati (the skirmishers and light cavalry), and regretted it. |
greenknight4 | 11 Dec 2005 4:10 p.m. PST |
Not really a very accurate model in opinion. It was a great spectacle and beer and pretzel rules. Lots of pics to sell the book as well. Most battles in this time period were between 2000 men or less, not huge blocks of men as others have written. Chris P. |
greenknight4 | 11 Dec 2005 4:11 p.m. PST |
Oh I should mention the leaders are almost an after thought. IMHO they should be the spearhead (oops) of any good set of ruels for this period. Chris P. |
Warjack | 11 Dec 2005 7:24 p.m. PST |
I like the sound of these rules, the lack of control sound 'right' to me for a medieval battle. Can someone give me a run down of how this works? Is it written orders at the beginning of the game or something? How many minis are need per army? Can 1/72 minis be used without have to cahnge any measurments? JT |
D6 Junkie | 11 Dec 2005 8:28 p.m. PST |
JT, Units range, on the average, from 12-16 for cav, 24 for foot, 12-16 for skirmishers. The 'lack of control' stems from the rigid movement, 8" move for foot or 2" wheel, cav can wheel 2" and move. Once Units move over 2" they have to move every turn. Combat is easy and brutal, you roll per figure involved with extra dice if you have more ranks. Each unit has a target number that you need to roll. (examples infantry 4-6, cav 5-6) Once you take a certain number of casualties you start checking morale. Flank attacks are the kiss of death. 1/72 should be play perfectly. We just resize the ruler and use the 25mm measurements for 15mm. |
Warjack | 11 Dec 2005 9:43 p.m. PST |
Thanks for the info. Sounds very interesting. So once a unit has moved over 2" in a single move, then they must move every turn after that? Interesting. So when you start an attack, you can't stop it! I like the sound of that, definitly sounds right for a medieval battle. JT |
Robert Burke | 12 Dec 2005 10:05 a.m. PST |
My club still plays Tactica and Medieval Tactica. We developed a set of optional rules for playing Tactica using half size armies. What we discovered is that the game did not last as long. The half sized units broke faster, which meant that players had less time to recover if they made a mistake. |
Condottiere | 12 Dec 2005 11:37 a.m. PST |
[Most battles in this time period were between 2000 men or less, not huge blocks of men as others have written.] Most battles during most of the period covered by the rules (Medieval Rules that is) were in fact seiges, which the rules include. |
barcah2001 | 12 Dec 2005 11:37 a.m. PST |
My problem with the rules was the lack of any commmand and control rules—they were "built in" via the number of units and their flexability. Has anyone constructed commmand and control rules for either set? |
greenknight4 | 13 Dec 2005 12:51 p.m. PST |
John N Holly is correct that the majority of battles were seiges. I feel based on my reading though there there were plenty of small engagements that fall into a scale larger that skirmish. My Day of Battle III (www.dayofbattle.com) rule set has reduced the level of play to that scale. Each unit is made up of 3 bases with each base represeting 15 mounted or light troops or 33 formed infantry. Units are therefore 50 to 100 men. Ground scale is only 5 yards to the inch. Missile range is out to 50 inches for a longbow. The whole feel of the game is of the leader and command control. Mechanics are simpler than II edit. I plan on releasing IIIrd edition for Cold Wars 06. Chris P. |
merpranger | 03 Apr 2007 11:29 p.m. PST |
I never managed to finish off my English, Irish, and Scots armies but the Tactica Rules and all the glossy pictures stayed with me and never let me fall for the whole DBX genre. I actually lugged the rules to work today as after a five year break from gaming I think my first project will be to rebase what figures I have collected so far and go for skirmishing this period. The siege rules that are also part of the rulebook, as recomended by the author, make for a very nice set of quick play "skirmish" rules. These along with an excellent set of one page "Alternative Medieval Skirmish Rules" written by Ian Carter in Miniature wargames # 32 and a little added chrome make for a very fun and interesting small or large skirmish game. |