"Tactica Ancients anyone" Topic

Hello all.

I am new to the board and also new to Ancients. The only system I have played is Tactica. I enjoy it (fast moving, easy rules)but I find that the number of figures I will need to paint is pretty daunting.

Some issues I also noticed.

- Romans vs. barbarians in combat favors the barbarian horde.
A warband vs. a Cohort will usually go to the warband since the romans need to inflict 24 wounds before the warband even thinks of breaking.

- Wounded units are no less effective. well okay they might lose rank bonus but still throw almost the same number of dice.

- Once it's time for a morale test you can pretty much kiss your unit goodbye (having to roll a 10 or better on 2d6?)

Anyone care to share their views on Tactica?

Well I've only ever played the rules once- and that was solo- so I can't really comment with any great authority on the subject.
Suffice to say I found them easy to learn- which, as I get older, I see as a big plus- and giving a realistic look and feel to the era.
This 'realism' does put people off. The set-up is all important and there's very little room for tactical manouvre after that. I actually like this aspect as it just 'feels' right. Those who like to charge around the battlefield executing Napoleon-like sweeping flank movements don't like the rules.
From what I gather, Tactica is a minority taste on these boards.
Steve.

I've played it and enjoyed it. I haven't lost a game yet, but play about once a year. You can paint armies that allow for maneuver, if that is your thing. Look for horse heavy armies. Ancient warfare has always made me think of American football played without a backfield.

I hear Tactica II is due out any year now!

I like Tactica, and it was widely played for a couple of years here in the Northwest. Gamers were daunted by the size of the armies, and that match-up games presented repetitious games. Granting both of those concerns, I still really enjoyed Tactica games.

K.

We played it here for a few years. It was very limiting, a die rolling contest. It is very playable but you will get bored fast. There are better games.

The Medieval armies tend to require fewer figures than some of the Ancient ones.

It's my rules system of choice for the ancient and medieval period. I could never stand DBx.

Glad to see so many posts.

Agreed the ability to only fight certain armies might get old, but I love Late Republic/Early Empire so I have no problem the scything down hordes of barbarians again and again.

I did/do enjoy the game but I felt that it doesn't really reflect the finer details I'd like to see in a game.

First off- light troops have no value in the game, whether they all get slaughtered or not has no bearing. Which seems odd since the barbarians have a lot of the little s.

-Next a lofted arrow kills on a six whether you are shooting at a fully armored Roman or a half naked celt.

I guess I like the speed of the game but I do wish it had a little more depth.

I own the rules to WAB. But Games Workshop stuff worries me.

I've played DBA online and again the idea that a block of blades are exactly the same on a battlefield is a bit too generic for my liking, , ,

My problem is I have about 200 Late republican legionaires in 25/28mm that I am painting up and I want to base them in the most flexible way possible so that I can use them for WAB, Tactica, and anything else out there I might play.

I figure I can play WAB with slightly smaller bases Tactica calls for 15X20 mm while WAB is 20 X 20 mm.

Anyone care to offer up a system I can check out without buying the manual right away?

Thanks,

Matt

Very nicely produced rules, but I echo all the criticisms above.

Armati is better.

Tactica was my first introduction into ancients gaming, and the few games I played were enjoyable, if a little repetitive. Though I have to say we always 'fast-forwarded' past the maneuver and setup into battlelines. It's a game I'll probably revisit, now that I've had a solid 10 years of historical gaming and Tactica II is on the horizon.

Tactica also makes a nice benchmark for army size -- once you have an army built, you'll be able to play anything with what you have! It's also nice that it uses the 'standard' WRG/DBx basing system so it supports other systems with no need for rebasing.

Billiam said. . .

[b]It's also nice that it uses the 'standard' WRG/DBx basing system so it supports other systems with no need for rebasing.[b]

And I ask, what are the basing size for WRG? I am planning on basing my Romans on 60mm X 20 mm stands of 4. With some of the units done up 2 per stand and some singles 15 mm X 20 mm(not sure if this is how it is supposed to be but that's how the guy had his army and I have no other benchmark.) will this alignment give me flexibility enough to play more than one system?

Matt

P.S. This seems to be an amazing site with a lot of helpful people.

P.P.S.- I have been shown the army lists for Tactica II and it seems like the army sizes are smaller than the original.

I played Tactica years ago, with the medieval armies. It was pretty much a case of set it and forget it. Armies advance towards each other, a bunch of dice are rolled, and one side breaks (just barely) before the other side. Game over. Not particularly interesting.

You might want to look at the Medieval/Ancient Warfare rules by SAGA as an alternative.

I liked them and used to play them with 15mm figs when i lived in sydney, I then moved to 28mm and now play wab.

I played it a lot, when it first came out. It drew me back into historical gaming.

Some match-ups were a little repetative, but seeing two massive Tactica armies fight is always a visual treat. And the Late Roman/Huns pair that I had always went down to the last roll of the last turn.

I'd like to see Tactica 2 finally get released.

Quadratius-

>>And I ask, what are the basing size for WRG?

15 or 25mm? For 15mm it is

Heavy Infantry 4 figs 40x15mm stands
Medium / Light Infantry 3 figs 40x20mm stands
Skirmish Infantry 2 figs 40x20mm stands
Heavy and Medium Cavalry 3 figs 40x30mm stands
Light Cavalry 2 figs 40x30mm stand
Chariots and Elephants 1 model 40x40mm

With 25's the standard Stand width is 60mm, not 40mm and the stands are consequently deeper.

I played Tactica quite a lot when the rules first came out. I drifted away because of the lack of dedicated c & c rules, and also because of a few odd quirks like the inability of a frontally engaged unit to fight back at all if contacted on the flank or rear.

I've never had a problem with the lack of maneuver and control in the rules, which I always thought had the best historical 'feel' of any ancients rule set. Timing is everything in Tactica, and that also 'feels right' to me. In fact, too many of the systems I have played since felt more like horse-and-musket rules with varying amounts of ancient-period chrome added, and so I have eventually lost interest in each of them in turn.

Recently I have found myself revisiting my old copies of Tactica and adding a few 'house rules' for my Caesarian Roman vs. Gaul battles. The resulting battles have been very enjoyable. I don't find the 24-figure legions to be at a disadvantage at all – on the contrary, their higher combat factor makes them very tough to beat in a straight-up, one-on-one fight with the 48-figure warbands.

There have been some very tantalizing hints posted to the Tactica group in Yahoo over the past several years, so when Arty (finally) releases Tactica 2, I'll be very eager to pick up a copy and give them a go!

Cheers,
Scott K.

One thing I remembered this morning is that while the game does use the WRG basing system, it is really designed for individually-based figs (for 15mm, 10x15mm frontage for HI, 13x20mm for LI, etc). So some of the unit formations don't quite work out without making some single- or double-figure stands. Since the unit depth/frontage options are spelled out in the army lists, it's pretty easy to figure out what you need when building it up.

This never really bothered us, but YMMV.

ARS BELLI

"Recently I have found myself revisiting my old copies of Tactica and adding a few 'house rules' for my Caesarian Roman vs. Gaul battles. The resulting battles have been very enjoyable."

What are your house rules? I'd be interested to hear what you've devised. . .

"I don't find the 24-figure legions to be at a disadvantage at all – on the contrary, their higher combat factor makes them very tough to beat in a straight-up, one-on-one fight with the 48-figure warbands."

I've found it just the opposite. the 24 figure Roman units take a few missile hits before getting into close combat. Then in combat lets say both sides are rolling 12 dice (usually the Germans have a few more because of deeper ranks or if they get their charge advantage) Germans wounding on a 5-6 will score 4 hits a turn. On average the warband will break the Roman unit in 3 turns of melee. The Romans roll 12 dice and average 6 hits a turn meaning they will break the warband in 4 turns. . . Statistically the Romans will lose a one on one fight. . .

"There have been some very tantalizing hints posted to the Tactica group in Yahoo over the past several years, so when Arty (finally) releases Tactica 2, I'll be very eager to pick up a copy and give them a go!"

I'll be interested in seeing them too. . .

Matt

Hi Matt,

House rules: I use historical army lists, rather than the ones provided in the original rules or supplement. I also allow units engaged to the front to also fight to the flank or rear, at 3-6.

In my refights of Caesar's Gallic Wars, I allow the Romans to throw pila and "hit" on a role of 4-6. Thus the warbands take at least as many casualties from missile fire as the Romans. The Cretan archers and Balearic slingers are also very useful in this regard. In addition, if the Romans are aggressive and attack first, they deny the charge bonus to the Gauls. It is also often possible to keep one of the Roman legionary units in column to exploit any open flanks in the warbands, which have very large flanks indeed. The trick is to think tactically, rather than stricltly 'by the numbers.'

Cheers,
Scott K.

Or "roll" even! (LOL)

Scott K.

Ars belli

"In my refights of Caesar's Gallic Wars, I allow the Romans to throw pila and
"hit" on a role of 4-6. "

Wow that is pretty devestating. This would definitely swing things in favor of the Romans.

Ars belli wrote
" It is also often possible to keep one of the Roman legionary units in
column to exploit any open flanks in the warbands, which have very
large flanks indeed. The trick is to think tactically, rather than stricltly
'by the numbers.' "

That is my complaint about tactica. You have to play your Romans in a very unRoman like fashion. it seems wrong to have to rely on swinging a cohort around to the flank or rear to defeat barbarians

My first game I deployed my Romans in a double line gained me nothing except that the second rank got to watch helplessly as the front rank was slowly crushed beneath the weight of the barbarians. . .

Romans need a chance to rotate fresh units into the melee through their own ranks. . .

(by the way is there a game system out there that lets elements of a unit recycle through their own ranks and regain its fighting composure?)

Matt,

According to past posts on the Tactica group in Yahoo (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/TACTICA/), the new edition being playtested includes rules to better reflect historical Roman formations and tactics in various historical periods, including legionary line interchange. That's one of the reasons I am renewing my interest in the system. Tactica 2 has been a long time (almost 10 years) in coming , so I hope that it will indeed be released in 2006 as promised.

Cheers,
Scott

P.S. Since the original Tactica does not have rules for unit line interchange, I have always played it at a grand tactical scale, with each 24-figure unit representing an individual legion. From that point of view, all line interchange within each legion takes place at a scale too small to represent on the tabletop, and there is no need for a second line of units.

Cheers,

Scott K.