"Tactica by Arty Conliffe" Topic

When these rules came out many many years ago I thought for sure they were going to sell well - tons of full color illustrations in a time when that was FAR from de rigeur ...

Now at Cold Wars I saw at least 3 sets on sale in the Flea Market so people did in fact buy them. But since I don't play ancients I've never really followed the sucess - don't know anybody who pls or even played it.

Do the rules suck? What's the problem with them ? Did WAB beat them out?

I just picked up a copy of these rules, should arrive in the post soon. For years I had heard how great the rules are and how much more realistic they seem over DBM or WAB. On the other hand nobody I know actually has a copy of these rules...even those singing its praises.

One person, a manager at a local store and a trusted voice in all things gaming, told me the rules are great, but for such large armies that few people bothered with them. Anyway, I'll have my copy soon enough...

Yes, the armies are large. But they are indeed the more realistic feeling that I've played (for ancients, anyway). The one problem is that they're too realistic. Not in the sense that they're complicated or time-consuming but in that, once the army is set in motion, the player has little real control over the troops. Now, most ancient battles, apart from deployment, were, in fact, corporals' battles. But it isn't all that interesting from the general's point of view.

I have a copy and use it for reference for a number of things. But I don't actively play anymore.

I own copies of both Tactica and Tactica Medieval. I agree with the others, part of the problem is that if you fielded the armies as recommended, they required huge numbers of figures. There are guidelines included for using reduced numbers of figures, but you know how people are, they never use these things, and end up instead not playing a game at all.

One big minus for most wargamers is that the Army lists are completey fixed. There is no points system, and with a very few exceptions, each army has no options whatsoever. By comparison, even most DBA armies have at least a couple choices of troop types. The number of armies is pretty limited as well, even if you get the Tactica army lists expansion.

A byproduct of this lack of lists and points systems is that to be sure of a fair fight, you can ONLY fight the 2 or 3 historical opponents of each army. (Or in some cases, the only historical opponent of an army is itself!)

I think Tactica is a less interesting game to play than DBA, DBM, or even WAB because its CnC rules are so restrictive. You can do little other than just plow straight ahead. Your initial deployment isn't just crucial, its almost entirely deterministic of who will win.

I'm not a big fan of Tactica's combat system either. Its a pretty unorginal, representative system involving a lot of dice rolls. If you like that kind of thing, just play WAB, (and I can't stand WAB, so this is a big concession!) because it allows more maneuver, and you are more likely to find opponents. The thing is, even though it requires boatloads of figures, they are fielded in enormous units, so most armies have between 9 and say 15 units. In other words, it has about as many maneuver elements as DBA!

DBA and DBM have much more realistic and elegant systems for resolving combat.

Still, both rulebooks are a real delight to look at, absolutely packed with inspirational pictures. The medieval book includes a cool set of rules for an Italian wars campaign that my friends and I actually adapted successfully to use with DBA rules.

If you can get 'em cheap, buy them to look at. But don't play Tactica, its a deadend. If you are determined to play an Arty Conliffe rules set, try Armati instead, it combat system is consideably better. For good or ill though, it restricts movement similarly to Tactica.

Tactica is a pretty good game. Yes, it calls for large numbers of figures, but you can scale it down by simply using a unit roster.

Medieval Tactica is actually a better game, IMHO, and simulates the period nicely. It is worth picking up for the nifty stand-alone seige skirmish game alone.

I switched to Armati, because it offers more flexibility in troop composition, without being a Chinese menu, like DBM. But the light cavalry armies are not simulated as well in Armati, as they are in Tactica.

The Late Roman/Hun match in Tactica is simply the best simulation of a small disciplined force against a light cavalry army that I ever played. I do regret that I rebased my light cavalry from individual stands to the standard Armati/DBx basing. It is just a spectacular match that can be re-played over and over. Ditto for Roman/Parthian matches.

The Caesarian Romans have special cohort rules that play better than Armati, as well.

In short - light cavalry armies play better in Tactica than they do in Armati (or DBx). They just feel and look better.

I actually like the Tactica Rules, although there are rules that I currently like better.

With respect to army size, the number of figures required to field an army is not all that out of line. For example a 2000 point Saxon army in WAB will require twice as many figures as the standard Tactica army.

The commments about not being able to customize one's army is correct. Players get a pre-selected army, and there is no deviation from that list. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing, per se, because I seriously doubt that historical generals had the opportunity to cherry pick their forces. For the most part they took what was available.

By the same token, some of the army compositions are questionable. However, there is nothing to prevent a player from putting together his own scenarios. The army lists allow for more of a tournament play which is dependent upon the players ability to use the forces at hand rather than the ability to mini-max his army list.

Gameplay is pretty straightfoward. The two armies line up advance towards each other and get into hand to hand combat. Usually, one the armies engage, the game is over in fairly short order. Most of the games I have played have been fairly close. However, the commanders really don't have that much control beyond the deployment of their forces.

The most curious criticism is that the game is too realistic. Specifically, commanders don't have a tremendous amount of flexibility in the orders they give. This is particularly strange coming from aficionados of other rules which purport to be "realistic" or "simulations."

As far as die rolling, it is probably as good as any other method of resolving a combat. The fist full of dice approach has the virtue of averaging out extreme results, so that most combats are actually fairly predictable. But there is always the possiblity of the anomolous result.

All in all, Tactica comes closest to being a simulation in ancient rules. However, I believe that most gamers really don't want a simulation, because a simulation of ancient and medieval tactics is fundamentally rather boring. Instead, most gamers would prefer the ability to micro-manage their troops and make sure that all of their subcommanders have radios to carry out their exact orders.

Tactica has some great ideas, but I played it exactly once. Mostly I keep my rulebook around for motivational purposes--lots of very cool pics!

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that Tactica is being rewritten (last I heard) and Arty intends to put it out again. You can go here and ask him yourself (one of the few groups I actually see Arty active on). I had fun with the rules. The table did look good. But, the Army lists pretty much killed it for us. That and using it for scenarios was an issue. GREAT looking set of books though. I own em all.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TACTICA/

John

I guess I'm just echoing what John and others above have already said.

I played and enjoyed TACTICA for awhile years ago, but the large army-size just didn't fit my slow painting style. I like to flit about from one period or army (Incas, Egyptians, Romans, etc.), so DBA is ideal for me in that respect.

I freely confess that many of my Macedonians were painted right from the fabulous pics in TACTICA. I too own all the TACTICA publications.

Oh, it should also be mentioned that Arty is a great guy. Very friendly... (He and I even played a couple games of DBA years ago.)

//Paul in Seattle

I liked Tactica when it first came out, though I never completed an army for the rules. They were pretty big. I enjoyed playing the rules, though there was always a sameness about each game, probably due to the required troops on each list. I always knew that the Carthaginians had about a one in three chance of beating the Republican Romans, and I took it as a personal challenge. The rules had a certain elegance and simplicity to them that I enjoyed. Of course, I don't mind rolling fistfulls of dice, even if I do have Larry Leadhead luck.

I actually played in a Tactica tournament many years ago. I had a blast. We played in pairs and moved to the different game tables--it saved a lot of time.

I now play DBA and have begun playing DBM. I primarily play them because that is what my friends play. I've really enjoyed DBM. It is more of a thinking game, a more intense game than Tactica. The experience is just different, not necessarily better. Both games suffer from being very tournament-like, and would benefit from a movement toward scenario design.

Kevin

I liked the combat mechanics,but I did not like most of the other stuff that people mentioned.But it was fun seeing whose phalanx would crack first.

I put on ebay Tactica Medieval and Ancient plus supplement book 1. One more day left for those interested

search for seller luis66

Too many universal movement restrictions. Certain ancient armies cant do what they should be able to do when it comes to maneuvering. Other than that, I think its a good rules set.

Another reason of TACTICA's fall in popularity is that Arty went on to design ARMATI, and is spending more time supporting it...

Howdy!

The author has been working on a new version of Tactica for about 6+ years now.... :) Still, he HAS been rather busy! From what I read 3-4 years ago, he was making Tactica even more streamlined.

Tactica never did much for me. Army set-up was FAR to critical a factory, combat was too simplistic, the armies were too limiting in composition, etc. DBA was streamlined, and you don't get a lot of choices, but play and simulation seemed to have a better feel.

We played around with Armati, but it struck us as a sort of "DBM-lite". I may give the new Tactica a look, whenever it surfaces. Arty has put a lot of interesting rules and mechanisms in some of his other games since Tactica.

Ken

No, no, no.

The new rules are Armati II and they are out. Saw them at the hobby store the other day. If there is another version of Tactica, I am unaware of it.

The reason Armati is in the flea market is because of the new edition.

Sorry but I don't buy that DBA and DBM are "elegant" simulations of combat. What is the scale of the figures, etc. The whole element by element thing leaves a lot to be desired. Rules are simple and elegant, granted. But I wouldn't call them an elegant simulation of combat. They are more an elegant simulation of command and control because you are more worried about generals than individual captains on the field of battle.

Might of arms is elegant and simple.
Warrior is elegant and not so simple but very rewarding.
Either one of these simulates combat better than rules mentioned in this thread.

Cheers,

Chris