"Comitatus: Stylized by Design" Topic

I've been having a read through the new edition of Comitatus from Legio Wargames, and one of the things that strikes me is its concept of "stylized" design:

Ancient battle was, by modern standards, somewhat stylized. Because it is derived from descriptions of actual battles… a Comitatus game will have some of this stylized feel.

Simon (the designer) started his design approach by considering how ancient battles were described by the ancients, rather than worrying initially about weapons, ranges, and the usual minutiae of Ancients rulesets. It will be interesting to see how the wargaming community judges the results.

One of the interesting features of the design is the emphasis on leaders, which usually come "embedded" in a comitatus (bodyguard) unit (which, for a major leader, can consist of multiple elements). Leaders can inspire, rally, direct fire, and motivate troops; and can challenge other leaders or seek them out in melee. There are even rules for how the comitatus behaves when its leader is slain.

Another example of stylized design involves how distance is handled: the basic unit is "javelin range" or the distance a javelin can be thrown, and everything else is a multiple of this basic unit (i.e., bow range, artillery range, command range).

There are a lot of innovative concepts here.

Thanks Ed, you just inspired me to pick up Comitatus.

I like the sound of a rules set designed to replicated the contemporary accounts of battles rather than starting from a preconceived model of weapons, maneuver, command.

Odd, but your descriptions do not sound "innovative" to me: rather, merely given different nomenclature.

One thing I dislike about all rules that use it, is the emphasis on commanders. Do we really believe Caesar and Nappy, when they rhapsodize about their victories? They make it seem like everything depended on the decisions that they made under the pressure of battle, but I have great doubts that during the actual battle, anybody really had a handle on anything. The most a commander can do is prepare thoroughly, disposing of his strength to meet every perceivable contingency: then he crosses his fingers. Because the confusion of battle makes all commands, especially extemporaneous ones, liable to go south rather than crown the commander with success. If something works in an emergency situation it is likely due to chance factors. Afterward, the commander can claim responsibility for the win. And when he writes or makes sure someone writes up his memoirs, the hindsight will always skew the reality that was.

I prefer games where the gamer IS the commander. He can bear the name of Caesar if the scenario includes him, but to award bennies just because he's Caesar is artificial both in feel and reality: the gamer is likely not Caesar or Alex the Great of Nappy or Bobby Lee; he's just an average shmoo who pushes little model soldiers around and makes plenty of errors doing so: no amount of awarded bennies for being "Caesar" will undo his stupid decisions or his bad luck.

The troops ought to be the main focus of the game, not commanders. And cookie cutter armies are pretty but they are boring: all armies are not alike because they have the same weapons and armor. In fact, the weapons and armor are immaterial to success. A famously good army always has expertise with one or more weapon systems, and usually exactly the armor they need to make the weapon systems work at their optimum. So it is drill and the "will to fight", i.e. morale, which the gamer can know and compare ahead of the battle. He knows that if he's running Alex the Great's army against the Persians, he has a very good chance of winning each battle, simply because his morale is oodles better and his troops have better armor and weapon systems than the Persians. The Persian player goes into battle expecting to get drubbed. UNLESS, the "Alex" player is a complete idiot with troops, no matter what kind: then the Persian player can take advantage of known shortcomings in his opponent and possibly or even probably win "unhistorically".

Emphasizing commanders confuses the issue of what the troops are accustomed to doing. They already know their drill. The commander is nearly always merely the inheritor of a tactical system that preceded his own career; he is using the tools handed to him. If he happens to be a force of nature and worshiped by his men, how does artificially skewing the dice to reflect that charisma override the shortcomings of a poor player?….

The troops ought to be the main focus of the game, not commanders.

Bear in mind that Comitatus was especially designed to cover the period of the barbarian migrations, when even Roman generals kept a bodyguard unit (often of barbarians!) around just in case…

Comitatus isn't innovative – it's been around a long time. It's "standard setting", a standard that was subsequently thrown out the window by lots and lots of people who are more devoted to mechanics and the preconceived scientific conceit that "we know better b/c science says it is so".

I guess it might be considered innovative to people who came to gaming in the era of game design > history, but to those who've always approached the history first and the game second, Comitatus just makes sense.

Rule #1: Always nod and smile and quietly ignore those who reject eyewitness testimony from wars.

It may be that Caesar wrote the Gallic wars as an act of self-defense / promotion (just as Winston Churchill wrote his memoirs) but I doubt he wrote the battles and history in a way that would have offended his veterans. Word would have gotten around and his reputation suffered.

Same with Thukydides. And lots of other ancient authors.

Overall, I say that this is the philosophy most game designers should begin with, and rivet-counters be damned.

just visiting, you should probably disclose that you are the designer of a competing ruleset…

Comitatus isn't innovative – it's been around a long time.

Well, it was innovative then, and I'd say it's still innovative today in the latest version.

I entirely agree with Simon's view and aspiration and find just visiting's approach very old fashioned. In terms of winning and losing and of player perception, correctly setting the players' objectives will correct the asymmetry.

I wonder how many games of Comitatus or, say, Lost Battles, just visiting has played?

The way Phil Sabin has approached Lost Battles gives you a wargame which remains thrillingly in the balance whilst sticking close to the historical probablilities. It puts the commanders at the centre of the game whilst giving you the top down vision that makes any battlegame a pleasure to play.

And, yes, I have had a look at Art of War …

Phil
Ancients on the Move

I had the pleasure of playing Comitatus with the author, a jolly fine game with some reasonable opportunities for generalship. Nice colour, too!

Simon

Sigh I guess its time to order a copy. That will be two sets of Arthur rules this month.

Can anyone tell me how Pictish foot are classified in Comitatus?

I would classify most Pictish foot (of the steadier sort) as "shieldwall infantry" which are defined as: "The majority infantry in most post-Roman armies. Primarily unarmoured troops in close order… Weapons are assumed to be a mix of spears, swords and javelins. This category also includes most dismounted heavy cavalry."
I would also see Pictish armies containing a number of looser-order light infantry defined under the rules as "Javelinmen … able to operate effectively in difficult terrain while still being able to hold their own in hand to hand combat."
Simon

That works for me. Thanks Simon.

the way single combat is handled is very nice, as is the possible reactions to the out-come.

I must say, these look more interesting in the long term than either of the shiney new ducks floating down the river at the moment.

It will be interesting to see how all three compare

I agree with the approach that game design ought to believe that the ancient writers knew what they were talking about. The conceit that "we moderns know better" is not supportable, imho. Physical testing of the weapons is always a good idea, to verify effects as described.

So play The Art of War and compare: commanders are assumed already "in place" and doing their job. You, the general, are free to throw troops at this and that, limited only by your abilities to know what ought to be thrown and what retained in hand, etc. To artificially include command limitations turns a game into giant rock, paper, scissors; as if using dice isn't enough randomness already!…

Ordered my copy today largely prompted by the discussions on TMP. I'm looking forward to trying the rules out.

Think Simon invented the 'element' with this ruleset back in the day, so it was VERY innovative, once…

I seem to be missing something RE: the discussion with Just Visiting, but I think that command / staff / sub-generals should have skills that the player doesn't control, just uses. Some armies have lots of skillful commanders around, others don't. However, there's a very subtle art to playing with no command represented in the game and provided solely by the players. My game club did / does this sometimes. They sort of know who is showing up, they earmark certain commands for certain people, and then they don't let people talk unless their command marker / figures are touching. This can produce hilarious results. They are especially amusing if one knows all the players well.

However, since many games and gamers are for a single person playing another single person, that has to be taken into account. So if they are a certain general / army they might have certain advantages. I also think it is fun to "play" Alexander or Caesar, or even Darius. As long as the points are worked out properly and both sides have a chance to "win" given the victory conditions.

Finally, I think modern learning can bring something to the works of ancient authors, but they should be the ultimate authority whenever someting is questionable.

Anyway, Comitatus is a bit like The Sword and the Flame – it's a great set of rules that has withstood the tests of time and I wish it every success. Who knows, maybe a few people will write some better rules of their own for playing them.

Just recieved my copy of Comitatus I ordered on Friday so that's speedy enough.

The production values are excellent and enclosed was a nice glossly quick reference sheet.

Now for a good read.

Picking up on Grandviewroad's point, it instructive that, with a historically based system that has very few 'modifiers', Phil Sabin has 9 varieties of general in Lost Battles (Commanders and Leaders, each in Brilliant, Inspired, Average and Uninspired versions, plus a timid type of average Leader) …

Commanders are good at running armies, but less good at fighting in the front rank. Leaders are good at inspiring the troops but are prone to putting themselves in danger.

Some armies have more than one general (and they may not be the same types) – so 'command' ends up with more variations than there are types of heavy infantry.

It was an eye-opener when Phil first introduced this methodology over a decade ago, and I remain surprised that the 'mainstream' has not even picked up that key building block of having two basic types of general, leaders and commanders …

Games like DBA, FoG and Armati classify Alexander (who will always charge with the Companions) and Hannibal (who directs the battle from a command post) exactly the same despite clear and corroborated testimony that they ran their armies and behaved on the field in completely different ways. Neil Thomas doesn't have generals at all.

I realise that wargamers are change averse, but come on …

Phil

I used to separate Inspiration Points and Command Points in earlier versions of Comitatus but in the end found that a more streamline system worked better — especially as in this period leading from the front was what it was all about. So jump on your horse, lead your comitatus in a glorious charge and damn all those skulking effeminate Byzantines!
Simon