"Why play Lost Battles/Strategos?" Topic

This is for Lost Battles/Strategos fans. I have DBA, Armati, and WAB; I like and dislike things about all three. I've read some good reviews about Lost Battles/Strategos. It seems to have a small but enthusiastic following.

I'd like to try it out and I've read through the rules. Before I take the plunge though, I'd like to know why you fans of the game enjoy it. Since I already understand the rule/mechanical differences between Lost Battles and the other three I mentioned, I'm more interested in why you think it's more FUN than other systems.

Cheers!

I've been playing Strategos I and then II for a few years, it is the only Ancients set I regularly play now.

Why?

Well it recreates the broad sweep of historical ancient battles without a lot of pratting around with measuring and positioning individual bases. Although at first galnce it appears overly simplist, the very subtle interplays of the troop and commander ratings, stacking differenes for different troop types and terrain etc make each type of army play very, very differently form each other. Wheeling Hoplite battles, auto-pilot Republicn Roman armies, Alexander being a hero, the search for a tactical solution with the Successors… you have to treat each army differently – how many rules can actually manage to recreate Cannae successfully?

It all works, simply, quickly and you can use as little or as many toys as you want. I tend to go with a big table groaning with figures, my regular opponent prefers 6mm so we also play on small tables and with less stuff.

It is a simulation rather than a game though (although the victory point thing does work) and some people may find it a little academic and dry.

As I only really have an interest in historical engagements, it is perfect, and being to able to fight something huge like Zama in a couple of hours is a big plus.

P.S. it is fun as there is a constant stream of tactically significant decision making, and you never really know what is going to happen in any particular engagement – lots of highs and lows, groans and cheers.

As Martin says, it's a simulation, and some gamers may be shocked at how little control an ancient general had once the battle started; it's very hard to change a plan if things go wrong – you have to deploy correctly.
It's a little 'dry' as a game, but if you want to explore the decisions made by ancient generals I know of no better tool.

Yes, to paraphrase Von Moltke, mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified. Unless you are Scipio Africanus with a bunch of veteran Romans, and even then it is hard.

As said before, the control, or lack there of, makes the game fun. You are placed squarely in the shoes of the Commander in Chief. You don't decide whether to place you light infantry in loose order or skirmish order. You don't direct the archery fire. All of these sorts of low level tactical decisions are handled by your troops.

You can fight the big battles of history without breaking the bank. Play with cardboard, computer screen or miniatures. It's up to you. Even the miniatures route does not have to be expensive. You only need about 20 stands per side. 40 stands in all.

The games board is area movement. You only need to say that this area is going to attack that adjacent area. The sim leaves little room for argument and the rules are tight enough where it would be nearly impossible to "game" the system.

John

So, just the three of us then. 'Small but enthusiastic following'!

Hey, we have distinct taste!

Thanks for the input; I thought of another question…

Do asymetric battles lead to a predictable win for the larger FV, or do both sides have a decent chance to win? Or maybe it depends if one uses the historical set-up or no?

Can anyone who has "Lost Battles" comment on the value of buying the book if I already have a copy of Stategos?

Is it just bigger with more explanation or are there major differences in the rule?

Graham

just the three of us then

Well we played a few games two or three years ago and really, really enjoyed it. Unfortunately, our ancients friend has been working out of the province for some time.
--
Tim

I wouldn't call it fun. It's way decent way of simulating ancients battles but I wouldn't say it was that much fun. Great big battle simulation but not a fun GAME.

Uhm,

I am biased… but I have started to play them from november and I have found them really interesting and fun… Nail biting battle, often down to the last die rollin (btw do not use, I repeat, do not use, professor Sabin dice…). The General role is well represented, the amount of decision making is right on spot, you are not here to decide what Centurio Vorenus will do, but what hanniabl, caesar or Scipio will do. The role of the light infantry is spot on, you can use them as real light infantry and not superpowered DBx psiloi…

And at the end of the battle is a fun game too!

Arrigo

I have the computer version whihc runs well on windows, and moves along at a nice pace.

I play the games solo.
I think the lack of control os something of an advantage for solo play, as it prevents "second guessing" of intricate plans.
Once the two battle lines are locked, it's a question of continuing the attack, and sending in reinforcements or combat bonuses where possible.

I suspect the computer version would have some problems as dual player, as atacker and defender decisions are interleaved, and it would be easy to make one of the other guy's clicks.

Recommended for solo play.
I second the idea that it's the best ancients game going.

the so called computer version is actually cyberboard an useful play by mail-designing tool for boardgames, actully you can do a bit of interleaving with some practice isn't difficult at all (and szome mail exchanges).

Arrigo

Someone should make a Vassal version of the game. Vassal can be played as PBEM or "real time" against another opponent.

I made some cardboard units for the game though I think I might shrink them some to fit on a smaller board. The only counters I have so far is for Marathon. I'll be working my way through the classical era and get counters enough to produce any of the battles in the book.

I'll be posting the counters in the Lost Battles Yahoo group.

John

You could modify the VASSAL DBA mod fairly easily I should think. Just need to add a grid to the board?

Strategos/Lost Battles: simply the best.

You are the general. And no meassurements!

I think meassurement are the illness of miniature wargame rules, so, games like this, or Square Bashing, or the rules writen by Keith Warren, or by ourselves in NapoleoN, are one step beyond gaming little battles instead of endless arguments.

Graham asked:
Can anyone who has "Lost Battles" comment on the value of buying the book if I already have a copy of Stategos?

Is it just bigger with more explanation or are there major differences in the rule?
---------------
I think it's worth buying.
It contains a much more detailed analysis of all the battles, including a detailed justification for the combat model Phil Sabin uses.
There are nice colour maps of all the battles.
There are small but significant rule differences –
generals' command bonuses are simpler, variable attack limits depending on game scale, heavy infantry can withdraw, new rule disadvantaging heavies fighting on the flanks.
There are a few others, but I forget the details.

napoleonminiatures wrote:
I think meassurement are the illness of miniature wargame rules
----------
I agree. Even 'conventional' miniatures games such as DBM and DBMM improve a lot when played on an element-sized grid.
No more fiddly geometry. Game plays faster and cleaner and no arguments.

But many miniatures gamers say "but it's just like playing a board game".
I find this baffling.
It's a tabletop game, it uses miniatures; clearly it is still a miniatures game. It just plays faster and cleaner.
I think somehow people think a 'free form' game is more flexible or more realistic. In my experience it is neither.

"It's a tabletop game, it uses miniatures; clearly it is still a miniatures game. It just plays faster and cleaner."

I play Command and Colors (which IS a Boardgame) with miniatures, for similar reasons. I reckon C&C plays at least twice as fast as most wargames rules; games last a similar time, and feature a similar number of units, to Strategos II. If I didn't play C&C, I'd probably play Strategos II.

Simon

My rules of choice at the moment, and for the last two years, are Commands & Colors: Ancients and Strategos II/Lost Battles.

Strategos is excellent solo, plays very quickly, and allows controlled investigation of 'what might have beens' as well as giving an enjoyable game.

I'd say get Strategos II (it's cheap) and try it out. If you like it go and get Lost Battles, too.

Strategos & C&C:A have spoiled tape-measure ancients games for me, so be warned!