korsun0  | 16 Aug 2012 3:51 a.m. PST |
Newbury Fast Play anyone? Interesting to read the comments. I last played with 6th edition years ago; was thinking of trying a commercial set again so good to read all the thoughts above. |
| Who asked this joker | 16 Aug 2012 4:52 a.m. PST |
A few games frankly isn't enough to understand or appreciate this system. I view this sort of thing as a flaw in any game system. If you can't understand or appreciate the system after 3-4 games, the game is probably a bit too complex or not well structured. |
| Barca Dax | 16 Aug 2012 5:34 a.m. PST |
A few games frankly isn't enough to understand or appreciate this system.
I view this sort of thing as a flaw in any game system. If you can't understand or appreciate the system after 3-4 games, the game is probably a bit too complex or not well structured.
Havent got the hang of the quotes yet!
IMHO and experience for most new players of fairly accessible gaming systems like Black Powder/Hail Caesar/Impetus etc, a couple of games is enough to pick up the basic mechanisms and have a go, but to really get a feel for the subtleties of a rule set (assuming they are there to be discovered) takes considerably longer. Makes the rules nice and more-ish – allows you to understand the quirks, fiddle with army compositions and tactics and evolve your gameplay. IMVHO a few games probably isn't enough time to appreciate any but the most simplistic rule system – or maybe I'm just not bright enough to pick things up quickly – but then to each his own, I like simple rules on occasion – as well, a bit like an aperetif – on the other hand it took me yonks to get my head around R2E and I still wouldn't say I fully understand and appreciate some of the more complex rule sets I've been playing for years on and off – I think the problem is the off bit – after a couple of months I always need a refresh! |
| Derek H | 16 Aug 2012 5:36 a.m. PST |
Barca Dax wrote:
Havent got the hang of the quotes yet! that's < q > Havent got the hang of the quotes yet! < / q > But without any spaces between the < > brackets. |
| Barca Dax | 16 Aug 2012 5:41 a.m. PST |
that's Havent got the hang of the quotes yet! </ q> But without any spaces between the < > brackets.
</ q> Hi Hodgemeister – cheers for that – always around to keep me right as per…. Oops, made a cludgie of that attempt – second edit – there we go…..
Manana
Dax |
| Marcus Brutus | 16 Aug 2012 6:47 a.m. PST |
"I view this sort of thing as a flaw in any game system. If you can't understand or appreciate the system after 3-4 games, the game is probably a bit too complex or not well structured." The mechanics in Impetus are easily mastered. But understanding how everything fits together and how to play the game well is another matter. For example, when players first start playing they usually focus on a unit's impetus rating and getting the maximum melee dice. But in reality the few extra dice are far less important than the units VBU (a unit's basic fighting value.) The cohesion test is the critical roll and keeping a unit in good order is very important. But then so is getting another movement phase. Interesting choices to make. In a game recently I had managed to turn the flank of a Silver Shield phalanx with a unit of Roman Hastati. I needed three movement phases to get in. I took the chance and went for it but unfortunately I didn't make my discipline tests and got stuck with my own flank in the air. It turned out that it wasn't a great decision on my part and probably cost me the battle. |
| Derek H | 16 Aug 2012 7:59 a.m. PST |
Never mind Dax I'm sure you'll get the hang of it some day :-) |
| Dexter Ward | 17 Aug 2012 1:35 a.m. PST |
I'd say all of the three rules mentioned in this thread are fairly easy to learn, but take a long time to find all the subtleties. That's just a characteristic of good rules, which all of these are.
Personally, Impetus isn't to my taste. Far too much complexity in shooting classes, too much randomness in game play.
But I can see that the things I dislike might be exactly what other people like. |
| yorkie o1 | 17 Aug 2012 6:37 a.m. PST |
Personally, i like Impetus and Hail Caesar, but im known to have the odd game of DBA too. Fog i didnt like, took me forever to read the rulebook, and the game became a bit boring. Steve |
| Who asked this joker | 17 Aug 2012 9:10 a.m. PST |
Fog i didnt like, took me forever to read the rulebook, and the game became a bit boring. For the same reasons as you, I did not like FoG either. I will say though, the FoG computer game is a lot of fun! |
| Sgt Steiner | 17 Aug 2012 12:28 p.m. PST |
My favs would be and IMHO DBMM – complex but good game/history balance
Might Of Arms – Playable 6th/7th
Hail Caesar – Free and Easy not for tourneys
Field Of Glory – Ok bit of a grind hopefully version 2 better
7th Edition – Complex but I did like it in hindsight I am looking forward to Pulse Of Battle from Piquet crowd Cheers |
| kevanG | 20 Aug 2012 4:05 a.m. PST |
FoG's points of advantage = mind numbingly boring…and terribly contrived. That said, once past all that, game is a bit static….or dancing. It is an average type of game…wouldnt pay more than a tenner for that. |
| Dexter Ward | 20 Aug 2012 5:00 a.m. PST |
I'm not sure why Points of Advantage are any more boring or contrived than all the tactical pluses and minuses that every other set of rules have. The end result is the same. |
| Nikator | 20 Aug 2012 12:36 p.m. PST |
To each his Own. I have tried all of the above except HC and Impetus, and play Fog regularly. I find the games generally tense and exciting, with plenty of maneuver for the cav armies. When people complain that FoG is boring and takes too long, I can only shake my head in puzzlement. There was a comment earlier about Mongol armies not being dangerous in FoG. Hmmmm. Not my experience. I have done quite nicely with Huns and Sassanid Persians lately, and shooty cav armies are in general highly regarded. There are some valid criticisms of FoG, but I really have not found "boring" or "Static" or "contrived" to be among them. Just my $.02 USD |
| AlanYork | 20 Aug 2012 4:41 p.m. PST |
To each his Own. I have tried all of the above except HC and Impetus, and play Fog regularly. I find the games generally tense and exciting, with plenty of maneuver for the cav armies. When people complain that FoG is boring and takes too long, I can only shake my head in puzzlement.There was a comment earlier about Mongol armies not being dangerous in FoG. Hmmmm. Not my experience. I have done quite nicely with Huns and Sassanid Persians lately, and shooty cav armies are in general highly regarded. There are some valid criticisms of FoG, but I really have not found "boring" or "Static" or "contrived" to be among them. Just my $0.02 USD USD Working out big multiple unit infantry melees, especially those involving pike phalanxes, where the units don't line up with each other. You have to calculate it file by file and over and over again if the situation changes as ranks become depleted, disordered or shaken. If that's not boring I don't know what is. At least in WRG 6th you could work out those types of melees unit by unit rather than file by file. As you quite correctly say, each to their own but for me that's not my idea of fun, I want to concentrate on tactics and have an enjoyable game, not do seemingly endless rounds of arithmetic. |
| Dexter Ward | 21 Aug 2012 1:05 a.m. PST |
Alan York wrote:
Working out big multiple unit infantry melees, especially those involving pike phalanxes, where the units don't line up with each other.
-----------------
Yes, that is tedious, and is the worst thing about FoG.
We got round it by using a house rule – line the units up whenever possible. It makes life so much simpler! |
| losart | 21 Aug 2012 7:03 a.m. PST |
Just a clarification for James from thre author of Impetus. "For me the final nail in the coffin of Impetus was when I had a unit of Gothic lancer cavalry advancing towards a unit of Chinese spear armed cavalry that were on opportunity. I moved to just outside move distance but a charge would have made contact on a 2+ variable. I wanted to make a second move to charge, my opponent told me that he was going to declare a charge on me using his opportunity and my Gothic cavalry had no choice but to stand there like patsys and receive the charge at the halt." Ok I see the tactical situation. You are advancing with your cavalry towards the opponent's cavalry.
You can charge with a move using a movement bonus as a little out of your standard movement rates. To those not familiar with Impetus the Cavalry moves 10U (where U is different depending on the scale used, 15mm or 28mm). If you needed a 2+ it is because the enemy was at 12U, so you needed a roll of 2+ on a d6 for the bonus movement when you charge. I would say that with a 2+ you have very good chances to suceed.
But as a player you can choose to charge with a second movement instead. Still for those not familiar with Impetus you can make a second move and AFTER make a Discipline test to see if your men did this extra movement without being in disorder. So charging with a double move make you more sure to reach the enemy but at a risk to arrive disordered. Now we have on the front a Unit that is on opportunity. A unit on opportunity has the possibility to automatically countercharge getting some extra dice.
With all this in mind I think that the best choice is to charge with one move:
1) You have only one possibility over 6 to fail
2) But, above all, hardly your opponent with renounce to countercharge you. And if he countercharges, the Units will meet half way, so you will not need to roll for extra movement. Now by charging with a second move instead, your opponent that is on opportunity (and you know that he is on opportunity) can choose between two options
a) charge you while you are making the second movement
b) or charge you just after you have made the first movement and so not yet declared a charge (only the final movement is the charge). In the second option he only has the impetus bonus. But I see pretty linear. You have hesitated to charge and he acted. Something very predictable with some experience.
Said that the opponent (the Chinese) will simply get some extra dice for being "more aggressive" but both Units will fight with their basic dice so nothing is compromised. On one side we found a Unit that hesitated to charge home and on the other a Unit that was waiting for this moment as putting in opportunity requires a turn stationary and the passing of a discipline test. "The Chinese cavalry charged for more than their full move and my lads just stood and looked impressed. It was my turn for bleeps sake." This sentence shows that something has not made correcly as if he charged after your first move the distance was very short. "As far as I can tell if you have a battle with two lines of cavalry facing each other or possibly two lines of infantry one side just puts itself on opportunity and then if the other side tries to attack them they get charged with no response. That seemed very very silly to me." It doesn't work like that. The opportunity just give the possibility to countercharge so at the best you fight in the same situation (both with charging bonus). Also if a side put all his forces on opportunity waiting for the enemy he simple looses initiative and manouvre. I would add that tournaments have to be taken as a places to make experience and meet other players.
I have recently started to play FOW and make some tournaments to learn (with no exercise before) and I think that I made wrong in many occasions as did my more experienced opponents. So I don't take what I have done as written in the stone. Experience on a game (as in real life) don't come in a linear way. |
| jameshammyhamilton | 22 Aug 2012 3:29 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the reply losart but I have to say that having read it I am even more confused than I was before. Here is a simple question all it needs is a yes/no answer. If there are two units of cavalry each with a move of 10cm and they are lined up facing each other 21cm apart with one unit on opportunity and the other being the one being moved. Can the unit on opportunity charge the one being moved as soon as it has made its first move (so it is 11cm away) before it declares a charge in a second move? |
| losart | 22 Aug 2012 5:46 a.m. PST |
Yes it can. This doesn't mean that the Unit with initiative cannot deal with it. If you are going to charge a Unit that is on opportunity or that can evade (so a Unit that can react), you have to do in a more subtle way. Opportunity in Impetus is just a way to break the "igougo" rigidity of a turn. A Unit in opportunity has the possibility to act during the opponent's turn. In real battles the enemies sometimes may not wait that you complete your manouvre… Now the opportunity may sound a good advantage and it could be, but it requires an advance planning. Putting Units on opportunity means that you are renouncing some other actions for the previous turn(s) (not to talk that opportunity is not automatic). Also actions on opportunity are more limited and a simple disorder cancels the opportunity status (yes a simple skirmisher Unit can to the job) But what I want to stress, back to the example, is that not only the charging Unit will roll dice for melee. Simply it can add some more dice using its impetus bonus (if allowed, 'cause there are some exceptions).
Players often give too much importance on the impetus bonus and on the dice thrown in melee. What is really important is the VBU and the chances to have limited damages in the cohesion test.
So if you get charged it is not a tragedy. Impetus is based on a series of choices. There are some better than others, but variables are many.
Time ago in TMP a user compared DBX to chess and Impetus to poker. Probably he got the point. So answering to the original thread I would say that Impetus is not the ideal game for those who want to have a total control of the events.
But if you like drama, some bluff and a fast and deadly game… |
| losart | 22 Aug 2012 6:02 a.m. PST |
hoping not to bore I want to go further in the example showing some tactical implications of the example proposed by James. Cavalry A (VBU=6, I=2) has the turn and Cavalry B (VBU=6, I=2) is on opportunity. Possible events: 1) Cavalry A makes the first move (reducing distance from 21cm to 11cm). Cavalry B charges home completing the remaining 11cm (10 + 1d6, so automatic).
Advantage for A: it rolls 2 dice more in melee (impetus). So 8 vs 6. Good but far from decisive. 2) Cavalry A makes the first move and B waits. A makes its second move declaring a charge and B countercharges by opportunity.
In this situation both roll for impetus, so 8 dice each. BUT doing so Cavarly A has to make a discipline test before solving melee (second move). If it fails (basically 50% of possibility) not only A will loose 1 dice, but it will start the melee in disorder so any hit rolled by B will become a permanent loss no matter on how good the test will be passed by A. So for B the choice between a more sure limited advantage or the hope for a much better situation. You are the general, you have the choice… |
| jameshammyhamilton | 22 Aug 2012 6:31 a.m. PST |
But if there is a line of cavalry units all on opportunity facing another line of cavalry 21cm away then it is not in the advantage of the other line of cavalry to advance. The sensible decision for the other cavalry is to also try to go on opportunity and setup a stalemate. Overall from the comments in this thread and other Impetus threads here and on other forums I think I am now clear that Impetus is absolutely not the game for me. It is clearly a game that has its fans and that is great. Time to put my copy on the next handy Bring and Buy. |
| losart | 22 Aug 2012 8:00 a.m. PST |
But if there is a line of cavalry units all on opportunity facing another line of cavalry 21cm away then it is not in the advantage of the other line of cavalry to advance. The sensible decision for the other cavalry is to also try to go on opportunity and setup a stalemate I answer here of course not to convince to change your mind, I'm the first to believe that Impetus is not for all.
Anyway back to your extreme example (extreme because hardly two lines of cavalry can face without any support from other shooting/supporting troops) the player with initiative can make several things. First he may consider if the opponent has already activated that turn as he (the one with initiative) may win again the initiative in the following turn so act for a second time.
Then you can outmanouvre your opponent that have to stay still if he wants to keep its opportunity status.
Then again you can move up to 14U (from him) and see what you opponent does. Will he risk to charge by opportunity considering that he can go short? If not, will you risk the same on the next activation? Trust me there are plenty of option to deal with situation and, as said before, being charged doesn't mean to loose the melee… |
| CptKremmen | 23 Aug 2012 4:02 a.m. PST |
Hammy, I've never found oppourtunity a problem in Impetus (The Cohesion test can be frustrating), but seldom see people even bother with oppourtunity. It has it's occassional uses, but main problem is that you have to give up your whole turn to be on opportunity. If you put most of your army on opportunity you are basically saying I will sit still and do nothing and you decide how to move all your guys. If other guy charges in a single straight line then opportunity does give you a (small) benefit. If however your opponent uses the chance to move his forces around so he can focus on just one part of your line, you've let him do it. Andy (CptKremmen) |
| Tarty2Ts | 23 Aug 2012 5:15 a.m. PST |
Opportunity is rarely used in our group, shooting or moving quiet often takes precedent over trying to preempt what your opponent might be up to in their activation. However it is very good for holding back impetuous troops who can get overly keen prematurely at times. |
| kevanG | 23 Aug 2012 1:06 p.m. PST |
BORING… The same troops want to engage the same stuff the same way… static….locked in combat until one side breaks off… no push or pull. melee position does not change. seems very stange when you have impetious troops fighting in static ranks. they opf course can move undrilled in a manner that the guards on parade would be envious…and can then fight that way too. contrived…Their must be something better than points of
advantage. The combat system itself is like a comglomerate of 3 peoples unrelated or even linked 'good ideas' rather than one guy's co-ordinated system. Like all comittee designed horses, It's a camel. There must be a better way of engaging in combat than the conform and envelope so I will hit one stand as I am in a 'point of disadvantage' in the first round. I think it is known in vehicular car crash terms as a glancing blow. |
| Dr Mike Salwey | 12 Sep 2012 3:54 a.m. PST |
Late to the discussion but… Impetus for me is a quick and fun game which I feel relies on players playing in the spirit of the rules. Without being too derogatory I had the mispleasure of facing Mr Hamilton in the final battle of the day in question where he had obviously not leart from his earlier experiences of opportunity. He seemed suprised when I opportunity charged his heavy Germanic cavalry with my greek mediums. After the ensuing 'rules discussion' and vitriol expouted, my cavalry managed parity in the fight for the first round, then proceeded to get wiped out as the higher VBU of his heavies came into play. By this point I had already lost interest in this paticular game due to the overall demenour and attitude in which my opponent was playing. I can not say I am unhappy to hear that Impetus is not for him. Personally I don't like the use of the displacement rules especially where light cavalry are concerned – and we just have a house rule not to use this tactic… simple solution! For people considering Impetus I would suggest getting along to one of the boot camps to get a better feel for the game. One comming up at Derby alongside the competitions I understand. |
| Madmike1 | 12 Sep 2012 9:51 p.m. PST |
Personally I don't like the use of the displacement rules especially where light cavalry are concerned – and we just have a house rule not to use this tactic… simple solution! This would only work if everyone has a clear understanding and agrees to the house rule. I joined a club were there were a number of 'house rules' floating about that some knew about and others didn't. Enforcement of these rules seemed to only occur when it helped a selected range of players. Hence I play strictly to the rules myself. |
| 1ngram | 13 Sep 2012 1:57 a.m. PST |
The problem with rule sets like FOG is that they fit the model of "designed by commitee" and thus are a monstrous camel. Impetus started out as a very elegant, simple set of rules with lots of excitement, but subsequent rule additions in the "Extra Impetus" booklets, mainly derived from discussions on the Impetus Forum, are making it distinctly "camel"-like. Such changes are invariably attempts to "improve" the rules (and I am as guilty as anyone else in putting forward rule changes there) but often merely add another layer of "specific instances" to the rules to cover situations players come up with, or allow troops who are less effective to stand a better chance of survival/success. Increasingly attempts at historical accuracy go out the window in favour of "playability". My fear is that what is still an excellent set of rules will by their second edition end up like FOG with a host of additional specific rules conjured up by committee. Of course my own rule suggestions would solve all these problems.(sic) Guilty as charged, your Honour! |
| Marcus Brutus | 13 Sep 2012 8:49 a.m. PST |
1ngram, perhaps you could provide some more detail about the changes in Impetus over the past few years that has caused you concern. From my perspective, the core mechanics of the game that make is a very elegant game haven't changed one iota. The amendments have in every case improved the game in our group. So for instance, allowing medium cavalry the possibility of evading has made them more effective on thet table top and more accurate in historical terms to our thinking. I could go down the list of clarifications and minor changes. I can't say that you analysis in any way conforms to my experience of the game. |
| AlanYork | 13 Sep 2012 9:06 a.m. PST |
I don't mind the changes and clarifications to Impetus, I would like to see them all brought together in Impetus 2 ASAP though. With them scattered through the various Extra Impetus supplements it's either a feat of memory or lots of photocopies of various pages if I want to remember them. I think it's important to discuss rules and amend them where necessary, it keeps things fresh and prevents stagnation but on the other hand at some point you have to say "these are the rules, they may not be perfect but that's what we've decided on." Endless tinkering irritates players and eventually they get bored with it and play something else instead. |
| 1ngram | 13 Sep 2012 11:15 a.m. PST |
Marcus, I have done on the Impetus Forum and anyone wanting to read my thoughts can easily find my comments there. Needless to say I think the example you give specifically – medium cavalry now being able to evade – is completely fallacious. Heavy cavalry tend to beat medium cavalry in Impetus as they usually have a higher combat value and a greater impetus value. So I can see why those with armies composed of many medium cavalry (like my muslims) would be piqued (to say the least) by constant defeat in such combats. But that was the real world. Lighter melee cavalry did indeed get beaten by heavier. True light horse could evade if attacked but mediums could only do what they were trained to do, get stuck in and hope for the best. Yes, if the enemy were far enough away they could retire and hope their opponents could be lured into an ambush but this isn't an evade which in Impetus (and other rules)is specifically a response to being charged. The answer shouldn't be to ahistorically give mediums the attributes of lights. Learn how to use such armies historically instead. This thread has also gone into opportunity which is essentially an attempt to allow the defender an opportunity to respond to an attack. Originally Basic Impetus had a renaissance version which allowed appropriate unit types to respond to being charged by simply countercharging. We used to use that in BI and I've never understood why this simple, elegant, solution, was abandoned for the complexities of the opportunity rules in the full set. To my mind the full set went a step too far in complexity from BI and really, only need tweaking to make them a tremendous set of rules. (eg if you are going to allow multiple moves which can take you into combat then I think you have to get rid of the flip-flop where a player can have two full sets of moves, one after the other, without the other side having an opportunity to respond. I've seen the slowest moving troops manage to get round an enemy flank and attack – something I suspect hardly ever happened in real life Its instructive to see where the radical differences are between Impetus and, say, FOG. I dont mean in game mechanics but in their different appreciations of the capabilities of different troops. In Impetus firepower, all 87 varieties of it, especially at close range, can be absolutely devastating while in other sets its far less effective and the ability to make multiple moves is also radically different. I think Impetus is a great game system – elegant is the word I constantly use. But I think its appreciation of the realities of ancient and medieval warfare is deficient in a number of ways. But many wargamers don't really care – its the game not the history that's important. I'd like to have both and I suspect that's why "house rules" always appear. Different gamers have different appreciations of historical possibilities (of what troops can and did do). Just look at the thread on the effectiveness of archery and the longbow elsewhere on this forum. Different strokes . . . . . |
| Marcus Brutus | 13 Sep 2012 11:44 a.m. PST |
1ngram, I think I do remember your comments on the Impetus forum. With respect to MC in Impetus to option to evade isn't automatic like it is for LC so it isn't a reliable tactic. You use an interesting example, muslin CM which as it was pointed out on the Impetus Forum, is precisely the kind of cavalry that should be more nimble than heavy battle cavalry. I have found that since MC is allowed to evade my 11th century Byzantine army not only performs better but also more realistically since the Thematic cavalry armed with bow can move up and back like it should. With respect to multiple moves I completely disagree with your basic point. One of the things I like about multiple moves is that it takes away the ability to completely calculate where the enemy will end up after a turn. This seems to thwart in a small way the God's eye view that we all have. And as far as getting around flanks that is the point of advancing in larger groups and battlelines. Don't let the enemy get around your flank. For heavy foot to do that on cavalry takes some pretty careless play on the one side or pretty lucky results on the other. And always remember that going for more than one moves brings a risk for disorder (which is a big deal in Impetus.) Firepower is not particularily devastating in Impetus at close range. What is devasting is that it can place the fired upon unit in disorder. The ability of other units like LC to pile on the disordered unit can be quite devastating. Which is why in Impetus support units are so important. Finally, if you like BI go with it. Personally, I like Impetus and prefer it handsomely to BI for the very reasons that you don't. |
| Dexter Ward | 20 Sep 2012 6:50 a.m. PST |
If missile fire can be absolutely devastating in Impetus, then it is not a good model of ancient warfare.
Missile fire could wear down troops, but it took all day; at Carrhae the legions didn't become disordered until the second day when they tried to retreat.
I'm sure it makes for a better game to have missile fire very effective, but it's not a good model of history.
Ancient missile fire is basically a harassing function which can (slowly) affect morale and cause a trickle of casualties. This is one thing FoG does rather well. |
| Marcus Brutus | 20 Sep 2012 12:12 p.m. PST |
Missile fire is not devastating in Impetus. |
| 1ngram | 21 Sep 2012 2:30 a.m. PST |
"Missile fire is not devastating in Impetus." Oh, yes it is! example one: a unit of skirmishers can fire at an enemy unit and score a hit. That unit now has to check its morale and a bad roll could eliminate it. example two: even if the unit above survives its morale check it can now be approached to point blank range by a second enemy unit and, since the hit above has disordered it, it can be shot at without being able to reply. At this range the shooting unit has a pretty good chance of causing significant damage to the shot at unit and a fair chance of elminating it completely depoendant upon its initial VBU. Personally I just don't believe missiles in the ancient pertiod had this capability. But the rules are so good that its worth amending these a-historical glitches simply by reducing the effectiveness of missiles. |
| JJMicromegas | 21 Sep 2012 5:45 a.m. PST |
Let me start off by saying that I like Impetus and find it creates a very dynamic and fun game without a lot of complexity and so would play it anytime an opportunity presents. But I also share 1ngram's opinion on missle fire, I have witnessed several occasions where it was absolutely devastating and decisive, which is not in line with my conception of ancient combat. It's really only point blank range where missile fire can cause a lot of damage, similar to melee damage in fact. But it's not very hard to get a shot off at point blank, in particular if the shooter fires from an angle outside of the opponent's ZOC. I also find some other game imbalances which create odd situations:
- Impetuous large warbands are virtually unstoppable
- Romans in general are too weak compared to their contemporary counterparts.
- The auxiliary special rule for Imperial Romans is awkward.
- Light Cavalry can be impossible to catch and very powerful. |
| 1ngram | 22 Sep 2012 3:18 a.m. PST |
Just change the rules. Its such a good rules system that its worth changing rather than just abandoning them. We started by eliminating point blank range and are now discussing restricting the effect of missile fire – maximum of one permanent hit(plus a disorder) however many hits you make no matter what the morale die roll says. This means missile fire will have an effect but it will take quite a few "shootings" to cause terminal damage. After all even at Carrhae it took two whole days for all those horse archers to cause significant damage to the Romans. However we may restrict this to shooting from skirmishers and light horse while allowing massed archer fire to have a full effect(but still no point blank range). Impetuous large warbands are regularly defeated here, mind you. As I say its worthwhile changing the rules to fit what you consider to be historically accurate. |
| TKindred | 22 Sep 2012 6:11 a.m. PST |
I dunno. My Romans have stopped quite a few of those large warbands. It starts with the defensive Pilum throws and then the solid VBU versus the mass of the mob. Having some archers/slingers along the way to help disorder the warbands, as well as Numidian cavalry to do the same, all before they get to you is important. |
| Marcus Brutus | 22 Sep 2012 2:52 p.m. PST |
Your examples 1ngram are skewed. A skirmish unit firing at an enemy with javelin has only one die to fire at short range. What you seem to be missing is that units require support. It is true that a single unit can be ganged up on in Impetus. But it will take many turns to reduce a FP unit to rout. Most important in the Impetus is that units support each other. With out support you'll find units succumbing to missile and melee. As far as JJ's other observations is concerned I do agree that large warbands are a bit too tough and that the Romans in general are under valued. We've been working on making some modifications to the Roman list, especially point costs to assist in rebalancing our games. |
| The Young Guard | 23 Sep 2012 11:18 a.m. PST |
Has anyone played Comitatus or Civitates Bellantes and if so how do they compare with the above mentioned rules? |
| Monk de Wally de Honk | 24 Sep 2012 7:42 a.m. PST |
Marcus Brutus – A modification to the Republican Roman points list in Impetus would get a thumbs-up from me. My son fielded a 800pts hairy army with 30 warband bases, chariots and skirmishers. I managed to field, with the same points, three raw legions (1 base each of velites, hastati and principes and supporting triarii) and one trained legion with an assortment of light infantry support. Its very hard to beat aa enemy like that even if the heavy infantry had been in one rank of bases. I also realised too late that raw legions can't carry out line relief! |
| Marcus Brutus | 25 Sep 2012 4:58 a.m. PST |
Hey Monk, a couple of suggestion for your Romans using the current list. With 800 points you should be able to buy 6-7 legions if you drop most of the triarii. I have found a couple of triarii sufficient to anchor the rear and flanks. So a full strength legion now only costs 68 points. I have started to use the 6 stands of Gauls to counter act the other sides warbands. A good value. With a modest amount of cavalry and some good javelin armed FL your flanks should be secure. |
| IanB3406 | 25 Sep 2012 7:23 a.m. PST |
What scale is impetuous that you are modeling line relief? It must be much smaller than FOG. 120 man per battle group? Can't really fight large battles with it in that case. |
| Marcus Brutus | 26 Sep 2012 4:36 a.m. PST |
A Hastati/Principes unit in Impetus represents about 1000 to 1200 men. The line relief rule is an abstract way of allowing the Roman lines to relieve each other. It works quite well in game terms. |
| PilGrim | 28 Sep 2012 4:29 a.m. PST |
<"Missile fire is not devastating in Impetus." Oh, yes it is! example one: a unit of skirmishers can fire at an enemy unit and score a hit. That unit now has to check its morale and a bad roll could eliminate it.> Frankly this needs qualifying because otherwise it is BS. Assuming the skirmishers do generate a hit, the chance of them causing a unit to rout is nil. The weakest foot units are generally VBU4, so the cohesion test target required would be 4 (VBU) -1 (the hit) +1 (missile fire), so even in the worst case the maximum damage you could cause would be a loss of 2 VBU. Against heavy foot this would drop to a MAXIMUM loss from a single hit of 1 VBU. Can missile fire kill formed units in Impetus? – yup, given enough time, and a cooperative opponent, but in my experience unless you are walking into a wall of longbows it rarely happens |
| Arch Duke of Nothing | 31 Oct 2014 9:52 a.m. PST |
Wow, this sounds like a set of rules for me! I have the you go while I do absolutely nothing and then I go and you go to the restroon or whatever because you can't impact the game. The opportunity and counter charges are great to me! I will have to try these out….Impetus, that is. |
| Marshal Mark | 31 Oct 2014 2:45 p.m. PST |
Thread necromancy on Halloween. How apt! |
| CptKremmen | 02 Nov 2014 7:24 a.m. PST |
Impetus = a very good set of rules
Sword and Spear = Even better set of rules. FoG and the others, not for me, tried them don't like them. |
finishes his Temple project by painting the kit he previously assembled.