This is a handy little 15mm figure game on Ancients published by RFCM (Rules For The Common Man a.k.a. Peter Pig). It is interesting in its own right but also because it compares with Battle Cry (see Fen Yan's review above). For those of you whose Ancient gaming is based on GBoH most current figure gaming is based on the DBX school of games (no figure removal, type driven CRTs, command handled by dice roll). Where well-balanced sides meet the result, even in the simpler systems popular nowadays, can be a long time in coming. Conquerors & Kings is much quicker and spookily close to some boardgame techniques yet it is still a big game in terms of numbers of figures you can deploy.
If you have seen RFCM games before you will know that the writer missed even more English classes than I did (and at least I played the cello). Conquerors & Kings is better than previous sets (although the Army Lists are not quite as sharp). Disregard this however, because behind the text lurks a sharp mind. As with Square Bashing the game deals with the bête-noire of figure-gaming - bloody measuring - by using foot square areas. These are like hexes or areas, within them everything is grouped together. A Conquerors & Kings table is probably 6 foot by four, by using half-squares on the base line the table has five rows of six squares. That is enough for a centre, two flanks and a reserve (plus an ambush). All movement and combat occurs in terms of squares so you can ditch the rubber ruler so beloved of figure gaming. Of course it also means that once you strike the enemy line both of you have no more than two or three rows of squares for retreating. In Conquerors & Kings you fight and die much more decisively than in GBoH or DBX. Good news if you are winning!
The game uses the concept of units composed of elements rather than the ad hoc grouping of counters or elements found in GBoH or DBX. Each unit has four elements, each of which has a number of figures on it. These figures are both decorative and used to show the type of unit. [Thus four infantry figures show close order infantry, three figures show support troops, and two figures show skirmishers].
However, in combat one fights by unit not by element. The reason for having these multi-element units is simply to track losses (you will recognise this from Battle Cry). You could play Conquerors & Kings with single element units but recording losses. As well as types of units there are levels of training (Elite to Levy), shock troops (think warband), and types of armour. Some of the definitions are a bit wobbly but as the rules note much of this is relative. A well-armed soldier from Ur might not look too sharp versus a Roman legionary, but against his opponents from Akkad the differences would be important. Rather cleverly when your unit takes a loss you replace it with a dead element, and this reminds you that you need a morale check (four if the Big Man buys one).
RFCM rules spend a lot of time on pre-game systems to generate a game. The players first decide who will be attacker or defender. Terrain numbers are diced up (with the defender choosing to add or deduct one giving a range of 0-7 terrain features. If rubber rulers add an annoying feature to much of figure gaming the placement of terrain has repeatedly defeated Phil Barker and caused more grief than most factors. It is much easier here. The terrain can change one square, and the chosen square can then be shifted randomly to prevent (for example) an impenetrable forest in the middle of the board. I am not sure if I agree with the rules even now (rivers would be difficult if squares shifted) but it can easily be worked on.
With the table generated both players then plan their set-ups (with a bias towards the centre) and place the units. At this stage the Defender may lose units (he is after all the defender and in equal value games this would be a trifle strange otherwise). The losses are biased towards the less well-trained units (levy). The Defender may choose to nail his colours to the mast by claiming he will defend a key town something linked to campaigns. The Attacker may then make some limited redeployments and despatch units on a flank-march (very Columbia this). Finally, the defender may send his units forward to occupy useful terrain squares.
The game's length is based on cumulative die-rolls that both sides may influence if looking for longer or shorter battles.
Movement in one square at a time (never diagonally). Infantry and Elephants move one square and cavalry two. There are "stacking rules" - ten units hence the need for 15mm figures. Movement can usually only be forward unless you achieve a die-roll score, and it can be hard to get anyone to move out of terrain. More mobile units (cavalry and auxilia) will find it easier to move laterally, as should be the case, but it is never automatic (though generals can help).
Shooting (archery, slings, javelins) is 1D6 per "base" of archers (however used - chariots, cavalry or infantry) and 1D6 per unit for skirmishers. This is modified but basically missile fire is a function of formed archery. All scores of five and six hit, hits will kill bases unless they escape with a saving throw (with a one being automatic failure). There are special rules for artillery.
Fighting occurs when one can enter an enemy square and wishes to attack. Combats have to have a minimum value (otherwise they are just skirmishes). Skirmishers may withdraw at the risk of losses and support troops in other squares may also support the defenders. Combat is reminiscent of the Storm Over Arnhem type of game. The attacker tots up his attack value based on a long list of things ranging from close order foot (+3) to +1 for veteran units. The defender does the same both divide by 4 and throw that many dices. The scores of 3-5 inflict one hit and a score of 6 inflicts two. Once again hits are distributed and saving throws made (messy this). The player with the most bases' damage to his credit has won. Casualties then cause morale tests, 4-6 scores will fail and the number of fails in a square determines what happens. Suffice it to say Levy will not hang around for long once the fighting begins (for either side). Depending on whether defender or attacker this can cause the defender to retreat or the attacker to halt (but lose more bases). The system is not what I would call short but it is bloody and it is decisive. Retreat twice more and you'll be off the map. Armies of well-trained tough troops will inflict more casualties than large blocks of Sassanid levy infantry.
Victory is measured when the game ends and includes both kills and terrain occupied.
The Army Lists are points based with maxima and minima. The units can be boosted in status by training at greater cost. A Republican Roman Army can have only 2 units of good cavalry, but 12 units of unarmoured foot (the Hastati I would guess). A Carthaginian army can have 10 skirmishing cavalry and so should always be able to outnumber the Romans (who may have two). There is not a great deal of special feel to the different armies but sufficient to make an Assyrian army feel different from the Germans of Julius Caesar's era.
Within a square, units can be placed in any fashion though in watching the game it seemed to me that the players frequently arranged their units in a historical fashion (for example Triari, Principes, Hastati, and Velites). This had no effect on the game's playing but a lot on the important storytelling element.
Like Battle Cry this game uses a grid to remove a lot of gaming problems. It uses a non-odds combat resolution system that, though dice-heavy, is also decisive. I wondered if the savings throws were not in part because the game might otherwise be too swift? Armies can have 30-40 units so this permits a lot of troops on the board at four bases a unit. Speed, decision yet lots of lead - a tempting mixture.
Contacts: http://www.peterpig.demon.co.uk/index.htm. Postal address is 34-36 Knightsdale Road, Weymouth, Dorset DT4 0HS.
Back to Perfidious Albion #101 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2000 by Charles and Teresa Vasey.
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com