Larry Baggett and Wayland Grace for Decision Games
What a piece of work is a battle, especially a battle in the ancient or medieval periods. After the travails of the campaign and the pre-battle manoeuvring two (often similarly armed) forces march up to each other and struggle for a couple of hours. Much noise, dust and confusion frequently accompanied the exercise. In short one might as well give one's watch to a monkey rather than hope for an ordered contest out of this genre. Yet we have a lot of games in the area. How then do they perform as history and game?
Of course while the bash-bash element may limit replay value it also has a recognition value that is valuable. Just as no captain could do wrong who put his ship alongside that of the enemy, so the tactical commander can simply bash, or shoot, as his factors dictate.
Of course the simplicities of combat have long been recognised (unless one goes for an Advanced Cohort Leader game) in games like DBA where the combat between similar forces can be every bit as dreary as in Napoleon at Waterloo. However, these games are short and involve a degree of set-up surprise that adds to the "story". Interestingly, Prussia's Glory the proposed GMT game takes that point by making all of its scenarios into standard battle games or games with the full approach march in which the set-up can be chosen.
BOAW3 is the Napoleon At War end of the tactical scale. Each unit can represent up to 1,000 men but as few as 100. This means that large formations are going to be Mr Blobbies of many counters. This is especially pronounced when facing an Ar/Dr combat chart and formations twist into contortions seldom seen on the battlefield. Combat consists of the two forces clashing (no morale or cohesion). Where odds are equal they will push and shove until one side can force the other to retreat in a ZOC, at that moment the effect is of the sub-unit routing (and dying). This model, to which we will return is perhaps unduly messy but the concept for long struggle until one side disintegrates is one that one can recognise from many battles (one thinks of the Anglo-Saxon war style). The problem is that while it works well for a single counter it looks very silly for a "unit" of ten such counters where there is no real unit gravitational pull. The result is amoeboid battles without the sense of higher unit structure found in a legion or phalanx.
BOAW3 has a simple (and questionable) sequence of play. Each Player runs through a turn of Move-Missile-Combat-Rally. There are no interactive cavalry or chariot charges and the defending longbowman sits like a chimp watching his opponent's approach (and then to add insult to injury letting them fire at him unanswered). There is no reason for this lack of defender response other than simplicity. It can easily be overcome.
Movement is simple stuff, with a few terrain features (more on some battles) to cross. Each battle has its own map, which is a Good Thing. ZOCs lock and oblige combat so that one often attacks with the target of surviving and forcing the other chap to counter-attack. Skirmishers, light troops and leaders can, however, move out of a ZOC.
Combat is odds stuff with retreats, exchanges and losses, and (of course) soak-offs. As noted above this system has some similarity with reality but this similarity is incidental. The system is used because the system is well known. One can rationalise the retreats as minor retrograde movement following which one side may crack (or might recover). Could not one be more direct with results of breaks, advantages or continued combat? One could and the result would not be much worse or much better but it might feel a lot better. The real problem with the CRT and the Blobbie units is a complete lack of atmosphere (not helped by the woggly effect of hexes on supposedly linear formations). Of course such a CRT is bread-and-butter stuff to many gamers and that should not be forgotten, but it fits the topic only where it touches.
Missile units include javelins and pila (one hex range) and slings and archers (two hexes). Their effect is to disrupt units before combat. This not only lowers their strength but prevents retreats. The pila flash out, the Gauls flinch and fall to the blades of the legion. This is not a bad summary. Disruption lasts only through the combat phase so one is not talking arrow storms here but an advantage to be gained. It still feels odd to watch supine archers being sprinkled with javelins, but most of these armies are sabre-merchants so this is not too frequent. Legions fail to return fire though when faced by pila-driven attacks, which is odd.
Light troops and skirmishers can avoid combat except against faster units, which allows them flexibility denied to line troops. As noted above they laugh at ZOCs to a degree.
Leaders add their strength to stacked units and have no other command duties (more heroes than leaders).
Rally is not a Berg carrousel of units returning from various stages of disorder. Instead eliminated units may return from the dead. This clears away a lot of retreating and routing to give about the same result. There are demoralisation rules to handle the collapse of an entire army.
Finally certain units (cavalry, elephants and chariots) can charge. This gives them double strength but changes attacker retreats into losses. One might well object (elephants apart) that charging in the boot-to-boot style was not within any group's repertoire in this period, but perhaps one can get a feel of whatever the designers mean.
That is the whole rule system, so score it high for simplicity. Indeed there is much that it clever in BOAW3 as it achieves a lot of effects without busting a gut. But the model may not be enough to ring much from the subject battles. If gaming to you is pasta with a little flavour this may work, but if you want a spot of pesto then I think it needs some attention.
As is often the case with Decision games BOAW3 has a number of map misprints and counter failings. Megiddo has many units in the wrong colour. Given that the sprites on the counters are far too small anyway it all leads an air of unconcern to the game, which resembles a rather down-at-heel resort in October.
The Battles
Megiddo opens the set of battles in some confusion as to whether the Egyptians' enemies are Hittites of Hyskos. The horns of the Egyptian advance suffer from serious amoeboid tendencies and the forces engage is a most tedious shuffle. The chariots simply did not feel like chariots coming out as rather weak shock-cavalry. This was not the mariannu of history. The game needs a Flowers of the Forest system to feel even vaguely right. It was abandoned in play by us. Without a doubt the system requires either amoeboid armies of irregular shape (anything warband-ish) or well-articulated armies where the combat unit was one counter (Roman forces).
Qadesh starts with an advantage (like Transimene below) in that it has an interesting situation. The Egyptians are split into two groups. One encamped and the other marching towards it in column of march. Unfortunately for them the swift-horsed Hittites lurk (like some ancient Sioux warriors) in the woods waiting to sweep down. Can our Egyptian chums form line in time? The problem is one that will test your Napoleon at Waterloo skills especially with the flexibility of the archer units serving with the Egyptians. Get it wrong and a few retreats will destroy your army. Get it right and a battle line will form where the odds do not favour either side. The Hittites have the choice of surrounding and forcing retreat or forcing affairs with charges. In practice they will balance both. Does this feel like Kadesh? Not to me, but it certainly has a dynamism of its own. I was a bit mystified by the rallying Egyptians appearing on the North edge (the lack of a compass rose did not help here) but I guess that is the lake edge, representing the returning Egyptian division.
Lake Trasimene is a rather more interesting contest, though highly atypical for ancient battles as it is an ambush. The Romans are strung out in a long column on the lakeshore and the Carthaginians are about to rush down from the hills. The Romans are pretty tough unit for unit. The Carthaginians have good cavalry and some tough Africans but the rest are Celts of varying strength. In my experience the head of the column can be overrun (with time) as retreating can be difficult. The rear can usually reorganise itself and cause some trouble. Since the aim is to wipe out all the Romans these chaps can be a problem. Careful use of the cavalry seems important but time and distance make this far from certain.
Munda is one of those battles that tests the mettle of any player. G. Julius Caesar leading many legions is in combat with Labienus leading many legions. Caesar has fewer legions and must therefore cram his flanks with cavalry. But this aside the armies reach from one side of the board to the other. The counter is pretty much a cohort and the articulation fits the system. Caesar does have his X Legion (with a fetching orange differencing) and his forces are man-for-man better. This means he can attack at 1:1 but his opponents only at 1:2. Both sides have three lines and It is a tough old battle. But it is not a very exciting battle if constant change is your bag (Momma). I can just about see it working in a Rome at War game, but here it is too invariable for me (although of course good play will be important to victory).
Boudicca is much better. A few tough Roman units (with not so tough auxilia) are stood in an Agincourt-like funnel between two woods. Into this comes the masses (and I do mean masses) of British chariots and foot. Given the low British combat values the most likely result is AR. So the Iceni need to keep some retreat space, but the tribal followers are pushing forward and this may be denied after a few turns. If the Romans can maintain a front then the Brits should die in droves. But if once a lodgement is made in the line and this is not driven back even the Romans will weaken and break. It is like Zulu with bad weather. It is not very exciting (in my book) but it does work.
Adrianople is another non-linear situation. The Goths are hunkered down in their laager while the horrid Romans march towards them. They must hold out and protect their baggage (presumably the tribal non-combatants) until the two cavalry armies return on turns three and four. The situation then depends on how the Romans try to capture the baggage. This may be one of those circumstances where the knowledge of impending reinforcements for the defenders leads to a rather "knowing" attack.
Conclusion
What then may we conclude? I was surprised by the level of detail that had managed to get into the game, and as to the range of battles. However, I felt the old CRT with its retreats was more appropriate to skirmishing warfare than to most of these battles. There really is no need to have this system imported to get in the way of what could be much simpler.
To me much of historical gaming is that it should give you a feel of history, "Now you are there" as Tom Shaw used to say in the AH adverts. BOAW3 suffers here from serious weaknesses. Apart from the usual errors in units and set-ups (which irritate beyond their importance) the general standard of graphic presentation is woeful. Firstly the sprites are far too small (even for the counters). Secondly, they have been put together with a minimum of care. Often the same sprite covering many years of history (the legionary for Trasimene looks very like that of Adrianople) or is simply wrong. The Egyptian and Hittite chariots both look like one from Babylonia. One might accept such tight-fistedness in a magazine game (though Command showed the way here) but this is a full price game. We want different sprites, bigger sprites, more accurate sprites, and more colourful sprites. This sort of dreary stuff is not helping the suspension of disbelief.
So if you have no soul but enjoy NaW gaming you may well enjoy this game. Most of the rest of us will feel sold short.
Back to Perfidious Albion #103 Table of Contents
Back to Perfidious Albion List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2004 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