Avalanche Games have decided to plough a difficult furrow - re-establishing sales via a dealer network. To achieve this they have built a product that looks very attractive with game systems that will not try your patience. Their critics (other than those who hate Avalanche over Consimworld) counter argue that the system can be too simplistic (Eylau got this) and/or that their rules can be opaque on a couple of issues, and usually the same issues. Yet for all that games like the Panzer Grenadier series are proving popular, and speaking for myself I rather like a game that cuts away the Bergian processes and gets me to the real questions of life, do I need to score a six, or a five or a six. Complaints about the simplicity of game ("it comes down to how many sixes you throw") are not something with which I have a great deal of sympathy. Eylau had a six-to-hit combat system but also contained a great deal of useful stuff on the problems of exposing the same command to continued combat, and the power of massed artillery and cavalry. It also included interactive sequences with unpredictable activation of friendly troops. What it did not include (and this is instructive) is lots of tactical stuff about lines, columns and squares. Many gamers (it seems) would rather be drill-sergeants than marshals. However, when all is said and done all games come down to guts-and-gore (even Rubber Router games). [Do play it with Markus Stumptner's amendments though]. Rome at War is a game about killing. It is squarely on this topic much more than Eylau. The pre-battle manoeuvrings are finished, you have brought your army to the field and cannot change it, what follows is close action. Your game choices are those of hoping your leaders come through by allowing a helpful activation of sub-forces, perhaps allowing you to activate more times than your opponent. But battle games are not just exercises in chess-like play (the domain of the strategic game) they are the unfolding of a story. If you do not like killing games, and don't like to play waiting for one side to crack before the other then I suggest that you do not bother with ancient tactical warfare, you will also not want to play Rome at War. Stephen Jackson, a keen ancient gamer and student of the period who has also contributed to GBoH with scenarios for GMTs magazine, has designed Rome at War. I draw great comfort from the fact that Stephen is multi-system capable (as we jocks say) since it indicates a greater interest in the message than the medium. The first game in a proposed series Rome at War covers four battles in Africa before the fall of Carthage plus a bonus battle. The scenarios have quite a range but are not really balanced, so do be prepared to play some battles twice to measure your skill or luck. Scenarios The first (The Watchtower of Agathocles) is a pure cavalry action as Poeni and Numidian horse encounter Masinissa and Scipio. Like all encounter scenarios much depends on who gets the drop on who in the activation sequence. The result is an African version of the Ticino skirmishes that pre-dated the Trebia battle. The second scenario (Great Plains) has Scipio and Masinissa fighting Hasdrubal and Syphax after Scipio's camp raid. This is a standard Punic battle with lines of foot and horse attacking. The Roman advantage of infantry is more pronounced than the Punic advantage in cavalry. The third scenario (Cirta) is a clash between Masinissa and Syphax giving you another non-linear battle. The fourth scenario, and only Big Name Battle is Zama. Here the classic Roman formation is seconded by plentiful Numidian horse and foot and faces a Carthaginian army arrayed in three lines. The bonus scenario (Tunes) comes from the First Punic War and may be better known as the battle of the Bagradas River. It is the famous clash between M. Attilius Regulus and Xanthippus that resulted in the only Punic land victory in the first war. A classic Roman army (lots of foot and hardly any horse) meets an elephant-heavy force that seeks to envelope them. Stephen Jackson has given a surprisingly good range of battles so that even Great Plains is not quite the same as the other two linear battles. However to revert to a common theme they all come down to bashing. The rules are twelve pages long and are pretty effective. Their weaknesses seem to centre on a few activation questions (that bête noire of designers) and some confusion on charges. You can find errata on Web-Grognards. Their problem (for me) was in understanding the comparative advantages and disadvantages of charging or assault. I thought the play-aid could do with freshening up here, and I may well design one for myself. Because Rome at War is so clean a game its differences are subtle but very important. I am willing to bet I have missed a few! The Avalanche rule books work better for me than many other companies (though they wisely keep it simple) but they could do with one more level of review from a "stuffer" before publication. Let's start upon that wooden O upon which we shall cram the vasty fields of Africa. The map boards are two mounted geometric boards. They are executed in a darkish brown (a tone or two too dark for me) and have a square grid (subject to a few minor changes that will be important in other system games). A square grid, you can imagine the horrors than run through the hobby at this point! But (gasp the outraged City Fathers) you can move faster if you go diagonally - disregarding the fact that in most scenarios you do not want to do this. The immediate effect of squares (other than scaring the Poor Old Dears) is to give us a linear battle, praise be unto the Lord of Hosts. Other than that major aesthetic advantage the effect of squares is (of course) to ensure one unit faces one unit unless flanked. Hexes can have the inherently stupid effect of each unit facing two others. The counters are rather jolly, although once again the background colour is slightly too strong for my eyes. They have some little pictures of little men of the relevant troop type and these are very detailed, you can identify Iberian crests and Gallic standards, by Toutatis. The Gauls also use a wedge formation! Each unit has a number of steps, and for large formations (a Legion) this means a number of counters. As each loss level is encountered the number of little men reduces so one can quickly see the weakening lines. Some gamers have objected that these units are not suffering losses of this level, but the men are flagging rather than dead. This is so but did not fatally wound the graphic style for me. Some counters are double width and simulate the formed linear units. A legion (which will also cover an ala of Italian Allies) has two counters often of more than six steps. So the infantry of a classic two-legion consular army has eight counters (two legions, two alae, all of two counters). They have velites that can be detached if necessary. The counters have two factors on them Combat and Morale. To anticipate this review these translate into numbers of dice thrown and dice score to be exceeded to break the unit. This allows Stephen Jackson to build in a lot of subtle detail as well as handle weakened units (start them at step b). So a Roman legion has eight steps (the last two as a small unit) whose Combat Factor progression is 8-7-6-5-5-4-3-2 and Morale goes 8-8-7-6-5-4-4-3. This shows us a powerful unit whose morale exceeds its combat ability but which will take some killing. The Iberian scutarii also have eight steps but their combat factors run 7-6-5-4-3-3-1-1 and their Morale 7-7-6-5-4-3-2-2. Gauls have only four steps usually with a morale factor equal to their combat ability. As one might expect Gauls will tire faster than legionaries. Counters that have missile capacity are indicated though there is no attempt to differentiate between javelin and sling in range. Leaders have three factors: Radius of Command, Tactical Bonus, and Initiative. Overall the counters look good and give a better feel for an overview of a battle than the single sprites of the GMT approach, but bad lighting and or eyesight may result in a rather muddy effect. The reduced number of factors is a great blessing. The sequence runs as follows: Weather Phase - though with no application here Reinforcement Phase Command Phase: used to check whether you are in command Order of Play: determines who has the Initiative Activation Phases: none, one or more leaders may be activated Recovery Phase The Activation Phase segments are: Artillery segment (though none in this game) Charge Segment: cavalry, chariots and elephants may charge and fight Movement Segment Assault segment: non-charge combat Command is an important concept in the game but not overly difficult to run. Each leader has his command radius and is assigned his units. Apart from the Army Commander each leader may only command his units. For the leader to himself be "in command" he must be in range of the Army Commander otherwise he needs an Initiative roll to succeed. This will usually happen with breakthrough by cavalry commands. Units that are out of command when their leader is activated move slowly and avoid combat. To prevent the megaphone school of command linear commands may transmit their leader's rule beyond his radius so no matter how useless your leader he can at least move the Phalanx forward. This is likely to collapse only late in battles, where lines are broken, which is pretty much when it should fail. Initiative is determined by die roll added to the Army Commander's Initiative compared to his opponent. This player attempts activation first. To activate he deducts a 1d6 score from his initiative to get the number of sub-leaders he can activate. A difference of zero will still permit one leader to activate. A 6 level leader may with a low enough dice therefore activate his entire army before the other side recovers the initiative. Equally he may end up with just one leader activated. Interestingly, the effect of this is that where leaders are both very good the one that wins the initiative will still be likely to be able to activate masses of leaders. The comparative skill rating impacts only on the decision of the initiative not on the degree of "trumping" of the other side. I wonder how this could be covered. If you fail to activate any leaders and so does your opponent (or, if your opponent has finished activating, you fail a second time) then the turn ends. The degree of differential performance inherent in these systems will be familiar to those who play Richard Berg's BSO games, or to the impulse games with sudden turn endings. Once activated a leader then does the action segments for his command (and his command only). Activation may occur once a turn per leader. Considering the number of men contained in a unit is not constant the stacking rules are intended to handle this factor. Each area can contain six stacking points and heavy infantry count as four stacking points, light infantry and artillery count as two, and most others as three. Handily this means you can spread out your units and not stack them, giving a more linear appearance. The overstacking rules are not punitive, but the improvement to attacker's die rolls effectively doubles the kill rate (if they kill). One can imagine the Cannae scenario. Facing is important, and the major method to uplift the combat power of cavalry. Attacks from the flank or rear get an increase of one to scores so that instead of a six a five and six will kill (very nasty). Defence also crumbles (very important in making two-step cavalry flank attacks survive). A phalanx defends a 25% of normal combat value to the flank and 0% to the rear, but uncouth barbarians boost this to 50% and 25%, and the well-articulated Legions to 75% and 50%. You can imagine the effect of the flank march of the triarii at Cynoscephalae. Charges are a form of movement-and-combat that models the speed of such attacks compared to the measured tread of the infantry. Charges cannot be made into adjacent areas and must be made in a straight line (or into areas touching a straight line) without going through enemy units of bad terrain (there is none of the latter in this game). The defender can try to counter-charge (his morale being the test level). If he succeeds then the combat is handled as an assault combat (but in the charge segment). No missile fire is possible and chariots and cavalry will not counter-charge elephants. If the charge goes home without being countered (the charger need not make any die-roll) then the defender rolls against his morale and if he fails then he takes a step loss. This represents, it seems to me, the moral advantage of the attacker in those days. The defender may then attempt to withdraw but needs to be faster than the other force. Note that such Parthian tactics even if successful do not prevent the defender taking the die-roll test, so losses can still occur. Those units remaining may then fight the attackers (this combat is not simultaneous) subject to modifiers. Elephants and pikes are doubled, respectively, unless attacked by elephants and if attacked to their front. Light infantry, artillery, light cavalry and chariots are all halved if fighting a charge. As in the rest of the game they throw a dice per modified combat factor and six kills, any other score (unless modified) has no effect. If at this stage the defenders and attackers have survived the chargers finally get to attack. Their benefit is a doubling of combat value for heavy cavalry, chariots and elephants. Modifiers to the dice arise where the target area is flanked, over-stacked or has average morale half that of the attackers. If the chargers do not inflict more casualties (or the defenders lose at least half of their strength) the charge bounces on area back. If the defenders do lose half or more of their strength they must retreat. Cavalry pursuit can then occur. Charging is therefore a most useful as a way of clearing rabble with cavalry. Although the rabble gets to attack first they will be subject to increased hit modifiers and increased factors. Cavalry pursuit may allow further killing opportunities. Charging phalanxes, however, is a risky business as both sides are doubled but the defenders attack first. Movement allowances range from four for leaders, cavalry and chariots to 2 for infantry (and one for artillery). When adjacent to enemy light or heavy infantry the infantry allowance drops to one (used most when trying side-slip, a rather odd ability in the game). Legion units have a most useful ability to swap their lines so that damaged velites and hastati can be swapped with the principes and triarii. This is highly annoying if you have almost broken a Roman line (and doubtless have suffered some casualties) only to face fresh troops. No wonder they won! Phalanx units suffer a further MP cost if moving to flank or rear (which cannot therefore occur if they are adjacent to enemy light or heavy infantry. Assault is the main combat method in the game. It is open to any adjacent units. Matters open with heavy infantry checking Reaction facing where they are flanked but not pinned to their front. Once again the defenders then check against morale (unless only under missile fire) and if failing will lose a step. Light infantry may now withdraw. Attackers and defenders now attack as in charge but simultaneously. Once again a six (or score modified to six) kills and removes one step. Players may modify up by one if they attack a flank or rear, or outrank in morale by double elephants are assaulting cavalry and chariots, or infantry missile fire on elephants. Missile fire is a form of assault but conducted at half strength (to reflect the lower effect of missile weapons) but defenders may only respond to the fire if they too are missile-armed. (So you can pepper your opponents with javelins in your turn). Recovery is a method to recall lost steps where their leader also occupies the square of the unit. It requires a die roll and your unit must be at least two squares away from the enemy. Accordingly, this is only open to one where one command has broken the enemy in front of it. Armies will start to decamp only where no heavy infantry are on the board - an army collapse. So you may prefer to mutually halt the battle. There are special rules but the main one is Elephant Rampages, but these only affect adjacent units. You will not therefore have to dice area for area as your elephant randomly roams around the map. Rome at War in combat is mostly a race. Both sides will find their forces reducing in effectiveness as combat continues (there is no turn-based end of the game) but at different rates. Can the cavalry and light infantry crush their opponents and flank the main battle lines? Can the main body bull its way up the middle and burst through the enemy lines? Some of the folks who were shocked by squares fell into a positive tizzwozz about the 6 to kill method. This is despite its honourable history in figure rules. The lack of a CRT may make the poor dears feel that the game is not (as the French would say) "serious". However, the use of the "six kills" has a major advantage, the luck of the dice can occasionally cause sudden collapses or stonewall defences in a way that the topped-and-tailed CRT cannot. Just occasionally I have crumbled a Roman legion by frontal action (despite the damned thing switching its maniples) and it is a great feeling of success. Yet we must dwell on one key point. Though I enjoyed crumbling the legions under a volley of sixes it did not reflect much other than that I had opposed my best units and been lucky. Where is the skill in Rome at War? Essentially, it comes down to deploying your leaders as best you can whenever the activation dice give you the chance. All else is hewing over the war-linden. Furthermore, unless you can identify with the units (imagining the Gallic war cries, or the seeing the Iberian rush) you may find the game a list of slaughters. One gamer recently commented that he had abandoned the Iliad because it was just a list of combats. He was correct, but if you know who these people are then things may be different. If you can accept this limit then I feel you should enjoy Rome at War even if you make a new play-aid. If you want more play, perhaps in the card-activated style then you should avoid tactical combat. Rome at War is a good simulation of combat (I might query the side-slipping Legions) but it is not a game of chess, treat it accordingly. Because the games are not balanced but are historical you will find that unless you play in rubbers of two the competitive element is reduced. There are VPs given, but these can be used to give the opportunity of a sudden victory followed by running away which seems odd. I can see the series covering many battles and many situations very effectively. I believe the next installment covers wars of the Late Empire. I await it with interest. 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