Last month's August issue contained my thoughts on the ARMATI rules after playing several games. Arty Conliffe, ARMATI's author, wrote and pointed out several errors contained in my interpretation of the rules: a. I stated that "units" were not defined. Not so, sez Arty: You say (your p. 11) I don't define a unit. Although I stand by what I say about game scales, I do give unit size guidelines in ARMATI p. 1. b. In listing the three combat values for the various types of units, (such as 4/1/2 for light infantry), I stated that the first was for frontal combat, the second when the unit was hit in the flank, and the third when attacked in the rear. Arty corrects me as follows: The third FV value is not a rear value (that's part of the second value); it is a Special Combat Value which takes into account the scissor, paper, rock effect of certain troop type match-ups, as well as the varying effects terrain on different troop types. I invested a great deal of time into this mechanic. Please note it! It's in ARMATI p. 14, sec. 7.5 a--c. This mechanic permits me to have only 3 tactical modifiers in the game. c. I implied, sort of, that if one of the combat factors equaled zero, that particular type of unit couldn't fight. Arty points out that the unit still gets to toss its combat die; the zero modifier merely means it adds nothing to the roll: Your p. 12. Note that a factor of 0 still permits any unit to fight to any direction. Sneaking-up on a unit does not apply. The difference between a 1 and a 0 is only 1 pip. Certain light units are dispersed in the open by heavy infantry regardless of their FV, but not so in terrain! See sec. 7.5. d. My listing of the sequence within the bound was in error: You say (your p. 13) that Melee is done immediately after a side moves. It is done after all movement; see ARMATI p. 13. Also see Sequence of Play, p. 4. It's done like TACTICA, not DBA. e. My eyebrows were raised when the rules gave Carthaginian African Veteran heavy infantry special movement: You question African Veterans (your p. 13). These are the guys that pull off the double flanking portion of Hannibal's famous double envelopment at Cannae, hence their ability to wheel and move. Arty then went on to ask: Question to you. How long did your games take? You said you played five of 'em. Most gamers tell me that after a few games, they play one game of ARMATI in less than 2 hours. You do give the impression that ARMATI is very slow. Overall time­wise or just unit feel? The games we played with the listed armies were short; none lasted longer than an hour and a half. And I definitely liked the "sudden death" approach concerning who wins, how, and when. As in TACTICA, the ARMATI concept is that the moment you lose a certain number of key units, that's it!... everyone goes home. My impression wasn't that the games were slow; rather that there didn't seem to be that much for the player to do. This may have stemmed from: (a) the wheeling provisions, or more properly, the lack-of-wheeling provisions, resulting, for the great majority of units on the table, of movement confined solely to "straight ahead", and (b) the multi-bound melees, wherein once two units became locked in combat, the gamer lost control, lost interest in them, and only came back to them once a bound to toss a die. Arty went on to comment: Wally Simon Recognizeable Patternries (WSRP) I buy the WSRP broad approach style of game design totally. With the WSRP in mind, I'm different than other rules authors in that I choose to recognize, or at least stress, certain patternries over others. Command and Maneuver (or the lack of it) are big ones for me. Note on (your p. 2) that the rules about ARMATI Melee (being locked in combat unless broken outright) are just like TACTICA and probably accurate as far as history goes-at least for the heavy units. Time and again, historians mention that units were locked for quite some time with neither side having the advantage until some event broke the stasis. Now, if you're doing modern warfare-Napoleonics, 7yrs War, WW­2, then you're right, and units should should either "make a dent" or be driven-off. But in ancients, you do need some provision for the often-mentioned, ongoing melee. Regarding wheeling in ARMATI. Many historians have argued as to the relative inflexibility of units in the ancient world. Some have even suggested wheeling a battleline of hoplites was not possible at all. If true, ARMATI is then quite liberal, at least more than TACTICA! If units could have wheeled as freely as you suggest, there would never have been the need for light troops to support flanks, since the outflanked units could easily have turned to face each new threat. Even a battleplan would not have been important, since it could so easily have been changed from moment to moment. Also I feel the 1000 ft. wargaming general needs to be cut down a tad. Restricting wheels at least makes you plan more like an ancient's general­nothing overly fancy, unless you're moving a one-unit division. Of course, this all feels right to me. But, since many rules permit free wheeling I do recognize the shock it must for a player when he first comes to ARMATI or TACTICA! This is a pity, for a person should not learn history from rules alone. I could easily have done what the others do and permit free-wheeling, but this concession (however popular it may make me), would not be fair to either myself or the gamer. Of course, you can play ARMATI however you want. It's your game now! By the way. Look at how ARMATI represents pike and shot with the broad approach I abstract the musketeers sheltering under the pikes. You might like it. Back to PW Review September 1994 Table of Contents Back to PW Review List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1994 Wally Simon 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