"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!"

Catchy line, huh? Anyway, I have some ideas which I hope will contribute to WRG (7.5 and DBM) Ancients gaming. There is no reason why the playing of Ancients should be restricted by obscurity to a few individuals dispersed all over the world. In order to open the Same to the general public as a hobby alternative for more people, and consequently increase our own enjoyment, the following conditions must exist:

1. A clear set of rules, free of multiple interpretations for various "situations" must exist.
2. Conditions must favor aggressive play and competition must be fair.
3. People must be willing to invite new players and teach the game.
4. A tolerance for change is needed so that historical accuracy can continue to evolve.

My point is this: with clarity, simplicity, and fairness, we will earn the respect of those who would consider competing in tournaments. In doing so, we should be able to attract the multitudes who should play Ancients, but don't know it yet. With more players and more demand come higher stakes (bigger prize money), etc. And best of all, for the unattached or "otherwise" available gamers - crowds of adoring young groupies! Did you know that chess masters have groupies? Well they do, and so should we.

A Test of Your Generalship

To generate a fair battle is simply beyond the capability of a point system. The rules keep changing, and the point values remain static, For example, when one creates an "experimental rule" to solve 4 historical inaccuracy in the Same (a good thing), seldom am the point values adjusted for the troops that have gained or lost righting capacity (a bad thing), In this way, fairness has been compromised over and over again. Fairness is essential if anyone outside of NASAMW will ever give respect to this game and to the laurels of its victors.

Now don't got alarmed, I realize the devastating ramifications of insinuating that the point values need to be adjusted. In fact, I want them to remain unchanged for all time. I want to use them for "army sizing", not as the basis for a "fair" battle. Before I enter into the details of my plan, let me explain the purpose of trying to have a fair battle. Seldom in history were battles ever "fair", and there was no assurance that the enemy would not show up with a host of 1,600 WRG points to fight your 900, Therefore, our purpose here is not so much to model history in a campaign or scenario, but to test the generalship of two opposing players. We have already discussed above how the point system that we have now does not provide fairness. Hence, it is not an adequate test of generalship.

However, we can develop a flow chart which generates a fair battle. The process to do this is simple, but let me first explain with an example I have prepared. In my example, I am assuming 1100 (or 300AP in DBM, not assumed to be equivalent) points as a base value for a battle. This implies that players will bring roughly 1,600 (500AP) to the tournament so as to have additional troops to add to their base value when needed. I have prepared some victory conditions along the following scenario called "Pyrrhic Victory":

(Victory condition "A") You are the tactical aggressor. Your advantage is that you probably have more material than your opponent. Your disadvantage is that your opponent wins automatically if you do not defeat him. You must demoralize all of the commands of the opposing army. Losses do not matter and a pyrrhic victory is fine.

(Victory condition "B") You are the tactical defender. If your army is not defeated, you win. Even though you arc the tactical defender, you arc free to move and attack anywhere you wish.

(Victory condition "C") The battle seems to already be balanced. Neither side has a tactical advantage. Play for victory as desired.

The flow chart is used after placing terrain, but before deployment. Now that you know the background, let the bidding begin. Oh, by the way, it would be wise to bid honestly since the other player has the option of swapping armies and letting you "cat" that lousy bid you offered him. Any bid is acceptable, even a negative bid if you feel it is warranted. Remember though that it is the recipient of the lowest bid who gets first choice. Turn now to the next page to the Fair Battle Flow Chart.

Others have indicated to me that some players would be highly agitated by the thought of "switching armies". I look at this as a plus and a strong incentive to bid honestly. There is no reason why players cannot make agreements between themselves as to what bids are fair, and would be accepted if offered. Furthermore, there should be an especially humiliating write-up in the tournament battle announcements for players who received a spanking from their own army after they demanded a switch. These factors are foolproof ways to keeps the bids honest, the battles fair, and generalship rigorously tested. All-in-all, I would expect a switch to be the rare exception resulting from a dishonest bid.

I would enjoy seeing the question put to the NASAMW membership in the next survey: "Should the society adopt the use of the Fair Battle bidding system as an official requirement for all NASAMW recognized tournaments?" The ramifications are incredible. Almost any army is now tournament material since a bid can make it a fair battle.

Jumbo Fair Battle Flow Chart (slow: 125K)

Begin at the top. A diamond is a yes/no decision point. A box with a dark shaded border indicates when points are added to an army's point total. A circle with a lightly shaded interior is an end point which indicates the victory conditions that will be used in the battle. Stop using the flow chart as soon as you have reached one of the lightly shaded boxes. The objective has been achieved.

Some other scenarios that I had in mind to write up as "A" and "B" players using the Flow Chart are:

Siege games (all sorts of possibilities here) to name a few:

Relief Actions, Sorties, Assaults, Traitors

Naval games (again, all sorts):

Landing against a defended beach, Fighting withdrawals, Raids, Ship to ship, and more traitors

Land scenarios

Deep raids, Delaying actions, Battle in rugged terrain, Delayed reinforcements, Hopeless situations against insurmountable odds, Attacker - Defender scenarios as "Pyrrhic Victory", Still more traitors

This is just the beginning, just think of all the great scenarios you've played. Essentially, any situation can be a balanced fair battle, suitable for tournament play, by using the flow chart. I urge you to send m your favorites. All scenarios should be kept simple with clearly defined win/lose victory conditions. Try to avoid adding up points. Place the onus of the tactical offensive on one of the players by defining a "draw" as a defenders victory, etc. If we can assemble enough scenarios, we could create another flow chart which would indicate which scenario to use.

Controlling Time in Tournament Play

Although not from my own experience, I have been told that sometimes players delay a game by not moving in order to avoid defeat or to lessen its effects. This is not a good control of time. I suppose that it is within the limits of the rules to never move at all. If this is true, I cannot understand how anyone has ever lost a game, since one can always choose to draw a stronger opponent. This will not win us any respect from those who would consider playing ancients. This will not attract crowds of adoring young groupies. This makes a good game into a waste of time, and turns tournament competition into a joke. This must be stopped at any cost - and here is the price: chess timers.

Simply stated, a chess timer works like this: The timer has two clocks and two buttons. Each clock tracks the amount of remaining time each player has to use. If your clock runs out first, you have forfeited the game. Your clock only runs when it is your turn. When you have completed your move, fire, or portion of the combat, you push your button. Your button stops your clock, and starts the clock belonging to your opponent. Needless to say, no one wastes time in chess.

Consider the vast expenditure of personal resources by players to participate in tournament competition: Lead, paint, time, rules, travel, lodging, food, entry fees, and vacation time from work. This amounts to hundreds of dollars and hours. Now think in comparison, of a $50 chess timer. I am quite positive that most players would agree that this is a small price to pay compared to the frustration of fighting Fabian several times a tournament. I would enjoy seeing the question put to the NASAMW membership: "Should the society adopt the use of chess timers as an official requirement for all NASAMW recognized tournaments?"

In Conclusion

Please take the time to consider all of the ramifications of the changes mentioned above. The bid influences army size, and some armies perform differently at various point values. The bid transcends all army list legislation, and all terrain rolls. Most importantly, these systems result in aggressive play and fair battles which test ones generalship and generate respect.

My sincere gratitude to the people who were willing to invite me to play and took the time to teach me the game: Walt Leach, Joe DiCamillo, Larry Essick, and Rick Novak.