We were quite frankly a bit surprised at the volume of letters and e-mail we received after the publication of my article and Neil Hammond's review of MEDIEVAL WARFARE in SLINGSHOT a few months back (January, 1998 #195). Apparently, there are quite a number of readers who are looking for something different, yet familiar so far as wargame rules go. Let my try to explain our philosophy and reasons for pursuing, researching, playtesting and publishing rules dealing with our field of interest.

Like many of you, I have always enjoyed a tactical set of rules as opposed to the popular grand-tactical, stylized systems in vogue today. I realize that this is a throw-back to the past, but considering I started gaming in the mid-1960's, this is not surprising. The old style, tactical rules allowed a more hands-on type of play, with each painted figure representing the type of warrior he was meant to represent on the wargames table, armor and weapon-wise.

My older mentality apparently does not allow me to grasp the stylized sameness of grand-tactical rules. The figures on the table might as well be cardboard counters for all their armor and weaponry mean to the game. Spending weeks of researching and painting figures always makes me desirous of having their appearance be meaningful in the games I deploy them in to play. The old hands-on tactical feel games, while not so grand in concept (we cannot fight the entire battle of Arbela or Tannenberg without using thousands of figures on a huge table), does allow us to be close to the action and be more involved in the actual mechanics, flow and play of the game. These were the types of games I enjoyed playing in the past and they are what I sought to replicate in both MEDIEVAL WARFARE (MW) as well as ANCIENT WARFARE (AW).

I mentioned stylization before. What I did not want to do in my rules was fall back into the total reliance on die rolls to determine morale and combat. Certain psychological factors had to be weighed as well as the value of command performance, tactical position, perceived superiority or inferiority in respect to the unit facing yours across the battlefield, as well as weaponry and armor. What bothers me the most about grand tactical rules is the arbitrariness of movement, morale and combat. Should a die dictate how many units I can move each turn or should my own ability or lack of same? Can a simple die roll really determine how my well-painted and researched army fights? Is this a realistic replication of warfare or simply an easy convention for playabilities sake in respect to tournament gaming?

My answers to these questions prompted me to brainstorm why it was that I used to really enjoy the fun and excitement of gaming. The last three years have seen the results of such work culminate in the appearance of first MEDIEVAL WARFARE, demonstrated at last year's and this year's Historicon and Cold Wars conventions, and ANCIENT WARFARE, making its debut this July in Lancaster, PA (Historicon '98).

Once my mind was made up in respect to actually tackling this project, the mechanics for the rules developed quite rapidly from a few random notes and articles in SAGA to a full-blown endeavor that evolved into a period specific set of rules aimed at my main fields of interest, Ancient, Dark Age and Medieval military history.

By requiring that each actual figure represented no more than twenty historical counterparts in MW and thirty in AW, the rules could be tailored to smaller scale actions, allowing detailed morale, missile and close combat action (of immense importance for tactical level games), and fast and furious fights as well as an integrated yet restricted command control system, reflecting the very real problems commanders in pre-industrial times actually were faced with.

The various charts and tables were painstakingly modified and adjusted through two years of intense playtesting. The trial and error process was at times frustrating and at other times exhilarating. For instance, early on we could not figure out how to simply (always my operative objective) replicate the effectiveness of missile fire for various types of troops. From written records and statistics we knew that missile fire was profoundly more effective when delivered by close order troops rather than dispersed skirmishers. After various rules discussions, we finally hit upon a simple "four figure stands receive a positive die modifier while two figure stands receive a negative modifier". Easy, efficient and it worked.

There were many rules which were rejected as they cluttered up the system while adding little. Other rules, such as the morale bonuses for superior tactical position and chargers receiving no attack bonus in delaying terrain, were important to the concepts of warfare, so remained. We tried many armies and different tactical systems to see what worked and what did not. History has shown us that the Republican and earlier Imperial Roman armies were virtually unstoppable in an open fight. AW had some playtesters concerned about the power of the Roman legionnaire. They almost always defeated their enemy. We came up with a warband rule, whereby the unruly barbarians were given an initial close combat status of Fanatic (with a subsequent initial bonus in the first round of fighting). After that, they were classed as Average morale. This helped, but still the Romans usually won, it just took longer.

Well, Vercingetorix, what would you do? Barbarian success against the Romans almost always was a result of the Romans losing their cohesion; i.e. becoming disordered. If the barbarian commander can disorder the Romans, he will beat them. This was graphically reflected in one of our games when a Roman maniple decided that facing charging elephants was not in their best interest and they broke and ran. A resourceful commander will use his best troops to defeat the enemies worst ones. If you throw your levies up against veterans, the die will not salvage your poor decision.

After the rules were finished, the army lists had to be developed. We started with WRG's excellent DBM lists and the older 7th lists for a basis. With these, we integrated Ian Heath's research as well as numerous proposed lists from SAGA, SPEARPOINT and SLINGSHOT into the final rough draft versions.

Finally, I set a minimum and maximum point size for each of the eighty-four lists. Numbers were crunched, squeezed and adjusted. Some troop types eliminated (if a troop type only appeared in a given year, for instance, it was dropped from the list) and others expanded upon to arrive at a representative mix for an 'average' army for each list. I feel that it is of paramount importance to have armies which are not the best that ever could have existed, but rather are what the commanders of the time actually had to work with. You have many choices, certainly, but there are always troops you have to have, just as the original generals did.

Once the rules and lists were completed, we took some time to run scenarios, often playing solo to test out rules and armies.

The first time I played a solo game, I realized that the rules actually would allow you to play an enjoyable game without an opponent! By using the order markers, enemy ambushers and the 'fog of war' advanced rule, you have an opponent who is totally unpredictable. Each turn was an adventure and I never knew what to expect next. Rounding out the rules package is a basic set of naval rules, as in MW.

At the present time, copies of AW are available in an 8 1/2 by 11 format with full color covers. We will be selling them at Historicon, or they may be ordered by mail. They sell for $20.00 U.S. postage paid, or $25.00 airmail postpaid to England or abroad. They can be ordered from T. Gore, 890 Janes Road, Rochester, NY 14612-2330. Our e-mail address for questions or rules queries is 061815@msn.com.

Related

Some Design Thoughts on Ancient Warfare