From: Ellis Simpson: Thanks for getting in touch. I have used the rules a fair bit over the piece. I'm still not 100% convinced that I have the casualty stuff right. However, the rules are much better IMHO at giving an impression of real combat or a real battle than most of the DBM type clones. For that alone they are worth the price of admission. I only have a limited number of MW figures so I need to think about whether or not to spend more time on that era or try out AW. Is that available from you? If so, how much for a set to be sent to the UK? If not, how would I get a hold of them. Good to hear from you.

John Boehm, Ancient's Editor for the Courier writes: Enclosed please find a review of your recent rules that I was asked to do for the Courier. Dick only gave me a two week turn around, so I did not have a chance to play test them. As I indicated in my review, I was very impressed by the rules and I do want to give them a try. I was also impressed by your Medieval Warfare rules.

This brings me to the reservations I expressed in my review. The first being the element basis of the game as opposed to a figure basis. Unfortunately (or fortunately as the case may be), I come from a background in ancient wargaming that predates the introduction of the element concept When WRG 7th and the other rules came along with an element basis I simply went in a different direction. Consequently, large numbers of my figures are not organized that way and I have no intention of changing their basing and organization as many of my unit sizes do not lend themselves to the current element sizes in any event, i.e. ten figure units, six man triari units, etc.

Knowing the people I whom I game with in this area of the country, I would say that most of them are in the same boat. Nobody that I know made the jump to element organization, at least with their 25's which are the bulk of the figures in collections in this area, although I understand a few did go that route with 15's for WRG 7th. I have some ideas on getting around this problem in order to play your rules, and any suggestions you have would be appreciated since I like to keep my modifications to a set of rules within the 'spirit' of the designer. I am most concerned, however, about the morale aspect of the element basis; given the wide disparity in the number of elements within a unit, the loss of a single element as the triggering factor for a morale test seems to be somewhat arbitrary.

[Ed. You will be pleased to know that in the Foundry edition of the rules, any base size can be used, even single figure basing. There will be examples of how to play games against opponents with different basing than your own, as well. I hate the 'element' concept, but like the 'stand' (or band, company; retinue, etc.) idea for determining casualties. No unit may be larger than eight stands, and usually, four to six is the norm. I don't feel it unreasonable to find troops having a serious quandary when seeing 1/4 or 1/6 of their unit destroyed around them].

My other concern is the figure ratio. I have never accepted the idea of a low figure ratio for ancient rules, believing it should be at least 50 or 100 to 1 in order to properly reflect the size of actual ancient battles. Of course, the low figure ratio didn't concern me for your Medieval Warfare rules given the generally smaller size of the armies involved. I cannot accept the premise that one is either fighting a portion of an ancient battle or that a perfectly proportioned smaller contingent would be engaged in an independent action. Generally, where independent task forces were involved, they were selected for a specific mission and may have involved all the heavy infantry, perhaps a few lights, or a mix of cavalry and lighter infantry.

A particular wing or portion of a battle would likewise not be representative of the entire army but would consist of the particular troop types stationed at that position in the battle line, i.e. all heavy infantry in the center, cavalry and light infantry on the flanks. Moreover, the term "grand-tactical" warfare was one which I thought was coined with regard to the Napoleonic era, and involved the maneuvers of independent corps, whereas warfare predating that period was essentially linear and tactical in nature, including Ancient Warfare.

[Ed. Think of the term 'grand-tactical' in the nomenclature of wargaming rules systems descriptions, not in any attempt to historically pre-date its actual appearance in military writing. There were numbers of smaller (5,000-10,000 man) armies which made their presence known during the ancient period, but I understand your concerns, John. As far as scale goes, ignore it and say each figure represents 50 or 100 actual men in order to refight larger actions].

As regards the maniples of the republican legions, it is my sense that this was initially simply a formation for the approach march and secondly a mechanism by which lines could be exchanged in combat. Before actual combat was joined a solid front was formed for the line of hastati or princeps, etc. of a particular legion and it was this line of hastati, princeps or triari which was in essence then the maneuver and combat unit. Individual maniples did not appear to operate independently but rather as a part of this line, albeit with this line having a little more flexibility than the phalanx formations of other nations. Likewise, when the lines were exchanged, it was done by lines for the legion, not by individual maniples. This view seems consistent with the more recent explanation and interpretation which I have read in "Slingshot" during the last several years, and by other authors interpreting the combat style of the manipular legion, as well as my own research. Thus, to my way of thinking, one need not worry about a scale representing individual maniples, but rather one in which each line of a legion is represented as the actual maneuver and combat unit, regardless of the scale. The rules need merely allow the exchange of such lines, since the maniples will be formed with a solid frontage for purposes of combat in any event. [Ed. John, try playing the Romans in double ranks…they are very effective and the rules simulate what you've so ably pointed out].

At any rate those are my thoughts and my observations for whatever they are worth. I did enjoy your rules and they may with some suitable modifications (i.e. element to figure basis) be what many in this area are looking for, as we are not 100% satisfied with the current rules we are using. As to the scale issue, I have no problem simply ignoring that aspect of the rules and using whatever scale seems appropriate for the particular battle being represented. From R. Kent Haryett: I just wanted to let you know that both rules sets, and your kind note arrived safely and that I have had the opportunity to read through them both. I very much liked what I read and am very keen to give them a try. Our little group of gamers has about 40 different Ancient/Medieval armies gathering dust at the moment, nobody being overly excited about the prospect of another DBM dull match. In fact, we had started to play 7th again when I recalled seeing a review in Slingshot.

However, I do have a few queries and comments which I thought I would pass on, if you don't mind.

1) I am somewhat confused about the number of stands permitted to count in melee. It would appear that only those stands in actual contact with the enemy unit can count. Both Ancient and Medieval Warfare are quite explicit that overlapping stands count in the second round in certain circumstances. However, the diagram of melee provided again in both rules sets has a unit in contact with the enemy base corner to base corner. I would have thought this was overlap and would not count in the first round.

[Ed. The example in the rules illustrates a situation where a unit is charging another, yet did not begin the charge with 1/2 its stands behind the enemy flank, so cannot count as a flank charge. Since the unit being charged could not wheel to face (it already had an enemy fighting it to the front), we allow the charging unit to hit at the corner. The units fight as is explained in the example.]

2) What are the weapon factors for cavalry and infantry armed only with a sidearm, i.e. sword, for both Ancient and Medieval Warfare?

[The sword/sidearm weapon has no additional fighting factors.]

We employ armies with large numbers of armoured heavy horse archers, ie. Belisarian Kavallarioi, and do not believe that they were double armed, each to his own.

[The army lists assume mixed units of bow and lance-armed cavalry, thus it is simpler just to call them all double armed.]

Also, how many ranks are permitted to count in combat. Medieval Warfare's combat table makes no mention of either the weapon factor or eligible ranks. Ancient Warfare has a weapons factor for "various" against foot and eligible ranks. I am uncertain whether my interpretation of "various" is correct. Does it apply to both foot and cavalry sidearms?

[Cavalry and camels normally fight one rank deep. If they are in conrois formation (closed up ranks) they fight 1 1/2 ranks. If in wedge, they fight two ranks deep. "Various" applies only to warband foot which fought with a wide variety of weapons within a given unit (javelins, longswords, spears). Various does not apply to any mounted troops.]

Further, does the ranks eligible apply to both foot and cavalry?

[Each combat weapon has its rank eligibility for use listed after its combat factors. As mentioned above, mounted normally fight only one rank deep.]

3) Schiltron/shieldwall. I don't think archers should be forming shieldwall etc. As the rules currently read, this would be a formation permitted to them. Perhaps could be limited to close/loose order infantry with melee weapon.

[Archers in a second, third or deeper rank of a unit are allowed to form whatever formation is adopted by the front rank, which may be melee weapon armed. All archer units would actually adopt either a Retire order and run from better armored attackers, or be issued Defend orders which would allow them to fire as well as fight better. Shieldwall or schiltron would cut their movement by 1/2 and make it impossible for them to Retire successfully. If a general is brave or foolhardy enough to try this, good luck!]

A couple of quick comments on the army lists. Although we rarely use army lists for other than assistance in classifying troop types, I and many of my colleagues often use the army lists to gauge the caliber of the rules. Overall, I thought the lists were pretty darned good though I have these comments on a few of my "pet" interests.

1) #6, New Kingdom Egyptians: Although mixed units of archer/spear are certainly more effective on the tabletop, I can think of no historical basis for this formation. I've scoured Yadin, amongst others, and was unable to find any depiction or reference to such a formation. [You are right there. This was an oversight and will be corrected in future editions.]

2) #48, Pyrrhic. All reference to "Pontic" should be deleted and replaced with "Epirot". After all, Pyrrhus of Epirus. Also, where are the Italian allies, especially the Tarantines?

[Another situation where some items were deleted from the final list. Pontic is an older reference to this army left over from early versions of the list. Again, we will replace the title in subsequent editions.]

Notwithstanding the above comments, I think you should be highly commended for taking the time and energy to produce two rules sets and then, allow the public to "have a go". As I said above, I am eager to give them a go, and its been a long while since I've really wanted to play an ancients game. So, in my case at least, you have succeeded in putting the fun back into ancients. If you would like further comment as we play the rules, I would be happy to provide the feedback.

[Thanks for the suggestions and comments. Your input is greatly appreciated and I welcome any more you might have. Please keep in touch and let me know how your group is doing.]