AW Feedback and Q&A

From: Simon Wilson

Thanks very much for the electronic version of the new AW rules and the amendments and new army lists. They look very good. I've had a very brief read through them and my immediate thoughts are as follows:

I like the layout of the army lists - and I'm sure that other simple souls like me will appreciate the basic army lists. They are very clear and easy to read. I was interested to note that the later Carthaginian lists went for archers rather than the more usual slingers/javelins in the basic army? Is this a deliberate break with tradition? [My own preference, based upon the research for my course on the Punic Wars.]

The layout of the rules is also very good - the designer notes are useful. Will there be a playsheet in the full version? [Most certainly.] I note that the revised rules set takes away the option for trained troops to retire/retreat at a fixed rather than random rate and also their ability to echelon up to 45 degrees. [It is now back in…an oversight on my part!] Perhaps I'm biased, but I did like this option to help recreate manipular tactics in my Republican Roman army!

I presume that fanatic/frenzied troops cannot benefit from the option not to push-back/pursue by having a deploy/manoeuvre order? [Correct, frenzied always have to follow-up or pursue.] Do you think it would be worth reminding readers of the WRG 15mm and 6 mm base sizes - 6 mm is quite popular over here in the UK. Also:

1. Could you clarify how far a unit pursues a routing enemy? Is this the normal tactical distance or is it the charge/retire/rout distance? [You must roll for pursuit movement distance on the charge/retire/rout chart.]

2. Do javelin armed troops who are "Out of missiles" , lose the javelin factor in close combat and if, armed with an other weapon that only allows first rank to fire, also lose the half rank entitlement for the second rank? [If you are Out of Missiles, you have no javelins to use in close combat, so you lose the 1/2 rank as well as the factor].

3. If pilum armed troops go on to fight another combat without a "Recover" order, do they lose the pilum factor and the second rank entitlement (ie they are now fighting with sword only?) [No, they continue to count the pilum.]

4. Would I be right in thinking that you can only countercharge if you have placed a charge or move order for the unit in question? [That is correct.]

On a trivial note, I assume that your UK English proof reader has already told you that over here "catafracts" are "cataphracts!" Also, you categorise the occasions for morale tests as A-F and later, under "Mixed Morale Units" refer to them as 1-6. [Howard will certainly straighten all that out!]

Overall, I think your rules have achieved a great balance between the ability to accurately recreate ancient battles and have a FUN playable game at the same time. I will definitely be ordering a copy of your MW rules as soon as my US work colleague returns to the UK from his holiday break and agrees to write you a $US cheque for $20 on my behalf!

On a different note, I chanced upon an old copy of your 1066 booklet, bought it and really enjoyed it! Will we be seeing some scenarios for AW/MW? Also, good to see your articles in Nov 99 Slingshot edition.

[Thanks, Simon, that's very kind of you.]

Poland 1138 Campaign

From: David Bonk

My group had a good time as usual with the rules. I was running a game as part of a continuing campaign. I don't know if I've mentioned this to you previously. I got 6 guys to agree to be in a campaign set in Poland, 1138, starting with the death of Boleslaw the Wrymouth, leaving his four sons with separate holdings and the center of the country occupied by the Bishops of Gniezno and Cracow. In addition to indigenous forces there are the ever present Pommeranian, Prussian and Lithuanian pagan incursions, not to mention petty disputes among Russ dukes that can involve the Poles due to greed or marriage connections, the small matter of a civil war in Germany that spills over into Poland and the Bohemians and Hungarians always lurking along the southern borders. Everyone was given enough points to organize an army and some resources. Since the campaign started we've had about 5-6 battles of various size, resulting in the ascension of the Bishop of Gniezno as the main power broker. He and his forces have fought in almost every battle so far, not losing battles and amassing a large army from the defeated brothers. He even captured one of the brothers and held him for about a month, taking most of his army as payment for releasing him.

The game last night was based on a Pommeranian seige of one of the Bishops towns. The Bishop sent his Palatine with a small force of cavalry and infantry to break the seige. The Pommeranians pulled back to confront the Palatine, at which time the garrison of the town, under the Castellan, sallied out to attack the Pommeranians. Their small force of one infantry, one crossbow and one cavalry unit was overwhelmed by the Pommeranian infantry but not before they destroyed several pagan units. The remnents of the cavalry unit, one stand, along with the Castellan rushed into the center of the Pommeranian position and engaged the Pommeranian commander and one wing commander. The wing commanders stand was driven back with casualties by the Polish cavalry while the Castellan engaged in a grueling one on one contest with the Pommeranian commander.

While this was happening the main Polish force under the Palatine engaged the Pommeranian cavalry and infantry, pushing back the infantry and driving the cavalry from the field. When the dust settled the Pommeranian army fled in terror and the Castellan emerged victorious with the Pommeranian tribal leader his captive.

Not only has the "fighting" Bishop of Gniezno's forces once again triumphed and driven the pagans from Polish soil, but with a captured tribal leader the Bishop has even more resources available to bring the brothers, Wladyslaw of Silesia, Henryk of Malopolska,Mieszko of Weildopolska and Boleslaw of Masovia into line. I was thinking about writing an article about this campaign for SAGA or possibly for your website...interested? [Certainly, David, send it as soon as you can.]

Renaissance Warfare

From: Robert W. Eldridge bob_eldridge@mindspring.com>

I'm currently participating in the playtest of Renaissance Warfare and there are two things in that rules set that I particularly like and think would be great added to AW/MW:

1) Alter the turn sequence so that the Recovery phase is the LAST phase of the turn. That seems much more logical, and adds a reasonable delay to the effects of a "Recover" order.

2) Distinguish between "normal" (1 - 5 stands) and "large" (6 - 10 stands) units by having "large" units take a -1 for every 2 stands lost, instead of every stand. This will tend to make players deploy units in bigger, more historical sizes, and gives massive units a small, but not overwhelming or unbalancing, advantage for their larger size.

I know you and Jeff have probably already talked at length about, this, but I just wanted to put in a "vote from the field" so to speak. [We have adopted the Recover Phase change, but the jury is still out on the unit size question.]

Khazar Wagons

From: Dennis A. Leventhal

On the use of wagons by Khazars, Ian Heath's Armies of the Dark Ages 600-1066 (WRG, 1980) states (p.46-47): "Alans, Turks, Avars, Khazars, Bulgars, Pechenegs and Cumans are all recorded as being accompanied on campaign by wagons, like the earlier Goths and Huns, and of forming them up, tied together with ropes, as a defensive circle round their camps. Felt or leather tents were set up inside the laager and sometimes a ditch was dug around the outside.

The Khazar Khagan used a wagon positioned in the midst of his army as his command post on the battlefield. However, by the 10th century Khazars no longer always [italics added] used wagons to fortify their camps, Marvazi recording that each Khazar horseman carried 20 short stakes for erecting a palisade round the camp each night, against which they leant their shields for added protection; he adds that a palisade of this nature could be erected in less than an hour."

In regards to the new optional Supply rules, there are a lot of choices from the figure manufacturers for making supply trains . The following examples are for 15 mm: Chariot Miniatures has pack camels (Cat. No. CS1), pack mules (CS2), and baggage carts with mules (CS3), that'll fit just about any period. Falcon Figures (UK) has 2 ox carts with driver (NKE36), pack mules with separate loads (CUB4), and oxen (CUB4a). Essex offers 22 different wagons & related figures for all periods. See Cat. Nos. WAG 1 thru WAG22 and DRV1 thru DRV4. Also see their "Ancient Equipment" (Cat. Nos. XEQ2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 13.) and "Medieval Equipment" (Cat. Nos. MFPE 11, 11a & 13). Museum Miniatures has pack camels (PKC01), pack horses (PH01), canvas-topped wagons (WG05 & 6), draft oxen (WG12), draft horses (WG13), wood-sided carts (WG 14 & 15), barrel carts (WG16 & 17), and wicker carts (WG 19-20).

Hard or Soft C?

From Phil Barker:

With reference to Dennis A. Leventhal's "Pet Peeve" in SAGA 72. Skythian/Scythian derives from the Greek word "Skuthia". There is no "C" in Greek. There is also no "K" in Latin, but the "C" is hard, so the Romans wrote it "Scythes", but pronounced it like the Greeks. The common English spelling derives from Latin, but produces confusion with other English words with a soft "C", like "Scythe", leading to the mispronunciation (which Dennis thinks is correct) as Sithian". This irritates ME unbearably, so I chose to spell it as it is pronounced. We have done the same with all other similarly affected Greek names, so for example we refer to "Kassandros" by the name his mother gave him instead of "Cassander". I'm sorry if this makes me the only man in the platoon in step, but that's how the cookie crumbles!

Archery Effectiveness

From: Rich Knapton

I was reading "From Sumer to Rome" and came across some interesting information on bows.

1. The effective range of the self-bow is about 150 yards.

2. The effective range of the composite-bow is about 300 yards.

3. Modern longbow archers: "After 10 to 12 arrows fired at maximum pull, even the professional archer can no longer perform well. The expectation that an ancient archer could fire five arrows a minute would remain just that, an expectation not easily met in practice."

4. The most common use of the bow in ancient armies was as a weapon of indirect fire support of infantry on the battlefield or in siege operations. Large groups of archers were positioned behind the main bodies of the contesting armies and fired in salvo to rain down a hail of arrows upon the enemy. Archers were rarely placed at the flanks of the formations, a position that would have made them vulnerable to attack by cavalry or light infantry. Placing archers in the front to act as a screen would have made them terribly vulnerable to arrow attack form behind the enemy formation. The need to operate the bow with both hands precluded the use of the shields for protection. In terms of a modern analogy, ancient armies used archers as close-fire support.

5. A composite bow can fire a 553-grain arrow 250 yards at a 30- to 35-degree angle in about 5.8 seconds into a crosswind of less than 8 miles per hour. At that range, as our experiments demonstrated, an experienced archer can place 100% of his arrows within a 50- to 20-yard target box. Moreover, at that range area accuracy is easily achieved, and the archer can range his fire back and forth or from side to side over the entire target area with little difficulty. However, at 300 years, the degree of accuracy drops off considerable to where only 50 percent of the arrows can be expected to fall within the target area. Ranging becomes almost impossible. As the target moves closer, from 200 to 100 yards, accuracy remains at 50 percent, but the exposed area of the targets with the box, the head and shoulders of the individual soldier, presents such a small area that hits drop off to almost nothing.

6. An arrow fired from 250 yards passed through the formation of 40 degrees so that it had only one chance of striking 2 soldiers in the same horizontal plane, The chances of hitting the target at all were approximately 1 in 5 or 22 percent. Given the degree of exposed area, the chances of an arrow striking the target in an unprotected place were 10.8 percent. Thus, 1 in every 10 rounds fired could cause either death of a wound. Ancient archery fire was about 20 times as effective in causing death and injury as was eighteenth-century musket fire.

[Ed. I'm happy to see that our cutting back of missile effectiveness reflects the accuracy of archers in our rules. The archer-intensive armies now have to worry about a lower % of hit probability as well as the good chance they will go low or out of missiles as they continue firing each turn. Thanks, Rich!]

Late Roman Army

From: Perry Gray

I hosted a game of AW last night with seven of the group attending. It was Later Romans versus Sassanian Persians at 950 points. Only two others were familiar with the rules and we played seven turns in less than four hours. A decisive outcome was about two turns away. The Persian cavalry were very effective against the Roman horse, although they made little impression on the legions (protected by caltrops and in three ranks--legionnaires plus archers).

Everyone seemed to enjoy the game and found the rules easy to follow. There was enough interest to try RW next instead of "Age of Discovery", which has not caught our interest (although we like Age of Reason for SYW games).

One question, the lowest possible melee tally is .1 so that a unit always has a 10% chance to inflict a casualty?

[Ed. They have a 10% chance per STAND. If you have four stands eligible to fight, they have a 40% chance of inflicting a casualty.] I did not see this in the rules.

There were a few minus tallies during unbalanced charges (AC versus SC, who were disordered).

I took the following quote from a website (http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dorst/biblio.html) that covers the Roman army. I shall add more information later. Note that the thoracomachus described below was often used for the main type of armour. You may wish to consider the more recent sculpted figures (Donnington, Foundry and Gripping Beast) that depict metal armour. See the Osprey book "Late Roman Infantryman" for more information as well.

"Contrary to popular opinion late Roman troops were as heavily protected by armour as their early imperial predecessors. Although according to the available evidence the famous "lorica segmentata" was no longer in use after the late third century, literary and depictional sources indicate a continued general use of scale, mail and lamellar body armour by both mounted troops and foot soldiers. A padded leather and linen protective vest known as a thoracomachus was worn beneath metallic armour. Additional protection was provided by splinted greaves and armguards, notably in the ranks of the heavy cavalry. Helmet bowls were by this date usually constructed of several segments. The distinction made in some modern works between cavalry and infantry types does not appear to reflect ancient practice. Shields for all troop types were generally of oval or round shape. The unit shield patterns for many field army formations have been preserved in the Notitia Dignitatum, apparently with a remarkable degree of reliability."

AWQ&A

From: Jean Deroches djeanm@iosphere.net

I have a few questions concerning AW. Played my first game with Perry on Saturday the 30th.

1-Troops with darts once they have thrown them are out of ammunition for the whole game. [Darts are the same as javelins. They are not a separate weapon category by themselves, but are lumped under the javelin factor. If you are close order troops, you fire ONCE with javelins and are then Out of Missiles. You can, of course, give your unit a Recover order and restock, but they will be unable to fire until they are restocked.]

2- Does arrow barrage exist in AW. [No. Arrow Barrage is only in MW].

3- If yes for the arrow barrage may dart be included. [In MW, only ARCHERS may use Arrow Barrage].

4- We got hammered by the darts. Since they have only one range would it be possible to have the same morale check for range. In other words if they roll the d10 and fail they fire at +8 instead of close range +6. [They don't get to fire at charging troops coming into contact, so there is no instance where they would have to roll for range. Javelins are counted in the close combat (you count the extra weapon factor of +1, simulating that you are shooting just at the point of contact) as only archers, crossbows, slingers and artillery can fire at troops charging them.]

5- I canīt find caltrops in the rules. I agree they are an obstacles with the appropriate penalties. Could you give me the page number? If they are not there it you may wish to include them. [They are on page 11, under obstacles. On page 17, under Deploy/Maneuver, it is noted that units may place stakes, caltrops, etc.]

6- When are caltrops placed? And those the player placing them have to warn his opponent? [They are placed during the Strategic or Tactical Phase. Your unit must have Deploy orders to place caltrops as stated on page 17.]

Roman Heavy Cavalry: Javelins or Spear?

From: John Boehm JBoehm9460@aol.com

AW needs a new weapon class, a cavalry spear similar to the infantry spear class. Why? AW presently has a lance, javelin and bow for cavalry. The javelin may be used for both missile and close combat. Republican Roman HC are listed as javelins, but did they use javelins nor any weapon that was thrown? Not according to Polybius,VI.25 1-9. They used a sturdy spear with a butt spike, so that if it broke it could be reversed and still used effectively. This was a melee weapon pure and simple. Moreover based on the readily available resource material most other close combat cavalry of this same period used a similar spear and not javelins, ie. Gauls, Spanish, Carthaginians and some Hellenistic Greek types of cavalry, as Polybius says the Romans are now armed like the cavalry of Greece. (We can save the debate as to how Antigonid Macedonians were armed for another day; I'm not convinced by Head's argument.)

The problem here arises from a rationalization in some distant version of WRG that for melee purposes cavalry spears and javelins were to be treated as equivalent, thus spawning the javelin/light spear class which has been shortened over the years to "javelin". I don't agree with the underlying WRG premise, as the weapon described by Polybius appears much more effective as a close combat weapon than a javelin, and can continue to be used even if broken on contact. Obviously the users of these weapons must have thought so too. [We have accepted John's suggestion and put in the new weapon factor in AW. The Spear-armed cavalry weapon factor is +1/+2 for initial round and +1/+1 for subsequent rounds.]