Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Medieval Adventures => Topic started by: Captain Gideon on July 02, 2017, 09:09:36 PM
-
I recently acquired a copy of Tactica Medieval rules as I'm still trying to find a set of Medieval rules to use for my Agincourt game.
So who here either have the rules or has played games with them?
Thanks
Michael
-
I've never actually heard of them to be honest.
Though that doesn't mean much, I've only been 'in the know' with historical wargaming for the last say, 3 years.... But I've never come across them in that time.
I think the 'top' (ie most popular) wargame rules for medieval games appear to be.....
- Hail Caesar (best suited to really big games)
- Sword & Spear
- To The Strongest
- Lion Rampart (for smaller, lighter games, or 'large skirmish')
Have you considered any of them? I know I like the look of Hail Caesar and it would be my choice if I was playing big games.
From what I've seen of Sword & Spear I'm personally not keen on certain elements of it, but it does seem rather popular.
I don't know much about To The Strongest except that it uses a grid system, which makes it somewhat different.
Though to be honest, if you're just doing an Agincourt game, have you considered designing your own rules, or at least taking parts from different rules to build a simple set that would work for the game?
I mean, there's not really much in the way of tactical manoeuvre for an Agincourt game. The English just sit there and shoot the French as they come towards them. The French I guess just have to struggle with keeping cohesion through the mud and the press of bodies, though they do have a few decisions as to which troops to send in first and when (ie when do the cavalry attack, do they send the crossbowmen out front, etc). But the nature of the battlefield means there isn't much needed from a ruleset in terms of complicated movement. Just a way of resolving the success of either side in what they are doing, and some way of representing the difficulties the French has with keeping things ordered. Does it need any published ruleset?
-
I have Lion Rampart along with Revenge and Might of Arms so Tactica Medieval will give me 4 rulesets.
As for your other question since I just into Medieval gaming within the last several months I'm still new at this but I want to use the rules not just for Agincourt but for other Medieval Battles as well,plus I'm no rules writer and I don't want to start.
Plus the fact that most of the rules I got they were mostly cheap now if I can get some of the other rulesets that you have I'd rather get them on the cheap.
-
I have Tactica Medieval. I also once owned a copy of Tactica, but sold it many years ago after Armati, also by Arty Conliffe, was released.
I've never played the medieval version, but the ancient set was characterised by large armies organised according to fixed army lists, very simple buckets-of-dice mechanics, rigid deployment, and a very limited capacity for units to manoeuvre once deployed - so correctly deploying was paramount. From memory the medieval version reduced army size somewhat, and changed the deployment rules so that units had to be assigned to one of three 'battles', but was otherwise very similar.
Tactica was often cited as the most realistic set of ancient rules on the market, but even many of those who conceded this point preferred to play with something less rigid - so Mr Conliffe compromised with Armati.
Armati is a more conventional set of rules, allowing more freedom of manoeuvre than Tactica, and the original version covers 3000BC to 1700AD. There was a second edition by a different author that ended the period covered at 1500AD, with the promise of a dedicated renaissance set further down the track that never eventuated.
-
BTW... it's 'Lion Rampant'.
-
My experience with Tactica is reduced to Ancients, a long time ago! (no pun intended!) I remember that the game was slow, unflexible and that it took a lot of time to solve a turn. Of course, being young and with a lot of time in my hands I loved it!
Nowadays? Let's say that there are games more entertaining out there.
-
Humakt Sword and Spear sounds interesting but it all depends on price doing the Agincourt game won't happen for sometime and since I have the Armies(French and English)and I'm adding to them as I write this the main problem is rules and I want to do a lot of Medieval gaming with whatever set of rules that I finally decide on so I'll give Tactica a go and see what happens.
And if that fails then I'll look for another set of Medieval rules.
Michael
-
They are a good set of rules. I have played them a lot. Some find them a bit "rigid" in army lists and in maneuver, but I think they are a lot of fun with usually well balanced games. I have added my own house rules to them over the years too.
-
rampantlion might it be possible to get your house rules?
Also how do you think Medieval Tactica would work for an Agincourt game?
Michael
-
Tactica Medieval would be perfect for Agincourt.
I'd be surprised if refighting Agincourt wasn't one of the design goals.
-
StuRat Tactica Medieval does have Agincourt as a scenario but the figures that they have in the Scenario are a little low for my taste.
In their Scenario they have each side at 216 figures now that number sounds good for the English since I have over 100 Archers alone but the French I want to have double if not more figures for them.
But it all depends on just how many figures I want to get for the French.
I think Tactica Medieval might be the answer for my rules but I'll need to talk it over with my friends.
Michael
-
Played Tactica many times. I do like Arty Conliffe rules, but now we use Sword & Spear, but both would suit Agincourt period!
-
Michael, without chasing down the notes that I used, here is what I remember doing. I added a commander for each battle of both armies and made up command cards and based movement on flipping the command cards over from the deck after shuffling each turn. It added an interesting dynamic to the game. I also added an extra dice for commanders if they were in combat with the units. I think there was more to it, but I don't remember off the top of my head. I'll try to find the notes from the last convention game where I ran them.
I think they would work great for Agincourt.
Allen
-
Okay thanks Allen.
Michael
-
Can't find the darn notes! I do remember that I had an impetuous test for certain knight units (would apply well to Agincourt French!) before the normal movement card phase. Leaders were killed on a roll of 12 on 2 D6 if they won a melee that they were attached to and killed on a 10 or more on 2 D6 if they lost the round of melee (again if attached). The rules allow for a lot of add ons for specific scenarios and there are enough troop types in the book's army list to cover just about anything.
-
Oh, man, I played NOTHING BUT Tactica Medieval for years, mostly HYW games with some Italian Codottiere City State Wars, Wars of the Roses, and Swiss Burgundian Wars thrown in for good measure.
Agincourt was a great scenario, and the rules -- which as others have already mentioned are more strict and less versatile than many other sets in terms of troop type usage and maneuvre -- worked very well. It was years ago, and unfortunately the website we created to keep our photos and battle reports on was infected by malware and spambots, and the gamer friend who had created it finally shut it down, so no access to the pics or write-up -- but we also may have added more "Command Cards" as I recall each of several players per side having one for their personal leader figure. I still have some nicely designed Heraldic unit ID cards for each unit of English and French, which were a bit of a big deal at the time, being printed by me at home in full color on glossy photo paper (this was maybe around 2006 or so).
Anyway, I would join those recommending the rules in general and as a good choice for Agincourt in particular. I will do as Allen has done and try searching for our old scenario notes and army lists, which may also have expanded from the ones in the rulebook.
-
I do find it funny that in the Agincourt Scenario the overall numbers are exactly identical at 216 each.
Now I find that somewhat strange where the French had a large numerical advantage like maybe 5 to 1 or 6 to 1.
What I need to know(if possible)is how large was the French force?
I've said that I have at least 2 sources one being the Osprey Campaign Series Agincourt.
Now in that book the Forces are the following:
FRENCH
Mounted Men at Arms-8,400(2,400 were in the first line/battle)
Dismounted Men at Arms-14,000
Crossbowmen/Archers-2,000
Total-24,200
ENGLISH
8,000-9,000(at least 5,000 were Archers)
Yet there are other sources which puts the French numbers even higher maybe 30,000 or more.
And then we have newer sources which puts the French at around 12,000 or more with only 1,200 Mounted Men at Arms and the English with around 9,000.
So the big question is what numbers should I go with?
What I want is a game where it looks good on the table and people will say now that looks pretty good for Agincourt.
For me this is the main concern for the game.
One idea is that I have around 20,000 to 25,000 French and 6,000 to 7,000 for the English so if I go with these numbers then how many of the French will be Mounted?
Also I'm still in the early stages of doing this game so I have plenty of time.
Thanks
Michael
-
I do find it funny that in the Agincourt Scenario the overall numbers are exactly identical at 216 each.
Now I find that somewhat strange where the French had a large numerical advantage like maybe 5 to 1 or 6 to 1.
Actually, latest research puts the French advantage at lower ratios: 2 to 1, even a scarce 1.5 to 1. Not everybody agrees, though, but a re-interpretation of the available evidence has suggested that there were a lot less French present at the battle than previously thought.
-
For gaming, I'd go for whatever numbers you feel is right!
Go for 2:1 if you want, or less of a French numerical superiority if you prefer the look / feel / gameability of that. Or more... though I'd argue 5:1 or such seems a bit over the top.
I guess your own research has shown you that there are all sorts of theories so no one 'right answer' right now, so I wouldn't sweat it. Though it does seem that thinking today is that the French didn't have such a massive advantage in numbers as once thought.
However.... It's worth considering that there were large numbers of French who never got to fight. If it was something like 3:1 or 5:1, I'm sure maybe as much as half the French army didn't do anything and played no role in the battle (and so perhaps aren't needed in your game).
What I want is a game where it looks good on the table and people will say now that looks pretty good for Agincourt.
For me this is the main concern for the game.
Then don't worry too much about the numbers! As long as the French look like they outnumber the English, that will meet your criteria.
-
Charlie after talking to a few of my friends it looks like I've decided to use a 3-1 advantage for the French at Agincourt so 25,000 French against 7,000 English.
So if I choose to use the Medieval Tactica rules which the figure scale is 1 figure equals 80 real soldiers then the French will have 312 figures against the English 87 figures which is slightly more than 3-1.
As for the mounted portion of the French I've settled with 4,400 or 55 figures.
So this means that I have all the English that I'll need for the game but I'll still need to get some more French since I'm short some Mounted Knights and some Foot troops like dismounted Knights/Men at Arms etc.
This might do the Battle justice on the tabletop but that's what playtests are for.
Michael