Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of Myths, Gods and Empires => Topic started by: seldon on April 23, 2019, 04:11:43 PM
-
For the last year we have been working on a set of rule to play small/skirmish actions with Ancients or Medievals. And by small I mean 30-60 models in units of between 6 to 12 models each.
We've been showing battle reports and detailing a bit of the rules but haven't started communicating much yet.
Since a couple of outlets have started to talk about it and since I've been a member of LAF for quite some time I think it is only fair that I spend a few minute talking about this project here.
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/IMG_1701.jpg)
Ok, so as I mentioned the idea is to have a set or rules that allows us to play small actions and it has to feel that way. It is not to play large battles with few models, but to play raids, scouting actions, scavenging ... all those kinds of things. The warbands would have between 30-60 models per side and the game can be resolved in 2hs once players are familiar with the rules. This allows you to use it as prelude to a large battle, for example to determine who wins the scouting.
We want it to feel like a traditional wargame based on tactics, troop types and terrain use. No special dice, no battleboards no other elements. There is nothing wrong with those elements, but you already have awesome rules for that out there so there is no need.
Have a look at two basic forces for a recent AAR.
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Slide3.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Slide2.jpg)
As you can see the idea is that you should be able to build a nice force with 28s with relatively low model count. We love 28s there are great lines out there but sometimes building a large army... Or even if you will build a large army you can use CLASH while you are getting there.
To give the rules that gritty feeling of small actions and personal combat, our game introduces some new mechanics that deal with how units gain fatigue based on the armor they carry and the terrain they are crossing.
In large battles it is common to have movement rates based on troop types and armor. In our rules for a specific action troops will move the same but the fatigue accumulated is different so over an extended time, the time matching a large battle turn, heavier troops will move less as they will have to stop and rest more often.
This means that
1) Rules are not beer and pretzel, again nothing wrong with that, just not what this is. We have worked hard to make sure rules are streamlined, we use classic D6 and most mechanics are pretty intuitive. We have done a lot of playtesting adjusting mechanics that we saw players struggled with.
2) It is easy to learn the mechanic but it takes time to figure out how not to kill your troops with exhaustion.
3) Heavy troops are tough, but medium and light troops are nasty and they can overwhelm those heavy troops ! This is not a large battle where skirmishers will run away from heavies at the first hard look.. this is their environment... they will dance around you and make your life hell.
As you can see all attention is put on getting the right feel. You guys know how it is, not everyone will agree with every interpretation we have made of ancient warfare. We have done our research but you have to make choices, "do I believe this theory or that theory". Yet you can be certain the there is a core concept behind them and if you can accept that core principle and understanding of la petite guerre in ancient times we think you will like the rules.
The rules will include full disclosure to the point/troops design system so if you want to come up with your own lists you will be able to do so.
Our first book will be very targeted, Western Mediterranean 4th to 1st century BC. Punic Wars, Greco Carthaginian wars. It will include 7 lists: Italian tribes, Gallic Tribes, Iberian Tribes, Rep Romans, Carthaginians, Greeks , Macedonians in Italy. We will release a general quick compendium with armies for other periods or you could design your lists as I mentioned.
The rules will be suitable for either pick up games based on points, or for sure historical theme games where there is no points balance, there is just troops, objectives and insurmountable odds :)
They will include nice add ons for this scale such as a specific deployment mechanic that reflects how this warbands encounter each other since they lack vanguards or scouting parties that large armies have.. In fact your force could be the scouting party.
Or the fact that although all troops operate around the battlefield in loose order, some of them have training that requires them to close ranks to gain benefits.
But all of those are adapted to the small encounter. We extrapolate the benefits that a group of hoplites could gain for their training when operating in small actions, even though there would never be enough of them to form a proper phalanx. Or we reflect on combat techniques of romans at a level where really manipular tactics don't come into play.
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Slide5.jpg)
We expect to have the rules in people's hands by end of year. You can see that we have our initial test prints and all the effort from now until release is cleaning edges, avoiding typos erratas and blunders. If you are spending your money on the book you deserve a quality product.
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Page_05.jpg)
You can find more info here:
http://www.thewargamespot.com/category/clashofspears/
you will find the intro to the rules: http://www.thewargamespot.com/introducing-clash-of-spears/
Some gameplay examples: http://www.thewargamespot.com/roman-legionary-vs-carthaginian-warrior/
some battle reports: http://www.thewargamespot.com/fighting-the-greek-invaders/
Well.. have a look... hopefully it is something that catches your eye and you'll join us in the Clash of Spears on the second half of this year.
regards,
Francisco Erize
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/carthag2.jpg)
-
I'm very interested! I Hope I'll dust off my historical minis.... :D
-
This looks great. I am very interested in this. Roll on second half of the year.
-
Sounds interesting. Ancients were my first love & you are right,
there are so many nice 28mm ancients out there.
-
Have also been browsing through the game pics and play testing material, though yet to play test myself. The game looks absolutely beautiful for those skirmish type scenarios before the massive rank and file battles break out. Cannot wait to see more content as it comes, and to start playing myself.
-
Interesting. I read your sample of combat/activation and I must say I like very much the interaction of fatigue/melee/activation. Particularly, because it puts a premium on keeping fresh units in reserve, which is something that usually is lacking in many wargames. Those Carthaginians in your example would have been much more cautious with their activations if the Romans would have had fresh troops nearby!
-
The deployment system based on Armour/fatigue for me Is very cool and adds a lot of strategic flavour to the whole game...
-
This looks really interesting - I'll be following this closely. Best of luck with development of these rules! :)
-
Antonio, yes... as I was writing the example I worried that new players would see it and take the wrong tactical advice. Those veteran troops are in a very fragile state, and what they do in the example should not be attempted if the enemy has a close by reserve. But as an example of combat it worked.
Your analisis is spot on, to be a good vommander in Clash managing the fatigue of units and fresh reserves is the key to victory.
The deployment system is really a lot of fun and it sets the batlle in an excellent way, in the AAR you will usually see the engagement phase reflected. It is a pretty fast system, and it is fun to see who outmaneuvers the other.
Thanks tomall of you formthe positive comments.
regards
Francisco
-
This one will definitely go under my Chrismas tree. From Erik to Erik lol.
We use Lions Rampant at the moment, but I look forward to what sounds like a bit deeper rule set.
Cheers
Erik
-
The deployment system based on Armour/fatigue for me Is very cool and adds a lot of strategic flavour to the whole game...
cannot resist... it is a skirmish game, the adjective strategic is out of place... lol I really dislike the overuse of the word strategic. In this case tactical is more than appropriate.
Looking forward to see more of the game... ;)
-
True.. tactical is sometimes left behind..
I think in that case he meant that he feels it might reflect more strategic elements in what is a tactics focused game...
:)
Hey let the first one of us who has never used strategic when we meant tactical cast the first dice..
I know I'm guilty of that :)
-
come on man, get this hype train rollin'. do a kickstarter or somethin'. good thing I just obtained a bunch of greeks and will hopefully have them painted by the time the rulebook comes out. Please tell me you are going to do armylists/stats for dark age/medieval...
-
kickstarter for rules= how to create a mess with stretch goals, and put unduly pressure on the author... and then having people complaining the delivery is late
Seriously, today there is always this kickstupid hype for everything, and to be quite honest often it is not warranted. Plus it creates expectations that sometimes are beyond the control of the people behind it (like printing service's snags and so on). I think that the rules will be released when they are ready and the team behind them will be satisfied. Right now the rules are getting some exposure, allowing us to judge our own interest while the rules themselves are fully polished. Better to have a superior product later than an inferior one now just because people yelled... maypo maypo!
I was just reading some rules that appeared to have never been proofreaded (sentence repetitions, backward grammar, some sentence cut in half here and there). worst the designed (that right now shall be remain unnamed) was a bit dismissive of the problems. Frankly put a couple of weeks of proofings should have solved that... shall I add that this anonymous designer in the follow up game, made some of the same mistakes and even made plain wrong errors (marine artillery regiments portrayed as marine infantry) in the order of battle?
If you are spending your money on the book you deserve a quality product.
This is something I appreciate, plus it is something that we see less and less in the hobby.
Hype is good for tasters... but patience is the virtue of the wargamer! lol
Take your time! Anyway I am not planning to quite the hobby (too many troops painted and still to paint!)
-
So here is the deal on how we are going about it.
Yes, we will get the hype going as we get closer to launch, we just didn't want to generate momentum before we knew that we could deliver the final product.
We are being as careful as possible with proofreading. Nobody is perfect but we have proofreaders going over the text and correcting any kinds of issues ( such as excessive use of passive voice :) )..
We have also engaged playtesting groups that have received the rules, have no contact with the authors and have been playing as per own understanding. This has helped us identify mechanics that they struggled with or things that we though clear but that were not and maybe needed some additional examples.
We still continue to do playtesting to work the blance of the lists, again no system is perfect but we want them functional and not broken.
When it comes to army lists the book will include the 7 already mentioned. Those lists have had extensive research, we've utilized material such as Storm of Spears and many other books on the subject and consulted extensively on the many publications available such as Ancient Warfare and such to come up with what we believe to be reasonable lists.
Obviously that takes a lot of work and to do that for all the possible periods the rules could cover is not feasible within the release timeframe.
So we came up with a Compendium that covers about 20 lists from biblical armies to dark ages. Those lists don't have the same amount of extensive research and playtesting of the main 7 lists.
They serve as place holders for people to play and enjoy. We will also provide the design system so that if the players say.. "well I think this guys should have this trait or these weapons" they can adjust it.
But at least if you wanted to play Normans vs Vikings right out of the box you will be able to do it. And this allows us, if the rules are liked, to expand with more detail into other periods with other publications.
We also have rules for character development, campaigns, and other elements that could follow up if the rules are liked.
For all these reasons we need to target Q3/Q4 of 2019. We want to be very careful and not be rushed, but as I said we didn't start talking about any of this until we were ready so we are confident that we can deliver within that timeframe.
I know that it is hard to wait but 6-8 months should be bearable and I think you guys will find that it is a solid robust system that is sophisticated and fun to play.
regards,
Francisco
-
I'm first and foremost a fantasy gamer, but I really enjoy ancients and most of my figures are on the low fantasy end of the spectrum.
I'm very excited for these rules. I'm always bothered by the lack of fatigue in games.
I can't wait for an excuse to pick up some of the wonderful Victrix ancients in plastic.
-
Well,
I must confess that the first playtest of Clash of Spears, quite some time ago was with...
fantasy :)
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58543167_10217068206913972_7524525257957310464_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=9952cd73725e2bfab98c176c260ca909&oe=5D2E386D)
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53081060_10217068207633990_4996667997574660096_n.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=2987c1b8bf127bb2d420fb3b0224a185&oe=5D3ED4EC)
-
I posted a reply on the similar post in the Medieval board, but on reflection thought it would be better here: I have been reading Jeremy Armstrong's book on early Roman warfare and I reckon your rules would be just perfect for a project I'm working on involving 4th/3rd century Romans and their enemies - The Armstrong book really drives home the fact that warfare in the later Regal era and the early Republic was very likely not, as previously assumed, Greek-like Phalanx warfare, but small scale warfare raiding for booty with lots of open-order combat and relatively small forces. Reading your posts here and your examples from the blog reinforces how well-suited your rules would be for that. The size of forces also looks perfect, as I'm wanting to paint myself a 4th century Roman force plus a Samnite force to fight it. Needless to say I shall be keeping tabs on your progress with the rules and will be giving them a go once they are released!
-
Yes, sounds like a perfect project...
Early Romans vs Italian tribes would be awesome..
Victrix has beautiful samnite figures.. and Aventine has some late etruscans that could be combined !
That is why the lists that we have cover a rather large period 4th to 1st BC because one could interpret that at this scale of actions some basic common fighting techniques could be similar.
Many of the changes happen at the large army level.
That is one of the reasons we went into this project. There are many interesting books, some of them fictionalized, about raids and small actions in ancient times and we wanted to play that ..
The other being painting 28s for ancients and not having to paint 200 :) !! Or at least not 200 for one single army, we all know we end up having many armies..
Undeniably others will follow, there is talk of Saga ancients, how long before Warlords does something.
So what we promise is that by being fully dedicated to this project this is more of a traditional style wargame aiming to reflect the period and reaching a good balance of playability and accurate period feel. There are zero, no game specific elements such as cards, board, counters, we will certainly aim to provide tokens that help game play but you can play it using standard color chips and standard D6 dice and it plays exactly as intended. It is better if models are individually based but the rules work with round, square or whatever basing you might already be using.
We will start with this book and develop the expansions and additional variants at a reasonable pace.
And once again, flexibility and fun !!
Francisco
-
I,too, like what I'm seeing. I'm following this with a lot of interest.
-
It sure seems that "introductory scale" ancients is all the rage- your games look very nice, in fact much nicer than some. There seems to be a hoplite fad going on.
-
But the time has come for the Scutum and Caetra fad !!! :)
Thanks for the positive comments...
-
I am excited for this! A couple of requests:
1. Please include an index. A big, complex, comprehensive index!!!!
2. Please allow for 15mm figs as well.
:D
-
...& a Quick reference sheet. Preferably on the back so that it can be photocopied
without wrecking the book.
-
...& a Quick reference sheet. Preferably on the back so that it can be photocopied
without wrecking the book.
or include it as a separate sheet, or have it for download...
-
so...
index is tricky, it is not an easy process... we’ll do our best to include a good one, .hopefully you’ll cut us some slack..
QRS independent or available to download.. of course...
we’ll do our best to get a good one but with QRS everybody does their own... we’ll present the final QRS coming from the final playtesting rounds and then we will follow up with community support if there is a need to change it... fortunately the game is not heavy on tables... there is only two tables that need to be consulted often and you momorize them quickly ( how much fatigue you accumulate based on terrain and armor and how fatigue affects your troops stats )
the rules are different and mechanics are fun but a bit original so we expect a lot of support on early launch to help players... not afraid to do that..
this is a game for small actions but it is not a beer and pretzels game ( even if we all love to play those every now and then )...
-
Not expecting perfection with an index. But any index is useful. And I am sure your playtesters will agree, and even volunteer.
-
Agreed with an index. It is worth the effort.
-
Ha ha.. you are overestimating the good will of playtesters :)..
But we will try to add an index, we have a couple of indexing servicing/alternatives identified.
It is the last step of course for obvious reasons.
Francisco
-
Sounds really interesting! I'll have to give the rules intro blog post a read later, but I'm intrigued. Until now I've just planned on using GW's Lord of the Rings for ancient skirmishes, until something better came along. I'll try to keep up with developments.
I just perused the thread - are there plans for any kind of "campaign" rules? i.e., will warbands be able to accumulate wealth/xp/recruits over the course of multiple battles, or is are the rules just for one-off games?
-
By the way, Francisco, besides in English, will be published in Spanish too?
-
I am interested in how "petite guerre" was conducted in any period. Are there ancient accounts of small actions that give an idea of composition of forces? In my mind I see small scale actions dominated by the myriad light infantry and mercenaries of the time - peltasts, cretans, numidians, thracians etc. How often would "heavies" engage at this operational level?
-
I am interested in how "petite guerre" was conducted in any period. Are there ancient accounts of small actions that give an idea of composition of forces? In my mind I see small scale actions dominated by the myriad light infantry and mercenaries of the time - peltasts, cretans, numidians, thracians etc. How often would "heavies" engage at this operational level?
I think that the answer is, as usually, depends.
Is it a skirmish in the context of a siege? Is a party protecting foragers? Is an ambush?
For example, we know that at Alesia legionaires were involved in most of the myriad of skirmishes that happened during the siege, as well as during the siege of Jerusalem. There were also several skirmishes involving legionaires and auxiliarii during the Batavii revolt. To be honest, I strongly suspect that it was small war rather than formal battle what was the most common experience of warfare in the Antiquity. Of course, a different matter is how those "heavies" were actually armed when not engaged in open battle but in "small war".
-
Hello, one quick question: are these rules designed for figure removal, or whole unit removal?
Thanks
Nic
-
I can write in Spanish as well... so eventually they could come out in Spanish.. but .. step by step.. now we are working on the book in english.
We've looked extensively at small actions accounts, there are some but as with most in ancients there is contradictory information.. and like Antonio says you could be playing A part of a battle so.. what did we do..
We came up with a VERY flexible system to allow for pickup/competitive games.. those running historical or thematic scenarios don't need lists :)
The system classifies troops in Civis, Milites and Rare.. depending on how often you could expect to see those troops in raiding actions or similar aspects...
You can choose to build a force using the % of Civis, Milites, Rare that what we call the "Muster" force allows.. which is the same proportion for everyone... or you can build an "Ad Hoc" force and put whatever you want... if you are playing a pick up game with a Muster force vs an Ad Hoc force the Muster force gets better chances to pass the force break test.. because the Muster force was collected quickly from available troops to perform a mission probably more important than the troops and so the troops try to fulfill the mission... your Ad Hoc force probably has some critical troops that if things don't look good you might as well pull them out... no point in loosing 10 triarii to fight for some sheep.. even if for whatever reason they ended up there..
But that is the rationalization.. the actual game play effect is that you have a lot of flexibility on how to build your army.. We've seen great variety of armies.. some with mix of troops, others mostly light troops... What you will probably not see is armies made fully of heavy troops, they get tired quickly and get killed so you will always choose to have a bunch of lights.. BUT if you wanted to do all heavies.. YOU COULD...
It is a very different approach to what you usually see, and it gives players a lot of flexibility. We believe it works, we've playtested for about a year now... Once it gets to open play people could break it.. but we feel it is robust and we feel that it is the best way to reflect the fact that when you are looking at an army of 40 guys.. who can really tell you the % of guys that you should find of each troop type ? Not us... A very similar flexible approach has been followed with allies.
This is a game for people to play and explore.. As I mentioned the design and point system for troops will be available from the get go so you can design your own troops if you want... Even if you will have the main lists available if you don't want to spend your time on that.
Rules are for figure removal.. you could technically use stands and mark casualties, nothing will break as there are no issues with base geometry, but they will be better appreciated with figure removal..
our units are 6-10 guys.. and you have usually 6 to 7 units..
Does this help ?
-
I'm looking forward to getting these rules. How do the rules handle cavalry?
-
Ok, Cavalry.
Cavalry is tricky for a couple of reasons. Our book main lists is around Punic Wars when cav was not used as at later times. Many times even dismounting and fighting.. We didn’t want people to have to have 2x figures for cav.. so we had to find ways in which cav would be useful while still mounted.
And again this is for small actions so that helps us, because the key advantage of cavalry which is mobility is critical.
Uses for cavalry in Clash:
1) you keep them out of reach from the enemy and do lightning attacks on enemy units that accumulated much fatigue, while your cavalry is active they are difficult to attack on reaction due to their speed.
2) you use them to fulfill the objectives of the scenario, many of our scenarios are ideal for cav because... they are scouting scenarios
3) deadly and horrible hit and run, Numidian cav, Tarantine Cav... oh my god they are a torture... best option against the hide in terrain or close ranks and overlap your shields at a place where they cannot flank you..
4) finally during the engagement phase cavalry can leverage their movement notoriously, so effectively outflank the enemy.. without the need of abstract “flanking” force rules, it happens naturally through the engagement phase mechanics
Things not to do with cavalry, leave them stopped within arms reach of enemy troops, either missile troops or combat troops.. there they suffer because they are generally not heavily armored like infantry combat troops and when they are not active they loose many of their advantages
Also don’t get into bad terrain, you will see that although we don’ force you to have dismounted models cav in bad terrain almost act as if they had dismounted and where fighting on foot..
All this is different for knight cav or cataphracts, those are covered in the rules and the compendium lists but they are not on the main book..
Again a cavalry unit will be 6 to 10 guys, so there are no massive cavalry charges...
Basing as with everything else is not critical, traditional 25x50 bases, circular bases LoTR style, new oval bases.. all work..
-
I am interested in how "petite guerre" was conducted in any period. Are there ancient accounts of small actions that give an idea of composition of forces? In my mind I see small scale actions dominated by the myriad light infantry and mercenaries of the time - peltasts, cretans, numidians, thracians etc. How often would "heavies" engage at this operational level?
In Xenophon's Anabasis, you get a pretty good look into how Petite Guerre was waged in the ancient Greek world.
The heavies would be part of the battle, but often act as anchors or blocking forces for the lighter units to operate from or around. They could also be used as a "disruptor" to shake an enemy out of a fixed location or terrain.
-
Anabasis is such a great read... and the novelizations available are so cool...
That is how heavies work for us... They get tired quickly so you cannot have them do many things , best option is to put them to hold in some key point of the battlefield and move your "tasks to accomplish" to your lights and mediums...
This can be tricky depending on the scenario you are playing ( there will be six in the main book )..
This is all, one interpretation.. Ancients are difficult, lots of contradictory information, but if you accept the basic principles the game will make sense...
The flexibility in the army building is notable and we've been playtesting for a long time now so hopefully it is robust... It is likely very competitive players might find explotable loopholes and that could lead to some eventual restrictions.. but for the more thematic player the option to design the very different forces should be fun..
Easy E. great job on Men of Bronze... got my book last week and I am eager to give it a try with my 10mm armies. I think it is great to have a set of rules that allows to play large battles in a manageable amount of time. Looking forward to future men of bronze historical battle scenario representations as you have in the book.
I'm thinking I could do a scouting scenario with Clash that defines the conditions for the large battle to be played with MoB ... I'll have to give that a try !
-
Would you guys allow me a little bit of self promotion ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2bilWFizI
:D
-
Would you guys allow me a little bit of self promotion ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN2bilWFizI
:D
That was great! The rulebook looks amazing - beautifully set out and I personally love all the artwork we got a tiny glimpse of. I'm even more excited for its release now and my 4th Century BC Republican Romans are now firmly on top of the painting queue!
-
Anabasis is such a great read... and the novelizations available are so cool...
The movie "The Warriors" is something of a classic in my family, though most of them have no idea what it is based on. I'm currently reading Manfredi's "The Last Army" and thinking of adapting the idea to an African setting, with Masai mercenaries trying to get home after a job goes south in Unyamwezi.
So yeah, another Anabasis fan here. :)
Edit: It's the Lost army, not the last one. What an idiot. lol
-
That was great! The rulebook looks amazing - beautifully set out and I personally love all the artwork we got a tiny glimpse of. I'm even more excited for its release now and my 4th Century BC Republican Romans are now firmly on top of the painting queue!
Awesome !
Hope it matches expectations when it comes out !
-
The movie "The Warriors" is something of a classic in my family, though most of them have no idea what it is based on. I'm currently reading Manfredi's "The Last Army" and thinking of adapting the idea to an African setting, with Masai mercenaries trying to get home after a job goes south in Unyamwezi.
So yeah, another Anabasis fan here. :)
I had no clue about that movie!
I also like M Curtis Ford “The Ten Thousand”
I recently finished Manfredi’s Tyrant and loved it...
-
Yeah, The Warriors was based on a novel inspired by Anabasis. Bit smaller in scope, mind. The Bronx to Coney Island isn't quite in the same league as Cunaxa to the sea. Still, it's all fun. There are a few clues in a few of the character names, which seem more fitted to the ancient middle east than the New York streets: Cyrus, Cleon and Ajax. :)
I have Tyrant, but haven't started reading it yet. Looking forward to it.
Best of luck with your game.
-
Just a quick note. Francisco has been kind enough to send me the draft for the rules to playtest them. I had a two games already, with my son. He commanded an Anglo-Dane force and I a band of Vikings. At first, the rules looked daunting, but truth is that after a few moves we had learnt most of the key elements and got to play very fast. The second game was really fast paced. Knowing the gist of the rules, we only needed the ocasional check to the particulars of the rule (mostly when some trait was involved); for everything else a check of the QRS tables was more than enough.
By the way, characters are really, really important. Not because they are great warriors -although they are better than average- but because they are key to keep your army moving forward, rallying troops and steadying those who are faltering. You need command points for almost everything, and only characters generate CPs. Lose them and your advance will stall.
-
I look forward to giving this a go someday!
-
Heads up... we will be running CLASH of Spears demos at Historicon...
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ambush.jpg)
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/SPQR-1.jpg)
-
Great figures there. As you can tell, I am already hooked! So many questions in anticipation.
On your Blog you mention play testing. Is this a stage you are still in, and if so are you still wanting the odd extra tester?
It looks like a unit is about six figures, is this correct? Just planning on what I might want to buy (my only ancients miniatures are some very old 15mm Minifigs Greeks but I would like to go 28mm for this).
Are the figures in your photograph Victrix plastic figures? I do rather like metal and may go for a combination of Gorgon Studios, Foundry and Crusader for many figures but may add plastic for archers and psiloi.
Although the focus is initially the Western Med, is it easy to build profiles for other cultures (please don't use factions!!!!!) such as Persians, Thracians or even to use the rules for my Vikings/Saxons or Orcs and Elves?
-
Let me see,
Unit size. There is no unit size limit, 6 to 8 models is like a sweet spot but sometimes due to fitting in the points you will do other sizes. Larger or smaller units have pros and cons and overall 6 to 8 appears to be a good number but is not a rules requirement.
The carthaginians attacked by peltasts are victrix greek hoplites with carthaginian heads, I wanted armored carthaginians with non roman equipment ( greco-punic wars ), and the peltasts are victrix.
The second picture is wargames foundry romans and wargames foundry gauls, so they are lead, just like you plan I use everything. Don't have Gorgon Studios yet but I've seen it and look great.
Correct, although our army lists cover western mediterranean we will release together with the book, online, the point system so you can design other armies.
Of course sometimes you can just use the one you have in the book, you could use Western Greeks to do the original Greek city states maybe add some individual color, but if not the point system will be there. In that builder there will be a few extra traits not in the main book that are experimental for dark ages, or even a few for fantasy as those are work in progress for future supplements. We have done quite a few dark ages games, and a couple of lord of the rings games.
Regarding playtesting, we are almost done on that and getting ready to send the book to the printer.
ok, hope that answers a bit :)
cheers
Francisco
-
Thanks for the reply.
I am just too lazy for gluing together a lot of plastic figures so I will mainly use metal.
I am still uncertain whether I go for Sicily or an Athenian squadron /marines in the Aegean at the end of the Persian Wars. At least I can make a start on some Hoplites.
-
Look at my romans and gauls up there on the pictures, are all Foundry miniatures.. I just bought a beautiful Gallic chariot at Historicon, metal too. Not expecting large units of chariots in skirmish games but, in same case where it is a zoom in of a larger battle I could have a character doing known hit and run...
so plastic or metal, whatever gets us doing 28mm ancients on the table and not having to paint 200 ( at least at onece :)
-
Just came upon the thread.
Be thinking about small unit fighting along the line of your rules.
What a break, I don't have to write my own.
(like I could.) lol
So am very excited. :)
Love what I see of your rule book.
Very well done.
I am in, when the rules come out.
-
Marine0846,
I was hoping for a set in this scale for a long time, tried so many alternative rules but every time they say skirmish it tends to be pretty bland and I wanted a game where your decisions matter. Like bolt action, it is a platoon level game but by no means a silly game, you make lots of decisions.
So that is why about a year ago now we started formalizing some design concepts we were using for this scale and suddenly a true system materialized.
I hope people will like it when it comes out end of year..
In the meantime let me show you guys a fun starter army, smaller forces can be used but this would be a standard force:
An Italian force for CLASH of Spears
This is a 600 pts pretty standard force from the Italian tribes list.
Civis troops:
large unit of 9 tribesmen ( heavy shield & throwing spears )
two units of 6 samnite warriors each ( partial armor & heavy shields, throwing spears, guerrilla type troops )
Milites:
One unit of 6 campanian hoplites (full armor and heavy shields, long spear, these guys prefer to fight in the open if they can they would rather overlap shields in close order, but they are tough hombres so if they go in open order they can still kick your butt )
Rare:
6 mercenary cretan archers, their fame precedes them
The army is lead by a Chieftain ( Lvl 4 ) and a Leader ( Lvl 3 ) , this provides 7 command points. We've seen through extensive playtesting that having at roughly 50% more CPs than units is a good reference. It is open for players to try what they want, but that seems to be the optimal choice so far.
You will notice that it is very important to have a good variety of troops, heavy armored troops serve as a good anchor and to hold ground but you need lights an mediums. The fatigue rules are tough on heavies and if you don't have those support troops to execute critical tactical objectives you will suffer. You might be an impossible to kill cataphract, but I don't need to kill you, I only need to get you exhausted and if you have no support it will happen quickly... that is one main concept in the game..
Hopefully will have a gameplay video soon..
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Italians1.jpg)
-
As you may remember from TMP, I am very excited about these rules!
I have to ask, are pikes addressed in the rules at all?
If so, how and what ways?
-
Love that Italian force! :-*
Interestingly, I've been reading a number of recent scholarly papers on the military tactics and equipment in the 4th century BC in Italy (including the Roman proto-manipular legion, then in its infancy) and the current thought is that pretty much everyone in the peninsula fought in 'dense clouds' with a small core of heavy-armed wealthy warriors hanging around at the back to exploit the melee when (if) it happened while the mass of 'medium' infantry expanded and contracted their 'cloud', throwing repeated volleys of javelins (both shanked proto-pila and shankless light javelins) at each other until either they all got stuck in to melee or one side gave up and ran away.
What I've heard of your rules for fatigue and the way that it affects heavy troops in particular suggest that Clash of Spears may enable this model of warfare to be wargamed better than any other rules I've yet seen in the sense that it forces you to make good use of a range of troop-types in a range of ways rather than just rely on a big block of kick-ass nasty armoured dudes who'll just stomp everything into the ground.
The more I hear about the rules, the more I'm looking forward to seeing them!
-
Following.
-
As you may remember from TMP, I am very excited about these rules!
I have to ask, are pikes addressed in the rules at all?
If so, how and what ways?
Ok, pikes is like this..
We have rules for pikes... when the troops with pikes are in close order they get benefits from them against enemies in the front.
In clash everyone fights always, so you don’t get rank bonus.. what you get is hitting first when you attack on when you are attacked.. and when you are attacked you also hit first even using a combat response called hold that does not gain fatigue.
They are just like longer hoplite spears.
The big differences is that when the troops are in open order they leave them aside and they go for their hand weapon... while hoplites still use their spears in open order. As a result a pike is a sub optimal weapon in the game... A meta gamer would generally not choose it, a player who has some pike troops and wants to have them on the table might use them even if it is suboptimal just for fun.
There are no rules for macedonian phalanx encouraging you to have twenty figures in three ranks.. that does not show up in clash.
But foot companions when on raid missions would normally leave pikes behind and go armed with javelins and hand weapons and that option is available in the Epirote list.
So if you are using that army your anchor troops will be some hoplite style troops and your foot companions will act like some kind of heavy peltasts.
This is our interpretation from reading the extensive, sometimes contradictory, information on foot companions in raiding actions which at times is intermixed with the never ending debate on hyspaspists, on thureophoroi etc..
Nobody can claim the absolute truth, but we do have an underlying concept that we observe and sort of makes sense with the concept of the rules..
-
Love that Italian force! :-*
Interestingly, I've been reading a number of recent scholarly papers on the military tactics and equipment in the 4th century BC in Italy (including the Roman proto-manipular legion
...
The more I hear about the rules, the more I'm looking forward to seeing them!
That is very interesting, I would love to know what you’ve been reading.
Clash plays pretty much like that, heavies get tired so you don’t go doing lots of stuff with them. You use them as anchors or to hit enemies in arms reach..
Your mediums and lights are use to push the enemy, accomplish objectives etc..
We have tried to restrict the efficiency of missile weapons a lot, we want player to play and maneuver, not sit back and shoot.. We break up point throwing sticks in javelins and throwing spears, but that is just a convention... a pilum can be called a javelin but is clearly heavier than a peltast javelin, and we don’t want to have too many types of javelins so: javelins include the ones that you throw when you are troops that are trying to stay a step away.. throwing spears are the ones that you throw usually preceding an attempt to engage en melee..
Because of that, there are lots of interesting interactions and decisions in how you execute the skirmishing combat...
-
That is very interesting, I would love to know what you’ve been reading.
PM sent... ;)
-
fantastic material !
-
PM sent... ;)
I am interested too!
-
I am interested too!
PM on its way...
-
PM sent... ;)
Hey! I'd be interested too!
-
That is very interesting, I would love to know what you’ve been reading.
Clash plays pretty much like that, heavies get tired so you don’t go doing lots of stuff with them. You use them as anchors or to hit enemies in arms reach..
Your mediums and lights are use to push the enemy, accomplish objectives etc..
We have tried to restrict the efficiency of missile weapons a lot, we want player to play and maneuver, not sit back and shoot.. We break up point throwing sticks in javelins and throwing spears, but that is just a convention... a pilum can be called a javelin but is clearly heavier than a peltast javelin, and we don’t want to have too many types of javelins so: javelins include the ones that you throw when you are troops that are trying to stay a step away.. throwing spears are the ones that you throw usually preceding an attempt to engage en melee..
Because of that, there are lots of interesting interactions and decisions in how you execute the skirmishing combat...
I know you are doing a lot of play testing, which is awesome. Did you try pilum with separate rules?
I ask this because I think they are quite unique compared to a much lighter javelin?
I know you want to streamline and keep simple, that is good, too.
In addition, since you mentioned missile weapons, how effective are slings?
-
Missile weapons are toned down compared to other rules.. for example bows and slings have a +1 save modifier so even troops with shields will save on 5+ ... we are not saying that they don't have good penetration, we all have read about how slings were pretty effective, but we want to focus the game more in close actions and not have it become a sit down far back and shoot...
The pilum is treated as other heavy javelins, which we group under the "throwing spear category", however troops that specialized in using weapons like pilum to disrupt enemy formations get a special trait called Impulsum, that only counts when you have a pilum or soliferrum or similar... troops with this trait have an advantage when trying to disrupt enemies that are overlapping their shields ( due to the known concept of how they worked )... However this allows us later to build "imitation legionnaires" that will be equipped similarly but might not get the impulsum trait since they are not really as good as legionnaires who trained extensively.. the concept being, you have the weapon but mastering the timing of how to use it is another thing..
hope it makes sense..
Francisco
-
Ok, seeing as a few of you are interested, and it'll be easier than sending lots of PMs...
For those interested in the latest thoughts on the early Republican Roman army, head for: http://www.academia.edu (http://www.academia.edu)
Search out the following articles:
(i) Ante Bella Punica: Western Mediterranean Military Development 350-264BC by Alistair Richard Lumsden
(ii) Roman Military Development in the 4th Century BC by Alistair Richard Lumsden (a bit of a companion to the above article)
(iii) Not So Different - Individual Fighting Techniques and Small Unit Tactics of Roman and Iberian Armies by Fernando Quesada Sanz
You'll find a wide range of other articles as well. Some mix older and more traditional ideas in with some newer thinking, but ultimately, go with what you resonate with.
Also, check out Warfare in early Rome - The Regal Period to the First Punic War by Jeremy Armstrong. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Roman-Warfare-Regal-Period/dp/1781592543/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=jeremy+armstrong&qid=1564831380&s=gateway&sr=8-1 (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Early-Roman-Warfare-Regal-Period/dp/1781592543/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=jeremy+armstrong&qid=1564831380&s=gateway&sr=8-1)
This is a really interesting book that looks at the bigger picture of warfare in the early Roman Republic, taking into account socio-economic factors. It debunks the traditional theory of Rome's manipular system evolving from a hoplite phalanx (a common view among modern historians.) Although a scholarly tome, it's not a difficult read.
I hope that you find these interesting. I've certainly got a very different view of what a mid 4th - early 3rd century BC Roman army might look like and am preparing my Victrix models with those new views in mind.
-
Thanks for those references. I have started looking at similar articles in JSTOR.
-
Missile weapons are toned down compared to other rules.. for example bows and slings have a +1 save modifier so even troops with shields will save on 5+ ... we are not saying that they don't have good penetration, we all have read about how slings were pretty effective, but we want to focus the game more in close actions and not have it become a sit down far back and shoot...
The pilum is treated as other heavy javelins, which we group under the "throwing spear category", however troops that specialized in using weapons like pilum to disrupt enemy formations get a special trait called Impulsum, that only counts when you have a pilum or soliferrum or similar... troops with this trait have an advantage when trying to disrupt enemies that are overlapping their shields ( due to the known concept of how they worked )... However this allows us later to build "imitation legionnaires" that will be equipped similarly but might not get the impulsum trait since they are not really as good as legionnaires who trained extensively.. the concept being, you have the weapon but mastering the timing of how to use it is another thing..
hope it makes sense..
Francisco
It not only makes sense, it's exciting! (This is FAR better than SPQR and I think your timing for a Christmas release is excellent as I'm sure by then any initial interest in the SPQR rules will have died off and you won't have the competition or comparisons to dilute your game's interest.)
While this rule set is only for skirmishes, any thoughts/plans to incorporate your concepts into a larger force rules set?
-
It not only makes sense, it's exciting! (This is FAR better than SPQR and I think your timing for a Christmas release is excellent as I'm sure by then any initial interest in the SPQR rules will have died off and you won't have the competition or comparisons to dilute your game's interest.)
While this rule set is only for skirmishes, any thoughts/plans to incorporate your concepts into a larger force rules set?
what a sad gaming world, where people wish ill to a ruleset only for another to 'prevail'. :'( I hope both rules will find their niche, as it should. And then people wonder why I prefer play map and counter games to miniatures...
-
there is no need to wish ill to any rules.
in fact we’ve seen a lot of interest pick up on CLASH coming from SPQR..
I have the book myself, “hello, my name is francisco and I like to buy rules”
leaving aside issues with faq and editing I think SPQR works for slightly smaller actions than CLASH.. maybe closer to Mortal Gods. Games are supposed to last 30 minutes ..
I think there is room for both. Since neither rules require special basing or special minis you can build an army and play both. Eventually SAGA ancients will come out as well.. again you will hopefully be able tomuse the same armies, just different gameplay experience.
I understand complains about editing and such, but if those problems get solved all these rules can coexist peacefully..
As long as you guys buy CLASH lol
SPQR looks more at characters like heroes, our characters are more looked at like low level commanders leading patrols... an Optio, a Decanus, a Tagmatarchis... they fight well but not that far from a veteran soldier.. their traits are functionsl to command, and our skill trees in the future supplement follow the same line skills that help you command..
So there is room for both.. you can have your army and play one or the other depending on who you are playing with..
I think it is good that with Mortal Gods , SPQR and soon CLASH we are expanding the universe of small actions in ancients.
Another example, I love FOG, but I also have Men of Bronze, they both allow to play big classical historical battles, they are just. different..
Regarding at expanding CLASH for big battle, it could be in the future but not i line of sight now.. we need to release CLASH and initial expansions will be all around that.. campaigns, more lists, more scenarios etc..
-
A 600 points Spanish for for CLASH of Spears
This force is built around the lowland Iberian tribes, the lists also allow for hill tribes, lusitanians, celtiberians..
This is a force that will try to specialize in ambushes.. it is made of:
Civis:
7 Tribesmen
8 Scutarii
8 Caetrati
Milites:
6 Iberian large shield cavalry
Rare:
6 mercenary balearic slingers
It is lead by a mounted Lord ( Lvl 5 Character )
and a Lvel 2 Veteran Warrior
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Spanish1.jpg)
-
a quick example of a Carthaginian force for CLASH
Civis:
8 numidian javelinmen
6 Scutarii
8 African infantry hoplites
Milites:
6 veteran infantry with captured roman equipment
6 numidian light horse
1 Lvl 4 character
1 Lvl 3 character
the character level also indicates their command points, given that this force has 5 units we have found out through many games that it is a good idea to have close 50% extra CP..
points: 600pts
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Carthaginian-1.jpg)
-
Syracusan patrol, 600 pts for CLASH
Civis:
7 slingers
6 peltasts
6 peltasts
6 hoplites
6 hoplites
Milites:
6 heavily armored veteran hoplites
Lvl 4 character
Lvl 4 character
hopefully you’ll notice on the sample forces I’ve been posting that it is important to have a good amount of light and medium troops supporting a couple of heavy units..
The heavies serve as anchor points to hold ground but you need lights and mediums to maneuver and to achieve critcal tactical objectives. This is because lights can endure longer suffering less fatigue and that gives them valuable flexibility in the game.
(http://www.thewargamespot.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/greeksv1.jpg)
-
I'll buy these rules as soon as they are available for sure!
I love this kind of simulation of ancient warfare: for instance the prevalence awarded to trained professional skirmishers like Cretan archers or Balearic slingers, rare and precious. That is really appropriate at this level.
I'm quite happy also with what you say about cavalry. This is a very tricky element of warfare to simulate and I have never been fully satisfied with any try, be it large battle rules or skirmish games. Still, I was probably one of the first to introduce skirmish gaming in a french club, back in early eighties, and I've seen a lot of rules since, and of many flavors.
Most have been dealing with horses as if they were some some kind of bikes. The late Jean-Michel Hautefort, one of our Jeu de guerre with miniatures founding fathers in France, used to speak of "pedestrian imagination", with a full horseman smile. I must say that I am one of these pedestrians, but I try to imagine accurately.
Horses have their own psychology, they deal with normal environment in their own specific ways, not to mention a violent and noisy atmosphere! To me there are some fundamental elements to be respected in any level of simulation:
- first, horses should never be approached easily while moving in groups by any infantry with the intention of going into contact: you can only catch one while trapping it in a confined place with odds such as four infantrymen to one mounted,
-second, a horse is equivalent to a flashy sports car for anybody, from back wood barbarian to educated patrician, so it is much much more tempting to get hands on one in good shape rather than shoot or kill it, even tribal horse-stabbers and horse-hewers know that!
-third, they say you just cannot persuade a horse to gallop into some kind of frightening and solid obstacle like a line of steady and noisy human beings, this is well known- BUT herds of wild horses can well be led into mad acts by stampeding, and a panicky steed shall try to force a barbed wire fence and get maimed while cows will deal with it much more cleverly: so I let the question of warhorses charging head-on fully open,
-fourth, how you can move your horse depends on training for both, equipment (bareback, saddle and stirrup options, controls with reins-thighs-spurs) and tactical horsemanship doctrine available- but the least to consider is when you let your horse loose in full gallop there is trouble ahead when you need getting it back into control if you are an average cavalryman,
-fifth, horses vary according to breed: I would think of three classes, the common ones which can be used for simple riding from standing point to standing point (ancient Greek cavalry), the ponies mostly trained for hunting or hunting-like tactics (central Asian, imperial roman or dark age ones for instance) and therefore quite manoeuverable, and the huge warhorses (say Nisaian Persian, late roman Burgundian or medieval destrier breeds) who would support heavy equipment and rider and with specific shock tactics with limited dexterity otherwise.
I would love to read other gamers' opinions and comments on these points. I do think that they can be considered simply and efficiently in a rule set, and it looks like you have done just that with Clash of Spears. My compliments.
I'll buy these rules definitely!
Philippe
-
Wow.. that was a very interesting post.
So, I have to confess that indeed our cavalry rules are not nearly as sophisticated to take all that into account but some of it is there. Let me explain what we cover and hopefully it will be acceptable.
I mentioned previously why we didn't want to force people to have figures to dismount the cavalry even if this was not uncommon in ancient times.
Also mentioned that because at least in this first book we don't cover warhorses, later saddle and stirrup combinations that allow for the use of the lance we don't really have shock cavalry.
Of course if you nation nobles liked riding to battle they might be good but mainly because of them being accomplished warriors.
The big advantage you get in CLASH from the "mounted" trait is mobility, your mounted troops move 8" not 4", and during the engagement phase they can take more engagement moves before they gain fatigue.
Once the battle starts what happens is that ancient cavarly are usually less armored than infantry ( cataphracts aside for now ) so they are vulnerable to missile attacks. Foot troops can have large shields and overlap them.. cav can't.. What we did was to say that while the cavalry are active ( ie. performing their actions ) anyone shooting on reaction has negatives to hit. With that if you use your cav for swift actions and then you screen them you can protect them. However, if you move your cavalry and leave them at the end of their activation within arms reach of the enemy they will suffer. With the standard three actions and 8" move you should be able to get in and get out. ( this covers what you said about corralling cav, a good player usually will not leave the cav at arms reach of the enemy unless they have been trapped through maneuvering... just like you said in your post )
The final thing is that in CLASH when units have accumulated fatigue they are very vulnerable, so even tough cav might not have strong advantages against tough infantry with spears and closing shields, since they have mobility they can sit back in reserve and when those troops get tired you snap at them..
In summary cavalry units operate very different than infantry and very different than what you might have seen in other rules. My only fear is that people not paying attention to these details could incorrectly extract the conclusion that "cavalry such in CLASH" , which they don't ... But maybe with some tutorials an examples we can teach these concepts...
All this is about the combat cav armed with spears and javelins, skirmishing cav like numidians and tarantines you can imagine are great at their role.
Finally cav also have another good use, dealing with light troops.. light troops find it easier to react to enemies within 4", meaning infantry, cavalry can attack them from 8" making it harder for them to run away..
One last comment is terrain. Many large battle rules put lots of negatives to cav in bad terrain which is logical. We don't abstract as much, we simply say that when cav goes into bad terrain they loose their mounted trait and they regain it when they leave that terrain, no extra negatives.
That is because at this scale we are assuming that they just dismount and fight on foot, we just don't ask you to have the extra figures. So, if you send your cav to the woods, yes you are wasting all the points from your mounted and related traits, but if you are a psiloi in the woods, don't count on defeating a noble vetaran gallic warrior that just dismounted and is attacking you. Most of the effects of terrain in clash do that, they cancel your special rules, but there are no abstracted negatives usually related to larger battles due to losing formation and similar things since troops don't move in "large battle formations" in CLASH.
It took a lot of playtesting to get cavalry to where it is now and we are quite happy with it..hopefully you guys will like it too..
And if you want to incorporate some of the concepts you mentioned maybe the core mechanics will allow you to add some of your own house rules to fit your details ... we just needed to keep it manageable for the general public ... we wanted the rules to have advanced concepts but they must flow.... so lots of very complex mechanics have been tremendously streamlined through playtesting ( kudos to our playtest groups in US, UK, Argentina, Poland, Spain, Australia )
-
Hi Seldon
Thank you for your comments.
I don't change my mind: your rules answer my wishes.
I used to be a core detailed simulation player, but I have come to the conclusion that historicity as such is a myth: we for a start still do not know what war really looked like at individual level in ancient-medieval times.
And besides I now accept that simplicity is not an issue in the realism perspective. You just have to start with sound principals who do not contradict what we know of historical facts. Otherwise you play in a fantasy world which is fine but different as a project.
I do think however that rule writers should be honest with their public: if you mean a basic fun game open to new players and kids you should say so. Simulation, however simple in its mechanics, need knowledge and involvement. For me the big difference between our days and the eighties is in these points. You have to figure that in France to wargame at that time was to have a reasonable level in english. But we had players from blue-collar background with no capacity in that field but they had PASSION! We helped each other and shared what few wargames documents we had at the time. We were a real, small, involved community.
Now, and you just have to be looking at a recent deleted post to realize it, it is almost obscene to talk with some authority due to sound dedicated research. The lazy people can't stand that. Very sad indeed.
Philippe
-
OK great... then hopefully you’ll like clash.
We do our best to observe commonly accepted principles and streamline the mechanic.. it has to feel historical.. still be fun...
no system is perfect but that should not be an excuse to be careless...
I understand what you say quite well...
cheers
Francisco
-
by the way, I don’t think I’ve posted this before..
some nice comments on a v-log that got a playtest version of the rules
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vRnkm1lEf6s
-
Will the rules include any recommendations for measurements for different scales?
-
We’ve playtested in 15mm and 28mm not changing scales and worked well..
one of our playtesters is doing some 15 using cm = 2 x dist in inches just to play on smaller boards...
beyond that we will have to se what the community of players try..
one of our playtesters in Spain has done games using individual stands of 6mm as a “figure” in CLASH and using the standard distances, and he said it was fun...
-
Totally convinced, I'm looking forward to see the rules available.
-
Ok Francisco I'm hooked too. I checked my painted greek hoplite force intended for Mortal Heroes (wich I'll test soon) as well as my unpainted Etruscans-Campanians-Epirotes-Italiotes and... well I should be back to the painting shelf soon too! For I have almost what I need for a clash campaign in Italy-Sicily apart from Celts and Carthaginians, if I follow the lists of troops exposed online.
Excellent!
Philippe
-
Francisco I’m really looking forward to these rules. Question about basing - I have some Greek hoplites based 6 figures in two ranks on a 60mm x 40mm. I’ve read your post here and on TMP and it seems like 6 figures is a good size for a unit but individual basing is ideal for CLASH. What are the differences for a unit of hoplites multi-based vs. individually based other than figure removal? I prefer to keep them based as-is to use for L’Art de la Guerre.
Thanks for being so accessible with the wargaming community I think it will contribute to the success of your game in the long run.
-
if you have them in 6 man stands what will happen is that your units will usually be 6 or 12 :) obviously but you should be fine with casualty removal just by using markers.. what you could do is paint one or two individual figures to give you flexibility of having 7 or 8 man units by simply placing the other guys next to the stand..
The only other thing is that figures can transition between loose order and close order.. they all do that.. even hoplites.. so if most of your army will have them in stands what I would do is use a "close order" token and when the token is not there you just assume them to be in loose order..
Of course when the unit is down to two figures you might feel strange occupying the same space as a six man stand but that should not be too dramatic.. plus when fatigue exceeds number of models times two they go away so usually those don't last long..
We will add a close order token to our download sheet..
So ... with those considerations it should work... the only template we have in the rules is for cohesion to avoid units getting too spread out, which will not happen with stands...
So, what do you think ? I think that should work ...
when we get a video of gameplay soon you'll see the rules in action and you will be able to get an impression..
I think it should work.. we've playtested with 28mm figures in 4x1 man stands and saw no problems
PS: when your authoring team is also your marketing team and also your social media team... you need to be available... :)
-
I think painting spares is a great solution - a unit reduced to 2-3 models simply gets swapped with the spares.
Amazing how quickly you replied - you’re clearly passionate about this project if you’re willing to put in all of this extra work, I’m sure it will make CLASH a success.
-
there you go... I though half the solution and you thought the other half :)
I’m on vacation from regular job this week so extra time for the fun job
-
Ok Francisco I'm hooked too. I checked my painted greek hoplite force intended for Mortal Heroes (wich I'll test soon) as well as my unpainted Etruscans-Campanians-Epirotes-Italiotes and... well I should be back to the painting shelf soon too! For I have almost what I need for a clash campaign in Italy-Sicily apart from Celts and Carthaginians, if I follow the lists of troops exposed online.
Excellent!
Philippe
I highly recommend this rules. Francisco sent me a draft and my son and I tried them a few times using our Viking and Anglo-Saxon collection. After a couple of game turns we had learnt to play and only needed to check the tables. The only "mistake" we made was that we used a table too big for the number of figures we deployed. It took a while until our forces got to grips. In this case, smaller is better. Also, we did use too much terrain, which slowed the game; a couple of woodlets and, perhaps, an isolated farm would have been better suited to our game than the small village and big woods we deployed on the table. We learnt the lesson and other games went smoother.
We didnt' deployed mounted troops, so I can't speak about how horses behave in Clash. What I liked -and a lot!- was how fatigue works. In our last game, I made the mistake of acting a time too many with my huscarles... lets say that those apparently puny Saxon ceorls can be more than a nuisance when just breathing takes all the strength you got left! Even elites are at risk when they are exhausted. I learnt a lesson, though: keep your heavy armored guys as your reserve, don't exhaust them with pointless movements back and forth (have a plan and stick to it!) and remember that this is a skirmish, i.e. two units of lightly armored lads are more efficient than one of full metal jacket guys.
-
Thanks for the comments !
Great analysis on the fatigue and heavies..
Out of curiosity.. what table are you referencing to? If there is an opportunity to prevent such mistake for new players when we do online videos I want to make sure you address it..
BTW, when the rules come out we will make the playtest lists for dark ages such, as the ones Antonio was using, available to everyone..
-
Thanks for the comments !
Great analysis on the fatigue and heavies..
Out of curiosity.. what table are you referencing to? If there is an opportunity to prevent such mistake for new players when we do online videos I want to make sure you address it..
BTW, when the rules come out we will make the playtest lists for dark ages such, as the ones Antonio was using, available to everyone..
We used a 6'x4' and started deployed too far. My son's Anglo-Saxons were nearer to the target than my Vikings were, so he reached it in just one move. However, it took me several moves to get into combat distance and as I had accumulated fatigue doing so, I needed to rest my troops just to be in shape to fight. Also, we used too much scenery (woods and fences) which impeded movement and made difficult to deploy. That only happened in the first game, though. In the other games we went for smaller table (3'x3' works pretty well) and less clutter. Also we reduced the number of "heavies" (which was another reason why it took so long to get into combat the first games) and increased the number of lighter armed units. My son's slingers gave me hell for a while (I don't know if he was using stones or guided missiles!), until my two surviving berserkers managed to charge them and made short work of them.
It's something that I have become to realize, and it is that in CoS heavy armored troops are a double edged weapon. If you got them in the right place, at the right moment and they are rested, then they are really powerful and can win you a game. Problem is that a clever opponent with enough light troops won't let you get your heavies neither in the right place, nor at the right moment, and if they do, then they will be near exhaustion! It can be frustrating lol
-
ok .. I see.. I guess with a 6x4 with 600 points it does get too big, you need more points on that table.
the scenarios are aimed at 4x4 in a way such as that if you use a 3x3 you can play them by simply removing 6" from each base edge and not having to worry about any other effects... I think one thing we will do is provide the main scenarios already recalculated to tables that are 3' deep online to make it easier for people...
again thanks for your comments... yes I tend to have no more than one unit of heavies when I build my armies and their role is usually to hold terrain.. their success depends on how well you manage to use your lights and mediums as if not they will get fatigued to death...
When I have time I should to a simple overview of the core mechanics.. I'm just swamped with final editing right now..
-
You mentioned small remains of units going away.
Can units that have sustained casualties form/join other units?
(It is a skirmish game and the forces are all part of the same army.)
-
Interesting...
we’ve done so much playtesting and it never came up..
We could add it in future expansions.. or you could house rule .. however to be honest it might not be needed... A unit goes away when it has more than twice number of models infatigue.. yet every point of fatigue above six costs two casualties rather than accumulating.. so , only when a unit is down to two figures this really becomes an issue and even at that point you can recover them..
I really need to do some good examples but I’m subsumed by proofreading and stuff ( don’t want to muck it up )..
Here is the deal:
every unit can take up to three actions per turn, but at the end of the turn all units remove one point of fatigue per action that they didn’t take.. they rest...
So if i have two units of velites down to three models each.. I would much rather have them recover fatigue and continue to be independent units.. trust me three velites are not to be ignored.. where if I have to join them it will take me time and actions.. my units of velites are usually going to be far from each other, the game is very tactical so dramatic redeployments are equivalent to undoing moves in chess... you just avoid them..
for all this is that I believe the need has not been brought up..
once we get our playetest video up you will see how in the game I did with my brother there was never a chance to do that, I simply just never had the time to do somehing like that... I would rather recover fatigue and have two or three guys back alive with javelins..
It is very interesting how the game evolved through playtesting, without artificial restrictions large units are not a meta on the game.. “combine arms” and tactical flexibility is...
I really enjoy answering these questions... :)
-
This fatigue concept seems very much the core of the rules: I like it! Is suits the level of simulation, individual close combat is too limited in time for fatigue to counterweight the adrenaline shot effect. Platoon level is the right place for fatigue and company up for full morale consequences. This of course considering that at each level you make the turn-round-phase longer.
-
I like the sound of your rules and I will certainly keep an eye on videos and reviews.
My main interest is, however, in seeing late medieval Western European (War of the Roses, 100YW etc) skirmish - there seems to be a real gap in the market for that. Will you be releasing supplements in date order - if not will we see this period?
What does your release schedule look like (appreciating you are not a "company" with dedicated staff and more resources!)?
-
I like the sound of your rules and I will certainly keep an eye on videos and reviews.
My main interest is, however, in seeing late medieval Western European (War of the Roses, 100YW etc) skirmish - there seems to be a real gap in the market for that. Will you be releasing supplements in date order - if not will we see this period?
What does your release schedule look like (appreciating you are not a "company" with dedicated staff and more resources!)?
So we have a lot of material that have been working on that of course is for future releases since otherwise the first book would be bible sized and that would be impractical.
Other lists and periods will require playtesting, yet as I've mentioned before there are good news. Together with the rules we will make available to players the point and design system to make your own lists. Our playtest lists will cover all the way up to dark ages, yet the points and traits that we'll make available will reach to medievals.
This means that you will have most of what you need to start working on your War of the Roses etc, you will just not have official lists. Also through the playtesting processs many times we create new traits that better represent military doctrine or that are required to streamline some mechanics... So hopefully if people like the rules we will have an extended playtest community to work towards the other official lists.
Getting people to playtest is not that easy and I understand why, there are lots of rules out there and it is hard to start playing something that might not be fully baked, that is why we did about 6 months of playtesting before extending to our blind playtest groups, and even like that it took them some time to get gears in motion. With the main book out this will be much easier and hopefully we'll get feedback faster...
So in summary once the rules are out you will have what you need to start playing, albeit in playtest form, medieval skirmish games... we have rules for longbows, crossbows, handguns, traits for volley shooting , shock cavalry, enclosed armor, enclosed plate armor... and all that will be in the playtest material released with online at the time of the book launch..
I've done games with LoTR minis, with OldHammer armies, with Dark Ages... hope to try some Samurais soon...
So I hope that keeps you interested...
-
This fatigue concept seems very much the core of the rules: I like it! Is suits the level of simulation, individual close combat is too limited in time for fatigue to counterweight the adrenaline shot effect. Platoon level is the right place for fatigue and company up for full morale consequences. This of course considering that at each level you make the turn-round-phase longer.
Yes that was the challenge. There are some great WWII platoon level rules out there but of course the key mechanics for WWII is suppression and similar aspects of combat. For ancients it would be kind of silly to reskin those mechanics so there had to be something there that would push for those game decisions that make it fun.
By reducing the scale of a turn you can imagine that a normal turn of FOG, Hail Cesar, Mortem et Gloriam, whatever your large rules of choice are, actually includes a few turns of CLASH. That is why heavy troops move slower in those games, they advance and pause to rest, but that is all abstracted in that larger game turn.. In CLASH it is not, so troops move at the same speed, but heavy troops get tired faster so by choice or forced by the system, over a couple of turns they move slower.. it is just that on one specific turn they can push themselves...
The resting mechanic is very integral to the system and provide a lot of fun allowing you to support units with each other by having one unit fight while you let the other unit rest and it results driectly from the the core rules, there is no need for a "support" rule !!
Finally the other element is command and control, commonly more associated with larger games, here the characters get the units moving and reacting. The friction happens because when units are tired sometimes you give them a command and instead of executing it they ignore you and rest .. The idea is that you have some of these low level officers, a veteran warrior, a decanus, a lochagos and Option, etc who keep trying to execute a plan of action...
I'm eager to get the first gameplay videos out, it is just taking some time due to the extra work we are doing on proofreading and getting everything ready so that the book can start printing and get here on time for end of year..
As soon as that is done I'll go back to posting more AAR and detailed explanations of the game turn... Ideally I would like people interested in the game understand like a basic quick start version of the rules through videos and posts before the game is out... That is how I learned Chain of Command before it came out.
-
Lots of great information in this thread. This should motivate me to finally put together my vixtrix plastics.
Also up above you mentioned posable rules in thr future for high medieval/early Reinassonce (WOTR, Italian Wars, 100 year Wars..Etc) with rules for long bows, cross bows, handguns...etc.
So yes i am very interested.