Lead Adventure Forum
Other Stuff => General Wargames and Hobby Discussion => Topic started by: pws on September 06, 2016, 12:42:56 PM
-
Ciao,
I saw an article for the launch of this new "historical" ruleset and I cannot believe in what I read.
Here: http://www.manticgames.com/mantic-shop/kings-of-war/books/product/kings-of-war-historical-armies.html
Romans... 1000 years of history summed in "romans". In the same lists: triarii, pretorians and gladiators!
Caio Giulio Cesare as hero of this so called Empire: please someone wake me up from this nightmare!
(http://www.manticgames.com/ImageCache/Products/5511.1.1000.1000.FFFFFF.0.jpeg)
It's not possible that a big company as Mantic claim to be, publish such a garbage!
Even reading wikipedia a 6 y.o. could do better than this.
It is an error a typo or something, isnt' it?
-
Didn't you know that Caesar was famous for his "crushing strength"?
-
It's trash, certainly. But for some reason ancients are especially prone to being turned into Hollywoodish gibberish by gamers (as also anything east of India, and thanks to that twit Grant a lot of 18th century too).
-
You can tut-tut all you want, but I think it is a brilliant idea. Not everyone cares to know the intricate details and differences of period armour for Roman Legionaries. They just want to see the might of Rome trample its enemies :D
KoW is a widely used ruleset, that makes for fast, tactical, enjoyable games for those of us who do not care to get bogged down for hours looking up tedious special rules. Applying this mindset to historical gaming allows for even greater exposure, and hopefully, introduction of many fantasy players to the historical scene. Using the same ruleset for both historical and fantasy simplifies things, and opens up many opportunities.
I know there are many decent historical rulesets out there, but how easy is it to get in a game? If your community has an active fantasy player base but no historical interest (like mine) it will be much easier to actually play games with your models.
-
I'm a dyed in the wool historical gamer but think it's a great hook for Fantasy gamers into Historical.
However, the argument that you don't need to be historically accurate, even in the broadest sense, is completely bonkers! All you are then doing is using different figures for the same game - a new fantasy army list as it were. Why bother calling it Historical at all?
The fact is that it would have been very simple indeed just to lift the fan created historical lists (for a small payment or lots of kudos) from Hour of Wolves and Shattered Shields www.HourOfWolves.org.
They have done 4 different period books from Pike to Medieval for KoW - all free pdfs.
Here is the selection of Roman armies they have done (from their Kings of War Historical Ancient Combat - Romes Rise and Fall! book):
CAMILLAN & POLYBIAN ROMAN ARMIES
MARIAN ROMAN ARMIES
EARLY IMPERIAL ROMAN ARMIES
MIDDLE IMPERIAL ROMAN ARMIES
LATE IMPERIAL ROMAN ARMIES
PATRICIAN ROMAN & SUB-ROMAN BRITISH ARMIES
Now, I'm not saying these lists are perfect but they are a damn sight more granular and historical than those Mantic have produced so would it have been so difficult?
There's a lot of KoW played at the club I attend - for a Beer & Pretzels game I'd play KoW Historical but using these lists even though I play Impetus for preferance.
-
Didn't you know that Caesar was famous for his "crushing strength"?
You know nothing..
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/99/72/84/997284de0380be2a0b55a8f71e02a46b.jpg)
-
+1 to what Timbor said
I attended a club where members in their 20's have very little historical knowledge and if 1 gamer wants to start playing historical games because of these rules then that's a result
-
In defence (although I'm not interested in Mantic's venture), you may notice that the units portrayed here are to be added to an army built from generic options, the so-called "Master list". Hence you're able to more or less accurately create, for example, a Roman army of 69AD by supplementing a core force of "spearmen", "heavy warriors" etc. with a contingent of "gladiators" as allegedly deployed by Emperor Otho.
OTT abilities for 'special chars' were also well established in Warhammer Ancients Battles. ;)
-
George Macdonald Fraser once wrote a book called The Hollywood History of the World. He spent a lot of the time taking the mickey, but concluded that, even so, Hollywood movies had given more people in the English-speaking world at least a vague idea of their history than they ever learned or retained from school.
Looking at that Kings of War list, there are two things that are simply wrong: Caesar's crushing strength, and (under all but the odd circumstances raised by Mad Doc Morris), gladiators. Otherwise, anyone who already knows their history could use it to select a reasonably fair representation of a Republican, Marian or early Imperial army. Anyone who doesn't already know their history would look at sort of the chapter headings Nick2729 lists, decide it's too complicated and confusing ("Camillan and Polybian?") and go back to playing orcs. This way they've just got two pages to absorb: it's a start, it's better than nothing, and it may give them an incentive to learn more later.
-
Maybe, KOW "Holywood historical" would be a better name indeed. But looking at it in that light I don't mind it at all. In the end its all games anyway. If somebody wants to field an army of what popular culture think of with Romans he has more than enough options when it comes to miniatures and these rules would do nicely.
But I can't figure that crushing strength either. Unless it is supposed to represent him being equipped with the best of the best weapons and therefore reducing the opponents save value?... Yea that's the best I could come up with. ::)
-
That is good to know that you can tailor lists to be a bit more historically accurate. I think the intent of these rules are, as Steve63 said, great to get new players interested in historical games. I think 'younger' generations have a mindset that only fictional characters can be epic, but the more you learn history the better.
In terms of Romans, before I got more interested in ancient history, and joined this fine forum, the only "Romans" I knew and identified with were the early imperial types as seen in the movie gladiator. So... seeing four or more lists of "Romans" in a rulebook would come off at best as confusing, and at worst as elitist and would make me less interested in playing.
I think it is crucial to spark interest first, and those who enjoy the setting will naturally lean towards historical accuracy.
-
I had the impression that the object is to allow you to design a more historical or themed kingdoms of men army.As the lists allow mythical beasts. I don't think the intention is to produce a historical game?
-
I had the impression that the object is to allow you to design a more historical or themed kingdoms of men army.As the lists allow mythical beasts. I don't think the intention is to produce a historical game?
I think the problem there would be that they are in fact calling it "KOW: historical"
-
I understand and agree the "hooking into historical" and "make it simple" (especially for newbies), but if you write page wide (from side to side) historical... expect some critcs from historical fans. Maybe this is the results of too many years spended with DBx books :-* lol
I even play kow2 for massed fantasy battle and the rules are good, it's not my favourite setup (fantasy is not what I like most) but the are ok to spend a evening playing, although prefer the various Rampants books.
You cannot judge a book by his cover... I admit it, and surely the "general section" is the key of this game, I hope.
Maybe the example they choose is not the best of the book? I hope.
Simply not in my top 100 of next purchases.
-
It may not be historical corect but i thing it will be fun.
-
Looking at this from a different perspective: In PC games most people class the total war series as solidly historical, but that too has had units of gladiators on the field. (maybe to same amount of tut-tutting, I wouldn't know) Heck, maybe the unit containing the big C also hit a bit harder, which would be less obvious than a plain wargame stat line. ::)
-
Hey! The researchers for this game watched every episode of Xena;Warrior Princesss to learn the history of the Romans. Let them get back to working out what rule would best represent the effect of horns on those viking helmets!
-
The big problem for me is that there isnt just a cultural change between early kingdom, early & late republic, early & late rome & the various byzantine stages - there was a very significant change in arms, armour, fighting styles, troop organisation etc. The equivalent for me is to have apache attack helicopters, counter insurgency squads and camouflage for any american cival war era rule set because 'close enough the culture had it'. I think I will stick with impetus & saga
-
I don't think that Mantic looked at it that deeply. They are just continuing the "must imitate GW" policy that has been their entire raison d'etre.
GW published Historical armies for their battle system so Mantic must as well. They do not seem to have picked up on the fact that the GW offerings were actually very good.
-
I think that the key thing here is that the game is not really targetted at historical gamers - it's targetted at Fantasy gamers who want something a little bit historical or 'historical lite'. Rather like Bolt Action is really marketed at sci-fi (specifically 40k) gamers who want 'historical' armies?
I like the KoW system but I've never had the urge to buy a 'Fantasy' army for it. I have historical figures/armies so I may give this a try along the lines of 'if it gets figures on a table then it's good'.
I'm intrigued to know if the Roman list is 'especially bad' or if the other lists are similar? Anyway being an 'historical gamer' I'd adapt the 'official' list to suit the era of army I was fielding - isn't that what historical gaming is all about?
-
Reading the comments on Manitc's post on Facebook they freely admit they have taken some "licence" with history. That as a starting point is a bit of a turn off........
-
One thing that nobody has seemed to have picked up on is that this is clearly the "Elites" of the army list, who knows how many pages come after it containing Hastati, Marian Legions, and Limitanei etc?
-
I think they have gone for a wide coverage of eras - which is good - but this necessarily makes each army / faction quite shallow. Perhaps it would have been better to go for more precise eras, but this then makes it less accessible.
Its better to get people interested with a broad brush, then let them drill down more deeply.
Yes the Roman list is the elites and characters - the core units come from the list of general units, shown in the box out on the left hand page.
KoW is a good game, but it is very much at the game end of the game to simulation spectrum, and is pretty abstract.
I wouldn't get caught up on Crushing Strength, this is the KoW special rule name for 'better against armour in melee' it could represent pure strength or better weapons, or even more skill at picking weak spots in armour.
But even saying all the above, I'm not really sure this is on my shopping list either.
-
Oh man. I consider myself more a fantasy player, and not hung up DBX-level nitty-gritty, and I think that Mantic list's weak.
it's targetted at Fantasy gamers who want something a little bit historical
Very little. :P
I dunno. I remember some fantasy game from a couple of years back that had a fantasy 'not-Romans' faction. Surely if fantasy players wanted units full of gladiators and warp-spasmed emperors careening over the battlefield, that'd be more to their tastes? 'Hollywood Romans' is one thing - and does the range of styles of historical games already out there preclude that? - but this looks like something else...
-
I think a lot of folks are jumping to conclusions.
It's certainly possible that Mantic is producing a set of "Hollywood historical" lists with everything and the kitchen sink thrown in.
It's also possible (even likely) that Mantic is trying to include as many armies as possible, and decided to throw all of the distinct units that a Roman army might field under the heading of "Roman". It makes sense to let players decide exactly what to include and exclude from their individual armies, especially in a game that is meant to allow players to smush historical and fantasy armies together if they want to.
Even gladiators make sense in this context, if we assume that they are trying to include the option to play Spartacus' slave revolt and so on (and if revolting slaves don't merit their own list, it makes sense to toss them under the "Roman" heading).
Caesar's "crushing strength" is a little silly, unless the game is supposed to be abstract enough that Julius Caesar actually represents Caesar and a small retinue of bodyguards and officers, in which case it might make sense to make him a little bit better than average.
Basically, flipping out about the game's inaccuracies is almost certainly premature.
-
Hmmm, I think I'm one the "if it gets people interested, then good" side of the debate. I think that is because of where I am located in Germany. Most players here are GW Warhammer, Infinity, Dust, Flames of War, Bolt Action, X-Wing Fighter, etc. players. All fine games and they seem to fit into some sort of genre but I'm not exactly sure which, "popular culture or 'pop' games," perhaps?
In my area, it is difficult to interest people in Impetus, Field of Glory or DBA. Some of that, but not all, may have to do with translated material and I am happy that Warlord translated Hail Caesar.
If I was in the UK like a lot of people here, on the other hand, I would lean towards "Hollywood History" side of the argument as it would be easier to find like-minded players and clubs.
So if KoW (which is also played a lot here) leads people to something like Hail Caesar (which is also kinda in the "pop-culture game" category but can lead to Impetus, etc.), then it works for me.
-
I enjoy KoW fantasy - it's a bit different from the usual stuff I play. I use a kingdoms of men army made up of Arthurian models plus a large mammoth and a chap on a winged beast and it's all jolly fun.
I'd be interested to try the historical version just to see how it plays out. I suspect that it might be a bit like WAB used to be in that the army lists do allow you to be very historical if you so desire, but also leave much room for 'beardy' play...an aspect of early WAB and post-supplement army lists (Armies of Antiquity 2) that I did not enjoy... Hopefully that isn't the case. The 'fantasy' terminology isn't helping their cause - 'crushing strength' is simply a mechanism for being more effective against armoured foes, for example, but because of the name, we imagine Conan in Roman armour!!!
I think it should be given a chance...
-
The 'fantasy' terminology isn't helping their cause - 'crushing strength' is simply a mechanism for being more effective against armoured foes, for example, but because of the name, we imagine Conan in Roman armour!!!
Not even particularly armoured foes. KOW has pretty much 3 combat stats. The number of attacks you have, what you need to roll to hit (both static numbers in the units profile) and what you need to wound, that last one is the "defence" stat of the opponent. Crushing strength makes you more likely to "wound" the target. Since there are thus pretty much two relevant stats in combat you will find that rules like crushing strength get used for everything from accurate weapons to venom to, indeed, strength. (all orks have it I think)
I completely agree with you that the name of this special rule doesn't do the historical setting any favours. ::) In fact even in the fantasy game there are a number of examples where it doesn't really fit in with what it represents.
-
Humm, all this negative talk sounds a little snobby (if there is such a word? lol)
I'm glad others have mentioned WAB, and I can see why Mantic have gone down this route.
But let's just stop and think about the impact Warhammer Historical had on the 'ancient gaming scene' in its heyday.... Whilst some people didn't enjoy the system, all should agree that 25/28mm figure manufactures thrived on the interest it created. This in turn meant the creation of new ranges and Warlord Games AND plastic ancient sets and and and...
You get my drift, we all benifit!
If Mantic have a small percentage of success that Warhammer Historical had in terms of sales and new players, then it's a good thing.
Now the history side, yes ok room for abuse perhaps in the basic lists?
But give the guys a chance fellas!
I love my history and we all have a point at which un-historical stuff starts to grate. I 'prefer' to play within a strict period, and years ago organised specific period events myself.
Let's not all get snotty and look down on these new rules as only for spotty yoofs who don't really now anything about history. Instead let's welcome new recruits and guide in the right direction.
Then we can all go back to playing with dusty old 15mm models over a flat table with bits of card for hills, using mind numbingly boring yawn rules!
(That last sentence was a JOKE by the way ;) ;) ;))
-
Very well put tim !
I have got a commitment from my lot of crazies to give the rules a go, and a rule system designed from the ground up as a game should provide a night or two of entertainment.
I think for me its that WAB actually set a pretty high standard in the quality of the supplements and approach to history so then looking at a catch all roman list to cover such a long period of time means they will be judged to a extent by the preceeding set of rules. I still hunt on eBay for the WAB supplements because i think they are great sources of inspiration and reading.
So it will be interesting to see how it all plays out over the coming month for sure.
-
Um... so has it got rules for Maximus Decimus Meridius? ;)
My knowledge of Ancient warfare is next to none but this holds no interest for me either way.
-
Um... so has it got rules for Maximus Decimus Meridius? ;)
My knowledge of Ancient warfare is next to none but this holds no interest for me either way.
We can make jokes about how often people believe that Hollywood films are historically accurate, but it's important to remember that many of our most reliable sources in ancient military history might not be any more accurate. We know shockingly little about what ancient warfare was really like, and sources for some of the most important figures are often more like propaganda than history. Even basic things, like how Roman Maniples actually worked, are lost to us.
That said, we know that the Roman army underwent major reformations a number of times, and units that existed hundreds of years apart obviously wouldn't have fought side by side. That's why I'm hoping that the sample provided is supposed to be "here are the units you need to represent the Roman army of your choice using the general list", and not "field a bunch of these and you'll have your historically accurate Roman army!"
-
They are just continuing the "must imitate GW" policy that has been their entire raison d'etre.
I think this is quite good and one reason I like Mantic as a company. There is something about the company that is quite proletarian, in a good sort of way. GW figures are just too friggin expensive, especially for what you get. I have some very nice Tom Meier high elves that I will use for Tolkien First Age Noldor but he doesn't make any cavalry for them and I need a lot of cavalry. When The Hobbit elven cavalry came out, I thought "Great! Nice models in my style!"
But there is absolutely no way that I am going to shell out 40+ bucks for six plastic cavalry figures, no way! Nice historical figures are getting pricy as well, and I am glad that I have most of my major armies collected (painted? well, that's another story.)
I'm not personally fond of Mantic's sculpts, but I think it is a great value for the money and a great way to field armies, play games and have fun at cost. GW has too much price-gouging as part of their business plan. I mean, 400+ GBP for Smaug?
-
There's a young man at the game club who plays with an Elf army, and it interested in collecting and gaming Alexander. If this gets him to do it, why complain? He may end up moving into historical gaming as a result...
-
Why all the fuss?
Caesar may or may not have been strong.
But let's face it, in any kind of realistic portrayal of ancient warfare he would be unlikely to charge into combat single handed.
Generals should mainly be there for command and control, once they enter combat the game should almost run on autopilot.
It's fine leading that decisive charge or last ditch effort, but it should be an all-or-nothing sort of moment.
It strikes me that this is not really much different to eg Bolt Action allowing Major Frost to lead 24 para figures against Pegasus Bridge. Or games featuring Rommel, Montgomery, Michael Wittman etc or Bolt Action games with tanks at point blank range whizzing about like bumper-cars.
For that matter, how many Napoleonic players either field Napoleon, Ney and the Old Guard at a brigade level (or company level) action, often opposed by the 95th Rifles and the Scots Greys, probably with a rocket battery from the RHA for support.
As several have said, for a lot of (new) players they won't know anything - a lot of players have very limited historical (or geographical) knowledge before they start playing. But if they like it, they soon start to learn.
-
In defence (although I'm not interested in Mantic's venture), you may notice that the units portrayed here are to be added to an army built from generic options, the so-called "Master list". Hence you're able to more or less accurately create, for example, a Roman army of 69AD by supplementing a core force of "spearmen", "heavy warriors" etc. with a contingent of "gladiators" as allegedly deployed by Emperor Otho.
OTT abilities for 'special chars' were also well established in Warhammer Ancients Battles. ;)
This.
-
One of the problems of deriving historical games from fantasy rules is 'recalibrating' for 'normal' humans. A fantasy hero, villain or monster should be able to slaughter single-handedly whole units. There also need to be a comparative hierarchy of advantages; a minor hero need to be better than rank and file; a hero even better; a small demon stronger than a hero, a greater demon even stronger.....etc.
In, say, the GW genre these individual marginal advantages 3 v 4 v 5 etc make a huge difference when you are fighting top v bottom, magnified if you are then making hit, wound and save roles. If you transfer this to historical games - well WAB was great game, I still love it, but 'old hands' will remember the joys of the original Armies of Antiquities list with the Norman Dux, Viking Konnigur and 'goblin fanatic' bearserkers. The game then becomes how you employ, and counter, your crushing heroes and killer units. But for a real example of the horrors of cumulative minor advantages, consider Nomad Light Cavalry....
Successor sets eg WAB2 and its lists and Rob Broom's excellent War and Conquest, have really tuned these differences down, but after 10-15 years of experience. It might take Mantic a while to get their 'calibration' right...
-
Interesting points Georgec! The question also becomes if you want to "recalibrate" or if you want your ruleset to reflect the way we romanticise particular famous units. Not only Hollywood but also historical retellings.
-
We can make jokes about how often people believe that Hollywood films are historically accurate, but it's important to remember that many of our most reliable sources in ancient military history might not be any more accurate. We know shockingly little about what ancient warfare was really like, and sources for some of the most important figures are often more like propaganda than history. Even basic things, like how Roman Maniples actually worked, are lost to us.
That said, we know that the Roman army underwent major reformations a number of times, and units that existed hundreds of years apart obviously wouldn't have fought side by side. That's why I'm hoping that the sample provided is supposed to be "here are the units you need to represent the Roman army of your choice using the general list", and not "field a bunch of these and you'll have your historically accurate Roman army!"
Well said and there are way too many historical gamers who seem to think army lists of the various favorite rules set are definitive guides to ancient forces. Most lists are at best opinions and estimates to provide a decent game. At worse they are based off gamer law and a few hours of second hand research. The lists help create balanced 'pick up' games for an evening and especially tournaments, which is great and what we as gamers want. See what happened when Hail Caesar did not have lists...But those tourney style games in impetus, DBx, FoG and all the other rules out there are IMO about as close to history as what many people here seem to be complaining about in the Mantic lists.
P.S. I play those games myself but don't get carried away by any impression of them being a simulation.
Now I agree Mantic's lists are not accurate but if it gets people down playing games and then starting to really dig into what is history is really about then all the better IMO. After that they might start to get more knowable about the historical forces and make their own calls.
Of course most of us don't have time to do all the research we want so lists are a help - but lets not make more of them than they are. I hope Mantic provided rules for creating your on forces/units. That would be much more helpful IMO.
-
Hi,
Like so many people here, I have mixed feelings about the idea.
KoW is a well designed and tight fantasy game that can be played quickly. It is perfect for the Playstation Generation.
Warhammer - both Fantasy and Historical - was a more "old school" game. It went into more depth and took longer to play.
I firmly believe that KoWH will bring many of the old WAB armies back out of their cupboards - and that is a good thing.
Are they "historically accurate?" I don't know - I wasn't there..... lol
But please - lets not all lose our cool over the lists. All army lists are fantasies. Some are reasonable indications about what was available to a commander - and some are just way wrong.
DBM(M) is a good example of a serious and adult (cough) game that is also wrong on so many levels. It is however, very popular and gives those who like to be tested during a game a good experience.
Haters are always gonna hate. Find good people and play fun games with them. In my experience KoW is a fun game. KoWH will be as much fun as you let it be.
John
-
Have too agree with some of the comments here, theres a bit of the 'Grognard complaining about the rivets' going on which alas is more common from historical gamers. Sure its not 100% accurate but nothing is.
-
DBM(M) is a good example of a serious and adult (cough) game that is also wrong on so many levels. It is however, very popular and gives those who like to be tested during a game a good experience.
It tested my patience as you scrabble to get pips to move your army three foot across the table in two inch increments, so that you could get within the two inch (sorry, 100 paces) bow range...
-
DBM(M) is a good example of a serious and adult (cough) game that is also wrong on so many levels. It is however, very popular and gives those who like to be tested during a game a good experience.
This is key. Look at KoW Historicals as this generation's DBM and you'll be just fine.
Don't compare it to more "simulative" rulesets, that's just silly.
-
Well, I once made the mistake of giving a new teenage player a copy of DBM to read by way of introduction... :o
Guess how that worked out! lol
-
So having had doubts, I read the fantasy rules. All in all aside from so unique naming of rules the actual combat and game mechanism is very very well thought out.
This could arguably be a great vehicle to transition people to historicals so my reservations are not as deep anymore. I defiantly could see this being allot more appealing than other WAB replacements and getting some momentum. Maybe even generate a competition scene that draws people in.
-
So having had doubts, I read the fantasy rules. All in all aside from so unique naming of rules the actual combat and game mechanism is very very well thought out.
This could arguably be a great vehicle to transition people to historicals so my reservations are not as deep anymore. I defiantly could see this being allot more appealing than other WAB replacements and getting some momentum. Maybe even generate a competition scene that draws people in.
It is a nice smooth-running and very well playtested system.
The competition scene is a good point. There are a fair number of KOW tournaments and if the Historical lists are legal, then it'd be one more outlet for Historical players to get involved. Might be a bit odd to see Romans Vs Dwarves, if they don't separate them, but it sounds kind of cool to me.
Also, it's a fair bet that at least large conventions like Adepticon will end up having KoW Historical tournaments.
It's doubtful that I'd field a historical KoW army, but I might well pick up the book anyway just to support the game. I don't buy hardly any Mantic figs, but I love the game, so I buy most of the expansions.
-
We've just got the book in stock at North Star. http://northstarfigures.com/
I'm a 'serious' Historical gamer, ;D and sure, I could spend a long time pulling the army lists apart in a snobbish way. But I don't think that's the point. This book is Mantic extending the hobby, whether it's KoW Fantasy players wanting to use a wider choice of figures (Historical), or it's Historical players being given a new set of rules to use their existing collections, it works both ways.
The game itself is solid. The lists are what's causing comment, but actually they are completely open. In fact they are too open for a Grognard like me. There is no compulsion to have a Crushing Strength Caesar. You pick every unit. So for example, where I'd force you to have a majority of archers in a HYW English army, KoW Historical doesn't do that, but gives you the options to build a historically correct army. It seems to me the next step is for some free online 'actual' armies, a 2000 point English army for Agincourt for example.
Lastly, WAB players, get your heads out of your a***s. If you thought you were playing anything remotely historical you need to pull yourself together. It was a joke. Why would a game for human beings at war have a 'strength' and a 'toughness' stat? Long lines of spearmen? Forget that, I'm having a column 4 ranks deep with General, leader, standard bearer and army standard bearer in the front rank. You should also know I played WAB probably more than any other game system, for years, and will be doing so again soon, so don't take my criticism too much to heart!
-
Lastly, WAB players, get your heads out of your a***s. If you thought you were playing anything remotely historical you need to pull yourself together. It was a joke. Why would a game for human beings at war have a 'strength' and a 'toughness' stat? Long lines of spearmen? Forget that, I'm having a column 4 ranks deep with General, leader, standard bearer and army standard bearer in the front rank. You should also know I played WAB probably more than any other game system, for years, and will be doing so again soon, so don't take my criticism too much to heart!
Thanks for that Nick, got a good laugh out of me.
-
I have to say that all wargaming based on equal point opposing armies is the stuff on fantasy :D
-
Honestly I really like this idea. Are the lists gonna be historically accurate? Nope. But if it gives a decent general feel of what we expect from Romans, Samurai etc and gets more people painting and playing with historical models and people gaining a larger interest in historical I am all for it.
-
It may not be historical corect but i thing it will be fun.
I agree with you.
-
Just to prove the point, this is my first post ( Hello) I was directed here from the Kings of War Historical Forums because I was after more historical info and wanted a good resource. Which it has turned out to be :) .
I think the idea of KOWH is that you have lists that you can make a historically accurate army with, if you know what that army was, but if you don't know you can just make one up and still play. So you can make it as historically accurate as you have knowledge. That does prompt the question of where can I found out what I should I have in an army to be historically accurate, which KOWH doesn't help with much. So, Is there a resource that tells you how to wargame for different periods ? I'm specifically interested in WOtR, but have very little history knowledge(which will probably be the case for any KOW players coming over, sorry)
-
happyhiker, welcome to LAF! :)
There's a lot of knowledge floating around here, thus it's hard to direct you to one source. Just have a good look around, check our period boards, perhaps even browse some older topics and if you can't find an answer there, feel free to start a new one. The more specific, the better! As far as I'm aware the Medieval board is roamed by a good number of WotR buffs.
-
Welcome to LAF - good questions!
One of the joys (and pains) of historical gaming is that there is no single book or source. You need to do some reading round the subject, and will quickly discover there are many views and opinions!
A good starting place are the Osprey range of books, the Campaign series is good for giving an overview of the various battles, with lots of good pictures. There are also loads of websites and forums - but often these can take a bit of getting into, so a book can help to give some overview and context to put the other work against. I've recently started looking at a new period (the battles in Ireland of William of Orange vs King James, and found that I was rather swamped by all the stuff on the web, but with a handy Osprey campaign guide it really has helped give me a good overview).
WoTR is a great period, lots of colourful units. Mainly bill and bow infantry - and lots of debate over how much of each. But a good selection of other units too. We have played a couple of WoTR games using KoW v1, and they were good games. We weren't convinced on how good a representation of a WoTR battle they were, mainly as KoW is so brutal you end up with a rather empty battle field towards the end, and have units marauding around at that stage.
We did introduce a limited arrows rule - can't remember exactly what it was - something like each 1 rolled removed 1 from the stock of arrows - with a limited number of arrows per unit. This did help stop the game being just shooting.
-
I'd definitely reccomend the Osprey Books.
The 'Wars Of The Roses' one from their Men At Arms series is a great introduction. It gives a good, simple overview of the conflict with quick rundowns of most of the major battles, which themselves give you a good idea of how battles were fought in England during that era. It also gives a brief summary of the English armies of the period, the sort of weapons and armour used, and some great colour illustrations.
Then I'd heartily recommend their Campaign series, each one of which goes into great detail with a certain battle or campaign. For WOTR, they have books on the battles of Towton, Tewkesbury (also including Barnet) and Bosworth. Each one has loads of detail, with great maps, and truly fantastic battle-scene artwork from Graham Turner. Almost worth getting just for the artwork alone to be honest - they really give you a sense of what 15th century warfare was (supposedly) like, the melee scenes really put you in the thick of it.
-
The 'granularity' and variety (and the accuracy that comes with them) aren't actually a good thing.
Kings of War is not a game that is won or lost in the list building phase, nor is it a system that models nuances in equipment and armour and training and culture. The one base 'heavy infantry' unit could be accurately* used to represent Viking Hirdmen, Roman Legionaries, Principes, Greek Phalangites, Saxon Thegns, etc. Stat changes in Kings of War, and special rules either represent drastic differences in equipment or troop quality, or are implemented to exaggerate smaller differences in order to create variety between units.
Historical gamers are often spoiled for choice because they have had access to multiple source books for different periods and regions, and in a lot of cases every minor difference translates into a rules difference. And frankly it's not necessary or even desirable. Kings of War thrives off a minimalistic design philosophy and having 'open' lists like these fit the bill perfectly.
It puts the onus squarely on the player to provide historical accuracy for his forces. Or not, as the case may be. I know that many people who play SAGA, which is about as a-historical as a game can get, have a great desire for accuracy in their models and research colour palettes, uniform changes, imagery etc for their models.
* - Accurately: This is the bugbear for most on here it seems. At the end of the day, one warrior in armour with a handheld weapon performs (more or less) exactly like any other. The differences between them are largely cosmetic and taking the time to model the difference between lamellar armour and chainmail on the tabletop would simply add pointless complication to a game that thrives because of it's simplicity.
-
I have to say that all wargaming based on equal point opposing armies is the stuff on fantasy :D
This is a view I always had, but I have been forced to think about this after reading Adrian Goldworthy's book about the Punic Wars. He comments that armies would often choose not to fight if they felt they were at a serious disadvantage and given the technology/command and control of the day there was little the enemy could do to force combat. While this might not be true of all battles (there were still occasions where an army was forced to fight at a clear disadvantage), I suspect it is true of the majority.
Clearly, this is only a perceived parity/superiority over their opponents, but that perception was important. Who would choose to fight if they thought defeat was certain rather than withdraw and fight another day? There may be circumstances where an inferior force has particular circumstances in their favour. This might be an argument in favour the concept, in some rules, of buying stratagems.
Points are useful for a quick casual game, but don't replace well constructed scenarios.
Looking for rules, the last thing I worry about is points or army lists, it is the mechanics that are most important.