What is the best ancient combat 'similator' game/rule set

[damianlz]

So I have seen this arguest about games not needing to be perfect simulations and only needing be fun and I absolutely agree with this but it got me thinking - what is the best historical simulation game or rule set? One that really represents it's period or warfare

Before anyone starts the whole a simulations arnt always fun thing please bare in mind that I no what is being asked. I adore saga bolt action and warhammer and would never demand in depth accuracy from these games.

[Corso]

I find Hail Caesar as the best for 'massed' battles. The units have a unit profile not an individual model profile and the combat system is a winner. Strategy is included, ie if you don't pay attention to terrain features, dispositions and enemy weaknesses then you're asking for trouble. Some tweaking with the army lists is generally needed for some specific time frames, but for the rest, in my opinion, is a very good ruleset.

[SteveBurt]

To the Strongest is very good (and plays fast)

[Dr. Zombie]

I like: Hail Ceasar, To the strongest and Impetus.

They are all three very good simulations I feel. But with a different main focus. So it really depends on my mood of the day. what rules I like the best.

[MartinR]

If you want to simulate the conduct of historical Ancient battles in a reasonably playable manner, then Phil Sabins 'Lost Battles' does  a very good job of simulating the very limited command possibilities, and the attritional nature of combat.

They were originally designed as a tool for historical research.

[WillieB]

For some reason Swordpoint caught my fancy. Feels good .

[damianlz]

Thanks for the suggestions eveyone. Impetus is definitely my go to for massed combat. I haven't tried sword and spear  or sword point yet. I find hail caesar to be a light beer and pretzels kind of game, it ever really feels too deep or critical to me but that's just my taste.

[VonAkers]

Hi Damienlz
How long is a piece of string ..
I agree with  Corso.
HC is a bit of a sand box game , ie don't like something just modify it to your view of history a bit .
The authors do note this and give you tools for this .
What didn't you like about HC
Have you seen the Mutford House Rules for HC ?Almost everything that you may not like, a viable alternative is provided.
Spartan Hoplites not tuff enough , Pump up their Stamina, or  give them another Combat die or both  ??..it is up to you.
Also you have not said what period holds your interest , some systems do some periods better than others ?, Skirmish or full battle
I guess it more depends on what sort of game you want , and what you are trying to achieve .
How big a table will you fight on ? Want a tournament game ?Do you want 30 /40 figure units or 7 figure units...yuck
Are you talking about Basic Impetus or full?  as Basic is nothing like HC and looks to me like DBA s mongrel child.. double yuck ..
So it is a bit hard to answer your question with the info supplied
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Cheers

[Codsticker]

Although I really like Hail Caesar and To The Strongest I think of them more as 'games' as opposed to 'simulations'... if you know what I mean (if you don't then that probably says more about me than you... : ).

[VonAkers]

Good point Cod Sticker.
What is the best simulation of ancient warfare.?..not sure I have the band width for this right now ..
If I really think about it something like to the strongest Probably has a better Command system than most .
It is really a personal preference.
For instance my mate and I are doing Ancients this year , first up Greeks Pelopenesian war..in the Grand Manner..so to speak..
 We will be using either To the Strongest or a Modified HC
I am finishing off a Mycenaean Army , which will be using again a modified HC for Battles ( modified for the use of Heros) , and Probably Chariots Rampant for skirmish ( less than 100 figures a side )
Cheers

[Codsticker]

What is the best simulation of ancient warfare.?..not sure I have the band width for this right now ..

Perhaps a topic for another thread (jn fact, I bet a search here would bring up a long list): what is the difference between a 'simulation' and a 'game'?

[Arrigo]

Perhaps a topic for another thread (jn fact, I bet a search here would bring up a long list): what is the difference between a 'simulation' and a 'game'?

Technically none... or everything...  it is just that we tend to use words without a lot of meaning in specific context giving them different meaning. In professional wargaming a simulation is a 'vicarious' (as Phil Sabin is fond to say) model of a real or imagined situation.  Of course because we are talking about wargames it is also a game by default (it is not an engineering simulation for example...).

now the crux of the definition is model. The idea is that in a wargame we are attempting to model reality (be it ancient warfare, modern warfare, fantasy or science fiction) in a way that the resulting game is a model of the world we have selected. A game of lord of the ring with a Rohan army fielding Leopard 1s will not be a simulation of warfare in Tolkien imaginary world. Even Tolkien created is world with some specific parameters in mind.

Now a simple game is not by definition less accurate than a more complex one. For example Lost Battles is extremely simple compared to other systems (Field of Glory, Great Battle of History) but nevertheless Phil has a strong model behind it. The simulation value of a single game is often very personal. Yes, there are crappy simulations (a Decision Game production on the battle of Granicus omitting the whole persian Cavalry for example...), sometime designer can eschew real world  element for the sake of their own ideas (or to sell some specific miniatures) and again this will lower the simulation value, but on the other hand, some games focus more on specific aspects rather than others. Usually because the designer thinks that these aspects are essential to capture what he or she thinks are the key elements of the model.

As long a wargame pretend to provide a reasonable model of a given reality is a simulation, how good or bad often it is up to the users to decide (again barring glamorous errors or omissions).

I think field of Glory as several good aspects as To the Strongest. Not really a fan of Hail Caesar model. Lost Battles has several good points, but the crappiest victory conditions possible (Phil has weird idea about balance and victory... and certainly the victory condition are extremely gamey... but suggestions... let him win!  ).  IMHO the best model of ancient warfare I have played is Mark Herman and Richard Berg 'Great Battles of History'.