Thinking of starting Successors

[vodkafan]

" Sons And Lovers"  ah no wait I think that title's been had by somebody....

[Westbury]

Thank you for input James 

[bluewillow]

Have you looked at Advanced Impetus 2?

 I returned to ancients after a long absence after playing the original Impetus rules at a club game in 2012. I found it excellent, I have built 10 armies for it since then including mithradatic successors.


Cheers
Matt

[Westbury]

So, did my play test of Hail Caesar, standard frontage, 300 points. Well it was quick and strangely that was a problem, but more later.
I liked the formed unit basing, 40mm square for infantry and 50mm square for cavalry, suited my vision and multiple bases to a unit was also a plus, the single basing for skirmishers I didn't like, it was like someone else's skirmish game had spilled onto my battle game, it looked rubbish and as game mechanic they really were a waste of time. What did strike me as strange was the double ranking of cavalry; firstly why? and secondly they end up deeper than a four figure rank pike phalanx 
The sequence I could live with but didn't actually fire me up, Blue then Red, then Blue  .
Divisions? Felt all a bit artificial and I'm not sure that the history we have supports the idea either but again liveable with.
The stats. Too much really;Clash, Sustained, Morale Save, Stamina, SR & LR - even Agema cavalry have an SR?, oh and they might be Drilled or Elite or Stubborn or Tough - just too many to flick back to, many of which could have been included in the main body, some of which were pointless - Slings. When I used the lists for my trial game of Seleucid v Ptolemaic most of the stats are the same anyway (as where many of the other armies in the book) and the generals are the same thus making the whole thing a bit pointless. Also the range of generals, Genius to Unfit for Duty, really? The ancient world was a pretty unforgiving place, yes there are a couple of excellent generals and the odd crap consular general but this was needless I thought.
The command and movement was pretty straight forward and I'd live with it but testing every time you want to move (yes I know about Initiative) was tiresome and then varying the test for distance from the general unnecessary. The variance that success could bring of moving up to 3 times in a single turn was too much and irrational, a gimmick that didn't need to be there.
The shooting and fighting worked well enough given the need to use the variety of stats but I have to say I hate saving throws, all that says to me is you couldn't get the kill ratio right the first time and it slows the game. I found skirmishing completely pointless and maybe there's an argument that says there was little effect of such in the ancient world but why then did commanders recruit such troops by the thousand? The melees ground themselves out OK and the idea of going Shaken once you'd hit the Stamina threshold I got but the brutality of failing the Break Test was too extreme; of the nine possible test results, two would see your unit break and that means removable from the board (the board game analogy is deliberate), another three see your unit retreat which in almost all example means getting kicked up the arse in the next turn and breaking. The actual mechanism of a score giving a result for different troop types is fine but if you've painted up and based 32+ figures and after a couple of rounds of melee the whole thing is picked up and discarded you might be a little aggrieved especially when the 8 bases of figures don't reduce in any way, why not just do what other rules do and have one big base?
Generals in combat worked well enough and the risk is quite low so bang them in I say, the extra dice you get is worth the risk.
The inclusion of victory conditions is driven by the idea of having divisions which I've already said is a bit artificial; if you are playing a game and your opponent doesn't want to acknowledge he's beaten you're playing the wrong person. 
There are a lot of pages to the rules (it's a book!) so you get a lot of bang for your buck but equally a lot of fluff, overlong and over detailed explanations of the blindingly obvious and stuff that just doesn't need to be there. If someone offered me a game however I'd play, the mechanisms are straight forward and easy to pick up and would be 'fun' a much used adjective which somehow gives a seal of approval to wargaming products these days but they aren't the set for me.
Only Swordpoint left to trial now.

[flatpack]

Ian, they sound fun.....sorry couldn’t resist. 

[Fremitus Borealis]

Thanks for the detailed like at HC. I admit I was wondering the same thing when it comes to skirmishers/light troops.

[Westbury]

With all this waffling on about rules I'd kind of lost sight of the original starting point which was the relative cheapness of doing this in the Victrix plastic - all metal in 28mm would be an expensive hit for the two of us who are interested in doing it. So I had another look at the figures and the few metal samples I've bought to maybe do as officers, generals and, now I've looked at the Victrix cavalry again, maybe the cavalry. This is where it gets a bit tricky and I'd value anyone else's input; the Victrix are definitely 'heroic' 28mm especially the cavalry and so matching in from other ranges is going to be more of a challenge than I envisaged. Someone suggested Aventine would fit in well and the sample infantry I've got hold of would seem to do that - any other manufacturers that people might suggest? The cavalry however are a whole other question; the Victrix are massive which has an immediate impact on unit base sizing - 40mm x 40mm has no chance of working, got to be 50mm x 50mm, but the Aventine metal don't mix - it's the horses really, and even as a side by side unit or command stand they look significantly smaller, I also got some A&A Miniatures cavalry and they look even worse - don't get me wrong both Aventine and A&A do some lovely figures and extensive ranges, it's definitely a size thing
The question is do we just crack on with all plastic and the relative restriction that gives or do all the cavalry in a large stature metal range? Suggestions most gratefully received

[AdamPHayes]

I don’t think any other ranges will match up with Victrix cavalry even if you swap out the horses. The Warrior metal figures are all quite slight, if nicely detailed. Foundry Successors are pretty chunky, might work okay with Aventine. Crusader Miniatures cavalry are again similar IIRC, although their Ebob horses are smaller (and better.) I will fish out some figures and try to get some comparison pics done.

[Westbury]

Thanks Adam

[Jjonas]

I have a few options shown here- but not really a side by side.

The Victrix and Crusader Horses are in a league of their own. I too find the Victrix horse out of scale (and the horses too well bred) for most ancients. They are well sculpted- but huge and difficult to fit on 'standard' cavalry bases - mine are on 25x75mm and fairly well go nose to tail.

Some of the older figures can ride along but I am not putting them together with Victrix in the same unit. Aventine are nice and  fit in with Foundry and *Polemarch (Gripping Beast), as well as my older Newline figures. The Vendels are big and thick but but their horses are smaller in proportions and probably more in scale than the massive Cuirassier horses of the Victrix. Crusader figures have large horses, but the riders are often a bit tiny - as metal cast figure makers often cheat on the rider scale. Old Glory are smallish now compared to the big plastics.

*Polemarch have a nice variety range, but their riders are often 'pig sticking" and have a forward lean on the horses that I always have to saw down. Definitely something to look at for variety.

Ultimately with Victrix cavalry I have relegated to "Lion Rampant" style scenarios where they don't rank up or touch.


http://www.ancientbattles.com/Early_Successors_Armies_JJonas/Early_Successor_Armies_AncientBattles_2020.html

[Westbury]

Cheers Jeff.
This has become a bit of a tangle.
Given that the Victrix infantry are going to be the core it's down to what will fit with/alongside them. I've convinced myself the Aventine would go with them as command figures etc, are you suggesting the Crusader/Gripping Beast would also work?
The cavalry thing is a real quandary;not only is it what could go alongside/with the Victrix but also what could look 'realistic' facing off to the Victrix foot if we junked the idea of using the Victrix cavalry. I've got figures from the Gripping Beast Arthurian and Timurid ranges and they are fairly chunky but are they chunky enough

[Fremitus Borealis]

Yeah I suppose I'll join the chorus about the Victrix cavalry. I mean, they're beautiful, but huge. For what it's worth, the one Aventine cavalry figure I have (a Successor general you can see in my own Successors thread) seems like it looks okay next to Victrix infantry, whereas the Victrix cavalry are like part elephant 

[Jjonas]

I can only offer this as an example.

[Zingara]

Ian - you could use skirmishers to seize / occupy / contest forward terrain during deployment

[Westbury]

Nice idea Gregor, just written it down in my 'draft rules for ancients' book which is just as well as I've just junked the whole first draft of my own rules and started again, I'd strayed too far from my original mandate - Lin thinks I'm mad