A Structured Review of Art de la Guerre after 4 identical battles

[Leftblank]

In my playtesting series (Art de la Guerre, Age of Hannibal, DBA 3.0, Mortem & Gloriam and Hail Caesar) I played the same Mons Graupius scenario 4 times with AdlG. My quest: what is the ultimate Ancients ruleset? Third in the series.

https://amsterdamwar.game.blog/2023/04/15/art-de-la-guerre-in-depth-review-after-4-standardized-playtest-games/

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

 I haven't played these rules.  I often read Madaxeman's reports as they are entertaining.  However, the game seems to depend a lot on turning flanks of individual units. Battle lines seem very broken as each side exploits defeating an enemy by then swinging around to hit a flank.  Is this the case or am I just getting the wrong impression?  This type of fluid battle doesn't seem to fit a lot of ancient warfare ( at least in my view) except for the rare exception.
It does seem to give a very tactical game and clearly skill must play a big part - Madaxeman seems to win too many games for it to just be luck!

[Leftblank]

In many of these games the 'flank attack' is deadly. It's a wargame trope, derived from the old grid-based boardgames, imported to miniature wargaming in the first influential miniature games. Younger designers have copied it again and again since then.
Is it realistic? I doubt it. If I see hooligans fighting riot police, something that looks like ancient infantry fighting I think, I never see 'blocks' with 'open flanks' and troops that are surprise attacked from the east while they are looking to the north, if you understand what I mean. Combatants are always facing each other.
AdlG has increased the power of flank attacks in V4.

[madaxeman]

I can absolutely understand how it looks like a whirling melee of flank attacks, especially in my reports (!) but that’s not quite how it plays out in real life, as there’s a couple of things going on that maybe aren’t apparent from the pictures and words 

First up, all DBX games have a really strong designer-intended set of mechanics to encourage you to keep units together in battle lines of multiple units.  There’s lots of different mechanics in Movement, command and control and combat that work together to encourage this - but, once you slam two opposing lines together and they start fighting and start rolling dice then your commanders control is largely gone and you are trusting to your men and their gods to win through.

Because all DBX-derived games are pretty much one-unit-one-base there isn’t a way of “thinning out” two battle lines in combat by removing single figures or stripping out rear rank bases - so when you are seeing two battle lines in combat becoming more “gap toothed” as the fight goes on, that’s not really a literal representation of what’s supposed to be going on between individual units - it’s an abstraction of how the fight between the two battle lines is going.  So, if you’re looking at the units rather than the overall state of the two battle lines you’re actually looking too closely - the “real” view of what’s going on is “Which of these two battle lines of units is more gap-toothed?”

Once a battle line gets gap-toothed that can allow their opponents to start hitting the flanks of individual units - thus accelerating the pace of collapse of the already-battered enemy battle line.  So, the increased  “opportunity and effect” of flank attacks when this happens is the way the rules mechanics manage to model the entire losing sides battle lines dramatically falling apart once a certain threshold has been reached - the movement of individual units is part of this higher-level abstraction, not a literal representation

Of course, on a more strategic level, if you can outflank big chunks of the enemy army then you’re going to slam into the flank of the whole army and start to roll them up - but that is going to be a thing in any set of rules anyway.

The other - non game mechanic  - thing is that I tend to take photos of the important and pivotal bits of any game, so that moment the enemy line starts to collapse (represented in-game by opportunities for those sorts of attacks to happen) is inevitably going to be something I focus on in the narrative too!  But, it’ll be because that moment is marking a tipping point in a much longer struggle between two battle lines - not because one or two of a cloud of swirling units have just gotten into a position to launch a rules-effective super-duper charge.

Hope that helps !

[vexillia]

Beware!  Playing ADLG can lead to serious hyphen addiction:

• designer-intended
• gap-toothed
• already-battered
• in-game
• rules-effective
• super-duper

 

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Because all DBX-derived games are pretty much one-unit-one-base there isn’t a way of “thinning out” two battle lines in combat by removing single figures or stripping out rear rank bases - so when you are seeing two battle lines in combat becoming more “gap toothed” as the fight goes on, that’s not really a literal representation of what’s supposed to be going on between individual units - it’s an abstraction of how the fight between the two battle lines is going.  So, if you’re looking at the units rather than the overall state of the two battle lines you’re actually looking too closely - the “real” view of what’s going on is “Which of these two battle lines of units is more gap-toothed?”

Once a battle line gets gap-toothed that can allow their opponents to start hitting the flanks of individual units - thus accelerating the pace of collapse of the already-battered enemy battle line.  So, the increased  “opportunity and effect” of flank attacks when this happens is the way the rules mechanics manage to model the entire losing sides battle lines dramatically falling apart once a certain threshold has been reached - the movement of individual units is part of this higher-level abstraction, not a literal representation

ADLG has a big flaw in that any unit that routs (destroyed) causes a cohesion hit to a unit close behind it.  It mostly destroys any value to having a second line as a reserve to plug gaps, and it cannot recreate manipulation tactics like Roman withdrawal and replacement of the front line units.  It distorts the historical tactical situation where a reserve line should actually be a benefit, to a liability.

[madaxeman]

A reserve line positioned a base width behind the front line however will work perfectly as a reserve .. and the IGOUGO nature of the system means you almost always have an opportunity to move it, or a more distant reserve unit up to plug gaps too.

The Roman maniple thing is a whole different discussion however - I believe ADLG is one of the many sets who fudge it with a “this activity is represented within an individual units footprint, and by  their enhanced combat factors”..

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Not quite perfectly.  Still have to roll pips to get those reserves into position, an army commander knowing how unreliable and weak command control can be may well want to preset the second line already in position ie defend in depth, which was historically common. Doubled lines or even triple lines should have some utility. Currently there is minimal benefit from a defense in depth in the game. Historically there was quite a utility to putting good troops behind poor troops in that the poor troops are policed and prevented from running, or given some incentive to fight a bit harder knowing they have stalwarts behind them (to shame them at least) and there is always the knowledge that pursuit cannot follow as you flow past the friendly reserve as it shields you allowing the unit to reform and rally rather than leave the field.  Green troops in particular have always benefited from formations where troops were directly behind them.  It’s standard practice to put “enforcers” ie NCOs with spontoons, big men and horses behind green troops to aid making sure no one runs.

That automatic cohesion hit is a bit high of a penalty, considering it’s supposed to represent the effects of uncontrolled routers smashing into the friendly formation behind it…the natural effect should not be an automatic cohesion hit.  Routers are always going to head for the path of least resistance— and even if they have no other path, if the troops behind them are in good order, they should be just as likely to open and then reclose ranks and allow the inter penetration without too much problem.  At least there should be some chance! I would prefer there was some sort of saving throw for that hit.

Having a friendly rabble unit rout in front of your elite stalwarts should not have a greater effect on your elite unit than if that same rabble unit was instead an enemy that had charged it! Even standing horsemen might not even have a concern at all if a loose mob medium foot tried to run through it.

Too I find the foot prints of stands is somewhat of a distortion.  The frontage of the unit relative to its depth really ought to be wider.  The depth of a stand is probably mostly empty…maybe half the depth.  The second line really isn’t just a pace or two behind the front unit.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I would be inclined to disregard the routing into a unit penalty, and probably add some sort of support modifier for additional close ranks.  if nothing else, a unit that routs but has the protection of a support might well not leave the game at all.  Maybe allow it a remaining cohesion hit and set it behind the second rank.

V5 changes?

[Easy E]

To be fair to ADGL- no one really knows how the Roman Manipular system actually worked,  we just have a bunch of hunches.  We do not know if the rotation was within the unit, a unit by unit basis, or just a gap fill as the first line was pushed back, or something else entirely is going on.  The ancients knew, but it is a bit of a mystery still to us.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I agree that the exact details of the manipular system are not known, but even a modern infantry captain, or anyone who has spent time practicing marching drill can have a fairly reasonable idea of what might have happened.  Weapons change but the need to get a mass of men into proper fighting positions efficiently and keep them there hasn’t .  Command control requirements of infantry hasn’t changed that much.  Use of lines and columns go back to the dawn of warfare, and even the ancients understood the advantages of each. 

I even agree that the designers might say that these maneuvers somewhat  occur within the confines of a stand…but still chafe a bit that simulation of the common tactical option to extend the flanks at the expense of depth and vice versa doesn’t occur in ADLG. The mechanics of the game mostly prevent it as an equal option.  It strikes me as an easy tweak for the next version. Not coming down on ADLG as broken…just looking for a shift of emphasis a tad.

[mellis1644]

That automatic cohesion hit is a bit high of a penalty, considering it’s supposed to represent the effects of uncontrolled routers smashing into the friendly formation behind it…the natural effect should not be an automatic cohesion hit.  Routers are always going to head for the path of least resistance— and even if they have no other path, if the troops behind them are in good order, they should be just as likely to open and then reclose ranks and allow the inter penetration without too much problem.  At least there should be some chance! I would prefer there was some sort of saving throw for that hit.

Having a friendly rabble unit rout in front of your elite stalwarts should not have a greater effect on your elite unit than if that same rabble unit was instead an enemy that had charged it! Even standing horsemen might not even have a concern at all if a loose mob medium foot tried to run through it.

In ADLG having your second line more than 1 UD directly behind the first mitigates the cohesion hit. When using lines of heavy troops/mounted that still allows a second line to stop line breaks turning into flank attacks. IMO that reflects the routers having enough space to find holes around and not disrupt formed units by trying to get through them.

The assumption that a unit can open up and let routers through and then reform before an enemy is something which modern (18th cent and later) drill may be possible, but for most ancient armies (maybe a few forces, such as Romans excepted) I think would be a dream. Practicing such and having to do it in front of successfully attacking unit seems like something which would need a lot of skill and nerve in the basic troops.

You could add such a 'saving throw' for your games but it seems to just add more complexity for very little real gain for most troops. One way to look at it is you could see the ability to rally such impacted troops as the recovery which is already within the rules.

Too I find the foot prints of stands is somewhat of a distortion.  The frontage of the unit relative to its depth really ought to be wider.  The depth of a stand is probably mostly empty…maybe half the depth.  The second line really isn’t just a pace or two behind the front unit.

Unit depth is something which is an issue for nearly all wargames really. For ADLG and other such games I take a unit to potentially have multiple lines inside the base (or be a mass of troops). This is not an ADLG problem but more of a miniatures problem in general.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

In ADLG having your second line more than 1 UD directly behind the first mitigates the cohesion hit. When using lines of heavy troops/mounted that still allows a second line to stop line breaks turning into flank attacks. IMO that reflects the routers having enough space to find holes around and not disrupt formed units by trying to get through them.

 But we still can’t easily get those units to fill the holes without a pip.  The routers needing to find gaps or else disordering the forces behind them still strikes me as to much of an effect.  A shield wall or phalanx, is not going to be moved by a loose stream of routers and the looser styles of open order swordsmen wouldbe plenty permeable.  The idea of psiloi retreating through the ranks is already understood by any unit other maybe a levy.

The assumption that a unit can open up and let routers through and then reform before an enemy is something which modern (18th cent and later) drill may be possible, but for most ancient armies (maybe a few forces, such as Romans excepted) I think would be a dream. Practicing such and having to do it in front of successfully attacking unit seems like something which would need a lot of skill and nerve in the basic troops.

I disagree.  Drill happened even during the Dark Ages.  It might be a hollywood trope that barbarian or feudal armies fought as mobs but most “regular” forces are going to learn/know rudimentary drill even if they don’t know how to fence. Close-knit feudal or tribal bands even learned drill, it’s probably the first lesson anyone got. 

Also remember a unit breaks from its rear…the routers are going to come out in small packets or as individual runners and often before even contact with the enemy.  It again is a hollywood trope that mano a mano contact with the enemy was what broke a unit…it is more likely units broke or balked before any swords were crossed at all. Most casualties occurred when a broken unit was pursued.  It’s not a wave of broken men rushing all at once but little rivulets. The enemy might be twenty or thirty paces behind or even further.

You could add such a 'saving throw' for your games but it seems to just add more complexity for very little real gain for most troops. One way to look at it is you could see the ability to rally such impacted troops as the recovery which is already within the rules.

D6: roll a 5-6 and the unit routed through take 1 cohesion hit.  +1 modifier if mounted rout through heavy foot, or the unit routed through is mediocre .  -1 if lighter are routing through a heavier unit or the unit routed through is elite.  just having this option means you can deploy in depth, and your second rank can be maneuvered as part of the group instead of requiring another pip.

The rear support aspects of a second rank could simply be for a unit in the front engaged in combat to be treated as a quality higher than it is. ie Mediocres roll as normal units with no reduction for a 4-6, and normal roll as elites, with the plus for rolls of 1-3 —but elites get no further benefit already being elite.

This doesn’t strike me as too arduous, and certainly gives some incentive to sacrifice frontage overall by increasing depth.

[madaxeman]

“ But we still can’t easily get those units to fill the holes without a pip.”

Making you take hard decisions about where to spend your “pips” in ADLG, or in any other DBx-derived game  (or indeed any other finite in-game asset such as cards, chits or special dice used by other game systems to represent command capacity) is how these games simulate the challenges of command and generalship.

In any asset-spending system you’ll be forced to make decisions about what’s important - it’s very rare to have “no” ability to do anything … but if you decide that shoring up your rapidly collapsing front line is the most important thing to do at that point in the game, you should spend your command points / command capacity on doing just that (and let other things go by the wayside).

Forcing the player into making those sorts of decisions is pretty much the essence of all such systems.

[LoxIslay]

I always find the maniple/formation or pip Talk exhausting. It would be even hard for a pc game to accurately simulate all these things. I think the main problem is the lagacy the old tt left. To be accurate, to be a simulation. I think sometimes is abstraction key to generate a great game. You can take a look at many classic board games (Chess, Ur, Go, Backgammon, Mancala games).
For me I stopped caring about historical correct ancient battles, because it’s often hard to say what’s historical correct. Paint and build your armies historical correct (hard enough in for a ancient TT gamer, not like Napo) and find a game that suits you.
Adlg is a competition  game, a successor to dbmm and fog, not a hardcore simulation. And I think it has a good flow, with a nice feel for that use/setting. If you read madaxemans reports it shows, feels like the successor to Lorenzo’s dbmm reports over from TAGMATA.


@Leftblank: nice idea, I’m exited to follow your journey.