What are the Most Realistic Ancient Wargames Rules

[VonAkers]

Hi Guys .
I cant seem to find any Ancient Wargames Rules that I am happy with .Some seem ok others ..well not so much.
I am after 5 things

1 Realism/ Historical
2 Reasonable Playability.
3 Fog of war ( ie I dont want total control .. or i would  play chess , )
4 The period is 450BC TO 050 BC ( Pelopenesian War/ Greek Punic Wars / Punic Wars
5 Reasonable time frame 4/5 hours .
Your Thoughts Please

[Hobgoblin]

I reckon Big Battle DBA (i.e. multiple commands) covers all of those points. It's perhaps a little short on the playing time, but if you use expanded armies - say 18 elements per command rather than 12 - and three commands per side, you'd get a very good afternoon's game.

To the Strongest ticks all the boxes too, I think. It's great.

Both games strike me as impeccably researched (your points 1 and 4), and they're both fast-moving with simple core mechanics (points 2 and 5). Given all the "don't knows" regarding ancient warfare, their level of abstraction is a strength rather than a weakness, I think. The PIP dice and cards, respectively, give you your fog of war (point 3).

And, of course, you can use the same basing for both games.

[Ran The Cid]

What do you consider "Realism/ Historical"?  Which rules meet or fail to meet this criteria?  I generally assume that Realism = Simulation.  And that will be at odds with #2 Playability.

To The Strongest has been mentioned (and Hail Caesar accomplishes the same goals through different means), easily meets #2-5.  I'm not sure if either game meets the #1 Realism/ Historical criteria. 

[carlos marighela]

The ones where you bash your opponent with a metal bin lid while poking him with a billiard cue.

[Dice Roller]

How on earth could you even begin to judge which is the most realistic!?
A totally pointless endeavour.
The problem is, we don't know the actual flow and dynamics of an ancient battle. And never will. We have no idea what an actual battle really looked like nor how it developed and progressed. The reality of ancient battles will remain ever elusive.
So instead of chasing the most realistic, look for the one that gives you the kind of game you enjoy and most fits your own interpretation of what an ancient battle was like. Which is not the same thing at all.

[VonAkers]

Hey Dice Roller
Troll Alert ...
Do you play Chess Perchance ...

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I reckon Big Battle DBA (i.e. multiple commands) covers all of those points. It's perhaps a little short on the playing time, but if you use expanded armies - say 18 elements per command rather than 12 - and three commands per side, you'd get a very good afternoon's game.

To the Strongest ticks all the boxes too, I think. It's great.

Both games strike me as impeccably researched (your points 1 and 4), and they're both fast-moving with simple core mechanics (points 2 and 5). Given all the "don't knows" regarding ancient warfare, their level of abstraction is a strength rather than a weakness, I think. The PIP dice and cards, respectively, give you your fog of war (point 3).

And, of course, you can use the same basing for both games.

DBA and even the latest of the DBx series  or ADLG don’t do a good job of handling Roman manipular legions, at least not with lists that separate the hastati/principi from triari into separate stands.   The roles of  second and third lines and their interaction might be abstracted to within a single blade stand, but what then do you consider the heavy spearmen stands, you still have in the list?

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

How on earth could you even begin to judge which is the most realistic!?
A totally pointless endeavour.
The problem is, we don't know the actual flow and dynamics of an ancient battle. And never will. We have no idea what an actual battle really looked like nor how it developed and progressed. The reality of ancient battles will remain ever elusive.
So instead of chasing the most realistic, look for the one that gives you the kind of game you enjoy and most fits your own interpretation of what an ancient battle was like. Which is not the same thing at all.

Oh, I think we actually do have some idea of the actual flow and dynamics of an ancient battle, and a pretty good one at that.  The flow and dynamics of battle really hasn’t changed that much at least until the rifled musket makes an appearance and firepower starts to erode the power of shock and mass.  None the less, basic military principles  regarding economy of force, mass and maneuver hold true forever, even if dispersion and engagement distances change.

[mellis1644]

This depends a lot on what you deem as the target for your points you want. Some may say DBA etc are unrealistic, with their command items and hiding details as an example. For that we really do not know the details of the Roman way of fighting, so how to model this. So how they do that may be good or very poor depending on your viewpoint.

After all Rome won more wars because of various factors outside the tactical battle level vs being that devastating tactical force a lot of the time. Our knowledge of the details of battles at a tactical level prior to the printing press is pretty light.

So, a lot of this depends on what you want out of a game for things like the types of forces it will cover etc.

That said, I suggest trying various sets and see which one you (and your fellow players) like.

We did that a few years ago (we tried DBA, ADLG, Sword and spear, Hail Ceasar, impetus, To the strongest, hanibal, Mortum et Glorum) and our group at the time settled on ADLG. Although various people liked some bits of specific rules more than others this was the overall one we liked (or more likely had less real diislike than any others). All have their good and bad parts but this one hit more highs than lows for our group.

[SJWi]

Vonakers, to be honest I haven't played any other "big battle" sets of rules since I opted for "To the Strongest" ( TTS) back in about 2016. They certainly tick your boxes regarding playability, fog of war, time period and length of game. I'm no expert on ancient combat but I haven't met anyone who says they don't tick that box as well. As they cover from Bronze Age through to the 15th century they might not be granular enough for some regarding the detail of a specific period, but I have happily used them for the Greek and Persian Wars, Successors and the Punic Wars....plus other periods up to the Wars of the Roses. The other great thing is that they don't force you to adopt a specific basing convention, as long as your units fit in the grid system they use.  Thus you can always try something else . My original armies were based for Impetus using 12cm wide bases and these fitted perfectly into a 15cm grid.  Having "bigged up" TTS I will say that Hail Caesar, Swordpoint and Sword and Spear have stood the test of time and seem to have a loyal following.  I have a mate who swears by "DBA/Big Battle DBA" but I haven't played it for nearly 30 years. I can still recall it being demo-ed by Phil Barker at the Society of Ancients Conference in the late '80s or early '90s.       

[Easy E]

Oh, I think we actually do have some idea of the actual flow and dynamics of an ancient battle, and a pretty good one at that.  The flow and dynamics of battle really hasn’t changed that much at least until the rifled musket makes an appearance and firepower starts to erode the power of shock and mass.  None the less, basic military principles  regarding economy of force, mass and maneuver hold true forever, even if dispersion and engagement distances change.

Scholars would disagree with you. 

No one actual knows how Greek warfare worked and there is hot debate about it.  Many people think the Osthmosis (sp) is not how it really worked at all.  In Roman warfare, no one actually knows how the famous Triplex Acies (sp) rotation actual works.  Again, there are several theories, but no one really knows.  That is just Greek and Roman combat, not all of Ancient warfare.  If we get beyond Greeks and Romans, no one really knows how Bronze Age Chariot Warfare worked at scale either.       

There is still a lot of discussion about impulses vs. lines vs. nodes vs. something else in Ancient warfare and no one really knows the answer and we probably never will.  Therefore, what the OP is really looking for is a game that reflects their understanding and Point-of-View of how ancient warfare worked. 

I am guessing, they have a "traditional" view with a cohesion of the battle lines as paramount.  If that is the case, ADGL and DBA-alikes are a good way to go.  However, I could be wrong. 

I know Wars of the Republic and Men of Bronze is not for you, because I made them and I do NOT follow the Battle Line dogma when I designed them.  The design also leaned into some ideas to make a better game and force choices that have also not been popular with more traditional wargamers either.  I am kind of regretting both those choices, as it has definitely impacted the sets popularity and how gamers react to it.  So, do not choose those games!           

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

> Scholars would disagree with you.

Yes, some scholars very well might but there is a very strong consensus, even if a few cranky scholars holdout noisily about some little pedantic detail or not. 

As a former professional military officer, i can say that the dictates of drill to maximize mass where and when needed, keep positive command control, preserve the ability to maneuver to attack gaps and flanks, address fatigue within the line by bringing reserves to stressed points in the line  or the arrival of a surprise in a pre-radio environment where combat remains mostly within immediate reach of a proximate and usually visible enemy are all quite understood,  and it’s rather easy to garner what an ancient leader might have had to do to address these problems. Nothing really changes.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I know Wars of the Republic and Men of Bronze is not for you, because I made them and I do NOT follow the Battle Line dogma when I designed them.  The design also leaned into some ideas to make a better game and force choices that have also not been popular with more traditional wargamers either.  I am kind of regretting both those choices, as it has definitely impacted the sets popularity and how gamers react to it.  So, do not choose those games!         

 

What is this battle line dogma you refer to? Could you elaborate?

[Panzer21]

Hi Guys .
I cant seem to find any Ancient Wargames Rules that I am happy with .Some seem ok others ..well not so much.
I am after 5 things

1 Realism/ Historical
2 Reasonable Playability.
3 Fog of war ( ie I dont want total control .. or i would  play chess , )
4 The period is 450BC TO 050 BC ( Pelopenesian War/ Greek Punic Wars / Punic Wars
5 Reasonable time frame 4/5 hours .
Your Thoughts Please

Probably as impossible as finding the "perfect" set of Napoleonic rules judging by the proliferation of rule sets and what dedicated Nappy players tell me....

Realism - you probably need to explore Phil Sabin's rules - Lost Battles, Legion and Strategos as these aim at "simulating" ancient battles, but possibly too predictable for 3...

Rules which give a good "game" while producing broadly historical results - Command & Colors Ancients; To the Strongest - these hit the unpredictability side while also producing a better simulation than you may think..

Despite the comments on Big Battle DBA - I think you would be better playing standard DBA but with big Impetus sized bases - gives you more figures but doesn't get bogged down with individual elements and multiple PIP throws.....

One of the better older sets is Shieldbearer - one of the few that would allow 1,800 Companions to seriously mess up 30,000 Persians; maybe not much fun for the latter.

A friend of mine constantly tells me about his set, available free here:

https://www.foggofwarminiatures.com/download-the-rules?srsltid=AfmBOoqpr49Z5j9m6wmvmHa33xZaq2K8Gi9WgNN8sfDLmK8iofyhOwxp

Neil

[Hobgoblin]

Despite the comments on Big Battle DBA - I think you would be better playing standard DBA but with big Impetus sized bases - gives you more figures but doesn't get bogged down with individual elements and multiple PIP throws.....
Neil

That's certainly a good call, fun and spectacle-wise, but it would tend to give you an hour-long game and so fall foul of 5. (Of course, you could always play several games in the time slot...)

The other thing is that doubling the frontage doubles your movement (in BW) and effectively halves the depth of the table, which would tend to make the game even quicker (30 to 45 minutes, perhaps). So the case for Big Battle is that it gives you a longer game and allows you to keep something like the intended table depth.

The big bases would look fantastic, though!