Wars of the Republic - Devon Wargames Group

[carojon]

One of the games played this month at the DWG was a Pyrrhic War skirmish in 28mm using the rule set from Osprey, Wars of the Republic written by Eric Farrington and illustrated by Giuseppe Rava.



Much fun was had exchanging pilum and pushes with pike, plus a bit of elephant action to keep things really interesting.



If you would like to know more, then just follow the link to the club blog.

https://devonwargames.blogspot.com/2025/09/wars-of-republic-ancient-pyrrhic-war.html

JJ

[guitarheroandy]

Great looking game! Lovely to see something other than Punic Wars with Republican Romans. Well done.

[BillK]

Figures and terrain look fantastic.
Now off to read the club report.

[carojon]

Hi Chaps,
Thanks for your comments. I’ll pass them on to Alex, our game organiser.

Cheers
JJ

[Easy E]

This makes me so happy!  Squeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[SJWi]

Carojon, I normally steer clear of the Osprey rules for a variety of reasons but these do intrigue me. Can you say anything about the rules mechanics? Do they assume a certain basing convention, figures removal etc etc?  I have lots of armies for the period that are "big battle" armies so a set of rules for smaller games would be good.

[carojon]

Hi SJWi,
Ok, so I had a copy of these rules when Alex proposed running the game, and not having played them up to then I naturally jumped at the opportunity to do so, that and the fact that Alex has a nice collection of figures and terrain to try them out with.

In the blog post, Alex alludes to one or two senior ancient players struggling with some of the concepts in WotR and I guess I would include myself in that description.

The rules, and I only have a superficial understanding of them, seem to me to be like most modern sets these days, scale and basing agnostic, with MU’s measuring units, the basis of movement and weapon ranges, so quite compatible for any collection of figures

Did I enjoy the game? Yes. Would I play WotR as my turn-to-set for games at this level of large skirmish? Probably not, but then this is my one and only game with them, so this is very much a case of first impressions. Why? Principally because some of the concepts around mutually supporting units seemed to me to be rather odd compared to what I would assume to be the case, and primarily because I like the concept of the ‘Commander’s Gaze’ impetus chits for grabbing initiative and influencing combat outcomes, but I thing other rule sets such as Dux Bellorum, which are my turn to set for Dark Ages battles at this level, do a similar concept better, and seem to me to model the fighting in the way I would imagine a Dark Age Battle to be, which given what we know about the subject is even more subjective than should be the case for a judgement like that.

My caveat to my comments are that of course rules are like shoe sizes, just because I take a size ten and you take a size eight doesn’t make either of us wrong, and I would add that WotR are a nicely produced set of rules as you would expect from Osprey, and as I said I had a fun time playing them.

I don’t usually say much about rules other than to promote the ones I play with a lot and really admire and enjoy, because the beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder and I would imagine every rule set will have its own set of admirers and who am I to poor scorn on others preferences. In addition this is my first impression and I could be very wrong because we might not have got the play of them strictly correct.

I hope that helps.

JJ

[SJWi]

JJ, thanks for the reply. I've just bought the Two Fat Lardies 2024 Magazine which seems to have articles pushing the "Infamy" ruleset timeline back to the Punic Wars so I will have a read of this first. That said "Infamy" never really grabbed my attention despite buying and painting two forces for it. My "go to" set of big battle ancient and medieval rules is Simon Miller's "To the Strongest" which I know can be a bit marmite with some gamers. I like marmite!   

[Easy E]

Here are some thoughts I have had shared with me on the topic, so let me know if it aligns with some of your results playing the game. 

The most common challenge from old hands at Ancient games is that if you choose to support a unit, it grants the initial unit bonuses in combat. Support units do not have their own attacks then. However, if the primary unit is destroyed, you also lose the supporting unit as everyone runs off!  Therefore, sometimes, it doesn't make sense to support a heavily battered or a lighter unit and instead let them get routed and counter-charge instead.  Sometimes, you have to have a support unit for a weaker unit to even scratch a tougher unit.  Therefore, the support rules are intended to force decision-making and a risk-vs-reward calculation and are not an automatic bonus for being nearby.   

These support rules mean that the "battle line" ideas so many ancient players are fond of do not apply.  The benefit of a battle line in this game is more about anchoring your flank and protecting from rear attack which can give significant bonuses to the attacker.  However, the battleline itself is often more open and flexible than similar ancient games.   This rubs many veterans the wrong way.  However, it does reflect the more "impulse" battle more popular in current scholarship. 

The risk-vs-reward decision making around choosing to support or not-to-support does not land well with many players.  The idea that Heavy Infantry would run away when lighter units they are supporting break and run is also a challenge for folks.  The way support works is definitely intended to be a gamified element to make the grinding style of ancient battles have some more decision making elements to a game.  A bad result from a poor support risk can lead to big holes in your battle line.  I have had veteran players say that they would never take the risk to support another unit.

Does this align with your experience of the game?