Why we all should know about War and Conquest: a review

[Pijlie]

A few weeks ago I played my first game of War and Conquest. A ruleset that was published during the last death throes of Warhammes Ancient Battles (WAB). I used to play a lot of WAB. I always thought WAB a magnificent, if in some places clunky game that gave me hundreds of hours of fun. I even played a WAB tournament once which says something because I hate tournaments. But I enjoyed this one.

WAB however was destined for a long and slow death bed. An overhaul for the main rules was postponed and delayed for years. Supplements were always promised and sometimes published, but always late. GW really put some effort into the slow strangulation of what must have been one of the most succesful Ancients wargaming rules ever and finally delivered the neck shot in 2010 with the monstrous WAB 2.0: expensive, fault-ridden, badly edited and even clunkier than WAB 1.5. Everybody who had until then be willing to have sympathy and hope for WAB effectively lost this after paying 45 Euros for this pile of glossy toilet paper. And after the closure of Warhammer Historical in 2012 WAB was finally and truly dead.

Several successors presented themselves. War and Conquest, Clash of Empires and Hail Caesar appeared in a relatively short amount of time around WAB's demise. In terms of marketing success HC was the absolute winner. My club adopted it in the wake of the Black Powder successes, I bought it and played it a number of times. But au contraire to BP this game felt a bit bland, the troop types too generic and the game pace too slow to really peak my interest. COE en WAC were anonymous wallflowers. My Ancient armies started to gather dust in favour of other periods and rulesets.

More on my blog: http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl/2013/12/why-we-all-should-know-about-war-and.html

[Prof.Witchheimer]

Good one. Maybe I should take a closer look at WAC. Being a WAB devotee, I wasn't happy of the final demise of it and unfortunately I didn't become a fan of Hail Caesar.  Also Impetus with their regiment bases isn't my cup of tea. I know it can be a tremendous pain in the neck removing all the casualties in a WAB game but this is for me the only way to feel it right.  Also I didn't know WAC has eight additions in the meantime and that they are for free. I'm going to get the book. Thank you.

[Elbows]

I have zero interest in ancient armies, let alone painting/fighting them but that's a pretty awesome review.  Sounds like a good product - one I'll recommend to my buddies who do favor those style games.

[Pijlie]

I am glad you liked the review and even gladder that you will try out the set. This one really has way more potential than so far realized!

[redzed]

good, solid review. I also tried all of them and found WAC to be the best of the new breed
I used my Impetus based figures and just counted casualties etc off on a separate piece of paper, worked fine and was surprisingly fun - as much fun as WAB used to be.

[Gibby]

I have the WAC rules and can definitely tell that for those who liked WAB these are the go-to rules now. I think anyone who liked WAB will LOVE WAC. Man, that sentence reads pretty weird with all those abbreviations! I would love to play it myself but currently lack any armies

Nice review by the way. I would agree that it should be better marketed. It deserves the attention!

[Shahbahraz]

One thing I would take issue with is the description of ancient cavalry as fast but brittle. Not true in many cases with armoured horses moving ponderously, and quite prepared to wade into infantry formations such as Byzantine Klibanaphoroi, Sasanian Cataphracts and many others.

I would also like to know how it handles things like Ballistae, Chariots, Elephants, Camels, and so on.. 

[Pijlie]

One thing I would take issue with is the description of ancient cavalry as fast but brittle. Not true in many cases with armoured horses moving ponderously, and quite prepared to wade into infantry formations such as Byzantine Klibanaphoroi, Sasanian Cataphracts and many others.

Throughout history even heavy horse has seldom been able to break well-trained and prepared infantry on its own, as long as that infantry presented a solid front and was willing to stand out the charge. If only because all horses are loathe to run into rows of pointy sticks...

For example, at Carrhae the Parthian cataphracts did not charge the Roman infantry before they had been softened up by horse archers and/or decreased their combat effectivity by forming testudo formations. Their greatest success was massacaring the sallying  Gaul cavalry, disowning the Romans of the only effective response to the horse archers they had. Heavy horse that "waded into" formed and disciplined infantry was in for a world of hurt.

Nevertheless, heavy horse formations like cataphracts do get to count one rank bonus in combat, like in WAB.

I would also like to know how it handles things like Ballistae, Chariots, Elephants, Camels, and so on.. 

Well, the rulebook has been downpriced to 20 quid at the moment, so what's stopping you.... ? 

[Shahbahraz]

You do know this one is hotly disputed don't you?

Advocates of 'horse can't break solid foot' will claim all the examples of horse breaking foot are against inferior foot, (by definition as they were broken, they can't have been any good). Yet plenty of examples exist. It also then raises the question of why states and individuals expended huge amounts on heavily armoured horsemen.

And horses can be made to do all sorts of unnatural things. Like charge apparently solid barriers, solidly packed crowds of rioters, attempt to leave 7 foot fences. Or charge pike blocks during the Italian wars.

And I have my own preferred sets of rules for Ancients. This one doesn't appeal judging from the reviews I have read.

[Pijlie]

You do know this one is hotly disputed don't you?

Yes, I do. 

Advocates of 'horse can't break solid foot' will claim all the examples of horse breaking foot are against inferior foot, (by definition as they were broken, they can't have been any good).

Note that I never said that horse could not break solid foot. But it really was rare. Any heavy horseman in his right mind would only attempt such a feat after the enemy had been softened up by heat, hunger, exhaustion and rains of arrows.

And horses can be made to do all sorts of unnatural things. Like charge apparently solid barriers, solidly packed crowds of rioters, attempt to leave 7 foot fences. Or charge pike blocks during the Italian wars.

Horses did certainly not succesfully charge pike blocks. Pike blocks were designed to put a fast and bloody stop to cavalry charges. That's why the caracole was invented....

And I have my own preferred sets of rules for Ancients. This one doesn't appeal judging from the reviews I have read.

Given your extensive questioning, I was under another impression. Hence my extensive answer. 

[Cubs]

And horses can be made to do all sorts of unnatural things. Like charge apparently solid barriers, solidly packed crowds of rioters, attempt to leave 7 foot fences.

Mounted police are there to disperse the crowd and use their superior height to spot trouble makers (and also be seen). They scare rioters into running, they do not contact with 'solidly packed crowds'. I can assure you of that.

You'll also notice that horses actually jump over the fences (if they get it right). This means they are not running into them ... because they are jumping over them.

I think the important thing here is whether an infantry formation can maintain a 'solid front' by use of shields, spears, pikes, etc...  and the difference between a cavalry unit moving into contact (ie. weapon range) and the horse physically bashing into the infantry unit.

[Gibby]

It also then raises the question of why states and individuals expended huge amounts on heavily armoured horsemen.

Most of the time, such heavily armoured horsemen were made up of Nobles who wanted to look mega-bling on the field of battle. Few things look as impressive as a full suit of the latest armour and the same for your mighty horse. From my time as a history fan, I've noticed that the more successful horse-based warriors were light cavalry types, such as the Mongols, etc. This issue is obviously contentious, but I am firmly with the camp who believes that cavalry of all periods (heavy in particular) were glass hammers. Under the right circumstances they would destroy their opponents, but fresh cavalry versus fresh formed-heavy-infantry would go quite the other way.

[janner]

Before we get too into a rerun of the foot v heavy horse debate, can I say, great review and thanks for taking the time to do it 

[Shahbahraz]

For those who insist that cavalry wouldn't charge steady formed foot, I suggest you have a look at the Battle of Marignano. Charging Swiss pike, what were they thinking? I mean - everyone here could have told them they would be slaughtered to a man and do no damage? Fornovo, is also worth a look with Venetian heavily armoured cavalry versus Swiss and French.

In the campaigns of Shapur his (largely mounted) army inflicted a series of defeats on Roman armies that were largely infantry, detail almost non-existent unfortunately as the Roman sources are strangely quiet. Similarly the Battle of Misiche is described as a great frontal battle (inscription at Naqsh-e Rustam) in which the Roman army was destroyed. As was another Roman army at the Battle of Edessa.

Chinese battles are also instructive, and the failure of formed foot to stand against cavalry was a big issue until the Chinese started using crossbows in large numbers. The major battles aren't well known in the West, but they are very interesting.

[Pijlie]

Before we get too into a rerun of the foot v heavy horse debate, can I say, great review and thanks for taking the time to do it 

Why thank you. It was my pleasure.