Mantic KOW - so called - "historical"

[eilif]

So having had doubts, I read the fantasy rules.  All in all aside from so unique naming of rules the actual combat and game mechanism is very very well thought out.

This could arguably be a great vehicle to transition people to historicals so my reservations are not as deep anymore.  I defiantly could see this being allot more appealing than other WAB replacements and getting some momentum. Maybe even generate a competition scene that draws people in. 

It is a nice smooth-running and very well playtested system.

The competition scene is a good point. There are a fair number of KOW tournaments and if the Historical lists are legal, then it'd be one more outlet for Historical players to get involved.  Might be a bit odd to see Romans Vs Dwarves, if they don't separate them, but it sounds kind of cool to me. 

Also, it's a fair bet that at least large conventions like Adepticon will end up having KoW Historical tournaments.

It's doubtful that I'd field a historical KoW army, but I might well pick up the book anyway just to support the game. I don't buy hardly any Mantic figs, but I love the game, so I buy most of the expansions.

[nicknorthstar]

We've just got the book in stock at North Star. http://northstarfigures.com/

I'm a 'serious' Historical gamer,  and sure, I could spend a long time pulling the army lists apart in a snobbish way. But I don't think that's the point. This book is Mantic extending the hobby, whether it's KoW Fantasy players wanting to use a wider choice of figures (Historical), or it's Historical players being given a new set of rules to use their existing collections, it works both ways.

The game itself is solid. The lists are what's causing comment, but actually they are completely open. In fact they are too open for a Grognard like me. There is no compulsion to have a Crushing Strength Caesar. You pick every unit. So for example, where I'd force you to have a majority of archers in a HYW English army, KoW Historical doesn't do that, but gives you the options to build a historically correct army. It seems to me the next step is for some free online 'actual' armies, a 2000 point English army for Agincourt for example.

Lastly, WAB players, get your heads out of your a***s. If you thought you were playing anything remotely historical you need to pull yourself together. It was a joke. Why would a game for human beings at war have a 'strength' and a 'toughness' stat? Long lines of spearmen? Forget that, I'm having a column 4 ranks deep with General, leader, standard bearer and army standard bearer in the front rank. You should also know I played WAB probably more than any other game system, for years, and will be doing so again soon, so don't take my criticism too much to heart!

[YPU]

Lastly, WAB players, get your heads out of your a***s. If you thought you were playing anything remotely historical you need to pull yourself together. It was a joke. Why would a game for human beings at war have a 'strength' and a 'toughness' stat? Long lines of spearmen? Forget that, I'm having a column 4 ranks deep with General, leader, standard bearer and army standard bearer in the front rank. You should also know I played WAB probably more than any other game system, for years, and will be doing so again soon, so don't take my criticism too much to heart!

Thanks for that Nick, got a good laugh out of me.

[The Dozing Dragon]

I have to say that all wargaming based on equal point opposing armies is the stuff on fantasy 

[carlos13th]

Honestly I really like this idea. Are the lists gonna be historically accurate? Nope. But if it gives a decent general feel of what we expect from Romans, Samurai etc and gets more people painting and playing with historical models and people gaining a larger interest in historical I am all for it.

[TXWargamer]

It may not be historical corect but i thing it will be fun.

I agree with you.

[happyhiker]

Just to prove the point, this is my first post ( Hello) I was directed here from the Kings of War Historical Forums because I was after more historical info and wanted a good resource. Which it has turned out to be  .

I think the idea of KOWH is that you have lists that you can make a historically accurate army with,  if you know what that army was, but if you don't know you can just make one up and still play. So you can make it as historically accurate as you have knowledge. That does prompt the question of where can I found out what I should I have in an army to be historically accurate, which KOWH doesn't help with much. So, Is there  a resource that tells you how to wargame for different periods ? I'm specifically interested in WOtR, but have very little history knowledge(which will probably be the case for any KOW players coming over, sorry)

[Mad Doc Morris]

happyhiker, welcome to LAF!
There's a lot of knowledge floating around here, thus it's hard to direct you to one source. Just have a good look around, check our period boards, perhaps even browse some older topics – and if you can't find an answer there, feel free to start a new one. The more specific, the better! As far as I'm aware the Medieval board is roamed by a good number of WotR buffs.

[fred]

Welcome to LAF - good questions!

One of the joys (and pains) of historical gaming is that there is no single book or source. You need to do some reading round the subject, and will quickly discover there are many views and opinions!

A good starting place are the Osprey range of books, the Campaign series is good for giving an overview of the various battles, with lots of good pictures. There are also loads of websites and forums - but often these can take a bit of getting into, so a book can help to give some overview and context to put the other work against. I've recently started looking at a new period (the battles in Ireland of William of Orange vs King James, and found that I was rather swamped by all the stuff on the web, but with a handy Osprey campaign guide it really has helped give me a good overview).

WoTR is a great period, lots of colourful units. Mainly bill and bow infantry - and lots of debate over how much of each. But a good selection of other units too. We have played a couple of WoTR games using KoW v1, and they were good games. We weren't convinced on how good a representation of a WoTR battle they were, mainly as KoW is so brutal you end up with a rather empty battle field towards the end, and have units marauding around at that stage.
We did introduce a limited arrows rule - can't remember exactly what it was - something like each 1 rolled removed 1 from the stock of arrows - with a limited number of arrows per unit. This did help stop the game being just shooting.

[Charlie_]

I'd definitely reccomend the Osprey Books.

The 'Wars Of The Roses' one from their Men At Arms series is a great introduction. It gives a good, simple overview of the conflict with quick rundowns of most of the major battles, which themselves give you a good idea of how battles were fought in England during that era. It also gives a brief summary of the English armies of the period, the sort of weapons and armour used, and some great colour illustrations.

Then I'd heartily recommend their Campaign series, each one of which goes into great detail with a certain battle or campaign. For WOTR, they have books on the battles of Towton, Tewkesbury (also including Barnet) and Bosworth. Each one has loads of detail, with great maps, and truly fantastic battle-scene artwork from Graham Turner. Almost worth getting just for the artwork alone to be honest - they really give you a sense of what 15th century warfare was (supposedly) like, the melee scenes really put you in the thick of it.

[Gracchus Armisurplus]

The 'granularity' and variety (and the accuracy that comes with them) aren't actually a good thing.

Kings of War is not a game that is won or lost in the list building phase, nor is it a system that models nuances in equipment and armour and training and culture. The one base 'heavy infantry' unit could be accurately* used to represent Viking Hirdmen, Roman Legionaries, Principes, Greek Phalangites, Saxon Thegns, etc. Stat changes in Kings of War, and special rules either represent drastic differences in equipment or troop quality, or are implemented to exaggerate smaller differences in order to create variety between units.

Historical gamers are often spoiled for choice because they have had access to multiple source books for different periods and regions, and in a lot of cases every minor difference translates into a rules difference. And frankly it's not necessary or even desirable. Kings of War thrives off a minimalistic design philosophy and having 'open' lists like these fit the bill perfectly.

It puts the onus squarely on the player to provide historical accuracy for his forces. Or not, as the case may be. I know that many people who play SAGA, which is about as a-historical as a game can get, have a great desire for accuracy in their models and research colour palettes, uniform changes, imagery etc for their models.

* - Accurately: This is the bugbear for most on here it seems. At the end of the day, one warrior in armour with a handheld weapon performs (more or less) exactly like any other. The differences between them are largely cosmetic and taking the time to model the difference between lamellar armour and chainmail on the tabletop would simply add pointless complication to a game that thrives because of it's simplicity.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

I have to say that all wargaming based on equal point opposing armies is the stuff on fantasy 

This is a view I always had, but I have been forced to think about this after reading Adrian Goldworthy's book about the Punic Wars.  He comments that armies would often choose not to fight if they felt they were at a serious disadvantage and given the technology/command and control of the day there was little the enemy could do to force combat.  While this might not be true of all battles (there were still occasions where an army was forced to fight at a clear disadvantage), I suspect it is true of the majority.
Clearly, this is only a perceived parity/superiority over their opponents, but that perception was important.  Who would choose to fight if they thought defeat was certain rather than withdraw and fight another day?  There may be circumstances where an inferior force has particular circumstances in their favour.  This might be an argument in favour the concept, in some rules, of buying stratagems.

Points are useful for a quick casual game, but don't replace well constructed scenarios.

Looking for rules, the last thing I worry about is points or army lists, it is the mechanics that are most important.