Apologies but a bit long winded after a months worth of learning MeG. I bit the bullet just before the lockdown and got a copy of MeG, two years after a conversation with Alisdair Harley butmainly because of the half price sale! I didn't intend it to replace FOG as that ruleset is used by 90% of our club's ancient players and there hasn't been much drift away from it. You might find the odd game of ADLG or Sword and Spear once in a blue moon but essentially it's wall to wall FOG and FOGR.
So in lockdown and furloughed I have played half a dozen solo games using the method Simon recommended. Armies used have been Classical Indians, Seleucids, LRR Romans, Spanish, Galatians, Hellenistic Greeks, Vikings, Anglo-Danish and Normans.
So, for what it's worth what have I found? Just to set the record straight I am no scholar or expert in this period, I'm a wargamer and have been for a long time. What I know has been read from secondary sources and my prejudices have formed through playing WRG 6th, 7th, DBM, FOg and a couple of others. I am genuinely curious about how some decisions were made about lists, and I cannot find answers in any of the forums, and I am sure they were prompted from far more up to date information than my old "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic wars" and their ilk.
Well, the game is fast and bloody. The set up rules are very good and it's almost like campaigning before the main event.
I like the command system which harks back to the limitations imposed by DBM and it's PIP dice rather than the free for all you get in FOG. The division of generals into Professional and Instinctive is good as well as the floating option for the former.
People complain about the fighting file by file in FOG but that didn't bother me so neither does it in MeG. I found shove and shatter results were pretty rare.
Shooting can be more effective than in FOG but overall shooting armies are equally ineffective when I use them. I do like the slowing effect of fire, that can really bugger up your plans. Unprotected mass shooters are still highly vulnerable to skirmishers but I was never convinced of that in FOG either.
Shoot and scoot armies will take a lot of getting used to. MeG really cuts down the trading time for space these armies need, especially if they move second.
Morales through the KAB system is pretty easy
Most of the games were pretty balanced except the last one.
As far as the lists go I see there is a general reduction in Superior troop types in comparison to FOG which is probably a good thing. Whole entire armies of Superiors was probably a tad unrealistic. A bit surprised though with the wholesale reduction of most Gallic, German and Spanish cavalry to average. I always thought they were much better than Roman cavalry of the period which is why the Romans recruited them. Apparently not.
Gallic tribes could field up to 30% cavalry which is reflected in the lists but not the Galatians who can only field half the cavalry of the other Gallic lists.
I also see that the argument about thereuphoroi/thorakitai has been settled in favour of them being hoplites under a different name rather than a troop type that could operate in rough ground.
Also not sure why the Anglo-Danish Select fyrd appear no better trained than Great fyrd or it's dregs. I thought the Select Fyrd were basically the same type of part-time soldier farmers that the Vikings called up but the latter get to be formed.
The last game I played was where it appeared to me to go horribly wrong, assuming I got the rules right. Anglo-Danish vs Normans.
The Normans invaded and massivly outscouted the A-D. The latter got lucky though in two very secure flanks so it loooked like hastings without the hill. Obviously with outscouting the Normans could, and did, mass their best cavalry opposite a couple of units of Select Fyrd. They also sent the archers forward to soften them up which they duly did taking three bases off the two units in two rounds of shooting. Not good but still a two deep shieldwall. Then the cavalry come in.
No shatter obviously but who needed that? Straight through one unit in the charge phase and the other collapsed during melee.
OK so not on a hill like Hastings but even if the A-D had been that's still yellow dice vs white so not good.
How about putting Huscarls in the front rank of as many units as possible? No better as what they gain in Superiority they lose in 2HCC at contact.
Again, I thought even the Normans had a hard time taking down close formation infantry frontally. Could be done especially as the ranks thinned but in this case they went straight through them, 13 bases eliminated for the loss of two.
I have refought Hastings under FOG and it was difficult for the Normans as the A-D get a long spear but under MeG it appears the Normans could have broken Harold by lunchtime rather than at the approach of dusk. The vikings with integral shooters would have stood a better chance.
In summary then a very good ruleset that will be more interesting to play than FOG because of the preliminaries and C&C. I have one opponent at least lined up to play as he doesn't do FOG so that at least will give me the occasional game against another human being!
Quote from: Paul Marsh on May 17, 2020, 01:05:37 PM
So, for what it's worth what have I found? Just to set the record straight I am no scholar or expert in this period, I'm a wargamer and have been for a long time. What I know has been read from secondary sources and my prejudices have formed through playing WRG 6th, 7th, DBM, FOg and a couple of others. I am genuinely curious about how some decisions were made about lists, and I cannot find answers in any of the forums, and I am sure they were prompted from far more up to date information than my old "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic wars" and their ilk.
Feel free to post questions on the lists. Richard who oversees them visits here often.
Reason you can't find many discussions on list decisions is that the forum was changed at the start of this year and the previous discussions went with the old one.
Hi Paul,
Welcome to MeG. Quite happy to answer queries on lists.
Our guiding principal is that armies should "feel" correct. Romans should feel like Romans etc.
Specific classifications are often quite difficult. Specifically you asked about Select Fyrd vs Viking hird. I am not sure I can give you an evidence based answer. There is probably an argument for Select Fyrd being formed rather than tribal. For friendly games and re-enacting historical battles, feel free to be flexible with the classifications - think of the lists as guidance rather than a definitive answer.
For competitions, the purpose of the list is to constrain the player choice. This means we have to pick something. Give players too many options and they tend to pick armies that don't feel anything like their historical counterparts. The wide variety of armies that appear in competitions suggest that we are doing fairly well. There certainly doesn't seem to be anything like a killer army.
Shooting three bases off two units in two rounds of shooting sounds unusually effective. Shooting is normally on white dice, 1 dice per file so even if you are shooting 6 dice on 2 turns (12 dice), getting 6 wounds is unusual. Rallying off wounds from shooting can also be an important part of the game.
Richard
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the reply.
Having used Indians and Parthians in previous test games I was a bit surprised how effective the Normans shooting was. As you suggested it was unusual as I was using the same white die the Indians and Parthians found so ineffective! The shock was how easily the milites ran down the fyrd even though they were a two deep shieldwall(red vs white die?) I expected them to thin them out a bit then break off and charge again but not necessary.
I am quite happy with the lists for the dozen or so armies I have but I think I may tinker a little bit as you suggested for friendlies and re-enactments.
many thanks
Paul
Hi Paul,
Welcome aboard. As one of the creators of FoG and no of Mortem et Gloriam solo I am delighted you have given Mortem et Gloriam a good look, and even mores that you are joining the purple revolution. A warm welcome to you. Where are you based?
I do feel the game speaks for itself once people try it. Very few people haven't liked it in the 1500 that have by now had a go. We just need to keep getting more people to do so.
Hopefully as yo play more you will find all the subtleties and my biggest plus - as someone who wargames mostly for history - is how good the army feel is. Huns feel like Huns etc.
Si
Always with the Huns Si .... always!
Got a bit more time to reply now ....
QuoteApologies but a bit long winded after a months worth of learning MeG. I bit the bullet just before the lockdown and got a copy of MeG, two years after a conversation with Alisdair Harley butmainly because of the half price sale!
Well wha'd'a know it worked!!! Indeed they have nearly all gone now. :)
QuoteI didn't intend it to replace FOG as that ruleset is used by 90% of our club's ancient players and there hasn't been much drift away from it. You might find the odd game of ADLG or Sword and Spear once in a blue moon but essentially it's wall to wall FOG and FOGR.
Which club are you at? Oxford?
QuoteSo in lockdown and furloughed I have played half a dozen solo games using the method Simon recommended. Armies used have been Classical Indians, Seleucids, LRR Romans, Spanish, Galatians, Hellenistic Greeks, Vikings, Anglo-Danish and Normans.
A fine mix
QuoteSo, for what it's worth what have I found? Just to set the record straight I am no scholar or expert in this period, I'm a wargamer and have been for a long time. What I know has been read from secondary sources and my prejudices have formed through playing WRG 6th, 7th, DBM, FOg and a couple of others.
We tried to set aside all received wisdom so a few things might shine out.
QuoteI am genuinely curious about how some decisions were made about lists, and I cannot find answers in any of the forums, and I am sure they were prompted from far more up to date information than my old "Armies of the Macedonian and Punic wars" and their ilk.
Post them onto the list forum. We are always listening and interacting.
QuoteWell, the game is fast and bloody. The set up rules are very good and it's almost like campaigning before the main event.
Never been able to imagine a real ancient battle being slow and bloodless ...
QuoteI like the command system which harks back to the limitations imposed by DBM and it's PIP dice rather than the free for all you get in FOG. The division of generals into Professional and Instinctive is good as well as the floating option for the former.
Yes it has the same friction effect but is less random than PIPS was, as you buy the number of cards. And its a lot about managing the order of what you do.
QuotePeople complain about the fighting file by file in FOG but that didn't bother me so neither does it in MeG. I found shove and shatter results were pretty rare.
Uncommon but can be dramatic when they happen was the intent.
QuoteShooting can be more effective than in FOG but overall shooting armies are equally ineffective when I use them. I do like the slowing effect of fire, that can really bugger up your plans.
Yes was pleased with that invention. Allows a whole new approach to skirmishers.
QuoteUnprotected mass shooters are still highly vulnerable to skirmishers but I was never convinced of that in FOG either.
They generally were from what we read.
QuoteShoot and scoot armies will take a lot of getting used to. MeG really cuts down the trading time for space these armies need, especially if they move second.
That is very deliberate. Having invented the CMT-CT-POA triangle in FoG it was set up too much to favour shooty cav and superiors alas. You can't really fight an Ottoman with Gauls. But you can in Mortem et Gloriam. It is set up to make playing shoot and scoot armies difficult rather than easy. Deliberately so. Also set up so you don't get a draw with Ottomans vs. Gauls because you can't play them.... all about balance. As a result we have great army variety. I reckon any of at least 500 of the lists as capable of winning a competition.
QuoteMorales through the KAB system is pretty easy Most of the games were pretty balanced except the last one.
Sounds about right. We got 83% big results at Skullrollers last year but 75% of those were 15-8 or 15-10 results.
QuoteAs far as the lists go I see there is a general reduction in Superior troop types in comparison to FOG which is probably a good thing. Whole entire armies of Superiors was probably a tad unrealistic.
Completely unrealistic. The other trick is the multiplicative points system. Without it armoured-superior is always underpriced vs protected-average. So if you don't have that you really need limited superiors in lists.
QuoteA bit surprised though with the wholesale reduction of most Gallic, German and Spanish cavalry to average. I always thought they were much better than Roman cavalry of the period which is why the Romans recruited them. Apparently not.
Numbers as much as quality I suspect. Although you can manage quite a few superior. What is true though is Numidians pack a punch in Mortem et Gloriam as they did in that period.
QuoteGallic tribes could field up to 30% cavalry which is reflected in the lists but not the Galatians who can only field half the cavalry of the other Gallic lists.
Probably right but I defer to the list gurus.
QuoteI also see that the argument about thereuphoroi/thorakitai has been settled in favour of them being hoplites under a different name rather than a troop type that could operate in rough ground.
. Yes the invention of flexible gave us that option but the evidence seems to be for well equipped hoplites
QuoteThe last game I played was where it appeared to me to go horribly wrong, assuming I got the rules right. Anglo-Danish vs Normans. The Normans invaded and massivly outscouted the A-D. The latter got lucky though in two very secure flanks so it looked like hastings without the hill. Obviously with outscouting the Normans could, and did, mass their best cavalry opposite a couple of units of Select Fyrd. They also sent the archers forward to soften them up which they duly did taking three bases off the two units in two rounds of shooting. Not good but still a two deep shieldwall. Then the cavalry come in.
ouch could hurt.
QuoteNo shatter obviously but who needed that? Straight through one unit in the charge phase and the other collapsed during melee.OK so not on a hill like Hastings but even if the A-D had been that's still yellow dice vs white so not good.
Big difference between RED and YELLOW though. 7W to 5W on the dice.
QuoteHow about putting Huscarls in the front rank of as many units as possible? No better as what they gain in Superiority they lose in 2HCC at contact.
I doubt its necessary
QuoteAgain, I thought even the Normans had a hard time taking down close formation infantry frontally.
Shieldwall ones generally not easy to take down. Your scenario above is quite heavily driven by the outscoring so you would have to imagine a spy pointing out the wobbly troops in the A-D line perhaps.
QuoteI have refought Hastings under FOG and it was difficult for the Normans as the A-D get a long spear but under MeG it appears the Normans could have broken Harold by lunchtime rather than at the approach of dusk. The vikings with integral shooters would have stood a better chance.
.
Did Hastings as the launch event at Salute 2017. Both drawn out and difficult. 1-1. That downgrade to Yellow makes a big difference. I think they broke through on the 3rd charge when they won.
QuoteIn summary then a very good ruleset that will be more interesting to play than FOG because of the preliminaries and C&C. I have one opponent at least lined up to play as he doesn't do FOG so that at least will give me the occasional game against another human being!
Excellent. If we can help convert people just let us know. Happy to join a club game personally. Or I am sure once lockdown is over some visitors will be happy to come over.
Keep enjoying!!
Si
Hi Simon,
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I am based in the New Forest and go to the Wessex Wargames Society in Colbury.
Not entirley sure what I have missed with the Gallic type cavalry in the lists. "Quite a few superior" is essentially 1 UG for Lowland Gallic and Germans.
Still not convinced by the Hastings scenario. Yellow vs white dice is still a massive advantage( not sure what the "7W to 5W on the dice means) considering the A-D are uphill. Maybe your hard won victory at Salute meant the luck was all on the A-D side.
I could certainly see the Normans charging through at the end of the day when the shieldwall was thinned out, as it happened, but at the moment I'm not sure. Will have to set it up and try it.
Certainly the Normans outscouted the A-D but wherever they put themselves the line was "weak and wobbly". Even if they had put themselves opposite the huscarls the charge combat is exactly the same, the difference admittedly would have been the melee. That I think would make it worth putting the Huscarls in a front rank and hope enough survive the inpact to swing those axes!
I will report back after giving it a go. Do you happen to have the lists you used at Salute please?
Richard will have them so will perhaps post them up.
Yes you are correct on the Gauls only 1 Superior.
With 650 lists and not having used them for 18 months I lose track :)
What I mean bu 7W vs 5 W is
RED = 2 skulls, 3 W = 7 wounds in total on the dice in total.
YELLOW = 1 Skull and 3W = 5 wounds in total on the dice.
A rough measure of relative damage from the dice.
Also red is 3 shatter chances to 2 on yellow.
So big difference.
Keep enjoying and reporting back. All good fun.
Si