Hello I just booked for BritCon. I haven't played in a good uh.. it might be 4 or 5 years now.
I need to remember how to build a list. I'll have a go later on.
Has anything significant changed that I need to know?

Stu.

HI Simon, I wasn't picking on MeG - more the general wargamer idea that this was 'a thing' when the reality seems to be that it really wasn't.


I think of all the figures games MeG is 'least wrong' - close vs loose in the open is about even. Add in terrain though and loose are advantaged.

MeG does better with legionaries and the idea of flexible formations - at least they can go into loose and then clear out that field, whereas in other games the most lethal fighting force known to man at that time would be stopped by said field. "if we go in there the bowmen will kill us.." I have seen this many times in other systems and it always struck me as just nonsense.

Thanks for your comments gents, I'm quite glad you agree as I was having real trouble finding any supporting evidence that really matched up.

I also think that sometimes it's better to add something within the bounds of reasonableness for the sake of game design.
In wargames there is definitely a tendency for one game to influence another until it's a case of 'everyone knows that's how it works' - when actually, that isn't necessarily the case.

One interesting titbit I did see though was the Persian reluctance to use their cavalry on hilly terrain (Persian invasions of Greece) - they were not at all keen on fighting in hills, which we also don't end up with in MeG. Perhaps though they were more like rough hills or stony hills, which would have been bad for unshod hooves. Certainly a bit later on Alexander's troops didn't seem to mind so morale and/or doctrine might well have been a factor there.


And in terms of impetuous advance I tend to agree - even the 'barbarians' of Gaul managed to stand around and wait to attack. The idea of a zombie swarm running pell-mell into the jaws of death just doesn't seem particularly believable short of (possibly) fanatics who may well have been too inebriated to go very far anyway.

Hi all,
I have been doing a lot of reading on ancient battles recently, and also among the various games available on the topic and one thing that stands out is terrain.
Across the various historical sources, it is very clear that phalanx struggled in terrain.
It is fairly clear that hoplites also disliked terrain, though there are accounts of single-type combat at the front of a phalanx for example, and also greece is extremely hills but that is OK because hills aren't really 'terrain' in the sense we apply to it in our games - they don't impede movement.
It is really quite unclear about the Romans - indeed they seem to have approached the enemy in a shield-wall like formation of 3x3 approx and then broken out into a more open formation for melee combat as soon as possible - enough room to swing the sword, or around 5x3.

Everyone else, well seems to have fought like either the greeks if they were spear armed or Romans if they were sword armed - mostly due to the space needed to fight effectively.
Skirmishers of course would have spread out more, and certainly slingers.

Bowmen seem to actually fight rather closer together - similar spacing to 'open' Romans, and therefore most everyone else.
Sparabara for example that we consider to be loose, probably fought no further than the Roman open formation - and if you think about it you want to be behind that bloke with the spear don't you?


So my underlying question to all of this really is.. where's the evidence of the 'looser' troops being less disadvantaged in terrain? (that is, that 'close' troops take a penalty in combat due to terrain but loose troops do not)
I can't see that loose troops in a field for example would be any more spread out than fighting Romans in their sword-fighting formations.
Hoplites might be at a bit of a disadvantage because they would be forced perhaps to open their ranks a little, but if the other guys do as well then why should they be particularly disadvantaged other than perhaps because they are not applying the typical doctrine.

I suppose the whole close vs loose thing in terms of terrain just doesn't work that well for me.
I have to say as well that this is a ADLG/MeG/FoG and probably also DBM, 7th edition etc construct - but I'm not at all sure that the available evidence we have stacks up to the end conclusions we get in our games.
It seems to me pretty obvious that a close formation might suffer a penalty, but that's really only spearmen and pikes rather than everyone else.

I Look forward to hearing some thoughts!
Stu.

I believe it was around 250 feet from the front. I don't have references. I was doing some reading on this topic the other day.
Something like:

Velites
->30 feet
Hastati (themselves 6-8 ranks deep 25 feet)
->75 feet
Principe (themselves 6-8 ranks deep 25 feet)
->75 feet
Trarii

There would be gaps between every element of a Roman formation, including between maniples.
75 feet is most likely a best guess from the historian I was reading, but it's reasonable.
that would allow two maniples of men 25 feet deep each to have some space between them. It would still be pretty tight, and might well have been a bit bigger in terms of spacing.

It was also mentioned that while most of the Velites would have retired to the rear, some would perhaps linger in the 'empty space' between formations to continue skirmishing in relative safety with their legionary comrades close by, which I thought was interesting.

" The first Age of XXXX supplement "

the whatnow? sounds like some kind of dietary addition, is it prescription only?

Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 08, 2020, 08:29:00 PM
Well as M 2.2 on page 132 says that where UGs are in side edge to side edge contact an M9 may be used to initiate combat it seems to me to be pretty obvious that there is no combat before such a move is made otherwise you wouldn't need to make the move to initiate combat.

I agree that rule does the job well enough when there is not a combat already. But I did not find it when I needed it hence the query.
We had not played for some time and god only knows what we did - i think we had some kind of bizarre flank vs flank combat which didn't look right, feel right, or resolve properly.

"If you are in side edge to side edge contact then there is no combat."

That is indeed very clear - where does it say this?

Thanks, Dave.

Just came back to this as I downloaded the errata and saw the thing about not being engaged if it's not frontal.

I did re-read the combat section about fihting to the side but I still can't make it work out.
If two pike blocks walk past one another, neither of them engaged to the front then the combat section seems to say they can fight with one die per depth of the file.
So for example a 4-deep file standing next to a 4-deep file with no frontal contact would roll 4 dice.
That is of course mental bearing in mind how it woudl work to the front, but I do not see in the rules anywhere telling me that isn't how it works.

Oh yeah, GMT's Ancient World - it was a good system. Also Richard Berg. Probably that is the closest to operational scale in wargame terms.
It also tended to be 'my big army marches up to yours and one of us will win the game'
Not quite that bad, but that is almost the exact problem with operational ancients games - they tend to devolve into a load of sieging (bit dull really) and then one or two scraps.

Really you need a bit more zoomed-out to the strategic scale to get away from that. It's kind of unavoidable with ancients.
Maybe I'll build something


"The bottom line is without a points system you can't do the equalise gives for events so we need them.  "
Don't disagree Simon, I just wonder is there a way to get a quick game still but have some variability and not completely unbalance the game.
Random scenario type generator which still gives 'round about even' games.
It wouldn't have to be perfect since any point system is only worth its salt until the first few dice start to be rolled, and then all kinds of stuff can happen.

Shrub - actually, there aren't that many good ancient board games.
The good ones are almost all battle systems (GBOH, commands and colours etc) - in other words, what MeG does but different (and flatter!) and MUCH more widely played, certainly the latter.
Siege of Jerusalem (AH) was massive, beautiful and very different. And also very hard to find. Same for siege of Alesia. Same system.
TTS! (To The Strongest) is really not a figures game either, being as it is played on a square hex grid with figures.


The Roman civil wars - Columbia's Julius Caesar is good and strategic in scope and scale.
Imperium Romanum was excellent as an almost living history book, but it wasn't much of a game (some of the scenarios even start with a note that you cant really win for example).
Pax Romana (GMT) was good but too fiddly. The idea was there though. If you're prepaped to slog through the randomness (and there is much!) then it's very interesting.

More recently, GMT did time of Crisis which was the latter AD period with a ton of emperors.
it was in reality more of a multi player pile on with a Roman theme. And deck building. I didn't like it, but others do.

KHAN! is not really ancients but it's a strategic scale treatment of the Mongols (S&T)
and Julian Triumph before the storm is similar treatment of the end of the Roman empire. Both decent games definitely up there if you want strategic scale gaming.

Vae Victis did Alea iacta est and Bellum Gallicum - one was civil wars (columbia's effort was better) and the other was Gallic Wars which wasn't bad but had a hit and miss kind of combat system.

Basically though there's only the S&T guys, and Richard Berg (now deceased) who were really doing mainstream ancients games with the odd scattering of stuff from other people.

Wow this forum is frustrating if it times out it loses your reply. What a sack of..

In short my reply was that I think it's a problem of ancient gaming specifically, made worse by the competition scene which reinforces the idea that MEG and others are played this way - I mean just go to Britcon, you'll find several hundred people all playing meeting engagements all weekend - probably more than actually ever occurred in human history if all added together.
It boils it down to matching weapons and rolling the best dice ultimately, which feels to me a bit lacking in soul.
Conversely, go watch the fantasy players or SAGA, or Napoleonic, or WWIII - they'll be playing scenarios.

Yes, campaigns and so on probably the way to do it but it puts all the work on me to organise, which is a bit of a ballache.

So here's the thing - I play way more board games than figures games, and that generally means more strategic in scope.
If you're playing lets say Parthia in a board game, you might be good but you'll not be as numerous. Just across the border there will be many Romans, not an exactly and carefully matched even fight, so to win you may actually need to outfight double your number. On top of that there may be other enemies nibbling at you, and so more forces are needed to keep them at bay.

Figures games in general just don't get this.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that equal fights - well they really didn't happen very often. Indeed the generals involved wanted to make sure that didn't happen.
And yet every game of MEG (or ADLG, or FOG before them) start with the principle of equal points and a 'fair fight'.
As a gaming construct it's grudgingly alright if not a bit dull and old, but it's really got nothing at all to with the historical position - and isn't that part of what we should be trying to get to in our games?

The problem of course then becomes with scenarios - balance. Who wants to play with 33% less points than the other bloke?
I wonder out loud here if there's a clever way we can get some of this historical flavour, so often lost with even points battles, and keep that but not equally have massively lopsided battles that are no fun for the poorer side

Maybe there isn't and it is purely a case of my needing to play more scenarios, but the whole idea of even fights - rinse and repeat - is losing its appeal for me.

I thought Shaun's original explanation was quite accurate. To quote the wiki.

"In the later 20th century, the use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications as a culturally neutral term. It is also used by some authors and publishers who wish to emphasize sensitivity to non-Christians"

So Richard, " It was my choice and has nothing to do with political correctness"
Uh no, it has everything to do with PC, that is literally the whole point.
I don't have a dog in the fight but if you're going to do something, at least be able to stand behind it.

"So Dave's original post"

>Just wondering as twice Simon has referred to me as Dave, not that it's a bad name or anything all we all know at least one Dave, right?
>And of course there's hello Dave from the league, but yeah.. my name isn't Dave..