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.

I've been thinking along the lines of "scenario templates". i.e. not a fully specified scenario with terrain, victory conditions etc. all explicitly defined. Ideally players would define their army composition before knowing what scenario is in effect.

Something along the lines of (obviously I am not claiming perfect balance on the basis of literally seconds of thought!) :

Hasty Attack : Player A has marched early to surprise the opposition before properly deployed. Player A has 20% fewer points, but may deploy everything nicely lined up. Player B rushed out of the camp in response, and may only deploy 50% of their forces initially, the remaining units arrive delayed in groups of two or three.

Tactical Defensive : Player A gets 20% more points than Player B; Player B gets to place one extra terrain piece. anywhere on the table, which can be moved (perhaps a reduced distance?) but not removed by the opponent; an indecisive game counts as a win for Player B.

Successful Ambush: Player A gets 100% more points than Player B and must deploy in column all facing forward along or just to either side of a road/track in a (fairly restricted) mid-section of the table; Player B gets to place two extra terrain pieces anywhere on the table, which can be moved but not removed by the opponent, and can deploy anywhere except within the mid-section; Player A wins if Player B's army is broken, or Player A exits at least 50% of their force via on of the road exits.

Unsuccessful Ambush...tweak the above...points differential is reduced...A gets to deploy some proportion of forces as flank guards which are are assumed to have detected the ambushers before the main column enters the trap...adjust deployments areas...

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 07, 2020, 02:59:21 PM
Butt he campaign so far has given us: a) unequal fights, b) rearguards, c) armies caught in march column, d) attempts to win in desperation, e) break outs from besieged cities, f) contesting of river crossing.  ll very interesting stuff.

And I am waiting with interest for the write up

I think your idea here is a good one. However, I think it would best be optional rather than a core rule.

Quote from: ShrubMiK on September 07, 2020, 05:12:57 PM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on September 07, 2020, 02:59:21 PM
Butt he campaign so far has given us: a) unequal fights, b) rearguards, c) armies caught in march column, d) attempts to win in desperation, e) break outs from besieged cities, f) contesting of river crossing.  ll very interesting stuff.

And I am waiting with interest for the write up

It's going into one the magazines in a few months time.

S