"What kind of Ancients game do you like?" Topic

This is my proposed poll text, followed by 3 options. One choice only is allowed and the poll stays open indefinitely (or at least for a long while).

Having seen what appears to be a drift in Ancients wargaming from historicity to ease of gameplay I've become curious about the extent of this trend. Since good history and a good game are both good things there is no 'right' choice in this poll. Nothing wrong with Beer and Pretzels and nothing wrong with a weekend marathon if you have the time and stamina for it.

So, if you had an afternoon free and one game to play which would you choose?

1. Beer and pretzels.
This is a game that focusses on ease of play. The rules can be mastered halfway through the first game and no game, including the first, lasts more than an hour. Whilst giving a historical flavour, neither the detail of the play mechanisms nor the overall results make any serious attempt at recreating historical realism.

2. A history lesson but primarily a game.
This is a game that attempts to reproduce historical detail sufficiently so that the overall result of a game can be said to correspond, most of the time, to what actually happened on the battlefield. Many historical tactics and formations are abstracted out to facilitate gameplay. A game is concluded in 2 hours or less and the rules are mastered after a couple of games.

3. A serious historical simulation
This is a game in which attention to detail is limited only by how much you can actually represent with group of figures on a base. The needs of gameplay however are not ignored, such that a game can be completed in a day, or even an afternoon. It takes time to master the nuances of the rules but once this is done the player has the satisfaction of knowing that his generalship, overall and in detail, corresponds to the authentic requirements of a real battle.

1. Beer and pretzels.

2. A history lesson but primarily a game.

3. A serious historical simulation

Mostly 2, sometimes 3.
We play mostly Clash of Empires, and sometimes Armati.

Not a big fan of 1.
Though we do play the occasional Saga game (which fits perfectly here I think).

2. Armati

Misses out too many possible options or covers too wide a question area – competition game for an internal club league? non-historical encounter game? sure there are lots of possible encounters here – for example, beer and pretzels is effectively what you've got if you're using a more complicated set of rules with someone you've gamed with for years.

1) DBA rather game than pour over rules

Much the same opinion as GarrisonMiniatures.

Also I have no desire for a game to be over in two hours but believe that "corresponds to the authentic requirements of a real battle" is not really possible nor desirable.

x42

4. A historical simulation of complete historical battles that is accurate in result yet sufficiently abstract to be completed in a short space of of time.

Simulation does not require complexity.

so Strategos/Lost Battles.

I aso enjoy both DBA and Command and Colours Ancients, depends what you want from the game really.

1 to 2 depending on my opponent, the type of game (recreation, scenario, tournament, etc), and time available. Big Battle DBA seems ideal to me.

2. Tactica.

1. DBA

I'm interested in playing fun and engaging games that generally model ancient combat as I've imagined it to be at the command level I'm playing at.
I'm not interested in games that pretend to be simulations because these usually involve needless complications that are actually unrealistic in my mind, and usually result in favoring particular protagonists over others in order to skew the win ratio to favor the authors' own biases.
I am also not interested in games that have a historical veneer but offer nothing beyond that.

Now where a game lies in this spectrum is my own personal opinion which I don't expect any consensus on from other gamers.

Maybe it's because I don't care for polls, maybe it's because I don't think your three definitions are anything like adequate, but I would seriously question your initial premise of "-- a drift in Ancients wargaming from historicity to ease of gameplay"

I'd see it as a move away from legalistic complexity for tournament gamers towards mechanisms that make play smoother and faster.

And. to state what John Cleese memorably referred to as "The Bleedin' Obvious", even the most enthusiastic of tournament players could not describe the many Aztec versus Ottoman / Nubians against Picts match ups as "A history lesson" or "a serious historical simulation."

I play Terry Gore's Medieval Warfare. To fit it in one of theses three categories I'd say its more 3 than 2.

I have played Impetus and really liked it, no idea where that falls though. Probably 2.

1) WH Ancients/Hail Caesar with the occasional attempt at 2)

I am in some agreement with Mexican Jack, but I also think this poll could be made more interesting if you also ask each respondent to list the game they are thinking of when they answer (as many have done here already). Then collect those responses to see where people are rating the various popular games. I guess I'm actually more interested in seeing how many people would, for example, rate Hail Caesar a "1" vs a "2". Just a thought. :-)

Let me clarify a few of the points raised.

A historical battle is a complex entity, if for no other reason than the fact that thousands or tens of thousands of individuals take part in it.

Morale, to take one example, is affected by a multiplicity of factors, and a single event (like an exploding gunpowder keg in the wrong place at the wrong time) can sometimes be enough to tip an army over the edge.

Formations are another: open and close order, shieldwall, testudo, wedge, etc. No wargame, even the most complex, tries to simulate them all. This also goes for unit size. No wargame tries to recreate the subunits of an army that could, at that individual level, make a difference to a battle. One lumps them together into bigger entities.

Command limitations: orders, degree of initiative of subordinates, the precise effect of a general and of his demise on the fighting ability of his troops (varies from nation to nation). How far does one bother with these?

A game is obliged to make abstractions of at least some of the aspects of a historical battle or it will take weeks to finish. There has to be a trade-off between historicity and gameplay. It is impossible to completely accommodate both.

A game that is heavy on abstraction is fun and easy to play; a game that incorporates a lot of historical detail is difficult to master and much longer to play but gives a more authentic feel. Question is, which do players today prefer?

@Idaho Wargamer

Good idea.

I don't think I have ever played or read a game that would fit into any of those three categories.

Martin "Right Again" Rapier pointed out:

Simulation does not require complexity.

This is true. It is also true that the historical record often does not contain as much detail as wargames rules writers would have us believe.

Bolingar wrote:

A historical battle is a complex entity

What we know of ancient battles is horribly, horribly limited. If it comes to that, we don't know a hell of a lot about many events that occurred within living memory.

Mexican Jack Squint makes, I think, an excellent point.

Most complexity in wargames rules is "Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative."

Some of the greatest masters of ancient history I know in wargaming (I think here especially of Phil Barker, John Bassett and Phil Steele) put on games that are immediately approachable and greatly enjoyable to someone who (like me) knows damn-all history before 1900. One can only assume that they do not regard knowledge of history as an excuse for poor game design.

All the best,

John.

It is also true that the historical record often does not contain as much detail as wargames rules writers would have us believe.

Spot on. If I include detailed mechanisms that represent things that I "know" happen in battle, but have no data for, does that really make it reflect history better?

My answer to the poll is:

5. Immersive. I prefer a historical game that offers players challenges and decisions that reflect (a subset of)
the challenges and decisions of actual participants of the battle.

I also prefer a game that takes about 2-3 hours to complete. I don't get into playing The Charge of the Light Brigade (not an ancients engagement, but …) in an eight hour slug fest, when the battle took about half an hour for the sake of realism. I don't mind playing the Battle of Balaclava Harbor over seven or eight hours, broken up into two or three parts, even in the same day. Or even playing each major part of the battle in a series of 2-3 hour games spread over several days.

It takes time to master the nuances of the rules but once this is done the player has the satisfaction of knowing that his generalship, overall and in detail, corresponds to the authentic requirements of a real battle.

Also don't think that learning a single interpretation over multiple trial and error attempts accurately reflects military command. Successful commanders are the ones that write their own rules. They make their own determination of what are and are not the salient characteristics of their (and their opponents') forces, using them as a referent for their understanding and decisions. They also understand the difference between the data about the forces (even their own devised data) and what is important on this that at that location.

4 is the closest. I like many of the same games as Martin.

I don't conform to the survey. I want realism without re-enacting a real battle. The interesting part of wargaming to me is studying the strategy and tactics of the time and seeing how well you do in command facing an equal army. It should be like a game of chess were skill matters. Like chess, one needs to be thoroughly knowledgeable of the rules, no matter how complicated or simple, before the game begins. The worst are war game sessions when there is no pre-knowledge of the rules or rules are not explained well and the result is players pushing toy soldiers around and rolling lots of dice without any intellectual understanding of cause and effect as it relates to the rules. Whether a game is highly complicated and realistic or quick and simple, it is a must that the rules are completely understood by all players. Rant over.

Why an "equal army"? Many battles were fought between unequal armies. I find that is part of the fun!

1. 2. 3.

DM

2. Armati 2

"Why an "equal army"? Many battles were fought between unequal armies. I find that is part of the fun!"

True. I'd even go further and say that 'most' historical battles were fought between unequal armies. I think having equal armies makes the game more fair. I like the idea that one's ability to develop and execute a better strategy is what decides who is victorious. There are a few examples of a smaller force defeating a much larger force due to superior strategy and tactics; Agincourt comes to mind. But I think most outcomes for the smaller force are like the Alamo. Who wants to play a war-game that you have no chance of winning? Making the armies equal keeps one less variable out of the game and forces both sides to concentrate on coming up with better strategy.

1: Might of Arms.

USAFpilot wrote:

it is a must that the rules are completely understood by all players.

I disagree. I have had plenty of satisfactory games where some of the rules were deliberately concealed from the players. My oldest wargaming pal (I've been gaming with him since 1970) is given to saying "I refuse to learn the rules, on the grounds that it would violate my amateur status". He plays by taking the decisions he thinks an historical commander would take -- and, very often, he wins.

All the best,

John.

DBA, Armati, Saga. The best of all three.

John D Salt wrote:

I disagree. I have had plenty of satisfactory games where some of the rules were deliberately concealed from the players. My oldest wargaming pal (I've been gaming with him since 1970) is given to saying "I refuse to learn the rules

I have no problem with not using all the rules or using your own house rules and tweaks. I'm saying that whatever rules you do use, all the players need to know and understand them. Your friend's statement is illogical. But each to his own and it is a game to have fun.
All the best,
Mike

I refuse to learn the rules, on the grounds that it would violate my amateur status.

Don't find that illogical at all. A bit snarky, mayhaps.

And optimistic.

I like taking that approach at cons, but it requires a really good game master. If I decide that, as Somali Warband #3, when pinned down to one side of the alley, my guys should execute the dubious tactic of darting across said alley while wildly firing our AK-47 knockoffs and yelling, the GM should be able to clearly assist me in the rules-proper way of turning 50-66% of those guys into bleeding meatpiles. (And, yes, only if the listing says "beginner friendly".)

Sometimes that happens. Sometimes it does not.

Blend of 2 and 3 perhaps?

I have slogged through detailed rules before and have enjoyed them but they are a barrier to new players. Conversely, I can never take a game like DBA seriously. It can be fun but it is a bit too abstract for my liking on a regular basis.

A good game should have enough meat where it makes sense and be easy to grasp too. Mastery is another subject altogether.

My favorite to date is Might of Arms with all factors considered.

My least favorite without having played enough is Ancient Empires.

Game play length is directly proportionate to maneuver elements per player and number of players total as well. It doesn't have to be a half day for even a complex rules simulation as modeled in the topic question. As a matter of fact, I have seen very complex rules played in 3 to 4 hours because the players were very experienced with the game. Complexity goes down with repetition as mechanics become second nature.

If my tactics and strategy all hang on a few dice rolls, I will not enjoy the game. If I set up a situation that historically was devastating and it doesn't work solely because of dice or some game mechanism, it will not bode well for my opinion of the rules.

I enjoy rules that have some ebb and flow in individual combats. Others will say that they prefer instant gratification on combat events. In the end, both are valid opinions. I just prefer the former situation.

2 first followed by 3 very close behind.

etotheipi's #5 matches well with my own personal Ancients wargaming preferences. Hail Caesar works best – for me – in creating such an enjoyable immersive experience.

Naturally, YMMV.

Cheers,
Scott