Tag: Neil Thomas

Shieldwalls – Dux Bellorum, AMW, OHW and Table Top Battles Rules reviewed

Over quite a few posts I have reported on my use of rulesets to play battles between shieldwalls. In most cases the two opposing forces were mirror images. This meant the mechanisms in the rules might be more transparent and then the rules could be better contrasted in my mind.

Having said all that “one swallow a summer does not make” so everything I write here is caveated – only multiple playing’s will help you like or dislike a ruleset fully in my view.

Here is a reminder of the rulesets tested

• Ancient & Medieval Wargaming (AMW) by Neil Thomas
• Dux Bellorum by Daniel Mersey

To these I added

• Table Top Battles (gridded wargame) by Mike & Joyce Smith
• One Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas

My consideration of the rules is of course subjective, and my criteria may not be to everybody’s liking. So, my criteria are

• Reading the rules (understanding/comprehension) – both at the start and when referencing
• Ease of Play – how the game played
• Outcomes – the outcomes during the game and overall at the end

AMW

Let’s start with AMW. First I should say that from nowhere these rules have come to represent a modern take on what “I remember” I enjoyed about rules from the 1970’s: Above all simplicity. I used the Dark Age ruleset straight from the book.

The rules take up a couple of pages and are in clear large print and easy to understand. I printed the relevant pages as the paperback is a “tome” and short of breaking the spine it is not easy to “use” in a game.

The rules gave a simple mix of troops and are explained in a chapter on why the troop mix was chosen and what they could and could not do. The Shieldwall concept was well covered.

Saxon Cavalry were permitted, and I think Neil is more on the “they were everywhere in life so why not some on the battlefield”. He restricted their presence and impact.

Selection of the 8-unit force was straight forward. I added some variety in the choice of light troops. I used my 80mm frontage IMPETUS bases showing 1/72 plastics. Each base equates almost to 4 x 15mm scale 40x20mm DBA bases as referenced in the rules. Mine are 60mm deep “for the look” as IMPETUS suggests.

The dice to hit and dice to save has some interest for live opponents although for solo play arguably it simply prolongs the playing time. AMW uses the two-step process to provide the layered differentiation between such a small number of unit types to cover several hundred years of warfare and army types.

It did help to keep the stronger type of unit – nobles in the field longer than the peasants.

The first losses also triggered more (domino effect) as AMW uses morale effects to pile on misery when dice are thrown low.

The battle lines were deliberately aligned and close together as the intention was to show two equally sized shieldwalls simply coming together. And the erosion of the 16 hits or 4 bases in DBA speak resulted in some quick breakthroughs. With no need to put the units in base to base contact visually it did not look quite like two shieldwalls: More like roman maniples!

The use of some cavalry may have speeded up the result although I think the outcome was not in doubt.

The feeling and reality of individual units meant that flank attacks were inevitable, and these were the main mechanism of destruction. And the lines once met were static – which cuts both ways – that’s what happened – short of logging loss of points there is not much game movement.

The cavalry interventions were easy to achieve as there is no restriction on command and control.

Finally, the structure of the ruleset with core rules and some simple extra rules simply cries out for more house rules.

In my battle report I suggested a way to deal with anglo saxon cavalry in battle that might more reflect their power as pursuers and opportunists.

Because of the apparent strength of shieldwalls in AMW I then play tested cavalry against a shieldwall. The result was a defeat for the cavalry army. It showed you need to put the whole force jointly in together as the attrition is such that late comers – in my case the token infantry shieldwall were simply outnumbered and picked off in turn.

Coordination is in the hands of the gamer through movement of units and their proximity. This second game also confirmed that archery is quite potent.

Overall, I felt that AMW is better suited to combined arms battles as opposed to a slogging match. Given the breadth of periods covered by the rules these two battles were enjoyable enough for a further outing at some point.

Dux Bellorum

These rules are more modern in concept with command and control central to their use.

Again, the units were 1/72 plastics on 80mm x 60mm IMPETUS bases. Losses would be recorded use dice and tokens.

The points-based game with stat lines for each unit type were easy to understand yet not so memorable as AMW was to me.

I could not resist a slight difference between the forces with one side having mounted skirmish troops equating to a 1-point advantage – 31 v 32 points. Near enough.

The ineffective skirmishers and straightforward meeting of the two-battle lines using the leadership influence made this all feel realistic to my mind.

As in DBA pushbacks showed visually where units were losing the fight. The battle line was still retained as the movement was small.

Distribution of the leadership points can make or break units, although centrally controlled by the gamer I felt this reflected the fact that a line would comprise areas of strong men and areas of weaker maybe reluctant fighters.

The dice head-to-head felt more interesting than the hit versus saving throw of AMW. In a face-to-face game this might also make the exchanges more exciting.

Again, flanking forces including cavalry provided local advantage as the game moved into its later stages.

Dan Mersey talks about the swirl of battle and this was true although the battle line was still discernible late in the game.

Both armies approached their own demise and it was just a few points either way so although the king’s men lost it could easily have been the rebels.

This felt like two battle lines slogging it out and even though there was some “flanking” it was not significant. The forces to a units front mainly did the damage first.

Table Top Battles

The previous two games used “measure and move” rules. Table Top Battles was “gridded” removing any need to get the tape measure out. I have used gridded wargames before with Peter Pigs WW2 rules being memorable.

While many people will know and have played either AMW or Dux Bellorum I reckon TTB by Mike and Joyce Smith will be new to most people.

Published by Partizan Press the ruleset has a feel of looking backwards in the same manner as AMW. The grid though makes for a different feel altogether.

For two shieldwalls the square grid was perfect.

The rules are covered in a couple of sides of A4. Initiative is gained each turn so you can get the effect of a “push” by one side as they win the aggression dice throws successively.

And that aggression is simply a +1 on all dice throws. Getting the initiative also means losses are inflicted before the opposition replies – extending the benefit of being the aggressor.

TTB starts with some simple rules and like AMW adds a few mechanisms to layer the differentiation. The difference is more about advantage in play rather than troop type.

I used the less brutal rules option of push back rather than straight destruction. I don’t think this affected the outcome too much. And it was more appropriate for the slogging match here.

Again, the differences in forces were out on the flanks with one unit of light cavalry in play.

The head to head style of resolving conflicts felt like Dux Bellorum and flowed well. Combat can be grouped so you can really speed up results of several units being joined up for a particular combat round.

While firing is alternate and affected by the aggression advantage, combat is simultaneous. This seems to work ok.

The mass combat meant that push back saw a whole line move back – a bit mechanical – less attractive than Dux Bellorum. In the later stages the erosion of flank units meant push backs became messier and trickier for some units – no room to retreat leads to destruction. And with grids there is a bit of space management to be done and in the right order – shepherd your resources – quite board gamey or chess like. This will not be pleasing to some.

In close combat the mounted and foot skirmishers die easily – I like that.

Finally, the king’s men turned a flank, and this crumpled the rebel line although none had the ignominy of being pushed off the table edge itself. I had not considered that when choosing a very small battlefield of just 2 foot 6 inches deep.

The king’s men were about to really destroy their enemy when the 12th move was completed, and the game ended. A day is 12 moves in TTB. Victory was based on various criteria including base loss. The Kings men won on this measure alone.

TTB comes in a slim 42 page black and white softback A4 booklet. It’s 2-page battle rules are really aimed at supporting campaigns and scenarios. The design is oriented in that direction.

Overall, this was a quick game and the lack of measuring not missed at all. The bulk combats removed some subtlety. The rules are so simple like AMW that house rules can fix most objections.

Overall, I liked this set of rules and with some tinkering they might become popular with me.

One Hour Wargames

With just 12 bases (six a side) on the table this game should be quick.

One-hour wargames built on the reputation of AMW for a reliable set of basic quick play rules. Here the pursuit was an even simpler ruleset that gave a game in under an hour. The rules are really scenario based. I set up scenario 1 – the straight encounter of two equal armies. I ignored the force generator to retain two matched shieldwalls.

The rules in about one side of A4 are very simple. 15 points of value represents the “abstraction” of everything unique about a unit. Random losses tell their story – those losing least – obviously were the strong units!

The skirmishers were ineffectual and fought their own flanking battle.

The alternating slugging match by the shieldwall saw the two lines stand toe to toe with no movement, just points erosion to indicate the fluctuation of battle.

Eventually most of the units reached breaking point and some rapidly departed. However, the first to go were from the side that eventually won so it was not the case that once you gained a local advantage this would give overall success.

In this battle we started with only six units, so I allowed it to run to the last unit standing.

As a result, later on the flanking successes of each right hand meant the whole battle line swirled 90 degrees. And then it happened again. A visual demonstration of Daniel Mersey’s “swirling” battle description perhaps. After all there would be no dressing of lines with the leaders all to the front pushing at enemy weakness.

Overall these rules did feel similar to AMW and felt generic. They seemed to give the same outcome as AMW without the saving throw step. Sacrificing differences, or “layering” if you like, for speed of the game is one of those compromises faced by all rule’s writers and gamers. It is what you want out of a game that matters.  

Table of Ruleset Criteria

Ruleset	Reading the rules	Ease of Play	Outcomes
AMW	Straight forward	Straight forward	All logical yet Lacked feeling for the period
Dux Bellorum	I often reread the small print! And a bit wordy at times	Once memorised easy to play	Logical and a good feel for shieldwalls
One Hour Wargames	Short and simple	Straight forward	Logical and yet lacked feeling for the period
Table Top Battles	straightforward	Straight forward or so I thought*	A whole battle line eventually got turned twice while the shieldwall fight itself felt ok.

*I made mistakes in all these games but more of them in the TTB – simple errors forgetting to do something here and there. I took more care with Dux Bellorum.

Overall score – brutally simple – rank 1 to 4 (4 is highest) direct preferencing with no ties and no weighting!

Ruleset	Reading the rules	Ease of Play	Outcomes	TOTAL
AMW	3	1	2	6
Dux Bellorum	1	2	4	7
One Hour Wargames	4	4	1	9
Table Top Battles	2	3	3	8

Surprisingly I am saying OHW is the best for two straight shieldwalls. That probably is true though, diverse forces with more movement would probably show up the limitations of OHW even against its stable mate AMW.

If you ignore the rules reading as being less relevant after many games, it’s a tie between Dux Bellorum and Table Top Battles.

And in the final analysis I have to say that it is Dux Bellorum that gets my vote as the most “shieldwall feeling” rule set.

The others all betray their origin as generic rule sets while Dux Bellorum shows its depth of consideration by the author for a very specific period.

So next time I put up a shieldwall or two for a battle it will be Dux Bellorum unless I am in a real hurry. Then I will have 2 or 3 worthy substitutes.

Finally, some aspects of each ruleset that might be important.

AMW

Pros – well thought out design that gives you a simple yet good range of armies with sufficient variation and interest. The core rules plus some supplementary ones do work

Cons – no command and control explicitly and if you don’t like saving throws then this is not for you.

Dux Bellorum

Pros – command and control plus the head to head fighting. Also, the ability to put pressure into the game yet not everywhere all the time. Detailed for the period of Arthur so no need to compromise on design

Cons – somehow the rules are simple yet don’t read so well or indeed stick in my mind. I was constantly referencing the book which then suffered for its small print and layout with some key parts at the foot of a page and easily missed in the heat of battle. This is a minor point as after 10 games most of the rules will be memorable.

One Hour Wargames

Pros – it is such a simple concept and with the random forces selector and scenario choices is a gem. Speed of play!

Cons – it is generic

Table Top Battles

Pros – I had a brief spell with Kallistra, Strategos and then Peter Pig. Grid gaming has generally passed me by though. I like TTB and they feel like a set I could tweak or tamper with. And I think that gridded wargames may come back into favour.

Cons – sliding towards a board game with figures. We are at the far end of wargames abstraction. Your required to do a lot of imagining.

Happy wargaming

Norber