Advice on an "Ancients" game
Thorne Mark A
Hello all. This is my first post since a long period of absence,
so it's good to see the traditional neck-throttling is proceeding at
usual pace! ;-)
Anyway, I've got the hankering recently to pick up an
"Ancients-type" game, mostly since I love games and I'm an ancient
military history buff. Would someone who's played the following games be
kind enough to comment on them a little bit? I don't want to sink a
whole lot of money in a game I end up not liking.
- Circus Maximus (okay, perhaps not strictly military)
- Republic of Rome
- 4 Battles of the Ancient World
- The Battles of Alexander the Great
- Ceasar
- SPQR (and all its expansions)
- Hannibal
- Ancients
Any advice would be greatly appreciated, for as a poor college
student, I will probably only be able to afford one of the above types of
games for some time.
Also, is the old AH game (maybe it was VG) Peloponnesian War
still available anywhere? I think it might be out of print. And lastly
if there's any Ancients-era game you're particularly fond of, I'd like to
hear it! Thanks!
mat...@nic.smsu.edu
Mark Thorne
Antiquities
Southwest Missouri State University
* * * * * * *
"My name is Gandalf, and Gandalf means me!"
- The Hobbit
Valete!
Christopher John Camfield
Thorne Mark A (mat...@nic.smsu.edu) writes:
[chop]
> Also, is the old AH game (maybe it was VG) Peloponnesian War
> still available anywhere? I think it might be out of print. And lastly
> if there's any Ancients-era game you're particularly fond of, I'd like to
> hear it! Thanks!
It's not that old... late 80s? I think it's still in print; if it's out,
it was fairly recently. Copies abound in rgfm, I think.
There was also a SimCan (?) game of the same name, and a new one due out
in 1997 (not by AH) called Epic of the Peloponnesian War.
Since I've been doing some pretty heavy-duty reading recently (for
instance, _War And Agriculture in ancient Greece_, by Victor Davis Hanson,
which points out how difficult it actually IS to effectively devastate
farmland in spite of this tactic's pervasity in ancient Greek histories),
I don't know if I'll be able to be satisfied by any treatment of the war.
I don't like the AH/VG's combat at times... its simplicity leads to some
strange results.
I like Chaosium's old game Raiders & Traders, but unfortunately, the
trading chart needs reworking. There are optimum "holes" where you
want to position yourself... It's also rather hard to find!
Chris
--
Chris Camfield - ab...@freenet.carleton.ca
"You're nothing in the eyes of the world
But you're going up and down in the elevator still..." (FINN)
a...@dmmh.no
In article <5322e1$d...@ursa.smsu.edu>,
mat...@nic.smsu.edu (Thorne Mark A) wrote:
> Anyway, I've got the hankering recently to pick up an
>"Ancients-type" game, mostly since I love games and I'm an ancient
>military history buff. Would someone who's played the following games be
>kind enough to comment on them a little bit? I don't want to sink a
>whole lot of money in a game I end up not liking.
>
>- Circus Maximus (okay, perhaps not strictly military)
It's a fun racing game wher you drive chariots. A chariot is partly
designed and partly random (one buys types and levels, then throw a die to
get the exact numbers). Play well with 3 to 5 or 6 and with 8-10 players.
With 3-6 players each should have two chariots. It is fast and enjoyable
needing a little tactics (should i run and hope to get loose from the pack
or try to smash the other players' horses and wagons on the way)
The downside is that unless one plays two wagons each one can easily be
'left behind in the dust' and then the fun is over for that player.
>- Republic of Rome
An awful game with terrible rules. I played it a few times (using about a
month to convince anyone that had played it before to join us and teach
us), then played it at a convention. I reached the final, and after the
game won 3 times and wi played for 12 hours the winner was decided on one
single throw of the die (moving me from first to last place).
The game is about politics and wars in the Roman Empire (no big surprise?)
and most of the game one sits around hoping that the player controlling the
only peron able to deal with a war doesn't suceede in convincing his army
to march on the Capital.
The idea is good, but that's about all the good I can say about it.
> Any advice would be greatly appreciated, for as a poor college
>student, I will probably only be able to afford one of the above types of
>games for some time.
Haven't played any of the others, but the wargamefanatics at the club seem
to love SPQR.
Håkon Gaut
who dons his asbesto underwear after slaughtering Republic of Rome :-)
a...@dmmh.no
"Mane, simul atque expergefactus es, Pu" dixit postermo Porcellus,
"quid est primum, quod tecum dicis?"
"Quid mihi in ientaculum paratur? Tu autem quid dicis o Porcelle?"
"Dico: Scire avco, quid magni momenti bodie accidat," dixit Porcellus.
Pu meditabundus adnuit. "Est idem," dixit.
ex Winnie ille Pu.
Saint G
a...@dmmh.no
Francois Piche
I have played GMT's great Battles of History Series a lot. And I definitely
recommend them highly to anybody interested in this time period. Since
you are an ancient history buff, you will love the extensive historical
background given with each of the scenarios. I think it is fair to say that
if I hadn't played these games I would know anything about ancient military
history except for a skim of Roman history. The games got me started on this
topic and prompted me to complete each games with added books. In fact I
got the appropriate Osprey Campaign books sitting in the game box itself.
So how do they play?
While the three games (Great Battles of Alexander, SPQR and Ceasar) are
all stand alone games, about 75% of the rules are common to each other.
So you learn one and you have practically learned the others as well. They
are tactical games with each units representing a few hundred men. There
is a large variety of troop type and one of the challenge of the game is
how and when to use different troop types to maximum efficiency. The turn
order is determined by the leaders available (with the best leaders moving
later in the turn ; reacting to lesser leaders). Typical game lengths range
from a couple of hours for the smaller battles to 6 - 8 hours for the
larger ones. In practice most games take about 4 hours. There is no
turn length for the scenarios. Rather the victory conditions are determined
by whoever reaches his Army Rout level first. This can happen surprisingly
fast sometimes. I find that the game mechanic runs very smoothly. One
thing to bear in mind is that the scenarios being all historical are not
necessarily balanced. You get what history gave you. In practice, a lot of
them are reasonably balanced.
As for value for cash, I'd probably suggest SPQR, closely followed by
Great Battles of Alexander and then Ceasar. But that mostly depends on
which period you are most interested in.
Here is a rough counts of scenarios available for each games.
1. Great Battles of Alexander : 10 scenarios
Diadochoi module (Macedonian successors) : 4 scenarios
Various C3I magazines: a scenario for Marathon.
2. SPQR : 5 scenarios
Pyrrhic Victories module (Pyrrhus) : 2 scenarios
War Elephant module (Antiochus the Great): 2 scenarios
Consul for Rome module (Carthaginian in Italy): 2 scenarios
Africanus module (Scipio Africanus) : 2 scenarios
Various C3I magazines (#1 - #6): 6 - 8 scenarios
3. Ceasar: 6 scenarios
Dictator module (Marius and Sculla) : 2 scenarios
Various C3I magazines : a couple of small scenarios
C3I #5 also has a couple of battles pitting Alexander against the Romans.
With the number of counters available you can make up your own battles if
you feel like it. Unfortunately, determining how to construct a balanced
scenario is almost impossible to figure out. The worth of an army has
very little to do with how many units you've got, but much more with, hard
to define mathematically, parameters as leaders worth, the mix of troop
varieties, troop qualities, the type of terrain, ... So here is a challenge
for anybody out there. Has anyone devised a decent system for constructing
good scenarios for the above mentioned games? If so, I'd like to hear
about it.
Hope that helps,
Francois
Wray Ferrell
In article <5322e1$d...@ursa.smsu.edu>, mat...@nic.smsu.edu (Thorne Mark A) writes:
|> - Republic of Rome
While a fun game, it is not a military game. It is a recreation
of the political infighting of the Roman senate. Think of diplomacy.
|> - Hannibal
We The People game system for the 2nd Punic war. Some rule
changes were made to improve (IMO) the system such as
overrun and each card being both an OP and event card. I
think it is an excellent game.
Wray
DrStevOwen
>>- Republic of Rome
>
>An awful game with terrible rules.
This is nonsense.
Rof R is, in my opinion, an excellent game which does however require
patience, space, time & several players with a modicum of intellect.
Steve Owen
Markus Stumptner
Thorne Mark A wrote:
>
> Hello all. This is my first post since a long period of absence,
> so it's good to see the traditional neck-throttling is proceeding at
> usual pace! ;-)
> "Ancients-type" game, mostly since I love games and I'm an ancient
> military history buff. Would someone who's played the following games be
> kind enough to comment on them a little bit? I don't want to sink a
> whole lot of money in a game I end up not liking.
>
> - Circus Maximus (okay, perhaps not strictly military)
Well, the basic question to ask yourself is whether you like
the chariot race in Ben Hur. :-)
> - Republic of Rome
This is purely about political maneuvering, with each player
basically representing a senator (and his descendants) vying
for power in the Senate. The players play against each other
but have to cooperate to prevent collapse of the Republic.
> - 4 Battles of the Ancient World
Generally accepted as one of the worst dogs about the era.
> - The Battles of Alexander the Great
> - Ceasar
> - SPQR (and all its expansions)
These games all belong to the same series, which is enormously
successful in commercial terms. However, for the time and
effort they require, they do not really provide that much realism.
The command system, while an attempt at reproducing the "soft
factors" of ancient battles, makes them play in a very "gamey"
manner, but is fun because it gives both players a lot of decisions
to make (they're just not the historic decisions). Very detailed
combat system that works quite well in most places.
> - Hannibal
Strategic game on the 2nd Punic War, very successful. Simple
and quick playing.
> - Ancients
Very simple and quick, fits the definition of a "beer and pretzels"
game, not particularly realistic, and not pretending to be. Exists
in two editions from 3W, and the original edition from Good Industries
can also be found occasionally. The GI edition has less scenarios
than Ancients 2nd from 3W, which combines Ancients 1st from 3W (a
reprint of the original) and Ancients II from 3W (new scenarios).
However, the original edition has much better setup instructions.
> Also, is the old AH game (maybe it was VG) Peloponnesian War
> still available anywhere? I think it might be out of print.
I hadn't heard of that, but it should still be out there. Actually,
I wouldn't call it "old", I think it's less than five years old which
even makes it a newcomer by AH standards. :-)
--
Markus Stumptner m...@dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Technische Universitaet Wien
m...@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria vexpert!m...@relay.eu.net
You may just have missed your last chance for incremental garbage
collection.
Julian Barker
>month to convince anyone that had played it before to join us and teach
>us), then played it at a convention. I reached the final, and after the
>game won 3 times and wi played for 12 hours the winner was decided on one
>single throw of the die (moving me from first to last place).
>
>The game is about politics and wars in the Roman Empire (no big surprise?)
>and most of the game one sits around hoping that the player controlling the
>only peron able to deal with a war doesn't suceede in convincing his army
>to march on the Capital.
>
>The idea is good, but that's about all the good I can say about it.
>
I agree that the rules are badly laid out but the game is played
successfully. I know of at least 4 PBEM games currently going on. I
think it is one of the best political games going. It doesn't suit
everyone because many people are put off by two things. Firstly that the
game can beat all the players. This forces people to work together to
achieve their individual aims. Secondly, that being ahead doesn't
necessarily mean you are winning. Like real life politics winning can
just mean being in the right place at the right time. If you are
interested in ancient history, this is a game you should get eventually
but if you are short of money I would buy most of the other games first
simply because it will be easier to find opponents.
Julian Barker
There is a coherent plan in the universe,
though I don't know what it is a plan for.
- Fred Hoyle
Mike Demana
>>- Republic of Rome
>>
>>An awful game with terrible rules.
> This is nonsense.
> Rof R is, in my opinion, an excellent game which does however require
> patience, space, time & several players with a modicum of intellect.
And about a year's worth of time to play it! Seriously, I have no need
for ultra-complex rules that require everyone to have studied like they were
cramming for a midterm before playing. More complex does not equal better.
I commend the newest trend in boardgames with simple rules sets, i.e.,
History of the World, Brittania, etc.
Seeya!
-- Mike Demana
Julian Barker
In article <5376f6$b...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>, Mike Demana
<mde...@freenet.columbus.oh.us> writes
My RoR rules run to 12 pages. I don't think that is excessive. My
History of the World rules are considerably longer (Ragnar Brother's
Version) and I found the rules to Britannia (Gibson's) totally
inadequate to play the game!
You also miss the point because I don't believe the designer and
developer ever intended RoR to be played by the same people who play
HOTW and Brit.
DrStevOwen
In article <5376f6$b...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
mde...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Mike Demana) writes:
>And about a year's worth of time to play it!
I concede that Rof R is hard work to learn but with this, like most other
games, it is easiest to allow one person to plough through the rules and
then educate everyone else.
Speaking of Britannia, we have been playing the AWE version set in Spain
(Hispania). On first outing this seems to work quite well with lots of
mayhem (odd map but great counters).
Steve Owen
JCLARK2002
In article <5376f6$b...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
mde...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Mike Demana) writes:
>>>- Republic of Rome
>>>
>>>An awful game with terrible rules.
>
>> This is nonsense.
>> Rof R is, in my opinion, an excellent game which does however require
>> patience, space, time & several players with a modicum of intellect.
>
>And about a year's worth of time to play it! Seriously, I have no need
>for ultra-complex rules that require everyone to have studied like they
were
>cramming for a midterm before playing. More complex does not equal
better.
>I commend the newest trend in boardgames with simple rules sets, i.e.,
>History of the World, Brittania, etc.
>
>Seeya!
>-- Mike Demana
>
>
>
Mike-
I'm not quite sure why noone has mentioned Caesar Alesia (AH). Its a very
good and ususual game.
For more discussion about this game, check out the Virtual Wargammers
Discussion Board at:
Jeff Clark
Rich Shipley
Dave Kohr wrote:
> How is the WWW "Ancients" series (I, II, III)? I know they're a lot
> simpler than the GMT games, but they have the virture of taking less time.
Both I & II are sold in one box now with 64 scenarios (there was no
III). For the short, simple games that they are, they do a pretty good
job with battles from 1481 BC to 1415 AD. Most games are 6 turns and
after a couple games, you can play in about an hour.
Rich
--
Round Table Games - discount on-line game store - http://www.rtgames.com
Christopher S. Volny
Thorne Mark A wrote:
> Anyway, I've got the hankering recently to pick up an
> "Ancients-type" game, mostly since I love games and I'm an ancient
> military history buff. Would someone who's played the following games be
As an ancient military history buff, you'll probably like the GMT games
best (SPQR, Great Battles of Alex, Caesar.) In my opinion, those are
the best games for mano-y-mano combat in the ancient world. If it's
political scheming you're after, then Republic of Rome is your best bet.
Chris Volny
Dave Kohr
In article <325ABB...@ac.com>,
Christopher S. Volny <christoph...@ac.com> wrote:
>Thorne Mark A wrote:
>> Anyway, I've got the hankering recently to pick up an
>> "Ancients-type" game, mostly since I love games and I'm an ancient
>> military history buff. Would someone who's played the following games be
>
>As an ancient military history buff, you'll probably like the GMT games
>best (SPQR, Great Battles of Alex, Caesar.) In my opinion, those are
>the best games for mano-y-mano combat in the ancient world.
How is the WWW "Ancients" series (I, II, III)? I know they're a lot
simpler than the GMT games, but they have the virture of taking less time.
Dave Kohr Hacker/Researcher Argonne National Laboratory, MCS Division
Building 203, Room C-246 Phone: (630) 252-4243 E-mail: ko...@mcs.anl.gov
See also my WWW Home Page: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/home/kohr/index.html
"Surfing the Silicon Prairie."
Jean-Yves COLIN
: Dave Kohr wrote:
: > How is the WWW "Ancients" series (I, II, III)? I know they're a lot
: > simpler than the GMT games, but they have the virture of taking less time.
: Both I & II are sold in one box now with 64 scenarios (there was no
: III). For the short, simple games that they are, they do a pretty good
: job with battles from 1481 BC to 1415 AD. Most games are 6 turns and
: after a couple games, you can play in about an hour.
Included in the 64 scenarios version of Ancients by 3W is a set of
(simple but very nice, IMHO) rules for ancient naval battles.
You may find on Web-Grognard advanced rules (mostly to add command and
control to the game) based on the DBA/DBM miniatures rules. These proposed
advanced rules for Ancients were also published in GameFix #9.
-- Jean-Yves Colin
co...@litp.ibp.fr
Mike Deans
> >
> >>>- Republic of Rome
> >>>
> >>>An awful game with terrible rules.
> >
> >> This is nonsense.
> >> Rof R is, in my opinion, an excellent game which does however require
> >> patience, space, time & several players with a modicum of intellect.
> >
> >And about a year's worth of time to play it! Seriously, I have no need
> >for ultra-complex rules that require everyone to have studied like they were
> >cramming for a midterm before playing. More complex does not equal better.
> >I commend the newest trend in boardgames with simple rules sets, i.e.,
> >History of the World, Brittania, etc.
> >
> >Seeya!
> >-- Mike Demana
> >
>
> History of the World rules are considerably longer (Ragnar Brother's
> Version) and I found the rules to Britannia (Gibson's) totally
> inadequate to play the game!
>
> You also miss the point because I don't believe the designer and
> developer ever intended RoR to be played by the same people who play
> HOTW and Brit.
>
> Julian Barker
>
> There is a coherent plan in the universe,
> though I don't know what it is a plan for.
about 5 pages. I have the Gibson Britannia as well and although the rules
are a bit loose in places I would hardly describe them as 'totally
inadequate'. Mind you, I believe I do have a second edition of the game,
as the nation distribution is different to a friend's copy. In his
edition the four player game doesn't have the colours assigned to each
player (I believe one red nation is assigned to another player). In my
edition the four player game has each player assigned all the nations of
a particular colour. What this all means is that perhaps the rules were
tightened up for the second edition?
Regards
Mike Deans
HotW GM, Compuserve PBM Games forum
10041...@compuserve.com