My first wargame army was a set of 15mm Romans. They were crudely painted and based on flimsy
cardstock. They only fought one or two
battles, using an early edition of WRG rules or their 80’s imitator, The Shock of Impact. While I had fun with those little guys, my
imagination was fired more by the age of gunpowder, and my Romans fell
forgotten to the back shelf for a long time.
I heard about DBA and bought a copy of the rules. I liked the “Small armies” approach (as a
college kid with limited funds, the thought of buying 500+ minis was
discouraging) but DBA did not engage all parts of my brain. It felt more like playing chess than
commanding an army. I wanted a set of
rules that was playable and fun on one hand, and made me feel like I was making
the kinds of decisions that a contemporary commander would have made. In short, I was looking for the holy grail of
rules sets.
As a historian of the early Middle Ages, I long resisted the
Arthurian period as hitting a little too close to home. I like to keep work and play at arms’ length
if at all possible. But curiosity
finally got the best of me, and I was seduced by the gorgeous Splintered Light
15mm Saxons and Post-Roman Britons. Now
to find a set of rules.
I had three candidates: Basic
Impetus, which I downloaded for free from Dadie e Piombo; Hail Caesar, which I might have
overlooked as corporate eye candy but for my pleasant experiences with Black
Powder; and Dux Bellorum, Osprey’s
recent entry into the field which is the only set geared specifically towards
the Arthurian period. There were many
similarities among the rule sets, and I decided that the only way to settle the
issue was to run a simple identical scenario three times over, once with each
set of rules.
On a plain field, with little terrain to speak of, a
hastily-assembled Romano-British defense force attempts to break a horde of
Saxon harriers who seek to plunder the remaining hill-forts of southwestern
Britain.
On one side, the Romano-British deployed in a line, with
cavalry units protecting the flanks, and two units of infantry and some archers
holding the center. On the other, three
Saxon warbands line up ready to charge, with archers protecting one flank and a
reserve of companions in reserve.
Romano-British to the Right, Saxons to the Left. No terrain except for a colossal Spanish-style house looming over my 15mm miniatures. |
THE PLAYTESTS
CONCLUSIONS
Two battles went to the Saxon invaders, and one went to the
Romano-British defenders. All three were
close run things, however, and could have gone either way with a few different
dice results. I did not feel that any
set of rules was lopsided or unfair, a credit to all of the designers. Each game had exciting bits, ones where I
thought “If I can make this roll, and I pull this out for the losing
side.” In a solo game, that’s pretty
good.
In the end, each game had strengths and weaknesses that were
part of the philosophy of the designers.
In short, they all managed to create games around a series of principles
that they felt were essential to warfare in the pre-gunpowder era. That’s a Good Thing. I don’t think that any of these sets were
“bad rules.” However, they each pushed the player to a certain style of play
and leadership. Though different, all
were fun, and I think I would take any of the three over the rules I played
with in the 1980’s.
BASIC IMPETUS
At times, I felt like I was making DBA-style decisions. On
at least two occasions, I found myself thinking “If I activate this unit first,
I will clear a path for this other unit that will enable it to get into
position…” To me, that challenges my
suspension of disbelief. I think
medieval generals should have minimal control over their troops. A lack of activation rolls further pushes
Impetus from ‘simulation’ to ‘game.’
However, when the fighting started, I liked the Impetus system the best. Units mixed it up, lost effectiveness
quickly, and individual contests between two units were decided in no more than
two turns. Reserves were critical in
relieving battered units. I think this
is the game I would use to introduce new players to the game. Fast, but with a need for intelligent
decisions that reward smart players. It seems best when geared to two-player head
to head battles, but plenty of rules exist online for expanding it.
HAIL, CAESAR
This game was as crazy as any Black Powder game I have
enjoyed. Blunders, failed activation
rolls, and sudden shifts of fortune because of hot dice. This
is not a game for the timid. Units are
tougher than in Black Powder, but the savagery of melee combat can mean that an
entire wing of an army can disappear in a turn or two. I suspect that more defeats in “Hail Caesar”
are attributed to bad dice rolling than bad strategy. But it’s fast, fun, and flexible. The deliberately laid-back style of the rules
means that more attention is paid to getting troops into the battle than in
wheeling them at exactly the right angle to maneuver into position. I like that the rules follow closely form
Black Powder, giving an entry to people who might be new to the period. I had worried that this might make the
battle feel generic, but in some ways these rules had the most authentic feel
for pre-modern generalship. Who wants
absolute control? I think these rules
would be the way to go for a big, multi-player game as well, as each command
operates more or less independently.
DUX BELLORUM
The Leadership Point system might be abstract, but I think
it did an excellent job of simulating the limited resources of command. When cavalry assailed the Saxon chief from
all sides, he piled on the LP to rest every attack. Lo and behold, the stubborn warband was able
to see it through to the end of the battle.
Leadership Points allowed the Roman commander to rally his line when
they were on the verge of fleeing for the hills, even if it meant not pressing
the attack on the Saxon commander as fiercely as he might have otherwise. The
system had activation rolls (which I liked), but they were dependent on the
unit, rather than the commander, as they were in hail Caesar. Combats became slogging matches, and it was
quite hard to chase a determined warband or shieldwall off the table. You couldn’t write off a battered unit just
because it was almost worn down to nothing, because it might still have a few
good turns of fighting left in it. Of
the three systems, this one seemed like it required the most finesse, for good
and bad. I think it would be great for
more experienced players. I’m not sure
it would play very quickly in a large multiplayer game, but I could be wrong
about that.
2 comments:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. i also have all 3 rulesets, and have played Impetus the most. Basic impetus is a bit DBA ish, but with more meat on the bones I believe.
Ive only had the one game of Hail Caesar, and really enjoyed it too.
All 3 rulesets are very good in my opinion, so with that in mind ive based everything for Impetus, as it will work with all 3.
Steve
Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. I love reading ruleset comparisons!
I have all three you mention, but have only played Basic Impetus, and only for a few games (all solo). I found Basic Impetus quite good, but I needed to change a couple of the rules to suit me. I really really like the look of Hail Caesar and hope to get a few games in this year. Your review has solidified this even further.
I have found that all rules have something going for them and all work well in some way or another, some more than others!. The only problem is finding rules that work the way *you* want ancient battles to play out!
Post a Comment