Seeing as there are no rout moves in AMW, we can feel free to invent a workable
mechanic. I'm for the interpenetrated unit taking a hit, or two if
interpenetrated by knights as at Crecy. Thoughts?

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dale Hurtt" <dale_hurtt@...> wrote:
>
> I noticed that SIP states all retreats must be straight back, making for
deadly play (and discouraging multiple lines, reserves, etc.), whereas the other
rules are not as strict (or as specific).
>
> Do you forces retreats to be (exactly) straight back from the retreating unit
in:
>
> 1. AMW?
>
> 2. WI (any subset)?
>
> 3. NW?
>
> Anyone force retreats to be straight away from the winning unit in any of
those versions?
>
> Dale
>

Hi people!
  I have found the point cost for the Dar Age and Medieval troops, but I can't
find the point vlues for the Classical troops, could somebody tel me where are
they?

  Thanks

  Iván

I worked out points values for all the periods, then when Neil (who doesn't like
points systems) produced his own competition handicapping system I scrapped
mine.  Before I'd got round to removing them from some of the periods various
people protested that they liked my system, so I left them in place - but the
Classical values had gone.  Sorry!

You could probably work them out again if you like the system.

Cheers

John GL

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "ivandelaosa" <ivandelaosa@...> wrote:
>
> Hi people!
>  I have found the point cost for the Dar Age and Medieval troops, but I can't
find the point vlues for the Classical troops, could somebody tel me where are
they?
>
>  Thanks
>
>  Iván
>

Thanks John,
  Tomorrow I will play a battle Numidians vs Republic Romans with a new player,
if he likes the ruleset, I will ask for the points system

  Iván

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "John GL" <jandagraham-leigh@...> wrote:
>
> I worked out points values for all the periods, then when Neil (who doesn't
like points systems) produced his own competition handicapping system I scrapped
mine.  Before I'd got round to removing them from some of the periods various
people protested that they liked my system, so I left them in place - but the
Classical values had gone.  Sorry!
>
> You could probably work them out again if you like the system.
>
> Cheers
>
> John GL
>
> --- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "ivandelaosa" <ivandelaosa@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi people!
> >  I have found the point cost for the Dar Age and Medieval troops, but I
can't find the point vlues for the Classical troops, could somebody tel me where
are they?
> >
> >  Thanks
> >
> >  Iván
> >
>

I played an ACW game last weekend just before I went on holiday this week.

It was based upon the classic Action in the Plattville Valley which appeared in
the Don Featherstone Wargaming book. I used identical line-ups, except for the
Union side, which on account of it's generally lower level of unit morale I
compensated it with two additional regiments of infantry and one gun battery.

The battle was a complete indulgence in nostalgia where I used as much of the
information re unit names and dispositions as I could. I've played it a couple
of times before. Once, back in the early 80's, using the ACW Rules written by DF
in his Wargamers Newsletter and a more up to date version using modified Shako
rules.

Enjoyed them all no matter the rules used - they all had their highs and lows.
I'd say I was consistently pleased with the Thomas version. I modified the
retreat rules following the recent discussion on the Group re this subject and
decreed that units retreat directly to the rear but were allowed to
interpenetrate blocking units, however, these would be subject to a morale test
which if failed would result in a base loss.

One feature of the rules I used far more than in previous games was rallying.
The Union side in particular gained significant advantage from resting their
battered units and regaining combat capacity to re-join the action. Having more
units gave them a greater flexibility to hold units in reserve and rotate their
engaged units with fresh ones.

The game actually ended very much as the original did. The Union were triumphant
on their right flank and were in a position to secure Plattville which was their
objective. The CSA General Jubal A. Early was able to retreat his largely intact
command under the cover of nightfall. He was still strong in cavalry and had two
thirds of the infantry intact, however, he'd lost both batteries and the Union
forces still had two and which were a persitant drain to his remaining offensive
capacity. Retreat to fight another day proved a compelling arguement.

The next game I'm planning to do is my Gladiator simulation, that I played using
modified SIP, as a 16 v 16 AMW game and see how this goes. I have a feeling this
will be a cracker. Masses of legions, masses of Germans. What more could you
want!

I'm also working on expanding my WWI and Colonial modifications to Colonial East
Africa and while on holiday have a noted a number of projects to keep me busy up
to Christmas.

Cheers

Brian

Marvellous!  I remember poring over the Plattville Valley over forty years
ago... How about trying Terry Wise's Murfeesboro battle (from "Introduction to
Battlegaming") and/or Featherstone's Battle of Trimsos.

Cheers

John GL

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cowan" <brian.cowan@...> wrote:
>
> I played an ACW game last weekend just before I went on holiday this week.
>
> It was based upon the classic Action in the Plattville Valley which appeared
in the Don Featherstone Wargaming book. I used identical line-ups, except for
the Union side, which on account of it's generally lower level of unit morale I
compensated it with two additional regiments of infantry and one gun battery.
>
> The battle was a complete indulgence in nostalgia where I used as much of the
information re unit names and dispositions as I could. I've played it a couple
of times before. Once, back in the early 80's, using the ACW Rules written by DF
in his Wargamers Newsletter and a more up to date version using modified Shako
rules.
>
> Enjoyed them all no matter the rules used - they all had their highs and lows.
I'd say I was consistently pleased with the Thomas version. I modified the
retreat rules following the recent discussion on the Group re this subject and
decreed that units retreat directly to the rear but were allowed to
interpenetrate blocking units, however, these would be subject to a morale test
which if failed would result in a base loss.
>
> One feature of the rules I used far more than in previous games was rallying.
The Union side in particular gained significant advantage from resting their
battered units and regaining combat capacity to re-join the action. Having more
units gave them a greater flexibility to hold units in reserve and rotate their
engaged units with fresh ones.
>
> The game actually ended very much as the original did. The Union were
triumphant on their right flank and were in a position to secure Plattville
which was their objective. The CSA General Jubal A. Early was able to retreat
his largely intact command under the cover of nightfall. He was still strong in
cavalry and had two thirds of the infantry intact, however, he'd lost both
batteries and the Union forces still had two and which were a persitant drain to
his remaining offensive capacity. Retreat to fight another day proved a
compelling arguement.
>
> The next game I'm planning to do is my Gladiator simulation, that I played
using modified SIP, as a 16 v 16 AMW game and see how this goes. I have a
feeling this will be a cracker. Masses of legions, masses of Germans. What more
could you want!
>
> I'm also working on expanding my WWI and Colonial modifications to Colonial
East Africa and while on holiday have a noted a number of projects to keep me
busy up to Christmas.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>

Now that sounds like a plan! I'll go over the battle of Trimsos and AMW-ize it.
See you all in the files section!

-Nate

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "John GL" <jandagraham-leigh@...> wrote:
>
> Marvellous!  I remember poring over the Plattville Valley over forty years
ago... How about trying Terry Wise's Murfeesboro battle (from "Introduction to
Battlegaming") and/or Featherstone's Battle of Trimsos.
>
> Cheers
>
> John GL
>
> --- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cowan" <brian.cowan@> wrote:
> >
> > I played an ACW game last weekend just before I went on holiday this week.
> >
> > It was based upon the classic Action in the Plattville Valley which appeared
in the Don Featherstone Wargaming book. I used identical line-ups, except for
the Union side, which on account of it's generally lower level of unit morale I
compensated it with two additional regiments of infantry and one gun battery.
> >
> > The battle was a complete indulgence in nostalgia where I used as much of
the information re unit names and dispositions as I could. I've played it a
couple of times before. Once, back in the early 80's, using the ACW Rules
written by DF in his Wargamers Newsletter and a more up to date version using
modified Shako rules.
> >
> > Enjoyed them all no matter the rules used - they all had their highs and
lows. I'd say I was consistently pleased with the Thomas version. I modified the
retreat rules following the recent discussion on the Group re this subject and
decreed that units retreat directly to the rear but were allowed to
interpenetrate blocking units, however, these would be subject to a morale test
which if failed would result in a base loss.
> >
> > One feature of the rules I used far more than in previous games was
rallying. The Union side in particular gained significant advantage from resting
their battered units and regaining combat capacity to re-join the action. Having
more units gave them a greater flexibility to hold units in reserve and rotate
their engaged units with fresh ones.
> >
> > The game actually ended very much as the original did. The Union were
triumphant on their right flank and were in a position to secure Plattville
which was their objective. The CSA General Jubal A. Early was able to retreat
his largely intact command under the cover of nightfall. He was still strong in
cavalry and had two thirds of the infantry intact, however, he'd lost both
batteries and the Union forces still had two and which were a persitant drain to
his remaining offensive capacity. Retreat to fight another day proved a
compelling arguement.
> >
> > The next game I'm planning to do is my Gladiator simulation, that I played
using modified SIP, as a 16 v 16 AMW game and see how this goes. I have a
feeling this will be a cracker. Masses of legions, masses of Germans. What more
could you want!
> >
> > I'm also working on expanding my WWI and Colonial modifications to Colonial
East Africa and while on holiday have a noted a number of projects to keep me
busy up to Christmas.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Brian
> >
>

I've just completed a mammoth Early Imperial Roman v Early German battle using
the AMW Rules.

I based this on an earlier game I played to try out my SIP amendments for
Ancients. I enjoyed that game so much that I decided that a big battle AMW game
was in order.

The game was based on the battle simulated in the Gladiator Film's opening
scene.

The Romans were deployed in a long line with a tactical reserve of two legionary
units: 8 Legionaries, 4 Auxiliary Foot, 4 Auxiliary Cavalry and 2 Artillery. A
total of 18 units.

The Germans ranged against them were sitting on a long ridge, flanked by dense
woods. They amounted to 12 Heavy Infantry, 4 Skirmishers armed with javelins and
4 Noble Cavalry. A total of 20 units.

The artillery made an early impression and showed that the Romans meant
business. With fireballs shooting overhead, the Roman line advanced at a steady
pace, the auxiliaries moving towards the wood line and the cavalry protecting
both flanks.

The Germans were deployed quite deep holding at least four infantry in reserve
just behind the battle line. The Skirmishers flanked the infantry, occupying the
woods with the cavalry lurking on the extreme flanks.

The German general showed a willingness to get to grips early and not be
pressurised by the Roman advance. Cavalry and Skirmisher v Auxiliary battles
flared up early. Mixed success for the Germans. Lighter armour was already a
factor and this became critical once the legions engaged.

Roman Heavy Infantry are remarkable. They showed a distinct superiority over the
Germans in one-to-one line-ups, however, the German general did use his reserves
to create flanking attacks and on the right flank they were actually prevailing.
However, with the collapse of the left flank, the Roman infantry started to
roll-up the battle line and it was only a matter of time before the Germans were
reduced to five operational units and lost the game. The Legions were supreme in
this contest. It felt very much as I would expect for an opposing force taking
on the might of Rome.

One area that I do feel that the Romans are a bit short changed on is the impact
of the pilum prior to charging. I know this is supposed to be factored in but
I've always liked a means to simulate this offensive fire during a charge. It
would have probably meant making the Romans invincible but I was considering
giving them the ability to roll two dice during the charge phase to represent
pilum throwing. Just an idea: I didn't try it out in this game.

One house rule I did experiment with was a push-back move during hand-to-hand
combat. I liked this feature in the older WRG Rules where units were pushed
about a bit during extended melees. Originally I decreed that the difference in
hits inflicted would mean the loser would be pushed back that many centimetres.
This produced some larger movements than I wanted so I looked a the loser moving
1cm if beaten in hits, finally settling on twice as many hits initiating a 1cm
retreat for the loser and associated follow-up from the attacker. It meant there
were some ripples in the battle-line which created a pleasing effect and
presented the commanders with more tactical problems to address in maintaining
cohesion. I'll continue to play test this in future games.

Cheers

Brian

"With fireballs shooting overhead..."

   Were your artillery shooting from behind friendlies, or were you being
figurative in your account?

    I believe that artillery must shoot with nothing other than the intended
target before them. If I am incorrect I have significantly reduced their
effectiveness.

The fireballs are true to the film upon which the battle is based...

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cowan" <brian.cowan@...> wrote:
>
> I've just completed a mammoth Early Imperial Roman v Early German battle using
the AMW Rules.
>
> I based this on an earlier game I played to try out my SIP amendments for
Ancients. I enjoyed that game so much that I decided that a big battle AMW game
was in order.
>
> The game was based on the battle simulated in the Gladiator Film's opening
scene.
>
> The Romans were deployed in a long line with a tactical reserve of two
legionary units: 8 Legionaries, 4 Auxiliary Foot, 4 Auxiliary Cavalry and 2
Artillery. A total of 18 units.
>
> The Germans ranged against them were sitting on a long ridge, flanked by dense
woods. They amounted to 12 Heavy Infantry, 4 Skirmishers armed with javelins and
4 Noble Cavalry. A total of 20 units.
>
> The artillery made an early impression and showed that the Romans meant
business. With fireballs shooting overhead, the Roman line advanced at a steady
pace, the auxiliaries moving towards the wood line and the cavalry protecting
both flanks.
>
> The Germans were deployed quite deep holding at least four infantry in reserve
just behind the battle line. The Skirmishers flanked the infantry, occupying the
woods with the cavalry lurking on the extreme flanks.
>
> The German general showed a willingness to get to grips early and not be
pressurised by the Roman advance. Cavalry and Skirmisher v Auxiliary battles
flared up early. Mixed success for the Germans. Lighter armour was already a
factor and this became critical once the legions engaged.
>
> Roman Heavy Infantry are remarkable. They showed a distinct superiority over
the Germans in one-to-one line-ups, however, the German general did use his
reserves to create flanking attacks and on the right flank they were actually
prevailing. However, with the collapse of the left flank, the Roman infantry
started to roll-up the battle line and it was only a matter of time before the
Germans were reduced to five operational units and lost the game. The Legions
were supreme in this contest. It felt very much as I would expect for an
opposing force taking on the might of Rome.
>
> One area that I do feel that the Romans are a bit short changed on is the
impact of the pilum prior to charging. I know this is supposed to be factored in
but I've always liked a means to simulate this offensive fire during a charge.
It would have probably meant making the Romans invincible but I was considering
giving them the ability to roll two dice during the charge phase to represent
pilum throwing. Just an idea: I didn't try it out in this game.
>
> One house rule I did experiment with was a push-back move during hand-to-hand
combat. I liked this feature in the older WRG Rules where units were pushed
about a bit during extended melees. Originally I decreed that the difference in
hits inflicted would mean the loser would be pushed back that many centimetres.
This produced some larger movements than I wanted so I looked a the loser moving
1cm if beaten in hits, finally settling on twice as many hits initiating a 1cm
retreat for the loser and associated follow-up from the attacker. It meant there
were some ripples in the battle-line which created a pleasing effect and
presented the commanders with more tactical problems to address in maintaining
cohesion. I'll continue to play test this in future games.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>

I thought that I had a pretty good grip on Neil's AMW rules and that no missile
(read: javelin, sling, bow or artillery) fire could take place unless the firing
unit had an unobstructed line of slight to its target. So, hills and woods would
block such firing and also friendly units. But because of an earlier post on
this site I now wonder if artillery is an exception to the rule. I have re-read
AMW and do not find that artillery must have a clear line of sight and thus
could be placed behind friendlies and fire. I do not think this is historically
correct, but is it  prohibited? (Or better stated: it is allowed?) Or is the
general understanding: if Neil does not specifically state it is allowed: it is
not.

These are the Firing rule conventions that I use:

Overhead fire. The only overhead fire allowed is to or from a higher elevation
on troops by artillery at long range, bows, crossbows, javelins and slings. Long
range for overhead fire is >20cm for artillery.

I incorporate these in my games because I believe that some capacity should be
reflected and in the Dark Ages battle in AMW overhead fire was allowed onto a
higher elevation.

Mt other conventions to clarify my understanding of the firing principles in the
rules are:

Firing path. Bases eligible to fire must be able to trace unblocked flank lines
from their front to the target unit. The firing path is blocked by any
intervening units or terrain. Firing arc is 45 degrees.

Engaged units. Shooting at units engaged in hand-to-hand combat is never
allowed.

Skirmisher fire. Light Infantry and Light Cavalry score hits on a 5-6 for
missile fire. This simulates more dispersed shooting.

Firing at artillery. Artillery cannot be shot at. It is assumed to be a very
small target, whose crew enjoy some protection from the piece itself, any
entrenchments etc.

Firing declarations. The results from one attack are resolved before declaring
the next fire.

Cheers

Brian


--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Belorabia" <belorabia@...> wrote:
>
> I thought that I had a pretty good grip on Neil's AMW rules and that no
missile (read: javelin, sling, bow or artillery) fire could take place unless
the firing unit had an unobstructed line of slight to its target. So, hills and
woods would block such firing and also friendly units. But because of an earlier
post on this site I now wonder if artillery is an exception to the rule. I have
re-read AMW and do not find that artillery must have a clear line of sight and
thus could be placed behind friendlies and fire. I do not think this is
historically correct, but is it  prohibited? (Or better stated: it is allowed?)
Or is the general understanding: if Neil does not specifically state it is
allowed: it is not.
>

Stefan

I was using a bit of artistic licence here to get my imgagination going.

I understand that the standard ammunition types were large bolts or rocks,
however, I believe that the Romans fired all sorts of stuff including the
severed heads of opponents!

I realise the latter are probably siege related, however, in this context I was
going down the "send a message" route where the Roman Commander wanted to
"unleash hell" on his advesary and the deployment of fire incendiaries would
seem appropriate in this context.

Cheers

Brian

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tahmassebi, Stefan" <stahmassebi@...> wrote:
>
> You mentioned the Roman artillery "shooting fireballs."  They love to shoot
fireballs all over the place in the movies, whether on land or at sea, but did
Roman field artillery actually shoot "fireballs."  I know the ballista shot
large arrows and shot and that the onagers shot rocks and  shot.  And I assume
they could fire flammable projectiles and assume they did so during sieges.  But
did they fire flammable projectiles as a standard load during regular field and
naval engagements, a la Hollywood?
>
> From: AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Brian Cowan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:25 AM
> To: AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [AMWGroup] Big Battle AMW Game
>
>
>
> I've just completed a mammoth Early Imperial Roman v Early German battle using
the AMW Rules.
>
> I based this on an earlier game I played to try out my SIP amendments for
Ancients. I enjoyed that game so much that I decided that a big battle AMW game
was in order.
>
> The game was based on the battle simulated in the Gladiator Film's opening
scene.
>
> The Romans were deployed in a long line with a tactical reserve of two
legionary units: 8 Legionaries, 4 Auxiliary Foot, 4 Auxiliary Cavalry and 2
Artillery. A total of 18 units.
>
> The Germans ranged against them were sitting on a long ridge, flanked by dense
woods. They amounted to 12 Heavy Infantry, 4 Skirmishers armed with javelins and
4 Noble Cavalry. A total of 20 units.
>
> The artillery made an early impression and showed that the Romans meant
business. With fireballs shooting overhead, the Roman line advanced at a steady
pace, the auxiliaries moving towards the wood line and the cavalry protecting
both flanks.
>
> The Germans were deployed quite deep holding at least four infantry in reserve
just behind the battle line. The Skirmishers flanked the infantry, occupying the
woods with the cavalry lurking on the extreme flanks.
>
> The German general showed a willingness to get to grips early and not be
pressurised by the Roman advance. Cavalry and Skirmisher v Auxiliary battles
flared up early. Mixed success for the Germans. Lighter armour was already a
factor and this became critical once the legions engaged.
>
> Roman Heavy Infantry are remarkable. They showed a distinct superiority over
the Germans in one-to-one line-ups, however, the German general did use his
reserves to create flanking attacks and on the right flank they were actually
prevailing. However, with the collapse of the left flank, the Roman infantry
started to roll-up the battle line and it was only a matter of time before the
Germans were reduced to five operational units and lost the game. The Legions
were supreme in this contest. It felt very much as I would expect for an
opposing force taking on the might of Rome.
>
> One area that I do feel that the Romans are a bit short changed on is the
impact of the pilum prior to charging. I know this is supposed to be factored in
but I've always liked a means to simulate this offensive fire during a charge.
It would have probably meant making the Romans invincible but I was considering
giving them the ability to roll two dice during the charge phase to represent
pilum throwing. Just an idea: I didn't try it out in this game.
>
> One house rule I did experiment with was a push-back move during hand-to-hand
combat. I liked this feature in the older WRG Rules where units were pushed
about a bit during extended melees. Originally I decreed that the difference in
hits inflicted would mean the loser would be pushed back that many centimetres.
This produced some larger movements than I wanted so I looked a the loser moving
1cm if beaten in hits, finally settling on twice as many hits initiating a 1cm
retreat for the loser and associated follow-up from the attacker. It meant there
were some ripples in the battle-line which created a pleasing effect and
presented the commanders with more tactical problems to address in maintaining
cohesion. I'll continue to play test this in future games.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>

Belorabia

You can read my earlier responses to related questions around the "fireball"
subject but specifically on your points:

I had two Roman artillery units. Inititially I had a firing lane for each i.e.
the Roman line was broken slightly to allow a clear path to engage any troops on
the same elevation. As the lines started to converge and bunch the firing path
was blocked for enemy units on the flat, however, because of my overhead fire
rules I did allow artillery firing at long range (deemed > 20cm) to be able to
fire at these targets.

Artillery was quite effective when deployed. The every other turn / re-load
rules keeps this down to manageable levels and not the devastating impact
required for modern period games and rulesets.

Cheers

Brian

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Belorabia" <belorabia@...> wrote:
>
> "With fireballs shooting overhead..."
>
>   Were your artillery shooting from behind friendlies, or were you being
figurative in your account?
>
>    I believe that artillery must shoot with nothing other than the intended
target before them. If I am incorrect I have significantly reduced their
effectiveness.
>

I like the 5-6 shooting for skirmishers. I take it the weapon-specific save
modifiers still apply?

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cowan" <brian.cowan@...> wrote:
>
> These are the Firing rule conventions that I use:
>
> Overhead fire. The only overhead fire allowed is to or from a higher elevation
on troops by artillery at long range, bows, crossbows, javelins and slings. Long
range for overhead fire is >20cm for artillery.
>
> I incorporate these in my games because I believe that some capacity should be
reflected and in the Dark Ages battle in AMW overhead fire was allowed onto a
higher elevation.
>
> Mt other conventions to clarify my understanding of the firing principles in
the rules are:
>
> Firing path. Bases eligible to fire must be able to trace unblocked flank
lines from their front to the target unit. The firing path is blocked by any
intervening units or terrain. Firing arc is 45 degrees.
>
> Engaged units. Shooting at units engaged in hand-to-hand combat is never
allowed.
>
> Skirmisher fire. Light Infantry and Light Cavalry score hits on a 5-6 for
missile fire. This simulates more dispersed shooting.
>
> Firing at artillery. Artillery cannot be shot at. It is assumed to be a very
small target, whose crew enjoy some protection from the piece itself, any
entrenchments etc.
>
> Firing declarations. The results from one attack are resolved before declaring
the next fire.
>
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
>
> --- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Belorabia" <belorabia@> wrote:
> >
> > I thought that I had a pretty good grip on Neil's AMW rules and that no
missile (read: javelin, sling, bow or artillery) fire could take place unless
the firing unit had an unobstructed line of slight to its target. So, hills and
woods would block such firing and also friendly units. But because of an earlier
post on this site I now wonder if artillery is an exception to the rule. I have
re-read AMW and do not find that artillery must have a clear line of sight and
thus could be placed behind friendlies and fire. I do not think this is
historically correct, but is it  prohibited? (Or better stated: it is allowed?)
Or is the general understanding: if Neil does not specifically state it is
allowed: it is not.
> >
>

Nate

Yes weapon specific saves still stand.

This rule modification only applies to registering hits. I pinched it from an
earlier discussion on this Group debating the effectiveness of skirmish shooting
which advocated the reduction of the impact of this function in the rules and
which I believe the original rules author also favoured.

Cheers

Brian

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Nate" <ancient.battles@...> wrote:
>
> I like the 5-6 shooting for skirmishers. I take it the weapon-specific save
modifiers still apply?
>
> --- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Cowan" <brian.cowan@> wrote:
> >
> > These are the Firing rule conventions that I use:
> >
> > Overhead fire. The only overhead fire allowed is to or from a higher
elevation on troops by artillery at long range, bows, crossbows, javelins and
slings. Long range for overhead fire is >20cm for artillery.
> >
> > I incorporate these in my games because I believe that some capacity should
be reflected and in the Dark Ages battle in AMW overhead fire was allowed onto a
higher elevation.
> >
> > Mt other conventions to clarify my understanding of the firing principles in
the rules are:
> >
> > Firing path. Bases eligible to fire must be able to trace unblocked flank
lines from their front to the target unit. The firing path is blocked by any
intervening units or terrain. Firing arc is 45 degrees.
> >
> > Engaged units. Shooting at units engaged in hand-to-hand combat is never
allowed.
> >
> > Skirmisher fire. Light Infantry and Light Cavalry score hits on a 5-6 for
missile fire. This simulates more dispersed shooting.
> >
> > Firing at artillery. Artillery cannot be shot at. It is assumed to be a very
small target, whose crew enjoy some protection from the piece itself, any
entrenchments etc.
> >
> > Firing declarations. The results from one attack are resolved before
declaring the next fire.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > --- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "Belorabia" <belorabia@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I thought that I had a pretty good grip on Neil's AMW rules and that no
missile (read: javelin, sling, bow or artillery) fire could take place unless
the firing unit had an unobstructed line of slight to its target. So, hills and
woods would block such firing and also friendly units. But because of an earlier
post on this site I now wonder if artillery is an exception to the rule. I have
re-read AMW and do not find that artillery must have a clear line of sight and
thus could be placed behind friendlies and fire. I do not think this is
historically correct, but is it  prohibited? (Or better stated: it is allowed?)
Or is the general understanding: if Neil does not specifically state it is
allowed: it is not.
> > >
> >
>

I completed a playtest of my WSS amendments last night. A entertaining game with
some surprising results.

I went for a larger game format of 14 British units vs 15 French. The French had
more infantry but some of these were of lower quality and they had one less
artillery unit.

The French were to occupy two towns and hold these against the British attack. I
was fully expecting the British to advance with artillery support, perform a
successful assault through sustained musketry fire and sweep the French from the
field.

Nothing of the sort. The French took the initiative by forcing some early
cavalry duels. Again the superior British cavalry were expected to win this
contest. This didn't happen: the French firepower horse were effective in both
defensive and offensive fire and despite the elite status of the British a
couple of their units were impacted by poor morale throws. The French cavalry
captain was also able to use a local superiority of three units to two to
perform some flank attacks which neutralised the edge the British had in
hand-to-hand combat. Despite the success of the French I didn't get the feeling
I'd made the Firepower Horse overpowered. Like most aspects of the game there
seemed to be a consistent "bad luck" theme in the dice rolls from the British
side.

This also featured strongly in the infantry and artillery battle. The French
held their line and prevented the platoon fire of the deployed British units
disrupting their cohesion. They also had a reserve to plug gaps and their
artillery on the left flank performed an immense task in blunting the British
assault there. In contrast the British guns performed poorly.

Overall the French won in a comprehensive manner. They retained 6 Infantry, 2
artillery, their dragoons and most significantly three cavalry units. In
contrast the British conceded on three infantry and three artillery units(which
would shortly be neutralised by the unopposed French cavalry).

I was pleased with my amendments. I made some changes to my Dragoons when I had
them charged while still mounted. I ruled that they could not perform defensive
fire in these circumstances.

For aesthetics I dispensed with the 4 stand line and used 6 stands for infantry
arranged three to front with a depth of two (still counting as four for
casualties). The cavalry and artillery remained as per the rules.

This now leaves the Seven Years War to complete my initial first round of NW
period adaptation playtests. I'm finding that each H&M period I play not only
adds insight into that particular contest but also to the other peripheral
periods I've been looking at.

Cheers

Brian

Finished an excellent Early WWI game using my WWI amendments for the WWII Rules.
All worked really well and I made some positive tweaks as I went through the
game.

The encounter was between two advance guards, one a BEF Brigade, the other a
German Regiment. Both had supporting srtillery and cavalry squadrons.

The Germans took the initative which managed to deal effectively with one of the
British flanks. In the infantry conflict they gradually encroached on the better
positions making superior use of cover, which in these rules is a major
contributor to battlefield endurance.

Final analysis: Germans won in quite a convincing manner with the British
conceding and making a hasty withdrawl.

These modern rules stand up well for all the sub-periods I've played so far. I
think I'm onto a winner as I was after an Operation Warboard / Featherstone /
Rapid Fire style game which I think this ruleset offers.

Cheers

Brian

How to play?
If losing a fight one must retreat 10 cm, no interpenetration is allowed.  On
the other hand, support must be within 10 cm (more friendly than enemy units
within 10 cm of melee).  Can support then only be on the flanks?

Support can come from anywhere.  In the notes in the issue with SIP, Neil
explains that he did not like geometric line-ups so the rule is
essentially, anywhere within 10cm.

John
> How to play?
> If losing a fight one must retreat 10 cm, no interpenetration is allowed.
> On the other hand, support must be within 10 cm (more friendly than enemy
> units within 10 cm of melee).  Can support then only be on the flanks?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


John

Some barbarian is waving my shield, since I was obliged to leave that
perfectly good piece of equipment behind under a bush.  But I got away, so
what does it matter?  Life seemed somehow more precious.  Let the shield
go; I can buy another one equally good.

--Archilochus

> Lex wrote:
>
>Can support then only be on the flanks?

Yes.

The bonus I presume is...

"More friendly than enemy units within 10cm of a melee."

It makes no distinction as to the position of the units.



>> Lex wrote:
>>
>>Can support then only be on the flanks?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


John

Some barbarian is waving my shield, since I was obliged to leave that
perfectly good piece of equipment behind under a bush.  But I got away, so
what does it matter?  Life seemed somehow more precious.  Let the shield
go; I can buy another one equally good.

--Archilochus

--- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "John Acar" <jacar@...> wrote:
>
> The bonus I presume is...
>
> "More friendly than enemy units within 10cm of a melee."
>
> It makes no distinction as to the position of the units.

Never answer email when you have a fever, no matter HOW much you want to get up
and do something.

Dale

Bah!  Stinks to be sick.  Sorry you are not feeling well. Speedy recovery
to you sir!

John

>
> --- In AMWGroup@yahoogroups.com, "John Acar" <jacar@...> wrote:
>>
>> The bonus I presume is...
>>
>> "More friendly than enemy units within 10cm of a melee."
>>
>> It makes no distinction as to the position of the units.
>
> Never answer email when you have a fever, no matter HOW much you want to
> get up and do something.
>
> Dale
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


John

Some barbarian is waving my shield, since I was obliged to leave that
perfectly good piece of equipment behind under a bush.  But I got away, so
what does it matter?  Life seemed somehow more precious.  Let the shield
go; I can buy another one equally good.

--Archilochus

How to handle?

Unit in frontline has 2 DM from enemy firing; there is a fresh unit in second
line.
Wants to put fresh unit in frontline.  No interpenetration is allowed; so no
possibility to use reserve? Hence first line must be eleminated before second
line can act?
Is that correct?

Greetz from Belgium.

I'm no expert but I think your right, however try leading with a light unit
which can interpenetrate. Jeff.

I finally got round to playing a game this weekend. The last of my Napoleonic
adaptations to other H&M periods. This time a Frederick impersonator pitted
against a wily Austrian commander.

The game played out very nicely and I particularly liked the way the Prussian
rapid fire ruling of half move combined with firing, allowed the Prussians to
advance on the Austrians and still inflict attritional casualties. Put a lot of
pressure on the defensive force to match the Prussian musketry.

The Austrians were good in defended positions, however, in this game the
Prussians seized the initiative early and managed to get to occupy most of the
prime locations early on.

I've been focusing on some research and a backlog of rules drafting to get all
my Modern periods and AMW sub-periods onto the word processor.

Now I'm free I'll get back to some more games and might even start rolling out
some painted forces!

Cheers

Brian

I've just completed a real grinding contest between the Houses of York and
Lancaster. As it was pretty snowy outside I decided on a Towton like battle
fought in a swirling blizzard. The gameplay matched the weather with a whirlwind
of manoeuvre settling down to a series of close combats along the line.

The archers were potent and made a telling impact, however, it was the heavy
infantry and cavalry which proved to be the decisive arms. The superior armour
ratings gave them high battlefield endurance and staying power in close combat.

I succumbed to allowing a unit of mounted knights on each side - what a medieval
game without knights! I know it wasn't on the lists but I couldn't resist.

Outcome was a very narrow Yorkist victory - 3 units to 2. About as close as you
can get.

I really enjoyed this - it looked good and played the way I would expect a
medieval brawling match would pan out.

Next on my list - a revisit of the skirmish rules I think.

Cheers

Brian