Happy new year to all

Thanks for the summary Rodge. Please find my comment below.

Best regards



Vincent


--- In ARMATI@yahoogroups.com, "rodger1uk" <rodger.w@...> wrote:
>
> Happy New Year to all.
> After 3 month play testing and discussion here is an overview of
> where I believe we are at.
> The things that need work are evident.
> May I suggest that new threads are started for each variant that
> needs work:
>
> 1) Core + 100 points
> Change rule 14.1 Bonus Unit Procedure from 75 points to 100 points
> >Seems to have been adopted.

VA: I playtested only twice, intended goal (more troops in centre
zone) is not achieved but divisions are bigger (less single unit
divisions) so the change is good. I would be happy to keep it.

>
> 2) No deep except LC
> Change rule 2.2 to:
> `Heavy Infantry must form two sections wide.'
>
> 7.9.3 `Heavy Infantry in Depth (counter to Impetus)'(p24)
> Delete this rule
>
> 7.8.6 `Shield Walls and Schiltrons' (p23)
> Shield Wall
> Change `A Shield Wall may be Deployed wide or in Depth' to `A Shield
> Wall may only be deployed Wide'.
> Shiltron
> Change `A Schiltron must be deployed in Depth' to' A Schiltron must
> be formed in Echelon' to qualify for Shiltron status.
>
> All other current 7.8.6. rules remain unchanged.
>
> Swiss Keils
> Phase 2.
>
> >Seems to be adopted but some debate on whether all WB should be wide
> (see RV9 `Echelon' below for wide WB Vs Mounted). Schiltron and Keil
> to be looked at Phase 2.

VA: I like this RV. I would prefer all WB to be wide to avoid creating
a special case and allowing this type of troop to be the only one able
to fight 2 to 1.

>
> 3) `Bracing' (stationary HI counter Impetus Vs all)
> An unengaged HI unit that remains stationary may claim to "brace"
> itself.
> A braced unit receives 3 BPs when outscored frontally by a troop with
> Impetus instead of being broken.
>
> A Unit may not count as braced if either:
> 1. it is un-dressed
> or
> 2. it is contacted by enemy to its Flank/Rear (as defined in RV12)
> or
> 3. it may claim impetus against its opponent
>
> Note 1: A unit that is braced when starting a melee keeps that status
> until it moves or is contacted in flank/rear (as defined in Rules 12a
> or 12b)
> Note 2: If fighting both against a WB and a HC, a WB Unit will be able
> to claim being braced against the HC (provided all other conditions
> are satisfied) but not against the enemy WB.
> Note 3: BP3 WB may claim bracing (but, unless they are veteran, it
> will not change much the result if they lose their first round of
> melee against impetus troops).
> Note 4: Players may find it useful to use a marker next to unit which
> remain stationary and therefore claim "bracing".
>
> >Seems to have been adopted.

VA: I like this RV.

>
> 4) Removal of Phalanx (PH) from Rule 7.9.2 `Denying Impetus-
> Stationary from a Previous Phase: Shield Walls, Schiltrons and
> Phalanxes. `
> PH do not now deny Impetus. Delete rule 7.9.1.6 Loss of Impetus (PH)
> Also delete rule Number 6 from rule 7.9.1 `Loss of Impetus'
> Note; all PH are therefore -1 pnt.
>
> >Some dispute, although with high FV and `Bracing' I for one cannot
> see why.

VA: IMO, a line of spear points in closed ranks should be more
effective than a close formation of swordmen to resist a cavalry
charge (remember that PH has no effect on elephants nor warbands).
Although I can understand why the KISS principle and removal of chrome
could lead to delete the PH specific rule, I'm still opposed to this
RV. Note that the weapon only is not sufficient, training is also
necessary (there are pike armed FT in AoC which cannot claim the PH
benefit).

>
> 5) Stationary
> `Stationary' may be claimed if the unit did not move in its last
> movement phase.
>
> 7.8.2 Terrain advantage
> Change
> `The defending unit must be infantry (of any type) and must remain
> stationary during its current movement phase in order to receive the
> +1'
> to
> `The defending unit must be infantry (of any type) and must remain
> stationary during its last movement phase in order to receive the +1'
>
> >Seems to have been adopted.

VA: I like this RV. KISS.

>
> 6) Cavalry Vs Heavier Cavalry Break Off
> All cavalry are allowed to break off if fighting heavier weight class
> of cavalry where
> CATs, KN, Clibs, MA and H4CH are the heaviest class
> HC, M2CH the medium class
> LH CM and L2CH are the lightest class.
>
> Elephants may not break off from any, but Mounted may break off from
> them.
>
> All roll 1D6 to get break off (distance, interpenetration BP
> infliction and enemy blocking as current rules)
> 1: Break
> 2,3: No break off
> 4,5,6: may break off
> Note 1: Cavalry that break off are permitted to charge in again
> Note 2: Usual rules for obligatory chargers and impetus apply.
>
> Break-off direction is
> 1) directly to the unit rear if the enemy contact is on front edge or
> front corner,
> 2) directly to the unit front if the enemy contact is on rear edge or
> rear corner,
> 3) directly to the unit opposed flank if the enemy contact is on
> flank edge.
>
> Break-off is impossible:
> 1) if the unit is contacted by several enemy units which would
> result in different break-off directions, or
> 2) if it inflicted BP or
> 3) if it broke an opponent.
>
> Break-Off Conditions (p26, para 1)
> The choice to attempt a Break-Off is made by the owning player. Break
> -Off's may occur only when a unit is in melee contact against enemy
> infantry
> or against heavier cavalry as outlined above
>
> Breakthrough
> P28 para 3,'Participating Units':
> 'A non engaged unit is entitled to a breakthrough maneuver if at
> least one enemy unit it was in contact with that turn Broke'
>
> Note: Breakthroughs are resolved after break-off.
>
> >Hardly any feedback on RV6; do we continue with it?

VA: I never tested this RV. I'm still unconfortable with it
(especially with the possibility of breaking off to charge again with
impetus against another cavalry pinned by another unit). I would be
happy to drop it or to read more about the tests done.

>
> 7) Double Frontage SI
> Change the unit size picture and figure basing so that Skirmishers
> are two
> sections wide and at current depth with no other change to lists or
> points
>
> >Mixed reactions.
> General consensus that SI are too powerful and too manoeureable on a
> 1 base frontage.
> Other thoughts are:
> a) drastically reduce SI in all armies (difficult to reduce numbers
> of SI because that requires actions on many armies, some of which
> have SI as a key troop type and need large numbers so a blanket
> halving of all SI won't work)
> b) penalise fire further and keep SI as single bases (-1: 0-9", -
> 2:9"+-24"),
> c) make SI hits Fatigue Hits and
> d) curb SI maneuver (no suggestion as to how).

VA: While I disagree on the perceived power of SI, I like the wide
option for SI as it reinforce their screening role and reduces their
shooting efficiency. If kept on 1 base wide and shooting efficiency
needs to be reduced, then option b) has my preference. Option a) is
impossible to implement IMO. Option c) game impact differs whether the
target is LC, HC or FT and I don't see the rationale for this difference.
Since I like very much the idea of having all heavy troops 2 base wide
and all light troops 1 base wide, then I'll try to test option b) in
my next games.

>
> 8) Double Frontage LI and LHI
> Expansion of LI and LHI into two sections with no other change to
> lists or points
>
> >Much ink spilt.
> Seems to be coming down on the side of single frontage and
> a) all LHI key
> b) all LI low FV (most 2, some 3) and may act as SI in maneuver and
> c) huge reduction of the troops types in the lists that are
> not `light' armies OR
> d) LHI disappear and may be fielded as either Key COH or FT, or non
> key 2 LI (Fv3 or 2). This (i.e `d') needs a lot more debate; it may
> well work for late Romans etc but probably does not in other periods
> and how does it translate to light armies?

VA: I have always favored single base frontage. I really like a) which
would be easy to implement and eliminate some of the discrepancies of
my beloved biblical era.
I would like the idea of reducing the FV of LI (2 if armed with long
range shooting weapon, 3 if javelin or sword only) to reduce the 2
against 1 effect against heavy mounted and the efficiency of LI
against LC but it would require to recompute all army lists LI value
and possibly modify some core to reach the 95 norm. I still prefer my
suggestion, derived from an idea of Ash, that the restriction of "only
one hit may be inflicted by a unit" is waived when heavy units fight
light units which has not been tested yet.
I am strongly opposed to the proposals of LI behaving as SI (fall
back, interpenetrations...). LI are massed troops and should not
behave like SI. I think the ramifications of these proposals have not
been studied carefully enough and that the text of these proposals
needs clarifications (e.g. can LC disperse LI?).
Option c) does not seem practicable in the scope of A2 (but could be
an idea for A3, if it is ever to be).
Although I have mixed feeling about it, I would like to test allowing
LI to contact the rear/flanks of HI (partly because this is one of the
points which debutants find most annoying when discovering Armati).
Option d) needs more debate indeed. I think that part of the issue
stems from the fact that Armati is meant to reproduce big battles and
that mostly light armies do not deliver big battles but rather fight
in small ambushes or in engagements which last several days. One
option could be to keep LHI as they are but to compell LHI based
armies to field 1/3 to 1/2 of their LHI units as FV5 FT which may not
deploy in difficult terrains (in case of mixed armies, you could
extend this by saying that after the transformation of LHI to FT, the
ratio of LHI units to HI units should not exceed 2, or even 1). This
would represent the type of battle delivered by a light army which
find itself cornered and has to deliver a "normal" battle.
One important capacity of LHI has, IMO, completely been forgotten in
the discussion about LHI armies in the past 2 monthes. I mean the
capacity to break-off from melee (and therefore retreat behind a
second line, recover from fatigue and/or casualties...). This capacity
is critical when effecting hit and run attacks.

>
> 9) Echelon
> HI/COH/FT etc may still deploy in Echelon but there are no benefits
> to it except for current Roman and Carthaginian tactics.
> Therefore 'modifies the effects of Impetus as if it were Deployed in
> Depth' in respect to p6 `Echelon Divisional Unit Arrangement'
> paragraph 4 which begins `A HI Unit in a Block Deployment..' is
> deleted.
> With the exception of 2) and 11) all other rules on Echelon remain
> the same.
>
> >Seems fine.

VA: I agree. Bracing replace the need for a deep formation rule to
resist impetus.

> There has been an additional idea playetested where WB are be
allowed to deploy in echelon and, if stationary, they may brace
against cavalry (this worked well in a Rugi Vs Odovacer game).

VA: I don't see the need to make a special case for warbands. KISS.

>
> 10) Rear firing
> Add rule 5.13 `any HI or heavy mounted unit receiving fire from a unit
> entirely behind the rear line of the unit subtracts 1 from its PROT
> value against that fire to simulate the `demoralising morale effect.'
>
> >Hardly any feedback on this; do we continue with it?

VA: I like this RV. The problem is that these situations appears
rarely on tabletop and often very late in games. In my few test games,
both my opponent and me were too involved in the game to remember that
RV and apply it. I would like to see some serious tests given to it
before dumping it.

>
> 11) SI 'Divisional Echelon (Block) Tactics' Restrictions
> Delete 6.2.2
>
> >General agreement on this.

VA: I still strongly disagree as it creates divisionnal issues in
light armies. In Glasgow, I played a scenario of Nubian (with no
egyptian troops) against Egyptian (light chariot version). With that
RV in mind, I tried to deployed with no mixed SI/LI/LHI division. The
result was wider, less maneuvrable divisions (despite the scenario
generously giving 8 light divisions to the Nubians) and more exposure
of key units to fire. In my last game, my opponent played A2 greeks,
with only 3 light divisions and SI, LI and LC to manage, the deletion
of 6.2.2 leaves few palatable choices to the greek player.

>
> 12) Warband 2D6 Impetus Rolls
> Warband roll 2D6's on first round of melee with opponents they may
> claim impetus against and choose the best D6 roll for melee
> calculation.
>
> >General agreement on this but debate on whether deep WB should get
> it.

VA: I am strongly opposed to this RV. The only test reported did not
combined this rule with the break-off capacity of warbands, therefore
seriously reducing the effect, and IMO the validity of the test, of
this RV.
Note that deep warband do not exist anymore if RV2 is applied
(especially with the current writing of the RV which has no explicit
reference to a special case for warband and, IMO, should not for KISS
principle)

>
> 13a) Flank/Rear Attacks
> Change 7.10 to read `Flank Rear Attacks'. Include 7.10.1, 7.10.2.
> 7.10.3 and rename them to `Flank/Rear Attacks'. Change paras to read:
>
> Flank/Rear Attacks:
> A flank/rear attack shall be defined as an attack which
> * either contacts the defender's rear line with the chargers front
> line or front corner
> * or contacts the defender's rear corner AND has part of the
> charges front line across BOTH the defenders rear and flank lines.
>
> All other attacks shall be deemed frontal.
>
> NOTE: 7.9.1 Loss of Impetus (p23) point 1 and 7.10.1 "consequences of
> being flanked" should be read with the new definition of Flank/Rear
> as described above in mind.
>
> 13b) Flank/Rear Attacks
> A flank/rear attack shall be defined as an attack which start, or
> finish, its charge with its front at least partly behind a line
> projecting at 45° from the rear corner of the front section of the
> target
> All other attacks shall be deemed frontal.
> .
> NOTE 1: 7.9.1 Loss of Impetus (p23) point 1 and7.10.1 "consequences
> of being flanked" should be read with the new definition of
> Flank/Rear as described above in mind.
>
> > Difference of opinion and revisions: a) found to be unsuitable due
> to rear/flank attack anomaly, b) found to be unsuitable due to
> complexity and ability to perform a devastating attack from a
> position in front of the target. A further idea has been tested and
> has received some support:
>
> Rear Attacks
> Rear attacks occur when the attacker starts from entirely behind a
> line drawn from the front edge of the target. This is irrespective of
> the point of contact i.e. rear line, rear corner or flank edge.
> Rear attack by Heavy Units
> Denies Impetus, Bracing lost and causes the Target to fight with its
> Flank/Rear FV. Target is automatically broken if outscored in melee
> by any heavy enemy.
> Rear attack by Light Units (SI, LI, LHI, LC, L2CH, LB)
> Bracing lost, Target fights rear attacking Unit with Flank/Rear FV,
> but Target fights to the front with Frontal FV-1 Vs all other in
> contact that may not claim rear attacks.
> If outscored by a Unit with Impetus the target is automatically
> broken.
>
> Flank Attacks
> If Rear attacks conditions do not apply, Flank Attacks occur when the
> attacker hits the flank of the target (i.e. any charge that starts
> with any part of the charging Unit in front of a line drawn from the
> front edge of the Target that contacts the Target's flank).
> Flank attacks by all Units
> Target keeps it's braced status if applicable and uses its front
> value, with a -1 modifier, against all opponents not able to claim
> rear attacks.
>
> Any other attack is a Frontal attack.
>
> Note (multiple attacks): If a heavy attacker qualifies for the Rear
> attack, then the "attacked by heavy" specifications apply and
> supersede other conditions

VA: A special note on 13b) The text copied above was written when
flank and rear attacks were merged into one class for KISS. The
initial writing had 2 separate definitions for rear and flank. If they
get separated again as in the proposal above, then 13b should read:

Rear Attacks
A rear attack shall be defined as an attack which starts its charge
with its front at least partly behind a line projecting at 45° from
the rear corner of the front section of the target.

Flank Attacks
A flank attack shall be defined as an attack not qualifying for rear
attacks but which finishes its charge with its front at least partly
behind a line projecting at 45° from the rear corner of the front
section of the target.

All other attacks shall be deemed frontal.

Note 1: the reference to "the rear corner of the front section of the
target" could be removed and simplified in "the rear corner of the
target" if RV2 is applied since then only LC remain in deep formations
(IMO should always be) and I don't mind these having more reactivity
to what appears as flank attack on table top (the true question being:
"does a cloud of light horses running in all direction have a flank?").
Note 2: The effect of being attacked in flank or rear would be the
same as for your definitions above. Your presentation would in fact
gain in clarity if you separate the conditions to get flank/rear and
the bonus obtained. I took this opportunity to change slightly the
wording of the texts


"
Rear Attack effects by any units:
Loss of Impetus for Target
Loss of all stationnary bonuses for Target (bracing, terrain
advantage, PH rule...)

Supplementary effects if Rear Attacked by heavy units (except LB):
Target to fight with its Flank/Rear FV. Target is automatically
broken if outscored in melee by any heavy enemy.

Supplementary effects if Rear Attacked by Light Units and LB
Target fights rear attacking Unit with Flank/Rear FV
Target fights with Frontal FV at -1 Vs all other in contact that may
not claim rear attacks.

Note: If outscored by a Unit with Impetus, a Target which is attacked
in rear is automatically broken, since all possibilities which allow
it to resist impetus are then invalidated.

Flank attacks by all Units
Target keeps it's braced status if applicable and uses its front
value, with a -1 modifier, against all opponents not able to claim
rear attacks.

Note (multiple attacks): If a heavy attacker qualifies for the Rear
attack, then the "attacked by heavy" specifications apply and
supersede other conditions
"
<end of rear/flank effect rules>

Special note: I have kept the text for flank as in the current
proposal, but it is far from complete compared to the current rule and
the rear situation. How being flanked does affect impetus and/or being
up hill/defending terrain?

Last, but not least, the writing of the unlabbelled proposal (which I
will call 13c) does not solve the case of infamous pytagoran attacks.
It just forces the opponent to split his attack in 2 movements: 1 to
be entirely behind the front line, one to make contact.
I would hate to be the umpire called to judge whether that
intermediate step is truly "not yet in contact but fully behind front
line" in some short distance situations.
Since removing the possibility of pytagoran attacks has always been
the goal of this RV, I strongly oppose the 13c) wording


>
> 14a) Morale Rout test
> Change 8.1 to define rout path (3") direction as follows:
> * To the front if enemy contact is on rear edge
> * To the opposite flank if enemy contact is on rear corner only
> * To the rear otherwise
> NOTE: A Fail on the Rout die is as A2 i.e. a Break
>
> >Accepted by those that want simplicity.

VA: that's my case, except that I would prefer a 2" only rout path to
avoid generating 2 tests in case of a rear corner attack on a group of
deep LC (3" is wider than a LC unit, 2" is less).

>
> 14b) Morale Rout Test
> 1. All units touching a massed unit that breaks check regardless of
> direction.
> 2. Any unit (except if alone in its own division) in the rout path
> (straight back to own table edge) is considered as blocking the massed
> units' path to the base line, therefore is burst through and must
> check.
> 3. Light units do not cause heavy units to check, but heavy units
> cause ALL units to check.
>
> Procedure:
> A d6 roll of a "1" causes 1 BP to be applied to the testing unit, if
> heavy infantry.
> A d6 roll of "1-2" causes 1 BP to be applied to the testing unit, if
> other type.
> A unit with a General in base contact adds +1 to the d6 roll.
>
> If BP loss causes a testing unit to break, it does so, and its rout
> path traced back to its baseline. All additional tests caused by this
> break are now carried out.
>
> NOTE:
> 1) 12b Flank/Rear Attack may be tested with 13a Rout/Morale Test
> 2) 12a Flank/Rear Attack may be tested with 13b Rout/Morale Test
>
> >Accepted by those that want more flavour.

VA: I have not seen many reports of the effect of this rule,
especially in the case of (light) cavalry battles where I am very
worried that the additional BP from friends in the same division
routing could have extreme impacts.

>
>
> Phase 2 (not yet revised or added to in 2009)
> This will include
> 1) anything that is thrown up by Phase 1 Testing
> 2) Specific Troops Type (PH, CATs LB, Schiltrons, Kiels etc).
> 3) Generals, sub-Generals.
> 4) Increase of terrain templates for `light' armies
> 5) -2 over ½ range (and -1 under ½ range?) for single base SI
> 6) Infliction of Fatigue by SI missiles (until a target is fully
> fatigued where missile hits then inflict casualties)
> 7) Increase CR to include SI Divisions
> 8) Impetus support for Missile Troops
> 9) Status of LHI/LI as Key troops.
> 10) Impact on Antiquites/AoE of Phase 1 Rule Variant 7
> 11) Double sized terrain for Light Armies
> 12) PROT increase for Units in Shield Wall
> 13) LC Jav
> 14) Anything else.
>
> Cheers
> Rodge
>