The Loose Association of Wargamers

We gave my new home-groan Dark Ages rules their first trial tonight.

It was a simple battle between an invading Saxon force & a defending Romano-British army.

The layout (before troops were deployed):




I wanted a terrain with as much forest as I had trees for & some period eye-candy.

Sadly, we got so engrossed in the game I forget to take photos. These all come from after it was all over: a bloody draw.













The game was relatively quick (about 2+ hours) & the mechanisms worked surprisingly well. A few "tweaks" needed so another game in the New Year.

donald

A splendid looking game, Donald (aren't they always).

Good news about the rules.

Iain

Excellent. Good to see some "Dark Age" loveliness. Also brilliant to see people writing their own rules rather than rely on the fictional fair written and sold, by quite often, less knowledgeable people for big bucks. The watchtower looks even better on the table than in isolation (good enough to make me ignore the anachronistic roundhouse ) and the ramparts blend in almost seamlessly

Paul wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:44 pm (good enough to make me ignore the anachronistic roundhouse )

I know but it's all a bit a bit w-i-p. There's a unit of Thracians from Alexander's time (destroyed & removed so they're not in the later photos)that need to get replaced by some Newline Goths (as foederati), I'd like more woods but that's all the trees I currently have, and I'd like some Saxon-ish Longhouses.

You didn't mention the Saxon cavalry......I'd argue they had them later but probably not in the invasion-period & the cataphractii. Now they are an indulgence & quite dubious. My inclusion of them comes from actual inscriptions that record Sarmatians (who did have cataphracts) amongst some garrison troop & the speculation that Athur's Kights of the Roundtable might have originally been them. Tenuous I know.

This period won't get much bigger in terms of figures but I would (& will) sharpen up what I have.

donald

ochoin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:48 pm You didn't mention the Saxon cavalry......I'd argue they had them later but probably not in the invasion-period & the cataphractii. Now they are an indulgence & quite dubious. My inclusion of them comes from actual inscriptions that record Sarmatians (who did have cataphracts) amongst some garrison troop

I think that it's very likely that there were mounted warriors especially amongst the richer echelons of society. There is plenty of evidence from grave goods etc... and art that horses were important in the ritual and warrior aspects of Saxon society in the 5th and 6th centuries. Your cataphracts and the reasoning behind them seem perfectly sound to me, although I must confess that beyond the presence of Sarmatians and their equestrian traditions I don't know much about their appearance in contemporary art and literature (exactly why your knowledge is important for your rules )

Looks like a good game - and extra kudos for shoe-horning in the Napoleonic Carabiniers in photo #7!

Nice looking big game.

Thanks for the kind comments.

On a related note: the rules.

They're meant to be simple. Part of the reason for this is make fora game that can be finished in a reasonable amount of time. The other part is that I think warfare in this era *was* pretty straightforward.Line 'em up & let 'em loose.

So, as a conscious decision, there are minimal C&C aspects.
Attaching the Warlord or his two "Heroes" has certain benefits. The "army" has morale issues after a certain % of losses. That's about it. Each unit can more or less function on its own: for good or evil.

How does this sound?

donald

I have been fiddling around with some rules myself for decades! Mostly a paper exercise with very few games My take on the command structure has been to have unit "Leaders" who do nothing special and are just there as a place holder really "Heroes" who directly affect combat in the unit they're with, "Warlords" who affect the outcome of combats and help with morale and top of the tree (you've guessed it) "Heroic Warlords".

Paul, much like me.

You could argue that this allows your various units a lot of unhistorical freedom & flexibility.
After Friday's game, I found both sides tried to maintain a battle line, seize obvious terrain items (mostly woodland) & not a lot else.

It helped that the L.Roman command was split between a pal & me (he had total command of all mounted forces) & the Saxons had one pal in charge of light troops & cavalry & the other the rest. There was enough low level friction & poor communication to simulate the real thing, I think.

Next game, I'll actually write conflicting orders/goals for all 4 of us.

donald