Tags : :
here are some random comments ( can't help it - being a game designer myself)
1)Lances vs Pikemen I would forbid the use of lances in frontal charge vs pikemen, no need to explain why...
2) Rus army list Rus rank and file really shouldn't get the option to upgrade to extra 2HW. It turns them into super-vikings, which they weren't. Really there is no reason to make tham more powerful than the Viking Hird. Rus infantry were for the most part spearmen ( shieldwall category is adequate here) who are only reported to use a one-hand axe as a secondary weapon and on rare occasions. They were pretty solid so one or two upgradable to veteran is an option.
3) Generals in army lists I find it a bit confusing sometimes: for example the Raiders and invaders list of Late Antiquity ( they are a few lists with the same issue) lists "Attached generals 1-3 for a cost of 4," but then lists "upgrade to heroic: all, for a cost of +1". Doesn't that mean that all generals must be heroic? If so, why not write "attached heroic generals 1-3 for a cost of 5"? Not sure I got it right...
4) Allies I think it would be a good idea to aplly the DBM system to akllied contingents, that is, a fraction (I would recommend half) of the minima and maxima. Combining two armies with the current requirements and a 130 points limit leaves most allied options out, which is a bit sad.
5) Demoralization strangely the current rules seems to me to go against the simplicity postulate of the rules. First, recording the victory points for each command and having to keep track of each command's losses during the game is a lot less simple than keeping track for the whole army. Second, apllying demoralization on a command basis may seem a good idea, but it actually has a perverse effect: if the number of generals abstractly represents the global leval of training and discipline of an army, then a higher number of general means smaller commands, means that demoralization will happen a lot faster than for armies with large commands. A Roman army with 4-5 generals will have commandof two units, meaning that when one is lost the other immediately suffers the harsh demoralization penalties. If you play a Gallic army with two commands of 6 unist each, it will take a lot before you see any demoralized units. It should be the opposite.
In addition, making camps attached to a specific command is kinda artificial, as baggage was generally the supply train of the whole army, undifferentiatedly. attaching them the a small command often makes that command super resistant to demoralization while the neighbouring command isn't, which is hard to justify
I would recommend calculating demoralization on an army basis because:
1) it is simpler to calculate and keep track of during the game
2) it does not contradict the logic of better trained/disciplined army being less vulnerable
3) it makes camps and baggage effect more realistic
( I would recommend making charging for demoralized units a difficulty factor, rather than forbidding it altogether, in order not to "paralyze" the demoralized army. Also, the army should remain demoralized even if it later regains enough victory points to go abover the threshold, as it should simulate physical fatigue as well as moral pressure)
6) Heroes Now here's something I confess I don't like in the sytem. First, it seems to me that "heroes" are more appropriate to heroic fantasy wargaming than History. Heroic actions, specially actions that would have a perceptible effect at the scale of the whole batlle, were exceptionnelly rare, and when reported, often more fiction than reality. In addition, when such actions happened, they were spontaneous manifestations of courage, and not "assets" that a commander could place here or there, to trigger at his best convenience, as part of his battle plan, so they are really best represented as "incorporated" in lucky To Hit or Saves.
Also, they are overpriced in the game.
But hey, I guess some players may like that "Warhammer" fantasy feeling about heroes, so having a "0-1 heroes" per army list is ok to me, if a player really wants one, as long as those who do not subscribe to that are free not to have any. (In which case, I would make heroes removable only on a sucessful To Hit - opponents still have a chance to save- in order to make them more cost-effective).
But what I don't get at all, is that most lists have " or 4 to 8 MANDATORY heroes!!!!!! Now, besides the frustrating aspect of forcing players to spend points on an historically very low-cerdibility addition to their army, of very little use for its price, it seems to me that it completely defeats the very definition of a hero, that is, a very exceptional phenomenon!!!! If EACH battle features SEVERAL heroes on EACH side, even for Middle Earth standards that's crazily exaggerated. Are there any examples of historical battles reporting MULTIPLE significant heroic actions from MULTIPLE sources from BOTH sides ??
Please, if you don't remove heroes altogether which seems to me the best solution, make them rare, and most of all, not compulsory!!
(I also tend to find the mandatory "half or more" heroic generals a little too widespeard in the list, I would keep such high prerequisite for "Impetuous" lists, and for others make it optional)
anyway, keep up the good work,
I'm very much looking forward to the evolutions of the system