Doing some chariot stuff

 As I was away the week before last, I missed the initial trial of Ian's chariot rules, "Rein-bow Warriors". As Ian is the man to talk to about bronze age chariot warfare it was good to be about for game number two. Especially as game number two featured Jon's 28mm Hittites and Egyptians.


This is what we can do now. The umpire's in Cornwall, the figures are in Washington state and the players are scattered around Northamptonshire. Chris K and I were the Hittites, and Phil & Steve the Egyptians. We're nearest the camera, with the stream to our right.


Now, you have to bear in mind that the players are feeling their way forwards with a newish period and new rules. This period is Ian's passion project, and has been as long as I've known him. Some of us have dallied with his ideas over the past decades, but now he's retired he can really get them sorted out.

You should know that he sees chariots like helicopter gunships crossed with WW1 fighters. They dominate the battlefield and engage in dogfights whilst the infantry cower in fear.

Right. Turn one. We launch our chariots off from our front line, followed up by the reserves. This leaves holes in our lines, but no worries. We'll see what happens.


The smoke clouds represent the dust being kicked up by the chariots and shows the area that they are fighting in (the "dogfight arena" Ian calls it). Infantry cannot go into this zone, and can't shoot through the dust clouds.


Our respective light infantry skirts round the outside, looking for opportunities. The white and black dice represent the unit's "mettle". When it is hit this goes down and the unit takes a mettle test, which sees it drop again if it fails it. Whilst you are on the white dice you can do what you like. When that's gone, your actions are restricted. 

The green dice represents arrow supply for chariots.

We had discussions about why the Hittites would deploy to create holes in their lines, and how easy it was to close them up. Ian changed his view on the latter point during the game - it's why we playtest - but for now it was a hard thing to do. I tried to move my infantry across to the right to close up and get at that open flank. And avoid the Egyptian archers.


This is Jon rotating the chariots as they whirl around each other.


As the chariots shoot at each other, the light infantry exchange missiles too on the left and right flanks.


In the far distance, Phil is moving his infantry across to cover that open flank. 


We've lost our light infantry on the left, and on the right both units have caused their opponents to rout.


Having shot off their arrows both sets of chariots retired to resupply. This sequence caused some vexation. Ian wants to use simultaneous movement, which is hard to do on Zoom. In his face to face game you have move chits you place on the units with your orders.


Our cunning plan was to throw all of our chariots round our left wing, and envelope their right. Phil has closed off their left by the river.

We outnumber them in chariots, so we should win this. The infantry that moved during the resupply phase has reduced the size of the dogfight arena available. 


As time was marching on, I continued to shift our infantry to the right, so I could at least get into combat and fight something before I went to bed.

On our left our cunning plan was unravelling as Chris simply couldn't hit anything where he had a 3:1 advantage. Simple probabilities would have indicated that he would destroy this unit or force it off with a round of arrows still to spare. In practice he hardly scratched the paint work. Dice, eh? What are the good for?


The demand for a close up of the action meant the Martians landed. In the centre the Egyptian archers were shooting lumps off me.


Unit destroyed by archery, followed by a debate about what happens when they rout and when they actually rout. Meanwhile my other infantry unit charged home, hitting two opposing units. This may have not been wise.


Whilst the chariot melee continued, with Chris still being pretty much completely ineffective, I got stuck in with my other infantry. These were slash & hack troops, and really did a lot of damage on the archers, but didn't break them. My spear troops, however, were broken and fled.


Final turn when we stopped. Ian had got over his coyness about infantry movement in other than the straight plane, and allowed the infantry on my right to wheel right round and engage (compare this to the amount of wheeling I was doing in the first few pictures). That killed any chance of me breaking through, whilst on the left the chariot melee ended in a protracted discussion about whether retiring for resupply was automatic or not and other associated issues.

It was a stimulating evening, giving a different model of Bronze Age Warfare than that usually followed. There are a number of interesting ideas bubbling away here, but I don't think Ian has got the mix right just yet. No doubt we will see them again, in refined form. Our private email group is already kicking around suggestions and likes/dislikes. It is important for Ian to be happy with the outcome, and we need to get on board with his "vision" of how it looks and plays, even if we think it could be done differently. That's the case with my own rules. I get a lot of feedback from the MNG. I listen to all of it, but I have a clear idea, usually, in my head of how it should work. This means we may have a difference of opinion about what should happen. If we do, I get the deciding vote on my rules, as does Ian on his. 



Comments

  1. Graham, this is an excellent report of the battle. I, too, was surprised by Chris' inability to hit anything with his two flanking chariots. I figured Phil would be done for very soon but that did not happen and why we play the game. I really wanted Chris to swing around his left with those same two flanking chariots and engage Ramesses, himself, to see what happens. I thought the Hittites might end Ramesses' rein right there!

    You are correct about game design, it is the designer's prerogative to bring that vision to light and to the table. Collectively, playtesters bring diversity of background and opinion into the discussion. Hopefully these exercises provide valuable feedback and insight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was very frustrating, watching Chris fail with those troops. It is also frustrating with a mechanism that alternates roll high/roll low and you get them the wrong way round.

      Delete
    2. Switching from Roll-High/Roll-Low can be confusing especially when you must score Target Number or higher in Missile Fire/Combat yet score Target Number or lower in Mettle Tests. Easy to mix up, for sure. But then, this plays havoc with players who tend toward rolling high or rolling low in strings. I think we can do away with spinning the chariot scrum around each turn too.

      Delete
    3. At least in the game it alternates, most of the time, so you can get in a rhythm. As for spinning the chariots, I sent an email out to the group with a suggestion of how to make it work in a more believable way, and with a purpose.

      Delete
  2. Not a period I know much, if anything about! I wonder if we will ever really have a good idea of how chariots were actually used, but at least Ian has his vision, which is a good thing. The playtesters can then ask those awkward (or not) questions to help clarify things for all concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there is a consensus amongst those that know about these things that Ian has got the dogfight thing about right. Mark Fry has been playing around with a "Wheels of War" variant for a number of years now.

      Delete
  3. Still a lot of issues to resolve with Chariots. It was amusing to see the dice providing an outlier result on what should have been a 2:1 overrun with superior quality chariots, but that's what playtests do. It may be that Ian's combat mechanism of roll 2D6 and add the difference to the higher makes that sort of result more likely as the distribution curve slumps wider at two standard deviations and flatter at the centre but with the 12 and 2 missing and doubles leaching to a zero result on morale but double casualties or officer incident on shooting. Jon has probably already run the hundred or so iterations that it would take to find that out :-) (I wasn't quite sure what Ian was playing when at various times). The mettle test works like EDNA on steroids, so should favour the larger side and better quality troops.

    There is also still a lot to discuss re the way that chariots work as the tip of the spear; the shaft being their own supporting light and line infantry. You came to the battle without prior knowledge of the first playtest, so would be unaware of what Ian thought chariots could and could not do at the end of the last game, as opposed to his emailed explanations prior to the second.

    Ian's initial thoughts at the end of the last game were hovering around "chariots pair off", and the question of what happens to extra chariots if one side is larger than the other had not been answered. I still don't believe that the extras would park up and politely wait their turn, but we will see. Without the challenge of a large melee, those issues would not have become apparent. It was interesting to see him develop his game mechanism ideas, which are not yet as clear as his overall vision, and the third iteration is likely to see chariots being used differently again. This will, of course, throw up fresh conundrums.

    Ian believes that Kings should be leaving the Hero Stuff to their generals rather than mixing it out front, So both Phil and I pushing our Kings forward has crystallised that decision. You saw Ian's ideas develop first hand with your own infantry, as you have remarked.

    Squares were used in the first game, but I think personally that the game is better without them, as it pushes the players into a rectilinear way of thinking that is incompatible with the swirling vision of chariots that Ian has. I may be alone in holding that view. I also think that oval or round bases for chariots would help in that respect.

    Regards, Chris.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are there more words in that comment than the original blog?? I'm conscious that I missed the original game, but we have both been on the receiving end of Ian's views on chariots for a while, including the publication of "Call it Qids". There's still a way to go to move the game onto one that survives contact with the players. I await what Ian does next with interest. I know Ian tried squares on his first trial, which I missed, and that it wasn't a success. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, and there are benefits in trying to make the combat appear more dynamic, as the MNG is discussing amongst itself. The issue that Ian has is he wants to define the "dogfight arena" where the chariots fight. That's an up and down space - see his diagrams posted elsewhere of the caracole - with boundaries other troops may not cross. Squares solve the issue of defining exactly where that space is, and also enables it to evolve over the course of a combat.

      Delete

Post a Comment