SoA Forums

Gentlemen,

In this companion piece or sequel to "Parthian Shots," the Armati 2nd Edition rules are used in three scenarios.

Those pesky (and quite abstract in form) Parthians do battle with Seleucids, Romans, and Sarmatians. 

An open invitation for review and perchance, a comment or two . . .

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Parthians%20Aplenty



Cheers & thanks for your time,
Chris

Chris, each of your Parthian refights is tour de force in the meticulous application of the scientific approach to study.

As with your Triumph playthroughs, these refights using Armati are HUGE efforts.  Being an interested bystander familiar with neither of your chosen rules, I really have only a faint grasp of how each play.  While you dived deeply into pushing each ruleset through its Parthian Paces, I come away with little sense of how Armati and Triumph compare in head-to-head action.  I am sure those wargamers playing these rules pick up these intricacies but to me, most of this is beyond my grasp.  Are you planning a third installment laying out the differences and similarities between the two along with what each offer to the ancients' gamer?  What you like and do not like in each and why would be most insightful.

Thanks for another massive and interesting effort.   

Jon,
Thanks, as always, for taking the time out of your busy Zoom gaming, posting, and painting schedule to read and comment. It's nice to have a "fan club." 

Your critique is well taken and spot on.  Evidently, I am in sore need of an editor. This person would ensure that my decidedly amateur (and wordy) efforts would focus more on mechanics and process than so-called narrative.

At the risk of disappointing my "fan club," I regret to inform that a third installment is not planned. 

At the risk of divulging too much, this Monday finds me rather lacking in the oft referred to "mojo."      This, despite having two or possibly three more posts in queue.

C'est la guerre. Ne c'est pas? [Fluent speakers of the language will forgive the butchering. It has been years since I parlez vous-ed.]

Cheers,
Chris

I think Jon's point is not so much of an edit as a constructional approach.  A detailed explanation of how a battle fought under any ruleset is more fun for those who use that set.  A explicit comparison of how two rulesets perform with the same challenge is interesting to not only that audience but a wider group.  Jon is very much considered a blog guru out there, so his ideas on widening the appeal of your blog are worth considering, though I expect Jon would also say "Your blog - express yourself your way".

Chris,

Having twice (if hastily) read through the rules you used, as you had amended them, and other changes like base sizes then I would conclude that the result ISN'T  "Armati 2nd Edition rules are used in three scenarios" but Chris's rules, based on ideas in Armati 2nd edition and others, your own (many of which I like as a veteran Armati player) and others. Like those you refer to by other veteran players like Mark Fry - who no longer plays Armati I think, and whose changes were not universally accepted but as a then BHGS umpire held sway at BHGS tournaments; and Roy Boss who still plays Armati. 

I think the changes make the geometry of the game different and in many cases the rules you have created just are not Armati: eg changes to interpenetration rules; giving troops a chance to break off from melee - which in Armati had been restricted to cavalry and warbands .. from memory as its a year since I last played with armati and my rules are not to hand at my grandsons! Or changes to shooting factors, or impetus. Many of your changes have good merit but the resulting games are not demonstrations of Armati but of your own rule amendments. I haven't yet read through the resulting games so I will defer on if the changes give a better game or provide 'historical feel'.

I also think that reducing the units 'footprint' on the tabletop doesn't logically lead to reductions in missile ranges or movement. For example, a smaller footprint may lead a logical conclusion that these reduced bases are representative of understrength units and perhaps lead to reductions in the value of the units strength points (SP) to reflect reduced numbers although strength points in Armati, (again from memory) were intended not to just reflected numbers of troops in a unit but their morale worth too (hence veteran units gained and extra SP).

Terrain rules or rather limited use of terrain in Armati games as published in the rules were always a weakness.

While open spaces, the relative mobility (and capacity to change direction by about face or wheeling) were always strengths in Armati that favoured horse archer armies, like the Parthians (as did the evade rule). Of course the other bonus for a horse archer army in Armati (far different from DBA and its derivatives like DBM and DBMM) was the inherent belief that two systems of warfare existed in ancients times: close quarter fighting and distant fighting (achieved through bows mainly but slingers could also prove their worth on a battlefield).  And I think Armati created a means to represent both and create a game that could be played to conclusion in an evening. By expanding to 200 points you are also moving away from this Armati aspect, I think 70 and 75 points were the biggest armies I ever used.

One of the core aspects of Armati (albeit using relatively modern structural terms) was the limitation on command and control created by limiting each army to a maximum number of divisions (think medieval battles?) of either heavy or light troops. This limited the player / generals capacity to  tinker and forced the player / general to form units (which again was a core Armati idea going back to 'traditional gaming mechanics') into larger groupings. Sometimes an imbalance of divisions between two armies would tip the playability of a game in the favour of an army with more 'heavy' divisions but not always. Sometimes the bigger the number of units the less flexible the army or the more advantaged an army with more light troops like the Parthian with light cavalry. I lost sight of how you managed this core aspect although I saw you brought this into your re-fight army descriptions. I think too many divisions again makes for too much control for a Player / General whose presence would only be felt at counsel of war before a battle (and thus in how the army deployed and intended to fight.. eg defensive posture along a line or echeloned 'battles/ divisions' taking the battle to the enemy) and in their presence at one point on battlefield. But I lost sight of how you handled this Armati core concept. Perhaps that's down to my reading or missing something or is it something that's just not clear?

It's good to see your work inspired by Armati, but the reader won't find how Armati works in your linked report of your rule amending and subsequent games.
CarlL

Chris,

Hastily read twice through your Parthian versus Seleucid report and thinking solely about how "Armati" is this then three observations came to mind:
1, there are too many divisions. I think your Parthians began with 15. I think this re-fight would have a different feel if divisions perhaps were closer to those in the Armati army lists; can't remember how many this would be off hand but I think half of your total.
2, the photos suggest that in your changes the geometry of the Armati game (or battle) has changed. Heavy cavalry can only deploy wide, light cavalry wide or deep; and among the infantry only heavy foot (like pikes and spears) can deploy deep; so in geometrical terms heavy cavalry should be as deep as heavy infantry (HI) in line; while deep heavy infantry would always be twice as deep as heavy cavalry (HC) in line but only half the HC frontage; while the light cavalry could deploy to same depth and width as HC or HI in line they are also allowed to form deep (so half the frontage of HC or HI in line and twice the depth of HC in line). This deep LC formation makes them more vulnerable to flank attacks but more manoeuvrable on games table, perhaps better reflecting a 'cantabrian circle' as the horse archer LC can shoot from front and flanks and rear unlike any other troop type in Armati.
3. The QRS you used has misled you in respect of "Even though the rules (QRS) informs that the Cataphracts will receive impetus, I wondered about this." Steady pikes, who have not moved in their bound of a turn (from memory) deny impetus to any charging them, and I think this also applies to foot troops armed with spears.

I am enjoying your long and detailed report. Although inspired by Armati, I would say the result is not Armati. But fun and interesting gaming.
CarlL

As a footnote to one of Chris's footnotes! I think the rule set being used in regard to Chris's comment:
"This accomplished gentleman-wargamer also posted a link to an eye-catching campaign-based game featuring Parthians. Please see and prepare to be impressed: http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.com/2014/08/second-outing-for-parthians.html. "
appears to be Tactica Ancients (possibly 1st or 2nd edition) rather than Armati game from the comment in that report that:
"Frustrated, my horse archers disperse into skirmish formation to ride down the pesky enemy javelinmen. If I can get rid of those, I can start to ping away at the phalanxes.  I am, though, under no illusion here - the enemy weight is too great, and I know that I will simply have to skirmish away in front of them." As Light Cavalry can only be in formed units in Armati but in Tactica Light cavalry can deploy in formed units then break down into a sirmish order of individual figures (who can melee other such skirmishers but only shoot at formed troops, and formed troops can sweep away any skirmishers in loose / skirmish order).
CarlL

Carl, your trio of rebuttals to Chris' Parthian posts is useful and enlightening toward advancing the dialogue.  Your analysis helps me (a wargamer unfamiliar with either ruleset) get a more solid feel for these games.

Thank you.

useful discussion all. Always nice to read detailed examinations and disseminations of rulesets by a group of players as it adds much more depth for me. certainly within these electronic 4 walls anyway

Jon,
"rebuttal" isn't what comes to my mind (nor my intent).

I am simply pointing out that when you make so many changes to a rule set you create something else; not necessarily something I disagree with, (I hope I made this plain for all that I thought many of Chris's changes are interesting and what he produces are interesting rules and fun games); but the end result is that this isn't a play test of Armati nor of how Armati handles these two armies.

I always felt Armati (which I presumed was written as tournament set of rules) perhaps penalised both the Seleucids and the Parthians by the rigid and limited allocation of 'divisions' to both armies; but then you (meaning I) need to bear in mind that Armati's author intended for competition games to be within his defined sub-periods.

If memory serves me correctly the Seleucids could have 3 heavy and 3 light divisions while the Parthians was something like 1 heavy and possibly 6 light divisions.  Most of the Successor armies had similar 'division' (ie command and control) limits to give 'balanced' games (in generalship not necessarily troop types). How each player uses these divisions is another issue. A well known Scottish innovator in the Armati GB League, once outwitted me by leaving his heavy foot (nearly all pikes) out of control in one group as close to his baseline as possible while allocating all his command 'points' (ie allocation of heavy and light divisions) to his other troops, mainly on his right flank, which created a flexible force that outflanked my army from his right flank; and rolled me up.  This was very DBA like and totally outwitted me!! (DBA like in sense of being able to use 'pips' - or in Armati rules division allocation - to activate some not all of your force, prior to this I had always found Armati players used their divisions to activate all their available troops. While DBA allows you to switch allocation of pips in subsequent turns, Armati does not; once Armati divisions are created they are fixed till end of game except when a unit is 'destroyed' or 'pursues', I wont go into how these mechanics work.)

I think the larger allocation of divisions as used by Chris creates a different game: yes, using many of the Armati mechanics, and yes, a fun game to read about (and I guess to play) but not Armati in truth or in 'feel'.

I hope this doesn't dishearten Chris or anyone else from playing around with the Armati rules, I would be the first to put my hand up to tinkering to try and create something different. But those not familiar with Armati would mostly likely go away with an inaccurate impression of Armati as a set of tabletop rules; or so I thought. Of course others may disagree. I am all for debate and different ideas or views.

CarlL

CarlL -

Many thanks for your multiple, thoughtful and worthy of thinking seriously about comments regarding my recent "Armati" posts.

Certainly food for thought, if not a seven-course banquet.

As I remarked after General Jon's comments, it does appear that I am in sore need of an editor or at least setting aside a "finished" post for a week or two and then coming back to it with different eyes before posting.

Perhaps I should experiment with a post about experimentation, with regard to what is known historically, as opposed to engaging in a "slash and burn" approach to an established set of rules?

Thanks again for taking the time to read these two posts and provide appreciated and valuable feedback.

Cheers,
Chris

QuotePerhaps I should experiment with a post about experimentation, with regard to what is known historically, as opposed to engaging in a "slash and burn" approach to an established set of rules?

As Carl says, many folks experiment and try out rules tweaks.  From personal experience, there is a Rubicon about adjusting/fiddling with distances, or adjusting factors, and making fundamental design changes.  I think if you are going to talk experimentation, the quest to understand the fundamental design as written, identify what you like and what you don't and whether you cross the line and create something derived from, but different to, the original rule set are interesting questions.  Spoiler alert - I always start by fiddling but am drawn by a mysterious force to cross the line until I end up with something "almost, but not totally, unlike" the original.

Fair enough and again, food or potential topic for a separate post . . .

Perhaps I am reaching here, but is there some connection between rule tweaking and historical refights? (Thinking back to your comments about Jon F's post, which was based on the thoughts expressed in another blog - looking in a mirror, in a mirror, in a mirror maybe?)

Why do we spend 30 in currency (and more  ) to have a rule set and then proceed to tinker with it?

What's our motivation? Where's our evidence? What is our goal or what are our goals?

Cheers,
Chris

Quote from: Chris on February 16, 2023, 01:44:25 PM
Why do we spend 30 in currency (and more  ) to have a rule set and then proceed to tinker with it?

What's our motivation? Where's our evidence? What is our goal or what are our goals?

Cheers,
Chris

Chris, such seemingly innocent questions but, my, you may have wandered into a minefield with no safe passage out.

QuoteWhy do we spend 30 in currency (and more  ) to have a rule set and then proceed to tinker with it?

What's our motivation? Where's our evidence? What is our goal or what are our goals?

Lots of variables    I'm not sure everyone has the same answer.  There are many RAW (rules as written) gamers out there.  Other people are inveterate tinkerers.

If I look at my own motivations, I can detect some underlying personality things.  I don't like radical change - I prefer incremental.  Finding a set of rules I like the feel of and slowly changing them fits better than moving from one set to another.  Then there is an interest in ways of representing things.  Can I get closer to what I want the rules to represent or the experience i want them to deliver by tinkering?   Another thing would perhaps be focussing onto a period rather being generic - I suppose in others that might relate to your question about historical refights, but, as I don't go in for these, it can be what drives me.

Anyway, as I say, complicated.  Best of luck exploring it on the blog.