MONGOLS vs MONGOLS

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

"A Meeting Of Mongols" (typed using Georgia font) was posted on 07 February to this blog.
This was a large scenario played solo using TRIUMPH!

Twenty days later, what might be called a follow up meeting has just been posted. This was an equally if not also unusually large scenario played solo using TO THE STRONGEST!

This longer report contains approximately 5,900 words compared to around 1,200 words, was typed using Times New Roman, and the roughly 4,700 more words are due to a format experiment.

This second report also includes six maps, which should provide more of a narrative.

For those who may be interested, please see


https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Another%20Meeting%20of%20Mongols



Thanks in advance for your time.

Cheers,
Chris

[CarlL]

Chris
As another 'beginner' with TtS (in terms of games pplayed, although having had the rules since their first publication), I would agree with your understanding of how terrain features denote a grid (square) even if only partly occupying that grid.
I don't think I have come across anyone trying to deploy an army in TtS, like your 'white' Mongols with 78 units of cavalry, 16 generals and 18 heroes. I think you might have broken the 'bank' in terms of how the rules are intended to work: with much less units, up to 4 (roughly) generals and 4 (roughly) heroes. Mind the opposing side had 85 units, 18 generals and 25 heroes. I think at this point you may have scuppered the rules playability?
The 164 attempted shooting at enemy, (each requiring a chit) kind of blows the mind! And this all by the end of turn 5 (see map 4). Bow units usually start a game with 6 ammo chits each so if attempting to shoot each turn, then a light cavalry unit could expend 5 ammo chits (not necessarily with success) by end of turn 5. The rules (when using a points based army system) does allow a general to 'buy' a small reserve of ammo chits that starts in the army's camp.  Although I didn't see any camps in either army's order of battle in your notes.
Chris, your battle report is very detailed and reflective which are positive factors.
However I don't think your game design really help anyone develop a feel for To The Strongest rules and how any manoeuvre develops on a grid playing surface as your battlefield was chokka from flank to flank, and there were reserves off table too!
Perhaps not a report for those beginning with TtS.
Thanks for posting
CarlL

[Chris]

Cheers Carl,

Thanks very much for taking the time to read through my recently posted report.    Thanks, too, for offering your comments and remarks, which I will try to address or reply to in the order they were given.

Terrain rules/ruling - That makes two of us, then. I should have made the effort to find the reference(s) within the rules. My interpretation was developed after seeing a number of reports wherein the various features seemed to fit nicely within the limits of the established boxes or squares. Anyway, as I described in the report, none of the features "modeled" on my tabletop played a significant role in the engagement.

Size of battle and rules intention - I cannot imagine that you would have or would be likely to stumble across anyone deploying an army or armies of the size that were employed in my recent scenario. I think I commented on (or struggled with) this choice several times, first in the "introduction" and then in the Q and A. Like most folks on this side of the Atlantic, I have an appreciation for the English accent and so, find words like "scuppered" charming and unique, I am not sure that I succeeded in sinking (synonymous with "scuppered is my guess) the rules, as the ridiculously large scenario was played to a Victory Medal-based conclusion.

Ammunition supply and etc. -  On page 22 of Version 1.1 of the rules, under the description of Light Cavalry in the alphabetical examination of the troop types it reads: "Light cavalry armed with bow or crossbow start with three ammunition chits and have a special shoot and move activation available to them. They save on 8+." With so many units of LC on the table, and with the chance of shooting more than once in a turn, reaching the total of 164 "volleys" by the conclusion of Turn 5 was not that unexpected, even if I admit, it was a large number of arrow shafts being traded back and forth. (There was brief consideration of trying to figure out the percentage of success here, but . . .)

On further review, it appears that I did not provide the veteran light cavalry units with an extra ammunition marker. Some of the units on both sides should have started the battle with 4 markers or bow volleys instead of just 3. On page 16 of this troop type description section, Bowmen units (regular-sized and so worth 2 victory medals) are provided 6 ammunition chits at the start of a scenario.

Ammo reserve & camps - I am familiar with these provisions. The availability of additional ammo was considered but then rejected. Typically, I don't place camps on my ancient battlefields. I have, on rare occasion, done so, but have found that they sometimes or can lead to "gamey" situations. It is interesting to study the source material, however, regarding the placement and distances of actual camps from opposing sides in recorded battles. It is also interesting to see how often they were attacked or sacked during an actual encounter. (Here, I am thinking of Gaugamela and Agincourt to name only two wide-spread examples. I am sure there are others.)

Details and Reflections - Thanks very much for your compliments on these two areas. It seems that the more map-oriented and Q & A approach might worth using or exploring more.

Game Design and TtS! Beginners - In my defense (not that I feel attacked at all), I do not think that I presented this scenario or report as a way for readers to "develop a feel" for Simon's rules. This can be accomplished in a simpler and surely more pleasing way by searching the Internet for tutorials and examples of games played. (There are quite a few.) I knew going in that the tabletop would be "chokka" (another example of appealing and particularly English word choice) and so, would probably limit my ability to maneuver (or manoeuvre). It seems that my use of "magnified" maps or diagrams created the impression that both sides had reserves off table. They did not. The "close ups" offered in the latter maps did not allow me to cover the entire tabletop or section thereof. As such, I had to explain in the caption box that one or both sides had additional troops behind the area that was "pictured." Indeed and admittedly, very likely not a report for those beginning with TtS!. Then again, maybe this map-oriented narrative could provide them an example of what not to do.

Admin Note: Early indicators show that the report has generated some interest on the TtS! Forum, but there has not been a single comment or reply made. Perhaps there is a message contained within that lack of response? 

Thanks again for taking the time to read ANOTHER MEETING OF MONGOLS and for offering your constructive criticism and comments.

Good gaming, 
Chris

 

[Erpingham]

Scupper tends to be used to mean "ruin, undermine, thwart" e.g. " The rain scuppered their plans for a picnic"

I appreciate your efforts to understand our idioms 

[Jim Webster]

Scupper tends to be used to mean "ruin, undermine, thwart" e.g. " The rain scuppered their plans for a picnic"

I appreciate your efforts to understand our idioms 

Hence scupper a ship, it ruins its whole day 

[Erpingham]

Hence scupper a ship, it ruins its whole day

Curious, I had to look at the evolution of the verb in the OED. Much to my surprise, the use of scuppered meaning scuttled is later than meaning destroy or ruin.  Etymology is speculative but a possibility is that casualties were rolled into the scuppers to keep the decks clear in action, hence a dead man was scuppered. Grim.

[Chris]

Anthony and Jim,

Appreciate the etymological digging. Language and the evolution of it is quite interesting.

Going back to Carl's original text or comment, he theorized or wondered if "at this point I may have scuppered the rules playability."

Given that the scenario was completed and resulted in a very costly win for the one group of Mongols, it appears that I did not scupper the rules, though I do suppose that I offended other gamers sense and sensibility by employing such large armies as well as such non-traditional ones. (Had I purchases and prepared WoFun "figures," it seems that some would have offered faint praise. [I am borrowing a bit from another recent discussion thread.]

Anyway, I wonder if it's redundant to inquire at which point or points do rules become "scuppered"? (This is asked to all and not just the university dons named above.) 

Thanks again for the etymology lesson. I think I will do some looking myself.

Chris

[Erpingham]

Anyway, I wonder if it's redundant to inquire at which point or points do rules become "scuppered"? (This is asked to all and not just the university dons named above.) 

Actually, I think its an interesting question.  An obvious answer was if you step beyond the author's expressed design criteria, you run that risk.  If, say, the author says "these are skirmish rules and work best with each player controlling a dozen figures" and you try to fight a battle with fifty figures per player.  You may find progress happens much too slowly, or book-keeping becomes massively complex and the game isn't satisfactory.

[Chris]

Anthony,
Thanks again for weighing in and continuing to carry the conversation. Agree with your obvious example. (Admin note: My estimation re traffic and remarks for the Mongols meeting - 2nd - has generated 2 comments on the blog, and thus far, 1 like over on the TtS! forum. Anyway.)

I have seen pictures of massive TtS! games. There is one of Pydna at the back of the original rule book. A tabletop 18 feet long and 8 players, I think. Something like 3,000 figures. It appears that Carl's concerns or objections may be reduced then, as Simon's rules seem more than able to handle mega-games.

A few other sets seem workable as well. Here, I am thinking of Armati, ADLG, and Triumph or it's grand version. And Tactica II, too, even though Simon Watson would counsel me (reasonably so) to limit my scaling up. I have seen and read reports of big battle DBA and I would be surprised if there were no larger DBM/DBMM scenarios in existence.

I agree that slowing things down is a concern. I have not run into too many book-keeping related problems, fortunately. The level of satisfaction is tied to a myriad of variables, most depending on the mindset of the gamer(s) involved and present or playing by Zoom.

Cheers,
Chris

[CarlL]

Chris,
Thank you for your further comments.

Your battle was quite simply "huge" and the kind of large game few of us ever play! I have no objections to such games.

I probably could have explained my use of word scuppering by reference to my thinking that two cavalry armies may seek open plain with lots of space for movement and shooting from distance rather than a head on confrontation. I presumed I would find a game of movement more fun than a head on clash!

I think your game and report were excellent. Its just different approach I had in my head (so I suppose that could be a bias in my thinking aloud in my first comments) to how I might deploy two mobile cavalry armies! So my apologies if this felt critical of what you did.

I did once participate in a re-fight of the battle of Gaugemela on a tabletop of some 20+ feet by 6 feet (roughly 7x2 metres) which was a collective undertaking bringing together many peoples' figures, (small and large 'collections') and played over a weekend in 1970! It's not an easy type of game to stage.

I think there can be a snobbery aspect to figure collections. I realise my own biases can creep into my comments, like not favouring very expensive, very detailed 30mm metal figures! (I know there are some beautiful 28mm/30mm figures shared on this forum. They are beautiful. Just not my favoured style. I hope I am fair in my comments rather than over critical!!??)

But I think what's most important is enjoying what each of us play and how we play it, and (again my bias) enjoy using painted figures to do so. Keraunos, your report suggested you had fun!

I had fun reading your report.
CarlL

[Chris]

Cheers Carl,

Almost always content to provide further explanation, justification, or reasoning regarding my choices when it comes to ancient wargaming and writing about same.   

Admittedly, the contest was unusually large.   Interesting point that: is there something about the large or larger games that is unappealing or inappropriate (time, space, number of players with similar schedule, investment in figures and terrain, etc.) for the majority of gamers?

Finding out more about the origin and history of "scuppering" was a delightful diversion. I have already added it my figurative list of British English idioms and expressions. 

Point(s) taken regarding the game of movement vs a head-on contest between two mobile forces. Again, I plead comparative ignorance with respect to the history of Mongol warfare and battlefield tactics. I would imagine, however, that at times, there were clashes of fairly large bodies of horsemen. These were probably fluid actions, complete with lots of evading and attacking. Difficult to reconstruct on a certain size playing surface to say nothing of recreate with most sets of rules.

Thanks for the compliment. Appreciated. No offense taken, to be sure. In fact, while I do like the occasional compliment or response, I think there is much to be said for constructive criticism. It forces one to reconsider and rethink, or think in different ways, and so, encourage a little bit of growth.

Good grief! That sounds like a gigantic Gaugamela game! Do you have any further recollections? Rules employed? Scale and manufacturers of figures? What historical figure did you play? What were the opinions? Pictures? Have you participated in anything as massive since that 1970 weekend?

Regarding "the snobbery aspect to figure collections" . . . I am reminded of vocabulary exercises I have seen in a number of classrooms wherein students decide on the "color" of words that mean the same things or close to the same thing. It's kind of a word spectrum or painting chart, to bring it back to the color analogy. Anyway.

Those who can afford the larger scale figures and have the talent or have developed the talent to paint well, do. Those that prefer the smaller scales and are "capable" painters, also do. Those that like 6mm and smaller, and prefer the mass effect when viewed from 3-5 feet, also do. To be sure, these are very broad and simple divisions of a hobby that is individual as well as a group effort. I would not presume to prohibit you from making comments about topics which interest or move you to do so. You cannot control the way someone reacts to what they read or hear said.

I second the comments and observations made in your final paragraph.

Thanks again for taking the time to weigh in.

Good gaming, Carl.

Chris