Spartans vs Vikings - Part 2

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

The title says it all . . .

Interested parties are invited to read and comment, if so moved, at:

https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Spartans%20vs%20Vikings%3A%20Part%202

Cheers,
Chris

[Erpingham]

No real comments to make on the Vikings this time - they'd be the same as last time.  The idea of incorporating berserks into formations as bonus givers, rather than units of berserks, is probably an improvement, provided you limit the number of units that can receive this enhancement.

I have an ambivalent attitude to "bucket of dice" mechanisms.  On one hand, the throwing of great handfuls of dice and picking through them is physically engaging - fun even.  On the other hand, it is a long-winded mechanism which inevitably slows the game.  These days, I do prefer "one dice per unit" type systems, though I'm not averse to throwing further dice in the resolution phase e.g. morale checks.

[Chris]

Anthony,
Appreciate the feedback even so. I will look forward to several more instances of "no comments" as there are 4 more scenarios/rulesets to go. 

Unless, of course, something does occur that impels you or another to take the time to reply.

I can see your point re "buckets of dice" and the fun therein, but I think this works better when engaged against a living opponent or sharing the duties of command with 2 or 3 more players. (Comments about poor or good rolls being the norm, I suppose.)

I would also place myself in the "one dice per unit in combat" camp or school . . . attribute this to early experiences with the Armati rules.

Cheers,
Chris

[dwkay57]

It seems from your conclusion Chris, that you felt the rules didn't allow the armies to perform "in character", partly due to the variability of the dice rolls. Is that correct?

[Chris]

Hello David,

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.

Well, it's hard to say. I am not a regular/frequent player of HC, so I do not feel entirely qualified to remark upon the rules in this regard.

I do know that there are a lot (at least to me) dice involved. The "specials" permitted in the rules do provide differentiation between units. For example, Spartans (true Spartans) can be quite loaded or stacked with 'specials.' On the other hand, certain Viking units, say the chieftains bodyguard, can also be loaded with 'specials.'

Perhaps I should have made the Vikings the aggressors? Perhaps I should have changed the scenario and terrain?

While I acknowledge that this "experiment" is not really formal and is not being repeated, save for the opponents, since dice are being used in 5 out of 6 scenarios, I suppose that there is a chance that the dice will provide results that are unexpected.

As for "character," well . . . I confess to being swayed by movies and TV versions of history. I need to focus more on contemporary source materials.

Thanks again for reading.

Cheers,
Chris

[dwkay57]

It was interesting to compare this with the other Viking v Spartan battle report.
There did seem to be some similarities in the two battles and the way the different sides fought.

[Chris]

David,

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

When I finish with all 6 scenarios, I will try to do a summing up and so forth.

I find myself eager for this next one, featuring Impetvs rules and some interesting terrain.

However, I currently have a "4th Punic War" battle going on with TRIUMPH!

I am also thinking about an Indian vs Seleucids mega-game with those rules.

I find myself distracted by wanting take another try at Murten - so to correct what I got wrong with first, etc.

Anyway.

Cheers,
Chris

[dwkay57]

I was thinking more of the CK battle report which appeared just before yours Chris.

[Chris]

Ahh . . . Very well.

That was an interesting game. I posted my comment to the TMP thread.

I hope to get the IMPETVS scenario started soon.

Cheers,
Chris