A Few Ahistorical Matches

[Chris]

Gentlemen,

For your perusal, picking apart, or passing over entirely, I submit the following reports of three solo wargames (much more reasonable in size) played with the
TO THE STRONGEST! rules and the latest version of amendments/updates.

Here is the link: https://nopaintingrequired.blogspot.com/search/label/Historical%20Hocus-Pocus


Thanks in advance for your consideration and time.

Cheers,
Chris

[Imperial Dave]

Nice one Chris

[Erpingham]

Thanks Chris.  Funny thing about ancients gaming are the ahistorical match-ups.  A very long standing tradition, as we've discussed before.  I think it's another of those spectrum things. At one end, refights with correct OOBs and everyone confined to historical deployments and orders.  At the other complete free for all.  Even Charles Grant Sr., quoted with approval in Chris' report, fought a lot of "roughly historical" match-ups - imaginary encounters with generic historical opponents.  I think I'd fit on a roughly similar point on the scale.

[dwkay57]

Being roughly "in period" or "in technology" I feel is generally acceptable. Alexander faced Thracians who aren't too dissimilar to Ancient Britons (excluding the chariots and the romphia) and the Britons were probably fighting in that style at that time. It also tends to avoid the "oh no, not another barbarian invasion" (see Simple Campaigning by John Graham-Leigh) complaint if one is limited in your choice of armies and more so by their historical opponents.

Your report of the Romans trying to chase down a cavalry army brought back memories of my experiences when using WRG 4th/5th. Having the biggest army you could on the smallest table size was probably the best strategy.

[Imperial Dave]

Dirty great blocks of irregular D with sub generals