Other Ancient Warfare Games

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Howdy folks,

I know squat about Ancients, but it has always looked interesting from a gaming viewpoint. I do own Gallic Wars, but not thrilled with the combat system and think they would be good with more of an ACW type along with having the casualties applied at the end of the turn. I think ACW and Naps would be better that way as well except in ambush situations for obvious reasons. Anyway, what I was wondering is are all the games in this series play the same way, I assume they do. The other thing I was wondering is if anybody out there has played any of the Ancient games from Matrix, the Fields of Glory series and if so, how do they play, same way or IgoUgo or something different and how does it compare to these and are they more or less fun than these?

[TJD]

Yes, the AW games all use the same combat system. As for the Matrix games like Field of Glory, the system is very different, it is classic IGUGO and it works very well; combat is based on the table-top gaming system of the same name. The Field of Glory series is just excellent. I've played it for years and can't recommend it highly enough. To answer your last question, I have had more fun playing Field of Glory than any other single wargame, ancient or otherwise. There is also a very strong community of players. It uses the server-based sort of PBEM and this has proven very successful. You will always be able to get a game, usually within minutes.

Field of Glory is currently undergoing a major revision -- it's all being put into a new code base. Everyone owning the original versions will be entitled to a free upgrade, which seems to me to be a remarkable promise.

Best,

Tim

[Wolfgang]

I play FoG and the AW series.
I designed a number of scenarios for FoG.
I did some of the graphics in the commercial release of HPS Roman Civil Wars.

----
FoG:
Great interface, modern codebase, love the server based 'pbm' games: no shortage of pbm matches.

Less detailed/sophisticated than AW at the moment as far as what aspects of ancient warfare its rule set covers:
No siege craft / siege warfare (No siege of Alesia scenarios).
No Unit Formations (Line, column, wedge, etc).
No movement modes.
No ability to breakdown/recombine units.

After awhile, the scenarios feel a bit one dimensional due to that. And the eras can thusly start to feel a bit generic.

Map Scale/Unit Scale is variable to each scenario.
One unit can be a 100 or 1000+.


----
AW:
20m a hex.

Can replicate nearly all aspects of ancient warfare that I can think of.

Including things like:
Supply,
Siege craft,
Fortifications,
Differing Unit Formations (Line, Wedge, Column, etc),
Differing move modes (Forced Marches, Charge, Regular).
It can also do multiple commanders (players) in pbm mode.
More realistic as far as limiting missile ammo (no endless supplies of arrows)

More sophisticated, detailed scenarios. Some are truly epic in scale, befitting the ancient world and the whole Cecil B. DeMille thing.

The unit and general game notes are pretty extensive and interesting too. I learn a lot about ancient warfare playing AW: If there is some aspect of a battle or a unit that you are wondering about, likely the notes will contain an answer. At times I experience the game more like a mini-book than a game.
The WeGo method(do I have the right game term here??) is different and not found too often out there, where events in a turn for both sides resolve simultaneously. I'm good with that.

It does suffer a bit from an aged codebase, and the graphics framework overall is a bit dated compared to the latest generation of hex wargames, but hopefully the game will get refreshed in the future soon as the series is a gem.

----
I like both, both are fun games. You will probably end up getting both if you game enough ancient warfare lol.

[TJD]

FoG:


Less detailed/sophisticated than AW at the moment as far as what aspects of ancient warfare its rule set covers:
No siege craft / siege warfare (No siege of Alesia scenarios).
No Unit Formations (Line, column, wedge, etc).
No movement modes.
No ability to breakdown/recombine units.

After awhile, the scenarios feel a bit one dimensional due to that. And the eras can thusly start to feel a bit generic.

I'd just add a couple of points: the deficiencies you point out in FoG such as a lack of ability to breakdown units are being addressed in the current code revision. FoG 2.0 should be quite impressive.

The scenarios are often poor, I agree, but few play them. The majority of action consists of games played between armies created in the Digital Army generators. These use a point-buy system to create historical armies of great variety and the graphics are far superior to anything in AW.

I don't think it's quite reasonable to say that FoG rules are less sophisticated than AW. That really isn't true. Worth adding too that while combat resolution in AW is opaque, FoG provides plenty of feedback so that your ability to learn and validate what is going on is much enhanced.

Best,

Tim

[Wolfgang]

I'd just add a couple of points: the deficiencies you point out in FoG such as a lack of ability to breakdown units are being addressed in the current code revision. FoG 2.0 should be quite impressive.

The scenarios are often poor, I agree, but few play them. The majority of action consists of games played between armies created in the Digital Army generators. These use a point-buy system to create historical armies of great variety and the graphics are far superior to anything in AW.

I don't think it's quite reasonable to say that FoG rules are less sophisticated than AW. That really isn't true. Worth adding too that while combat resolution in AW is opaque, FoG provides plenty of feedback so that your ability to learn and validate what is going on is much enhanced.

Best,

Tim

Well yea but...

AW combat results aren't actually opaque - they are visible for each melee and list out the calculation that went into it. All the combat modifiers are well publicized in their manual as well. So for those interested in that aspect - it can be found in both games. AW won't tell you ahead of time what those modifiers will be, but it will at resolution time. Besides, I don't think FoG tells you exactly what modifiers will go into a resolution - I believe it just gives you an estimate.

By lack of sophistication, for example: Currently, there is no way in FoG any kind of siege warfare could be replicated except with a bump in the ground to represent a wall. You can have a palisade and a catapult, sure, but that's about it. And as I mentioned earlier - no formations, movement types, etc. All in all it's a simpler game than AW.

As far as scenario play goes: I play more scenarios in FoG than I do digital army generator battles so I think to say that most pbm play in FoG is via digital army battles is a subjective observation. In AW I can generate an army as well and take it to field on a generic battlefield, but actually prefer pbm play using historical scenarios for both games.

I find FoG to be a lot of fun but more 'game' than historical sim, inspired by it's beer and pretzels boardgame roots no doubt. I believe AW offers more depth and better scenarios. I don't walk away from a FoG gaming session feeling like I learned something new about ancient warfare whereas with AW I often do.

[TJD]

I like Paul and don't want to say anything adverse about his games so I'll leave off from any further critical comparisons. But, in reference to the original question that started this thread, the uncertain wargamer has a third option: he can wait for Rome: Total War II to come out in Q4! :)

Best,

Tim

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Thanks for the input guys. All I have at the moment is Gallic Wars and for some reason it keeps freezing while trying to reinstall to my external HD. As soon as I figure it out, I will try and give it another go. I imagined battles looking like you would see in the movies or when looking at maps, but my troops never seemed to want to follow orders. I had to be doing something wrong. I would have a formation ordered to go that way <----- and they end up going that way -----> and wonder who is in charge of that unit? Gomerus Pylicus?I hate to buy games that end up not liking and losing the money. FoG has many expansions at less than a full price game and overall can have a choice from many different armies. It's coming up with the money to continue buying games. Any of the others come out after Gallic Wars, better or just different time periods?

[Titus]

Any of the others come out after Gallic Wars, better or just different time periods?

Gallic Wars has free updates at the HPS web site www.hpssims.com and will continue to be updated. The later games in the series like Roman Civil Wars (RCW) provides opportunities to play any one of 6 armies against any other one. RCW includes a 'campaign game' where your core army fights on through a series of battles to become victorious and has replacements between battles. The latest feature is a 'Tournament Play' where your digitally generated army can be placed on a pre-agreed map (of which there are 100+ available) and play a pbem battle against your opponents personally designed army. Limited missile fire for archers, javelinmen and slingers is also a key feature that makes you preserve your skirmishers in a more historical manner. If you have problems with the game mechanics and want to ask a question please do so here or send me a private message and I will attempt to answer.

[BluntF]

Im sorry but there is NO comparison between the AW series and FOG. AW is light years ahead in gameplay and depth. FoG is ancients wargaming light

[Havoc]

Bought Punic Wars way back when and disliked the system enough to sell it and buy FoG instead, which I've found to be much more enjoyable to play.