how does it work?

[Intoxicated Man]

I haven' t found much info on the web site about this.
How does the combat work?
Is it similar to DBAOnline for example?
best

[Makoto]

is this going to be a grand strategy ala MTW or is the focus on combat?

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Intoxicated Man

How does the combat work?
Is it similar to DBAOnline for example?

What he asked.

DBA is very abstract, as anything representing an ancients army with only 12 elements would have to be. Presumably with more units (as the screenies seem to suggest) this will be a lot less abstract and more "realistic" (i.e as WRG 7th is to DBA ) ?

I note it's simultaneous-play too, which should be interesting. I don't think I've ever seen that in an ancients game.

[koiosworks]

our rules are custom due to the simulatanous order system (which is a blast to play if i say so myself [8D]). However, we are very loosly based on DBA fast play rules. We are a tactical game within a campaign of linked battles so how well you do in the prior battles carries over through the campaign (training, replacements etc...). The closest thing I can describe to the 'tactical vs strategic' is that we are similar to Panzer General II (for you old schoolers) in this respect. Meaning, independent battles within the context of a campaign.


This is a little information on the engine from another post I made in answer to similar questions:

In our battle engine, both opponents simulatanously place orders for each unit in their army. These orders represent what the unit will be doing for the next '15 minutes of game time' (not real world time). After both players have issued orders, a play button is pressed and the game engine processes the battlefield events for all units simultanously (sort of like a combo turn based/real time game). However, unlike most turn based games where you are stuck with your strategy for the entire turn, we have implemented a reaction system that will pause the game and let a unit receive a 'reaction' order in certain battlefield situations (such as winning an engagement, detecting a charge coming at you while moving etc.). These only happen once in a while and are based on the commander leading the unit and specific situation. From a tactical level, our 'rules' are loosly based on DBA fast play varients. So we have morale (army and unit morale with 'cascading effects'), training, armour, initiative, weapon effects (many weapons vs weapon combos), unit facing effects (for flanking and movement etc.). Also, our leaders have a lot of special attributes that impact gameplay, Alexander is a tactical genius and heroic leader while darius III is both incompetent and cowardly. We also have height and other terrain effects such as fog of war.

[Mr.Frag]

Do the campaigns link together? ie: skilled units remain after one battle making them more useful in the next battle.

Looks great so far, if you have any screen shots of orders being give such as a move with the unit range etc being shown, it would clear up a lot of questions. [;)]

[Deride]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Do the campaigns link together? ie: skilled units remain after one battle making them more useful in the next battle.

Absolutely. In fact, each unit has a "commander" associated with them. If the commander wins martial distinction or other honors during the previous campaign, they can earn the distinction of becoming elite. Each surviving unit will also "costs" you, however. Since the army demands pay, you must provide them with a salary at the end of the battle. We think this provides a nice balance so that a major victory in one scenario does not allow you to steamroll your way through the rest of the campaign. (In fact, as we continue balance testing, it may actually become more difficult -- that way, the game adjusts to your skill.)

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
Looks great so far, if you have any screen shots of orders being give such as a move with the unit range etc being shown, it would clear up a lot of questions. [;)]

I have attached such an image to this post. In the image, there are three cav units. The middle one (selected with the red circle) is being given a move order. The "rubber band" shows how that unit will move forward, turn to the left, and climb up the hill during its turn. If I were to move the rubber band further away, it would turn into a set of footsteps with a red circle and red line across it showing that the unit could not move to that location.

(BTW, note that on the picture, the selected cav unit is just off the edge of the play board. This is supposed to look like a foam board that many table-top gamers use when building scenary. Underneath that is a green marble colored table.)

Deride

[Mr.Frag]

Absolutely. In fact, each unit has a "commander" associated with them. If the commander wins martial distinction or other honors during the previous campaign, they can earn the distinction of becoming elite. Each surviving unit will also "costs" you, however. Since the army demands pay, you must provide them with a salary at the end of the battle. We think this provides a nice balance so that a major victory in one scenario does not allow you to steamroll your way through the rest of the campaign. (In fact, as we continue balance testing, it may actually become more difficult -- that way, the game adjusts to your skill.)

Ok, I'm sold! You could not have answered that question better.

[Didz]

How will this work for PBEM style games where players wish to exchange saved game files?

[fow65]

Glancing at the screenshots it seems that the various troop types may be worth the same amount of points - is this really very realistic? In reality it took a lot more effort to raise hoplites than archers or slingers. For instance in the WRG army list for Alexander's army, regular "C" Agrianes are only worth 8pts but Pezetarioi are worth 16pts, while irregular "C" archers are worth just 4pts. Could this aspect of the game be altered when starting a new game, perhaps as an optional rule?

Since the computer will deal with most of the rules - and the players won't need to make any complex calculations manually - might it not be worthwhile incorporating elements of the more sophisticated WRG rules instead of the rather simplistic DBA rules?

I'd certainly be very interested in play-testing this game. Apart from having a degree in Ancient & Mediaeval history, I've also play-tested / am currently play-testing various computer wargames.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: fow65

In reality it took a lot more effort to raise hoplites than archers or slingers. For instance in the WRG army list for Alexander's army, regular "C" Agrianes are only worth 8pts but Pezetarioi are worth 16pts, while irregular "C" archers are worth just 4pts. Could this aspect of the game be altered when starting a new game, perhaps as an optional rule?

Hi fow65
I don´t know about WRG rules, but in reality slingers and archers were rarely trained, they were the product of a way of a society, and were hired by the great powers in comparative small numbers, because they were expensive especialized troops. Regarding light infantry, you have here 2 different things, the profesional soldier, like some Agrianoi and peltastoi, were also expensive and har to replace, while the average light infantry, like Thracians or Illirians auxiliars, were just individuals too poor to afford an hoplite panoply. Very different things.

[fow65]

That's certainly true for Cretan archers, but the typical slinger was usually just a shepherd who'd use his sling to keep wolves and other predators away from his flock. Thracians & Illyrians are mercenary tribesmen - probably more easy to replace than some other troops - perhaps more "light-medium" infantry (peltasts) than proper light infantry like archers & slingers. The Athenian general Iphikrates saw the potential of peltasts and made good use of them against Spartan hoplites at Lechaeum in 390BC. Of course peltasts had already proved their worth at Sphakterai in 425BC.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: fow65

Glancing at the screenshots it seems that the various troop types may be worth the same amount of points - is this really very realistic?

I may have got this wrong but I thought (at present, anyway), the game was restricted to historical scenarios with set armies ? "Points values" are only a means of assessing the relative value of units when selecting your army (to a fixed points total, usually the same for each player to get a "balanced" game), which is irrelevant in this instance.

I'm not sure "realistic" is really an issue either. It seems to me the developers are aiming for a system which, while not unrealistic as such, has fairly simple mechanics in the interests of being fast and fun to play. Tin Soldiers is "simplistic" in the same way and for much the same reasons that DBA is. That doesn't imply any lack of tactical possibilities or gameplay depth but with essentially a "rock, scissors, paper" approach, understanding Tin Soldiers rules and their associated strategies is likely to be more important than an in-depth understanding of historical tactics and troop-types.

Oh, welcome to the boards, BTW [:)]

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

ORIGINAL: fow65

That's certainly true for Cretan archers, but the typical slinger was usually just a shepherd who'd use his sling to keep wolves and other predators away from his flock.

Yes, that is what I said, the product of a way of live, shepherds would be poor , but hard to replace in his ability as slingers. Then, we had those slinger projectiles made of lead, very common in sites from late IV century B. C. that indicates especialized, mercenary slinger troops.
Anyway I imagine Hertston is right, game fun would be over historical accuracy.