Wargame Design: Heirs to Empire - The Late Persian Army

 

This is a ruleset that has been out for a while now, and the focus is on the wars of the Diadochi after the death of Alexander the Great.  Therefore, all your favorite Greek generals get a shout-out and have their own Lines of Battle.  However, one thing I do not think the rules cover very well is Lines of Battle for the Late Persian Army or rather Lines of Battle for rebel Persian Satraps who mostly drew their forces from the remains of the Late Persian Army.  We know from the sources that Perdiccas and others had to contend with rebel Persians after Alexander's Death.

Therefore, this will be a post where I try to rectify that situation and "build a better" Late Persian list to be used in your games.  This is not the first time I have gone back to add a new Line of Battle for this game.  Long-time readers and fans will recall my efforts to add a Mauryan Empire list to potentially face off against Seleceus during his Eastern Anabasis.  You can find that here.  The very sharp-eyed of you will also see that I updated the games cover since those halcyon days too!  

This is also not the first time going to take a closer look at the Late Persian Army for me either.  The Ionian Revolt supplement for Men of Bronze also has an updated Line of Battle for the Late Persian army to update it from the core rulebook.  Therefore, the list you see here will build off this as a source.  That supplement also details many of the foes of the Persian Empire as well and is a great resource for those of you who want to expand your games with Persian armies.  I think it is also important that Heirs of Empire was written before The Ionian Revolt so my thinking and scholarship around these forces has evolved.   

Who Were the Persians?

The Persians were a vassal tribe of the Medes from the Iranian steppe. Their king Cyrus the Great led them to victory over the Medes, and then the Babylonians, and finally the Lydians.  At this point, the Achaemenid Empire was declared.  The empire continued to expand outward under other kings.  At its height, it covered the majority of the known world, stretching from the Indus River Valley to the Balkans to Egypt. 

Cyrus and his descendants brought a new model of control to the region.  The Assyrians had brought a reign of terror for their subject people including royal massacres, forced deportations, destruction of temples, and brutal military tactics designed to cause terror.  The Medes and the Babylonians followed this successful example.  However, when Cyrus took over he did not bring brutality with him.  Instead, he offered stability.  His empire respected local religions, kept local leadership in charge, and showed mercy.  The Persians had a relatively hands off approach to their provinces as long as the taxes were paid, the levied troops provided, and the Kings orders were followed.  This approach allowed the Persian Empire to flourish and grow.    

In addition, the Persians brought an efficient bureaucracy and administration to their holdings.  They built infrastructure like the great Royal Road that crossed the Empire.  This infrastructure allowed a series of message relays and a post-offices that made Royal communications swift.  In addition, the infrastructure allowed the King’s soldiers to get from one end of the Empire to the other rapidly to maintain order.  They also professionalized government officials and created a professional army.  

The Persians were very wealthy from the taxes they collected from their subject people.  They used this wealth shrewdly to expand trade, professionalize their leadership, and to de-stabilize their enemies.  After the Greco-Persian Wars, the Persians cannily used their wealth to play one Greek city-state off against another to keep them focus inward instead of on the Persians.  This policy was very successful for a number of decades as internal warfare kept the Greeks mostly focused inward.

The Persians were a religious people.  They believed in the Flame of Truth and its avatar Ahura Mazda.  To their way of thinking, as the Empire expanded they rolled back the darkness and brought the light of Truth.  Ahura Mazda was leading them to expel the darkness.  Despite this religious philosophy, they did not expect their subject people to convert to their religion or abandon their own gods.  Instead, the empire was tolerant of local custom and religious practices.  

The Persian Empire began to decline as outside pressures grew.  The taxation burden became heavy on the satraps who controlled the various provinces, and the economy began to stagnate from too much wealth not being re-invested.  In addition, the Empire’s hands off approach meant that no national identity or larger shared ethnic identity was ever achieved for the empire.  Therefore, when Alexander and the Macedonians took over, there was not real change to the average Persian Imperial citizen’s life.  They continued on much as they had before.      

How Did They Fight? 

By the late period of the Persian Empire, the way that they fought had evolved a lot over the centuries.  Generally speaking, by the late period the army was made up of 2 main branches.  They were the infantry and the cavalry.  There was also several "novelty" units like scythed chariots, camel cavalry, war elephants, and mercenaries like Greeks.  

Persian Infantry was drawn from across the Empire.  However, the backbone was the Medes and Persian troops.  These were primarily armed with spears, swords, and most importantly bows.  The Persians specialized in range firepower.  From there, other troops came from across the empire to fill their own niches like skirmishers, light troops, etc. However, as the Empire came apart access to these auxiliary troops became restricted.  

Much has been written about the Kardaks as a troop type in Late Period Persian armies.  I tend to think that this was a reference to Persian troops.  It is unclear who they are, but they were light and heavy troops of various branches of the military.  It does not seem like they were a unique unit type and could possibly be "new recruits" or troops still in their training phase.  

Perhaps the most important arm of the Persian Late Period army was the cavalry.  Again, this was mostly Persian nobles who were the Heavies.  However, they also had lighter cavalry made up of allied groups like Bactrians or Sogdians.  The infantry would pin down the enemy troops with archery while the cavalry would maneuver for flank attacks.  The Persian army was known for its mobility as well as its size.

What draws many people to the Persian Army is their novelty units.  They had a wide variety of mercenary and specialty units in their forces.  This included Greek Mercenaries of the heavy and light variety.  War Elephants from India, Egyptian Marines, Camel cavalry from Arabia, and Scythed Chariots from the Steppe all had their place in the Late Empire army.  Of course, after the death of Darius and the sundering of the Empire access to all of these troops might no longer be available thereby limiting the Line-of-Battle.                      

Building the Line of Battle for Late Persians for Heirs of Empire

It may have been a while since you have looked at the rules for Heirs of Empire.  However, it is a game that makes use of army wings on the table.  Therefore, the Lines-of-Battle focus on what units can make up the Left, Center, and Right of the army.  

We know that traditionally the Core or center of the army will be the infantry forces with the cavalry moving around on the flanks.  We saw this formation during the famous late period battles against Alexander.  Therefore, the Line-of-Battle should match-up with these formations.  

I wanted to add some infantry with bow armed troops integrated into the units.  Therefore, I am adding the following option: 

Bows

The bow was an integral part of the Late Persian Army.  Bows were a cultural icon of the Persians, and therefore many of the Mede and Persian soldiers were equipped with a compound bow. Therefore, mixed units of infantry and bows was a common feature of their armies.  

You can add Bows to Epilectoi Cavalry, Asphract Cavalry, Drilled Infantry and Warband Infantry for +1 Point.  They would allow the unit to have the following added to their profile: 

Bows: Shoot 2 (12MU)

Hoplite Mercenaries

One of the biggest employers of Greek mercenaries was the Late Persians.  They used these mercenaries as their melee-shock infantry.  The Persians preferred the bow and cavalry tactics.  Therefore, they were happy to let the Greek Hoplites be their heavy infantry.  

They have the following profile: 

Mercenary Hoplites                                                5 Points

Move    Attack     Armor    Courage     Discipline

6 MU    3            1                4                3

Special Rules: Phalanx, Drilled, Counter-Charge

Scythed Chariots

Part of the Late Persians "Novelty" units were the Scythed Chariots.  Xenophon writes a compelling account of how such units could be very effective against unorganized or isolated Greek troops.  However, against the Macedonians they were much less effective.  

They have the following profile:

Scythed Chariots                                                    5 Points

Move    Attack     Armor    Courage     Discipline

6 MU    3            1                4                3

Special Rules: Pursue, Counter-Charge

Other "novelty" units can be accounted for in the standard Heirs to Empire profiles.  For example, Camel Cavalry would simply be Asphract cavalry.  

Late Persian Line of Battle

The following is the Line-of-Battle for the Late Persians and their rebel Persian forces after the death of the Great King.   The Lines of Battle help to choose the appropriate Units for your Historical forces. Check the scenarios for starting point cost for a force. 

Each Line of Battle will have an entry with a number. The number indicates the limit of that Unit you can take in the army. If an entry says 1+ your army must have at least one of these units in it. If it is 0+ any number of that unit may be taken. If a Unit is not on the list, it can not be chosen.

Center: 

0-2 Skirmishers

0-2 Elephants

1+ Drilled Infantry

 -- Bows for +1 Point

0+ Warband Infantry

-- Bows for +1 Point

0-4 Archers/Slingers

0-2 Irregular Peltasts

0-2 Scythed Chariots

0-2 Mercenary Hoplites

Left/Right Wing: 

0-1 Companion Cavalry

0+ Epilektoi Cavalry

0+ Asphract Cavalry

0-2 Scythed Chariots

0-2 Elephants

0-2 Skirmishers 

0-2 Slinger/Archer 

0-2 Irregular Peltast 

0-2 Warband Infantry

-- Bows for +1 Point

Sample Line of Battle

Below you can see a Sample Army built from the Lines of Battle provided. It gives you an idea of what your force could look like. It is built to a 54-point force per the examples in the main rulebook. The Late Persians has 9 Units in the force. 

Center: 

1 Drill Infantry with Bows 

1 Warband Infantry with Bows

2 Irregular Peltasts

1 Mercenary Hoplite

1 Skirmisher

Left Wing: 

Epilektoi Cavalry with Bows

Scythed Chariots

Right Wing: 

Asphract Cavalry with Bows

Final Thoughts

These Late Persian Rebel Satraps will give a much different feel to a traditional Diadochi army.  Their hitting power is reduced up-close, but their ranged firepower is greater.  It will take a skilled commander to maneuver and fight these units against a Macedonian Phalanx force, but hopefully the extra troops and Commander's Gaze can give the Late Persian player an edge and the ability to "kite" against the harder hitting Phalanx units of the other Successors?  

I look forward to you giving them a try on the battlefield and letting me know what happens in the comments.  I think they lead to very different strategic and tactical challenges for your games of Heirs of Empire. 

Until next time.  

 

Become a Patron and get access to all the cool stuff, a peak behind the curtain of Blood and Spectacles, and early-access to playtest games!  

Blood and Spectacles Patreon! 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page or Instagram for more fun! 

Check out the latest publications and contact me at our Blood and Spectacles website

Or purchase all out games at the Blood and Spectacles Publishing Wargames Vault Page!                       

Men of Bronze- Italiotes

 

The information below is an extract from the Hercules Abroad supplement that can be found on the Wargame Vault.  This post has been sitting in my draft box for a long time, but as I have been working on the Carthaginian supplement Rise and Fall I might as well send it out into the wild now.  Merry Christmas!  

***********************************  

As we continue to expand the world of the Ancient Greeks, it is natural to expand westward into Magna Graecia.  This was a series of loosely affiliated Greek colonies located in Sicily and southern Italy.  This Diaspora was often attributed to the Greeks following in the footsteps of the "Journeys of Hercules".  This mythology was used to justify their expansion, colonization, and infringing on indigenous people's territory.  

We all ready have a list for Syracuse and the City-States of Sicily.  However, Magna Graecia had a vague definition and also included the Southern coastal regions of Italy.  These colonies existed before and during the rise of Rome on the Peninsula, and eventually were rivals to her growth.  The area of Southern Italy was ill suited for traditional Greek hoplite battle, so local variations were required in the military habits of the Greeks who found themselves there.  

This area began to see extensive Greek settlement in the 8th and 7th centuries BCE.  These colonists brought their Greek culture with them such as the idea of an independent City-state, religious traditions, and trade with their homeland.  These Hellenic cities became vital power houses in the region and began to fuse the native Italic cultures with Greek cultural practices as well.  

These Italic-Greek city-states eventually formed their own league for mutual support, trade, and protection against the neighboring Oscan tribes and other Greek rivals in 430 BCE.  This was known as the Italiote League and was controlled by the city of Tarentine in the late 5th century.  

How They Fought

As usual, nothing is known precisely about how the City-States of the Italiote League fought.  We can make some assumption based on how their founding city-states fought, and how rival Italic tribes fought as well.  In addition, there were some military trends in the Hellenistic World that would impact the Italiotes as well.     

Of course, the foundational unit of any Greek city-state army was going to be the Phalanx composed of the land-owning freemen farmers of the nearby lands.  They had the status to buy their own equipment and assemble for drill with their peers.  The Hoplite warriors in Magna Graecia was similar to their brothers elsewhere.  However, the terrain and conditions of Southern Italy were not conducive to the normal Hoplite tactics.  

Native Italic tribes tended to be lighter armored and more mobile than their Hoplite neighbors.  Hit-and-Run attacks and cattle raids were the de facto fighting style of the local tribes.  In this fighting style, speed, mobility, and lighter weapons were critical.  Distance fighting with Javelins was also a common feature.  

Therefore, the Greek colonists to the region needed to meet these needs of warfare.  To do so, Hoplites tended to avoid the use of the panoply and instead used a lighter, native garb that featured bronze pectoral armor plates in the front and rear.  In addition, their head ware tended to be open in the front allowing greater visibility and allow a greater field of vision.  Greaves were often reduced to a single leg or discarded to reduce weight and increase the soldiers ability to pursue or evade.  Indeed, the Hoplite of Italian Magna Graecia was a much lighter and nimbler foe than the heavily armed shock troops of the Greek Peninsula.    

In addition to the lighter hoplites the Italic Greeks made extensive use of Peltasts and Psiloi. These were used to supplement the infantry.  They could provide covering fire for the advance, or screen the other troops.  These were frequently mercenaries or poorer members of the city-state, much like Greece. The javelin was the favored missile weapon of the region.    

The Italiotes made great use of Light Cavalry.   These were designed as a skirmisher based force that utilized javelins and missile weapons, but also had small shields and curved swords for melee combat.  They were an excellent pursuit and scouting force.  This type of light cavalry was frequently referred to as Tarentine Cavalry, even though they were not necessarily native to the city of Tarentum.  It was in reference to the style of skirmish cavalry that was being referenced.  

The final element of an Italiote force would also be made up of Greek mercenaries.  These would fit the more standard Hoplite, heavy infantry role in an Italiote force.  They could form a solid core of heavy infantry.  

Italiote Army List

Armed with the information above, we can start to piece together an army list for the soldiers of the Italiote League or its member city-states.  The bulk of the infantry will most likely be composed of Light Hoplites to represent their lighter panoply and more mobile style of fighting.  This will be supplemented by good Peltast and Psiloi options as the Javelin was a popular weapon in Italian conflicts.

The Cavalry should be Light Cavalry, but the melee ability and skirmisher nature can not be discounted.  Therefore, I am going to add the following Option for the Tarentine Cavalry forces.  

Tarentine Cavalry - 8 Points

Move    Attack    Armor    Courage    Discipline

12BW    4            1            4                2

Shoot: 2 (6BW) 

Special: Evade, Pursue, Move and Shoot

This differentiates them from standard Greek Light Cavalry that focused more on skirmishing, missile fire, and pursuit.  Now, you have a Light Cavalry unit that had enough Melee capability to challenge other Light Cavalry, Peltasts, Warband Infantry, and Psiloi.  However, they are still no match for dedicated Heavy Cavalry, Elites, or Drilled units.  

Italiote Line of Battle

Use the following lists to build your historical forces for the Italiote League or other Itallic-Greek forces. The Lines of Battle help to choose the appropriate units for your historical forces. These are sample lists and there to provide a flavor of potential forces. Players can always modify these lists as they see fit

Each Line of Battle will have an entry with a number. The number indicates the limit of that Unit you can take in the army. If an entry says 1+ your army must have at least one of these units in it. If it is 0+ any number of that unit may be taken. If a Unit is not on the list, it can not be chosen.

Italiotes

1+ Light Hoplites

0+ Peltasts

0-4 Psiloi

0-4 Tarentine or Cavalry

0-1 Drilled Hoplites

0-1 Archers/Slingers

The list above gives access to regular Light Cavalry or you can use the upgraded Tarentine Cavalry provided in the rules.  In addition, the bulk of the force will be Light Hoplites to match the subtle differences between mainland Greece and their Italic colonies on the table.  

Sample Army Lists

Below you can see an example force for the Italiote Greek City-States.  It is built to the 38 point standard and is composed of 6 units.  

2 Light Hoplites

2 Tarentine Cavalry

1 Peltast

1 Psiloi 

Battle of the Elloporus

Most of the warfare of the Italiote League was between fellow Greek City-states and the nearby Latin, Oscan, and Samnite tribes.  However, the threat from Sicily by the Tyrant Dionysus I was a primary concern.  Some scholars speculate that the rise of Dionysus the I of Syracuse was the prime motivation for creating the Italiote League.  Therefore, eventually the rivalry between Syracuse and the Italiote League would come to a head.  This inevitable clash happened in 389 BCE.  

Unsurprisingly, we know little of the actual events of the battle.  We know that it was fought, and that Syracuse won the battle.  The armies were probably in the 15 to 25K range on both sides.  Sources also indicate the battle was fought in the toe of Italy near the Stilaro River.  That pretty much summarizes what little we know of the battle.  

To put it in perspective, this battle took place during the 3rd Sicilian War.  In the same year, the Spartan King Aegislaus II was crossing the Gulf of Corinth to attack the Arcananians.  Athens is getting involved with Rhodes and taking control of the Hellespont under the command of Thrasybulus.  Military activity across Greece and Sicily was common during this time period.    

Of course, situations like these allow for a wargame to fill in the blanks.  We don't know much about the battle strategy, tactics, or terrain.  We also know next to nothing about the forces involved.  Therefore, whatever we choose to do is as accurate as anyone else chooses to do! 

Forces

For this battle, we will be using the Syracuse list and the Italiote League Lists.  Neither of these can be found in the Men of Bronze rulebook itself.  Both lists can be found in the Hercules Abroad supplement on the Wargame Vault.

Italiote League    

2 Light Hoplites

2 Tarentine Cavalry

1 Peltast

1 Psiloi 

Syracuse of Dionysus I

2 Militia Hoplites

1 Cavalry

2 Archers

1 Peltast

Since we know nothing about this battle, we can safely use any lists we want.  I have opted to use the sample Lines of Battle provided for both forces up to 38 points.  

Set-up

We know so little about the Battle of Elleporus, that it seems like just about ANY scenario from the main Men of Bronze rulebook could be used.  However, I feel that the Set Piece Battle scenario maybe the best and safest option.  

The game should take place on a 72 BW by 48 BW board.  The only set feature would be a river traveling along one flank of the battle, probably with the deepest edge being no more than 8 BW in from either short edge.  This could be Difficult, Dangerous, or Impassable terrain depending on how restricting you want the terrain to be.  After placing the river,  I would recommend deploying terrain in the remaining sections of the board and rolling for complications as normal.  The Set-Piece Battle scenario should be a good guide.  

Special Rules

Again, since we know so little about the battle, its prelude, and what occurred we can use any complications that we wish!  No special rules are needed for this battle and the normal process for generating Complications should be sufficient. 

Victory

Again, we know so little that special Victory conditions do not seem to be necessary.  Instead, the Victory Conditions for a Set-Piece Battle should be sufficient.  

However, feel free to add any spice you want to the battle.  For example, the Italiotes could be trying to kill Dionysus I once and for all, and their Victory Condition could be routing the Unit he is in.  If successful, the Italiote wins.  If Dionysus I unit is not routed, then the Syracusans win.  Your choice really! 

Final Thoughts

The Italiote Greek City-States act as an interesting bridge between the world of the Romans and the world of the Greeks.  Since the Italic-Greek City-States began their life in the 8th and 7th Centuries that leaves a lot of time for them to clash with their fellow Greeks such as Athenian Marines or colonists new to the region.  They can also clash with the Barbarian tribe lists, or some of the lists from Hercules Abroad such as the Carthaginians, Syracusan/Sicilian Greeks, or the Etruscans.  There are always no shortage of opponents to fight in the ancient world! 

I think I am starting to wrap-up the world of the Greeks for Men of Bronze.  I have covered a variety of different regions and cultures far beyond Mainland Greece now.  The full list can be found below.  If I go too much further and deeper, I will be into the Roman period which will be covered in Osprey's  Wars of the Republic.  No need to to do that, since it is fully compatible with Men of Bronze. 

You can get all of the updated materials including a FAQ, Campaign rules, and Lines-of-Battle in the Men of Bronze Supplement: Hercules Abroad.

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page for more fun: https://m.facebook.com/pg/BloodandSpectacles/posts/?ref=bookmarks&mt_nav=0

Or our website:

http://www.bloodandspectacles.com/

Or our Messageboard:

http://bloodandspectacles.proboards.com/

Or our Wargames Vault Page:

https://www.wargamevault.com/browse.php?keywords=blood+and+spectacles&x=0&y=0&author=&artist=&pfrom=&pto=

    

  

Wargame Design: The Corinthian War - Men of Bronze Supplement

 

Find the new supplement here!

Honestly, this was really unexpected.  One day, I was thinking about the trouble I was having moving some games forward.  I was having challenges getting words on the page.  I kept hitting internal road blocks, despite working my usual system.  I was getting frustrated, and my output was suffering.  

I am not even sure what happened, but I decided I needed to pivot.  What I was doing was not working.  I don't even recall the conscious thoughts that led to this supplement for Men of Bronze/Wars of the Republic to happen, but once I pivoted and started working on it..... well..... it poured itself onto the page in a matter of days.  This was not on my "To Do" list at the end of last year, so to see it now is a surprise to me as it is to anyone else.  Writing can be weird sometimes.

 

What is it?

The Corinthian War is a supplement for use with Men of Bronze/Wars of the Republic that were published as part of the Osprey Wargaming Series of games.  This is the 4th supplement I have done for those rules the others being: 

• Hercules Abroad 
• Revolt! The Third Servile War
• The Ionian Revolt

This one focuses on the historical Greek campaign known as The Corinthian War.  This took place about 10 years after the end of the Peloponnesian War, and after the famous March of the Ten Thousand.  The details of the Corinthian War are documents by Xenophon in his work Hellenica.  There is also additional material in Plutarch's Lives and the works of Diodorus Siculus.  

The supplement focuses on re-creating the historical battles of The Corinthian War on the tabletop.  In this way, it is similar to The Ionian Revolt supplement.  Like  The Ionian Revolt this campaign was a combined arms, Land and Sea affair.  It involved a variety of Greek City-States backed by Persia in overthrowing the military power of Sparta.  Therefore, it had a wide cast of interesting characters, unit types, and miniatures that I could use from my collection.  The campaign also had traditional big hoplite battles, ambush actions, raids, and a variety of scenarios to make wargaming it a blast!   

What is in it?    

This supplement is a condensed work of about 25 pages.  This includes the following: 

• A Brief History
• Some Line of Battle modifications
• The main Campaign
• Optional campaign scenarios

Total there are about 10 scenarios and a very brief way to score the campaign for a result.  This includes a Naval battle scenario, a Coastal Raid scenario, a Strong Point scenario, and some more traditional scenarios.  The Line of Battle modifications add Freed Helots and Athenian Marines as unit types that did not really exist before.  Spartan King Agesilaus II gets his own Line of Battle as well.  

Artwork has a few miniatures that I have painted from Victrix, some cool artifacts from the period, and a snazzy map!  

Where do I get it? 

Of course, you will want a copy of Men of Bronze/Wars of the Republic first.  You can get those wherever Osprey Books are sold.  

If you happen to be one of my Patrons on Patreon, you all ready have it!  I provided it to all my paying Patrons back in December as an early Christmas gift.

If you aren't a Patron (Tsk, tsk!) then you can get it now on my Blood and Spectacles Wargame Vault page.  

Thank you for your support!  I put all the profits I make back into the business of wargaming!  That means more wargames, more RPGs, and more content for you to enjoy on my blog, Social Media feeds, and my Patreon.      

Find the new supplement here!    

Until next time! 

Become a Patron and get access to all the cool stuff, a peak behind the curtain of Blood and Spectacles, and early-access to playtest games!  

Blood and Spectacles Patreon! 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page or Instagram for more fun! 

Check out the latest publications and contact me at our Blood and Spectacles website

Or purchase all out games at the Blood and Spectacles Publishing Wargames Vault Page!                

Wargame Design: Managing Criticism

 

Congratulations!  Your first (second, third, fourth, etc.) game is out into the world!  You went through all the steps of the process, play-tested it, finished it, did the post-production work, and now it is out in the wild and people are playing it!  If you are like me, this process has taken 2-5 years of your time.  However, you are now a wargame designer!  

I hope you are ready for the hard part.  People are not going to like your game, and they won't be afraid to tell you about it.  Some of this feedback is more helpful than others and you can learn from it for your next game.  Typically, it falls back into the following categories: 

1. None at All
2. Not Helpful
3. Misalignment
4. A Gift

None at All

Perhaps the most ominous type of feedback when you publish your game is None at All.  There is radio silence and no one is talking about it in any meaningful way.  That means, you did not even get someone interested enough to comment.  Perhaps the most damning, the most frustrating, and the most useless form of feedback.  As the Wargame Designer, you have no idea where the disconnect occurred and no one is engaging enough to tell you!  That makes it really hard to do better next time, is it the rules, the distribution model, the way you advertised?  You just don't know.    

Not Helpful

Some of my favorite and most colorful feedback falls into this category.  I actually printed out and posted this feedback on my work space wall because I loved it so much.  It comes from an Amazon review.

Absolutely love this review.  I am glad 4 people found it helpful to them.  I mostly keep it because it makes me laugh.  

However, the review itself doesn't give me anything to work with and no real feedback that I can actively go back and work with to make a ruleset better.  The only thought I had after reading this was, "If they though it was a waste of paper, they should have gotten the e-publication instead?"  The feedback I took was to start publishing more content electronically, after all I wouldn't want to waste paper.  

A lot of feedback you get will fall into this unhelpful category.  They will say things like, "It's trash" or "It sucks".  That doesn't give you anywhere to go with it, and follow-up questions would be needed to find out what the actual issue was.  On the other side, positive feedback can fall into the same category.  Saying a game is "Great" or "Perfect" doesn't help out much either.  However, it does feel much better than the other side of the coin!     

Misalignment

This is the most common source of feedback and criticism that you will find.  There is a simple misalignment between what your customer was looking for and what you delivered.  This is a very broad category and has a number of sub-categories.  

1. POV
2. Wants
3. Expectations

A misalignment on POV simply means that the assumptions you made about warfare of the period or the setting do not align with what your customers POV is.  You may think that in your game it is Vietnam in Space.  Meanwhile, your players wanted Space Opera.  You may think that defined battle lines were less important, and that they were more fluid than traditionally thought, but your player disagrees with your assumptions.  This misalignment around what the rules should do leads to dissatisfaction with the game.  

A misalignment on Wants is similar.  Basically, it is a disagreement about taste and preference.  They wanted a crunch game, but you delivered a simple game.  They wanted 20 different unit types, while you simplified it into 5 broad categories.  They like a One Roll to Rule them All, but you used Dice Pools.  This misalignment around how the game is structured or built leads to feedback or criticism of the system.  

The last misalignment is around Expectations.  They player wanted something with a hard, defined time scale and you do not have that.  They expected to highlight armor, when the game you delivered focuses on infantry.  The player read your blurb and expected model-vs-model but got unit-vs-unit.  Essentially, the player had built up how they wanted the game to be, but you had other ideas.  This happens a surprising amount of times.

These misalignments are the number 1 driver of critique and feedback about your game.  These can be mined for useful ideas and thoughts to help you create a better, and different product next time.  

A Gift

The final form of feedback or critique you will receive is The Gift.  This is the rarest, and it is almost like catching a unicorn!  A Gift is feedback that helps you as the designer make your next game better. It is specific, clear, actionable and aligns with your own goals and objectives as a designer.  This is often very simple and specific things you can do and implement in your work for next time.  

A Case Study

It is no secret that Men of Bronze received a decent amount of feedback and criticism upon its release.  I was grateful that enough people tired it out to even give me this feedback!  There were four primary sticking points: 

1. It was not clear on how to use different scales and multi-based units

2. The abstractions were not to everyone's liking

3. Models could charge too far

4. The support rules did not make sense to players

So, let's dg into these critiques and see where they fall into the matrix of critique?  

1. Unclear how to be Scale and Model-agnostic     

This tended to fall into pretty reasonable discussion and I rated this as "A Gift".  I was able to rectify this with some simple clarifications in the FAQ on the blog, in Hercules Abroad the supplement, on the Message Board, and was incorporated into writing Wars of the Republic.  This feedback made future games better, and the verbiage has been an easy port into all my other MoB-centric systems. 

2. The abstractions were not to everyone's liking

This critique came in a number of varieties.  Some people simply hated that I put in a quick blurb using 10 models in 28mm for a unit.  This really got under people's skin, and their reaction was to often call the whole thing trash from that one sentence.  Of course, I have seen people play the game with units of 50+ models in 28mm too.  However, this one sentence sent some of the critiques into the Not Helpful territory.  

The majority of criticism on the abstractions were simple misalignment.  They had certain assumptions about how you should use figure/distance scales to represent space and unit size.  This was not that type of ruleset.  Others believed that the fundamental idea of "bathtubbing" or small forces for big battles wasn't what they wanted to play.  Others were unsure if this was a model-vs-model or a Unit-vs-unit game and came expecting one or the other.  

Some of the criticism that came in fell into the Gift category.  They had a clear understanding of what I was trying to do, and were able to give me tips and tricks to do it better.  

Therefore, when I wrote Wars of the Republic I spent more time and words to be intentional with explaining the abstractions.  This seems to have been successful, as commenters have been much more satisfied with the overall rule than with Men of Bronze.  I was able to carry this over into other games as well. 

3. Models could charge too far 

This was simple, straight forward criticism that fell into the Gift category.  It was easy to make an adjustment in this category in the FAQ and in future works.  I also tend now to give cavalry and mounted units a better charge, pursue, and evade distance than models on foot as well.   

4. Support rules did not make sense to players 

Most of the criticism here fell into the Misalignment side of the equation.  Folks with a strong Historical background had certain "expectations" of how supporting worked in a game.  Most of the decision-making of support came in the deployment phase and was not part of the actual gameplay.  Men of Bronze wanted supporting to be an active choice with risk and reward, and therefore had some big consequences that could leave holes in your battle line if you chose to do it.  In addition, you could incur greater losses if you gambled and failed.  

Ultimately, the criticism that explained the why behind the misalignment moved the criticism from a Misalignment to A Gift.  Then I was able to understand what they were looking for, and integrate some of that expectation and the decision-making I wanted around support into the rules for future games.  Indeed, Wars of the Republic is seen to have superior support rules than Men of Bronze.  I was still able to keep the decision-making aspect I wanted, but also incorporate or streamline the confusion players had by removing some of the less-popular aspects of supporting.  Now, these types of rules have become staples again in my game design for MoB-inspired sets.   

Final Thoughts

Many of the readers of this blog are or want to be miniature wargame designers.  Thankfully, it is easier now than ever.  All you need to do is complete a game and get it out into the public space for people to play it.  However, that is not the end of the cycle.  

Once your game is alive and in the public space, you can expect to get criticism and feedback for your work.  Learning how to deal with this feedback is critical if you want to continue writing miniature wargame rules.  Some of the criticism will be useless to you, most will be a misalignment between your Design Goals and the wants/needs of the player, and the last is very useful information that can help you be a better designer in the future.  

Take these gifts of feedback, and use it.  It will make you a better designer in the long run.  

Until next time! 

Become a Patron and get access to all the cool stuff, a peak behind the curtain of Blood and Spectacles, and early-access to playtest games!  

Blood and Spectacles Patreon! 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page or Instagram for more fun! 

Check out the latest publications and contact me at our Blood and Spectacles website

Or purchase all out games at the Blood and Spectacles Publishing Wargames Vault Page!   

  

Battle Report: Men of Bronze - Before the Walls of Miletus

 

This is the continuing recreation of the Ionian Revolt.  The Ionian Revolt was a revolt against the Persian Empire by the Ionian Greeks and their allies prior to the Greco-Persian War.  It took place from 499 to 493 BCE.  It was a land and sea affair, so I am using a combination of Poseidon's Warriors and Men of Bronze to re-create the campaign.  Both are from the Osprey Wargaming Series.  In addition, Men of Bronze has a specific supplement for the conflict called The Ionian Revolt. 

Miletus was the Ionian city that instigated the Ionian Revolt.  As the Persians closed the noose on the revolt they decided to target the source.  The Ionian Greeks decided to try to face the Persians at Sea instead of on land.  This culminated in the Naval battle at Lade.  This battle was a Persian victory and the various factions of Greeks scurried back to defend their respective city-states.  This gave the Persians the space and opportunity to move in and place Miletus under siege. 

Victory there was expected to end the Ionian Revolt.  Ironically, Aristagoras the Greek who instigated the revolt in Miletus had left the city to campaign in Thrace and to start a colony.  He died during that campaign.         

One of the Optional Scenarios in the Ionian Revolt supplement is rules for a siege game.  This is an area that Men of Bronze shied away from previously.  They were represented by the Ravage the Countryside scenario or a Race to the Gates style scenario.  Siege warfare was common in the period, but did not seem that exciting to actually game.  Many of the ancient siege were probably resolved due to logistics, disease, betrayal, or simply negotiated to a conclusion.  However, with a closer look at the Ionian Revolt, it made sense to try to build some sort of scenario.  The supplement also has two other alternate scenarios, one for the burning of Sardis at the start of the Revolt, and the other for Naval battles like Lade.  Today, we are going to give the Siege scenario a shot.

  

Forces: 

We have no real historical information about what the Persian siege army looks like or what the defenders were composed of. 

Greeks of Miletus

1 Militia Hoplites - General

2 Peltasts

1 Psiloi

2 Archers/Slingers

The Persians

2 Drilled Infantry

2 Psiloi

2 Warband Infantry

3 Archers - 1 with General

Set-up:

The board will be 72MU by 48 MU with 1 MU to equal 1 inch.  

The Defenders have a wall that crosses across their deployment zone.  The details of how this wall works is in the Ionian Revolt supplement.   Terrain placement on the rest of the board is per the normal rules. 

The Ionians have a speed bump force of Peltasts at the gate, perhaps trying to break-out and disrupt the Persian advance?  They are back-stopped by the Milita Hoplites in Phalanx.  Behind them a unit of Psiloi prepares to support them.  The flanks of the gate are covered by Greek archers and slingers to concentrate fire at the gates.  The last Peltast unit is out wide, perhaps hoping to add firepower, or sally forth when the time is right? 

Ionians prepare to defend the city!

The Persian assault force is set-up 12 MU in from their board edge.  They deploy with their warband infantry leading the way towards the gate, followed up by Drilled Sparabara.  

The main Persian assault force

The rest of the force spreads out to attack along the wall and try to use their firepower to suppress the defenders.  The Psiloi are approaching in the cover of the fields.  The attack is well-supported by Persian archers across the battle line.  

The Persians look to have the defenders outnumbered!

The two forces are deployed and ready to fight.  The Persians have an advantage starting with 9 Arete Points to the Ionian Greeks 6 points.  We will have to see if this imbalance makes the difference. 

Mission: 

Persian troops will be allowed up to 3 gaps in the wall based on a pre-game mechanic.  Per the rules, we established that the Attackers have managed to get one opening in the wall.  In this case, we decide that traitorous pro-Tyrant and pro-Persian forces have managed to open one of the many gates into the city.  Persian troops and Ionian defenders have rushed to the gate for the decisive battle.  

The mission objective is to try and force the opposing forces to collapse. 

Maneuver Phase:   

The Ionians pay enough Arete points to go first, hoping to use their peltasts in a spoiling attack.  They break from the gates and are quickly peppered with Persian archer fire.  However, their shields protect them well-enough and they press the attack.  

The Persians simply outbid the Greeks for initiative and the Persian archers quickly send the Greek spoiling attack fleeing back to the "safety" of the city.  The Persians press forward.  As the Persian Psiloi move towards the Walls, the Greeks try and fail to interrupt. 

Greek missile troops try to force back the Persian Archers in the village by the gate, but a horrendous roll and no Arete points stops them from having any effect.  The rest of the Persian host is just outside of the killzone.  The Ionian Militia falls back a step, hoping to lure the Persians into the kill zone before the decisive combat happens at the gates.  However, the fleeing Peltasts cause the Militia to start wavering. 

Battle Phase: 

The Persians again just bid more than the Greeks can manage.  However, this time the Greeks hold back and save the Arete Points for re-rolls and other commands. The Persian counter-battery fire is also ineffective from their archers, as most of them are still moving into position.  

The Persian Vanguard of warband infantry see the Militia wavering and try to charge them.  The Greeks try to interrupt, but fail.  This leads to a melee, where the Persians lose 3 to the Greeks losing 2.  However, the Militia troops fail their discipline check while wavering and end up losing another Courage. Neither side can gain the upper hand at the gates.  

The Persian Psiloi also launch an attack at the Greeks defending the wall, but the Greeks strong position leaves the attack thwarted. 

The Greeks fight back with a barrage of their own.  The Persian Archers in the village are reduced to 1 Courage and start to Waiver.  The Psiloi at the wall lose 1 Courage.  The Persian Archers screening the Drilled Infantry also take a Courage loss from the Greek archers in the city.   

The Psiloi in reserve behind the gate charge in and easily help the Militia Hoplites clear the Persians out there.  The way is clear.... for now.  The Ionian Psiloi let the Hoplites push back the foe, and separate again as a reserve.  The Persian follow-up forces watch the vanguard stream past in disarray, but they are unmoved by the plight of their comrades. 

The Persian Archers and Psiloi again rain arrows and Javelins on the Greeks, who respond in kind.  The Ionian Archers are reduced to 1 Courage and are wavering, the Peltasts on the opposite side of the wall also lose a Courage.  However, the Persians moving to the gate are not close enough to charge and keep closing in. 

This gives the Greek commander enough time to harangue and re-group is Militia hoplites into a Phalanx.  He reminds them of what they are fighting for and the soldiers steal themselves for battle and redress their lines.  The Greek archers also Rally.  The Greek missile troops rain hell on the approaching Persians.  However, the Persians were prepared and only lose 1 Courage.       

 

The Persians Drilled Infantry charge for the gate and the Greeks meet them half-way, a counter-charge of their own.  The two sides clash with the roar of war shouts and the crash of metal on metal.  The fighting is fierce, but the Greeks hold and push the Persians back a step or two.  The Persians are down to 2 Courage, as are the Greek defenders.  

Despite the noble defense at the gates, the Greek defenders take hits all along the walls from the full press of the Persian attack!  The Ionian archers are forced from the walls from combined Persian Archer fire.  However, the Persian Archers in the village are forced back as well.  

Greek losses force a collapse test across the line.  It is not good for the Ionians as the Psiloi reserve and the slingers both flee the field.  

End Phase: 

The Persian Warband Infantry charged in to support their brothers at the gate.  It was a close run and fierce battle, but the Persian ability to dump in re-rolls proved the difference and the gallant Hoplite defenders at the gates broke and fled to save their families and try to escape the city. 

 

The Peltasts began to re-deploy to try and hold the gate a moment longer, to try and buy time for residents to flee.  However, they took more Courage loss for the Persian Psiloi trying to force the wall.  

The Ionian Peltasts avoid a barrage of Persian Javelins as they redeploy.  They get the gate just in time to see the Persian Drilled Infantry storming through.  They set their feet and throw, causing enough damage to reduce the Persians to 0 Courage.  They turn and flee.  This triggers Persian collapse tests.  

The Persian Warband Infantry and a battered Psiloi unit decide that the battle is won and fall back to camp.  It is a token victory that buys the city folks a bit more time to flee, but the outcome of the battle is clear.  

Conclusion: 

The Persians have won and the Fall of Miletus has begun.  The Ionian Revolt has been squashed by the Persian forces. 

In the Ionian Revolt Supplement, the final battle is a different scenario than the one we played today.  It is one that does not require specialized terrain like walls.  However, my opponent and I are satisfied that this siege scenario is an appropriate end to the campaign.  The optional siege scenario was a success!  That will be a great addition to a number of Men of Bronze campaigns!  

In the course of seven battles, the Ionians won 1, compared to the Persian 6.  A decisive defeat on land and sea for the Ionians.     

 

Become a Patron and get access to all the cool stuff, a peak behind the curtain of Blood and Spectacles, and early-access to playtest games!  

Blood and Spectacles Patreon! 

You can follow Blood and Spectacles Facebook page or Instagram for more fun! 

Check out the latest publications and contact me at our Blood and Spectacles website

Or purchase all out games at the Blood and Spectacles Publishing Wargames Vault Page!