Wargame Design: Play it Again, Sam- Replayability

 

As I was taking a look back at my blog content, I noticed that I frequently talk about "Replayability" in my reviews and design posts.  One small issue, is that I never talk about what Replayability even is.  First off, I am pretty sure it is not even a real word!  However, that's part of being an "expert" on stuff.  You get to just make words up.  I have some fancy certificates and book-learnin' that say I can in the corporate world, so why not wargame design too?  

Well, I guess we better start with what this made-up word means.  I don't think it will be hard to figure out, I mean it is in the word itself.  Replayability is simply the ability to replay the game and still have fun with it.  Like, it's in the made-up name!  Simple.  

The definition is the easy part.  Now comes the hard part.  How do you give a game replayability? 

Deployment

An easy way to make a game Replayable is to change up how forces Deploy for a game.  You see, deployment is often an overlooked choice made early in a game, that sets up the flow of the rest of the game.  Therefore, to change the game experience you create options for the players to deploy differently.  This can be done via scenario, or even a "randomization" of the deployment zone.  

Scenarios and Objectives

Changing the scenario and objectives also change the focus of the game play.  You could have the exact same board and deployment, but changing the Objectives of the game will change the game.  If in the first go-around you are trying to cross the river in the center, that will lead to different tactics than having to capture as many terrain points as possible.  You can also add on primary and secondary objectives to allow for more variety in what is happening.  

Force Selection

Offering players a wide variety of units to choose from creates replayability.  These options allow players a chance to put different combinations of units into action, and see what works best in different combinations.  Perhaps cavalry is great for moving ahead and scouting, but infantry is better at holding objectives.  Players will want to find the right "mix" of units to achieve their goals and adhere to their preferred playstyle.  Changing unit options give reasons to play again.  Plus, players love an excuse to buy and sometimes even paint new miniatures!  

Complications

Many games offer a random selection of "complications" that can impact a game.  A complication is something that makes achieving the objectives harder.  They are a form of "Friction" that a player will need to deal with.  Sometimes, these complications are specific to a scenario, but many games allow for a random Complication mechanic via a chart, cards, etc. 

Terrain Placement

Nothing changes the flow of a game like terrain and its placement.  A game without terrain is probably not a game, so therefore it is a great tool for replayability.  A river or wood in the center changes the dynamic and tactics open for a player.  Therefore, the mechanisms for populating the board with terrain are critical tools for replayability.  

Randomization Tools

The rules themselves may have tools to create a randomization of outcomes.  With a variety of outcomes, there is a reason for players to play more than one game.  Often, randomization is created via Dice.  However, there are other methods such as charts, cards, spinners, death clocks, etc.  The more options that can occur, the more reason there is to "Play to find out".    

Game Length

Adding rules or methods to change the length of the game can be a great way to add replayability.  A variable length of game changes the player's calculations for what victory means.  Changing these calculations will make a game Replayable as each game could be fought or played differently.  A game that is short requires a focus on moving to engage, while a longer game allows for more bait-and-counter game play. 

Campaigns

The ability to chain games together in a campaign is a major driver of people replaying a game as more than just a one-off experience.  Campaign mechanics give structure and reason for players to keep going.  These are essential tools for replayability.   

Why Use These Tools

The whole point of all these tricks and tools to generate Replayability is to keep people playing your game.  These tools force players to re-think their tactics on the table as the conditions of the game are changed.  A game won or lost by attrition, changes how a commander engages versus one that is won or lost by holding an objective.  Both situations require a different way to play.  If there is only ever one "win condition" and one set- of game realities than your game will quickly be solved.  A player will soon realize how to win every time.    

The changes (or even the potential for certain changes to be in place) also force players to re-think their strategic, or off-table decision making as well.  If you have to consider that a game may change what it takes to win, you need to make off-table decisions to allow you to manage the risks.  For example, if you have missions that range from moving across the board to holding the line, a player will need to select units that could play a role in both scenarios.  The strategic choices are implemented.  

How to Use These Tools

The easiest way to use these tools is to create a "Pre-game" section of the rules.  This section basically instructs you on how to set-up a game.  Often, this takes place AFTER players have chosen their units to play the game, but not always.  This section usually has these elements: 

1. Randomly determine scenario
2. Randomly determine deployment zones
3. Randomly place terrain
4. Randomly determine complications
5. Randomize Game Length

Depending on genre, each of these options could have between 3-18 options per randomization.  That means you will have a minimum of 15 different game states right out of the gate, and the more options in each category the more Replayability you have.  This is before you even add in a Campaign. 

Final Thoughts

Replayability is a key component for game designers to think about when designing their games.  Many games are great as a "one-and-done" experience.  However, you want players to want to play your game more than once.  This becomes a selling feature if the game allows for a lifetime of games.  For example, if your game has at least 15 different game states in it, the average wargamer plays a game a month, then your base game has 1 years worth of game play!  That is good value for money! 

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: Kitchen Table Games

In recent years, the idea of "Kitchen Table Games" have seen a surge in popularity.  What is a Kitchen Table Game you ask?  Well, it is a game that can be played on a smaller playing surface.  Notably a kitchen table that is about three-feet long and two-feet across.  Of course, this is a change from traditional wargames as they typically use 6x4 foot tables or larger. In today's world, getting access to such large tables can be problematic.  The rise of these smaller table games is a natural reaction to these problems.            

In my current "Mobile" situation the idea of Kitchen Table Games is much more appealing to me.  I no longer have access to my 8-foot by 4-foot table.  I have made a few smaller table games in my days, but I typically only go 3-feet by 3-feet as the smallest.  The realm of smaller board games is a new realm for me.  

Thinking about "Kitchen Table Games" leads me to speculate about a few ways to approach the "problem" of scaling down a game.  Many games have all ready tackled these ideas:

Odin's Ravens

1. Reduce the Size  

In this scenario, I mean reducing the actual size of the miniatures that you are using.  I.e. if you are playing a model-vs-model skirmish game instead of using 28mm models, you use 10mm models instead.  You keep the relative relationship of range to movement the same, just different, smaller, measurements.  

2. Reduce the Scale

Here, I am talking about reducing the scale of the battle.  I.e. instead of focusing on unit-vs-unit in the conflict you focus on model-vs-model.  Instead of warbands of 10-12 models, your reduce the scope down to 4 or fewer.  

For example, the game Doom 1490 has a tight focus on only a handful of models for a full game.  

3, Bathtub It

This is an old practice in wargaming where you modify the ground, unit, or even time scale to fit the scenarios. This can include telescoping, rubber banding, time-warping or other tricks to distort the size of the battlespace relative to reality in various ways.  

For example, the Portable Wargame makes use of this technique.  

4. Set Spaces

A technique where all games take place in the same general space.  This is typically some sort of arena like a gladiator game or sports game.  The arena can always be the same general size.  

For example, Heroquest always uses the same board for a variety of adventure types. 

An example of a set-size

5. Abstracting 

In this situation, you intentionally misrepresent the connection between factors on the table.  Such as the minimizing or changing the relationship between movement, range, and speed.  As you modify these relationships you can adjust the size of the table with such tricks.  

For example, Kill Team makes use of this technique to allow games in the Warhammer 40K universe in a small play area.

 

6. Scale of the Game fits the Reality

The final trick I can think about is to find a reality that fits the scale of the game.  This means choose a situation to play-out that only requires a small space.  Think of situation such as the gunfight at the OK Corral, a single samurai duel, or something similar in scope.  

For example, Blood on the Sands is a game of gladiator combat between 1-on-1 combatants.

The Games: Blood and Spectacles

7. Zoom In

Just zoom in real close to the action.  Maybe a huge battle is going on but the game is only interested in a small, close-up piece of the action.

For example. arguably this is how Warhammer 40K: 2nd Edition handles things.   

8.  Ready for the Close-up

Similar to the Zoom In, except all the action is intentionally up-close and tight.  The game has a very tight and focused view on just the action that it needs to see.  Everything is up close and personal, almost cinematic in focus.  

For example, a game like Warriors of Athena uses this trick to keep the play area small.   

Kill Team

Final Thoughts

This is just a general primer on tricks or tips that Wargame Designers can use to create some compelling or interesting Kitchen Table Games.  This can include a tight focus on realism or a much more cinematic approach.  This can include various tools to play with related to how you use The Designer's Triangle.  The key is deciding how you want to make your game fit the space limitations of a Kitchen Table and commit to the bit.  

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: Game Over Man!

My thanks to the Delta Vector blog for getting me to think about this aspect of Wargames.  I have dealt with some pretty esoteric parts of wargame design; deployment, terrain placement, weapon ranges, rules lay-out, etc.  However, I had not spent too much time thinking about how a game should end.  Most of my thinking had been.... ahem..... front-loaded?  I was thinking a lot more about pre-game, game set-up and the game play itself.  It I thought about the end of the game it was normally in the realm of Campaign elements.  Therefore, when I read Evil Monkeigh's post about how to end a wargame I was struck by what an obvious miss it was on my part.  

The Classic Ending

You used to know a movie was over when a black title card flashed up with The End written in white on it.  As things developed, this title card was often accompanied by a musical flourish.  Then, it evolved into putting The End over a picture or final shot of the film itself.  These are all examples of the "classic" ending.  

Wargames also have these types of "classic endings" as well.  By far, the most commonly seen version of the Classic Wargame ending is using a Turn Sequence to dictate when the active part of the wargame was over.  This would then lead to calculating the winner.  Typically, you won the game if your side completed their primary mission objective while denying the opponent their objective.  In the old days, often the players did not know each others objectives!

The calculation looked a little something like this: 

- Did Force A achieve X.Y. and Z?  Did Force B achieve 1,2, 3?  If Yes to both = Draw

- Did Force A achieve more of X, Y, and Z than Force B achieved 1, 2, 3?  If Yes = Win for A, Loss for B

- Did Force A achieve fewer of X,Y, and Z than Force B achieved of 1, 2, 3?  If Yes = Win for B, Loss for A

- Did Force A fail to achieve X, Y, and Z and Force B failed to achieve 1,2, 3?  If Yes = Draw  

A rather simple formula.  However, many gamers found such methods unsatisfactory.  What if both sides failed to achieve their objective but Force A managed to rout more of Force B?  Shouldn't that count for something? 

Therefore, the classic "Ending" has some limitations even though I still find it very compelling and relevant.  

Many Historical games use this method.  Off the top of my head, I am thinking about Blucher from Sam Mustafa. 

The Ultimate Ending

The cleanest method is often the simplest.  I refer to this as the Ultimate Ending.  The side that wins is the one that defeats the entire enemy force.  This is the "Table Your Foe" style ending.  Force A still has models represented on the board while Force B no longer has any miniatures present due to death, routing, or other reasons.  The winner is clear and obvious to all.  

Of course, this type of ending has its own issues.  First off, such an end to a game is very limited in scope.  Objectives and other considerations do not matter.  All that matters is eliminating the opposing force as quickly and easily as possible.  The replayability of such games gets low very fast.  I find games that rely on the Ultimate Ending often also lead to becoming "solved" much quicker because the only factor is finding the units that deliver the most kill while avoiding death themselves.     

Sir Robin Endings

A varient of the Ultimate Ending.  The difference is that instead of actually killing/eliminating all of the enemy force you just make them fallback or run-away!  However, such endings also lead to the same problems as the Ultimate Ending.     

For example, a game like Necromunda with a Bottle Test uses this method.  

Victory Points

This is a bit like the "Classic Ending" in the sense that at the end of the game it is not always obvious immediately who won.  There is a "final phase" where players have to do some math to find out who won.  Often times, you gain Victory Points by completing tasks like destroying a certain unit, holding a bit of territory, or a unit not being routed.  

This is a versatile system as the designer can assign different Victory Points for achieving certain key details.  This also allows the use of primary and secondary objectives of varying points.  It can also connect the "value" of a unit to the number of Victory Points gained or lost from the unit's destruction.  Finally, Victory Points are a great way to create a structured and competitive approach to a game.  The major downside is that victory is not always obvious at the end of the game, and requires Math to know for sure.  

For example, many GW games use this method. 

Time is the Enemy Ending

In the Classic type of ending a game ends when a certain number of turns are completed by both players.  They have an equal chance to do all the things in each turn.  In this type of ending, the game length is not set by arbitrary turn limits.  Instead, it is set by a hard time limit.  I.e. the game will end after 1 hour of play.  No matter what is going on at that point, the game ends.  

This type of end is surprisingly common in tournament style play.  The game rules may state 6 turns total, but a tournament may not have time for all 6 turns to be played out fully.  This can lead to a strange "run-out-the-clock" type of strategy by players.  The other flaw is that at the end, the winner is still not obvious and you need to use a VP or Classic If This Than This winning condition for the winner.  

Grab the Loot 

In these types of games, the board is scattered with objectives that have to be grabbed and moved off the board.  The team that moves the most loot off the board is the winner.  On the upside, it is typically obvious who the winner is at the end of the game, especially if you have uneven loot markers.  On the downside, I have played games like this where no one interacted or fought with each other as they were too busy grabbing loot.  

The obvious example of this is Frostgrave and the other Grave style games.    

Hit Your Marks

A variant to the Grab the Loot, except the loot does not move.  The models have to sit on it all game and score at the end.  Many of the same advantages and disadvantages as the above.  However, with uneven Marks to grab there is always an incentive to fight over one.  

For example, the Batman: Miniature Game by Knight Models used this method of sitting on objectives to score points.  

Doom Clock

The game has a limit to how long it will go, but the turn limit is not set.  It is instead based on the actions of the players.  As certain key actions happen, it raises the Friction for the battle.  Once it hits a limit the clock has run out.  This ends the game or triggers and end game turn.  This could be individualized doom clocks for each force OR a game-wide Doom Clock.  When the Doom Clock is reached the game ends.  

This approach means player action dictates the end-of-the-game trigger.  They can "manage" the clock based on their needs in the game.  On the downside, there is more to track and a greater chance of error in triggering the end state when needed.

For example, individual Doom Clocks are represented really well by Battlegroup.  Each force has a breakpoint, and as they take damage they draw a random chit with the total of these chits adding up to their break points.  When the break point is hit, that force has broken and is the loser.  

For a more unified Doom Clock a game like 1490 Doom fits the bill.  All players are constrained by the rising flood waters.  It rises and players need to react to the end of the game looming closer and closer. 

Combinations

Of course, many games use a variety of combinations of these techniques, even in the same game!  The end state maybe scenario specific.  By using various end states, the game can increase its replayability by changing up what it takes to win from game to game.  Not every game has a "universal" win condition.  The downside is that such differentiated win conditions mean that winning is an If This Than That rules interaction.     

For example, I am thinking of the various scenarios all have different end of game victory conditions in Wars of the Republic

Final Thoughts

Like all decisions in game design, the choice of how a game ends and who wins and loses should flow from a simple decision.  Which method does what the designer wants it to do?  This needs to flow from the designer's POV of the game and their Design Goals.

Win conditions will "teach" your players how they should be playing the game.  How to win will influence the tactics of the game.  These tactics will then impact the "feel" of game play.  Therefore, win conditions are a critical part in making sure that your game "does what you want it to do!".  

For example, Under the Martian Yoke is designed to be a survival horror wargame.  The sense of things spirally out of control is intended to heighten the tension while playing the game.  A Doom Clock is a natural fit for this type of game.  Meanwhile a game like Wars of the Republic which is intended to give historical--ish outcomes needs to be able to mirror the results of scenarios from the historical record; and therefore a more mixed approach might be needed to cover that breadth of outcomes.

In wargame design, the end can have a strong influence on the beginning and middle of the experience.  Therefore, be intentional about what win conditions you wish to use in your core rule and scenario designs. 

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: The Osprey Wargaming Series Strikes Again!

Hello faithful readers.  I have some MOAR news to share with you all.  I know, you are still reeling from last weeks reveal.... but wait..... there is more! Most of you probably follow me because I have published a few books in the Osprey Wargaming Series.  Those books were Men of Bronze, Wars of the Republic, and Castles in the Sky.  Of course, I have also released several wargames and RPGs independently as well.  That includes supplements to those Osprey Games and original works too.  

Drumroll please.......

.... Osprey Games has decided to contract me to write a set of game rules for Late Roman Warfare from 240 CE to 480 CE.  That is the Crisis of the Third Century through the Fall of the West.  These will be part of the Osprey Wargame Series so about 28,000 words. 

These rules will feature core rules based o refinements to the nWars of the Republic which is built on the Men of Bronze engine.  Unique, period specific lines-of-battle, new special rules, new campaign rules, period specific Historical scenarios, and new Advanced/Optional rules.  If I am really lucky I can add some Solo-rules to it as well?  With the added word count, I also look forward to adding some historical detail and a Quick Reference Guide in the book.  

I need these rules completed and sent to Osprey by May of 2028.  Therefore, we have plenty of time to Playtest and develop these rules.  My Patrons have a copy of the draft rules at their fingertips.  

Going into these rules, I have some simple Design Goals that are aligned with what I have done with my Historical works in the past: 

1. Scale and Model Agnostic
2. Large Battles with Small Model Counts
3. Keep Players Engaged Through Out the Game
4. Unit vs Unit Gameplay
5. Balance between the War and the Game
6. Historical-esque Outcomes

With some added page count, I am hoping to make the design goals and objectives more explicit at the beginning of the game.  Men of Bronze and Wars of the Republic both suffered a bit from mis-alignment between expectations and the experience the rules delivered.  Therefore, I want to be as clear as possible in the opening pages about the design goals and what they mean in this book.  

Of course, if I do not need to deliver the final draft until 2028 that means this book is still a long ways off.  I do not know the exact release date, but I would think late 2029 is realistic.  That is a long time away still.  

In the meantime, I need to track down 30 pictures of Late Roman miniatures in action.  If you have a favorite range, some figures you are very proud of and want to share, etc. please let me know in the comments.  I plan on getting at least two forces painted up myself in the meantime but I would love to feature YOUR work with full attributes or at least showcase the miniatures you want to see in the book.  I am tentatively planning on 28mm Victrix and Gripping Beast plastics for my own forces but am open to suggestions. 

I plan on keeping most of the Development content on my Patreon for this one.  Therefore, if you want to follow along with the Development, try it out early, give playtest feedback, etc.  that is the place to be.  Here, I expect to keep going with my normal painting, reviews, bat reps for games and other unrelated content for these Late Roman rules going forward.  

Therefore, I will be returning to my normally scheduled content.  

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!   

Posted by Blood and Spectacles Publishing at 1:20 AM No comme       

       

Wargame Design: Sea People for In Strife and Conflict

One group of people I did not include for In Strife and Conflict were the (in)famous raiders of the Late Bronze Age; the Sea Peoples.  I did not initially add them because they did not have much interaction with the Assyrians.  The Assyrians were a Mesopotamian power at the height of the Sea Peoples encroachments.  The Sea Peoples were primarily operating on the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean.  It was not until after the Broze Age collapse and the rise of the Neo-Assyrians.  The Assyrians moved westward and scooped up many of the remanent city-states left in the post Hittite and post-Sea People world.  Since In Strife and Conflict was focused on Assyrians, it did not seem like the Sea Peoples were a useful addition to the rules. 

 

However, the Sea People are a staple of the chariot war genre.  When people think of Chariot Wars, they soon think of the Bronze Age collapse; and that takes them straight to Sea Peoples.  Now, I am not a personal believer in the “Violent Migration” theory of the Bronze Age collapse, but there is no doubt the Sea People played a part in the system collapse that happened.  Plus, there is plenty of evidence about the Sea Peoples. 

 

There are a couple of things that make the Sea People a bit of a conundrum when trying to integrate them into Chariot Wars.  These are:

1. They have limited use of light chariots
2. They are mostly a light infantry force
3. There should be a lot of them
4. They were accompanied by their families
5. There is no real clear idea what this army looks like
6. It is made up of several tribes of people from across the Mediterranean

So, how does one go about making a Line-of-Battle for such an ill-defined, non-army, army?  Well, let’s dive into it. 

 

Who Are the Sea People?

Good question.  For many years, no one really knew.  However, they existed based on plenty of evidence left by the Egyptians.  This includes pictoral and written evidence.  Thanks to this evidence, Historians keep trying to trace the origins of the various tribes of the Sea People.  The origins of the Sea Peoples are not entirely relevant to the discussion here.  However, they hailed from Sicily, Sardinia, the Aegean, Anatolia, etc.  Before the Sea People “invasion” and the Bronze Age collapse these tribes and peoples were known in the area and even served as auxiliaries and allies of the city-states that would later collapse. 

 

For example, the Sherden was one of the tribes that made up the Sea Peoples.  However, we also know that they made up Ramses II Royal Guards and took part in the Battle of Kadesh.  At the same battle, the list of Hittite allies included tribes that would later be associated with the Sea Peoples.  The Sea Peoples seemed to have a mercenary, subject, or military relationship with the Chariot cultures of the region.  They were not strangers or unknown invaders. 

We also have wall reliefs that depict the Sea Peoples bringing their families with them in ox-drawn carts.  The Egyptians claim that the Sea Peoples came in great numbers but it is unclear how many were actual combatants?  This indicates that they were not looking for spoils and portable wealth.  They were looking to settle and move-in.  They were not “raiders” at all. 

 

All or our records on the Sea Peoples comes from what written and visual records remain from their enemies.  The writers assume that the readers are familiar with the situation.  Therefore, we are getting a limited and one-sided image of these peoples.  Other evidence comes from archeological evidence, which due to age is limited to certain materials.  Huge swathes of the culture of the Sea Peoples is unknown to us and potentially unknowable. 

This scene from the north wall of Medinet Habu is often used to illustrate the Egyptian campaign against the Sea Peoples, in what has come to be known as the Battle of the Delta (c. 1175 BC),^[1] during the reign of Ramesses III. While accompanying hieroglyphs do not name Egypt's enemies, describing them simply as being from "northern countries", early scholars noted the similarities between the hairstyles and accessories worn by the combatants and other reliefs in which such groups are named. Wikimedia Commons

The Sea Peoples Military

Again, we are working with very limited evidence on what the military of the Sea Peoples looked like. Indeed, creating a “universal” picture may not even be realistic considering the cosmopolitan nature of the Sea Peoples themselves.  We know a bit about the Sherden, who used helmets, corselets, and greaves.  We also know that they used round shields of Bronze, swords, and spears.  Occasionally, iron swords are mentioned as well.  For other tribes, Archers and thrown missiles weapons like Javelins also appear to be part of their arsenal.  However, different tribes seem to have had distinctive head gear or equipment.  It is unclear if this also meant that they had a different role on the battlefield.

In at least one pictoral representation, we see the Sea People making use of Chariots of a similar design to the Egyptians.  However, it is unclear if this is just an artist interpretation as that is what an army “should have” or if the artist was an eyewitness or working with an eyewitness of the battle.  There is not much other evidence to support that the Sea Peoples used chariots.  They are not discussed often, and the descriptions of battles are often only fragmentary or a line or two at best.  

 

There is a reference to the Sea People using a two-pronged land and sea strategy at the Battle of the Delta.  There is also reference to ships appearing in other sources.  This led to the name “Se Peoples” but not all the tribes associated and named as the Sea Peoples have any connection with the sea.  Therefore, even the term Sea Peoples could be a bit of a misnomer.  We do not know much about their sailing ability, ships, or their Naval prowess.  As the Battle of the Delta the naval arm of the invasion was defeated, but so was the land arm. 

 

We have no idea how the Sea Peoples organized themselves.  No idea who was in charge, no idea how they coordinated, and no idea how they fought as units.  Therefore, we have to make a lot of assumptions when it comes to the organization of Sea People armies. 

 

The sources seem to indicate that they were a fast moving, infantry-based army.  They operated as mostly light infantry, with a core of heavily armed and armored Sherden.  It is unclear how they integrated ranged weapons into their forces.  However, they seemed to favor close-up combat where many chariot based armies preferred archery or other ranged attacks as the primary attack arm. 

Beyond these broad strokes, we know very little else about the Sea Peoples military structures, doctrines, or how they fought.  The chroniclers at the time do not leave much detail.  The archeological record is not much better. 

Ramses II's Sherden Royal Guard at the front of his armies

 

Creating the Sea People Line-of-Battle

First off, I use 6mm miniatures on 60mm x 60mm bases for my games of In Strife and Conflict.  However, the game itself is base and model agnostic though.  You can use single-based 28mm, multi-based 15mm, or whatever you want.  The rules are interested in Unit-vs-Unit combat and does not have any casualty removal.  Therefore, when I talk about this Line-of-Battle I am refer to it by units.  

I think we have seen that the Sea People are not a homogenous group.  That means, as I build this Line-Of-Battle I will assume that various infantry troop types are available to them.  This could be split up on tribal lines, or a mix of headgear and weaponry as the army builder sees fit.  I think having different tribes represent different unit types is an attractive option to differentiate units on the battlefield but is probably not a realistic portrayal of how they operated in the field.  However, sometimes the needs of expediency make sense on the tabletop where they do not on the battlefield.  

Second, I went and reviewed the Unit Profiles in the core In Strife and Conflict rules.  Thankfully, they are a bit generic with some options.  I think these will represent the Sea People unit types we have seen well.  After I have a basic list, I will think if any other special Chrome is needed.  Here is what I think fits in with the line-of-battle based on the evidence and the needs of the army as a playable force: 

Light Chariots W/Javelins

Professional Infantry

Levy Infantry

Irregular Infantry

Skirmishers

Mounted Infantry (?) 

The core would be Professional Infantry, possibly Sherden.  The Levy and Irregular Infantry would give them numbers for flanking and Rear attacks.  A limited number of light chariot with javelins would fit the bill for what we see about the Battle of Djahy.  Skirmishers and Irregular would give them some enhanced mobility to pin enemy formations for the others to maneuver into position.  They would also allow them to use terrain to advantage. 

One thing I am noticing right away, is that general Infantry does not have access to Javelins.  This is something I will need to create some Chrome for them.  There are two ways to go about it.  The first is a unit upgrade as a Shoot weapon.  The second is to use a system similar to my Roman Legions in Wars of the Republic as a rule that is triggered by using King's Decree to reduce enemy armor.  This would give them some additional punch up close, but reduce their range options. 

The Mounted Infantry is a question mark to represent ox-drawn carts.  We see them in the artwork, but for moving families and not troops.  Therefore, I am not sure I want to add them in to the army list at this point.  

In the core rules there are two Special Rules that maybe appropriate for the Sea Peoples.  They are Iron Weapons, which some sources claim the Sea Peoples had limited numbers of.  The other is Terror.  This would impact how other units reacted to their charges or their ability to charge them.  Then, I might add a Thrown Weapons special rule for the Professional Troops to help with their "shock assault" capabilities. 

Sea Peoples in conflict with the Egyptians in the battle of Djahy.  Wikimedia Commons

I decided on the following:   

Sea People Line-of-Battle

0-2 Professional Infantry

- Thrown Weapons for +2 points

0-2 Light Chariots

- Javelins for +1 Points

1+ Levy Infantry 

- Upgrade with Javelins- Shoot 3 (6MU) for +1 Point

1+ Irregular infantry

- Upgrade with Javelins- Shoot 3 (6MU) for +1 Point

0+ Skirmishers

• Sea Peoples can arm 0-2 Units with Iron Weapons at +2 Points per unit
• Sea Peoples can Equip all Units with Terror for +2 Points per unit
• Professional Troops for Sea People may be armed with Thrown Weapons for +2 Points per Unit 

Thrown Weapons

The Sea People had a reputation for barraging their opponents with darts and javelins as they closed the distance to melee.  This was to soften up an enemy as they approached with casualties and laden-down shields.  

A Unit that charges, counter-charges, or is charged may spend a King's Decree to use their thrown weapons.  The enemies' Armor is reduced by 1 to a minimum of 1 in the following melee.  In the End Phase, the opponent's Armor rating is returned to normal.  

Sample Sea People Army 

Below you can see a sample Sea People army built using the Line-of-Battle above.  This is to give you an idea of what a Sea Peoples army could look like.  It is built to a 48-point force.  This force gives you 8 units and 9 King's Decree at the start of the battle. 

1 Professional Infantry                            12

- Thrown Weapons, Terror, Warlord    

1 Light Chariots                                       11

= Javelins, Terror

2 Levy Infantry                                        10                                    

- Javelins

2 Irregular Infantry                                  10

- Javelins

2 Skirmishers                                           4

Painting Sherden from Baccus 6mm

Final Thoughts

This army list adds a completely different style of play to your games of In Strife and Conflict.  Many of the Lines-of-Battle found in the core rules focus on Chariot Wars armies supported by archers and infantry.  The Sea Peoples are a completely different playstyle than the dominant fighting style of the region.  Therefore, any commander who wishes to use the Sea Peoples will have a to develop new strategies and tactics to help make these infantry heavy forces successful.  We do not know historically how the Sea People were about to do this and that is what makes playing a Sea Peoples force so exciting.  

Let me know if you think I missed out on any other Lines-of-Battle for In Stife and Conflict.  I will gladly look into expanding into more forces.   

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!