Friday, 10 January 2025

A Third Solo 10mm Ancients Trial Game - OHW D3 Version Rules

 A couple of nights ago, I spent a pleasant 90-120 minutes giving the D3 amended version of OHW Rules by Peter of Grid Based fame a go (see here https://gridbasedwargaming.blogspot.com/p/d3-ancient-rules.html)

I have pages of notes again - that I probably won't regurgitate in detail - and about 25 pics of the 10 game turns:


Initial dispositions (this is again scenario 1 from the OHW scenarios) with two of my newly made hills in use for the first time (see end of previous post!)


The Romans consisted of 2 x Veteran Heavy Infantry (VHI) 1 x Heavy Infantry (HI or AUX) and 2 x archers - I made the VHI count as 2 for army resolve but did not double the number of units - so the Roman Army resolve was 7


The Britons had a larger force - 2 each of chariots, Light Cavalry, Light Infantry Skirmishers and Warband Heavy Infantry - their army resolve was 8



Turns one and two consisted of each side advancing, the Britons as fast as they could, the Romans in a more circumspect way.



Turn 3 and the LI fired on the Aux and got 2 hits - the morale test was passed (Peter has added the morale test in, as well as the army resolve)


The Roman archers fired at the LI and got two hits - the Britons unfortunately rolled a 1 for morale, the only role that is a failure with two hits, and they had to retire.



The VHI advanced into contact with the chariots, to gain the advantage of first hits (in melee, only the "active" player scores hits, which encourages aggressive tactics) two hits were scored, with the chariots passing their test


In turn 4, the melees continued - the chariots got two hits on the VHI who passed their test, the Roman archers got 2 hits on the other chariot unit, who also passed their test, then the VHI managed to get 3 more hits on the first chariot unit, who were now on 5 (of a total allowable of 9) hits - and they passed their test again!


In turn 5, the British left wing charged the Roman line. The chariots got 3 hits on the "red" archers - who passed their test. The cavalry got only 1 hit on the "green" archers - but they rolled a 1 and failed, falling back onto the hill. Thats a point off the army resolve for a failed morale test!



In the Roman turn, the VHI put the first unit of British chariots up to 8 hits - but they still passed their test - staunch fellows! On the other flank, however, the "red" archers got 3 hits on the chariots, and they were forced to pull back, costing them an army resolve point.


In turn 6, the British cavalry pursued the "green" archers onto the hill, getting another two hits and forcing them back again!


The British infantry all advanced and the chariots put two hits on the VHI, who passed their morale test, then the VHI put 3 hits on the chariots, and they were gone - minus two army morale points to the Brits. The Aux infantry advanced into the skirmishers and the archers fired and got 3 hits on the cavalry, who passed their morale check


Turn 7 - the second, fresh British cavalry unit charged the VHI who had just defeated the chariots, inflicting a single hit, which the veterans shrugged off (passed their test). The cavalry on the hill finished off the "green" archers - minus another 2 points to the Roman army morale - the skirmishers put 2 hits on the Aux infantry and the chariots 1 on the "red" archers - both Roman units passed their test.
In return, the VHI achieved 2 hits on the cavalry, the auxiliaries 3 on the skirmishers and the archers 1 on the chariots, with all the British units passing morale checks.


Turn 8 - the British skirmishers fell back from the auxiliaries, passing through the supporting infantry warband, which them attacked the auxiliaries. The other skirmishers attacked the "red" archers in the flank and the first cavalry on the hill turned to face the flank of the VHI. In combat, the second cavalry unit got no hits on the VHI, the warband got 2 on the auxiliaries and the combined skirmishers and chariots put 4 hits on the archers - despite which, all the Roman units stood firm. In the Roman turn, the archers pulled back from the combat to join the as yet uncommitted second VHI unit, the VHI put 3 hits on the cavalry skirmishing them and the auxiliaries put 1 on the warband - who failed their check and were forced back, costing the Britons another resolve point!


Turn 9 - things came to a head. The chariots charged the archers and got 3 hits on them, taking their total past 9, and the unit was gone - the Roman army resolve was at 1! The cavalry again failed to get any hits on the VHI. The cavalry on the hill turned to face the rear of the auxiliary infantry.


In the Roman turn, the VHI got 4 hits on the cavalry in melee, eliminating them, and the British army morale now also dropped to 1 - then the other VHI unit, in their first combat of the game, put 3 hits on the chariots, and also eliminated that unit from the game, meaning the British army morale was at 0.


The "Butchers Bill" at the official end of the game - Britons to the left, Romans to the right.



I decided to play on for a bit, as in reality, the Roman force was in a pretty dicey situation, split in two with the Britons in quite reasonable shape.

Turn 10 - the cavalry on the hill charged the auxiliary infantry, getting 3 hits and eliminating them from the game and reducing the army resolve to 0 as well! The Romans now have two Veteran Heavy Infantry units, one on each flank, with a British force between them!


Turn 11 - the final turn - the Britons mainly realign their forces, but a fresh warband does attack the right flank VHI unit, getting a single hit - yet, despite being the freshest unit on the field, the veterans roll a 1 and fail the morale test - I felt this was a very clear message from the dice Gods that the game should end!


The final situation on the Roman left flank - the VHI carrying 5 hits faced cavalry, skirmishers and a relatively fresh infantry warband


And on the Roman right, the VHI had only a single hit, but also faced a fresh warband, backed up by some skirmishers.


Well, I enjoyed the game, and I think the enhancements added to the rules by Peter - morale tests and army resolve in particular, improved the feel of things, as did the ability to disengage from combat, rather than being forced to carry on to the bitter end.

It was again quite an attritional slog but in reality, that's probably a realistic recreation of warfare in this era - what do readers think?

Thanks for visiting and please do let me know your thoughts on the game and rules used - I might even give a different scenario a run through over the weekend - if the mood takes me!

36 comments:

  1. It looks right. Not my period, but your work on the figures is really paying off.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice to see you getting in another game Keith:). Rules are a very personal thing, so if they work for you, then that's all that matters. I think that actions of this period would be pretty much a shieldwall slugfest, but with both sides needing to withdraw, catch breath and then possibly re-engage. Just try swinging a hammer onto something for a few minutes and see how pooped you and your arm are!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Steve...rules preferences are definitely a matter of personal taste....I, for example, don't like much about the Warlord stable of rules, whereas, they seem to be pretty popular with many others!
      I thought the original OHW idea that melee, once started, just had to carry on till one side was wiped out, was just a contrived way of trying to get a decision within the 60 minutes, so I prefer Peter's amendments!

      Delete
    2. I agree with Steve's assessment. Rules are a personal choice. More so when playing solo. Do what you like! Having played a number of Peter's D3 variants, I think they improve the decision-making over OHW with a slight deduction in attritional battles. Looking good!

      Delete
    3. Thanks Jon, I will carry on tinkering!

      Delete
  3. Yeah attritional slog is about right I reckon. I don’t think you can go far wrong with anything Peter produces rules wise. I usually play on a turn or two when fighting campaign battles since the collapse of an army and it’s flight often produces yet more casualties that need to be factored in for future games.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers JBM....in a campaign, I doubt the Roman's would have accepted battle, outnumbered by 8 units to 5?! Your point about post battle attrition is a good one, though.

      Delete
  4. Agree, great looking game with beautiful minis!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good looking game Keith, your hills look great in place and the figures are really very nice indeed, as for rules as others have said what works for the individual but the amendments made seem to work very well and give a good game and that's always a good result!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Donnie, I was quite happy with how the hills looked....I just need a better cloth now!
      The game worked well, so I will probably persist with them.

      Delete
  6. Looks good as a game Keith and it seemed plausible to me. It sounds like they worked. However, you have to feel like they are working, that they are giving you the period feel and being fun to play. So, sorry it's right back at you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Richard...and you are obviously correct, I need to decide if I like the rules....which I think I do!

      Delete
  7. Great to see you getting another game, the rule ammendments did seem to give a better game

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Scotty - I might do some tinkering of my own with Peters D3 rules - we wargamers ARE generally inveterate tinkerers!

      Delete
  8. It certainly looks like you had a worthwhile couple of hours playing toys soldiers…
    I rather enjoy solo games… It’s a great way of getting to know the intricacies of the rules…and your opponent can’t go in a huff if you call them a idiot… 🤣

    All the best. Aly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Aly, to paraphrase the socialist opinion of a bayonet - a solo wargame might be described as game with an idiot on both sides!

      Delete
  9. An enjoyable blow by blow account of the game. Good to see you have got your armies on to the tabletop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers Peter, and much of the credit goes to your rules!

      Delete
  10. Good looking game Keith and I think the army resolve mechanism works well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. A nice AAR Keith. I find that in DBMM once combat is engaged it is difficult, albeit not impossible, to withdraw. That feels right to me as well. Warbands are very difficult to defeat in DBMM though as I mentioned before, which doesn't feel as correct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Lawrence...from the limited reading I have done (albeit, it's mainly historical fiction!) I don't feel the Roman legionaries are strong enough, so I might keep experimenting with strength/ability differentiation of different troop types.....

      Delete
  12. Good to see you playtesting the rule changes. This should be a great experience to have when you have other players.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A nice tidy game Keith! With regards warbands vs Romans , we have experimented with various mechanisms for warbands. Should they be strong enough to smash a Roman line? Or all things being equal should warband just 'bounce' off a solid line of Roman Legionaries? We kind of have a compromise in our home grown set. A fresh war band charging Romans tend to have some bonuses and can theoretically cause some damage..and even break a Roman line. But if the Romans hold- then it will be attritional..which on balance the Romans will win.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks John, all advice gratefully accepted! That sounds about right to me too...someone on the Barbarian side has to be able to beat the legionaries, or it makes the battles a bit pointless!
      I was also trying to figure out a way to allow for the two pila...light and heavy....that the legionaries carried, and generally "discharged " immediately prior to combat, but I may have to leave that out, as I don't want to overcomplicate things!

      Delete
  14. You have sure made headway with these Keith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Mark...to be fair, they are pretty quick to do....if I put my mind to it, I am sure I could do a full unit in one 2-3 hour session!

      Delete
  15. Good looking game and I'm with John, that a warband should get an initial charge bonus but if the Romans weather the storm they should have an advantage.
    Best Iain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Iain, that seems like a reasonable solution 😉

      Delete
  16. Great looking game Keith, it looked like the rules worked well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Ray, just found your comment in spam - first time thats happened for a while!

      Delete
  17. Your 10s look superb on the table Keith! Must be really pleasing to have brought them from raw metal to table top action in such a short time.
    The Gauls-Celts (& Germani) seem to have beaten the Romans when able to execute a bit of battlefield trickery (surprise, ambush, use of terrain), but in a stand-up fight came off second best against Roman order and training—with half the number of Romans defeating hordes of barbarians and coming out with 'but a few scratches', according to the official histories!!
    Regards, James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks James, yes, it is nice to have figures on the table and in a game only three months or so after the first purchases!
      I think we do have to take some of the Roman histories with a bucket of salt....I read recently that there is only one Roman source for the battle of Mons Graupious ever actually taking place....we don't really know such an engagement ever happened! Having said that, the expert Roman historian writing the book indicated he believed it was true....

      Delete