William Terdoslavich - Jul 16, 2009 9:59 am (#29754 Total: 29829) I'm in print again--seven contributing chapters in "It Looked Good On Paper, another three in "Haunting Museums". Vae Victus/Benevento-- Low piece count, small board, not a lot of die rolling, but a lot of fiddly modifiers. Not sure how seriously the factoring applies to the pieces, but I'll get into that in a moment. I had the French (blue) while Scott had the Sicilians. French had a two-line set-up on a hill, with men-at-arms and crosswbowmen interspersed, backed by a second line of mounted knights held in reserve. Each battle leader had one knight, one crossbow and one men-at-arms counter. With six leaders, this was going to be its own problem soon. (King had two cav, four infantry/crossbowmen.) Leaders with knights make the most powerful combination, but any maneuver will leave infantry behind, beyond their command radius. So do I just sit on the hill and wait for the Sicilians/Saracens to show up? Scott deploys his Saracen archers and men at arms in line and approaches. Arrows fly, but do not find their marks. My crossbows reply, with less effect. So far, so good. Right now I'm just focusing on maintaining a line, still wondering how this game works. Scott launches a knight's charge on my left/center that really socks it to my line. So long as the knight can make contact, another attack can be rolled, for three in all. Then the counter is flipped over to show exhaustion. Charges after this point are limited to one. Hmmmm, so that's how it works. Now Scott's men-at-arms are in contact with my line. There is some pushing back and forth, some units becoming discouraged or tired. I'm looking at this mess, knowing better units were on the way. Do I launch a big attack now, hoping to kill part of the army and even the odds when the enemy reinforcements show up? Well, French knighthood was well known for charging before thinking, so ATTACK!!!! I activate four of the six banners, leaders with knights charging, three attacks each, slamming forward from my center and right. The Saracen archers and footmen are put to flight. Killing units is hard in this game. If they are running away and are blocked, they die. Otherwise hitting them again only makes them run faster. Now the battlefield is one big chaotic mess. Retreating units are running afoul of reinforcements, triggering further disruptions and retreats. Manfred shows up. I waste no time--ATTACK. This is not a charge, but a plain old contact. My die rolling is lucky and the dude is wounded. That puts a crimp on his span of command. As the Sicilian/Saracen line lies tattered in disarray, I use my activations to bring units out of orders forward while retreating their leaders backward to re-establish command and control. Likewise, Scott brings some order to his line. But as we face down again, French knighthood, even in its exhausted state, was slamming into the enemy line with all positive DRMs way up to the max. More retreat, more chaos. With the outcome certain, we agreed to call the game on account of time, having played about five of its 10 turns. Now for the critique. There is a simpler game in Vae Victus/Benevento that is dying to get out. I'm not sure what role factoring plays if attacking at 1-1 or 1-2 doesn't make much of a difference. I even had some charges delivered at 1-3 that were successful. DRMs went to the max too easily and too quickly. Yes, a knight's charge was the equivalent of a panzer division tearing a hole in your line. But this simple fact was expressed in game terms by too many modifiers and irrelevant factoring. When gamers get tired, such fiddly arithmetic becomes forgotten or misplayed. Perhaps that is a sign that the mechanic should be simplified? Scott was shackled to an "idiot rule" that required half his army to attack before the better half arrived. This was to simulate the historical battle. But if the historical battle compromised one side before the fighting started, then why play? A freer set-up or an optional rule allowing the full Sicilian/Saracen force to deploy would have made for a closer game, which is more fun to play than a blow out. Aside from making one headstrong decision to attack recklessly, I had few decisions to make. I suppose for its simulation value, VV/Benevento accomplished its mission. It's another one of those screwed up medieval battles where a skillful battle decision is overshadowed by the fight itself, sort of like a called football play that was supposed to do one thing but did something else. Once the player becomes the spectator to actions beyond his control, is it still a game? I'll play it again, since my preference will always be reach for a wargame over a Euro at any sitting. But I think a few tweaks are in order. Scott DiBerardino - Jul 16, 2009 10:07 am (#29755 Total: 29829) Designer of TENKA, not so new anymore from Victory Point Games :: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. -- Napoleon By and large, my sentiments mirror Bill's. There are so many battles available in this system (Au fil de l'epee) that I want to try a couple of others before developing a more robust critique. It has been immensely entertaining for me to try a variety of systems modeling medieval (and later) battles (Markham's quads, Men of Iron, Kulikovo, Guelphs & Ghibellines, and now Au fil). It's like reading a number of conflicting history books, and trying to find the "true" history that is circumscribed by everything.