From: Markus Stumptner Subject: Re: Alexandros/Successors replay To Dan Raspler and the others who asked. I pretty much agree with the weaknesses pointed out, in particular the fact that the tactical board just plain does not work and inevitably results in an interminable slugfest with almost no chance for the Persian player. Hoping for Alexander's death is indeed almost the only chance (in fact, I recall that the designer once mentioned that as a sound strategy :-(, unless the Alexander player has allowed his army to be caught piecemeal. We found the supply rules nice, but too soft in that they allow an advance into poor provinces without a lot of planning. Historically, Alexander needed about a year of campaigning in Anatolia before he felt safe enough to invade Syria. In our games, Syria was usually reached within two turns after the Granicus. Reading Engels' book on Alexander's logistics reinforced our impression. On looking back (it's been several years since we played Alexandros), I noted that we did interpret the movement sequence differently, in that we did not allow a player a free "escape" move if he already started in a province with the other player - he had to manage evasion from combat. This meant that the Persians had to keep one province between themselves and Alexander if they did not want to run the risk of being caught too soon. I do not recall if we instituted this as a house rule, simply interpreted the rules that way, or found it as an erratum. I recommend it in any case. (Interestingly, I dug out an old copy of Perfidious Albion and Charles Vasey also played it this way, although a second reviewer in the same issue did not - perhaps there was some time lag between the time the two reviews were written.) NOTE: The Successors variant has a completely different movement sequence, so this problem simply does not apply. There is no single combat phase, but each player can attack in his turn, unless the player attacked can evade (which requires cavalry superiority, at least as good a leader, and a dieroll). Anyway, back to Alexandros: Unless the Persian manages to win a battle, the game proceeds in historical, but ultimately fairly disappointing manner, especially since the eastern campaigns (despite taking a lot of time) are a pushover once the Persian capitals are out of the way. This is why we effectively stopped playing Alexandros until we recently decided to give the Successors variant a try. Regardless of what tactical system one uses, the fact that the unit mix on the different sides is not as crassly different as in Alexandros means that chances in the battles are more even (unless your recruit yourself into a corner). I don't know about the 2-player Successors variant - we didn't quite trust it, but perhaps we'll try it if the 3-player game works out nicely. As for the tactical board, it needs to be replaced. Markowitz himself recommended using the Spartacus tactical system instead (which is still not my cup of tea). There also was an issue of the Canadian Wargamers' Journal that contained a table on how to map the units to the units of Men at Arms from S&T 137 (which seems to work OK if one uses Keith Schlesinger's morale rules, but I have very limited experience with this). Unfortunately, that means you don't get to use the beautiful Alexandros counters in the battles, but it may still the best option if you have to work with commercially available wargames. The Field of Battle rules that we use were intended specifically for use with Alexandros (although a miniatures version also existed) and work very well, but unfortunately Vasey seems to have given up completely on the idea of publishing them. Those who liked the Alexandros system might want to get a copy of Casus Belli #11, which contains the game Bellum Gallicum with a very similar system (unfortunately also with the same tactical board). The counters are also very nice. The Belisarius game from Vae Victis #5 looks remotely similar. I've played neither of these yet, so no comments. Markus