Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Conquerors and Kings

Expand Messages
  • dale_hurtt
    Has anyone tried Peter Pigs Conquerors and Kings (grid-based Ancients rules)? If so, what was your opinion? I was prompted to purchase it when I read that
    Message 1 of 7 , Mar 25, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Has anyone tried Peter Pigs "Conquerors and Kings" (grid-based Ancients rules)? If so, what was your opinion?

      I was prompted to purchase it when I read that they had used the rules for a battle in Slingshot magazine, but recently read one review that indicated it might be broken, so I was wondering if someone here had actually tried it.

      Thanks,

      Dale
    • Lugnakh
      Read several reviews of it and was thinking about buying it, but then I found a copy of Phil Sabin s Lost Battles in my local big bookstore, and that has
      Message 2 of 7 , Mar 31, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Read several reviews of it and was thinking about buying it, but then I found a copy of Phil Sabin's Lost Battles in my local big bookstore, and that has pretty much satisfied my quest for a grid based ancients game.
        I read that recent review you mentioned as well, and figured I had made the right choice. I do like a lot of the RFCM rules though.

        --- In grid_based_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "dale_hurtt" <dale_hurtt@...> wrote:
        >
        > Has anyone tried Peter Pigs "Conquerors and Kings" (grid-based Ancients rules)? If so, what was your opinion?
        >
        > I was prompted to purchase it when I read that they had used the rules for a battle in Slingshot magazine, but recently read one review that indicated it might be broken, so I was wondering if someone here had actually tried it.
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Dale
        >
      • Dale Hurtt
        ... Interesting. I also just purchased Lost Battles after having heard a reference to it when someone was mentioning putting DBA on a grid. I ve read the rules
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 1 6:18 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          > Lugnakh wrote:
          >
          > Read several reviews of it and was thinking about buying it, but
          > then I found a copy of Phil Sabin's Lost Battles in my local big
          > bookstore, and that has pretty much satisfied my quest for a grid
          > based ancients game.

          Interesting. I also just purchased Lost Battles after having heard a reference to it when someone was mentioning putting DBA on a grid. I've read the rules up to the combat section.

          I joined the Lost Battles Yahoo forum and although it is active, they don't seem to talk about the game, per se, so it is hard to get a sense why anyone would prefer Lost Battles (Strategos III) over something else.

          Dale
        • captainquincy
          I ve played Lost Battles since they began as Strategos I. These rules have given me some of the best ancient games in my 30-odd years of wargaming. Granted,
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 3 1:32 PM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            I've played Lost Battles since they began as Strategos I. These rules have given me some of the best ancient games in my 30-odd years of wargaming. Granted, the rules are densely written and can be hard work for the novice but persevere and they will reward you with entertaining and nail-biting battles.

            Neil

            --- In grid_based_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Dale Hurtt" <dale_hurtt@...> wrote:
            >
            > > Lugnakh wrote:
            > >
            > > Read several reviews of it and was thinking about buying it, but
            > > then I found a copy of Phil Sabin's Lost Battles in my local big
            > > bookstore, and that has pretty much satisfied my quest for a grid
            > > based ancients game.
            >
            > Interesting. I also just purchased Lost Battles after having heard a reference to it when someone was mentioning putting DBA on a grid. I've read the rules up to the combat section.
            >
            > I joined the Lost Battles Yahoo forum and although it is active, they don't seem to talk about the game, per se, so it is hard to get a sense why anyone would prefer Lost Battles (Strategos III) over something else.
            >
            > Dale
            >
          • Dale Hurtt
            ... Thanks Neil. I read the Granicus walkthrough, which is in the files section of the Lost Battles forum. I was surprised by the references in Slingshot, as I
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 4 7:07 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              > Neil wrote:
              >
              > I've played Lost Battles since they began as Strategos I. These
              > rules have given me some of the best ancient games in my 30-odd
              > years of wargaming. Granted, the rules are densely written and can
              > be hard work for the novice but persevere and they will reward you
              > with entertaining and nail-biting battles.

              Thanks Neil. I read the Granicus walkthrough, which is in the files section of the Lost Battles forum. I was surprised by the references in Slingshot, as I had never heard of these rules previously.

              The one thing that gnaws at me is that there seems to be little reason to use miniatures, which is one of the primary draws of gaming for me. I gather that Veterans have two bases, Average four, and Levy eight. When a unit is spent, 1/2 of the bases are removed. So essentially the bases function as a marker for status only.

              Clash for a Continent/Hold the Line, Memoir '44, Battle Cry, Command and Colors: Ancients, Battlelore, etc. all do the same; the loss of miniatures represent the erosion of the unit and remove the need to add markers to the game. Whereas with Fields of Glory, Warhammer Ancient Battles, etc. the more figures or bases, the more rolls you make, and therefore the more damage you can inflict. Thus it represents the erosion of combat power.

              Just saying. :)
            • captainquincy
              One could say that for any element based rule system, where it is the number of bases that is crucial and not the number of figures. Why have figures at all? I
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 5 4:46 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                One could say that for any element based rule system, where it is the number of bases that is crucial and not the number of figures. Why have figures at all?
                I use them because I've got 'em and they look nice.
                The number of bases used to represent Veteran, Average and Levy is more of an aide memoire. Especially with levy as they count as 2 units for zone limits. We just use a casualty marker (dead figure) to denote Spent status.

                --- In grid_based_wargames@yahoogroups.com, "Dale Hurtt" <dale_hurtt@...> wrote:
                >
                > > Neil wrote:
                > >
                > > I've played Lost Battles since they began as Strategos I. These
                > > rules have given me some of the best ancient games in my 30-odd
                > > years of wargaming. Granted, the rules are densely written and can
                > > be hard work for the novice but persevere and they will reward you
                > > with entertaining and nail-biting battles.
                >
                > Thanks Neil. I read the Granicus walkthrough, which is in the files section of the Lost Battles forum. I was surprised by the references in Slingshot, as I had never heard of these rules previously.
                >
                > The one thing that gnaws at me is that there seems to be little reason to use miniatures, which is one of the primary draws of gaming for me. I gather that Veterans have two bases, Average four, and Levy eight. When a unit is spent, 1/2 of the bases are removed. So essentially the bases function as a marker for status only.
                >
                > Clash for a Continent/Hold the Line, Memoir '44, Battle Cry, Command and Colors: Ancients, Battlelore, etc. all do the same; the loss of miniatures represent the erosion of the unit and remove the need to add markers to the game. Whereas with Fields of Glory, Warhammer Ancient Battles, etc. the more figures or bases, the more rolls you make, and therefore the more damage you can inflict. Thus it represents the erosion of combat power.
                >
                > Just saying. :)
                >
              • Dale Hurtt
                ... I agree completely. After all, this forum is _/miniature/_ wargames! :) ... Good point. Levy should be substantially larger (in appearance). If you want to
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 6 8:48 AM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Neil wrote:
                  >
                  > One could say that for any element based rule system, where it is
                  > the number of bases that is crucial and not the number of figures.
                  > Why have figures at all?
                  > I use them because I've got 'em and they look nice.

                  I agree completely. After all, this forum is _/miniature/_ wargames! :)

                  > The number of bases used to represent Veteran, Average and Levy is
                  > more of an aide memoire. Especially with levy as they count as 2
                  > units for zone limits.

                  Good point. Levy should be substantially larger (in appearance). If you want to maintain DBA basing it also makes sense to use twice as many bases rather than bases twice as large.

                  > We just use a casualty marker (dead figure) to denote Spent status.

                  Good idea. I usually just forget which figure pose represents which status! :D

                  Working on element-based, grid-based Napoleonics rules which draws on some of the ideas from Last Battles, so I definitely find the book to have been useful.

                  Dale
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.