More YouTube Videos - please

[HoaryCenturion]

Gents & Admin of WGC -

Was not entirely sure where to post this, but hope it will be read and considered.

First, thanks to RC for all the excellent instructional/tutorial videos. Would that each set of ancient/medieval rules did this.

Second, while the videos of Hattin and Hastings were appreciated and well worth the time, I was wondering/hoping if videos of 144 point per side battles, using the bigger terrain set ups, could be made?

At the risk of being greedy, I would like to see a set-piece battle for the 500 BC to 1 BC period, the 1 AD to 500 AD period, and then, 501 AD to oh, 1300 AD.

Understanding that one could just extend the videos of the regular-sized games, at least mentally, I think 144 point per side videos (not of historical battles, but of simple scenarios) would add to the educational as well as entertainment aspect of the TRIUMPH video catalog.

Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.

Cheers,
Chris

[Bill Hupp]

Chris,

I like your idea. Would you be able to list out some of the things you are specifically interested that the video cover in the larger game?

I'd be likely to try a video but one that was more summary in form. The 144 point games take some time to play.

We are also interested in trying some more 96 point Triumph! games and using multiple commands per side.

[Brummbär]

Just wanted to comment:
we also have switched more to 96 points battles with most time 3 commands.
144 points battles used to dragg on for a while when we tested them.

[HoaryCenturion]

Gents,

Thanks for reading and responding.

Sgt. Hupp - Well, off the top of my head and with no specific consideration, how about the following:
> Terrain - In a couple of recent games, I appreciated the 2d6 roll to determine the layout, but found that terrain often did not play a part other than to decorate the tabletop. Historical, yes, but . . .
> Combats - Wanting to make sure that I'm doing things right. Yes, there are specific videos, but again, I think in the context of a large game, this would help players. For example, recently played a scenario featuring Early Franks and Warring Chinese (yes, yes, ahistorical). Anyhow, what happens to that supporting unit of Warriors when the first line unit is destroyed? Previous rule experience and perhaps some bias on my part would suggest that the supporting unit be disordered or something.
> Demoralization - Saw this in the Hattin video, but think it would make more sense/be more clear in a one-off points battle between two 144-point forces. It seems that one could have a unit "rout" on one turn and then be given an order to stand or to attack on a subsequent turn, which seems odd. Related to this, it seems unusual to have a command or wing or division become demoralized when it has lost 1/3 of its strength and yet, for an army to break, it has to lose 1/2 of its strength.

Maybe this is why 144-point games seem to take so long? (Brummbar - can sympathize!)

Cheers and thanks again,
Chris

[Bill Hupp]

Thanks Chris for the notes.

As to demoralization, this is really a carry over concept from the legacy rules for big battles. It works well and has scaled up in some +144 game historical battles well. (( was hung up on doing SoA Battle Day games for a while using Triumph!) Some of those we played 4 and 5 times (and then I ran them at conventions.)

The sub-group (division/dorps) aspects of Grand Triumph! is one of the things that Armati, as an example, has tried to put in the rules, but I think it may be best to just bake it into the scenario for historical battles. What can you really do beyond a 3 'battles' requirement that is going to work for multiple periods?

Scenarios, campaigns and set piece battles allow for setting more than 1/3rd being the end of the game or for demoralization. We've experimented with this quite a bit (sometimes on the fly) and I think gamers who are not playing competitive tournaments probably like games played to 50% casualties a bit better. It could just be that our group is not used to playing multiple games in a night. If you follow our games at Liberty Hobby Center at all, multi-night games are more the norm. We use a ton of terrain too! (We are probably doing too much socializing.)

The other issue i have with the 144 point games is that everything looks 'very thin.' More on this on other threads (but you aren't a figure guy anyway it seems.)

Bill

[Rod]

Gents,

Thanks for reading and responding.

Sgt. Hupp - Well, off the top of my head and with no specific consideration, how about the following:
> Terrain - In a couple of recent games, I appreciated the 2d6 roll to determine the layout, but found that terrain often did not play a part other than to decorate the tabletop. Historical, yes, but . . .
> Combats - Wanting to make sure that I'm doing things right. Yes, there are specific videos, but again, I think in the context of a large game, this would help players. For example, recently played a scenario featuring Early Franks and Warring Chinese (yes, yes, ahistorical). Anyhow, what happens to that supporting unit of Warriors when the first line unit is destroyed? Previous rule experience and perhaps some bias on my part would suggest that the supporting unit be disordered or something.
> Demoralization - Saw this in the Hattin video, but think it would make more sense/be more clear in a one-off points battle between two 144-point forces. It seems that one could have a unit "rout" on one turn and then be given an order to stand or to attack on a subsequent turn, which seems odd. Related to this, it seems unusual to have a command or wing or division become demoralized when it has lost 1/3 of its strength and yet, for an army to break, it has to lose 1/2 of its strength.

Maybe this is why 144-point games seem to take so long? (Brummbar - can sympathize!)

Cheers and thanks again,
Chris

Chris,
some quick answers:

Terrain generated for a random battle and for a scenario are a different thing. If you want to try more terrain, there is not reason not to do that?

Related to combat, nothing happens to a stand supporting from behind if the front stand is destroyed.

Demoralization - The key is that if a command is demoralized every stand has to be given an order or it makes a rout move, even stands that you do not move (unless they are already in combat). You can give a demoralized stand or group an order just like any other stand, but remember that the command distance is half the normal distance. Also, any stand that makes a rout move when they are "out of command range" is simply picked up and off the table. If the General's stand is already gone, any unit that routs is off the table, so for example if you have a dead general and roll a 1 pick up all the stands not in combat. I have found that a 144 point battle with 6 new players takes about 3-3.5 hours maximum to reach a conclusion. With experienced players it can be much faster. This is much faster than other Ancients games I have played.

Regarding videos, I do hope to do more, but the 144 point battles take a lot of time and preferably some additional participants to pull off. Life has been a little busy to do any lately.

[HoaryCenturion]

Rod,

Thanks for taking the time to reply and offer some additional information.

Found the demoralization notes most helpful. Perhaps a short video on this process?

It was simply a request for additional videos. Appreciate that Life can get in the way. Appreciate what you have put out thus far.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and reply.

Cheers,
Chris

[Rod]

Demoralization might be a good one, another thing people sometimes forget with those rules is that if a group routs it is no longer a group. So if you don't spend the points to keep them formed you will not be able to reform them after they rout once.

Once a few things start routing it goes bad quickly, if the leaders stand is killed the whole of the remaining command can come off the table with one bad command point role.

[HoaryCenturion]

Gents (Bill and Rod primarily),

Thanks for the follow ups and comments. More food for thought.

Apologies for delay. I have been tinkering with an Issus refight idea using GT.

Bill - see what you mean re the "thin lead line" symptom or syndrome, and yes, I am not a traditional figure guy. Horse for courses and all that . . .

Thanks again guys for weighing in and offering advice and or clarification.

Chris