Playing experiences and feedback for Advanced Impetus 2015

We just started a new club campaign in the feudal age and had a couple of games so far. I would like to share some thoughts to the rule changes:

First of all the new flan support +1 modifier worked out really great for the feudal age. We had many games in the 15th century in the club and I wondered, that a straigth battle line usually does not pay off and is quite easily destroyed after the first contacts.

Now even quite simple troops with VBU 4 get very valuable if you field them in a row and with big units they can even endure a massiva attack.

The cohesion of the support is good even if single fights are lost and won and it really looks authentic on the table.

See here a picture of our last game showing what I mean:


I also like the +1 modifier for better quality troops in melee (was added 2014 if I remember correctly). The quite expensive quality now pays off a little bit better.

This fits better in the line with the warband vs. foot In my past games I experienced that the big units got too good and popular. Dismounted knights e.g. were in comparision to vulnerable. Now cohesion is more important and the advantage of big unist is still big enough. Please note that I still talk about feudal age and 15th century.

So please feel free to comment on other experiences especially ancients would be of interest.

I dont have anything to add other than a general agreement. Adding the supporting flanks and quality mods has made it a better game in my opinion

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:I dont have anything to add other than a general agreement. Adding the supporting flanks and quality mods has made it a better game in my opinion

Agreed although I would add that removing the +2 for large warband is too much of a negative for them,

yup - we agree on that at least

I'm wondering if the warbands using both the +2 and the recent changes provided in the current Advanced Impetus could create an imbalance.

The warband dont find the support that easy to use in our experience - only a half a dozen games but the general consensus was the warband without the depth bonus was too underpowered - they were getting beaten by bowmen, but with the depth bonus they were about right

Thanks for the input!

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:I dont have anything to add other than a general agreement. Adding the supporting flanks and quality mods has made it a better game in my opinion

yep that's a +1 here also. Reinstating LU depth bonus for war bands is sounding more and more like it should happen.

+2 will be restored with the new Advanced Impetus.
I plan to work at the new version soon.

dadiepiombo wrote:+2 will be restored with the new Advanced Impetus.
I plan to work at the new version soon.

Listening to customers

Not changing supplements so they remain useful

Good Lord man, what witchcraft possesses you to undertake such customer service!

Some things to keep in mind, recognizing and respecting that you are the final decision maker . . .

extended examples of play (such as melees between groups and how these are resolved)

perhaps bullet points instead of long sentences or paragraphs? for example - elephants can group with X and Y, they can also do this . . . elephants cannot do the following: P, B, K, and T

more explanation and diagrams, less concentration on eye candy. Yes, yes, pictures are nice and all, but I think the emphasis needs to be on the rules and their mechanisms . . .

My 2 cents - thanks.

Chris

The recent changes have really improved the game. Focusing on keep units in larger groups to keep the benefits of flank support really makes Impetus play differently.

hi guys

from a purely personal view point i think if hopiltes and pikemen only get a +1 for rear ranks against foot then maybe a happy medium would be to give warband the same.

the major advantage of large units as we all know is to preserve the front ranks impetus bonus. this should be enough for "cheap" warband to be viable on the table

Hmmm ... an interesting idea. Coupled with the other changes already incurred in the last Advanced Impetus, I wonder if this would be enough to have things be balanced or not.

Thanks all for your comments and for Lorenzo who listens to feedback carefully. This is highly appreciated!

After our first games we came to the conclusion that a cavalry charge in infantry (both in long lines) is a meat grinder:

Standard feudal militia charged by cavalry: VBU4 +2 large unit vs. mounted, +2 both flanks covered +Sums = VBU 8 dice (points used 21)

Feudal knights charging the militia: VBU 7 with the impetus bonus cancelled due to long spears, +2 both flanks covered = VBU 9 dice (points used 29)

I know that Lorenzo was also thinking about the problem about how cavalry charges could be depicted in Impetus. We have no option to attack in two waves, CP cannot easily disengage, reform and attack again.

Right now we try to maneuvre with our impetuous cavalry, which usually does not work. The job is done by the infantry and the crossbows because charges are too deadly for the cavalry.

Do you guys have suggestions on either improving our tactics or how medieval cavalry could be handled in the future?

I think the longspears neglecting the impetus bonus could be a discussion point, or disengaging like medium cavalry could be helpful.

Yes, we have too noticed a slight weakening of cavalry in Impetus with the changes. With covered flanks even weak infantry has some ability to fend off good cavalry.

In your example Tankred you added up the dice correctly but this does not equate with VBU. So in your example the big difference is when both units are taking their CT. Assuming that both sides get two hits the infantry is rolling 3 on the CT and the Knights 5 which could produce some big swings.

I would suggest one small change that when comparing the Discipline rating that infantry do not
get any bonus dice for better discipline against mounted units.

I also like the idea of making it easier for CP to disengage from infantry.

Thanks a lot for adding this, you are right wrote VBU where I should have stated dice. I fixed this in the post.

You missed a modifier for the infantry which is +1 on the critical number if FP fights against mounted only. So the critical number should be 4. Sounds a little bit closer to me now. However you are right that CP should have a better stand since they can pursuit if they win the first fight, which could make the difference in addition to the better critical number.

Your suggestion for the quality rule absolutely makes sense, but this would result in another quite complex rule to remember on the other hand.

Glad to see, that you find my disengage idea interesting.

As an alternative voluntary interpenetration of CP could be an option. So that the second wave attack is possible. I think this is a tough one and hard to balance.

I included the +1 for FP fighting mounted in my calculations. So VBU4 -2 for damage +1 FP fighting mounted gives us a critical number of 3.

Hi gents, am I missing something here?
The CP can already disengage if they pass a discipline test cant they, being faster than the FP.

accard wrote:Hi gents, am I missing something here?
The CP can already disengage if they pass a discipline test cant they, being faster than the FP.

Yes, but disengaging is not easy to do for mounted units (Knights will generally require a 5+ on a cohesion test and often 6 because they are out of command.)

@Gaius Cassius, sorry, I had a math blackout when I wrote the post. You are right.

@accard Thanks for adding this! Personally I did not think about the disengaging option but you do not lose much if the unit is already disordered. In theory you can disengage, rally and attack again but I have never seen that on the gaming table.

FWIW we had Galatians fighting against Seleucids yesterday, big infantry combat with FL and FP warbands against pikes and legio.

Noting the comments on the removal of the +2d6 depth bonus. We discussed and opted to take the +1d6 compromise.

Seemed to work well, combat was very attritional and was won or lost on disorder and CT naturally. But it was close, exciting and gripping, so seemed a good balance.

The FL came out as superior to FP warband because due to depth of base they can hold a flank contact longer - not a major issue, we took it to be a factor of their greater fluidity of formation but some thought it was a bit of a gamey side-effect.

In any event the legio ground them out, one 3 deep pike block imploded with 2 successive CT '6' results in combat and pursuit, everything hung on a hair and the final turn headcount saw the Galatian army break while the Seleucids hung on 1 VD away from breaking too. . .

Thanks for the report, and interesting to learn.

It seems like you're using 40mm depth for the FPs and not 60mm?

Nope,
30mm for FP and 40mm for FL

Those are the industry standards for 15mm games

And the point was the deeper FL base makes it easier to maintain flank contact - and FL bases are always deeper than FP whatever the scale of miniature.

We ascribed that to extra fluidity in the formation, however. . .

Oddly enough S find it even harder to maintain flank contact than anybody with 20mm deep bases. . .

So the ascribed logic sort of falls over.

Just seems a bit of a gamey outcome rather than a designed for outcome

Ah, I was just thinking 25/28mm because that is what we play around here, my apology. Some of us use 40mm depth and others of us use 60mm depth for the 25/28mm size.

So I'm not undertsanding the concept of "flank contact", what's that about?