TOPIC: Polemos Rules Question |
Standard User Posts: 2 JRR 30th Jun 2015 01:59:12 Hi, after doing a little bit of wargaming I have decided to start doing 6mm. I'm fairly interested in either Ancients, ECW or Napoleonics and I was wondering how hard are the Polemos rules to learn and play? Generally I either play with a few friends or sometimes alone at my house and I want some rules that are quick to learn and easy to play, do the Polemos rules fit this? Thanks |
Standard User Posts: 17 Robert F 30th Jun 2015 02:21:26 Easy peasey lemon squizey. |
Standard User Posts: 2 Saurocet 1st Jul 2015 01:18:04 I have copies of ECW and SPQR. I've tried to learn them on my own. Overall, I believe they are very easy, but they are not (in my opinion) very traditional wargames rules. Sometimes I will read a section and think I know what it means, play the game by myself and realize it doesn't work that way, and then re-read the section. I had to learn to take the rules quite literally. |
I think the Polemos ECW rules have some fascinating concepts,e.g. when conducting a charge cavalry and their opponents use ranged combat factors to determine whether the charge will get in and what state the cavalry will be in when they contact. The large base sizes allow troops to be set out in such a way that identical numbers of pike and shot on a base can be shown to represent pike heavy, shot heavy or a 50:50 mix. There are also some fabulous Total Battle Miniatures availanble for this period in 6mm, including a complete walled town for that ECW siege you've always wanted to do. A little goes a long way |
Standard User Posts: 2 JRR 1st Jul 2015 09:09:17 Thanks guys, I will definitely look to get into Polemos ECW and Ancients. Now to buy some models and paint them up! |
Standard User Posts: 2 auerstalt 26th Apr 2018 09:11:49 Greetings, I'm new to the GNW Polemos rule set and have a couple of questions concerning the charts and modifiers. 1. Ga Pa infantry show a [0 or charge] for long range combat so does this mean they have a 0 modifier with a +2 for charging? and if so, what is the difference then from the 'charging infantry' line which also says 'charging'. In the close combat modifiers it says: 'To defensive factors if raw or levy troops, or offensive factors if levy'. Is this a typo as it would seem raw and levy class troops would be -1. Or am I reading this wrong? Thanks in advance, David
|
Hi David,
Ok so in the rules charging is treated as a kind of firing/attack and use the same kind of procedure but with different factors. The charge factors are listed at the bottom of the chart I think you are looking at. You then compare the totals on the charge test table if the Ga Pa are charging or the effects of firing table if they are firing. If the Ga Pa unit is still charging, it might stop, it is possible the defending unit, it might not be able to, will be able to fire effectively at the chargers. In which case you do a firing test using their close range defensive factors plus mods and a D6 with the results on the effects of firing. Assuming this has not stopped the charge there will then be a close combat in which the Ga Pa will get the +2 charging modifier, along with anything else that might apply. For charging infantry they do not have a long range fire factor and only a small close range offensive fire factor, i.e. 1. The idea is that these guys only have a scattering of missle weapons and so are not really capable of putting out any significant fire. They do though have reasonable charge factor, if you look to the bottom of the table you will see it is 3. So nearly always these will only charge as firing will be very ineffective. Also as the Ga Pa infantry are often better quality and Determined they are more likely to charge successfully compared to CI who tend to be low quality and have smaller factors. |
Standard User Posts: 2 auerstalt 28th Apr 2018 03:49:56 Nick, Thanks for the response and yes you helped! For some reason I wasn't 'seeing' the Testing to Charge numbers as the units values. Always good to talk with more experienced players. Thanks again.
David |