In my playtesting series (Art de la Guerre, Age of Hannibal, DBA 3.0, Mortem & Gloriam and Hail Caesar) I played the same Mons Graupius scenario 4 times with AdlG. My quest: what is the ultimate Ancients ruleset? Third in the series. My other reviews here (AoH) and here (DBA 3.0). My older blogs about the art of wargame reviewing: part I, part II, part III, part IV. part V en part VI.
Art de la Guerre (Herve Caille, French edition 2008/2010, 3rd 2014, 4th edition 2021) is a popular Ancients miniature ruleset for tournament and club games. The 3rd edition was published in English and Spanish, the 4th in French/ English/ Spanish/ Italian. The 272 page rulebook (basic rules + 300 army lists +plasticoated refsheet) is available in English for GBP 30 (for example Northstar, 2022 price) or 34,20 euro (for example Frontline Games in Germany). Brexit was a stupid idea, BTW.
It’s a popular ruleset, according to the stats- a sudden smash hit since the English edition in 2014. In December 2019, the well-known blogger and experienced tournament wargamer Madaxeman, himself a fan of the game, collected the stats of the UK tournaments, competitions, events and players. I quote:
“ADLG remains the most widely played ruleset by some margin, with 35 events (yes..) held in the UK during the year and a player pool that topped 200 (if you include overseas players) for the first time. Despite it now being almost 5 years since ADLG was first introduced to the UK, player numbers increased in the last 12 months an even faster rate than in 2018”.
Scale of the game, miniatures, basing
With ADLG players fight battles ranging from early Antiquity (3000 BC) to the end of the Middle-ages (1500 AD) on a 6×4/180x120cm table. Each player commands an army (legion, regiment) of twenty-something ‘units’ (1 or 2 bases) with a central force and two flanks. The basing system is compatible with DBx in all scales 2mm-28mm (1-4 figures per base in the common, popular 15mm scale). This means you need about 40 bases of standard DBx-based troops (3 DBA-armies/an estimated 150 15mm-figures, in other words).
The designer Caille writes that a game of Art De La Guerre can be played in less than two hours when the players are familiar with the rules, so that more games can be played in an evening, and tournaments easier to organise. BTW, because each army has three generals, multiplay is an option (like BBDBA).
I tested the 3rd/4th edition (4th ed. upgrade available here). The 4th version adds chrome, according to designer Caille “It appears that players like these kinds of units as it allows to paint some very specifics figs”. It also has the usual rules and list refinements.
Main other differences between 3rd and 4th edition are
- some rule changes that pepper up light troops and make it harder to destroy light troops (winning by mainly killing skirmishers is not possible anymore);
- and a rule change that gives flank and rear attacks a greater effect. “It will speed up the game a little bit as flank attacks are indeed more effective”, Caille said.
The game is classic IGOUGO.
Caille explains that he designed AdlG because he wanted to play smaller and shorter games (2-2,5 hrs) with less figures than the existing ones (FoG, DBMM). He included cohesion points (‘hit points’) to simulate the effects of shooting. Rules must be clear, even to newcomers in historical gaming, that’s why he troop types have simple, logical names and diagrams in the rules clarify game situations. He simplified movement to avoid problems, discarded ‘recoil’ or pushback, to avoid absurd situations and geometrical ploys. Combat is simple with advantages to units with ‘impact’ ability and disadvantage to disordered units. “It is also important to disrupt the enemy by shooting before engaging a melee”.
In short, he (IMHO) tries to solve common DBx/FoG-problems:
- badly written rules, in particular DBA is quite generic and has a limited role of ‘shooting’/skirmishing;
- too geometrical gaming;
- FoG is (too) detailed, you need many miniatures and games last for 3-4 hrs;
while maintaining the best aspects of the predecessors: DBx but better written, FoG but shorter/faster/smaller, and without the expensive FoG supplements. All in one book.
Caille succeeded. Martin from Vexilia surveyed in 2018 233 AdlG-players and discovered that most were (former) DBx and FOG-players, 45-60 year old. Main reasons to play AdlG was ‘easy army building form my existing collection/ book with army lists good value for money/ relatively small army’.
He concluded: “ADLG looks to have hit a financial “sweet spot” with a low “financial barrier to entry” especially for experienced wargamers and this is clearly a major part of why it has proved so popular in the UK.”
Layout: Softcover book. Like DBx, AdlG has no large historical sections about ‘the campaigns of Alexander’ or ‘the Punic Wars’ etc, but included are 150 pages with 300 army lists from Babylon 2700 BC to the Wars of the Roses and the Ottomans in 1512 , with also lists from the Americas and Asia. Layout is modern, full colour, pictures, diagrams. Special rules include ambushes and flank marches. Bookbinding quality is good and pictures of beautiful miniatures always make me happy. Nice.
Clarity: Good. Why? For example because the rulebooks has an index and a table of contents and designer’s notes, often one or more of these essential elements are forgotten: and because the structure of the chapters is logical: introduction, basing, definitions, commander qualities: then sequence of play and phasing (movement, rally, shooting, melee, rout) and finally setting up, optional rules and army lists. When I read the rulebook for the first time, I immediately got an idea how the game should be played. The chapters have full colour diagrams in every chapter that explain clearly the concepts of moving, attacking, wheeling etc. Included is the standard A4 reference sheet.
Completeness: With the army lists and the reduced format rules you can quickly play any points based wargame directly out of the box. The game is supported by a website (https://www.artdelaguerre.fr/adlg/v3/?/en/overview) and many clubs in the UK and France, the author is active and the community is large. The forum is multilingual and active. My only and minor complaint is that I couldn’t find a mechanism for campaigns and no historical scenario’s.
Art de la Guerre: A Brief Overview
L’Art de la Guerre is inspired by the DBx-familiy of games and the polished DBx-successor Fields of Glory Ancients/Medieval, with some input from the Armati-game. It’s more dice-dependent than FoGAM or DBx.
- Like DBx, it has a PIP system: the players dice per commander how many units/adjacent units (‘groups’) can move
- In a standard game armies have three commanders (a centre and two wing commanders)
- Better commanders have a PIP bonus. The more capable the commander, the more different or complex orders he can give to his troops.
- Movement is in BW, (3 for standard infantry, 4 for cavalry, 2 for slow troops)
- Like DBx, each troop type is defined by its principal function on the battlefield rather than by a list of its weapons or the amount of its armour. Each troop type has a basic factor against other troops: for example Medium Swordsmen have +1 against all except vs Cataphracts, Heavy Chariots and Knights. They also have a quality modifier (for elite and rookies), a support modifier, a disorder modifier and a terrain modifier.
- Like DBx, combat is a simple opposed D6 roll and a combat results table: player rolls 1D6 and add their unit’s base factor plus any bonuses; the higher score wins the combat.
- Unlike DBx, but like Field of Glory, units have cohesion points (‘hit points’). Units that lose a combat, lose cohesion, and the bigger the combat difference, the more the loss, Heavier troops in close formation start with more cohesion points than lighter ones. The losses from shooting and close combat gradually reduce a unit’s cohesion and when it reaches zero the unit is routed and removed from play.
- Unlike DBA, but like Field of Glory, units have abilities that give a bonus to their basic combat factor: armour, or furious charge, or double handed weapon, etc.
- Troops armed with missile weapons can shoot: archers, cavalry, light troops, etc. A successful shot results in the target losing one cohesion point. Light troops can thus harass the enemy with missile weapons. If charged by heavier troops in clear terrain they must flee. Shooting is simultaneously.
- Generals can try to rally troops, to cancel damage.
Madaxeman became a big fan of ADLG and wrote, back in 2016:
In some ways I am coming to think of ADLG as almost a “DBM v6” (…) Taking out pushbacks and replacing their game-level effects with 2-4 levels of hit points per base achieved a lot of the simplification at a stroke (…) Having skirmishers and cavalry actually shoot is also nice to have “back” too (…) ADLG is still a DBx-based set however, so if you liked DBx rules you should find that ADLG is a cleaner, newer version”.
What Makes This Game Special?
A major strong point of the game seems to be the combo of maneuverability with simulated shooting. Designer Caille stresses ‘the central concept of cohesion points’ that is essential to ‘simulate the results of shooting’. He writes that “all units that historically had missile weapons can use them on the battlefield. Horse archers assume their historical role als tactics such as evade and feigned flight can be reproduced.” Game sequence is move-shoot-combat, skirmishers can be put up front, move ahead, shoot and when charged, evade unscathed. Damaged infantry is less effective in combat, so the skirmishers can soften them up.
Second: the game seems to reward list building and proper tactics. I studied the Roman and Caledonian army composition and read several of Madaxeman’s battle reports. In a trilogy about his Ancient British army, he showed in his battle reports how he used his chariots both as hornets and as hammers in a hammer and anvil strategy.
A third strong point is the possibility to play non-historical battles with very different armies (Carthaginians vs British, Alexander the Great vs Indian Muslims and Tibetans vs Spanish Conquistadores) and to play point-based games. In other words, it’s a good game for casual gaming and for tournaments. The fact that it used the familiar DBx-basing made it easy for DBx and FoG-players to switch systems. Hence the popularity.
The rules are relatively flexible. For example, for players unhappy with ‘too random results’ the designer suggests to use average dice and/or re-rolls. A historical unit in a historical battle can be classified als less or more protected, less or more skilled and maybe with a special ability, just as you see fit. As a game it’s not ‘original’ but successful in re-using older concepts, just like the Rolling Stones.
Against my co-reviewer Henrique aka ‘The Lisboan Caledonian’ I played a reduced 100 point battle (Mons Graupius as usual) with my usual Roman elite legions/Batavian Auxiliaries/a few cavalry units on the flanks vs Caledonian chariots/warbands/javelinman) and three 200 point bigger battles, similar armies and setup. In the latergames I gave the Romans two Velites skirmish units. The online excel army builder was useful.
Tactical situation: slow Roman strongmen try to cross a river while a Caledonian front line of chariots and skirmishers try to slow them down, wear them out and reorganize their barbarian hordes in the back.
The Roman army (in the standard 200 point game) had 20 units and the Caledonian army 32 units. A standard infantry unit consists of 2 bases. That meant that the 20 Roman units (14 heavy infantry) was 32 base-army, and the 32 Caledonian units (24 impetuous medium swordsman units) was a 56 base army.
The 100 point game was good to get used to the basics, but somewhat bland. A fast clash and that was it. The Roman general was a superior commander so he quickly managed to cross the river. The Caledonians overpowered the Italian robots however.
In the second game (200 points) Henrique surprised me with a move that I still think is strange, but allowed by the rules: his 4BW chariots changed formation from line to a column, moved 4 basewidths to the right and changed formation to a line again, effectively a 4 BW shift to the right. Is this a hole in the rules? It looks gamey to me. My opponent thinks it correctly reflects the dynamic movement of the chariots, I see it as a weird parade move impossible for tattooed barbarians. Anyway, the ADLG-forum said it was allowed (did I mention the good forum support?). I discovered that the Caledonian skirmishers effectively slowed down my advance.
In the 3rd and 4th game we degraded the quality of the Caledonian commanders, and the maximum size of a barbarian group, after consulting the rules again. This change immediately decreased the coherency of the Caledonian command. I exchanged Roman auxiliaries for fast Roman skirmishers and used these light skirmishers on the flanks to provoke the impetuous Caledonian swordsmen to stupid attacks. The new tactic resulted in a rather scattered, hard to co-ordinate long infantry line that was vulnerable. The Roman cavalry threatened the flanks, just like history.
We didn’t finish any of the three 200-point games. The game is well written and after a few games we got the clue, but nevertheless we struggled somewhat. Here’s why:
- We live in the Dutch wargame universum. We know Bolt Action, Warhammer and Napoleonic gamers, but Ancients/ADLG is not very popular here. The nearest ADLG-players are in Belgian Charleroi. Nobody can help us.
- The rulebook describes the game in phases, as a series of processes – the process of movement in open or difficult terrain, the process of shooting, the process of combat, and so on – and that is mostly very clear, but every chapter has subrules or fine print that you only understand after playing and rereading. Sometimes (sub)rules in a chapter influence (sub)rules in another chapter – read more below.
- We don’t play every week, but once a month, and we chat too much.
I think that with some experience you can play a regular, well-prepared battle in 2-3 hrs, as the rules suggest, but for beginners even 3 hrs is ambitious, we think.
My Structured Review
Dice mechanics in combat: Caille included the combat stats of the game, the standard opposed dice roll stats, just like DBx.
BTW, nice that the rules add these stats.
Damaged units dice with a -1 modifier. Units in general have 3 or 4 damage points. IMHO the dice mechanics promote smart gaming;
- if your unit has an advantage, wins the first round, and damages the opponent (or maybe he’s damaged already) winning subsequent combat rounds is easier.
- the negative damage modifier is limited to -1 irrespective of total damage. If the damage would add up (-1 after 1 hit, -2 after 2 hits, -3 after 3 hits) the unit that strikes first would probably win. Good choice.
Dice mechanics and command and control: Command points (PIPs in DBA) are influenced by commander ability. A standard commander (no pip dice modifier) An army has a command value (Caledonians +2 and Romans +5). The better graded a commander is (+1, +2, +3 max, with ditto pip modifier), the higher his value. “For instance an army with a command value of +4 can have 2 competent commanders (+1) and 1 brilliant commander (+2). Another possibility is to have 1 ordinary commander 0) and 2 brilliant (+2) ones”.
The CP is calculated as 1D6+[commander modifier]/2 (rounded up). I did the math and a comparison: a 24 unit 2-corps DBA army has between 2-12 pips. A 3 general AdlG army with 2 competent commanders and a brilliant commander (as above) will have between 4 and 12 pips. With an ordinary and 2 brilliant commanders it will be between 5-11 pips. So, the AdlG-pip-dice mechanic results in a more equal distribution: in a 24-unit-DBA-game two ‘1’-rolls can ruin your turn and maybe your game, while in AdlG you have less extreme results. Optional is the rule to add a limited number of rerolls.
Command and control and fog of war, also called friction: Like a chess player, the AdlG-gamer has a relatively great influence on positioning his units. He can identify their opponents and try to counteract. The more average distribution of command points (PiP’s) in comparison to DBA (see above) gives more control and less fog, less friction. To include fog of war in a different manner, AdlG has rules for ambush markers on the table and unexpected flank marches. I didn’t use them, but they look interesting.
How We Figured Out The Combat Sequence
The Romans had a core elite legionary corps, two auxiliary corps, medium cavalry flank support and a few skirmish units. Elite legionaries with pilum are Heavy Swordsmen Armour Impact with Elite status. The auxiliaries were classified as Elite Medium Swordsmen Impact. Opponents were classified as Medium Swordsmen Impetuous. For us as beginners it was not always intuitive.
- Impetuous is in the army list (p.134) and ‘Furious Charge’ is an ability on p.58.
- The furious charge is an ability with many situational exceptions
- The furious charge is a melee modifier, but does it count only when the barbarians charge, or also whent they are charged by others, during the first round of combat? The rules seem to imply the first option,
- Impetuous units have a free (no command point cost) uncontrolled (forced) charge against units in range.
Melee as such is clear, but the dice roll includes several possible modifiers:
- the Troop Quality Modifier
- Basic factor (like: Medium Swordsmen +1 vs all except Knights)
- Support from sided units (or flanking units)
- Disorder modifier
- a Positional aka known as Situation modifier
- Terrain modifier
- Commander included in combat modifier
- first round modifiers like ‘Impact‘, ‘Javelin‘ and ‘Furious Charge‘ that give bonuses in the first round only but can be canceled out
- an Uncontrolled Charge negative modifier (p.41) for Impetuous troops doing a Furious Charge (p.58). A Spontaneous Charge (p.22) is not the same as an Uncontrolled Charge
- an Armour modifier (p.16) that is canceled by a Furious Charge (p.58)
So, when the Romans were within range of the warbands, the Caledonian player first used his regular command points and then started his uncontrolled charges. Then we had to find out which modifier applied in the first round, and then the subsequent combat rounds. Not really rocket science, and examples and text are helpful, in the end we figured it out, the overall procedure was clear; but this was a medium complex subsection.
I think we had the same experience as mrbootsthecat who wrote in the TMP-forum, back in 2014, that he had a couple of minor issues, “units can have a collection of effects, such as impetuous, impact and furious charge, and with my limited experience, it can be difficult to find out how all of these interact”.
AdlG as Historical Wargame
Speed: As a game it’s relatively fast. 3BW/12 cm for 15mm miniatures on a 120x80cm gives some pace to the game, in a few turns opposing units are within charging distance. Nowhere to hide. Combat, when you get the modifiers right, is relatively simple. A full game might last 3 hours.
Strategy/luck-balance: the changes that we made in army composition during our games and how we learned the effective use of skirmishers convinced me that strategy, experience, smart army composition and a battle plan are more important than random dicing. Several mechanisms (like selecting army commanders with different values, the ability to rally, the choice between moving and rallying) give an impression (or maybe illusion) of control. Tactics seem to matter more than in, for example, Age of Hannibal that also uses hit points. Good.
Historical Tactics: The Romans tried to corner the Caledonians and that worked. Skirmishers were important as blocking screen and to distract attacks, although it was hard for the Caledonian javelineers to damage the Romans. The game played as a classic match-up between stiff upper lip elite vs barbarian hordes. The Caledonians had their expected command & control problems. My only criticism is the chariot movement.
Game balance: in my games and online research, I didn’t discover ADLG ‘death star units’, super strong elites that spoil the game. The Roman/Caledonian battle looked fair. Naturally the Romans destroy the first waves of Caledonians but they will slowly use cohesion. Fresh waves of Caledonians will later in the game be a lethal threat for the tired legionaries. Unfortunately we couldn’t finish our larger games. The game is thorougly playtested and popular for tournament play.
Logic. The game has clear turns and phases. Shooting is simultaneous and that gives skirmishers a bigger role.
Consistency: could be better. It’s OK, and clear enough after 5-10 games, but a few important rules are embedded in subrules, exceptions or fine print on the quickref sheet.
Depth is perfect. As a game, with all the options for finetuning your army, AdlG gives you many tactical options.
Originality: AdlG copied the best elements from FoG and DBx. It’s faster than FoG (I read) and more nuanced than big battle DBA. Thanks to the familiar concepts and basing it plays relatively smoothly for me as DBA-veteran.
What I like
- The layout and in general the clear chapters and diagrams
- The interplay between the different branches of the army
- The tactical depth
What I don’t like
A few minor things
- The reduced game (lacks the depth I think, for fast games I prefer DBA 2.2. or 3.0)
- some combat tables and movement rules.
- No campaign rules.
Iin my simple three star rating system ADLG gets the full three stars. Good. Recommended. Complete rulebook, playtested (tournament) rules with army lists, good support.
Next: Mortem & Gloriam.
What Others Think
In general players seem pleased with ADLG. The rules are less controversial than DBx.
Madaxeman wrote, back in 2015: “
The reason is probably because at the end of the day ADLG is mechanically extremely similar to DBx games, with pip dice and opposed combat rolls as the core mechanics, and so those familiar tactical problems about finding you have an over complex plan and too few pips to execute it, or that you have suffered a 6-1 combat result that has knocked a hole in you line and you need to shore it up quickly (or that the opposite has happened, and you need to work out how to exploit it!).
With the low base combat factors in ADLG it did initially feel that the role (or roll) of the dice was playing a bigger part in the outcome of the game that I was used to, but a bit of number crunching to reality-check this, and more importantly getting comfortable enough with the rules and mechanics so that I could start to concentrate on the proper tactical decisions and doing things to try and beat my opponent in the actual games rather than being 100% focused on the rules themselves was a hurdle that once I had crossed it, I was totally comfortable with
Adventures in Painting Miniatures-blogger Mark Ellis gave his impressions about the differences with DBA and how the game played:
“Movement is more restricted than in DBA etc, but is not that complex. (…) Units can do second moves if not close to the enemy and even a 3rd move a turn if their commander is with them. Those cost extra command pip’s of course so you can not always do everything that you want with your units. (…) overall all 4 of the players had fun. We all said we would be interested in playing more games of ADLG. Three of us are regular DBA players and so although we had to unlearn a few things these rules have quite a lot of familiar concepts in the game – but at a larger scale.
The units having hits though and not having the fiddly recoils/stylized rules in DBA etc makes the game in some ways nicer than it. I do like the command and control aspects of this game (…) Being able to rally units, but this not being free or a guarantee also is a nice aspect to the rules in my opinion.
That said this game strikes me as ‘more detailed/tactical’ than Hail Caesar or Hannibal. (…) ADLG just feels a more a game where you have more choices and more decision points. (…) That makes ADLG a bit more of a thinking game, vs wild moves and dice affecting the game of Hail Caesar. So its a style thing – (…) this is not the best multi-player game, but so far for a 1 vs 1 game, ADLG would so far be by far my first choice of the ones we have played in this series of games.
Tim Simmons/ Tales from a Wargame Shed wrote:
“After a brief fling with DBA some years ago, I had given them up as lacking in colour or character. I buy lots of rules that I don’t get around to playing, but ADLG looked interesting enough to arrange a test game (…) We enjoyed the game very much and agreed it deserves getting to know better
Simmons has published several battle reports since then. In those reports he writes:
“ADLG is an easy rule set to learn and it delivers decisive results. (…) But I have two low level grumbles. The first is the rules for flank and rear attacks, notably when gaps appear, which for the life of me I can’t retain in my head. Did they have to be so fiddly? The second is the appearance of the table in the closing stages of a game, when the battle lines end up looking like a mouthful of broken teeth. (…) this doesn’t fit my imagination of a line slowly crumbling until everybody goes.”
The Irregular Wars blogger Nicholas Wright tried ADLG in 2015, after publication of the first English edition. He published many ADLG battle reports since then. In 2015 he already concluded:
“After many a Hail Caesar game, all of us in our regular ancients gaming circle have found niggles that we didn’t like, and we’ve been experimenting with a variety of other options including Impetus and Sword and Spear which seem to be among the most popular at the moment. However, none of our trials have hit the sweet spot that we’ve been looking for. (…) It really is a smart little game. The rules are very tight, and anytime we had a question on the table we a) could find an explanation in the rules, and b) the rules simulated our received expectations; i.e. we thought, I wonder, should elephants rampage when routed, and low and behold, yes they do, and the mechanic is really nice! (…) This is a cracking game which will see much use in the future and, I suspect, will become our default ancients-medieval rule set.
And Sgt Steiner said:
I found brief test to be enjoyable with the rules falling in between Sword and Spear/Pulse of Battle and Dbmm/FOG in complexity. Might be different case when playing bigger battles ? Whilst they were fairly expensive (£25 + P&P) they compare well to Dbmm and FOG by being an all in one set.
The only really negative review was from Mike Guth in 2017, “I really don’t like the game”. Reasons:
“1. To play the game really takes almost 3 hours (…) 2. Commands don’t have break points, they fight to the last man. This lengthens the game compared to DBA (…) 6. There are way more pages of rules than in DBA or Triumph. Many derive from the old DBM issue of having impetuous, a sort of irregular troop. 7. Example of slow play mechanics: Shooting: In DBX rules you shoot simultaneously. In ADLG I shoot, you roll defense dice. THEN you shoot, and I roll defense dice. twice as long. Nul result.
8. Table size versus game size seems off. (…) The board is HUGE and the games don’t look like Ancient Battles with flanks secured on terrain. Favors mobile armies against foot armies. 9. Point system (…) ADLG: figure out how to game the point system. True to all point system games.(…) Oh, since a flank attack is a killer in ADLG, find a way to shave a point or two off your infantry compared to opponent, and then get 3 infantry versus 2 for the win.
I found an AdlG for beginners strategy guide:
3 thoughts on “Art de la Guerre: In-Depth Review After 4 Standardized Playtest Games”
I’m liking ADLG V4 so far. The rules have the usual problems with other historical wargames (MeG etc…), namely the huge step up in difficulty when combat and fine movement have to be resolved. In order to make coherent rules for different armies and historical periods, they always write a main rule and a huge amount of exceptions, which are super easy to forget. I find this incredibly frustrating, specially when you spend two hours positioning your army to gain favourable combat bonus and then you discover some weird interaction that makes that prevents you to use that +1 Impact or javeling bonus and eventually you lose the flank.
Having said that, as you mentioned, I love the army sizes in ADLG. They are big enough to look like an army but not too big so painting or buying the army is too daunting of a task. It has an addictive quality: the moment you finish an army you are already thinking the next!
I liked your review, thank you for sharing! I wish there were more battle reports on youtube so I could see how other people play the game 🙂
Great review, thank you. I have to say, I really like your blog and review system, I’m looking forward to Mortem et Gloriam.
One thing that would be useful to include in reviews is how many miniatures a required in a typical army (standard point size) – I understand is around 150, but what about DBA? You say a typical DBA army has 12 units, but what’s a unit? (sorry, I’m new to historicals)
Also, do you think ADLG is suited for 28 mm?
Also more sugestions for reviews: I would love to hear your thoughts on Blood & Plunder, a game that looks very interesting to me. I would be also interested in applying your review system for fantastical titles – I am a fantastical wargamer (40k, etc) – I see you played Fantasy Battles and Dropzone Commander.
I would love for example a similar style comparisson for fantasy rank& flank wargames, or 40k vs Dropzone, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A DBA unit is a base with 3-4 miniatures, sometimes 2. A typical DBA army is about 40-50 miniatures (main army with minor variants, for different battles. AdlG and MeG armies are double or triple that number.
That’s why I wouldn’t play AdlG or MeG with 28mm, although possible – and stylish! Painting takes too long. In 6mm, 10mm or 15mm I can efficiently speedpaint a beautiful large army.
My next projects are Pike&Shotte, Napoleonic, WW2 and SF wargame comparisons, similar systematic structure.
I know Blood & Plunder. I like it. I also like Donnybrook. Skirmish games are fun, but for now lower on my to do list than historical big battle rulesystems.