Punic Wars Battle - with 'Battle Command: Ancients & Medieval'

Last post, I talked about ‘Midgard Heroic Battles’, with the promise that we would do the same battle with the Piquet/FoB3 based: ‘Battle Command: Ancients and Medieval’ (BCAM) by Brent Oman/Piquet Wargames.

Again, I offer the compare-and-contrast style previously completed for ‘Field of Battle vs  Volley and Bayonet’ Both sets target similar periods (or at least play-styles as Midgard has more fantasy elements and sorcery etc.) but deliver very different experiences.

Midgard explicitly embraces a “heroic deeds” ethos, with systems for battle, heroes and reputation at work - inspired by sagas and legends. BCAM spans Biblical-era wars through the Wars of the Roses and stays firmly historical with a strong emphasis on command friction and fog of war, evolving from DNA and mechanics of the Field of Battle/Piquet family.

I just played the Punic Wars scenario again  – much more tense, more drama, more to and fro of initiative. Excellent game, right to the wire…

Core Philosophy and Feel

• Midgard is narrative-driven and cinematic. Heroes are game-changers who lead from the front, perform Mighty Deeds, and can duel enemy champions. Battles are designed to feel epic and heroic — charging your warlord into the fray is  encouraged and decisive. Reputation (victory points) is tied directly to preserving the army’s prestige and the heroes’ glory.
• BCAM is a command simulation. Leadership quality, card decks, and the Action Matrix create constant friction and tough choices. It’s less about individual heroics and more about managing an army under imperfect information and limited control. The feel is closer to a gritty, decision-heavy historical recreation — broad-brush but tactically rich.  

The feel is very different – but the tense play definitely came from BCAM today. Midgard does give Hollywood/Iliad heroism; but BCAM offers command chaos and actual drama.

 

Activation and Turn Sequence

• Midgard: Semi-alternating IGOUGO with an Attacker/Defender role
1. Mighty Deeds phase (heroes refresh points).
2. Attacker moves
3. Melee (including hero single combats).
4. Defender repeats movement + melee.
5. Alternating missile fire. Units can become fatigued (fewer moves) as stamina drops.
• BCAM: Card-driven, non-linear sequence (core Piquet/Field of Battle DNA). Each side has a small deck (8–9 cards). Initiative, leadership quality (CiC rating), and the new Action Matrix determine what you can do (less randomness – more choice).
• Cards offer primary actions (Move, Melee, Infantry Fire, etc.) plus secondary options via the Matrix.
• You constantly choose where to focus limited command pips — whole army, a command group, or a single unit. Multiple decisions and built-in friction.

Critical take: Midgard is smoother and more predictable, though has many systems operating on different ‘wavelengths’. BCAM is more tense and re-playable for players who love  “what do I do – what can I do -  with this card?” moments.

BCAM’s system reduces downtime compared to older FoB systems. There is some administrative overhead, but it's quite unique.

Combat and Morale

• Midgard: Units roll Combat Dice (based on type/quality). Hits must equal or exceed the target’s Armour value to cause Stamina loss (basically HP). Fresh vs. depleted units matter. Support saves, secondary/supporting units in melee, and hero interventions add depth. Morale is baked into reputation and stamina.
• BCAM: Opposed dice with modifiers, armour classes, and UI attrition (like Field of Battle). Skirmishers and evasion are more nuanced for ancients. Pursuit rules and morale checks feel grittier…and battle is bloody, gaps open up, and you have to command the army, not hero systems.

BCAM gives more granular period flavour (especially light troops and missile fire).

 

Victory Conditions

• Midgard: Reputation-based. Start with 8–10+ tokens. Lose them when units rout or heroes die. First to zero reputation (or most at scenario end) loses. It elegantly rewards heroic preservation and punishes reckless hero deaths, but the system needs to managed in game.
• BCAM: Classic Piquet-style army morale/break point via cumulative UI losses and morale checks triggered by cards.

Midgard’s system feels more “heroic”; BCAM’s is more attritional and realistic.

 Midgard captures the “heroic age” element. Lots of systems/traits/dice/hero elemnts, but tactically deep once mastered.. Encourages aggressive, characterful play. There are some gamey systems – many traits and d6 systems (re-roll 1s, 5 and 6s hit etc. etc.) – systems not always intuitive. Needs multiple plays to manage systems. There are more modern systems akin to Warhammer Ancient Battles, Hail Caesar, or Dragon Rampant.

Battle Command: Ancients and Medieval: Outstanding command-and-control simulation. Always intuitive. The Action Matrix creates constant meaningful decisions. Excellent fog-of-war feel (always a bonus). Solo-friendly. Scales well across the entire ancient/medieval spectrum with period-specific tweaks (evasion, skirmish). Demands more plays - realistic command friction, tough tactical choices every turn, and a system that rewards clever use of limited resources.

Both are strong modern rulesets that avoid (most of the) bloat of older systems. BCAM is superb if you already love the engine.

Early cavalry action on the Roman left

Some of the Roman units are unstoppable - the Carthaginians avoid them where possible

Gauls pushed back on the left, despite their willingness to press the attack

'ELE-CAM'

Carthaginian pressure...as Romans fare poorly on their right

Gauls suffer on the Carthaginian left, and their commander goes down

The Gauls on the Carthaginian left have been all but stopped - with a dead commander. Greek mercs hold the centre against a strong Roman counter-attack.

 

'Diskoball the Mighty!'

'Havnoball' the squeaky

'Bothballs' goes down

Elephants still very active despite losses - they have only broken once...causing minor devastation

Greek Mercs on the Roman right

Severe pressure on the Roman left and in the centre, as Greek mercs move and stop the Roman juggernaut - critical times, as Army Morale runs out for the Romans

By game end, a close run thing, the Carthaginians force the Roman centre to break, and a withdrawl of the remaining force. Another excellent game.

 

Punic Wars test battle - with 'Midgard: Heroic Battles'

With the superb marketing strategy, and widespread push to develop a following in the 'game-o-sphere', I eventually succumbed and bought 'Midgard Heroic Battles' (I watched all the youtube videos and was convinced).

For the test game, we used 20mm plastics -- of which I am finding loads more each day ...

 

My reasoning was that now that I am consolidating all my 'Sword & Sorcery' lead pile and ancients plastics (though not an ancients gamer, I seem, to have collected a veritable shedload of 20mm Airfix, Hat and Italeri ancients over the years), I was looking for a single unifying ruleset. My thought had been to use 'Battle Command Ancients & Medieval' (effectively Piquet : Field of Battle variant), though the lure of Midgard was too strong, though Battle Command will get well tried too.

 

The Roman centre holds steady throughout

That said, it is a unique approach in many respects, more traditional in others. It will take several plays to get used to all the moving parts that are at work. The most efficient machine has few moving parts, that is not to say that the 'machine with many parts' does not give the best performance(?!) - though it can of course require the most maintenance - and depending on the system, parts might not always be required  (stretching this analogy until it snaps!!! in terms of car design -  AdBlue tank...Ah'm lookin' at you!). 

Cavalry attack on the Roman right flank

There are a number of different systems operating simultaneously in the game, necessitating an approach which rewards expertise in all, to get the best from gameplay:

• 

  Attacks in the centre - the charging mechanisms are most satisfying

  
  
  Combat is relatively simple, and works off 'buckets 'o' d6'. Now normally, this makes me scream, but seemed to work ok here.

  

  I mentioned d6 right?

•  'Heroes' and leaders can lead units, affect combat, challenge other heroes, and generally use leadership 'stuff' which affects play. They can use 'mighty deeds' as a resource to influence command and combat.

• 
  Command tests are excellently done- a flat 3+, but the need for command tests varies - i.e. 2nd move, or restraint from pursuit etc.
• Traits can affect everything from rewarding full strength units charging through to command test re-rolls. Again, this makes the difference between bland units and suitable characteristics for your favourite ancient or fantasy unit . normally I dislike traits (Slack Chowder for instance), but they really work here. 
•  A 'reputation' numberis ground down if leaders do not accept personal combats, and do not 'lead' effectively, and due to losses in combat...this was where we missed a few things, but once understood, there is a great system here.
• 
  Gameplay is rewarded by being conversant with all of these systems, so the game will take a few plays to get used to. 

To and fro on the Roman left - with the centre and right holding

Roman epic push in the centre - but it will not be enough to guarantee victory today

The Roman right flank, holds, as the Romans threaten to push the Carthaginian al;lies back to the start-line

Hero and unit match-ups on the Roman right

Scattered combats in the centre

Down to the last reputation point, the Carthaginian allies outflank the Roman centre, who had pushed just that bit too far forward

‘Volley and Bayonet’ vs ‘Field of Battle 3’ and some more Almanza 1707

I would of course call this ‘the great debate’, but to be fair, it’s only a great debate in my head, as neither set is particularly popular amongst the wargaming ‘glitterati’. 

The recent Almanza game, redone with V&B - each unit dropped a base, but gameplay and outcome VERY different

Frank Chadwick and Greg Novak’s ‘Volley & Bayonet (Road to Glory)’ (note also  Classic ‘redbook’ 1^st edition ) and Brent Oman’s ‘Piquet: Field of Battle’ (often just called Field of Battle or FoB3, its DNA cut richly from Piquet) are both brigade to division-level black-powder wargame rulesets covering roughly 1700–1890 (Napoleonic, AWI, ACW, etc.), designed for large historical battles.

Both sets are superbly written and well designed and tested, and yet ...the tragedy remains that other hardback glossy covers, with rules which need to be interpreted and re-written, which have multiple overpriced supplements, seem more popular!!! Predicting human behaviour, and wargamer dopamine, is a necessarily rash proposition it seems.

An early English attack on their left - I thought it was complete folly, but it did a lot of damage to the flank, routing Spanish cavalry - even Berwick was a bit worried

Both V&B and FoB are excellent in my view, but they feel completely different at the table. Is it as simple as VnB being 'chess with dice'; FoB as 'poker with miniatures’? Broadly speaking no, but  if you play one, the other will still feel fresh. There is the key. Both offer great game-play, but with very different play-styles.

The current '2nd'(ish) edition; options for reducing current scale, where a unit is a 'brigade'. Many options exist for AWI in smaller scales for instance.

The original 1990s version - still prized for turning the concept of the 'scale' of a wargames battle, and what it meant, on its head.

Head on clash in the centre, where the 'stationary' bonus for musketry (effectively doubling dice) really began to take a toll mid game, leaving the centre virtually empty and open to exploitation from both sides, who in their rashness to break the opponent's centre, would leave multiple flanks open....V&B does not reward foolhardy moves...

For predictable command, clear phases, and classic morale tests? → Volley & Bayonet?

For card-driven small ‘c’ chaos, army morale that can snap as the force wears down, and possible momentum swings? → Piquet: Field of Battle?

·        Depending on the game and period, and sometimes for the ‘same’ period, I like the feel of both of these options.

Cavalry clash on the French right

·        *METAPHOR ALERT* It’s like cycling – Road Biking and Mountain Biking use machines and mechanics which are similar – but the muscles/mindset you exercise in one endeavor vs the other, are very different in most respects. Each provides a very different experience (especially if you crash!), and some cyclists do both, whilst others see the opposing ‘sport’ as a dangerous anathema to their own.

 

British/Allied attack, despite being outnumbered, gains steam early on.

·        The rules differ dramatically in philosophy: VnB is a quasi-traditional, deterministic IGOUGO system that emphasizes command ‘geography’ and steady attrition, whilst FoB is a card-driven Piquet-family game (without the larger swings) that builds in friction, fog of war, and drama via decks and opposed dice.

 

Units blown away in the centre, as stationary musketry clashes create bedlam for both sides.

 

 Some more detailed comparisons:

1. Turn Sequence

Volley & Bayonet (Road to Glory): Classic IGOUGO. Each player completes a full turn in sequence before the opponent acts. One turn = roughly 1 hour of battle time. Phases:

• Command Determination (check which stands are in command)
• Movement
• Rally (routed units touched by corps/army commander)
• Morale Checks (both sides)
• Combat (firing+melee resolved together; attacker chooses order – KEY, if shot at, the defender shoots back – choose carefully).
• Exhaustion & Collapse (division checks if over casualty threshold – KEY to its elegance in my view)

Everything is (relatively) predictable and simultaneous within each phase with no cards or variable activation (in standard game).

That steady attrition, with your opponent not necessarily being aware of your army's sorry state, and the effects of degradation, is its core strength.

Piquet: Field of Battle: Card-driven with variable impetus. Each army has its own 27(ish)-card Sequence Deck (composition based on CinC quality — better commanders get more “good” cards and fewer Lulls).

• Both CinCs roll Leadership dice (D8–D12+). High roller chooses to go first or second, but both sides receive the full pip difference as “impetus points.”
• Each impetus point = turn one card from your deck. The card type (Move, Infantry Firepower, Melee, Army Morale, etc.) tells all your units what they can do this card.
• Turns end when one side exhausts its deck or duplicate leadership rolls occur. Result: highly asymmetric, unpredictable ebb-and-flow. One side can have a long run of cards while the other might only fire defensively, then suddenly the momentum flips.

Winner for predictability and elegance: VnB. Winner for drama/friction: FoB.

Cavalry action on the French left, which is fought to a standstill.

 

 2. Command & Control

Volley & Bayonet: Purely ‘geographic’ / positional.

• Every stand belongs to a division under a divisional commander stand.
• Must be within 6″ of its commander (or linked through another in-command stand).
• Out of command penalties are harsh: half speed, cannot recover disorder, cannot close with the enemy, cannot go stationary for extra fire dice.
• No command points or dice rolls to activate — if you’re in command you move/fire freely in the appropriate phase.Be careful where your command ends up however!
• Higher commanders (corps/army) move freely and are never attacked.
• Very “hands-on” generalship: you physically keep your division together or suffer.

Piquet: Field of Battle: Card + Leadership-die activation (no fixed radius).

• Units are grouped into flexible Command Groups (2–6+ units) each with its own Leader who has a Leadership Die type (better armies = higher dice).
• On a Move card, every Command Group leader rolls its LD vs opponent’s D6 for progress: “1 = no move” risk.
• Fire and melee are also 'gated' by their own cards.
• Better CinC = better deck + better LD types → more reliable activation.

Summary:

·        VnB sometimes feels like “keeping formations together on the map until it all falls apart”, whilst FoB is more “issuing orders into the fog and hoping that fortune favours the bold.” In each case, the planning process is slightly different.

 

 3. Morale

Volley & Bayonet: per-stand, traditional morale tests.

• Each stand has a Morale rating 1 (poor) – 6 (elite).
• Test: roll d6 ≤ modified Morale rating → pass. Higher = disorder.
• Disorder is temporary but crippling (–1 morale, saves on 4-6 vs hits, cannot charge, etc.).
• A second disorder while already disordered = rout (lose 1 SP immediately + full move retreat). It pays therefore to avoid disorder - the irony is, it's impossible.
• Divisions have an “exhaustion” threshold (40–60 % losses); once crossed the division is brittle and can suffer automatic morale collapse.
• Close-range fire or melee often triggers extra tests. Rally is by physical contact with higher commander (no die roll, but the unit stays permanently disordered).

Piquet: Field of Battle: Almost no per-unit morale checks — morale is handled at two levels:

1. Unit Integrity (UI): Infantry start with 4 UI, cavalry 3, artillery 2. Every 3 pips difference in opposed Combat Die vs Defense Die = 1 UI lost.
2. Army Morale Points (AMP): ~1 per unit at start. Lose 1 AMP per UI lost.

• When an army reaches 0 AMP (anywhere from 20 - 35 normally, depending on game size), the Army Morale card (there are usually 3 in the deck) becomes lethal: CinCs roll LD; loser can lose whole Command Groups, be forced to retreat, or the battle can end immediately.
• In combat: if the damage roll is even, the target often suffers an immediate extra effect (Out of Command / shaken, retreat, or rout outright). No disorder markers per se — units just lose UI until they rout at 0 UI (removed at –1).

Summary: VnB has frequent, granular morale tests that create disorder and rout cascades. FoB uses army-wide “morale chips” and sudden combat-triggered routs for a more cinematic army-collapse feel.

 

4. Probability of Routing a Unit!

Volley & Bayonet (probabilistic via morale tests):

• Base disorder chance on a d6 test: for average Morale 4→ fail(disorder)on 5–6 = 33 %.
• Elite (6) → only fails on 6 = 17 %. Poor (2) → fails on 3–6 = 67 %. Modifiers (flank, high ground, etc.) shift this.
• Routing requires two successive disorders (or direct combat result).
• Once disordered, the next test is at –1, so probability compounds quickly.
• Routed unit is immediately weakened and usually out of the fight unless rallied (which is automatic by contact but leaves it permanently disordered).
• Cumulative hits from fire/melee also grind stands to 0 SP → removal.
• Steady, predictable attrition until a unit “breaks” via the disorder mechanic.

Piquet: Field of Battle (more swingy, combat-driven – harder to get a definitive ‘probability’ style answer due to its nature):

• Units retreat via losing against an even damage roll. Units rout primarily by losing all UI (usually 3–4 hits) or by an even 2 hit damage roll in fire or melee (which triggers instant rout).
• Combat resolution is opposed dice: attacker’s Combat Die (D8–D12+) vs defender’s Defense Die (D4–D10), modified by range/formation/terrain. Difference of 3+ pips = 1 UI lost.
• Probability of routing therefore depends on quality matchup: elite French vs poor Austrian can rout a unit in 1–2 good rolls; ‘even’ matchups take longer but the “even, rather than odd number, roll = extra bad thing” adds sudden-death risk.
• Army-wide collapse (via Army Morale card at 0 AMP) can end the game instantly – but this takes time. More potential for  “boom-or-bust” — a single hot streak of cards + good dice can rout multiple units in one go.

Bottom line on routing probability:

• VnB → gradual, morale-test driven (you can calculate exact % per test). Units usually disorder first, then rout. Building to ‘division exhaustion’, and knowing which corps to avoid ‘breaking’,  is the sweet spot here. Keeping everything managed is key.
• FoB → combat-result driven with high variance (opposed dice + even/odd rider). Units can rout suddenly without warning, with no affectation to division exhaustion, but in my view, you don’t notice too much; there isn't time! Planning for unpredictability is key.

  

Quick Overall Verdict

• For predictable command, clear phases, and classic morale tests? → Volley & Bayonet.
• For card-driven chaos (with a small ‘c’), army morale that can snap as army is worn, and momentum swings? → Piquet: Field of Battle.

Both are excellent for large battles, both are representative (as much as they can be) for the periods, but they feel completely different at the table.  There is ‘some’ predictability in a V&B game – play the same game the same ‘way’ twice, and the dice should give similar results; thus it is open to variability in play style. That doesn’t happen with FoB: battle is very dangerous. Making mistakes can be costly in both games, though for different reasons...it's hard to cheat and 'game' the turn sequence in either game.

 The absence of C2 friction in V&B is not an oversight — it's a design choice, I believe, that keeps the game simple, fast, and focused on high-level generalship rather than micromanaging lower-level command. The rules even note that true friction emerges best in multi-player games - a convenient excuse not to design a command rating system?..or simply the understanding that this is a game to be enjoyed at the table. This ‘simple but not simplistic’ design lets big battles flow without bogging down in activation rolls or command-point bookkeeping.

 

A quagmire of broken units near the game end - victory will go to the side that exhausts each division of the opponent...it was a very close call in the end, with the French winning VERY narrowly.

 

Therein, for me, lies the conundrum/opportunity. Both types of game feed the wargamer’s very soul! Having spent years trying to choose, I still want to play both, so choice appears to be off the table … whilst both games remain on it. 

What do they both have in common then? I would suggest efficient, systemically stable designs are key – each well honed in how they work.

 

At each end of the spectrum, these designs are both easily top of a very broad field, highlighting the difference in approach to horse & musket game/simulation.

 

They aren't glitzy hardbacks - they don't need to be. Both are stand out entries, and yet very different in design, such that I really have no compulsion to try the other contenders, and have already used ‘Black Powder‘ as loo roll, in all its various editions. 

 

To finish, a sampling of some of the scenario books, written both in house and by interested players. All excellent!