So my pal Consul Scipio and I do alot of co-dependent gaming. This means we pick a system and each get an army for it, hopefully painting the figures and playing a few games before the next project takes our attention.
Recently we got back into Warmaster Ancients (WMA). At Historicon, we both fleshed out our armies and proceeded to rush home to paint them. Here are some shots of the first 1000 point battle.
Here's the Roman center, complete with general on a white horse:
Next up the Gallic battle line. Aren't they colorful?
The Roman line using terrain to anchor a flank against the Barbarian hordes:
The two pristine armies maneuvering into position:
After much slaughter, the Roman center is in jeopardy and the Gallic army has been mauled on the right flank:
The Roman center collapses beneath the weight of hairy barbarians:
In our fist match, my Gauls in the center unexpectedly stood up to a charge of the Raw Roman Legions (who are not as good as normal Legions) and there was much slaughter. Gauls are warbands, which get better in victory and worse in defeat. So in the center the warbands continued to win after the initial clash of lines, while elsewhere Bill's regular legions ate my warbands for breakfast after winning the initial clash.
Between the casualties in the center and a few other losses, the Romans took 50% casualties and broke. In WMA you determine an army's break point by the number of non-skirmishing units/2 rounding up. Bill's break point was 5 (10 core units) and mine was 7 (14 core units). This means Bill had fewer units than me, but they were generally of better quality. This represents the fact that the Roman legions were better trained and equipped, although historically it's debatable how often the Romans were outnumbered to the extent they claimed!
Next time out, I have a feeling that the Roman general will put his best troops in the center and see just what the Gauls are made of!