Re: Holy Hack Comments Posted by: "David Crowell" gpfdavid@twcny.rr.com blaen_495 Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:38 am (PST)

I do not (yet) have a copy of Holy Hack, but greatly enjoy Homeric Hack, I find that Hack is best approached as a tool kit. It reflects Phil's ideas of how best to model ancient conflicts on the table top. As with any such model your conception may vary.

The question of how did the Sea peoples defeat the Egyptians can be answered in a couple of ways. One possiblity is that on the field of battle they did no, but rather they won the strategic war by stretching Egyptian resources etc. There are modern examples of this sort of thing. Or, I have read that it may have been iron weapons, long slashing swords, and new techniques of fighting that made chariots obsolete, or at least less effective.

There are points where I disagree with Phil in Homeric Hack, I think the Trojans were more like the Hittites and Anatolians than they were like Achaeans. I also think it likely that shield types were mixed within units.

None the less I play Homeric Hack as written and enjoy it. It is I think a better model of Homer than Late Bronze Age history, but that is as it claims to be.

I don't think it is fair to expect any game designer to produce a set of rules that perfectly fulfill anyone's views of the period and how the rules ought to work on all points. I have many sets of Ancients rules (mostly LBA/Biblical period) and none of them are perfect. Each has some aspects that are done very well, and some that are terrible.

I think that Phil is a rarity among historical game designers these days in that he actually expects his rules to be used to game history. Many Ancients sets are really fantasy rules. Vikings vs Aztecs with Samurai and Mycenean allies? Look at the matchups reported in Spearpoint or Slinshot tournament reports. Very few are even remotely historically plausible, unless the event had specific limits to ensure historical match ups.

cheers,

Dave