Arthur and the Saxons, playing Midgard

   

   Having run several test games to give us a handle on how things worked, and when to spend those all-important Heroic Deeds, we decided to run a "historical game" as in historical according to Arthurian lore. In this game Arthur and his brave lads would be facing the land-hungry masses of invasive Saxons. 

       To add a twist (and test an idea) the Saxons were broken down into three allied, but not necessarily cooperative, tribes.  Collectively they seriously outnumbered the Britons but were laden with slightly divergent victory conditions. To represent this each tribe was assigned a quarter of the total Saxon Reputation points, with the final quarter given to the overall leader to use at his discretion. Reputation earned by each tribe was retained by that tribe and could not be shared with the others. Reputation earned by the overall commander could be used as he wished but he was also leading the center tribe and had to be wary of depleting his supply. This, we hoped, would create a spirit of parochialism amongst the Saxons.

       The Britons had their Reputation points all assigned to Arthur to be used as he wished, this was intended to reflect the superior training and combined purpose to the Britons while defending heir homes.

      Each side had an Army Commander, two lesser generals and one "hero at large" who was free to follow the leader of his choice. 

      I ask the dear reader to forgive the messy playing surface, we are still mastering the rules and we were employing a lot of playing aids to speed the game.

Giving Midgard A Try

 

        I have long held an interest in the period commonly called the "Dark Ages" (I prefer The Heroic Age) and have equally sought a rules set that, to my mind, would reflect combat in that age. Coming from the era of WRG dominance I first sought comfort in crushingly detailed rules (which often gave the gamer more detailed knowledge of the status of troops that any general of the era could hope for) before breaking with that idea with Tactica and then the unique Dark Ages Infantry Slog found in the original iteration of Wargames Illustrated. These both provided entirely different mechanisms and came closer to my goal but lacked the feeling that I got from reading the Viking Sagas and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Leaders were larger than life in those stories. Then along came SAGA.

       SAGA promised much; leadership-driven combat, small units, a lot of characterization. I gave it a try, I wanted it to work, but walked away unsatisfied. Tiny units whizzing around the battlespace on their own, only one hero (in most cases), and the games looked nothing like the battles described in the chronicles of the era. Add to that I had to learn all of the "trick rules" that applied to my army AND all the trick rules of any potential opponent. Oh, and I hate custom dice.

       Hail Caesar is great for large disciplined armies but simply doesn't cut it for Dark Ages. It has some good ideas and the neat special rules make it possible to customize units, but the leaders are bland. We tried for years but again were left unhappy.

       Lion Rampant provided more unit types than SAGA and was dead simple to learn and play but ended up too "gamey" for my taste. I enjoyed it and still play from time to time but in no way assume that it has any semblance to historical combat.

        Needless to say when I first spotted Midgard on the shelf at my local Brick & Mortar I didn't expect much. At first glance I wasn't particularly impressed. But, as I read more about it, I went back and picked up a copy. This seemed to have everything I was looking for. Leaders and Heroes figured large in every step of the game. The mechanics were simple to learn and made sense. Special rules allowed to customize both leaders and units. The morale system emphasized army cohesion and the importance of leaders being seen to lead from the front. All the best bits of the many prior rules sets seemed to have coalesced in this one book. I was intrigued.