Monday, January 6, 2025

DotS Mania

Looks like I have my first craze of the new year - Dominion of the Spear (DotS).

I wrote about DotS in a recent post. It is a time filler game - one of those games I can pull out and play in a few spare minutes.

Another Experiment
I tried another game of DotS. This time Romans (red) vs. Dacians.

  • Dacians -  Battle line: spears, falx (ferocious foot) and archers. Reserve: falx. spears
  • Romans - Battle line: legionaries (armored foot), archers, cavalry. Reserve: auxiliaries, legionaries

The Dacians attack. The spears (L) cannot make a dent on the legionaries. The Roman archers take out the falx, and the Roman cavalry rides down the Dacian archers.

The legionaries (L) wipe out the Dacian spears. The reserve falx wipe out the archers, and the spears and cavalry stalemate.

The Dacian spears finally drive off the cavalry, but the falx falls to the disciplined legionaries.

Victory for Rome!

As an aside, I decided to do Dacians vs. Romans because I am making a falx for my LARP.

Future Plans
I've been pondering what to do with DotS and I came up with some ideas.

Campaign?
I've been thinking about using DotS for a campaign but I have not made any decisions yet. Just too many interesting armies!

I'm leaning towards one option - sample games from different eras. Neil Thomas does this in his Ancient and Medieval Wargaming book, which includes battle reports for Kadesh (chariot era), Issus (classical), Badon Hill (Dark Ages), and Agincourt (medieval). I will likely break it out into more eras and use different battles.

DotS Box Set?
I am thinking about doing a separate box for DotS. I know, I just consolidated my gaming materials into a couple of boxes! Ah, the joys of GADD.

If I do this, I would only make 2 armies. Perhaps I can use some of the armies that I have on my consolidation chopping block.

I will need to create some more unit because I don't have enough to represent the maximum number for all the troops types. Here is a rundown on what I have and what I'll need.
  • Heavy (melee) infantry - have 3, need 5
  • Light (missile) infantry - have and need 3
  • Heavy (melee) cavalry - have 2, need 4
  • Light (missile) cavalry - have 0, need 6
I'm debating how to handle the cavalry. For MicroBattle, I only made one type of counter and then used markers to indicate if it was light or heavy. I am debating if I should do the same for DotS.

Note that DotS also has chariots, elephants, and camels. I will need to make chariot and elephant counters because my MicroBattle box does not have extras. For camels, I figure I can just use cavalry counters.

I also plan to make markers to indicate elite, armored, and ferocious statuses.

6 comments:

  1. Steve here, the author of the rules. Very pleased that you are enjoying the rules! Myself, I especially like trying different armies with different troop types and then you get the interaction of the different troop types.
    Regarding terrain, early iterations of the rules had terrain rules but time after time I forgot to use them and I felt the rules played well without them, in particular the balance between the different troop types. It also seemed to me that so so many battles were fought on basically open ground.
    I have been working on a supplement with 30+ historical battles in it along the style of the Peter Sides wonderful little books. For this if terrain played a part in the battle I am simply giving the unit one of the unit attributes. So for example infantry defending a camp or hill can be given the armoured attribute etc. Seems to work and importantly adds no extra factors to try to remember.
    All the best
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, thanks for a fun game. Can't wait for the supplement. "Take my money!"
      I was thinking along similar lines re: terrain. Although I will likely model it on my board as a reminder to apply the armor factor.

      Delete
  2. I too have the bug. I think on it all the time and looking for a simple campaign to use. I was going to use Mark Codone's 3x3 portable Wargaming hopllte one, then though of repurposing OHW, now mulling creating a simple one of my own :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been using the OHW approach for my campaigns, although lately I've been doing best of 3 mini-campaigns. I just got an idea but I'll save it for a post.

      Delete
  3. Kevin, the list of battles in the new supplement is currently looking like:
    Megiddo 1479 BC, Kadesh 1274 BC, Thymbra 536 BC, Plataea 479 BC, Gaugamela 331 BC, Ipsus 301 BC, Raphia 217 BC, Cannae 216 BC, Carrhae 53 BC, Taurus 39 BC, Edessa 260 AD, Naissus 268 AD, Immae 272 AD, Adrianople 378 AD, Chalons 451 AD, Badon Hill 517 AD, Dara 530 AD, Taginae 552 AD, Yarmouk 636 AD, Nechtansmere 685 AD, Tours 732 AD, Brunanburh 937 AD, Lechfeld 955 AD, Civitate 1053 AD, Hastings 1066 AD, Manzikert 1071 AD, Dorylaeum 1097 AD, Hattin 1187 AD, Arsuf 1191 AD, Ain Jalut 1260 AD, Bannockburn 1314 AD, Kulikovo 1318 AD, Kosovo 1389 AD, and Agincourt 1415 AD.

    ReplyDelete