Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/21/2004 21:02:18 Central Standard Time,
mwbard@... writes:
Conclusions: Since these changes don't screw up the historical analysis I've
completed, I have no complaints. However, I do need to ask why they're
necessary? Given that it so far seems that Hoplites beat their historical
foes as they did historically, the only need for a change is for the
artificial environment of a tournament. If a need is felt to make changes
solely for tournament play, then I (obviously -- I am human) have no
complaints, but I worry that it sets a bad example.

Michael Bard>>

Michael, you've asked a good question and I look forward to the answer. In
the mean time, please rest assured that while we encourage all input (and our
greek friend has given us some great stuff), two things are true:

1. we'll playtest it in an historical context

2. we'll never, ever make a list rule or troop type decision just to make a
troop more competitive in tourneys.

Our ONLY goal in these lists is to make the armies fight against their
historical opponents the way we think they did. Whoever falls out as tourney
capable or incapable (which is also mostly subjective...) does so independently.

I will say, that any army that does well against its historical opponents is
an obvious contender for a theme event. But how an army does in an open is a
different story and decidedly not part of our list decision-making process.

Jon


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Bill Chriss]

Thanks to commenst from Wanax Andron, I have corrected some
formatting problems in my Spearpoint Later Greek Hoplite list and
accompanying article. I deleted the old folder in the files section
and replaced it withthe corrected one, still titled either Greeek
Hoplite List or Greek Armies of the 4th Century. Please note and
comment on the list rules a follows-

List rules: 1) Thessalian, Thracian, and Theban HC and Thessalian
LC can fight 1.5 ranks in hand-to-hand combat if charging,
countercharging, or pursuing. 2) In addition to normal ranks
fighting per the rules, all steady hoplites fight the full first two
ranks at all times and against all opponents. 3) In addition, if
charging, countercharging, following up, or pursuing enemy foot,
Theban hoplites count third, fourth, and fifth rank close formation
figures at ¼ effect in hand-to hand combat.

In my opinion, this will correct the underperformance of
hoplites against a myriad of opponents, while still allowing
phalanxes to push them back regularly (but with somewhat more
difficulty against Thebans who historically fought as much as 40
ranks deep and perhaps with longer spears).

Any comments?

I hope to get around to finishing a similar article and army
list for the Hellenistic Greeks (I need a good almost historical
opponent for Scott's Antigonus One Eye!) in the not too distant
future.


Greek


Greek

[Mike Bard]

I just checked the numbers with the Marathon simulation and confirmed that
making hoplites always fight with two ranks does not change the result (if
they Greeks routed the Persians on contact, they could have hit the Persian
centre and kept their centre from routing, but they still don't double 54
though they go up to 72 which is close...). I'm not so sure about the
Thebans though -- although the extra depth, assuming the same frontage,
confirms that the Thebans will beat the Spartans as the Spartans take
fatigue faster, given the assumption that average is always rolled, the
Spartans are no better than the Thebans...

Conclusions: Since these changes don't screw up the historical analysis I've
completed, I have no complaints. However, I do need to ask why they're
necessary? Given that it so far seems that Hoplites beat their historical
foes as they did historically, the only need for a change is for the
artificial environment of a tournament. If a need is felt to make changes
solely for tournament play, then I (obviously -- I am human) have no
complaints, but I worry that it sets a bad example.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy


Thanks to commenst from Wanax Andron, I have corrected some
formatting problems in my Spearpoint Later Greek Hoplite list and
accompanying article. I deleted the old folder in the files section
and replaced it withthe corrected one, still titled either Greeek
Hoplite List or Greek Armies of the 4th Century. Please note and
comment on the list rules a follows-

List rules: 1) Thessalian, Thracian, and Theban HC and Thessalian
LC can fight 1.5 ranks in hand-to-hand combat if charging,
countercharging, or pursuing. 2) In addition to normal ranks
fighting per the rules, all steady hoplites fight the full first two
ranks at all times and against all opponents. 3) In addition, if
charging, countercharging, following up, or pursuing enemy foot,
Theban hoplites count third, fourth, and fifth rank close formation
figures at ¼ effect in hand-to hand combat.

In my opinion, this will correct the underperformance of
hoplites against a myriad of opponents, while still allowing
phalanxes to push them back regularly (but with somewhat more
difficulty against Thebans who historically fought as much as 40
ranks deep and perhaps with longer spears).

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Michael, you've asked a good question and I look forward to the
answer. In
> the mean time, please rest assured that while we encourage all
input (and our
> greek friend has given us some great stuff), two things are true:
>
> 1. we'll playtest it in an historical context
>
> 2. we'll never, ever make a list rule or troop type decision just
to make a
> troop more competitive in tourneys.
>
> Our ONLY goal in these lists is to make the armies fight against
their
> historical opponents the way we think they did.

Fair enough ( I suppose). I'll make the argument, but first two
observations. 1. This is a very specific type of hoplite army-
nonSpartan 4th century. 2. Much of the justification for my
conclusions reflected in the list is contained in the accompanying
article that precedes it in the files section.

Now, to the historical crux of the matter. 1. I have already (I
believe) demonstrated how crummy, trouser-wearing IRR C Persian
Kardake bowmen can moe than hold their own against more expensive
and historically superior Greek hopiltes. This was a few days ago on
a related thread.

2. Warrior Rules, p. 68: "The ranks of figures allowed to fight are
to encourage the use of historical depths, rather than reflect
weapon length." There is no other way to encourage Thebans to fight
at least 6 ranks deep (40 men in real terms) that to give them some
number of figures fighting for this purpose. Allowing one figure in
each of ranks 3, 4, and 5 forces the Theban player to fight at least
5 (and probably 6) rankes deep in order to push back and eventually
defeat other hoplites, while still losing to 4 rank deep phalanx
units on even dice (even though in real life they were only 16 men
deep).Assuming both are armoed the same, the greek does 11@4=33,
while the Macedonian does 12@4 or 36, and the Thebans will be ground
down, as they were in real life at Chaironea (holding out longer
than any of the other Greeks). Other hoplites will fight two ranks
deep (probably), doing 8@4=24 vs. 36. The point is that other
hoplites have very low odds of stopping a phalanx, while Thebans
might do it with some luck. Combine this with their performance at
Chaironea and Epaminondas' mastery of every other hoplite army sent
against him by his deep formation tactics, and you see that my
proposal is, IMHO, a closer approximation/simulation. I hasten to
add that this list and rule has been used by me twice at historicon
with Scott's blessing, and no one complained, and no untoward
results occurred (ask the guys who beat me anyway).

3. Lastly, what about my "always get 2 ranks hoplite rule?" Well,
let's return to Chaironea. Let us say that ALexander goes insane,
and when his orders change from wait to attack, he doesn't charge
for the flank of troops exposed due to gaps in the hoplite line, but
chooses to charge all his companions impetuously directly into the
front of the Theban Sacredd Band, or any other hoplite phalanx. Let
us recall that NO ONE, not even Alexander ever even considered such
a thing an option, even against later Greek mercenaries of
questionable Persian loyalty. His shieldless companion HC (per
element frontage) does 5@5=20. The hoplites will do 6@5=24. HOWEVER,
a +1 die roll differential (and remember, Big AL IS a general and
Companions are A's) means that Alex wins! If he rolls up one and the
Greeks roll even, it's 25 to 24. If he doesn't get the differential,
he just bounces off. If he does, any hoplite unit of 24 figs or less
(assuming only 2 deep, more otherwise) will start moving backwards
in response to a ridiculously ahistorical and unprecedented frontal
charge by a 200 man squadron of unstirruped, shieldless, HC. Now
they're meat for peltasts, or anybody else who wants to finish 'em.

Or, worse, if two or three units in line of command join in, 12 or
18 Companions have about a 40% chance of blowing a three or four
element wide hole in the middle of a hoplite phalanx in a frontal
charge.

Under my list rule, this temptation would not exist AT ALL (and it
shouoldn't) for a Macedonian or Successor player. Of course, you
could still roll up three and have the Greek roll down two or three,
but players don't normally even consider such long shots.

Lastly, while I understand it might not be persuasive to Jon based
on his posts (and that's cool), my proposed list rule has the
additional advantage in tournament play of slightly distinguishing
Greek hoplites from other (medieval and dark age) LTS armed troops,
which I believe is correct. Those other guys did not fight with 3
foot diameter hoplons in such close formation as to make it
virtually impossible for ANY troops of the ancient world to bust
them in a frontal charge in the open. Instead, they were gradually
worn down by superior armament or morale, or they were hit in the
flank after being lured out of position or into unfavorable terrain,
or they were busted up (occasionally) after being harried into
disorder after a long period of adverse missile fire (as with the
Spartans at Sphacteria or the Athenians in the attempted retreat
from Syracuse).


Okay, I'm out there. What do you think?


Greek







i

[Mike Bard]

I'm not annoyed or angry or anything about this. I'm just trying to make
sure that my personal bias towards hoplites does not bias me towards making
suggestions as to tweaking the army. Let me crunch the cavalry and Theban
numbers tomorrow and get back to you.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

Hrisikos,

Firstly a good effort on the list and my apology for not responding
with comments sooner. (I have a Spartan army and so will probably
not use this list, nevertheless I have a strong interest in the
Hoplite lists being made more accurate, so I suport the project.)

First the good points:
1. Thessalian LC getting 1.5 ranks - this is excellent. It has never
ceased to amaze me that these guys are so underrated. Every ancient
author I have read says they were the best available LC, and
consistently beat their opponents. I think this is easily
justifiable on thei hsitorical performacne and reputation.

2. The greater emphasis on the variety of skirmishing and support
troops available to Hoplite armies in general (eg Ekdromoi) is
excellent. I have often thought that the problem with Hoplite army
lists was not so much the performance of the Hoplites, but their many
compulsory hoplites and lack of support leaving them exposed to
mounted flank attacks. (When historically, their support missile
troops stopped this. eg. see Xenophon)

Now for the disagreements:
1. Thebans getting more than two ranks fighting is questionable, even
for their Sacred Band. I have two objections:
(a) why only Thebans? this was a tactical innovation but there was
nothing in Theban training or equipment which meant that others
couldn't have doen the same. Commentators of the times seem to imply
that it was a "good idea" meaning, why hadn't the other armies tried
it too? And of course, afterwards the Macedonians did!

(b) It is a much bigger advantage than you say, which would apply
against all tropps, not just other Hoplites or Pike. Sure it might
allow them to grind down other Hoplites, but will it also cause them
to route on contact many other lesser troops? I fear so. And it
will nto just gridn down other hoplites; they will be killed quickly
with any kind of + dice result. I think this is too much.

As a compromise to encourage deeper formations, why not just allow
Hoplites (all) to count their deeper ranks at full numbers for
casualty/fatigue purposes, but not as fighting figures? This would
mean deep formations would take fatigue slower, and still grind down
lesser depth opponents, but would not make them quick kill units.

2. I also have to question the rating option for the Sacred Band as
LMI/LHI. What evidence do we have that this was possible? The
discussion in Polybios about phalanxes does not really indicate they
(phalanxes in general) were this flexible. This change would make
them more flexible than early Roman legionaires, which Polybios says
were more flexible. The Spartiates were the best trained Hoplites,
and I wouldn't even suggest this change for them. So I can't agree
with this one.

Happy to discuss this further though; I make no claims to being
expert on this subject, just an interested amateur.

regards

Scott Elaurant


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "hrisikos8" <hrisikos@D...>
wrote:
> >
> > Michael, you've asked a good question and I look forward to the
> answer. In
> > the mean time, please rest assured that while we encourage all
> input (and our
> > greek friend has given us some great stuff), two things are true:
> >
> > 1. we'll playtest it in an historical context
> >
> > 2. we'll never, ever make a list rule or troop type decision
just
> to make a
> > troop more competitive in tourneys.
> >
> > Our ONLY goal in these lists is to make the armies fight against
> their
> > historical opponents the way we think they did.
>
> Fair enough ( I suppose). I'll make the argument, but first two
> observations. 1. This is a very specific type of hoplite army-
> nonSpartan 4th century. 2. Much of the justification for my
> conclusions reflected in the list is contained in the accompanying
> article that precedes it in the files section.
>
> Now, to the historical crux of the matter. 1. I have already (I
> believe) demonstrated how crummy, trouser-wearing IRR C Persian
> Kardake bowmen can moe than hold their own against more expensive
> and historically superior Greek hopiltes. This was a few days ago
on
> a related thread.
>
> 2. Warrior Rules, p. 68: "The ranks of figures allowed to fight
are
> to encourage the use of historical depths, rather than reflect
> weapon length." There is no other way to encourage Thebans to fight
> at least 6 ranks deep (40 men in real terms) that to give them some
> number of figures fighting for this purpose. Allowing one figure in
> each of ranks 3, 4, and 5 forces the Theban player to fight at
least
> 5 (and probably 6) rankes deep in order to push back and eventually
> defeat other hoplites, while still losing to 4 rank deep phalanx
> units on even dice (even though in real life they were only 16 men
> deep).Assuming both are armoed the same, the greek does 11@4=33,
> while the Macedonian does 12@4 or 36, and the Thebans will be
ground
> down, as they were in real life at Chaironea (holding out longer
> than any of the other Greeks). Other hoplites will fight two ranks
> deep (probably), doing 8@4=24 vs. 36. The point is that other
> hoplites have very low odds of stopping a phalanx, while Thebans
> might do it with some luck. Combine this with their performance at
> Chaironea and Epaminondas' mastery of every other hoplite army sent
> against him by his deep formation tactics, and you see that my
> proposal is, IMHO, a closer approximation/simulation. I hasten to
> add that this list and rule has been used by me twice at historicon
> with Scott's blessing, and no one complained, and no untoward
> results occurred (ask the guys who beat me anyway).
>
> 3. Lastly, what about my "always get 2 ranks hoplite rule?" Well,
> let's return to Chaironea. Let us say that ALexander goes insane,
> and when his orders change from wait to attack, he doesn't charge
> for the flank of troops exposed due to gaps in the hoplite line,
but
> chooses to charge all his companions impetuously directly into the
> front of the Theban Sacredd Band, or any other hoplite phalanx. Let
> us recall that NO ONE, not even Alexander ever even considered such
> a thing an option, even against later Greek mercenaries of
> questionable Persian loyalty. His shieldless companion HC (per
> element frontage) does 5@5=20. The hoplites will do 6@5=24.
HOWEVER,
> a +1 die roll differential (and remember, Big AL IS a general and
> Companions are A's) means that Alex wins! If he rolls up one and
the
> Greeks roll even, it's 25 to 24. If he doesn't get the
differential,
> he just bounces off. If he does, any hoplite unit of 24 figs or
less
> (assuming only 2 deep, more otherwise) will start moving backwards
> in response to a ridiculously ahistorical and unprecedented frontal
> charge by a 200 man squadron of unstirruped, shieldless, HC. Now
> they're meat for peltasts, or anybody else who wants to finish 'em.
>
> Or, worse, if two or three units in line of command join in, 12 or
> 18 Companions have about a 40% chance of blowing a three or four
> element wide hole in the middle of a hoplite phalanx in a frontal
> charge.
>
> Under my list rule, this temptation would not exist AT ALL (and it
> shouoldn't) for a Macedonian or Successor player. Of course, you
> could still roll up three and have the Greek roll down two or
three,
> but players don't normally even consider such long shots.
>
> Lastly, while I understand it might not be persuasive to Jon based
> on his posts (and that's cool), my proposed list rule has the
> additional advantage in tournament play of slightly distinguishing
> Greek hoplites from other (medieval and dark age) LTS armed troops,
> which I believe is correct. Those other guys did not fight with 3
> foot diameter hoplons in such close formation as to make it
> virtually impossible for ANY troops of the ancient world to bust
> them in a frontal charge in the open. Instead, they were gradually
> worn down by superior armament or morale, or they were hit in the
> flank after being lured out of position or into unfavorable
terrain,
> or they were busted up (occasionally) after being harried into
> disorder after a long period of adverse missile fire (as with the
> Spartans at Sphacteria or the Athenians in the attempted retreat
> from Syracuse).
>
>
> Okay, I'm out there. What do you think?
>
>
> Greek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> i

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "scott_elaurant"
<Scott.Elaurant@d...> wrote:
> Hrisikos,
>
> Firstly a good effort on the list and my apology for not responding
> with comments sooner. (I have a Spartan army and so will probably
> not use this list, nevertheless I have a strong interest in the
> Hoplite lists being made more accurate, so I suport the project.)
>
> First the good points:

Thanks, Scott.





> Now for the disagreements:
> 1. Thebans getting more than two ranks fighting is questionable,
even
> for their Sacred Band.

I totally disagree, for reasons I have already posted. More comments
below.


I have two objections:
> (a) why only Thebans? this was a tactical innovation but there was
> nothing in Theban training or equipment which meant that others
> couldn't have doen the same.

I disagree on botth counts. As I say in the article, there are some
commentators who now believe that Thebans used a longer spear than
earlier hoplites. More importantly, the Thebans appear top have been
the only hoplites to have TRAINED in fighting over 16 ranks deep.
They were also the only ones who did it. Remember, all the sources
agree that fighting 40 ranks deep is how the RThebans beat the
Spartans (twice). It also explains their better performance against
Philip at Chaironea



> (b) It is a much bigger advantage than you say, which would apply
> against all tropps, not just other Hoplites or Pike. Sure it might
> allow them to grind down other Hoplites, but will it also cause
them
> to route on contact many other lesser troops? I fear so.


I do not. Run the numbers. It is virtually impossible for hoplites to
break anything on contact, assuming, of course, that they ever catch
anything! Remember, they'll almost always have to stand and take
Irreg foot at a halt and at great disadvantage. Thracians would do
(per element frontage) 3@7 + 2@5 =26, while MI hoplites will only
dish out 8@3= 20. If two ranks deep (which everyone but the Thebans
will be), this is recoil disordered for the hoplites, follow up
disordered for the Thracians. Second bound it's Thracians 3@5 +
2@4=18, while disordered hoplites dish out 6@4 against shieldless
2hcw =18, an even match, assuming that the Thracians don't expand
out, which they certainly will, given the room, eventually causing
the disordered hoplites to rout.. Without the list rule, it's 26 vs.
6@3=15. A plus 1 dieroll difference in favor of the Thracian produces
a rout on contact.

I argue my simulation to be more historically accurate. Can anyone
cite me to any instance between 500 BC and 300 BC where Thracians (or
any other group of Irreg barbarians) broke a hoplite phalanx of equal
oir greater size on contact in a frontal charge? Nope. There is no
reason to think that pike phalanxes were histoically more resistant
to this type of attack historically, yet they certainly are in
Warrior bcause they (for reasons that are unclear to me) always get
at least two full ranks fighting, even if unsteady.




>
> 2. I also have to question the rating option for the Sacred Band
as
> LMI/LHI. What evidence do we have that this was possible? The
> discussion in Polybios about phalanxes does not really indicate
they
> (phalanxes in general) were this flexible.



Polybios is not the source (he's describing a period about a hundred
years later, for one thing). Plutarch is, as reflected in my
accompanying article. In his life of Pelopidas, he describes the
Sacred Band as a flying mobile reserve. here is a direct quote from
the article:

-We should not fail to note the Theban "Sacred Band" of
approximately 300 supremely well-trained hoplites. They held the
place of honor in the Theban line of battle, and sometimes acted as a
mobile reserve, or flying column, coming up in the nick of time "with
incredible speed and fury" under their captain Pelopidas, according
to Plutarch.-


The LMI/LHI option for them is to reflect their having performed this
historical function. They were simply in such superb condition that
they were capable of speed and maneuver imppossible to conventional
citizen hoplites, and fighting in duos, their training appears to
have been more flexible than merely fighting in a close formation
shield wall.

Again, while Spartans were marvelous hoplites, the Thebans regularly
defeated them DURING THE BRIEF PERIOD COVERED BY THIS LIST. I think I
am in the majority of contemporary historians in claiming that this
resulted from having equally high morale, training to fight in deeper
formations, and (probably) using longer spears in a proto-Macedonian
way. After all, Philip had to get the idea from somewhere. It is
unlikely that the Macedonian phalanx sprung, like Athena, from his
head. It must be seen as the culmination of a gradual evolution
towards longer spears begun during the Peloponnesian War. Philip took
Iphicrates' and Epaminondas' ad hoc tactics, lengthened the spear
much more (to 16 to 18 feet) and improved on the training such that
16 ranks deep was much more efficient than 40.

This is my reading of the sources.

Thanks again for your interest and comments.


Greek

[scott holder]

I argue my simulation to be more historically accurate. Can anyone
cite me to any instance between 500 BC and 300 BC where Thracians (or
any other group of Irreg barbarians) broke a hoplite phalanx of equal
oir greater size on contact in a frontal charge?

>A better question is how many of these encounters occurred? What was the
historical outcome of each?

scott

[Mike Bard]

Thoughts and discussion on having Hoplites always fight 2 deep...

6 Alexandrian Companion (Reg A Cav L) vs 8 Generic Hoplite (Reg C MI LTS Sh)
(or one element's frontage...) I will assume all dice roll even though the
Companions are pretty assured to not roll down.

The Alexandrian cavalry charge impetuously (they're As, and Alexander is in
the front as he is a madman...). Hoplites stand to receive.

Test 1: Hoplites fight 1.5 ranks.

Bound 1:
- Companion: Charging Impetuous, facing LTS: 5@5 -> 20 -> 2 CPF.
- Hoplites: Stand to Receive, Steady LTS being charged: 6@5 -> 24 -> 4 CPF

Results:
- Companions: 7 (2 from mounted charge, 1 from impetuous, 4 from Hoplites)
- Hoplites: 2
Companions break off tired.

Test 2: Hoplites fight at 1.5 ranks, roll down 1 on bound of contact. (or
Companions roll up 1)

Bound 1:
- Companion: Charging Impetuous, facing LTS: 5@5 -> 20 -> 2 CPF.
- Hoplites: Stand to Receive, Steady LTS being charged, down 1: 6@4 -> 18 ->
3 CPF

Results:
- Companions: 6 (2 from mounted charge, 1 from impetuous, 4 from Hoplites)
- Hoplites: 2
Both bodies are disordered. Hoplites recoil and take a waver test or become
shaken. If they make the waver test (on 4+) they're fine and the companions
break off. If they become shaken they do 9 on Bound 2, push the Companions
back, but don't quite rout them.

Note: If the Companions roll up 1 then the same result occurs.

Test 2: Hoplites fight at 2 ranks.

Bound 1:
- Companion: Charging Impetuous, facing LTS: 5@5 -> 20 -> 2 CPF.
- Hoplites: Stand to Receive, Steady LTS being charged: 8@5 -> 32 -> 5 CPF

Results:
- Companions: 8 (2 from mounted charge, 1 from impetuous, 5 from Hoplites)
- Hoplites: 2
Companions break off tired and disordered.

Test 2: Hoplites fight at 2 ranks, roll down 1

Bound 1:
- Companion: Charging Impetuous, facing LTS: 5@5 -> 20 -> 2 CPF.
- Hoplites: Stand to Receive, Steady LTS being charged, down 1: 8@4 -> 24 ->
4 CPF

Results:
- Companions: 7 (2 from mounted charge, 1 from impetuous, 4 from Hoplites)
- Hoplites: 2
Companions break off tired and disordered.

Note: If Companions roll up 1, then they do 25 compared to the hoplite even
roll of 32 and still break off. For victory the Companions must roll up 1
AND the Hoplites must roll down 1 (for those who are curious, 1 in 6 rolls
are even, 1 in 6 rolls are up 1, 1 in 6 rolls are down 1, 1 in 12 rolls are
up 2, 1 in 12 rolls are down 2, and 1 in 36 are up 3 and 1 in 36 are down
3 -> thus there is a 10 in 36 of rolling up and a 10 in 36 of rolling down,
so there are just under 1 in 13 odds of one side rolling up 1 and the other
down 1. These do not reflect the modifications due to A class Companions
being led by Alexander where the only chance of a down is 1 in 36 (down 3)).

Conclusions: Under the current rules the Companions have to hope that the
Hoplites roll at least down or the Companions roll up (1 in 1.. If this
occurs then they push the Hoplites back disordered and then break off next
bound, becoming tired in either case. Under the proposed 2 ranks of
Hoplites they break off tired on contact on the first bound, or if the
Hoplites roll poorly on the second bound unless the hoplites roll down and
the companions roll up (1 in 13). This is also the only case in which they
break the hoplites on contact (cavalry up 1, hoplites down 1 -- 1 in 13).

Note: As I read it is becoming more apparent that, in general, ancient
cavalry was pretty will impotent against hoplites, even on flanks. Some
sources suggest that there may have been some Persian cavalry at Marathon
but they couldn't hurt the flanks/rear of the hoplites. Of course there may
have been Greek skirmishers to hold them off, and large blocks of javelin
infantry could have done this. Platea is starting to look like a different
matter, but it is a much more complex test case.

Other things:

Thebans vs Spartans: I want to get some numbers before I crunch things.
Right now, if there is equal frontage and the Thebans are 6 ranks deep, then
they should grind the Spartans down as the Spartans take fatigue faster (6
ranks yields 16 figure equivalents which is just above a break point). The
only question is how fast the Spartans have to go down.

Other Companion vs Hoplite thoughts: At Charonea (sp?) the Phalanx and
Hoplites basically locked for a long time, and it was the Companions hitting
the flank of a pinned Hoplite unit that won the battle. I'd have to go
through the numbers in detail, but it is possible that a case could be made
for Hoplite and Phalanx being effectively equal.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/22/2004 2:35:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, mwbard@...
writes:

> Test 2: Hoplites fight at 1.5 ranks, roll down 1 on bound of contact. (or
> Companions roll up 1)
>
> Bound 1:
> - Companion: Charging Impetuous, facing LTS: 5@5 -> 20 -> 2 CPF.
> - Hoplites: Stand to Receive, Steady LTS being charged, down 1: 6@4 -> 18 ->
> 3 CPF
>
> Results:
> - Companions: 6 (2 from mounted charge, 1 from impetuous, 4 from Hoplites)
> - Hoplites: 2
> Both bodies are disordered. Hoplites recoil and take a waver test or become
> shaken. If they make the waver test (on 4+) they're fine and the companions
> break off. If they become shaken they do 9 on Bound 2,
> push the Companions
> back, but don't quite rout them.>>

I do not see the cause of the hoplite waver test. They were steady when the
Comps hit, so it can't be second disorder (the disorder from recoiling to
mounted and from 3CPF is simultaneous and does not cause a waver as theere is no
disorder with the hoplites 'already disordered').

[scott holder]

Other Companion vs Hoplite thoughts: At Charonea (sp?) the Phalanx and
Hoplites basically locked for a long time, and it was the Companions hitting
the flank of a pinned Hoplite unit that won the battle. I'd have to go
through the numbers in detail, but it is possible that a case could be made
for Hoplite and Phalanx being effectively equal.

>This is why TOG was tweaked and that tweak carried over into Warrior. I felt
we *finally* hit the right balance between hoplites and phalangites.

scott

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Bard" <mwbard@r...>
wrote:
> Thoughts and discussion on having Hoplites always fight 2 deep...
>
> Test 2: Hoplites fight at 1.5 ranks, roll down 1 on bound of
contact. (or
> Companions roll up 1)
>
> Bound 1:
> - Companion: Charging Impetuous, facing LTS: 5@5 -> 20 -> 2 CPF.
> - Hoplites: Stand to Receive, Steady LTS being charged, down 1:
6@4 -> 18 ->
> 3 CPF
>
> Results:
> - Companions: 6 (2 from mounted charge, 1 from impetuous, 4 from
Hoplites)
> - Hoplites: 2
> Both bodies are disordered. Hoplites recoil >
> Note: If the Companions roll up 1 then the same result occurs.

The hoplites recoil disordered as Jon points out. On bound 2,
Companions are either going to expand on an available flank or be
joined by other cav who can charge the rest of this disordered close
order block unprompted. This is aboiut equivalent to the situation if
Alex chose to take another squadron or two with him in bound 1,
although attacking in seriatim makes more sense. Hence, in a real
real game (as opposed to element by element simulations), the odds
are that if the initial cav attack gets a +1 net die roll, the
hoplites break on bound 2. That's my point.

>
> Test 2: Hoplites fight at 2 ranks.
>
> Results:
> - Companions: 7 (2 from mounted charge, 1 from impetuous, 4 from
Hoplites)
> - Hoplites: 2
> Companions break off tired and disordered.
>
> Note: If Companions roll up 1, then they do 25 compared to the
hoplite even
> roll of 32 and still break off. For victory the Companions must
roll up 1
> AND the Hoplites must roll down 1


I.E., this is a net +2 for Alex, and much more remote.



> Conclusions: Under the current rules the Companions have to hope
that the
> Hoplites roll at least down or the Companions roll up (1 in 1..
If this
> occurs then they push the Hoplites back disordered and then break
off next
> bound, becoming tired in either case.

I disagree that they'll break off in bound 2. Even without expansion,
they're 5@3-1 tired,-1 disordered,+2 agst disordered foot, +1
following up = 15. Hoplites are 6@4-2 disordered=12. On even dice,
the cav keeps following up. In real life, they'll be joined by one or
more addditional attackers on bound 2 that will probably break the
hoplites and at least cause disorder and a waver test. This is not
right given your comments, with which i agree, below.



> Note: As I read it is becoming more apparent that, in general,
ancient
> cavalry was pretty will impotent against hoplites, even on flanks.


kala les, i.e., THIS IS MY POINT EXACTLY!




> Other things:
> Other Companion vs Hoplite thoughts: At Charonea (sp?) the Phalanx
and
> Hoplites basically locked for a long time, and it was the
Companions hitting
> the flank of a pinned Hoplite unit that won the battle. I'd have
to go
> through the numbers in detail, but it is possible that a case could
be made
> for Hoplite and Phalanx being effectively equal.
>
> Michael Bard
> That Greek Hoplite Guy


Again, my friend Mike the Greek Hoplite Guy, I couldn't have said it
better myself. Thanks for the analysis and commments. Very edifying.


Greek

[Bill Chriss]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Holder, Scott"
<Scott.Holder@f...> wrote:
> I argue my simulation to be more historically accurate. Can anyone
> cite me to any instance between 500 BC and 300 BC where Thracians
(or
> any other group of Irreg barbarians) broke a hoplite phalanx of
equal
> oir greater size on contact in a frontal charge?
>
> >A better question is how many of these encounters occurred? What
was the historical outcome of each?
>
> scott


Good question, Scott. The Acarnanians against Demosthenes and his
Messenian allies in 425/6 comes to mind, and, of course MY Antigonos
(the good guy, Gonatas, as opposed to your Monopthalmos) against the
Gauls/Galatians in 279, although that's really a bit late and out of
period. Looks like more homework for the Greek. I hope to get at
least one scholarly historical article out of this , so I don't
mind the assignment. I'll be back in touch by remote control.


Greek

[scott holder]

Good question, Scott. The Acarnanians against Demosthenes and his
Messenian allies in 425/6 comes to mind, and, of course MY Antigonos
(the good guy, Gonatas, as opposed to your Monopthalmos) against the
Gauls/Galatians in 279, although that's really a bit late and out of
period.

>Way too out of period. That's essentially a barbarian trash vs pike trash
encounter. I'm much more interested in documented encounters within the period
you've discussed.

[Bill Chriss]

>
> >Way too out of period. That's essentially a barbarian trash vs
pike trash encounter. I'm much more interested in documented
encounters within the period you've discussed.


Kala les. En taxi. Tha Kano.

Which means in English: I agree. Roger. Wilco.


Greek