Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

At Jon's invitation, let's simulate the math on some historical matchups
using the following rules: 1. All steady hoplites charge 120 p; 2. All
steady hoplites charging fight 1 figure in ranks 3 and 4; Thebans charging
fight one figure in ranks 3,4,5, and 6; 5. Players may liberally upgrade
only portions of units to HI; 6. Hoplites are one cause of unease to those
enemy within 160 p.; 7. Hoplites' HTW opponents are -1 at contact.

Scenario #1: 4E MI Macedonian pike vs. 4E Hoplites (front rank HI, rest
MI). Each are 4 ranks deep. Pike is 12 @ 2+1(charging)= 30. Hoplites are
10 @ 3+1 (charging)=30. Lock. If pike rolls up 2 and hoplites roll down,
it's a break. If hoplites roll up 2, and pike rolls down, pike breaks.
This seems about right. NOTE HERE THAT IN ORDER TO GET A LOCK, THE HOPLITE
PLAYER SPENDS 8 more points per 4E unit. Again, this seems fair,
especially given that many pike armies have similar upgrade capabilities
and can spend the points to remain tactically superior if they wish.

Scenario #2: 4E MI Macedonian pikes vs. 6E Reg B or Reg A Theban hoplites
(or Spartans if you like, or whoever you decide would be fair to fight moe
than 4 ranks deep). Again, front rank hoplites HI. The Thebans are 6 ranks
deep. Pikes= 12@2+1 (charging)=30. Hoplites= 12@3+1+ 36. Pike disordered,
advantage hoplites, and Pikes waver test for becoming disordered rather
than recoiling??? However, note that the hoplite player has now outspent
the Macedonian by a factor of 138 (assumng they are B's which all deep
formation hoplites should be) to 74 (assuming Macedonian C morale) to get
this advantage. If the Macedonians are B's, they will have a 82% chance of
passing waver. If C's, 66%, and the battle becomes a rugby scrum with the
hoplites pushing back the pikes until the pike beats the hoplite die roll.
This well reflects Chris' comments that the pike wasn't tactically
superior, just cheaper and easier to equip and train!! Note that the pike
cabn also cut down any tactical superiority by matching the Greek in unit
size or depth, and still spend less points. and again, those pike who can
upgrade to HI will further even matters. Generals, make your strategic
choices....

Scenario #3: 6E Thracian 2HCW, JLS vs. 4E Hoplites (front rank HI).
Thracians uneasy, thus 3@5 +1 (JLS)+1 (chg)-2 (face LTS), +2@ 2+1(JLS) +1
(chg)-2(face LTS) = 16. Hoplite= 8@3+1 (chg)=24. This seems right to me
because I know of no instance where regular hoplites were bested by
Thracian peltasts (with or without 2HCW) IN THE OPEN.


Scenario #4: 6E IRR A Gauls JLS vs. 4E hoplites (front rank HI). Gauls= 5
@ 2+1 (JLS)+1 (chg) +2 (imp)-2 (facing LTS)=15. Hoplites 8@3=20.
If Gauls roll up one, they do 30, recoiling the hoplites. After that, its
a die roll as to whether the hoplites will break before the Gauls wear
out.


Scenario #5: 6E IRR B Celtiberians vs. 4E hoplpites (front rank HI). Celts
(not uneasy)= 5@5+1(JLS)+1(chg)+2(imp)-1 (facing LTS)=45. Hoplites 8@3=20.
Hoplites recoil disordered, but will not break on contact unless they are
outrolled. This is much more realistic than almost always breaking on
contact.


Scenario #6: 4E HI Republican ROmans w/pilum vs. 4E hoplites (front rank
HI). ROmans= 6@5+1(chg)-1(facing LTS)= 24. Hoplites 8@2+1 (chg)= 20.
Romans still have the edge, but a little less so. In my opinion an
improvement.

Scenario #7: 4E romans vs. 6E Thebans in column (front rank HI). ROmans
still 6@5=24. Greeks= 12@2+1(chg)=30. The Greeks get a slight edge, but
again pay far more for the unit, and the Romans (depending) might offset
even that by replacing in contact, etc.


I do not see anything untoward or unrealistic here, and I regard each
scenario outcome as an improvement in realism over the current game
mechanic. Comments?


Greek
Scenario #3:

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/19/2004 16:12:57 Central Standard Time,
PHGamer@... writes:

In these examples, why do the hoplites not receive a -2 for facing the LTS
of the Peltasts?
Phil



9.42 says:

"Deduct 2:
If at first contact and facing non-impetuous P or LTS armed steady foot
(unless steady foot using HTW, P, or non-impetuous LTS)."

If you are steady non-impetuous LTS, you don't take the -2 from the other
guy's steady, non-impetuous LTS at first contact.

Jon


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

[Doug]

Confused. The numbering scheme in your introduction doesn't match
the numbering in the body of the text.

>At Jon's invitation, let's simulate the math on some historical matchups
>using the following rules:
>
>1. All steady hoplites charge 120 p;
>
>2. All steady hoplites charging fight 1 figure in ranks 3 and 4;
>Thebans charging
>fight one figure in ranks 3,4,5, and 6;
>
>5. Players may liberally upgrade only portions of units to HI;
>
>6. Hoplites are one cause of unease to those enemy within 160 p.;
>
>7. Hoplites' HTW opponents are -1 at contact.
>
>Scenario #1:
>Scenario #2:
>Scenario #3:
>Scenario #4:
>Scenario #5:
>Scenario #6:
>Scenario #7:
>
>Greek
>Scenario #3:

[Bill Chriss]

> Confused. The numbering scheme in your introduction doesn't match
> the numbering in the body of the text.
>


That's because there is no correlation between my proposed list rules and
the scenarios. Each scenario assumes ALL proposed rules are in effect. The
idea is to show what it would be like to play hoplites with these
characteristics against a number of different historical opponents. That's
all. Here are two more scenarios:


1. 4E Double armed peltasts in column vs. 4E Hoplites in column (with X
rules in effect and front rank HI). Peltasts do 6@2+1(JLS)+1(charge)=18;
Hoplites do 10@3+1(charge)= 30. Clear advantage for hoplites, probable
break next bound or soon thereafter. This is realistic, i think.


2. 4E double armed peltasts two ranks deep vs. 4E hoplites two ranks
deep(with X rules in effect and one element HI). Peltasts do 6@3(vs.
MI)+1(JLS)+1(charge), plus 6@2(vs. HI)+1(JLS)+1(chg)= 42 total. Hoplites
do 16@3+1 (chg) = 48. Peltasts recoil disordered, and are again in some
major trouble without JLS bonus and disordered next bound against steady
close formation foot.


From running these scenarios, and those in my prior post, I think it clear
that hoplites should (like pike) ALWAYS get a full two ranks IF STEADY
steady; and one figure (IF STEADY) in ranks 3 and 4 (and 5 and 6 if
Theban) only when charging, countercharging, or following up. I also think
the proposed cause of unease rule is an important way to prevent trashy
barbarians from besting hoplites in the open (which never or hardly ever
happened in real life); and that HTW troops must take at least a -1 for
facing hoplites to avoid Romans, Spaniards, Sicilians, and Celtiberians
being more overwhelming vis-a-vis hoplites than they really were. Irreg A
or B barbarians will still push hoplites back (or perhaps break them) if
eager, even with my proposd changes. Finally, the hoplites should count as
in cover from bowfire or dart if steady. This is necessary to prevent
formations being shot to a halt from a distance by frontal opponents,
which again, in my view, never happened in real life. I am willing to
concede that this should perhaps not apply to any missile weapon but bow
and dart. In those circumstances where hoplite formations were broken up
by bow shooting, the key seems to be the archers being behind flank or
even surrounding the phalanx formation. These X rules make hoplites pretty
decent slow-moving line troops, but by no means overwhelming, nor as
powerful as Romans; AND they will be quite expensive as compared with
smaller groups of pike and other troop types that are even with them
tactically. These hoplites will also not be victimized by peltasts, except
with respect to JAVELIN shooting. To my mind, onlY bow is capable of being
massed frontally by in period opponents in sufficient numbers to warrant
the cover X rule. So we can leave sling, JLS, CB, LB, alone ASSUMING THAT
INDIANS will be given B under the new lists, rather than LB!! Dart is a
special case, since no in period opponents had them, so I choose to
analogize it more to bow than JLS in this context (distance shooting).

Food for some serious thought.


Greek

[Phil Gardocki]

In these examples, why do the hoplites not receive a -2 for facing the LTS
of the Peltasts?
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: hrisikos@... <hrisikos@...>
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sunday, December 19, 2004 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Hoplites simulations


>
>> Confused. The numbering scheme in your introduction doesn't match
>> the numbering in the body of the text.
>>
>
>
>That's because there is no correlation between my proposed list rules and
>the scenarios. Each scenario assumes ALL proposed rules are in effect. The
>idea is to show what it would be like to play hoplites with these
>characteristics against a number of different historical opponents. That's
>all. Here are two more scenarios:
>
>
>1. 4E Double armed peltasts in column vs. 4E Hoplites in column (with X
>rules in effect and front rank HI). Peltasts do 6@2+1(JLS)+1(charge)=18;
>Hoplites do 10@3+1(charge)= 30. Clear advantage for hoplites, probable
>break next bound or soon thereafter. This is realistic, i think.
>
>
>2. 4E double armed peltasts two ranks deep vs. 4E hoplites two ranks
>deep(with X rules in effect and one element HI). Peltasts do 6@3(vs.
>MI)+1(JLS)+1(charge), plus 6@2(vs. HI)+1(JLS)+1(chg)= 42 total. Hoplites
>do 16@3+1 (chg) = 48. Peltasts recoil disordered, and are again in some
>major trouble without JLS bonus and disordered next bound against steady
>close formation foot.
>
>
>From running these scenarios, and those in my prior post, I think it clear
>that hoplites should (like pike) ALWAYS get a full two ranks IF STEADY
>steady; and one figure (IF STEADY) in ranks 3 and 4 (and 5 and 6 if
>Theban) only when charging, countercharging, or following up. I also think
>the proposed cause of unease rule is an important way to prevent trashy
>barbarians from besting hoplites in the open (which never or hardly ever
>happened in real life); and that HTW troops must take at least a -1 for
>facing hoplites to avoid Romans, Spaniards, Sicilians, and Celtiberians
>being more overwhelming vis-a-vis hoplites than they really were. Irreg A
>or B barbarians will still push hoplites back (or perhaps break them) if
>eager, even with my proposd changes. Finally, the hoplites should count as
>in cover from bowfire or dart if steady. This is necessary to prevent
>formations being shot to a halt from a distance by frontal opponents,
>which again, in my view, never happened in real life. I am willing to
>concede that this should perhaps not apply to any missile weapon but bow
>and dart. In those circumstances where hoplite formations were broken up
>by bow shooting, the key seems to be the archers being behind flank or
>even surrounding the phalanx formation. These X rules make hoplites pretty
>decent slow-moving line troops, but by no means overwhelming, nor as
>powerful as Romans; AND they will be quite expensive as compared with
>smaller groups of pike and other troop types that are even with them
>tactically. These hoplites will also not be victimized by peltasts, except
>with respect to JAVELIN shooting. To my mind, onlY bow is capable of being
>massed frontally by in period opponents in sufficient numbers to warrant
>the cover X rule. So we can leave sling, JLS, CB, LB, alone ASSUMING THAT
>INDIANS will be given B under the new lists, rather than LB!! Dart is a
>special case, since no in period opponents had them, so I choose to
>analogize it more to bow than JLS in this context (distance shooting).
>
>Food for some serious thought.
>
>
>Greek
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>