Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Mike Bard]

Based on playing games at Cold Wars last week, and discussions, I thought
about a lot of things on the way home.

Note: I am not, at this point, advocating any rules changes, or list events.
I wasn't even going to bring this up this early except that the discussion
has already started with the missile vs close order infantry thread. This
is simply a discussion/experiment/play test whose results will be passed on
to FHE next March when they start work on Classical Warrior.

Question: Do Hoplites work within Warrior as things currently stand?
Assumptions:
-Warrior is designed as a simulation of historical combat and thus should
produce the same results as historical battles.
- Any army lists changes/troop special rules should only be made if the
basic lists/rules as they stand now do not accurately simulate historical
events. Or, in other words, it doesn't matter if a hoplite army can build
English Hundred Years War, it only matters if they can built their
historical opponents. Ignoring the Italiate states (about which I don't
have any hard information on hand), the only non-Hoplite historical
opponents are the Early Archaemenid Persians and the Galatians (when the
Galatians invaded and sacked Delphi). Since I'm more interested (and
knowledgeable) about the early army, my only choice of opponents is
Persians.

Fortunately history has provided us with a test case that removes almost all
extraneous elements (cavalry) due to the circumstances of the battle: The
Battle of Marathon.

Test Case: Battle of Marathon in 490 BC - Athenians + Plateans vs Persians.

Roughly 11,000 Greeks vs 12,000 Persian foot. Persian centre consists of
Immortals and Elites 2 deep; Greek centre one deep to prevent line overlap.
Flanks consist of lesser Persian foot and 2 deep Greeks. All Greeks are HI
Reg C LTS Sh (as per old WRG list) without the javelin (which seems to have
fallen out of favour before this battle). Persian flanks are Irreg C HI JLS
Sh (rear rank B) and centre is Reg A HI JLS Sh (rear rank B). Note that the
Persian elites wore metal armour under the cloth. Again, Persians are taken
from the old WRG list.

Background: The two armies had faced each other across the plain for roughly
7 days. Finally the Persians begin loading their ships to withdraw,
possibly to attack the city of Athens. Greeks advance in line against
remaining Persian foot (which is why the numbers are close to equal and why
there is no cavalry).

Historical Events/Results: The Greeks advance, and run the last 400m to
quickly advance through the hail of Persian bow. Given that 1 pace is .75m,
that works out to 530 paces. So yes, the Greeks apparently ran from 480
paces out to contact. The Greeks are broken in the centre, but in return
break both flanks. They then turn and attack the Persian centre and rout
it. Immediately after the battle, the centre is left on the field, whilst
the Greeks in the flanks force march back to Athens (roughly 40km). The
Persian fleet withdraws.

Deploying the armies:

The Persian line is abstracted to a single line of 4 units (numbered 1-4
from left to right). Each unit is 24 figures as the Persians grouped their
infantry in blocks of 1000. Units 1 and 4 are Irreg C MI JLS Sh (front) and
JLS B (rear). Units 2 and 3 are the elite infantry which are Reg A HI JLS
Sh (front) and JLS B (rear). All units are deployed 2 deep. Note that
there should be 4 more units on each flank, but they wouldn't change the
results.

The Greek line is abstracted to a single line consisting of 3 units
(lettered A-C from left to right). Each unit is 24 figures as each Athenian
tribe could field roughly 1000 hoplites and the tribe was the basic unit
organization. The Plateans also seem to have broughtly about 1000 hoplites.
All units are Reg C HI LTS Sh. I believe that the JLS upgrade option in the
old WRG lists applied to Greeks before the Persian invasions. Units A and C
are 2 deep, unit B is 1 deep to extend the line and prevent the Persians
from outflanking the Greeks. Note that there should be 4 more Greek units
on each flank, but they wouldn't change the results.

Note: An alternate organization would be to increase the Persian elites, and
increase the size of the Greek centre, but I don't think that would change
the results of this test significantly. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Note: All dice are assumed to be rolled even.

Playing the game:

Note: For simplicity I am only going to go through the left flank and the
centre. The right flank is a mirror image of the left flank.

Bound 1: Greeks march to 240 paces, Persians hold in place.
Shooting:
- Left Flank: 12@1 -> 18 -> 0 Fatigue
- Centre: 2x12@1-> 36 -> 1 Fatigue
Fatigue:
Persians (all): 1S
Greek Unit B: 1

Bound 2: Greeks advance from 240 to 160 paces, Persians hold in place.
Shooting:
- Left Flank: 12@1 -> 18 -> 0 Fatigue
- Centre 2x12@1 -> 36 -> 1 Fatigue
Fatigue:
Persians (all): 2S
Greek Unit B: 2

Bound 3:Greeks advance from 160 to 80 paces. Persian centre performs
counter and moves back 40 paces (they are As).
Shooting:
- Left Flank: 24@1 -> 36 -> 1 Fatigue
- Centre: 2x12@1 -> 36 -> 1 Fatigue
Greek unit A charges the Persian left. Persians decide to charge
impetuously as if they stand and shoot with the rear rank, the Greeks will
get the full rear rank and the charge bonus.
Melee:
- Left Flank:
-- Persians: JLS with impetuous bonuses and facing LTS penalty: 18@2 ->36 ->
1 Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS stand to receive impetuous charge: 18@4 -> 54 -> 2 Fatigue
- Results:
-- Persian Unit 1 recoils, Greeks pursue
Fatigue:
Persian Unit 1: 2, 3S
Persians Units 2+3: 3S
Greek Unit A: 2
Greek Unit B: 3

Bound 4: Greek left and right flank engaged. Persian centre prepares to
charge as it knows that the Greek centre will charge tired and it doesn't
want to be pushed too far back from the flanks. Greek centre advances to 80
paces.
Shooting:
- Centre: 2x24@1 -> 72 -> 3 Fatigue (If the Persians had failed their
counter, they would have fired, and the Greeks would still have been tired
on contact). Greeks become disordered
Melee:
- Left flank:
-- Persians: JLS, No penalties: 18@3 -> 45 -> 1 Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS, Following up: 18@4 -> 54 -> 2 Fatigue
- Centre:
-- Persians: JLS Charging (not irreg so can't be impetuous), facing LTS:
2x18@3 ->90 -> 3 Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS Charging, tired, disordered: 12@-2 -> 6 -> 0 Fatigue (on each
of 2 units)
- Results:
-- Greek flanks continue to push back Persian flanks; Greek centre routs.
Fatigue:
Persian Unit 1: 4, 3S
Persian Units 2+3: 3S
Greek Unit A: 3
Greek Unit B: 8 (including +2 for routing).

Bound 5: Greek centre routs, Persians rally. In a futile attempt to save
western civilization as we know it assume all the Reg C greeks that need to
take a rout test for fleeing enemy pass.
Melee:
- Left flank:
-- Persians: JLS, No penalties: 18@3 -> 45 -> 1 Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS, Following up: 18@4 -> 54 -> 2 Fatigue
- Results:
-- Greek flanks continue to push back Persian flanks; Greek centre routs
into the hills.
Fatigue:
Persian Unit 1: 6, 3S
Persian Units 2+3: 3S
Greek Unit A: 4
Greek Unit B: 10

Bound 6: Both Persian elite units in the centre advance, do a left/right
face as appropriate, and charge Greeks in flank. since the Left flank is
shieldless, I'll run through both. Greek centre routs off into the
distance, eventually dispersing (and will no longer be mentioned).
Melee:
- Left flank:
-- Persians:
---Unit 1:JLS, Tried: 18@2 -> 36
---Unit 2: JLS, Charging, Shieldless enemy, 1 element in contact: 6@5 -> 24
----Total 60 -> 2 Fatigue
-- Greeks:
---Unit A: LTS, Following Up: 18@4 -> 54 -> 2 Fatigue
- Right flank"
-- Persians:
---Unit 4: JLS, Tired: 18@2 -> 36
---Unit 3: JLS, Charging, 1 element in contact: 6@3 ->15
----Total 39 -> 1 Fatigue
-- Greeks:
---Unit C: LTS, Following Up: 18@4 -> 54 -> 2 Fatigue
Results:
-- On the Left flank everybody stands in place, on the Right flank the
Persian irregular recoil, the Greeks stand
Fatigue:
- Persian Unit 1: 7, 3S
- Persian Units 2+3: 3S
- Persian Unit 4: 7, 3S
- Greek Unit A: 6
- Greek Unit C: 5

As this continues, the Greeks outside of the centre continue to push back,
becoming more and more fatigued. The fresh Persian troops from the centre
gradually fight their way to the flanks, killing as they go. They are never
broken.

Note: If the Persians in the centre do not attack the Greek flanks, then the
Greek flanks will eventually win but with 9 fatigue. They then have to
turn, break the Persian centre (which is still flesh), and then force march
40km back to Athens).

Final Results: Persians win, capture Athens. Western Civilization as we
know it no longer exists as the Persian Empire conquers Greece, Alexander
and the Successors never spread Hellenic culture to the East, and finally
the Romans conquer the Persians and incorporate Eastern culture.

Or, in other words, with the rules and army lists as they stand now, Warrior
does not simulate one of the few actual historical battles between Greek
hoplites and non-hoplite foes. Unless the Greeks roll really really well
and the Persians really really poorly.

-------------------------------------------

Before we look for solutions/options, please check my numbers and
methodologies. If any of them are incorrect then this test is invalid and
any results are meaningless.

Michael Bard

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/17/2004 1:34:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, mwbard@...
writes:

> Or, in other words, with the rules and army lists as they stand now, Warrior
> does not simulate one of the few actual historical battles between Greek
> hoplites and non-hoplite foes. Unless the Greeks roll really really well
> and the Persians really really poorly.
>
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Before we look for solutions/options, please check my numbers and
> methodologies. If any of them are incorrect then this test
> is invalid and
> any results are meaningless.>>

There seem to be some problems.

First, let's just say for argument that your 'unit' abstractions are valid. I
have some perosnal problems with those, but not major ones. Besides, there are
enough 'rules issues' here to best work on them first.

I am also leaving out 'tactics' as i disagree with the choices the greek
'player' made in how he approached the persian line. The place where the greek
lets both center persian units fire on his center unit isn't something anyone
would do. But that is an opinion.

The big issue is the shooting and the relative value of tired greeks.

JLS armed close order troops cannot shoot their JLS, so only the back rank B in
those persians can fire. i cannot make out how you arrived at the numbers of
shooting persians you did. even if the persian gets two units firing on one
greek, the only thing he will ever do on even dice is 1FP (24@1). Long before
the greek is tired, the lines will hit and the LTS will beat the JLS across the
board.

Before we go further, we really should have a break out of how this shooting is
supposed to have happened, but I can tell you that if we assume the layout of
units to be correct, the persians are not routing any greek at even dice.

Jon

[Mike Bard]

Ooops!

You are correct in that the bow fire should be halved. I'll rerun through
with the correct numbers tomorrow in order to incorporate any other errors.

As to the thin front line... that is historical. The greeks thinned the
centre of their line to a 4 man depth (or 1 figure) so that the Persian line
would not outlfank theirs. The other option would be to have one flank or
the other have a Persian unit on its flank. The best option would be to
have the left flank out flanked, and to echelon it back. However, as far as
I can tell, the Greeks did not do this. The primary reference I have
convenient is the Osprey Campaign book about Marathon and on page 54 the
author refers to Herodotus 6.111 and mentions that the Greek line was equal
in length to the Persian line. If the Greeks reduced their depth to a
degree, but not enough to change the figure depth within warrior, then the
two double-ranked lines would meet. The Greeks would slowly win on the
flanks but in the centre the Greeks would first have a factor of 2 (LTS vs.
HI) compared to the Persians 1 (SA+JLS vs HI with -2 for facing LTS) and
push the Persians back on contact, on the second bound have 3 (LTS vs HI
Pursuing) compared to the Persian 3 (SA+JLS vs HI with no penalty) and
eventually the Greeks would win. This maintains the results of history at
Marathon, but still ends up with an army entirely with ~12 fatigue force
marching. It also brings in question as to whether Xerxes would have
thought his main line infantry could beat the Greeks as he may have because
of Marathon, and if Marathon is the cause, he might have brought an entirely
different army.

Also, remember that to simulate history, the Greeks have to be routed in the
middle, but not right away. That means that either the Persians were lucky
(they were As), or the Greek line was somehow weaker.

Thanks,
Michael Bard

> There seem to be some problems.
>
> First, let's just say for argument that your 'unit' abstractions are
valid. I have some perosnal problems with those, but not major ones.
Besides, there are enough 'rules issues' here to best work on them first.
>
> I am also leaving out 'tactics' as i disagree with the choices the greek
'player' made in how he approached the persian line. The place where the
greek lets both center persian units fire on his center unit isn't something
anyone would do. But that is an opinion.
>
> The big issue is the shooting and the relative value of tired greeks.
>
> JLS armed close order troops cannot shoot their JLS, so only the back rank
B in those persians can fire. i cannot make out how you arrived at the
numbers of shooting persians you did. even if the persian gets two units
firing on one greek, the only thing he will ever do on even dice is 1FP
(24@1). Long before the greek is tired, the lines will hit and the LTS will
beat the JLS across the board.
>
> Before we go further, we really should have a break out of how this
shooting is supposed to have happened, but I can tell you that if we assume
the layout of units to be correct, the persians are not routing any greek at
even dice.

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/17/2004 2:43:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, mwbard@...
writes:

> You are correct in that the bow fire should be halved. I'll rerun through
> with the correct numbers tomorrow in order to incorporate
> any other errors.>>

I will say, Mike, that this is an excellent discussion. We should have more
like them here.

J

So, what things make comparing historical results with game results
difficult (this gets to the nature of the game as a model or reality)?

1. Maybe there was a luck differential in a given historical battle.
Maybe a troop type considered good was just lucky, while one considered
poor was just unlucky.

2. Were there motivational and/or fatigue issues present in a given
historical battle that we just don't know about? This includes faith
(or lack of) in a unit's commander or an unreasonable fear of one's
opponents. There are so many intangibles here it boggles the mind.

3. How accurate are the reports of the battles themselves?

4. The point system is a game artifact, and as such, it may also
contribute to different historical results in some situations.

Any other suggestions?


On Mar 17, 2004, at 2:51 PM, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 3/17/2004 2:43:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mwbard@... writes:
>
> > You are correct in that the bow fire should be halved.  I'll rerun
> through
> > with the correct numbers tomorrow in order to incorporate
> > any other errors.>>
>
> I will say, Mike, that this is an excellent discussion.  We should
> have more like them here.
>
> J


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

[Doug]

>You are correct in that the bow fire should be halved. I'll rerun through
>with the correct numbers tomorrow in order to incorporate any other errors.

Does the proposed X-rule allowing heavies a 120p move help the
Greeks? In your example the Persians countered back allowing
themselves another bound to shoot before the Greeks made contact.
--

Doug
The price of freedom is infernal vigilantes

"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well
regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state." --
Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights
of the People," -- later adopted by the Virginia ratification
convention, 1788

This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Hey Charles! How's that 6th horseman emblem going?

kelly wilkinson ;)

Charles Randow <clr198@...> wrote:
So, what things make comparing historical results with game results
difficult (this gets to the nature of the game as a model or reality)?

1. Maybe there was a luck differential in a given historical battle.
Maybe a troop type considered good was just lucky, while one considered
poor was just unlucky.

2. Were there motivational and/or fatigue issues present in a given
historical battle that we just don't know about? This includes faith
(or lack of) in a unit's commander or an unreasonable fear of one's
opponents. There are so many intangibles here it boggles the mind.

3. How accurate are the reports of the battles themselves?

4. The point system is a game artifact, and as such, it may also
contribute to different historical results in some situations.

Any other suggestions?


On Mar 17, 2004, at 2:51 PM, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> In a message dated 3/17/2004 2:43:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> mwbard@... writes:
>
> > You are correct in that the bow fire should be halved. I'll rerun
> through
> > with the correct numbers tomorrow in order to incorporate
> > any other errors.>>
>
> I will say, Mike, that this is an excellent discussion. We should
> have more like them here.
>
> J


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


Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT


---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarriorRules/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam

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

[Mike Bard]

First, some notes and discussions about varying ways of number crunching the
simulation:

1. Off the list friends have suggested a revision of the deployment so that
the Greek centre is two deep, and the Greek flanks are 3 deep, and the
Persians are lined up appropriately. I don't agree with this as Herodotus
states that the Greeks stretched their line to match the Persian line and,
within the game anyway, two-deep is the optimum hoplite depth for combat
effectiveness. Plus at 2 deep in the middle and 3 deep at the flanks, the
Greeks win all along the line, which suggests that either the Persians are
too weak, or the Greeks are too strong. Corollary: Hannibal used a weak
centre vs. the Romans at Cannae. In fact, I am now going to paint some one
deep hoplite bases so that I can have a week centre with either Irreg A
Celts or Reg A Spartans behind the strong line so that when the weak centre
is pushed back, the reserves can right/left face and obliterate the enemy.

2. It has been suggested that the unit point system provided with Warrior
should not be used. I'm not. I'm taking the number of figures from the
number of humans involved in each side as per the best reconstructions I
have read. I have no clue how the point values work, and now I'm a little
bit curious. After a simulation is agreed upon for a basis, I'll add up the
numbers.

3. It has been suggested that one side or the other could have rolled up
and/or down. I would prefer to avoid this as until the time of Philip and
Alexander, the hoplites were the premier close order infantry in the
mediterranian world, hired by everybody including the Persians. If the
Greeks in their battles with the Persians during their invasion had won by
being lucky, it is unlikely that this reputation would have spread so
widely, or lasted so long. Plus, any possible historical result could be
created by inserting a requisite number of up and down rolls -- which would
mean that any kind of historical analysis via Warrior would serve no
purpose.

4. Yes, our knowledge of the actual historical events at the Battle of
Marathon are largely guesswork. It is possible that there could have been
50 Greeks vs. 20 Persians and all the rest is exagerration. It's possible
that all hoplites were mounted infantry and their depiction as foot troops
is just artistic convention. Thus this can also be used to make any result
one wants to occur. However, we are (or at least I am) playing a game with
the intent of simulating historical reality as best we can. Again, I
believe the below model is the best guess as to an actual simulation.

5. Yes, I could run this using the discussed x-rule to allow close order
foot to move 120 paces, and once the 80 pace simulation is agreed upon I
will. I'd prefer not to as I want to see if hoplites work within the
published version of the rules. If they do, then all is great. If not,
then maybe that is desired for game reasons, or maybe something needs to be
done.

6. Friends have pointed out that within Warrior players wouldn't do what I
have happening in the model below. True. However, the historical armies
didn't have any of this information. Each believed that they were superior.
They couldn't look up a handy chart and crunch handy numbers and see that
what they were doing was suicidal. Thus I have attempted to make decisions
on that assumption.

Errors: There are two errors in my first posting of the simulation that have
been pointed out. First, only half of the Persians have bows to fire.
Secondly, the flank Persian units are irregulars and should be taking 2
fatigue per CPF. Thirdly, I forgot a couple of charge bonuses. Ooops.

One final note: At this point I don't know if hoplites work within the game
system or not. My sole intent at this point is to create an agreed upon
model that can determine if they do work within the current model, or not.
It's possible they could be too powerful and need to be reduced to all MI,
or even worse. I don't know and until I do I can't make any decisions or
suggestions about the list or the rules.

On to the revised simulation! I've repeated the entire setup so that it is
handy to old comers and everything is explained for new comers.

--------------------------------

Test Case: Battle of Marathon in 490 BC - Athenians + Plateans vs Persians.

Roughly 11,000 Greeks vs 12,000 Persian foot. Persian centre consists of
Immortals and Elites 2 deep; Greek centre one deep to prevent line overlap.
Flanks consist of lesser Persian foot and 2 deep Greeks. All Greeks are HI
Reg C LTS Sh (as per old WRG list) without the javelin (which seems to have
fallen out of favour before this battle). Persian flanks are Irreg C HI JLS
Sh (rear rank B) and centre is Reg A HI JLS Sh (rear rank B). Note that the
Persian elites wore metal armour under the cloth. Again, Persians are taken
from the old WRG list.

Background: The two armies had faced each other across the plain for roughly
7 days. Finally the Persians begin loading their ships to withdraw,
possibly to attack the city of Athens. Greeks advance in line against
remaining Persian foot (which is why the numbers are close to equal and why
there is no cavalry).

Historical Events/Results: The Greeks advance, and run the last 400m to
quickly advance through the hail of Persian bow. Given that 1 pace is .75m,
that works out to 530 paces. So yes, the Greeks apparently ran from 480
paces out to contact. The Greeks are broken in the centre, but in return
break both flanks. They then turn and attack the Persian centre and rout
it. Immediately after the battle, the centre is left on the field, whilst
the Greeks in the flanks force march back to Athens (roughly 40km). The
Persian fleet withdraws.

Deploying the armies:

The Persian line is abstracted to a single line of 4 units (numbered 1-4
from left to right). Each unit is 24 figures as the Persians grouped their
infantry in blocks of 1000. Units 1 and 4 are Irreg C MI JLS Sh (front) and
JLS B (rear). Units 2 and 3 are the elite infantry which are Reg A HI JLS
Sh (front) and JLS B (rear). All units are deployed 2 deep. Note that
there should be 4 more units on each flank, but they wouldn't change the
results.

The Greek line is abstracted to a single line consisting of 3 units
(lettered A-C from left to right). Each unit is 24 figures as each Athenian
tribe could field roughly 1000 hoplites and the tribe was the basic unit
organization. The Plateans also seem to have broughtly about 1000 hoplites.
All units are Reg C HI LTS Sh. I believe that the JLS upgrade option in the
old WRG lists applied to Greeks before the Persian invasions. Units A and C
are 2 deep, unit B is 1 deep to extend the line and prevent the Persians
from outflanking the Greeks. Note that there should be 4 more Greek units
on each flank, but they wouldn't change the results.

Note: An alternate organization would be to increase the Persian elites, and
increase the size of the Greek centre, but I don't think that would change
the results of this test significantly. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Note: All dice are assumed to be rolled even.

Playing the game:

Note: For simplicity I am only going to go through the left flank and the
centre. The right flank is a mirror image of the left flank.

Bound 1: Greeks march to 240 paces, Persians hold in place.
Shooting:
- Left Flank: 6@1 -> 9 -> 0 Fatigue
- Centre: 2x6@1-> 18 -> 0 Fatigue
Fatigue:
Persians (all): 1S

Bound 2: Greeks advance from 240 to 160 paces, Persians hold in place.
Shooting:
- Left Flank: 6@1 -> 9 -> 0 Fatigue
- Centre 2x6@1 -> 18 -> 0 Fatigue
Fatigue:
Persians (all): 2S

Bound 3:Greeks advance from 160 to 80 paces. Since long ranged shooting
isn't achieving anything, the Persian army prepares to charge, confident in
their superiority against the barbarians. The Greeks continue to run to
engage, confident in their superiority against the barbarians.
Shooting:
- Left Flank: 12@1 ->18 -> 0 Fatigue
- Centre: 2x12@1 -> 36 -> 1 Fatigue
Greek unit A charges the Persian left. Persians decide to charge
impetuously as if they stand and shoot with the rear rank, the Greeks will
get the full rear rank and the charge bonus. Greek and Persian centre both
charge, each confident in their own superiority.
Melee:
- Left Flank:
-- Persians: JLS with impetuous bonuses and facing LTS penalty: 18@3 ->
45 -> 1 Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS stand to receive impetuous charge: 18@4 -> 54 -> 2 CPF -> 4
Fatigue
- Centre:
-- Persians: JLS with charge bonus facing LTS penalty: 2x18@2 -> 72 -> 3
Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS charging: 12@3 against each unit -> 30 to each unit (60
total) -> 1 Fatigue to each unit
- Results:
-- Persian Unit 1 recoils disordered, Greek Unit A follows up
-- Greek Unit B recoils disordered (took 3 fatigue but not double
casualties), Persian units 2&3 follow up.
Fatigue:
Persian Unit 1: 5, 3S (including 1 fatigue for charging impetuously)
Persians Units 2+3: 1, 3S
Greek Unit A: 1
Greek Unit B: 4

Bound 4: Both armies entirely engaged. Greeks pushing back on the flanks,
Persians pushing back in the centre.
Melee:
- Left flank:
-- Persians: JLS, Tired, Disordered: 18@0 -> 18 -> 0 Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS, Following up: 18@4 -> 54 -> 2 CPF -> 4 Fatigue
- Centre:
-- Persians: JLS, Following Up, Disordered HI opponents: 2x18@4 -> 108 -> 4
Fatigue
-- Greeks: LTS Charging, tired, disordered: 12@-1 -> 9 (18 total) -> 0
Fatigue (on each of 2 units)
- Results:
-- Persian flanks rout, Greek centre routs.
Fatigue:
Persian Unit 1: 10, 3S (incld +2 for rout)
Persian Units 2+3: 1, 3S
Greek Unit A: 1
Greek Unit B: 10 (including +2 for routing).

Note: When the two flanks/centre break, the Persians are 120 paces away from
the routers (remember that at two ranks they have a depth of 80 paces) and
the Greeks are 120 paces away from their routers (again at two ranks they
have a depth of 80 paces). Thus, rear corner to rear corner (of routers),
each side needs a morale check for routing enemy. The nearest Greek units
are uneasy and thus need a 4+. The Persians are As and need a 2+. Assume
that Greek unit A becomes disordered due to a failed waver check.

Bound 5:

Everybody rallies. One Greek unit rallies after charges are declared.
Everybody rallies with a 180 degree about face. Nobody can make a counter
or retirement or charge as they cannot move closer to known enemy and
everybody is more than 80 paces from enemy. The disordered Greek unit
rallies facing the Persians.

Fatigue:
Persian Unit 1: 12, 3S
Persian Units 2+3: 1, 3S
Greek Unit A: 1
Greek Unit B: 12

Bound 6+:

Everybody advances in good order, charges are declared. Greek units A and C
charge each of the Persian units and contact on a one element frontage
(Persians charge/counter charge -- they really have no choice). Not much
happens due to the size of the contact. On future bounds additional Greek
units (remember that the flanks are each multiple units) move in and hit the
Persians on the flanks and eventually rear. The Persians break and Western
Civilization as we know it occurs.

Conclusions: With the correct numbers, Hoplites as they work now
successfully defeat the Persians at Marathon as happened historically. This
suggests that no changes are needed to the way that Hoplites work assuming
that the Persians are unchanged.

Michael Bard

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 3/18/2004 2:20:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, mwbard@...
writes:

> 1. Off the list friends have suggested a revision of the deployment so that
> the Greek centre is two deep, and the Greek flanks are 3 deep, and the
> Persians are lined up appropriately. >>

For what it is worth, I agree with you Michael on the deployment conventions you
used and udes something quite similar during playtesting.

>
> 2. It has been suggested that the unit point system provided with Warrior
> should not be used. I'm not. I'm taking the number of figures from the
> number of humans involved in each side as per the best reconstructions I
> have read. >>

I agree with this method as well, and it was the one I used throughout
playtesting.

>
> 3. It has been suggested that one side or the other could have rolled up
> and/or down. I would prefer to avoid this as until the time of Philip and
> Alexander, the hoplites were the premier close order infantry in the
> mediterranian world, hired by everybody including the Persians. If the
> Greeks in their battles with the Persians during their invasion had won by
> being lucky, it is unlikely that this reputation would have spread so
> widely, or lasted so long.>>

Again, agreed.

>
> On to the revised simulation! I've repeated the entire setup so that it is
> handy to old comers and everything is explained for new comers.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> Test Case: Battle of Marathon in 490 BC - Athenians +
> Plateans vs Persians.>>

Again, for what it is worth, I have read through and totally agree with your
analysis. The only 'rules issue' is that (in bound 4) any greek unit that
failed a waver test would have become shaken, not just disordered. However,
since the greek general could have recovered the unit in the time span shown, it
is a moot point even if unit A had failed. Also, since 2E deep MI units are NOT
80p deep, there are actaully less wavers 'owed' than you show.
Overall, though, this is the result we'd expect and one we found while
playtesting this very same battel (along with others). I think this is a
positively superb thread and look forward to more discussion like this one.

Thanks, Mike

Jon