Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Greg Regets]

I feel the Hoplite works fine just how it is and does not need to be
changed. It performs very well on the table top against all of it's
historical opponents, which should be the acid test.

Making comparison to the Legionary and the help given to them with
list rules, is really not applicable in my opinion. the Legionary
performed badly on the table top against many opponents they matched
well against historically. They needed the help to gain historical
accuracy.

This isn't the case for the Hoplite, and in my opinion giving them
some sort of mechanical advantage would be born more of popularity
than from historical accuracy.

Just my .02 cents ... g

[joncleaves]

I feel the Hoplite works fine just how it is and does not need to be
changed. It performs very well on the table top against all of it's
historical opponents, which should be the acid test.>>

It is of course the only acid test. But I am curious, Greg, to know the basis
for feeling Warrior currently accurately portrays the performance of the hoplite
vs. peltasts (of various ilk) and persians. Have anything to share with us?

Jon

[joncleaves]

Superb post, Mike. I am not saying anyone is right or wrong - we're just
gathering as much data as possible. We have no agenda other than to get this
all as right as possible.

Keep those cards and letters coming!

Jon


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

[Mike Bard]

A case can be made for Greg being right.

To the best of my research, we have written records of actual combats
between hoplites and...

1. Other Hoplites.

The only case that might help us is Epimonidas vs the Spartans, and if you
crunch the numbers for an 8 rank deep column of hoplites vs a 2 rank deep
block of Spartans, assuming equal frontage, the Thebans win because they
don't get tired or exhausted as fast as the Spartans.

The current model works here.

2. Persians.

As per my Marathon tests back in the spring, using the current model of
Persians and Hoplites results in hoplites winning when 2 deep and losing
when 1 deep. Exactly what happened at Marathon.

2a. Persian Mass Missiles.

Note that at Platea, the Greeks were forced to withdraw under pressure from
unanswered Persian mounted missile fire. This makes me leary of adding
additional missile defenses. Large blocks of infantry are fairly tough
already. But, the counter point is that massed missile fire can break any
size of body. In the game this is simulated already. If the Persians shot
enough then eventually they would roll up and get lucky. Alternately,
massive skirmishing columns of missile troops could just overwhelm. Do they
overwhelm too much? Right now if one put mass skirmishing blocks of LC B or
JLS at various angles to concentrate on a single hoplite body, then the
hoplites are guaranteed to die. Did the Persians do this, or were they
attacking a large line and not concentrating? We don't know.

3. Macedonian Pike.

At Charoneia the pike and the hoplites never physically contacted. Phillip
may have BELIEVED it would be a fair contest, but it was never proven. So
the results of Pike vs Hoplite are historically meaningless.

In Alexander's early battles against the Persians he had to deal with
Hoplite mercenaries At Granikos the mercenary hoplites were unable to
participate in the battle against the Persians. They asked for terms,
Alexander refused. The hoplites parked on a hill, there was fierce
fighting, Alexander's horse was killed, but the hoplites were all destroyed.
It's possible that the pike just rolled them up, or it's possible that pike
or skirmishers caused one body to move forwards or backwards giving
Alexander a flank. Both of these are simulated in the current model.

4. Thracians and Barbarians.

I have never found any accounts of actual battles. Since I have found no
accounts, we have no documentation, and hence no "hard accounts" to base any
changes on. In fact, when the Gallations invaded Greece, according to the
Greek histories, the Galatians were driven from Greece by divine acts
(storms, earthquakes) before sacking Delphi. Archeological evidence
suggests that Delphi WAS sacked about then. So, even if we do find any
accounts, they could be considered lies.

5. HTW Romans.

The Etruscans had hoplite type troops. The Romans beat them. Syracuse,
Carthage and the Italiot Greeks had hoplite type troops. The Romans beat
them too. In the current model HTW armed Republican Romans beat two ranks
of hoplites (First Bound: HTW charge vs HI -> 6*, 6 figures fighting -> 30
on a one element frontage; LTS charge vs HI -> 3, 8 figures fighting -> 20.
Both sides disordered, Hoplites recoil. Second Bound: Other Infantry (1.5
ranks), disordered, following up -> 1; 6@1 -> 9. LTS disordered recoiing ->
0, 4@0 (one rank only) -> 4). Current system works for this too.

*Remember, steady HTW does not suffer the -2

So, why have us hoplite people opened the argument?

Because hoplites dominated the mediterrainian world for almost 300 years.
Everybody wanted hoplites, or "imitation" hoplites. Their reputation was so
great that other armies would only voluntarily face hoplites with hoplites.
So we have few accounts of other troop types vs hoplites. Could it be
because hoplites were very effective? Sure. Could it also be because the
Greeks got stupidly lucky against the Persians and the troops had a
reputation. Sure. Could all the classical beliefs about how effective
hoplites were against other troop types be wrong? Sure. They're just
beliefs.

Phillip believed hoplites were roughly equal to pike. Maybe they were,
maybe they weren't. Who knows? Maybe Philip was wrong.

Should Peltasts/Thureophorai be as good or superior? Sure. At Sphacteria
Spartans were taken out by Peltasts and light troops. The Greek City states
switched from hoplites to Thureophorai before some of them went on to pikes.
You could make a case for this being true.

It's a decision of degree. Were the hoplites the dominant troop type that
everybody was afraid of because they were tough? Or just because of
reputation. Where the Roman Triarii armed as hoplites because they were
more effective than base troops when given sufficient training, or only
because the equipment cost more and it was a sign of wealth? Were Triarii
even "hoplites" as they had a different shield?

Personally, I think that the reputuation is true, and at least some of the
common beliefs of the hoplite ability vs other troops was correct. I've
tested options to make sure that any tweaks make up the reputation, but
DON'T change the handful of enemy troop types we know hoplites beat.

Ultimately, as others have pointed out, Warrior is a game. It attempts to
simulate reality and does a not half bad job, but it is not a perfect
simulation. Nor will anything ever be.

It really boils down to a decision to be made as to whether to make hoplites
capable of what they were believed by classical peoples to be capable of, or
only what we have strong evidence they actually achieved.

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy
>
> I feel the Hoplite works fine just how it is and does not need to be
> changed. It performs very well on the table top against all of it's
> historical opponents, which should be the acid test.
>
> Making comparison to the Legionary and the help given to them with
> list rules, is really not applicable in my opinion. the Legionary
> performed badly on the table top against many opponents they matched
> well against historically. They needed the help to gain historical
> accuracy.
>
> This isn't the case for the Hoplite, and in my opinion giving them
> some sort of mechanical advantage would be born more of popularity
> than from historical accuracy.
>
> Just my .02 cents ... g

[Bill Chriss]

> A case can be made for Greg being right.
>
> To the best of my research, we have written records of actual combats
> between hoplites and...
>
> 1. Other Hoplites.
>
> The only case that might help us is Epimonidas vs the Spartans, and if
> you
> crunch the numbers for an 8 rank deep column of hoplites vs a 2 rank deep
> block of Spartans, assuming equal frontage, the Thebans win because they
> don't get tired or exhausted as fast as the Spartans.
>
> The current model works here.


I disagree. You're assuming that the Spartans have smaller units. If the
units are the same size, it's an even fight. If they're not the same size,
or if more Thebans attack the wider Spartan frontage, then the Theban
player is spending about twice as many points to break half the number of
Spartan figures. This is NOT historical. Epamainondas did not wear down
the Spartans after what we would call 7 or 8 bounds. He broke them in what
we would call one or two, at least where his formation was 40 ranks deep.

>
> 2. Persians.
>
> As per my Marathon tests back in the spring, using the current model of
> Persians and Hoplites results in hoplites winning when 2 deep and losing
> when 1 deep. Exactly what happened at Marathon.


Again, how many bounds are we talking about here? Is this true with
impetuous irregular Persians? Uner current rules, on a per frontage basis,
it would be Persians 5@3+1(JLS)+1(chg)+2(imp)-2(facing LTS)= 20. Hoplites=
6@3=15. Two deep hoplites pushed back with 1 cpf. Persians follow up with
5 fatigue. Bound two= Persians 5@3+1(JLS)+1 (Following)-1 tired=18.
Hoplites=6@3=15. Where is this going Mike?_Yes, in seven bounds, the
Persians will be exhausted and the hoplites will just be tired, but that's
not what should happen. The Greeks should have a better than 50-50 shot of
breaking them within two bounds. On the contrary, if the Persians here
roll up one and the Greeks down one on first contact, the hoplites will
rout 24 casualties equals three CPF and twice as many on a 8 man unit.
Again, I completely disagreee that this is anywhere near historical.


>
> 2a. Persian Mass Missiles.
>
> Note that at Platea, the Greeks were forced to withdraw under pressure
> from
> unanswered Persian mounted missile fire. This makes me leary of adding
> additional missile defenses. Large blocks of infantry are fairly tough
> already. But, the counter point is that massed missile fire can break
> any
> size of body. In the game this is simulated already. If the Persians
> shot
> enough then eventually they would roll up and get lucky. Alternately,
> massive skirmishing columns of missile troops could just overwhelm. Do
> they
> overwhelm too much? Right now if one put mass skirmishing blocks of LC B
> or
> JLS at various angles to concentrate on a single hoplite body, then the
> hoplites are guaranteed to die. Did the Persians do this, or were they
> attacking a large line and not concentrating? We don't know.

Yes we do. There is no instance of a hoplite or pike block breaking and
routijng due to missile fire. Even disorder from such waqs extremely rare
and only caused usually by shooters behind flank.


>
> 3. Macedonian Pike.
>
> At Charoneia the pike and the hoplites never physically contacted.
> Phillip
> may have BELIEVED it would be a fair contest, but it was never proven.
> So
> the results of Pike vs Hoplite are historically meaningless.
>
> In Alexander's early battles against the Persians he had to deal with
> Hoplite mercenaries At Granikos the mercenary hoplites were unable to
> participate in the battle against the Persians. They asked for terms,
> Alexander refused. The hoplites parked on a hill, there was fierce
> fighting, Alexander's horse was killed, but the hoplites were all
> destroyed.
> It's possible that the pike just rolled them up, or it's possible that
> pike
> or skirmishers caused one body to move forwards or backwards giving
> Alexander a flank. Both of these are simulated in the current model.
>
> 4. Thracians and Barbarians.
>
> I have never found any accounts of actual battles. Since I have found no
> accounts, we have no documentation, and hence no "hard
> accounts" to base any
> changes on. In fact, when the Gallations invaded Greece, according to
> the
> Greek histories, the Galatians were driven from Greece by divine acts
> (storms, earthquakes) before sacking Delphi. Archeological evidence
> suggests that Delphi WAS sacked about then. So, even if we do find any
> accounts, they could be considered lies.


Galatians and Gauls are irregular A already, and that is one reason why we
class them as such. Under my X rules, they will still do the job and
perform correctly against Greeks.



I'll respond to the rest later, but I'm frankly rather surprised, Mike,
are you still the "Greek Hoplite Guy" or have you started wearing
barbarian trousers ?



Greek

Greetings

See a few thoughts below.

Regards

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Bard" <mwbard@t...>
wrote:
> A case can be made for Greg being right.
>
> To the best of my research, we have written records of actual
combats
> between hoplites and...
>
> 1. Other Hoplites.
>
> The only case that might help us is Epimonidas vs the Spartans,
and if you
> crunch the numbers for an 8 rank deep column of hoplites vs a 2
rank deep
> block of Spartans, assuming equal frontage, the Thebans win
because they
> don't get tired or exhausted as fast as the Spartans.
>
> The current model works here.

[ES: But in practice the hoplite depth varied according to
circumstance - eg Xen.Hellenica IV.2.[13] "But while they
[Corinthains and allies] were negotiating about the leadership and
trying to come to an agreement with one another as to the number of
ranks in depth in which the whole army should be drawn up, in order
to prevent the states from making their phalanxes too deep and thus
giving the enemy a chance of surrounding them, ..." In the event
the Thebans (not other Boiotians) formed their line deeper than
agreed.

There are references in Xen. to a Spartan line being 'only' 8 deep
and another to a 12 deep Spartan line. Clearly many commanders were
more concerned with being flanked than burst through.]

>
> 2. Persians.
>
> As per my Marathon tests back in the spring, using the current
model of
> Persians and Hoplites results in hoplites winning when 2 deep and
losing
> when 1 deep. Exactly what happened at Marathon.

[ES: It has been pointed out to me that we don't actually know rank
depth at Marathon. But I agree with you here. I haven't checked if
the HI at Marathon vs MI for later 5th century makes much
difference.]

>
> 2a. Persian Mass Missiles.
>
> Note that at Platea, the Greeks were forced to withdraw under
pressure from
> unanswered Persian mounted missile fire. This makes me leary of
adding
> additional missile defenses. Large blocks of infantry are fairly
tough
> already. But, the counter point is that massed missile fire can
break any
> size of body. In the game this is simulated already. If the
Persians shot
> enough then eventually they would roll up and get lucky.
Alternately,
> massive skirmishing columns of missile troops could just
overwhelm. Do they
> overwhelm too much? Right now if one put mass skirmishing blocks
of LC B or
> JLS at various angles to concentrate on a single hoplite body,
then the
> hoplites are guaranteed to die. Did the Persians do this, or were
they
> attacking a large line and not concentrating? We don't know.

[ES: Not completely correct. Herodotus' account is that the Greeks
were galled by mounted javelins and arrows and agreed to withdraw at
night if the main action did not occur that day (a) because of the
actions of the enemy horse and (b) because the Greeks were deprived
of water - the Persian horse had blocked the spring and prevented
supplies being gathered. If H is to be believed we are talking
about desultory skirmishing for hours with little real effect.]

[ES: The massed missile fire against the Lacedaimonians killed some
and wounded a great number - the Tegeans sound like they mount an
impetuous charge galled by fire. Again massed archery has some but
only a limited effect.]

>
> 3. Macedonian Pike.
>
> At Charoneia the pike and the hoplites never physically
contacted. Phillip
> may have BELIEVED it would be a fair contest, but it was never
proven. So
> the results of Pike vs Hoplite are historically meaningless.
>
> In Alexander's early battles against the Persians he had to deal
with
> Hoplite mercenaries At Granikos the mercenary hoplites were
unable to
> participate in the battle against the Persians. They asked for
terms,
> Alexander refused. The hoplites parked on a hill, there was fierce
> fighting, Alexander's horse was killed, but the hoplites were all
destroyed.
> It's possible that the pike just rolled them up, or it's possible
that pike
> or skirmishers caused one body to move forwards or backwards giving
> Alexander a flank. Both of these are simulated in the current
model.
>

[ES: Diodorus' account of Agis III rebellion in 331: "63 (1) When
Antipater learned of this Greek mobilization he ended the Thracian
campaign on what terms he could and marched down into the
Peloponnesus with his entire army. He added soldiers from those of
the Greeks who were still loyal and built up his force until it
numbered not less than forty thousand. (2) When it came to a
general engagement, Agis was struck down fighting, but the
Lacedaemonians fought furiously and maintained their position for a
long time; when their Greek allies were forced out of position they
themselves fell back on Sparta. (3) More than five thousand three
hundred of the Lacedaemonians and their allies were killed in
battle, and three thousand five hundred of Antipater's troops."

To the extent we believe Diodorus - Antipater's army (a mix of
phalangites and allied hoplites) here either (a) stick against the
Spartans (b) win slowly against the allies.]

> 4. Thracians and Barbarians.
>
> I have never found any accounts of actual battles. Since I have
found no
> accounts, we have no documentation, and hence no "hard accounts"
to base any
> changes on. In fact, when the Gallations invaded Greece,
according to the
> Greek histories, the Galatians were driven from Greece by divine
acts
> (storms, earthquakes) before sacking Delphi. Archeological
evidence
> suggests that Delphi WAS sacked about then. So, even if we do
find any
> accounts, they could be considered lies.

[ES: We do have an account of Thermpoylae don't we? Galatians
falter against the Greek line and are enfiladed by shooting from
ships. Delphi - ignoring portents and if it was a Greek victory -
was partly determined by Phokians getting into the Galatian rear.

We have Xenophon for an account of Thracians overcoming a detached
command of the Ten Thousand but not by frontal attack. Similarly in
Xen. Hellenica a defeat of hoplites by skirmishing/evading
Bithynians.

If you count Carthaginians as 'barbarisn' we have Plutarch's
Timoleon (though not wonderfully useful it has to be said).]

>
> 5. HTW Romans.
>
> The Etruscans had hoplite type troops. The Romans beat them.
Syracuse,
> Carthage and the Italiot Greeks had hoplite type troops. The
Romans beat
> them too. In the current model HTW armed Republican Romans beat
two ranks
> of hoplites (First Bound: HTW charge vs HI -> 6*, 6 figures
fighting -> 30
> on a one element frontage; LTS charge vs HI -> 3, 8 figures
fighting -> 20.
> Both sides disordered, Hoplites recoil. Second Bound: Other
Infantry (1.5
> ranks), disordered, following up -> 1; 6@1 -> 9. LTS disordered
recoiing ->
> 0, 4@0 (one rank only) -> 4). Current system works for this too.
>
> *Remember, steady HTW does not suffer the -2

[ES: Historically correct although normally a tough fight where we
have accounts at all]
>
> So, why have us hoplite people opened the argument?
>
> Because hoplites dominated the mediterrainian world for almost 300
years.
> Everybody wanted hoplites, or "imitation" hoplites. Their
reputation was so
> great that other armies would only voluntarily face hoplites with
hoplites.
> So we have few accounts of other troop types vs hoplites.

[ES: Not as few as all that actually - early Persian (Marathon,
Thermopylae, Plataia etc); later tribesmen, Thracians, Bithynian
(Xenophon); later Persian (Xenophon Anabasis and Hellenica);
Macedonian; Early Carthaginian; Italians]

Could it be
> because hoplites were very effective? Sure. Could it also be
because the
> Greeks got stupidly lucky against the Persians and the troops had a
> reputation. Sure. Could all the classical beliefs about how
effective
> hoplites were against other troop types be wrong? Sure. They're
just
> beliefs.

[ES: It's pretty evident that in good order and from the front the
hoplite was effective. However they were a fairly one dimensional
type which required a number of conditions for success.]

>
> Phillip believed hoplites were roughly equal to pike. Maybe they
were,
> maybe they weren't. Who knows? Maybe Philip was wrong.

[ES: The change away from the hoplite troop type to thureophoroi in
mainland Greece may have been social (eg increase in use of
mercenaries who were required to do more than form line of battle)
or military (multiple roles using either javelins or spear)]

>
> Should Peltasts/Thureophorai be as good or superior? Sure. At
Sphacteria
> Spartans were taken out by Peltasts and light troops.

[ES: Lots of other examples also BUT in all cases we are talking
about being able to flank the hoplites or attack them when
disorganised. I have not come across any direct attack by peltasts
on hoplites from the front - head on the peltast seems to have
avoided hoplites. The peltast response is to evade not to fight.
If they were 'better' in close combat this is an unlikely response
all the time.]

The Greek City states
> switched from hoplites to Thureophorai before some of them went on
to pikes.
> You could make a case for this being true.

[ES: Increased flexibily perhaps - the Celtic shield - not too
dissimilar to the thureos - is described disparagingly in the
account of Thermopylae.]
>
> It's a decision of degree. Were the hoplites the dominant troop
type that
> everybody was afraid of because they were tough? Or just because
of
> reputation.

[ES: Good heavy infantry in an era where there was no equivalent are
bound to be intimidating in the right conditions.]

Where the Roman Triarii armed as hoplites because they were
> more effective than base troops when given sufficient training, or
only
> because the equipment cost more and it was a sign of wealth? Were
Triarii
> even "hoplites" as they had a different shield?

[ES: they were not hoplites in the traditional sense because they
were not descibed as being formed in a phalanx and they too had
swords to use in a way quite different from the hoplite who seems to
have relied on the spear butt as much as a cheap sword.]

>
> Personally, I think that the reputuation is true, and at least
some of the
> common beliefs of the hoplite ability vs other troops was
correct. I've
> tested options to make sure that any tweaks make up the
reputation, but
> DON'T change the handful of enemy troop types we know hoplites
beat.
>
[ES: A good analysis]

> Ultimately, as others have pointed out, Warrior is a game. It
attempts to
> simulate reality and does a not half bad job, but it is not a
perfect
> simulation. Nor will anything ever be.

[ES: Quite right]
>
> It really boils down to a decision to be made as to whether to
make hoplites
> capable of what they were believed by classical peoples to be
capable of, or
> only what we have strong evidence they actually achieved.
>
> Michael Bard
> That Greek Hoplite Guy
> >

[Greg Regets]

Mark did a very good job responding to this in his excellent post,
but I do have some numbers to offer.

16 Hoplites, front rank HI back rank MI, LTS Sh
vs.
16 Peltasts, LMI LTS,JLS,Sh

The point cost is identical.

At first contact each side comes in @2, with the Hoplites counting 16
figures to the Peltast 12. Note that even if the Peltast rolls +1, he
still looses the combat, in effect giving the Hoplite a +2 factor
advantage.

At second contact the Hoplite gets 12@4 vs. the Peltasts 12@2, again
a two factor advantage. Also not that a +1 for the Hoplite vs. an
even by the Peltast, offers a break in favor of the Hoplite. Baring
this, the Peltast will soon be tired, increasing the factor advantage
to +3.

The case can be made that the Peltast will just skirmish, but that is
a tactical problem for the Hoplite, not a mathematical factor
problem. No matter how you change the math in favor of the Hoplite,
this will still be the case ... unless the Hoplite is willing to take
measures to ameliorate this problem. Perhaps a little of that crummy
Greek cavalry that is usually wasted loitering behind the battle
would be useful here. Peltasts might be somewhat reluctant to form
skirmish with cavalry present. Even shieldless JLS cavalry is
irritating when it hits you in the rear while you are evading.

Obviously I have not seen the new Persian Immortals, but it seems as
if Michael has done a good job with these. As far as Persian cavarly
goes and potential vulnerability to it, that again seems a question
of tactics and not fully understanding what attack orders mean, and
that the enemy must have attack orders to charge you frontally with
mounted.

As an aside, if I had to pick something to give the Hoplite to better
his performance, my vote would be to give him the two full ranks, as
per Yeoman. To me, giving him additional ranks does nothing for him
against out-of-period opponents, as his biggest problems tend to be
frontage based.

Thanks ... g




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, JonCleaves@a... wrote:
> I feel the Hoplite works fine just how it is and does not need to
be
> changed. It performs very well on the table top against all of it's
> historical opponents, which should be the acid test.>>
>
> It is of course the only acid test. But I am curious, Greg, to
know the basis for feeling Warrior currently accurately portrays the
performance of the hoplite vs. peltasts (of various ilk) and
persians. Have anything to share with us?
>
> Jon

[joncleaves]

There simply is
overwhelming evidence that Bow armed troops are MASSIVELY overpowered
against hoplites in Warrior, a situation easily remedied by my list rule
counting them as in cover from Bow if in good order and shot from te front
or left flank.>>

Hmmm. Want to spell that out? Against an 8E hoplite, it would take 24
close/loose regular archers at close range just to do one FP. That does not
suit my personal definition of massively anything...

J

[Bill Chriss]

I am realy enjoying this thread, fellows. One overview: I would like to
point out that I went to some time and trouble to run the numbers in a
prior post (with my proposed X rules) for as many opposing troop types as
I thought relevant, and no one has yet shown that any of the results are
inappropriate. That, I think, demonstrates something in support of my
argument for some new hoplite X rules.

Now then, to follow up on what Ed has said and continue my commentary on
some of Hoplite Mike's matchups, see below (but I'll save the best for the
next post!!):

>
> [ES: But in practice the hoplite depth varied according to
> circumstance - eg Xen.Hellenica IV.2.[13] &quot;But while they
> [Corinthains and allies] were negotiating about the leadership and
> trying to come to an agreement with one another as to the number of
> ranks in depth in which the whole army should be drawn up, in order
> to prevent the states from making their phalanxes too deep and thus
> giving the enemy a chance of surrounding them, ...&quot; In the event
> the Thebans (not other Boiotians) formed their line deeper than
> agreed.
>
> There are references in Xen. to a Spartan line being 'only' 8 deep
> and another to a 12 deep Spartan line. Clearly many commanders were
> more concerned with being flanked than burst through.]


I agree with Ed here, and I argue that when the hoplite player CHOOSES to
form in greater depth, the result should be, as in Epaminondas' case, that
the thinner line is overwhelmed, and the thicker column risks being
outflanked. With rthe current rules, this phenomenon does not occur. Thus
my recommended X rules. I still maintain that only the Thebans, for
whatever reason (take your pick), had mastery of busting up opposing
phalanxes by fighting more than 16 or 20 deep. Hence, all well trained
hoplites should fight one figure in ranks three and four when charging or
following up, and Thebans should do the same, but to a depth of 6 ranks.


>
> >
> > 2a. Persian Mass Missiles.
> >

>
> [ES: Not completely correct. Herodotus' account is that the Greeks
> were galled by mounted javelins and arrows and agreed to withdraw at
> night if the main action did not occur that day (a) because of the
> actions of the enemy horse and (b) because the Greeks were deprived
> of water - the Persian horse had blocked the spring and prevented
> supplies being gathered. If H is to be believed we are talking
> about desultory skirmishing for hours with little real effect.]
>
> [ES: The massed missile fire against the Lacedaimonians killed some
> and wounded a great number - the Tegeans sound like they mount an
> impetuous charge galled by fire. Again massed archery has some but
> only a limited effect.]


Again, in my view Ed is historically correct here. There simply is
overwhelming evidence that Bow armed troops are MASSIVELY overpowered
against hoplites in Warrior, a situation easily remedied by my list rule
counting them as in cover from Bow if in good order and shot from te front
or left flank.


>
> >
> > 3. Macedonian Pike.
> >
>
> [ES: Diodorus' account of Agis III rebellion in 331: &quot;63 (1) When
> Antipater learned of this Greek mobilization he ended the Thracian
> campaign on what terms he could and marched down into the
> Peloponnesus with his entire army. He added soldiers from those of
> the Greeks who were still loyal and built up his force until it
> numbered not less than forty thousand. (2) When it came to a
> general engagement, Agis was struck down fighting, but the
> Lacedaemonians fought furiously and maintained their position for a
> long time; when their Greek allies were forced out of position they
> themselves fell back on Sparta. (3) More than five thousand three
> hundred of the Lacedaemonians and their allies were killed in
> battle, and three thousand five hundred of Antipater's troops.&quot;
>
> To the extent we believe Diodorus - Antipater's army (a mix of
> phalangites and allied hoplites) here either (a) stick against the
> Spartans (b) win slowly against the allies.]

Again, as you might expect, I agree with Ed. This can be easily replicated
by the X rules I have advocated re: hoplite fighting depth and liberal HI
uparmoring. In Ed's example, we would address it by allowing the allies,
by list rule, only two full ranks, plus say one figure in rank 3, Spartans
would also by list rule get a fighter in rank 4. This is the advantage of
using specific list rules for specific armies, rather than monkeying with
overall game mechanics, just as FHE did with the imperial roman lists.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


>
> > 4. Thracians and Barbarians.
> >

>
> [ES: We do have an account of Thermpoylae don't we? Galatians
> falter against the Greek line and are enfiladed by shooting from
> ships. Delphi - ignoring portents and if it was a Greek victory -
> was partly determined by Phokians getting into the Galatian rear.
>
> We have Xenophon for an account of Thracians overcoming a detached
> command of the Ten Thousand but not by frontal attack. Similarly in
> Xen. Hellenica a defeat of hoplites by skirmishing/evading
> Bithynians.
>

Here is the KEY: NOT BY FRONTAL ATTACK. Again, Ed is historically correct.
Galatians and Gauls can be accounted for by making them irreg A, which
they already are in all relevant lists.





> > 5. HTW Romans.
> >
> > The Etruscans had hoplite type troops. The Romans beat them.
> Syracuse,
> > Carthage and the Italiot Greeks had hoplite type troops. The
> Romans beat
> > *Remember, steady HTW does not suffer the -2
>
> [ES: Historically correct although normally a tough fight where we
> have accounts at all]


Again, I agree with Ed. Particularly because of the HTW effect of
IRREGULAR troops like Syracusans and SPaniards, a -1 for HTW facing LTS is
much more accurate than -0, and it also makes the fight against Romans a
little more accurate as Ed points out, although they still get the better
of it. Meanwhile, as to Carthaginian, Etruscan, Samnite, or other Italian
hoplites, again this is just another argument for not treating all ancient
LTS armed MI the same. I would argue that such Italian or Poeni troops
were not true hoplites and did not fight with 3 foot diameter hoplon
shields locked tight together. Hence, they should not get the ranks
fighting X rules reserved for REAL Greeks.

> Could it be
> > because hoplites were very effective? Sure. Could it also be
> because the
> > Greeks got stupidly lucky against the Persians and the troops had a
> > reputation. Sure. Could all the classical beliefs about how
> effective
> > hoplites were against other troop types be wrong? Sure. They're
> just
> > beliefs.
>
> [ES: It's pretty evident that in good order and from the front the
> hoplite was effective. However they were a fairly one dimensional
> type which required a number of conditions for success.]
>


Again, kudos to Ed. Warrior, if it is to be a true simulation of ancient
warfare, or even a close facsimile, must treat hoplites as very, very
difficult to break by frontal assault, no matter by whom, but vulnerable
to attacks from behind flank, and very difficult to use in rough terrain.
The problem with the game as it is is that hoplites currently have all the
disadvantages of real hoplites and NONE OF THE ADVANTAGES.


Greek

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Mark did a very good job responding to this in his excellent post,
> but I do have some numbers to offer.
>
> 16 Hoplites, front rank HI back rank MI, LTS Sh
> vs.
> 16 Peltasts, LMI LTS,JLS,Sh
>
> The point cost is identical.
>
> At first contact each side comes in @2, with the Hoplites counting 16
> figures to the Peltast 12. Note that even if the Peltast rolls +1, he
> still looses the combat, in effect giving the Hoplite a +2 factor
> advantage.
>
> At second contact the Hoplite gets 12@4 vs. the Peltasts 12@2, again
> a two factor advantage. Also not that a +1 for the Hoplite vs. an
> even by the Peltast, offers a break in favor of the Hoplite. Baring
> this, the Peltast will soon be tired, increasing the factor advantage
> to +3.
>



Greg: This is just MUCH, MUCH too even for the peltast. There is no way a
loose order regular peltast could withstand a hoplite charge. To my
knowledge, it was never even attempted at any time anywhere. Regular
peltasts closed with lighter troops, elephants, Light cav, and the like,
and ALWAYS skirmished away from close order frontal opponents. In Warrior
terms, they would have been broken on contact by almost any close order
foot, if pinned and forced to fight.

This brings me to Mike's last matchup I wish to comment upon, Peltasts vs.
Hoplites. To my mind, citing Sphacteria for the proposition that peltasts
could stand up to Spartan hoplites is a massive historical boner.
Thucydides (I think) makes it very, very clear that this is not at all
what happened. Rather, Demosthenes, the Athenian commander, was begged by
his Messenian auxilliaries for some slingers, targeteers and light troops
with which to scale very sheer cliffs in the Spartan rear and emerge on
the Spartan rear unexpectedly, from which position they first shot up the
Spartans and then surrounded them, at which time the entire Spartan force
SURRENDERED. The Spartans were starving to death on this bare island, and
still Demosthenes did not even think of attacking them frontally,
particularly not with light troops, in the absence of such a D-Day elite
ranger maneuver in their rear. Sphacteria arges in exactly the reverse of
the way Mike cites it. It is just another example of the fact that regular
loose or open order troops NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED a frontal H-T-H attack on
a hoplite formation, EVEN ONE TRAPPED ON AN ISLAND WITH INSUFFICIENT WATER
AND STARVING TO DEATH.

There is nothing wrong with peltasts in Warrior,as Mark (I think) has
pointed out. The problem with curent Warrior lists is that hoplites are so
weak against historical in-period opposition that they can be pinned,
delayed, fought to a standstill, or even broken by peltasts, Thracians,
Kardake bowmen, etc., etc., etc., and even by some cavalry (EHC Seleucid
lancers come to mind). Moreover they are broken or badly beaten regularly
by Gauls, Spaniards, and pike, when this was not the case in real life.


Greek

[Bill Chriss]

> There simply is
> overwhelming evidence that Bow armed troops are MASSIVELY overpowered
> against hoplites in Warrior, a situation easily remedied by my list rule
> counting them as in cover from Bow if in good order and shot from te
> front
> or left flank.>>
>
> Hmmm. Want to spell that out? Against an 8E hoplite, it would take 24
> close/loose regular archers at close range just to do one FP. That does
> not suit my personal definition of massively anything...
>
> J
>
>

I understand your question.
Lets take an 8E unit of MI hoplites 4 ranks deep. This is a 24 figure
target for CPF purposes. 24 loose/open regular archers would do 2 cpf:
Halt until end of next bound. In other words, a 6E unit of LMI archers can
stay 80p away, and without going into skirmish be virtually assured of
never being contacted, even if we give hoplites a 120p charge. Any up 2
roll would cause disorder. D class archers would cost 58 points,
effectively neutralizing 170 points of supposedly creme de la creme troops
(assuming they're B's, Thebans or Spartans). If the archers are and
hoplites are both C's, it would be 72 points vs. 138, still a massive
disincentive to ever play hoplites. If the shooters were an reg D 6E LI
unit, plus a 4E reg C LMI bow unit, the cost difference would be 108 vs.
138 or 170 for the hoplites. The closest analogous missile opponent for
hoplites would have been Persian infantry, yet there is no recorded
instance of them or anyone else EVER bow-shooting hoplites to a waver test
or a disordered formation FROM THE FRONT. To me, the difference between
history and Warrior in this instance is quite significant in game terms. I
concede that perhaps MASSIVE is a subjective characterization that you
would have to be a Hellene to share! :-)



Greek

[Greg Regets]

While out raking leaves, I realized I actually screwed up the factors
at first contact by deducting two from each that should not have been
deducted. This actually disorders the Peltast on contact, raising the
Hoplite factor advantage in bound two to a whopping +3.

Bill ... is this not enough of an advantage, and doesn't that
properly simulate the Hoplite grinding his opponent into dust, rather
than breaking him on contact? I mean that question respectfully, as I
know you are the Greek expert around here. :-)

On a different topic but related to this issue, I remember when our
scoring method around here was 100% based on raw margin between
opponents, rather than emphasis on killing lots of stuff. In those
days, Bill used to make the playoffs quite often with his Greeks, as
a matter of fact we played once in a finals in Killeen at a
tournament that had all the best players from this area. I feel your
pain Bill, but honestly feel the scoring system (right or wrong not
withstanding) hurts an army like yours in 15mm as much as troop
performance.

Another question Bill ... would giving the Hoplite performance
similar to the Yeoman, be of sufficient help? This would basically
assure you that break in the second bound against the Peltast,
without factoring crummy dice of course.

Thanks .... g

P.S. My neighbor is out raking leaves in her bikini, so this will be
my last post for a while. Gonna hit the lawn chair, drink beer and
girl watch!




--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> >
> > Mark did a very good job responding to this in his excellent
post,
> > but I do have some numbers to offer.
> >
> > 16 Hoplites, front rank HI back rank MI, LTS Sh
> > vs.
> > 16 Peltasts, LMI LTS,JLS,Sh
> >
> > The point cost is identical.
> >
> > At first contact each side comes in @2, with the Hoplites
counting 16
> > figures to the Peltast 12. Note that even if the Peltast rolls
+1, he
> > still looses the combat, in effect giving the Hoplite a +2 factor
> > advantage.
> >
> > At second contact the Hoplite gets 12@4 vs. the Peltasts 12@2,
again
> > a two factor advantage. Also not that a +1 for the Hoplite vs. an
> > even by the Peltast, offers a break in favor of the Hoplite.
Baring
> > this, the Peltast will soon be tired, increasing the factor
advantage
> > to +3.
> >
>
>
>
> Greg: This is just MUCH, MUCH too even for the peltast. There is no
way a
> loose order regular peltast could withstand a hoplite charge. To my
> knowledge, it was never even attempted at any time anywhere. Regular
> peltasts closed with lighter troops, elephants, Light cav, and the
like,
> and ALWAYS skirmished away from close order frontal opponents. In
Warrior
> terms, they would have been broken on contact by almost any close
order
> foot, if pinned and forced to fight.
>
> This brings me to Mike's last matchup I wish to comment upon,
Peltasts vs.
> Hoplites. To my mind, citing Sphacteria for the proposition that
peltasts
> could stand up to Spartan hoplites is a massive historical boner.
> Thucydides (I think) makes it very, very clear that this is not at
all
> what happened. Rather, Demosthenes, the Athenian commander, was
begged by
> his Messenian auxilliaries for some slingers, targeteers and light
troops
> with which to scale very sheer cliffs in the Spartan rear and
emerge on
> the Spartan rear unexpectedly, from which position they first shot
up the
> Spartans and then surrounded them, at which time the entire Spartan
force
> SURRENDERED. The Spartans were starving to death on this bare
island, and
> still Demosthenes did not even think of attacking them frontally,
> particularly not with light troops, in the absence of such a D-Day
elite
> ranger maneuver in their rear. Sphacteria arges in exactly the
reverse of
> the way Mike cites it. It is just another example of the fact that
regular
> loose or open order troops NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED a frontal H-T-H
attack on
> a hoplite formation, EVEN ONE TRAPPED ON AN ISLAND WITH
INSUFFICIENT WATER
> AND STARVING TO DEATH.
>
> There is nothing wrong with peltasts in Warrior,as Mark (I think)
has
> pointed out. The problem with curent Warrior lists is that hoplites
are so
> weak against historical in-period opposition that they can be
pinned,
> delayed, fought to a standstill, or even broken by peltasts,
Thracians,
> Kardake bowmen, etc., etc., etc., and even by some cavalry (EHC
Seleucid
> lancers come to mind). Moreover they are broken or badly beaten
regularly
> by Gauls, Spaniards, and pike, when this was not the case in real
life.
>
>
> Greek

[Mike Bard]

Back into the fray!

1. Defending the Status Quo.

My post in response to the "hoplites work they way they are now" was
intended to get people to decisively disprove that point. I didn't want to
push it as I am biased, though I'm trying me best to keep my opinions
historically accurate. Thanks to all who responded and I apologize for any
feelings of anger or betrayal that I generated.

And yes, I knew that Spharectia was a bad example. It's why I chose it. :)

2. Persian Immortals.

These almost have to be figured out first so that Marathon can be resolved.

Immortals are believed to have worn metal armour under their colourful
cloth. Therefore they must be classified as HI.
They were generally armed with bow and wicker shield, and a "spear".

The spear is the big problem. Evidence suggests it was 7' long. A case
could be made for classifying it as an LTS. I don't know enough about the
enemies the Persians fought to create their empire, so I can't argue a case
either for or against classifying it as LTS. Right now it's classified as
JLS. Which weapon it is has a huge affect on the hoplite problem. If it is
LTS then hoplites MUST be changed otherwise Persia wins.

Just something to be aware of.

3. Hoplites vs. Spearmen.

This is the crux of the problem. Hoplites were not just spearmen. They
trained differently, they fought differently, they used their unique shields
entirely different.

The hoplite used their unique shield in combination with their spear and
unique training to create a unique method of warfare. They did not fight
like pike, or, as I understand it, like medieval or other spearmen. The
best guess is that the curvature was at least partially there so that the
hoplite could lean their shoulder in it and push at the enemy. No other
spearmen that I know of worked that way, and in the classical world it
seemed to be a superior system.

In other words, any hoplite modifications should only be applied to
hoplites - i.e. armoured bodies with a large round shield that they can lean
into.

4. Hoplites as a Source of Disorder.

I don't think that ALL hoplites should have this, but should true Spartiates
until Leukeutia (sp?) ? The other greeks were certainly terrified of them.
After all there were 420 Spartiates and a bunch of helots and the Athenians
sent in roughly 800 hoplites and something like 10,000 other troops.

5. Hoplites vs Archery.

Another option would be to count the hoplite shield as a Pavise for which
rules already exist.

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

Anyway, I apologize for not supplying more hard numbers, but my primary
period of interest is the 5th century BC (Persian Wars and Peleponesian
Wars). I'm playing Syracusan's right now because the current Late Hoplite
list has significant problems and requires all kinds of detachments to be
effective and I don't want to paint and base them in case they all go away
in a few months.

Michael Bard
Still That Greek Hoplite Guy

[Bill Chriss]

>
> While out raking leaves, I realized I actually screwed up the factors
> at first contact by deducting two from each that should not have been
> deducted. This actually disorders the Peltast on contact, raising the
> Hoplite factor advantage in bound two to a whopping +3.
>
> Bill ... is this not enough of an advantage, and doesn't that
> properly simulate the Hoplite grinding his opponent into dust, rather
> than breaking him on contact? I mean that question respectfully, as I
> know you are the Greek expert around here.
>
> On a different topic but related to this issue, I remember when our
> scoring method around here was 100% based on raw margin between
> opponents, rather than emphasis on killing lots of stuff. In those
> days, Bill used to make the playoffs quite often with his Greeks, as
> a matter of fact we played once in a finals in Killeen at a
> tournament that had all the best players from this area. I feel your
> pain Bill, but honestly feel the scoring system (right or wrong not
> withstanding) hurts an army like yours in 15mm as much as troop
> performance.
>
> Another question Bill ... would giving the Hoplite performance
> similar to the Yeoman, be of sufficient help? This would basically
> assure you that break in the second bound against the Peltast,
> without factoring crummy dice of course.
>
> Thanks .... g
>


I will mull this over and reply, Greg. I noticed the unnecessary minus two
in your calculations, but didn't figure the disordering effect on the
peltasts. Good point.


Greek

[joncleaves]

I understand your question.
Lets take an 8E unit of MI hoplites 4 ranks deep.>>

Ok, MI hoplites are naked, or nearly so. All they have is their shield,
admittedly big, but we aren't really claiming the unarmoured hoplite can get his
whole body under shield even from above... My example was HI - at least the
part facing the archers.

<< This is a 24 figure
target for CPF purposes. 24 loose/open regular archers would do 2 cpf:>>

Well, not if HI. The bigger deal is that if you're 24 for CPF then you are 2E
wide and you are using a 6E unit of archers three wide as the counter example.
I think we should stick to the same frontage in such, as Mike has done.

<<Halt until end of next bound. In other words, a 6E unit of LMI archers can
stay 80p away, and without going into skirmish be virtually assured of
never being contacted, even if we give hoplites a 120p charge.>>

A totally separate issue when it comes to the effect of archery *on* the
hoplite.

If all the archers do is run, the hoplites will take the enemy camp, or ships or
whatever. We are not trying to get them right on the tourney table and with
tourney time limits as defining criteria. We are trying to get them right -
period.
That would go double for points-based comparisons.

B doesn't kill shielded HI by itself. And in any case, its effects on an
element by element comparison are not massive.
J