Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[Bill Chriss]

> 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.
> :)



Ah yes, there's my Greek, the old Trojan Horse, eh????




> 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.


Even as JLS, factoring in the bow, I will look at this, as it might boost
my argument. Will get back to you with the math.


>
> 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.

I agreee with this 100%, and would add (again) that itis also true that
not all hoplites even were created equal.


>> 5. Hoplites vs Archery.
>
> Another option would be to count the hoplite shield as a Pavise for which
> rules already exist.
>

Yes, and this would have the same effect, essentially as my proposed
"cover" rule.


> ------------------
>
> 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


Yes, Mike, I agree that the problems we identified here are exacerbated in
the later hoplite lists. This is one reason my research has concentrated
on them, while you are understandably more interested in the earlier
period. I will continue my math expositions with you and Greg.


Greek

[joncleaves]

> 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.

I agreee with this 100%, and would add (again) that itis also true that
not all hoplites even were created equal.>>

I am primarily in listen and record mode here, and I do not want to discourage
any discussion or brainstorming. But I will say that personally I am of the
mind that this is true - we are talking about representing the differing
formational effect of hoplite style warfare - which would focus on the use of
the particular shield in hand to hand combat and the effect of that vs
historical opponents, including lesser hoplites.

But, let the juices flow!
J

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/21/2004 21:58:27 Central Standard Time,
craigshar@... writes:

The Sparabara rules and have been resolved. For the most part the
early Achaemenid "main battle" infantry will be receiving a
conventional hoplite charge. I say conventional because the Persians
rely on maneuver and combined armed tactics, not shock as the
hoplites do. You will see this on the upcoming list. >>
Just so that last sentence does not confuse anyone - no one knows what you
will be seeing on the 'upcoming list'. Classical is in its infancy and is not
finished and no draft list has been approved even for review. No final
decision has been made of any kind on any list in CW.

Keep those comments coming!

J


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

[Bill Chriss]

Let's try the math on this:


> 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.


Math problem: Using the traditional Warrior rules with no X rules,
Immortals Reg A front rank HI with Sh/ back rank MI; 4E, two ranks deep,
armed with JLS, B (cost= 72+48+10= 130). I recognize that some lists show
Pa rather than shield, but let's set that aside for now.

Hoplites, Reg B front rank HI, back rank MI; 4E two ranks deep, armed with
LTS, Sh (cost=56+40+10=106).

Bound one: At 80p apart, Immortals fire 16 B @ 1= 24 or 1 cpf. IF THEY
ROLL UP, hoplites will halt until end of next bound (unless choosing to
test waver-ouch) and get charged flat footed this bound. Let's say even
dice.

So mutual charge. Immortals do 12@2+1(JLS)+1(chg)-2(facing LTS)=24
Greeks do 16 (reg close formation foot charging)@ 2+1(chg)= 40. Any
outrolling by the greeks will break the immortals. This is fine by me, and
this particular example would need no further X rules EXCEPT THE PERSIAN
PREP SHOOTING. If the hoplites are shot to a halt, it's immortals 12@2=24;
Hoplites 12@2=24, a lock, and a strong argument for either counting
hoplites in cover OR allowing full 2 ranks in HTH ALWAYS (not just when
charging), OR BOTH.


Now, just because we are okay today with JLS armed immortals is no
argumenta against any of the proposed X rules, because none of them
changes this match up in a significant way that would alter a match
between them. The deeper ranks fighting rule would break the immortals
quicker, I admit, but the odds are they'd be broken anyway within a coupl
of bounds.

And, as Mike says, if we give the immortal LTS (and it was 7 feet long
with a large apple shaped knob on the bottom), the X rules are needed to
redress and obvious imbalance.


Greek

[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.
>
>
> 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
>


Okay guys, here's the math in that peltast argument again. Under current
rules with no X rules 4E Reg C hoplites (front rank HI, back rank MI) two
ranks deep (cost-90 pts) will charge at peltasts who countercharge and are
4E Reg C LMI, LTS, JLS, Sh.
Hoplites do 16 (regular close LTS charge) @3+1 (charging)=48 or 3 cpf.
Peltasts do 12 @2+1(JLS)+1(chg)=36 or 2 cpf. Peltasts pushed back and
disordered.

Bound 2: Hoplites do 12@3+1(following)=36 or 2 cpf; Peltasts do 12@2-1
(disorder)=18 or 1 cpf. Peltasts disordered again and check waver.

Barring a peltast outrolling the hoplites, they will break within 3 or 4
bounds. Of course, all this assumes that they can be prevented from
skirmishing away, and that they want to fight.

While this may appear okay at first blush, a couple of caveats. First, the
whole scenario is based on the hoplites being substantially overarmored
vis the peltasts. Throw in thorakitai peltasts or MI hoplites, and you get
the ahistorical peltast superiority we've all been decrying. Hence I am
not satisfied with the current rules re: this matchup. Second, given that
no peltast formation EVER stood up to a frontal charge from hoplites, even
for a moment, the fact that it would take our ponderous hoplite phalanx 3
or 4 total bounds (once within charge range) to break a peltast unit of
similar point value is much more significant than you might think in game
terms. It creates a situation where a peltast unit can use up a larger
hoplite phalanx (that might be 3 or 4 ranks deep) WITHOUT EVEN HAVING TOO
SKIRMISH. By the time the 90 point peltasts are chewed up, the battle is
probably over and decided elsewhere. No, I stand by my guns here. Peltasts
CLEARLY DO and SHOULD have the capability to slow down a hoplite phalanx
BUT ONLY BY SKIRMISHING AS THEY DID IN REAL LIFE, not by behaving very
ahistorically in HTH combat. I can see no downside to adjusting this
matchup to make it more correct. It will not effect peltasts' utility
against all the other troops that peltastoi historically caused problems
for in HTH, LI, other loose order troops, and LC. Again, no one is
avocating any changes for any other or opposing troop type. What we are
all arguing for is a BETTER representation of hoplite action on the table.

Again, a very enjoyable thread with good comments by all. Thanks for
including me.

Greek

[Craig Scott]

Hello Michael and All,

The Sparabara rules and have been resolved. For the most part the
early Achaemenid "main battle" infantry will be receiving a
conventional hoplite charge. I say conventional because the Persians
rely on maneuver and combined armed tactics, not shock as the
hoplites do. You will see this on the upcoming list.
That being said...
This is way I would like hoplites to fight. Starting with Spartiates
(maybe the Theban Sacred band also) (Reg. A and B) Standing,
charging or impetuously, yes impetuous charging, they should always
fight to 2 ranks deep unless hit in the flank or rear. Such as from
Persian horse. All other regular Hoplites stand and charge with 2
ranks. Irregular Hoplites also stand and charge with 2 ranks, but
impetuously charge with 1 1/2 ranks, it hard to keep well ordered
rank and file...
Pikes should fight 3 ranks and receive the normal modifiers against
whatever opponent, but disorder easier on rolling ground or worse...
Be well and Happy Holidays.
Sincerely,
Craig

[Mike Bard]

> 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.>>

This brings an interesting thought to mind.

When a hoplite phalanx advanced in good order, they shields were
perpendicular to the line of advance. I.e. they were directly in front of
the hoplite line, with each shield overlapping the next one.

Or, in other words, there were NO shields on the left or "shielded" flank.

If we're fixing hoplites to make them historically accurate, should hoplites
NEVER count as shielded on their left flank?

Michael Bard
That Greek Hoplite Guy

[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.>>
>
> This brings an interesting thought to mind.
>
> When a hoplite phalanx advanced in good order, they shields were
> perpendicular to the line of advance. I.e. they were directly in front
> of
> the hoplite line, with each shield overlapping the next one.
>
> Or, in other words, there were NO shields on the left or
> "shielded" flank.
>
> If we're fixing hoplites to make them historically accurate, should
> hoplites
> NEVER count as shielded on their left flank?
>
> Michael Bard
> That Greek Hoplite Guy
>

An excellent point, Mike. My preference would be to count them shielded on
the left flank to both HTH and shooting because we are not talking about
the front ranks here, but mostly the shield position of rear ranks, and I
believe the hoplite phalanx was sufficiently versatile to allow back or
middle rankers to shift their shieldd to the left (especially on the left
end of each line, in response to enemy weapons. HOWEVER, in light of your
point, I do think that hoplites should not get the benefit against
shooting of any of our proposed X rules ( count as in cover or count
shield as pavise) on EITHER FLANK OR TO THE REAR, but only frontally.

Good shot.


Greek

[Greg Regets]

Bill ...

My Peltast vs. Hoplite example matched units of the same point value.
If you use the LHI double-armed Peltast, vs. the MI Hoplite, you need
to use a 32 figure Hoplite unit, or better yet an additional two-
stand Hoplite unit, which obviously alters the whole deal rather
radically.

Thanks ... g

About peltasts...
Have you ever think about a greek peltast being in fact open order infantry?
Have you ever think that the Iphricatean peltast is in fact a lightened hoplite?
This may explain why peltasts can not fight against hoplites. I find the loose
order peltast a bit strange. How can he skirmish without going into open order?
Please read the articles at
http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/se/~luv20009/Luke's_1st_page.html
I think that there is a more actualized page, but I have not the link here. You
may seek in yahoo or google by the name of the author, Luke Ueda Sarson. Very
good information and articles on greek warfare.
Emilio.



>
> 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





Yahoo! Groups Links