Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Hello

I'm not sure hoplites need all that much help against historical
opponents. Fairly recent changes (ie full two ranks when charging,
change to -2 qualification) have already given them a bit of a boost.
I particularly dislike the cause of unease option. Given the range of
periods we are playing this would seem hard to justify. Surely there
are troops out there who would have no reason to fear charging
hoplites!! Roman legionaries is only one example that leaps to mind.
If we are going to start introducing list specific causes of unease
(and im not sure we should) how about mexicans who are made uneasy by
anyone with a horse or a bit of metal??


Martin

[joncleaves]

Hello

I'm not sure hoplites need all that much help against historical
opponents.>>

I think, for example, that they should be able to beat any version of peltast
more easily than they do. But that is just me.

<< Fairly recent changes (ie full two ranks when charging,
change to -2 qualification) have already given them a bit of a boost. >>

That has always been the Warrior rule. If you are talking 7th, that update was
done many moons ago when it was "discovered" (LOL) that hoplites LOST to
peltasts on even dice, which I am quite sure is ahistorical mechanically. But
that 'change' does not, in my opinion, do enough with respect to people they
should recoil reliably.

<<I particularly dislike the cause of unease option. Given the range of
periods we are playing this would seem hard to justify. >>

Of course we don't worry about out of period relationships like that. That
pandora's box would lead one to question why a knight would be uneasy around a
chariot. We all essentially agree to play in open events with the understanding
that out of period relationships can and will be quirky. What is important to
us is getting the in-period relationship right. If you want Akkadians vs
Teutonic Knights, you agree to the quirks. A demand to get that 'relationship'
right would fall on deaf ears..lol

<<Surely there
are troops out there who would have no reason to fear charging
hoplites!!>>

Not charging hoplites, people charging at them. And since roman legionaries
can't be impetuous anyway, what difference does it make? None.

<<If we are going to start introducing list specific causes of unease
(and im not sure we should) how about mexicans who are made uneasy by
anyone with a horse or a bit of metal??>>

We actually thought of that. But in our view the waver for loose charged in
open took care of that nicely without the need for an additonal rule. And
indeed the record on mesoamerican reactions to the Spanish is mixed. Some saw
them as fairly easy kills...lol

J

[Bill Chriss]

> Hello
>
> I'm not sure hoplites need all that much help against historical
> opponents.>>
>
> I think, for example, that they should be able to beat any version of
> peltast more easily than they do. But that is just me.
>
> >
>


I just got in from a longtrip and read with interest this thread. I dare
say that few have played as many tournament games with hoplites (or taken
as many drubbings) as I in the last 10 years. So, I add the following as
my view:

1. I agree with Jon that it is ahistorical that peltasts easily whip
hoplites today.

2. Hoplites were able to whip Persians and other trouser wearers for many
reasons, many of which have already been pointed out, but these include
being much more impervious to missile fire than Warrior makes them out to
be. (Recall the comment earlier in this thread about Xenophon's rear ranks
taking only 7 casualties). This was one big advantage to the 3 foot hoplon
and the 40 to 70 pounds of body armor.

3. I would urge us to recall that not all hoplites were created equal.
Only the Thebans in the early 4th century really mastered fighting in
massively deep formations with what some believe were lengthened spears.
(Again, see my Later Greek hoplite list and accompanying spearpoint
article still posted in the files section). As for regular vs. irregular,
I would propose that in most instances, the player be given a choice.
However, to my mind, citizen hoplites of any major state, particularly
Sparta (for whom I have not particular fondness), and almost all
mercenaries, should be classed as regular. For an example of of morale
classification, again, see the article.

4. In light of the above, I would think that "HOPLITE RULES" should all be
list rules, and non-uniform at that. For example, I strongly agree with
allowing full 2 ranks fighting at all times for almost all hoplites. I
also advocate some 3rd and 4th ranks fighting, but in order to maintain
the slight superiority of pike over LTS, I would argue for ONE FIGURE
fighting in each of the 3rd and 4th ranks. Thebans after 400 BC, and
perhaps others (i am willing to be convinced) should be allowed ONE FIGURE
fighting ALSO in any rank AFTER THE FOURTH (or perhaps just in ranks 5 and
6). THIS WILL CREATE MOTIVATION FOR PLAYERS TO FIGHT (at least Thebans) IN
HISTORICAL DEPTHS. I.e., Epaminondas arrayed his phalanx 40 deep (10-12
ranks in Warrior terms) at Leuctra

5. I do not agree with auto-upgrading armor as this will cause point
allocation anomalies, as has been pointed out.

6. I believe a better solution is to count shielded hoplites as in cover
from shooting at their front and at their left flank. Also, most lists
should allow 1/4 or 1/2 of units to be upgraded to HI at conventional cost
(again, see my list as an example of this).

7. I agree with Mike Bard that it makes sense to increase the hoplite
charge and countercharge move to 120 paces, based on the historical
evidence. Players should also have the option of ekdromoi LMI (runners
out-young men) as detachments.

8. I also agree that opponents should have one cause of unease for being
within 120 paces (charge range) of hoplites.


Again, thare are some hoplites who should not get all these rules--Some of
the Italian and colonial hoplites come to mind, for example. I have been
thinking about this a long, long time, hoping some game designer would
listen to me. I am very encouraged by this thread, and I believe that the
above changes, like all list rules, will not change the mechanics or point
equivalence of the overall game, but they will finally give hoplites a
more realistic feel on the game table. Historically, THEY WERE NOT TRASH
TROOPS THAT NO GENERAL WOULD WANT. For the last twenty years in
miniatures, I am afraid that is how they have been viewed, and this has
been an unfortunate and easily remedied misconception. They should get
pushed around but not easily broken by pike and HTW at contact, and after
that be even. They should fair slightly worse than legionaires against
impetuous barbarian fanatics, but again not be broken automatically on
contact. And they should beat up every other in-period troop type. For the
most part, only phalanxes (pike or LTS) and Romans broke other phalanxes,
and it was done by attrition, not on contact. Actually, as to the Romans,
what hoplites did they ever meet and defeat with a pilum? Their fights
were with pike. Before the pilum they fought Campanians and other Italian
hoplites, but again, the Romans just had LTS too, so it was just another
rugby scrum war of attrition that they won largely as a result of higher
morale and better training.

Just my two cents.


Greek

Greetings

Probably Syracusans at Messina in 264BC although we don't have
enough or reliable details to know much about the battle. Its size
is also a matter of debate.

The extent of the changes in the equipment of the Roman army is not
totally clear at this date but accounts of operations against
Pyrrhus refer to the Romans fighting with swords which argues
against the all LTS equipment.

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
> > Hello
> >
[snip]
> Actually, as to the Romans,
> what hoplites did they ever meet and defeat with a pilum? Their
fights
> were with pike. Before the pilum they fought Campanians and other
Italian
> hoplites, but again, the Romans just had LTS too, so it was just
another
> rugby scrum war of attrition that they won largely as a result of
higher
> morale and better training.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
> Greek

[Bill Chriss]

>
> Greetings
>
> Probably Syracusans at Messina in 264BC although we don't have
> enough or reliable details to know much about the battle. Its size
> is also a matter of debate.
>
> The extent of the changes in the equipment of the Roman army is not
> totally clear at this date but accounts of operations against
> Pyrrhus refer to the Romans fighting with swords which argues
> against the all LTS equipment.
>
> Edward
>


Yes, but of course that means Pyrrhus had mostly pike in his crack
regiments, together with some italian hoplite auxilliaries. Again, this
only reinforces what I said before: a republican Roman legionaire (with
pilum) fared about evenly against BOTH pike and hoplites, sometimes losing
(as in the case of Pyrrhus), sometimes winning. With the rules now, on a
frontage basis, 6 HTW @ 6 does 30 to hoplites, who respond with 8 @ 3= 20.
That's probably a bit generous to the legionaires. Againi, this is why I
think most hoplites shouold be able to fight more than two ranks deep. HTW
against pike is 6 @ 6= 30; while pike is 12 @ 3= 30. An even match idf the
pike fight 4 ranks deep, but better for the Romans man for man. This, I
think is about right, but still a bit generous to the Romans. I'd still
like to see all HTW take a minus 1 against all LTS and Pike, instead of
minus 2. This would solve a whole lot of problmes (like celtiberian
Syracusan auxilliaries breaking trained Athenian or Spartan hoplites on
contact in the open). It would also still give Romans a big man for man
advantage, while making their replacement in battle list rule and other
tactical cooperation the key to beating ponderous and hard to beat frontal
pikes.



Greek

[Mark Stone]

Quoting "WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com" <WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com>:

> JonCleaves@... wrote:
> My two 'personal' favorites at the moment are (given that a precise
> definition of which hoplites we are talking about would be a necessity):
>
> All opponents are -1 vs hoplites in hth combat.
>
> hoplites are a cause of unease to opponents who charge them.
>

I would think that an additional -1 should apply to shooting as well. That
shield looks an awful lot like a pavisse that extensive training has taught the
hoplite how to handle with the hand-to-hand capabilities of an ordinary shield.
In fact, the list rule I would propose would be:

"Shooting factors and hand to hand factors are at a -1 against shielded
hoplites."

I'm underwhelmed by the "cause of unease" idea. Hoplites had a fearsome
reputation in their time. So did a lot of other troops who aren't a cause of
unease. I'd rather see one of:
(a) hoplite charges are never cancelled by enemy coming into the path of the
hoplite charge, or
(b) As an exception, hoplites who are not uneasy may declare impetuous charges.

The latter I think is especially interesting, as it gives hoplite players a
reason to upgrade morale on some hoplites, rather than just going with the
"wall of scum" so common in close order foot armies. And I don't see either of
these changes as unbalancing hoplites against historical opponents.

Another angle on all of this to keep in mind is that when the hoplite evolved
into the phalangite it was for a good reason. Our rules system needs to reflect
that the phalangite is indeed an evolution. My guess is that phalangites require
no special list rules at this point, so the rules governing pike in a sense
"bound" how good hoplites can be.


-Mark Stone

I agree with this comment:

> I'm underwhelmed by the "cause of unease" idea. Hoplites had a
> fearsome
> reputation in their time. So did a lot of other troops who aren't a
> cause of
> unease.

For example, the American armies aren't penalized with a cause of
unease when charged by mounted.


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

[joncleaves]

For example, the American armies aren't penalized with a cause of
unease when charged by mounted.>>

That's correct. They take a waver test instead, which is much worse.

It would better help us at FHE get hoplites 'right' to focus this discussion, as
Mike started to, with who we collectively think that hoplites (as they would
play out in the rules now) could not achieve an historical result against and
why. From there, the mechanics possibilities should flow.....

I met in addition to the waver test.

On Dec 17, 2004, at 11:47 AM, JonCleaves@... wrote:

> For example, the American armies aren't penalized with a cause of
> unease when charged by mounted.>>
>
> That's correct.  They take a waver test instead, which is much worse.
>
> It would better help us at FHE get hoplites 'right' to focus this
> discussion, as Mike started to, with who we collectively think that
> hoplites (as they would play out in the rules now) could not achieve
> an historical result against and why.  From there, the mechanics
> possibilities should flow.....



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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/17/2004 19:48:42 Central Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

Yes Jon, that was my intent precisely in posting my suggestions. Only
Allen has made any comments so far.



And they were good ones, Greek. I have saved them for review... what we
need is for them to be played...


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

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 12/17/2004 21:32:23 Central Standard Time,
hrisikos@... writes:

Ah yes, well, there you have me, old boy, since the nearest opponent is
150 miles away!, but I will do what I can :-)



Bummer. You can always give us the math, though! ;)


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

A few of the things Greek has said here resonated with me. I wanted to share
my thoughts since my doubles partner has an inexplicable enthusiasm for
hoplites and therefore I am doomed to have to use them from time to time (
Sorry Mike :-)

Here are some of the idea's I like best so far and some things to consider;

1: Shielded hoplites count as in cover for shooting.
- I like this idea
- should they get the benefit if they moved in the approach phase or are
on march orders? I think that Hoplites on march orders would not be hunkered
down enough for a cover benefit.
-what if they are actually in cover, is there an added benefit?

2: 120 pace charge
- seems to make sense, but that is also problematic in allot of ways.
- What if they simply don't have to suffer the -40 pace reduction for
entering difficult terrain where LTS is still eligible to fight.
- Perhaps they should also not become disordered for entering difficult
terrain where LTS is eligible to fight.
-In other words, in Forest, these benefits don't apply, but in Brush
they do.

3: Additional -1 tf at first contact
- I think that one of the best ways to fix the inequities for Hoplites
is to adjust tactical factors to where it is very unlikely that they will be
broken at contact.
- By extension though, Hoplites should not be breaking their opponents
on contact either. I agree with Greek that a war of attrition is the way to
go, although I think many will say that this still rules them out as a
viable tournament army.

4: Fighting 2 ranks all the time
-This should tip the balance towards the hoplites once the attrition
phase begins.
- I think extra ranks might be overkill, just an unsubstantiated
opinion.



Of course, to Mike, much of what I have just said will sound like bar bar
bar... bar bar bar bar bar (hope you get a chuckle out of that Mike, see you
soon)

Allan

[Bill Chriss]

>
> It would better help us at FHE get hoplites 'right' to focus this
> discussion, as Mike started to, with who we collectively think that
> hoplites (as they would play out in the rules now) could not achieve an
> historical result against and why. From there, the mechanics
> possibilities should flow.....
>
>


Yes Jon, that was my intent precisely in posting my suggestions. Only
Allen has made any comments so far.



Greek

[Bill Chriss]

>
>
>
> And they were good ones, Greek. I have saved them for review... what
> we
> need is for them to be played...
>
>


Ah yes, well, there you have me, old boy, since the nearest opponent is
150 miles away!, but I will do what I can :-)


Greek

Greetings

I'd started to draft a longish reply on the development of troop
types from hoplite to phalangite/legionary in the Eastern and Western
Mediterranean but my son decided to delete it after breakfast before
I got back to the PC.

You are all probably better off.

So just a few short comments.

Going back to my Messina example, if one believes Zonaras 8.9 then
the Romans won because of their heavy infantry while their cavalry
were defeated. That's not conclusive because we have so little
additional data about the armies, their size or composition. So a
battle of attrition (Polybius seems to agree it was a struggle) but a
Roman victory. Note that according to Polybius Hiero II had recently
retrained his troops so some/many were probably better than the lowly
rated Siciliot Reg D class.

Moving onto the suggestions/comments.

1. I concur that hoplites should not fear peltasts in head to head
combat. Iphicrates' victory at Corinth was won by skirmishing
peltasts backed up by hoplites against a weak Spartan mora badly
supported by a cavalry detachment. Xenophon is very critical of
Spartan tactics.

Incidentally the powers of the WRG Greek peltasts are probably over-
stated by the inclusion of dual weapon and the general assumption
they are regular. Maybe we should fix this as well. Thureophoroi
again need to be addressed as I think their effectiveness is also
overstated.

2. While the Ionian Greeks did not do too well against the Persians
the aspis was indeed of great assistance against arrows. I am not
convinced by the suggestion that body armour made such a difference
(unless you weren't covered by the aspis of course ...) because the
later 5th century hoplite and the 10,000 do not seem to have had
metallic armour in any quantity as far as we know. Also body armour
was used by the Persians and other opponents as well.

3. I agree that Hoplites were not created equal and that list rules
may differ. I'm not nearly as convinced as Greek on the real
differences of Thebans against other hoplites, apart from their use
of depth in assault in certain instances - there's still debate over
how and why the deep formation was successful. A depth bonus for
Thebans (not other Boiotians) in the charge?

4. Two ranks fighting in good order even if not charging or
countercharging is probably appropriate. A list rule for the
solidity of a good order hoplite line for example -1 for opponents at
first contact might also be useful.

5. I agree uparmouring is probably not the way to go.

6. A cover modifier for aspis seems OK if the unit is in good order
and ready for batttle so probably not on the march or if disordered.

7. 120 pace charge - uncertain if this is the way to go - they may
have surprised a few contemporary opponents by charging but so did
Romans. I cannot off hand recall more than one long distance charge
per battle by a contingent - possibly one could have a 120 pace
charge but at the cost of another fatigue level? Not sure about
examples of counter-charge but that could be treated the same way.

Ekdromoi detachments might well have potential.

NB. Allan's suggestion on non good going is not really viable because
hoplites were discommoded by poor going and did not seek to fight in
it.

The benefits of the hoplite weapon system covering the left hand man
(because of the design of the aspis) would not survive
disorganisation. This inflexibility may account for the change away
from the hoplite to the dual, or at least alternate, armed
thureophoroi.


8. Unconvinced about hoplites being a cause of unease. I can't
think of instanecs where the non-hoplites were obviously made uneasy
by hoplites unless they were already on the way to being shaken ie
were D or E class in Warrior terms.

In conclusion it would be nice to rehabilitate the hoplite but not at
the cost of making it a super-troop.

Regards

Edward

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, hrisikos@D... wrote:
[snip]

> 1. I agree with Jon that it is ahistorical that peltasts easily whip
> hoplites today.
>
> 2. Hoplites were able to whip Persians and other trouser wearers
for many
> reasons, many of which have already been pointed out, but these
include
> being much more impervious to missile fire than Warrior makes them
out to
> be. (Recall the comment earlier in this thread about Xenophon's
rear ranks
> taking only 7 casualties). This was one big advantage to the 3 foot
hoplon
> and the 40 to 70 pounds of body armor.
>
> 3. I would urge us to recall that not all hoplites were created
equal.
> Only the Thebans in the early 4th century really mastered fighting
in
> massively deep formations with what some believe were lengthened
spears.
> (Again, see my Later Greek hoplite list and accompanying spearpoint
> article still posted in the files section). As for regular vs.
irregular,
> I would propose that in most instances, the player be given a
choice.
> However, to my mind, citizen hoplites of any major state,
particularly
> Sparta (for whom I have not particular fondness), and almost all
> mercenaries, should be classed as regular. For an example of of
morale
> classification, again, see the article.
>
> 4. In light of the above, I would think that "HOPLITE RULES" should
all be
> list rules, and non-uniform at that. For example, I strongly agree
with
> allowing full 2 ranks fighting at all times for almost all
hoplites. I
> also advocate some 3rd and 4th ranks fighting, but in order to
maintain
> the slight superiority of pike over LTS, I would argue for ONE
FIGURE
> fighting in each of the 3rd and 4th ranks. Thebans after 400 BC, and
> perhaps others (i am willing to be convinced) should be allowed ONE
FIGURE
> fighting ALSO in any rank AFTER THE FOURTH (or perhaps just in
ranks 5 and
> 6). THIS WILL CREATE MOTIVATION FOR PLAYERS TO FIGHT (at least
Thebans) IN
> HISTORICAL DEPTHS. I.e., Epaminondas arrayed his phalanx 40 deep
(10-12
> ranks in Warrior terms) at Leuctra
>
> 5. I do not agree with auto-upgrading armor as this will cause point
> allocation anomalies, as has been pointed out.
>
> 6. I believe a better solution is to count shielded hoplites as in
cover
> from shooting at their front and at their left flank. Also, most
lists
> should allow 1/4 or 1/2 of units to be upgraded to HI at
conventional cost
> (again, see my list as an example of this).
>
> 7. I agree with Mike Bard that it makes sense to increase the
hoplite
> charge and countercharge move to 120 paces, based on the historical
> evidence. Players should also have the option of ekdromoi LMI
(runners
> out-young men) as detachments.
>
> 8. I also agree that opponents should have one cause of unease for
being
> within 120 paces (charge range) of hoplites.
>
>
> Again, thare are some hoplites who should not get all these rules--
Some of
> the Italian and colonial hoplites come to mind, for example. I have
been
> thinking about this a long, long time, hoping some game designer
would
> listen to me. I am very encouraged by this thread, and I believe
that the
> above changes, like all list rules, will not change the mechanics
or point
> equivalence of the overall game, but they will finally give
hoplites a
> more realistic feel on the game table. Historically, THEY WERE NOT
TRASH
> TROOPS THAT NO GENERAL WOULD WANT. For the last twenty years in
> miniatures, I am afraid that is how they have been viewed, and this
has
> been an unfortunate and easily remedied misconception. They should
get
> pushed around but not easily broken by pike and HTW at contact, and
after
> that be even. They should fair slightly worse than legionaires
against
> impetuous barbarian fanatics, but again not be broken automatically
on
> contact. And they should beat up every other in-period troop type.
For the
> most part, only phalanxes (pike or LTS) and Romans broke other
phalanxes,
> and it was done by attrition, not on contact. Actually, as to the
Romans,
> what hoplites did they ever meet and defeat with a pilum? Their
fights
> were with pike. Before the pilum they fought Campanians and other
Italian
> hoplites, but again, the Romans just had LTS too, so it was just
another
> rugby scrum war of attrition that they won largely as a result of
higher
> morale and better training.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
>
> Greek