Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

In period, Hoplite armies faced a variety of opponents aremed with
various weapons that Warrior gamers would call HTW. I'm not sure how to
quantify how they did, because I don't know of a classical source who
describes such a combat. I'm also not sure that the Greeks themselves
would have noted much difference between a Persian Hill tribesman's
heavy thrown spear (Xenophon is surprised at how heavy some of them are)
(which we class as JLS) and a Celti-Iberian HTW; I agree it's a huge dif
in Warrior, but I'm not sure it was such a big deal at the time.

Instead, I'll try to approach the subject from other angles. One is
technological; the sheer quality of the Hoplite shield and some later
views on spear length. A really strong shield tends to shrug of a HTW,
and the hoplon/aspis was in a different class from anything in the
Ancient world, and I include the Roman styles; one, because of it's
thickness and use of bronze; more importantly, because it was a
continuous three dimensional glancing surface that also worked as a
leverage aid in a "push" melee. {Digression one--we all know that very
few weapons are actually drawing blood after the second rank of "men"
and thus all fighting is done by the first rank of figures in Warrior -
supporting ranks is an abstract concept to represent the efficiancy of
the body. right? That being the case, anyone with a Hoplon/Aspis is at
a decided tech advantage over everyone without - even the vaunted
Macedonian Pike -- because the Hoplon/Aspis allows men to press a curved
surface into the back of their file partner while he presses into the
back of his; no one is crushed (and those linen and bronze breast armors
were, I'll bet you, more about crush damage then arrows!) in the most
efficient way I'm familiar with. By this system, the Hoplite with LTS
was actually more efficient at fighting in depth than the Pike. Heresy,
I know...}

To ride my eternal Xenophon hobby-horse, Xenophon is CONSTANTLY
amazed at how flimsy and useless the shields of his opponents are; quite
clearly, even writing forty years later, he saw them as worthless. Last
night (while I played Later Hoplites against Macedonians under the
current list and rules, just to get a feel) my opponent asked me why I
thought that Pike vs. Hoplites ought to be a lock; my answer was that
Phillip of Macedon thought they were (the best answer) and that we have
hordes of evidence from the 15th-17th Centuries AD about the lengthening
and shortening of pikes to suit battlefield needs; we know (dangerous
words to use about history) that most commanders by 1600 felt that 18
foot pikes were excessive unless facing Gendarmes (or, in the 4th C. BC,
Scythians and Persian heavy horse) and that 12-14 foot "pikes" (which we
call LTS) were ideal for fighting infantry, and had an advantage over
the longer pike at close quarters. And I admit, this was hotly debated
throughout the 16th and 17th C's, but hey, if it was so hotly debated,
then there was NO clear technological superiority to the long pike.

As to HTW -- in period, several armies had both men in Hoplite
equipent, with hoplite training, and men with something we class as HTW;
Etruscans and early Romans come to mind. And I'd note that for much of
the period, from what we know, we think that these armies continued to
arm their elite troops (the Triarii, for instance) as Hoplites. And I
agree with the immediate doubter that this may well have been more due
to social notions of rank than to the utility of the Hoplite vs. his
poorer cousin with the HTW, but I'll use that argument right back;
social changes eliminated the Hoplite, not technological ones. In Rome,
and in Athens, the class of "Yeoman" (and I can defend that term if any
one wants to hear it) that stood in the phalanx or served as triarii
eventually vanished into an increasingly dichotomous class society; the
rich got richer and became cavalry or stopped serving at all, the poor
got to be Legionaires. And problems of scale eventually hit the system;
Rome needed standardized equipment (within the tech meaning of that at
the time.) But I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that
anyone in the 4th C., or even the 3rd, thought that the Hoplite had been
outclassed; they were simply gone as a social phenomena, like the
English retinue archer.

Overall, I have to disagree with Marc, I don't think the Hoplite evolved
into the Phalangite; I think the highly skilled Hoplite devolved into
the single skill professional soldier; the long pike was easier to train
to, didn't require that the Hoplon/Aspis be custom fit to the wearer,
etc., etc. I am by no means argueing that the Hoplite was better; I go
back to Phillip. He didn't say at Chaeronea "Now son, you sit here,
because our superior pike will steamroller those poor, out-classed
Hoplites.". He said "Get into their flank and break them up, because
our pike and their Hoplites are a lock." And I think that the event
proves the notion; it was Companions in the flank that broke the Greeks;
the Pikes didn't do it at all.

I really enjoyed "Greek"'s contribution. Sounds like I should shut up
and let him and Mike Bard do the talking, but of course, I won't.

Given the responses, I'll put in my 2 cents worth on the list rules.

1) Although it would be fun, giving different list rules for different
Greek states would, I think, make the list harder to use and harder to
play against, which isn't all to the good. And one of the things that
fascinated me about the Anabasis is the interoperability of all those
different contingents. Yes, Xenophon clearly feels that Argives and
Arcadians and Spartans all have special abilities, I grant it; but they
could all fight together in the rear guard or the advance guard, where
picked men of every "nationality" were placed. Special rules for
special Hoplites is, I think, for a campaign. And to answer the comment
about Ionian Hoplites; Greeks in the day didn't denigrate their
performance; adverse comments were usually social, having to do with
their willingness to serve "The King" ie Persia. Quite a good grave
stele on Lesvos says the dead man served all over the place; he was an
Ionian mercanary hoplite, fairly typical of the period.

2) The best point raised was the one about armor. One of the essential
list changes should be to allow a much larger proportion of Hoplites to
serve as HI. This is standard in that it can be point costed, should
offend no one, and is easy to justify on several levels, just for
example, the fact that most 4th C. commanders thought that the first
piece or armor after the helmet should be greaves suggests that no one
really felt a breastplate was neccessary under that Hoplon/Aspis. Let
them up-armour to represent the Hoplon, and let them pay for it. Out on
a limb here, if folks wanted to represent the early-middle Hoplite in
full armor, they could be EHI (and pay for it) with a list rule that
allowed them to move without fatigue; this would be the "Athelete"
rule. And the numbers could be kept small. Like, General's elements.
Also, let's leave an option to make a sizeable proportion of Hoplites
Reg. B in any army; the Spartans didn't have a lock on good morale.
Even, or perhaps especially, Mercenary forces seem to have had very good
morale, and in some cases may have been better than City-State forces by
virtue of service together. In answer to a list query about armor,
Xenophon notes that in the 10,000, most men have a tunic, but he notes
with pride that many have greaves. Yet when we get into the
descriptions of fighting, a surprising number of men have corselets,
although Xenophon himself seems to have had cavalry armor which was
heavier and difficult to wear in rough terrain. (Anabasis III.4.46)
Fianlly, let's limit the list rule advantages to true Hoplites - Reg C
or better Greek or Mercenaries of the 6th-late 4th C. Who is a true
Hoplite? Well, according to one of my books, if a city had a Gymnasium
and used it to train young men for war, the Greek world thought that
they were hoplites. Sounds like a good basis for definition to me.

3) I'm not sure what I think of unease. I love chariots, but I always
wonder why, in period, any of the dozens of targets they couldn't harm
in H-t-H are made uneasy by them. In period LC, for instance, ought to
be salivating and edging forward uncontrolably....(Okay, I play JLS
armed 2 horse Lchs, I admit). I guess on balance I don't think it's
quite fair.

4) Fighting two full E's deep seems to me the least we can do to
represent the power of the formation. I kind of like the notion of
giving all oponents a minus 1 in all circumstances, too.

5) The same wording and same circumstances as Roman Legionaires as to
not having charges cancelled. Couple this with a 120 pace charge, and
the Hoplite will be formidable, but still not unbeatable, against
Barbarian foot. In answer to someone's comment about the 120 pace
charge, Xenephon's very exact description of the Hoplite charge in
practice (at a review by Cyrus) and in the field both describe the same
charge. Assuming that 1 Stadia = 150 meters (Eratosthenes measurements
of shadow and etc.) or 600 Greek Feet (at 12.15 modern inches per Greek
foot.) Measurements of the Parthenon give us 12.13 modern inches to the
Greek Foot. Either way, the stadia is roughly 600 feet. Xenephon says
that the Greeks started their charge three stadia from the enemy; that's
600 yards. They advance, sing the Paean, "attack" their spears (advance
them to the ready?) and break into a dead run. This is not an isolated
instance. (Anabasis 1.8.1. Adding together all of Xenophon's
descriptions, the average charge at a dead run was about 300 yards. It
clearly took many opponents by surprise.

6) Making the Hoplon/Aspis count as cover sounds pretty darned powerful,
especially with all these other advantages. If a way could be found to
make the Hoplite pay for it (perhaps counting as "double shielded?) then
fair enough; but if it's free, I'm afraid I think it's unfair.
Historically justifiable, but in a game where shooting is so darned
important...

Someone raised the notion of making the Persians worse. I think that
way madness lies... Persia conquered most of the known world, defeating
Medes, neo-assyrians, Babylonians, Egypt, Greeks, and Scythians. They
lost in the end, but AGAIN this had to do more with social upheaval and
the inherent instability of the system than some military failure. And
then the list writiers would have to make the Medes, Saitic Egyptians,
etc, etc all worse. We all have a cultural bias in favor of the Greeks
(and usualy in favor of the English, say, in the 100 Years War) but it
seems unfair to make 100 Years War English a good army based on their
performance against the French and a handful of other opponents, yet to
downgrade the Persians who were the feared superpower of their day.

Hope this helps, instead of just making everyone's readin day that much
the longer.

Yours,
Chris Cameron






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

[Bill Chriss]

> In period, Hoplite armies faced a variety of opponents aremed with
> various weapons that Warrior gamers would call HTW. I'm not sure how to
> quantify how they did, because I don't know of a classical source who
> describes such a combat. I'm also not sure that the Greeks themselves
> would have noted much difference between a Persian Hill tribesman's
> heavy thrown spear (Xenophon is surprised at how heavy some of them are)
> (which we class as JLS) and a Celti-Iberian HTW; I agree it's a huge dif
> in Warrior, but I'm not sure it was such a big deal at the time.


Ditto. An excellent point, Chris.


>
> Instead, I'll try to approach the subject from other angles. One is
> technological; the sheer quality of the Hoplite shield and some later
> views on spear length. A really strong shield tends to shrug of a HTW,
> and the hoplon/aspis was in a different class from anything in the
> Ancient world, and I include the Roman styles; one, because of it's
> thickness and use of bronze; more importantly, because it was a
> continuous three dimensional glancing surface that also worked as a
> leverage aid in a "push" melee. {Digression one--we all know
> that very
> few weapons are actually drawing blood after the second rank of
> "men"
> and thus all fighting is done by the first rank of figures in Warrior -
> supporting ranks is an abstract concept to represent the efficiancy of
> the body. right?


Up to Jon, but I'd say this is only marginally true. Motivating players to
replicate historical unit depth is the primary factor. See Warrior, 9.22,
p. 68, Historical note: The ranks of figures allowed to fight are to
encourage the use of historical depths, rather than reflect weapon length.
of the four ranks of men represented by the first rank of fiugures, the
first two at most fought in real life. Thise behinid contributed by their
momentum or inertia, missiles, or relief of tired or wounded men.


That being the case, anyone with a Hoplon/Aspis is at
> a decided tech advantage over everyone without - even the vaunted
> Macedonian Pike -- because the Hoplon/Aspis allows men to press a curved
> surface into the back of their file partner while he presses into the
> back of his; no one is crushed (and those linen and bronze breast armors
> were, I'll bet you, more about crush damage then arrows!) in the most
> efficient way I'm familiar with. By this system, the Hoplite with LTS
> was actually more efficient at fighting in depth than the Pike. Heresy,
> I know...}
>
> To ride my eternal Xenophon hobby-horse, Xenophon is CONSTANTLY
> amazed at how flimsy and useless the shields of his opponents are; quite
> clearly, even writing forty years later, he saw them as worthless. Last
> night (while I played Later Hoplites against Macedonians under the
> current list and rules, just to get a feel) my opponent asked me why I
> thought that Pike vs. Hoplites ought to be a lock; my answer was that
> Phillip of Macedon thought they were (the best answer) and that we have
> hordes of evidence from the 15th-17th Centuries AD about the lengthening
> and shortening of pikes to suit battlefield needs; we know (dangerous
> words to use about history) that most commanders by 1600 felt that 18
> foot pikes were excessive unless facing Gendarmes (or, in the 4th C. BC,
> Scythians and Persian heavy horse) and that 12-14 foot "pikes"
> (which we
> call LTS) were ideal for fighting infantry, and had an advantage over
> the longer pike at close quarters. And I admit, this was hotly debated
> throughout the 16th and 17th C's, but hey, if it was so hotly debated,
> then there was NO clear technological superiority to the long pike.

All good points, but on balance, I still feel that the obsolecence of LTS
cause by pikes IN PERIOD justifies a SLIGHT (much less than Warrior gives
now) edge to pikes, if the formations are of equal depth. Thus my
recommendation that ONE figure of ranks 3-6 of hoplites be allowed to
fight.


>
> I really enjoyed "Greek"'s contribution. Sounds like I should
> shut up
> and let him and Mike Bard do the talking, but of course, I won't.


I thought about inserting here a comment from Mr. Portocallis from My Big
Fat Greek Wedding, but will restrain myself and humly say thank you for
the compliment. :-)


>
> Given the responses, I'll put in my 2 cents worth on the list rules.
>
> 1) Although it would be fun, giving different list rules for different
> Greek states would, I think, make the list harder to use and harder to
> play against, which isn't all to the good. And one of the things that
> fascinated me about the Anabasis is the interoperability of all those
> different contingents. Yes, Xenophon clearly feels that Argives and
> Arcadians and Spartans all have special abilities, I grant it; but they
> could all fight together in the rear guard or the advance guard, where
> picked men of every "nationality" were placed. Special rules
> for
> special Hoplites is, I think, for a campaign. And to answer the comment
> about Ionian Hoplites; Greeks in the day didn't denigrate their
> performance; adverse comments were usually social, having to do with
> their willingness to serve "The King" ie Persia. Quite a good
> grave
> stele on Lesvos says the dead man served all over the place; he was an
> Ionian mercanary hoplite, fairly typical of the period.

Yes, he would get some rules, but I don't see a justification for this
fellow fighting 6 or 8 or 12 ranks deep.


>
> 2) The best point raised was the one about armor. One of the essential
> list changes should be to allow a much larger proportion of Hoplites to
> serve as HI. This is standard in that it can be point costed, should
> offend no one, and is easy to justify on several levels, just for
> example, the fact that most 4th C. commanders thought that the first
> piece or armor after the helmet should be greaves suggests that no one
> really felt a breastplate was neccessary under that Hoplon/Aspis. Let
> them up-armour to represent the Hoplon, and let them pay for it. Out on
> a limb here, if folks wanted to represent the early-middle Hoplite in
> full armor, they could be EHI (and pay for it) with a list rule that
> allowed them to move without fatigue; this would be the
> "Athelete"
> rule. And the numbers could be kept small. Like, General's elements.
> Also, let's leave an option to make a sizeable proportion of Hoplites
> Reg. B in any army; the Spartans didn't have a lock on good morale.
> Even, or perhaps especially, Mercenary forces seem to have had very good
> morale, and in some cases may have been better than City-State forces by
> virtue of service together. In answer to a list query about armor,
> Xenophon notes that in the 10,000, most men have a tunic, but he notes
> with pride that many have greaves. Yet when we get into the
> descriptions of fighting, a surprising number of men have corselets,
> although Xenophon himself seems to have had cavalry armor which was
> heavier and difficult to wear in rough terrain. (Anabasis III.4.46)
> Fianlly, let's limit the list rule advantages to true Hoplites - Reg C
> or better Greek or Mercenaries of the 6th-late 4th C. Who is a true
> Hoplite? Well, according to one of my books, if a city had a Gymnasium
> and used it to train young men for war, the Greek world thought that
> they were hoplites. Sounds like a good basis for definition to me.


This makes good sense.


>
> 3) I'm not sure what I think of unease. I love chariots, but I always
> wonder why, in period, any of the dozens of targets they couldn't harm
> in H-t-H are made uneasy by them. In period LC, for instance, ought to
> be salivating and edging forward uncontrolably....(Okay, I play JLS
> armed 2 horse Lchs, I admit). I guess on balance I don't think it's
> quite fair.


My main response here is that such a rule would slightly impair the
ability of celtiberians, and significantly impair the ability of thracians
to bust hoplites on contact, a phenomenon currently all too common!!

>
> 4) Fighting two full E's deep seems to me the least we can do to
> represent the power of the formation. I kind of like the notion of
> giving all oponents a minus 1 in all circumstances, too.

Agreed

>
> 5) The same wording and same circumstances as Roman Legionaires as to
> not having charges cancelled. Couple this with a 120 pace charge, and
> the Hoplite will be formidable, but still not unbeatable, against
> Barbarian foot. In answer to someone's comment about the 120 pace
> charge, Xenephon's very exact description of the Hoplite charge in
> practice (at a review by Cyrus) and in the field both describe the same
> charge. Assuming that 1 Stadia = 150 meters (Eratosthenes measurements
> of shadow and etc.) or 600 Greek Feet (at 12.15 modern inches per Greek
> foot.) Measurements of the Parthenon give us 12.13 modern inches to the
> Greek Foot. Either way, the stadia is roughly 600 feet. Xenephon says
> that the Greeks started their charge three stadia from the enemy; that's
> 600 yards. They advance, sing the Paean, "attack" their spears
> (advance
> them to the ready?) and break into a dead run. This is not an isolated
> instance. (Anabasis 1.8.1. Adding together all of Xenophon's
> descriptions, the average charge at a dead run was about 300 yards. It
> clearly took many opponents by surprise.


Very nice argument. Don't forget that many scholars also claim that the
Athenians at MArathon ran A LONG WAY to contact the Persians before arrows
could do much harm. This example argues for both the 120 pace charge AND
counting hoplites in cover in the open if in good order (and not
marching).


>
> 6) Making the Hoplon/Aspis count as cover sounds pretty darned powerful,
> especially with all these other advantages. If a way could be found to
> make the Hoplite pay for it (perhaps counting as "double shielded?)
> then
> fair enough; but if it's free, I'm afraid I think it's unfair.
> Historically justifiable, but in a game where shooting is so darned
> important...


I respectfully disagree, but might take increased flexibility of
uparmoring front ranks at conventional point cost as an acceptabole
alternative. See above.


> Someone raised the notion of making the Persians worse. I think that
> way madness lies...


Agreed. As I said before (and as Mark more cogently explained later) with
respect to peltasts, the solution is not to mess around with everyone else
who too easily beats hoplites (yes I mean even out of period moogs here
). The problem is WITH THE HOPLITE as currently ruled, and there we
will find acceptable and easily tailored solutions, as we have all been
saying here. Great input. Keep it up. For those of you who are
vegetarians, don't worry, we will have lamb!!!



Greek

Hi Greek, you wrote

>>>>Don't forget that many scholars also claim that the
Athenians at MArathon ran A LONG WAY to contact the Persians before arrows
could do much harm. This example argues for both the 120 pace charge AND
counting hoplites in cover in the open if in good order (and not
marching).<<<<<<<<<<


I suspect the -2 for shooting into contact already covers this situation,
and that the reduction in shooting effectiveness is more related to the
reduced amount of time left for shooting rather than the advantage of armour
or shields. Instead of pot-shotting for several minutes, you are only
getting a couple of volleys off before the chargers are into close quarters
fighting. So I don't agree that a cover save would apply when charging.

Allan

[Mark Stone]

--- On December 19 Christian Cameron said: ---

>
> Overall, I have to disagree with Marc, I don't think the Hoplite evolved
> into the Phalangite; I think the highly skilled Hoplite devolved into
> the single skill professional soldier; the long pike was easier to train
> to, didn't require that the Hoplon/Aspis be custom fit to the wearer,
> etc., etc.

I think we're saying exactly the same thing here, in two different ways.
Evolution can take many forms.

There are many times in our period of history when a small population kingdom
rises to preiminence or even dominance over larger neighbors. Macedon at the
time of Philip and Alexander, England during the 100 Year's War, Republican
Rome... there are broad similarities in all of these. In each case the rising
kingdom in question compensated for its much smaller population by rigorous
training and a bit of technology that enabled them to get more per man. The
English longbowman, the Roman legionary, and the Greek Hoplite all came out of
a very specific regimen of training and equipment that took a lifetime of
professional dedication to perfect. The result was a small army that was
devestatingly effective against larger and ostensibly more seasoned opponents.

The problem is that this approach doesn't scale. When you go from being a small
kingdom to a large empire, the resource economies that previously worked in
your favor suddenly conspire against you. Training hundreds to thousands to be
expert longbowmen, or swordsmen, or hoplites, with that kind of lifetime
dedication, is practical, affordable, and in the face of larger and more
aggressive neighbors often necessary. Training tens of thousands to hundreds of
thousands to that level of expertise is neither practical, affordable, nor
necessary.

The result when kingdoms become empires is evolution, but more economic
evolution than military evolution. The phalangite is the dominant troop type
replacing the hoplite because, given the quantity of such troops needed and the
scale of deployment involved, there simply is no way to train that many
hoplites. And -- this is really the key point -- a mediocre phalangite is a
better soldier than a mediocre hoplite, even if a superior hoplite is unmatched
in his time. This is the reason that the crossbow became the dominant missile
weapon in the Middle Ages rather than the longbow. The issue isn't which is the
better weapon in the hands of a veteran; in that case, the answer is clearly the
longbow. The issue is which is the better weapon in the hands of a novice. In
that case, the resounding answer is the crossbow.

I'm not sure what this means in terms of list rules for the hoplites. Off the
top of my head I would suggest that perhaps some list rules should apply only
to A and B class hoplites, and that the available quantity of such be limited.
A line like "Extra to upgrade C class hoplites to B @4 pts... 0-1/4" comes to
mind as a good way to go, together with general's elements being A class.

As to what list rules should be specific to higher morale troops, I'm not sure.
Off hand I would say counting any fighting figures beyond the 2nd rank, if used
as a list rule at all, should apply only to higher morale troops.

On a different point, let me comment on the "cause of unease" issue. I really,
really think this is a red herring. As I've said before, many fearsome troops
in many periods do not cause unease; I'm just not sure what's special about
hoplites. The argument is that this is a way of keeping them from being so
easily run over by barbarian foot, but that strikes me as artificial. The game
mechanics should work out that that's a risky proposition for the barbarian
commander, not that it is artificially mandated by a mysterious cause of
unease. Further, I don't think it will do much to solve the problem. Irr B
troops will come rolling in impetuously most of the time anyway, and any
reasonably skilled commander will use his army standard to get his C class
troops going impetuously at the moment when it really matters.

In short, "cause of unease" is an artificial fix that won't solve the problem in
most cases anyway.

Finally -- and I'm going to be brutishly rude about this, for which I apologize
in advance -- the whole "cause of unease" idea strikes me as the cry of an
inexperienced player looking for a rule to solve a problem he can't figure out
how to solve tactically. I would happily take the existing WRG hoplite list
against any army chock full of Celtiberians and feel that I was at no
particular handicap. There are a variety of ways to difuse my opponent's
impetous charges. To name a few:
- careful use of light troops to screen off his Celtiberians and/or harrass his
flanks;
- using my irregular foot to meet him in a mutual impetuous charge. I'll likely
lose, but neither side will likely rout at contact, and in the end his
Celtiberians will be left tired, disordered, and dead meat for my hoplites;
- managing the unit size of my hoplites properly, along with exploiting the fact
that I'm regular and he's not. In doing so, I can avoid matchups in which I will
rout at contact. And that's all I need. Once I _don't_ rout at contact, the fact
that he's a less dense body taking 2 for 1 fatigue as irregulars will eventually
do him in.

This may result in the Greeks adopting what some would regard as ahistorical
tactics. I'm afraid I have to shrug off that kind of historical snobbery. If
you are looking for that level of simulation, then Warrior isn't your game.
Warrior is a superb model of the overall feel of command and control in ancient
warfare, but if you're looking for a detailed historical re-enactment then you
should be in some other game system.


-Mark Stone

[Tim Grimmett]

Mark--

As the father of hoplite unease let me assure you I was merely brainstorming.

I've never played hoplites and in all likelihood may never play them.

The purpose was to throw out possible ideas for everyone to ponder. You'll note
I dropped the idea in my fleshed out proposal, which you are free to disembowel.

It may be the FHE decide hoplites don't deserve special list rules. Fine. Jon
opened the floor for ideas.

Apology in advance accepted.

Tim

Mark Stone <mark@...> wrote:
--- On December 19 Christian Cameron said: ---

>
As to what list rules should be specific to higher morale troops, I'm not sure.
Off hand I would say counting any fighting figures beyond the 2nd rank, if used
as a list rule at all, should apply only to higher morale troops.

On a different point, let me comment on the "cause of unease" issue. I really,
really think this is a red herring. As I've said before, many fearsome troops
in many periods do not cause unease; I'm just not sure what's special about
hoplites. The argument is that this is a way of keeping them from being so
easily run over by barbarian foot, but that strikes me as artificial. The game
mechanics should work out that that's a risky proposition for the barbarian
commander, not that it is artificially mandated by a mysterious cause of
unease. Further, I don't think it will do much to solve the problem. Irr B
troops will come rolling in impetuously most of the time anyway, and any
reasonably skilled commander will use his army standard to get his C class
troops going impetuously at the moment when it really matters.

In short, "cause of unease" is an artificial fix that won't solve the problem in
most cases anyway.

Finally -- and I'm going to be brutishly rude about this, for which I apologize
in advance -- the whole "cause of unease" idea strikes me as the cry of an
inexperienced player looking for a rule to solve a problem he can't figure out
how to solve tactically. I would happily take the existing WRG hoplite list
against any army chock full of Celtiberians and feel that I was at no
particular handicap. There are a variety of ways to difuse my opponent's
impetous charges. To name a few:
- careful use of light troops to screen off his Celtiberians and/or harrass his
flanks;
- using my irregular foot to meet him in a mutual impetuous charge. I'll likely
lose, but neither side will likely rout at contact, and in the end his
Celtiberians will be left tired, disordered, and dead meat for my hoplites;
- managing the unit size of my hoplites properly, along with exploiting the fact
that I'm regular and he's not. In doing so, I can avoid matchups in which I will
rout at contact. And that's all I need. Once I _don't_ rout at contact, the fact
that he's a less dense body taking 2 for 1 fatigue as irregulars will eventually
do him in.

This may result in the Greeks adopting what some would regard as ahistorical
tactics. I'm afraid I have to shrug off that kind of historical snobbery. If
you are looking for that level of simulation, then Warrior isn't your game.
Warrior is a superb model of the overall feel of command and control in ancient
warfare, but if you're looking for a detailed historical re-enactment then you
should be in some other game system.


-Mark Stone

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 - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.

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