Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[lilroblis]

This theme is probably the one I have done the most prep for ever, and I really like the work that has gone into preparing these lists.
I believe there are 3-4 really good builds off the face of it, and probably at least one or two I am not seeing:
The first one that jumps out at me is the barbarians either Gallic or THracian - Gallicit has always been an army I have loved, and in fact I won the last Hoplite theme with a Gallic army 1720 points of fanatics with barbarian foot rules - I think they will do well, but they are an army that is more fun than necessarily competitive. You get hot with your dice you win, otherwise you lose, except that there is a lot of good play that helps - Thracian has a lot of options that make it very tough lots of Irr A/ or more dependable Irr B, some good rank and a half cavalry - it is a good list probably beter than the Gallic if somewhat more expensive.
The next best build is the HC/ LC that wedges - so you could build Lydians, Later Achaemenid Persian, early Macedonian, and have a list which is almost impossible to beat as you have all LC and HC/EHC/ LI/Skirmishing LMI - and Hoplites just cannot catch you and will probably be out cavalried - so win the war of lights and thus the game overall.
The last Build is really Hoplite with Lance or Thessalian Cavalry.
The two best lists are (in my opinion) Spartan with Aiolian allies in the early period - very good infantry and pretty good lance armed cav - good list.
The next list that I really like is Theban with Thessallian allies / Or spartans- the foot is not quite as good as the Spartans (IMHO), but you get lots of good regular rank and a half HC/LC which is always fun to run. Both can counter the cavalry lists to some degree and can beat other hoplite lists by greater depth fighting. Spartans 2.5 ranks Thebans 3 ranks but it is hard to get width - so first turn spartand 10 @3 =25 thebans 12@3 30 - very narrow win second turn Thebans 8@3 = 20 Spartans 16@2=32 and the Thebans die (extra ranks are only if charging counter charging or persuing- not sure that following up counts ) but even if it does 12@3 =30 16@2 =32 and the Thebans die on equal numbers.
None of the other Hoplite lists is as good in my opinion - note the later Spartans dont get the L cav option so are weaker in my opinion.
Nonetheless at least 8 good builds that will allow players to play to their strengths - but at least 3 of them are Hoplite which is really good for a theme.
Comments anyone?

[Bill Low]

While the list of available armies is short, and the range of troop types somewhat limited, there is a surprising degree of variety among them ... as Robert points out ... and plenty of scope of the "rock-paper-scissors" aspect of Warrior gaming.

Who is going to outguess who?

Just have to wait and see!

P.S. When assessing Thebans vs. Spartans, remember that while the Thebans beat the Spartans on even dice, the consequences to the Thebans of a down-roll are very much more severe. R-P-S.

[Phokion1]

Hi--long time off this list. I keep adding and taking away form this post to try and sound less shrill, so please, this is meant only as one gamer trying to build an army, and not as a rant...

So, I want to build an historic hoplite army. Looking at the early Hoplite list--I'm confounded.

Where's the Athenian empire? (Athenians plus Ionians/Aeolians from 498BCE to at least 430? The Athenians in Aegypt? The Athenian/Spartan armies and fleets from 480 to 464?) Where's the Allied army of Plataea (Spartan command, 1/3 Spartan Forces, 1/3 Athenian forces). Where are Athen's plucky allies of Plataea (the Bravest of the Army according to Herodotus--at Plataea. Just some Reg C guys, I guess. Braver than Spartans... but reg C))

who are all these ally generals? Were Greek commanders really so unreliable? Look at Aristides at Plataea...

The list looks--sorry--terribly dated--a sort of "Thucydides and Peloponnesion war only" approach to hoplite warfare.

I know that the assault on Thucydides and his pro-Spartan stance is relatively recent in scholarship--but it's now widely accepted that he cooked the books.

Hey, I want to play one of these armies--not just griping to gripe. Let me try to make a good argument. Think, for example, of all the list rules and special upgrades given to a variety of troops and even whole peoples based on "might have beens."

Now think of the Athenians at Marathon. Heavens--they don't even get a sublist? They can't upgrade a single whole body to Reg B? (Not even Militades veterans from the Chersonese? Wow.)

But it is not just Marathon that seems to be slighted (even though contemporaries--people who were there, including Spartans, thought it was the greatest victory of the age).

The allied army at Plataea (Spartan command, Spartan sub general, Athenian sub general who willingly takes orders from the Spartans, Plataeans, other smaller and less reliable states)

The allied army at Mycale (Spartan command, Athenian sub general with really, really reliable Athenians)

The double victory--(Eurymedon) (ca 488BCE) Athenian command, with Delian League allies on land and sea.

Aegupt ((ca. 455) The Delian League's disaster--but again, Athenian and allied continegents on land and sea along with Saite Aegyptians.

OK. Rant off. I'm guessing that the list authors were interested in the 30 Year's War and not in the Athenian Empire, the Delian League, or the Persian Wars. Or, say, in the late 6th C BCE, when Athens defeated Sparta at least twice... or the Peisistratid cavalry army, or... or...or...

I'd really like to play an Athenian Empire army, or the army at Plataea, or something on that order. Any thoughts?

[lilroblis]

Bill is the owner of these - I dont know enough to know why the lists are structured as they are - but can pretty much bet there is a good reason, however if you send Bill a message with what your thoughts are he is very open minded (in my opinion), but knows the history pretty well especially in this period.
Look forward to the gaming
Robert

[Phokion1]

That was a less than perfectly civil post and I re-read it with a wince. I'll send to Bill off line...

But I was shocked. I mean, the Saite Egyptians can upgrade 1/4 of their questionable levies to Reg B--but not the victors of Marathon...

[Ed Kollmer]

Yo
I claim no expertise on the lists and everything that Robert said is gospel.
However, from my first impressions, I would think the reason is: your request is for specific armies and very microscopic where the list generated are very macroscopic.
A specific army for a specific battle at a specific time is hard to digest into a army list which covers hundreds of years.
Each of the armies you described, would, I think require its own list. Imagine how many lists of books there would be if they did that.
I do understand you basic premise. I like the Ex-Cyreans (10000). I would like to build a historical army of them, but I would have had very little choices and maybe not a very good army. But as a purist, like I sometime am. Who CARES if it not that good of an army.

Ed Leonidas/Memnon Kollmer

[Phokion1]

Well, we all game for different reasons. I think that Ancient Greece is one of the core periods for all ancient gaming. Athens at Marathon isn't a "niche." The Skythians are a niche. Saite Egypt is a micro-niche. The Allied Army at Plataea was arguably the largest and most important western army in history bar none. Had they lost, there would never have been an Alexander or a Caesar--eh?

When I write a list, and I've been writing them for this game since 1988, I write it first to be playable and second to represent the core--the most important part--of the period. This list represents the 30 Year's war as the core of the period. that's a list writing decision that is completely understandable given how some folks view Thucydides. You have to understand that I say this with a smile--but it is an odd view, rather like deciding that the US participation in the ACW was far more important than the US participation in the American Revolution or in WWII.

Anyway, I wrote that post in haste and it has way too much tone. If I am nit-pciking--well, I'm a gamer.

[Bill Low]

Hey, Phokion.

Great to see such energy and commitment! Classical Greece is one my favorite areas … okay, I’ve got a lot of them … and it’s always fun to get into the pluses and minuses of this army, this general, this troop type. Just as it says in the introduction to each of the Warrior army booklets, such debates are a big part of the fun of playing Ancients.

Building army lists is a blast … as well as a lot of drudgery and hard work … but no one should pretend they are perfect. Nor are they consistent … we are perfectly capable of singling out one specific instance and creating a list rule or line item to model it, while ignoring tons of others with an equal claim to fame. There is that element of serendipity to them.

But as limiting (and irritating) as the lists might be, please remember that lists are essentially guidelines, not binding rules, and you can ignore them at will. Any historical scenario will almost automatically be done off-list, and you are more than welcome to model any historical army in any way you like. For the purposes of tournament or competition play, of course, it’s important to have a level playing field, and the lists provide that, but anything goes in a friendly game.

I don’t know that it makes sense to try to respond to each of your points ... you obviously know the period very well ... but maybe a couple of thoughts might help to understand our process a little better.

As Ed suggested earlier in this thread, the goal is not so much to depict a particular army at a particular battle as it is to reflect the generality of experience over an extended period of time. In the case of the hoplite armies of the Greek city states, we were mainly looking for two things: things that seemed to be unique about an army (or at least distinguished it from others) and (especially in the area of upgrades you mention) the general hierarchy of reputation among the Greeks themselves.

For one example, we worked hard to come up with a mechanic that would make sense of the uniquely deep formations used by the Thebans; the Greek world was stunned by their victory at Leuktra, but the deep columns (said to have been up to 50 shields deep) were not always effective. Why? And what was their relationship to the Macedonian phalanx, supposed by some to have been inspired by their tactics?

For another, on the upgrade front, the Ancient Greeks held the Argives in high regard, so they get upgrades (even though their battlefield performance doesn’t seem to have been all that special in the better recorded periods); similarly, however high the reputation of their fleet, the Athenian hoplites were generally regarded (and, as far as I can tell, generally performed, at least against other hoplites) at a very middling level. Should the Athenians get an upgrade for Marathon? Maybe, but I’m not persuaded that the Athenians (man for man), good as they were, did all that much more against the Persians than most other hoplites would have done in similar circumstances; their unique victory may owe more to “political” factors (e.g, the broad franchise) and extraordinary leadership (not just Miltiades, but the polemarch Kallimachos as well) than to any innately superior quality of the troops.

I'm no fan of Sparta or the Spartan way, but it is hard to ignore the special place they occupied in the Greek hierarchy of time and andreia.

Somewhat similar considerations come into play in combining allied contingents. As your post suggests, from a certain point of view, you might as well allow anyone to ally with anyone else, since they were all friends and enemies at one point or another. But such an approach would, in my view, miss two key points:

First, as noted above, we are looking more to reflect broad themes than specific instances. Without getting into a Thucydidean debate (which would be fun, and by the way I do respect his essential honesty while allowing for some natural bias and curious omissions), what’s left to us of Classical Greek history presents Athenians and Spartans as a classic contrast in styles and approaches, as was true of other relationships (such as the long-term antipathy of Phokis and Thebes), and we would like to retain some of that flavor.

Second, recalling that we use distinctive features to differentiate armies, you can model all (or, if not all, just about all) of the combinations you mention using the existing lists, so long as you don’t use the “distinctive” troops (which are mostly pretty chrome-ish anyway).

What’s wrong, for example, with modeling the Spartan-lead army at Plataea with a strong Lakedaimonian contingent, supported by contingents of allied hoplites (you may know that they represent the Athenians, Corinthians and mixed Peloponnesians who were on the field that day, but you don’t need to include the “Athenian” toxotai to do that, which is about all an “Athenian” army gets to distinguish it from any other).

For another example, a generic Greek army would not do badly in modeling the Athenians in Egypt, when on their own; if you want to see them together with the Egyptians, try a Saitic Egyptian list with a strong allied Greek contingent.

For a third example, considering the Aeolians/Ionians, as a very general proposition there don’t seem to have been that many occasions when Athenians and Aeolians/Ionians fought shoulder to shoulder on the mainland of Asia AND were using the special troop types available to “named” contingents of those types, so again a generic Greek hoplite army might be the way to go. (You could make about the same argument about the Spartans in Asia, especially in the Great Persian War battles you mention, but there were rather more instances of Spartan generals, esp. Agesilaos, in the on-again/off-again land war with Persia after the Peloponnesian War, with greater attested use of the special troops available to Aeolian/Ionians under the early list, which in our minds justified the alliance opportunity.)

But before I start (start?) to sound too defensive, let me remind all readers on this Forum that we are soliciting comments on the special lists for the Hoplite Theme at Historicon 2012 that were published late last year. We’ve already received a number of insightful comments, corrections and errata and hope to get many more. While some things will not survive in a revised Classical Warrior … especially, sadly, the plethora of list rules designed for the Theme … really a lot to take into an open tournament environment … others will and we would be more than happy to use the excitement about the coming Hoplite Theme to generate lasting improvements for CW overall. So blast away!

The couple of things I would ask (and Scott may have others), when suggesting changes, is that your comments/complaints (i) be specific and actionable (“these lists suck” may be true, but is not all that helpful), (ii) provide historical support for your suggestions wherever possible (Scott is very strong on this) and (iii) consider the implications of the change for other troop types or armies (are we creating a monster?).

Also … now I’m descending into a bit too much detail, sorry … try to make whatever mechanics you want to suggest reflective of what happened historically; there is so much we will never know about the Ancient Greek experience that this last might seem totally risible, but we do know something, and there is IMP in the background, and we should all try to avoid “plus 1 to all die rolls” if we can come up with something better. I'm no scholar, but I do love the period and would like to be as true to it as we can manage and still run a play-able game.

Final plea ... don't be mad at us if we don't adopt your suggestions! Or if our reasoning sounds bogus; it may be, but our intentions are good!

Thanks for your patience, and we look forward to your suggestions for improvements.

[Phokion1]

Bill--Well, I don't agree. We can agree to disagree, of course.

I will note, though, that I have written lists--for you--in a number of your books. I know the process well--very well. And I think your comments are a trifle disingenuous. On some lists, we use any scrap of evidence to expand troop capability. In this case, we have one of the most famous forces of ancient times, and because Thucydides, a pro-Spartan commentator who needed to tell his audience that the manhood of Athens was in decline made some aspersions...

In fact, Bill, I'll challenge you on the matter of rating Athenian Hoplites. They were consistently rated the best or second best in Greece--BY THE SPARTANS. Right? Who never feared the Argives and are openly contemptuous of the Boeotians in this period.

As to the Athenian use of oarsmen and or Aetolians--Mycale, and Sphacteria. Pro-Spartan historians tend to have a way of proclaiming that Sphacteria doesn't count--or wasn't important. But it caused the defeat of Sparta in the war, and it was a very important land/sea battle with hoplites and light troops--bigger, in fact, then most battles of the middle ages. It resulted in the capture of an entire Spartan taxis.

And yes, of course I can put together a nice, not very tournament worthy army and call it Athenian. In fact, I can put together a Spartan army with Aetolian allies and call it Athenian. But if that's how we view lists...

It's funny, but when I was working on Classical Warrior many years ago, submitting lists, Mike Bard tried to get me to be interested in this issue and I passed. I couldn't see why he was SO MAD. If I sound shrill, perhaps it is just that I finally picked up on the issue that had him so steamed back in 2004, or whenever that was.

[Phokion1]

On a less argumentative basis...

[Ed Kollmer]

Nice picture. Good for shield designs.

[Bill Low]

Quick note just to let you know that we are working on a supportable Athenian list that should have some cool options and interesting twists. Stay tuned!

[Mark Stone]

My 2 cents on this discussion. I realize I'm coming in late, and I don't post here that often any more, and I'm certainly no historian, but....

Every rules system captures only a small glimpse of history based on certain assumptions. Bringing in facts that challenge those assumptions does not automatically undermine the validity of the rules system, because it is, after all, just a glimpse, and the modesty of Mistress History never grants us more than that. And I love Warrior, and appreciate its creators and stewards, for providing a vehicle that gives us an amazing glimpse into certain real truths about military history.

In that spirit, I think everyone who criticizes and participates in Warrior (like Phokion1) does so because the precious handful of truths Warrior has captured inspire us to test the boundaries and see if we can get a greater glimpse from Mistress History. If the stewards of Warrior answer "no" that does not invalidate either the criticism nor the rules system that denies accomodation to that criticism. It merely reminds us of the humility with which we must approach history, and what a capricious mistress she is to serve.

Ok, enough preamble. Now a bit of speculation about history, rules systems aside.

I have come to suspect that there are a number of episodes throughout military history in which a small group of military artisans, for lack of a better term, have come up with a genuine innovation that is a blend of technology and rigorous craftsmanship. These innovators, in spreading their craft, have enabled apparent underdogs to achieve surprising triumphs. Because shrewd leaders study triumph, they have noted these innovations and the attendant craftsmanship, and considered how they might be applied more generally, and concluded that this kind of artisanship doesn't scale.

So they have looked for the 80% solution: what technical innovation captures the majority of the craft without requiring actual dedicated artisans to put into pracitce? In other words, what simple tool could be given to the masses that would approximate enough of what the artisan does?

To make this concrete I'll use an example from Medieval history, which I know much better than Ancient Greek history.

Consider the English longbow. In an age of increasingly heavily armored cavalry, it had an important advantage over an ordinary hunting bow, because of the tremendous penetrating power it had. The English longbow was to the Medieval knight what the German 88 was to the WWII tank: a deadly counter-point to be taken seriously and approached carefully. But....

It actually isn't very easy to construct a longbow, nor the arrows. It's a craft, and takes very particular materials, which weren't all that easy to come by. More importantly, it is astonishingly difficult to wield a longbow effectively. You really have to try it yourself to appreciate what an amazing feat of arms this is (yes, re-enactment has an important part to play in our understanding of history). I won't begin to speculate about the cultural and technological environment that led to the creation of the longbow in the British Isles (ok, I'll speculate a little: boar hunting). But I do know that to gain profiency one had to start as a child and dedicate years to the craft. In a world of part time soldiers, that meant that in England, in the 14th century, the number of proficient artisans numbered at most in the thousands. And on the continent, the number was 0.

Ok, so the English incorporate this innovation into their army, and achieve a string of -- at the time -- surprising victories that changes the playing field in Europe and alters the outcome of the 100 Year's War. The French and Italians aren't stupid (possibly the Spanish are). They understand why the English are successful, but they also understand that the exact method by which the English achieved success ISN'T SCALABLE. What to do?

Behold the crossbow, a common but not a dominant missile weapon in Europe in 1300. By the end of the 100 Year's War it becomes the most prevalent missile weapon in European armies. After all, it has the penetrating power of the longbow, and while it lacks the rate of fire, it achieves that penetrating power by mechanical means, rather than by physical prowess, making it a weapon for the masses, rather than a weapon restricted to the artisan. It is the 80% solution.

I think Warrior captures these nuances imperfectly at best. And I'm ok with that. I think Warrior could capture these nuances better without breaking the rules system, but I'm just not motivated to push that agenda right now.

So what does any of this have to do with Greek history?

Well, I speculate -- because here I am even more out of my historical depths -- that the Greek Hoplite is to the English longbowman as the Alexandrian Phalangite is to the continental crossbowman.

Think about it. The main difference between LTS and P is length. An advantage in length is great, if you can get the tip to the right place at the right time (warfare, guys, warfare; I'm not talking about anything else here). But the shorter length is clearly more manueverable, and has a definite advantage once foes are in close combat. But to take advantage of greater maneuverability requires skill. And to exploit that greater maneuverability in formation requires an artisan. Someone dedicated to the practice of arms with that particular weapon, and a group of similar comrades. A great approach to warfare, except: IT ISN'T SCALABLE. The Greeks developed specific cultural institutions that promoted this artisanship, but really wasn't an approach to warfare that could spread to the rest of the Mediterranean world.

So how do you keep soldiers in deep formation that lack the skill, and the courage born of confidence in skill? Give them a longer weapon. One that penalizes breaks in deep formation because turning to the side on your own is clumsy and difficult. One whose very length encourages you to stay with the formation because there's no easy way to do otherwise. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the Phalangite. A troop type for the masses.

And I speculate even further that one of Alexander's great inishgts -- whether or not a fully conscious one -- was that veterans of any ilk outweigh rookies with any weapon, and that if he could just keep his army in the field long enough he would have a cadre of veterans the likes of which the world had never seen.

Pure speculation on my part, all of it (at least the Greek part).

But if there's even a grain of truth to it, then we should wonder who were these Greek artisans that the Macedonians masses sought to emulate with their 80% solution. And we should wonder if this historical truth -- if indeed it is a historical truth -- is one that Warrior can accommodate. Not because we want to complain about a rules system that is imperfect, but because we hope that a rules system that is this good can be even better.

[Historian]

There is another parallel to your Crossbow vs. Longbow analogy. The Macedonian Pike was a more complicated device than the Greek Spear. The Pike was actually a 12 foot spear, with a detachable 3 foot extension. While in march, the Phalanx only carried the spear. There were also instances, mainly when fighting in rough terrain, where the extension was not employed. The armorers that built and maintained the Pike were considered valuable craftsmen.

[Ed Kollmer]

WOW
GReat discussion.
I really enjoyed the comments and the insights
Ed Kollmer