Good Ancients Match-Ups

[hammurabi70]

Split into 4 sub-genres is an interesting suggestion.
I was observing elsewhere that few of us understand horse riding - far less the dynamics of 2 bodies of 600 riders attempting to fight from horseback.
How much harder must it be to imagine the development of a chariot (or elephant) fight.

Off genre, but unshielded pikes are another.
Nobody can really explain how the front ranks of renaissance pike-blocks didn't all get skewered.

Even further off genre, I watched the growth of Phil Barker's Horse, Foot and Guns over the course of a decade? (Has it been that long).
His brave attempt to cover firearm warfare from matchlocks to magazine rifles was visibly sinking under the weight of the troop combinations.
(Matchlock infantry against paddlewheel gunboats anybody).
The whole thing became a lot clearer when one looked at a specific engagement and eliminated all the types that were not present form the grid.
Your 30 x 30 possible interactions suddenly reduces to 5 x 5 or 6 x 6, most of the obscure combat outcomes disappear, and there is some hope of concentrating on the tabletop action.


Perhaps a vision of the future is an electronic reference sheet that can automatically show "just the relevant stuff".

Ironically, sorting through my papers in my retirement yesterday, I encountered my playtest copy of HFG from the 1990s.  They well illustrate the difficulties of one set of rules covering a long period of history: you have to simplify to a certain limit of troop types and thereby start losing flavour.  The popular ancients rules at the moment are MeG and ADLG.  In my view there is a real need for some up to date sub-period rules, which does not resolve your choice of opponents for the Romans using TTS.  Given the rules have points for building armies I should have thought it possible to balance the armies.  I would agree that basic infantry armies such as Celtic ones tend to be charge the enemy and win on luck routines, hence my suggestion to go for those with different and interesting troop types, Dacians, Persians and so forth.  Then again, were the Romans so different?  I am not sure that ancient armies were manoeuvre armies; Hannibal's skill seems to have been to anticipate how a battle might develop and deploy to use that to advantage.  What are you looking for in the rules?  What aspect of TTS makes them the 'go-to' rules for you and which armies can be seen to focus on that?

I'm reminded of the story of Hannibal being taunted by the Roman commander who said,"If you are as great a general as they say you are come out and fight me!" To which Hannibal replied,"If you are as good a general as you think you are, make me!"

I believe it was Marius.
In the Civil War,127 when he found himself  p203 surrounded by a trench and cut off by the enemy, he held out and bided his own time. Pompaedius128 Silo said to him, "If you are a great general, Marius, come down and fight it out." Marius, "If you are a great general, make me fight it out when I do not wish to do so!"
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Sayings_of_Romans*/B.html

Probably a well known ancient comment much like falling to your knees on leaping from the landing boat and grasping the soil to illustrate you are taking the new land.

[Raider4]

I suggest one set of rules for the entire period is very unsatisfactory.

Warmaster Ancients - the only "ancients" ruleset I own (I think . . . certainly the first) - goes up to 1066, so you could have Normans v. Trojans.

At which point I think I'd rather play proper fantasy rather than fantastical history, and have more fun in Middle Earth, the Hyborian Age or Westeros.

[steve_holmes_11]

Ironically, sorting through my papers in my retirement yesterday, I encountered my playtest copy of HFG from the 1990s.  They well illustrate the difficulties of one set of rules covering a long period of history: you have to simplify to a certain limit of troop types and thereby start losing flavour.  The popular ancients rules at the moment are MeG and ADLG.  In my view there is a real need for some up to date sub-period rules, which does not resolve your choice of opponents for the Romans using TTS.  Given the rules have points for building armies I should have thought it possible to balance the armies.  I would agree that basic infantry armies such as Celtic ones tend to be charge the enemy and win on luck routines, hence my suggestion to go for those with different and interesting troop types, Dacians, Persians and so forth.  Then again, were the Romans so different?  I am not sure that ancient armies were manoeuvre armies; Hannibal's skill seems to have been to anticipate how a battle might develop and deploy to use that to advantage.  What are you looking for in the rules?  What aspect of TTS makes them the 'go-to' rules for you and which armies can be seen to focus on that?

I believe it was Marius.
In the Civil War,127 when he found himself  p203 surrounded by a trench and cut off by the enemy, he held out and bided his own time. Pompaedius128 Silo said to him, "If you are a great general, Marius, come down and fight it out." Marius, "If you are a great general, make me fight it out when I do not wish to do so!"
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Sayings_of_Romans*/B.html

Probably a well known ancient comment much like falling to your knees on leaping from the landing boat and grasping the soil to illustrate you are taking the new land.

Hannibal - now there's a general.
When I read about his victories, I tend to leave thinking "He had that one won before they deployed the miniatures".
A masterful eye for laying an ambush or baiting a trap.
Things that are so difficult to accomplish on a tabletop set to.

Harking back to my games of the WRG numbered rules.
(I think it was there i developed my distaste for the Imperial Romans).
My main recollection was the legionaries (with HTW) slaughtering their opponents at first contact.
It mattered little how many extra units your barbarian points had bought, because they would disappear in the reaction tests after witnessing routing friends.

The thing that mattered was having rules that could cope with EHCm Camelphracts charging at a WWg Carioccio standard cart with halberdier escorts.

[Ithoriel]

+1 if Circus elephants with swivel mounted naptha throwers .... anyone?

To get back to the over-mighty Romans .....

Possible solutions include

1. Unless playing solo, play two games with players taking turns at being the Romans. Aggregate the scores.

2. Play scenario games where the Romans have a harder time employing their strengths. Teutoburger Wald and the Icenian ambush of 9th Legion spring to mind.

3. Play scenario games where losing the battle does not equal losing the game. Losing less badly than expected can still be a win in such games.

4. Play against incompetents ... and give them the Romans to even the odds  

[paulr]

...
For instance, using the maps presented here:
https://www.worldhistorymaps.info/maps.html
...
Lovely maps on that website if nothing else, and a great resource,

Bookmarked thanks

[FierceKitty]

Surely the solution is to read a fair amount of contemporary history, work out how they were at times beaten or nearly beaten (by almost every opponent once or twice), and what they did about it; then write rules that make these events possible. My Romans are tough and dangerous, but I never feel confident of winning with them - and I don't only play against Lee, aka Krisanan the Terrible.

[hammurabi70]

Hannibal - now there's a general.
When I read about his victories, I tend to leave thinking "He had that one won before they deployed the miniatures".
A masterful eye for laying an ambush or baiting a trap.
Things that are so difficult to accomplish on a tabletop set to.

Harking back to my games of the WRG numbered rules.
(I think it was there i developed my distaste for the Imperial Romans).
My main recollection was the legionaries (with HTW) slaughtering their opponents at first contact.
It mattered little how many extra units your barbarian points had bought, because they would disappear in the reaction tests after witnessing routing friends.

The thing that mattered was having rules that could cope with EHCm Camelphracts charging at a WWg Carioccio standard cart with halberdier escorts.

Alexander, Hannibal and Napoleon are the three greatest generals in history IMHO, and Hannibal is one reason why I find the Punic Wars of particular interest.

I suspected that it was 6thEd/7thEd WRG that you had encountered in the past.  The DBX revolution of 30 years ago took a big bite out of previous concepts and the Romans have wavered as being took weak or strong according to the rules in use.  If you want to avoid straight punch-ups then do not have armies using single type troops in profusion, like Celtic warbands, but go with more 'civilised' armies that have multiple ways of killing you, both on foot and horseback, and give plenty of variety in troop types.  I lack insight into TTS style of play.

[FierceKitty]

Alexander, Frederick, and Nobunaga for my top three.

[steve_holmes_11]

Alexander, Frederick, and Nobunaga for my top three.

Wellesley, Slim and Yi would like a word (Outside in the car-park).

[FierceKitty]

Yi was a brilliant naval leader. Slim was...what's the word?...ah, yes...an American. And I think Wellington would probably agree that his gift was not for dazzling tactics but rather for extreme (and campaign-winning) attention to detail.

[FierceKitty]

Alexander, Hannibal and Napoleon are the three greatest generals in history IMHO, and Hannibal is one reason why I find the Punic Wars of particular interest.

I suspected that it was 6thEd/7thEd WRG that you had encountered in the past.  The DBX revolution of 30 years ago took a big bite out of previous concepts and the Romans have wavered as being took weak or strong according to the rules in use.  If you want to avoid straight punch-ups then do not have armies using single type troops in profusion, like Celtic warbands, but go with more 'civilised' armies that have multiple ways of killing you, both on foot and horseback, and give plenty of variety in troop types.  I lack insight into TTS style of play.

Anyway, Scipio taught Hannibal the error of his ways.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Slim was...what's the word?...ah, yes...an American.

Be very carful, A Gurhka form his Indian Army Rgt is on his way, small man with VVERY big knife. Slim was British Indian Army, and very possibly the best General in WWII

[FierceKitty]

Oops - I'm thinking of Slim Pickens!

[Ithoriel]

Bill Slim - CO of 14th Army in Burma. He of the quote,

'Why does the British Army always fight  its battles in the dark, in the pouring rain, on  a hill were two maps meet'.

[fsn]

There is somewhere a video called "Best German Generals of WWII", which asks what type of general. Defensive? Offensive? All rounder? What about the quality of troops being led? And availability of resources? And type of troops?

British generals like Montgomery in 1944 and Wellington were entrusted with a precious resource to be husbanded. Haig in 1916 had an army who had been civvies 12 months before. Wellington in the early days of the Peninsula never had the amount of cavalry his opponents did; Slim has a polyglot army in difficult terrain, Alexander in Italy has similar but different issues, including some very high profile American generals.

I suppose what I'm saying is that it is not easy to compare. Would Wellington have been as effective leading a cavalry army? Would he have fared so well as a 2ic for Moore? How would Marlborough have coped on a battlefield that spanned a continent? Would Slim's rather unconventional style have been as effective in Normandy?     

And I'm only thinking about British generals.

We should also be wary of the publicity machine. Ask a member of the public to name a Roman general and I would contend that the overwhelming majority would name Julie Baby. His story overshadows that of Pompey or Marius or Scipio. Even in WWII Mark Clark required press releases to talk about "Mark Clark's 5th Army"; Patton and McArthur were given great public exposure, but were they "better" than Vinegar Joe Stilwell? (Could you imagine Patton in China?!) 

We make these judgments with the background of the circumstances that the generals found themselves in. I contend it is difficult if not impossible to objectively compare generals from different times with different aims.