Pendraken Miniatures Forum

Something I've been wondering lately, how effective do you think charging as infantry was against other infantry?

I'm thinking mostly from a mechanical perspective here. A lot of rules attribute some form of bonus to the charger, but I've never come across much in historical accounts. Usually the force they were charging would either be charging too or have braced their spears and shields, in both cases essentially nullifying any charging "bonus".

I'm talking infantry charging infantry here, not cavalry. I'm also not saying ancient infantry didn't charge, they did, particularly for the last stretch between forces, but more if being the one instigating the charging inferred some physical advantage to the combat. 

Of course the physiological aspect can't be overlooked and I know in gunpowder era that fixing bayonets and charging was an effective way to break an enemy's morale, but that doesn't seem to be the case so much in ancient warfare, where close combat was expected and troops tended to be armoured or equipped for it.

What do people think?

Caveat, I'm pretty heavily laden with the cold so I may be taking nonsense...  ;D

I suspect this is one of those things that appear in wargames because they've always appeared in wargames.

What I do believe is there is an element of historic context.

Back in the world of ancients, then a pepped up warband full of Irregular A fervour and hallucinogens is a threat to some of the era's finest defenders.
However, Irregular A warbands were a rarity, and most troops showed a lot more respect for their own life and limb.
This leads to a lot of flinching before stepping into killing range, and it's the advancing troops who have the most cohesion to lose from flinching.

Fast forward to the Pike and Shot era, and infantry generally appear to have adopted the role of the mobile firebase.
As with ancients, you'll find some determined cornishmen and others who are prepared to dive into pike combat with determination.
But it seems that most battalia preferred to come up a bit short, and let their accompanying shooters exchange volleys.

And the pattern repeats:
Consider WW2 - most soldiers "don't like it up em", and are equipped to conduct combat at longer distances.
Those prepared to neglect their health to close with the enemy are still achieving remarkable win ratios.

By this point (in fact by the point of the magazine repeater) we start to witness the highly aggressive chargers still winning, but starting to suffer disproportionate casualties during their wins.
The science of war starts looking into methods of keeping your spearhead troops in top form.
That may be a humane - short dangerous deployments followed by rotation and rest (like the Western paras and commandos).
Or it may be - Create more guards divisions as the old ones are annihilated, or expect every soldier to die for the emperor.

Individual battles provide exceptions.
Determined troops who immediately get stuck in and achieve surprise often win with remarkably few casualties.
This applies from the Grande Armee at Jena to the Paras at Goose Green.


Let me return to the question, and attempt a sensible answer.

I don't believe a charge (as we understand it in our rules - ie movement to contact) does confer advantage.
I do believe what the ancients crowd term an impetuous charge (with emphasis on closing the range as fast as possible, as opposed to all the screaming, running about naked and painting yourself blue) is a surefire winner.
However the impetuous charge will vary slightly according to military equipment, and it's very difficult to guarantee that the charge you order will arrive with its impetuosity intact.

QuoteI suspect this is one of those things that appear in wargames because they've always appeared in wargames.

....


Let me return to the question, and attempt a sensible answer.

I don't believe a charge (as we understand it in our rules - ie movement to contact) does confer advantage.
I do believe what the ancients crowd term an impetuous charge (with emphasis on closing the range as fast as possible, as opposed to all the screaming, running about naked and painting yourself blue) is a surefire winner.
However the impetuous charge will vary slightly according to military equipment, and it's very difficult to guarantee that the charge you order will arrive with its impetuosity intact.

Yeah that sounds sensible. Certainly we see a more aggressive and disciplined unit can often overwhelm their opponent at contact, but that seems more like it's the unit itself and their quality rather than they being the ones who charge. Battle lines would push at each other, pull back, skirmish and have a lot of back and forth rather than a full charge then mad messy melee.


The context for this is a few sets of rules I've been working on and the charge mechanic is one I've gone back and forth on. At present I have a charge test that they can pass or fail, though an extreme pass confers a bonus in melee (and an extreme fail causes them to flinch back instead). I'm considering doing away with this and instead having some other penalty/bonus system instead, but simply giving the better unit a charge bonus doesn't make sense since they'll have the advantage in melee already from being higher quality. Then again, the aggressive act of instigating the charge might be enough to consider conferring advantage.

I recall Caesar's account of Pharsalus, and his emphasis on the value of a "Get 'em, boys" attitude (he blames Pompey for neglecting this and rather trying to rest his troops).

One of the things I like about Strength and Honour is that battle lines tend to push each other about until someone piles up enough advantages to start the rot.

For the Ancients and Medieval period, at least, I suspect the psychological advantage of initiating a charge may have been more decisive than the physical impact. Though if you're a 5'7 Roman legionary and a 5'10" Gaul powers into you with his weight and speed transferred through his shoulder and shield then even being braced is likely to lead to you being rocked physically as well as mentally. Which is where being drilled and disciplined comes in, I guess.

Missile fire, until recently, seems to have been less effective than many rules make it. Missile fire slowly whittles away the enemies strength and saps their will. Melee shatters one side or the other.

Comparatively few charges by melee troops seem to have been halted by missile fire in that period.

Experience, training, equipment, position and attitude are probably more significant than who charged who. Whether it is the steady tramp of pike or legion or the howling tide of wild barbarians heading towards you, waiting for the onslaught is probably more stressful than making the charge.

"Hut - Dich - Baur Ich Komm!"

I see you've succumbed to temptation and are referring to archery as "fire".  ;D

"Irregular A" warband?......now there's a name I have not heard for a long time......a long time!

Well at least since DBM came into use anyway  :) 

They were pretty good, till they ran into "Regular B" Late Roman legionaries double armed with pila and machine guns darts. 

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-orctptisERU/WLyDUMQutJI/AAAAAAAAFLM/DSTzzDcir0QFZdsgQ9sLc90Enf8mtyfUQCLcB/s1600/pic2865260_lg.jpg)

My copy of those is just about in one peice

There was a remarkable video of a close assault near Kherson t'other day. A Russian platoon of about 16 men were dug in on a berm, overlooking a tree lined road, two men on guard, rest inside bunkers.

A Ukrainian BMP charges down the road at full tilt, receives some kind of fire that misses - swings round just below the berm, infantry who were already half out of the hatches, ie, riding on the BMP rather than in it - bale out, two of them charge the trench at the top of the berm, both sides blazing away, one falls back and the BMP peppers the trench line, then all of a sudden all the Russians are running and two Ukrainians are on top of the berm firing RPG into the retreating Russians. No casualties on either side. What I call AT3 CV9 versus DT4 CV7 but there you go.

Anyway, back to the question, I've always thought it was formations that confer some type of advantage, even if in practice, it is merely psychological. Certainly two lines, whether ancient, napoleonic or 19th century meeting each other would not confer any advantage to either side.

There is a descriptive somewhere by a historian of how most ancient combat usually starts. Two opposing blocks approach each other, shouting insults, jeering and banging shields. Lobbing javelins if they have any. This might go on for a bit. Sometimes a champion from one side will challenge a champion from the other to single combat. More often at random points along the line, a bolder man with clumps of taggers-on seeking bravado will move forward and try and take a swipe at someone in the opposing line. Then retire a bit. Then randomly repeat for both sides randomly along the line, until one side is ordered to charge, or the other skulks off anyway having lost a few men.

I do think ancients rules should have two types of "melee" - one with the usual charge, and another where two blobs just sort of intermingle at very close range, like an advance to contact rather than a specific charge. Morale rather than casualties would determine the outcomes in both cases.

Mark

Quote from: paulr on 15 November 2022, 07:53:50 AM(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-orctptisERU/WLyDUMQutJI/AAAAAAAAFLM/DSTzzDcir0QFZdsgQ9sLc90Enf8mtyfUQCLcB/s1600/pic2865260_lg.jpg)

I always liked the fact that the Late Roman Legionary was wearing a Green Peace badge around his neck  :D

I think that the 'advantage' of Infantry attacking/charging seems to depend on the quality of the troops and there method of fighting. Look at the Sudan Campaign and you see British regulars preferring to stand (& shoot) with their bayonet at the ready, rather than attack the Mahdist tribesmen. And generally doing better by adopting that approach.

Alexander seemed to favour an aggressive pike attack with his phalanx, even against Elephants. But would go defensive against cavalry, who usually did not want to plough into a formation 12 deep with pike points at its front.
However, at Grandson the Burgundian Ordonnance mounted men-at-arms did charge the stationary Swiss pikes (with a degree of success) but then you can argue that Ordonnance MAA were probably armoured at the very peak of the armorers craft, as were their horses.

From my re-enactment days I would argue that an infantry charge does carry a degree of advantage, if only in added momentum.

Wargames include a charge bonus to incentivise charging - it's better to charge than be charged. This gets the game going, rather than having two opposing forces just standing there doing nothing.

Does this reflect reality? No idea. But then I don't think any wargame comes anywhere near being close to a simulation of the real thing.

QuoteThere is a descriptive somewhere by a historian of how most ancient combat usually starts. Two opposing blocks approach each other, shouting insults, jeering and banging shields. Lobbing javelins if they have any. This might go on for a bit. Sometimes a champion from one side will challenge a champion from the other to single combat. More often at random points along the line, a bolder man with clumps of taggers-on seeking bravado will move forward and try and take a swipe at someone in the opposing line. Then retire a bit. Then randomly repeat for both sides randomly along the line, until one side is ordered to charge, or the other skulks off anyway having lost a few men.

That's pretty much how Bernard Cornwell describes battles in his Arthurian dark age trilogy. It does sound very plausible. I also expect there's a fair bit of alcohol involved.

Quote from: Big Insect on 15 November 2022, 09:29:29 AMI always liked the fact that the Late Roman Legionary was wearing a Green Peace badge around his neck  :D

That's the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge.

Love the 'CXXC!' As his three darts hit treble XX. 

I think it depends on the period and the environment. I suspect ancients are more prone to the charge because of the technology.

Of the Napoleonic period, Gunther E Rothenberg wrote "Surgeon General Larrey of the Grande Armee found only 5 bayonet wounds and concluded that the effect of the weapon was primarily psychological. And one of Wellington's senior medical officers George J Guthrie asserted that 'formed regiments charging with the bayonet never meet and struggle hand to hand and foot to foot; and for this best possible reason, that one side turns and runs away as soon as the other side come close enough to do mischief.'"

I suspect that as the technology of war creates increasing distance between opposing forces, the surprise of having someone charging at you with a bayonet had increased psychological effect. Obviously, if your primary tactic is a bayonet charge that impact may be somewhat diminished. I'm thinking of the mass charges of the Chinese in the Korean war for example.   

[quote author=sultanbev link=msg=349605 date=1668502555

There is a descriptive somewhere by a historian of how most ancient combat usually starts. Two opposing blocks approach each other, shouting insults, jeering and banging shields. Lobbing javelins if they have any. This might go on for a bit. Sometimes a champion from one side will challenge a champion from the other to single combat. More often at random points along the line, a bolder man with clumps of taggers-on seeking bravado will move forward and try and take a swipe at someone in the opposing line. Then retire a bit. Then randomly repeat for both sides randomly along the line, until one side is ordered to charge, or the other skulks off anyway having lost a few men.
Mark

Did they even HAVE Football back then? Hooligans will be Hooligans! ;)
[/quote]

QuoteI do think ancients rules should have two types of "melee" - one with the usual charge, and another where two blobs just sort of intermingle at very close range, like an advance to contact rather than a specific charge. Morale rather than casualties would determine the outcomes in both cases.

Mark

QuoteOne of the things I like about Strength and Honour is that battle lines tend to push each other about until someone piles up enough advantages to start the rot.

Yeah I would agree.

In my rules there are two phases of close combat, the Melee phase which is the more general push and pull of the lines, then the Shock phase which is when an opening has been created and can be exploited. More disciplined troops have advantage in Melee as they're more likely to hold the line and keep a steady fight, while more ferocious troops tend to have an advantage in the Shock because they can use their aggression to exploit the opening and potentially break the enemy. Most effective is using a combination of these troops in the same combat.


The charge test at present takes place before advance to melee and is more intended to see how determined (or not) a unit is to make contact with the enemy. Not all circumstances require it, but it can infer an advantage if they score highly enough.

It sounds like the consensus is there is a bit of a charge advantage in some situations, provided the troops are up to the task, enough to potentially justify some sort of bonus.

QuoteFrom my re-enactment days I would argue that an infantry charge does carry a degree of advantage, if only in added momentum.

Momentum is an interesting idea. Rather than giving the unit a bonus (which could get muddy in multi unit combat) the bonus could go to the pool of command points for that unit's commander (which can be used later in the turn for additional actions or to boost combat rolls).


This was one of the ideas I was toying with, rather than having a test, simply have a cost/benefit based on the difference in quality between the charging and charged unit. Charging a higher quality unit costs the difference in command points, charging a lower pays you back the difference.

My only issue with this is it requires a little more bookkeeping as I haven't fully settled on a fixed "quality" rating for units, generally preferring more conditional modifiers and bonuses to reduce/eliminate on table clutter.

QuoteMissile fire, until recently, seems to have been less effective than many rules make it. Missile fire slowly whittles away the enemies strength and saps their will. Melee shatters one side or the other.

Yeah this is very much my approach. Missile fire and skirmishing has more of a harrying effect. It might, if concentrated enough or really lucky, break an enemy unit, particularly if they're exposed and out of line. Otherwise it will mostly just be an annoyance to test the resolve of the troops and potentially having to spend command points steadying them. There isn't even an attack roll for firing or skirmishing, just units indicate where they focus their harassment and the targeted unit will have to test their loyalty/resolve next time they activate.


The Japanese Sengoku Jidai rules (which are the most mature ones I'm working on) do have some allowances for charging concentrated gunnery, which is why I'm reluctant to drop charging entirely. Though that's only really relevant quite late on in the period when guns were significant enough. The more western feudal rules I have, mostly based around the Crusades, don't really have to deal with gunnery, and cavalry charges were more prominent, which would infer advantage, but the two rule sets share a lot of DNA so would be good to have a consistent approach.

For my "Heroic" rules which are mostly based around Homeric warfare but I'm broadening to include pretty much any army that operated in a "heroic" way (Celts, early Japanese, pre-Columbian Americans, etc) I have done away with charging tests as the emphasis is more on the push and pull between commanders trying to control their armies and individual champions aiming for personal wealth and glory, then saving their own skins once they've acquired a suitable amount of said wealth and glory rather than keeping up the fight.

Can you tell I've had too much time to think and not enough time to paint and play lately!

QuoteWargames include a charge bonus to incentivise charging - it's better to charge than be charged. This gets the game going, rather than having two opposing forces just standing there doing nothing.

Does this reflect reality? No idea. But then I don't think any wargame comes anywhere near being close to a simulation of the real thing.

My skirmish/harrying rules should help with this to be fair, as a unit can always inflict some level of attrition, meaning if they stand at range and poke away at each other it'll increase the chance of one side getting unlucky and having one of their units break and run, which could then provide an opening for a charge anyway.


One of the key things I want to do is to try and get a concept of taking actions because they make tactical sense, not because of artificial rule constraints. Though I may well be being naive in that.

QuoteDid they even HAVE Football back then? Hooligans will be Hooligans! ;)

Interestingly, Justin Swanton in Ancient Battle Formations (I think it was) does recommend watching footage of football hooligans fighting, particularly those in Eastern Europe/Russia where it's still prevalent, as a way of understanding what two masses of men coming together in a melee might look like. They do tend to hold a line for a while and you can see the line rotate as they spread out as well. Then one side will generally break and run.

QuoteI suspect that as the technology of war creates increasing distance between opposing forces, the surprise of having someone charging at you with a bayonet had increased psychological effect. Obviously, if your primary tactic is a bayonet charge that impact may be somewhat diminished. I'm thinking of the mass charges of the Chinese in the Korean war for example.   

Yes absolutely. That definitely seems to be the case once firearms become the primary tool of war.


The Japanese Banzai charges come to mind, initially terrifying, but after experiencing them the Americans found if they stood and fired they'd generally mow them down. But then they had to experience them over and over in a short span so learnt quickly, whereas in ancient or even early modern times, most people would only actually be in a big battle once it twice in a life time, maybe more for professional or warlike peoples, but the time to learn that response is much greater than if you're dealing with it every day. 

In ancient battles as well lines tended to be much thicker, so there was a greater density of people behind you, and those at the back aren't going to see the charge up close so be less inclined to run away immediately. Whereas if there are only a few ranks then it's much more tempting to break and run.

Quote from: John Cook on 15 November 2022, 11:14:58 AMThat's the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge.

That is what I meant - thank you  :)

I suspect an infantry charge does convey an advantage of varying degree depending on the period and cultural expectations. (but not through impact?)

Pre gunpowder - people closed (and charged?) to contact because that was the way to settle the battle.

Gunpowder - not so much, but when people did charge the outcome seems to have often been decisive -  not in the sense of crossing bayonets (although there are all sorts of reasons to be cautious about Larrey's comments and subsequent interpretations) but because the side on the receiving end legged it or the attacker lost impetus and a firefight broke out.

Cultural expectation?

Pre gunpowder armies generally seem to have expected to resort to hand to hand combat at some stage and been accustomed to a more violent life.
Did running in as a charge to physical contact happen? And how much morale effect was there, cf gunpowder period above - not clear.

People were killed by hand held weapons as evidenced by physical remains, but how much was in combat and how much in pursuit is always open to interpretation.

My feeling is that there was what we think of as face to face melee, but how much advantage charging into it conveyed is open to question. It depends on how 'kinetic' you think the contact was. Analogies with rugby and reenactment pike miss the vital apprehension of death. So too generally do riot police v protestors and football hooligans. The latter tell us something about mob mentality and the value of cohesion but not a lot about two groups intent on killing up close with spears, and swords (whatever Swanton says).

In a wargame (depending on the level of granularity and scale of action) I would test the will of the intending charger to see if they will continue to close through those last thirty yards or so, and if they do, then test the ability to stand of the defender - if the attacker is coming in, the defender should suffer a morale minus and be very likely to run. If they stand I don't think there is likely to be much impact advantage from an infantry charge.

If the attacker fails to close  - what then? Stand and lob short range missiles until one side pulls back? And this is the difficult time when we might get a charge into the retreating side and all those injuries we find on the few surviving bodies from medieval battle.

Or  you could just roll all that into a couple of dice throws :)  - charge yes or no, then charger +1 in combat (wrapping up psychological threat and any physical impact in one).

I think it was WRG 6th which incorporated a charge test.
I don't remember much about it, except that a really high result gave the impetuous charge, a lower result a charge.
I'm hazy whether even lower scores produced a refusal to charge.

As I said earlier, it's that willingness to get stuck in which characterises effective infantry close action.
All the way from Achilles Myrmidons to special and airborne forces of today.

If I had to identify key factors in successfully closing with the enemy, I'd go with:
  1. Cover the deadly ground quickly and arrive as a coordinated bunch.
  2. Minimise effect of enemy shooting (suppressive support shooting, use of cover/rushes, covered approach).
  3. If possible, hit the enemy from a disadvantageous angle.

Points 1 and 2 are heavily related to troop quality and training.

Number three relies on your battlefield commanders creating the right situation.
That's something  think we, as gamers, should be aiming for.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 15 November 2022, 02:38:08 AMI see you've succumbed to temptation and are referring to archery as "fire".  ;D

I've seen Hollywood Sword & Sandal movies - everyone used fire arrows! :D

QuoteI've seen Hollywood Sword & Sandal movies - everyone used fire arrows! :D

Especially when "draw, hold, and fired" in volleys over the heads of their compatriots... 

QuoteEspecially when "draw, hold, and fired" in volleys over the heads of their compatriots... 

Overhead fire is another gaming bugbear of mine. 

I'm almost tempted to open a new thread.

Something else to consider during the hurly-burly of closing with the enemy.

Until fairly recently, the sustained rate of fire of defenders could be temporarily increased several fold when it really counted.

I'm thinking of examples like:
 * Horse and Musket artillerists.
 * Horse and Musket infantry (using Sharpe's patented tap loading).
 * Archers.
 * Regular infantry hurling their missile of last resort.
 * Breechloading rifles, taking less care about ammunition reserves.

Mechanical stuff like cranked crossbows and ancient artillery had less opportunity to "shoot from the hip".

QuoteI suspect an infantry charge does convey an advantage of varying degree depending on the period and cultural expectations. (but not through impact?)

Pre gunpowder - people closed (and charged?) to contact because that was the way to settle the battle.

Gunpowder - not so much, but when people did charge the outcome seems to have often been decisive -  not in the sense of crossing bayonets (although there are all sorts of reasons to be cautious about Larrey's comments and subsequent interpretations) but because the side on the receiving end legged it or the attacker lost impetus and a firefight broke out.

Cultural expectation?

Pre gunpowder armies generally seem to have expected to resort to hand to hand combat at some stage and been accustomed to a more violent life.
Did running in as a charge to physical contact happen? And how much morale effect was there, cf gunpowder period above - not clear.

People were killed by hand held weapons as evidenced by physical remains, but how much was in combat and how much in pursuit is always open to interpretation.

My feeling is that there was what we think of as face to face melee, but how much advantage charging into it conveyed is open to question. It depends on how 'kinetic' you think the contact was. Analogies with rugby and reenactment pike miss the vital apprehension of death. So too generally do riot police v protestors and football hooligans. The latter tell us something about mob mentality and the value of cohesion but not a lot about two groups intent on killing up close with spears, and swords (whatever Swanton says).

In a wargame (depending on the level of granularity and scale of action) I would test the will of the intending charger to see if they will continue to close through those last thirty yards or so, and if they do, then test the ability to stand of the defender - if the attacker is coming in, the defender should suffer a morale minus and be very likely to run. If they stand I don't think there is likely to be much impact advantage from an infantry charge.

If the attacker fails to close  - what then? Stand and lob short range missiles until one side pulls back? And this is the difficult time when we might get a charge into the retreating side and all those injuries we find on the few surviving bodies from medieval battle.

Or  you could just roll all that into a couple of dice throws :)  - charge yes or no, then charger +1 in combat (wrapping up psychological threat and any physical impact in one).

Some interesting points. I do tend to subscribe more to the idea of most standing at spears length and poking away at each other's shields and a few brave maniacs attempting to break through and start a rout. Even in medieval accounts of cavalry charges, the tendancy was for the cavalry to charge then pull away at the last moment if the enemy didn't break, maybe chucking a few spears and wheeling away for another go. That's why I want to abstract a lot of that back and forth into the melee phase and keep the real destruction to the shock phase if triggered. Hence my question around the impact of charging itself. I suppose that does suggest that with enough impetuosity rather than the charging lines "bouncing" off each other, one side may have some advantage towards an immediate breakthrough if ferocious enough and therefore increase their chance of getting to the Shock phase in the first round of combat, rather than an attritional back and forth.

To refer to Strength & Honour once again, I like the 'move to contact' mechanism used.

Players can opt to attempt to move adjacent to an enemy unit or to charge it.

A unit moving rolls to move and if not able to make contact moves as far as required by the player or the unit type after which play continues to the next unit.

If a charging unit rolls to move and fails to roll high enough to make contact, the charge fails and initiative passes to the other side. If it makes contact, combat ensues.

The first represents a unit moving into shouting, insults and the odd missile range, the second an attempt to get stuck in that may see the potential charger's courage fail.

All with a simple mechanism.

QuoteOverhead fire is another gaming bugbear of mine.

I'm almost tempted to open a new thread.

My rules are generally dealing with mixed arms units a lot of the time so it's a bit more abstracted. Units can be in an attack formation (no ranged attacks, melee forward), a ranged/firing formation (better "firepower" but weaker in combat) or a balanced formation that assumes interspersed firing and melee, for instance crusader infantry with archers and crossbowmen firing within the shield lines, or small bow and gun units in feudal Japan supported by spear lines. They can detach into their constitute parts at times but always keeping in mind that interplay between the ranged harassment, steady line and shock troops. Certainly all the evidence I've read of archery is that it was generally at a fairly flat trajectory at closer than expected ranges, then would hide behind the main line when the enemy closed.

QuoteTo refer to Strength & Honour once again, I like the 'move to contact' mechanism used.

Players can opt to attempt to move adjacent to an enemy unit or to charge it.

A unit moving rolls to move and if not able to make contact moves as far as required by the player or the unit type after which play continues to the next unit.

If a charging unit rolls to move and fails to roll high enough to make contact, the charge fails and initiative passes to the other side. If it makes contact, combat ensues.

The first represents a unit moving into shouting, insults and the odd missile range, the second an attempt to get stuck in that may see the potential charger's courage fail.

All with a simple mechanism.

That does sound pretty much like what my current charge mechanic does, it's only required for the last move into combat and failing will generally pull them up short, but still in "shouting range".


I think I'm trying to be ruthless with making the rules as minimalist as possible. At the moment there are four different tests that can be done at various stages in the battle - loyalty/resolve, charge/move into contact, melee and shock. Trying to think of ways to reduce that to make things even simpler. But maybe it's overkill. In the current iteration it's a simple d6 test with only a couple of potential modifiers with a 4+ success. Where I'm dithering a bit if if 6+ should be a charge bonus, and 1- a flinch. 

Tempted to maybe keep the test but add the result to the command pool rather than the unit, that way representing the momentum it gives to the unit and it's compatriots rather than being just the unit itself. One of the key aspects of the rules is a unit out on its own is basically a gonner, a unit in formation surrounded by allied units is incredibly resilient.

QuoteI suspect an infantry charge does convey an advantage of varying degree depending on the period and cultural expectations. (but not through impact?)

Pre gunpowder - people closed (and charged?) to contact because that was the way to settle the battle.

Gunpowder - not so much, but when people did charge the outcome seems to have often been decisive -  not in the sense of crossing bayonets (although there are all sorts of reasons to be cautious about Larrey's comments and subsequent interpretations) but because the side on the receiving end legged it or the attacker lost impetus and a firefight broke out.

I wonder if distance from home played a part. Often ancient armies were fighting to defend their land or at the borders of their and their enemies lands. Whereas professional armies (both pre and post gunpowder) were more likely to be fighting far from their homes. I imagine people are less likely to run away if defending their own lands and family than if just fighting for a few coin far from home.

It might be worth re-reading Keegan's 'Face of Battle' (great book) as he looks closely at the way men behave under close combat situations.

QuoteI wonder if distance from home played a part. Often ancient armies were fighting to defend their land or at the borders of their and their enemies lands. Whereas professional armies (both pre and post gunpowder) were more likely to be fighting far from their homes. I imagine people are less likely to run away if defending their own lands and family than if just fighting for a few coin far from home.

Sumerians in the Levant, Egyptians in the Levant too, Greeks in Egypt, Macedonians in India, Romans in Britain - all far from home and apparently quite happy to get stuck in. Fighting for hearth and home might keep a losing army in the field longer though.

QuoteSumerians in the Levant, Egyptians in the Levant too, Greeks in Egypt, Macedonians in India, Romans in Britain - all far from home and apparently quite happy to get stuck in. Fighting for hearth and home might keep a losing army in the field longer though.

Yeah that was more what I was thinking, with the examples there being slightly more professional armies rather than seasonal levies (in some cases)

QuoteIt might be worth re-reading Keegan's 'Face of Battle' (great book) as he looks closely at the way men behave under close combat situations.

Don't think I've read it, will add to the list thanks

Quote from: mmcv on 15 November 2022, 02:22:38 PMI wonder if distance from home played a part. Often ancient armies were fighting to defend their land or at the borders of their and their enemies lands. Whereas professional armies (both pre and post gunpowder) were more likely to be fighting far from their homes. I imagine people are less likely to run away if defending their own lands and family than if just fighting for a few coin far from home.

But could work the other way: when far from home you have nowhere to run to whereas those close to home might have somewhere sensible to escape to.

QuoteBut could work the other way: when far from home you have nowhere to run to whereas those close to home might have somewhere sensible to escape to.

Also true, fairly situational I guess. Big difference between "if I run away the enemy are going to burn my lands and kill me and everyone I love" and "if I run away the king will have to pay a big tribute to the enemy so taxes will be higher for a while"

For what it is worth, it seems to me that the problem with some rules is that the melee that follows a charge, when the charged unit holds and receives the charge, rather than running away, goes on for what seems to be an inordinatley long time.  The impression I get about charges, in most periods, and in most generalised of terms, is that if one side is not also charging that put them at a disadvantage, that melees don't go on for long and the casulaties are caused when one side flees.  So, rather than giving a charge bonus, perhaps a better approach would be to give the charged unit a penalty, if it is not counter charging.

QuoteFor what it is worth, it seems to me that the problem with some rules is that the melee that follows a charge, when the charged unit holds and receives the charge, rather than running away, goes on for what seems to be an inordinatley long time.  The impression I get about charges, in most periods, and in most generalised of terms, is that if one side is not also charging that put them at a disadvantage, that melees don't go on for long and the casulaties are caused when one side flees.  So, rather than giving a charge bonus, perhaps a better approach would be to give the charged unit a penalty, if it is not counter charging.

I do model this somewhat. Melee is an opposed roll. Those in attack formation are assumed to counter charge so both get the formation bonus from that. Those in firing formation get a penalty by trying to stand and shoot to drive off the charge, if they fail to do so they are at a disadvantage. Balanced formation gets neither bonus or penalty as they're assumed to respond accordingly, e.g. use the enemy advancing time to bring their spears up to bear. Loose formation is also at disadvantage in melee, though in the crusades rules there are evasion mechanics they can use.

In Ancient battles the bulk of the battle seems to be the main bodies indulging in a shoving match until one side breaks and is butchered. Different, of course, if one or both sides are primarily cavalry.

As a very broad generalisation, it seems to me that the closer in time to the present you get, the briefer hand-to-hand combat gets.

QuoteIn Ancient battles the bulk of the battle seems to be the main bodies indulging in a shoving match until one side breaks and is butchered. Different, of course, if one or both sides are primarily cavalry.

As a very broad generalisation, it seems to me that the closer in time to the present you get, the briefer hand-to-hand combat gets.

Yeah that's been my perspective too. Guns really shifted the paradigm as they became more prevalent. That's one interesting thing about trying to model Sengoku Jidai Japan as it really went from medieval to early modern at an accelerated rate. Guns became highly effective at battlefield control but most fights were still finished at the spearpoint. So for them melee is pretty brutal, whereas the medieval rules has a little more back and forth and resilience to the units for close combat.

Quote from: Ithoriel on 16 November 2022, 08:10:09 PMAs a very broad generalisation, it seems to me that the closer in time to the present you get, the briefer hand-to-hand combat gets.

It is well known that "they don't like it up 'em"