Hi guys,
I start this new topics to discuss of my first project. In fact I want to recreate the battle of Cannae, one of the most famous battle of every time (and one of the biggest massacre also). But I need some of your advice.
So I attach to the post the diagrams of the two army that I want to build. I tried to build two "historically correct" armies, respecting the proportion I found on varios sources on the internet and on some Osprey's books. In general I found:
- 6000 african cavalry
- 2000 spanish cavalry
- 4000 Numidian light cavalry
- 8000 african infantry
- 6000 spanish infantry
- 15000 celtic infantry
- 11000 light skirmisher
- 6000 roman cavalry
- 55000 roman heavy infantry (including allied)
- 15000 roman light infantry
Reading on these sources I noticed that the roman armies of these period were really standard, so velites were the light infantry (no archers, nothing else than velites), hastati/principes/triarii were the heavy infantry and roman cavalry was ... roman cavalry :) nothing special...
But I found nothing about the italian allies. What type of troops were they? How were they equipped?? If you have some illustrations they are really appreciated.
Regarding Carthaginian, the composition of the army is, in reality, unknown. So I took the one that seems "more real". If you prefer different sources we can discuss about it. The only thing I want to ask you what type of carthaginian infantry using.
In the end I want to congratulate with Pendraken for the excellent sculpt of the new Republican Roman and Carthaginian. Good work guys!!
Allies by this time would have been basically equipped the same as the Romans.
As to Carthaginian forces, Rome wrote the history I'm afraid! ;) Majority of their force would be spear armed infantry, maybe some of Hannibal's veterans might be armed as the Romans, but not many made it back from Italy.
So in painting terms, how can I distinguish italian allies from roman infantry??
Thank you for patience :)
Blue & red shields appears fairly traditional!
;D
Quote from: hellhammer09 on 02 May 2014, 11:01:45 PM
So in painting terms, how can I distinguish italian allies from roman infantry??
Thank you for patience :)
They would probably have been indistinguishable. You could paint the shields different colours i suppose, but really the Italian allies will have been basically the same as the Romans.
The Punic Wars followed on shortly after the wars of unification and during the middle Republican period, Rome the the newly subject Italian, Latin and Etruscan forces were basically identically armed (having by this period, abandoned the hoplite system in favour of move flexible heavy infantry).
By Cannae, the Camillan organisation had been refined into the 4-line fighting system. The skirmishers were likely still leves rather than the superior velites. How the Roman legions were equipped is also open to interpretation. Some sources say they were still armed with the light hasta spear, yet other sources say the gladius was used (generally thought to have been adopted around the time of Cannae) by the hastati and principes, the hasta being retained only by the triarii.
Roman or Italian, they'd basically look the same. Probably.
You numbers for the battle are fair enough. The historical sources agree on only one thing, that the Roman greatly outnumbered the Carthaginians. The rest is open to interpretation.
By the way; what rules are you planning to use?
Armies of the Macedonian & Punic Wars has some Italian heavy infantry with a distinctive cuirass with 3 discs.
Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers (http://warfare2.netai.net/index.htm)
And remember the emergency levies with Celtic gear (I know, not at Cannae....)
Thank you all guys!
So in the end your advice is to use the same models and paint them differently.
@Luddite: regarding the ruleset I like Hail Caesar very much. I don't like Warmaster because of the small mass effect it creates. I want at least 3 ranks in the unit!!! :)
But I have some doubts. Bulding an army with the correct Hail Caesar front is too expansive so I thought to use a front of 8cm instead of 12cm. But I saw on your blog and on various other ones (e.g. hetairoi wargames) that you use one base, more scenic. I like them so much!
This thing, and the fact that probably, in the end, I will only collect the two army (I have no one who play miniatures wargames in my city), pushes me to use this basing method. But don't you lose some flexibility in the change of formation of a unit??
P.S.: I'm working on a fantasy project that I will post later (maybe some days, weeks, I don't know...) on this forum. In this project, with many other things, I want to create a really flexible and fast ruleset using only "big" bases. I saw on your blog that you are working on a similar rulset. Can I know how the test are going?
In HC being able to change formation into column is pretty rare. For the odd occasion you could put a big base sideways with a marker. Big bases certainly allow more modelling opportunities. You could compromise with 40x40mm bases, gives you a bit more space, but still allows formation changes etc.
For skirmishers, is perhaps a bit more useful to have them on a few small bases, mainly so they can get in and around terrain better.
Quote from: hellhammer09 on 03 May 2014, 09:50:51 AM
I don't like Warmaster because of the small mass effect it creates. I want at least 3 ranks in the unit!!! :)
Since the basic Warmaster unit is made up of three bases they would normally be two deep in line and six deep in column. The mass effect was part of what drew me to Warmaster in the first place. That and the emphasis on how well a general commands over minor differences in how the troops fight.
Also, since the number of figures is entirely irrelevant in terms of the mechanics of the game there is nothing stopping you using three ranks of figures, if they will physically fit on the base.
Warmaster is not a game that suits everyone but it would be a shame to see it dismissed, unfairly IMHO, on aesthetic grounds.
You could try Impetus - 80mm base widths, and has a fantasy variant I hear good things about. Looks good, and gives a top game. Yet to try the fantasy version though!
Warmaster plays well, but cavalry are perhaps too good. There's very simple changes to fix that though, if you do find it a problem! Plus two Warmaster bases wide makes a single impetus or BP unit (with more deep depending on look and feel, and wallet).
Quote from: hellhammer09 on 03 May 2014, 09:50:51 AM
Thank you all guys!
So in the end your advice is to use the same models and paint them differently.
That's how i'd do it. :)
Quote@Luddite: regarding the ruleset I like Hail Caesar very much.
I agree. HC is a good game. I think the main flaw with it is that fresh units can be destroyed immediately from a bad morale roll. I'm actually playing a huge 2-week game at the moment, and we had a fresh large unit of cataphracts fired on my a small skirmishing horse unit. They rolled double 1 on the morale after a single-6 hit and headed off the table into the box....uh....
QuoteI don't like Warmaster because of the small mass effect it creates. I want at least 3 ranks in the unit!!! :)
My problem with WM was always the confusion that could reign in complex melee engagements. Also, the tendency of units to fight in 'attack column' rather than the more realistic line formation.
QuoteBut I have some doubts. Bulding an army with the correct Hail Caesar front is too expansive so I thought to use a front of 8cm instead of 12cm. But I saw on your blog and on various other ones (e.g. hetairoi wargames) that you use one base, more scenic. I like them so much!
I agree. Especially in 10mm, the change to model a little vignette of a unit is well worth the effort. 'Big bases' allow you to do this.
As you say, something like this... http://luddite1811.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/something-lot-more-orc.html (http://luddite1811.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/something-lot-more-orc.html)
QuoteThis thing, and the fact that probably, in the end, I will only collect the two army (I have no one who play miniatures wargames in my city), pushes me to use this basing method.
Good call! :D
QuoteBut don't you lose some flexibility in the change of formation of a unit??
Yes, but then i suppose it depends on what the game scale represents. And frankly, in most games you play, don'y you form the unit and pretty much keep it in 'fighting order'? I can't really remember changing unit formations much in any game - it's usually a recipe for disaster!
The rules i'm developing for example, take the following approach:
Tactical formations
This is a tactical wargame and therefore the strategic, logistical, and preliminary phases of the battle are assumed to have taken place. Units have already marched in column to the point of the fight and deployed in 'battle array'. These troops are therefore not going to substantially change their formation and so you won't find 'line', 'double line', 'column' formations etc. utilised here. We assume the troops are ready for the battle and will stay in fighting order throughout the game. QuoteI saw on your blog that you are working on a similar rulset. Can I know how the test are going?
Very well.
I'm not sure how much more i can or should say :-\ , other than i'm very excited about recent developments towards the release date. :-bd
Quote from: toxicpixieYou could try Impetus - 80mm base widths, and has a fantasy variant I hear good things about. Looks good, and gives a top game.
I'd heard very good things about Impetus too. Played a few games recently and...well...meh. Far too fiddly, and apparently wildly unbalanced game play. One of the games we played was a Wars of the Roses battle. Two basically identical armies with the same troops and tactics. One side was utterly destroyed without causing a single loss to the enemy, with no evident reason why. Overall, we were left with the feeling that it was a lot of effort to achieve results that can be gained more simply with other rules.
I find changing formations essential. March in column, fight in line, fall back in square, send halberdiers through the musketeers to engage, form wedge to charge, lock shields...I can't see how being able to do this is a "recipe for disaster", and I'm not quite blind yet.
QuotePosted by: Luddite
"Quote from: toxicpixie
You could try Impetus - 80mm base widths, and has a fantasy variant I hear good things about. Looks good, and gives a top game."
I'd heard very good things about Impetus too. Played a few games recently and...well...meh. Far too fiddly, and apparently wildly unbalanced game play. One of the games we played was a Wars of the Roses battle. Two basically identical armies with the same troops and tactics. One side was utterly destroyed without causing a single loss to the enemy, with no evident reason why. Overall, we were left with the feeling that it was a lot of effort to achieve results that can be gained more simply with other rules.
That's... unusual, I think - very poor dice rolls from one side so very few VBU losses? Then good morale dice from the other so they didn't take any further hits? Still, I guess it replicates Towton quite nicely :D Conversely we've found it excellent - games where you really need to work your armies strengths against the oppositions weaknesses, be careful AND decisive on manoeuvre and come to a close finish. Although it has been a "nearly won everywhere, but not quite, so what looked like a gruelling barely a win for the opposition is actually a decisive result in the end" sort of thing...
Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 May 2014, 02:07:16 AM
I find changing formations essential. March in column, fight in line, fall back in square, send halberdiers through the musketeers to engage, form wedge to charge, lock shields...I can't see how being able to do this is a "recipe for disaster", and I'm not quite blind yet.
Agreed, but in reality, I don't recall ever doing this much during actual gameplay for a wide variety of rules. The only ruleset where formation changes have ever played a part of is Fire and Fury during scenario-play, and thats uusually getting the units that 'arrive in column' to change to double line asap! Can't the other formations be 'represented' just as well through combat factors and outcomes?
I like the bigger scale games myself
I feel that my commanders on the ground should be able to handle all the fiddly stuff like changing formatiion etc and leave me to mess up the grand strategy in peace
I agree Fenton. Also, while formation changes are a key feature of later warfare (chiefly Napoleonic era), was it a feature of Ancients battles? Are there any examples of units changing formation once they deployed to battle?
I can't really think of any examples. The closest may be the Roman use of testudo in open battle at Carrhae - but was that really a formation change? Could you simply address that in a set of rules by a conditional modifier on the unit?
:)
I see the point. But too much like a boardgame for me them. Still, the world is big enough for us both.
This is very true FK
Alexander ordered the phalanx to lock shields at the Hydaspes. Thracians regularly closed ranks to charge. Paulus ordered his legions to break the line at Pydna. Pyrrhus was impressed by the Roman manouevre discipline in the face of the enemy. Scipio's fancy countermarches in Iberia must have involved column to line changes.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 May 2014, 11:04:05 AM
Alexander ordered the phalanx to lock shields at the Hydaspes.
A formation change sufficient to require rules to model?
QuoteThracians regularly closed ranks to charge.
A formation change sufficient to require rules to model?
QuotePaulus ordered his legions to break the line at Pydna.
Are you referring to the Legions retreat into the hills to draw on the phalanxes into rough ground? A formation change sufficient to require rules to model?
QuoteScipio's fancy countermarches in Iberia must have involved column to line changes.
During the battle? Weren't these generally pre-battle maneuvers?
I suppose from my point of view the troops know how to do all this stuff that why we give officers and the troops morale and training ratings in games
Quote from: Fenton on 04 May 2014, 12:23:01 PM
I suppose from my point of view the troops know how to do all this stuff that why we give officers and the troops morale and training ratings in games
My view too.
Out of period example. If the cuirassiers charge line infantry and lose, the infantry formed square successfully. If the cuirassiers win then through bad luck, bad judgement or the fog of war the infantry commander failed to form square in time.
It's part of why we roll dice rather than having automatic results, no?
My Romans can do these things at far lower movement penalties than normal. As can my Prussians, Janissaries, Byzantine regulars, and one or two other well drilled square-bashing veterans.
Quote from: Luddite on 04 May 2014, 12:08:05 PM
A formation change sufficient to require rules to model?
A formation change sufficient to require rules to model?
Are you referring to the Legions' retreat into the hills to draw on the phalanxes into rough ground? A formation change sufficient to require rules to model?
During the battle? Weren't these generally pre-battle maneuvers?
To answer in sequence, i) possibly not; ii) certainly, if you consider the differences between skirmishers and close-order melee troops significant; iii) no, to their breaking formation in small groups to press into maniple-sized intervals, in which case, yes; and iv) no. As generally shewn and reconstructed, this was countermarching only half a click or so from the enemy front rank.
Which said, I wasn't there and don't intend to pontificate (I'll leave that to Mr Barker, along with his disregard for the apostrophe). But I don't find placing even very pretty counters opposite each other and rolling dice against a table of results rewarding enough to justify the trouble and expense of this insane hobby.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 04 May 2014, 12:32:22 PM
But I don't find placing even very pretty counters opposite each other and rolling dice against a table of results rewarding enough to justify the trouble and expense of this insane hobby.
So you're all for fantasy gaming providing it only involves humans and not elves or orcs?
How specieist ;)
I think, as gamers, we tend to underestimate how difficult manoeuvre in the face of the enemy was but it does make games more interesting imho.
Very interesting debate chaps. :-bd
I played warhammer sometimes and I have never changed formation. I agree with the fact that in ancient period rarely a unit changed formation, or the change can be represented with a token instead of the "physical change" of miniatures position.
Moreover I find very interesting the idea of Fenton, that consist in group all the "flully" maneuvers in the command value of the general/commander, to concentrate the game only on the main strategy of the battle.
I think this could be used also in a fantasy ruleset.
Really interesting discussion guys!
@ithoriel: is not only the aesthetic aspect. I see warmaster as an adaptation of warhammer in 10mm, and I don't like both them in general. I have no words to describe this thing, simply I like more Hail Caesar.
@Luddite: is your ruleset fan-made or is it an official publication??
Quote from: hellhammer09 on 04 May 2014, 07:43:10 PM
I
Moreover I find very interesting the idea of Fenton, that consist in group all the "flully" maneuvers in the command value of the general/commander, to concentrate the game only on the main strategy of the battle.
I think this could be used also in a fantasy ruleset.
To be honest its hardly a new idea and certainly not an original one of mine
Quote from: hellhammer09 on 04 May 2014, 07:43:10 PM
I see warmaster as an adaptation of warhammer in 10mm, and I don't like both them in general.
Warmaster only really has a similarity to Warhammer in that they are set in the same World (and Warhammer has moved that world on a lot from the WM one). Mechanistically they are completely different rules.
Quote from: hellhammer09 on 04 May 2014, 07:43:10 PM
I have no words to describe this thing, simply I like more Hail Caesar.
Hail Caesar is pretty much Warmaster v2. So while having a preference for one over the other is very common, dismissing one while liking the other is quite strange.
Personally I have played both WM and HC lots - and certainly like a lot of aspects of HC over WM - but they have far more similarities than differences.
Quote from: Fenton on 04 May 2014, 08:06:50 PM
To be honest its hardly a new idea and certainly not an original one of mine
No doubt about this, but I never thought to group some things in the command value; I saw it only as the ability to "give order", not to "give order in the best way".
Quote from: fred 12df on 04 May 2014, 08:15:08 PM
Warmaster only really has a similarity to Warhammer in that they are set in the same World (and Warhammer has moved that world on a lot from the WM one). Mechanistically they are completely different rules.
Ok I know that, and it's correct the fact that the general mechanism is different; in fact heroes cover different roles in the two ruleset. But both them uses one single value of attack (or combat ability, as you want to call it), they contemplate the removal of bases, they use armour save in the same way (so only considering the equipment), they divide the type of troops in normal, special and rare (in Warmaster not directly, but the limit in the number of units come from the first differentiation).
Quote from: fred 12df on 04 May 2014, 08:15:08 PM
Hail Caesar is pretty much Warmaster v2. So while having a preference for one over the other is very common, dismissing one while liking the other is quite strange.
Personally I have played both WM and HC lots - and certainly like a lot of aspects of HC over WM - but they have far more similarities than differences.
I don't dismiss Warmaster, I said that I prefer Hail Caesar: more freedom in the basing system, no removal of bases, more freedom in the choice of units, more reality in the allocation of characteristic values. But I can't deny that there are lots of similarities.
All this things are IMHO, maybe I could say wrong things. :(
For me, Warmaster is a game of full scale battles while Warhammer is, despite the claims of some of it's afficionados, as much a skirmish game as Mordheim.
I also see HC as the remake of Warmaster and like most remakes it isn't as good as the original - in my opinion, of course.
I've played lots of games with lots of different rule sets and they have been perfectly enjoyable but not quite what I ideally want.
So I continue to search for a system that will give me the ancients game I'm looking for but in the meantime Warmaster has come closest to it.
However, I am quite well aware that other people's mileage may vary and if Impetus, HC, DBA or whatever float your boat more power to your elbow!
I know its old hat and not everyones cup of tea but Vis Bellica is still one of my favourites