Pendraken Miniatures Forum

So here's the problem.

There are some 700 years of history for which it's difficult to avoid realistic match ups without involving the Romans on one side.
I've been away form Ancients for some 2 decades, but recently tried Hail Caesar (Not quite right for various reasons) and then looked at To The Strongest.

The TTS lists contain a lot of interesting looking armies, but I wish to avoid a problem with many rules which I shall term "Romans can't lose".

If this needs explaining, read on.
Roman armies were historically very effective.
They remain so in many realistic sets of rules.
This is great for re-creating history, but can make for a dull game as the Legionaries pilum and gladius their way through serried ranks of their enemies.
I don't wist to go painting 2000 figures to play a handful of foregone conclusions.

Perhaps worse, Roman Armies (Marian excepted) tend to be balanced forces of different troop types.
Their enemies are often a monolithic horde, so not only will this player take a beating, but they'll have no interesting tactical options to exercise while getting slaughtererd.


So fine forumites.
The Rules are To the Strongest (I understand that Pikes and Missile troops are regarded as somewhat under-strength - legionaries are tough and auxilia are above average.
Can you suggest well matched and "interesting" (See above) opponents for any of Marian Roman, Early Imperial through to Later Western Romans?

If there are no great match-ups, can you sell me a different slice of history where I can enjoy fun games.
(No Chariots please, they're too flippin deep to fit in the grid).

Parthian and Sassanian both won historically and Gauls and Germans did on occasion. EWhat was wrong with Hail Ceaser ?

So far I find rather later imperials always have a hard fight against Huns and Persians, and I have hopes of the Dacians I'm beginning.

Marius vs Sulla, The Triumvirate vs The Liberators, Caesar vs Pompey, Octavian vs Mark Anthony, Galba/ Otho/ Vitellius/ Vespasian vs each other,  Septimius Severus vs Pescennius Niger vs Clodius Albinus, Macrinus vs Elegabalus, Constantius II vs Magnentius .............

Is it heretical to suggest the best opponent for a Roman army is another Roman army?

Not at all, in fact it was their most frequent opponent!

Other opponents
Selucids
Ptolemaics
Numidian
Gaul

Any number of North eastern tribes

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM
So here's the problem.

There are some 700 years of history for which it's difficult to avoid realistic match ups without involving the Romans on one side.
I've been away form Ancients for some 2 decades, but recently tried Hail Caesar (Not quite right for various reasons) and then looked at To The Strongest.

So 105BC to 493AD? 
You wish to avoid the earlier periods when they lost many battles?
No reference to other areas such as India or China.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM
If this needs explaining, read on.
Roman armies were historically very effective.
They remain so in many realistic sets of rules.
This is great for re-creating history, but can make for a dull game as the Legionaries pilum and gladius their way through serried ranks of their enemies.
I don't wist to go painting 2000 figures to play a handful of foregone conclusions.

Perhaps worse, Roman Armies (Marian excepted) tend to be balanced forces of different troop types.
Their enemies are often a monolithic horde, so not only will this player take a beating, but they'll have no interesting tactical options to exercise while getting slaughtererd.


So fine forumites.
The Rules are To the Strongest (I understand that Pikes and Missile troops are regarded as somewhat under-strength - legionaries are tough and auxilia are above average.

You could chose a different set of rules if you think Romans have a high win rate.  However, I doubt it is as one sided as this and if there are point systems for army creation why should they not be more equal?

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM
.
Can you suggest well matched and "interesting" (See above) opponents for any of Marian Roman, Early Imperial through to Later Western Romans?

The tricky bit is defining interesting. Possible opponents:

French Gallic or British Celtic
Germans
Burgundian or Frankish
Illyrian or Thracian
Dacian
Scythian, Sarmatian, Alan, Huns
Parthians, Persians

Evidently the Roman army is going to shift in composition over the period and it will not be a simple single army that you build; it will need adjusting according to period and enemy.  So pick your enemies according to interest.

There's some good active discussions over on the TtS! forum itself, currently an ongoing discussion on how to rework the earlier Polybian Romans, as well as a number of new scenarios for the Punic Wars in production. Obviously, this is pre-Marian, but can you ever have too many Romans?

I'm currently working on a few TtS! oriented projects outside the Classical Mediterranean sphere. Aztecs/Mesoamerica, Warring States/Early Han China, Trojan War. I'm also hoping to play a TtS! game with my Crusades forces soon. That provides an interesting matchup - the solid heavy Crusaders vs the swirly wurly light horse armies of the Saracens and Turks. Similar to some of the answers previously around Romans vs Kingdoms of the East, such as the Partians, Sassanids, etc. Two unique playing styles compared to the grinding matches infantry heavy battles tend to be.

I'm surprised about you saying the chariots are too deep to fit the grid - are you working in 10mm? I've been doing some 4 horse chariots and they fit comfortably on a 40mm depth and I plan to use them on grids likely ranging from 70-100mm.

Quote from: ianrs54 on 22 June 2020, 01:29:43 PM
Parthian and Sassanian both won historically and Gauls and Germans did on occasion. EWhat was wrong with Hail Ceaser ?

I didn't care for the fiddly handling of foot skirmishers - very 1970s.
The real spoiler was the predictability of close infantry combat.

Quote from: mmcv on 22 June 2020, 03:23:56 PM
There's some good active discussions over on the TtS! forum itself, currently an ongoing discussion on how to rework the earlier Polybian Romans, as well as a number of new scenarios for the Punic Wars in production. Obviously, this is pre-Marian, but can you ever have too many Romans?

I'm currently working on a few TtS! oriented projects outside the Classical Mediterranean sphere. Aztecs/Mesoamerica, Warring States/Early Han China, Trojan War. I'm also hoping to play a TtS! game with my Crusades forces soon. That provides an interesting matchup - the solid heavy Crusaders vs the swirly wurly light horse armies of the Saracens and Turks. Similar to some of the answers previously around Romans vs Kingdoms of the East, such as the Partians, Sassanids, etc. Two unique playing styles compared to the grinding matches infantry heavy battles tend to be.

I'm surprised about you saying the chariots are too deep to fit the grid - are you working in 10mm? I've been doing some 4 horse chariots and they fit comfortably on a 40mm depth and I plan to use them on grids likely ranging from 70-100mm.

When your skirmishing unit is "Light Chariots" then depth becomes a problem.

You wish to avoid the earlier periods when they lost many battles?
No reference to other areas such as India or China.


I most certainly do..

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 08:41:02 PM
When your skirmishing unit is "Light Chariots" then depth becomes a problem.

Fair enough, though as only two units can share a box at a time it works surely only be an issue if your grid was fairly small? What grid size are you planning on using? I'll likely be using 80-100mm grids for armies with chariots.

I don't see the problem. As long as I can be the Romans.

Alternatively play Sunjester and his Magic Dice.

Quote from: mad lemmey on 22 June 2020, 02:16:18 PM
Not at all, in fact it was their most frequent opponent!

Other opponents
Selucids
Ptolemaics
Numidian
Gaul

Some of these are of no interest to later Romans, alas.

My match pair of Ancient armies are Late Romans and Sassanid Persians. Mind you I haven't player To The Strongest, so I don't know how the rules handle them.

Quote from: sunjester on 23 June 2020, 06:49:17 AM
My match pair of Ancient armies are Late Romans and Sassanid Persians. Mind you I haven't player To The Strongest, so I don't know how the rules handle them.

That certainly looks like one of the better balanced match-ups.
Both teams fielding a variety of units and having different strengths.

My early impressions of To The Strongest is that the typical horse archer armies are quite severely nerfed.
Ammunition limits, and rather generous missile saves for legionaries mean there's relatively little risk if the Romans (or other foot sloggers) can wait out the arrow storm and not break ranks.

The typical horse archer bunch have a lot of light horse archers, and too few shock cavalry to make an impact.
Parthians have more shock types, but still look set to struggle.
By the Sassanid era, the horse archers are mostly armoured and a significant number also carry lances.

Quote from: mmcv on 22 June 2020, 10:45:32 PM
Fair enough, though as only two units can share a box at a time it works surely only be an issue if your grid was fairly small? What grid size are you planning on using? I'll likely be using 80-100mm grids for armies with chariots.

I'm still experimenting, but looking at 80mm squares.
Much smaller and there isn't space for the cards and tokens.


I've been away form ancients for at least 2 decades and am assessing whether it's worth giving it another try.
I have great sympathy for the rules writers, I think it is one of the most challenging periods to create a set of rules.
Consider the challenges:
* 4500 years of history (That's almost 90% of recorded time).
* A whole world to cover.
* No access to anybody who can say "I was there man!!".
* Absent, contradictory, incomplete records - leading to a need to extrapolate from scant evidence.
* The impact of national stories and Hollywood.
* Decades of prior art in the hobby.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 June 2020, 11:45:38 AM
I'm still experimenting, but looking at 80mm squares.
Much smaller and there isn't space for the cards and tokens.


I've been away form ancients for at least 2 decades and am assessing whether it's worth giving it another try.
I have great sympathy for the rules writers, I think it is one of the most challenging periods to create a set of rules.
Consider the challenges:
* 4500 years of history (That's almost 90% of recorded time).
* A whole world to cover.
* No access to anybody who can say "I was there man!!".
* Absent, contradictory, incomplete records - leading to a need to extrapolate from scant evidence.
* The impact of national stories and Hollywood.
* Decades of prior art in the hobby.

Yeah it's tough, especially when you have such differences in warfare between say bronze age chariots, Greek and Roman infantry and medieval warfare. There's always the difficult balance between having a broadly applicable easy to use system, vs simulating the nuances of each period. I've been working on adapting them for mesoamerican warfare, though still needs some play testing.

I recently purchased some chits to use for it, I'd previously been drawing the cards then marking the number with dice. Had also toyed around with magnetic trackers but all too fiddly. Going to use the chits for activations then cards or dice for combat.

What base sizes are you using? I've been doing 40mm frontage for getting mini grids going, maybe 60-70mm squares, with eventually maybe upping to a 60 - 80mm frontage for 80 - 100mm squares. This'll fit nicely on a kitchen table.

I regret somewhat doing my ECW at 120mm frontage as need to clear space and set up folding tables if I want a game of FK&P. So rarely get one.

All being well I'll use some of my crusades forces on a 80mm frontage on a 100mm grid in the near future to try out TtS with the chits.

Also at some point plan to play out the battle of Arsuf in three different rule sets (TtS, HC and Soldiers of God) to compare and contrast.

Make sure you pick up the latest Even Stronger supplement for TtS if you haven't already, some good clarifications and a few rule improvements from the original. Especially around routing and rallying.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM
no interesting tactical options to exercise ...

At risk of reopening a can of very wriggly worms, I suggest that's a limitation of pre-Napoleonic warfare in general, primarily for fundamental reasons of physics and geometry. As debated on the Forum here:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11416.msg152960.html#msg152960
and my full blog post about it here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2016/04/airing-some-prejudices-on-one.html

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM
If there are no great match-ups, can you sell me a different slice of history where I can enjoy fun games.

If you mean history in general, I urge you to examine the 19th century: asymmetrical armies and weaponry producing interesting tactical challenges, loads of maneuver and depth and variety to the battles, plenty of colour on the tabletop - it's got a lot going for it.

If you just mean a different slice of ancient history, I'm not the right person to ask; I can only say from a brief encounter with TtS that if you're going to do ancients, it seems a good fun system to do it with.

Best of luck with finding what you're looking for!
Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331/

If everything in ancient and medieval plays the same tactically, there's a strong inference that you should be considering a new set of rules.

Quote from: mmcv on 23 June 2020, 01:01:39 PM
Yeah it's tough, especially when you have such differences in warfare between say bronze age chariots, Greek and Roman infantry and medieval warfare. There's always the difficult balance between having a broadly applicable easy to use system, vs simulating the nuances of each period. I've been working on adapting them for mesoamerican warfare, though still needs some play testing.

I recently purchased some chits to use for it, I'd previously been drawing the cards then marking the number with dice. Had also toyed around with magnetic trackers but all too fiddly. Going to use the chits for activations then cards or dice for combat.

What base sizes are you using? I've been doing 40mm frontage for getting mini grids going, maybe 60-70mm squares, with eventually maybe upping to a 60 - 80mm frontage for 80 - 100mm squares. This'll fit nicely on a kitchen table.

I regret somewhat doing my ECW at 120mm frontage as need to clear space and set up folding tables if I want a game of FK&P. So rarely get one.

All being well I'll use some of my crusades forces on a 80mm frontage on a 100mm grid in the near future to try out TtS with the chits.

Also at some point plan to play out the battle of Arsuf in three different rule sets (TtS, HC and Soldiers of God) to compare and contrast.

Make sure you pick up the latest Even Stronger supplement for TtS if you haven't already, some good clarifications and a few rule improvements from the original. Especially around routing and rallying.

My old ancients are 15s on a 40mm frontage (Standard WRG "Numbered" basing).
I'm planning on sticking with 40mm frontage, and using 20, 30 or 40mm depths to reflect:
* Model size (More depth if I field Elephants and Chariots).
* Formation (Deeper for the loose and open orders).
* Large / small units.

Will probably play out a couple of encounters solo using MDF bases, just to get a feel for the game.
As I've alluded earlier in the thread, I can be quite picky about rules, so have to like the feel of the game.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 June 2020, 02:47:52 PM
My old ancients are 15s on a 40mm frontage (Standard WRG "Numbered" basing).
I'm planning on sticking with 40mm frontage, and using 20, 30 or 40mm depths to reflect:
* Model size (More depth if I field Elephants and Chariots).
* Formation (Deeper for the loose and open orders).
* Large / small units.

Will probably play out a couple of encounters solo using MDF bases, just to get a feel for the game.
As I've alluded earlier in the thread, I can be quite picky about rules, so have to like the feel of the game.

Yeah pretty much the approach I'm taking. 40x20 for standard infantry and 40x40 for deep units or "special" e.g. attached crossbows. Cavalry 40x30 and Chariots etc 40x40. Then use number of figures and formation for some variation. E.g. standard cavalry have 4 figures but light cav only 2.

Of course there's no point playing a rule system you don't enjoy!

In ancients the interesting tactical interplay comes from the different types of units and how they handle local tactical situations.

I've been using the DBx style basing (40mm width for 15/10/6mm figures) for my ancients, I like DBA for what it is, but am still looking to settle on a bigger battle set of ancients rules.

I see the candidates as Sword & Spear and To the Strongest really from what I've read.

Probably the best historical opponents that can beat Romans is Sassanid Persians.

Hail Caesar is worth a go too, though it's more a flexible scenario system than a line up and fight competitive matchup like DBA. TtS fits that criteria. Can't speak to S&S.

Quote from: Chris Pringle on 23 June 2020, 01:43:36 PM
At risk of reopening a can of very wriggly worms, I suggest that's a limitation of pre-Napoleonic warfare in general, primarily for fundamental reasons of physics and geometry. As debated on the Forum here:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11416.msg152960.html#msg152960
and my full blog post about it here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2016/04/airing-some-prejudices-on-one.html

If you mean history in general, I urge you to examine the 19th century: asymmetrical armies and weaponry producing interesting tactical challenges, loads of maneuver and depth and variety to the battles, plenty of colour on the tabletop - it's got a lot going for it.

If you just mean a different slice of ancient history, I'm not the right person to ask; I can only say from a brief encounter with TtS that if you're going to do ancients, it seems a good fun system to do it with.

Best of luck with finding what you're looking for!
Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1412549408869331/

Alas I did actually mean a different slice of ancient history.
I think there's some potential around the Wrack of the Byzantine empire following the 4th crusade.

Interesting links.
My own view is that the rules and the scale of battle make the biggest difference.
Throw in a third factor, the limitations of the tabletop, which tend to thwart strategic attacking and push most battles into linear confrontations.

I remain unconvinced that, whether your line stretches from Switzerland to the sea or merely the width of the Field of Gu'edina, most of warfare doesn't consist of two sides lining up and having a go with whatever technological or psychological advantage they can contrive. Nor am I convinced that there's as much difference as some believe between warfare involving troops with pokey-sticks and those involving troops with bang-sticks.

The arrival of a reliable internal combustion engine, rear echelon artillery, air power, telecommunications et al does seem to have irrevocably have changed the face of battle ... at least until WW3 puts us back to fighting with rocks and sticks once more.

Late Byzantine is interesting, the Latin Empire, etc. And that fits into the broader crusades period where there's plenty of interesting options around that. Lot of options with Turks, Saracens, Arabs, Persians....

Italo-Normans is also an interesting option at the earlier end of that period. Or the Iberian Reconquista. I think anything that pits heavy European style armies against lighter more flexible armies can have some interesting options.

Huns or Mongols are another option for something a little different. Lot of horses to paint though...

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2020, 10:09:38 PM
You wish to avoid the earlier periods when they lost many battles?
No reference to other areas such as India or China.


I most certainly do..

That's fine. Nothing more irritating than people answering the query they wished you had asked rather than the one you want to ask. My preference is the Successor states and Punic Wars because I find the interplay of civic politics, economics and military topics provide an interesting setting for historical study and wargaming; for the latter I find DBA quite sufficient.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 23 June 2020, 11:45:38 AM
I'm still experimenting, but looking at 80mm squares.
Much smaller and there isn't space for the cards and tokens.


I've been away form ancients for at least 2 decades and am assessing whether it's worth giving it another try.
I have great sympathy for the rules writers, I think it is one of the most challenging periods to create a set of rules.
Consider the challenges:
* 4500 years of history (That's almost 90% of recorded time).
* A whole world to cover.
* No access to anybody who can say "I was there man!!".
* Absent, contradictory, incomplete records - leading to a need to extrapolate from scant evidence.
* The impact of national stories and Hollywood.
* Decades of prior art in the hobby.

I suggest one set of rules for the entire period is very unsatisfactory. Chariot warfare, for example, is a quite distinct entity, whatever WRG's opinion might be. I suggest that the classic four books of sub-division that are commonly used would do well and it is advantageous to have a distinct set of rules for each. SHIELdBEARER was specifically written for the Classical period, although as I have never played it it would be inappropriate to recommend it. As for TTS what are the specifics that make it interesting and how do the different armies play out. If Romans are all conquering everyone would play them; somehow I doubt they are.

Pick some opponents from armies that have a variety of interesting troop types.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 23 June 2020, 10:54:32 PM
I suggest one set of rules for the entire period is very unsatisfactory. Chariot warfare, for example, is a quite distinct entity, whatever WRG's opinion might be. I suggest that the classic four books of sub-division that are commonly used would do well and it is advantageous to have a distinct set of rules for each. SHIELdBEARER was specifically written for the Classical period, although as I have never played it it would be inappropriate to recommend it. As for TTS what are the specifics that make it interesting and how do the different armies play out. If Romans are all conquering everyone would play them; somehow I doubt they are.

Pick some opponents from armies that have a variety of interesting troop types.

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".

I too had similar thoughts about how to do ancients interestingly without Romans, came up with 12th-13th century Syrians, which then led to similar era Egyptians, Mongols, Georgians, Seljuk Turks, later Byzantines, with not a Crusader in sight.

Think that's outside your time frame but the idea would be to pick a geographical area first, then find armies in that region that fought each other when they weren't being hammered by boring Romans.

As the saying goes, the winner writes the history, so too much of our ancients history is dominated by the wars the Romans fought, when if you dig deep enough there were probably plenty enough wars going on for everyone to ignore the Romans completely and fight assorted and varied armies without them.

Mark

Quote from: sultanbev on 24 June 2020, 09:31:25 AM
I too had similar thoughts about how to do ancients interestingly without Romans, came up with 12th-13th century Syrians, which then led to similar era Egyptians, Mongols, Georgians, Seljuk Turks, later Byzantines, with not a Crusader in sight.

Think that's outside your time frame but the idea would be to pick a geographical area first, then find armies in that region that fought each other when they weren't being hammered by boring Romans.

As the saying goes, the winner writes the history, so too much of our ancients history is dominated by the wars the Romans fought, when if you dig deep enough there were probably plenty enough wars going on for everyone to ignore the Romans completely and fight assorted and varied armies without them.

Mark

So if you want to do ancients without Romans, don't do ancients? @-)

"So if you want to do ancients without Romans, don't do ancients?"

Geography not time period, so it's more like don't do the Mediterranean coastline  :D

Likewise in WW2, it's quite possible to do WW2 games without Germans.

One other thing to consider is maybe looking into different rules options. As I mentioned previously with my Crusades I use both generic and specific systems with them. HC and TtS are generic ancient rulesets, but Soldiers of God is designed around the flavour and style of Crusades warfare. Interestingly the author has a new book, Soldiers of Rome, which does the same thing with the Romans, Parthians and "Barbarians". I've not got it myself but when I do some Imperial Romans in the distant future will likely give it a go for a more period flavoured ruleset that doesn't need to worry about being everything to everyone.

Staying with the more general-purpose rulesets though, going out of the Med does give some good options, as mentioned Middle East, India, Asia - China and Japan have loads of good options - even into the Americas (though limited to mostly Aztec region in 10mm). Or even go with what-if scenarios or matchups. One benefit of the generic rulesets like TtS is they're designed to match anyone against anyone, so you could do a Rome vs China or Alexander vs the West rather than the East, or any number of varying matchups that might provide an interesting game. Or even apply some sort of temporal warping and have Henry V fight Hannibal! Though then things might start getting too weird...

Quote from: Ithoriel on 23 June 2020, 09:21:12 PM
I remain unconvinced that, whether your line stretches from Switzerland to the sea or merely the width of the Field of Gu'edina, most of warfare doesn't consist of two sides lining up and having a go with whatever technological or psychological advantage they can contrive.

Forgive me, I'm having trouble parsing this sentence.

Are you saying that most of warfare does consist of two sides lining up & having a go (eventually . . .), or it does not?

Quote from: sultanbev on 24 June 2020, 09:48:09 AM
"So if you want to do ancients without Romans, don't do ancients?"

Geography not time period, so it's more like don't do the Mediterranean coastline  :D

Likewise in WW2, it's quite possible to do WW2 games without Germans.

The examples given are all half a millennium after anything that could be called part of the ancient world.

Quote from: Raider4 on 24 June 2020, 11:03:14 AM
Forgive me, I'm having trouble parsing this sentence.

Are you saying that most of warfare does consist of two sides lining up & having a go (eventually . . .), or it does not?

In keeping with the spirit of the wargaming era under discussion, it's written in Phil Barkerese.   :P

p.s. Seriously, I think Mike is saying he is still convinced that most of warfare consists of two sides lining up and having a go regardless of the era.

Only Cerberus should be allowed to Barker like that.

To Napoleonic & after gamers anything prior to the medieval era is "ancients". Although where 'medieval' begins and 'ancients' ends appears to be a bit of a blur. I always thought medieval was about 1450AD, but appears to be 500AD-1500AD in the link below, so what do I know?

Probably comes with seeing club WRG ancients games back in the 20th century where itr appeared any army between 2000BC and 1450AD could be fought against each other.....

However mine's just an example of process.

For instance, using the maps presented here:
https://www.worldhistorymaps.info/maps.html

eg
https://www.worldhistorymaps.info/images/East-Hem_100ad.jpg
you can see each tribe/nation in it's geographical location with it's neighbours. In the 100AD map for instance, you might pick a Dacian army with it's lovely 2-handed chewers - looking at the map you can see it neighbours Gepids, Sarmations and Goths and assorted smaller tribes; pick the Sarmations and you can then look into Armenians, Kushan, Alans, Parthians and so on.

Lovely maps on that website if nothing else, and a great resource,

Mark

Quote from: sultanbev on 24 June 2020, 11:50:03 AM
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,

Cool. Thanks for that link.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 24 June 2020, 11:31:08 AM
Only Cerberus should be allowed to Barker like that.

Nobby - coat chewing needed ! Or in this case a good treeing would help.  ;)

Quote from: Westmarcher on 24 June 2020, 11:28:26 AM
In keeping with the spirit of the wargaming era under discussion, it's written in Phil Barkerese.   :P

p.s. Seriously, I think Mike is saying he is still convinced that most of warfare consists of two sides lining up and having a go regardless of the era.

I am flattered to find my poor prose mentioned in the same sentence as the master of clarity and conciseness :)

And, yes, that was the drift of my deliberately convoluted post.

Grand, thought so. And I almost agree.

I suspect most forms of warfare over the years are not pitched battles, but consist of one bunch inside of "something", behind walls as high and as stout as they can be made, and another bunch trying to break through those walls.

But, yes pitched battles? Two sides lined up, ready to have a go.

Quote from: Raider4 on 24 June 2020, 03:29:21 PM
Grand, thought so. And I almost agree.

I suspect most forms of warfare over the years are not pitched battles, but consist of one bunch inside of "something", behind walls as high and as stout as they can be made, and another bunch trying to break through those walls.

But, yes pitched battles? Two sides lined up, ready to have a go.

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!"

At their most basic, sieges just replace hills and riverbanks with walls and ditches. No?

Quote from: Raider4 on 24 June 2020, 03:29:21 PM
But, yes pitched battles? Two sides lined up, ready to have a go.

But no.

For most of history, yes. But from the 1790s on, no. I've done a quick trawl through all the major European battles from 1815 to 1897 and a number of ACW battles, and only a small minority could be characterised as 'two sides lined up, ready to have a go'.

About a third have a defender 'lined up' firmly in position awaiting attack, but even in many of those cases, the attacker is on the march and his troops turns up at various times from various directions, often creating counter-manoeuvre opportunities for the defender. In all the rest, the situation is much less static, it's not a simple frontal clash, and both sides are having to manoeuvre. Manoeuvre decided where the major clashes would happen, it was rarely a big clash all along the line. 'Linear warfare' had given way to 'impulse warfare'. It's a big difference, it produces a much greater variety of battle situations, and therefore (for me, anyway) makes for more interesting games.

Chris

Is that a matter of scale though? When talking about grand scale maneuver of entire corps yes, but if you're talking a smaller tactical scale of the troops actually fighting the battle across a field or hill or stream, a lot of the time it is of the line up and have a go nature, up until relatively recently.

But a lot of it comes down to what you enjoy in the game. Given the typical numbers involved, ancient warfare was usually more akin to a single action between corps than the multi corp maneuvers your allude to. There's plenty of tactical consideration to be had in those actions, making use of good ground, ambushes, good positioning, or sometimes just charging in and trying to stick them with the pointy end. That hasn't really changed and is a microcosm for those larger battles, with entire divisions taking advantage of position, manuever and terrain rather than individual units.

Quote from: Chris Pringle on 24 June 2020, 05:19:48 PM
For most of history, yes. But from the 1790s on, no.

Well, this is a thread about Ancients Match-ups . . .

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 24 June 2020, 09:23:57 AM
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?

Quote from: Ithoriel on 24 June 2020, 04:29:36 PM
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.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 23 June 2020, 10:54:32 PM
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.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 24 June 2020, 08:15:33 PM
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.

+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 :D 

Quote from: sultanbev on 24 June 2020, 11:50:03 AM
...
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 :)

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.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 24 June 2020, 09:13:54 PM
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.

Alexander, Frederick, and Nobunaga for my top three.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 27 June 2020, 05:44:11 AM
Alexander, Frederick, and Nobunaga for my top three.

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

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.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 26 June 2020, 08:46:03 PM
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.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 27 June 2020, 12:07:18 PM
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

Oops - I'm thinking of Slim Pickens!

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'.

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.

Cause it likes to make things easier !

Oh. Best three generals: Wellington - for his careful preparation, strategic overview and eye for ground; Hannibal for maintaining an army in being in Italy and Cannae; Frederick the Great for revolutionising warfare and taking on the big boys of Europe - and winning.

My three have something in common - using limited resources to their best. Honourable mentions to Montgomery, RE Lee, Jan Ziska, Robert the Bruce, Jean de Valette, Moshe Dayan - some of whom are one hit wonders - plus many, many more.

Tomorrow I may have a different three.     

How about some commanders from the first 50% of military history? :)

Ramses III, whose defeat of the Sea Peoples leaves Egypt as the only civilisation in the Eastern Med to survive the Late Bronze Age Collapse, which wiped out the Hittites, Mitanni and Mycenaeans and a raft of other lesser known states and sent the Assyrians scurrying back to their heartlands abandoning swathes of territory.

Lugal-Zage-Si who's victories and conquests give him a reasonable claim to have created the world's first known empire comprising  "all the lands between the upper and the lower seas", that is, between the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Sargon of Akkad, who is often given the credit for creating the world's first known empire. He defeated Lugal-Zage-Si and, as said before,"history is written by the winners."

Like Hannibal?

Anyway, the problem with such old characters is that we don't really get a balanced view. Ramses may have been a massive hero, but the Mitanni may well have been dispirited, diseased, disarmed, divided and debt ridden. Certainly, Ramses wouldn't let us know that he stuck the boot in after the Assyrians had done the nasty. It doesn't do to build a memorial to rolling over two old men and a goat with 10,000 chariots. I'm not saying Ramses didn't accomplish much, it's that I'm not sure we have a perfect understanding of the situation. I mean, I could have Ramses and all his chariots if you give me a troop of Centurions and a company of Gurkhas.  

Take Xenophon. If you read the Anabasis you'd think "hey, this Xeneophon dude knows where his towel is. He is a cool frood." If you are then told that he wrote the book you might be forgiven for being a little more sceptical.  

The point I was trying to make was that we sometimes judge generals by their achievements - not their circumstances. Would we say that Badoglio was a master general because he conquered Ethiopia? Could the fact that he used tankettes, aircraft and mustard gas against what was little more than a tribal militia be relevant?

The Sea Peoples swept away state after state until Ramses beat them on land and on the water. We have the account at Medinet Habu of how he did it. All the others fell before them.

Far as I'm concerned the first 50% is roughly 2700BCE to 350BCE so Hannibal is 100 years into the second 50% :)

As to Xenophon ... the same can be said of Caesar.

If you have a favourite book, you haven't read enough books.

If you have a favourite film, you haven't watched enough films.

If you have a favourite song, you haven't heard enough songs.

If you have a "best" general, you need to read more military history. :D :D :D :D

You sort of prove my point.

Medinet Habu is an Egyptian version of the tale. Do we have a Sea Peoples version?

Herodotus estimated Xerses' army at 1,700,000 infantry and 80,000 cavalry. He may have over calculated, but it makes a good story better. 


As a statistician, I would say your're falling for the mythology of the mean. Better to use the median value i.e. where we have half the volume of history which is probably about 1850.  :P



I agree with your comment about Xenophon and Caesar, I actually said that.

You can have a favourite anything ... but must accept that may change. I have a favourite everything, but tomorrow it may change. (Exception: favourite daughter)

QuoteThe Sea Peoples swept away state after state until Ramses beat them on land and on the water. We have the account at Medinet Habu of how he did it. All the others fell before them.

In truth modern scholarship tends to have a less clear cut view of the sea peoples. They are seen as much victims of the various contributing factors of the collapse as much as a cause. There doesn't appear to be a huge amount of evidence for them being an all conquering force so much as a mishmash of displaced peoples driven from their homes by environmental pressures and turning to raiding and mass migration to survive.

The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

It's a shame, I'd love to know more about what actually went on from multiple sources but it's pretty unclear given the distance of time.

An interesting discussion

Quote from: fsn on 27 June 2020, 06:40:36 PM
...You can have a favourite anything ... but must accept that may change. I have a favourite everything, but tomorrow it may change. (Exception: favourite daughter)

Nobby there is a Centurion and a section of Gurkhas on their way to have a word, they reckon your list of exceptions is a little short ;D

Hastily and gratefully amended.

To appease the gods of the A41!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/4b/2b/9a4b2b62611062b7e18404a682cd8b7d.jpg)

Quote from: mmcv on 27 June 2020, 08:06:11 PM
The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

My point in the proverbial nutshell.

Quote from: mmcv on 27 June 2020, 08:06:11 PM
In truth modern scholarship tends to have a less clear cut view of the sea peoples. They are seen as much victims of the various contributing factors of the collapse as much as a cause. There doesn't appear to be a huge amount of evidence for them being an all conquering force so much as a mishmash of displaced peoples driven from their homes by environmental pressures and turning to raiding and mass migration to survive.

The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

It's a shame, I'd love to know more about what actually went on from multiple sources but it's pretty unclear given the distance of time.

The same "modern scholarship" that thinks swords are ceremonial or that the Northern European Bronze Age was a haven of peace and tranquiity? .... Oops! Tollense :)

I'm sure the Sea Peoples weren't the only factor but they obviously were a factor.

City after city didn't burn because people accidentally left the gas on :)

Cities with streets littered with skeletons and arrowheads probably aren't evidence of explosions in the local arrow factory. :)

Surviving Sea Peoples seem to have settled or been settled in Palestine, either because the Egyptians made them or couldn't stop them. What they didn't do was settle in Egypt.

Some, including the famous Sherden, joined the Egyptian army as mercenaries like the Libyans and Nubians. The Egyptians weren't averse to incorporating the best of their defeated enemies armies into their own. They initially joined as a result of the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II defeat of an earlier Sea Peoples raid on Egypt. It is said that the division of the army into four "divisions" at Kadesh was suggested by the leaders of the Sea Peoples mercenaries.

To be sure, spin has been around as long as there have been people in positions of power. However, if we eliminate anything written by those with an axe to grind history books are going to be awfae thin.

However, given that my post has utterly derailed an already derailed thread I should probably stand down my defence of Ramses.  

 

I don't recall seeing a tank in Baker Street.

Quote from: Last Hussar on 28 June 2020, 02:20:22 AM
I don't recall seeing a tank in Baker Street.

1919 - WWI Victory Prade.......maybe.

Quote from: fsn on 27 June 2020, 09:08:41 PM
Hastily and gratefully amended.

To appease the gods of the A41!
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/4b/2b/9a4b2b62611062b7e18404a682cd8b7d.jpg)

Hey Fritz - race you to the next set of lights!!

I see Xenophon getting a mention.

The further I got through the Anabasis, tbe more I was reminded of Alan Partridge's "Needless to say, I had the last laugh".

Returning to my origional question, I've browsed outside the period of the western Roman empire and found an interestng looking cluster of forces.

Later Byzantine, Eastern Latins, Venice Abroad, Ottoman and Catalan Company.

A fair bit of variety, some interesting forces and potential for all to fight all.

Definitely a very interesting period to play in

Early medieval? ;D

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 28 June 2020, 03:26:25 PM
Returning to my origional question, I've browsed outside the period of the western Roman empire and found an interestng looking cluster of forces.

Later Byzantine, Eastern Latins, Venice Abroad, Ottoman and Catalan Company.

A fair bit of variety, some interesting forces and potential for all to fight all.

Glad to see we are back to the OP topic.  A good range of armies there: the Crusades and the clash of cultural & military technology that resulted is the reason that this is the other Ancients period that interests me most. 

If you are changing period are you changing rules?  I do not know TTS but of the popular ones I have tried ADLG and MeG and prefer the latter.  Madaxeman has an analysis that is worth reading and TTS is clearly popular but it rather depends on what your local people want to play.  https://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/2020/04/who-was-playing-what-2019-20-ancient.html

Quote from: mmcv on 27 June 2020, 08:06:11 PM
In truth modern scholarship tends to have a less clear cut view of the sea peoples. They are seen as much victims of the various contributing factors of the collapse as much as a cause. There doesn't appear to be a huge amount of evidence for them being an all conquering force so much as a mishmash of displaced peoples driven from their homes by environmental pressures and turning to raiding and mass migration to survive.

The Egyptians were awfully good at tooting their own horn, so hard to know just how good they were. Indeed it seems that many of the sea people "invaders" ended up settling in Egypt and joining it's army. Ramses may have been a magnificent general, or his army may have just bloodied the nose of some half starved refugees before absorbing them into the state, then made out like he was a magnificent general. We just can't really know, so hard to judge the quality of a general from back then.

It's a shame, I'd love to know more about what actually went on from multiple sources but it's pretty unclear given the distance of time.

I was reflecting (with #3 son who is reading Modern Studies at school) that Ancient History has more in common with Modern Studies than mainstream history.

Both Modern Studies and Ancent History have fast unknowns (Either classified information or lost in the sands of time).
They also suffer form the biased reportage far more than mainstream history.

I've heard it said that Ancients wargaming features the most speculation, extrapolation and gap-filling; except perhaps moderns.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 28 June 2020, 11:56:45 PM
Glad to see we are back to the OP topic.  A good range of armies there: the Crusades and the clash of cultural & military technology that resulted is the reason that this is the other Ancients period that interests me most. 

If you are changing period are you changing rules?  I do not know TTS but of the popular ones I have tried ADLG and MeG and prefer the latter.  Madaxeman has an analysis that is worth reading and TTS is clearly popular but it rather depends on what your local people want to play.  https://madaxemandotcom.blogspot.com/2020/04/who-was-playing-what-2019-20-ancient.html

One of the really interesting aspects of that group, is that 4 of the lists stretch over at least 2 centuries (Not the Catalans).
Three of them see significant changes to their military systems, and borders during those times.
* Byzantines change their mercenaries, adopt Knightly cavalry and very late experiment with firearms.
* Ottomans go the whole switch from a Turcik Steppe force to a mixed army with reliable cavalry and regular foot and early adopters of firearms..
* The Venetians introduce the super-heavy knight fairly early in the period, and add a few firearms to their crossbows near to the end.

I like the way that each list has a relatively limited core of reliable troops, but is going to need some irregulars / levies to make up the army.
Not the masses of knights and spear-crossbow supporting foot of the traditional middle age army.
There are also allied contingents (Stradiot horse) that can crop up in more than one army.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 29 June 2020, 11:29:50 AM
I was reflecting (with #3 son who is reading Modern Studies at school) that Ancient History has more in common with Modern Studies than mainstream history.

Both Modern Studies and Ancent History have fast unknowns (Either classified information or lost in the sands of time).
They also suffer form the biased reportage far more than mainstream history.

I've heard it said that Ancients wargaming features the most speculation, extrapolation and gap-filling; except perhaps moderns.

Yes for sure, that is one element I enjoy as gives you a lot more room for creativity. I enjoy the hobby as a creative outlet so having a bit of flexibility mixed in with the research to fill the gaps can be fun. That's partly why my first 20th century project is AVBCW as I enjoy the creative aspect of coming up with alternative history. In the likes of the 19th and 20th century there's such a huge amount of information available, there's a bit less room for creativity within the historical sphere. Still lots of interesting things to be done as evidenced by many on this forum, but you need a good understanding of the history to riff off it creatively.

When chosing a period in which to game I tend to also look at what could make an excellent campaign. Recreating Waterloo is splendid, but after you've done it a few times I find wargamers want to fight the campaign and actually move the armies around pre-battle. With this in mind, and returning to the topic of good Ancient match-ups - the first question that should be asked is would you rather paint Persians/Seleucids or Parthians - or do you want to paint maurading Barbarian types?

If Persians then you could go with Sparta, Athens, a Xenophon mercenary band, and two rival Persian brothers vying for the throne. This makes for an interesting campaign that goes beyond the hoplites vs Persians.

If Parthians then you could go with Parthians, Belisarius era Byzantines, Vandals, and Goths. A four army battle royale contesting the remains of the fallen Roman world.

If you're more Barbarian inclined you could go back to the time of Adrianople and have late Romans vs numerous Germanic contingents who are all mounted at this point and a tough nut for the legions to handle along with Parthians.

Or if you prefer your Byzantines to have the Varangian Guard (although we are getting more Medieval here), go with them, whichever Eastern Caliphates strike your fancy, Normans, and Franks. Could also throw Vikings into this mix although Normans pretty much functioned as maurauding jackels in the theater fulfilling the same role and you get to play around with proto-knights.

For campaigns - the Roman civil war is always fun. You could fudge history a bit and say Pompei Magnus attacks Caesar before the Gauls are defeated so you have the two Roman factions and the Gauls and Germanic tribes. Fast forwarding to Octavian vs Antony has already been mentioned and this too is fun, especially if you get creative with the forces Antony gets in Egypt. Another like army vs like army classic Ancient clash is the wars of the Diadochi which is oozing with amazing historical characters that are fantastic to sink your teeth into and represent on the battlefield. 

Best of luck in your choices. And on the greatest general tangent - clearly it is Caesar. He fought over 50 set piece battles. For point of comparrison Alexander fought 5ish depending on how you're scoring. Genghis Khan is #2. #3 is where you'd have some lively debate. I'll go with Napoleon. 

The Mortiem et Gloriam team have put quite a bit of work in on these:
https://mortem-et-gloriam.co.uk/meg/army-lists/historical-enemies/

The Wargames Research Group came up with their list of Suggested Six-Player Historical Campaigns a while ago

http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf (http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf)

I'm currently working on my third, only fifty six left to go :!!

Quote from: paulr on 19 October 2020, 09:04:03 AM
The Wargames Research Group came up with their list of Suggested Six-Player Historical Campaigns a while ago

http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf (http://www.wargamesresearchgroup.net/SUE/DBACampaigns.pdf)

I'm currently working on my third, only fifty six left to go :!!

That was in the first edition of DBA which must be around 30 years ago.

I like using Hoplite Greeks and Early Achaemenid Persians as the hoplites can be used as mercenaries in the persian armies and it is possible to have the civil wars between the persians with their mixture of subject peoples to add interest.

Quote from: DaveH on 19 October 2020, 12:00:28 PM
That was in the first edition of DBA which must be around 30 years ago.

I like using Hoplite Greeks and Early Achaemenid Persians as the hoplites can be used as mercenaries in the persian armies and it is possible to have the civil wars between the persians with their mixture of subject peoples to add interest.

Dated August 2010 with a page count of 157?  The indications are DBA3 and I am too lazy to go and consult it.

Yes, WRG came up with their first suggestions for DBA v1.0 a long time ago, can it really be 30 years ago :o
According to the Wikipedia page for DBA it really is 30 years ago this year

I linked to the most recent version I could find which was produced during the development of DBA 3.0

Quote from: Last Hussar on 23 June 2020, 12:06:54 AM
I don't see the problem. As long as I can be the Romans.

Alternatively play Sunjester and his Magic Dice.

Yes 20 units of Early Imperial Romanvs  Vs Sunjester with 1 unit of warriors 2 units of horsa and a chariot plus his Magic Dice and you will see the Romans routing off the table after 3 moves

Quote from: Waremblem on 19 October 2020, 03:21:00 AM
Best of luck in your choices. And on the greatest general tangent - clearly it is Caesar. He fought over 50 set piece battles. For point of comparrison Alexander fought 5ish depending on how you're scoring. Genghis Khan is #2. #3 is where you'd have some lively debate. I'll go with Napoleon. 

Really!!!  :o  :o  :o

How many set-piece battles do you score Alexander in his Balkan Campaign?  Are you recording every battle Caesar wrote up as a set-piece battle?

The big three for me are: Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander.

Frederick, Alexander, Nobunaga for mine.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 20 October 2020, 03:59:43 PM
Really!!!  :o  :o  :o

How many set-piece battles do you score Alexander in his Balkan Campaign?  Are you recording every battle Caesar wrote up as a set-piece battle?

The big three for me are: Napoleon, Hannibal, Alexander.

Zero for Balkan Campaign. How many should I score? They were mostly skirmishes between under 8000 men. Basically, it was the equivalent of a Jeb Stuart cavalry raid.

I don't think there is any question Caesar would have beaten Hannibal. And Alexander, in my opinion, when you break down the myth is likely one of the most overrated generals in history. It was already established 100 years before that Greek hoplites would always beat Persian infantry. Phillip took that Greek army and injected steroids into it. Alexander inherited all of that and was able to cross the Bosphorus and win a couple battles with it.

It's also repeatedly been established that Persians can eat hoplites for breakfast on the wargames table if they use their heads, numbers, and mobility. Whether they could have stopped a Macedonian army, and particularly one led by a very resourceful and inventive general, can only be speculation.

For me, Caesar was an inspirational leader, who is well regarded because he wrote his own epitaph and was saved from his strategic ineptitude by his centurions. YMMV :)

Quote from: Waremblem on 21 October 2020, 05:46:16 PM
Zero for Balkan Campaign. How many should I score? They were mostly skirmishes between under 8000 men. Basically, it was the equivalent of a Jeb Stuart cavalry raid.

I don't think there is any question Caesar would have beaten Hannibal. And Alexander, in my opinion, when you break down the myth is likely one of the most overrated generals in history. It was already established 100 years before that Greek hoplites would always beat Persian infantry. Phillip took that Greek army and injected steroids into it. Alexander inherited all of that and was able to cross the Bosphorus and win a couple battles with it.

The scoring depends on your definitions, which would seem to be a minimum of two legions or equivalents on each side.  How complete are our historical records?

I am wondering why Caesar would unquestionably beat Hannibal.  Our knowledge of Caesar's victories are mainly known through his own writings [as pointed out elsewhere] whilst those of Hannibal through those of his enemies.  Both generals only fought a limited range of opponents.  Many claims have been made about Alexander inheriting his father's army but he fought a wide range of armies apart from conducting numerous sieges, showed tactical innovation and created the refused flank.  Given the claim that Napoleon was supposed to be worth 50,000 men no comment is needed.  The joy of personal opinion is that each can have their own.

Shapur II gets my vote.

Quote from: FierceKitty on 21 October 2020, 06:05:08 PM
It's also repeatedly been established that Persians can eat hoplites for breakfast on the wargames table if they use their heads, numbers, and mobility. Whether they could have stopped a Macedonian army, and particularly one led by a very resourceful and inventive general, can only be speculation.

That is because it is near impossible to replicate what made a hoplite a hoplite. What makes a knight a knight or a samurai a samurai? The Persians tried to raise hoplites after they were beaten in Greece and it didn't work. The nature of wargame rules is to make a fun game (at least modern ones) - history, however, tells us the Persians could not beat hoplites. Most general Ancient rules make hoplites stationary blocks that are easy to flank and defeat.

We know Caesar would have beaten Hannibal because Hannibal was beaten by Roman generals not the equal of Caesar. Caesar actually did fight against a wide range of foes - he beat Gauls, Germans, Spanish Vandals, Britons, Romans, etc. Caesar won huge set-piece battles all over the known world. I would not put Alexander in the top 10. For instance, Gengis Khan would have destroyed Alexander's army in about 3 hours. He would have drawn forward Alexander's impetuous Companion cavalry charge then would have shot the phalanxes to pieces. And that is giving GK Persian era bows so he doesn't have a tech advantage.

I like Napoleon, I have him 3. He was a great general. You can't go wrong with either Caesar or Napoleon both are God Tier generals. Alexander is more of an A or B rated general. About the equal of Rommel or Patton I'd say.

Hannibal lost because Roman manpower and economic resources were greater than Carthaginian ones.

Hannibal understood combined arms, stratagems and tactics far better than Caesar did (IMHO).

A Roman Hannibal would have won the war, probably faster, while a Carthaginian Caesar would still have lost and probably faster too.

All that said, I don't beleive we can ever make a real decision on who was the "best" general because there are so many imponderables. We can certainly have our favourites though. However, like our favourite anythings, they will probably change. Sometimes minute-by-minute in my case :)

Yes, we all have favorites. Probably should start a thread about this topic somewhere so we don't hijack this thread. It is fun to banter about!

Quote from: Ithoriel on 21 October 2020, 07:10:38 PM
For me, Caesar was an inspirational leader, who is well regarded because he wrote his own epitaph and was saved from his strategic ineptitude by his centurions. YMMV :)

Good ol' Vorenus and Pullo.  :D

Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

Quote from: Waremblem on 22 October 2020, 12:25:56 AM
That is because it is near impossible to replicate what made a hoplite a hoplite. What makes a knight a knight or a samurai a samurai? The Persians tried to raise hoplites after they were beaten in Greece and it didn't work. The nature of wargame rules is to make a fun game (at least modern ones) - history, however, tells us the Persians could not beat hoplites. Most general Ancient rules make hoplites stationary blocks that are easy to flank and defeat.

We know Caesar would have beaten Hannibal because Hannibal was beaten by Roman generals not the equal of Caesar. Caesar actually did fight against a wide range of foes - he beat Gauls, Germans, Spanish Vandals, Britons, Romans, etc. Caesar won huge set-piece battles all over the known world. I would not put Alexander in the top 10. For instance, Gengis Khan would have destroyed Alexander's army in about 3 hours. He would have drawn forward Alexander's impetuous Companion cavalry charge then would have shot the phalanxes to pieces. And that is giving GK Persian era bows so he doesn't have a tech advantage.

I like Napoleon, I have him 3. He was a great general. You can't go wrong with either Caesar or Napoleon both are God Tier generals. Alexander is more of an A or B rated general. About the equal of Rommel or Patton I'd say.

So the Allied Generals of WWII were better than the German Generals of WWII because they were the winners?  Caesar's opponents were variants of Celts and Romans, which is hardly a wide range of fighting styles; Alexander had to take on Celts in the Balkans, Persians, Steppe tribes and Indians, which represents a wide range of military technology and fighting styles. Was Caesar's invasion of Britannia a success or failure?  The historians still dispute it.  This is the first suggestion I have ever seen that the Companion cavalry were impetuous.  Alexander took on cultures with a long history of using bows and using them effectively.  Fighting the steppe tribes was a tough struggle but he proved victorious.  Caesar was undoubtedly a great commander but did he not state that a contemporary Roman general in Spain was the greatest ever? 

At Cannae Hannibal comprehensively defeated his opponents on ground of their choosing at a time of their own choosing when outnumbered two to one.  The only loss he sustained, that I know of, was at Zama and it is well worth reading the article in SLINGSHOT on it that discusses the possible approach Hannibal had to winning it.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 22 October 2020, 10:48:45 AM
Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

And I think we have a winner; an astute observation.

Quote from: flamingpig0 on 22 October 2020, 10:48:45 AM
Ramses ii is unquestionably the best General as he fully grasped propaganda, myth making and arguably outright telling porkies

He plucked victory from the jaws of defeat at Kadesh, to win a tactical victory, albeit a strategic draw.

Later he successfully campaigned in the Levant, taking territory as far North as Tunip from the Hittites, which he later traded for a peace treaty that lasted for the rest of his reign.

Best general ever? Probably not, but a force to be reckoned with none the less.

The thing about the great generals:

They tend to have the best sergeants / centurions / file leaders ....

Never neglect the quality of your NCOs.

Quote from: hammurabi70 on 22 October 2020, 12:31:32 PM
So the Allied Generals of WWII were better than the German Generals of WWII because they were the winners?  Caesar's opponents were variants of Celts and Romans, which is hardly a wide range of fighting styles; Alexander had to take on Celts in the Balkans, Persians, Steppe tribes and Indians, which represents a wide range of military technology and fighting styles. Was Caesar's invasion of Britannia a success or failure?  The historians still dispute it.  This is the first suggestion I have ever seen that the Companion cavalry were impetuous.  Alexander took on cultures with a long history of using bows and using them effectively.  Fighting the steppe tribes was a tough struggle but he proved victorious.  Caesar was undoubtedly a great commander but did he not state that a contemporary Roman general in Spain was the greatest ever? 

At Cannae Hannibal comprehensively defeated his opponents on ground of their choosing at a time of their own choosing when outnumbered two to one.  The only loss he sustained, that I know of, was at Zama and it is well worth reading the article in SLINGSHOT on it that discusses the possible approach Hannibal had to winning it.

And I think we have a winner; an astute observation.

Of course, the Allied generals were superior. Few armies and generals in the history of warfare are more overrated than the German army of 1939-45. The exception would be von Manstein who was a tactical genius and someone I would rate an S class general. However, even the much-hyped Rommel had tremendous flaws. I equate the German generals to the Confederates in the ACW - they benefited in the past a great deal from lost cause romanticism which has been curtailed quite a bit with recent scholarship.

Alexander conducting raids against disorganized tribes is hardly a testament to his qualities as a general leading set-piece battles. I have yet to hear about all these major victories Alex won. That is likely because there were only 5. Alex also shares a ton with Ramses - a whole boatload of propaganda about him and it's curious why we have no contemporary sources. The companions as a unit were not impetuous but the way Alex used them was. That would have never worked against Genghis. And - please, there are bows, then there are bow tactics that the Mongols used. Like comparing AA baseball to the Los Angelos Dodgers. And let's not forget Genghis defeated the greatest military power on one side of the world in China, crushed the best Islam had to offer, and then did the same to the Christain West.  

Caesar's invasion of Briton was a success to everyone but his detractors. It was never intended to be a full-scale conquest but a reconnaissance in force. The other vital quality Caesar had was that he never had his army destroyed. Napoleon, for example, lost massive armies in 1812, 1813 and his field army disintegrated in 1815. Now I will grant the Alexander defenders he mostly won (although I am positive his foray into India was a defeat later scrubbed into a "draw" by historians) but as I have already stated it was established 100 years prior hoplites would always beat Persians so I'm not sure how much battlefield credit he deserves for doing that. Alexader was certainly audacious but his actual generalship might have come up short against more equally matched foes.

As for Hannibal - again, I believe not in the same league. It is cited Hannibal won outnumbered at Cannae. I reply, so? Caesar was often heavily outnumbered. He won massive victories at Bibricate and Pharsalus being outnumbered 2:1. At Alesia, he conducted a siege while outnumbered then destroyed the entire assembled Gaul relief force. He invaded Germania and Briton destroying armies in his path just because he could. He won a civil war also being outnumbered - in fact he took Rome with a single legion. He then overthrew the entire Senate and transformed a Republic into an Empire. Tactically, he was innovative and from a morale perspective, few, if any, leaders have inspired men more (remember the Macedonians revolted against Alex). Caesar was a titan.  

We heard most of that the first time round. Have some tea and chill out a bit, dude.

Looks like we are all right and all wrong.  :D  8->

You Tube follow up from the original article.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18tLrSw-w1s

:o

LOL, looks like I nailed it with 2 of the top 3. Nice link. I'm checking out their website.

Quote from: Waremblem on 31 October 2020, 07:34:51 PM
LOL, looks like I nailed it with 2 of the top 3. Nice link. I'm checking out their website.

A complete fluke that I stumbled upon it while doing something else. The original written article did the rounds of the websites a year or two ago.  It does depend on:
(1) How well American sports analysis can be used for military engagements in history [ very dubious]
(2) The accuracy of the input data [very suspect]

However, it is at least something.

Happy new year all: A bit of a thread hijack back to its roots.

My search for good match-ups have led me through a re-appraisal of several sets of rules.
Having quickly rejected those with a "Legions can't lose" bias, I found a few other dissonances between contemporary accounts and the tabletop experience.

Bear in mind here that ancients will  never me my "big main theme", so I am looking for something quite different from the committed ancientist, and especially the competition gamer.

One concern was over the number of AARs where the battle hinged on one unit making a neat little move, or using a special rule.
This set in a context of two long lines pushing into mutual contact.
The plucky sergeant holding the line seems a thing that appeared with the fighting style, and possibilities offered by the breachloading rifle - and more so when a magazine was added.
I felt a degree of historic dissonance here. Too much control of troops in contact - perhaps.

A bigger one was the effect of foot skirmishers in ancient warfare.
Once again I'm left with the impression of age of rifle Jagers - admittedly Jagers who don't aim very well.
I've tended to view the ancient LI skirmisher having some very specific roles.
* Scouting (AKA contesting the enemy skirmisher)
* Holding camps and difficult terrain, and ambushing from those locations.
* Specially trained ones could also operate as missile contingents for formed foot - or support chariots and foot.

My thesis is that playing out scouting according to normal rules really slows down the main event of the game.
I thought through some alternatives.
* A scouting phase similar to Chain of Command where players could commit their Psiloi with little expectation of their returning for the main battle. (Either occupy scouted terrain, or filter away as the big boys arrive).
* Combine the better psiloi with forme units for a bit of shooting and flank support.

It's all a little far fetched using my main rulesets, so I got onto Google (other search engines are available) and rediscovered Philip Sabin's Lost Battles.
This appears to be extremely abstract with few troop types, some general formulae for combat, and played on a very limited (5 x 4) grid.
It clearly lacks many of the buttons that dedicated ancientists enjoy pressing, but I figured it might work for me.
Bonus that it provides lists and battle reports for around 25 ancient battles form the Greco-Persian, Hellenistic and Republican Roman eras.
Perhaps there is a semblance of "Good match ups".


Searching for the book found the price at £25 - rather higher than I'd punt for a speculative set of rules.
I then found that a slightly earlier version of the rules (without the book's design notes) was on sale for £6 under the title Strategos II.
I've ordered these and will post a bit more after I've read them.

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 01 January 2021, 09:21:07 AMA bigger one was the effect of foot skirmishers in ancient warfare.
Once again I'm left with the impression of age of rifle Jagers - admittedly Jagers who don't aim very well.
I've tended to view the ancient LI skirmisher having some very specific roles.
 * Scouting (AKA contesting the enemy skirmisher)
 * Holding camps and difficult terrain, and ambushing from those locations.
 * Specially trained ones could also operate as missile contingents for formed foot - or support chariots and foot.

and I tend to agree

I'd say skirmishers existed to harass the enemy in and out of battle.

They existed to drain enemy morale and to fatigue them. Any casualties caused were merely a nice bonus.

I'm not aware of light infantry regularly guarding camps. Indeed I'm not convinced camps were regularly guarded, except by camp followers of very little military value. Exceptions include battles like Adrianople, where one side was defending it's camp.

Similarly, I'm not sure light infantry, or any other Ancient troop types come to that, were regularly used in ambush.

Light infantry skirmishers certainly worked alongside other troops as chariot runners, elephant guards, to bolster the effectiveness of cavalry and so on but the bulk of them seem to have worked between the battle lines, driving off their opposing numbers and slowing and harassing the enemies main battle line.

Archers firing over the heads of formed comrades seem to have largely been part of the same unit - not skirmishers acting in support of heavier troops.

Light Infantry/skirmishers would often be people turning up with what the had rather than being units created by a state for specific tactical reasons.

I think that in ancients we tend to overemphasise the nature of skirmishers or at least their 'form' Personally I think a lot of what we regard as skirmishers were often attached to or part of formed foot and just stepped in and out to do the basics

Hmm, not sure I agree. Peltasts, velites, Cretans, slingers...these are very clearly marked specialists.

not all obviously as there are always exceptions to the rule (especially amongst more professional armies).