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. 

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.