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.

Quote from: Fenton on 04 May 2014, 08:06:50 PM
To be honest its hardly a new idea and certainly not an original one of mine

No doubt about this, but I never thought to group some things in the command value; I saw it only as the ability to "give order", not to "give order in the best way".

Quote from: fred    12df on 04 May 2014, 08:15:08 PM
Warmaster only really has a similarity to Warhammer in that they are set in the same World (and Warhammer has moved that world on a lot from the WM one). Mechanistically they are completely different rules.

Ok I know that, and it's correct the fact that the general mechanism is different; in fact heroes cover different roles in the two ruleset. But both them uses one single value of attack (or combat ability, as you want to call it), they contemplate the removal of bases, they use armour save in the same way (so only considering the equipment), they divide the type of troops in normal, special and rare (in Warmaster not directly, but the limit in the number of units come from the first differentiation).

Quote from: fred    12df on 04 May 2014, 08:15:08 PM
Hail Caesar is pretty much Warmaster v2. So while having a preference for one over the other is very common, dismissing one while liking the other is quite strange.

Personally I have played both WM and HC lots - and certainly like a lot of aspects of HC over WM - but they have far more similarities than differences.

I don't dismiss Warmaster, I said that I prefer Hail Caesar: more freedom in the basing system, no removal of bases, more freedom in the choice of units, more reality in the allocation of characteristic values. But I can't deny that there are lots of similarities.
All this things are IMHO, maybe I could say wrong things.

For me, Warmaster is a game of full scale battles while Warhammer is, despite the claims of some of it's afficionados, as much a skirmish game as Mordheim.

I also see HC as the remake of Warmaster and like most remakes it isn't as good as the original - in my opinion, of course.

I've played lots of games with lots of different rule sets and they have been perfectly enjoyable but not quite what I ideally want.

So I continue to search for a system that will give me the ancients game I'm looking for but in the meantime Warmaster has come closest to it.

However, I am quite well aware that other people's mileage may vary and if Impetus, HC, DBA or whatever float your boat more power to your elbow!

I know its old hat and not everyones cup of tea but Vis Bellica is still one of my favourites