Good Ancients Match-Ups

[mmcv]

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.

[DaveH]

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.

[mmcv]

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.

[steve_holmes_11]

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.

[Ithoriel]

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.

[mmcv]

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...

[hammurabi70]

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.

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.

[steve_holmes_11]

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".

[sultanbev]

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

[FierceKitty]

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?

[sultanbev]

"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 

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

[mmcv]

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...

[Raider4]

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?

[FierceKitty]

"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 

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.

[Westmarcher]

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.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.

[FierceKitty]

Only Cerberus should be allowed to Barker like that.

[sultanbev]

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

[Raider4]

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.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Only Cerberus should be allowed to Barker like that.

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

[Ithoriel]

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

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.