Good Ancients Match-Ups

Started by steve_holmes_11, 22 June 2020, 01:18:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

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  :D

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

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?

FierceKitty

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.
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.

Westmarcher

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.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

FierceKitty

Only Cerberus should be allowed to Barker like that.
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.

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

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.

Lord Kermit of Birkenhead

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.  ;)
FOG IN CHANNEL - EUROPE CUT OFF
Lord Kermit of Birkenhead
Muppet of the year 2019, 2020 and 2021

Ithoriel

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.

There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

Raider4

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.

Ithoriel

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?
There are 100 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who can work from incomplete data

Chris Pringle

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

mmcv

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.


Raider4

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 . . .