NB: Note sure if this belongs better here or under the rules system discussions forum: admins are encouraged to move the thread as they deem appropriate.
The discussion in the Triumph! thread about different sorts of cavalry got me thinking, can one make a taxonomy of cavalry types that a rulesset must distinguish to deal adequately with our period? Can we get a rough consensus on what's needed? Let's, to keep things relatively simple, stick to horseback fighters, so no chariots, camel riders, or troops that dismount to fight (unless they also fight mounted of course), and let's also ignore anything with gunpowder weapons or incendiaries as being early modern types ahead of themselves.
To get started, here's a classification off the top of my head - is anything missing, and can any groups be usefully combined as pragmatically interchangeable?
"Nutters" - shock cavalry whose only real tactic is charging into CC, or, preferably, into the void created by the enemy breaking before contact. No or negligible shooting capacity. E.g. Frankish and later knights.
"Fencers" - similarly lacking in shooting power, but forgoing precipitate charges for a more deliberate style of combat. E.g. Arab lancers, possibly some cataphracts?
"Bow-and-lance" - cavalry willing to charge home but also capable of effective long range shooting. Forms a continuum from more chargey to more shooty, which could be cut into any number of discrete types. I'd see most steppe cavalry as falling here.
"Shooters" - pure horse archers who avoid close combat with unbroken enemy. The lightest steppe types, some European crossbow cavalry?
"Heavy javelins" - cavalry combining close combat capability with javelin skirmishing. Sort of a short range equivalent of bow-and-lance above. E.g. Roman equites.
"Light javelins" - javelin skirmishers who avoid hand-to-hand combat, unless perhaps with opponents as light as themselves. E.g. Numidians.
The DBA model would in effect say that fencers, bow-and-lance, and heavy javelins are all functionally equivalent, as are shooters and light javelins. Triumph! would merge light and heavy javelins, and apparently lump at least some fencers with the javelins. There's also a Cataphract class, whose description sounds more like fencers than nutters, but doesn't include things like Arab lancers, who are classed as Jav Cav. Elite Cav and Horse Bow correspond conceptually to bow-and-lance and shooters, respectively, though I believe a lot of troops they do class as Horse Bow were perfectly willing to charge in (and carried spears/lances). Plus, horsemen of any description can be Bad Horse if incompetent.
(I guess you could interpret my six classes as the combinations of two variables: shooting range (none, long, short), and weight (heavy, light).)
Good topic. Would you class Macedonian Companions as Nutters or Fencers? How about the Prodromoi? Fencers?
Quote from: Prufrock on November 23, 2016, 03:38:14 PM
Good topic. Would you class Macedonian Companions as Nutters or Fencers? How about the Prodromoi? Fencers?
Nutters and dunno, respectively. :)
I doubt nutters.
The level of training needed to be that good as shock cavalry makes organised deployment the norm.
It seems to me that training, weight and size of horse, horse and rider armour, missile weapon, and compactness of formation are the key factors.
I think I would apply the DBA logic here and say, the fine granularity of your 6 categories, will be hard to find evidence for in the sources.
Quote from: Dangun on November 24, 2016, 01:04:24 PM
I think I would apply the DBA logic here and say, the fine granularity of your 6 categories, will be hard to find evidence for in the sources.
I think there's fairly good evidence for all of these types. Not knowing enough about certain armies to fit them into a scheme with assurance
is an occupational hazard for the rules-writer, and partly why I personally tend to game better-documented eras!
I am into Hellenistic stuff so I look into my "the Tactics of Aelian" (Christopher Matthew).
A long story short he divides them into 6 groups:
Kataphraktoi (armoured),
Thureophoroi (lancers/speararmed with shields),
Xystophoroi (lancers),
Hippakontistai (throwing javelins),
Elaphroi (first throws javelins then charge like lancers) and
Hippotoxotai (mounted archers).
(I hope I haven't misunderstood or misrepresented Aelian).
I wonder if Roman, Carthaginian and Keltic cavalry could be squished into these groups, or maybe we need some more?
Interesting Bjorn. What would be the behaviours of your different types? For example what would be different between lancers and spear/ shield cavalry.
Quote from: Prufrock on November 24, 2016, 01:39:39 PM
I think there's fairly good evidence for all of these types.
Apologies, I wasn't very clear.
I am sure that cavalry armed that way existed.
But I am not sure whether the sources will describe them in sufficient detail to say that they behaved particularly differently or - most importantly - whether there is evidence that their arms or behaviour had significantly different effects.
From a wargaming perspective, its hard enough to read into the sources whether bow had a hugely different impact to javeliens, what sources are going to justify a different wargaming effect for "Heavy javelins" vs "Light javelins". Again, I'm not disputing that heavier javelins existed.... But it smells of precision-not-accuracy to try modelling a different impact.
Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?
Quote from: Mark G on November 23, 2016, 08:30:31 PM
I doubt nutters.
The level of training needed to be that good as shock cavalry makes organised deployment the norm.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying that shock cavalry didn't exist in our period because the requisite training didn't exist?
Quote from: Dangun on November 25, 2016, 02:41:20 AM
From a wargaming perspective, its hard enough to read into the sources whether bow had a hugely different impact to javeliens, what sources are going to justify a different wargaming effect for "Heavy javelins" vs "Light javelins". Again, I'm not disputing that heavier javelins existed.... But it smells of precision-not-accuracy to try modelling a different impact.
What I had in my with that distinction was the discussion in the Triumph! thread about the distinction between Numdian cavalry (light javelins) and Gallic, Iberian, or Roman (heavy javelins). The chief sources to check would be Polybius and Livy. Also Caesar and/or his continuator about his African campaign.
(And in case it needs to be clarified: by "heavy javelins" I didn't mean cavalry chucking heavier missiles, I meant heavier cavalry chucking missiles.)
Quote from: willb on November 25, 2016, 04:38:28 AM
Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?
Bow-and-lance I think.
Quote from: BjörnF on November 24, 2016, 05:44:08 PM
I am into Hellenistic stuff so I look into my "the Tactics of Aelian" (Christopher Matthew).
A long story short he divides them into 6 groups:
I recall I found Aelian's taxonomy of cavalry rather odd when I read him some years ago. I guess I should go and review it, and also Asclepiodotus'.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 25, 2016, 07:18:48 AM
Quote from: Mark G on November 23, 2016, 08:30:31 PM
I doubt nutters.
The level of training needed to be that good as shock cavalry makes organised deployment the norm.
I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying that shock cavalry didn't exist in our period because the requisite training didn't exist?
I think Mark's saying that shock cavalry aren't well described as "nutters".
QuoteI recall I found Aelian's taxonomy of cavalry rather odd when I read him some years ago. I guess I should go and review it, and also Asclepiodotus'.
Asclepiodotus has a clearer division into three (close-quarters, distance fighters, and intermediate) with subdivisions of each - which seems to be at the root of the DB* tripartite classification. Arrian of course also has his own variant of the same system as Asc and Ael.
As Roy observes, the question is not so much how many different types can you divide cavalry up into, but how all these types behave differently on the battlefield (or table). If they all have different special rules, the rules are not going to be very simple or elegant. If the rules have a high level of abstraction anyway, there's no point having a detailed taxonomy. If all the types just come down to +1 here, -1 there, it might not be very interesting to play.
I think Asclepiodotus' scheme of (surprise surprise) three types is fair. Shock cavalry who charge into contact (whatever that means). Skirmish cavalry who avoid contact and throw or shoot stuff. Intermediate cavalry who ride up, fall back, throw some stuff, charge if the time is right. How to model all this on the table, who knows?
Quote from: Duncan Head on November 25, 2016, 08:45:53 AM
I think Mark's saying that shock cavalry aren't well described as "nutters".
I wasn't aiming for good description with any of the names - "shooters" is probably the worst -, just trying for convenient labels.
Quote from: RichT on November 25, 2016, 09:04:29 AM
I think Asclepiodotus' scheme of (surprise surprise) three types is fair. Shock cavalry who charge into contact (whatever that means). Skirmish cavalry who avoid contact and throw or shoot stuff. Intermediate cavalry who ride up, fall back, throw some stuff, charge if the time is right. How to model all this on the table, who knows?
One could of course try something like
knights,
light horse and
cavalry to cover these but, as Richard hints, the devil is in the interactive details.
I recall Xenophon describing an encounter between Agesilaus' Greek cavalry and some Persian cavalry (but alas not the reference). Both would seem to be 'intermediate' but the Greek cavalry's spears (dorata) tended to break while the Persian javelins (palta) proved more durable and at close quarters more serviceable and essentially won the Persians the action.
This is a tricky one to try and model: WRG rules would have both as 'javelin/light spear' armed 'heavy cavalry' types, with the Greeks as 'Regular C' and the Persians as 'Irregular B'. The Persians would thus be favourites to win, but this is because the random factor would be in their favour ('B' class cannot go worse than -1) rather than because the difference in weaponry is directly represented. It works (sort of) by conferring the right amount of advantage for what is technically the wrong reason.
The lesson seems to be that one adjusts what one can within one's system to get whatever results one considers worth modelling. However the parameter(s) involved may not be the logical, or even the obvious, ones, rather those which create the right amount of advantage or imbalance.
That would be Xen. Hell. 3.4.13-14
"when he was not far from Dascyleium, his horsemen, who were going on ahead of him, rode to the top of a hill so as to see what was in front. And by chance the horsemen of Pharnabazus, under the command of Rhathines and Bagaeus, his bastard brother, just about equal to the Greek cavalry in number, had been sent out by Pharnabazus and likewise rode to the top of this same hill. And when the two squadrons saw one another, not so much as four plethra1 apart, at first both halted, the Greek horsemen being drawn up four deep like a phalanx, and the barbarians with a front of not more than twelve, but many men deep. Then, however, the barbarians charged. When they came to a hand-to-hand encounter (ὡς δ᾽ εἰς χεῖρας ἦλθον), all of the Greeks who struck anyone broke their spears, while the barbarians, being armed with javelins of cornel-wood, speedily killed twelve men and two horses. Thereupon the Greeks were turned to flight. But when Agesilaus came to the rescue with the hoplites, the barbarians withdrew again and one of them was killed."
To be honest I think this is precisely the sort of detail that we shouldn't even try to model in wargames rules (and that this is what random factors are for).
To go off piste a bit from cavalry taxonomy, when writing accounts of battles historians (ancient and modern) will often pick up on some small detail and present it as decisive in the outcome of the action (long spears, sturdy spears, fresh horses, aiming at faces, sun in their eyes, wind in their faces, mud underfoot, noble spirits, slavish barbarian uselessness and so on and so forth). Anyone reading all these accounts and trying to incorporate all these factors into a model or wargame will end up with a horrible unplayable game and not learn anything useful about warfare (because the selection of decisive factors in any given action, while not entirely random and no doubt with a basis in fact, has more to do with constructing a compelling narrative than with detailed analysis of causes and outcomes). This is where deciding what factors to include and what to exclude is such a fine art (and my inclination now is to err way on the side of exclusion).
The other problem with this event is does it show an underlying superiority of Persian Cavalry over Greek, have a relevance only to these two bodies (e.g. Good persians v. mediocre Greeks) or, as Richard says, really just rely on circumstances and so is best thought of as fortunes of war and covered by a random factor. As Richard says, interpreting and generalising from history to create plausible rules as a fine art.
Andreas,
There is a difference between classifying by pejorative and descriptive.
Shooters may be woefully inaccurate in a pre shot era, but to most readers it does describe missile armed.
Nutters not only covers hard charging, but also uncontrollable un trained, near suicidal.
Quite a difference.
Quote from: RichT on November 25, 2016, 12:21:40 PM
That would be Xen. Hell. 3.4.13-14
... the Greek horsemen being drawn up four deep like a phalanx, and the barbarians with a front of not more than twelve, but many men deep.
To be honest I think this is precisely the sort of detail that we shouldn't even try to model in wargames rules (and that this is what random factors are for).
Though some rules have tried to model the greater depth here exhibited by the Persians - DBM (at least some editions thereof) allowed Cav to count a plus for a second supporting element (though MM's given up on that). In our "pushing" debate we observed that Polybios claimed that cavalry were no use deeper than
eight ranks, but that still might mean that deep Persians had an advantage over Greeks only
four deep. Whether we "should" try to model that depends a lot on the level of the game and on personal preference for amoount of detail.
Quote from: Mark G on November 25, 2016, 01:14:33 PM
Andreas,
There is a difference between classifying by pejorative and descriptive.
Shooters may be woefully inaccurate in a pre shot era, but to most readers it does describe missile armed.
Nutters not only covers hard charging, but also uncontrollable un trained, near suicidal.
Quite a difference.
Apparently, we've got different connotations for "nutters". Anyway, the names are not, or should not be, important: feel free to think of them as "shock cavalry" or "knights" if you prefer.
(The problem I had in mind with "shooters", BTW, is that three of the other five classes also shoot.)
Duncan:
Quote
Though some rules have tried to model the greater depth here exhibited by the Persians - DBM (at least some editions thereof) allowed Cav to count a plus for a second supporting element (though MM's given up on that).
Which is interesting (if it is based solely on this account), given that Xenophon doesn't say or imply that the greater depth gave the Persians any advantage at all. But depth of cavalry is (as we said in the depth thread) a strange business.
Quote
Whether we "should" try to model that depends a lot on the level of the game and on personal preference for amount of detail.
Indeed - I expressed it poorly. By "we shouldn't" I mean only "I wouldn't want to". Though I do believe that whatever your preferences, rules with this level of detail won't tell you much useful about ancient warfare, even though they might correctly model one particular account in one particular author of one particular encounter. But of course, YMMV.
While I'm typing (and sorry to further hijack thread), here's a mechanism that captures the flavour of ancient accounts while not drowning players in detail. In place of rolling D6s to generate random numbers, have cards with appropriate values (-3 to +3 or whatever), plus flavour text (an ancient quote, even) explaining the result. Each army gets its own set with appropriately themed cards, eg
Greeks:
Flimsy spears break on impact -1
Sturdy long spears outreach opponents +1
etc
Persians
Strong cornel-wood javelins +1
Wearing trousers enfeebles the men -1
etc
Same range of outcomes. Flavourful explanations. Same degree of hindsight among players as for real commanders (ie none). Or - just roll dice and use your imagination...
Quote from: RichT on November 25, 2016, 02:01:12 PM
Persians
Wearing trousers enfeebles the men -1
This is the first time I have really appreciated the importance of good military tailoring ...
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 25, 2016, 07:44:48 AM
Quote from: willb on November 25, 2016, 04:38:28 AM
Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?
Bow-and-lance I think.
No lance. Bow and sword only. May also apply to some Sassanian heavy cavalry with bow only.
Quote from: willb on November 26, 2016, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 25, 2016, 07:44:48 AM
Quote from: willb on November 25, 2016, 04:38:28 AM
Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?
Bow-and-lance I think.
No lance. Bow and sword only.
Not so sure about that - see here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army#Byzantine_troop_types).
There is also Maurice's description in the
Strategikon:
QuoteThe Strategikon's author gives us a fair picture of the Byzantine army and its troops, including the equipment borrowed from the Herules, Goths, Slavs and especially the Avars, once barbarian enemies all. Cavalrymen should have "hooded coats of mail reaching to their ankles which may be drawn up by thongs and rings, along with carying cases." Helmets were to have small plumes on top and bows were to be suited to the strength of each man, their cases broad enough that strung bows can fit in them, and spare bow strings kept the men's saddle bags. The men's quivers should have covers and hold 30 or 40 arrows and they should carry small files and awls in their baldrics. The cavalry lances should be "of the Avar type with leather thongs in the middle of the shaft and with pennons." The men were also to have "swords and round neck pieces of the Avar type with linen fringes outside and wool inside." Young foreigners unskilled with the bow should have lances and shields and bucellary troops ought to have iron gauntlets and small tassles hanging from the back straps and neck straps of their horses, as well as small pennons hanging from their own shoulders over their coats of mail, "for the more handsome the soldier is, in his armament, the more confidence he gains in himself and the more fear he inspires in the enemy." Lances were apparently expected to be thrown, for the troops should have "two lances so as to have a spare in case the first one misses. Unskilled men should use lighter bows." - Wikipedia article, Byzantine Army.
Quote from: willb on November 26, 2016, 12:32:56 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 25, 2016, 07:44:48 AM
Quote from: willb on November 25, 2016, 04:38:28 AM
Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?
Bow-and-lance I think.
No lance. Bow and sword only. May also apply to some Sassanian heavy cavalry with bow only.
As Patrick points out, Maurice expects his cavalrymen to have both bows and lances. If earlier late Roman / early Byzantine horse archers had bows only, they should perhaps be shooters, but I wouldn't insist on possession of a literal bow and dito lance for Bow-and-lance classification: any long range shooting power combined with a willingness to charge home should qualify.
(I'm starting to wish I'd called the types simply Types I-VI.)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 26, 2016, 01:55:40 PM
(I'm starting to wish I'd called the types simply Types I-VI.)
I wonder if Phil Barker felt the same with DBA? :) I tend to think number types are more of a problem than names after about three. The problem comes when you are trying to simplify such diversity as existed in warfare over several thousand years. If you don't abstract into name types like "Shooter", "Shock" etc., where do you go?
And classification is only half the problem: the other half is interaction.
As Richard indicates, attempting to model the difference between Greek and Persian cavalry weaponry and techniques is more effort than result. However when we come to the difference between Macedonian and Persian cavalry weaponry and techniques, we have differences which are essential to model, and in a way which gives the Macedonians a decided advantage.
However, interaction might on occasion be able to help with classification. Macedonians are good shock troops who usually operated in conjunction with missile support to make up for their own lack of same. Persian and Indian cavalry (and presumably Greek, which is deemed to have fought in a more or less similar way) need to belong to a classification which suffers a significant disadvantage against Macedonians. Numidians fought differently to everyone else in the Western Mediterranean littoral, nonplussing Romans and allied Italians but being defeated by Spanish on account of 'greater strength and daring'. Spanish seem to have been flexible enough to take on Romans frontally at the Ticinus and Numidians acting in their chosen
modus operandi, and would seem to deserve a dual capacity. And so on (he says, running out of ready examples).
Quote from: Erpingham on November 27, 2016, 09:01:58 AM
The problem comes when you are trying to simplify such diversity as existed in warfare over several thousand years.
Needless to say, some types simplify better than others, and there are always fringe cases, e.g. how to classify Gelimer's Vandals at Tricameron (he ordered them to use swords only and stand on the defensive). These will vary in importance depending upon whether one wishes one's system to be a general tabletop knockabout with historicity an optional extra or to be able to achieve a fair approximation of representing historical warfare and notably historical battles.
Patrick makes a good point. There is a problem with the fighting style classification 'system' in tgat it either ignores certain styles or it is repeatedly pared so that we get Superior, inferior, extraordinary, fast etc. When the categories are very broad it is actually easier to accept that various fighting methods have been lumped together. The more the caregories are multiplied the more difficult it is to accept that Vandals are Knights at AdDecimum and some sort of inferior cavalry at Tricameron. Incidentally the best explanation if their stasis at that battle is that they hoped to avoid being pulled into disorder by Roman feints and so used the dry stream as a location marker and , by sticking whith their swords, to force a serioys, close quarter fight on Belisarius, where numbers would tell.
Roy
It really depends what you're trying to achieve. Tags like 'superior', 'fast', 'inferior' or whatever work better when restricted to a tight time frame. Ideally when there is some direct contact between the troop types you're attempting to deal with.
So I'd suggest that for the 2nd Punic war Hannibal doesn't merely get Numidian light cavalry, he gets, at various times, regular and irregular Numidian light cavalry. At times some of them will count as superior, and doubtless in the varied fighting in Africa, some of them probably warrant being classed as inferior in comparison to their more professional opponents
To go right back to the start and how many types of cavalry must a rule set include to get the right effect....I will note that Lost Battles manages with just 3 classes - light cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts.
Quote from: gavindbm on November 28, 2016, 10:38:35 PM
To go right back to the start and how many types of cavalry must a rule set include to get the right effect....I will note that Lost Battles manages with just 3 classes - light cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts.
It does, however, only deal with the Classical world ca 500-1 BC, so doesn't need to worry about whether, say, cataphracts and medieval knights can be treated the same.
Still, we seem to have something like a consenus that (at least) three classes are needed, corresponding approximately to DBX's light horse, cavalry, and knights. (Then we can argue that DBX uses its classes inconsistently - LH (S) are noted to be willing to charge home, frex, so shouldn't they be cavalry then?) I note that accepting Asclepiodotus' scheme, fencers would go with the knights, not the cavalry, because he focuses on fighting exclusively hand-to-hand, not on shock tactics.
(I note also that the annotator in my Loeb of Asclepiodotus says there's no evidence of a threefold division of the cavalry in practice, suggesting that our author is guilty of rhetorical invention.)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 29, 2016, 05:56:16 AM
Quote from: gavindbm on November 28, 2016, 10:38:35 PM
To go right back to the start and how many types of cavalry must a rule set include to get the right effect....I will note that Lost Battles manages with just 3 classes - light cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts.
It does, however, only deal with the Classical world ca 500-1 BC, so doesn't need to worry about whether, say, cataphracts and medieval knights can be treated the same.
And
Lost Battles is a fairly abstract system. Were it to be refitted for the Middle Ages, it would doubtless have Knights, Heavy Cavalry and Light Cavalry.
Quote
Still, we seem to have something like a consensus that (at least) three classes are needed, corresponding approximately to DBX's light horse, cavalry, and knights. (Then we can argue that DBX uses its classes inconsistently - LH (S) are noted to be willing to charge home, frex, so shouldn't they be cavalry then?) I note that accepting Asclepiodotus' scheme, fencers would go with the knights, not the cavalry, because he focuses on fighting exclusively hand-to-hand, not on shock tactics.
Three types does seem to be the essential working minimum: hard chargers (usually with lance), 'soft' chargers (usually with javelins) and skirmishers. Problems start, as Andreas notes, when they begin crossing over the accepted borderlines of classification.
Quote
(I note also that the annotator in my Loeb of Asclepiodotus says there's no evidence of a threefold division of the cavalry in practice, suggesting that our author is guilty of rhetorical invention.)
An author? Rhetorical invention? Surely not! ;)
Or it could be that the commentator is ignoring Seleucid and Achaean trends and perhaps focussing exclusively on the better-known Greek, Roman and general West Med powers which tended to field just 'ordinary' cavalry and Tarentines (or Numidians) or Gallic/Germanic single-type, possibly multi-purpose, variants.
I recall a second hand conversation re sabins view on troop types for infantry.
Just two are needed.
Infantry and skirmishers.
But he could see a case for close formed being partially different.
Given that, having three cavalry classifications seems generous of him.
Quote from: Mark G on November 29, 2016, 01:16:23 PM
I recall a second hand conversation re sabins view on troop types for infantry.
Just two are needed.
Infantry and skirmishers.
But he could see a case for close formed being partially different.
Given that, having three cavalry classifications seems generous of him.
Phil Sabin uses two different types of infantry in Lost Battles - heavy infantry and light - but the heavies have five different subclasses, hoplites, phalangites, legionaries, archers, and everyone else. So there is actually quite a range of troops represented.
Quote from: Prufrock on November 29, 2016, 01:42:15 PM
Phil Sabin uses two different types of infantry in Lost Battles - heavy infantry and light - but the heavies have five different subclasses, hoplites, phalangites, legionaries, archers, and everyone else. So there is actually quite a range of troops represented.
The 'everyone else' category includes Gauls, Spanish, hypaspists, Carthaginian veteran foot (before and after Romanisation), Italian allies and miscellaneous Persian and Egyptian infantry. Arguably, some of these could be further refined or redefined.
Maybe we should not think about think about this as categories of troop types, but categories of troop interactions?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 29, 2016, 11:08:41 AM
Three types does seem to be the essential working minimum: hard chargers (usually with lance), 'soft' chargers (usually with javelins) and skirmishers.
Probably most DBX Cavalry have bows, not javelins, and I've long suspected they're ill served by being included in a class based on Mediterranean javelin cavalry. Others have too - there's been various calls for a "Sipahi" or "Horse Archer" class over the years. Still, since the most obvious difference - the longer range of bows - is explicitly ignored in the model, there's a good argument to combine them. (More theoretically iffy is the inclusion of "fencers" that don't shoot at all.)
I'm starting to feel I should get a copy of
Lost Battles, but boy are prices for used copies of the game silly. Maybe I'll just get the book only.
Quote from: Dangun on November 30, 2016, 02:02:10 AM
Maybe we should not think about think about this as categories of troop types, but categories of troop interactions?
An insightful comment. This may be a more fruitful field to plough, although it too would require careful weeding. Can we expand on this concept?
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 30, 2016, 09:08:06 AM
I'm starting to feel I should get a copy of Lost Battles, but boy are prices for used copies of the game silly. Maybe I'll just get the book only.
I would suggest getting the book. It has everything required to play the system except pencil and paper. Having printed map tiles and unit counters is nice rather than necessary, and the book is tolerably priced.
QuoteProbably most DBX Cavalry have bows, not javelins, and I've long suspected they're ill served by being included in a class based on Mediterranean javelin cavalry.
Belisarius fighting Goths outside Rome would certainly feel ill-served. Attila's and Genghiz Khan's comments would probably be unprintable.
This is interesting reading. I feel like I'm at University, in a lecture hall, taking notes while a panel of professors discuss the subject.
But I wonder, what about the "poor bloody infantry"? I gather that there is not as much complexity here with regard to the various types and their interactions? Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be considered for a different thread?
Chris
Quote from: Chris on November 30, 2016, 12:03:29 PM
But I wonder, what about the "poor bloody infantry"? I gather that there is not as much complexity here with regard to the various types and their interactions? Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be considered for a different thread?
Please feel free to start one, Chris. :)
Quote from: Chris on November 30, 2016, 12:03:29 PM
But I wonder, what about the "poor bloody infantry"? I gather that there is not as much complexity here with regard to the various types and their interactions? Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be considered for a different thread?
Start one :)
What got me thinking about cavalry classification and starting this thread was the different ways DBX and Triumph! divide up mounted. Their foot classifications are less conflicting, but both have larger numbers of infantry types than cavalry ones.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 30, 2016, 11:53:00 AM
I would suggest getting the book. It has everything required to play the system except pencil and paper. Having printed map tiles and unit counters is nice rather than necessary, and the book is tolerably priced.
Thanks. :)
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on November 30, 2016, 12:41:13 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 30, 2016, 11:53:00 AM
I would suggest getting the book. It has everything required to play the system except pencil and paper. Having printed map tiles and unit counters is nice rather than necessary, and the book is tolerably priced.
Thanks. :)
Yes, you don't need the boardgame. You probably have the figures already, and as Patrick says, pencil and paper or homemade counters serve just as well.
Quote from: Dangun on November 30, 2016, 02:02:10 AM
Maybe we should not think about think about this as categories of troop types, but categories of troop interactions?
Won't this be even more complicated? The number of troop types that could interact and the number of situations they could react in?
Quote from: Erpingham on November 30, 2016, 04:53:44 PM
Quote from: Dangun on November 30, 2016, 02:02:10 AM
Maybe we should not think about think about this as categories of troop types, but categories of troop interactions?
Won't this be even more complicated? The number of troop types that could interact and the number of situations they could react in?
It might actually be simpler in concept, e.g. when a mass of infantry meets a mass of infantry, you get (I think) one of three basic types of interaction:
1) Both stand in place and hew away (or shoot, if not keen on contact)
2) One pushes the other back, leading to eventual collapse if not remedied
3) One charges rapidly to be met by a steadier opponent with one of the two outcomes above.
The next step is to decide on one's level of detail and fine differentiation.
Assuming we have two types of infantry only "mass" and "dispersed", for your mass category :
*Both units advance to spear fencing distance/missile exchange , which may lead to one of the other outcomes after time, or one just slinks off. Or, following certain models of combat, small units cross the gap and engage until enemy is worn down , or line relief happens.
*One advances in a tight formation and attempts to break through the other. It might break through, grind to a halt and do 1 or 2 in the Patrick's list or become enveloped and swamped.
*One charges the other and the charged party loses its nerve and runs off, pursued by triumphant charger.
I'm sure there are more options, even if we ignore tactical circumstances like direction of attack, disorder, terrain.
Interactions are more complex than taxonomy, IMO.
It may be that some of these suggested possibilities exist in the minds of theorists but not on the historical battlefield, allowing a bit of re-simplification.
QuoteBoth units advance to spear fencing distance/missile exchange , which may lead to one of the other outcomes after time, or one just slinks off.
Mmm ... any historical examples?
QuoteOr, following certain models of combat, small units cross the gap and engage until enemy is worn down , or line relief happens.
Again, can we point to any of this actually happening? (We can with line relief, but this is basically perpetuating a fight-in-place interaction.)
QuoteOne advances in a tight formation and attempts to break through the other. It might break through, grind to a halt and do 1 or 2 in the Patrick's list or become enveloped and swamped.
If it fails to match its opponent's frontage, it introduces another dimension into the equation, which is probably why most classical armies made an attempt to match frontages unless they were very confident about having sufficient momentum to do something decisive before the enemy's extra frontage did something serious.
QuoteOne charges the other and the charged party loses its nerve and runs off, pursued by triumphant charger.
This did historically occur quite a few times, although in essence it gives us the task of modelling infantry pursuit of infantry as opposed to another form of combat interaction.
QuoteI'm sure there are more options, even if we ignore tactical circumstances like direction of attack, disorder, terrain.
There may be, but I think they are along the lines of one side attempting a stratagem or unusual deployment which ultimately leads to one of the basic types of infantry interaction. A flank attack, for example, is essentially one side pushing the other back, but from a different direction.
QuoteInteractions are more complex than taxonomy, IMO.
I think interactions may be simpler, because for infantry there seem to be essentially two types: 1) both sides stand and 2) one side shifts the other. The complexity lies in judging which troop types will bring about which interaction, and when, and what the consequences of such interaction will be for both sides. For example, a host of unarmoured Britons close with a thin red line of armoured Romans and both sides stand for some time. The result is a lot of dead Britons and a loss of confidence among the remainder, so the action changes to Romans shifting Britons. Boudicca cannot stop the rot and after a further time interval loses the battle.
Another example: Caesar and Pompey face off at Pharsalus. The main infantry forces stand and inflict casualties and fatigue on each other, while on Caesar's right we get a cavalry interaction and an interesting infantry-cavalry interaction which sees off Pompey's cavalry and allows Caesar's spare infantry to do quite a bit of the second type of infantry interaction, namely shifting whatever gets in their way.
Actually this suggests the third basic type of infantry interaction which earlier eluded me: one side massacres the other, advancing while covering the ground with bodies. Not too common, but probably essential to distinguish from Type 2 for certain actions.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 01, 2016, 08:30:08 PM
QuoteBoth units advance to spear fencing distance/missile exchange , which may lead to one of the other outcomes after time, or one just slinks off.
Mmm ... any historical examples?
Its a common suggestion for shieldwall battles. Also, followers of Hanson may use this to explain their belief in a formal phase of
doratismos in hoplite battle.
QuoteQuoteOr, following certain models of combat, small units cross the gap and engage until enemy is worn down , or line relief happens.
Again, can we point to any of this actually happening? (We can with line relief, but this is basically perpetuating a fight-in-place interaction.)
As I'm sure you recognise, this a model of Roman combat much favoured by some modern scholars who provide considerable evidence. However, I also recognise that previous debates here have shown others utterly reject this evidence :)
Overall, I think the idea of only two or perhaps three outcomes and one or maybe two classes of infantry suggests very high level abstraction. To return to our original topic of cavalry taxonomy, we could postulate the same high level outcomes and perhaps two classes of cavalry; contact and not contact. All else is mere detail :) But don't we want some detail - some idea that the toy soldiers are representing historical warfare in some way?
So right Anthony. When the level that a set of rules is operating at becomes such that they could be used for almost any period where there is near contact between the forces then perhaps it has gone too far. The ideal is to build in the flavour of a period. The more this can be done by making the rules such that the general naturally takes decisions that fit with the style of the period or by legislating within the rules so that armies are restricted or enabled in the direction of 'realism' .
So I would look for a set of Ancients rules to be based upon an analysis if how troops actually perform and then encourage or enforce that fighting style. That isn't easy because we don't find easy agreement on even the well recorded Romans. I suggest that either rules should operate at the level in which there are three lines of Romans that can replace/ reinforce each other, or, on a higher level, that the characteristic that Roman legionary formations have is represented. I would suggest that this is a matter of outlasting opponents and gradually degrading them?
For cavalry, If Roman and other cavalry operate a Cantabrian or other such tactic then they ought to be able to stand off from an infantry opponent to their front and cause it casualties and yet charge effectively when sufficient disorder had been caused. We would have to agree on why Persian cavalry formed so deep and allow Macedonians and Thracians to manoeuvre more speedily. I suggest we have to get to that level of depiction, or we could use the same rules to fight a Napoleonic battle with no perceivable difference.
Which leads to the question of why we dispensed with WRG 6th Edition. Took too long. Too much record-keeping. Players wanted something quick, not something realistic.
Are we about to reverse that trend?
I am not at all sure that building in more of those elements that are period or army specific need add much to record keeping, though it is likely to add to time and runs a bit counter to the desire to hold all the game information in your head or on the tabletop.
Let us imagine a simple interaction, Vikings versus Saxons.
The two bodies close.
There is an opportunity for one or other to quit before contact.
There is a mutual exchange of missiles. One or neither side wins this.
Fighting occurs along the line. There is an outcome, stasis, pushback or rout.
One or both sides may launch an attack on the enemy leader , successful or not.
Fighting recommences along the line.
This is repeated until.
Someone wins.
There is a free hack and flight.
Morale tests might intervene at each stage or posthumously.
All this can be rationalsed down to each side having a fighting factor and then a die throw added and an outcone decided. The outcome can be rout/ pursue or mutual withdrawal. If one wanted one stage up from an instant resolution then the die roll can be repeated.
In a large battle the likelihood would be that the sevond method holds, in a smaller, or one with plenty of time to play it out then the first method would be practical.
I remember once playing a game with Tony Bath in which he was using Minifigs 2mm blocks. There were lots of little blocks, painted mainly red or blue. Combat resolution was at the level of fighting factor and die throw for each block to block conflict. It worked quite well because there were so many blocks and so many dice thrown that it avoided the single catastrophic throw that cracks a unit and then wrecks a flank. However it could have been any period, though Tony, famously, did not jib at Pharaonic Egyptians fighting Burgundian knights.
Given the launch of so many Ancient rule sets recently I think it fair to ask their promoters just how they deliver period flavour and still manage to resolve the action in an acceptable timescale.
As you can see I am concerned if the period element in a set of rules is simply having different weapon and armour factors. In the example I cited above there was nothing to say that the Saxons were different from the Vikings, perhaps because there wasn't, but say it was Late Maceconians versus Republican Romans , could we capture the essence of the difference between the two?
Roy
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 02, 2016, 01:10:21 PM
Which leads to the question of why we dispensed with WRG 6th Edition. Took too long. Too much record-keeping. Players wanted something quick, not something realistic.
Are we about to reverse that trend?
There is an assumption in your post that granularity and realism are the same. WRG gave detail but were its outcomes more realistic than other sets? Even at the time I remember questioning whether a game with a careful ground/time scale that ensured battles were brought to a point of conclusion after three or four scale minutes could be considered realistic. In order to get this to work, it also had a very artificial casualty rate (although I will confess I only realised this later - I thought at the time that the system was pretty neat). And some things to do with scales were fudged mightily, like how quickly an order change could happen or how long it took to dismount. So WRG 6th were good in their day but lets not pretend they were some acme of realism.
I actually think concentrating on the outcomes of interaction is an interesting approach to combat, as opposed to counting swords. I think, though, to get it to work you need a taxonomy of troop types and an understanding of how tactical circumstances (formation, order, ground etc.) play their part . Otherwise there really are too many possible outcomes.
Quote from: Erpingham on December 02, 2016, 02:14:25 PM
There is an assumption in your post that granularity and realism are the same. WRG gave detail but were its outcomes more realistic than other sets?
I think yes: not necessarily more realistic than some of the detail-intensive sets around at the time, but more so than many we have seen since. If by 'granularity' detail is meant, I would agree only insofar as the detail is relevant.
Quote
Even at the time I remember questioning whether a game with a careful ground/time scale that ensured battles were brought to a point of conclusion after three or four scale minutes could be considered realistic.
This was a frequent, or at least persistent, criticism which led to a number of excuses and abstractions and finally different time scale in WRG 7th. In fact the problem was not with the system so much as the players, who often zoomed into action in a way that no historical general ever did (where I can find advance rates, armies with the exception of hoplites generally did so at half speed, usually following an extended wait while the skirmishers or archers did their stuff). A tendency to cover the entire table with shallow formations also made for rapid conclusions - which is just what players want for a competition, but is not really faithful to historical practice or outcomes.
What WRG 6th lacked in my opinion was effective command rules. These were the major constraints on historical armies, but replicating them is much more of a challenge, particularly the way a brilliant general/great captain operates inside his opponent's 'command loop'.
Quote
In order to get this to work, it also had a very artificial casualty rate (although I will confess I only realised this later - I thought at the time that the system was pretty neat).
Paradoxically, yours truly was not too impressed at the time, but came to appreciate the virtues of the system later. I was eventually surprised how well the casualty rate actually worked out when attempting historical actions. An added consideration was that the whole system, or at least its modelled interactions, tended to be driven by the casualty rate, so it was already modelling more aspects than just body count.
Quote
And some things to do with scales were fudged mightily, like how quickly an order change could happen or how long it took to dismount. So WRG 6th were good in their day but lets not pretend they were some acme of realism.
I think the order change was about right, at least where signalling was concerned; dismounting, yes, that did happen a bit quickly, but funnily enough I never played against anyone who dismounted anything during a battle.
Quote
I actually think concentrating on the outcomes of interaction is an interesting approach to combat, as opposed to counting swords. I think, though, to get it to work you need a taxonomy of troop types and an understanding of how tactical circumstances (formation, order, ground etc.) play their part . Otherwise there really are too many possible outcomes.
I am inclined to agree: interactions without troops would resemble a play without actors. However if we begin with basic types of interactions and fine-tune these based on troop types, national practice, morale situation, terrain etc. then we may have a more sustainable system than if we start by classifying our troop types and then find ourselves nonplussed by the question of what happens when they meet each other. :)