A typical Optio game of 30-ish stands per side usually takes 2 hours or less to play. But what about a much bigger game, e.g. 68 stands vs 44? I decided to find out.
Battle report here (https://wargamingwithoutdice.blogspot.com/2024/07/time-for-big-game.html).
(https://i.imgur.com/44Mo07x.jpeg)
Hooge
A bit of Chris Hahn style upscaling?
Quote from: Erpingham on July 13, 2024, 04:30:57 PMA bit of Chris Hahn style upscaling?
I wanted to try a biggie. What surprised me is that the big game took no longer to play than a game half its size. I suspect that's because combat resolution is so quick.
Probably helped that both players were familiar with the system. Good result from the test point of view, though. Obviously, the system isn't overloaded if played on a bigger scale.
very good point actually. some rulesets suffer from a magnitude effect
Always good to see a big battle!
Did you as a result consider any command and control or structural changes (as per some of the rule discussion threads) for bigger battles? For instance should the Greeks have been organised into Polis based contingents each with their own strategos (commander)?
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 14, 2024, 08:49:42 AMAlways good to see a big battle!
Did you as a result consider any command and control or structural changes (as per some of the rule discussion threads) for bigger battles? For instance should the Greeks have been organised into Polis based contingents each with their own strategos (commander)?
Armies were fairly simply organised whatever their size. Greek hoplites formed up in a single phalanx whether they were 1000 or 30,000 strong. The phalanx might have several contingents but they pretty much acted as a single unit.
Having 3 - 5 commands in an army regardless of its size seems to work. Not forgetting that uncommanded units or groups of units can still move, just very slowly.
another plus for the rules
Oh dear . . . I have a "style"? ::) :-[ :-\
;D
Quote from: Chris on July 14, 2024, 04:05:32 PMOh dear . . . I have a "style"? ::) :-[ :-\
Don't worry - you are a stylish guy. :)
Not sure about the Greeks forming a single phalanx, Justin. Most of the information I've read always stresses which polis or state forms up where suggesting they were separate commands. The battles of Nemea (394BCE) and Plataea (479BCE) being particular examples where the troops from individual states seemed to operate with a degree of independence.
Perhaps something for another thread?
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 15, 2024, 09:50:24 AMNot sure about the Greeks forming a single phalanx, Justin. Most of the information I've read always stresses which polis or state forms up where suggesting they were separate commands. The battles of Nemea (394BCE) and Plataea (479BCE) being particular examples where the troops from individual states seemed to operate with a degree of independence.
Perhaps something for another thread?
Placing was important, sure, but that meant placing in the phalanx. Greeks as far as I know didn't deploy in multiple phalanxes. The big phalanx was meant to advance on the enemy as one unit, which it did, more or less. There was that problem of Spartan allies charging the enemy at a run, reaching them before the more sedate Spartans, but that didn't seem to change the basic idea of one phalanx fighting another.
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 15, 2024, 09:50:24 AMNot sure about the Greeks forming a single phalanx, Justin. Most of the information I've read always stresses which polis or state forms up where suggesting they were separate commands. The battles of Nemea (394BCE) and Plataea (479BCE) being particular examples where the troops from individual states seemed to operate with a degree of independence.
Plataea is an exception, probably because of the unprecedented size of the Greek army which led to the contingents being separated during the night march before the battle. They certainly ended up with the Spartans and the Athenians in separate phalanxes some distance apart, but that was never the plan.
At Nemea both sides seem initially to have formed up in one coherent phalanx, and it's only the fact that each army's right defeated the other's left that separated the contingents and left some acting independently.
Whilst I can understand the Greeks forming to look like a single phalanx (possibly because that's the best tactic for hoplites), did they all report into the same commander or was there a more local commander for the troops for each polis?
Looking back at the WRG army lists (from 1981) through to the DBM/DBMM, young Mr Barker stresses the less than co-operative nature between Greek states and gives guidance/requirements on the provision of ally sub-generals per polis.
In the larger battles such as Plataea and possibly Chaeronea (333BCE) it seems that the command structure falters leading to gaps in the phalanx line, which caused problems. At others such as Mantinea (362BCE) it does seem to hold together - certainly on the Theban side. In smaller battles it was probably much less of a problem.
After flicking back through the Osprey book on Plataea, I keep being reminded of a modification to that old ice-hockey joke "I went to an argument and a Greek battle tactics meeting broke out".
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 16, 2024, 08:06:28 PMAfter flicking back through the Osprey book on Plataea, I keep being reminded of a modification to that old ice-hockey joke "I went to an argument and a Greek battle tactics meeting broke out".
Now, that's a good one!
Quote from: dwkay57 on July 16, 2024, 08:06:28 PMWhilst I can understand the Greeks forming to look like a single phalanx (possibly because that's the best tactic for hoplites), did they all report into the same commander or was there a more local commander for the troops for each polis?
Both, of course. Each state has its own commander, and one of them is also an agreed overall commander.
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 15, 2024, 05:02:47 PMAt Nemea both sides seem initially to have formed up in one coherent phalanx, and it's only the fact that each army's right defeated the other's left that separated the contingents and left some acting independently.
Phalanxes fragmenting after initial contact certainly seems to have been a thing. Which applies to other armies - which was that battle where a victorious Roman legion just moved straight ahead to occupy the hill in front of it? How many battlelines were still contiguous at the end of the battle?
Not many!
One feature I discovered when playing a big game was that major repositionings of units becomes difficult if not impossible.
One thing we forget when playing smaller games like DBA is how narrow the distance between two armies was compared to their width. An army 2km or more wide (including the cavalry) could deploy 500m to 1km from its opponent, occasionally less. This meant that the two armies were virtually on top of each other when the battle commenced – you by and large had to fight what was in front of you, ruling out any creative shifts and redeployments in mid-battle. In DBA, armies can be further apart than their frontage, which gives much more tactical leeway than armies historically had.
Added to this the fact that in a large game (and historically) the enemy has plenty of time to react if you did try a major repositioning. It takes several moves to get from one flank to the other, or try something else as spectacular, and in that time your opponent is able to do something about it.
Scissors-paper-stone is the name of the game.