SoA Forums

Quote from: Erpingham on July 22, 2024, 05:13:08 PMShould our focus be on modelling the individual parts of a legion or its function as a whole?

This really is the crux of the discussion and falls to the 'A' for Abstraction category that David mentions.

For Impetvs (and Basic Impetvs), a legion is represented by the 2-2-1 proportion that Ian shows for Hail Caesar.  BI offers players a choice in the way in which Hastati and Principes carry out line relief before battle begins.  One method is more abstract than the other.  To me, both are satisfactory representations on the gaming table. 

In Optio I abstract the Triarii out, leaving just two lines of Hastati and Principes. My rationale is that Triarii were rarely used in actual battles. The only example that comes to mind is the Battle of Vesuvius, where both sides reached their Triarii, the Latins first.

Wargaming always involves a degree of abstraction. My take is that you want the substance of line relief but can dispense with the details. Line relief allows the legion to return to full morale, hence giving it greater staying power than an opponent who doesn't do line relief. It's more effective than line depth since it switches fresh and better troops into the fight whereas depth just means the best troops of the line are more concentrated in front from the start; if they are worn down there's no remedy.

It's true that many rulesets exaggerate depth. A pike phalanx was shallower than a legion: typically 16 deep for the phalanx (probably contracting to 8 deep in close order) versus 6 Hastati + 2 Velites + 6 Principes + 2 Velites + 3 Triarii + 1 Velites = 20 ranks. But 16 or 20 ranks isn't that deep. In Optio I settle for 1 infantry base = 8 - 10 ranks deep, so 2 bases deep for a typical phalanx or legion.

Well spotted!

The Triarii are indeed 'over-represented' in terms of model numbers relative to the Hastati and Principes. However, the aim of the organisation in the game is to deliver a viable set of plavable 'game' rules which are broadly 'representative' of the the Roman 'multiple line' system as compared with their historical opponents.

In this respect therefore, it is a compromise between game playability and numerical 'simulation'.

Pe4rsonally, I believe that the rules and army organisation do indeed deliver a  good game 'feel' which is also a fair representation of the Roman historical 'original'.

I don't believe that such 'numerical compromises' are unique to this scenario. many if not most games have far too many cavalry in relation to infantry numbers, as well as an over-representation of elephants and chariots and in many cases an under-representation of skirmisher numbers. As for Light Medium Infantry, well it's arguable that that category of troop type didn't exist at all as depicted in wargames.

Then there's the issue of actual ratios between formation depth and battleline length. These are almost invariably 'out' by orders of magnitude.

There are so many 'compromises' in our wargaming that I hope that players won't feel too discomfited by this particular one. I think that the visual impact of the Roman Deployment in the multiple lines has a uniqueness about it wrt. other armies, that it engenders a particular Roman Republican 'empathy' in both players and viewers such that they can enjoy the spectacle and game play.

Cheers

Simon

This is primaraly due to wargaming units/stands/bases all being far too deep...

The most likely formation of a cohort was circa 60 men wide and 8 men deep so roughly 60m frontage 16m depth (5:1 ratio). We just don't field the pretty chaps in these sort of formations.   

And also Marathon for example; a Phalanx of 10000 men in 8 ranks on a frontage on 1 metre/man is 1250 metres whereas the depth of the formation (generously assuming 1 metre/man) is 8 metres. This gives a ration of over 150/1. That's a piece of string!

For standard 25/8mm basing depth for HI of 20mm, the table would have to be 3 metres long with no flank sectors and assuming the Phalanx is depicted as a single model in depth.

For Plataea, multiply the problem times 3.

Of course, if using 6mm or 2mm scale figs, then more 'realistic' Deployments are more possible.

But most of us (including dinosaurs like me) are accustomed to using 25/8mm (or 15mm scale) figs and we are therefore 'conditioned to' the our on-table depictions of battles; even though usually, they are way off-kilter' in terms of battleline length.

Even our best efforts at shows still fall somewhat short of 'reality' e,.g. our Paraitakene scenario from Claymore a few years back (see photo).

Cheers

SimonYou cannot view this attachment.

To return to a well-worn path, what does the footprint of the unit represent in our game?  Is it at accurately defined area of ground? Are our figures based more in connection with their size and our need to be able to manipulate them in-game?  These are both valid approaches, IMO, as are some hybrids (e.g. frontage significant but depth not).  But having made our design decision, we need to be consistent.  For example, on what (if any) effect base depth has on manouevre or flank attacks.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 24, 2024, 06:08:05 PMTo return to a well-worn path, what does the footprint of the unit represent in our game?  Is it at accurately defined area of ground? Are our figures based more in connection with their size and our need to be able to manipulate them in-game?  These are both valid approaches, IMO, as are some hybrids (e.g. frontage significant but depth not).  But having made our design decision, we need to be consistent.  For example, on what (if any) effect base depth has on manoeuvre or flank attacks.

Phil Sabin's Legion has several ground scales, depending on the battle being refought. The assumption of course is that an army behaves in pretty much the same way whether its frontage is a few hundred metres or several kilometres. Is that assumption founded? I suppose enough not to have to introduce special rules (except perhaps for missile ranges).

My take is that manoeuvring consisted exclusively of lines advancing or forming column and moving around with 90 degree wheels if necessary. Lines never wheeled. So ground scale is irrelevant.

The huge width to depth disproportion of miniatures stands is a problem though. Most of the rulesets I know equate a flank attack to a rear attack, but in real life if a stand represents unit with a frontage of 100m and a depth of 10m then a flank attack hits 1/10 of the unit (perhaps a bit more with overlap) whilst a rear attack hits the entire unit. In Optio I make rear attacks more devastating than flank attacks.

Justin,

All true.

That's why personally, I try not to get too 'hung up' on the details and accuracy of (battle) simulation; particularly as I use larger scale (25/8mm) models. Rather, it's good to  simply just to enjoy the spectacle of and enjoyment of playing a game with lovingly researched and prepared scale models; and play a game  based on broad (ancient) military considerations including of the various troop types, their relative combat effectiveness (based on  equipment, training and morale criteria), army and unit deployments  and relative troop concentrations, (limited) manoeuvre capability and command and control restrictions.

Such a relatively (shallow and)simplistic approach can still engender a escapist sense of role-play taking on the part of an ancient General and the associated emapthy with the ancient world.

It's not necessarily all about the accuracy of the simulation. I find that much of the joy of engaging in research is  helping to define the 'rules' context of the game that's played to enhance the enjoyment of the ('escapist') gaming experience.

Happy gaming everybody!

Cheers

Simon

P.S. Peter Connelly's book of Warfare in Greece and Rome has an excellent summary (with diagrams and artwork) of the Roman Republican army and its line relief system (et. al.).

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 10:28:36 AMP.S. Peter Connelly's book of Warfare in Greece and Rome has an excellent summary (with diagrams and artwork) of the Roman Republican army and its line relief system (et. al.).

Thanks for the recommendation but do you mean Peter Connolly's own book 'Greece and Rome at War' or 'Warfare in the Ancient World' illustrated by Peter Connolly and Edited by Gen.Sir John Hackett?  or do they both have the same illustrations?

Greece and Rome at War. Quite right. I had 2 copies but I've loaned them both out and I don't think that I'm getting them back (anytime soon).

 
Cheers
Simon

I think it better to say Connolly gives a version of the line relief system.  Others have been suggested.  Justin's, IIRC, is radically different.

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 10:28:36 AMJustin,

All true.

That's why personally, I try not to get too 'hung up' on the details and accuracy of (battle) simulation; particularly as I use larger scale (25/8mm) models. Rather, it's good to  simply just to enjoy the spectacle of and enjoyment of playing a game with lovingly researched and prepared scale models; and play a game  based on broad (ancient) military considerations including of the various troop types, their relative combat effectiveness (based on  equipment, training and morale criteria), army and unit deployments  and relative troop concentrations, (limited) manoeuvre capability and command and control restrictions.

Such a relatively (shallow and)simplistic approach can still engender a escapist sense of role-play taking on the part of an ancient General and the associated emapthy with the ancient world.

It's not necessarily all about the accuracy of the simulation. I find that much of the joy of engaging in research is  helping to define the 'rules' context of the game that's played to enhance the enjoyment of the ('escapist') gaming experience.

Entirely agree. Wargaming is about the game more than about the history.

Quote from: simonw on July 25, 2024, 10:28:36 AMP.S. Peter Connelly's book of Warfare in Greece and Rome has an excellent summary (with diagrams and artwork) of the Roman Republican army and its line relief system (et. al.).

We've had quite a few arguments discussions on line relief here on the forum. Not sure if there's any point in resurrecting the topic. I cover it in my book BTW.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 25, 2024, 11:22:01 AMI think it better to say Connolly gives a version of the line relief system.  Others have been suggested.  Justin's, IIRC, is radically different.

Since you raise it....

I had a closer look at Livy 8:8. It's clear from the Latin that he is describing in layman's terms (he didn't have a military background) infantry in open order (the tacticians describe it more technically), with 4' wide gaps between the shoulders of the men in each file. This would allow men in the line in front to filter through the line behind them to the rear. Once the process was complete the line would immediately double files to intermediate order (the tacticians describe that too) and present a solid front to the enemy.

Deploying maniples in units with maniple-wide gaps between them would be suicide. Infantry always deployed in continuous lines, the one exception being squares/circles with all-round frontage, like the pike squares at Magnesia or the mediaeval/post-mediaeval pike blocks or the round Scottish schiltroms.

Here's the crucial passage from Livy, which is mistranslated and misunderstood by every single author I've read on the subject:

Prima acies hastati erant, manipuli quindecim, distantes inter se modicum spatium. – History: 8.8.5.

The popular translation:

The first line, or hastati, comprised fifteen maniples, with short distances between [inter] them.

A word-for-word transliteration gives:

First line hastati were, maniples fifteen, standing-apart between/ among themselves small space.

First of all, the 'small spaces' are between/among the hastati, not the maniples, as the hastati are the subject of the sentence. Secondly, and more importantly, the word translated as 'between' - inter - has as its primary sense 'among" or 'within'. It's the root of the word 'internal'. So you have small gaps (not huge maniple-wide spaces) among the hastati, i.e. between the individual hastati files. It's obvious Livy is giving an amateur's description of open order which, as the tacticians describe, could be used to allow other infantry formations to move through an infantry line or even remain within it: 'interjection' or 'intercision'.

For anyone interested, I do an examination of the primary source evidence for line relief on pp264-274 of my book. Not too long, with plenty of diagrams.

Thanks Justin.  I didn't mean us to restart a conversation on this - as you say we've discussed before.

Interested parties might wish to view this epic http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=652.0

If anyone is tempted to go for a restart, I'd suggest posting in the Weapons and Tactics section of History or Rules Discussions, depending on whether you are interested in the history or the game mechanics.