Common misconceptions

[Imperial Dave]

I must confess - I did struggle to figure out how multi-armed and well-armoured cataphracts couldn't just kill the blokes armed with big clumsy clubs.

its a wargaming equivalent of whack-a-mole 

[Erpingham]

I think Nik has a good explanation.  These were not specialised units raised to serve with big sticks but big sticks were issued to soldiers as a special tactic.  So, perhaps pay the points and get a +1 if you meet cataphracts.  I believe their popularity came because they were assumed to belong to a much sought after class 2HCW which had generally good close combat power, not just against cataphracts.

[Mark G]

Warband are a troop type - and are incapable of formation, prolonged melee, discipline, control and never wear armour.

Only warband can make a ferocious charge.

Light heavies.  (Just full stop).

Roman auxiliaries are somehow different from legionaries .

Skirmishers being defeated somehow matters to the army being prepared to fight.

Men will break formation to nip between enemy formations which therefore necessitates every man to form a single line and every unit to line up exactly opposite their opponents.

Cavalry fight perfectly well statically from horseback.

Light cavalry are only ever evading missile troops and will never engage in melee.

Formations can wheel and move with ease on a battlefield.

Horsemen can break formation to change direction and then reform again with ease.

Electing to fight inside disordering terrain is a sensible and common thing.

[Imperial Dave]

Warband are a troop type - and are incapable of formation, prolonged melee, discipline, control and never wear armour.

Only warband can make a ferocious charge.

Light heavies.  (Just full stop).

Roman auxiliaries are somehow different from legionaries .

Skirmishers being defeated somehow matters to the army being prepared to fight.

Men will break formation to nip between enemy formations which therefore necessitates every man to form a single line and every unit to line up exactly opposite their opponents.

Cavalry fight perfectly well statically from horseback.

Light cavalry are only ever evading missile troops and will never engage in melee.

Formations can wheel and move with ease on a battlefield.

Horsemen can break formation to change direction and then reform again with ease.

Electing to fight inside disordering terrain is a sensible and common thing.

good list!

[aligern]

it is a good list and the last point emphasises how the loss of unit  command and control was absolutely crucial to unit performance.
Once this was lost units would come apart.
Same for men nipping down into the gaps between  enemy units. If a unit cannot make the move together, individuals  will not do it. One of the biggest demotivators would be losing the protection if men either side of you .
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

so do we 'put up' with these imperfections or misconceptions in the pursuit of playability regardless of how they came about

[Mark G]

Mostly we don't get a choice. We get to play what others in our circle play, and the driver for change is usually an early adopter who gets caught by some promotion.

Sadly, the sort of chap who actually motivates to finish and publish a set is not often the sort of chap who steps far enough back to try to work past those misconceptions- if they even recognise them at all

[Imperial Dave]

so do 'sons of sons of sons' approach to wargaming rules contribute to this and the continuation of these misconceptions?

[Justin Swanton]

so do we 'put up' with these imperfections or misconceptions in the pursuit of playability regardless of how they came about

Absolutely yes. Playability is Goliath and David has lost his sling.

[Imperial Dave]

I guess the issue might be that if wargames start being produced that dont allow things such as those listed by Mark there is a risk of a big 'switch off' ?

[Nick Harbud]

Just thought of some more misconceptions courtesy of John Curry's talk at the virtual Conference last year.

• Armoured foot move slower than unarmoured foot.
• Ammunition supply is irrelevant to missile troops.
• Enemy behind one's flank is only a minor concern.

[Erpingham]

so do we 'put up' with these imperfections or misconceptions in the pursuit of playability regardless of how they came about

Why do you feel imperfections or misconceptions are caused by the drive for playability?  Or that playability is not a desireable goal for that matter?  I recognise many things in that list as hang-overs from WRG and other "tables and tests" rules of that era, where playability wasn't actually a main criterion .  The main driver, IIRC, was a drive for "accuracy", which is maybe ironic when talking about a list of misconceptions. 

[Imperial Dave]

I think, unwittingly, some rules promote clever, niche or unrealistic mechanisms and troop behaviour to get more fun or action or interest into the game. Done for the right reasons obviously

[Erpingham]

I think, unwittingly, some rules promote clever, niche or unrealistic mechanisms and troop behaviour to get more fun or action or interest into the game. Done for the right reasons obviously

Maybe, but I think the core of many issues is a collective "wargamer history" of ancient combat.  We have sort of built our own  military history, and it contains some myths and legends. I don't think the term "warband" as a style of fighting is found in "regular" military history, for example.

[RichT]

Maybe, but I think the core of many issues is a collective "wargamer history" of ancient combat.  We have sort of built our own  military history, and it contains some myths and legends. I don't think the term "warband" as a style of fighting is found in "regular" military history, for example.

Fair enough but on the other hand, I think that wargame military history is in some respects better than regular military history (at least for Classical/Hellenistic, where regular military history can be a bit ropey). Identifying which bits are the clear insights, and which are the wargamer myths, is the hard part, of course. 'Light heavies' for example - the classic WRG idea of them may not be quite right, but I think that the category does cover something that really existed, in some form.