Time for a BIG Optio game

[dwkay57]

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".
 

[Jon Freitag]

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".

Now, that's a good one!

[Duncan Head]

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?

Both, of course. Each state has its own commander, and one of them is also an agreed overall commander.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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?

[Imperial Dave]

Not many!

[Justin Swanton]

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.