The Loose Association of Wargamers

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:49 am Seems reasonable to me. Nobody would expect 120 zulus to attack Rourkes little trade store and win.

Yes, yes but you need to compromise with people. If I'm going to add "super powers" to the Celts, the Romans have to get something in exchange.

Allowing interpenetration might be a useful counter to allowing 10-20% more Celts? And as I'm sure you know, more figures/units aren't always a blessing.

One other issue is speed. In FoG, Polybian Roman heavy infantry (nearly all of them), move slowly but as drilled troops, can manoeuvre with ease. The Celts, mainly medium infantry, move only slightly faster & can't change formation or direction at all easily. As you can guess, the obvious Roman tactic is to pin the Gauls with your Velites, & bring up the heavies & slaughter them.

I think the Celts should get an improved movement distance. I don't think this is unhistorical, though I agree they should still be cumbersome.

donald

I think you are right. Lightly armoured troops not keeping formation are always going to move faster than drilled heavies. The celts should have more cavalry too, handy for chasing off those pesky velites.

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Sun Oct 25, 2020 1:20 am The celts should have more cavalry too, handy for chasing off those pesky velites.

Well, the FoG army lists allow more & better cav. for the Celts.
Slightly out of date - maybe - I have 2 chariot units....because I like chariots.

donald

Sadly, javelin armed lights were reckoned to be the way to inflict unnacceptable losses on chariots. I've never quite got the celtic use of chariots, it seems to have been more of a taxi than the asia minor heavy chariots which were meant to break up infantry formations with shock.

Oc,

I've been looking at "Rank Exchange" as a key mechanism in Ancients.

To gain a tactical upper hand, rank exchange needs to be carried out at the right time, so it's when to withdraw, say the velites or hastati, for the Romans. A successful exchange means your fresh units engage weaker or "spent" enemy units, making it harder for them to a) win and b) conduct their own exchange.

DB

DCRBrown wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 9:25 am Oc,

I've been looking at "Rank Exchange" as a key mechanism in Ancients.

To gain a tactical upper hand, rank exchange needs to be carried out at the right time, so it's when to withdraw, say the velites or hastati, for the Romans. A successful exchange means your fresh units engage weaker or "spent" enemy units, making it harder for them to a) win and b) conduct their own exchange.

DB

I have 'Ancients Baggage' in that I suspect few other than Roman infantry could do this & if allowed, it'd make Romans - already formidable - unbeatable. Shades of the Imperial Guard in 'Empire'!

My other pet peeve is Command & Control which I believe was generally quite rudimentary in Ancient warfare (read "non existent" for many armies). The rule sets I know deal with this with command radii* which is a blunt tool.
However, if you limit any control, the battles become 'line 'em up & let 'em go' boredom-fests.

Love to hear your views (I sound right pernickety, which I'm not).

donald


* my goodness, how my Latin scholarship shows!

D,

Two types of rank exchange envisaged - formal and "informal".

Formal rank exchange is, as you say, possible by disciplined units/armies, i.e. the Romans! (And maybe a few others.)

Informal rank exchange is that necessitated by combat. No troops can endure combat for any protracted period and need to fall back to permit the fresher ranks to come forward before the next wave of combat.

How one includes this, if at all, is the interesting part.

DB

Which is why undisciplined armies put their best in the front rank. I find it hard to believe that you could just step back and have a breather without disrupting and shaking the second and third ranks.

Plus you'd need a very co-ordinated (and motivated) second rank to step in quickly enough to save you from being stabbed in the back.

Is there any evidence that these tribes "practised" fighting techniques (as opposed to tactics) so that people at least had some vague idea of what to do?

G + BvW,

Combat consisted of surges, I think, rather than a prolonged hacking session, which is simply impossible to maintain. (I think it was Polybius who described it as a series of waves?)

Therefore, I envisage it's more akin an initial clash, followed by both sides withdrawing if no clear decision point reached, after a short period of time. If you are able, troops regroup or reform, allow wounded or knackered troops to retire to the rear ranks and fresh boys to move forward and so on.

Tribes, as opposed to more disciplined armies, are of course, going to find this far more difficult to achieve.

DB