The Loose Association of Wargamers

Polybius explains - fairly well - the rather complex tactics of the Roman infantry in the Punic Wars.

The 3 different types of heavy infantry fought in 3 lines: the Triplex Acies. The army, in general was organised in a quincunx (checkerboard) pattern. The point was the orderly replacement (through passage of lines) of worn lines with fresher ones.

Admittedly in a bit too orderly a fashion, Total War shows this in a nifty video:

https://www.realmofhistory.com/2016/06/ ... rb-visual/

Now, my point is, how do wargames' rules handle this? I use Field of Glory which uses the elegant mechanism of totally ignoring it.

I've been considering allowing the Romans to interpenetrate without penalty but I'm also aware that they are moderately unbeatable as is & I hesitate to give them any advantages.

At any rate, what do you do & any comments welcome.

donald

I was always under the impression that the chequerboard formation was maintained in battle.

Pointy sticks isn't my thing for a number of reasons, a major part of which is that most ancient armies seem to have comprised large mobs with little tactical complexity. The Romans wound up running the Mediterranean and surrounding country because they had tactical mobility.

Most ancient armies seem not to have got past javeliners in the front, a mob of spear/swordsmen, archers in the rear or on the flanks, the whole split into two or three wings, with perhaps a heavy reserve. Other than the well drilled reserve, none of these forces was likely to be able to do anything fancier that standing, advancing, charging or when fear or exhaustion set in, fleeing. Cavalry would be on the flank, targetting enemy cavalry or missile troops, possibly charging into the flank of the infantry scrum, and always keeping an eye on looting baggage or cutting down fleeing troops.

Man for man, a man with a swinging weapon and a shield will beat a spearman. But, the spearmen can get more men on a frontage and they don't tire as quickly as axe and longswordsmen. I have seen these dynamics play out in PNG tribal fights.

Now, the Romans solved a great many of these limitations. First, they recognised that about 100 men was a goodly number for a man to control within the limits of a well define doctrine. You can drill 100 men to wheel, march, withdraw, or even retreat. And you can do it on initiative or on one of those massive horns people keep painting. Add high quality armour and a big shied and killing Romans was probably quite hard. Finally, their short sword gave them a frontage density comparable to spearmen and a good weapon for killing anyone getting past that shield, all with miniscule effort compared to swinging a longsword or axe.

My conception of how battle was closed was that they retained the gaps between units and that flanks would be covered by rear ranks and, if needed, the unit behind and on that flank.

At a wargames level, the enemy should get weaker, according to their weapon type, whilst in melee. Possibly in "units" of about 200 (recognising that these units cannot maneuver independently of their group), losses should increase fear, which compounds weakness. Test each round of melee, if you can't beat fear plus weakness, break. Both weakness and fear should be recoverable by turns without melee or movement.

Trying to spell barbarians depends on a local victory and some covering troops. The Romans should be able to advance a second rank unit into contact and then the front rank unit should be able to break contact next turn with losses reduced for support on one or both flanks. Here, I deviate from the viddy; I think that if the front rank breaks formation, the barbies will pursue and slaughter them, falling on the second rank with renewed vigour and blood lust backed up by the household troops who CAN manouvre in sub units, but not as well as the legion.

I have never seen a set of ancient rules which reflects these sorts of dynamics, which might just mean they have done their research.

A "can of worms" answer, Grizz.

Where to start? The Romans. In spite of some indifferent leadership, they generally won. So I *could* add interpenetration to their list of skills with some validity but the Bustards are hard enough to beat already. And it *is* a game. My poor Celts have never beaten them, which, again, is more or less historical but it grows wearisome after the first hundred games or so.

Your point about the relative samey-ness of Ancient warfare has some validity. You really have to put thought into terrain, victory conditions, deployment etc to make the games more than line 'em up, let 'em loose.

donald

Ummmm Ochoin, rephrase that, the celts rarely beat them and had the romans write about it. But if you parse Roman records, far more than just varus vanishes suddenly on a frontier.

My view on the roman lines was that the front closed up, the behinds remain checkered to allow ones to step back and fresh ones to step in, so they would trade a degree of ground for fresh troops by drawing the enemy into them. Ruleswise they should stay fresher longer, so fatique is the key.

Remember their tactics were honed by enemies that if you could hold their initial impetus, you could grind them down.

ochoin wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 10:48 am Your point about the relative samey-ness of Ancient warfare has some validity. You really have to put thought into terrain, victory conditions, deployment etc to make the games more than line 'em up, let 'em loose.

This is the principal rationale behind the new "Infamyx2" rules from the Lardies.

Ocho, it's a colonial game. That's why I decided not to do it. Colonial warfare requires a well set up campaign, or it becomes natives charging well armed people to no avail.

You need scarcity in resources, local auxillia, ambushed patrols, and cut supply lines.

Me, I generally find symmetric warfare easier.

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 2:02 pm Ocho, it's a colonial game. Colonial warfare requires a well set up campaign, or it becomes natives charging well armed people to no avail.

You need scarcity in resources, local auxillia, ambushed patrols, and cut supply lines.

That is a great way of looking at a Celt vs Roman game! I am going to look at my various AZW & Sudan scenarios & see about re-fashioning them.

donald

The issues faced by an asymmetric warfare commander probably predate the Romans and certainly are not much different today

The trouble with FoG is that its default position is two, points balanced armies. I think, in some cases, the points system is awry e.g. the case in point with Celts and Romans. A 1000 pt Roman army is just much stronger than a 1000 pt bunch of Gauls.

On-line participants in FoG (many are competition gamers) complain that various armies are unwinnable - New Kingdom Egyptians, for example. I think I've won once with NKE & that was against a newbie. Take Covenanters against English Royalists in their Renaissance rules: unless the terrain is designed to utterly nullify the English Horse, it's a foregone conclusion.

Point systems have the fatal flaw of lots of information that must be rolled together & culminate in a score that is directly applicable to the score you award many other armies. This is not that easy to do.

And yet, it begins to sound like 'sour grapes' if I say to Daniel (who owns a Polybian Roman army) that I should be allowed to have 20% more points of Celts.

donald

Seems reasonable to me. Nobody would expect 120 zulus to attack Rourkes little trade store and win.