Pyrrhic list question

[ShrubMiK]

Ironic that you accuse others of not being open to discussion, before resorting to insults

Out of interest, what is your typical army under the list as it stands; and what would it change to if the list was changed in the way you suggest?

[pyrrhus]

"Ironic that you accuse others of not being open to discussion, before resorting to insults" Yeah I get upset when people dont read the whole post and then claim to want to "discuss things " .Meaning I dont believe in your intention to want to disuss the topic .By your own statements you make it that very clear . So I will say good day to you sir .and leave it at that!

[Strategos69]

If you don't like the list, don't use it! Sometimes it is more recomforting playing historical scenarios than equal points games, which, in the long run, tend to transform the game into something boring.

Regarding the accuracy of the list. I have checked a couple of books that I have at home regarding ancient battles and Pyrrhus is credited having 3.000 cavalrymen over a 35.000 (whole army at Heraclea) army and 3.000 cavalrymen over 20.000 thousand Greek troops he brought with him. This means more than 10% of the army. If you consider one base to be 250 cavalrymen and 500 infantrymen in FoG, this gives 12 cavalry bases and at least 40 infantry bases. The starter army is 12 mounted bases and 42 infantry bases. This appears about right to me.

I am not a great fan of army lists that are not intended to ease the creation of historical scenarios, but I have to admit that, given the big spam of time covered, these guys have done a good job. Why Pyrrhus has so little options? I have told you: it is not possible to compare an army used only 8 years with others with more than a hundred. Indeed, Pyrrhus' army is one of the most well documented in the sources.

If we want to compare with Alexander, according to Arrian, there were many marches where Macedonians just had cavalry, others with mostly infantry. The kind of armies that were built to be covered is huge and we have the documents to prove it. Therefore, this list has to be very flexible. In my opinion, historical scenarios are a better solution for this kind of problems.

[pyrrhus]

"Regarding the accuracy of the list. I have checked a couple of books that I have at home regarding ancient battles and Pyrrhus is credited having 3.000 cavalrymen over a 35.000 (whole army at Heraclea) army and 3.000 cavalrymen over 20.000 thousand Greek troops he brought with him. This means more than 10% of the army. If you consider one base to be 250 cavalrymen and 500 infantrymen in FoG, this gives 12 cavalry bases and at least 40 infantry bases. The starter army is 12 mounted bases and 42 infantry bases. This appears about right to me. "

That is of course if we all agree to use your scale ,also you forget that there was a little storm that happened to hit pyrrhus's fleet on the way to Italy as well as less garrisons so you numbers reflect what he embarked not nessarily what he had at any of those battles .
Also you are using the numbers for Heraclea alone as the basis for your percentage 3000 of 35,000-40,000 is about 8.5% to 8% . The starter army is meaningless lets look at THE LIST MINIMUMS 8 stands of Cavalry at 250 men comes to 2000 the infantry are 18 stands so (there are 6 lights required ) 18 stands X 500= 9000 .That is a ratio of 23% way off the mark here . That is my point ! (even if you count the lights at 1000 men a stand 17%) You can change that by A.requiring more infantry or B. requiring less Cavalry .I went with option B. at 650 pts the list requires 366pts with the command (three commanders ) and I also want to be historical and take the elephants (which should be required for the italian list) thats 416pts out of 650 a challenging list not terrible no but as above the cavalry % is too high .

[Strategos69]

That is of course if we all agree to use your scale ,also you forget that there was a little storm that happened to hit pyrrhus's fleet on the way to Italy as well as less garrisons so you numbers reflect what he embarked not nessarily what he had at any of those battles .

Plutarch also says that he recovered most of his troops. Pyrrhus did not start any campaign until he gathered his troops. Should the list then cover the army when he counted a few men and two elephants? Another source (Dyonisos of Halicarnassus) says that Phyrrus himself commanded the cavalry in the reserve in Heraclea, counting them as 2.000.

Also you are using the numbers for Heraclea alone as the basis for your percentage 3000 of 35,000-40,000 is about 8.5% to 8% . The starter army is meaningless lets look at THE LIST MINIMUMS 8 stands of Cavalry at 250 men comes to 2000 the infantry are 18 stands so (there are 6 lights required ) 18 stands X 500= 9000 .That is a ratio of 23% way off the mark here . That is my point ! (even if you count the lights at 1000 men a stand 17%) You can change that by A.requiring more infantry or B. requiring less Cavalry .I went with option B. at 650 pts the list requires 366pts with the command (three commanders ) and I also want to be historical and take the elephants (which should be required for the italian list) thats 416pts out of 650 a challenging list not terrible no but as above the cavalry % is too high .

I don't think the minima should be the only guidance. You can't have an army only with minima and if we want proportion. then there should be a ratio like in Roman armies. I think the main point to make cavalry bases minima 8 is due to the fact that the cavalry is planned to be in stands of four. FoG does not fit well when you make the battles less than 800 points, in my opinion, specially regarding army composition. Anyway, I agree with you that the proportion is not kept in the minima and elephants should be compulsory (as Samnite allies allowed), but you can have the opposite problem. If you let a minimum too low, Pyrrhus army could become an infantry army whereas we know that it was his cavalry the main value to win against Romans. Curiously, if you use the maxima you will get a percentage of cavalry around the 13%, which is more or less what we know from the sources.

Therefore, I also think that the list could be improved. I am more keen to think that army lists should have more limitations, but this is because I am mostly (an only) interested in historical match ups. How Pyrrhus would have fought agains the Lusitanians has little interest to me. In the other hand I think that we are lucky to have it. I think that Hannibal's army was that different from standard Carthaginian armies that it could also deserve its own list.

In game terms I do not see why you would like to have less cavalry. Downgrading the phalanx you can have a good pike block and a shock mounted force. Medium infantry can work to take the difficult ground if the ennemy hides in it. In the overall I think that Pyrrhus is fun to be played.

[Ghaznavid]

That is of course if we all agree to use your scale ,also you forget that there was a little storm that happened to hit pyrrhus's fleet on the way to Italy as well as less garrisons so you numbers reflect what he embarked not nessarily what he had at any of those battles .
Also you are using the numbers for Heraclea alone as the basis for your percentage 3000 of 35,000-40,000 is about 8.5% to 8% . The starter army is meaningless lets look at THE LIST MINIMUMS 8 stands of Cavalry at 250 men comes to 2000 the infantry are 18 stands so (there are 6 lights required ) 18 stands X 500= 9000 .That is a ratio of 23% way off the mark here . That is my point ! (even if you count the lights at 1000 men a stand 17%) You can change that by A.requiring more infantry or B. requiring less Cavalry .I went with option B. at 650 pts the list requires 366pts with the command (three commanders ) and I also want to be historical and take the elephants (which should be required for the italian list) thats 416pts out of 650 a challenging list not terrible no but as above the cavalry % is too high .

The lists aim to deliver at least 1000 points in troops (excluding commanders) have about 250 points of compulsory troops (again excluding commanders) and tend to be optimized for 800 points rather then 650. Granted these guidelines are not always strictly adhered too and do not necessarily apply to the special campaign parts of a list. The minima are not necessarily intended to keep exact ratios but to ensure the army will have at least some of its most common troop types on the table.

It is also worth noting that the RoR and SoA were begun very early, even before the rules had been finalized. In a way these two books were slightly 'experimental' as even the authors had to find a modus operandi for approaching the list design so you should cut them some slack.

[marioslaz]

If you consider one base to be 250 cavalrymen and 500 infantrymen in FoG

From what assertion do you base this scale? In rules I found only at p. 124 that as very approximately scale 1 base represents 250 men. One base of HI is half (as area) one of HC, so in the same area where can stay 250 cavalrymen can stay 500 infantrymen with such scale (I'm not an expert, but this seems acceptable). Anyway, you have 1 base of HC and 2 bases of HI. This means you should double the number of infantry bases, or halve the number of cavalrymen bases.

[Strategos69]

If you consider one base to be 250 cavalrymen and 500 infantrymen in FoG

From what assertion do you base this scale? In rules I found only at p. 124 that as very approximately scale 1 base represents 250 men. One base of HI is half (as area) one of HC, so in the same area where can stay 250 cavalrymen can stay 500 infantrymen with such scale (I'm not an expert, but this seems acceptable). Anyway, you have 1 base of HC and 2 bases of HI. This means you should double the number of infantry bases, or halve the number of cavalrymen bases.

In fact, it is further written that it should be adapted to every army. For Ancient armies the number of 250 men per base is ridiculous for the heavy infantry. The biggest Roman army FoG could let you field then it would have around 20.000 legionaries This is less than the 2 annual legions army. The first time I read that I thought that the authors were very smart to avoid giving scales and proportions, but in terms of historical recreation it is just a way of avoiding the debate.

The numbers I have taken them borrowed from the game Civitates Bellatorum. Based on Polybius (Hist., XII, 18.4), you can fit eight hundred cavalrymen in a square stadium (around 200 square meters). In the same space you can fit one thousand and six hundred with a depth of 16 lines (Hist., XII, 19.7). Therefore, yes, I think that heavy infantry stands should always represent double numbers compared to cavalry.

[ShrubMiK]

What Strategos and Ghaznavid have already said... (and far more politely and elegantly than I would have managed it!)

[marioslaz]

The numbers I have taken them borrowed from the game Civitates Bellatorum. Based on Polybius (Hist., XII, 18.4), you can fit eight hundred cavalrymen in a square stadium (around 200 square meters). In the same space you can fit one thousand and six hundred with a depth of 16 lines (Hist., XII, 19.7). Therefore, yes, I think that heavy infantry stands should always represent double numbers compared to cavalry.

Have you ever read what you are citing? Polybius in the two paragraphs talks always of men, not of cavalrymen. In the first paragraph, he talks about men in a phalanx (battle order). In second paragraph he talks of men in order of march. More, Polybius never talks of square stadium, but only stadium. In fact, Polybius in this paragraphs is looking to calculate the extension of the front of the 2 armies, not the area they occupy. But this is not all. A stadium is near 200 meters, as you said, but a square stadium is a square of near 200 meters as side, that is a square of near 40.000 square meters. I really cannot understand how you can make a such error. If your assertion is right, this would means 250 horses can fit in a 200 square meters, that is more than 1 horse for each square meter. Really very little horses! If instead we use the correct size of a square stadium, each horse would occupy 50 square meters, a little apartment. Really very fat horses!
In conclusion, Polybius talks always about men: in the first case men are in battle order (8 ranks) and 800 men occupy 1 stadium; in the second case in march order (16 files) and 1.600 men occupy again a stadium.

[Strategos69]

Ey, Mario, please, be gentle! Should I reply if you have attentively read what you are criticizing? I read it before quoting it. I can be wrong, my translation could be wrong too, as I have just checked it and it is written a square stadium ("estadio cuadrado" (sic), Edit. Gredos). If a horse is 2 meters and a half long and they are in 8 rows, this means that the bodies occupy 20 meters. Given that a Polybean Greek stadium is 177 meters, discounted the horses bodies, we have a gap among horses of 20 meters. Your appartment has to be very small! You are right that it makes no much sense 200 square meters at first glance and I even did not think about it (I just reproduced what it was writen), but the point for Polybius is that less espace won't let the unit manouver, and that makes more sense. Cavalry needed espace to move. The first quoted paragraph was this one:

It is difficult to understand how they posted all these troops in front of the phalanx, considering that the river ran close past the camp, especially in view of their numbers, for, as Callisthenes himself says, there were thirty thousand cavalry and thirty thousand mercenaries, and it is easy to calculate how much space was required to hold them. 3 For to be really useful cavalry should not be drawn up more than eight deep, and between each troop there must be a space equal in length to the front of a troop so that there may be no difficulty in wheeling and facing round. 4 Thus a stade will hold eight hundred horse, ten stades eight thousand, and four stades three thousand two hundred, so that eleven thousand two hundred horse would fill a space of fourteen stades. 5 If the whole force of thirty thousand were drawn up the cavalry alone would very nearly suffice to form three such bodies, one placed close behind the other.
Polybius (Hist., XII, 18.4)

They are HORSES! And then the other part:

7 These statements are even more absurd than his former ones. For with the proper intervals for marching order a stade, when the men are sixteen deep, will hold sixteen hundred, each man being at a distance of six feet from the next. 8 It is evident, then, that ten stades will hold sixteen thousand men and twenty stades twice as many.
(Hist., XII, 19.7)

You are right that Polybius is calculating the lenght of the front line in order to prove that Callistenes figures about the size of the Persian army do not hold. Therefore, eight hundred horses fit one stadium as 1.600 infantrymen on march in 16 lines. There are no data about the depth of the formation, but anyway the double proportion still seems reasonable to me. The phalanx can still compress its formation. Cavalry tactics are not that flexible.

PS: I never said 250 horses should fit a stadium, but that two men fit the space of one horse.

[marioslaz]

Ey, Mario, please, be gentle!

I was even too much, and I really don't know why I waste my time to reply... this will be clearer at the end of this post (I don't want to offend).

I have just checked it and it is written a square stadium ("estadio cuadrado" (sic), Edit. Gredos).

So do you think this can be a pretext to confound a "square of side 200 meters" with "200 square meters"?

Should I reply if you have attentively read what you are criticizing? I read it before quoting it. I can be wrong, my translation could be wrong too, as If a horse is 2 meters and a half long and they are in 8 rows, this means that the bodies occupy 20 meters. Given that a Polybean Greek stadium is 177 meters, discounted the horses bodies, we have a gap among horses of 20 meters. Your apartment has to be very small!

Can you read what I wrote? I said 800 horses in a square stadium have a density of 1 horse per 50 square meters. 50 square meters are a two-room apartment in Italy, so a small apartment. I realize now that in my previous post I was too generous, in fact, reading the paragraph as you did, 800 horse fit on 200 square meters... 4 horses per square meter! Indeed a very high density Can you explain me how can you believe to what you wrote? [you wrote exactly: "Based on Polybius (Hist., XII, 18.4), you can fit eight hundred cavalrymen in a square stadium (around 200 square meters)."]

You are right that it makes no much sense 200 square meters at first glance and I even did not think about it (I just reproduced what it was writen), but the point for Polybius is that less espace won't let the unit manouver, and that makes more sense. Cavalry needed espace to move.

Oh, an error near negligible The point is many people in this forum, and I mean many, not only you, believe to know but they don't. If you read a phrase you haven't automatically a knowledge, you must understand what you read. This means you must reasoning on what you read, you must use your imagination to figure all what this phrase imply, and only after that you have a knowledge. I don't know if this is connected with the fact I'm graduate, but I spent a lot of time in my posts to explain similar errors (this is why I wrote at the beginning I waste my time to reply).

PS: I never said 250 horses should fit a stadium, but that two men fit the space of one horse.

And so we arrive to the very end of this nonsense discussion. A base of HC in FoG (and in all the rules I can remember at present) is double area than a base of HI (HC = 40x30mm, HI = 40 x 15mm one dimension has halved, so the area is half), so in the same area where fit 250 cavalrymen, fit 500 infantrymen, but cavalrymen are only 1 base and infantrymen are 2 bases, so 1 bases of infantrymen = 1 base of cavalrymen = 250 men. Is this number very roughly? Indeed, but if this number must be incremented in ancient period (Roman Hastati and Princeps in a legio was near 2400, so if you use 4+4 bases as army list says each base represent 300 men) and decremented in medieval age, but the proportion need to be inaltered, so a base of cavalrymen and one of infantrymen represent roughly the same number of men.

[ShrubMiK]

Your argument in your last paragraph seems to be assuming that the troops fill the complete base of the depth. As has been stated many times, this is not so.

[Strategos69]

Well, Mario, it is good to know now that horses are now horses and not infantrymen. I made a mistake led by the translation, which I admitted (I don't know why you insist on those calculations). That is what people do in academia: admit the errors (in my case,three words in brackets). We are not always right and we can make mistakes. That is why discussion is enriching when it is done on the basis of respect. I am glad to know that I am not the only one taking its time to reply. Next time I will think things twice. But, please, don't go around telling people that they just pretend to know when they are exposing facts and even they quote them properly so that people can check them. I know only a little about ancient warfare and I am eager to learn more, and that is independent of how many degrees I have or whether I am a doctor or not.

Anyway, what you criticized was a detail on my argumentation (3 words in brackets, way different of mixing cavalry and infantry, but you take more time to reply than anyone). After your remarks, I understand that Polybius is probably only referring to the front of the formation. A stadium seems a lot to me to refer to the depth of both formations. In my former calculations there should be a gap among horses of around 20 meters. It could be, but I guess it was less. For the front, 100 horses per 177 meters, seems about right. What is important of Polybius cavalry description is the fact that they needed espace to combat, so that a cavalry base in a game should be "half-empty".

The whole point is about the depth of the formation. In my interpretation, march columns are loose formations with six feet of espace among the soldiers. And I think that, when developped to a combat formation, the infantry would close up, then forming in an eight deep formation the same 1.600 men. In fact, that would fit your original argumentation that Polybius was referring to a march and a combat formation. If someone has data about that, I would like to check the sources.

Therefore, in my personal interpretation, with the same frontage and aproximately the same depth I think you can fit two soldiers per horseman. Some other people don't share it, but I see as a good scale using around 500 for infantry and 250 for cavalry as indicators. Wargames use personal interpretations of facts to design them. I do not share the ones of DBM and I think the ones of Civitates Bellatorum are better.

[ShrubMiK]

The rules are a bit vague on number of soldiers per base. Even leaving aside the question of scaling for different armies in different periods, the rules do NOT say that the number of soldiers per base is the same for different troop types - as some people seem to suggest.

Personally I think common sense dictates that there are fewer cav soldiers than HF per base. If you accept that HF mostly* fight in quite close order, and that cavalry fight in slightly looser order (both because a horse with a mans legs either side of it is wider than the man on his own feet, and because more space is needed to allow horses some room to turn)...and if you accept that cavalry did not routinely fight in deeper formations than infantry...and if you accept that the troops represented by the base occupy its full frontage...then it follows that there are fewer cav soldiers than HF on each base.

Of course, that is just my opinion.

The old rules which fixed the bases dimensions we still use today were explicit on this though. It's possible my thiking is just a carry over from those days

I would still suggest there is a reason why we put 3 cav figures on a base vs. 4 HF.

* HF using shieldwall tactics definitely fight in very close order. Anyone swinging a huge axe around presumably fights in a slightly more open formation though. Another reason why the rules writers don't want to be pinned down to precise numbers of soldiers represented by a base of each major troop type.

[philqw78]

I would still suggest there is a reason why we put 3 cav figures on a base vs. 4 HF.

4 don't fit.

Seriously I would suggest that bases of troops represent some troops at some scale that is not greatly important 'cos it makes the game work.

[Strategos69]

Seriously I would suggest that bases of troops represent some troops at some scale that is not greatly important 'cos it makes the game work.

I agree. I think that, when you take your time to devote two or three pages to every army in the armies' lists, there it would be very useful to have this kind of help from the designers, especially for people willing to do historical match ups. One column with the number of soldiers every base in a BG represents would be enough. My guess: that way lists would be much more exposed to critics and complaints.

[philqw78]

One column with the number of soldiers every base in a BG represents would be enough. My guess: that way lists would be much more exposed to critics and complaints.

It may be better just to say, "The maximum number of troops fielded by this army was believed to be *******." And let people draw there own conclusions to exact numbers and ratios.

IMO If an army split its mounted into 2 groups, one on each wing, and they had an effect, the army should get 2 BG of mounted even if they were a very small part of the army numbers overall. I think getting the feel right is more important than the numbers. Although some people think their army's feel is not right

[ShrubMiK]

>4 don't fit.

My point exactly It is after all some sort of representation of what would be the situation in real life.

(Actually not strictly true...I do still mount my cataphracts 4 to a base...but TBF it requires a bit of ingenuity)

I agree it's not that important in game terms, and being vague about precide numbers fits in nicely with the top-down approach (if somebody thinks mounted are too effective vs. foot, justify it by increasing the number of mounted on the base...as long as the points cost fairly reflects the capabilities all is fine). I won't be losing any sleep over exact proportions - but I still reserve the right to quibble with anybody who makes a hard assumption that the number of soldiers per base is the same for all troop types when they argue about representation in a list

Also agree that the minimum BG size (in all but rare elite cases) sometimes requires taking liberties with proportions of troop types. In addition to ensuring the army can have cav on both wings, in the case of the Pyrrhic list I guess it was also thought important to ensure that both lancers and light spear cav were present in the army during one of the time periods.

[Strategos69]

It may be better just to say, "The maximum number of troops fielded by this army was believed to be *******." And let people draw there own conclusions to exact numbers and ratios.

That is another solution and it seems better to me than the actual situation

IMO If an army split its mounted into 2 groups, one on each wing, and they had an effect, the army should get 2 BG of mounted even if they were a very small part of the army numbers overall. I think getting the feel right is more important than the numbers. Although some people think their army's feel is not right

I completely agree. It is better to properly recreate the battle than attach to numbers. In fact, sometimes that is what happens with elephants. Their numbers were not big, but they were deployed on both wings and had an effect, so allowing only one BG does not seem right to me for the tactical reasons given. However, if you are doing your own scenario, some indications are always helpful.

Sometimes BG minima bases are the problem. I can agree with pyrrhus that he is more constrained with his Pyrrhic list than other players for small points scale games. In this case it is easy to see armies that are not very well balanced. If the minima were 2 instead of 4 for this list, you still keep both things reflected, but I wonder about the effects in big battles.

Maybe this discussion just reflects that the lists have problems when played with too low points, what they had not been inteded for. It reminds me of some experiments with miniFoG and how difficult it was to downscale the game and still having its flavour. I have played two introductory games with 5 BG per side and it is not very funny.