Troop types

[riddcowler]

Another thing I have been thinking about is the ability of the enemy (under DBM) to know exactly what type of troops are where on the battlefield by you having to declare your troop type and grade, eg Bd(O) or Bd(I), at deployment. This obviously aids targetting or avoiding certain types of the enemy and I wondered whether this approach will also feature in AOW? I would certainly prefer a much more limited declaration such as 'These are Roman Legionary Heavy Infantry' or whatever is the correct terminology and then let your opponent draw his own conclusions on their training and combat experience. The full information would only be declared when the body first shoots or enters close combat. I think this is both more realistic and more fun. The enemy commander would have a good idea of what he faced (from the range of options available to a particular troop type) but would not be certain until battle was actually joined.

Ridd

[philqw78]

This does open things up to a bit of 'gamesmanship'. Two identical looking units could be very different morale and skill wise, veterans/recruits. The owning player may then change his desription of them depending on what sitaution they were in when combat is joined. A cynical view, but with some players I am sure it would happen.

[caliban66]

Another thing I have been thinking about is the ability of the enemy (under DBM) to know exactly what type of troops are where on the battlefield by you having to declare your troop type and grade, eg Bd(O) or Bd(I), at deployment. This obviously aids targetting or avoiding certain types of the enemy and I wondered whether this approach will also feature in AOW? I would certainly prefer a much more limited declaration such as 'These are Roman Legionary Heavy Infantry' or whatever is the correct terminology and then let your opponent draw his own conclusions on their training and combat experience. The full information would only be declared when the body first shoots or enters close combat. I think this is both more realistic and more fun. The enemy commander would have a good idea of what he faced (from the range of options available to a particular troop type) but would not be certain until battle was actually joined.

Ridd

Well, I think most generals had at least an idea of what they were going to engage. There were rangers, spies, traitors, etc. Good enemies knew each others, in my opinion.

[riddcowler]

The enemy commander would have a good idea of what he faced (from the range of options available to a particular troop type) but would not be certain until battle was actually joined.

Ridd

Well, I think most generals had at least an idea of what they were going to engage. There were rangers, spies, traitors, etc. Good enemies knew each others, in my opinion.

I stated exactly that. They would have a good idea of what the enemy were but not know exactly. With DBM you know exactly what troops you are facing everywhere on the battlefield which I would be extremely surprised to learn was the historical situation ... however good your spies were

[riddcowler]

This does open things up to a bit of 'gamesmanship'. Two identical looking units could be very different morale and skill wise, veterans/recruits. The owning player may then change his desription of them depending on what sitaution they were in when combat is joined. A cynical view, but with some players I am sure it would happen.

Well they would need to have identical commands on their army list and you could ensure that even that would not work by them having to announce that 'This is Command 1' at the time of deployment. That should stop command 1 transforming into command 3 halfway through the game. Maybe I've just been generally lucky in the honesty of my opponents but I think it would be a rare thing for anyone to try such a stunt. If found out they would have a great future in solo wargaming

[nikgaukroger]

Another thing I have been thinking about is the ability of the enemy (under DBM) to know exactly what type of troops are where on the battlefield by you having to declare your troop type and grade, eg Bd(O) or Bd(I), at deployment.

Note that this sort of declaration is only a convention in DBM and not actually a requirement of the rules.

IMO it is a useful thing to do in a competition but is not always necessary.

[rbodleyscott]

There is a stratagem in Frontinus's "Stratagems" where an army got its crap troops to swap equipment with its elite troops.

First they engaged the enemy with the elite troops dressed in the crap troops' gear.

"My", thought the enemy "these crap troops are tough".

Then they moved up the crap troops dressed in the elite troops' gear.

The enemy thinking "OMG if the crap troops fight this well, what chance have we got against the elite troops", ran away.

This, of course, is one for the campaign supplement, and not for the main rule-book.

[hammy]

This does open things up to a bit of 'gamesmanship'. Two identical looking units could be very different morale and skill wise, veterans/recruits. The owning player may then change his desription of them depending on what sitaution they were in when combat is joined. A cynical view, but with some players I am sure it would happen.

Well they would need to have identical commands on their army list and you could ensure that even that would not work by them having to announce that 'This is Command 1' at the time of deployment. That should stop command 1 transforming into command 3 halfway through the game. Maybe I've just been generally lucky in the honesty of my opponents but I think it would be a rare thing for anyone to try such a stunt. If found out they would have a great future in solo wargaming

All they would need would be two identical sized battle groups of similar troops, say one of superior legionaries and one of average ones. The first one to get into an important combat then magically becomes superior unless it is a combat that the average chaps would be more than happy with.

I believe that in the past in competitions people have redefined their troops against me at critical moments but I can't prove it and it is after all just a game of toy soldiers anyway and if someone wants to win that badly....

I think Richards comment that is will be in the campaign suplement is interesting though.

Hammy

[ars_belli]

I suspect that this may be unpopular with some tournament players, but a simple roster would take care of this problem very nicely. Of course, for scenario players such as myself, this really isn't much of a problem.

Cheers,
Scott K.

[riddcowler]

I think RBS's idea very sound indeed. If you think someone is cheating or either of you are simply getting a bit confused then check the base. I can't see a sticky label being beyond even my limited modelling skills

Ridd

[spikemesq]

The flip side of the "generals did not know the enemy troop type" concept, is what information are trying to obscure historically?

The game components for any battle group were nevern "known" to an enemy army because they did not exist. Apart from a few specific and deliberate instances, the battlefield qualities that the game terms represent were known or knowable to the enemy commander.

Thus, I submit that a Roman commander entering battle with Hannibal could distinguish between the Gallic foot and the African foot and would recognize in advance their relative abilities and weaknesses based on visual cues and on pre-battle intelligence.

In most army lists, the different foot and mounted available are either the only type in the army or are one of a handful of recognized types (e.g., noble cavalry, royal guard cavalry, tribal horse archers). The game stats assigned to those troops reflect those abilities (a) vis a vis the other parts of the army (e.g., royal cavalry vs. noble cavalry); (b) vis a vis other armies of the period/region (e.g., Roman infantry vs. Carthaginian infantry); and (c) vis a vis all other troops defined in AoW. Historically, a field commander most liklely knew of (a) and (b), while (c) has no relevance to history anyway.

Thus, to withold the troop definition information probably is not historical under (a) and (b) and unecessarily aggravates the unhistorical aspect of (c).

Spike

[plewis66]

In most army lists, the different foot and mounted available are either the only type in the army or are one of a handful of recognized types (e.g., noble cavalry, royal guard cavalry, tribal horse archers).
Spike

Agree with the rest of this post, but I'm not sure the above is necessarily true. For example, legionaries can be Average, Superior or Elite. Alae can be Average or Superior.

Hoplites can be: Superior/Drilled/Armoured or Protected; Average/Drilled/Armoured or Protected; Average/Undrilled/Armoured or Protected; Poor/Undrilled/Armoured or Protected. Whilst I accept that an opposing general might, in principle, know that a particular army consists of some mixture of these, I'd be surprised if his intelligence would reveal which BGs were which at deployment! So I would say, it's fair to reveal that they are Hoplites, maybe even whether they are Armoured or Protected (but I'm doubtful about the distinction being easily established for each BG at deployment). But I don't (personally, in my extreme naivety) see withholding information about Poor/Average/Superior or Drilled/Undrilled as being ahistorical.

Personally, I'd like to keep as much unknown as is historically justifiable, whilst keeping the game safe from inadvertent or (horror to comprehend) deliberate kafoodling. All army lists are available to all players, so if I were to turn up at a comp, and draw against an army I didn't know, I'd be quite happy to just look at the list to see what the army might have. All I'd then expect my opponent to say is: 'These are hoplites', as that's all I'd expect my generals to know.

Perhaps, in a campaign system, there could be some factor that would allow generals to have more information about certain BGs in their opponents army. This might be based on factors determined by what has happened previously in the campaign, such as previous battles between the opponents, or the opponents being past allies (allowing recognition of unit standards, for example). Also, perhaps a campaign system could provide specific mechanisms for infiltration and other intelligence gathering. These could then be used to force the opponent to reveal more detailed information about certain of his/her BGs, perhaps allowing a number modified dice rolls at deployment to determine if the information should be imparted. The player could choose, as each BG is deployed, whether to 'spend' one of his available rolls in an attempt to discover detail about the BG.

[spikemesq]

For example, legionaries can be Average, Superior or Elite. Alae can be Average or Superior.

Hoplites can be: Superior/Drilled/Armoured or Protected; Average/Drilled/Armoured or Protected; Average/Undrilled/Armoured or Protected; Poor/Undrilled/Armoured or Protected. Whilst I accept that an opposing general might, in principle, know that a particular army consists of some mixture of these, I'd be surprised if his intelligence would reveal which BGs were which at deployment! So I would say, it's fair to reveal that they are Hoplites, maybe even whether they are Armoured or Protected (but I'm doubtful about the distinction being easily established for each BG at deployment). But I don't (personally, in my extreme naivety) see withholding information about Poor/Average/Superior or Drilled/Undrilled as being ahistorical.

But do the different flavors of legionaires or hoplites co-exist within in a particular army without some other indicator to distinguish them (e.g., Spartan hoplites vs. other hoplites)?

Is the decision between superior or average available to the player out of historical/gameplay flexibility? If history leaves us a close call on whether legionaires were Superior or Elite and we, in turn, punt that to the player, then there is nothing to obscure. The enemy knew that legionaires were the dogsbollox and did not have to make tactical decisions as to which legionaires to attack. If there is historical justification for having legionaires of two qualities within the same field army, then there is probably some non-game distinction between those troops (i.e., veterans attached to a certain general?) that would still likely be apparent or otherwise known to an enemy commander.

Armies that include troops under the same historical label and appearance but with different gamestat characteristics should be extraordinarily rare. Once an enemy can identify troops as Spartan Hoplites or Roman Legionaires, the finer points of grading and quality should not be obscured.

Spike

[babyshark]

Armies that include troops under the same historical label and appearance but with different gamestat characteristics should be extraordinarily rare. Once an enemy can identify troops as Spartan Hoplites or Roman Legionaires, the finer points of grading and quality should not be obscured.

Hear, hear! This habit just makes it easier for everyone, especially in tournament play. Special scenario rules can be used to deal with the instances of deliberate obfuscation of troop types by a general. Telling your opponent as you set up something along the lines of "The legionaries with [shield design] on their shields are the elites and the ones with [different shield design/figure pose/whatever] are the superiors" makes everyone's life simpler and saves arguments and fussing down the line.

Marc

[philqw78]

Anything that can be done to remove argument and confusion from competition games should be done. Anything that can be done to increase subterfuge, fowl play, backstabbing and betrayal in campaigns should also be done, but in a campaign supplement.

[riddcowler]

But do the different flavors of legionaires or hoplites co-exist within in a particular army without some other indicator to distinguish them (e.g., Spartan hoplites vs. other hoplites)?

Is the decision between superior or average available to the player out of historical/gameplay flexibility? If history leaves us a close call on whether legionaires were Superior or Elite and we, in turn, punt that to the player, then there is nothing to obscure. The enemy knew that legionaires were the dogsbollox and did not have to make tactical decisions as to which legionaires to attack. If there is historical justification for having legionaires of two qualities within the same field army, then there is probably some non-game distinction between those troops (i.e., veterans attached to a certain general?) that would still likely be apparent or otherwise known to an enemy commander.

Armies that include troops under the same historical label and appearance but with different gamestat characteristics should be extraordinarily rare. Once an enemy can identify troops as Spartan Hoplites or Roman Legionaires, the finer points of grading and quality should not be obscured.

Spike

So, having seen the enemy hoplites drawn up for battle I have already agreed you may be able to differentiate a BG as Spartans but are they citizens or Perioikoi? What about the other hoplites, are they experienced in battle or young and raw? How can you tell across a battlefield? Similarly with Roman Legions. Not too difficult to spot the Legionaries but which are the veterans (if any) and which are the newly raised raw troops(again, if any)? You should have a limited amount of information which you should be able to tell from the model representing the troop type and the army list (reflecting your knowledge of the army concerned) but to know EXACTLY what every BG in the enemy army comprises is (IMHO) totally unrealistic. But then as we're only playing with toy soldiers I'm not sure how great a component realism might be

Ridd