Spanish scutarii

[hammy]

It is important to realise that in AoW Heavy Foot are not automatically armoured. HF essentially are troops who have a tight formation that is easily affected by the vagaries of the ground. If Celtiberians are medium foot they will be less suceptible to rough ground than legionaries. By making them HF they are equally disadvantaged as the legions by terrain so the better armour and swordsmanship of the legions will tell more.

Also the celtiberians as HF are slightly better at standing up to the legions in the open than medium foot would be.

Some troops are further affected by terrain as their fighting style may require good order to work well (spears and pikes for example).

In practice Roman legionaries are actually quite good rough terrain troops simply by virtue of being very good good terrain troops.

Hammy

[nikgaukroger]

Celtiberrians are recorded as being at a disadvantage vs Legionaries in rough going by someone of the era IIRC - however I also seem to recall it was because of their lack of individual armour as much as anything.

It was Livy, and if both are HF it is their better armour that will give legionarii the advantage because of the way the AoW mechanisms work.

[benny]

Some troops are further affected by terrain as their fighting style may require good order to work well (spears and pikes for example).


Hammy

Maybe this is where I am getting confused. HF are more 'cohesive' than MF but this 'cohesion' is not the same as 'good order'? So what is it? I'm sorry for pressing the point, but I'm really not understanding how MF is distinguished from HF.

MF are not in looser formations, they have the same armour options as HF and the HF/MF distinction is not about 'order'. Is it that they are just better in bad terrain and worse in good (than HF)? If so, why?



Benny

[benny]

Celtiberrians are recorded as being at a disadvantage vs Legionaries in rough going by someone of the era IIRC - however I also seem to recall it was because of their lack of individual armour as much as anything.

It was Livy, and if both are HF it is their better armour that will give legionarii the advantage because of the way the AoW mechanisms work.

This sounds suspiciously like making them both HF to achieve a desired result, even though neither seems to actually meet the definition (as its been explained on this thread)



Benny

[nikgaukroger]

Troop definitions for a set of rules attempting to represent 4500 of warfare are better thought of as guidelines as you cannot realistically have unbendable definitions and keep the number of troop categories managable IMO.

So, yes, you will have some troops who are fitted to a troop type because it is what give the correct result even if it looks as though a different one may apply - and that seems totally sensible to me.

So think Guidelines

[SMK-at-work]

fitting troops into "incorrect" categories 'cos it gives the correct results??

Where have I heard that before??!

[benny]

Troop definitions for a set of rules attempting to represent 4500 of warfare are better thought of as guidelines as you cannot realistically have unbendable definitions and keep the number of troop categories managable IMO.

So, yes, you will have some troops who are fitted to a troop type because it is what give the correct result even if it looks as though a different one may apply - and that seems totally sensible to me.

So think Guidelines

If we were talking about peripheral troop types (and I willingly concede many might see Celtiberians in this light) and a mature set of rules then I could understand this position.

But we are talking about a system that is still in development and the discussion includes the manipular legion of the Roman Middle Republic which, at the risk of being labled overly euro-classical centric, I don't think can be considered peripheral.

It seems to me that this answer, assuming it is one shared by the rules designers themselves, rather suggests there are some fundamental problems with the troop definitions and interactions that are being glossed over rather than addressed.

So far questions I have asked on this forum have identified that:
1/ The missle range of javelins have had to be conciously exaggerated to make the system work
2/ The rule system creates an artificial distinction between 'armoured' and 'protected' hoplites
3/ The legions of the Roman Middle Republic can only be catered for by fudging the definitions

I am wary of making a rash judgement about a rule system I've not had the opportunity to read, let alone play, but I hope I'll be forgiven if I say that the Emperor's new clothes are looking rather transparant at the moment!

Benny

[nikgaukroger]

Unfortunately it is rather hard to answer your queries whilst bound by a NDA which means that the actual rules cannot be quoted to you

I would, however, say that IMO republican Roman legionarii are not fudged and work as I would expect. This is a combination of their troop type - Heavy Foot - their various PoAs and the way that the rules handle things like the effect of terrain on various troops (an example of the latter is that although legionarii and phalangites are both HF they suffer terrain penalties in different ways which make the former more effective in disrupting terrain than the latter).

Proof, of course, will only be in the published rules when we can all then judge how things have been handled rather than on partial information as at present.

[philqw78]

Well why not have more classifications of troops?

Troop types that are closely formed up and dependant upon each other and their formation due to their weapons. Tactical doctrine relies upon cohesion and mutual support. Normally happy to stand to receive or charge themselves. They move slowly in order to keep formation and suffer badly in broken terrain. e.g. Pikes, some spearmen (possibly cataphracts?).

Types that are normally close together but less dependant upon their formation. They do, however, receive and benefit from the support of others in their unit/BG during the melee. Normally slow moving, but quick in the charge and suffer less in broken terrain. Better in the charge than standing to receive. This is due to heavier weapon types and tactical doctrine that relies on shock effect. e.g. Early Germans, legions, Huscarls (Knights, Elephants?).

Troops with a much less rigid formation. They use lighter weapons and tactical doctrine that relies on attrition, whether from missile or close range skirmishing easily giving and taking ground in melee. They are faster moving, but close up when in combat for mutual support. They barely suffer from broken terrain. Peltasts, hill/woodland tribes, most bowmen (most Cavalry)

Lightly armed troops with no true formation. They avoid combat where possible, their tactical doctrine emphasising delay and slowly yielding ground but not getting into close combat with anything but other light troops unless they have a big advantage. Do not suffer from broken terrain except perhaps for their missile fire. Psiloi, velites, skirmishing bowmen (Steppe light horse)

Which gives: Cohesive, Shock, Attrition and Light. But these terms, I believe, already exist in the rules for other reasons.

[sagji]

Well why not have more classifications of troops?

Troop types that are closely formed up and dependant upon each other and their formation due to their weapons. Tactical doctrine relies upon cohesion and mutual support. Normally happy to stand to receive or charge themselves. They move slowly in order to keep formation and suffer badly in broken terrain. e.g. Pikes, some spearmen (possibly cataphracts?).

In AoW terms this is Heavy Foot with pike or spear, Knights, Catafracts, and Cavalry armed with lance.

Types that are normally close together but less dependant upon their formation. They do, however, receive and benefit from the support of others in their unit/BG during the melee. Normally slow moving, but quick in the charge and suffer less in broken terrain. Better in the charge than standing to receive. This is due to heavier weapon types and tactical doctrine that relies on shock effect. e.g. Early Germans, legions, Huscarls (Knights, Elephants?).

In AoW terms this is other Heavy Foot, Other Cavalry.

Troops with a much less rigid formation. They use lighter weapons and tactical doctrine that relies on attrition, whether from missile or close range skirmishing easily giving and taking ground in melee. They are faster moving, but close up when in combat for mutual support. They barely suffer from broken terrain. Peltasts, hill/woodland tribes, most bowmen (most Cavalry)

In AoW terms this is all Medium Foot including all massed foot bowmen, Elephants, Light Horse.

Lightly armed troops with no true formation. They avoid combat where possible, their tactical doctrine emphasising delay and slowly yielding ground but not getting into close combat with anything but other light troops unless they have a big advantage. Do not suffer from broken terrain except perhaps for their missile fire. Psiloi, velites, skirmishing bowmen (Steppe light horse)

In AoW terms this is all Light Foot.


Heavy Foot is slowed and disordered by all terrain however the disorder has a greater effect on pike and spear.
Likewise for non-skirmishing mounted but lance armed troups don't get the benefit of the lance.
Medium Foot, Light Horse and Elephants, are not affected by "minor" terrain.
Light Foot are not affected by any terrain.

[philqw78]

In AoW terms this is Heavy Foot with pike or spear, Knights, Catafracts, and Cavalry armed with lance.

Knights and cavalry armed with lance don't rely on their formation as much as Pike. They rely on impact. Pike and some spears cannot afford to hit at a full run as their formation breaks up.

In AoW terms this is other Heavy Foot, Other Cavalry.

Those that rely on impact and shock effect? I agree for the remaining foot but surely cavalry that do not rely upon impact rely upon attrition before they can charge home or a skirmishing in-out combat giving ground where necessary.

In AoW terms this is all Medium Foot including all massed foot bowmen, Elephants, Light Horse.

Elephants, except perhaps riding elephants, rely upon their shock effect. Riding elephants would perhaps use their morale/disordering effect before charging home or taking advantage.

But the problem we have above is fitting the definitions to troop types. Heavy foot can be unprotected. Medium foot can be armoured as can light. We are trying to fit legions, early Germans and celtiberi into a closed rank formation tag when they are not.

But I suppose I shall have to wait for what the troop definitions or 'Guidelines' actually say

[sagji]

My point was that where you have close and dependant versus close and independant AoW classes both of these as Heavy Foot but the close and dependant do suffer a greater penalty for being disordered by terrain. Thus the destinction you desire is in there it just comes out in a unexpected way. My list was classifying by how much terrain had an effect without considering the reason.

Some examples
1) Hoppolites (Heavy Foot, Armoured, Offensive spear) versus Legionaries (Heavy Foot, Armoured, Impact Foot, Skilled Swords)
The legionaries have an advantage in the charge.
In the open the hoppolites have an advantage and should win unless the legionaries do enough in the charge.
In minor terrain this is an even fight.
In really bad terrain the legionaries have an advantage and a big advantage in the charge.

2) Bow armed cavalry
In terrain
they shoot less effectively
they should still beat any skirmishers
they are less effective against "Troops with a much less rigid formation" - the terrain is removing the benefit of breaking into the ranks.
they are less effective against heavy foot - because they loose most of their speed advantage and the ability to withdraw from combat.

[benny]

Unfortunately it is rather hard to answer your queries whilst bound by a NDA which means that the actual rules cannot be quoted to you [/quote]

While I do understand and accept the restrictions you are under, what elaborations you are providing just aren't adding up for me so I'll have to remain a sceptic until the rules are more wisely available.

I must also try to resist the urge to learn more by asking questions

Benny

[SMK-at-work]

Hoplites should beat Legionaries unless the legionarries do enough in the charge?

Let's see.....

Pila volleys are often recorded as doing didly squat even to pikemen with small shields. There's one recorded instance of pila penetrating a couple of shields - but that was found on the battlefield afterwards and who knows what actually happened there.

Pila seem to have done didly squat to Carthaginian spearmen who are probably (I'm guessing here) pretty close to hoplites - the Carthaginian veterans from Italy were happy to have Roman swords, armour, shields and helmets AFAIK, but didn't bother with pila for some reason....

So just why should the charge of Legionaries be something worth anything in the 1st place?

[nikgaukroger]

To be honest we don't have enough information to say whether the Roman charge - with pila - had a major effect on Carthaginian infantry or not. About the best we can realistically do, IMO, is infer from the limited source material that legionarii should have an edge over the Carthaginian infantry over the course of the whole melee, but not a massive edge. I say this on the basis that the Romans won a lot of the infantry slogs in the first Punic war - the second is messier to work out as there were a lot of other troops used by Hannibal, etc.

I believe this is what will happen under the rules against normal hoplites/Carthaginian infantry - so I don't think Sagji's analysis was quite right here - Hannibal's veterans are a match for legionarii though, in fact may have an edge IIRC