First impressions

[rkhlaw]

Hi all. Just joined as a tester with v. 5.04 and am very pleased and proud to participate in a project which will hopefully put the fun, and historical accuracy back into ancients wargaming.

I had just completed reading 5.04 and making copious notes of ambiguities, grammatical errors, non sequiturs etc. when 6.0 arrived. Time to start over again...

Anyway, a few first impressions which are unlikely to have been changed with v. 6.0.

Overall, I found the ideas very refreshing and the rules laid out in a fairly clear fashion (see comments above). I am excited and looking forward to my first game. However, I did find a few conceptual surprises.

First, shock troops charging without orders. On first read through didn't take much heed but on further review I realized that some of the most disciplined armies of the ancient world have a 42.7% chance of breaking the battle line (no leader) and a 27.78% chance even with a general in LOC in range. I have been racking my brain for examples of drilled troops breaking formation and can't recall any. Frankly, I can't imagine a Spartan mora/lochos or a Caesarean legion etc. bolting forward under any circumstances let alone nearly 50% of the time.

Second, I was very surprised that there was no after combat recoils/pushbacks. Again, a feature of most contemporary (at least in the mediterranean world) battle descriptions. However, that may well be dealt with in other ways and I will have to see how it plays out. Just a surprise.

Third, mixed lance/bow BG's are not very good and IMHO over priced assuming that I have properly understood the rules and that 2nd rank bow armed cavalry shoot with 1/2 their bases (Please note the example provided immediately after the "Shooting Dice" table contradicts this) . You are paying for a bow which has absolutely no impact at any point of the turn. Unless your opponent is using unusually small BGs (3 or less stands) or you are fielding unusually large cavalry BGs (6 or more) shooting will have no effect. Sure they count as swordsmen in melee, but so what....Why pay for the bow? By the way, I personally do not have any armies with lance/bow mixed units so not a personal axe to grind....lol

Fourth, and sort of following on the last point, I got to wondering whether mixed units should really be classed as shock troops. I never really got the impression that Byzantine cavalry (can't think of any other armies fielding mixed lance/bow BGs) charged "hell bent for leather", which is what I would consider a characteristic of shock troops.

Anyway, look forward to your comments, if any. Again and overall, the rules look great. Will be setting up the toys for a test tomorrow evening - Republican Romans v. Later Carthage and will report back. Will also report on any grammatical errors etc. which I may discover in v. 6.0.

Finally, to the writers and brains of this project; thanks for all the hard work and effort. Well done. To my fellow testers; let's make this a truly remarkable set of rules and help the writers and brains set up that retirement fund or at least, finance a new army or two.....

All the best,

Kent
Somewhere on the Canadian prairies

[rkhlaw]

On a further rereading of the shooting section, I see that I was totally incorrect about the usefulness of mixed lance/bow armed cavalry. I completely missed the distinction between being the first rank of shooters and being the second rank in a BG. The example now makes sense. That will teach me to try and read a set of rules after a long day and a couple of scotches. Must be more thorough.

Kent

[rbodleyscott]

Fourth, and sort of following on the last point, I got to wondering whether mixed units should really be classed as shock troops. I never really got the impression that Byzantine cavalry (can't think of any other armies fielding mixed lance/bow BGs) charged "hell bent for leather", which is what I would consider a characteristic of shock troops.

The Strategikon makes it clear that this is exactly what they did. They were not to stand around shooting, they were to charge the enemy as soon as he was in range.

First, shock troops charging without orders. On first read through didn't take much heed but on further review I realized that some of the most disciplined armies of the ancient world have a 42.7% chance of breaking the battle line (no leader) and a 27.78% chance even with a general in LOC in range. I have been racking my brain for examples of drilled troops breaking formation and can't recall any. Frankly, I can't imagine a Spartan mora/lochos or a Caesarean legion etc. bolting forward under any circumstances let alone nearly 50% of the time.

However, battle accounts do not indicate that they advanced close to the enemy and then stood around twiddling their thumbs.

It is actually quite rare for such troops to need to take CMTs not to charge, because generally speaking it is advantageous to charge when in reach.

Moreover, there are certainly examples of Roman legions charging without orders.

This is nothing like DBM impetuosity. It only takes effect when in charge reach of enemy who they would normally charge anyway. It merely enforces their normal "standing orders".

[rkhlaw]

Hi Richard and thanks for your thoughts.

Will obviously have to reread my Strategicon - slightly outside my period of interest/knowledge really. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the Byzantines were clever enough to recognize a tactical advantage when they had one and if facing an opponent who lacked bows would take full advantage of it. Wasn't the purpose of the integral archers to break up the enemy formation prior to the lancers charging home? Here, it really is a crapshoot as to whether the archers will get a chance to use their bows.

I understand the intent of the rule, although I have to admit that DBM's impetuous rule was in my mind. Nevertheless, I still think the failure rate is too high at least for drilled troops. A modifier for quality of drilled troops or for being a mixed unit would go a long way to addressing this IMHO.

Perhaps I am somewhat bitter as in my first test game (see elsewhere on board) a BG of elite (superior actually) Tagmatic cavalry whose task was to cover the flank of some Thematic BGs ended up charging headlong into a Bg of formed Arab spear when I really wanted them to engage the spear with bows and slow them down. The failed CMT, even with a general about, led to their immediate destruction at the hands of said Arabs...

Other than that, no real complaints. Job well done.

[nikgaukroger]

Ah well, perhaps you should have used proper horse archers if you wanted to shoot - Byzantine cavalry were primarily lancers so you shouldn't really be using them in a horse archer role

[jre]

The two "golden age" Byzantine lists (Thematic and Nikephorian) both have bow armed cavalry (Flankers and Koursores, if I remember right) just for this purpose, rather than the main troopers. They are non-shock and can evade, so perfectly suited to the shoot/delay role. I find the lancers' bows are useful mainly to keep skirmishers away, or make them suffer if they do not, and some times disrupt someone so your charge is easier.

José

[rbodleyscott]

Ah well, perhaps you should have used proper horse archers if you wanted to shoot - Byzantine cavalry were primarily lancers so you shouldn't really be using them in a horse archer role.

Nik has a point. The Thematic list does have Detached Koursores that can be used for this role.

Because lancer cavalry need to be 2 ranks deep to fight effectively anyway, the mixed BGs are just as good in close combat as a completely lancer BG. If you succeed in moving into shooting range from outside 5 MUs they will get at least one shot in on the enemy. Essentially this archery is a bonus, and a way to get "value added" from rear ranks which otherwise would have no effect until the melee.

As Nik says, these troops were primarily lancers, not horse archers, and the tactics recommended by the Strategikon are indeed to charge in as soon as the enemy are in reach.

Advice to avoid battle entirely against certain opponents is another issue, outside the remit of a set of battlefield rules.

However, a reasonable policy would be to face off the enemy spearmen with Koursores in 1 rank deep "skirmish" formation, while concentrating the other cavalry against his cavalry. The spearmen cannot safely ignore the Koursores, but are unlikely to be able to catch them either.