Cavalry scale & 10mm basing

[trev]

Hi chaps,

Apologies if this in the book, I don't have it with me but I wondering about troop scales and basing.

I know there's not an absolute scale as such but that the book says a base is supposed to represent somewhere around 2-300 men. Is this meant to be for heavy and medium foot? Presumably it's less for cavalry and light foot and less again for light horse.

My problem is that I'm thinking about doing 10mm armies and in a quandry whether to base the cavalry in one or two rows. The infantry will fit with ~10 figs in two rows on a 40x20mm base and thus match with Warmaster Ancients nicely, should I wish to play that too. For cavalry I could make a FoG 'base' from two WMA 20x10mm bases, each with 4 figs on, one behind the other (or side by side for 'shock' cavalry) or I could base 4-5 figs on single 40x30mm FoG base and just fudge it for WMA. I think there are rules in Warmaster for this anyway. I'm not too fussed about the WMA basing so I'm leaning towards the latter but if each base is supposed to represent the same number of men that might change things.

cheers,

Trev

[ars_belli]

Hi Trev,

There are no differences stated anywhere in the rules, but troop representations in FoG are pretty flexible, anyway. In my own gaming, I always assume that a base of Light Foot, Cavalry or Light Horse represents 1/2 the number of troops as for a base of Heavy Foot. I believe that DBM/M makes a similar sort of distinction between foot and horsemen.

Cheers,
Scott

[nikgaukroger]

LF are certainly assumed to be the same number of men as MF/HF - the Mid Republican Roman list would be horribly wrong if it wasn't the case

[ars_belli]

LF are certainly assumed to be the same number of men as MF/HF - the Mid Republican Roman list would be horribly wrong if it wasn't the case

OTOH, the Gallic and Late Republican Roman lists, for example, would be off-kilter if LF bases were assumed to represent the same number of men as MF/HF. As I said, the rules appear to be quite flexible in this regard... another example of the authors seeking to achieve the correct top-down "feel" rather than adopt a rigid "bottom-up" figure/man ratio, perhaps?

Cheers,
Scott

[nikgaukroger]

OTOH, the Gallic and Late Republican Roman lists, for example, would be off-kilter if LF bases were assumed to represent the same number of men as MF/HF.

Really?

[ars_belli]

OTOH, the Gallic and Late Republican Roman lists, for example, would be off-kilter if LF bases were assumed to represent the same number of men as MF/HF.

Really?

Yep, really. There would often be too few bases of LF troops.

Just cite just one example... let's say I would like to field Caesar's Gallic War army at Bibracte in 58 BC. His force was comprised of 6 full-strength legions (28,800 men), plus 4000 Gallic cavalry and 3000 light troops. Since the Late Republican Roman list tops out at 44 bases of legionaries, that gives us a ratio of 1 HF base = a little over 650 men. At that same ratio, Caesar's 3000 light infantry should equal just over 4 LF bases. However, the minimum allowed by the list is 6, and even that really doesn't really represent the effect these troops would have had on the battlefield.

However, if we assume that the LF bases actually represent half as many men as HF, that gives us 325 per base, or a shade over 9 bases for 3000 men. This could then be rounded down to 8 bases deployed in 2 BGs - 4 Cretan archers and 4 Balearic slingers - which would then actually function more like their historical counterparts.

In my Gallic Wars scenarios using FoG, I assume that a base of HF = 600 men, with half that number for LF, Cv and LH. So Caesar's army at Bibracte works out to 6 full-strength legions comprised of 8 HF bases each, plus 12 bases of Gallic Cv and 8 bases of Cretan and Balearic LF - very neat, and quite historical in regard to the proportional effect of each troop type.

I fully understand the point about Mid Republican Roman velites. But then, they have always represented something of an "exception" rather than the "rule" in regards to ancient light infantry, IMHO.

My earlier point was that either approach will work perfectly well with FoG, and that is a good thing.

Cheers,
Scott

[nikgaukroger]

Interesting that you think there may be too few bases, if anything I thought we had been a touch generous.

[ars_belli]

Interesting that you think there may be too few bases, if anything I thought we had been a touch generous.

In terms of general proportions of troops, I think that the FoG designers did very well with all of the lists, including the Late Republican Romans. However, that wasn't my point. Rather I am saying that, with the exception of Republican Roman velites, the FoG army lists themselves support the idea of assuming that LF bases represent roughly half the number of troops as for HF.

Here's another example to illustrate what I am on about. At the Trebia, Hannibal's army consisted of approximately 10,000 cavalry, 28,000 infantry, and some 30 elephants. Of these, the best estimates are that he had no more than 1000 Balearic slingers (he is recorded as having left 870 Balearic slingers with the army defending Carthage, and another 500 were assigned to his brother Hasdrubal's army in Spain).

Looking at the sample Carthaginian Trebia starter army on page 33 of the main rules, it looks like the troop ratio for infantry works out to roughly 770 men per base. At that same scale, 1000 LF would be represented by 1.3 bases. However, 4 bases are alloted for the Balearic slingers in the list, a ratio of 250 men per base. Even completely maxing out the infantry numbers for the Later Carthaginian army list in Rise of Rome yields an infantry ratio for the Trebia of approximately 345 men per base, so 1000 Balearics would still be represented by only 2.9 bases. Instead, the 4-6 bases allowed by the army list yield a ratio of 166-250 slingers per base.

Again, I think this is perfectly fine, as it allows the Balearics to fulfill their historical battlefield role, whereas a rigidly consistent infantry man/base ratio would not. In fact, with the singular exception of Republican Roman velites, I believe you will find that assuming a base of LF to comprise roughly half the number of men as a base of HF/MF will usually better match the troop ratios published in the FoG army lists, and also yield a nicely accurate historical representation. After all, LF are normally assumed to represent skirmish troops deployed in more dispersed formations (i.e. with a greater frontage per man), yes?

Cheers,
Scott

[trev]

Thanks for the replies chaps.

I presumed it would be as Scott suggests but I had noticed the velites numbers were then wrong, which was partly why I asked. Presumably then a LF base is meant to be the same number of men as a HF base but deployed deeper and possibly without intervals. However Scott's numbers are interesting. Maybe I should treat them as half regardless of the intent or just go with what looks good and not worry too much about it. Although it would be nice to know what the rules were originally intended to represent for historical scenario creation.

Thanks,

Trev

[ars_belli]

Thanks for the replies chaps.

I presumed it would be as Scott suggests but I had noticed the velites numbers were then wrong, which was partly why I asked. Presumably then a LF base is meant to be the same number of men as a HF base but deployed deeper and possibly without intervals. However Scott's numbers are interesting. Maybe I should treat them as half regardless of the intent or just go with what looks good and not worry too much about it. Although it would be nice to know what the rules were originally intended to represent for historical scenario creation.

Thanks,

Trev

Republican Roman velites have always presented a problem for miniatures rules writers, precisely because their attested numbers per legion match the density of the heavier legionaries, but not that of most other ancient skirmish foot. I am perfectly comfortable with the FoG designers' decision to give velites a greater density than other LF in order to match the frontage for HF legionaries, if that indeed was their decision and rationale. It certainly fits well with the overall 'top-down' approach of the rules.

Cheers,
Scott

[trev]

Republican Roman velites have always presented a problem for miniatures rules writers, precisely because their attested numbers per legion match the density of the heavier legionaries, but not that of most other ancient skirmish foot.

Hi Scott,

This assumes the three lines of the triplex acies were solid. If instead the gaps remained and the first two 'lines' fought as an echeloned battle line then the velites would have to cover the front of both the Hastati and Principes and would therefore be at something like twice the spacing of the heavier troops. i.e. skirmishing. In game terms the velite bases would have to deploy one base deep to cover this distance and that would put them at a disadvantage in melee and shooting if I understand things correctly.

regards,

Trev